[PASSED] Repeal "Rights of the employed"

[Cretox State]

"How is the governments burdening adoption thing a bigger problem here than in GA#527?"

527 comes with a qualifier that the child require such care.

--Countercampaign--

Of course. Why should I have expected anything else?

[Honeydewistania]

"How is the governments burdening adoption thing a bigger problem here than in GA#527?"

527 comes with a qualifier that the child require such care.

--Countercampaign--

Of course. Why should I have expected anything else?

And what's to stop business minded governments from burdening the adoption of kids that require care, arguably a bigger problem than burdening adopting older children?

[Tinhampton]

This is now at vote. The following counter-counter-campaign was sent by Cretox through tag:template shortly before this got to vote:

Esteemed Delegate of %NATION%,

We apologize for what may be a number of telegrams you're receiving regarding this proposal, and humbly request again that you approve "Repeal 'Rights of the employed'", a proposal our Delegation submitted to the General Assembly, and which needs only 2 more approvals in the next 13 hours in order to make it to vote.

This repeal is necessary due to flaws present in the target resolution, which include requiring that workers prove to employers the necessity of them breastfeeding in the workplace, mandating that qualifying workers receive a private area in the workplace reserved for the sole area of breastfeeding (automatically excluding multipurpose rooms and similar), and providing at least 8 weeks of leave to any worker who adopts a child, even if said child is older and doesn't require special care.

At the same time, numerous extant resolutions cover similar (and broader) ground as the resolution in question, including GA 503 "Protecting Legal Rights of Workers", GA 527 "Protected Working Leave", GA 35 "The Charter of Civil Rights", GA 91 "A Convention on Gender", and GA 457 "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities".

We apologize for taking up your time, and would be more than happy to address any questions or concerns you may have. We hope you'll consider approving this proposal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=cretox_state_1607233126

Yours sincerely,

~~Cretox State

--Countercampaign--

Of course. Why should I have expected anything else?

I know, right?

[Kenmoria]

“I will be voting in favour of this repeal, as I believe that the resolution in question had a few flaws which, unfortunately, imposed burdens upon businesses which were not necessary for the advancement of labour rights.”

(OOC: I feel sorry for all those delegates, their poor inboxes.)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Finally, this will be repealed.

[Amorosa-Coonarra Coasts]

Not supporting this; workers deserve their rights!
#EmployersVsEmployees

[Kenmoria]

Not supporting this; workers deserve their rights!
#EmployersVsEmployees

(OOC: There is a replacement which has been passed, which should also serve to protect workers’ rights.)

[Ardiveds]

Not supporting this; workers deserve their rights!
#EmployersVsEmployees

(OOC: There is a replacement which has been passed, which should also serve to protect workers’ rights.)

OOC: Out of curiosity, how did they manage to pass the replacement before the repeal without running into contradiction/duplication?

[Center Land]

Does the WA ever do anything besides repeal previously passed legislation?

[Ardiveds]

Does the WA ever do anything besides repeal previously passed legislation?

OOC: yes it creates new legislation to repeal later.

[Melon feud]

*headless brood of feathered chickens,,, the collective simmering rendering pot is nigh& awaith Ye blind plucked cluckers of percievd self importance,,,er,,, oh yes! Tis truth

[Cretox State]

OOC: Finally, this will be repealed.

And thus we've come full circle.

(OOC: There is a replacement which has been passed, which should also serve to protect workers’ rights.)

OOC: Out of curiosity, how did they manage to pass the replacement before the repeal without running into contradiction/duplication?

Minor duplication is permitted. In this case, PWL was sufficiently different/broader.

[Retired WerePenguins]

The intended meaning of that clause is that the resolution mandates providing an area for the sole purpose of breastfeeding, not that it mandates providing such an area in all businesses. This is a "costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses" according to the repeal. If a workplace has few employees, this mandate excludes multipurpose rooms and similar accommodations. If the workplace has no breastfeeding employees, then this disincentives hiring of breastfeeding employees due to the mandate being so sloppily worded.

I am not sure how this can be a "costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses." The fewer employees the less likelihood that such an area is needed. it doesn't even have to be a room, as long as it is able to be made 'private." I can see how in some circumstances it could rise to the level of "annoying" but nothing from being "burdensome." It's not a good argument, in and of itself, for a repeal.

More importantly, that train left the station months ago, when this resolution was passed and those small businesses had to create those spaces. New businesses can easily design around the rule. In short it might be a good reason for not voting for the resolution, but once implemented it almost becomes "moot."

[UNOE]

If we are to repeal this legislation, we need to have a replacement for this legislation. Until then, we need to vote no on this proposal, until we having to supplement this legislation. Then once we have repealed this legislation, what is the incentive to create a better and more in depth legislation like this. The civil rights of the world are in stake. This needs to be rejected. I urge you to vote no, or change your vote to no, in order to protect civil rights and humanity.

[Kenmoria]

If we are to repeal this legislation, we need to have a replacement for this legislation. Until then, we need to vote no on this proposal, until we having to supplement this legislation. Then once we have repealed this legislation, what is the incentive to create a better and more in depth legislation like this. The civil rights of the world are in stake. This needs to be rejected. I urge you to vote no, or change your vote to no, in order to protect civil rights and humanity.

(OOC: Here is the replacement.)

[Honeydewistania]

If we are to repeal this legislation, we need to have a replacement for this legislation. Until then, we need to vote no on this proposal, until we having to supplement this legislation. Then once we have repealed this legislation, what is the incentive to create a better and more in depth legislation like this. The civil rights of the world are in stake. This needs to be rejected. I urge you to vote no, or change your vote to no, in order to protect civil rights and humanity.

(OOC: Here is the replacement.)

That replacement doesn't cover breastfeeding, so it's not a full replacement.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Here is the replacement.)

That replacement doesn't cover breastfeeding, so it's not a full replacement.

(OOC: That is true; I think someone mentioned writing a possible replacement on breastfeeding specifically, but one doesn’t currently exist at this point.)

[Paclandi]

I am unable to support the repeal as written. Without an acceptable replacement, this will place a burden on new families.

[Retired WerePenguins]

(OOC: There is a replacement which has been passed, which should also serve to protect workers’ rights.)

(OOC Well Let's see ...
D1 ... Yes this is covered
D2 ... Not covered (Under 503 or 527)
D3 ... Again, not really covered ... "or otherwise in the course of their employment"
D4 ... Ironically this is NOT COVERED. 503 looks like it covers it, but the key word is "participating " and 503 only protects the person making the complaint not cooperating witnesses
E1-3 ... Yes
E4 ... No
)

[Tinhampton]

Repeal "Rights of the employed" was passed 11,901 votes to 2,963.