Situating legal mobilization within a wide-ranging conceptual framework of worker activity that goes beyond recent interest in ‘strategic litigation’ and related organizing in the gig economy, this contribution explores the fundamental relationship between ‘laypeople’, i.e., the non-professional subjects of law, and labour law. Notwithstanding a growing interest in empirical labour law research, there remains a lack of conceptual clarity and rigorous evidence pertaining to how workers, activists and employers think about law and how this has evolved over time. The idea, often implicit within policy discourses, that we have become increasingly ‘legally minded’, and the implications of this, remain particularly underexplored. This article develops understanding of what legal mobilization is, does, or potentially can do, mapping the range of ways in which ‘laypeople’ may invoke or engage with law at work, distinguishing between activities defined as (1) legal participation; (2) mobilization; and (3) consciousness. This schema goes beyond the more obvious ways in which laypeople engage formal legal institutions, ‘strategically’ or otherwise, towards everyday processes of constructing ‘legalities’. The concept of legalities, meaning taken-forgranted assumptions about what is ‘legal’, provides a lens through which to view the ideological processes involved in the constitution of society and economic institutions through law and vice versa. Revisiting the theme of the worker and the law, this schema focuses as much on how the worker understands and acts upon the conceptions of law as much as how the law characterizes and protects the worker, and how the interrelations between the two may have evolved over time. Legal Participation, Mobilization, Consciousness, Juridification, Individual Employment Rights, Employment Tribunals
{"title":"The Worker and the Law Revisited: Conceptualizing Legal Participation Mobilization and Consciousness at Work","authors":"E. Kirk","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022008","url":null,"abstract":"Situating legal mobilization within a wide-ranging conceptual framework of worker activity that goes beyond recent interest in ‘strategic litigation’ and related organizing in the gig economy, this contribution explores the fundamental relationship between ‘laypeople’, i.e., the non-professional subjects of law, and labour law. Notwithstanding a growing interest in empirical labour law research, there remains a lack of conceptual clarity and rigorous evidence pertaining to how workers, activists and employers think about law and how this has evolved over time. The idea, often implicit within policy discourses, that we have become increasingly ‘legally minded’, and the implications of this, remain particularly underexplored. This article develops understanding of what legal mobilization is, does, or potentially can do, mapping the range of ways in which ‘laypeople’ may invoke or engage with law at work, distinguishing between activities defined as (1) legal participation; (2) mobilization; and (3) consciousness. This schema goes beyond the more obvious ways in which laypeople engage formal legal institutions, ‘strategically’ or otherwise, towards everyday processes of constructing ‘legalities’. The concept of legalities, meaning taken-forgranted assumptions about what is ‘legal’, provides a lens through which to view the ideological processes involved in the constitution of society and economic institutions through law and vice versa. Revisiting the theme of the worker and the law, this schema focuses as much on how the worker understands and acts upon the conceptions of law as much as how the law characterizes and protects the worker, and how the interrelations between the two may have evolved over time.\u0000Legal Participation, Mobilization, Consciousness, Juridification, Individual Employment Rights, Employment Tribunals","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48350517","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 summarizes the outcome of a comparative legal analysis conducted in seven countries (UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, US, and Japan) to obtain practical and theoretical insights into prevention and appropriate responses to the increasing issues around mental health in the workplace. The author worked closely with experts in a wide range of fields, including psychiatry, occupational medicine, business administration, human resources management, and sociology to characterize the issue and identify effective approaches from a legal perspective. Based on the findings, this article emphasizes the importance of ensuring procedural rationality and establishing a ‘circle of responsibility’ among the relevant parties. Workplace Mental Health, Psycho-Social Risks, Labour Law, Disability Discrimination Act, Organizational Psychology, Stress-Check System
{"title":"Workplace Mental Health Law: Perspectives Based on a Comparative Analysis of Legislation in Seven Countries","authors":"T. Mishiba","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022003","url":null,"abstract":"This article summarizes the outcome of a comparative legal analysis conducted in seven countries (UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, US, and Japan) to obtain practical and theoretical insights into prevention and appropriate responses to the increasing issues around mental health in the workplace. The author worked closely with experts in a wide range of fields, including psychiatry, occupational medicine, business administration, human resources management, and sociology to characterize the issue and identify effective approaches from a legal perspective. Based on the findings, this article emphasizes the importance of ensuring procedural rationality and establishing a ‘circle of responsibility’ among the relevant parties.