[MOTHERSHIP] Welfare & Dignity: A dream that refuses to die

[Sionis Prioratus]

Couldn't all the "leaves" be one resolution?

That's my position. I think one resolution could over them all adequately.

Your Excellencies: Of course I do believe that the "leaves" could be adequately covered by one single resolution. As a matter of fact, I believe in it so much that I helped pass a resolution which dealt with all those and other issues. Connopolis believes in it as well I would suppose, since he did basically the same thing. But the rest as they say, is history. Bottom line: of course you can, and perhaps you should try do to an omnibus resolution on the leave issue.

But it is not my person who needs convincing, if you understand what I mean.

If I may offer words of wisdom: passing a resolution is bloody enough a task. Retaining it is an even more thankless one. Think it through before setting your courses of action. I shall support anything that adequately promotes welfare & dignity.

Breaking all this down is a good idea. I think those two resolutions were a bit too ambitious. Some of those things I will support, and some I will not. You can put all the "leaves" in one resolution, but don't expect me to vote for it. I do not support parental leave, and would only support bereavement leave if it's less than a week.

If only to better illustrate my point to Your Excellencies, the above delegation was the co-author of the odious repeal of "Safety in Difficult Times". He now calls it "a bit too ambitious", but if my memory serves me well, and it does, I am reminded of far more violent, vile, slanderous, and less pleasant arguments from the repeal debate. So there you have it. Again: it is not me who needs convincing on the adequacy of the joining of themes. Your Excellencies indeed must prove such adequacy, but not to me.

Yours very truly,

[Southern Patriots]

Breaking all this down is a good idea. I think those two resolutions were a bit too ambitious. Some of those things I will support, and some I will not. You can put all the "leaves" in one resolution, but don't expect me to vote for it. I do not support parental leave, and would only support bereavement leave if it's less than a week.

Less than a week from when? News of the deceased, so they can aid in funeral preparations or travel? Less than a week from the funeral itself? What of those who sit shiva for a week?

[Krioval]

Is this actually meant to imply that pregnancy leave, bereavement leave, and leave to care for the sick cannot be contained in a single resolution? Or is it simply a ploy to write ten Social Justice resolutions and to therefore game the system? If it is the first, there is a significant lack of imagination pervading this initiative. If it is the second, the same holds true, though with an added dose of cynicism.

[Sionis Prioratus]

game the system

I am worried that I do not know what Your Excellency means by that. Please be straightforword and precise.

Yours in dutiful inquiry,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Is this actually meant to imply that pregnancy leave, bereavement leave, and leave to care for the sick cannot be contained in a single resolution? Or is it simply a ploy to write ten Social Justice resolutions and to therefore game the system? If it is the first, there is a significant lack of imagination pervading this initiative. If it is the second, the same holds true, though with an added dose of cynicism.

Considering that social welfare resolutions keep getting repealed because they "overreach[] on the number of policies [they try] to regulate," are you really surprised that advocates now want to address each issue one by one? The Social Assistance Accord addressed three types of leave and unemployment insurance, and it's being repealed using 'overreach' arguments. I, for one, don't trust advice given by the opposition anymore.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Is this actually meant to imply that pregnancy leave, bereavement leave, and leave to care for the sick cannot be contained in a single resolution? Or is it simply a ploy to write ten Social Justice resolutions and to therefore game the system? If it is the first, there is a significant lack of imagination pervading this initiative. If it is the second, the same holds true, though with an added dose of cynicism.

Considering that social welfare resolutions keep getting repealed because they "overreach[] on the number of policies [they try] to regulate," are you really surprised that advocates now want to address each issue one by one? The Social Assistance Accord addressed three types of leave and unemployment insurance, and it's being repealed using 'overreach' arguments. I, for one, don't trust advice given by the opposition anymore.

Agreed without reservations.

Yours,

[Vagabundas]

That is nice strategy and this may be interesting for many other issues!

Yours resolution-enthusiastic,

[Yuktova]

We (Yuktova) want a welfare resolution that won get repealed by some anti welfare, pro corporate nation. I may be able to help with one of your drafts, although only time will tell.
"We need to declare that all resources are a common heritage of every sapient species for true sustainibility to occur." - Yuktovan Chairman Davmin Ferdorski, leader of the Socio-Cyber Federation of Yuktova (S.C.F.)

[Vagabundas]

I would be happy to deal with the Widowers issue, but I'm quite unsure how deap can be this resolution.

I mean what widowers we are taking by reference:

All of them or just the publicly assisted ones. What should we do about those fradulent young women who decide to marry with old men just to get their benefits.

My personal opinion is that Widowers Benefits should be:

-Temporary
-An Income Complement (Widowers should work, unless they fail to get one or they are disabled to do so)
- Proportional according to the number of dependents (specially seniors and children)

What do you think about it?

Yours,

[Alqania]

I would be happy to deal with the Widowers issue, but I'm quite unsure how deap can be this resolution.

I mean what widowers we are taking by reference:

All of them or just the publicly assisted ones. What should we do about those fradulent young women who decide to marry with old men just to get their benefits.

My personal opinion is that Widowers Benefits should be:

-Temporary
-An Income Complement (Widowers should work, unless they fail to get one or they are disabled to do so)
- Proportional according to the number of dependents (specially seniors and children)

What do you think about it?

Yours,

"Why would widowers need benefits in the first place? As widowers, that is?"

