Pub Date : 2024-09-14DOI: 10.1177/20319525241274670
Adrijana Martinović
This case law update summarises the cases decided by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2023 in the field of EU anti-discrimination law.
本判例法更新概述了欧盟法院 2023 年在欧盟反歧视法领域做出裁决的案例。
{"title":"Anti-discrimination cases decided by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2023","authors":"Adrijana Martinović","doi":"10.1177/20319525241274670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241274670","url":null,"abstract":"This case law update summarises the cases decided by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2023 in the field of EU anti-discrimination law.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142265145","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}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241266199
Mario Guido
In response to increased interest from states and companies as well as momentum on the issue of private prison labour in the past few decades, this article offers a comprehensive model framework aimed at reconciling profit-driven objectives with prisoner rehabilitation. The article addresses the debate surrounding prison labour for private for-profit entities and proposes a model that attempts to remedy some of the issues and criticisms that arise from the practice. Drawing on the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organisation, the framework integrates certain provisions from the standard, emphasising public supervision, consent and labour guarantees. Equally, it tries to address concerns of unfair competition and job displacement while promoting ‘meaningful' work and encouraging post-release employment of prisoners. Recognising the need for some practical feasibility and in a bid to shift the incentives for private entities to employ prisoners, from ‘cheap’ labour to fairer work practices, the model argues that other benefits such as tax breaks or subsidies may help align private and rehabilitative goals. As governments have turned to the private sector to increase work opportunities for prisoners, this paper argues that a more equitable and rehabilitative approach should follow, representative of societal values.
{"title":"Beyond profit: A model framework for ethical and feasible private prison labour","authors":"Mario Guido","doi":"10.1177/20319525241266199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241266199","url":null,"abstract":"In response to increased interest from states and companies as well as momentum on the issue of private prison labour in the past few decades, this article offers a comprehensive model framework aimed at reconciling profit-driven objectives with prisoner rehabilitation. The article addresses the debate surrounding prison labour for private for-profit entities and proposes a model that attempts to remedy some of the issues and criticisms that arise from the practice. Drawing on the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organisation, the framework integrates certain provisions from the standard, emphasising public supervision, consent and labour guarantees. Equally, it tries to address concerns of unfair competition and job displacement while promoting ‘meaningful' work and encouraging post-release employment of prisoners. Recognising the need for some practical feasibility and in a bid to shift the incentives for private entities to employ prisoners, from ‘cheap’ labour to fairer work practices, the model argues that other benefits such as tax breaks or subsidies may help align private and rehabilitative goals. As governments have turned to the private sector to increase work opportunities for prisoners, this paper argues that a more equitable and rehabilitative approach should follow, representative of societal values.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178092","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}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241266543
Faina Milman-Sivan, Yair Sagy
This article critically examines the EU's recent proposal to ban products made with forced labour from its market, which adopts the ILO's definition of ‘forced labour’ as outlined in the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 (No. 29). The authors argue that the EU's endorsement of the ILO's approach is problematic due to two flawed assumptions: (1) the definition of ‘forced labour’ is universally accepted across the EU, and (2) it is well-suited to combat forced labour in contemporary supply chains. Through an analysis of ongoing debates between the ILO and its Member States, the article demonstrates a lack of consensus regarding the interpretation of the Convention, particularly in the context of hybrid public-private prison labour arrangements. Furthermore, introducing a new Hybrid Multi-Dimensional (HMD) model for analysing contemporary prison labour practices, the article reveals blind spots in the ILO's approach that may inadvertently allow the incorporation of prison labour into supply chains, contrary to the EU's objectives. The article argues that the EU's unequivocal endorsement of the ILO's definition disregards these fundamental issues and may hinder the effective implementation of its proposed ban. The authors suggest that the HMD model offers a more comprehensive framework for analysing the complex realities of modern prison labour and could provide a roadmap for resolving the ILO-States debate. The article concludes that the EU should reconsider its wholesale adoption of the ILO's approach in light of the HMD model's insights in order to fulfil the objectives of its proposed forced labour product ban.
