Welfare-to-work, zero-hours contracts and human rights

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW
V. Mantouvalou
{"title":"Welfare-to-work, zero-hours contracts and human rights","authors":"V. Mantouvalou","doi":"10.1177/20319525221104168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to concerns that non-standard work arrangements are precarious, it is often suggested that they are valuable for workers and employers because it is important for all to have the option of flexibility at work. In this article, I look at the relationship between welfare conditionality and zero-hours contracts, which constitute particularly precarious working arrangements. When we examine these together with schemes of strict conditionality particularly, we observe that many people do not choose non-standard work because of the flexibility that it offers, but are required to accept the jobs in question for otherwise the authorities will withdraw welfare support, and welfare claimants may be faced with destitution. Welfare conditionality schemes that are particularly punitive can turn, in this way, the unemployed poor into working and exploited poor. This piece further argues that schemes with strict conditionality that force and trap people into these arrangements raise issues under human rights law. In these situations we are faced with what I have described elsewhere as ‘state-mediated structures of exploitation’. The state is responsible for creating vulnerability to exploitation from which private employers benefit, and has duties under human rights law to change the laws in question in order to destabilise the unjust structures. To develop my argument, I first look at the meaning of the concept ‘zero-hours contracts’. I then turn to welfare conditionality schemes in the second section to explain how schemes with strict conditionality, and particularly the UK Universal Credit, force people into precarious work by threatening them with serious sanctions. The combination of rules on strict conditionality and zero-hours work leads to the construction of structures of exploitation, as the third section explains by reference to empirical research that has explored the effects of the schemes on people’s lives. In the fourth part, I argue that welfare conditionality schemes that force and trap people into zero-hours and other precarious work may violate several","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"431 - 449"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221104168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In response to concerns that non-standard work arrangements are precarious, it is often suggested that they are valuable for workers and employers because it is important for all to have the option of flexibility at work. In this article, I look at the relationship between welfare conditionality and zero-hours contracts, which constitute particularly precarious working arrangements. When we examine these together with schemes of strict conditionality particularly, we observe that many people do not choose non-standard work because of the flexibility that it offers, but are required to accept the jobs in question for otherwise the authorities will withdraw welfare support, and welfare claimants may be faced with destitution. Welfare conditionality schemes that are particularly punitive can turn, in this way, the unemployed poor into working and exploited poor. This piece further argues that schemes with strict conditionality that force and trap people into these arrangements raise issues under human rights law. In these situations we are faced with what I have described elsewhere as ‘state-mediated structures of exploitation’. The state is responsible for creating vulnerability to exploitation from which private employers benefit, and has duties under human rights law to change the laws in question in order to destabilise the unjust structures. To develop my argument, I first look at the meaning of the concept ‘zero-hours contracts’. I then turn to welfare conditionality schemes in the second section to explain how schemes with strict conditionality, and particularly the UK Universal Credit, force people into precarious work by threatening them with serious sanctions. The combination of rules on strict conditionality and zero-hours work leads to the construction of structures of exploitation, as the third section explains by reference to empirical research that has explored the effects of the schemes on people’s lives. In the fourth part, I argue that welfare conditionality schemes that force and trap people into zero-hours and other precarious work may violate several
工作福利、零时工合同和人权
为了回应人们对非标准工作安排不稳定的担忧,人们经常认为这些安排对工人和雇主来说很有价值,因为所有人都可以选择工作的灵活性。在这篇文章中,我研究了福利条件和零工时合同之间的关系,它们构成了特别不稳定的工作安排。当我们将这些与严格的附加条件计划结合起来研究时,我们注意到,许多人并不是因为非标准工作提供的灵活性而选择非标准工作,而是被要求接受有问题的工作,否则当局将撤回福利支持,福利申请者可能面临贫困。特别惩罚性的福利附加条件计划可以通过这种方式将失业的穷人变成有工作和被剥削的穷人。这篇文章进一步认为,根据人权法,有严格条件的计划会迫使人们接受这些安排,并将其困住。在这种情况下,我们面临着我在其他地方所描述的“国家中介的剥削结构”。国家有责任制造剥削的脆弱性,私人雇主从中受益,根据人权法,国家有义务修改相关法律,以破坏不公正结构的稳定。为了进一步阐述我的论点,我首先考察了“零工时合同”概念的含义。然后,我在第二节中转向福利附加条件计划,解释有严格附加条件的计划,特别是英国通用信贷,是如何通过威胁人们实施严重制裁来迫使他们从事不稳定的工作的。严格的条件性规则和零时工作的结合导致了剥削结构的构建,正如第三节通过探索这些计划对人们生活影响的实证研究所解释的那样。在第四部分中,我认为,迫使人们从事零工时和其他不稳定工作的福利条件计划可能违反
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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信