NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNIZING that workers may not always be able to come to work due to illness or injury,

CONCERNED that job pressures often force workers to come into work while sick,

ALARMED that many people continue to work while infected with contagious diseases, thus subjecting firms to further lost worker hours and lower productivity,

WORRIED that many people who take time off from work risk missing pay and may have difficulty making ends meet,

THE UNITED NATIONS:

1. REQUIRES that all employers allow anyone to take time off to recover from illness, injury, or any documented medical condition that would inhibit one's ability to work, while allowing anyone who takes time off for this reason to return to work in his/her original position;

2. MANDATES that all employees who take five or fewer working days off for medical reasons be compensated monetarily as though they had worked the days missed, and that the employer is responsible for compensation of up to ten working days missed per employee per annum;

3. FURTHER MANDATES that employees who wish to be compensated for time off due to a medical condition provide documentation from a medical authority confirming the medical condition, which includes but is not limited to:
-communicable disease that impairs the ability to work,
-non-communicable disease that impairs the ability to work,
-mental health condition that impairs the ability to work,
-pregnancy, for which at least twenty working days after birth should be provided as time off for the birth-giving parent,
-injury that impairs the ability to work,
-severe illness of an immediate family member;

4. STATES that those who are unable to work due to a documented medical condition and cannot return to work within five working days may apply for disability payment, which shall be equivalent to the applicant's post-tax income and shall not be taxed in any way;

5. FURTHER STATES that those whose claims of illness, injury, or other documented are denied by a UN member state's medical authorities may appeal to the United Nations, which shall established a Medical Case Review Council to hear appeals of denied claims and enforce its rulings;

6. AUTHORIZES UN member states to deny claims if it can be demonstrated that the employee filing a claim missed work for any of these reasons:
-alcohol or recreational drug consumption,
-participation in reckless or "extreme" sports without proper safety equipment,
-operating a motor vehicle of any kind unsafely,
-any ailment that is directly self-inflicted;

7. INSTITUTES a policy under which those who become eligible for disability may later return to work in the same field they left once they are either no longer eligible for disability or choose not to claim it, under which state governments are required to help disability claimants find jobs in their field.

The vacation time act isn't really necessary. However, at the very least, workers shouldn't have to risk their jobs just because they happen to be sick.

Personally, I don't know that the UN need to legislate on corporate matters at all. Seems a little bit below the international nature of the UN.

What's next? "Right to Coffee Breaks"? :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Don't'a forget smoke breaks!

-Father Guido Sarducci
and c.

Personally, I don't know that the UN need to legislate on corporate matters at all. Seems a little bit below the international nature of the UN.

If we're not allowed to legislate corporate matters, then we might as well repeal all those workers' rights resolutions. The bottom line is this - under this proposal, no employer would have the right to threaten a sick employee with the loss of their job for not coming into work.

And maybe I should propose a Right to Coffee Breaks idea. Coffee increases productivity by keeping workers alert. Granted, it means a few more trips to the bathroom, but it's worth it.

If we're not allowed to legislate corporate matters, then we might as well repeal all those workers' rights resolutions. [/quote[

You're right. We might as well, since they really shouldn't be on the books in the first place.

[QUOTE=Ice Hockey Players;11945369]The bottom line is this - under this proposal, no employer would have the right to threaten a sick employee with the loss of their job for not coming into work.

Yeah, I think we got that. It's still not an international issue.

And maybe I should propose a Right to Coffee Breaks idea. Coffee increases productivity by keeping workers alert. Granted, it means a few more trips to the bathroom, but it's worth it.

Ugh. Me and my big mouth...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Workers' rights aren't an international concern? You stop having rights when you enter the workplace? Why should any sphere of life be exempt from the granting of rights? We don't exempt dictatorships from their responsibilities; why should other undemocratic institutions like corporations be any different?

And regarding the question of international standing - are not many employing institutions transnational? There's defintiely scope for formalising of basic rules and concerns. Which makes me wonder if there's also scope for a resolution concerning international assignments... nah, that'd be dull.