{"title":"Minding the gap? Blind spots in the ILO's and the EU's perspective on anti-forced labour policy","authors":"Faina Milman-Sivan, Yair Sagy","doi":"10.1177/20319525241266543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241266543","url":null,"abstract":"This article critically examines the EU's recent proposal to ban products made with forced labour from its market, which adopts the ILO's definition of ‘forced labour’ as outlined in the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 (No. 29). The authors argue that the EU's endorsement of the ILO's approach is problematic due to two flawed assumptions: (1) the definition of ‘forced labour’ is universally accepted across the EU, and (2) it is well-suited to combat forced labour in contemporary supply chains. Through an analysis of ongoing debates between the ILO and its Member States, the article demonstrates a lack of consensus regarding the interpretation of the Convention, particularly in the context of hybrid public-private prison labour arrangements. Furthermore, introducing a new Hybrid Multi-Dimensional (HMD) model for analysing contemporary prison labour practices, the article reveals blind spots in the ILO's approach that may inadvertently allow the incorporation of prison labour into supply chains, contrary to the EU's objectives. The article argues that the EU's unequivocal endorsement of the ILO's definition disregards these fundamental issues and may hinder the effective implementation of its proposed ban. The authors suggest that the HMD model offers a more comprehensive framework for analysing the complex realities of modern prison labour and could provide a roadmap for resolving the ILO-States debate. The article concludes that the EU should reconsider its wholesale adoption of the ILO's approach in light of the HMD model's insights in order to fulfil the objectives of its proposed forced labour product ban.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178104","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}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241274663
Virginia Mantouvalou
{"title":"The labour and social security rights of captive workers: Introduction","authors":"Virginia Mantouvalou","doi":"10.1177/20319525241274663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241274663","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178111","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}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241266195
Frantzeska Papadopoulou Skarp
This article investigates the conditions under which intellectual property rights are created in prison as well as the possibilities inmates are given to exercise these rights. The article adopts a predominantly Swedish perspective, while it also refers to illustrative examples of cases of creative works created behind bars in US prisons. The two penitentiary systems differ considerably, but there are some interesting conclusions to be drawn from the US experience and some unexpected similarities that may be noted in the way copyright protected works made in prison are treated. The article discusses, in its first part, the evolution of the penitentiary system in Sweden and the regulation of penal work and leisure times activities. The copyright system is briefly presented with a focus on the way copyright operates when the author is an inmate. Furthermore, the article provides illustrations of prison programmes that have resulted in the creation of copyright-protected works in the US, and how the US legal system has dealt with the question of copyright ownership of works created by inmates. Turning back to Sweden, the article reflects on the two writing programmes that have recently led to book publications authored by inmates, as well as on the fate of the ‘made in prison’ branded products. The article investigates yet another project, the Krimtech project that concerns other forms of inmate input to intellectual property, namely, the collection of data. The Foucauldian theory provides a theoretical umbrella under which the discrepancies between the copyright-law principle of equality of authors, and the actual practical implementation as well as the impact prison regulation has in this respect is discussed and analysed.
{"title":"Intellectual property rights behind bars","authors":"Frantzeska Papadopoulou Skarp","doi":"10.1177/20319525241266195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241266195","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the conditions under which intellectual property rights are created in prison as well as the possibilities inmates are given to exercise these rights. The article adopts a predominantly Swedish perspective, while it also refers to illustrative examples of cases of creative works created behind bars in US prisons. The two penitentiary systems differ considerably, but there are some interesting conclusions to be drawn from the US experience and some unexpected similarities that may be noted in the way copyright protected works made in prison are treated. The article discusses, in its first part, the evolution of the penitentiary system in Sweden and the regulation of penal work and leisure times activities. The copyright system is briefly presented with a focus on the way copyright operates when the author is an inmate. Furthermore, the article provides illustrations of prison programmes that have resulted in the creation of copyright-protected works in the US, and how the US legal system has dealt with the question of copyright ownership of works created by inmates. Turning back to Sweden, the article reflects on the two writing programmes that have recently led to book publications authored by inmates, as well as on the fate of the ‘made in prison’ branded products. The article investigates yet another project, the Krimtech project that concerns other forms of inmate input to intellectual property, namely, the collection of data. The Foucauldian theory provides a theoretical umbrella under which the discrepancies between the copyright-law principle of equality of authors, and the actual practical implementation as well as the impact prison regulation has in this respect is discussed and analysed.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178105","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}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241266351
Petra Herzfeld Olsson
In Sweden there is no minimum wage legislation. Wages for 88% of workers are governed by collective agreement, and for the remainder, they are set by individual employment contracts. The lowest wage levels in collective agreements for adults were about SEK 19,000 in 2022, and the median wage was about SEK 34,200, which corresponds to SEK 119 and SEK 214 per hour, respectively. Wages not set by collective agreement or employment contract are supposed to be ‘reasonable’. A reasonable wage is a wage in line with the level laid down in the sectoral collective agreement. Incarcerated workers earn SEK 13 an hour in Sweden. They are not categorised as workers, however, and therefore are not covered by labour law or collective agreements. But the products of their work – goods and services – are either sold on the open market or used for the benefit of the Swedish Agency for Prisons and the Probation Service, as the services or goods do not have to be bought on the open market. Such low pay would be considered unreasonable for any other work. However, work has been a central aspect of serving time in Swedish prisons for a very long time. Over time, such work has been motivated and governed by different principles and aims, such as the work-first principle, meaning, i.e., that work is both a societal duty and a right, and the aim of disciplining the incarcerated workers for internal and external purposes (resocialisation). The rehabilitative aspect of work has been emphasised. Proposals to raise the pay level have been rejected as being too expensive and counteracting the rehabilitative function of serving time in prison. This article seeks to explain the perceived rationale behind this state of affairs and to bring a human rights perspective into the picture and reflect on its implications.
