Pub Date : 2022-10-20DOI: 10.1177/20319525221131184
N. Munkholm
The article discusses selected forms of multiparty work relationships that are surfacing in Denmark, and the responses of the social partners to these developments. The overall approach of the Danish labour market parties and legislators is with a view to ensuring that work performed by workers in atypical employment relationships, such as multiparty work relationships, are also covered by collective agreements, which can be enforced. Collective agreements must be effective and adhered to, and attempts to circumvent collective agreements are strictly prohibited. As such, multiparty work relationships are addressed as any other work relationships, and are often expressly included in normal collective agreements. This is the case, unless a setup is viewed as an attempt to circumvent a collective agreement by creating pro forma contracts. In particular, subcontracting by independent contractors has been the subject of legal review, where the trade unions have filed claims before the industrial courts to test the reality of subcontracting arrangements. Also, the question of who is the responsible employer surfaces in multiparty work relationships in particular, as the responsible employer is subject to the duty of adhering to the collective agreement and other workers’ rights. The duty to adhere to provisions in collective agreements covers fraudulent contractual setups, and the user entity that in reality is the employer can be liable for breach of the agreement. Furthermore, the social partners enter into negotiations in respect of new forms of work, adapting collective agreements to such new forms of work. This is the case for platform work. Finally, certain trade unions engage with the interests of their members in becoming independent contractors, and have developed support for their members’ endevaours by way of a formal service bureau to look after the administrative side of being an indepdent contractor. The role of the social partners continues to be central and necessary to counteract circumvention and fraudulent business structures. At the same time, the role of the social partners is also characterised as adaptive and dynamic as they seek to actively engage with the interests of their memberes, and to continue to be a relevant partner for their members as well as for society at large.
{"title":"Multiparty work relationships in Denmark: The active role of social partners","authors":"N. Munkholm","doi":"10.1177/20319525221131184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221131184","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses selected forms of multiparty work relationships that are surfacing in Denmark, and the responses of the social partners to these developments. The overall approach of the Danish labour market parties and legislators is with a view to ensuring that work performed by workers in atypical employment relationships, such as multiparty work relationships, are also covered by collective agreements, which can be enforced. Collective agreements must be effective and adhered to, and attempts to circumvent collective agreements are strictly prohibited. As such, multiparty work relationships are addressed as any other work relationships, and are often expressly included in normal collective agreements. This is the case, unless a setup is viewed as an attempt to circumvent a collective agreement by creating pro forma contracts. In particular, subcontracting by independent contractors has been the subject of legal review, where the trade unions have filed claims before the industrial courts to test the reality of subcontracting arrangements. Also, the question of who is the responsible employer surfaces in multiparty work relationships in particular, as the responsible employer is subject to the duty of adhering to the collective agreement and other workers’ rights. The duty to adhere to provisions in collective agreements covers fraudulent contractual setups, and the user entity that in reality is the employer can be liable for breach of the agreement. Furthermore, the social partners enter into negotiations in respect of new forms of work, adapting collective agreements to such new forms of work. This is the case for platform work. Finally, certain trade unions engage with the interests of their members in becoming independent contractors, and have developed support for their members’ endevaours by way of a formal service bureau to look after the administrative side of being an indepdent contractor. The role of the social partners continues to be central and necessary to counteract circumvention and fraudulent business structures. At the same time, the role of the social partners is also characterised as adaptive and dynamic as they seek to actively engage with the interests of their memberes, and to continue to be a relevant partner for their members as well as for society at large.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"515 - 529"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43584056","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 : 2022-10-18DOI: 10.1177/20319525221129112
Auriane Lamine
This article concludes the recent special issue of the ELLJ devoted to zero-hours contracts (ZHC), edited by E. Dermine and A. Mechelynck. It draws some cross-cutting conclusions based on the analysis of the four national contributions. Two major issues are examined in turn. First, the author looks back at the contrasting attitude that different national authorities have taken towards the use of ZHCs. She describes how these practices have been differently defined and legally framed and identifies the main debated issues. After acknowledging that no legal system has completely banned ZHCs, the article asks whether specific mechanisms adopted to mitigate the negative consequences of ZHCs are effective. This second inquiry is framed within a normative framework inspired by the work of Maslow. It invites us to refocus the legal debate on the fundamental objective of meeting the most basic needs of ZHC workers.
