[PASSED] Repeal "Rights of the employed"

[Frisbeeteria]

Should've been done some time ago. I intend to pass this first. Please tell me if I went overboard with this; I want to leave nothing to chance after the consistent failure of previous attempts.

Edit: Pulled this to fix an HM and make minor edits.

Repeal "Rights of the employed"

Category: Repeal
Target: GA 491 "Rights of the employed"

---

The World Assembly,

Commending the efforts of GA 491 "Rights of the employed" in enumerating several rights of workers,

Concerned, however, that sloppy writing and easily foreseeable consequences have transformed this well-intentioned resolution into a heavily flawed piece of legislation that imposes substantial unintended costs and directly undermines its own agenda,

Troubled that the resolution requires that workers prove to their employers the necessity of their breastfeeding in the workplace, a condition which is both obviously problematic and flies in the face of the legislation's stated purpose,

Disturbed that the resolution mandates a private area in the workplace "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding" for workplaces subject to the mandates of clause E(3), a costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses and workplaces that cannot practically accommodate such a requirement,

Elaborating that the above mandate also establishes a substantial incentive for firms to avoid hiring female labor in direct contravention of the intentions of this resolution and WA labor law, especially given the absence of any non-discrimination hiring protections applying to breastfeeding in this resolution,

Confounded that the resolution requires at least eight weeks of leave for adoption, despite older children generally needing no special caregiver attention,

Adding that this mandate incentivizes business-minded governments to unduly burden adoption of older children to the detriment of adoptees, adopting families, and foster care systems,

Recognizing that extant WA law covers the two main policy objectives of this resolution, parental leave and retaliation, to a far greater degree, with:

1. GA 503 "Protecting Legal Rights of Workers" ensuring that workers are not retaliated against for seeking legal enforcement of their rights; and
2. GA 527 "Protected Working Leave" providing for far broader parental and other leave;

Reminding that several extant resolutions, including GA 35 "The Charter of Civil Rights", GA 91 "A Convention on Gender", and GA 457 "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities" more than adequately cover discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression, or sexual identity, and

Convinced that a heavily flawed, overreaching, and largely redundant piece of legislation has every reason to be repealed,

Hereby repeals GA 491 "Rights of the employed".

[Cretox State]

Reserved.

[New Swaraelia]

"Seems well laid-out. Support"

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: poke me on the discord tomorrow and I'll comb this for you. It looks like we can streamline the text.

[Separatist Peoples]

The World Assembly,


Commending GAR #491 "Rights of the employed" for enumerating many worker rights,


Concerned that sloppy writing and foreseeable consequences flawed this legislation, imposes unintended costs, and undermines itself,


Noting that the resolution's definition of a "worker" excludes subcontractors and workers who set their own working hours, which excludes them from coverage,

Observing that this exclusion incentivizes informal labor arrangements and worse conditions,


Troubled that the resolution places the burden of proof on workers to show the necessity of workplace breastfeeding,

Disturbed that the resolution places an unrealistic burden on small businesses by requiring a private area "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding," when multi-use rooms are more practical.

Elaborating that the mandate disincentivizes hiring women, contravening WA civil rights and labor policy for financial gain,

Confounded that the resolution requires at least eight weeks of leave for adoption, despite older children generally needing no special caregiver attention,


Mystified that this mandate incentivizes business-minded governments to burden adoption of older children to tthe detriment of adoptees, adopting families, and foster care systems,


Recognizing that extant law covers the two main policy objectives of this resolution, parental leave and retaliation:

GAR #503 "Protecting Legal Rights of Workers" prevents retaliation against employees for enforcing their rights; and

[url=@@RESOLUTION_LINK@@]GAR #XXX "Protected Working Leave"[/url] providing broad paid leave.


