[GA - DEFEATED] Providing Paid Leave

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

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

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

The World Assembly,

Understanding that the secure introduction of paid leave and job security for workers everywhere allows those workers to care better for themselves and their loved ones, however remaining cautious against excessively interfering with employers' operations, hereby:
  1. Defines, for this resolution:
    1. a “worker” as any individual bound by a contract of employment who works for another party as a part of said contract;
    2. a “worker-in-waiting” as an individual who is actively looking for a job but does not have one and has held a job before;
    3. “paid leave” as a period of time that a worker must not be required to work for their employer or any other party as a part of their employment contract but during which:
      1. that worker still receives the same non-income employment benefits as they would usually receive according to their contract; however
      2. that worker receives at least the lower of the average wage of all workers in that member state and that worker’s usual wages from their member state’s government.
    4. “unemployment benefits” as a period of time that a worker-in-waiting receives a payment from their member state’s government to assist them financially.
  2. Mandates that member states provide their workers upon their workers’ requests a minimum of the following durations of paid leave (or any higher minimums that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions):
    1. the duration of the worker’s, the worker’s family member’s, or the worker’s dependent’s illness or injury for recovery or care, but only up to 26 weeks per injury or illness, and if:
      1. no one of closer familial relations can and will care for the affected family member; and
      2. the illness or injury directly compromises that worker’s, their co-workers’, their affected family member’s, or their affected dependent’s health or ability to work.
    2. 52 weeks shared between each parent raising the child and divided by how the parents see fit, or 78 weeks if the worker is a single parent, to care for a worker’s new child (whether through childbirth, adoption, or foster care) should that child require care, regardless of whether other individuals are available to provide this care, though:
      1. the leave must be used before that worker’s child is twice as old as the duration of the leave; however
      2. individuals on this paid leave lose the remainder of this paid leave if they lose custody of the particular child.
    3. 4 weeks per year for general purposes, and any days unused by the end of the year carry over into the next, though:
      1. employers pay this paid leave;
      2. the payment is at least 100% of a worker's usual wages; and
      3. a worker must be returned to the exact same job after this paid leave, but workers returning from this paid leave to a job that no longer exists shall return to a new job with 7b’s parameters instead (if possible).
  3. Forbids member states and employers from retaliating against any worker or worker-in-waiting:
    1. because they filed for paid leave or unemployment benefits;
    2. because they notified their member state or employer of events that may induce them to file for paid leave or unemployment benefits;
    3. because of any of the paid leave’s or unemployment benefits’ effects on that employer or member state; or
    4. because they are on paid leave or are receiving unemployment benefits.
  4. Declares that a worker must give sufficient notice to their employer if they foresee any future events, or an event has occurred where giving advance notice was implausible, that may induce that worker to obtain paid leave,
  5. Requires member states’ governments to provide their non-incarcerated workers-in-waiting with a minimum of 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, though:
    1. the payment is at least half of that worker’s usual wages before becoming unemployed;
    2. the duration is subject to any higher minimums the World Assembly may subsequently set; and
    3. the unemployment benefits end when the worker-in-waiting finds a job.
  6. Compels member states to instate social insurance or social security programs to fund the paid leave, and
  7. Clarifies that:
    1. only 2a paid leave must be consecutive;
    2. a worker must (if possible) be returned to a job with the same salary, field of work, necessary skill set, set of employment benefits, work schedule, and relative work location after paid leave, and this new job cannot be a demotion;
    3. workers returning from paid leave shall receive Section 5 unemployment benefits if a new job with 7b’s parameters is impossible;
    4. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
31701

"Providing Paid Leave" was defeated 6,939 votes (45.7%) to 8,255 (54.3%).
 
