[DRAFT] Repeal "On the Health and Financial Wellbeing..."

[Charax]

This August Assembly,

Acknowledging the fundamental role played by each worker to the global economy,

Applauding member states for their commitment to the protection of workers' rights, as evidenced by the passage of GAR#485 "On the Health and Financial Well-Being of Workers",

Regretting the flaws in this resolution which include;

1. The conflation of various kinds of employment leave, including bereavement leave, maternity and paternity leave, illness leave and holiday leave into a single monolithic "work leave".
   
2. The prescription of a precise amount of "work leave" each member state must offer to its workers, 12.5%, depriving member states of offering more generous state-guaranteed policies and businesses within member states from offering such policies themselves.
   
3. The apparent lack of thought given to various social and economic phenomena that my result in a member state being unable to provide, or its workers not being inclined to receive, the prescribed rate of work leave.
   
4. The failure to take into account non-salaried remuneration patterns such as freelance work or roles with low salaries but significant performance-related incentives.

Resolving to address issues surrounding workers rights and remunerations with a defter touch in future resolutions,

Hereby repeals GAR#485: "On the Health and Financial Well-Being of Workers"

Jumping the gun a bit here but this one looks certain to pass in a few days.

[The New Nordic Union]

The prescription of a precise amount of "work leave" each member state must offer to its workers, 12%, depriving member states of offering more generous state-guaranteed policies and businesses within member states from offering such policies themselves

OOC: Not to be overly pedantic, but one eighth is 12.5%. I'm sure you don't want to fall afoul the honest mistake rule for something like that. Also, I don't believe the argument holds true, as offering more generous policies still fulfils the requirement of one eighth of 'work leave'.

[Tinhampton]

Lydia Anderson, interim Delegate-Ambassador: Full support. "...Well-being of Workers" foists socialism down the throat of every member state and must be repealed, by the precedent set in GA#157.

[Morover]

OOC: Beat me to the punch, I was going to wait for the author's response on the at-vote thread and see if I could try and convince some of the higher-up delegates to change their mind.

Feedback likely incoming.

[Cisairse]

Opposed. I disagree with the rationale of Clause 1 entirely, Clause 2 is just false as The New Nordic Union mentioned, and Clause 3 isn't a reason to repeal this resolution — rather, it is a good reason to draft supplementary resolutions that ensure similar guarantees for freelance/self-employed workers.

Note, for posterity: The "Clause 3" that I refer to in this message has since been changed to Clause 4 in the draft.

[Charax]

The prescription of a precise amount of "work leave" each member state must offer to its workers, 12%, depriving member states of offering more generous state-guaranteed policies and businesses within member states from offering such policies themselves

OOC: Not to be overly pedantic, but one eighth is 12.5%. I'm sure you don't want to fall afoul the honest mistake rule for something like that. Also, I don't believe the argument holds true, as offering more generous policies still fulfils the requirement of one eighth of 'work leave'.

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm a horrible mathematician. As for your second point, I agree that that was probably the intention but the language in the final text is quite specific in mandating precisely 1/8th.

Mandates that all workers receive reasonable work leave in the amount of one-eigth of all expected work periods within the typical fiscal period,

I'm surprised it wasn't caught in the edit.

Full support. "...Well-being of Workers" foists socialism down the throat of every member state and must be repealed, by the precedent set in GA#157.

Thanks for your support - I agree it's an outrage from a Natsov's point of view, and quite critically flawed even if you support the principle.

Opposed. I disagree with the rationale of Clause 1 entirely, Clause 2 is just false as The New Nordic Union mentioned, and Clause 3 isn't a reason to repeal this resolution — rather, it is a good reason to draft supplementary resolutions that ensure similar guarantees for freelance/self-employed workers.

I have to disagree with your criticisms of all three clauses. Clause 1 is absolutely correct — indeed, this rolling-into-one of various types of employment leave is enshrined in the text of the resolution. Sickness (but only in the case of contagious diseases, cancer patients need not apply), bereavement and maternity/paternity are all namechecked and grouped together under this umbrella term.

I outlined to NNU why I disagree with your criticism of Clause 2. Mandate is an extremely strong operative term that warrants examining the text extremely closely, and the text is absolutely unambiguous. 12.5% is the correct amount - no more, no less.

Your criticism of Clause 3 I disagree with entirely for personal reasons, for me that kind of granular micromanagement represents extreme overreach from an Assembly which should respect the right of nations to govern themselves.