Recalling several extant resolutions, such as GAR #35 "The Charter of Civil Rights", GAR #91 "A Convention on Gender", and GAR #457 "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities" that prevent discrimination based on gender identity, expression, or sexual identity,

Convinced that the World Assembly should repeal flawed, overreaching, and redundant law

Hereby repeals GAR #491 "Rights of the employed".

"I have gone through this with a red pen and produced the finished draft. Most changes are not substantive, but streamlined versions of past presentations. I deleted two clauses as redundant, and split one or two clauses for ease of structuring. The end result was taking a document rated by my word processor for 'postdoctoral' levels of complexity to something undergraduate students can manage.

"We support this in any configuration, and hope our edits are helpful."

[Tinhampton]

This post is in-character, except for the final paragraph. All comments herein are being made by Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith.

The Tinhamptonian delegation to the World Assembly is opposed to this proposal for various reasons. Among these:

The World Assembly,

Commending the efforts of GAR #491 "Rights of the employed" in enumerating several rights of workers,

Concerned, however, that sloppy writing and easily foreseeable consequences have transformed this well-intentioned resolution into a heavily flawed piece of legislation that imposes substantial unintended costs and directly undermines its own agenda,

The original authoring delegate initially proposed an overlong draft on the Rights of Working Women. He - I think it was a bloke - gratefully accepted our help in developing the repeal target du jour - whether it be slimming down the original argument, in the drafting process, or while campaigning for this proposal. We are not satisfied that the text of the resolution is "sloppy" or - for reasons I will shortly enumerate - "heavily flawed."

Noting that the resolution's definition of a "worker" inexplicably excludes subcontractors and those who set their own working hours, preventing them from benefiting under the legislation's clauses and simultaneously incentivizing the hiring of informal labor under worse conditions,

In Rights of the Employed, a worker is defined as "an individual who currently has a contract with an employer which entails carrying out particular tasks for that employer with the expectation of a regular monetary reward, including those individuals who are currently shadowing workers or are working as interns for that employer." Similarly, the Statan proposal on Protected Working Leave defines a worker as - and I quote - "any individual bound by a contract to perform work or services for an employer, whose employment contract mandates the work or services be performed specifically by that worker, involves an obligation for the worker to perform work and the employer to provide it, and implies the employer having some degree of control over the manner in which the work is performed."
Both proposals only explicitly protect paid leave for workers, although neither outlaw paid leave for employees not defined as workers. Hence if the target resolution - which we are proud to have co-authored with the Greater Soviet North America - is replaced by Protected Working Leave and then repealed, it will substitute one resolution that does not explicitly require self-employed and gig economy workers to be offered paid leave for another resolution that does not explicitly require self-employed and gig economy workers to be offered paid leave.

Disturbed that the resolution mandates a private area in the workplace "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding," a costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses which are likely to have few, if any, breastfeeding employees to begin with,

The mandates of Article E3a only apply to businesses - regardless of size - if they employ a worker "who can prove to their employer that they cannot avoid breastfeeding their children in the workplace." It does not categorically apply to all businesses, regardless of the composition of their actual workforce.

Elaborating that the above mandate establishes a substantial incentive for firms to avoid hiring female labor in direct contravention of the intentions of this resolution and WA labor law at large in order to avoid bankruptcy,

"The intentions of this resolution" - as we have been clear in various forms over the years - facilitate, not prevent, member states or similar entities from subsidising hygienic breastfeeding facilities for companies that cannot afford them. If a worker is clearly discriminated against because of being female or having the ability to breastfeed their children, they can always take their case to a national court or any trial court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, and could themselves receive a refund on any court fees they sincerely cannot pay.

Puzzled at the lack of any mention of discriminatory practices regarding the hiring of breastfeeding employees, thereby leaving the resolution without any mechanism to temper the aforementioned perverse incentive,

Nowhere are "discriminatory practices regarding the hiring of breastfeeding employees" mentioned in Rights of the Employed. Instead, Article D4 protects workers from unfair retaliation due to facing any "discriminatory employment practices," whether or not they relate to "the hiring of breastfeed[ers]."

