[DRAFT #5] [GA#584 SUB] Paid Leave Expansion Act

[Tinhampton]

Bump for comments, in tandem with my/Task Force Ronaldo's repeal of PWL.

[Tinhampton]

Draft 2d now includes a ban on the practice of "fire and rehire" (OOC: 1, 2, possibly 3) and a requirement that the member state where employees work - not where they live - fund paid leave for them on request, among other changes.

Any comments on this draft as written, since they appear to have been virtually non-existent in recent weeks, remain appreciated. I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts about how far this applies to "gig economy workers"/contractors (if at all), whether it should do so, and how to change the scope of my draft accordingly.

[Bananaistan]

"employees" includes only:
...
all individuals who currently work for their own business, are responsible for that business, and can determine the kind, duration, length and location of the tasks they carry out for it,

Sole traders, propreitary directors, partners etc are not employees. The WA can no more nake them employees than it can make rain not wet.

a(ii) - full pay is insane and given that the state has to pay, this involves a wealth transfer from poor people to rich people. You're still literally talking about having the cleaner pay the wages of the CEO when they're off sick. Anyone earning more than the average wage should be able to arrange their affairs to cover this sort of thing and to make do on a benefit that has a reasonable cap.

F(i) - Quarter of a year is random.

And why should the WA be in the business of promoting marriage.

F(iv) - "a thirtieth of a year" random and senseless. 1/30 of a 5 days a week, 52 week year is 8.67 working days.

H still has the issue that there's no recognition that social insurance is a thing.

J(iii) - employers are not teachers and just how would the sole trader included in a(i) go about educating themselves?

[Tinhampton]

Sole traders, propreitary directors, partners etc are not employees. The WA can no more [m]ake them employees than it can make rain not wet.

The word "employee" in Article a(i) is intended to be a fairly generic, catch-all term.

a(ii) - full pay is insane and given that the state has to pay, this involves a wealth transfer from poor people to rich people. You're still literally talking about having the cleaner pay the wages of the CEO when they're off sick. Anyone earning more than the average wage should be able to arrange their affairs to cover this sort of thing and to make do on a benefit that has a reasonable cap.

Article a(ii) has been changed after some discussion with Cretox

F(i) - Quarter of a year is random.

And why should the WA be in the business of promoting marriage.

1. A quarter of a year is also in fact a shorter length of time for parental leave than what my country allows IRL!
2. I have been thinking of replacing "they or a person they are in a legally-recognised partnership (such as a marriage or civil union) with" with "they or a person they live with" in line with Article f(ii) for quite some time... now that I think about it that change would probably be of benefit for extended families, consider it done unless people want it undone.

F(iv) - "a thirtieth of a year" random and senseless. 1/30 of a 5 days a week, 52 week year is 8.67 working days.

I had calendar years, not time spent working in a year, in mind - which would instead allow for employees to claim about 12.1666666666666... days of bereavement leave in one go. Reluctantly changed to "two calendar weeks."

H still has the issue that there's no recognition that social insurance is a thing.

So how can I make it recognise that, then? (This question is open to anybody reading this, not just Banana)

J(iii) - employers are not teachers and just how would the sole trader included in a(i) go about educating themselves?

Article j(iii) was an advisory, non-binding clause. It has been cut and the remaining two sections of Article j have been moved as appropriate.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Non placet.

[Tinhampton]

Draft #3b cuts some words. Its Article h contains an interim solution to the social insurance logjam of sorts from earlier ("...that government must accept all such requests that are non-frivolous, except where it operates a social insurance scheme that would render those requests moot"); category changed to Civil Rights accordingly.

Delegate-Ambassador Smith: ...non placet?

[Daarwyrth]

Delegate-Ambassador Smith: ...non placet?

Vyn Nysen: "If I recall my Latin correctly, it means "it does not please" and is often used as the voicing of a negative vote. Of course, if I am stating something you already knew, Delegate-Ambassador, I apologise."

[Tinhampton]

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: Please forgive Alex his concerns - he only speaks English. Whatever that is, anyway...

---

Everything below this line is OOC.

