现金工资,卡车法案和1960年工资支付法案

Q2 Arts and Humanities Historical Studies in Industrial Relations Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.3828/hsir.2020.41.4
C. Frank
{"title":"现金工资,卡车法案和1960年工资支付法案","authors":"C. Frank","doi":"10.3828/hsir.2020.41.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nFrom the mid-1950s until the early 1960s, there was an ongoing tussle between British employers and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) over whether to repeal the (1831-96) Truck Acts which established the right of manual workers to be paid in cash (‘coin of the realm’) and regulated employers’ ability to fine them or take deductions from their wages. Many employers advocated repeal, insisting that truck legislation was ill-suited to the modern economy, interfered with freedom to contract, and impeded more efficient forms of paying wages. Organized labour, through the TUC, countered that these laws protected workers from arbitrary deductions and prevented employers from imposing unpopular methods of paying wages (such as by cheque or bank transfer). This dispute resulted in the minor reform of the 1960 Payment of Wages Act.\nThe (1959-61) Karmel Committee, which studied the contemporary operation of the Truck Acts, recommended repeal, though keeping some protection, but there was disagreement about who should be covered and what should be protected. The TUC, near the apex of its power, had proved the efficacy of the law and, given the inability to reach consensus, the government eventually dropped the subject for a generation.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":"41 1","pages":"85-108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cash Wages, the Truck Acts, and the 1960 Payment of Wages Act\",\"authors\":\"C. Frank\",\"doi\":\"10.3828/hsir.2020.41.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nFrom the mid-1950s until the early 1960s, there was an ongoing tussle between British employers and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) over whether to repeal the (1831-96) Truck Acts which established the right of manual workers to be paid in cash (‘coin of the realm’) and regulated employers’ ability to fine them or take deductions from their wages. Many employers advocated repeal, insisting that truck legislation was ill-suited to the modern economy, interfered with freedom to contract, and impeded more efficient forms of paying wages. Organized labour, through the TUC, countered that these laws protected workers from arbitrary deductions and prevented employers from imposing unpopular methods of paying wages (such as by cheque or bank transfer). This dispute resulted in the minor reform of the 1960 Payment of Wages Act.\\nThe (1959-61) Karmel Committee, which studied the contemporary operation of the Truck Acts, recommended repeal, though keeping some protection, but there was disagreement about who should be covered and what should be protected. The TUC, near the apex of its power, had proved the efficacy of the law and, given the inability to reach consensus, the government eventually dropped the subject for a generation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"85-108\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3828/hsir.2020.41.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/hsir.2020.41.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

从20世纪50年代中期到60年代初,英国雇主和工会大会(TUC)之间一直在争论是否废除(1831-96)《卡车法案》,该法案确立了体力劳动者获得现金报酬的权利(“王国货币”),并规定了雇主对其进行罚款或从其工资中扣除的能力。许多雇主主张废除,坚称卡车立法不适合现代经济,干扰了合同自由,阻碍了更有效的工资支付形式。有组织的劳工组织通过英国工会联合会反驳说,这些法律保护工人免受任意扣除,并防止雇主采用不受欢迎的支付工资的方法(如支票或银行转账)。这场争端导致了1960年《工资支付法》的小规模改革。(1959-61)卡梅尔委员会研究了《卡车法案》的当代运作,建议废除该法案,尽管保留了一些保护措施,但对于谁应该受到保护以及什么应该受到保护存在分歧。接近权力巅峰的英国工会联合会已经证明了这项法律的有效性,鉴于无法达成共识,政府最终在一代人的时间里放弃了这个话题。
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
Cash Wages, the Truck Acts, and the 1960 Payment of Wages Act
From the mid-1950s until the early 1960s, there was an ongoing tussle between British employers and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) over whether to repeal the (1831-96) Truck Acts which established the right of manual workers to be paid in cash (‘coin of the realm’) and regulated employers’ ability to fine them or take deductions from their wages. Many employers advocated repeal, insisting that truck legislation was ill-suited to the modern economy, interfered with freedom to contract, and impeded more efficient forms of paying wages. Organized labour, through the TUC, countered that these laws protected workers from arbitrary deductions and prevented employers from imposing unpopular methods of paying wages (such as by cheque or bank transfer). This dispute resulted in the minor reform of the 1960 Payment of Wages Act. The (1959-61) Karmel Committee, which studied the contemporary operation of the Truck Acts, recommended repeal, though keeping some protection, but there was disagreement about who should be covered and what should be protected. The TUC, near the apex of its power, had proved the efficacy of the law and, given the inability to reach consensus, the government eventually dropped the subject for a generation.
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
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
George Bain and Memories of the Bullock Committee on Industrial Democracy The British Printers’ 40-Hour-Week Strike of 1959: Background, Dispute, and Aftermath Canteen Workers’ Wages and Collective-Bargaining Arrangements in British Coal Undermining the ‘Polder Model’: Workers’ Militancy and Trade-Union Leadership in Four Dutch Wildcat Strikes, 1963–1970 Reflections on the Committee of Inquiry on Industrial Democracy, 1975–1977, Chaired by Alan Bullock
×
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