Confounded by the granting of at least eight weeks of parental leave following the adoption of any child below the age of majority, despite the fact that older children usually do not require special caregiver attention and are often employed themselves,

Adding that such a mandate incentivizes business-minded governments to place undue burdens on adoption of older children, thereby indirectly harming said children, families that wish to adopt them, and national foster care systems,

While GA Resolution 491 requires businesses to offer "at least eight weeks of parental leave" to any of their workers "upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority," it does not compel workers to accept any of that parental leave. And while the employment of teenagers is somewhat of a custom in Tinhampton - it might be in the Cretox State, I'm not sure - I do not see how that has any bearing on this or on the "undue burdens on adoption of older children" that the ambassador here speaks of.

Recognizing that the two primary policy objectives of this proposal, parental leave and retaliation, have been covered to a far greater degree by other WA law, with:

1. GAR #503 "Protecting Legal Rights of Workers" ensuring that workers are not retaliated against for seeking legal enforcement of their rights; and
2. [url=@@RESOLUTION_LINK@@]GAR #XXX "Protected Working Leave"[/url] providing for far broader parental leave, in addition to other leave which is fully compensated for as opposed to being nonpaid as in the target resolution;

While both of the aforementioned proposals are well-intentioned, neither would earn our support in retrospect, and neither necessarily merit the repeal of the targeted resolution. GA Resolution 503 destroyed economic liberty and led to unemployment rates soaring in almost every member state - as measured by the independent World Census - and we are confident in asserting that the Statan delegation's proposal to expand paid leave, which will be submitted in exactly the same category and subcategory, would prove just as devastating.

Reminding that several extant resolutions, including GAR #35 "The Charter of Civil Rights", GAR #91 "A Convention on Gender", and GAR #457 "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities" more than adequately cover discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression, or sexual identity at an international level,

S-O-G... Sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sexual characteristics - I've gotten it right at last - are arbitrary, because the World Assembly says so. This much we can accept; we were simply restating those eternal principles.

Believing that international legislation on breastfeeding in the workplace warrants a resolution of its own or none at all,

Convinced that a heavily flawed, overreaching, and largely redundant piece of legislation has every reason to be repealed,

Hereby repeals GAR #491 "Rights of the employed".

Firstly, we'll take that to be "none," knowing how that's phrased. The Tinhamptonian Delegation to the World Assembly is not convinced that the arguments made in this repeal match up to its conclusion, and - for that reason and others stated - we will continue to oppose it.

---

OOC: Firstly, I support Protected Working Leave OOCly but Tinhampton is still considering its options ICly. Secondly, I continue to agree with Ara's original arguments about the necessity of breastfeeding in modernised societies - even though my sprog doesn't know what formula milk tastes like anyway ;P

[Cretox State]

This should be fun.

The original authoring delegate initially proposed an overlong draft on the Rights of Working Women. He - I think it was a bloke - gratefully accepted our help in developing the repeal target du jour - whether it be slimming down the original argument, in the drafting process, or while campaigning for this proposal. We are not satisfied that the text of the resolution is "sloppy" or - for reasons I will shortly enumerate - "heavily flawed."

Noted; thanks for elaborating.

Noting that the resolution's definition of a "worker" inexplicably excludes subcontractors and those who set their own working hours, preventing them from benefiting under the legislation's clauses and simultaneously incentivizing the hiring of informal labor under worse conditions,

In Rights of the Employed, a worker is defined as "an individual who currently has a contract with an employer which entails carrying out particular tasks for that employer with the expectation of a regular monetary reward, including those individuals who are currently shadowing workers or are working as interns for that employer." Similarly, the Statan proposal on Protected Working Leave defines a worker as - and I quote - "any individual bound by a contract to perform work or services for an employer, whose employment contract mandates the work or services be performed specifically by that worker, involves an obligation for the worker to perform work and the employer to provide it, and implies the employer having some degree of control over the manner in which the work is performed."
Both proposals only explicitly protect paid leave for workers, although neither outlaw paid leave for employees not defined as workers. Hence if the target resolution - which we are proud to have co-authored with the Greater Soviet North America - is replaced by Protected Working Leave and then repealed, it will substitute one resolution that does not explicitly require self-employed and gig economy workers to be offered paid leave for another resolution that does not explicitly require self-employed and gig economy workers to be offered paid leave.