In fairly recent years, Senator Mike Lee of Utah and friends have perenially proposed a Working Families Flexibility Act that would allow private sector workers to choose between paid overtime and paid time off - see link for more information. Similar reforms have been added as Article i, "Compensatory time."

I quote Greszler from first link above: "Presumably, those organizations and politicians that oppose the [WFFA] think that the government knows what’s best for workers—in this case, they think it’s pay instead of paid time off. But for many workers, particularly working parents, time is more valuable than money."

I am aware that this draft is tipping 5,700 characters, possibly more if/when I get a potentially workable solution to the gig economy problem. I am considering splitting this hulking morass proposal into two separate proposals if this situation persists or the new Article i otherwise proves popular: one generally concerning non-discrimination and "fire and rehire" (likely to be CR/Significant) and the other generally concerning paid leave and comp time (likely to be SJ/Significant).

[Meretica]

"The nation of Meretica will proudly support the proposed draft as is."

-Phineas Jones, Senator from Almaton, Head of the Meretican WA Delegation

[Goobergunchia]

It occurs to us that "full-time" and "overtime" do not appear to be defined anywhere which risks rendering clause (i) a dead letter.

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy WA Ambassador
Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: After some thoughts unrelated to Lord Evif's recent comments, I have decided to replace Article i with a universal entitlement to paid holiday, the new Article e. This... bit of paper that you see pinned up on this noticeboard was the old Article i:

Compensatory time: The right of employees to work or not work overtime is reaffirmed. Employees may agree freely and in writing with their employer to work overtime for no direct tangible reward, in return for up to ninety hours of time off work (paid at their usual level of pay) which they may use at any time in the relevant calendar year. Employers shall pay any such wages unclaimed by an employee at the end of a calendar year or upon that employee's ceasing to work for them before then. Employees may not work overtime for no tangible reward if they do not hence benefit from this Article (i.e. employees may only work sixty hours of unpaid overtime if their overtime pay is 150% of usual pay).

We have further decided to split Employee Rights into two distinct proposals due to its length - the "official" proposal has now turned into Paid Leave Guarantee, while another debating chamber has very recently been appropriated for Against Discrimination in Employment.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Will you at least alter the clause about claiming the allowed paid holiday from "at any time" to "as scheduled by negotiation with their employers"? Many businesses & other employers -- particularly ones with relatively low numbers of staff -- would find it extremely difficult to operate properly if a high proportion of their workforce decided to take their holidays simultaneously ,for example, or if some "key" individual[s] decided suddenly to take a break just when their presence was particularly required, and when somebody is hired on a short-term contract specifically to provide cover during another employee's absence it would seem reasonable to require that they defer own their entitled holiday from that job until after the scheduled return of the person for whom they are standing in for... And then there are jobs such as those of ships' crew, for which a regular schedule must be kept...
Also, what about members of the armed forces , particularly during wartime? Letting those take their holiday entitlement whenever they choose could seriously hinder planned operations...

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Will you at least alter the clause about claiming the allowed paid holiday from "at any time" to "as scheduled by negotiation with their employers"? Many businesses & other employers -- particularly ones with relatively low numbers of staff -- would find it extremely difficult to operate properly if a high proportion of their workforce decided to take their holidays simultaneously ,for example, or if some "key" individual[s] decided suddenly to take a break just when their presence was particularly required, and when somebody is hired on a short-term contract specifically to provide cover during another employee's absence it would seem reasonable to require that they defer own their entitled holiday from that job until after the scheduled return of the person for whom they are standing in... And then there are jobs such as those of ships' crew, for which a regular schedule must be kept...
Also, what about members of the armed forces , particularly during wartime? Letting those take their holiday entitlement whenever they choose could seriously hinder planned operations...

General agreement on this point. Everyone in logistics takes leave in November and December: warehouse immediately goes bankrupt because that's when they get most of their revenue.

[Tinhampton]

Consider it done, Bears.

[Tinhampton]

El bump.

I'm aware that PWL has been replaced... I want to replace that replacement, too

[Xanthorrhoea]

a.ii. "paid leave" means time off work during which an employee must receive from their employer a wage no greater than their full expected wage which allows them and those living with them to meet their needs,

This definition has a paradox: If an employee's usual wage does not meet their needs (which is a very loosely defined concept here anyway (what are a worker's/their family's needs and who determines this?)), then during paid leave they cannot concurrently have a wage that is no greater than their full expected wage and one that meets their needs. This is a very possible scenario, that cannot comply with the proposal as written.