{"title":"What if the purpose of social law was to ensure that workers’ needs are met? Some lessons from the regulation of zero-hour contracts in three European countries","authors":"Auriane Lamine","doi":"10.1177/20319525221129112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221129112","url":null,"abstract":"This article concludes the recent special issue of the ELLJ devoted to zero-hours contracts (ZHC), edited by E. Dermine and A. Mechelynck. It draws some cross-cutting conclusions based on the analysis of the four national contributions. Two major issues are examined in turn. First, the author looks back at the contrasting attitude that different national authorities have taken towards the use of ZHCs. She describes how these practices have been differently defined and legally framed and identifies the main debated issues. After acknowledging that no legal system has completely banned ZHCs, the article asks whether specific mechanisms adopted to mitigate the negative consequences of ZHCs are effective. This second inquiry is framed within a normative framework inspired by the work of Maslow. It invites us to refocus the legal debate on the fundamental objective of meeting the most basic needs of ZHC workers.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"563 - 576"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45490111","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 : 2022-10-17DOI: 10.1177/20319525221127715
Frederic De Wispelaere, Marco Rocca
Drawing on research conducted by the authors in the frame of the POSTING.STAT research project, this article explores the legal fiction that posted workers do not, at any time, ‘gain access’ to the labour market of a host State where they are in fact (temporarily) working. Hence, it analyses following question: at what point and under which circumstances are posted workers considered as working in a given Member State? To do so, it considers the use of the concept of ‘labour market’ across the case law of the Court of Justice concerning posting workers, to identify the constitutive elements of the implicit definition adopted by the Court. This analysis is compared with economic/statistical assumptions applied when measuring employment in a country. From a statistical point of view, the labour market appears to be demarcated by the place of establishment of the employer, thus excluding work (i.e., services) carried out through non-established employers. Consequently, cross-border labour mobility through the freedom to provide services does not fall within these boundaries and means that posted workers are counted in the employment statistics of their Member State of origin. The approach to posted workers in the labour market of the host State is therefore not only a legal, but also a statistical/economic, fiction. Based on an empirical reality that shows a strong concentration of posted workers in certain sectors, Member States or regions, we argue that courts and legislators, and also national statistical offices, should reconsider this approach.
{"title":"Posting of workers and the border of the labour market","authors":"Frederic De Wispelaere, Marco Rocca","doi":"10.1177/20319525221127715","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221127715","url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on research conducted by the authors in the frame of the POSTING.STAT research project, this article explores the legal fiction that posted workers do not, at any time, ‘gain access’ to the labour market of a host State where they are in fact (temporarily) working. Hence, it analyses following question: at what point and under which circumstances are posted workers considered as working in a given Member State? To do so, it considers the use of the concept of ‘labour market’ across the case law of the Court of Justice concerning posting workers, to identify the constitutive elements of the implicit definition adopted by the Court. This analysis is compared with economic/statistical assumptions applied when measuring employment in a country. From a statistical point of view, the labour market appears to be demarcated by the place of establishment of the employer, thus excluding work (i.e., services) carried out through non-established employers. Consequently, cross-border labour mobility through the freedom to provide services does not fall within these boundaries and means that posted workers are counted in the employment statistics of their Member State of origin. The approach to posted workers in the labour market of the host State is therefore not only a legal, but also a statistical/economic, fiction. Based on an empirical reality that shows a strong concentration of posted workers in certain sectors, Member States or regions, we argue that courts and legislators, and also national statistical offices, should reconsider this approach.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"92 - 107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44686613","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 : 2022-10-13DOI: 10.1177/20319525221131161
Christina Hiessl
and present a categorisation of multiparty work relationships. Beyond the various constructions amounting to a ‘ hiring-out ’ of workers to a user and those in which workers are used to provide a service to a third party, the authors identify a number of other situations in which workers depend, in one or other signi fi cant way, on more than one party. The contribution provides an overview and analysis of national-level regulation and case law with regard to temporary agency work, the outsourcing of labour or of services, umbrella organisations, platform work, payrolling, franchising, workers ’ co-operations, groups of companies and co-employment.
