Welfare regimes differ in how they supply social benefits such as pensions, disability allowances, and unemployment funding. In several regimes, the social partners – employee unions and employers’ associations – provide social benefits for workers. These regimes promote occupational welfare. This article aims to study the advantages and limitations of occupational welfare through the case study of Israel – a country in which the social partners promote occupational welfare by means of collective agreements. It examines the ways collective agreements – directly and indirectly – advance occupational welfare in Israel. The research includes a quantitative study of all collective agreements concluded in Israel in the period 1957-2016 and a qualitative study of Israeli collective agreements at the national level. The study shows that although Israel’s social partners lost much of their power during this period, they are still able to promote occupational welfare, and that Israeli social partners promote innovative workplace policies through collective agreements. Several occupational welfare arrangements first introduced in collective agreements were later extended through legislation or extension orders to all Israeli workers. Without collective bargaining, important occupational welfare benefits might have not been introduced. However, state legislation was needed to fix the flaws of these arrangements, including enforcement problems and lack of coverage of the self-employed. Occupational Welfare, Social Welfare, Collective Agreements, Employee Unions, the Social Partners, Pension, Disability Benefits, Minimum Wage, Israel
{"title":"Occupational Welfare in Israel: A Study of Collective Agreements and Benefits","authors":"Lilach Lurie","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020013","url":null,"abstract":"Welfare regimes differ in how they supply social benefits such as pensions, disability allowances, and unemployment funding. In several regimes, the social partners – employee unions and employers’ associations – provide social benefits for workers. These regimes promote occupational welfare. This article aims to study the advantages and limitations of occupational welfare through the case study of Israel – a country in which the social partners promote occupational welfare by means of collective agreements. It examines the ways collective agreements – directly and indirectly – advance occupational welfare in Israel. The research includes a quantitative study of all collective agreements concluded in Israel in the period 1957-2016 and a qualitative study of Israeli collective agreements at the national level. The study shows that although Israel’s social partners lost much of their power during this period, they are still able to promote occupational welfare, and that Israeli social partners promote innovative workplace policies through collective agreements. Several occupational welfare arrangements first introduced in collective agreements were later extended through legislation or extension orders to all Israeli workers. Without collective bargaining, important occupational welfare benefits might have not been introduced. However, state legislation was needed to fix the flaws of these arrangements, including enforcement problems and lack of coverage of the self-employed.\u0000Occupational Welfare, Social Welfare, Collective Agreements, Employee Unions, the Social Partners, Pension, Disability Benefits, Minimum Wage, Israel","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46033171","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 law of employment contracts, an implied term in law that has held sway over various Commonwealth jurisdictions is the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The term gives rise to hidden but major implications for employment relations around the world. Yet few seemed to question its utility and foundational basis until the High Court of Australia’s unanimous rejection of the term in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Barker. In Singapore, it is also often assumed that the implied term is accepted law even though the legal position actually remains wide open. This article seeks to critically examine the genesis of the term and its operation in Singapore. It also argues that despite the Singapore High Court’s repeated endorsement of this term, there are compelling reasons in both policy and principle as to why such a term should be rejected in Singapore. Employment Law, Implied Terms, Mutual Trust and Confidence, Contract Law, Singapore
{"title":"Dismantling the Trojan Horse in Singapore: A Critical Evaluation of the Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence","authors":"Kah-Wai Tan","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020015","url":null,"abstract":"In the law of employment contracts, an implied term in law that has held sway over various Commonwealth jurisdictions is the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The term gives rise to hidden but major implications for employment relations around the world. Yet few seemed to question its utility and foundational basis until the High Court of Australia’s unanimous rejection of the term in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Barker. In Singapore, it is also often assumed that the implied term is accepted law even though the legal position actually remains wide open. This article seeks to critically examine the genesis of the term and its operation in Singapore. It also argues that despite the Singapore High Court’s repeated endorsement of this term, there are compelling reasons in both policy and principle as to why such a term should be rejected in Singapore.\u0000Employment Law, Implied Terms, Mutual Trust and Confidence, Contract Law, Singapore","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42361791","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}
Occupational Welfare, Social Welfare, Collective Agreements, Employee Unions, the Social Partners, Pension, Disability Benefits, Minimum Wage, Israel
职业福利、社会福利、集体协议、工会、社会合作伙伴、养老金、残疾福利、最低工资，以色列
{"title":"In Memoriam: Jacques Rojot (1941–2020)","authors":"A. Neal","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Occupational Welfare, Social Welfare, Collective Agreements, Employee Unions, the Social Partners, Pension, Disability Benefits, Minimum Wage, Israel","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44441585","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 Issue on the Role of the Social Partners in the Welfare State: Introduction","authors":"P. Olsson, C. Johansson","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47488556","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":"The Social Partners in the Welfare System in Italy: From Coordination to Fragmentation","authors":"D. Comandé, S. Giubboni","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020017","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47843568","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 disputes regarding the connection between freedom of association and the right to strike, occurring at multiple levels, within international, regional and national legal orders. It focuses on the period from 2007 to 2019, when a challenge was made to norms longestablished at the International Labour Organization (ILO) that was subsequently continued in European and national court proceedings. These events raised the potential for normative fragmentation and conflict between legal systems. This article interrogates the roles played by two key actors in these processes: the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). Drawing on sociological insights into collective action offered by Offe and Wiesenthal, transposed to the transnational level, an analysis is offered of the power dynamics that motivated IOE attempts to alter the content and influence of ILO norms, alongside the scope for ITUC resistance, given its resources.