You're right. We might as well, since they really shouldn't be on the books in the first place.

Well, if you want them off the books, go for it. I rather like them.

Don't'a forget smoke breaks!

-Father Guido Sarducci
and c.

I dont smoke, but perhaps vodka and nasal snuff breaks would be in order too.

Bill of tobacco users rights. LOL.

Looks good to me man...The USSE fully endorses this as we already guaranteee worker sick leave and family medical leave greater than allocated by this proposal.

Further, many corporations are trans- and multi-national these days...which does make workers rights an international concern. The nature of globalised capitalism makes the case for International Confederalism stronger.

Further, many corporations are trans- and multi-national these days...which does make workers rights an international concern. The nature of globalised capitalism makes the case for International Confederalism stronger.

That's kind of my point, but then we have to make the same rules for everyone as well. Besides, giving people some sick time will increase the productivity of those who are there.

While we're at it, we should authorize Paper Football Breaks lasting a minimum of 57 minutes or until someone scores five touchdowns, whichever comes first.

Okay, now you're just being retarded. The little bus is waiting for you outside. Please, this time, don't lick the windows.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I believe my esteemed colligue was joking Sheik.

OOC: Workers' rights aren't an international concern? You stop having rights when you enter the workplace? Why should any sphere of life be exempt from the granting of rights? We don't exempt dictatorships from their responsibilities; why should other undemocratic institutions like corporations be any different?OOC

I suppose that it's ironic that the RL UN has a labour group as well (http://www.un.org/issues/m-labor.html)

yah yah, i know i know...the RL UN doesn't apply here...

We already have national disease-prevention legislation that covers these cases. We don't support this micromanaging, unnecessary resolution.

Okay, now you're just being retarded. The little bus is waiting for you outside. Please, this time, don't lick the windows.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I love you too, sunshine. Now go take a paper football break and don't come back without at least six shots of some kind of hard liquor in your system.

I love you too, sunshine. Now go take a paper football break and don't come back without at least six shots of some kind of hard liquor in your system.

I had that when I made my earlier statement -- the liquor, not the silly paper football crap.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I had that when I made my earlier statement -- the liquor, not the silly paper football crap.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well, drink more of it, and go do whatever it is you do in Cluichstan for fun. Frankly, drunk people doing fun things makes for good television, and television is good business...and business is good. **smokes a big, fat cigar** **remembers to light it**

The short answer:
No!

The long answer:
Actually I have a ton of complaints but as this is NS I'll gladly brush a number of them aside because it's NS. (One I will brush aside is that the sickness is considered in isloation. You could be sick five days every other week and still be covered. That's not worth arguing over.)

But the 5 days is. It is probably reasonable in terms of paid sick time for a consecutive illness, but to base it for the criteria of medical disability is totally unreasonable. Some diseases can put a person out of commission for a week. Personally I think you should exaust your 5 consecutive sick days, then all your remaining vacation days before you should be allowed to claim medical disability leave.

As I said above I have a number of complaints, but frankly such discussion is beyond the level of this body. This isn't coffee breaks, this isn't smoke breaks, this is a major concern of most workers. The implications of a bad resolution can have dire consequences. (But hey this is NS, you think someone is going to really want to go into the medium term disability return back to the job problem in this forum? HAH!) It's a nice feel good resolution that ... well I won't go into what it does to your nation. It will probably pass by a wide margin. But please change the 5 days in clause 4.

Tzorsland has done what i was hoping someone would finally do here - raise legitimate concerns about the proposal that could be corrected. Most of the negativity I see here is "zOMG t3h 3bu1 |\/|icr0|\/|4|\|4g3|\/|3|\|7" and "j00 4|23 73|-| 5uc|<" horse-hockey. If other people propose an idea like this, it's a great idea. If I do it, it's micromanagement. Whatever.