Protected Working Leave is not intended as a replacement, hence no mention of breastfeeding or discrimination (that's also why I'm submitting the repeal after the proposal ). While there certainly is precedent to cite what a proposal doesn't cover as support for a repeal, this isn't a significant argument in this repeal. I'm willing to remove it if it's unnecessary.

Disturbed that the resolution mandates a private area in the workplace "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding," a costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses which are likely to have few, if any, breastfeeding employees to begin with,

The mandates of Article E3a only apply to businesses - regardless of size - if they employ a worker "who can prove to their employer that they cannot avoid breastfeeding their children in the workplace." It does not categorically apply to all businesses, regardless of the composition of their actual workforce.

The fact that this area must "be reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding" makes this a moot point. Also, what if you're a trucker and your "workplace" is your truck?

Elaborating that the above mandate establishes a substantial incentive for firms to avoid hiring female labor in direct contravention of the intentions of this resolution and WA labor law at large in order to avoid bankruptcy,

"The intentions of this resolution" - as we have been clear in various forms over the years - facilitate, not prevent, member states or similar entities from subsidising hygienic breastfeeding facilities for companies that cannot afford them. If a worker is clearly discriminated against because of being female or having the ability to breastfeed their children, they can always take their case to a national court or any trial court of the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, and could themselves receive a refund on any court fees they sincerely cannot pay.

If a firm has strong incentives to behave a certain way, there's only so much that WA mandates can do.

Puzzled at the lack of any mention of discriminatory practices regarding the hiring of breastfeeding employees, thereby leaving the resolution without any mechanism to temper the aforementioned perverse incentive,

Nowhere are "discriminatory practices regarding the hiring of breastfeeding employees" mentioned in Rights of the Employed. Instead, Article D4 protects workers from unfair retaliation due to facing any "discriminatory employment practices," whether or not they relate to "the hiring of breastfeed[ers]."

...that's the point?

Confounded by the granting of at least eight weeks of parental leave following the adoption of any child below the age of majority, despite the fact that older children usually do not require special caregiver attention and are often employed themselves,

Adding that such a mandate incentivizes business-minded governments to place undue burdens on adoption of older children, thereby indirectly harming said children, families that wish to adopt them, and national foster care systems,

While GA Resolution 491 requires businesses to offer "at least eight weeks of parental leave" to any of their workers "upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority," it does not compel workers to accept any of that parental leave. And while the employment of teenagers is somewhat of a custom in Tinhampton - it might be in the Cretox State, I'm not sure - I do not see how that has any bearing on this or on the "undue burdens on adoption of older children" that the ambassador here speaks of.

Any worker who adopts an older child, even if said child doesn't actually require special care over eight weeks, can access that leave.

Recognizing that the two primary policy objectives of this proposal, parental leave and retaliation, have been covered to a far greater degree by other WA law, with:

1. GAR #503 "Protecting Legal Rights of Workers" ensuring that workers are not retaliated against for seeking legal enforcement of their rights; and
2. [url=@@RESOLUTION_LINK@@]GAR #XXX "Protected Working Leave"[/url] providing for far broader parental leave, in addition to other leave which is fully compensated for as opposed to being nonpaid as in the target resolution;

While both of the aforementioned proposals are well-intentioned, neither would earn our support in retrospect, and neither necessarily merit the repeal of the targeted resolution. GA Resolution 503 destroyed economic liberty and led to unemployment rates soaring in almost every member state - as measured by the independent World Census - and we are confident in asserting that the Statan delegation's proposal to expand paid leave, which will be submitted in exactly the same category and subcategory, would prove just as devastating.