{"title":"Multi-level Disputes Relating to Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike: Transnational Systems, Actors and Resources","authors":"Tonia Novitz","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020024","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines disputes regarding the connection between freedom of association and the right to strike, occurring at multiple levels, within international, regional and national legal orders. It focuses on the period from 2007 to 2019, when a challenge was made to norms longestablished at the International Labour Organization (ILO) that was subsequently continued in European and national court proceedings. These events raised the potential for normative fragmentation and conflict between legal systems. This article interrogates the roles played by two key actors in these processes: the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). Drawing on sociological insights into collective action offered by Offe and Wiesenthal, transposed to the transnational level, an analysis is offered of the power dynamics that motivated IOE attempts to alter the content and influence of ILO norms, alongside the scope for ITUC resistance, given its resources.","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48147281","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 provides an analysis of regulatory approaches to sex work, the status of sex workers’ labour rights, and the conflation of sex work and human trafficking, with reference to the example of Germany. It assesses the strengths and weaknesses of Germany’s approach to the regulation of prostitution and the ways it has been influenced by international debates challenging the status of sex work as work, as well as concerns about human trafficking. It analyses the Prostitution Act 2002 (ProstG), and the Prostitute Protection Act 2017 (ProstSchG), and their effects on the rights and working conditions of sex workers, as well as their aim of improving the safety of vulnerable sex workers and reducing the level of human trafficking and exploitation in the German sex industry. In particular, the article considers the impact of this legislation on those working in the sex industry, especially migrant women and those at risk of exploitation. Through its analysis of the existing approach to sex work in Germany, the direction of reform and the absence of a labour-rights approach to the regulation of sex work and the prevention of trafficking, the article highlights the fact that even a country that is -in principle - willing to accept sex work as work, has failed to grant labour rights to sex workers. The article argues that the Prostitute Protection Act has in some ways increased the vulnerability of sex workers rather than promoting their safety. In addition, it is argued that legislators should consider labour protection and labour rights as an alternative means of protecting sex workers, rather than (re)criminalizing aspects of sex work in the name of ‘protecting’ women by means of prohibition or control. Adopting a labour-rights approach rather than paternalistic approach would have the potential to bring about far-reaching reform of the relevant legislation both in Germany and internationally. Sex Work, Human Trafficking, Labour Rights, Criminalization, Prostitution, Sex Work as Work
{"title":"Sex Work Regulation, Anti-trafficking Policy, and Their Effects on the Labour Rights of Sex Workers in Germany","authors":"Inga K. Thiemann","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020011","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an analysis of regulatory approaches to sex work, the status of sex workers’ labour rights, and the conflation of sex work and human trafficking, with reference to the example of Germany. It assesses the strengths and weaknesses of Germany’s approach to the regulation of prostitution and the ways it has been influenced by international debates challenging the status of sex work as work, as well as concerns about human trafficking. It analyses the Prostitution Act 2002 (ProstG), and the Prostitute Protection Act 2017 (ProstSchG), and their effects on the rights and working conditions of sex workers, as well as their aim of improving the safety of vulnerable sex workers and reducing the level of human trafficking and exploitation in the German sex industry. In particular, the article considers the impact of this legislation on those working in the sex industry, especially migrant women and those at risk of exploitation. Through its analysis of the existing approach to sex work in Germany, the direction of reform and the absence of a labour-rights approach to the regulation of sex work and the prevention of trafficking, the article highlights the fact that even a country that is -in principle - willing to accept sex work as work, has failed to grant labour rights to sex workers. The article argues that the Prostitute Protection Act has in some ways increased the vulnerability of sex workers rather than promoting their safety. In addition, it is argued that legislators should consider labour protection and labour rights as an alternative means of protecting sex workers, rather than (re)criminalizing aspects of sex work in the name of ‘protecting’ women by means of prohibition or control. Adopting a labour-rights approach rather than paternalistic approach would have the potential to bring about far-reaching reform of the relevant legislation both in Germany and internationally.