Populism is gaining ground in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and Hungary and Poland are the best examples of this trend. The Hungarian Orbán government and conservative Polish coalition led by Kaczyński (PiS), widely considered in the literature as populist, have been in power for some time now, which allows us not only to evaluate their labour law policies, but also the results. Though there are evident similarities between these two countries, such as political motivated layoffs in public employment or significant wage increases, the discrepancies are far more numerous. These differences result from each country’s specific socio-economic conditions and (almost) diametrically opposed political strategies with respect to employment matters. While Viktor Orbán believes in a workfare society, without social allowances and with flexibilized employment protection, in Poland PiS is pushing through a belated welfare revolution with expanded social benefits and employment rights. This article starts by describing populism as it has developed in Hungary and Poland in section 1, and the promises made by Orbán and Kaczyński before coming to power in section 2. Section 3 examines the main pillars of populist labour law policy, such as flexibilization, wages, collective rights, self-employment, social benefits and political motivated layoffs. Finally, we try to explain why and how these seemingly similar populist governments have adopted fundamentally different labour law reforms. labour law reforms, collective rights, flexibilization, Hungary, Poland
{"title":"Populist Reforms in Hungary and Poland: Same Song, Different Melodies","authors":"T. Gyulavári, Łukasz Pisarczyk","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2023004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2023004","url":null,"abstract":"Populism is gaining ground in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and Hungary and Poland are the best examples of this trend. The Hungarian Orbán government and conservative Polish coalition led by Kaczyński (PiS), widely considered in the literature as populist, have been in power for some time now, which allows us not only to evaluate their labour law policies, but also the results. Though there are evident similarities between these two countries, such as political motivated layoffs in public employment or significant wage increases, the discrepancies are far more numerous. These differences result from each country’s specific socio-economic conditions and (almost) diametrically opposed political strategies with respect to employment matters. While Viktor Orbán believes in a workfare society, without social allowances and with flexibilized employment protection, in Poland PiS is pushing through a belated welfare revolution with expanded social benefits and employment rights.\u0000This article starts by describing populism as it has developed in Hungary and Poland in section 1, and the promises made by Orbán and Kaczyński before coming to power in section 2. Section 3 examines the main pillars of populist labour law policy, such as flexibilization, wages, collective rights, self-employment, social benefits and political motivated layoffs. Finally, we try to explain why and how these seemingly similar populist governments have adopted fundamentally different labour law reforms.\u0000labour law reforms, collective rights, flexibilization, Hungary, Poland","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42907576","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 special edition of the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations contains five articles, including this introduction. Their shared purpose is to explore the interrelationship between populism, labour law, social law and social policy. In particular, the articles investigate whether the recent rise in populism has had a direct impact, positive or negative, on the situation of the working class. The nexus of populism, labour law, social law and social policy will be examined in three perspectives, focusing on (1) the period when populists seek power, (2) the period when populists are in power, and (3) the consequences of populist rule. The specific research questions underpinning the articles in this issue are as follows. First, when may a politician or a leader be considered a populist? Second, once in power, do populists actually strive to address issues affecting ‘the people’, i.e., those who have suffered harm at the hands of the elites, and does that include issues that affect the working class? Third, if so, how are these issues addressed? Fourth, what indicators can be used to demonstrate a link between the populist reforms (changes) and populist slogans? In other words, is there a ‘populist agenda’ as far as social issues are concerned? Fifth, are populists effective at implementing their slogans on social issues? Sixth, do populist agendas and actions create (and later implement) a new conceptual model of social and economic relations that could serve as an alternative to the current liberal market economy model? Populist Parties, Labour Law, Social Policy, Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, United States
{"title":"The Rise of Populism and Its Impact on Labour Law, Social Law and Social Policy","authors":"Piotr Grzebyk","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2023002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2023002","url":null,"abstract":"This special edition of the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations contains five articles, including this introduction. Their shared purpose is to explore the interrelationship between populism, labour law, social law and social policy. In particular, the articles investigate whether the recent rise in populism has had a direct impact, positive or negative, on the situation of the working class. The nexus of populism, labour law, social law and social policy will be examined in three perspectives, focusing on (1) the period when populists seek power, (2) the period when populists are in power, and (3) the consequences of populist rule.