Suchergebnisse

AbstractChina's system of labour relations regulation is based on a government‐led model of collective consultation and contracts, driven by the central planning tradition of "quota management". Government and trade unions thus cooperate to fulfil coverage quotas, especially at the local/enterprise level. Though their methods are highly successful at overcoming employers' reluctance, the absence of genuine collective bargaining leaves collective contracts largely devoid of substance. Under this system, the authors argue, the Government is institutionalizing a labour regulation framework aimed at containing the recent rise in labour unrest, while pragmatically postponing collective bargaining for the sake of stability and growth.

This work investigates the following issues: problems of differentiation and application in practice of the fundamental principles of labour legislation and specific legal provisions, in particular, interpretation of the principles using legislative enactments; determination of legal principles and maxims of law; correlation of suprapositive law principles and principles embodied in positive law; possibility to deduce principles of legal regulation of labour relations from numerous provisions of labour legislation; ideas as to the mechanism of social effect of legal principles etc. The analysis of achievements in science, generalization of practice of enforcement of law, European and domestic experience, principles and methodology of scientific research allowed the author to admit that normative provisions of different level of generalization – from specific legal norms creating deep differentiation of legal regulation of labour relations and affect only limited circle of workers, to the fundamental principles of labour law having the highest level of generalization. Between these two poles there is a wide range of legal prescriptions which vary in the level of their generalization. To differentiate the fundamental principles and specific prescriptions of law on the basis of such criterion as a level of generalization of normative requirements worded there, is impossible because of ambiguity of this criterion. It is also impossible to use other substantial criteria for these purposes. Under such conditions there is only one alternative – to use a formal criterion. If a certain legislative provision is referred to as a fundamental principle in the Constitution or a legislative enactment it is applied as the fundamental principle including Part 7, Art.8 of the Civil Procedure Code and Part 7, Art.9 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Proceeding. In the rest of cases statutory provisions including the provisions of the highest level of generalization are applied as specific prescriptions of law. ; Освещены проблемы разграничения и применения основных принципов правового регулирования трудовых отношений и конкретных правовых норм ; Розглянуто проблеми розмежування та застосування на практиці основних засад (принципів) правового регулювання трудових відносин та конкретних правових приписів

This work investigates the following issues: problems of differentiation and application in practice of the fundamental principles of labour legislation and specific legal provisions, in particular, interpretation of the principles using legislative enactments; determination of legal principles and maxims of law; correlation of suprapositive law principles and principles embodied in positive law; possibility to deduce principles of legal regulation of labour relations from numerous provisions of labour legislation; ideas as to the mechanism of social effect of legal principles etc. The analysis of achievements in science, generalization of practice of enforcement of law, European and domestic experience, principles and methodology of scientific research allowed the author to admit that normative provisions of different level of generalization – from specific legal norms creating deep differentiation of legal regulation of labour relations and affect only limited circle of workers, to the fundamental principles of labour law having the highest level of generalization. Between these two poles there is a wide range of legal prescriptions which vary in the level of their generalization. To differentiate the fundamental principles and specific prescriptions of law on the basis of such criterion as a level of generalization of normative requirements worded there, is impossible because of ambiguity of this criterion. It is also impossible to use other substantial criteria for these purposes. Under such conditions there is only one alternative – to use a formal criterion. If a certain legislative provision is referred to as a fundamental principle in the Constitution or a legislative enactment it is applied as the fundamental principle including Part 7, Art.8 of the Civil Procedure Code and Part 7, Art.9 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Proceeding. In the rest of cases statutory provisions including the provisions of the highest level of generalization are applied as specific prescriptions of law. ; Освещены проблемы разграничения и применения основных принципов правового регулирования трудовых отношений и конкретных правовых норм ; Розглянуто проблеми розмежування та застосування на практиці основних засад (принципів) правового регулювання трудових відносин та конкретних правових приписів

