Employment Law eJournal最新文献

英文中文

Complying with the First Law of Robotics: An Analysis of the Occupational Risks Associated with Work Directed by an Algorithm/Artificial Intelligence 遵守机器人第一定律:算法/人工智能指导下工作的职业风险分析

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2019-12-19 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3522406

Adrián Todolí-Signes

Spanish Abstract: Cada vez es mas frecuente la utilizacion por parte de la empresa de mecanismos de inteligencia artificial, mas o menos avanzados, para gestionar el trabajo: establecer turnos de trabajo, tiempos en la produccion, designar y disenar tareas para los trabajadores, contratar, evaluar el desempeno y despedir. Las empresas confian en que la tecnologia recoja toda la informacion disponible, la procese y tome las mejores decisiones de gestion –optimizacion productiva- en beneficio de la misma. Con ello, se sustituye a los supervisores y mandos intermedios humanos, asi como a los expertos de recursos humanos dejando la direccion de los trabajadores en manos de procesos automatizados manejados por algoritmos –o en su estado mas avanzado, en la inteligencia artificial-. En este trabajo, se exponen los peligros para la salud que nueva forma de gestion tecnologica puede provocar. En efecto, la monitorizacion constante a traves de sensores, la intensificacion del trabajo derivada de las decisiones tomadas por una maquina sin empatia ni conocimiento sobre los limites humanos, la reduccion de autonomia del trabajador sometido a las decisiones tomadas por la inteligencia artificial, las discriminaciones bajo un manto de neutralidad algoritmica de esas decisiones, asi como los posibles errores de funcionamiento, pueden acabar provocando serios problemas de salud fisica y psicologica para los trabajadores. Estos riesgos pueden reducirse si se tienen en cuenta en la programacion. En este trabajo, se defiende la necesidad de una correcta programacion del algoritmo para que valore los riesgos laborales expuestos. Es decir, de la misma forma que un supervisor debe tener formacion en prevencion de riesgos para poder realizar su trabajo, el algoritmo debera ser programado para que sopese los riesgos laborales en el trabajo –y en caso de no contar con esta programacion debera impedirse su utilizacion para dirigir trabajadores. Concretamente, el algoritmo debera ser trasparente, adaptado a las capacidades reales del trabajador, debera dejar algun margen de autonomia al trabajador y respetar su privacidad. En definitiva, el algoritmo debera valorar cualquier elemento que suponga un riesgo para la seguridad y salud de los trabajadores. Para ello, se defiende que la preceptiva evaluacion de riesgos, realizada por los tecnicos, sea volcada en la programacion del algoritmo para que este la respete en la toma de decisiones en la direccion del trabajo. English Abstract: The use of Artificial Intelligence mechanisms, more or less advanced, to manage the work is more and more frequent: to establish work shifts, production times, designate and design tasks for workers, hire, evaluate the performance and fire. Companies trust that technology collects all available information, processes it and makes the best management decisions - productive optimization - for the benefit of it. With this, the supervisors and middle managers are replaced, as well as the hum

