{"title":"Book Review: The Revised European Social Charter, An Article by Article Commentary by Karin Lukas","authors":"E. Bakirtzi","doi":"10.1177/13882627221137606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"tors in general (not only economically-dependent workers) is competition law, which tends to look at collectively agreed pay rates for self-employed workers as a – questionable, if not unlawful – concerted restriction on the free-market mechanism which determines the prices of services. If economically-dependent workers are deemed to be vulnerable subjects who cannot defend themselves through the market and who need to be defended from the market, then Schubert and Krause’s stance in favour of the labour shield (i.e. of the immunity) from competition/antitrust law for such workers seems fully justified. Still, the core question remains whether such a shield – and the same could be said for any other labour law protection – should be provided to economically-dependent workers and/or also to those who are not economically, but personally dependent on their clients, as other labour law scholars argue. Given that the final emphasis in the book, embedded in Schubert’s last chapter, is to promote the holistic value of decent work, the choice of the scope of labour law coverage (and of the competition law shield) is just as important as the actual content of the guarantees. Yet, there is no doubt that in fleshing out this policy choice, the – national and supranational – authorities will take into account the accurate and thoughtful contributions of this book, which surely achieves its proposed goal to serve as a solid and sound reference for any further debate on the matter.","PeriodicalId":44670,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Security","volume":"24 1","pages":"392 - 394"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627221137606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
tors in general (not only economically-dependent workers) is competition law, which tends to look at collectively agreed pay rates for self-employed workers as a – questionable, if not unlawful – concerted restriction on the free-market mechanism which determines the prices of services. If economically-dependent workers are deemed to be vulnerable subjects who cannot defend themselves through the market and who need to be defended from the market, then Schubert and Krause’s stance in favour of the labour shield (i.e. of the immunity) from competition/antitrust law for such workers seems fully justified. Still, the core question remains whether such a shield – and the same could be said for any other labour law protection – should be provided to economically-dependent workers and/or also to those who are not economically, but personally dependent on their clients, as other labour law scholars argue. Given that the final emphasis in the book, embedded in Schubert’s last chapter, is to promote the holistic value of decent work, the choice of the scope of labour law coverage (and of the competition law shield) is just as important as the actual content of the guarantees. Yet, there is no doubt that in fleshing out this policy choice, the – national and supranational – authorities will take into account the accurate and thoughtful contributions of this book, which surely achieves its proposed goal to serve as a solid and sound reference for any further debate on the matter.