工会剥夺劳动保护:两个法系的悖论

IF 0.8 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations Pub Date : 2020-03-01 DOI:10.54648/ijcl2020001
M. Finkin
{"title":"工会剥夺劳动保护:两个法系的悖论","authors":"M. Finkin","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2020001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Though the protections of employment law are usually not subject to waiver by the employee, some countries allow unions to negotiate to modify or abrogate then. This article looks at two: the United States and Germany. It points to a critical distinction between the legal capacity to make collective bargaining agreements having that effect in Germany as compared to the United States. Notwithstanding those differences, it argues that what their experience teaches in common is that such an opt-out can benefit employers by giving needed and mutually understood flexibility, and can benefit unions as institutions by making it advantageous for employers to bargain with them, but that considerable care must be taken when such license is legislated lest discrete or insular groups be dispossessed of a valuable right in a process that advantages employee coalitions that exclude them, or the union as an institution, at their expense.\nPublic Goods, Dispossessive Law, Tarifdispositives Arbeitsrecht, Trading Material, ‘Sweetheart’ Agreements","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Union Dispossession of Labour Protection: A Paradox, in Two Legal Systems\",\"authors\":\"M. Finkin\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/ijcl2020001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Though the protections of employment law are usually not subject to waiver by the employee, some countries allow unions to negotiate to modify or abrogate then. This article looks at two: the United States and Germany. It points to a critical distinction between the legal capacity to make collective bargaining agreements having that effect in Germany as compared to the United States. Notwithstanding those differences, it argues that what their experience teaches in common is that such an opt-out can benefit employers by giving needed and mutually understood flexibility, and can benefit unions as institutions by making it advantageous for employers to bargain with them, but that considerable care must be taken when such license is legislated lest discrete or insular groups be dispossessed of a valuable right in a process that advantages employee coalitions that exclude them, or the union as an institution, at their expense.\\nPublic Goods, Dispossessive Law, Tarifdispositives Arbeitsrecht, Trading Material, ‘Sweetheart’ Agreements\",\"PeriodicalId\":44213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2020001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管雇员通常不会放弃对就业法的保护,但一些国家允许工会协商修改或废除。这篇文章着眼于两个方面:美国和德国。它指出,与美国相比,德国制定具有这种效力的集体谈判协议的法律能力有一个关键区别。尽管存在这些差异,但它认为,他们的经验告诉我们的共同点是,这种选择退出可以通过提供必要的、相互理解的灵活性使雇主受益,也可以通过使雇主与工会讨价还价变得有利而使工会作为机构受益,但在制定此类许可证时,必须格外小心,以免离散或孤立的群体在一个有利于将他们排除在外的员工联盟或工会作为一个机构的过程中被剥夺宝贵的权利。公共产品、处置法、关税处置Arbeitsrecht、贸易材料、“甜心”协议
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
Union Dispossession of Labour Protection: A Paradox, in Two Legal Systems
Though the protections of employment law are usually not subject to waiver by the employee, some countries allow unions to negotiate to modify or abrogate then. This article looks at two: the United States and Germany. It points to a critical distinction between the legal capacity to make collective bargaining agreements having that effect in Germany as compared to the United States. Notwithstanding those differences, it argues that what their experience teaches in common is that such an opt-out can benefit employers by giving needed and mutually understood flexibility, and can benefit unions as institutions by making it advantageous for employers to bargain with them, but that considerable care must be taken when such license is legislated lest discrete or insular groups be dispossessed of a valuable right in a process that advantages employee coalitions that exclude them, or the union as an institution, at their expense. Public Goods, Dispossessive Law, Tarifdispositives Arbeitsrecht, Trading Material, ‘Sweetheart’ Agreements
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
1.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Published four times a year, the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations is an essential source of information and analysis for labour lawyers, academics, judges, policymakers and others. The Journal publishes original articles in the domains of labour law (broadly understood) and industrial relations. Articles cover comparative and international (or regional) analysis of topical issues, major developments and innovative practices, as well as discussions of theoretical and methodological approaches. The Journal adopts a double-blind peer review process. A distinguished editorial team, with the support of an International Advisory Board of eminent scholars from around the world, ensures a continuing high standard of scientific research dealing with a range of important issues.
期刊最新文献
Litigating the Algorithmic Boss in the EU: A (Legally) Feasible and (Strategically) Attractive Option for Trade Unions? Modern Slavery in Liner Shipping: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Statements The Requirement of Fair Negotiation (Gebot des fairen Verhandelns) and the Principle of Undue Influence in German and US Employment Law Regulating Platform Work in the UK and Italy: Politics, Law and Political Economy Regulating Algorithmic Management at Work in the European Union: Data Protection, Non-discrimination and Collective Rights
×
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