{"title":"Work-Life Balance Introduction","authors":"Christina Hiessl","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45426227","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}
Along with the growing interest in Work–Life Balance (WLB) in academic debates, policymaking, corporate discourse and everyday life, critical scholars have called for an enquiry into the conceptual and practical ambiguities inherent in WLB discourse and policies. This article aims to contribute to this scholarship by exploring the evolution and the limitations of WLB provisions and policies, with specific reference to the European Union (EU) legal framework. The article provides an account of the evolution of the EU legal framework and explores the regulatory innovations introduced by Directive EU 2019/1158 on Work-Life Balance for Parents and Carers, adopted in June 2019. Drawing on the insights provided in the critical literature, in particular the objections to the focus on work–family balance of professionals at the expense of workers in lower income groups, this article assesses the new Directive against the background of increasing family diversity and the rise of non-standard employment. While some progress has been made towards the recognition of ‘non-standard’ families, many non-standard workers may still fall outside the scope of the Directive, or may not meet the eligibility criteria to access WLB measures, with detrimental effects in terms of equality. The article concludes by presenting the rationale for adopting an intersectional-sensitive approach to WLB. Work–Life Balance, European Pillar of Social Rights, Family-related Leave, Nonstandard Employment, Domestic Work, Intersectional analysis
{"title":"A Work–Life Balance for All? Assessing the Inclusiveness of EU Directive 2019/1158","authors":"Elisa Chieregato","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020004","url":null,"abstract":"Along with the growing interest in Work–Life Balance (WLB) in academic debates, policymaking, corporate discourse and everyday life, critical scholars have called for an enquiry into the conceptual and practical ambiguities inherent in WLB discourse and policies. This article aims to contribute to this scholarship by exploring the evolution and the limitations of WLB provisions and policies, with specific reference to the European Union (EU) legal framework. The article provides an account of the evolution of the EU legal framework and explores the regulatory innovations introduced by Directive EU 2019/1158 on Work-Life Balance for Parents and Carers, adopted in June 2019. Drawing on the insights provided in the critical literature, in particular the objections to the focus on work–family balance of professionals at the expense of workers in lower income groups, this article assesses the new Directive against the background of increasing family diversity and the rise of non-standard employment. While some progress has been made towards the recognition of ‘non-standard’ families, many non-standard workers may still fall outside the scope of the Directive, or may not meet the eligibility criteria to access WLB measures, with detrimental effects in terms of equality. The article concludes by presenting the rationale for adopting an intersectional-sensitive approach to WLB.\u0000Work–Life Balance, European Pillar of Social Rights, Family-related Leave, Nonstandard Employment, Domestic Work, Intersectional analysis","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48368640","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 provision of informal (family) care is one of the key work–life balance (WLB) issues to be addressed by social policies. So far, both legislative approaches and legal research have focused mainly on childcare-related issues. This is particularly true for the labour law component of policy measures. Considering current demographic trends, it seems crucial to enhance attention on care for older persons and people with disabilities. This article identifies four basic aims of WLB-enhancing social policies – availability, affordability, discouraging ‘too much’ informal care provision, and countering gender inequality – and explores the strategies developed in different legal systems and at the international level to address them. It then examines the degree to which such strategies exist also for adult care, the extent to which ‘transfers’ of childcare-related approaches are conceivable, and the particularities of adult care that call for new approaches to pursue the same aims. It concludes with a discussion of the most important elements of social policy and labour law approaches to promoting the WLB of workers providing informal care for adults. Work–Life Balance, Family Care, Informal Care, Care Leave, Comparative Law, International Law, Gender Equality, Labour Law, Social Security, Flexible Working Conditions.