Also, IMO all employees should just receive full wages during leave. Perhaps such a requirement will encourage employers to more apropriately pay their employees. If a company wants to overpay a CEO, then they should wear the consequences. Re: the argument about government liability, see my point below.

Non-discrimination: No employer in a member state may refuse to employ any person because that person would be entitled to seek time to breastfeed upon being employed. Employees shall enjoy protection from dismissal, suspension, discrimination, and being paid inferior wages (subject to Article a(ii)) as a result of seeking or claiming any relevant leave or time to breastfeed.

I note this does not prevent discrimination against leave for pregnancy/maternity/paternity. I'd argue that it needs including, otherwise, there is potential to discriminate against employing soon-to be parents, which would be similarly harmful to breastfeeding discrimination.

d. Parental, sick, and bereavement leave: Subject to Article f, employees have the right to automatically claim (provided that they inform their employer in advance that they will do so):
i. at least thirteen calendar weeks of paid leave after they or someone they live with gives birth or adopts a child who they must look after,
ii. paid leave for the duration of their being sufficiently ill that they cannot work or having to look after a similarly ill person who lives with them, ideally for only as long as they or their cohabitor require to recover from such illness,
iii. paid leave for the duration of their being quarantined after contracting a serious disease, where such quarantining is legally required and makes them completely unable to fulfil their duties as an employee (such as installing scaffolding or paving roads), and
iii. at least two calendar weeks of paid leave after they have suffered a personal tragedy (including miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of a close family member).

Part d.i (parental leave) only covers leave after giving birth, and with advance notice, which is inadequate. The entire advance notice issue is unreasonable (I've expanded on this below), and one should be able to initiate parental leave a reasonable period of time prior to giving birth. It is unreasonable to expect pregnant women to work up to the day they give birth. Remove the 'after' provision and maybe replace it with just a fixed amount of parental leave able to be taken around the time of birth/adoption.

The advance notice requirement is too onerous on employees. Firstly, sickness/illness is not always known in advance, so requiring advance notice of sick leave is unreasonable. Likewise, extreme prematurity is a thing, and there are situations where parents will have an unexpectedly early baby, and not yet have applied for leave. Similar arguments can be made for quarantine (not always anticipated) and personal tradgedy (who has advance warning of a miscarriage?). I would replace the strict notice requirement with some sort of 'whenever possible' provision instead.

e. Paid holiday: Subject to Article f, employees have the right to claim two calendar weeks of paid leave at any time for any reason not directly or indirectly listed above. Employees must seek consent from their employer before claiming such paid leave, who may deny such consent where this would significantly interrupt that employer's planned operations.

The way this is written, employees can just deny the two weeks of leave by planning operations to need everyone all the time. Not good. There should be provisions requiring that employers must provide this leave at some point during each calender year, unless the employee elects to accrue the leave or accept payment for the leave instead. I would also add some provision requiring employees to be able to take this leave in non-consecutive pieces, as it is currently unclear whether this is allowed. Perhaps by adding "a total of" before the 'two weeks"?

h. Time to breastfeed: Employees who cannot avoid breastfeeding their children at work shall be entitled to have an eighth of their working day reserved for breastfeeding; time so reserved may be divided into up to three equal periods and must be guaranteed for a year after the claimant's parental leave ends as per Articles d(i) and f. Employers are encouraged to provide a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated room where such employees can breastfeed, if and where possible.

It is almost always possible to avoid breastfeeding. Formula exists, therefore it is possible. This is an overly strict requirement. This whole section is far too specific when it doesn't need to be. e.g. "three equal periods" - breastfeeding frequency is highly variable. If a new mother is working a 12 hour shift (not a sensible decision IMO, but people should be allowed to do it if they want), and their child still requires 3 hourly feeds, then this already doesn't work. This also has no provision for activities such as pumping and bottle feeding with EBM, which is distinct from breastfeeding. I would replace this entire clause with something simple such as "employees who choose to breastfeed or who are expressing milk must be afforded adequate, paid time during their working hours to conduct these activities, and must be provided with a private, safe and hygeinic space in which to do so."

