The history of job (in)security: Why private law theory may not save work law

Q1 Social Sciences Theoretical Inquiries in Law Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1515/til-2023-0009
Sophia Z. Lee
{"title":"The history of job (in)security: Why private law theory may not save work law","authors":"Sophia Z. Lee","doi":"10.1515/til-2023-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Article uses a history of the push for job security in the United States during the late 20th century to assess New Private Law (NPL) theory. The history recounts the rise and fall of common law and statutory approaches to replacing at-will employment with termination for just cause only. Applying NPL theory to that history, the Article argues that NPL theorists’ current approach to defining their topic of study and distinguishing it from public law is inconsistent within and across theories. NPL theorists seek to carve out an area of law where interpersonal morality trumps legal economists’ goal of collective welfare maximization. That conceptual project depends on a coherent and consistent approach to distinguishing private from public law. Ultimately, the Article argues, NPL theorists face a more fundamental problem, however. Regardless of how one categorizes the events in this history, it shows that the common law-derived interpersonal morality at the heart of NPL theory may not strengthen worker protections in the ways at least some of its theorists hope.","PeriodicalId":39577,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","volume":"32 1","pages":"147 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2023-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This Article uses a history of the push for job security in the United States during the late 20th century to assess New Private Law (NPL) theory. The history recounts the rise and fall of common law and statutory approaches to replacing at-will employment with termination for just cause only. Applying NPL theory to that history, the Article argues that NPL theorists’ current approach to defining their topic of study and distinguishing it from public law is inconsistent within and across theories. NPL theorists seek to carve out an area of law where interpersonal morality trumps legal economists’ goal of collective welfare maximization. That conceptual project depends on a coherent and consistent approach to distinguishing private from public law. Ultimately, the Article argues, NPL theorists face a more fundamental problem, however. Regardless of how one categorizes the events in this history, it shows that the common law-derived interpersonal morality at the heart of NPL theory may not strengthen worker protections in the ways at least some of its theorists hope.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
工作保障的历史:为什么私法理论不能拯救劳动法
摘要本文以20世纪后期美国推动就业保障的历史为背景,对新私法理论进行了评估。历史回顾了普通法和法定方法的兴衰,这些方法仅以正当理由取代随意雇佣。本文将国家物理实验室理论应用于这段历史,认为国家物理实验室理论家目前定义其研究主题并将其与公法区分开来的方法在理论内部和理论之间是不一致的。国家物理实验室的理论家试图开拓出一个法律领域,在这个领域中,人际道德胜过法律经济学家的集体福利最大化目标。这一概念项目取决于一种连贯一致的方法来区分私法和公法。然而,文章认为,国家物理实验室的理论家最终面临着一个更根本的问题。无论人们如何对这段历史中的事件进行分类,它都表明,作为NPL理论核心的普通法衍生的人际道德可能不会以至少一些理论家希望的方式加强对工人的保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Theoretical Inquiries in Law
Theoretical Inquiries in Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Theoretical Inquiries in Law is devoted to the application to legal thought of insights developed by diverse disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, economics, history and psychology. The range of legal issues dealt with by the journal is virtually unlimited, subject only to the journal''s commitment to cross-disciplinary fertilization of ideas. We strive to provide a forum for all those interested in looking at law from more than a single theoretical perspective and who share our view that only a multi-disciplinary analysis can provide a comprehensive account of the complex interrelationships between law, society and individuals
期刊最新文献
National priority regions (1971–2022): Redistribution, development and settlement A typology of the localism-regionalism nexus Regionalism as a mode of inclusive citizenship in divided societies Shadow regionalism in immigration enforcement during COVID-19 The democratic problems with Washington as the capital
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1