by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

The South Pacific WA Voting Center Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .77787980

Repeal "Protected Working Leave"

Against

Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism

For

Independent journalism is an important part of all free states. This proposal will protect and guarantee independent journalism in yet another field. Furthermore, this will let civilians understand what is happening in an unbiased way.

Voting on GA proposal Repeal "Protected Working Leave" has been ended.

Result:
For: 5
Against: 14
Present: 1

OWL recommendation: Against

Link:

.

·

·
·

·


Repeal 'Protected Working Leave'
·
·
..
·

Background Information

Proposal title: Repeal 'Protected Working Leave'
Author: Daarwyrth
Purpose: To repeal previous legislation, arguing vague terminology would make it possible for any worker to stay on paid leave permanently, undermining the proposal's intent of protecting workers' rights while not overburdening (small) employers.

Links


Vote .Against.
·

The Office's Analysis

The at-vote resolution, "Repeal 'Protected Working Leave'", seeks to repeal GA Resolution #527, which installed a system of paid leave for workers. The repeal argues that the vague terminology, prominently the generous use of "reasonable" and "serious", render it unfit to cover this important aspect of employment law, and points to a possible replacement to be implemented instead. However, OWL voters weren't convinced by those arguments, finding that the wording criticized by the repeal are necessary to ensure a broader applicability, or at least don't impact the resolution's effectiveness to the point of a repeal being necessary. Thus, OWL recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "Repeal 'Protected Working Leave'".

Supplementary Opinions
·
·
FOR | AGAINST
·

For

From TSP Citizens

Canmore is a citizen of the South Pacific.

Canmore wrote:The Resolution is very well written and I do kinda agree that the current Resolution that protects workers has loopholes
I'm willing to repeal GA #527 so a stronger Resolution could replace it

Land Without Shrimp is a legislator of the South Pacific.

Land Without Shrimp wrote:A well written proposal that highlights the vague and imprecise wording in this WA mandate. If this is a significant and important issue (which I believe it is), then it deserves a better resolution than this.

From the World

Guy is a commended former Delegate of The Rejected Realms. On TRR's forums, they argued:

Guy wrote:For, as per my arguments against the original:

"I don’t think this proposal is very good, despite its noble objectives.

1) The definition of worker is sort-of an abbreviation of the classical one, but I query whether it’s not difficult to implement, and whether it should not be wider (uber drivers should be employees I will die on this hill)

2) Reasonable period of paid leave. I think a minimum entitlement to a period is better. In practice, leaving “reasonable” to be worked out between employer and employee, with no recourse to dispute resolution, is a recipe for disaster.

3) The categories of eligibility for leave — particularly only *serious* illness — are quite narrow. Even if it could be expanded on by later resolutions, it’s a significant missed opportunity.

The second point, in particular, means I cannot support this."

Marxist Germany is a citizen and former Senator of 10000 Islands. They stated on the NS forums:

Marxist Germany wrote:"Germany supports repealing this proposal and not replacing it at all; the World Assembly should not interfere with the labour rights of member-states."

Against

From TSP Citizens

Osheiga is a citizen of the South Pacific.

Osheiga wrote:Point 1 hinges a lot on the fact that “reasonable” isn’t defined, but the example chosen of a worker being on paid leave indefinitely shouldn’t be considered reasonable by anyone despite what the proposal argues. Our delegation has similar problems with point 3, since the same scenario also fails the “reasonability” test - if an employee is on paid leave for the entirety of their contact, it’s not a reasonable usage.

In addition, point 4 seems like a logistics issue more than one the WA needs to deal with, since “...if an analysis would deem the former to be able to do so on paper, while in reality circumstances would be different...” is simply assuming member nations are using flawed calculations for businesses, which isn’t an issue the original proposal is creating and therefore isn’t a valid reason to repeal in our delegation’s point of view.

With the points the Osheigan delegation takes issue with excluded, there simply isn’t enough substance left to justify a full repeal.

BlazeFirexd is a citizen of the South Pacific.

BlazeFirexd wrote:I feel that any worker should have the right to take protected leaves as we never know when an emergency situation comes to a worker.

From the World

Chimes is a former Delegate of The Rejected Realms. They wrote on TRR's forums:

Chimes wrote:Against. Not quite enough to convince me to support the repeal.

The North Pacific Ministry of WA Affairs explains the following rationale for recommending a vote AGAINST:

The Northern Light wrote: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.



·

WELCOME BEGINNER'S GUIDE WRITING GUIDE VOTING CENTER LinkDISCORD


·

·
LinkLink
·
·
Read dispatch

Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism

For

«12. . .77787980

Advertisement