{"title":"Work like any other but like no other: Labour rights for working prisoners in Sweden","authors":"Petra Herzfeld Olsson","doi":"10.1177/20319525241266351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241266351","url":null,"abstract":"In Sweden there is no minimum wage legislation. Wages for 88% of workers are governed by collective agreement, and for the remainder, they are set by individual employment contracts. The lowest wage levels in collective agreements for adults were about SEK 19,000 in 2022, and the median wage was about SEK 34,200, which corresponds to SEK 119 and SEK 214 per hour, respectively. Wages not set by collective agreement or employment contract are supposed to be ‘reasonable’. A reasonable wage is a wage in line with the level laid down in the sectoral collective agreement. Incarcerated workers earn SEK 13 an hour in Sweden. They are not categorised as workers, however, and therefore are not covered by labour law or collective agreements. But the products of their work – goods and services – are either sold on the open market or used for the benefit of the Swedish Agency for Prisons and the Probation Service, as the services or goods do not have to be bought on the open market. Such low pay would be considered unreasonable for any other work. However, work has been a central aspect of serving time in Swedish prisons for a very long time. Over time, such work has been motivated and governed by different principles and aims, such as the work-first principle, meaning, i.e., that work is both a societal duty and a right, and the aim of disciplining the incarcerated workers for internal and external purposes (resocialisation). The rehabilitative aspect of work has been emphasised. Proposals to raise the pay level have been rejected as being too expensive and counteracting the rehabilitative function of serving time in prison. This article seeks to explain the perceived rationale behind this state of affairs and to bring a human rights perspective into the picture and reflect on its implications.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178106","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}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241263175
Hugh Collins
Is the low level of wages paid to prisoners for their work morally wrong and contrary to the human right to fair pay? This article contrasts two paradigms of prison work, one in which it is an ordinary market transaction to which normal employment rights should apply, with the rival and dominant paradigm that prisoners do not have contracts for the performance of work and sums paid to them are not pay or remuneration but rather a small incentive to perform work in a diligent way. The article also considers what would be required for prisoners’ pay to comply with the human right to fair pay, which has been viewed in three different ways – the right to be a member of a trade union for the purpose of collective bargaining, the right to a living wage that enables a life of dignity, and the right to equal pay with others who perform similar work.
{"title":"The right to fair pay and two paradigms of prison work","authors":"Hugh Collins","doi":"10.1177/20319525241263175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241263175","url":null,"abstract":"Is the low level of wages paid to prisoners for their work morally wrong and contrary to the human right to fair pay? This article contrasts two paradigms of prison work, one in which it is an ordinary market transaction to which normal employment rights should apply, with the rival and dominant paradigm that prisoners do not have contracts for the performance of work and sums paid to them are not pay or remuneration but rather a small incentive to perform work in a diligent way. The article also considers what would be required for prisoners’ pay to comply with the human right to fair pay, which has been viewed in three different ways – the right to be a member of a trade union for the purpose of collective bargaining, the right to a living wage that enables a life of dignity, and the right to equal pay with others who perform similar work.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178108","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}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241260877
Hadassa Noorda
As of 2021, work in prisons in the Netherlands is voluntary, at least to some extent. In this article, I examine the protection of working prisoners’ labour rights after the shift to a voluntary work scheme for prisoners in the Netherlands. Work in Dutch prisons may be freely chosen to some extent, but the Dutch scheme for work in prison raises questions about offenders’ rehabilitation. Having work opportunities while in prison is said to contribute to the learning of skills, promote rehabilitation and societal reintegration and provide prisoners with income. However, prisoners in the Dutch prison perform their work for low pay and have limited meaningful options for the work they perform. This has a profound impact on their time in prison and on their reintegration into the labour market after having served their sentences. I argue that these issues demand an in-depth examination if prisoners’ rights are to be protected. I describe working prisoners’ labour rights in the Netherlands and address the normative question of the rights that working prisoners should have based on the principle that imprisonment itself is the punishment and that extensions of prison sentences in society are illegitimate. My proposal for considering the amendment of the approach to prison labour in the Netherlands aims to be useful for the analysis of prison labour in general.
