"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."

The with pay term feels oddly specific and overly prescriptive. (If your society had UBI is this implying the employer still must pay you for holidays?)

I'd feel the minimum requirement to not threaten livelihood when a potentially coercive relationship exists is unpaid leave should be allowed (things like the FMLA). Though even that seems nuanced with contracting/business owners.

Under UBI, you would not be paid less no matter which days you do or don't work, including holidays. Also arguably if UBI weren't tied to a job, then any "job" would really just be volunteer work.

Jobs can still exist under UBI. UBI sets a floor income.

The Declaration of Human Rights is not an abstract philosophical document, it is a practical framework meant to be applied to the world as it is today. It is intentionally prescriptive so that it can influence real-world governments and societies, and it has been somewhat successful in that regard.

It is not intended to be applicable to any society imaginable, that would be impossibly broad.

On a practical note, I disagree with you that reducing someone's income if they need to stay home to stay healthy is non-coercive, in the world as it exists today.

> On a practical note, I disagree with you that reducing someone's income if they need to stay home to stay healthy is non-coercive, in the world as it exists today.

If you are party to an agreement wherein you exchange labor for capital, how is it non-coercive to force someone to pay you for not holding up your end of the bargain?

You can't look at one agreement in a vacuum. Organizing a society such that most people are forced to make such an agreement is coercive and inhumane (given our abundance of resources and ability to guarantee these rights to everyone). If we lived in a society where nobody was forced to make that choice and all people were guaranteed all the rights in the declaration, then two individuals entering into the agreement you describe would not be a problem. In this scenario, neither individual would be putting their health or safety at risk, even if one of them went without pay or the agreement fell apart.

Shorter answer: an agreement itself cannot be coercive if you voluntarily agreed to it, but you can be coerced into making that agreement. That's often the situation in America today.

It's not about paying people to be sick, it's about how you shouldn't be denied income because you happen to get sick. The source of the income is less important.