[PASSED] Repeal: Social Assistance Accord

[Goobergunchia]

Proposal:

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that individuals in need may be deserving of assistance;

HOWEVER, REGRETS that the 'Social Assistance Accord' overreaches on the number of policies it tries to regulate, and that the lack of detail may lead to situations that are clearly unfair:

1. The 'Social Assistance Accord' does not permit Member States to make temporary welfare benefits conditional on reasonable obligations, such as having to actively look for a job. This is unfair to welfare recipients who have been actively seeking opportunities to work, and undermines the general intent behind welfare limitations: to reject 'free-riders';

2. The 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;

3. The 'Social Assistance Accord' does not specify whether parental leave must be granted to the father, the mother or both, nor does it grant the power to decide on that issue to Member States;

REALISES that World Assembly resolutions are legally binding and not merely aspirational, and that some of the mandates of the 'Social Assistance Accord' may not be affordable:

1. Poor and developing nations, regardless of their good intentions, may be unable to provide benefits that cover water, nourishment, housing, and utilities to all idle individuals within their borders and their dependants;

2. A right to "immediate access" to all information regarding benefits is equally impractical in remote or isolated areas;

REPEALS the 'Social Assistance Accord'.

Co-author: [nation=short]Unibot II[/nation]

Original resolution: Social Assistance Accord

[Dizyntk]

"The Dizyntk were opposed to the Social Assistance Accord when it was at vote. We fully are in support of its repeal."

[Moral Libertarians WA Mission]

"We always stood against the principles inherent in the SSA; with that in mind, we echo the Dizyntk delegation in fully endorsing the repeal of this resolution."

[Syvorji]

We support it, no replacement.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

[Democratic Republic of Papon]

The Democratic Republic of Papon approves of this proposal.

The Democratic Republic of Papon has only very recently joined the community of nations after throwing off the yoke of the oppressive imperialist, consequently the country's finances are in a parlous state after so many years of colonial mismanagement. In view of this, the madness of paying citizens to be inactive and unproductive is madder still. It is a luxury we cannot afford.

[Knootoss]

I am grateful for the support thus far. Thank you.

[Burton Industries WA Office]

You have our support as well. Good luck.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I don't think the poor and developing nations problem will ever be solved in respect of SAA, unless the WA finds another pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to throw out money as subsidies. Provisonal support.

[Desperia Heim]

"most certainly agree that the uncertainties within -SAA- are more than enough ground for a repeal with no replacement, hereby give this proposal our support."

[Knootoss]

Any spelling/grammar suggestions?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Any spelling/grammar suggestions?

In:

ACKNOWLEDGING that individuals who are without a sufficient income are deserving of assistance;

I think it should be read as:

ACKNOWLEDGING that individuals or families who are without an adequate income to meet their needs should be entitled to financial assistance;

The repealing clause forgot a full stop, also.

[Knootoss]

I wanted to make it shorter. Added a stop to the repealing clause.

[Ponyist Dashiopolis]

The Free Lands of Ponyist Dashiopolis supports this repeal.

[The Republic of Lanos]

We supported the original but I guess we can has our own Social Security programs back.

Meh, why not.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

HOWEVER, LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' does not permit Member States to make temporary welfare benefits conditional on reasonable obligations, such as having to actively look for a job;

No it doesn't. If it did, we'd never have voted for it. I quote:

(6) Member states may reduce benefits for individuals who are capable of work, but remain unemployed after a minimum of nine [9] months - provided that commitment is made to ensure access and/or incentives to further education and/or skills training.

We call that an incentive, because after 9 months if they haven't been looking for work you can stop supporting them.

FURTHER LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;

Good point. Although it could be argued that having time off to get to know the adopted child, whatever the age, might be a good thing.

REGRETTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' does not specify whether parental leave must be granted to the father, the mother or both;

Do you want it to? We don't mind that absence. Particularly because it'd be horrible to work out how to arrange things if there's genderqueers, or only one parent, or three, or two of the same sex, etc.?

FURTHER REGRETTING that employers may be forced to pay for the salary of an absent worker indefinitely, should the dependent of an employee happen to fall ill;

We call it health insurance. It's a good thing.

CONCERNED that the governments of poor and developing nations, regardless of their good intentions, may be unable to provide for all idle individuals within their borders, and their dependents, with benefits that cover water, nourishment, housing, and utilities;

Really? If they use clause 6?

FURTHER CONCERNED that a right to "immediate access" to all information regarding benefits is equally impractical in remote or isolated areas;

Isn't it fairly obvious that you don't have to cover every square millimeter of your country in information regarding benefits?

Really the only semi-good reason for a repeal might be the adopted child problem, which is a bit of a problem.

[Knootoss]

We call that an incentive, because after 9 months if they haven't been looking for work you can stop supporting them.

That still means 9 months of free welfare for which the recipient has to do absolutely nothing in return. Modern welfare systems are built on programmes that guide the jobseeker back to work. All those efforts have been gutted by this resolution, because the idle person is no longer compelled to make any effort whatsoever. Losing your benefits 9 months from now is hardly an incentive to do something NOW. In fact, individuals might deliberately arrange to get a job 9 months from now and taking a nice, long vacation.

FURTHER LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;

Good point. Although it could be argued that having time off to get to know the adopted child, whatever the age, might be a good thing.

Hardly WA business. But we don't seem to disagree here.

REGRETTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' does not specify whether parental leave must be granted to the father, the mother or both;

Do you want it to? We don't mind that absence. Particularly because it'd be horrible to work out how to arrange things if there's genderqueers, or only one parent, or three, or two of the same sex, etc.?