摘要:公司越来越频繁地使用或多或少先进的人工智能机制来管理工作:建立工作班次，生产时间，为工人分配和设计任务，雇佣，评估绩效和解雇。公司相信技术能够收集所有可用的信息，对其进行处理，并做出最佳的管理决策——生产优化——以使其受益。因此，它取代了人力主管和中层管理人员，以及人力资源专家，将工人的管理留给由算法管理的自动化流程——或在其最先进的状态，人工智能——。这项工作暴露了新形式的技术管理可能造成的健康危害。实际上,monitorizacion不断成败的传感器,intensificacion机器工作的决定,empatia还是限制人权知识,工人减贫努力范围进行人工智能的决定,取缔这些决定下一个处女algoritmica中立的运作,就是潜在的错误它们最终会给工人造成严重的身心健康问题。如果在规划中考虑到这些风险，就可以减少这些风险。本文提出了一种新的方法来评估工作场所暴露的风险。也就是说,同样一个上司应该有编队飞行风险sadasivam才能完成其工作,让算法被安排工作中的劳动风险—如果不指望这个programacion你阻止她的utilizacion指导工人。具体来说，算法应该是透明的，适应工人的实际能力，给工人一定的自主权，尊重他们的隐私。简而言之，该算法必须评估任何对工人健康和安全构成风险的因素。为了实现这一目标，建议将由技术人员进行的强制性风险评估纳入算法的编程，以便在工作方向的决策中尊重它。英文摘要:越来越频繁地使用或多或少先进的人工智能机制来管理工作:建立工作班次、生产时间、为工人指定和设计任务、雇用、评估绩效和解雇。公司相信，技术可以收集所有可用的信息，处理它，并做出最佳的管理决策——生产优化——以造福它。通过这种方式，主管和中层管理人员以及人力资源专家被取代，将工人的管理交给由算法管理的自动化过程，或在其最先进的状态，人工智能。在这项工作中，暴露了新形式的技术管理可能造成的健康危害。其实,常数monitoring through sensors, the intensification of work毁坏决定采取by a machine without empathy or knowledge about human界限,减少of autonomy of the政府部因to the决定made人工情报,歧视,under a blanket of algorithmic中立这些决定的不确定性,以及可能的运作,they can end up先后严重的身体和心理健康problems for工作者。如果在编制方案时考虑到这些风险，就可以减少这些风险。在这篇论文中，有必要对评估暴露的职业风险的算法进行适当的编程。That is to say, in the same way That a必须向主管培训预防风险需作to carry out的work, the algorithm programmed to weigh,职业危害at work - in case of not having this方案its use to direct工作者应当多次。具体来说，算法必须是透明的，适应工人的实际能力，必须为工人留下一定的自主边际，并尊重他们的隐私。In short, the algorithm必须评估任何element that a risk to the工人安全和健康的姿势。为此，有人认为，由技术人员进行的强制性风险评估应集中于算法的编程，以便在工作方向的决策中尊重它。

{"title":"Complying with the First Law of Robotics: An Analysis of the Occupational Risks Associated with Work Directed by an Algorithm/Artificial Intelligence","authors":"Adrián Todolí-Signes","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3522406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3522406","url":null,"abstract":"Spanish Abstract: Cada vez es mas frecuente la utilizacion por parte de la empresa de mecanismos de inteligencia artificial, mas o menos avanzados, para gestionar el trabajo: establecer turnos de trabajo, tiempos en la produccion, designar y disenar tareas para los trabajadores, contratar, evaluar el desempeno y despedir. Las empresas confian en que la tecnologia recoja toda la informacion disponible, la procese y tome las mejores decisiones de gestion –optimizacion productiva- en beneficio de la misma. Con ello, se sustituye a los supervisores y mandos intermedios humanos, asi como a los expertos de recursos humanos dejando la direccion de los trabajadores en manos de procesos automatizados manejados por algoritmos –o en su estado mas avanzado, en la inteligencia artificial-. \u0000 \u0000En este trabajo, se exponen los peligros para la salud que nueva forma de gestion tecnologica puede provocar. En efecto, la monitorizacion constante a traves de sensores, la intensificacion del trabajo derivada de las decisiones tomadas por una maquina sin empatia ni conocimiento sobre los limites humanos, la reduccion de autonomia del trabajador sometido a las decisiones tomadas por la inteligencia artificial, las discriminaciones bajo un manto de neutralidad algoritmica de esas decisiones, asi como los posibles errores de funcionamiento, pueden acabar provocando serios problemas de salud fisica y psicologica para los trabajadores. \u0000 \u0000Estos riesgos pueden reducirse si se tienen en cuenta en la programacion. En este trabajo, se defiende la necesidad de una correcta programacion del algoritmo para que valore los riesgos laborales expuestos. Es decir, de la misma forma que un supervisor debe tener formacion en prevencion de riesgos para poder realizar su trabajo, el algoritmo debera ser programado para que sopese los riesgos laborales en el trabajo –y en caso de no contar con esta programacion debera impedirse su utilizacion para dirigir trabajadores. Concretamente, el algoritmo debera ser trasparente, adaptado a las capacidades reales del trabajador, debera dejar algun margen de autonomia al trabajador y respetar su privacidad. En definitiva, el algoritmo debera valorar cualquier elemento que suponga un riesgo para la seguridad y salud de los trabajadores. Para ello, se defiende que la preceptiva evaluacion de riesgos, realizada por los tecnicos, sea volcada en la programacion del algoritmo para que este la respete en la toma de decisiones en la direccion del trabajo. \u0000 \u0000English Abstract: The use of Artificial Intelligence mechanisms, more or less advanced, to manage the work is more and more frequent: to establish work shifts, production times, designate and design tasks for workers, hire, evaluate the performance and fire. Companies trust that technology collects all available information, processes it and makes the best management decisions - productive optimization - for the benefit of it. With this, the supervisors and middle managers are replaced, as well as the hum","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131240748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Implications of CJEU Jurisprudence on the Delimitation of Working Time by Rest Time in the Collaborative Economy 协同经济中工作时间与休息时间划分之欧洲法院法理学启示

