OOC: If you are however still considering your vote, may I ask what point leaves you in doubt? I'd love to try to address your concerns
Advertisement
by Daarwyrth » Sun May 16, 2021 12:51 pm
by Illu-chi » Sun May 16, 2021 12:59 pm
by Daarwyrth » Sun May 16, 2021 1:02 pm
Illu-chi wrote:Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: If you are however still considering your vote, may I ask what point leaves you in doubt? I'd love to try to address your concerns
"GAR #527 speaks of "a reasonable duration of paid leave" in Clause 2, and creates the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave for disproportionately extended periods of time, because of the imprecise and vague terminology in the list of conditions that it provides."
While I see your point here, if a worker goes on a duration of paid leave that the employer does not agreed with the employer could always fire him for someone else and the fact that it is vague on what is a reasonable duration of paid leave means different businesses and there employees can negotiate on what is reasonable paid leave.
"Forbids employers from discriminating or retaliating against workers for requesting or taking paid leave pursuant to section 2 of this resolution; such retaliation including"
by Daarwyrth » Sun May 16, 2021 1:24 pm
Illu-chi wrote:Oh, OK. I will vote for then.
by South Boston Irishmen » Sun May 16, 2021 3:15 pm
by Daarwyrth » Sun May 16, 2021 3:21 pm
South Boston Irishmen wrote:The majority of member citizens from United Kingdom are of a mind that we would rather have a document that allows for some flexibility than no document in place at all. Therefore, it is highly likely that as the Delegate, I will be voting against the repeal in the next few days.
by South Boston Irishmen » Sun May 16, 2021 5:44 pm
by Meretica » Sun May 16, 2021 6:24 pm
by Wallenburg » Sun May 16, 2021 6:26 pm
by Daarwyrth » Mon May 17, 2021 1:14 am
Meretica wrote:"It has been taken to a vote by the Imperial Senate and discussed by the president, Her Majesty the Queen, and the Royal Advisory Board. Due to a lack of details regarding potential replacements to GAR #527 'Protected Working Leave' and the requirements that those replacements would need in order to pass through the General Assembly so that working leave is protected on the international stage, I have been ordered to vote nay on the movement to repeal 527. Should this change, however, I believe sincerely that the Senate, Her Majesty, and the president would all change their minds."
Freedom Williams, Representative of Meretica to the World Assembly and Senator from New Memphis
by South Boston Irishmen » Mon May 17, 2021 7:22 am
by Daarwyrth » Mon May 17, 2021 7:28 am
South Boston Irishmen wrote:That may be, but as it stands, the majority of my constituents appear to be vastly against this repeal.
by Meretica » Mon May 17, 2021 9:46 am
by Daarwyrth » Mon May 17, 2021 10:09 am
Meretica wrote:"Given that the Meretican delegation has been alerted to the existence of a replacement and has read the document thoroughly and discussed its effects, we will be changing our vote to aye on the matter of repealing "Protected Working Leave.""
Freedom Williams, Representative of Meretica to the World Assembly and Senator from New Memphis
by Laka Strolistandiler » Mon May 17, 2021 10:19 am
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by South Boston Irishmen » Mon May 17, 2021 10:24 am
Daarwyrth wrote:South Boston Irishmen wrote:That may be, but as it stands, the majority of my constituents appear to be vastly against this repeal.
Vyn Nysen: "Have your constituents brought forth arguments as to why they are against a repeal? Our delegation fears that the title alone invokes emotions of fear or anger, that this repeal somehow is meant to reduce the rights of workers, or means to give corporations greater means to exploit workers. Our impression is that many vote 'against', simply because of the optics of the repeal, or I should better say, the falsely perceived optics. However, these are all false accusations and views on the intent of this resolution, as our delegation has been referring to Tinhampton's "Employee Rights" as the replacement for GAR #527 from early on in the drafting process, and throughout the drafting or campaigning process we have not once exhibited the desire or intent to see workers be exploited."
by Daarwyrth » Mon May 17, 2021 10:38 am
Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Obraztsova: It’s quite sad that this repeal seems to be failing in vote. I suppose, we’ll have to reside to old ways of dealing with law abusers...
No, not lynching, we’re civilized people!
South Boston Irishmen wrote:Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "Have your constituents brought forth arguments as to why they are against a repeal? Our delegation fears that the title alone invokes emotions of fear or anger, that this repeal somehow is meant to reduce the rights of workers, or means to give corporations greater means to exploit workers. Our impression is that many vote 'against', simply because of the optics of the repeal, or I should better say, the falsely perceived optics. However, these are all false accusations and views on the intent of this resolution, as our delegation has been referring to Tinhampton's "Employee Rights" as the replacement for GAR #527 from early on in the drafting process, and throughout the drafting or campaigning process we have not once exhibited the desire or intent to see workers be exploited."
I've discussed the matter with several of my constituents, but the majority have been silent in the ongoing conversation.
by South Boston Irishmen » Mon May 17, 2021 10:51 am
by Daarwyrth » Mon May 17, 2021 10:55 am
South Boston Irishmen wrote:For those who did speak up, it sounded like they had voted against the measure initially, concerned that there wasn't a plan for after the repeal. Once I informed them that there was a plan and linked them to the draft, they acknowledged my post, but I do not know if their vote was changed.
by South Boston Irishmen » Mon May 17, 2021 11:26 am
by Tinhampton » Mon May 17, 2021 5:46 pm
by Remavas » Tue May 18, 2021 6:54 am
by Swazzy McSwaz » Tue May 18, 2021 2:30 pm
by Daarwyrth » Tue May 18, 2021 2:33 pm
Swazzy McSwaz wrote:Our nation is willing to support this repeal only under the circumstances that a new bill will be proposed that fully covers the gaps left by the previous bill. Until such time, we cannot repeal a bill that has no replacement lined up. If we do not get such assurances in time, we will vote against the repeal, which seems to be the general direction of opinions anyway
Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "I would like to inform the delegation from Meretica that details surrounding a replacement are, in fact, not unclear. There is currently a proposal draft waiting to be submitted that deals on the topic of 'paid leave' in a much more precise and detailed manner, namely "Employee Rights" by the delegation from Tinhampton."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement