Suchergebnisse

"Traditionell bestand Arbeitsmigration innerhalb der EU aus einer verhältnismäßig kleinen Gruppe migrierender Arbeitnehmer und Grenzgänger, die von ihrem Recht auf Freizügigkeit Gebrauch machten. Angesichts des aktuellen Zustroms vor allem temporär migrierender Wanderarbeitnehmer aus den neuen in die alten Mitgliedsstaaten bedarf dieses Bild einer Revision. Der Beitrag befasst sich mit den Entwicklungen der innergemeinschaftlichen Arbeitskräftemobilität aus dem Blickwinkel einer Niederländerin und Juristin. Dabei kommen die gesellschaftlichen und die rechtlichen Faktoren zur Sprache, die sich hinter der zunehmend temporären und unter anderem durch Lohnkonkurrenz geförderten Mobilität verbergen, sowie die (möglichen) Auswirkungen auf Arbeitnehmer, Gewerkschaften, Unternehmen und den Sozialstaat." (Autorenreferat)

This report is an analysis of the EU acquis in the area of subcontracting. Basic question is whether there are any binding rules that deal with labour standards in chains of subcontracting.

Child labor evokes deep emotions and is cause for growing international concern. Most recent global estimates show that 186 million children are engaged in full time economic activity. This paper discusses the possibilities and pitfalls of Western policies that seek to curb child labor abroad. Since such policies aim to combat practices in other societies, policy-makers should be aware of the many relevant differences between developing and developed countries. We discuss three issues that are central to this debate: different conceptions of childhood and the dominance of the Western conception in these debates; the distinction between child work and child labor; and socioeconomic causes of child labor. We then evaluate the implications of these investigations for direct and indirect policy options against child labor abroad.

A company which performs services by employing its workers in another Member State may be confronted with the obligation to pay contributions to social funds in both the country of establishment and the country of employment. It follows that in some cases there is a tension between on the one hand, the law concerning the freedom to provide services and, on the other hand, national labour law and social security law. In other cases there is a tension between the law on providing services and the EU law concerning the free movement of workers. This article is concerned with these tensions and outlines the case law of the Court of Justice in this field. In the Guiot Judgment, the Court considered an obligation to contribute to funds in both countries in some circumstances to be an infringement on the free movement of services. A consequence of this Judgment is that the employee may lose his entitlement to an advantage to which he would have been entitled under the law on the free movement of workers even if it is more attractive than the corresponding advantage in the country of establishment. We describe the problems in this area and the solution realized by employers' and employees' organisations in Belgium and the Netherlands by making a bilateral agreement.

AbstractIn this chapter the authors discuss the personal scope of the Directive on the Posting of Workers (Dir 96/71/EC) and the implementation thereof in the Member States. The comparative findings are based on two studies conducted by the authors on behalf of the European Commission in 2010/2011. The authors argue that the concepts of 'posting' and 'posted worker' are crucial for a proper understanding of the scope of application of the Directive and its interaction with the Rome I Regulation on the applicable law to contractual obligations (Reg 593/2008). A clear and enforceable demarcation of the personal scope will help the Member States to combat abuse of the freedom to provide services and to distinguish more clearly between posting and other types of labour mobility. The proposal submitted by the European Commission to that effect (COM (2012) 131) is judged to be an important step in the right direction.

Child labor evokes deep emotions and is cause for growing international concern. Most recent global estimates show that 186 million children are engaged in full time economic activity. This paper discusses the possibilities and pitfalls of Western policies that seek to curb child labor abroad. Since such policies aim to combat practices in other societies, policy-makers should be aware of the many relevant differences between developing and developed countries. We discuss three issues that are central to this debate: different conceptions of childhood and the dominance of the Western conception in these debates; the distinction between child work and child labor; and socioeconomic causes of child labor. We then evaluate the implications of these investigations for direct and indirect policy options against child labor abroad. Adapted from the source document.

Cross-border social security fraud and abuse are certainly not new phenomena. What is clear, however, is that these problems have been dealt with in a politically negligent manner for many years. This is probably because everyone agreed that the problem was too complex to solve and that it touches on two core principles of the European Union about which criticism is effectively not allowed. Cross-border coordination of social security is based on the fundamental principle of 'mutual trust' between the Member States, which means that we assume that Member States do not cheat each other and do not bend the rules to give themselves an unfair advantage. This fundamental principle of mutual trust between Member States has also been repeatedly confirmed by the European Court of Justice. In addition, the rules of cross-border coordination are based on the principle of the 'state of residence', also called the state of origin. For example, the state of residence determines the employment relationship between employer and employee (or the latter's self-employed status), who pays the social security contributions (employer or employee), the percentage of the social security contribution, and the method of calculation, and unilaterally issues official documents (the by now well-known A1 certificate). As a host Member State, you cannot change much about this. In fact, as a host state you are not allowed to question the rules and practices of a state of residence since there is mutual trust between Member States.

Cross-border social security fraud and abuse are certainly not new phenomena. What is clear, however, is that these problems have been dealt with in a politically negligent manner for many years. This is probably because everyone agreed that the problem was too complex to solve and that it touches on two core principles of the European Union about which criticism is effectively not allowed. Cross-border coordination of social security is based on the fundamental principle of 'mutual trust' between the Member States, which means that we assume that Member States do not cheat each other and do not bend the rules to give themselves an unfair advantage. This fundamental principle of mutual trust between Member States has also been repeatedly confirmed by the European Court of Justice. In addition, the rules of cross-border coordination are based on the principle of the 'state of residence', also called the state of origin. For example, the state of residence determines the employment relationship between employer and employee (or the latter's self-employed status), who pays the social security contributions (employer or employee), the percentage of the social security contribution, and the method of calculation, and unilaterally issues official documents (the by now well-known A1 certificate). As a host Member State, you cannot change much about this. In fact, as a host state you are not allowed to question the rules and practices of a state of residence since there is mutual trust between Member States.