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/pj63e

R. Anghel

The specificity of the collaborative economy has raised a number of issues with regard to the qualification of legal relationships between workers, final beneficiaries and the online platform that mediates the provision of work, respectively whether between the platform and the worker there is an employment relationship or there is a commercial relationship between the platform, self-employees and consumers. In particular, the question arises whether, in the case of these workers, the working time regulations apply and, if so, how they can be applied in concrete manner. The article contains an analysis on how some principles derived from the CJEU case law can be used to determine whether and under what conditions workers in the collaborative economy can benefit from protection by limiting working time and how can work time be delimited by rest time in their case, given the specificity of their work condition, in order to ensure an effective protection.

协同经济的特殊性提出了一些关于工人、最终受益人和中介提供工作的在线平台之间的法律关系资格的问题，分别是平台与工人之间是否存在雇佣关系，或者平台、自营员工和消费者之间是否存在商业关系。特别是出现的问题是，这些工人是否适用工作时间条例，如果适用，如何以具体方式适用这些条例。本文分析了如何利用欧洲法院判例法的一些原则来确定协同经济中的工人是否以及在什么条件下可以通过限制工作时间获得保护，以及在他们的情况下，考虑到他们工作条件的特殊性，如何用休息时间来划定工作时间，以确保有效的保护。

引用次数: 1

The Antitrust Challenge to Covenants Not to Compete in Employment Contracts 劳动合同中不竞争契约的反垄断挑战

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2019-09-13 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3453433

E. Posner

Employee covenants not to compete bar workers who leave their jobs from working for a competing employer for a period of time. The common law regards noncompetes as restraints of trade and imposes a “reasonableness” standard on them; they can also be challenged under the antitrust laws. But new research suggests firms frequently abuse noncompetes, causing significant harm to workers and to the economy. The existing legal approach is inadequate because the common law offers minimal sanctions and antitrust law imposes excessive burdens of proof on plaintiffs. While antitrust law is the appropriate vehicle for challenging noncompetes because of its focus on market effects, it needs to be strengthened.

员工不竞争契约禁止员工离职一段时间内不为竞争对手工作。普通法将竞业禁止视为贸易限制，并对其施加“合理性”标准;他们也可以根据反垄断法受到挑战。但新的研究表明，公司经常滥用竞业禁止，对工人和经济造成重大伤害。现有的法律途径是不充分的，因为普通法提供的制裁很少，反垄断法对原告施加了过多的举证责任。虽然反垄断法是挑战不竞争行为的适当工具，因为它侧重于市场效应，但它需要得到加强。

引用次数: 7

An Argument for Restricting the Blue Pencil Doctrine 限制蓝铅笔主义的争论

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2019-08-19 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3576169

G. T. Pivateau

The blue pencil doctrine gives courts the authority to either (1) strike unreasonable clauses from a noncompete agreement, leaving the rest to be enforced, or (2) actually modify the agreement to reflect the terms that the parties could have--and probably should have--agreed to.

