[GA, in queue] - Fair Work Visas Act

Simone

Simone

Milky white thingy
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
ga.jpg

Fair Work Visas Act
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Labor Rights
Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

Believing that restrictions which tie work visas to the consent of a worker's current employer serve a profoundly anti-competitive effect by tying workers to the grace of their supervisors and

Concerned of the effect, both for domestic and foreign workers, this has on the ability for member nations to enforce workplace safety when possible whistleblowers are so dependent on their employers for legal status, therefore enacts as follows:

  1. A "covered worker" is a worker in a member nation who is legally present and permitted to be employed due to a work visa.

  2. Covered workers must be permitted to change employment and employers or otherwise leave that member nation, without regard to the approval of a current or previous employer.

  3. No work visa may be revoked because a covered worker has a frictional break in employment. A break in employment is frictional when it is shorter than or equal to the time it would take a similarly situated native worker to find new and comparable employment in the same industry.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in 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
0701
 
Last edited:
Against. I went through this resolution in quite a lot of details gameside - see the thread for details.

My main complaint is that it doesn't actually address one of the big issues I identified: the fact that, for example, Australia allows skilled migrants to be kicked out if their skills are no longer in demand, regardless of whether the people holding the work visas were competent or not.
 
Last edited:
Present

Whilst I certainly think that is a problem that needs addressing, I don't believe it aligns particularly closely with the stated intent of this proposal. I'd welcome a separate proposal on that subject.
 
For. The resolution is limited in its aims and would appear to achieve them. Preventing an employer from controlling a worker’s immigration status is a good thing to do. Clearly the resolution doesn’t prevent the member state from making wider decisions about its immigration system, such as the point about shortage occupations, but it seems to me that those are matters which should appropriately be for the member state or which can be addressed separately.
 
For, and frankly, I'm a little confused at the uniform opposition we've seen until Zyvet's post. If some opponents could explain their reasons for opposing I'd appreciate it, because I don't see any obvious issues.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
For. The resolution is limited in its aims and would appear to achieve them. Preventing an employer from controlling a worker’s immigration status is a good thing to do. Clearly the resolution doesn’t prevent the member state from making wider decisions about its immigration system, such as the point about shortage occupations, but it seems to me that those are matters which should appropriately be for the member state or which can be addressed separately.
Click to expand...

The resolution doesn't address the bigger loophole, which is government changes to, or discriminatory, visa policies, so governments ramming abusive policies or enabling employer abuse of the visa system which is a bigger issue (at least in some jurisdictions like the Middle East or Japan). I used Australia an an example in the forum threads.

Arguably, I am voting against because "it's a lost opportunity and the resolution is very weak as a result".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top