Anywho, the five day limit was more based on this idea, and it can be altered - the most serious communicable diseases can likely pass through your system in under a week. But take some time to recover. Don't rush yourself back into work. And I also wanted to draw a line between ordinary illness and serious problems. There's a difference between missing work with a cold and missing work with a broken leg. If someone misses two days because of a cold, I don't mind putting the employer on the hook for that. If someone's out two months with a broken leg, that's different, and that's where government should pay wages.

The five-day limit should probably be substituted with something that is dependent on the type of illness, not the time missed. For some things, time missed is very short, and people are back at work in no time. For other things, recovery is much longer, especially with injuries among those who have to do physical labor.

Also, if companies give optional sick days, those can be used first. They can add that there has to be a documented medical condition for them in order to get paid, or they can make the following rule as sort of a skip-work-at-your-own-risk idea: Let's say you get five sick days at the start of the year, and you haven't used any, and it's a nice day in June and you want to play golf. So you call in sick. No medical excuse or anything. Two things can happen.

No illness the rest of the year - cash in your sick days as you damn well please, no problem
You get ill and have to miss more than five days - there's the problem. You just missed a day to goof off earlier and got paid for it. So for every day you missed goofing off that you got paid for, you forfeit a day's salary for your actual illness

Also, I would say vacations days are not intended for this, and would stipulatethe following - for those employers taht require people to use vacation days while sick, they must allow one week of vacation days at the employee's discretion to be saved and for sick time to kick in. So if you generously give your employees four weeks of vacation and one gets sick, and let's just say they're always sick and used up all their sick days, you can take off vacation days for them, but only three weeks' worth. That one week has to be left for them.

Tzorsland is on the right track - I don't know that Tzorsland agrees with my idea in principle, but he/she/it is at least being constructive. Help me out here, people.

If other people propose an idea like this, it's a great idea. If I do it, it's micromanagement. Whatever.
Being a touch too self-centered, precious. This lot tell everyone to stick it if they disagree with them: I can remember almost 12 months ago, Fonzo suggesting we overused the word "micromanagement" in response to Right to Divorce.

Being a touch too self-centered, precious. This lot tell everyone to stick it if they disagree with them: I can remember almost 12 months ago, Fonzo suggesting we overused the word "micromanagement" in response to Right to Divorce.

People overuse the word "micromanagement" too freely. And I don't recall a single piece of legislation I have proposed that hasn't been shouted down by the NatSov clods here as "micromanagement." If you don't like it, get out of the UN. The problem is, lots of things get passed that are specific, and those that are not specific often have loopholes that people get their kicks out of exploiting (such as the person who, in response to "The 40 Hour Workweek", re-defined the word "hour" as "however long your boss decides" in more colloquial words.) I don't want a resolution to be turned into nothing more than toilet paper for the NatSov people who don't seem to understand that being in the UN means that, occasionally, there will be a resolution you don't like. I suffered through "Abortion Rights" (and I use the word "suffer" loosely as both I an my nation are pro-choice, but we don't really agree that an issue that polarizing, in which the middle ground is a no-man's-land, is suitable as a UN resolution.) I don't like "Marriage Protection Act." But when I objected to it, I was shouted down. I had two choices - buck up and take it or leave the UN. Or repeal it. Hmmm...**gets an idea**

Anywho, it's one thing to understand that the NatSov jerks shout down everything as "micromanagement." Some people would denounce a proposal that says "the sky is blue" as "micromanagement." These people don't belong in the UN. However, it's frustrating to have every single idea shot down as "micromanagement." Except my one about travel between UN member states. I should do another one like that.

People overuse the word "micromanagement" too freely.
Ah, so already you're acknowledging the problem is a general one, and not just a reaction to your proposals. Good to see you've clambered down.

And I don't recall a single piece of legislation I have proposed that hasn't been shouted down by the NatSov clods here as "micromanagement."
And this is...our problem? Because, see, there are other people who post proposals that aren't shouted down for micromanagement - even by the NatSov clods. If you want to play the misunderstood genius, go ahead, but there are plenty of people who seem to be fine with the lesser, but as I see considerably more satisfying, role of "guy who actually gets something done".

If you don't like it, get out of the UN.
No.

