One of the leading theories for why employees join unions, represented in Freeman and Rogers’ influential book, "What Workers Want," is that employees' main concern is to be given a greater voice in the workplace and that unions best serve this function. This line of literature, while doing much to explore the functioning of unions, has overshadowed the voice associated with personal contracts in employees' everyday life. The current study analyses Israeli employees' preferences for voice through a comparison of their perception of collective agreements and unions in comparison to other available legal instruments and institutions, with special emphasis on personal contracts with their employers. The Israeli workforce is an especially interesting case study, due to the major changes undergone in Israel in the nature of employment relations. The data for this study was collected from a representative sample of 600 employees in Israel, using a combination of survey questions about their own work experience and scenario-based questions. Findings revealed an expected effect where stronger employees were more likely to trust personal contract rather than their unions for gaining a voice. Whereas workers with low levels of voice showed a stronger desire to join unions and manage their employment rights through collective agreements. In contrast to the current view in the literature on collective voice, our findings suggest, however, that gaining more of a voice did not predict the desire to stay unionized. Furthermore, the comparison between unionized and non-unionized employees, suggests that the latter group felt they had more influence on their employment conditions and were generally more satisfied with it. Unionized employees were far less involved and aware of their employment conditions and status. Furthermore, only among employees with personal contracts, was there a relationship between their influence, and their satisfaction from the legal instrument. Nonetheless, unionized employees were more likely to resist a change in the legal instrument that regulates their behavior. Hence, while a personal contract has the upper hand in providing a voice and a sense of control to employees; collective agreements are still desired, especially among weaker employees. The theoretical focus on voice as experienced on the individual level, leads to policy discussion about the choice of the optimal legal instrument for employees.
{"title":"What Workers Really Want: Voice, Unions and Personal Contracts","authors":"Y. Feldman, Amir Falk, Miri Katz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1527100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1527100","url":null,"abstract":"One of the leading theories for why employees join unions, represented in Freeman and Rogers’ influential book, \"What Workers Want,\" is that employees' main concern is to be given a greater voice in the workplace and that unions best serve this function. This line of literature, while doing much to explore the functioning of unions, has overshadowed the voice associated with personal contracts in employees' everyday life. The current study analyses Israeli employees' preferences for voice through a comparison of their perception of collective agreements and unions in comparison to other available legal instruments and institutions, with special emphasis on personal contracts with their employers. The Israeli workforce is an especially interesting case study, due to the major changes undergone in Israel in the nature of employment relations. The data for this study was collected from a representative sample of 600 employees in Israel, using a combination of survey questions about their own work experience and scenario-based questions. Findings revealed an expected effect where stronger employees were more likely to trust personal contract rather than their unions for gaining a voice. Whereas workers with low levels of voice showed a stronger desire to join unions and manage their employment rights through collective agreements. In contrast to the current view in the literature on collective voice, our findings suggest, however, that gaining more of a voice did not predict the desire to stay unionized. Furthermore, the comparison between unionized and non-unionized employees, suggests that the latter group felt they had more influence on their employment conditions and were generally more satisfied with it. Unionized employees were far less involved and aware of their employment conditions and status. Furthermore, only among employees with personal contracts, was there a relationship between their influence, and their satisfaction from the legal instrument. Nonetheless, unionized employees were more likely to resist a change in the legal instrument that regulates their behavior. Hence, while a personal contract has the upper hand in providing a voice and a sense of control to employees; collective agreements are still desired, especially among weaker employees. The theoretical focus on voice as experienced on the individual level, leads to policy discussion about the choice of the optimal legal instrument for employees.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116580940","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}
This paper aims to analyze theories developed both in favor and against privacy protection according to current practices in the West. In the paper, we will examine economic justifications for privacy protection as defined by American economists and jurists, as well as the advantages to be derived by a possible elimination of said protection. Moving beyond existing economic theories, this piece develops a new economic idea, wherein privacy protection is warranted when an individual becomes interested in another's habits for a specific reason: to root out different behaviors in that person by observing a behavior that is correlated with those behaviors. Imagine the scenario of a worker who is also a soccer player, who is not competitive on the job, and is a team player, when he plays soccer, with his co-workers. The two facts, one of loving his own soccer team, and second, of not being competitive in the workplace are expressions of the same human attitude, or of a certain aspect of his personality. The employer is interested in finding out if this worker plays soccer in order to identify a lack of competitiveness on the job, and perhaps to assign him more menial tasks. The employer wishes to know the worker's interest in soccer in order to deduce therefrom a second circumstance: non-competitiveness in the workplace. Thus if regulating others' conduct is not forbidden, the worker, in order not to be found out, will no longer play soccer; he will suffer a loss in terms of his personal welfare, while the employer, on the other hand, will gain nothing, having discovered nothing. From this comes a different justification for privacy protection. In the paper, however, we note that privacy protection is a tool for encouraging equality or, in pejorative terms, egalitarianism. Behind the privacy “screen,�? indeed, everyone appears in shades of gray. Privacy protection makes individuals indistinguishable. In terms of inter-personal relationships, this means a “veil�? of ignorance, with all its attendant costs. Therefore, it is possible that the economic justifications defined by those in favor of privacy protection should be put aside in favor of transparency among individuals.