This work investigates the following issues: problems of differentiation and application in practice of the fundamental principles of labour legislation and specific legal provisions, in particular, interpretation of the principles using legislative enactments; determination of legal principles and maxims of law; correlation of suprapositive law principles and principles embodied in positive law; possibility to deduce principles of legal regulation of labour relations from numerous provisions of labour legislation; ideas as to the mechanism of social effect of legal principles etc. The analysis of achievements in science, generalization of practice of enforcement of law, European and domestic experience, principles and methodology of scientific research allowed the author to admit that normative provisions of different level of generalization – from specific legal norms creating deep differentiation of legal regulation of labour relations and affect only limited circle of workers, to the fundamental principles of labour law having the highest level of generalization. Between these two poles there is a wide range of legal prescriptions which vary in the level of their generalization. To differentiate the fundamental principles and specific prescriptions of law on the basis of such criterion as a level of generalization of normative requirements worded there, is impossible because of ambiguity of this criterion. It is also impossible to use other substantial criteria for these purposes. Under such conditions there is only one alternative – to use a formal criterion. If a certain legislative provision is referred to as a fundamental principle in the Constitution or a legislative enactment it is applied as the fundamental principle including Part 7, Art.8 of the Civil Procedure Code and Part 7, Art.9 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Proceeding. In the rest of cases statutory provisions including the provisions of the highest level of generalization are applied as specific prescriptions of law. ; Освещены проблемы разграничения и применения основных принципов правового регулирования трудовых отношений и конкретных правовых норм ; Розглянуто проблеми розмежування та застосування на практиці основних засад (принципів) правового регулювання трудових відносин та конкретних правових приписів

The article assesses the ILO decent work agenda in the Global South: its objectives and coherence, its impact on labour relations and conditions, and its overall policy direction in relation to alternative labour rights and welfare policy thinking. This is followed by a case study of the Indian version of the decent work agenda and the extent to which the ILO–India collaboration has influenced regulatory frameworks and labour relations. From this, wider lessons for both the ILO decent work agenda and for Indian labour relations are drawn: it is argued that the present emphasis on progress in social protection has inherent dangers as this is not likely to overcome underlying inequalities and form the basis for broader welfare coalitions, including for the political mobilization of informal workers themselves.

The study was conducted primarily to investigate labour/government relations in Nigeria: A Study of Regulation, 1999 – 2012. The study is guided by four research questions. The population of the study comprises of all the 500 workers and government officials in the selected areas of study. Frequency count, percentage and statistical mean were used to analyze the results. The finding of the study reveals that, the respondents accepted all the impact of trade unionism and collective bargaining on Nigeriadevelopment.That is, Trade union and collective bargaining contributed to, Economic development in Nigeria, Provision of infrastructural development such as water, electricity, road and schools facilities, Provide the knowledge of laws that regulate labour activities in Nigeria, Improve Capacity building of workers, education, finance and independent, Guarantee workers salary, Protection of workers right and personnel interest, Boost worker physical integrity and moral dignity of the individual and Prevent workers being threaten or dismissed without reasons; the finding also reveals that the respondents, responded positively to the perceived causes of strike actions in Nigeria; that is, Poor infrastructural Development, High rate of corruption, Failure to implement collective agreement such as harmonized salary structure, Military intervene into democracy, Refusal to ascend to union, Poor or Delay in salary and wages of worker, Dissolution of trade union to segment to reduce their power, Retrenchment and unemployment problems and Strike may call back without consulting member. Similarly, the finding also reveals that the respondents accepted, all the items on reasons why successive and present governments subvert labour movement activities in Nigeria; that is, Military government demoralize union right, Problems of internal democracy is a threat to trade unionism, Both military and political leaders bane or arrest and even imprisons labour leaders, Regularism of trade union act pose a problems and Fear and apathy created in worker through unending rationalization retrieval of workers wages salary cuts. Finally, the finding reveals that the respondents, responded positively to the measures/strategies to regulate labour movement; that is, Nigerian workers must fight and dement the right at all times, Government should provide basic amenities such as water, electricity, improve agriculture and basic education to Nigerian, Improve salary structure and wages, Government in all level must fight corrupt leaders, Immunity clause should be removed in the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria to tried corrupt leaders, Government should protect the right of workers, Prompts payment of salary and arrears to person and retired workers, There should be rule of law and due processes, Provision of employment opportunities and Employers should not victimize workers.

How and when do intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) promote incorporation of international norms in domestic politics? In this article, I assess the impact of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on national labour regulations. I advance a new argument regarding how and when labour regulations are shaped by the ILO. More specifically, I argue that the ILO can shape labour regulations during the preparatory process of international labour standards. I theorize that the preparatory period of international labour conventions constitutes a propitious condition for mechanisms of elite socialisation, learning and domestic mobilisation. To test our argument, we focus on national dismissal regulations covering the period 1970-2013. The findings provide evidence in line with my argument that states improve their regulations during the adoption process. However, I find no evidence that states improve their regulations after formal adoption. The results have substantive implications for our understanding of IGOs and labor standards in particular.