{"title":"Caring for Balance? Legal Approaches to Those Who Struggle to Juggle Work and Adult Care","authors":"Christina Hiessl","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020006","url":null,"abstract":"The provision of informal (family) care is one of the key work–life balance (WLB) issues to be addressed by social policies. So far, both legislative approaches and legal research have focused mainly on childcare-related issues. This is particularly true for the labour law component of policy measures. Considering current demographic trends, it seems crucial to enhance attention on care for older persons and people with disabilities. This article identifies four basic aims of WLB-enhancing social policies – availability, affordability, discouraging ‘too much’ informal care provision, and countering gender inequality – and explores the strategies developed in different legal systems and at the international level to address them. It then examines the degree to which such strategies exist also for adult care, the extent to which ‘transfers’ of childcare-related approaches are conceivable, and the particularities of adult care that call for new approaches to pursue the same aims. It concludes with a discussion of the most important elements of social policy and labour law approaches to promoting the WLB of workers providing informal care for adults.\u0000Work–Life Balance, Family Care, Informal Care, Care Leave, Comparative Law, International Law, Gender Equality, Labour Law, Social Security, Flexible Working Conditions.","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45157916","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}
Though the protections of employment law are usually not subject to waiver by the employee, some countries allow unions to negotiate to modify or abrogate then. This article looks at two: the United States and Germany. It points to a critical distinction between the legal capacity to make collective bargaining agreements having that effect in Germany as compared to the United States. Notwithstanding those differences, it argues that what their experience teaches in common is that such an opt-out can benefit employers by giving needed and mutually understood flexibility, and can benefit unions as institutions by making it advantageous for employers to bargain with them, but that considerable care must be taken when such license is legislated lest discrete or insular groups be dispossessed of a valuable right in a process that advantages employee coalitions that exclude them, or the union as an institution, at their expense. Public Goods, Dispossessive Law, Tarifdispositives Arbeitsrecht, Trading Material, ‘Sweetheart’ Agreements
{"title":"Union Dispossession of Labour Protection: A Paradox, in Two Legal Systems","authors":"M. Finkin","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020001","url":null,"abstract":"Though the protections of employment law are usually not subject to waiver by the employee, some countries allow unions to negotiate to modify or abrogate then. This article looks at two: the United States and Germany. It points to a critical distinction between the legal capacity to make collective bargaining agreements having that effect in Germany as compared to the United States. Notwithstanding those differences, it argues that what their experience teaches in common is that such an opt-out can benefit employers by giving needed and mutually understood flexibility, and can benefit unions as institutions by making it advantageous for employers to bargain with them, but that considerable care must be taken when such license is legislated lest discrete or insular groups be dispossessed of a valuable right in a process that advantages employee coalitions that exclude them, or the union as an institution, at their expense.\u0000Public Goods, Dispossessive Law, Tarifdispositives Arbeitsrecht, Trading Material, ‘Sweetheart’ Agreements","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45953969","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 recent years, there has been increased activity on the part of legislators and policy-makers as they attempt to reconcile paid work and unpaid care. This article explores the different approaches adopted by two common law jurisdictions: New Zealand and the United Kingdom. These case studies attempt to take a more expansive approach to the concept of care by purportedly disentangling the act of caring from traditional conceptions of motherhood. In the UK, this has been done by permitting mothers to transfer entitlement to caring leave to fathers but is underpinned by implicit assumptions that the primary responsibility for care will remain with the mother. In New Zealand, there has been a departure from historic reliance on gender identities to take a more gender-neutral approach by providing caring leave to whoever is a primary carer for a child regardless of biological connection. One unintended consequence of this has been that biological mothers have been left with the barest post-natal health and safety protection. These case studies reveal how difficult it is for legislators and policy-makers to devise care-giving protections that are not in some way tainted by the legacy of traditional care/home/women and work/market/men dichotomies and demonstrate the need for new models based on ungendered assumptions of universal care. Care, Parental Leave, Maternity Leave, Family.
{"title":"Why Do We Care? The Shifting Concept of Care in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom","authors":"A. Masselot, Roseanne Russell","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020005","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, there has been increased activity on the part of legislators and policy-makers as they attempt to reconcile paid work and unpaid care. This article explores the different approaches adopted by two common law jurisdictions: New Zealand and the United Kingdom. These case studies attempt to take a more expansive approach to the concept of care by purportedly disentangling the act of caring from traditional conceptions of motherhood. In the UK, this has been done by permitting mothers to transfer entitlement to caring leave to fathers but is underpinned by implicit assumptions that the primary responsibility for care will remain with the mother. In New Zealand, there has been a departure from historic reliance on gender identities to take a more gender-neutral approach by providing caring leave to whoever is a primary carer for a child regardless of biological connection. One unintended consequence of this has been that biological mothers have been left with the barest post-natal health and safety protection. These case studies reveal how difficult it is for legislators and policy-makers to devise care-giving protections that are not in some way tainted by the legacy of traditional care/home/women and work/market/men dichotomies and demonstrate the need for new models based on ungendered assumptions of universal care.\u0000Care, Parental Leave, Maternity Leave, Family.","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47063955","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 2018, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) adopted a new standard, requiring companies to report on their initiatives for the promotion of workers’ health. These initiatives range from the provision of smoking cessation programmes to free health screenings in the workplace, going beyond ‘traditional’ occupational health and safety (OHS) requirements. The new standard is the first transnational instrument to specify express requirements for employers in workplace health promotion. It provides an interesting example of transnational new governance, whereby private actors adopt voluntary norms to regulate business in areas traditionally pertaining to public regulators (here, public health). This article analyses the extent to which private actors have acted as norm entrepreneurs in workplace health promotion, and whether the new standard could mark the emergence of ‘corporate health responsibility’ in the workplace. The article starts by analysing existing intergovernmental instruments in workplace health promotion. After highlighting a regulatory gap in traditional governance, the article examines the contribution of private regulators in workplace health promotion. To this end, it analyses the new standard, as well as the recent reporting practice of transnational corporations (TNCs) in workplace health promotion. Although the new standard is a welcome private, regulatory initiative, it also illustrates the orchestration deficit often found in transnational new governance. The article concludes that the road to ‘corporate health responsibility’ is likely to be a long one. Corporate Social Responsibility, Global Health, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Transnational New Governance, Occupational Health And Safety, Standards, Workers’ Health, Workplace Health Promotion