\u0000The specific research questions underpinning the articles in this issue are as follows. First, when may a politician or a leader be considered a populist? Second, once in power, do populists actually strive to address issues affecting ‘the people’, i.e., those who have suffered harm at the hands of the elites, and does that include issues that affect the working class? Third, if so, how are these issues addressed? Fourth, what indicators can be used to demonstrate a link between the populist reforms (changes) and populist slogans? In other words, is there a ‘populist agenda’ as far as social issues are concerned? Fifth, are populists effective at implementing their slogans on social issues? Sixth, do populist agendas and actions create (and later implement) a new conceptual model of social and economic relations that could serve as an alternative to the current liberal market economy model?\u0000Populist Parties, Labour Law, Social Policy, Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, United States","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45757749","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 surprising recent success of populist politics has been framed as a sharp break from the neoliberal world order that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. This article explores how right-wing populist leaders from Argentina, Brazil, and the United States in the 1990s and 2010s have implemented policies that aimed to liberalize labour market regulations and weaken workers’ protections, despite their ‘common people’ rhetoric. Relying upon the theoretical frameworks of Kurt Weyland as well as Thomás Zicman de Barros and Miguel Lago, this article examines the ‘neoliberalization’ of populism in the 1990s in Argentina and Brazil, which had been traditionally associated with inward-looking and nationalist economic policies. Similarly, it explores the reactionary right-wing populism of Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro, which resulted in neoliberal labour policies that followed a conservative tradition. To shed light on how these policies have reshaped labour laws, this article first explores the experiences in Argentina and Brazil during the 1990s, in which neo-populist governments, heavily influenced by the Washington Consensus, reformed labour regulations to deconstruct traditional individual labour laws and to undermine the role of social partners. Second, this article studies the development of reactionary right-wing populism in the Americas in the late 2010s, particularly in Brazil and the United States, with a focus on the adoption of neoliberal policies that aim to deconstruct protective labour regulations. Despite the recent electoral defeats of both Trump and Bolsonaro, the incidence of rightwing populism has not disappeared in the Americas, which became an established major actor in the political arena. The risk seems to be even more concrete in Argentina where the centre-right party, pushed by far-right libertarian candidates, is adamant about implementing a major reform to liberalize labour laws if elected in the next general election in October 2023. The article concludes that even though right-wing populists portrayed themselves as champions of the working class during both earlier periods, they implemented traditional neoliberal labour law policies, which pursued the liberalization of labour market regulations, shunted aside social partners, resulting in the dramatic undermining of workers’ rights. Populism, Neoliberalism, Neopopulism, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Trump, Bolsonaro, Labour Reform, Latin America
{"title":"Right-Wing Populism and the Deconstruction of Labour Laws in the Americas: Old Wine into New Wineskins","authors":"Mauro Pucheta, Renan Kalil, Matthew T. Bodie","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2023003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2023003","url":null,"abstract":"The surprising recent success of populist politics has been framed as a sharp break from the neoliberal world order that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. This article explores how right-wing populist leaders from Argentina, Brazil, and the United States in the 1990s and 2010s have implemented policies that aimed to liberalize labour market regulations and weaken workers’ protections, despite their ‘common people’ rhetoric. Relying upon the theoretical frameworks of Kurt Weyland as well as Thomás Zicman de Barros and Miguel Lago, this article examines the ‘neoliberalization’ of populism in the 1990s in Argentina and Brazil, which had been traditionally associated with inward-looking and nationalist economic policies. Similarly, it explores the reactionary right-wing populism of Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro, which resulted in neoliberal labour policies that followed a conservative tradition.\u0000To shed light on how these policies have reshaped labour laws, this article first explores the experiences in Argentina and Brazil during the 1990s, in which neo-populist governments, heavily influenced by the Washington Consensus, reformed labour regulations to deconstruct traditional individual labour laws and to undermine the role of social partners. Second, this article studies the development of reactionary right-wing populism in the Americas in the late 2010s, particularly in Brazil and the United States, with a focus on the adoption of neoliberal policies that aim to deconstruct protective labour regulations.\u0000Despite the recent electoral defeats of both Trump and Bolsonaro, the incidence of rightwing populism has not disappeared in the Americas, which became an established major actor in the political arena. The risk seems to be even more concrete in Argentina where the centre-right party, pushed by far-right libertarian candidates, is adamant about implementing a major reform to liberalize labour laws if elected in the next general election in October 2023. The article concludes that even though right-wing populists portrayed themselves as champions of the working class during both earlier periods, they implemented traditional neoliberal labour law policies, which pursued the liberalization of labour market regulations, shunted aside social partners, resulting in the dramatic undermining of workers’ rights.\u0000Populism, Neoliberalism, Neopopulism, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Trump, Bolsonaro, Labour Reform, Latin America","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48295017","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 German response to the threat which the Covid-19 crisis has posed to self-employed workers reflects an approach which so far has largely focused on the prevention of bogus self-employment. While this approach has been further reinforced, to the point where the use of self-employed contractors has been banned outright in individual occupations, plummeting incomes of the ‘genuine’ self-employed remained unaddressed in the government’s crisis response for almost one year. The contribution describes the evolution of this approach as the pandemic progressed, and discusses whether the experience of this crisis may constitute a turning point in a policy tradition which has so far relegated the self-employed to the bare minimum of fully means-tested social assistance benefits when facing macroeconomic shocks as well as individual social risks. In-Work Poverty in Germany, Self-Employed Workers, Bogus Self-Employment, Covid-19 Income Support Schemes, Social Assistance Benefits, Macroeconomic Shocks
