[GA - FAILED] Paid Leave Act

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Boston Castle
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Paid Leave Act
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Labour Rights
Proposed by: Minskiev | Onsite Topic


The World Assembly,

Accepting that economic growth follows the economic security of workers,

Hoping to both achieve economic security as well as a healthy, growing populace,

Understanding that one such way to achieve these ideals is through paid leave and securing jobs for workers for them to care for themselves and their loved ones, however careful not to excessively interfere with employers' operations,

Hereby:
  1. Defines for this resolution:
    1. economic security as having a stable income or resources to sufficiently support oneself and one's dependents now and in the foreseeable future;
    2. a worker as any individual bound by a contract of employment who works for or services another party as a part of said contract; and
    3. paid leave as time which an employer must not require a worker to work for or service another party per their employment contract, during which the worker receives from their employer:
      1. compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents if the receiving worker requires it for economic security;
      2. all non-income benefits that the worker would normally receive that could take away economic security from a worker without it; and
      3. the right to the same job or a job with a similar salary, field of work, necessary skill set, set of employment benefits, work schedule, and work location, once the worker returns from paid leave, should the employer be able to provide it without bankrupting themselves.
  2. Mandates that member states provide workers requesting paid leave a minimum of the following durations of paid leave or any higher limits that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions:
    1. the duration of the worker's illness or injury to recover if the illness or injury directly compromises the worker's or their co-workers' ability to work, unless it is an irreversible illness or injury, in which case the minimum would be four weeks;
    2. the duration of the worker's spouse's, child's, parent's, grandparent's, or dependent's illness or injury to care for the affected individual if the illness or injury directly compromises their ability to function, unless it is an irreversible illness or injury, in which case the minimum would be six weeks, should the affected individual require such care from the worker;
    3. two weeks per year for general purposes; and
    4. twelve weeks to care for the worker's new child, whether from childbirth, adoption, or placement of the new child in foster care, should that child require such care from the worker.
  3. Forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker, reducing the benefits or compensation of a worker, or disciplining a worker with the reason being the worker filed for paid leave, and forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker while they are on paid leave,
  4. Declares that workers must alert their employers as soon as they are aware of any foreseeable events or conditions that may induce the worker to file for paid leave in the future,
  5. Restates and clarifies that:
    1. member states and employers may not impose conditions for granting paid leave;
    2. the paid leave minimums only apply to workers on contracts for at least twelve weeks longer than the minimum paid leave duration of the worker's respective condition for paid leave;
    3. only the filing worker is granted paid leave;
    4. paid leave under 2d ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker if it is within the twelve weeks;
    5. member states pay the financial compensation outlined in 1ci unless it is general-purposes paid leave, in which case the filing worker's employer pays, however, employers of workers filing for general-purposes paid leave may force the workers' member states to provide the financial compensation throughout the paid leave if the employer employs less than fifty workers; and
    6. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.
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
21601
"Paid Leave Act" was defeated 5,795 votes (39.1%) to 9,031 (69.6%).
 
Last edited:
IFV

Overview
This resolution aims to provide a suitable replacement to the recently repealed "Protected Working Leave". It seeks to do this through provisions that mandate paid leave for workers in differing amounts depending on the circumstances (caring for a worker's new child, caring for a worker's ill dependent, to deal with a worker's illness, or for general purposes), impose a burden on workers to notify their employers as soon as possible of any foreseeable events or conditions that may cause a worker to file a claim for paid leave in the future, and bar employers from terminating employees in retaliation for filing a claim for paid leave or during their paid leave period.