In recent years, a number of courts refused to blue pencil noncompetition agreements. In response, some state legislatures responded by passing laws requiring courts to modify unreasonable noncompetition agreements. Legislation mandating the use of the blue pencil, even if well-intentioned, encourages employer overreach. This overreach harms employers, employees, and society as a whole.

“蓝铅笔”原则赋予法院以下两种权力:(1)从竞业禁止协议中剔除不合理的条款，让其余条款得以执行;或(2)实际修改协议，以反映双方本可以——而且可能应该——同意的条款。近年来，许多法院拒绝接受“蓝铅笔”竞业禁止协议。作为回应，一些州立法机构通过法律要求法院修改不合理的竞业禁止协议。强制使用蓝色铅笔的立法，即使是出于好意，也会鼓励雇主越权。这种越权损害了雇主、雇员和整个社会。

引用次数: 0

Reassessing the Regulation of High-Risk Medical Device Cases 对高风险医疗器械案件监管的再评估

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2019-05-06 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3383687

R. Rabin, A. Picard

In 1976, Congress enacted the Medical Device Amendments (MDA), plugging a gap between regulation of prescription drugs, which were subjected to a premarket protocol aimed at assuring safety and efficacy, and medical devices, which were solely monitored for adulteration and misbranding after distribution in the marketplace. Class III devices “usually sustain or support life, are implanted, or present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury;” they represent the remaining 10% of medical devices and include devices like pacemakers, breast implants, and intrauterine devices. Only Class III devices are required to go through the premarket approval process (PMA)—a process that requires clinical data. In a leading case on the preemption of tort claims, Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court had occasion to review the rigor of PMA premarketing oversight and concluded that it was indeed notable for its scrupulousness. On average, the Court noted, the FDA spent 1,200 hours reviewing an application, which included reports of every study and investigation of the device, a description of component parts, samples of products, a specimen of the proposed labeling, and descriptions of the production, manufacturing, packaging, and installation methods. As part of the PMA process, the FDA had discretion to bring in a panel of outside experts and could request more information or data from the manufacturer. Viewing the process through this lens, the Court preempted the plaintiff’s tort claim, which was based on failure to adequately warn of the risk that defendant manufacturer’s balloon catheter would rupture during angioplasty surgery—a risk that came to fruition. According to the Court, Section 360k of the MDA—an express preemption clause barring “any requirement…which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement…[under the Act] which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device….”—was applicable to the claim. A sharp line was drawn between the PMA process in Riegel and FDA’s 510(k) substantial equivalence review, which only subjects a device to a limited form of review to determine whether it is “substantially equivalent” to a preexisting legally marketed device. Twelve years earlier, in Medtronic, Inc., v. Lohr, 552 U.S. 312 (2008), the Supreme Court found substantial equivalence review insufficiently rigorous to preempt tort claims. Taken together, the two decisions seemed to mark out a persuasive boundary between tort claims that would, if allowed, impermissibly re-tread the same ground covered by the agency (via the PMA process), and claims premised on a risk/utility tort process complementary to the once-over-lightly of “substantial equivalence” review. In this Article, Part I probes more deeply into the case for recognizing a safe harbor from tort claims under the existing regime of FDA premarket assessment of high-risk devices. Part II addresses post-market FDA strategies for assessment o