\u0000Sex Work, Human Trafficking, Labour Rights, Criminalization, Prostitution, Sex Work as Work","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43190341","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 most of the discussion among labour law scholars about platform workers has concentrated on their employment status. However, it is unclear which norms regulate platform work in cases in which the worker is classified as an ‘employee’. Platform work resembles temporary agency work (TAW) due to its fixed-term and triangular nature, giving rise to the question of whether provisions regulating TAW should be applied to platform work. The aim of this article is to analyse whether it is possible to apply the Temporary Agency Work Directive (TAWD) to platform workers and whether it would improve their employment conditions. It is argued that the automatic application of the TAWD to platform workers would be complicated and would not improve their employment rights. The main obstacles include the problems arising from the assignment of supervision and direction to the user; issues relating to the determination of working time; the identification of a comparator for the purposes of equal treatment, and the derogation from the principle of equal treatment based on qualifying periods. Other possibilities for the regulation of platform work need to be identified. Platform Work, Temporary Agency Work, Temporary Agency Work Directive, Atypical Employment
{"title":"Applying the Temporary Agency Work Directive to Platform Workers: Mission Impossible?","authors":"Annika Rosin","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020009","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years most of the discussion among labour law scholars about platform workers has concentrated on their employment status. However, it is unclear which norms regulate platform work in cases in which the worker is classified as an ‘employee’. Platform work resembles temporary agency work (TAW) due to its fixed-term and triangular nature, giving rise to the question of whether provisions regulating TAW should be applied to platform work. The aim of this article is to analyse whether it is possible to apply the Temporary Agency Work Directive (TAWD) to platform workers and whether it would improve their employment conditions. It is argued that the automatic application of the TAWD to platform workers would be complicated and would not improve their employment rights. The main obstacles include the problems arising from the assignment of supervision and direction to the user; issues relating to the determination of working time; the identification of a comparator for the purposes of equal treatment, and the derogation from the principle of equal treatment based on qualifying periods. Other possibilities for the regulation of platform work need to be identified.\u0000Platform Work, Temporary Agency Work, Temporary Agency Work Directive, Atypical Employment","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46834398","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}
Global Framework Agreements (GFAs) are expected to be a more effective instrument for safeguarding collective labour rights in global supply chains than the unilateral instruments of private regulation adopted previously. The direct involvement of global union federations as contractual partners has significant potential in this regard. However, the effects of GFAs in supply chains have so far been under-researched. Since the exercise of collective labour rights is often prevented or undermined in producer countries of the Global South, and global supply chains are characterized by unstable and volatile relationships between global brands and local suppliers, the effective local implementation of GFAs faces particular challenges. Against this background, this article provides a qualitative analysis of expert interviews to examine how the implementation of the GFA of the global fashion brand H&M in Cambodia has influenced power relations between key stakeholders in the Cambodian garment industry and to what extent the agreement contributes to promoting ‘industrial democracy’ in the H&M supply chain in Cambodia. Platform Work, Temporary Agency Work, Temporary Agency Work Directive, Atypical Employment
{"title":"Implementation of the H&M Global Framework Agreement in Cambodia: Producing Outcomes for Industrial Democracy Despite a Challenging Context?","authors":"John-Paul Norpoth, M. Kaltenborn, Carina Neset","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020010","url":null,"abstract":"Global Framework Agreements (GFAs) are expected to be a more effective instrument for safeguarding collective labour rights in global supply chains than the unilateral instruments of private regulation adopted previously. The direct involvement of global union federations as contractual partners has significant potential in this regard. However, the effects of GFAs in supply chains have so far been under-researched. Since the exercise of collective labour rights is often prevented or undermined in producer countries of the Global South, and global supply chains are characterized by unstable and volatile relationships between global brands and local suppliers, the effective local implementation of GFAs faces particular challenges. Against this background, this article provides a qualitative analysis of expert interviews to examine how the implementation of the GFA of the global fashion brand H&M in Cambodia has influenced power relations between key stakeholders in the Cambodian garment industry and to what extent the agreement contributes to promoting ‘industrial democracy’ in the H&M supply chain in Cambodia.\u0000Platform Work, Temporary Agency Work, Temporary Agency Work Directive, Atypical Employment","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45592908","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":"In Memoriam: Ruth Ben Israel (1931–2020)","authors":"A. Neal","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49551708","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：