Post

Region: The North Pacific

Messages
Daarwyrth 2 years 347 days agoEditedForest In light of the argument of the Reasonable Nation Theory put forward by your region's recommendation 'against' "Repeal: “Protected Working Leave”", I wanted to put forward the following counter-argument: In Clause 2 GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" says the following: "Declares that member nations must provide workers who request such with a reasonable duration of paid leave to the extent necessary to adequately service any of the following conditions:" Note the wording "reasonable duration... to the extent necessary to adequately service any of the following conditions". This means that for the reasonable duration to be reasonable, there has to be an element of necessity. Now, please take note of the following Clause 2.b: "to care for a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care" This part of the resolution doesn't say "find care for" or "ensure that care is provided to", no, it specifically says "to care for". As such, if a patient has an illness that requires them to be cared for in order to simply survive, in other words be fed, be hydrated, be given medication etc., because they can't see to their needs independently, it would be absolutely unreasonable to leave such a patient without care, as that care is necessary and thus implicitly reasonable. No reasonable nation would enforce a situation that would leave someone who cannot take care of their basic needs without care from a caretaker. And the law does as the law says. The resolution in question specifically states: "to care for* a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care"*. The resolution speaks of a situation where the worker takes care of a patient, not "ensures care is provided for" or "organises care for", no. The text of the law clearly states: "workers who request such with a reasonable duration of paid leave... to care for a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care". If the resolution wanted to specify a different situation, the text of the law should have used a different, clearer wording.

Messages

Daarwyrth 2 years 347 days agoEditedForest

In light of the argument of the Reasonable Nation Theory put forward by your region's recommendation 'against' "Repeal: “Protected Working Leave”", I wanted to put forward the following counter-argument:

In Clause 2 GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" says the following:

"Declares that member nations must provide workers who request such with a reasonable duration of paid leave to the extent necessary to adequately service any of the following conditions:"

Note the wording "reasonable duration... to the extent necessary to adequately service any of the following conditions".

This means that for the reasonable duration to be reasonable, there has to be an element of necessity. Now, please take note of the following Clause 2.b:

"to care for a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care"

This part of the resolution doesn't say "find care for" or "ensure that care is provided to", no, it specifically says "to care for". As such, if a patient has an illness that requires them to be cared for in order to simply survive, in other words be fed, be hydrated, be given medication etc., because they can't see to their needs independently, it would be absolutely unreasonable to leave such a patient without care, as that care is necessary and thus implicitly reasonable. No reasonable nation would enforce a situation that would leave someone who cannot take care of their basic needs without care from a caretaker.

And the law does as the law says. The resolution in question specifically states: "to care for a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care". The resolution speaks of a situation where the worker takes care of a patient, not "ensures care is provided for" or "organises care for", no. The text of the law clearly states: "workers who request such with a reasonable duration of paid leave... to care for a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care".

If the resolution wanted to specify a different situation, the text of the law should have used a different, clearer wording.

Context • Report