Really? Just, really? You're opposing a proposal over stats?

Reminding that several extant resolutions, including GAR #35 "The Charter of Civil Rights", GAR #91 "A Convention on Gender", and GAR #457 "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities" more than adequately cover discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression, or sexual identity at an international level,

S-O-G... Sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sexual characteristics - I've gotten it right at last - are arbitrary, because the World Assembly says so. This much we can accept; we were simply restating those eternal principles.

Therefore, nothing of value would be lost should the resolution be repealed.

Believing that international legislation on breastfeeding in the workplace warrants a resolution of its own or none at all,

Convinced that a heavily flawed, overreaching, and largely redundant piece of legislation has every reason to be repealed,

Hereby repeals GAR #491 "Rights of the employed".

Firstly, we'll take that to be "none," knowing how that's phrased. The Tinhamptonian Delegation to the World Assembly is not convinced that the arguments made in this repeal match up to its conclusion, and - for that reason and others stated - we will continue to oppose it.

---

OOC: Firstly, I support Protected Working Leave OOCly but Tinhampton is still considering its options ICly. Secondly, I continue to agree with Ara's original arguments about the necessity of breastfeeding in modernised societies - even though my sprog doesn't know what formula milk tastes like anyway ;P

Time to start drafting a breastfeeding proposal, then! Though with how this resolution handles workplace breastfeeding, even just repealing it would be an improvement.

[Nepleslia]

While both of the aforementioned proposals are well-intentioned, neither would earn our support in retrospect, and neither necessarily merit the repeal of the targeted resolution. GA Resolution 503 destroyed economic liberty and led to unemployment rates soaring in almost every member state - as measured by the independent World Census - and we are confident in asserting that the Statan delegation's proposal to expand paid leave, which will be submitted in exactly the same category and subcategory, would prove just as devastating.

OOC: If you’re that concerned over the effects of resolutions on your (or any other) nation’s stats, would it not make sense to withdraw from the World Assembly in order to avoid the negative stat-related effects of passed resolutions? In my opinion, being a part of the World Assembly yet complaining about the effects of resolutions on a nation’s stats seems - for lack of a better term - rather...contradictory, as (with no offense meant, by the way) one can’t have it both ways: either a nation is a member of the World Assembly and thus is subject to and able to write its resolutions, or a nation is not a member of the World Assembly and thus is not subject to or able to write its resolutions.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: If you’re that concerned over the effects of resolutions on your (or any other) nation’s stats, would it not make sense to withdraw from the World Assembly in order to avoid the negative stat-related effects of passed resolutions? In my opinion, being a part of the World Assembly yet complaining about the effects of resolutions on a nation’s stats seems - for lack of a better term - rather...contradictory, as (with no offense meant, by the way) one can’t have it both ways: either a nation is a member of the World Assembly and thus is subject to and able to write its resolutions, or a nation is not a member of the World Assembly and thus is not subject to or able to write its resolutions.

OOC: Being part of the WA doesn't mean one can't have opinions on its resolutions. Otherwise repeals wouldn't ever be attempted because everbody would be perfectly ok with every resolution as they are.

[Nepleslia]

-snip-

OOC: Being part of the WA doesn't mean one can't have opinions on its resolutions. Otherwise repeals wouldn't ever be attempted because everbody would be perfectly ok with every resolution as they are.

Having opinions about resolutions is a given regardless of whether or not one is a member of the World Assembly, which is why I didn’t bother mentioning it in my earlier post. What I’m attempting to convey is that in my opinion someone who chooses to remain in the WA yet also complains about one of its core mechanics is trying to “have their cake and eat it too,” as they’re effectively arguing that they should be able to retain a privilege (being able to submit/vote on/etc. resolutions) sans the consequences that normally accompany it ( their nation’s stats being affected by passed resolutions).