1976年，国会颁布了《医疗器械修正案》(MDA)，填补了处方药监管和医疗器械监管之间的空白。处方药在上市前必须遵守旨在确保安全性和有效性的协议，而医疗器械在上市后只对掺假和贴错标签进行监管。III类设备“通常维持或支持生命，植入或存在潜在的不合理的疾病或伤害风险”;它们代表了剩余的10%的医疗设备，包括起搏器、乳房植入物和宫内节育器等设备。只有III类器械需要通过上市前批准程序(PMA) -一个需要临床数据的过程。在Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.， 552 U.S. 312(2008)这一侵权索赔优先权的主要案例中，美国最高法院有机会审查PMA上市前监管的严谨性，并得出结论认为PMA确实因其严谨而值得注意。最高法院指出，FDA平均花费1200小时审查一份申请，其中包括对设备的每项研究和调查报告、组件描述、产品样品、拟议标签样本，以及对生产、制造、包装和安装方法的描述。作为PMA程序的一部分，FDA有权引入外部专家小组，并可以要求制造商提供更多信息或数据。从这个角度来看这个过程，法院先发制人地驳回了原告的侵权索赔，原告的侵权索赔是基于未能充分警告被告制造商的球囊导管在血管成形术中破裂的风险——这一风险最终成为现实。根据法院的说法，fda第360k条是一个明确的优先条款，禁止“任何要求……不同于或除了任何要求……[在法案下]与设备的安全性或有效性相关的要求....”——适用于索赔。Riegel的PMA流程与FDA的510(k)实质等同审查之间划清了界限，后者仅对器械进行有限形式的审查，以确定其是否与先前存在的合法上市器械“实质等同”。12年前，在美敦力公司诉Lohr案(552 U.S. 312(2008))中，最高法院认定实质对等审查不足以阻止侵权索赔。综上所述，这两项裁决似乎在侵权索赔和索赔之间划出了一条有说服力的界限，侵权索赔在允许的情况下(通过PMA程序)将不允许重新涉足机构所涵盖的相同领域，而索赔则以风险/效用侵权程序为前提，与曾经过于轻率的“实质等同”审查相辅相成。在本文中，第一部分更深入地探讨了在FDA对高风险器械上市前评估的现行制度下，承认侵权索赔的安全港的案例。第二部分介绍了上市后FDA产品安全性评估策略。第三部分将焦点转移到侵权行为上，重新审视作为一种补充性监管策略的优先购买权对侵权行为所投下的阴影。最后，第四部分总结了对行动中的监管过程重新审视的必要性，并重新考虑如何在健康和安全这一至关重要的领域改进监管过程。

{"title":"Reassessing the Regulation of High-Risk Medical Device Cases","authors":"R. Rabin, A. Picard","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3383687","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3383687","url":null,"abstract":"In 1976, Congress enacted the Medical Device Amendments (MDA), plugging a gap between regulation of prescription drugs, which were subjected to a premarket protocol aimed at assuring safety and efficacy, and medical devices, which were solely monitored for adulteration and misbranding after distribution in the marketplace. \u0000 \u0000Class III devices “usually sustain or support life, are implanted, or present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury;” they represent the remaining 10% of medical devices and include devices like pacemakers, breast implants, and intrauterine devices. Only Class III devices are required to go through the premarket approval process (PMA)—a process that requires clinical data. In a leading case on the preemption of tort claims, Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court had occasion to review the rigor of PMA premarketing oversight and concluded that it was indeed notable for its scrupulousness. On average, the Court noted, the FDA spent 1,200 hours reviewing an application, which included reports of every study and investigation of the device, a description of component parts, samples of products, a specimen of the proposed labeling, and descriptions of the production, manufacturing, packaging, and installation methods. As part of the PMA process, the FDA had discretion to bring in a panel of outside experts and could request more information or data from the manufacturer. \u0000 \u0000Viewing the process through this lens, the Court preempted the plaintiff’s tort claim, which was based on failure to adequately warn of the risk that defendant manufacturer’s balloon catheter would rupture during angioplasty surgery—a risk that came to fruition. According to the Court, Section 360k of the MDA—an express preemption clause barring “any requirement…which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement…[under the Act] which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device….”—was applicable to the claim. \u0000 \u0000A sharp line was drawn between the PMA process in Riegel and FDA’s 510(k) substantial equivalence review, which only subjects a device to a limited form of review to determine whether it is “substantially equivalent” to a preexisting legally marketed device. Twelve years earlier, in Medtronic, Inc., v. Lohr, 552 U.S. 312 (2008), the Supreme Court found substantial equivalence review insufficiently rigorous to preempt tort claims. Taken together, the two decisions seemed to mark out a persuasive boundary between tort claims that would, if allowed, impermissibly re-tread the same ground covered by the agency (via the PMA process), and claims premised on a risk/utility tort process complementary to the once-over-lightly of “substantial equivalence” review. \u0000 \u0000In this Article, Part I probes more deeply into the case for recognizing a safe harbor from tort claims under the existing regime of FDA premarket assessment of high-risk devices. Part II addresses post-market FDA strategies for assessment o","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121931368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Carrying Little Sticks: Is There a ‘Deterrence Gap’ in Employment Standards Enforcement in Ontario, Canada? 携带小棍子:加拿大安大略省的就业标准执行是否存在“威慑差距”?