{"title":"Protecting Privacy Amid Issues of Egalitarianism and Economic Efficiency","authors":"Enrico Baffi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1504648","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1504648","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to analyze theories developed both in favor and against privacy protection according to current practices in the West. In the paper, we will examine economic justifications for privacy protection as defined by American economists and jurists, as well as the advantages to be derived by a possible elimination of said protection. Moving beyond existing economic theories, this piece develops a new economic idea, wherein privacy protection is warranted when an individual becomes interested in another's habits for a specific reason: to root out different behaviors in that person by observing a behavior that is correlated with those behaviors. Imagine the scenario of a worker who is also a soccer player, who is not competitive on the job, and is a team player, when he plays soccer, with his co-workers. The two facts, one of loving his own soccer team, and second, of not being competitive in the workplace are expressions of the same human attitude, or of a certain aspect of his personality. The employer is interested in finding out if this worker plays soccer in order to identify a lack of competitiveness on the job, and perhaps to assign him more menial tasks. The employer wishes to know the worker's interest in soccer in order to deduce therefrom a second circumstance: non-competitiveness in the workplace. Thus if regulating others' conduct is not forbidden, the worker, in order not to be found out, will no longer play soccer; he will suffer a loss in terms of his personal welfare, while the employer, on the other hand, will gain nothing, having discovered nothing. From this comes a different justification for privacy protection. In the paper, however, we note that privacy protection is a tool for encouraging equality or, in pejorative terms, egalitarianism. Behind the privacy “screen,�? indeed, everyone appears in shades of gray. Privacy protection makes individuals indistinguishable. In terms of inter-personal relationships, this means a “veil�? of ignorance, with all its attendant costs. Therefore, it is possible that the economic justifications defined by those in favor of privacy protection should be put aside in favor of transparency among individuals.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"465 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114329078","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}
Legislation concerning labour and social rights of migrant workers is one of the areas of Russian law which undergo at least minor changes almost every year. All these recent changes tend to have the same direction of narrowing the scope of options for a migrant to find a work in Russia, at least a legitimate one. One of the main purposes declared by the government is to reduce the crime rate, which is said to have some indisputable relation to the number of migrant workers employed in these sectors. The other purpose of these measures is said to be intent to improve the health of the Russian citizens and provide them with more jobs. These steps have aroused very controversial response among different groups of stakeholders. This report is intended to assess the situation and all the responses in the comparative context of international and foreign labour and social security law and practice.
{"title":"Labour and Social Rights of Migrant Workers In the Russian Federation","authors":"Daria V. Chernyaeva","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1515203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1515203","url":null,"abstract":"Legislation concerning labour and social rights of migrant workers is one of the areas of Russian law which undergo at least minor changes almost every year. All these recent changes tend to have the same direction of narrowing the scope of options for a migrant to find a work in Russia, at least a legitimate one. One of the main purposes declared by the government is to reduce the crime rate, which is said to have some indisputable relation to the number of migrant workers employed in these sectors. The other purpose of these measures is said to be intent to improve the health of the Russian citizens and provide them with more jobs. These steps have aroused very controversial response among different groups of stakeholders. This report is intended to assess the situation and all the responses in the comparative context of international and foreign labour and social security law and practice.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"2021 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129772221","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}
This paper was prepared for the 62nd NYU Annual Conference on Labor, which focused on labor and employment law initiatives in the Obama administration. The paper discusses the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent announcement that it will consider whether and how to integrate “matched-pair” testing into its enforcement regime. The paper summarizes the history of the EEOC’s consideration of the use of testers and the use of testers by public and private groups to both enforce Title VII and measure the incidence of discrimination in particular labor markets. The paper concludes with a discussion of some of the issues that will face the EEOC this time around: 1. What are the justifications for using testers to supplement the existing enforcement regime? 2. Does the EEOC have the authority to implement its own enforcement-based testers program? 3. How can the EEOC design a program that will produce results that are sufficiently reliable to justify imposing liability on employers for disparate treatment of testers?