Recommendation We are thoroughly disappointed with the resolution at hand. For one, the Ministry fails to observe any notable improvement over GAR #527, "Protected Working Leave". In fact, we note a regression from GAR#527 due to the multitude of issues apparent within this resolution. Article 1(c)(iii) provides sufficient leeway for employers to claim the threat of bankruptcy to terminate an employee as soon as they return from their period of paid leave; effectively sidestepping the prohibition on retaliatory termination contained in Article 3. Article 5(e) shifts the burden of providing paid leave in most circumstances upon member states and thus typically their taxpayers, which we find unacceptable as the onus for providing paid leave should fall on the employer instead. Furthermore, we observe an unjustified incongruity between Article 2(a) and 2(b) in the amount of paid leave mandated. Lastly, Article 2(b) is limiting to an undesirable extent as there could be a multitude of domestic situations not covered within Article 2(b) that may justify a claim for paid leave.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly recommends a vote Against the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Paid Leave Act".

Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!
 
Last edited:
  • 1(c)(iii) essentially grants businesses on tight margins the right to axe employees as soon as mandated leave is over with.
  • I don't understanding the reasoning in 2(a). Is this only if the injury/illness impairs their ability to work? And if so, why wouldn't the worker be laid off?

Beyond that, this resolution is fine. And I welcome @walrus ' response. For the moment, Against [non-WA].
 
Last edited:
  • 1(c)(iii) essentially grants businesses on tight margins the right to axe employees as soon as mandated leave is over with.
  • I don't understanding the reasoning in 2(a). Is this only if the injury/illness impairs their ability to work? And if so, why wouldn't the worker be laid off?

Beyond that, this resolution is fine. And I welcome @walrus ' response. For the moment, Against [non-WA].
1) Yes. Yes, it does. If it didn't, the business would go bankrupt and the employee would be axed regardless. This is a nothing concern.
2) Because it's temporary? I almost expected better from you. Almost.
 
1) Yes. Yes, it does. If it didn't, the business would go bankrupt and the employee would be axed regardless. This is a nothing concern.
2) Because it's temporary? I almost expected better from you. Almost.
Small businesses around the world are struggling now. Too much regulation will strangle thousands of borderline businesses. The big businesses have the scale, the HR departments and counsel to ensure compliance, small business owners don't. I am not saying pay leave should not be granted - maternity leave and paternity leave I generally support. It's the borderline businesses that I am concerned about.

This law kills the small bakeries the family farms or the florist. Meta or Amazon or Exxon can afford all the HR people to ensure compliance.
 
Last edited:
Small businesses around the world are struggling now. Too much regulation will strangle thousands of borderline businesses. The big businesses have the scale, the HR departments and counsel to ensure compliance, small business owners don't. I am not saying pay leave should not be granted - maternity leave and paternity leave I generally support.
Small businesses don't have to pay financial compensation under this resolution. The only thing they'd have to pay is employee benefits (which they'd already be paying, and in fact not all of them), and if they wouldn't die out, an acceptable job for the employee.
 
Small businesses don't have to pay financial compensation under this resolution. The only thing they'd have to pay is employee benefits (which they'd already be paying, and in fact not all of them), and if they wouldn't die out, an acceptable job for the employee.
If you are willing to allow small businesses to die and put employees out of a job, then I have nothing further to add. I respect your right to have a view but I disagree with it.
 
This proposal has received the requisite approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn, it will proceed to a vote on Thursday's Minor Update.
 
If you are willing to allow small businesses to die and put employees out of a job, then I have nothing further to add. I respect your right to have a view but I disagree with it.
What are you even talking about anymore? I specifically said that businesses wouldn't be forced to die if they could escape bankruptcy by firing a worker returning from paid leave. Yes, the fired employee is put out of a job. That's how the economy works.
 
What are you even talking about anymore? I specifically said that businesses wouldn't be forced to die if they could escape bankruptcy by firing a worker returning from paid leave. Yes, the fired employee is put out of a job. That's how the economy works.
Have you ever run a business? A worker is a recurring cost. Firing an employee on its own is not necessarily going to save a business - what matters is where the tipping point is, and having a paid leave policy makes the tipping point further away from saving a small business.
 
Last edited:
I just believe the entire proposal needs to be ironed out more...in terms of wording, phrasing. Well-intended, yes, but there are quite some issues on phrasing that makes this unreadable. Against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top