Post

Servilis wrote:

It's referring to the right to leave work temporarily to care for a person, the law allows a worker to leave their place of work temporarily without consequence to care for a person, to care for them is a broad phrase and doesn't specifically mean to have you, yes you, only you, leave your place of work and have you, that's right, you, you fine specimen, be the sole caretaker and operator of grandma's life support system,

Though the errors can be seen, it doesn't convince me that it needs to be repealed, it rather convinces me that the lack of an ability to amend resolutions is a serious issue that faces the WA,

It shouldn't be radical to suggest that human life has more value than an office job,

If the UN also doesn't have an amending system, and like the NS counterpart, repeals laws, then re-introduces rather than revising them directly, then we as a species are screwed,

Which is why there is a replacement waiting to be submitted already, namely Tinhampton's "Employee Rights".

I'd say the text of the law currently in place is clear. It speaks of the worker who has "to care for", and as that care may reasonably encompass several years (think of an illness where patients live for years in a state where they can't independently see to their own needs), that worker will have to take care for that patient for those years, as per the text of the law. If the law wanted to specify other situations, it should have said so, but in its current form the law does as the law says.

The fact that you interpret "care for" differently proves, in my opinion, the flaws of GAR #527 that I address in the repeal, namely "vacuums of subjective interpretation", which undermine "Protected Working Leave".