GA Proposal: Rights Of The Employed

[Lenlyvit]

Rights Of The Employed

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: The Greater Soviet North America

The World Assembly,

Taking note of the numerous national and international laws that recognize a range of rights for workers;

Noting with regret that, despite all the rights that cover the previously cited laws, the workforce is still struggling to assert those rights;

Deeply concerned that this governing body does not have a resolution explicitly stating the rights of workers in their place of employment;

A. Defines a "worker" as an individual who currently has a contract with an employer which entails carrying out particular tasks for that employer with the expectation of a regular monetary reward, including those individuals who are currently shadowing workers or are working as interns for that employer;

B. Declares accordingly that this resolution, although not an exhaustive list of the rights possessed by all workers, is intended to ensure that they are aware of the rights they hold by law, as well as any protections from the unjust treatment they may be subjected to;

C. Further declares accordingly that this resolution shall be applicable to all workers, except for Article E(3), which applies only to workers of lactating species such as humans and cows;

D. Clarifies that workers in Member States shall enjoy protection from:

1. dismissal, suspension from work, discrimination, and salary reduction as a result of childbirth or claiming maternity, paternity, and adoption leave ("parental leave");

2. discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, gender expression or sexual identity, including pay discrimination and unfair dismissal;

3. being subject to hostile, offensive or intimidating behavior (including sexual harassment, domestic violence, and other unwanted approaches) as a condition of becoming or remaining employed, or otherwise in the course of their employment; and

4. being retaliated against by their employer for participating in a trial or tribunal regarding discriminatory employment practices;

E. Further clarifies that each worker in Member States:

1. shall have the right to claim at least eight weeks of parental leave, during which they must receive their full expected wage from their employer, upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

2. shall have the right to claim at least four weeks of this parental leave after childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

3. who can prove to their employer that they cannot avoid breastfeeding their children in the workplace shall be entitled to:

a. a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated area in that workplace, separate from any toilets that may exist on-site, which shall be reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding; and

b. a period of the working day set aside for breastfeeding; which shall be equal to one-eighth of their working day, may also be divided into two or three equal periods and must be guaranteed for up to one year after the end of their parental leave;

F. Encourages employers to promulgate policies on sexual harassment in the workplace, including by establishing fair and effective internal tribunals to deal with complaints thereof.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Control]

1. shall have the right to claim at least eight weeks of parental leave, during which they must receive their full expected wage from their employer, upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

2. shall have the right to claim at least four weeks of this parental leave after childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

What does 2 grant that 1 doesn't?

[Wischland]

Lenlyvit, The link to the voting thread is wrong. It just leads back to this thread.

[Lenlyvit]

Jun 3, 2020 11:03:58 GMT -5 Wischland said:

Lenlyvit, The link to the voting thread is wrong. It just leads back to this thread.

Dang nabbit. Thanks! I fixed it

[Jabberwocky]

Without being familiar with the existing laws regarding worker protection, I'm not sure if I'm sufficiently educated to vote on this.

[saintpeter]

Hello everyone. I'm saintpeter (not the real one, of course) from a different NationStates region and I would like to urge the members of this community to vote against the proposal. Instead of bringing any argument myself, I will quote Imperium Anglorum:

On the current GA proposal: "Rights Of The Employed".

I can tell you as an economic analyst that workers need protections, mostly because they have less bargaining power than corporations, especially when corporations create monopsony labour markets. The specific protections in the proposal, however, impose substantial costs on firms that give disincentives for them to hire. I am aware of the optics of opposing this proposal. This is meant to explain why I have decided to oppose it.

First, the provision of stronger protections for contractually bound workers makes corporations more likely to give work to sub-contractors like those who set their own hours, meaning that more people work informally and under worse conditions and less stable employment. Firms like Uber, Grubhub, etc would simply be unaffected, even when they are the ones which are exploiting workers most.

Second, the provision related to non-retaliation against workers expressing grievances ignores the easy way out for employers: forced arbitration. Failure to recognise this makes it difficult to get legislation on this topic passed as well, due to duplication rules in the Assembly. Even in nations where forced arbitration is prohibited, most grievances are resolved by settlement and not by trial, substantially weakening these regulations.

Third, the age of majority requirement in the proposal in my view ignores the fact that people who are 17 do not require special attention from caretakers. The requirement should have read something along the lines of giving leave for parents to take care of children who in fact need their care. This is a substantial overreach which corporatist governments probably would respond to be making adoption of older children more difficult, increasing the burden on the foster care system.

Fourth, the requirement for a room for the sole purpose of breastfeeding is an unnecessary and costly burden on small business, especially when there are few breastfeeding employees. This harms small business and, because of the proposal failing to impose similar regulations on hiring, incentivises business not to hire people who are or may be breastfeeding, placing greater burdens on female employment.

[Deleted]

While I always favour enhanced rights for workers, I find this resolution to be a bit of a confusing mess, hyper-focused on a few very specific issues, and relating to a few very specific groups, while ignoring the broader community of 'workers', as defined, and as the title implies. In that respect, it's fairly incomprehensive legislation.
My biggest concern is that it stops short of specifically ensuring these rights to sub-contractors. 'Shadows' and 'interns' are mentioned, but non-payroll, contract work is incredibly common, and in many cases, this form of work may be sole-source of income for the employee. Without making a direct reference to sub-contracted workers in the definition of 'worker' I worry that there is a legal loophole by which employers may fail to extend these rights to all labourers. These people should share the same rights as payroll employees, but frequently don't. What's needed here is a clearer definition of 'worker' because this one leaves an ambiguity that is easy for employers to exploit, and therefore leaves the resolution itself open to a quick repeal.
I can't get past the disconnect between what this resolution claims to be and what it actually is, when read. This resolution as it is, is an appeal to populism, and needs a redraft so it is actually about workers' rights.

THX, through its WA proxy, will vote against.