{"title":"British Jobs for British Workers? UK Industrial Action and Free Movement of Services in EU Law","authors":"C. Kilpatrick","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1424662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Court of Justice’s new approach to posting of workers is explored in light of recent UK industrial action. Four doctrinal positions are identified and probed: the host-state standards posted workers can enjoy, the role of collective standards and action to set and enforce host-state standards for posted workers, the liability of unions and employers under Article 49 EC, and demarcation of the boundaries between free movement of services and other Treaty personal freedoms. While the inspiration informing the new approach, adapting to enlargement and encouraging cross-border trade, is appropriate, the UK disputes help powerfully to illustrate how the doctrinal positions thus inspired create, especially in certain combinations, outcomes which are doctrinally dubious, socially and politically undesirable, and potentially highly socially inflammable. In many respects, the new approach is the wrong approach.","PeriodicalId":359449,"journal":{"name":"LSE Research Online Documents on Economics","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSE Research Online Documents on Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1424662","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
The European Court of Justice’s new approach to posting of workers is explored in light of recent UK industrial action. Four doctrinal positions are identified and probed: the host-state standards posted workers can enjoy, the role of collective standards and action to set and enforce host-state standards for posted workers, the liability of unions and employers under Article 49 EC, and demarcation of the boundaries between free movement of services and other Treaty personal freedoms. While the inspiration informing the new approach, adapting to enlargement and encouraging cross-border trade, is appropriate, the UK disputes help powerfully to illustrate how the doctrinal positions thus inspired create, especially in certain combinations, outcomes which are doctrinally dubious, socially and politically undesirable, and potentially highly socially inflammable. In many respects, the new approach is the wrong approach.
欧洲法院(European Court of Justice)的新方法是根据最近英国的工业行动来探索的。确定并探讨了四种理论立场:派驻工人可以享受的东道国标准,集体标准的作用和为派驻工人制定和执行东道国标准的行动,欧盟第49条规定的工会和雇主的责任,以及服务自由流动和其他条约个人自由之间的界限划分。尽管为新方法提供灵感、适应欧盟扩大并鼓励跨境贸易是恰当的,但英国争端有力地说明了,受此启发的理论立场如何(尤其是在某些组合下)造成了理论上可疑、在社会和政治上不受欢迎、并可能在社会上极具煽动性的结果。在许多方面,这种新方法是错误的。