[GA - PASSED] Repeal "Rights Of The Employed"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Westinor

Westinor

Registered
TNP Nation
Westinor
Discord
Westinor#2315
ga.jpg

Repeal "Rights Of The Employed"
Category: Repeal | GA #491
Proposed by: Cretox State | Onsite Topic
Replacement: None​
General Assembly Resolution #491 “Rights of the employed” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Commending the efforts of GA 491 "Rights of the employed" in enumerating several rights of workers,

Concerned, however, that sloppy writing and easily foreseeable consequences have transformed this well-intentioned resolution into a heavily flawed piece of legislation that imposes substantial unintended costs and directly undermines its own agenda,

Troubled that the resolution requires that workers prove to their employers the necessity of their breastfeeding in the workplace, a condition which is both obviously problematic and flies in the face of the legislation's stated purpose,

Disturbed that the resolution mandates a private area in the workplace "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding" for workplaces subject to the mandates of clause E(3), a costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses and workplaces that cannot practically accommodate such a requirement,

Elaborating that the above mandate also establishes a substantial incentive for firms to avoid hiring female labor in direct contravention of the intentions of this resolution and WA labor law, especially given the absence of any non-discrimination hiring protections applying to breastfeeding in this resolution,

Confounded that the resolution requires at least eight weeks of leave for adoption, despite older children generally needing no special caregiver attention,

Adding that this mandate incentivizes business-minded governments to unduly burden adoption of older children to the detriment of adoptees, adopting families, and foster care systems,

Recognizing that extant WA law covers the two main policy objectives of this resolution, parental leave and retaliation, to a far greater degree, with:

GA 503 "Protecting Legal Rights of Workers" ensuring that workers are not retaliated against for seeking legal enforcement of their rights; and

GA 527 "Protected Working Leave" providing for far broader parental and other leave;

Reminding that several extant resolutions, including GA 35 "The Charter of Civil Rights", GA 91 "A Convention on Gender", and GA 457 "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities" more than adequately cover discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression, or sexual identity, and

Convinced that a heavily flawed, overreaching, and largely redundant piece of legislation has every reason to be repealed,

Hereby repeals GA 491 "Rights of the employed".
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]10[/TD][TD]6[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]

Repeal "Rights Of The Employed" was passed 11,901 votes to 2,963 (80.1% support).
 
Last edited:
IFV - For
Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal "Rights of the employed" on the grounds of several flaws in the target resolution and redundancy with extant law.

Recommendation Our logic in supporting this repeal is similar to our logic in opposing the target resolution when it initially came to vote: the resolution in question contains several compromising flaws, including a requirement that workers prove to their employers the necessity of them breastfeeding in the workplace in order to benefit from the resolution's breastfeeding provisions; these provisions include providing such workers with a space in the workplace reserved "for the sole purpose" of breastfeeding, thereby excluding multipurpose rooms and burdening small businesses.

Additionally, the resolution provides for the full duration of paid leave upon adoption, even of older children that don't require special care, and numerous extant resolutions adequately cover the main areas of the resolution, including workplace anti-discrimination law, paid leave, and protection from retaliation.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting For the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "Repeal 'Rights of the employed'".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against (non-WA), these arguments (and in fact most arguments for the repeal of this resolution) are rather unconvincing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against. My issue lies with the “confounding clause” because it only mentions adoption of older children. While I think it’s not necessarily great to have the leave requirement for adoption, I think the current wording ignores the adoption of very young children which does necessitate leave. The rest of this is fine to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston Castle:
Against. My issue lies with the “confounding clause” because it only mentions adoption of older children. While I think it’s not necessarily great to have the leave requirement for adoption, I think the current wording ignores the adoption of very young children which does necessitate leave. The rest of this is fine to me.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand your point. Protected Working Leave already handles adoption of children that necessitate care.
 
Cretox State:
Please elaborate. Present, by the way.

I might pull this if the "disturbed" clause is an HM violation.
Click to expand...
Sure:

Noting that the resolution's definition of a "worker" excludes subcontractors and workers who set their own working hours, thereby excluding them from coverage and simultaneously incentivizing the hiring of informal labor under worse conditions,
Click to expand...

Write a resolution called "Rights of the subcontractors" then? Lol.

Also, before you cite Repeal GMO Trade Accord etc I'll admit those arguments weren't that strong (still stronger than this one though, as it doesn't make sense to have multiple resolutions on GMO trade, but multiple resolutions on workers rights is needed, as you have demonstrated).

