Wallenburg wrote:Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "The replacement effort is not led by our delegation but by the delegation of Tinhampton. Don't make accusations you can't prove, Ambassador, as our campaign telegrams actively point to "Employee Rights" as a replacement for this resolution."
OOC: Thank you for pointing that out, will take a look at TIn's plan.
IC: Ogenbond scrunches his eyebrow. "What? Gerald, what's he talking about? That didn't show up in my morning brief."
Gerald hunches over the representative's shoulder, tabs through the folder on the desk, and retrieves a copy of the replacement effort. "Sir, you have to read through the whole thing."
Maria vyn Nysen smiles politely, raising her eyebrows slightly. "I think you meant 'she', Ambassador."
As to the other points you made, the first Clause doesn't speak of the entire duration of childhood since several drafts. What we do refer to are cases wherein care for a physically or mentally ill patient becomes necessary, and as the delegation from Imperium Anglorum stated, what's necessary is implicitly reasonable. A patient who suffers from an illness that renders them incapable of seeing to their basic needs necessarily requires care. Which is what Clause 1 addresses regarding the use of "reasonable duration" in the target resolution. The necessity may even be to provide care for years on end, especially regarding an illness that becomes progressively worse.
Regarding what you stated on Clause 3, our delegation isn't saying that workers on time-limited contracts don't deserve paid leave. They do. However, that right needs to be determined clearly, precisely. It needs to have clear conditions and limitations. Because leaving an employer with workers on time-limited contracts on leave for the entire duration of their employment contract is not an efficient way to organise employment within a nation. We are not interested in seeing workers, employees on time-limited contracts included, without rights. We want those rights to be implemented without loopholes or ludicrous situations like we described in our argumentation. Yet the target resolution allows for such ludicrous situations to arise because of its wording.
Clause 4 isn't about nations making mistakes, it's about the disparity that is being allowed within the target resolution between small businesses and large corporations. There should be differentiation between the two and "Protected Working Leave" isn't doing that. It approaches the subject from a broad-strokes and one-size-fits-all approach that is too unwieldy and tool for a subject as delicate and intricate as employment law. Small businesses can't be treated the same way large corporations are, a regulation or law has to factor in the differences between them.
You wouldn't use a drill to put a nail in the wall, now would you, Ambassador? Yet GAR #527 is that drill, and paid leave as an aspect of employment law is that nail. We believe it should be either left to member nations to regulate on paid leave independently, or to have a detailed and precise resolution as its replacement."