\u0000Workplace Mental Health, Psycho-Social Risks, Labour Law, Disability Discrimination Act, Organizational Psychology, Stress-Check System","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44494874","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 focuses on first instance discrete adjudicatory institutions for the determination of individual employment disputes, generically known as labour courts, in seven countries: France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand and Sweden. First, it traces their formation and subsequent development, applying Thelen’s fourfold typology of displacement, conversion, layering and drift. Sometimes, this typology is appropriate: French and Swedish labour courts have drifted, and in Germany there was displacement after World War 1. Sometimes, however, the typology, is inappropriate. In Ireland, there has been amalgamation and in New Zealand there was displacement and then adaptation. It next seeks to understand which of the seven institutions performs the most effectively, examining several criteria including the legitimacy of the labour court, speed, accessibility, cost, informality, and the propagation of legal norms. It finds that comparisons are limited because adjudicatory institutions need to be judged in their specific national context. Moreover, effectiveness depends on the criterion that is adopted: an institution that scores highly on one criterion does not necessarily do so on another. Despite these limitations, comparisons can be useful to practitioners and academics and Germany’s labour court scores highly on many of the criteria used. Labour Court, Judges, Adjudication, Lay Judges, Employment Disputes, Mediation, Path Dependency, Effectiveness, Legitimacy, Norms
{"title":"Adjudicatory Institutions for Individual Employment Disputes: Formation, Development and Effectiveness","authors":"S. Corby","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022001","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on first instance discrete adjudicatory institutions for the determination of individual employment disputes, generically known as labour courts, in seven countries: France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand and Sweden. First, it traces their formation and subsequent development, applying Thelen’s fourfold typology of displacement, conversion, layering and drift. Sometimes, this typology is appropriate: French and Swedish labour courts have drifted, and in Germany there was displacement after World War 1. Sometimes, however, the typology, is inappropriate. In Ireland, there has been amalgamation and in New Zealand there was displacement and then adaptation. \u0000It next seeks to understand which of the seven institutions performs the most effectively, examining several criteria including the legitimacy of the labour court, speed, accessibility, cost, informality, and the propagation of legal norms. It finds that comparisons are limited because adjudicatory institutions need to be judged in their specific national context. Moreover, effectiveness depends on the criterion that is adopted: an institution that scores highly on one criterion does not necessarily do so on another. Despite these limitations, comparisons can be useful to practitioners and academics and Germany’s labour court scores highly on many of the criteria used.\u0000Labour Court, Judges, Adjudication, Lay Judges, Employment Disputes, Mediation, Path Dependency, Effectiveness, Legitimacy, Norms","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46753221","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 hierarchy of labour law sources plays an important role in shaping the employment protection afforded by national labour law. This article provides a comparative overview of the global trends in the relation between the different layers of employment regulation. To this end, it considers three cluster of countries, respectively the European coordinated market economies, the liberal market economies and the European post-socialist countries. This analysis will make it possible to identify common patterns of transformation of the hierarchy of sources, indicating the current direction of labour law. Based on the three models, we discuss the following four trends and their interactions: (1) the increasing role of legislation; (2) the decentralization and decline of collective bargaining; (3) the growing importance of individual employment contracts based on waivers; (4) the erosion of the favourability principle by means of clauses allowing less favourable terms of employment. We argue that these parallel changes may lead to a worsening of employment conditions. Sources of Labour Law, Hierarchy, Favour Principle, Statutory Mandatory Rules, Collective Bargaining Decentralisation, Freedom of Contract, Flexibilization
{"title":"Who Regulates Employment? Trends in the Hierarchy of Labour Law Sources","authors":"E. Menegatti, T. Gyulavári","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022002","url":null,"abstract":"The hierarchy of labour law sources plays an important role in shaping the employment protection afforded by national labour law. This article provides a comparative overview of the global trends in the relation between the different layers of employment regulation. To this end, it considers three cluster of countries, respectively the European coordinated market economies, the liberal market economies and the European post-socialist countries. This analysis will make it possible to identify common patterns of transformation of the hierarchy of sources, indicating the current direction of labour law. Based on the three models, we discuss the following four trends and their interactions: (1) the increasing role of legislation; (2) the decentralization and decline of collective bargaining; (3) the growing importance of individual employment contracts based on waivers; (4) the erosion of the favourability principle by means of clauses allowing less favourable terms of employment. We argue that these parallel changes may lead to a worsening of employment conditions.