And the resolution neatly sidesteps the entire issue by not stating who gets parental leave at all. Its the usual solution of omnibus bills like these. A resolution dealing specifically with parental leave could have addressed these issues. Now it is just left for member states to guess, and individuals to litigate, to whom this deal applies.

FURTHER REGRETTING that employers may be forced to pay for the salary of an absent worker indefinitely, should the dependent of an employee happen to fall ill;

We call it health insurance. It's a good thing.

Nice how you completely ignore the small businesses going broke because of these things. Well, actually, not nice at all.

CONCERNED that the governments of poor and developing nations, regardless of their good intentions, may be unable to provide for all idle individuals within their borders, and their dependents, with benefits that cover water, nourishment, housing, and utilities;

Really? If they use clause 6?

Yes. In NS, as in RL, there are nations who cannot afford to provide clean water, housing, nourishment, electricity and utilities even if their population was PAYING for all of these services. Imagine the governments now having to provide the money to all individuals so they might afford them for free. Good intentions still ignore that crushing poverty exists. Governments cannot give away what they do not have.

FURTHER CONCERNED that a right to "immediate access" to all information regarding benefits is equally impractical in remote or isolated areas;

Isn't it fairly obvious that you don't have to cover every square millimeter of your country in information regarding benefits?

It is fairly obvious, yes, but this resolution mandates that governments provide "immediate access" anyway. That is why it has to be repealed.

[Bears Armed]

"My government supports this repeal, but I do feel it necessary to point out one apparent inaccuracy within its arguments... specifically within the clause"

FURTHER LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;

"As the relevant clause in the resolution concerned actually says "dependent" rather than "child" this would seem to leave nations with a reasonable right of discretion with regards to the age factor after all."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Kaxland]

We'll support this resolution as well. It looks great and I hope to see it passed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The notion that people relying on temporary unemployment insurance to survive are really just unproductive, lazy parasites attached to the government teat is ridiculous. These are working people who have been laid off. They didn't quit their jobs because 9 months of unemployment insurance is some great windfall. These kinds of comments clearly show that Ambassador Koopman is distanced from the reality of economic downturns.

- Dr. B. Castro

[B777LR]

We are in full support of this.

[Moronist Decisions]

The notion that people relying on temporary unemployment insurance to survive are really just unproductive, lazy parasites attached to the government teat is ridiculous. These are working people who have been laid off. They didn't quit their jobs because 9 months of unemployment insurance is some great windfall. These kinds of comments clearly show that Ambassador Koopman is distanced from the reality of economic downturns.

- Dr. B. Castro

On one hand, we agree with Dr. Castro about this. On the other hand, we do understand that different nations may have alternate ways of handling this problem. We are unlikely to have a strong opinion either way about this.

[Knootoss]

I'd like to thank those who have joined this debate to voice their support for doing so, once again.

"My government supports this repeal, but I do feel it necessary to point out one apparent inaccuracy within its arguments... specifically within the clause"

FURTHER LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;

"As the relevant clause in the resolution concerned actually says "dependent" rather than "child" this would seem to leave nations with a reasonable right of discretion with regards to the age factor after all."

OOC: I'm glad for your support, but I don't really understand how this is a salient point. Just looking at what the resolution says here...

The notion that people relying on temporary unemployment insurance to survive are really just unproductive, lazy parasites attached to the government teat is ridiculous. These are working people who have been laid off. They didn't quit their jobs because 9 months of unemployment insurance is some great windfall. These kinds of comments clearly show that Ambassador Koopman is distanced from the reality of economic downturns.

- Dr. B. Castro

The repeal explicitly says that people are worthy of assistance. Nobody is called an "unproductive, lazy parasite". On the other hand, I believe a majority of the General Assembly will believe it reasonable that those who are jobless may be compelled to look for a job, in exchange for receiving benefits.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Glen-Rhodes]

The repeal explicitly says that people are worthy of assistance. Nobody is called an "unproductive, lazy parasite". On the other hand, I believe a majority of the General Assembly will believe it reasonable that those who are jobless may be compelled to look for a job, in exchange for receiving benefits.

What the text says and what the comments imply are very different. The suggestion that the Social Assistance Accord should be repealed because states ought to be able to compel beneficiaries to look for employment implies something very specific and pretty obvious. It implies that beneficiaries won't otherwise look for employment, because they'd rather get paid by the government to sit around doing nothing.

There is nothing stopping member states from providing job placement programs or encouraging people to actively seek employment. Unless you believe that these people are unproductive, lazy parasites, you shouldn't have to believe that coercion is the only way to get unemployed persons to look for employment. Right-wing politics has hidden its ideological distaste for the poor in recent decades, given the leftward shift society has about welfare. But it is always a very clear part of the subtext, as it is here.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

Sorry, but I'm not interested in a debate where you try to paint my very real concerns about the crippling flaws in this resolution as a secret hatred that I have supposedly conceived for the poor. If anyone has spelling, grammar or legality concerns about this repeal, I'm quite open to them.

[Connopolis]

Sorry, but I'm not interested in a debate where you try to paint my very real concerns about the crippling flaws in this resolution as a secret hatred that I have supposedly conceived for the poor. If anyone has spelling, grammar or legality concerns about this repeal, I'm quite open to them.

Very nice, Mr. Koopman, very nice. 'You have a valid point, but because of our past disagreements, I'll use that as a feint in order to get out of making a rebuttal.' I'll with no doubt make a response to this when I get the chance, but obviously, the obvious partisanship in this proposal is simply horrid.

Yours in light snickering,