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2019-03-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3165580

E. Tucker, L. Vosko, Rebecca Casey, Mark P. Thomas, J. Grundy, A. Noack

This article assesses whether a deterrence gap exists in the enforcement of the Ontario Employment Standards Act (ESA), which sets minimum conditions of employment in areas such as minimum wage, overtime pay and leaves. Drawing on a unique administrative data set, the article measures the use of deterrence in Ontario’s ESA enforcement regime against the role of deterrence within two influential models of enforcement: responsive regulation and strategic enforcement. The article finds that the use of deterrence is below its prescribed role in either model of enforcement. We conclude that there is a deterrence gap in Ontario.

本文评估了安大略就业标准法(ESA)的执行是否存在威慑差距，该法案规定了最低工资、加班费和休假等领域的最低就业条件。利用独特的行政数据集，本文衡量了安大略省欧空局执法制度中威慑的使用情况，对比了两种有影响力的执法模式:反应性监管和战略执法中的威慑作用。文章发现，威慑的使用在两种执行模式中都低于其规定的作用。我们得出结论，安大略省存在威慑差距。

引用次数: 4

Party Autonomy and the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality 当事人自治与反对治外法权的推定

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2019-01-21 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3319849

J. Coyle

What happens when contracting parties attempt to use a choice-of-law clause to bring about the extraterritorial application of statutes that would ordinarily be subject to the presumption against extraterritoriality? Should the choice-of-law clause trump the presumption? Or should the presumption take precedence over the clause? This symposium Essay aspires to answer these questions. It begins by surveying the ability of parties under existing doctrine to utilize choice-of-law clauses to bring about the extraterritorial application of state statutes. Next, it lays out a framework for thinking through the relationship between the presumption and the principle of party autonomy. It then utilizes this framework to determine how courts should resolve conflicts between the two doctrines in the context of state statutes that are silent or ambiguous as to their geographic scope. The Essay concludes by discussing the implications of this analysis for state common law and for federal statutes.

当缔约各方试图使用法律选择条款来实现通常受反对治外法权推定约束的成文法的治外法权适用时会发生什么?法律选择条款是否应该胜过推定?或者推定应该优先于条款?本次专题讨论会旨在回答这些问题。本文首先考察了当事人在现有理论下利用法律选择条款实现国家法规的域外适用的能力。其次，通过推定与当事人自治原则的关系，提出了一个思考框架。然后，它利用这一框架来确定法院应如何在国家法规的背景下解决两种理论之间的冲突，这些法规在地理范围上是沉默的或模糊的。本文最后讨论了这种分析对州普通法和联邦法规的影响。

引用次数: 0

Coase and the Platform Economy 科斯与平台经济

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2018-11-01 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3083764

Orly Lobel

This Chapter analyzes the ways in which digital platforms such as Uber and Airbnb are perfecting the deal and lowering transaction costs. The chapter argues that the three stages of pre-deal, deal-making, and post-deal, 1) search costs; 2) bargaining and decision costs; and 3) policing and enforcement costs, may benefit from the digital platform. Each stage depends on enhanced information and optimal matching to reduce costs. The chapter suggests that the platform – based on digital large scale multi-sided networks and sophisticated algorithmic pricing – impacts the relevant transaction costs at all three stages. It then argues that regulators must consider the opportunities that come from the platform delivery as well as the possibility that certain traditional regulations become redundant by platform innovations.