\u0000Sources of Labour Law, Hierarchy, Favour Principle, Statutory Mandatory Rules, Collective Bargaining Decentralisation, Freedom of Contract, Flexibilization","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41248760","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 legal concept of the employer plays an increasingly important and contested role in the modern economic context of broad-sweeping organizational fissuring. This article focuses on the role of employer concepts specifically in the collective bargaining domain, where they hold the unique potential to substantially affect access to regulated collective bargaining, its efficacy, and the extent of worker bargaining power. Building on a critical engagement with previous normative literature on fissuring and on the concept of the employer, the paper examines the interaction of fissuring and employer concepts in the context of the US and Canadian ‘Wagnerist’ collective bargaining regimes, and compares the trajectory of employer concept doctrine in each of these two countries in recent decades. The comparative analysis suggests that while employer concept reform within collective bargaining regimes remains constrained in important respects in both the US and Canada, these concepts have also recently diverged in important formal respects shaping their effects in fissured contexts. This divergence is comprised of a formal expansion of their scope in Canada; a narrowing of their scope in the US; and an effective inversion of the US joint employer concept consequentially into less of a remedial, and a more restrictive device. As a heuristic, comparison of US developments with those in its neighbour’s regime that has much else in common, help to highlight the extraordinarily restrictive nature of most recent US doctrine, including the 2020 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) final rule on joint employer status, its facilitation of fissuring, and the formidable task confronting US labour of somehow bringing lead firms into the regulated collective bargaining process. Employer Concept, Fissuring and Collective Bargaining, Joint Employer, Scope of Collective Bargaining Regime
{"title":"Charting a New Course in a Fissured Economy? Employer Concepts and Collective Bargaining in the US and Canada","authors":"Timothy J. Bartkiw","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2021018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2021018","url":null,"abstract":"The legal concept of the employer plays an increasingly important and contested role in the modern economic context of broad-sweeping organizational fissuring. This article focuses on the role of employer concepts specifically in the collective bargaining domain, where they hold the unique potential to substantially affect access to regulated collective bargaining, its efficacy, and the extent of worker bargaining power. Building on a critical engagement with previous normative literature on fissuring and on the concept of the employer, the paper examines the interaction of fissuring and employer concepts in the context of the US and Canadian ‘Wagnerist’ collective bargaining regimes, and compares the trajectory of employer concept doctrine in each of these two countries in recent decades. The comparative analysis suggests that while employer concept reform within collective bargaining regimes remains constrained in important respects in both the US and Canada, these concepts have also recently diverged in important formal respects shaping their effects in fissured contexts. This divergence is comprised of a formal expansion of their scope in Canada; a narrowing of their scope in the US; and an effective inversion of the US joint employer concept consequentially into less of a remedial, and a more restrictive device. As a heuristic, comparison of US developments with those in its neighbour’s regime that has much else in common, help to highlight the extraordinarily restrictive nature of most recent US doctrine, including the 2020 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) final rule on joint employer status, its facilitation of fissuring, and the formidable task confronting US labour of somehow bringing lead firms into the regulated collective bargaining process.\u0000Employer Concept, Fissuring and Collective Bargaining, Joint Employer, Scope of Collective Bargaining Regime","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43158366","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 rise of the gig economy, and the expansion of self-employment more generally, have magnified pre-existing concerns about how to address the risk of exploitation of non-employees, including franchisees, freelance journalists and owner-driver transport workers, amongst others. In a bid to fill relevant regulatory gaps, and correct destructive power imbalances, many are turning their attention to the power and potential of collective bargaining. At the same time, there is growing appreciation of how competition prohibitions against price-fixing may curb workers’ capacity to organize for decent wages and working conditions. There has been much discussion and debate about the need to expand existing labour exemptions from competition law in order to allow gig workers, and other vulnerable categories of selfemployed workers, to engage in lawful collective bargaining. Rather than fixating on questions of misclassification, however, this article considers a novel proposal emanating from the sphere of competition regulation in Australia. After extensive consultation and prolonged Parliamentary debate, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has adopted a class exemption which provides a broad legal immunity to eligible small businesses, including self-employed workers, wishing to engage in collective bargaining. The ACCC’s Determination to extend collective bargaining rights to small businesses – with effect from 3 June 2021 – represents a highly progressive approach and one worthy of greater attention and deeper analysis. To assess the regulatory value of this unique approach, we draw upon the International Labour Organization (ILO) standards relating to collective bargaining and freedom of association. In doing so, we critically assess the extent to which the ACCC’s approach offers a potential solution to resolving the tension between labour law and competition law when it comes to the regulation of self-employed workers. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that the class exemption largely complies with relevant ILO principles, despite the fact that it does little in terms of actively promoting or encouraging effective collective bargaining. For example, in line with ILO conceptions of voluntariness, the class exemption places virtually no restrictions on the scope, level or subject matter of the bargaining. Ultimately, however, we argue that if collective bargaining is to have any chance of filling the regulatory void which exists between labour law and competition law, it is critical that basic structures and supports are in place to facilitate meaningful bargaining: where collective activity is supported by trade union autonomy and the right to engage in strikes in support of bargaining demands and concluded agreements. Mercosur, Socio-Labour Declaration, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela, Regional Integration, Labour Rights, Regional Trade Blocs, Latin America, Global South
{"title":"Filling the Void? A Critical Analysis of Competition Regulation of Collective Bargaining Amongst Non-employees","authors":"S. McCrystal, Tess Hardy","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2021017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2021017","url":null,"abstract":"The rise of the gig economy, and the expansion of self-employment more generally, have magnified pre-existing concerns about how to address the risk of exploitation of non-employees, including franchisees, freelance journalists and owner-driver transport workers, amongst others. In a bid to fill relevant regulatory gaps, and correct destructive power imbalances, many are turning their attention to the power and potential of collective bargaining.\u0000At the same time, there is growing appreciation of how competition prohibitions against price-fixing may curb workers’ capacity to organize for decent wages and working conditions. There has been much discussion and debate about the need to expand existing labour exemptions from competition law in order to allow gig workers, and other vulnerable categories of selfemployed workers, to engage in lawful collective bargaining. Rather than fixating on questions of misclassification, however, this article considers a novel proposal emanating from the sphere of competition regulation in Australia.\u0000After extensive consultation and prolonged Parliamentary debate, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has adopted a class exemption which provides a broad legal immunity to eligible small businesses, including self-employed workers, wishing to engage in collective bargaining. The ACCC’s Determination to extend collective bargaining rights to small businesses – with effect from 3 June 2021 – represents a highly progressive approach and one worthy of greater attention and deeper analysis.\u0000To assess the regulatory value of this unique approach, we draw upon the International Labour Organization (ILO) standards relating to collective bargaining and freedom of association. In doing so, we critically assess the extent to which the ACCC’s approach offers a potential solution to resolving the tension between labour law and competition law when it comes to the regulation of self-employed workers. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that the class exemption largely complies with relevant ILO principles, despite the fact that it does little in terms of actively promoting or encouraging effective collective bargaining. For example, in line with ILO conceptions of voluntariness, the class exemption places virtually no restrictions on the scope, level or subject matter of the bargaining.\u0000Ultimately, however, we argue that if collective bargaining is to have any chance of filling the regulatory void which exists between labour law and competition law, it is critical that basic structures and supports are in place to facilitate meaningful bargaining: where collective activity is supported by trade union autonomy and the right to engage in strikes in support of bargaining demands and concluded agreements.