Last edited:
IFV
Overview
Yet another of author Minskiev's attempts to replace the previously-repealed Paid Leave Act, this proposal valiantly seeks to ensure strong economic and job security for workers in WA member states without meddling excessively in the operations of employers. It attempts to achieve these goals by mandating strict minimum durations for illness or injury leave, parental leave, and general leave, while forbidding employers from penalizing employees for making use of paid leave, or undergoing any of the processes that are required to do so. Moreover, the proposal requires workers to give sufficient advance notice for leave requests where applicable; mandates unemployment benefits and establishes the relevant protocols; compels states to instate and fund their paid leave programs through social security and/or social insurance funds; and lastly, it expands on previous articles with additional clarifications, contingencies, and requirements.

Recommendation
While this resolution would certainly be a monumental improvement over its predecessors, it is not something we can support. The writing itself is clumsy at best, with odd wording and several tautologies, while the proposal's clauses, despite its supposed goal, micromanage the institution and administration of paid leave, simultaneously providing nothing to support employee bargaining power and potentially harming the flexibility of employers' operations through the rigidity of its provisions, ultimately benefiting neither party substantially. Frankly, for a topic this consequential, we would prefer a blocker or no legislation at all to a mediocre resolution in this vein.

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

This IFV Recommendation was written in collaboration with our World Assembly Legislative League partners.
Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!
 
Last edited:
Against.

While I think that this is an area which could usefully be subject to international standards, there are a number of issues with the proposal that lead me to think this is not the appropriate resolution for the job.

The definition of paid leave does not identify whether the payments are required to be made by employers or member states. While I think the definition leans towards employers (and that would be my own preference), the wording of section 2 runs counter to this in that it mandates member states to provide paid leave and only one of the clauses, 2.c, requires the payment to be made by employers, which suggests the other payments must be made by the member states.

The definition of unemployment benefits seems too wide. It is not clear that the benefits caught are only those relating to the fact of unemployment, it is simply the period of time a ”worker-in-waiting“ receives payments made to assist them financially, so it could catch other payments made to a “worker-in-waiting” purely by virtue of their timing (for instance payments to support parents that would be made whether the person was in work or not). This creates a significant problem with clause 5.c that requires benefits end when the person finds a job.

The mandate around familial care is nebulous as to what a closer familial relation is and how it will be determined that such a relation can and will care for an affected family member. Member states will be able to fill in this gap but it seems to me that for them or (if it is employers who must provide the leave) employers to have to make such determinations would be unduly burdensome and enquire too deeply into private matters of workers and their families. Limiting such paid leave to one given person for a family member needing care would leave greater latitude for member states to resolve the issue appropriately.

The rule in clause 7.c creates an obligation for member states to pay unemployment benefits where a person cannot return to a job within 7.b’s parameters. It seems that this could effectively create an obligation for member states to pay such benefits to a person who returns to a job outside of those parameters, though I appreciate clause 5.c could still be read as applying to avoid that issue.
 
This proposal has received the requisite approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, it will proceed to a vote at Major Update on Tuesday, April 26.
 
I have a question about TNP's WA philosophy. Is it important to approve resolutions that may accomplish an important social benefit despite flaws with the consideration that a repeal and replace will come around? Or on the other hand, is the efficiency of the proposal of greater weight regardless of the proposal's subject matter?
 
Wonderess:
I have a question about TNP's WA philosophy. Is it important to approve resolutions that may accomplish an important social benefit despite flaws with the consideration that a repeal and replace will come around? Or on the other hand, is the efficiency of the proposal of greater weight regardless of the proposal's subject matter?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I wouldn't dig that deep into it.

This is a topic the author has tried, and failed, on at least twice before with both resolutions ending up repealed. I appreciate Minsk trying to do this and I agree that enacting something in this policy area would be great. However, I can't imagine there ever being a degree of international consensus that allows strict pedantry (a la this) on the subject to stand for very long.

I guess if I had to choose between those positions, it would be the latter. I abhor the endless repeal+replace ad infinitum trend recently even if it undoubtedly creates openings for authors to do new stuff. Now, that's not saying I'm against all repeals+replacements, but working on the same subjects over and over and over again in quick succession makes things boring and dull, so I'd prefer we pass an efficient proposal the first time that, at the very least, closes the door for a little while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top