As well as consolidating and enhancing the process of trade liberalisation, the completion of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) formalised the expansion of multilateral trade regulation into areas of commercial activity previously deemed to be trade-related. This expansion, however, has been highly uneven, privileging the needs of capital, and to a much lesser degree land, over labour. Attempts to secure a degree of regulatory protection for labour in the legal framework of the WTO—by requiring that the Organisation's members adhere to a set of core labour standards when engaged in trade-producing activities—have so far failed. Both the Singapore (1996) and Geneva (1998) Ministerial Meetings of the WTO witnessed discussion of this issue, yet neither resulted in a comprehensive and satisfactory outcome for labour. That said, significant opportunity exists for the reconstruction of the trade-labour standards debate within the WTO. This article, seeks to demonstrate how this might be the case. In doing so, it first reviews the process of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO involvement in the regulation of trade-related areas. Second, it explores the current deadlock that characterises the issue of trade and labour standards within the WTO's legal framework as well as the more significant positions that have emerged among the Organisation's membership by focusing on British, US and EU involvement in this issue. Third, it identifies the reactions of certain key member states to the protests of civil society at the 1998 Geneva Ministerial Meeting of the WTO as the means by which the issue of trade and labour standards may once again be raised. And finally, it considers how the effective regulation of labour standards might be made within the confines of the WTO's legal framework by examining a range of options.

The Swedish model of industrial relations is distinguished by a high degree of self-regulation with roots around the turn of the century 1900. Under the threat of state regulation, the labour market parties in the 1930s, and again in the late 1990s, found they had a common interest in self-regulation. The 1938 Saltsjöbaden Agreement between the blue-collar confederation LO and the employer confederation SAF had its predecessors in the 1905 Engineering Agreement and the December Compromise LO-SAF. Two dimensions of Swedish industrial relations are highlighted: self-regulation (unilateral and bi-partite) versus state regulation and centralization versus decentralization. These can in turn be combined into a four-field table, which is extended to include bipartite regulation between state and unions (state-supported union-run unemployment funds) and tripartite regulation (the 1990-1993 Stabilization Agreements). Advantages and disadvantages of self-regulation are discussed on the basis of an article by Ann Numhauser-Henning, professor of Private Law at Lund University. The Swedish model of bipartite collective self-regulation (in Swedish also labelled partsreglering) is maintained by a high coverage of collective agreements, in turn promoted by the high density of employers' associations and the internationally high union density. Up to the end of the 1930s the rate of unionization among Swedish white-collar workers was very low in many industries. The dominant attitude among private-sector employers was to consider working and employment conditions for white-collar workers as a matter reserved for unilateral employer control. Therefore, in 1931 eight white-collar unions founded Daco (the Confederation of Employees) in order to get the legislation considered necessary to change this situation. Two options were on the agenda as regards the form of legislation. Procedural legislation on the right of association and negotiation best conformed with the Swedish model of self-regulation, but at the same time was exceptional as the blue-collar workers had acquired these rights long ago through their own efforts. In 1936 the Law on Rights of Association and Negotiation was enacted with support from the social democratic government. Although this legislation deviates from the Swedish model of self-regulation, there is a world of difference between negotiated employment conditions (collective bargaining) and substantive legislation on employment conditions, which was the alternative option. In Denmark the turn of events followed a different path as a substantive law for white-collar workers, the funktionærloven, was introduced in 1938. In the absence of negotiation rights, younger Swedish public-sector professional employees in the 1930s and 1940s carried out unilateral actions in the form of mass layoffs and blockades of hiring of new staff combined with refusal to accept wages below a fixed minimum level. The centralization of LO in 1941 may be described as unilateral self-regulation and as a supplement to the Saltsjöbaden Agreement. In 1935 a government commission had recommended the LO to centralize, and the labour market parties to define rules of conduct safeguarding industrial peace. Union centralization in Sweden was quite different from the corresponding processes in Denmark and Norway. Although collective agreements distinguish all Nordic countries, Sweden is in a class of its own with respect to self-regulated wage formation and conflict resolution. A departure from the traditional Swedish model of industrial relations occurred with the series of labour laws introduced in the 1970s. One of the first was the 1971 law on employment protection for elderly employees. The 1997 Industry Agreement between the unions in manufacturing and corresponding SAF associations has clear parallels to the 1938 basic agreement with respect to origin (threat of state regulation), contents (negotiation procedure, conflict resolution) and the spirit of cooperation. The new reinforced National Mediation Office (2000) received, in addition to its mediation role in labour disputes, the task of promoting 'an efficient wage formation process' that meant the appearance of a new mix of self-regulation and state regulation.