LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"Allowing States to Help Workers Save for Retirement – Department of Labor’s Proposed Rulemaking That Provides a Safe Harbor for State Savings Programs under ERISA","authors":"W. Nelson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2737068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2737068","url":null,"abstract":"There is a “retirement crisis” in America. Even though some would view this as hyperbole, the empirical evidence reflects that “[t]he average working household has virtually no retirement savings” and that the “collective retirement savings gap among working households age 25-64 ranges from $6.8 to $14 trillion.” Contributing to this crisis is that fact that almost 70 million Americans do not have access to a retirement savings plan through their employers. This problem is more prevalent in the small business community; more than half of small business employers do not offer a retirement plan to their employees. Research reflects that an important predictor for retirement readiness is participation in an employee benefit plan – employees save more in a workplace plan than they would on their own. For example, even though there are a number of non-employer based retirement savings options, such as IRAs, few workers utilize them. States, concerned with the economic stability of their citizens, have created laws that require private sector employers to implement in their workplaces state-administered payroll deduction savings programs. Even though many states are currently debating whether to adopt the programs, this Article will focus on California, Illinois and Oregon, who have enacted laws creating payroll deduction savings programs. One obstruction to wider adoption of such measures at the state level has been uncertainty about the effect of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s (ERISA) broad preemption of state laws that “relate to” private sector employee benefit plans and ERISA’s prohibition on requiring employers to offer employee benefit plans. To remedy this problem, the Department of Labor (DOL) has published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would make clear “that state payroll deduction savings programs with automatic enrollment that conform to the safe harbor in [the] proposal do not establish ERISA plans.” This Article begins by discussing the current law concerning ERISA's preemption of state laws that “relate to” private sector employee benefit plans and provides a discussion of DOL’s proposed rulemaking that provides a safe harbor for state payroll deduction savings programs. The Article then transitions into an examination of the current state-based initiatives, analyzes specific state legislative proposals under the requirements of the proposed rulemaking and proposes what, if any, changes need to be made to the state payroll deduction savings programs to ensure that the programs will not run afoul of ERISA. The Article concludes by analyzing policy concerns regarding state payroll deduction savings programs, provides comment on the DOL proposed rulemaking and provides additional elements of a model state payroll deduction savings program.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"311 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123144342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Do Right to Work Laws Worsen Income Inequality? Evidence from the Last Five Decades","authors":"J. Jordan, Aparna Mathur, Abdul Munasib, D. Roy","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2653393","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2653393","url":null,"abstract":"There is an ongoing debate about whether changes in labor regulations such as Right to Work (RTW) laws are contributing to the rising trend of income inequality in the U.S. We adopt Synthetic Control Method (SCM) for comparative case study to examine the impact of a state’s adoption of RTW law on its income inequality. We use a wide range of inequality measures for Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas, states that enacted RTW between the 1960s and the 2000s. We find that RTW did not impact income inequality in these states. This result is underpinned by additional finding of a lack of impact of RTW on unionization and investment.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129437354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Barriers to Competition","authors":"Jean-Jacques Hallaert","doi":"10.4324/9781315653402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315653402","url":null,"abstract":"Though close to the OECD average, France’s product market is more regulated than in comparable large European countries. Barriers to competition are particularly high in services, which now account for about 79 percent of the economy. The Macron law would be an important step forward, though rigidities remain.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123262909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protocol to ILO Convention No. 29: A Step Forward for International Labour Standards","authors":"Diane F. Frey, C. Fletcher","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2612932","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2612932","url":null,"abstract":"In June 2014, a new Protocol to ILO Convention No. 29 on Forced Labour was adopted. The purpose was to overcome implementation gaps for Convention No. 29. The Protocol is significant because it recognizes that all forms of forced labor, not just those that relate to trafficking, must be eradicated. Toward this end, it focuses on prevention, victim assistance, and international cooperation. The Protocol may also point to a way that international labour standard setting can be reinvigorated. In practical terms there is also reason for optimism given US support for the protocol and its leading role in rebalancing the focus on forced labour more equally to encompass trafficking and non-trafficked forced labour. This article examines the new Protocol and concludes that because of all the above reasons it is possible that real progress can be made toward combating all forms of forced labour.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"269-270 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124011873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Domestic Workers - Law and Legal Provisions in India","authors":"N. Jain","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2537940","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2537940","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is written on a very new and immerging issue of domestic workers and their exploitation in India. The language of the paper has been kept very simple and descriptive so that even a layman who does not have much sense of Indian laws can understand and comprehend the difficult aspects of present domestic laws without any difficulty. The paper will start with an overview to discuss the post-independent situation of workers and the laws that were brought in by the legislators to vanish the Indian societal problem of Jameedari system. Following overview, paper will move to a general introduction of the word “Domestic workers” and will try to give simplest definition of the term in Indian context and will try to exemplify the situation of domestic workers under three heads: - WHAT, HOW AND WHY and it will illustrate the situation of domestic workers and their relation to care economy and unrecognised sector.In its third part paper will try to show the dismal situation of law for protection of domestic workers in present scenario. It will also talk about the recent developments made for protection of domestic workers in India. Under this head, paper will discuss mainly about different statutes, Justice J.S. Verma Committee’s report, Pending bills, Task force report, National Advisory Council’s report, International Labour Organization’s convention C 189 for domestic workers and various other cases.towards the end, the paper will be concluded with some remarks and suggestions to the government of India. The conclusion will take optimistic approach to deal with the existing problems.