[GA - FAILED] Repeal: "Protected Working Leave"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Hulldom
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Repeal: "Protected Working Leave"
Category: Repeal | GA #527
Proposed by: Daarwyrth | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Onsite Drafting Thread

General Assembly Resolution #527 “Protected Working Leave” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Labour Rights) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding the intent of GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" to provide economic and social security to the working classes of member nations; yet

Convinced that the current implementation of these social securities and economic protections in GAR #527 thwarts the resolution's intent;

Hereby finds the following:

GAR #527 speaks of "a reasonable duration of paid leave" in Clause 2, and creates the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave for disproportionately extended periods of time, because of the imprecise and vague terminology in the list of conditions that it provides. For instance, care for "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent" as per Clause 2b, who due to the nature of their illness would be incapable of fulfilling their basic needs independently, will necessarily, and thus reasonably, envelop that patient's entire lifespan, especially when the nature of their illness continues to decrease that patient's ability to survive on their own.

The vague and imprecise terminology, as noted under Clause 1 of this resolution, is present throughout the entirety of GAR #527, with examples being: "reasonably be able to provide such" in Article 1.b.iii, "serious illness" in Article 2c, "reasonable notice" in Article 4a, "serious health conditions" in Article 4b, "unnecessarily onerous conditions" in Article 5a, and "without significant financial strain" in Article 5c. This imprecise and vague terminology creates large vacuums wherein subjective interpretations can thrive, and undermines the security and protection the target resolution seeks to establish. As such, GAR #527 is too unwieldy a tool because of its imprecision and ambiguity to appropriately cover the technical details of 'paid leave' as an aspect of employment law.

The definition of 'worker' in the target resolution includes employees on time-limited contracts, as it merely speaks of "bound by a contract" without differentiating between the perpetuity or non-perpetuity of such a contract. Workers on time-limited contracts are employed for a brief, limited duration to either fill-in for a worker who is on leave, or for specific employment contracts regarding one-time events such as a census count. This lack of differentiation in GAR #527 regarding the timely nature of contracts would allow an employee on a time-limited contract to file for paid leave on the first day of their employment, and remain on paid leave for the entire duration of their employment, which would create a significant hardship for employers in turn.

Under GAR #527's Clause 5c, member states can pass the costs of paid leave onto employers "capable of providing such without significant financial strain". However, the imprecise and vague nature of the phrasing of that condition creates too much room for subjective interpretation, and could force smaller businesses to shoulder the same burdens as large corporations, if an analysis would deem the former to be able to do so on paper, while in reality circumstances would be different. This would lead to a greater risk of bankruptcy of smaller businesses, which in turn creates social and economic instability for both the business owners in question, as well as the other workers in their employ.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave".
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]1[/TD][TD]9[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]

Repeal "Protected Working Leave" was defeated 9,260 votes to 5,456 (37.1% support).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV - Against

Overview
This proposal aims to repeal GA 527 'Protected Working Leave' on the basis of ambiguous terminology and its handling of time-limited contractors.

Recommendation
This repeal is correct in asserting that the target resolution contains numerous instances of "vague and imprecise" phrasing in its clauses. However, much of the repeal proposal falls apart when one considers reasonable nation theory: a nation will not willingly engage in behavior to its detriment. No rational government would interpret "a reasonable duration of paid leave" as encompassing the entirety of a time-limited worker's employment, or any disproportionate period of time. The repeal proposal does not explain precisely how the vast majority of its cited examples of ambiguity "[undermine] the security and protection" provided by the target resolution, and these examples would also not be applied by member nations to their own detriment. Further, section 4 of the repeal claims that the target's use of both governments and employers to fund paid leave has the potential to destroy small businesses if interpreted in a certain way. However, no rational government would interpret that provision in such a way that proves deleterious to its economy.

Overall, the repeal proposal is correct in asserting that the target resolution contains ambiguous language. However, this ambiguous language neither substantively compromises the target's provisions nor harms member nations, and in fact, flexible language is necessary for covering employment law through the World Assembly.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "Repeal 'Protected Working Leave'".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would agree that the imprecise language does cause some concern; however, the intent of the original legislation is clearly very well-minded.

For.
 
Forgot to note this, but this proposal will go to a vote at Sunday’s Major Update.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top