{"title":"Towards Corporate Health Responsibility? An Analysis of Workplace Health Promotion Through the Prism of CSR and Transnational New Governance","authors":"C. B. Olsen","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020002","url":null,"abstract":"In 2018, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) adopted a new standard, requiring companies to report on their initiatives for the promotion of workers’ health. These initiatives range from the provision of smoking cessation programmes to free health screenings in the workplace, going beyond ‘traditional’ occupational health and safety (OHS) requirements. The new standard is the first transnational instrument to specify express requirements for employers in workplace health promotion. It provides an interesting example of transnational new governance, whereby private actors adopt voluntary norms to regulate business in areas traditionally pertaining to public regulators (here, public health). This article analyses the extent to which private actors have acted as norm entrepreneurs in workplace health promotion, and whether the new standard could mark the emergence of ‘corporate health responsibility’ in the workplace. The article starts by analysing existing intergovernmental instruments in workplace health promotion. After highlighting a regulatory gap in traditional governance, the article examines the contribution of private regulators in workplace health promotion. To this end, it analyses the new standard, as well as the recent reporting practice of transnational corporations (TNCs) in workplace health promotion. Although the new standard is a welcome private, regulatory initiative, it also illustrates the orchestration deficit often found in transnational new governance. The article concludes that the road to ‘corporate health responsibility’ is likely to be a long one.\u0000Corporate Social Responsibility, Global Health, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Transnational New Governance, Occupational Health And Safety, Standards, Workers’ Health, Workplace Health Promotion","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43643520","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}
{"title":"Special Section: Work-Life Balance","authors":"","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46482404","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}
After the rejection of any inclusion of a social clause in the World Trade Organization agreements, the 1996 Singapore Declaration formally separated the organizational remits for labour and trade in international law. Since then the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been reticent in addressing labour-related issues in multilateral fora, thus distancing itself from social concerns intimately related to the international trade of goods and services. However, a close reading of the World Trade Reports between 2003 and 2017 shows that the WTO addresses labour standards and policy extensively. The WTO discourse advances specific views on how international trade interrelates with labour standards, labour market policy, migrant workers, unemployment benefits, workers’ skills and social protection. This article shows that the WTO Secretariat, through its reports, strongly links the success of its agenda to deregulatory reforms in labour market policy and labour standards. Against this background the article argues that the crisis of the WTO today, rather than being caused externally by a protectionist turn, is rooted in the failure of the international trade system to sufficiently engage with social concerns.
{"title":"Towards Work Liberalization: The WTO Discourse on Labour Standards and Policy","authors":"N. Delgado","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2019021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2019021","url":null,"abstract":"After the rejection of any inclusion of a social clause in the World Trade Organization agreements, the 1996 Singapore Declaration formally separated the organizational remits for labour and trade in international law. Since then the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been reticent in addressing labour-related issues in multilateral fora, thus distancing itself from social concerns intimately related to the international trade of goods and services. However, a close reading of the World Trade Reports between 2003 and 2017 shows that the WTO addresses labour standards and policy extensively. The WTO discourse advances specific views on how international trade interrelates with labour standards, labour market policy, migrant workers, unemployment benefits, workers’ skills and social protection. This article shows that the WTO Secretariat, through its reports, strongly links the success of its agenda to deregulatory reforms in labour market policy and labour standards. Against this background the article argues that the crisis of the WTO today, rather than being caused externally by a protectionist turn, is rooted in the failure of the international trade system to sufficiently engage with social concerns.","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42024213","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 article explores how anti-discrimination law has been applied in relation to employment discrimination faced by people with intellectual disabilities. Although disability discrimination laws are now found in many states, there has been relatively little litigation by those with intellectual disabilities as regards employment discrimination. This article examines experience in the USA in order to identify the potential of anti-discrimination law, as well as its limitations in practice. It considers litigation brought by individual plaintiffs, as well as enforcement actions by public bodies. This concerns employment in the open labour market, but also sheltered employment schemes. The article concludes by reflecting on what lessons may be derived from US experience.
{"title":"People with Intellectual Disabilities and Employment Discrimination Law: A US Case Study","authors":"M. Bell","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2019019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2019019","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores how anti-discrimination law has been applied in relation to employment discrimination faced by people with intellectual disabilities. Although disability discrimination laws are now found in many states, there has been relatively little litigation by those with intellectual disabilities as regards employment discrimination. This article examines experience in the USA in order to identify the potential of anti-discrimination law, as well as its limitations in practice. It considers litigation brought by individual plaintiffs, as well as enforcement actions by public bodies. This concerns employment in the open labour market, but also sheltered employment schemes. The article concludes by reflecting on what lessons may be derived from US experience.","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44050064","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}
{"title":"List of Abbreviations","authors":"","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2019023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2019023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43926336","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：