社会复苏、工作场所民主和安全:2019冠状病毒病与劳动法

E. McGaughey
{"title":"社会复苏、工作场所民主和安全:2019冠状病毒病与劳动法","authors":"E. McGaughey","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3781475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the painful consequences of poor job security and workplace democracy. The UK government’s initial flirt with ‘herd immunity’, the delay in lockdown, and the absence of a work strategy that prioritised safety after the summer, caused among the most appalling death rates in the world, worse than Trump’s America. However, a swift change in the job security policy stemmed mass unemployment, after initial reports of 2.1 million people claiming unemployment benefits. The ‘Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme’ eventually meant that the unemployment statistics (as opposed to claimant count) showed only a modest jobless rise. Comparison with the US where there are effectively no rights, and other countries with strong rights, shows that universal social security and workplace democracy are at the core of successful economic performance. This paper explains the UK’s health and safety rights, how the job retention scheme was unfurled with extension to employed and self-employed, and the connection between votes at work and employment. It shows how reality discredits the minority views of economic theorists who oppose labour rights, and suggests the legal reforms we can undertake to achieve a social recovery.","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"7 1","pages":"122 - 136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Social Recovery, Workplace Democracy and Security: Covid-19 and Labour Law\",\"authors\":\"E. McGaughey\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3781475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the painful consequences of poor job security and workplace democracy. The UK government’s initial flirt with ‘herd immunity’, the delay in lockdown, and the absence of a work strategy that prioritised safety after the summer, caused among the most appalling death rates in the world, worse than Trump’s America. However, a swift change in the job security policy stemmed mass unemployment, after initial reports of 2.1 million people claiming unemployment benefits. The ‘Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme’ eventually meant that the unemployment statistics (as opposed to claimant count) showed only a modest jobless rise. Comparison with the US where there are effectively no rights, and other countries with strong rights, shows that universal social security and workplace democracy are at the core of successful economic performance. This paper explains the UK’s health and safety rights, how the job retention scheme was unfurled with extension to employed and self-employed, and the connection between votes at work and employment. It shows how reality discredits the minority views of economic theorists who oppose labour rights, and suggests the legal reforms we can undertake to achieve a social recovery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"King's law journal : KLJ\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"122 - 136\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"King's law journal : KLJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3781475\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"King's law journal : KLJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3781475","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行已经展示了糟糕的工作保障和工作场所民主的痛苦后果。英国政府最初对“群体免疫”的不屑一顾,封锁的延迟,以及夏季后缺乏优先考虑安全的工作战略,导致了世界上最令人震惊的死亡率,比特朗普领导下的美国还要糟糕。然而,就业保障政策的迅速变化遏制了大规模失业,此前有初步报告称,有210万人申请失业救济。“冠状病毒工作保留计划”最终意味着失业统计数据(而不是申领人数)仅显示失业率小幅上升。与实际上没有权利的美国和其他拥有强大权利的国家相比,普遍的社会保障和工作场所民主是成功经济表现的核心。本文解释了英国的健康和安全权利,如何将工作保留计划扩展到受雇者和自雇者,以及工作投票与就业之间的联系。它表明,现实如何让反对劳工权利的经济理论家的少数观点失去了可信度,并建议我们可以进行法律改革,以实现社会复苏。
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
A Social Recovery, Workplace Democracy and Security: Covid-19 and Labour Law
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the painful consequences of poor job security and workplace democracy. The UK government’s initial flirt with ‘herd immunity’, the delay in lockdown, and the absence of a work strategy that prioritised safety after the summer, caused among the most appalling death rates in the world, worse than Trump’s America. However, a swift change in the job security policy stemmed mass unemployment, after initial reports of 2.1 million people claiming unemployment benefits. The ‘Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme’ eventually meant that the unemployment statistics (as opposed to claimant count) showed only a modest jobless rise. Comparison with the US where there are effectively no rights, and other countries with strong rights, shows that universal social security and workplace democracy are at the core of successful economic performance. This paper explains the UK’s health and safety rights, how the job retention scheme was unfurled with extension to employed and self-employed, and the connection between votes at work and employment. It shows how reality discredits the minority views of economic theorists who oppose labour rights, and suggests the legal reforms we can undertake to achieve a social recovery.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unity in diversity? Constitutional identities, deliberative processes and a ‘Border Poll’ in Ireland The Nation vs. the People. The unconstitutionality of secessionist referendums under Belgian constitutional law The impact of federalism on secession referendums: comparing Scotland and Québec Assessing the Legitimacy of Referendums as a Vehicle for Constitutional Amendment: Reform and Abolition of the Legislative Councils in Queensland and New South Wales Referendums and representation in democratic constitution making: Lessons from the failed Chilean constitutional experiment
×
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