{"title":"Multiparty work relationships in Europe: Introduction to this Special Section","authors":"Christina Hiessl","doi":"10.1177/20319525221131161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221131161","url":null,"abstract":"and present a categorisation of multiparty work relationships. Beyond the various constructions amounting to a ‘ hiring-out ’ of workers to a user and those in which workers are used to provide a service to a third party, the authors identify a number of other situations in which workers depend, in one or other signi fi cant way, on more than one party. The contribution provides an overview and analysis of national-level regulation and case law with regard to temporary agency work, the outsourcing of labour or of services, umbrella organisations, platform work, payrolling, franchising, workers ’ co-operations, groups of companies and co-employment.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"471 - 473"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44472349","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 : 2022-10-13DOI: 10.1177/20319525221131173
Emiliano Maran, Elisa Chieregato
This article aims to contribute to the growing labour law discussion on Multiparty Work Relationships (MWRs), a term used to refer to temporary agency work, subcontracting, franchising and all other working arrangements in which the traditional bipartite structure is complicated by the presence of one or more intermediaries. Based on a large-scale comparative study which involved the participation of national experts from 30 European countries, the article seeks to shed light on MWRs across Europe, developing a tripartite classification of the various types of MWRs that can be found across Europe. On the basis of this classification, it provides a comparative overview of the extent to which these relationships are regulated and captured by national and EU labour law, presenting some specific domestic reactions to the problems emerging from the proliferation of these contractual arrangements.
{"title":"Multiparty work relationships across Europe: A comparative overview","authors":"Emiliano Maran, Elisa Chieregato","doi":"10.1177/20319525221131173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221131173","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to contribute to the growing labour law discussion on Multiparty Work Relationships (MWRs), a term used to refer to temporary agency work, subcontracting, franchising and all other working arrangements in which the traditional bipartite structure is complicated by the presence of one or more intermediaries. Based on a large-scale comparative study which involved the participation of national experts from 30 European countries, the article seeks to shed light on MWRs across Europe, developing a tripartite classification of the various types of MWRs that can be found across Europe. On the basis of this classification, it provides a comparative overview of the extent to which these relationships are regulated and captured by national and EU labour law, presenting some specific domestic reactions to the problems emerging from the proliferation of these contractual arrangements.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"474 - 491"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44048933","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 : 2022-10-05DOI: 10.1177/20319525221128887
Annika Rosin
The employment status of platform workers has been vividly discussed in recent years. Digital platforms often argue that the workers’ freedom to decide whether and when to work speaks to their self-employment. The scarce case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as well as the new proposal for a Directive on platform work appears to indicate that opinion is shared. However, the Member States can guarantee better protection to platform workers. The working arrangements of platform workers are similar to zero-hours work in which the worker also has the right to refuse offered tasks. In some countries, such as Finland, zero-hours workers are explicitly considered as employees. Nevertheless, the general definition of the employment contract requires the commitment on behalf of the employee to perform work. This contradiction makes the employment status of zero-hours workers as well as platform workers unclear. In this article I analyse whether and how the right to decide whether and when to work affects the employment status of food delivery couriers working through digital platforms. I use Wolt and Foodora as examples. The issue is analysed in the light of Finnish regulation and European Union law. I argue that even though the case law of the CJEU and the proposal for a Directive on platform work regard the right of a food delivery courier to decide whether and when to work as evidence against their employee status, the couriers can obtain this status through the regulation of zero-hours contracts. Regardless of the fact that generally the conclusion of an employment contract requires the commitment on behalf of the worker to perform work, zero-hours workers are explicitly and exceptionally exempted from this requirement. As the couriers can be classified as zero-hours workers, their freedom to choose whether and when to work does not preclude their classification as employees.