For one, if I got out of the UN, I couldn't repeal the micromanaging ones. Not to toot my own trumpet, but when Right to Divorce passed, within three days thirteen repeals were submitted. Twelve wittled out with >30 approvals. Guess who wrote the 13th?

(Anyone pointing that I was actually not a UN member at that point will be poked in the face.)

For two, I couldn't vote against micromanaging resolutions if I left the UN. I'd have no role in forging international policy, because the nature of NS is simply not conducive to international law outside the NSUN.

For three, it's not the place of the UN to be micromanaging, as I see it. There's plenty of useful international things it can do. To say I should forego those, simply because some tool insists on posting stupid sub-national legislation that goes nowhere, is arrogant beyond belief.

And believe me, I should know.

The problem is, lots of things get passed that are specific, and those that are not specific often have loopholes that people get their kicks out of exploiting
Ok, you've moved onto something different here. Specificity and scope are not the same. Child Pornography Prohibition was lambasted as unspecific: yet in that it dealt with trafficking, international criminals, and international cooperation, it had an international scope. I won't comment on whether legislation should be specific or not: that's to be judged by the resolution. If it can be and if it's productive to be, then sure. If not, then you can still get a decent resolution out of it.

But saying "this is micromanaging" is not necessarily saying "this is too specific" - it might possibly be saying "regardless of how specific it is, this is not something to be addressed at the level of the UN".

(such as the person who, in response to "The 40 Hour Workweek", re-defined the word "hour" as "however long your boss decides" in more colloquial words.)
That person was a twat.

I don't want a resolution to be turned into nothing more than toilet paper for the NatSov people who don't seem to understand that being in the UN means that, occasionally, there will be a resolution you don't like.
I happen to think it's pretty immoral not to contest an immoral law.

I suffered through "Abortion Rights" (and I use the word "suffer" loosely as both I an my nation are pro-choice, but we don't really agree that an issue that polarizing, in which the middle ground is a no-man's-land, is suitable as a UN resolution.)
Again, your lack of spine isn't driving me to go rip out my own.

I don't like "Marriage Protection Act." But when I objected to it, I was shouted down.
Yes, because you were wrong.

I had two choices - buck up and take it or leave the UN. Or repeal it. Hmmm...**gets an idea**
Quite. If you left the UN of course, your repeal chances would go to shit. Nice work there, Einstein.

Anywho, it's one thing to understand that the NatSov jerks shout down everything as "micromanagement."
But, and this is key, they don't. They shout everything that they think is micromanaging down as micromanagement. So maybe if you actually wrote a proposal on an international issue...they wouldn't! Wow!

Some people would denounce a proposal that says "the sky is blue" as "micromanagement."
1. A proposal that said the sky was blue would be unnecessary.
2. A proposal that said the sky was blue would be not worthy of the UN's attention.
3. Nobody would denounce such a proposal as micromanagement: they would denounce it as insufferably stupid.

These people don't belong in the UN.
Er, getting a bit ahead of yourself there, Captain Arrogance. You don't get to tell people whether they belong in the UN or not.

However, it's frustrating to have every single idea shot down as "micromanagement."
Then don't write proposals susceptible to such criticism...

Except my one about travel between UN member states. I should do another one like that.
What, chockfull of stupid acronyms? No thanks.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies
100% Certified NatSov Jerk

Bloody hell. My Gruenberger friend beat me to it. If only I hadn't been off knocking back some of this tasty Cluichstani whiskey...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
100% Certified NatSov Jerk (and proud of it!)

Meh. I'm gonna respond anyways.

Micromanagement is when the UN attempts to interfere into matters that are best left to national governments. Matters like vacation time fall into that category.

What makes good policy for one nation in these areas might not work very well at all for another.

Much of the Nat/Sov crowd, myself included, prefer to see the UN, mandating on an international scale, to deal with matters that are of an internation concern by nature. International trade. Military matters. International diplomacy. International Issues. There are come exceptions granted for certain types of human rights or cultural protections by some Nat/Sov'ers, but not by all.

