Book Review: The Revised European Social Charter, An Article by Article Commentary by Karin Lukas

IF 1.5 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
E. Bakirtzi
{"title":"Book Review: The Revised European Social Charter, An Article by Article Commentary by Karin Lukas","authors":"E. Bakirtzi","doi":"10.1177/13882627221137606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"tors in general (not only economically-dependent workers) is competition law, which tends to look at collectively agreed pay rates for self-employed workers as a – questionable, if not unlawful – concerted restriction on the free-market mechanism which determines the prices of services. If economically-dependent workers are deemed to be vulnerable subjects who cannot defend themselves through the market and who need to be defended from the market, then Schubert and Krause’s stance in favour of the labour shield (i.e. of the immunity) from competition/antitrust law for such workers seems fully justified. Still, the core question remains whether such a shield – and the same could be said for any other labour law protection – should be provided to economically-dependent workers and/or also to those who are not economically, but personally dependent on their clients, as other labour law scholars argue. Given that the final emphasis in the book, embedded in Schubert’s last chapter, is to promote the holistic value of decent work, the choice of the scope of labour law coverage (and of the competition law shield) is just as important as the actual content of the guarantees. Yet, there is no doubt that in fleshing out this policy choice, the – national and supranational – authorities will take into account the accurate and thoughtful contributions of this book, which surely achieves its proposed goal to serve as a solid and sound reference for any further debate on the matter.","PeriodicalId":44670,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Security","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627221137606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

tors in general (not only economically-dependent workers) is competition law, which tends to look at collectively agreed pay rates for self-employed workers as a – questionable, if not unlawful – concerted restriction on the free-market mechanism which determines the prices of services. If economically-dependent workers are deemed to be vulnerable subjects who cannot defend themselves through the market and who need to be defended from the market, then Schubert and Krause’s stance in favour of the labour shield (i.e. of the immunity) from competition/antitrust law for such workers seems fully justified. Still, the core question remains whether such a shield – and the same could be said for any other labour law protection – should be provided to economically-dependent workers and/or also to those who are not economically, but personally dependent on their clients, as other labour law scholars argue. Given that the final emphasis in the book, embedded in Schubert’s last chapter, is to promote the holistic value of decent work, the choice of the scope of labour law coverage (and of the competition law shield) is just as important as the actual content of the guarantees. Yet, there is no doubt that in fleshing out this policy choice, the – national and supranational – authorities will take into account the accurate and thoughtful contributions of this book, which surely achieves its proposed goal to serve as a solid and sound reference for any further debate on the matter.
书评:修订后的《欧洲社会宪章》,Karin Lukas的逐条评论
总的来说(不仅仅是依赖经济的工人)是竞争法,它倾向于将个体经营者的集体商定工资率视为对决定服务价格的自由市场机制的一致限制,即使不是非法的,也是有问题的。如果依赖经济的工人被认为是弱势群体,他们无法通过市场保护自己,需要从市场中保护自己,那么舒伯特和克劳斯支持这类工人的劳动保护(即竞争/反垄断法豁免)的立场似乎是完全合理的。尽管如此,核心问题仍然是,是否应该像其他劳动法学者所说的那样,为经济上依赖的工人和/或那些经济上不依赖客户但个人上依赖客户的人提供这样的保护——其他劳动法保护也是如此。鉴于舒伯特最后一章中本书的最后一个重点是促进体面工作的整体价值,选择劳动法涵盖范围(以及竞争法保护)与保障的实际内容同样重要。然而,毫无疑问,在充实这一政策选择时,国家和超国家当局将考虑到这本书的准确和深思熟虑的贡献,这本书肯定实现了其拟议目标,为有关此事的任何进一步辩论提供坚实和可靠的参考。
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
European Journal of Social Security
European Journal of Social Security PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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