[GA - PASSED] Repeal: “Protected Working Leave”

Status
Not open for further replies.

Comfed

Resident
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
Comfed
Discord
comfed
ga.jpg

Repeal: “Protected Working Leave”
Category: Repeal | GA #527
Proposed by: Minskiev | 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.
Lauding GA#527's intent to protect workers' economic and social security, yet aware of GA#527's many shortcomings, the General Assembly repeals GA#527 for the following reasons:
  1. GA#527 contains a slew of imprecise, vague, and exploitable language, including but not limited to:
    1. guaranteeing workers returning from paid leave the same or a comparable job as to what they had before "should their employer reasonably be able to provide such," effectively undermining the goal of that subclause by allowing employers to hurt workers with unjust demotions per the word reasonable,
    2. "serious illness" and "seriously ill," allowing workers to request paid leave on a whim per the vagueness of the words serious and seriously,
    3. requiring workers to give "reasonable notice" or alert their employers of any "serious health conditions" that may require them to take paid leave, yet more poor wording that causes unnecessary workplace trouble in the case of notices that disallow employers to adequately adjust, on top of the concerns with using "serious" as listed in the above bulletpoint,
    4. how employers may not impose "unnecessarily onerous conditions" for paid leave, an easy way for employers to restrict workers' rights and prevent employees from taking paid leave per the ambiguity of unnecessarily onerous,
    5. how member nations may place the burden of compensating workers on paid leave onto the workers' employer if the employer can provide it "without significant financial strain," which could result in small businesses and large corporations carrying the same weight, increasing bankruptcy risk among small businesses and thus creating social and economic instability for the owners of said bankrupt smaller businesses and its employees,
    6. the vagueness of a "comparable job," which doesn't specify how the job is comparable, thus opening the door to salary decreases, a change to a field the employee is uninterested in, a different necessary skill set for the job, a combination of these factors, or other factors, and
    7. how subclause 5a only protects workers from "unnecessarily onerous conditions" from employers, leaving room for malign member state actors to oppress its workforce due to the lack of restrictions on their placing of conditions upon workers filing for paid leave,

  2. GA#527's definition of worker fails to differentiate between employees on perpetual contracts and non-perpetual contracts, ultimately allowing employees on time-limited contracts to request paid leave on the first day of their employment and remain on paid leave until the end of it,

  3. GA#527 forbids employers from not giving employees the same or comparable jobs on return even when impossible but additionally allows exceptions for when it is both impossible or "unreasonable," contradicting itself, and

  4. Clause 2 of GA#527 states employers must give workers "a reasonable duration of paid leave" if they request it under certain poorly-worded conditions; one example being "to care for a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care [to the extent necessary to adequately service this condition]." Such wording allows for excessive paid leave; a worker caring for their infant offspring (who cannot live independently) will receive paid leave for years, and a worker caring for their mentally disabled parent (who again needs care) may receive paid leave for even longer. Moreover, a business, perhaps one with considerable leverage over an employee, may argue "reasonable" and "adequately" to mean, for example, a period that wouldn't allow an employee to recover fully from a "serious illness" to not endanger their fellow employees. The lack of a minimum or maximum paid leave length requirement only worsens this.
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!


ForAgainstAbstainPresent
61400
"Repeal: 'Protected Working Leave'" has passed 8,910 votes (67.1%) to 4,359 (32.9%).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV

Overview
This resolution seeks to repeal [resolution=GA#527]Protected Working Leave[/resolution]. The main thrust of the resolution is that the proposal's mandates are poorly defined and that, as a result, this proposal's mandate for paid working leave is problematic. Through attacking several definitions provided by the original proposal's author, the author makes the argument that the target resolution is essentially a morass of mandates that are in effect counterproductive to the goal of ensuring people both are able to take care of emergencies since there are many avenues which a person may be able to use to refuse to return to work.

Recommendation
While the second and third clauses of this proposal may have some merit, we take major issue with several arguments used against this resolution. When proposal authors write resolutions, they do so with the goal of ensuring that the actors enforcing the mandates they write will be reasonable. Surely, employers will have reasonable limits for what can be considered "serious" and an "illness". Additionally, we contend that once again a rational actor would be able to surmise the definition of "comparable". There are certainly avenues of making us amenable to a repeal, but directly challenging the assertion that all actors implementing a resolution will be both reasonable and rational (while potentially not accurate in reality) is perhaps the most unpalatable argument an author could advance for a repeal.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Repeal: 'Protected Working Leave'".

Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!
 
Last edited:
A bunch of overly pedantic nonsense that's just grasping at straws for lack of anything better to do. Surely, the grasping at definitions rather than something with more merit would make sense here. Against [Non-WA].
 
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal it will proceed to a vote at Minor Update later today.
 
I’m disappointed so many people here are willing to repeal a resolution from one of our finest on such spurious grounds. The good faith provisions in WA practice exist for a reason. Limiting a repeal argument to possible interpretations that may be seen as a way to get around resolutions is the flimsiest way to repeal something outside of nitpicking the grammar. I am typically moved by true and obvious unforeseen consequences and loopholes, but I disagree that those are present here. How quick we are to turn a complete 180 on one of our own over trifles. Surely our attention span is better than this. I can’t say anything else other than how disappointed I am with this result in our own region.

Against
 
Where the democracy is strong, but apparently not as strong as Cretox's cult of personality.
Because as we all know, this is definitely about Cretox! If people aren’t voting for, it must be because people worship Cretox and not because people brought up arguments against your proposal. Cretox wasn’t even mentioned before you brought this up. I change my vote to Against (non-WA) - thanks for the convincing argument against.
 
Last edited:
"Repeal: 'Protected Working Leave'" has passed 8,910 votes (67.1%) to 4,359 (32.9%). This is author @walrus (Minskiev)' second authored General Assembly Resolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top