[MOOT - SEE GA#588] Repeal GA#584 "Paid Leave Act"

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 1,949
Word count: 313

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: The Tinhamptonian Delegation, once supportive of the Paid Leave Act, has gradually come to see its provisions as concerning. I would very much like to thank the Feyris delegation for their helpfulness and collaboration with drafting this repeal, and have laid a replacement for public consideration; this will not be submitted until there is a general consensus that that is ready.

Repeal "Paid Leave Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#584

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #584 “Paid Leave Act” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Labour Rights) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising that, while workers should be more than able to claim paid leave to care for themselves or their family, GA#584 fails to efficiently and effectively achieve this goal,

Noting that, while Article 4 of GA#584 requires workers to "give sufficient notice to their employer" of any circumstances that may require them to claim paid leave (if possible), its Article 3 only protects workers from retaliation while filing for or exercising paid leave, thus imperiling the job and associated benefits of workers who have an unexpressed but implicit desire for paid leave,

Concerned that Article 1c's requirement that employers pay all employees on paid leave their full expected wage is "unconditional[,]" even for the most highly-paid employees, regardless of whether reduced payments would still allow those employees and their families to meet their needs or would ensure the financial stability of their employers,

Thoroughly confused not only that Article 5 allows certain businesses to force any "worker's first member state of citizenship" (not the member state they currently work in) to fund that worker's paid leave, but that all businesses with "less than fifty workers" - regardless of their solvency - can take advantage of this burden-shifting,

Observing that Article 6b declares that childcare-related paid leave "ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker, even if it is within the twelve allotted weeks" - a definition so poorly defined that it could (for example) easily allow businesses to incentivise workers to allow their newly-adopted children to be cared for by family members or formal childcare services as to return them to employment faster, and

Hoping to enact robust and meaningful legislation to ensure that all workers throughout the World Assembly can claim paid leave where necessary after the passage of this repeal...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#584 "Paid Leave Act."

Co-author: Feyrisshire

Old drafts will go here once they materialise

Recognising that, while workers should be more than able to claim paid leave to care for themselves or their family, GA#5xx fails to efficiently and effectively achieve this goal,

Concerned that Article 1c's requirement that employers pay all employees on paid leave their full expected wage is "unconditional[,]" even for the most highly-paid employees, regardless of whether reduced payments would still allow those employees and their families to meet their needs or would ensure the financial stability of their employers,

Thoroughly confused not only that Article 5 allows certain businesses to force any "worker's member state of residency" (which may not be the member state they actually work in) to fund that worker's paid leave, but that all businesses with "less than fifty workers" - regardless of their solvency - can take advantage of this burden-shifting,

Observing that Article 6b declares that childcare-related paid leave "ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker, even if it is within the twelve allotted weeks" - a definition so poorly defined that it could (for example) easily allow businesses to incentivise workers to allow their newly-adopted children to be cared for by family members or formal childcare services as to return them to employment faster, and

Hoping to enact robust and meaningful legislation to ensure that all workers throughout the World Assembly can claim paid leave where necessary after the passage of this repeal...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#5xx "Paid Leave Act II."

Co-author: Feyrisshire

[Bananaistan]

"Support.

"Expand the argument about section 5. The insanity of requiring an employee's "nation of citizenship" to foot the bill for leave of people who might well not be living or paying taxes in their jurisdiction is insufficiently emphasised in the current draft."

[Minskiev]

I understand some of the sentiments, but some of these are dishonest.

The Noting clause I suppose is fair, if you wouldn’t consider giving a notice as filing for it, since the resolution disallows firing because of filing for paid leave. Although isn’t it pre-emptive filing? Filing isn’t necessarily immediate. So I’m not sure if this really works?

The Concerned clause is very dishonest coming from the author, given they supported having the same pay in the GA#584 thread. There was also a general consensus that the same pay would be better than a complex system.

The first half of the Thoroughly confused clause is fair. The second? Not so much, as large businesses can pay for themselves.

The Observing clause is silly. Businesses would try to do that regardless.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We support repeal, and would prefer no replacement be passed.

[Bestelesnia]

We support repeal, and would prefer no replacement be passed.

We second the support, although we do think that a replacement could be made, we think it should be lighter as it puts too much stress on economy (as in we specially agree with the "concerned" clause)

[Feyrisshire]

The Noting clause I suppose is fair, if you wouldn’t consider giving a notice as filing for it, since the resolution disallows firing because of filing for paid leave. Although isn’t it pre-emptive filing? Filing isn’t necessarily immediate. So I’m not sure if this really works?

I'm not sure though if this definition is adequately covered in GAR#584, as a "sufficient notice" isn't necessarily the same as filing.

The second? Not so much, as large businesses can pay for themselves.

I think this has been sufficiently covered - viewtopic.php?p=39149834#p39149834

[Untecna]

"The Untecnan delegation wishes to express it's full support for this repeal proposed by the delegation of Tinhampton. The issues posed by the resolution in question, are, indeed, issues that must be resolved in a later replacement. We are sure to await patiently."

[Apatosaurus]

Ambassador Scott "Apatosaurus opposed GAR#584, and gives full support towards this repeal."

"We also believe that an issue with GAR#584 is that the fixed times micromanage and make multiple assumptions, for example the childbirth leave assumes the length of sapient's life cycles."

[Minskiev]

for example the childbirth leave assumes the length of sapient's life cycles."

As I've said time and time again, it doesn't matter.