荷兰的弹性不安全感和零时工作制

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW European Labour Law Journal Pub Date : 2022-06-09 DOI:10.1177/20319525221104166
Anja Eleveld
{"title":"荷兰的弹性不安全感和零时工作制","authors":"Anja Eleveld","doi":"10.1177/20319525221104166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the main goals of the Dutch Act on the Employment Contract of 1907 was to offer protection to day labourers who sold their labour on a daily basis as ‘entrepreneurs of themselves’. Under the Act, these workers were classified as ‘employees’, which made them less dependent on market forces and the whims of their employer. One may wonder, however, whether the (lack of) employment protection of the 19th century day labourer differed much from that of todays’ employees performing zero-hours work who, like those day labourers, have to cope with unpredictable working days and hours. This article seeks to answer this question through detailed analysis of the regulation of the zero-hours employment contract under Dutch labour law. In this context it will also address the impact of EU labour law on the regulation of zero-hours work arrangements. Starting with a historical perspective, it is shown how the Dutch legislator’s aim to create a new balance between ‘flexibility and security’ has strengthened the employment protection of zerohours workers, which to some extent gives them advantages over dependent self-employed workers. On the other hand, however, the article reveals how subsequent legislative reforms have legally authorised zero-hours employment contracts and, as such, have legitimised zero-hours workers’ insecure employment conditions. In addition, while both the Dutch and the EU legislator have recognised that the balance between flexibility and security has tipped too much in favour of flexibility, this article argues that new instruments, among which is the EU Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions (2019/1152/EU), fail to restore this balance sufficiently. It is concluded that instead of achieving the EU policy objective of flexicurity, current employment relations in the Netherlands seem to reflect a state of flexi-insecurity. Before I continue, it should be noted that zero-hours work is a type of work which is not defined in Dutch labour law. It is usually considered a sub-category of on-demand work in that zero-hours workers unlike, for example, workers on a min-max contract, lack guaranteed working hours.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"375 - 399"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Flexi-insecurity and the regulation of zero-hours work in the Netherlands\",\"authors\":\"Anja Eleveld\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20319525221104166\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the main goals of the Dutch Act on the Employment Contract of 1907 was to offer protection to day labourers who sold their labour on a daily basis as ‘entrepreneurs of themselves’. Under the Act, these workers were classified as ‘employees’, which made them less dependent on market forces and the whims of their employer. One may wonder, however, whether the (lack of) employment protection of the 19th century day labourer differed much from that of todays’ employees performing zero-hours work who, like those day labourers, have to cope with unpredictable working days and hours. This article seeks to answer this question through detailed analysis of the regulation of the zero-hours employment contract under Dutch labour law. In this context it will also address the impact of EU labour law on the regulation of zero-hours work arrangements. Starting with a historical perspective, it is shown how the Dutch legislator’s aim to create a new balance between ‘flexibility and security’ has strengthened the employment protection of zerohours workers, which to some extent gives them advantages over dependent self-employed workers. On the other hand, however, the article reveals how subsequent legislative reforms have legally authorised zero-hours employment contracts and, as such, have legitimised zero-hours workers’ insecure employment conditions. In addition, while both the Dutch and the EU legislator have recognised that the balance between flexibility and security has tipped too much in favour of flexibility, this article argues that new instruments, among which is the EU Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions (2019/1152/EU), fail to restore this balance sufficiently. It is concluded that instead of achieving the EU policy objective of flexicurity, current employment relations in the Netherlands seem to reflect a state of flexi-insecurity. Before I continue, it should be noted that zero-hours work is a type of work which is not defined in Dutch labour law. It is usually considered a sub-category of on-demand work in that zero-hours workers unlike, for example, workers on a min-max contract, lack guaranteed working hours.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"375 - 399\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221104166\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221104166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

1907年《荷兰雇佣合同法》的主要目标之一是为每天作为"自己的企业家"出卖劳动的日工提供保护。根据该法案,这些工人被归类为“雇员”,这使他们较少依赖市场力量和雇主的心血来潮。然而,人们可能会想,19世纪日工的(缺乏)就业保护是否与今天从事零时工的雇员有很大不同,后者和那些日工一样,必须应对不可预测的工作日和工作时间。本文试图通过详细分析荷兰劳动法对零时工合同的规定来回答这个问题。在这方面,它还将处理欧盟劳动法对零时工作安排规定的影响。从历史的角度出发,展示了荷兰立法者如何在“灵活性和安全性”之间创造新的平衡的目标,加强了对零时工人的就业保护,这在某种程度上使他们比依赖个体经营者更具优势。然而,另一方面,文章揭示了随后的立法改革如何在法律上授权零时工作合同,并因此使零时工人不安全的就业条件合法化。此外,虽然荷兰和欧盟立法者都认识到灵活性和安全性之间的平衡过于倾向于灵活性,但本文认为,新工具,其中包括欧盟关于透明和可预测工作条件的指令(2019/1152/EU),未能充分恢复这种平衡。结论是,荷兰目前的就业关系似乎反映了一种灵活不安全的状态,而不是实现欧盟灵活的政策目标。在我继续之前,应该指出的是,零小时工作是荷兰劳动法中没有定义的一种工作。零时工通常被认为是按需工作的一个子类,因为零时工与签订最低顶薪合同的工人不同,没有工作时间的保证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Flexi-insecurity and the regulation of zero-hours work in the Netherlands
One of the main goals of the Dutch Act on the Employment Contract of 1907 was to offer protection to day labourers who sold their labour on a daily basis as ‘entrepreneurs of themselves’. Under the Act, these workers were classified as ‘employees’, which made them less dependent on market forces and the whims of their employer. One may wonder, however, whether the (lack of) employment protection of the 19th century day labourer differed much from that of todays’ employees performing zero-hours work who, like those day labourers, have to cope with unpredictable working days and hours. This article seeks to answer this question through detailed analysis of the regulation of the zero-hours employment contract under Dutch labour law. In this context it will also address the impact of EU labour law on the regulation of zero-hours work arrangements. Starting with a historical perspective, it is shown how the Dutch legislator’s aim to create a new balance between ‘flexibility and security’ has strengthened the employment protection of zerohours workers, which to some extent gives them advantages over dependent self-employed workers. On the other hand, however, the article reveals how subsequent legislative reforms have legally authorised zero-hours employment contracts and, as such, have legitimised zero-hours workers’ insecure employment conditions. In addition, while both the Dutch and the EU legislator have recognised that the balance between flexibility and security has tipped too much in favour of flexibility, this article argues that new instruments, among which is the EU Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions (2019/1152/EU), fail to restore this balance sufficiently. It is concluded that instead of achieving the EU policy objective of flexicurity, current employment relations in the Netherlands seem to reflect a state of flexi-insecurity. Before I continue, it should be noted that zero-hours work is a type of work which is not defined in Dutch labour law. It is usually considered a sub-category of on-demand work in that zero-hours workers unlike, for example, workers on a min-max contract, lack guaranteed working hours.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Anti-discrimination cases decided by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2023 Resocialisation through prisoner remuneration: The unconstitutionally low remuneration of working prisoners in Germany Work in prison: Reintegration or exclusion and exploitation? Beyond profit: A model framework for ethical and feasible private prison labour Minding the gap? Blind spots in the ILO's and the EU's perspective on anti-forced labour policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1