Lastly, the leave durations are at a very human time scale, which, while quite species-wanky, is a valid point that was raised during drafting of the Paid Leave Act, and should be adressed in this proposed replacement too.

Addit: IMO, clause g is broadly unnecessary. Anyone with employees should include leave in their budgeting and price their goods/services appropriately. It's a predictable expense, so there is no need for the government to provide it instead. I am aware many on this forum disagree with this view however, so it might be best to leave it as is. If I were to replace it, I'd do so with a government guarantee to compensate employees for any leave they take, coupled with a right for the government to then pursue the employer for those costs. That way, the employee is still paid if the employer is in financial difficulty, but the ultimate responsibility for payment still lies with the employer.

Edit: spelling/typos because i can't resist fixing them when I see them

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

all individuals who currently work for their own business, are responsible for that business, and can determine the kind, duration, length and location of the tasks they carry out for it,

So you now want the government to guarantee paid leave for people who likely do not have salaries or wages to begin with? How, in the name of Almighty Iupiter are we supposed to calculate the "expected wage" of someone selling Fish and Chips out of the back of their vehicle on the side of the road? More importantly, why should the taxpayer be on the hook for this instead of themselves as their own employer?

"paid leave" means time off work during which an employee must receive from their employer a wage no greater than their full expected wage which allows them and those living with them to meet their needs,

Ambassador, your repeal of the extant resolution argues that guaranteeing a full expected wage is excessive, but this clause of your replacement either 1: replicates the prior resolution making you a hypocrite, 2: imposes an open-ended obligation on employers to compensate paid leave at a higher rate than an employee's actual salary, which is unreasonable even by the ridiculously radical left-wing standards this Assembly is unfortunately fond of, or 3: is internally contradictory as contended by the delegation of...I will not embarrass myself by attempting to pronounce that... and meaningless. So which is it: hypocrisy, insanity, or incompetence in drafting?

Employees who cannot avoid breastfeeding their children at work shall be entitled to have an eighth of their working day reserved for breastfeeding;

Ambassador, please give us the name of your drug dealer. We are given to understand that most employers prohibit employees from bringing children to the workplace on a regular basis, something we find infinitely reasonable. Are you intending to create a universal, unqualified right for women to bring children to the workplace? If not, how are you expecting women to breastfeed their children while at work? This provision is nonsensical as written. Perhaps you merely intended to require employers to allow women to express and store milk while working?

[Feyrisshire]

Caps on paid leave: Employees on a time-bound contract may only claim any form of paid leave described in Article d for no longer than a fifth of the length of their most recently agreed such contract, and that paid leave described in Article e for no longer than a tenth of the length of that contract. No employee may claim paid leave under Articles d(i) and d(iv) combined for over 12 months in any continuous 24-month period, no more than 2 months of which may be claimed under Article d(iv).

I know that we've already talked about this but I still generally do not know how to compute this?:

First, how do we determine the length of time for the "time-bound contract"? How so if the employee is only bound to a contract of less than one annum?

For example, assuming that an employee has a contract for one year, then 20% (one-fifth) of 365 days (this is an even more generous assumption considering that an employee's total number of working days per annum would definitely be not 365 days) would be 73 days which would be far less than 13 calendar weeks in Article d(i), or might be far less than what is needed in Article d(ii) and d(iii). The computed amount would be even far lower if the employee's total length of contract is less than one annum.

Article f and Article d(i) to (d)(iii) might contradict each other.

[Apatosaurus]

Character count: 4,929
Word count: 806

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Yes - I know for a fact that workers should be celebrated, Bianca told me they should!

OOC: This proposal is heavily influenced by GA#491 "Rights of the employed," which I co-authored with The Greater Soviet North America (TGSNA) - hence why I have cited him as a co-author here. TGSNA looked at this proposal before I submitted it here, was supportive of this and did not accuse me of plagiarising GA#491. TGSNA will shortly post here offering his thoughts and publicly clarifying that I have his permission to do this.

