U.S.-Russia-East Asia Comparisons of Dispatch (Temporary) Worker Regulations

Ronald C. Brown, O. Rymkevich
{"title":"U.S.-Russia-East Asia Comparisons of Dispatch (Temporary) Worker Regulations","authors":"Ronald C. Brown, O. Rymkevich","doi":"10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-1-6-32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Russia had few temporary workers in the 1990s, but after the fall of the Soviet Union and the entrance of foreign MNCs, the percent of workers on temporary contracts grew in 2014. In 2016, a new law was implemented that bans hiring temporary workers except through government-accredited agencies, but only for the purpose of substituting for employees who are temporarily absent from the workplace; to assist in the temporary expansion of production or services (for up to a maximum of nine months); and to provide temporary employment to certain approved categories of workers (i.e., fulltime students, single parents, parents of multiple children, and former convicts). This paper will compare and contrast the current labor protections of temporary dispatch workers in the U.S. and Russia, with consideration also of the recent legislative labor protections provided in the East Asian countries of China, South Korea, and Japan. Following the Introduction, the paper, in Part I discusses the phenomena of “fissurization,” in employment relations and its resulting legal implications for the regulation of “dispatch (agency)” workers in the above countries. Part II compares and contrasts the regulatory approaches of the U.S. with Russia and the East Asian countries of China, Japan, and South Korea; and the Conclusion follows. Perhaps the menu of regulatory legislation provided in this paper will be useful for those looking for the tools to construct dispatch regulation in the U.S.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employment Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-1-6-32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Russia had few temporary workers in the 1990s, but after the fall of the Soviet Union and the entrance of foreign MNCs, the percent of workers on temporary contracts grew in 2014. In 2016, a new law was implemented that bans hiring temporary workers except through government-accredited agencies, but only for the purpose of substituting for employees who are temporarily absent from the workplace; to assist in the temporary expansion of production or services (for up to a maximum of nine months); and to provide temporary employment to certain approved categories of workers (i.e., fulltime students, single parents, parents of multiple children, and former convicts). This paper will compare and contrast the current labor protections of temporary dispatch workers in the U.S. and Russia, with consideration also of the recent legislative labor protections provided in the East Asian countries of China, South Korea, and Japan. Following the Introduction, the paper, in Part I discusses the phenomena of “fissurization,” in employment relations and its resulting legal implications for the regulation of “dispatch (agency)” workers in the above countries. Part II compares and contrasts the regulatory approaches of the U.S. with Russia and the East Asian countries of China, Japan, and South Korea; and the Conclusion follows. Perhaps the menu of regulatory legislation provided in this paper will be useful for those looking for the tools to construct dispatch regulation in the U.S.
美国-俄罗斯-东亚派遣(临时)工人法规比较
上世纪90年代,俄罗斯几乎没有临时工,但在苏联解体和外国跨国公司进入俄罗斯之后,2014年签订临时合同的工人比例有所上升。2016年,实施了一项新法律,禁止雇佣临时工,除非通过政府认可的机构,但只是为了代替暂时不在工作场所的员工;协助临时扩大生产或服务(最多九个月);并为若干获批准类别的工人(即全日制学生、单亲父母、有多个子女的父母及有前科人士)提供临时就业。本文将比较和对比美国和俄罗斯目前对临时派遣工人的劳动保护,并考虑中国、韩国和日本等东亚国家最近立法提供的劳动保护。在引言之后,本文的第一部分讨论了雇佣关系中的“分裂化”现象及其对上述国家“派遣(代理)”工人监管的法律影响。第二部分对美国与俄罗斯以及东亚国家中国、日本和韩国的监管方式进行了比较和对比;然后是结论。也许本文提供的监管立法清单对那些在美国寻找构建调度监管工具的人会有所帮助
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信