{"title":"The right of a platform worker to decide whether and when to work: An obstacle to their employee status?","authors":"Annika Rosin","doi":"10.1177/20319525221128887","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221128887","url":null,"abstract":"The employment status of platform workers has been vividly discussed in recent years. Digital platforms often argue that the workers’ freedom to decide whether and when to work speaks to their self-employment. The scarce case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as well as the new proposal for a Directive on platform work appears to indicate that opinion is shared. However, the Member States can guarantee better protection to platform workers. The working arrangements of platform workers are similar to zero-hours work in which the worker also has the right to refuse offered tasks. In some countries, such as Finland, zero-hours workers are explicitly considered as employees. Nevertheless, the general definition of the employment contract requires the commitment on behalf of the employee to perform work. This contradiction makes the employment status of zero-hours workers as well as platform workers unclear. In this article I analyse whether and how the right to decide whether and when to work affects the employment status of food delivery couriers working through digital platforms. I use Wolt and Foodora as examples. The issue is analysed in the light of Finnish regulation and European Union law. I argue that even though the case law of the CJEU and the proposal for a Directive on platform work regard the right of a food delivery courier to decide whether and when to work as evidence against their employee status, the couriers can obtain this status through the regulation of zero-hours contracts. Regardless of the fact that generally the conclusion of an employment contract requires the commitment on behalf of the worker to perform work, zero-hours workers are explicitly and exceptionally exempted from this requirement. As the couriers can be classified as zero-hours workers, their freedom to choose whether and when to work does not preclude their classification as employees.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"530 - 541"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43222210","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 : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1177/20319525221127716
Elena Gramano
The contribution analyses the content and relevance of the Court of Justice of the European Union's judgment in the Dublin City Council case, and discusses its meaning and impact on the EU notion of working time.
本文分析了欧盟法院在都柏林市议会案中判决的内容和相关性，并讨论了其对欧盟工作时间概念的意义和影响。
{"title":"Stand-by time through the Court of Justice's lens","authors":"Elena Gramano","doi":"10.1177/20319525221127716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221127716","url":null,"abstract":"The contribution analyses the content and relevance of the Court of Justice of the European Union's judgment in the Dublin City Council case, and discusses its meaning and impact on the EU notion of working time.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"577 - 584"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66119564","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 : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/20319525221104164
E. Dermine, Amaury Mechelynck
As an introduction to the special issue, this article provides a common definition of the phenomenon studied, i.e. zero-hour contracts, and sets out the research goals pursued through the successive contributions that compose it. Zero-hour contracts are long-term relationships where the employer does not commit to providing a minimum number of working hours to the worker. Legal scholars often state that zero-hour contracts are antithetical to the decommodification of work pursued by labour law. The special issue intends to explore this hypothesis through a legal doctrinal approach to European, international, and national labour law. First, it seeks to refine this hypothesis by examining, through three national case-studies, if (and how) national labour laws were designed to prevent zero-hour contracts and similar on-demand work arrangements. Second, taking the hypothesis seriously, it investigates whether there might be legal arguments in national labour laws and in European and international social law to oppose or to better protect zero-hour workers.
{"title":"Zero-hour contracts and labour law: An antithetical association?","authors":"E. Dermine, Amaury Mechelynck","doi":"10.1177/20319525221104164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221104164","url":null,"abstract":"As an introduction to the special issue, this article provides a common definition of the phenomenon studied, i.e. zero-hour contracts, and sets out the research goals pursued through the successive contributions that compose it. Zero-hour contracts are long-term relationships where the employer does not commit to providing a minimum number of working hours to the worker. Legal scholars often state that zero-hour contracts are antithetical to the decommodification of work pursued by labour law. The special issue intends to explore this hypothesis through a legal doctrinal approach to European, international, and national labour law. First, it seeks to refine this hypothesis by examining, through three national case-studies, if (and how) national labour laws were designed to prevent zero-hour contracts and similar on-demand work arrangements. Second, taking the hypothesis seriously, it investigates whether there might be legal arguments in national labour laws and in European and international social law to oppose or to better protect zero-hour workers.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"339 - 346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48421138","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 : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/20319525221104168
V. Mantouvalou