本章分析了Uber和Airbnb等数字平台完善交易和降低交易成本的方式。本章认为，交易前、交易决策和交易后三个阶段:1)搜索成本;2)议价和决策成本;3)警务和执法成本，可能会受益于数字平台。每个阶段都依赖于增强的信息和最优匹配来降低成本。本章表明，基于数字化大规模多边网络和复杂算法定价的平台在所有三个阶段都会影响相关交易成本。然后，它认为监管机构必须考虑平台交付带来的机会，以及某些传统法规因平台创新而变得多余的可能性。

引用次数: 17

#ME_TOO in India Is Just a Tip of an Iceberg and It Has Shaken the Patriarchy to Its Core #ME_TOO在印度只是冰山一角，它已经动摇了父权制的核心

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2018-10-23 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3271508

Shalu Nigam

India is witnessing the crucial change where a few women courageously came out with their experience of sexual harassment they have faced at their work place and shared with the hashtag #MeToo on the social media. Though, their number is small, yet the movement is reaching and spreading out. Still, what is being shared is just the tip of iceberg. There are many hidden untold stories of violence that women in male-dominated societies face day in day out. Yet, these few narratives which came out from the hidden corners have shaken the patriarchy to its core.

The response of male dominated state as well as society reveals that the power dynamics continue to operate while the politics of victim blaming and under-positioning women survivors of violence remain, yet, one of the fall out of the MeToo movement is that the women’s concerns are making space in the prevailing autocratic, authoritarian and tyrannical environment. This movement is crucial because of its timing. This is a period when the fundamentalist state and the fascist majoritarian society, both are acting to further oppress women. Crime against women is on increase and the politics behind rapes that took place in Kathua, Unnao, Mandsaur and other places are reversing the gains made in the field of gender equality or empowerment. The conflict between the progressive and liberal ideas with that of regressive patriarchal values is making adverse impact on the rights of women. This is evident in the matter relating to women’s entry into the Sabrimala temple where despite of the Supreme Court verdict to allow the females of any age to enter the place of worship, protestors including priests are not allowing women to go inside the temple. The state seemingly is surrendering before the powerful patriarchal forces.

Whether the Sabrimala temple entry issue or the concerns relating to MeToo movement, the bureaucratic as well as the legal system is failing to provide space to women to assert their rights or to fight against the patriarchal forces. In the current regressive environment it is significant that women’s agency and choices find space and the movement such as MeToo facilitate such informal support system and provide a platform where women’s voices could be raised. It is different from the top-down campaigns initiated by the State and aims to change men’s behaviour rather than expecting women to learn to deal with violence committed by men. Such movements have potential to change the notion of sex, power and consent in a male-dominated society. MeToo is about women making space in a toxic male-dominated work environment. The need is to expand and strengthen this movement further.

在印度，一些女性勇敢地说出了她们在工作场所遭受性骚扰的经历，并在社交媒体上以#MeToo的标签分享了这一重大变化。虽然他们的人数很少，但运动正在深入和扩散。然而，被分享的只是冰山一角。在男性主导的社会中，女性每天都要面对许多不为人知的暴力故事。然而，这些来自隐藏角落的少数叙述已经动摇了父权制的核心。男性主导的国家和社会的反应表明，权力动态继续运作，而受害者指责和贬低暴力女性幸存者的政治仍然存在，然而，MeToo运动的一个后果是，女性的关注在普遍的专制，专制和暴虐的环境中占据了空间。这场运动之所以至关重要，是因为它的时机。这是一个原教旨主义国家和法西斯多数主义社会，都在进一步压迫妇女的时期。针对妇女的犯罪正在增加，在卡图瓦、乌纳奥、曼达索尔和其他地方发生的强奸背后的政治正在扭转在性别平等或赋权领域取得的成果。进步的自由主义思想与倒退的父权价值观之间的冲突正在对妇女的权利产生不利影响。这一点在有关妇女进入Sabrimala寺庙的问题上很明显，尽管最高法院判决允许任何年龄的女性进入礼拜场所，但包括祭司在内的抗议者不允许妇女进入寺庙。国家似乎在强大的父权势力面前投降了。无论是Sabrimala寺庙进入问题，还是与MeToo运动有关的问题，官僚和法律体系都未能为女性维护自己的权利或对抗父权力量提供空间。在当前倒退的环境中，重要的是女性的代理和选择找到空间，而MeToo等运动促进了这种非正式的支持系统，并提供了一个可以提高女性声音的平台。它不同于国家发起的自上而下的运动，其目的是改变男子的行为，而不是期望妇女学会处理男子犯下的暴力行为。这些运动有可能改变男性主导的社会中关于性、权力和同意的观念。“我也是”是关于女性在男性主导的有毒工作环境中创造空间。需要进一步扩大和加强这一运动。