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)
Paid Leave Guarantee
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recognising that many employees may have to seek time away from their job for various reasons,

Believing that the right of such employees to claim just as much paid leave as they need - and no more - should be protected by international law, and

Noting that many of the below accomodations were protected by GA#491 "Rights of the employed" before it was repealed due to various shortcomings...

The General Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Definitions: In this resolution:
   
   1. "employees" includes only:
      
      • all sapient individuals who currently have a contract of any length with an employer which entails carrying out particular tasks for that employer with the expectation of a regular tangible reward (including those who are currently shadowing employees or working as interns for that employer), and
      • all sapient individuals who currently work for their own business, are responsible for that business, and can determine the kind, duration, length and location of the tasks they carry out for it,
   2. "paid leave" means time off work during which an employee must receive from their employer a wage no greater than their full expected wage which allows them and those living with them to meet their needs,
   3. "relevant leave" means that paid leave described in Articles d and e, and
   4. "time to breastfeed" means those accommodations defined in Article h.
2. Applicability: This resolution applies to all employees in all member states, except Articles c (which also covers non-employees seeking to become an employee in relevant part) and h (which only covers employees of lactating species such as humans and cows).
3. Non-discrimination: No employer in a member state may refuse to employ any person because that person would be entitled to seek time to breastfeed upon being employed. Employees shall enjoy protection from dismissal, suspension, discrimination, and being paid inferior wages (subject to Article a(ii)) as a result of seeking or claiming any relevant leave or time to breastfeed.
4. Parental, sick, and bereavement leave: Subject to Article f, employees have the right to automatically claim (provided that they inform their employer in advance that they will do so):
   
   1. at least thirteen calendar weeks This is the same issue I had with Minskiev's and one of the biggest reasons I opposed it. This assumes species and/or their life cycle. For example, mice have a lifespam of about a year, and in fact are weaned from their mothers within less than a month. This would obligate those mice to stay with their mothers for three times of what is natural. Do something like "the length of time until a member of that species requires care from their mothers as much as an average thirteen week old human". of paid leave after Why is the underline necessary? they or someone they live with gives birth or adopts a child who they must look after,
   2. paid leave for the duration of their being sufficiently ill that they cannot work or having to look after a similarly ill person who lives with them, ideally for only as long as they or their cohabitor require to recover from such illness,
   3. paid leave for the duration of their being quarantined after contracting a serious disease, where such quarantining is legally required and makes them completely unable to fulfil their duties as an employee (such as installing scaffolding or paving roads), and
   4. at least two calendar weeks of paid leave after they have suffered a personal tragedy (including miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of a close family member). I'm "meh" on having the 2 weeks fixed time, I think something flexible is better but 2 weeks is okay.
5. Paid holiday: Subject to Article f, employees have the right to claim two calendar weeks of paid leave at any time for any reason not directly or indirectly listed above. Employees must seek consent from their employer before claiming such paid leave, who may deny such consent where this would significantly interrupt that employer's planned operations ... who decides whether it "significantly [interrupts] that employer's planned operation"? The employer? Use a fixed guideline on what situation they can deny that consent instead..
6. Caps on paid leave: Employees on a time-bound contract may only claim any form of paid leave described in Article d for no longer than a fifth of the length of their most recently agreed such contract, and that paid leave described in Article e for no longer than a tenth of the length of that contract. No employee may claim paid leave under Articles d(i) and d(iv) combined for over 12 months in any continuous 24-month period, no more than 2 months of which may be claimed under Article d(iv). Why? If the employer is fine with it, why should it be banned if someone requests extra paid leave? Just get rid of this clause entirely.
7. Funding paid leave: Employers with the financial capacity to do so must fund relevant leave for their employees. However, all employees in member states seeking relevant leave, but whose employers do not have the capacity to fund it, may request that the government of the member they work in fund it; that government must accept all such requests that are non-frivolous Define "non-frivolous", except where it operates a social insurance scheme that would render those requests moot.
8. Time to breastfeed: Employees who cannot avoid breastfeeding their children at work shall be entitled to have an eighth of their working day reserved for breastfeeding; time so reserved may be divided into up to three equal periods and must be guaranteed for a year after the claimant's parental leave ends as per Articles d(i) and f. Employers are encouraged to provide a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated room where such employees can breastfeed, if and where possible. I don't exactly like the use of underlining here. Employers are only "encouraged" to provide such a space? And who decides whether it's possible? Use a fixed guideline on what is "possible" instead, and make that part binding.