\u0000Mercosur, Socio-Labour Declaration, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela, Regional Integration, Labour Rights, Regional Trade Blocs, Latin America, Global South","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44508362","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 Socio-Labour Declaration is the legal instrument that protects fundamental labour rights within Mercosur and its Member States legal orders. Its 2015 revision enhanced quantitively and qualitatively the rights enshrined therein. Relying upon recent literature on Latin American regional integration, this article considers the complex institutional and legal framework in which the Declaration has been adopted and implemented. It examines how the intergovernmental character of Mercosur has shaped the legal content of the Socio-Labour Declaration. The institutional context of the Declaration requires the active cooperation and intervention of both regional and national actors. This article explores how Mercosur bodies have taken advantage of the flexible institutional framework to implement the Declaration through regional plans and policies. It also analyses the contrasting enforcement roles of the national executive and legislative powers, characterized by their timidity, and the judicial activism that is essential to consider the Declaration as a justiciable instrument. The article concludes that the Socio-Labour Declaration is a crucial instrument in protecting workers’ rights in this trade bloc, and that the 2015 revision introduced substantial improvements that may provide the legal basis for future judgments, and regional and national labour laws reforms. Mercosur, Socio-Labour Declaration, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela, Regional Integration, Labour Rights, Regional Trade Blocs, Latin America, Global South
{"title":"The Mercosur Socio-Labour Declaration: The Development of a Common Regional Framework in the Global South","authors":"Mauro Pucheta","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2021016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2021016","url":null,"abstract":"The Socio-Labour Declaration is the legal instrument that protects fundamental labour rights within Mercosur and its Member States legal orders. Its 2015 revision enhanced quantitively and qualitatively the rights enshrined therein. Relying upon recent literature on Latin American regional integration, this article considers the complex institutional and legal framework in which the Declaration has been adopted and implemented. It examines how the intergovernmental character of Mercosur has shaped the legal content of the Socio-Labour Declaration. The institutional context of the Declaration requires the active cooperation and intervention of both regional and national actors. This article explores how Mercosur bodies have taken advantage of the flexible institutional framework to implement the Declaration through regional plans and policies. It also analyses the contrasting enforcement roles of the national executive and legislative powers, characterized by their timidity, and the judicial activism that is essential to consider the Declaration as a justiciable instrument. The article concludes that the Socio-Labour Declaration is a crucial instrument in protecting workers’ rights in this trade bloc, and that the 2015 revision introduced substantial improvements that may provide the legal basis for future judgments, and regional and national labour laws reforms.\u0000Mercosur, Socio-Labour Declaration, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela, Regional Integration, Labour Rights, Regional Trade Blocs, Latin America, Global South","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43171354","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}
Republican political theory has attracted the attention of a number of prominent academic labour lawyers in recent years with a view to providing a general theoretical or philosophical foundation for labour law. Engaging with and contributing to this emerging area of scholarly interest, this article endeavours to defend the possibility of a general republican theory of labour law by relying on the writings of Philip Pettit. Contrary to the arguments of these scholars, the paper suggests that at least some important parts of labour law could be explained and justified in the light of this particular version of republicanism and it is possible that many other if not all areas could be justified in the future. As Pettit’s republicanism is a work in progress, so too is the explanation and justification of labour law in the light thereof. Philosophy of Labour Law, Perfectionism, Consequentialism, Republicanism, Freedom as Non-Domination, Philip Pettit, Social Justice, Political Legitimacy, Sovereignty
{"title":"Philip Pettit’s Republicanism and Labour Law: A Defence","authors":"Dáire Mccormack-George","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2021019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2021019","url":null,"abstract":"Republican political theory has attracted the attention of a number of prominent academic labour lawyers in recent years with a view to providing a general theoretical or philosophical foundation for labour law. Engaging with and contributing to this emerging area of scholarly interest, this article endeavours to defend the possibility of a general republican theory of labour law by relying on the writings of Philip Pettit. Contrary to the arguments of these scholars, the paper suggests that at least some important parts of labour law could be explained and justified in the light of this particular version of republicanism and it is possible that many other if not all areas could be justified in the future. As Pettit’s republicanism is a work in progress, so too is the explanation and justification of labour law in the light thereof.\u0000Philosophy of Labour Law, Perfectionism, Consequentialism, Republicanism, Freedom as Non-Domination, Philip Pettit, Social Justice, Political Legitimacy, Sovereignty","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44222678","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":"Workers' Participation in Decision-Making","authors":"R. Bean","doi":"10.4324/9781003127727-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003127727-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81274391","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":"Trade Unions","authors":"R. Bean","doi":"10.4324/9781003127727-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003127727-2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83995624","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：