{"title":"Employment Testers Revisited","authors":"Michael J. Yelnosky","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1416202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1416202","url":null,"abstract":"This paper was prepared for the 62nd NYU Annual Conference on Labor, which focused on labor and employment law initiatives in the Obama administration. The paper discusses the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent announcement that it will consider whether and how to integrate “matched-pair” testing into its enforcement regime. The paper summarizes the history of the EEOC’s consideration of the use of testers and the use of testers by public and private groups to both enforce Title VII and measure the incidence of discrimination in particular labor markets. The paper concludes with a discussion of some of the issues that will face the EEOC this time around: 1. What are the justifications for using testers to supplement the existing enforcement regime? 2. Does the EEOC have the authority to implement its own enforcement-based testers program? 3. How can the EEOC design a program that will produce results that are sufficiently reliable to justify imposing liability on employers for disparate treatment of testers?","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"460 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125807955","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}
The extent to which foreign corporations as well as their domestic subsidiaries can discriminate against American employees on the basis of sex, age, religion, and national origin in a manner that would be acceptable under their own laws and customs but inimical to American law is currently determined by a muddled jumble of circuit court opinions interpreting a "[w]e express no view" Supreme Court footnote. As a result, American victims of sexual discrimination have much less protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the discriminating actor is a foreign corporation or its domestic subsidiary than they do when the discrimination is by a wholly domestic corporation. This results from the courts' interpretations of the relationship between a common Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) provision that allows foreign corporations to hire executive-level employees "of their choice," and Title VII and its 703 bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception that allows discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin (but not race) for certain jobs. This Article will argue that this result, repugnant to the purpose of civil rights laws, is the result of a series of badly reasoned courts of appeal cases and a lack of guidance by the Supreme Court.
{"title":"Sex, Allies, BFOQs: The Case for Not Allowing Foreign Corporations to Violate Title VII in the United States","authors":"Keith E. Sealing","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1259998","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1259998","url":null,"abstract":"The extent to which foreign corporations as well as their domestic subsidiaries can discriminate against American employees on the basis of sex, age, religion, and national origin in a manner that would be acceptable under their own laws and customs but inimical to American law is currently determined by a muddled jumble of circuit court opinions interpreting a \"[w]e express no view\" Supreme Court footnote. As a result, American victims of sexual discrimination have much less protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the discriminating actor is a foreign corporation or its domestic subsidiary than they do when the discrimination is by a wholly domestic corporation. This results from the courts' interpretations of the relationship between a common Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) provision that allows foreign corporations to hire executive-level employees \"of their choice,\" and Title VII and its 703 bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception that allows discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin (but not race) for certain jobs. This Article will argue that this result, repugnant to the purpose of civil rights laws, is the result of a series of badly reasoned courts of appeal cases and a lack of guidance by the Supreme Court.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128547495","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}
When the Supreme Court issued its landmark Title VII decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co v. White, it concluded that the statute's anti-retaliation provision reaches beyond the workplace to redress non-workplace harms. All of the harms alleged in that case, however, bore a clear and direct relationship to the plaintiff's employment. As such, the Court's instruction on that point was unnecessary. The debate over the dictum-holding distinction is rich, but this Article concludes that the Court's discussion of non-workplace harms in Burlington Northern was indisputably dictum. It is commonplace among the lower federal courts to practice blind adherence to Supreme Court dictum, given the Court's unique institutional position in the federal judiciary, its limited docket, and the predictive value of its advice. Nevertheless, this Article suggests that closer scrutiny of Supreme Court dicta is not only advisable as a policy matter but perhaps even constitutionally compelled. Thus, this Article proposes a framework for independent case-by-case assessment to determine whether Supreme Court dictum warrants precedential effect. It then proceeds to apply that framework in the context of non-workplace harms to demonstrate that blind adherence to the Court's overbroad interpretation of the statute is unadvisable, and that courts should instead review each case independently, guided by the relevant body of law and prevailing policy concerns, to determine whether the alleged harm bears a sufficient nexus to the workplace to warrant Title VII relief.
{"title":"Parsing Supreme Court Dicta to Adjudicate Non-Workplace Harms","authors":"L. D. Taylor","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1243693","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1243693","url":null,"abstract":"When the Supreme Court issued its landmark Title VII decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co v. White, it concluded that the statute's anti-retaliation provision reaches beyond the workplace to redress non-workplace harms. All of the harms alleged in that case, however, bore a clear and direct relationship to the plaintiff's employment. As such, the Court's instruction on that point was unnecessary. The debate over the dictum-holding distinction is rich, but this Article concludes that the Court's discussion of non-workplace harms in Burlington Northern was indisputably dictum. It is commonplace among the lower federal courts to practice blind adherence to Supreme Court dictum, given the Court's unique institutional position in the federal judiciary, its limited docket, and the predictive value of its advice. Nevertheless, this Article suggests that closer scrutiny of Supreme Court dicta is not only advisable as a policy matter but perhaps even constitutionally compelled. Thus, this Article proposes a framework for independent case-by-case assessment to determine whether Supreme Court dictum warrants precedential effect. It then proceeds to apply that framework in the context of non-workplace harms to demonstrate that blind adherence to the Court's overbroad interpretation of the statute is unadvisable, and that courts should instead review each case independently, guided by the relevant body of law and prevailing policy concerns, to determine whether the alleged harm bears a sufficient nexus to the workplace to warrant Title VII relief.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115321512","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}
In a very interesting historical phenomenon, rights and protections for same-sex relationships has largely come from the workplace even though in most states and the federal government, the law is not there to support it. The majority of the Fortune 500 companies have policies that protect employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and very often provide benefits to same-gender couples. While it is usually the legislature that passes laws and society must catch up, in this case, it is the other way around. This paper takes a look at many of the benefits issues and what is being done and why there is this unusual turn of events regarding same-gender relationships.