Co-author: The Greater Soviet North America

[Tinhampton]

This draft has not been abandoned. Providing Paid Leave will likely be defeated; On Paid Leave's author has retired; I am somewhat iffy on how Minskiev's proposed blocker (PPL 2?) requires negotiation with unions on minimum wages, even in sectors like the military and emergency services where members may use their GA#43 prerogatives to ban unionisation, and even for workers working in sectors that are unionised but not affiliated with the unions that have negotiated.

Many arguments have been made since I last bumped this thread. My responses to them:

• Article a(i) should refer to "sapient individuals," not "individuals" (Apatosaurus): REJECTED: I'm not going to waste sixteen characters on something that obvious.
• Article a requires the unsalaried to be somehow paid their "full expected wage" (Desmosthenes and Burke): REJECTED: This is a less firm rejection than the others - if you earn zero, your full expected wage is zero and paid leave... isn't. I'm open to discussion and further clarification, however.
• Article a(ii) could impose impossible paid leave wage requirements (D&B, Xanthorrhoea): ACCEPTED: It now requires employers to pay employees on paid leave "their full expected wage or 300% of the mean wage, whichever is less."
  
  
• Article c does not prohibit discrimination on grounds of pregnancy or parenting (Xant): ACCEPTED: It does now. Or at least I hope it does.
  
  
• Article d's advance-notice requirements should be replaced "with some sort of 'whenever possible' provision" (Xant): ACCEPTED: For Article e - the old Articles d(ii-iv) - only. Article d(ii) continues to require prior information, owing to its nature. Article d(i) makes prior information optional.
• Article d(i) is humanocentric (Apatosaurus, possibly Xant): NOTED: Fourteen weeks is the standard used in the ILO's Maternity Protection Convention, 2000.
• Article d(iv) is too inflexible, but not so inflexible that the two-week minimum should be axed (Apatosaurus): NOTED: I like the minimum period and won't be removing it absent further backlash.
  
  
• Article e could be circumvented by overzealous employers (Xant): REJECTED: If you have one-hundred employees on one site and you're "planning operations to need everyone all the time," missing a couple of people who want to go on holiday is almost certainly not going to significantly interrupt them!
• Article e is unclear on when consent can be denied (Apatosaurus): NOTED: I believe that employers are generally best placed to determine when their operations will be significantly interrupted.
• Article e leave should be non-continuous (Xant): ACCEPTED: Sure.
  
  
• Article f is confusing and might contradict most of Article d (Feyrisshire): ACCEPTED: f was a headache. I've gone with Apatosaurus' suggestion that it be taken out; an extremely tentative blocker clause, "Reservation," has been included in its place and I'll see what people think about that.
  
  
• Article g could be deleted, or at least replaced by "a government guarantee to compensate employees for any leave they take" which the government can then recoup (Xant): NOTED: I'm well aware of Reasonable Businessman Theory (:P), but - for the most part - the alternative appears to be either a PPL-style government mandate (on which I'm with Banana) or an OPL-style zipped mouth emoji (which would actually be confusing). In its place, I've more adequately explained how social insurance is supposed to function... hopefully accurately.
  
  
• Article h is too micromanagey and should be rewritten (Xant): ACCEPTED: For the most part, anyway. It now covers employees who express milk and removes the requirement to divide into three equal periods. However...
• Article h's final encouragement is too weak (Apatosaurus): REJECTED: I'm not particularly convinced on this point. It is a fairly minor subsection of a fairly minor part of the resolution, albeit one which I still believe is important.
• Article h inappropriately allows all breastfeeders to bring children on site (D&B): NOTED: I'm tempted to include "in consultation with their employer" somewhere in Article h. For the time being, however, I'm not. Note also the aforementioned reforms.

TGSNA is aware of the new draft. If you think anything about it looks off, let me know. If he thinks anything about it looks off, I'll let you know.