In response to concerns that non-standard work arrangements are precarious, it is often suggested that they are valuable for workers and employers because it is important for all to have the option of flexibility at work. In this article, I look at the relationship between welfare conditionality and zero-hours contracts, which constitute particularly precarious working arrangements. When we examine these together with schemes of strict conditionality particularly, we observe that many people do not choose non-standard work because of the flexibility that it offers, but are required to accept the jobs in question for otherwise the authorities will withdraw welfare support, and welfare claimants may be faced with destitution. Welfare conditionality schemes that are particularly punitive can turn, in this way, the unemployed poor into working and exploited poor. This piece further argues that schemes with strict conditionality that force and trap people into these arrangements raise issues under human rights law. In these situations we are faced with what I have described elsewhere as ‘state-mediated structures of exploitation’. The state is responsible for creating vulnerability to exploitation from which private employers benefit, and has duties under human rights law to change the laws in question in order to destabilise the unjust structures. To develop my argument, I first look at the meaning of the concept ‘zero-hours contracts’. I then turn to welfare conditionality schemes in the second section to explain how schemes with strict conditionality, and particularly the UK Universal Credit, force people into precarious work by threatening them with serious sanctions. The combination of rules on strict conditionality and zero-hours work leads to the construction of structures of exploitation, as the third section explains by reference to empirical research that has explored the effects of the schemes on people’s lives. In the fourth part, I argue that welfare conditionality schemes that force and trap people into zero-hours and other precarious work may violate several
{"title":"Welfare-to-work, zero-hours contracts and human rights","authors":"V. Mantouvalou","doi":"10.1177/20319525221104168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221104168","url":null,"abstract":"In response to concerns that non-standard work arrangements are precarious, it is often suggested that they are valuable for workers and employers because it is important for all to have the option of flexibility at work. In this article, I look at the relationship between welfare conditionality and zero-hours contracts, which constitute particularly precarious working arrangements. When we examine these together with schemes of strict conditionality particularly, we observe that many people do not choose non-standard work because of the flexibility that it offers, but are required to accept the jobs in question for otherwise the authorities will withdraw welfare support, and welfare claimants may be faced with destitution. Welfare conditionality schemes that are particularly punitive can turn, in this way, the unemployed poor into working and exploited poor. This piece further argues that schemes with strict conditionality that force and trap people into these arrangements raise issues under human rights law. In these situations we are faced with what I have described elsewhere as ‘state-mediated structures of exploitation’. The state is responsible for creating vulnerability to exploitation from which private employers benefit, and has duties under human rights law to change the laws in question in order to destabilise the unjust structures. To develop my argument, I first look at the meaning of the concept ‘zero-hours contracts’. I then turn to welfare conditionality schemes in the second section to explain how schemes with strict conditionality, and particularly the UK Universal Credit, force people into precarious work by threatening them with serious sanctions. The combination of rules on strict conditionality and zero-hours work leads to the construction of structures of exploitation, as the third section explains by reference to empirical research that has explored the effects of the schemes on people’s lives. In the fourth part, I argue that welfare conditionality schemes that force and trap people into zero-hours and other precarious work may violate several","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"431 - 449"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44623354","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 : 2022-06-14DOI: 10.1177/20319525221105102
Loïc Lerouge, Francisco Trujillo Pons
France and Spain were pioneer countries in regulating the right to ‘disconnect from work’. Indeed, this right has been recognised in these countries since 2016 and 2017 within the framework of the right to privacy in respect to the use of digital devices in the workplace. In accordance with the law, employees are protected if they do not use their digital devices (computer, mobile phone, tablet, smart watch, etc.) during periods of rest, thereby, ensuring that their right to rest is enshrined within the regulations of their country; especially in light of the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC. Therefore, from an analysis of French and Spanish legislation, the aim is to suggest pathways that could enable other countries to better regulate the right to disconnect, but also to develop EU law on the subject.
{"title":"Contribution to the study on the ‘right to disconnect’ from work. Are France and Spain examples for other countries and EU law?","authors":"Loïc Lerouge, Francisco Trujillo Pons","doi":"10.1177/20319525221105102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221105102","url":null,"abstract":"France and Spain were pioneer countries in regulating the right to ‘disconnect from work’. Indeed, this right has been recognised in these countries since 2016 and 2017 within the framework of the right to privacy in respect to the use of digital devices in the workplace. In accordance with the law, employees are protected if they do not use their digital devices (computer, mobile phone, tablet, smart watch, etc.) during periods of rest, thereby, ensuring that their right to rest is enshrined within the regulations of their country; especially in light of the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC. Therefore, from an analysis of French and Spanish legislation, the aim is to suggest pathways that could enable other countries to better regulate the right to disconnect, but also to develop EU law on the subject.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"450 - 465"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41802954","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：