{"title":"‘Voluntary’ prison labour in the Netherlands","authors":"Hadassa Noorda","doi":"10.1177/20319525241260877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241260877","url":null,"abstract":"As of 2021, work in prisons in the Netherlands is voluntary, at least to some extent. In this article, I examine the protection of working prisoners’ labour rights after the shift to a voluntary work scheme for prisoners in the Netherlands. Work in Dutch prisons may be freely chosen to some extent, but the Dutch scheme for work in prison raises questions about offenders’ rehabilitation. Having work opportunities while in prison is said to contribute to the learning of skills, promote rehabilitation and societal reintegration and provide prisoners with income. However, prisoners in the Dutch prison perform their work for low pay and have limited meaningful options for the work they perform. This has a profound impact on their time in prison and on their reintegration into the labour market after having served their sentences. I argue that these issues demand an in-depth examination if prisoners’ rights are to be protected. I describe working prisoners’ labour rights in the Netherlands and address the normative question of the rights that working prisoners should have based on the principle that imprisonment itself is the punishment and that extensions of prison sentences in society are illegitimate. My proposal for considering the amendment of the approach to prison labour in the Netherlands aims to be useful for the analysis of prison labour in general.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178109","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}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241270252
Rory Kelly
Mandatory prison labour is not classed as part of the offender's punishment. The sentence is the years to be served in prison and on licence in the community. I argue that there is reason for reclassifying or reforming the current regime of prison labour in England and Wales. The argument for reclassification draws analogy to the place of labour in community orders and suspended sentences. If there is reason to reclassify prison labour, consideration of proportionality would require significantly reduced time in prison. However, there are important difficulties with establishing what reduction should be offered and operationalising any such reduction in a fair way. If prison labour is instead to be reformed so as to be non-punitive, this may require an overhaul, giving the offender a choice of whether to work and wider labour protections. Prison labour is lost when classed as neither punishment nor as employment.
{"title":"Prison labour as punishment","authors":"Rory Kelly","doi":"10.1177/20319525241270252","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241270252","url":null,"abstract":"Mandatory prison labour is not classed as part of the offender's punishment. The sentence is the years to be served in prison and on licence in the community. I argue that there is reason for reclassifying or reforming the current regime of prison labour in England and Wales. The argument for reclassification draws analogy to the place of labour in community orders and suspended sentences. If there is reason to reclassify prison labour, consideration of proportionality would require significantly reduced time in prison. However, there are important difficulties with establishing what reduction should be offered and operationalising any such reduction in a fair way. If prison labour is instead to be reformed so as to be non-punitive, this may require an overhaul, giving the offender a choice of whether to work and wider labour protections. Prison labour is lost when classed as neither punishment nor as employment.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178113","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}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1177/20319525241266386
Miriam Azinović
In Germany, prisoners are obliged to work during their imprisonment in most federal states. However, prisoners currently receive very little remuneration for this work. For two decades, this remuneration has stagnated at a low level or even decreased in some federal states. In a landmark ruling on 20 June 2023, Germany's highest court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court), recognised that the remuneration in two federal states is unconstitutionally low. As a result, for the first time in 25 years, the remuneration of prisoners will now change and – hopefully – increase significantly.
{"title":"Resocialisation through prisoner remuneration: The unconstitutionally low remuneration of working prisoners in Germany","authors":"Miriam Azinović","doi":"10.1177/20319525241266386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241266386","url":null,"abstract":"In Germany, prisoners are obliged to work during their imprisonment in most federal states. However, prisoners currently receive very little remuneration for this work. For two decades, this remuneration has stagnated at a low level or even decreased in some federal states. In a landmark ruling on 20 June 2023, Germany's highest court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court), recognised that the remuneration in two federal states is unconstitutionally low. As a result, for the first time in 25 years, the remuneration of prisoners will now change and – hopefully – increase significantly.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142178090","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：