[Soviet Canuckistan]

I made a resolution that doesn't cover the themes but has to do with welfare so maybe add that to ideas covered?

[Alqania]

I made a resolution that doesn't cover the themes but has to do with welfare so maybe add that to ideas covered?

OOC: The idea behind this project is to divide welfare up into several resolutions more limited in scope (AFAIK). Your proposal seems opposite to that idea.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I made a resolution that doesn't cover the themes but has to do with welfare so maybe add that to ideas covered?

OOC: The idea behind this project is to divide welfare up into several resolutions more limited in scope (AFAIK). Your proposal seems opposite to that idea.

IC: Correct on both counts, Your Excellency.

Yours,

[Puissancevise]

Unemployment benefits...that would be a good one...

[Sanctaria]

The Disability Welfare Act has been submitted. So if you guys could help get it to vote, and then get it to pass, it would be welcomed. It's what we all want!

[Puissancevise]

The Disability Welfare Act has been submitted. So if you guys could help get it to vote, and then get it to pass, it would be welcomed. It's what we all want!

I have approved it. I have also drafted an unemployment reduction act.

[Vagabundas]

I would be happy to deal with the Widowers issue, but I'm quite unsure how deap can be this resolution.

I mean what widowers we are taking by reference:

All of them or just the publicly assisted ones. What should we do about those fradulent young women who decide to marry with old men just to get their benefits.

My personal opinion is that Widowers Benefits should be:

-Temporary
-An Income Complement (Widowers should work, unless they fail to get one or they are disabled to do so)
- Proportional according to the number of dependents (specially seniors and children)

What do you think about it?

Yours,

"Why would widowers need benefits in the first place? As widowers, that is?"

Widowers who needs funds from their husbands income and then suddenly they die and those women find themeselves whithout money....

That is what the act suppose to do.
Yours,

[Alqania]

"Why would widowers need benefits in the first place? As widowers, that is?"

Widowers who needs funds from their husbands income and then suddenly they die and those women find themeselves whithout money....

That is what the act suppose to do.
Yours,

"I would assume that widowers are a) working, b) retired, c) studying or d) unemployed. Assuming that a nation has a) a minimum wage one can live off, b) a pension system one can live off, c) student funding one can live off and d) unemployment benefits one can live off, why would the nation need to have widower benefits?

The Queendom is rather opposed to perpetuating systems where anyone is dependant on the income of one or more of their spouses. And I feel compelled to point out our objection to the heteronormativity and normative gender roles apparent in Your Excellency's statement and presumably also in Your Excellency's analysis of this alleged problem."

[Southern Patriots]

Widowers who needs funds from their husbands income and then suddenly they die and those women find themeselves whithout money....

That is what the act suppose to do.
Yours,

"The Queendom is rather opposed to perpetuating systems where anyone is dependant on the income of one or more of their spouses. And I feel compelled to point out our objection to the heteronormativity and normative gender roles apparent in Your Excellency's statement and presumably also in Your Excellency's analysis of this alleged problem."

But a widower is a man. A man losing his husband's income does not appear to be heteronormative.

Or is everyone here not aware of the difference between a widow and widower? I've seen no reference here of widower's definition changing.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is rather opposed to perpetuating systems where anyone is dependant on the income of one or more of their spouses. And I feel compelled to point out our objection to the heteronormativity and normative gender roles apparent in Your Excellency's statement and presumably also in Your Excellency's analysis of this alleged problem."

But a widower is a man. A man losing his husband's income does not appear to be heteronormative.

Or is everyone here not aware of the difference between a widow and widower? I've seen no reference here of widower's definition changing.

"I assumed the words 'those women' were referring to the persons that had been widowed and that these fictitious persons were therefore women, even though the form widower suggested otherwise."

[Vagabundas]

Widowers who needs funds from their husbands income and then suddenly they die and those women find themeselves whithout money....

That is what the act suppose to do.
Yours,

"I would assume that widowers are a) working, b) retired, c) studying or d) unemployed. Assuming that a nation has a) a minimum wage one can live off, b) a pension system one can live off, c) student funding one can live off and d) unemployment benefits one can live off, why would the nation need to have widower benefits?

The Queendom is rather opposed to perpetuating systems where anyone is dependant on the income of one or more of their spouses. And I feel compelled to point out our objection to the heteronormativity and normative gender roles apparent in Your Excellency's statement and presumably also in Your Excellency's analysis of this alleged problem."

Sorry, this was a translation misun derstood as englsih is not my first language but that is OK. And yes, I may agree with you and a speficic act for Widow and Widowers shouldn't be in the WA agenda.

Yours,

[Connopolis]

Concerning Benefit Fraud has been submitted for a test run, and it's fairing pretty well; I'm thinking it'll reach quorum after Dr. Ferguson's proposal, and as such, I'd like to attract attention to both of those proposals:

Disability Welfare Act
Concerning Benefit Fraud

Yours truly,

[Unibot II]

When you have to bump this thread, the title is going to be very ironic.

[Vagabundas]

Nice to see Sionis Prioratus has his earplugs firmly attached.

I think Knootoos' Ambassador has just been ignored...

Yours in disappointment,

[Connopolis]

When you have to bump this thread, the title is going to be very ironic.

I wasn't bumping, I was merely... err... umm... well, yes, I was bumping it, but that's not the point. The point is, this thread is win. Oh, and Dr. Ferguson's new proposal, but you get the point.

Yours in infinite ramblings,