Suchergebnisse

In 20th‐century Northeast Brazilian representations of the landscape of the estuarine Atlantic coast we find a re‐calibration of perspective that is foreshortened, embodied, and muddied. These works produce a counter‐hegemonic political aesthetics of nature that unsettles the fixities of colonial ways of seeing space, nature, and territory. As landscapes, they re‐configure the relationship between space and perception, and between nature and aesthetics.

Geographical scholarship has, since the late 1990s, shown how infrastructure was central to the making of urban modernity and the metabolic transformation of socio-natures. Meanwhile, the work of Latin American scholars including Aníbal Quijano and Maria Lugones has focussed attention on the imbrications between modernity and coloniality, in particular through the international racial division of labour. Moving between these ideas, I argue that there is intellectual and political ground to be gained by specifically accounting for the coloniality of infrastructure, in both its material and epistemic dimensions. I ground the analysis in the history of Recife, Northeast of Brazil, analyzing the role of British engineering in the production of the city's landscape and infrastructure, and address the epistemic dimensions of the coloniality of infrastructural by exploring infrastructural spectacle in 1920s Recife. Finally, I explore how the coloniality of infrastructure directs our attention to race, labour and finance.

Social Europe – case-law of the Court of Justice – 'real' and 'apparent' displacement – Court's interpretive task more complex and contested – directives based on 'flexicurity' policy – cases in which workers have competing interests e.g. age discrimination – Viking and Laval – re-framing of employers' interests as fundamental rights under Article 16 EU Charter – declining relevance of the Court in labour law – challenges for EU labour lawyers.

There are many different situations in which the law requires a determination of whether an individual can be said to be 'working': to determine his or her status as an 'employee' or 'worker', to decide his or her entitlement to contractual pay, to assess his or her entitlement to the National Minimum Wage and to distinguish working time from 'rest periods' for the purposes of working time legislation. Where the individual is engaged in core work tasks at the workplace, it is straightforward to say that he or she is 'working'. However, it will be argued in this article that there is a significant problem of 'availability': where workers are not actively engaged in core work tasks at the workplace, but are not fully at liberty either. This might be because they are waiting to be offered work or 'on call' in case of emergencies, for example. This 'available' time is often not recognised by the law as 'work', with the result that the workers in question may miss out on pay, employment rights and proper rest breaks. The article maps the problem of 'availability', arguing that it strikes at the heart of how labour lawyers think about employment relationships, and suggests an alternative analysis.

This note considers the labour law provisions of Part 1 (sections 1-38) of the Immigration Act 2016. These have received relatively little critical attention, perhaps because of the focus on the Trade Union Act 2016, which was going through Parliament at much the same time. The labour law provisions of the Act fall into four main groups: the creation of the new office of Director of Labour Market Enforcement (LME), reforms to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA), the creation of LME undertakings and orders (with a criminal offence for breach), and the amendment of criminal offences relating to illegal working. Most of these provisions enter into force from 12 July 2016, with the exception of those relating to LME undertakings and orders, which have not yet been given a commencement date. These powers are to be used in accordance with a statutory code of practice which has not yet been drawn up.

Will Davies argues that there various ways of analysing the current economic crisis in historical context, but that a 'new realism' is emerging which poses major strategic challenges for the centre‐left.