Troubled that the resolution requires that workers prove to their employers the necessity of their breastfeeding in the workplace, a condition which is both obviously problematic and flies in the face of the legislation's stated purpose,
Click to expand...

Is it? Nowhere do I see "Dismayed that workers are forced to prove that they need to breastfeed children"

Disturbed that the resolution mandates a private area in the workplace "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding," a costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses which are likely to have few, if any, breastfeeding employees to begin with,
Click to expand...

Not only is this an honest mistake, in most countries I don't see many cases where breastfeeding is actually unavoidable, so this'd be unlikely, especially for small businesses.

Elaborating that the above mandate establishes a substantial incentive for firms to avoid hiring female labor in direct contravention of the intentions of this resolution and WA labor law,
Click to expand...

Then you could say that firms have an incentive to not hire young couples who might have children, or people with children with cancer that need to be cared for, or people recovering from cancer, because of 'Protected Working Leave'. And since breastfeeding thing is unlikely, this isn't likely to happen either.

Confounded that the resolution requires at least eight weeks of leave for adoption, despite older children generally needing no special caregiver attention,

Adding that this mandate incentivizes business-minded governments to unduly burden adoption of older children to the detriment of adoptees, adopting families, and foster care systems,
Click to expand...
Okay, but these business minded governments could also unduly burden the adoption of any child needing care with 'Protected Working Leave'. This is a flaw but it's unavoidable.

Then you have 'other stuff I wrote covers this', which is okay but not really a good argument either, as the more resolutions the merrier amirite.

Yeah, against.
 
Honeydewistan:
Is it? Nowhere do I see "Dismayed that workers are forced to prove that they need to breastfeed children"
Click to expand...
The purpose was to secure certain rights of workers, including workplace breastfeeding.

Honeydewistan:
Okay, but these business minded governments could also unduly burden the adoption of any child needing care with 'Protected Working Leave'. This is a flaw but it's unavoidable.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. Giving 8 weeks of leave over adopting a child who doesn't need special care is problematic.

Honeydewistan:
Then you have 'other stuff I wrote covers this', which is okay but not really a good argument either, as the more resolutions the merrier amirite.
Click to expand...
What? Something to take into account is whether the benefits of keeping a resolution outweigh its problems. Given the enormous redundancy that exists here, there are virtually no benefits to keeping this one.

Honeydewistan:
Then you could say that firms have an incentive to not hire young couples who might have children, or people with children with cancer that need to be cared for, or people recovering from cancer, because of 'Protected Working Leave'. And since breastfeeding thing is unlikely, this isn't likely to happen either.
Click to expand...
The hiring disincentive over breastfeeding is the result of the ridiculous breastfeeding accommodation mandate, especially when the resolution somehow manages to avoid mentioning hiring discrimination over breastfeeding at all.

Honeydewistan:
Not only is this an honest mistake, in most countries I don't see many cases where breastfeeding is actually unavoidable, so this'd be unlikely, especially for small businesses.
Click to expand...
You're on to something here. I plan to see whether gensec sees this as an honest mistake.

Honeydewistan:
Write a resolution called "Rights of the subcontractors" then? Lol.

Also, before you cite Repeal GMO Trade Accord etc I'll admit those arguments weren't that strong (still stronger than this one though, as it doesn't make sense to have multiple resolutions on GMO trade, but multiple resolutions on workers rights is needed, as you have demonstrated).
Click to expand...
1. It's still precedent that you set (since you were the co-author). 2. I don't necessarily disagree. If gensec rules this illegal for HM and I pull, I'll probably modify or remove this clause.
 
I've pulled this to fix the apparent honest mistake violation. Other minor changes include removing the part about omitting subcontractors (this really isn't a precedent I want to set for repeals) and correcting a case of iffy grammar. Will be resubmitting later today.
 
Comfed:
Then I am against.
Click to expand...
Given the existing redundancy (as mentioned in the repeal text itself), there's no real need for an exact replacement. Funny enough, I tried, and was told on the WA Discord in no uncertain terms that an exact replacement wouldn't be the best course of action and would face many of the same problems as Rights of the employed.
 
Against due to the lack of a replacement and the adoption argument, which I find particularly unconvincing.
 
St George:
Against due to the lack of a replacement and the adoption argument, which I find particularly unconvincing.
Click to expand...
Protected Working Leave may not be an exact replacement, but it's already standing law and it's really close (for whatever it's worth).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top