{"title":"#ME_TOO in India Is Just a Tip of an Iceberg and It Has Shaken the Patriarchy to Its Core","authors":"Shalu Nigam","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3271508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3271508","url":null,"abstract":"India is witnessing the crucial change where a few women courageously came out with their experience of sexual harassment they have faced at their work place and shared with the hashtag #MeToo on the social media. Though, their number is small, yet the movement is reaching and spreading out. Still, what is being shared is just the tip of iceberg. There are many hidden untold stories of violence that women in male-dominated societies face day in day out. Yet, these few narratives which came out from the hidden corners have shaken the patriarchy to its core. <br><br>The response of male dominated state as well as society reveals that the power dynamics continue to operate while the politics of victim blaming and under-positioning women survivors of violence remain, yet, one of the fall out of the MeToo movement is that the women’s concerns are making space in the prevailing autocratic, authoritarian and tyrannical environment. This movement is crucial because of its timing. This is a period when the fundamentalist state and the fascist majoritarian society, both are acting to further oppress women. Crime against women is on increase and the politics behind rapes that took place in Kathua, Unnao, Mandsaur and other places are reversing the gains made in the field of gender equality or empowerment. The conflict between the progressive and liberal ideas with that of regressive patriarchal values is making adverse impact on the rights of women. This is evident in the matter relating to women’s entry into the Sabrimala temple where despite of the Supreme Court verdict to allow the females of any age to enter the place of worship, protestors including priests are not allowing women to go inside the temple. The state seemingly is surrendering before the powerful patriarchal forces. <br><br>Whether the Sabrimala temple entry issue or the concerns relating to MeToo movement, the bureaucratic as well as the legal system is failing to provide space to women to assert their rights or to fight against the patriarchal forces. In the current regressive environment it is significant that women’s agency and choices find space and the movement such as MeToo facilitate such informal support system and provide a platform where women’s voices could be raised. It is different from the top-down campaigns initiated by the State and aims to change men’s behaviour rather than expecting women to learn to deal with violence committed by men. Such movements have potential to change the notion of sex, power and consent in a male-dominated society. MeToo is about women making space in a toxic male-dominated work environment. The need is to expand and strengthen this movement further.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114416062","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

The Common Law Constitution at Work: R (on the Application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor 普通法宪法在起作用:R(关于UNISON的应用)诉大法官

Employment Law eJournal

Pub Date : 2018-05-01 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12343

Alan L. Bogg

This note considers the radical significance of Supreme Court's judgment in R (on the Application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (UNISON) on the unlawfulness of tribunal fees. It argues that the decision marks the coming of age of the ‘common law constitution at work’. The radical potential of UNISON lies in its generation of horizontal legal effects in disputes between private parties. Recent litigation on employment status in the ‘gig economy’ is analysed through the lens of UNISON and common law fundamental rights. The note identifies the various ways in which the common law tests of employment status might be ‘constitutionalised’ in the light of UNISON.

本说明考虑最高法院在R(关于UNISON的申请)诉Lord Chancellor (UNISON)案中就审裁处费用的非法性作出的判决的根本意义。它辩称，这一决定标志着普通法宪法在发挥作用的时代到来。UNISON的激进潜力在于它在私人当事人之间的纠纷中产生横向法律效力。最近关于零工经济中就业状况的诉讼’通过UNISON和普通法基本权利的视角进行分析。该说明指出了可以使普通法对就业状况的检验符合宪法的各种方式。根据UNISON的规定。

引用次数: 7

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Employment Law eJournal

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