[Morover]

OOC: All right, here's some feedback in red

This August Assembly,

Acknowledging the fundamental role played by each worker to the global economy,

Applauding member states for their commitment to the protection of workers' rights, as evidenced by the passage of GAR#485 "On the Health and Well-Being of Workers",

Regretting the flaws in this resolution which include;

1. The conflation of various kinds of employment leave, including bereavement leave, maternity and paternity leave, illness leave and holiday leave into a single monolithic "work leave". While this is perhaps a legitimate complaint, I feel that you may have a hard time setting up specifications for each individual type of employment leave. While I would've preferred broader specifications in the target, I don't think it's fair to say that the issue is with it's general broadness. If anything, I feel the target made a mistake in being overly specific in the definition, though that may be me being pedantic (and, come to think of it, could be resolved by separating specifications). Regardless, I don't think what you're describing is the overarching issue here, though you may very well leave it in if you so wish (it is your proposal, after all).
   
2. The prescription of a precise amount of "work leave" each member state must offer to its workers, 12.5%, depriving member states of offering more generous state-guaranteed policies and businesses within member states from offering such policies themselves I'd also mention that it fails to take into consideration the various economic or social factors which may lead to a nation having an understandable reason to not follow the specifications.
   
3. The failure to take into account non-salaried remuneration patterns such as freelance work or roles with low salaries but significant performance-related incentives. I like this, and I hadn't thought of it beforehand.

Resolving to address issues surrounding workers rights and remunerations with a defter touch in future resolutions,

Does hereby repeal Change this to "Hereby repeals..." GAR#485, Change the comma to a colon. "On the Health and Financial Well-Being of Workers" Why is this line italicized? Perhaps it's personal preference but it doesn't really work well. In fact, while I'm at it, unitalicize all of the operative clauses - just leave them plain.

[Charax]

OOC: All right, here’s some feedback

I’ve updated the draft with this in mind, thank you.

I would prefer to keep the criticism of the resolution’s amalgamation of work leaves, as I do personally think it’s quite an egregious decision policy, but if the Assembly’s consensus reflects your view I’d be open to removing it.

[Grubville]

1. The conflation of various kinds of employment leave, including bereavement leave, maternity and paternity leave, illness leave and holiday leave into a single monolithic "work leave".
   
   Disagree entirely. There's nothing that says WA resolutions impose a limit on the maximum amount any state can impose policy of this type, just a minimum. A state is not prevented from offering greater amounts of work leave. A state is also not mandated to call the leave 'work leave', they can use any name they wish.
   
   
2. The prescription of a precise amount of "work leave" each member state must offer to its workers, 12.5%, depriving member states of offering more generous state-guaranteed policies and businesses within member states from offering such policies themselves.
   
   See above. Eg. If the WA states that 5 litres of clean water must be made available to every citizen in a member state, that doesn't mean that providing more than 5 litres of clean water is outlawed - use some common sense.
   
   
3. The apparent lack of thought given to various social and economic phenomena that my result in a member state being unable to provide, or its workers not being inclined to receive, the prescribed rate of work leave.
   
   Resolution 344 Minimum Standard of Living Act concedes that during times of crisis minimum standards may be unable to be provided - I feel that this covers your point. Also, spelling, line 1 - should read 'may' not 'my'
   
   
4. The failure to take into account non-salaried remuneration patterns such as freelance work or roles with low salaries but significant performance-related incentives.
   
   I'll concede that freelance work/self-employment is a valid concern, however in most developed countries IRL there are mechanisms provided by the govt to cover this. In relation to commission related salary, it is my opinion that these jobs should be outlawed. It is not morally right to expect someone to work with the knowledge that if they underperform they will not get paid.

[Cisairse]

3. The apparent lack of thought given to various social and economic phenomena that my result in a member state being unable to provide, or its workers not being inclined to receive, the prescribed rate of work leave.

The target resolution does not specify that it is the member state which pays the work leave. If a nation is strapped for funds, or prefers a do-it-yourself ethic in any case, they can pass on the cost of work leave to the business - hires are already generally among the most expensive parts of running a business, and being able to (depending on local legislation) shed 7/8 of their wages on a firing seems enough to prevent the "scared to hire" phenomenon occasionally seen with more stringent unemployment measures.

In other words, I don't see this as a "lack of thought" at all. The resolution does not legislate on the matter that you seem to be saying it legislates poorly on.

[Cosmosplosion]

Uh, opposed. I think there may be legitimate concerns, but you haven't laid them out here.

I echo these two arguments.

Opposed. I disagree with the rationale of Clause 1 entirely, Clause 2 is just false as The New Nordic Union mentioned, and Clause 3 isn't a reason to repeal this resolution — rather, it is a good reason to draft supplementary resolutions that ensure similar guarantees for freelance/self-employed workers.