{"title":"Same-Gender Relationships and the Impact of Employment Benefits: Employers Rather than Legislation Leading the Way in a Case of the Tail Wagging the Dog","authors":"Dawn D. Bennett-Alexander","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1785123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1785123","url":null,"abstract":"In a very interesting historical phenomenon, rights and protections for same-sex relationships has largely come from the workplace even though in most states and the federal government, the law is not there to support it. The majority of the Fortune 500 companies have policies that protect employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and very often provide benefits to same-gender couples. While it is usually the legislature that passes laws and society must catch up, in this case, it is the other way around. This paper takes a look at many of the benefits issues and what is being done and why there is this unusual turn of events regarding same-gender relationships.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115257209","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}
The world all around is growing increasingly complex day by day. Decisions are constantly made that affect our safety, health, human and economic rights. More often than not these decisions are made by the sluggish, inept and corrupt of the individuals. Of late, there has been a significant upsurge in the recognition of the meaning and value of whistleblowing as a channel of unveiling information about illegal or unethical activities thus helping to take a positive step towards reduction of corruption. This article broadly speaks about whistleblowing in the United Kingdom.
{"title":"Whistle-Blowing in the United Kingdom","authors":"A. Saha","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1106544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1106544","url":null,"abstract":"The world all around is growing increasingly complex day by day. Decisions are constantly made that affect our safety, health, human and economic rights. More often than not these decisions are made by the sluggish, inept and corrupt of the individuals. Of late, there has been a significant upsurge in the recognition of the meaning and value of whistleblowing as a channel of unveiling information about illegal or unethical activities thus helping to take a positive step towards reduction of corruption. This article broadly speaks about whistleblowing in the United Kingdom.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123054758","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}
Liberal - contractarian philosophies of justice see the unjust systems of slavery and autocracy in the past as being based on coercion - whereas the social order in the modern democratic market societies is based on consent and contract. However, the 'best' case for slavery and autocracy in the past was based on consent-based contractarian arguments. Hence our first task is to recover those 'forgotten' apologia for slavery and autocracy. To counter those consent-based arguments, the historical anti-slavery and democratic movements developed a theory of inalienable rights. Our second task is to recover that theory and to consider several other applications of the theory. Finally the theories of justice expounded by John Rawls and by Martha Nussbaum are examined from this perspective.
{"title":"Inalienable Rights and Liberal - Contractarian Theories of Justice - With Applications to Rawls and Nussbaum","authors":"D. Ellerman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1340681","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1340681","url":null,"abstract":"Liberal - contractarian philosophies of justice see the unjust systems of slavery and autocracy in the past as being based on coercion - whereas the social order in the modern democratic market societies is based on consent and contract. However, the 'best' case for slavery and autocracy in the past was based on consent-based contractarian arguments. Hence our first task is to recover those 'forgotten' apologia for slavery and autocracy. To counter those consent-based arguments, the historical anti-slavery and democratic movements developed a theory of inalienable rights. Our second task is to recover that theory and to consider several other applications of the theory. Finally the theories of justice expounded by John Rawls and by Martha Nussbaum are examined from this perspective.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"172 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116309067","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}
The present article is a critique on the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Unrecognized School Association v. State of Haryana, where the Supreme Court has held that teachers of primary schools are not eligible to receive minimum wages as provided under the Minimum wages Act as they cannot be considered as employee as defined by the Minimum Wages Act under section 2(i). The author believes that such a judgment would cause grave injustice to the teachers and is of the opinion that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the definition of employee under the Act in order to bring in teachers also under the scope of the Act.
{"title":"Should Teachers be Entitled to Minimum Wages?","authors":"A. Kothari","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1103176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1103176","url":null,"abstract":"The present article is a critique on the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Unrecognized School Association v. State of Haryana, where the Supreme Court has held that teachers of primary schools are not eligible to receive minimum wages as provided under the Minimum wages Act as they cannot be considered as employee as defined by the Minimum Wages Act under section 2(i). The author believes that such a judgment would cause grave injustice to the teachers and is of the opinion that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the definition of employee under the Act in order to bring in teachers also under the scope of the Act.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126470267","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：