Things that occur entirely within member nations and have little effect on the international community are hardly matters that the UN need deal with. As such, they are micromanagement.

What, chockfull of stupid acronyms? No thanks.

Sorry, didn't realize I was talking with a humorless plank of wood who can't appreciate that I decided to, what the hell, load a few identifiable, somewhat satirical, things into an otherwise legitimate proposal. Sadly, people didn't care for the proposal. Whatever. If all you can do is personally attack me, don't reply to me. In fact, just don't reply to me and I won't reply to you effective at the end of this post.

Sorry, didn't realize I was talking with a humorless plank of wood who can't appreciate that I decided to, what the hell, load a few identifiable, somewhat satirical, things into an otherwise legitimate proposal. Sadly, people didn't care for the proposal. Whatever. If all you can do is personally attack me, don't reply to me. In fact, just don't reply to me and I won't reply to you effective at the end of this post.
I like jokes plenty.

I like them to be funny, though.

Sorry, didn't realize I was talking with a humorless plank of wood who can't appreciate that I decided to, what the hell, load a few identifiable, somewhat satirical, things into an otherwise legitimate proposal.This particular "humorless plank of wood" has had just about enough of Proposals with 'cute' acronyms.

This particular "humorless plank of wood" has had just about enough of Proposals with 'cute' acronyms.

"Cute" acronyms I like, its the punning ones that I can only take so much of. A good cute acronym allows for easy association. Do you really think one famous acronym SPEBSQSA is good? Does it give any indication of the organization it represents? Do you even know what they do, based on the acronym? (Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barbershop Quartet Singing in America - It's a real organization although recently saner members renamed the offical name to "Barbershop Harmony Society.")

So I support Carefully Understood Trite Expressions (or CUTE) acronyms!

If you are talking about sickness in the workplace in general, a number of clauses would have to be added.

1) The right of employers to send home contagiously sick workers. Employers should have a right to protect their workplace from employees coming to work sick.

2) The right to test for disabling illnesses that are related to workplace performance. Employers should have the right to send home people who have spinal or back injuries for example.

3) The right to pretest employees for disabling illnesses before they start employment.

These should be added from the employees perspective.

1) The right to retain a job after an extended period of documented illness if said illness does not affect employee performance.

2) The right to not come to work if the employee is documented as being ill without reprimand.

What's next? "Right to Coffee Breaks"? :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Apparently you've never been a member of the Teamster Union. That's in the contract,bubeleh.:p
Excelsior,
Murray Rosenkrantz
Deputy UN Ambassador

If you are talking about sickness in the workplace in general, a number of clauses would have to be added.

1) The right of employers to send home contagiously sick workers. Employers should have a right to protect their workplace from employees coming to work sick.

2) The right to test for disabling illnesses that are related to workplace performance. Employers should have the right to send home people who have spinal or back injuries for example.

3) The right to pretest employees for disabling illnesses before they start employment.

These should be added from the employees perspective.

1) The right to retain a job after an extended period of documented illness if said illness does not affect employee performance.

2) The right to not come to work if the employee is documented as being ill without reprimand.


Actually I believe that these additions would be beneficial to the proposal. However, As I support this proposal I would suggest that the author take it to Reclamation. That is a very good place to receive help from various people and write a really good proposal.

Notice, I did not say a passing proposal. For me the most important part is the writing, and the campaigning...whether it passes or not on the first go is not always the most important part.

For example in the floor debate on the submitted proposal you could get good ideas about how to make your proposal better.

Now, as to industrial issues being sub-national in scope, I do not hold that to be the case. For starters many corporations now are multi- or trans- national meaning they have headquarters and operations in more than one country. Which means that if one country has relatively lax labor laws and an other has stringent labor laws the one with lax labor laws has a competitive advantage gained at the expense of the working people of that country.

The Goal when writing a proposal concerning international industry should be, in my opinion, doing what is best for the world society generally, and equalizing the competitive advantages of the various economies of the world, thru the application of international minimum standards in labor practices.