{"title":"Germany: The Self-Sufficient Entrepreneur Trope and the Pandemic Gnawing Away at It","authors":"Christina Hiessl","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022023","url":null,"abstract":"The German response to the threat which the Covid-19 crisis has posed to self-employed workers reflects an approach which so far has largely focused on the prevention of bogus self-employment. While this approach has been further reinforced, to the point where the use of self-employed contractors has been banned outright in individual occupations, plummeting incomes of the ‘genuine’ self-employed remained unaddressed in the government’s crisis response for almost one year. The contribution describes the evolution of this approach as the pandemic progressed, and discusses whether the experience of this crisis may constitute a turning point in a policy tradition which has so far relegated the self-employed to the bare minimum of fully means-tested social assistance benefits when facing macroeconomic shocks as well as individual social risks.\u0000In-Work Poverty in Germany, Self-Employed Workers, Bogus Self-Employment, Covid-19 Income Support Schemes, Social Assistance Benefits, Macroeconomic Shocks","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46559022","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 examines the protection needs of the self-employed and the developments in such protection in Japan. Arguments are put forward for further improving the protection for the self-employed beyond the existing protection framework. These efforts towards improving protection are expected to continue in the future. However, this is not to suggest that a specific stance has been adopted with regard to the content of such protection for those self-employed who are eligible. Such protection is still very much in the stage of preliminary consideration. While the development of such protection is still in the early stages, emergency steps taken in the COVID-19 pandemic have included income support measures to cover the loss of work for self-employed people whose tasks are similar to those of an employee. The self-employed who are eligible for such protection are those who seek protection. It may be argued that, regardless of the intentions of policy-makers, the policies that are pursued are a reflection of how the self-employed perceive their needs. Self-Employment Protection, Japan, COVID-19 Pandemic, Income Support Measures
{"title":"Protection for the Self-Employed in Japan: Needs and Measures","authors":"Itaru Nishimura, Hideki S. Tanaka, Yota Yamamoto","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022019","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the protection needs of the self-employed and the developments in such protection in Japan. Arguments are put forward for further improving the protection for the self-employed beyond the existing protection framework. These efforts towards improving protection are expected to continue in the future. However, this is not to suggest that a specific stance has been adopted with regard to the content of such protection for those self-employed who are eligible. Such protection is still very much in the stage of preliminary consideration. While the development of such protection is still in the early stages, emergency steps taken in the COVID-19 pandemic have included income support measures to cover the loss of work for self-employed people whose tasks are similar to those of an employee. The self-employed who are eligible for such protection are those who seek protection. It may be argued that, regardless of the intentions of policy-makers, the policies that are pursued are a reflection of how the self-employed perceive their needs.\u0000Self-Employment Protection, Japan, COVID-19 Pandemic, Income Support Measures","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44127458","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}
Since the nineties a non-protective policy in the Netherlands stimulated to work as an independent contractor. This resulted in huge numbers of bogus self-employed, because compared to employees they were much cheaper to contract. Since 2012 the intention was spoken out to limit these numbers, but an effective remedy has not yet been developed. During the Covid pandemic, massive financial aid was given to companies, independent workers and employees. This helped to limit the level of unemployment and bankruptcies, but the number of independent workers is still growing. So the financial aid given during the pandemic has not helped to bring bogus self-employed under the scope of the employment agreement. Independent Workers and Employees in the Netherlands: Qualification, Difference in Costs and Financial Aid During Covid-Crisis