3. The apparent lack of thought given to various social and economic phenomena that my result in a member state being unable to provide, or its workers not being inclined to receive, the prescribed rate of work leave.

The target resolution does not specify that it is the member state which pays the work leave. If a nation is strapped for funds, or prefers a do-it-yourself ethic in any case, they can pass on the cost of work leave to the business - hires are already generally among the most expensive parts of running a business, and being able to (depending on local legislation) shed 7/8 of their wages on a firing seems enough to prevent the "scared to hire" phenomenon occasionally seen with more stringent unemployment measures.

In other words, I don't see this as a "lack of thought" at all. The resolution does not legislate on the matter that you seem to be saying it legislates poorly on.

Further - if you would like to repeal a potential resolution like this, you stand a much greater chance of passage if you reach out to me directly, explain to me what you think is wrong with it, and offer solutions for the replacement that I would ultimately draft. Having a conversation with people can go a long ways.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Support repeal; beyond the argument related to the setting of a specific amount of 'reasonable work leave'—though phrase it in a manner that is self-evidently true, in that no more than one eighth of work time may be provided as reasonable work leave—include also a note that telework agreements that would have people do work from home fall into the provisions of the legislation: one is not attending work.

I would format the proposal as follows. Feel free to use it. I've added a version of my proposed clause in green with some minor changes. If you'd like campaign support, I'd be happy to dispatch a campaign telegram on your behalf using the NS API.

This august Assembly,

Acknowledging the core role played by each worker to economic growth and material flourishing,

Applauding member states for their commitment to the protection of workers' rights, as evidenced by the passage of GA 485 "On the Health and Financial Well-Being of Workers",

Regretting the flaws in this resolution:

1. conflating of various kinds of employment leave, including bereavement leave, maternity and paternity leave, illness leave and holiday leave into a single monolithic "reasonable work leave",
   
   
2. prescribing exactly one-eighth of working time as "reasonable work leave", meaning that member states cannot require employers to grant more than that amount as "reasonable work leave",
   
   
3. ignoring various reasons that may lead workers to choose for themselves something different from prescribed rate of work leave, and
   
   
4. failing to explicitly state a policy solution for non-salaried workers who are paid mostly with performance-related incentives or by commission,

Highly concerned with the efficacy of the target resolution, as the definition of "reasonable work leave" allows corporations to force sick or medically incapacitated workers to do work outside their place of employment (virtually or by other means), as such workers are not attending or present at work, and

Hoping for future resolutions to address workers rights and pay with a more nuance, hereby

Repeals GA 485 "On the Health and Financial Well-Being of Workers".

Code below, without color tags:

Code: Select all

[box]This august Assembly,

Acknowledging the core role played by each worker to economic growth and material flourishing,

Applauding member states for their commitment to the protection of workers' rights, as evidenced by the passage of GA 485 "On the Health and Financial Well-Being of Workers",

Regretting the flaws in this resolution:

[list=a][*]conflating of various kinds of employment leave, including bereavement leave, maternity and paternity leave, illness leave and holiday leave into a single monolithic "reasonable work leave",


[*]prescribing exactly one-eighth of working time as "reasonable work leave", meaning that member states cannot require employers to grant more than that amount as "reasonable work leave",


[*]ignoring various reasons that may lead workers to choose for themselves something different from this prescribed rate of work leave, and


[*]failing to explicitly state a policy solution for non-salaried workers who are paid mostly with performance-related incentives or by commission,[/list]
Highly concerned with the efficacy of the target resolution, as the definition of "reasonable work leave" allows corporations to force sick or medically incapacitated workers to do work outside their place of employment (virtually or by other means), as such workers are not attending or present at work, and

Hoping for future resolutions to address workers rights and pay with a more nuance, hereby

Repeals GA 485 "On the Health and Financial Well-Being of Workers".[/box]

[Cosmosplosion]

I am going to ask the author to withhold submission of a repeal for a short time - I am reviewing the concerns brought to me, and will consider supporting a repeal, but would simultaneously like to have a polished piece of replacement legislation to go alongside it, if I choose to support. As I said, I am reviewing concerns and believe there may indeed be some merit to them.

[WayNeacTia]

Lydia Anderson, interim Delegate-Ambassador: Full support. "...Well-being of Workers" foists socialism down the throat of every member state and must be repealed, by the precedent set in GA#157.

viewtopic.php?p=36825320#p36825320

So you supported the original, and now you support the repeal? At this point any credibility you had left has pretty much been flushed down the toilet.

[People of Phoenix]

Oh bloody hell!

[Cisairse]

Can we submit this anyway

[Araraukar]

Can we submit this anyway

OOC: Since the target failed to pass, no. There's nothing to repeal.