[Cretox State]

OOC: Being part of the WA doesn't mean one can't have opinions on its resolutions. Otherwise repeals wouldn't ever be attempted because everbody would be perfectly ok with every resolution as they are.

There seems to be some confusion here:
- Tinhampton doesn't like this repeal (partially) due to the 2 labor rights resolutions cited in it.
- Tinhampton doesn't like those 2 resolutions because of their stat effects.

If you need an example of a non-sequitur logical fallacy, this is a pretty good one.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: If you’re that concerned over the effects of resolutions on your (or any other) nation’s stats, would it not make sense to withdraw from the World Assembly in order to avoid the negative stat-related effects of passed resolutions? In my opinion, being a part of the World Assembly yet complaining about the effects of resolutions on a nation’s stats seems - for lack of a better term - rather...contradictory, as (with no offense meant, by the way) one can’t have it both ways: either a nation is a member of the World Assembly and thus is subject to and able to write its resolutions, or a nation is not a member of the World Assembly and thus is not subject to or able to write its resolutions.

OOC: Being part of the WA doesn't mean one can't have opinions on its resolutions. Otherwise repeals wouldn't ever be attempted because everbody would be perfectly ok with every resolution as they are.

OOC: Actually, thats a perfectly valid concern. Tinhampton has the power to evade statistical impact with ridiculous ease and elects not to use it in favor of stymying legislation. Its a ridiculous proposition.

[Tinhampton]

ALSO OOC: To be perfectly clear, D-A Smith's comments about the World Census were completely in-character - I'm not particularly fussed about my stats as a player

[Nepleslia]

ALSO OOC: To be perfectly clear, D-A Smith's comments about the World Census were completely in-character - I'm not particularly fussed about my stats as a player

Ah, my apologies - I forgot about that completely when writing my initial post.

[Cretox State]

I have incorporated some of Sep's edits and submitted this. Let's do this thing.

[Honeydewistania]

Cretox's first repeal

[Bananaistan]

OOC: "Disturbed that the resolution mandates a private area in the workplace "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding," a costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses which are likely to have few, if any, breastfeeding employees to begin with,"

I think this is an honest mistake. The employer is required to provide this private area only where some worker who proves to the employer that they need to breastfeed. It is not a general requirement on all businesses.

[Cretox State]

OOC: "Disturbed that the resolution mandates a private area in the workplace "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding," a costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses which are likely to have few, if any, breastfeeding employees to begin with,"

I think this is an honest mistake. The employer is required to provide this private area only where some worker who proves to the employer that they need to breastfeed. It is not a general requirement on all businesses.

The intended meaning of that clause is that the resolution mandates providing an area for the sole purpose of breastfeeding, not that it mandates providing such an area in all businesses. This is a "costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses" according to the repeal. If a workplace has few employees, this mandate excludes multipurpose rooms and similar accommodations. If the workplace has no breastfeeding employees, then this disincentives hiring of breastfeeding employees due to the mandate being so sloppily worded.

I realize I didn't word that clause as well as I could have; it's been a difficult week and I haven't been feeling particularly well. If Gensec believes that this is definitely an HM and consequently rules the repeal illegal, I'll just pull and make corrections.

[Cretox State]

I pulled this to fix the HM and edit a few things. Will most likely resubmit later today.

[Junitaki-cho]

I'm glad you pulled this back to make some corrections. I did some close reading shortly beforehand and have a few concerns, most chiefly the following (emphasis mine):

GA 527 "Protected Working Leave" providing for far broader parental leave, in addition to other leave which is fully compensated for as opposed to being nonpaid as in the target resolution;

I feel this misrepresents both the target resolution GAR#491 and your recently passed alternative, GAR#527. #491 E(1) reads (emphasis mine):

shall have the right to claim at least eight weeks of parental leave, during which they must receive their full expected wage from their employer, upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

It's pretty explicit about parental leave being paid, so I take issue with your characterization. I also don't believe #527 "fully compensate[s]" paid leave, as 1(b)(i) reads (emphasis mine):

compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents, to be provided by the government of a member nation;

which is not based on the employee's income. I can't in good faith recommend a vote for this unless these are corrected.

Legal issues aside, could you also clarify the meaning of the following clause? I'm having a lot of trouble parsing it.

Adding that this mandate incentivizes business-minded governments to unduly burden adoption of older children to the detriment of adoptees, adopting families, and foster care systems,

[Cretox State]

GA 527 "Protected Working Leave" providing for far broader parental leave, in addition to other leave which is fully compensated for as opposed to being nonpaid as in the target resolution;

I feel this misrepresents both the target resolution GAR#491 and your recently passed alternative, GAR#527. #491 E(1) reads (emphasis mine):

shall have the right to claim at least eight weeks of parental leave, during which they must receive their full expected wage from their employer, upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

It's pretty explicit about parental leave being paid, so I take issue with your characterization. I also don't believe #527 "fully compensate[s]" paid leave, as 1(b)(i) reads (emphasis mine):

compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents, to be provided by the government of a member nation;

which is not based on the employee's income. I can't in good faith recommend a vote for this unless these are corrected.

My God, that's a really substantial error. Fixed. Thanks for that.

Legal issues aside, could you also clarify the meaning of the following clause? I'm having a lot of trouble parsing it.

Adding that this mandate incentivizes business-minded governments to unduly burden adoption of older children to the detriment of adoptees, adopting families, and foster care systems,

Yes. Employers are required to provide full paid leave for adoption even if the adoptee is an older child and doesn't require special care. A pro-business government is therefore incentivized to make adoption, especially of older children, more difficult to get around this.

[Junitaki-cho]

Thanks for making those changes and elaborating. Definitely feeling better about this proposal.

[Cretox State]

Thanks for making those changes and elaborating. Definitely feeling better about this proposal.

Resubmitted. Thanks for pointing those out; I can't believe I didn't notice earlier.

[Honeydewistania]

"How is the governments burdening adoption thing a bigger problem here than in GA#527?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Countercampaign was sent by Tinhampton. (Formatting done to make the lines break properly.)

Greetings, Delegate. I urge you to remove your approval from Cretox State's proposed repeal of GA#491 "Rights of the employed" for the following reasons:

• It is claimed that the requirement for businesses to provide a breastfeeding room to those who sincerely cannot avoid breastfeeding at the workplace - a figure that is rapidly decreasing in light of increased availability of formula milk and daycare centres - incentivises "firms to avoid hiring female labor in direct contravention of the intentions of this resolution[...]". However, the "intentions" of GA#491 clearly point towards facilitating, rather than preventing, governments from subsidising or otherwise facilitating the construction of such rooms. Sandaoguo/Glen-Rhodes has also eloquently clarified that a "room that has a dedicated time period for lactating mothers, or is reserved when they are using it, is perfectly acceptable under the terms of the resolution."
  
  
• The argument that GA#491 contains no "non-discrimination hiring protections applying to breastfeeding" is questionable at best. Article D4 of the target resolution in fact forbids unfair retaliation against workers due to their facing any "discriminatory employment practices," whether or not they relate to "the hiring of breastfeed[ers]."
  
  
• The target resolution is said to mandate "at least eight weeks of leave for adoption;" however, workers are not required to claim any part of parental and adoption leave - let alone all of it. If a worker does not believe that they need to take any time off after adopting an older child, they are more than welcome not to do so.
  
  
• If GA#491 is repealed, finally, it would replace a guaranteed offer of eight weeks of parental leave with a less certainly-defined "reasonable duration of paid leave." The target resolution can co-exist with Protected Working Leave - and should not be replaced by it outright.