{"title":"A Comparison of Income Support Measures in the Netherlands for Employees and Independent Workers During the Covid Crisis","authors":"G. Boot","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022021","url":null,"abstract":"Since the nineties a non-protective policy in the Netherlands stimulated to work as an independent contractor. This resulted in huge numbers of bogus self-employed, because compared to employees they were much cheaper to contract. Since 2012 the intention was spoken out to limit these numbers, but an effective remedy has not yet been developed. During the Covid pandemic, massive financial aid was given to companies, independent workers and employees. This helped to limit the level of unemployment and bankruptcies, but the number of independent workers is still growing. So the financial aid given during the pandemic has not helped to bring bogus self-employed under the scope of the employment agreement.\u0000Independent Workers and Employees in the Netherlands: Qualification, Difference in Costs and Financial Aid During Covid-Crisis","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45641939","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 article offers an assessment of the social protection granted to self-employed workers in the EU and Italian legal systems. It is structured as follows: first, the EU regulation currently in force is analysed to assess whether and to what extent self-employed workers can be considered entitled to social protection; second, self-employment under Italian law is analysed. The regulatory choices that set the Italian system apart from the current EU regulatory trends are highlighted, especially with regard to the use of self-employment as grounds for ad hoc regulation, and not only as the other side of the coin in relation to standard employment. In fact, since 2017, Italy has provided an ad hoc regulatory framework for self-employment, which, though not comparable to that for standard employees in terms of the level of protection, provides incipient protection specifically designed for self-employed workers. More recently, measures have been taken to support self-employed workers during market transitions and joblessness, especially in the acute phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, which in turn gave rise to the need for extraordinary income support measures self-employed workers. On the other hand, the EU continues to focus on related albeit clearly distinct issues: the fight against bogus self-employment and the extension of social protection to particularly vulnerable workers who fall outside the scope of protection of employment law. The proposed directive on platform work is the most recent evidence of this: by means of an unprecedented system of legal presumptions, it seeks to bring platform work within the regulatory scope of standard employment. In light of these developments, the concluding remarks argue that self-employment is worthy of attention on the part of the EU, not merely to avoid the circumvention of the obligations for standard employment, but above all to adopt ad hoc regulations that acknowledge and protect self-employed workers’ interests while safeguarding their social citizenship and dignity. It is argued that there is no conflict between the extension of the protection granted to employees on open-ended contracts to new types of work with a view to strengthening protection for self-employed workers. Self-Employment, Legal Protection, Pandemic, Economic and Social Measures
{"title":"Self-Employment in the EU and Italian Legal Systems: Recent Trends and Missed Steps","authors":"Elena Gramano","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022020","url":null,"abstract":"The article offers an assessment of the social protection granted to self-employed workers in the EU and Italian legal systems. It is structured as follows: first, the EU regulation currently in force is analysed to assess whether and to what extent self-employed workers can be considered entitled to social protection; second, self-employment under Italian law is analysed. The regulatory choices that set the Italian system apart from the current EU regulatory trends are highlighted, especially with regard to the use of self-employment as grounds for ad hoc regulation, and not only as the other side of the coin in relation to standard employment. In fact, since 2017, Italy has provided an ad hoc regulatory framework for self-employment, which, though not comparable to that for standard employees in terms of the level of protection, provides incipient protection specifically designed for self-employed workers. More recently, measures have been taken to support self-employed workers during market transitions and joblessness, especially in the acute phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, which in turn gave rise to the need for extraordinary income support measures self-employed workers. On the other hand, the EU continues to focus on related albeit clearly distinct issues: the fight against bogus self-employment and the extension of social protection to particularly vulnerable workers who fall outside the scope of protection of employment law. The proposed directive on platform work is the most recent evidence of this: by means of an unprecedented system of legal presumptions, it seeks to bring platform work within the regulatory scope of standard employment. In light of these developments, the concluding remarks argue that self-employment is worthy of attention on the part of the EU, not merely to avoid the circumvention of the obligations for standard employment, but above all to adopt ad hoc regulations that acknowledge and protect self-employed workers’ interests while safeguarding their social citizenship and dignity. It is argued that there is no conflict between the extension of the protection granted to employees on open-ended contracts to new types of work with a view to strengthening protection for self-employed workers.\u0000Self-Employment, Legal Protection, Pandemic, Economic and Social Measures","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48870828","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 the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, Korea was considered a successful case of containment of infection. However, the employment protection response has not been as successful as the health response. Although the Korean Government has taken unprecedented fiscal measures, the hardest-hit groups including workers in non-standard employment are still least protected. The pandemic has found countries with widespread precarious employment at their most vulnerable. Since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the Government has promoted the deregulation of capital and the flexibilization of labour, with precarious work becoming ‘normal’. COVID-19 shows that workers excluded from labour protection before the crisis are the most vulnerable in the current crisis. Dependent contractors are not protected from termination of