[Tinhampton]

This will be submitted no sooner than June 16th. You are still welcome to provide your thoughts on anything in the proposal, including what I said above.

I'm aware my co-author is CTEd. I've asked him to revive his nation in preparation for this proposal's eventual submission.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm aware my co-author is CTEd. I've asked him to revive his nation in preparation for this proposal's eventual submission.

You can submit with a co-author using the old method (a note at the end of the proposal in the proposal text) if it comes to it.

---

all individuals who currently have a contract of any length with an employer which entails carrying out particular tasks for that employer with the expectation of a regular tangible reward

Just use the standard definition of an employment relationship. Here you've either made it circular by defining it in terms of an employer or you've made it massively over-broad by including anyone who has a contract to do anything. For what employment means, see eg "contract of employment", Oxford Dictionary of Law (OUP 5th ed, 2003). I would also incorporate the rather reasonable exceptions made in real world legislation. Eg Employment Relations Act 1999 sch 8 (National Security).

[Tinhampton]

All of you will be relieved to hear that this proposal will most likely be submitted in mid-October.

Responses to IA

I'm aware my co-author is CTEd. I've asked him to revive his nation in preparation for this proposal's eventual submission.

You can submit with a co-author using the old method (a note at the end of the proposal in the proposal text) if it comes to it.

Done.

all individuals who currently have a contract of any length with an employer which entails carrying out particular tasks for that employer with the expectation of a regular tangible reward

Just use the standard definition of an employment relationship. Here you've either made it circular by defining it in terms of an employer or you've made it massively over-broad by including anyone who has a contract to do anything. For what employment means, see eg "contract of employment", Oxford Dictionary of Law (OUP 5th ed, 2003).

My library at work does not contain any Oxford DIctionaries of Law nor do I have any idea where to find them, especially not an edition that it roughly as old as this website. Kenmoria has, however, reassured me that its seventh edition:

1. Defines an employee as "a person who works under the direction and control of another (the employer) in return for a wage or salary." (In addition, this definition in the first place always took after that in AngloWelsh law.)
2. Also defines a contract of employment as "a contract by which a person agrees to undertake certain duties under the direction and control of the employer in return for a specified wage or salary," etc.

thereby greatly reducing the need for changing the definition I anticipated.

I would also incorporate the rather reasonable exceptions made in real world legislation. Eg Employment Relations Act 1999 sch 8 (National Security).

The exceptions in that schedule pertain to whistleblowing ("protected disclosures"), the workings of employment tribunals, and the workings of the place you go to appeal employment tribunal decisions. I see nothing in the schedule that can be readily transposed to PLEA.

Other proposal news

I am now more certain that Article e(iii)'s two-week minimum for tragedy leave and Article f's empowerment of employers to decide when a worker's holiday "would significantly interrupt [its] planned operations" are net positives to the proposal so will not remove them absent criticism.

A change has been made. This was inserted in place of the blocker because A: I am now satisfied that there will be less of a demand for blocker provisions in October 2023 than in, say, March 2022 and B: I am now thirty characters over the limit.


Changes I could make

Nevertheless, some questions remain unanswered.

Should those with no salaries be entitled to at least a baseline amount of paid leave? (I said no because they are unsalaried and my paid leave definition rotates around salaries, but I'm still open to change on this.)

Is two weeks of tragedy leave - Article e(iii) - enough? (I still think it is so won't be removing absent major objections.)

Should breastfeeders be required to consult their employer before exercising Article h rights? (I'm still not convinced.)

And most importantly: Do you have any other comments about this proposal?

[Tinhampton]

Should those with no salaries be entitled to at least a baseline amount of paid leave? (I said no because they are unsalaried and my paid leave definition rotates around salaries, but I'm still open to change on this.)

This is the big question I'm focusing on right now, but other suggestions are welcome.

Also: this proposal is no longer overheight due to stylistic shortenings of Articles f and h.

[Tinhampton]

TGSNA has retired from NS, but has told me that he wishes to stay on as co-author. I have agreed given his extremely commendable contributions to this and the predecessor draft. With that in mind, I will still be working on this proposal for the next couple of months before submission (and will retain him as a co-author manually as advised by IA).

I continue to seek feedback on this.