Target text: (527 GA)
Repeal text:
Rule violated: Honest Mistake
Arguments:
- Clause 4 of the repeal: If requiring a business to shoulder the costs of paid leave would lead to a (significantly greater) "risk of bankruptcy" for that business (as alleged by the repeal), then it would necessarily be a "significant financial strain", and thence by the target's provisions member states cannot require the business to take on the said costs.
- Clause 3 of the repeal: An employee who "file[s] for paid leave on the first day of their employment, and remain[s] on paid leave for the entire duration of their employment" is not asking for a "reasonable duration" of paid leave as required by the target resolution.
- Similarly (Clause 1 of the repeal), I contend that an employee who files for paid leave for a "disproportionately extended periods of time", such as for a disabled or elderly person's "entire lifespan", is not asking for a "reasonable duration" of paid leave. The repeal makes the argument that the need for care would reasonably envelop a patient's entire lifespan. This does not necessarily mean that a particular worker would reasonably require paid leave for this entire duration. (Such a worker who needs to care for another person on their own all the time would in my opinion not be compatible with full-time employment that requires them to be present in person, but this is not very relevant.)
Edit: Here are my comments on the proposal thread.