contract or loss of income, while employees in a comparable situation may be supported by job retention schemes and unemployment benefits. This means employers using dependent contractors can avoid employer liability in a normal situation as well as in times of crisis. While the Government attempts to expand unemployment insurance to certain groups of dependent contractors, debates over who should bear the financial burden are underway. Employers refuse to contribute to unemployment insurance for dependent contractors, arguing that they are not the employers of these workers. This article analyses how flexibilization in Korea has affected vulnerability and the segmentation of labour protection. It argues that the ‘protection gap’ among workers resulted from political choices and the strategy of capital to transfer cost-and-risks onto workers and society as a whole. These pre-pandemic political choices undermine the chances of a fair recovery. This article argues that establishing employer responsibility is essential for a humancentred recovery. COVID-19, Dependent Contractor, Income Support, Non-standard Employment, Unemployment Insurance, Employer’s Responsibility
{"title":"When Precarity Encounters COVID-19: A Critical Analysis of Korean Policy Responses","authors":"Aelim Yun","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022022","url":null,"abstract":"In the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, Korea was considered a successful case of containment of infection. However, the employment protection response has not been as successful as the health response. Although the Korean Government has taken unprecedented fiscal measures, the hardest-hit groups including workers in non-standard employment are still least protected. The pandemic has found countries with widespread precarious employment at their most vulnerable. Since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the Government has promoted the deregulation of capital and the flexibilization of labour, with precarious work becoming ‘normal’. COVID-19 shows that workers excluded from labour protection before the crisis are the most vulnerable in the current crisis. Dependent contractors are not protected from termination of contract or loss of income, while employees in a comparable situation may be supported by job retention schemes and unemployment benefits. This means employers using dependent contractors can avoid employer liability in a normal situation as well as in times of crisis. While the Government attempts to expand unemployment insurance to certain groups of dependent contractors, debates over who should bear the financial burden are underway. Employers refuse to contribute to unemployment insurance for dependent contractors, arguing that they are not the employers of these workers. This article analyses how flexibilization in Korea has affected vulnerability and the segmentation of labour protection. It argues that the ‘protection gap’ among workers resulted from political choices and the strategy of capital to transfer cost-and-risks onto workers and society as a whole. These pre-pandemic political choices undermine the chances of a fair recovery. This article argues that establishing employer responsibility is essential for a humancentred recovery.\u0000COVID-19, Dependent Contractor, Income Support, Non-standard Employment, Unemployment Insurance, Employer’s Responsibility","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47802157","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 essay seeks to frame the issue of Decent Work for All by means of Hannah Arendt’s conception of freedom and liberty. In Arendt’s view, liberty was the proper rationale for early labour legislation, which purported to liberate the individual from the chattels of slavery and exploitation by preserving the voluntary nature of the agreement to provide labour. In the stage of full development of labour law, a primary need in both Liberal Market Economies (such as the US) and Social Market Economies (such as Germany) was to strike a difficult but necessary balance between the employer’s liberty to conduct the business and the workers’ collective freedom. With the promotion of Decent Work, as a broad guideline for policymakers and not a binding regulation of any kind, labour law is reconsidering its focus on the person, with the aim of granting individuals the possibility to achieve their (neo)liberation from basic economic needs, as well as from the domination of others. Once liberated from those two constraints, individuals are in a position to effectively aspire to the collective dimension of freedom, which, in Arendt’s terms, consists of the possibility of the individual to contribute on an equal footing to societal development. Liberty, Freedom, Decent Work, Neo-Liberation
{"title":"An Essay on Liberty, Freedom and (Decent) Work","authors":"Marco Biasi","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022016","url":null,"abstract":"The essay seeks to frame the issue of Decent Work for All by means of Hannah Arendt’s conception of freedom and liberty. In Arendt’s view, liberty was the proper rationale for early labour legislation, which purported to liberate the individual from the chattels of slavery and exploitation by preserving the voluntary nature of the agreement to provide labour. In the stage of full development of labour law, a primary need in both Liberal Market Economies (such as the US) and Social Market Economies (such as Germany) was to strike a difficult but necessary balance between the employer’s liberty to conduct the business and the workers’ collective freedom. With the promotion of Decent Work, as a broad guideline for policymakers and not a binding regulation of any kind, labour law is reconsidering its focus on the person, with the aim of granting individuals the possibility to achieve their (neo)liberation from basic economic needs, as well as from the domination of others. Once liberated from those two constraints, individuals are in a position to effectively aspire to the collective dimension of freedom, which, in Arendt’s terms, consists of the possibility of the individual to contribute on an equal footing to societal development.\u0000Liberty, Freedom, Decent Work, Neo-Liberation","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41265246","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：