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"14 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116878168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Class Actions in Employment Related Disputes","authors":"P. Spiro","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2523754","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2523754","url":null,"abstract":"The traditional means by which workers asserted their collective rights was the union movement, but that has been in severe decline in the private sector. Class action lawsuits would appear to be the ideal modern substitute. There have been a few noteworthy successes for employees in the last few years, helping to ensure that employers in the banking sector abide by statutory requirements to provide overtime pay. Certification has proven to be a significant hurdle in these actions, and there appear to be some meritorious cases where certification was not achieved. It is arguable that the case law that has developed around the finding of a common issue for certification is too confining for the employment context. The application of the certification tests ought to be nuanced and contextual. Employment class actions typically involve a considerable amount of diversity among individual employees. In such situations, it makes sense for the court to focus on the overriding central principles as providing a common issue, rather than using the individual variations to reject certification.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114390576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protection of Persons with Disabilities from Employment Discrimination, with a Focus on Serbian Legislation and Practice","authors":"Ljubinka Kovačević","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2575909","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2575909","url":null,"abstract":"Like so many European countries, the Republic of Serbia is facing high rates of unemployment among persons with disabilities. This can be explained by various factors, including indirect discrimination of persons with disabilities within the school system and employment procedures, as well as their fear of forfeiture of social benefits upon entering into an employment contract. Law on vocational rehabilitation and employment of persons with disabilities (2009) is promoting employment of such persons in the open market, in accordance with the general conditions or by reasonably adjusting the workplace to their needs, while 'sheltered' employment is, as a rule, reserved for persons who, due to the grade of their disability, are unable to fulfill their need for economic security as initially described above. Based on international standards and comparative experience, the legislator prescribed multiple measures, including employment quotas, for equal participation of persons with disabilities in the labour market as well as increase in their employment. Although the rate of employment of persons with disabilities has risen slightly since the Law came into force, many of these people are still without work, mainly because employers sought to 'bypass' their designated employment obligations any way they could, even pressuring the (existing) staff to register as persons with disabilities. On the other hand, judges are faced with the challenge of 'honing down' reasonable adjustments standard, especially as the corresponding obligation of the employer exceeds the ban for indirect discrimination, and yet differs from positive discrimination. Therefore, the paper shall reassess the limits of the obligation for reasonable adjustments, as well as the circle of protected persons, since comparative law recognizes the practice of reserving employment quotas exclusively for people with severe disabilities. Especially so, because limiting the designated employment obligation to persons with severe disabilities is justified when the purpose of the quota system is to facilitate employment for people facing the biggest problems on the labour market. Conversely, the need to reduce the number of users of social benefits speaks in favour of establishing a general obligation for employment of persons with disabilities.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124176723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Redfearn v UK: Political Association and Dismissal","authors":"H. Collins, V. Mantouvalou","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12040","url":null,"abstract":"In Redfearn v UK the European Court of Human Rights examined the question whether dismissal for membership of a political party is compatible with freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court endorsed a strong commitment to multi-party democracy and protection of employees against the domination of the employers. This note discusses the judgment and its implications for UK law, looking at three key issues: first, whether the law of unfair dismissal provides effective protection against action that poses a threat to the enjoyment of Convention rights; second, the grounds under which an employer may justify the lawfulness of a dismissal that interferes with a Convention right; third, the available remedies against the employer when there is a breach of a Convention right.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126645935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Review of the Economic Legislation in May 2013","authors":"I. Tolmacheva, Julia Grunina","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2289846","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2289846","url":null,"abstract":"In May, the following amendments were introduced in the legislation: from September 2013 amendments to Cl.4 and Cl.5 of Section I of Part I and Article 1153 of Part III of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation will be in effect; the specifics of carrying out of labor activities by high-skilled experts-foreign nationals was updated; procedure for identification of a foreign national who has no valid document was specified and definition of “the state support of innovation activities” was provided.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121583186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Riddle Whose Answer is ‘Tort’: A Reassessment of International News Service v Associated Press","authors":"Christopher Wadlow","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12029","url":null,"abstract":"The decision of the US Supreme Court in International News Service v Associated Press (1918) has variously been interpreted as recognising a ‘quasi‐property’ right in ‘valuable intangibles’, such as hot news; as turning on unjust enrichment; or as creating a novel tort of unfair competition by misappropriation. It is suggested that the case is more authentically understood as an incidental result of a process by which the Supreme Court extended the boundaries of tort liability, and the corresponding scope of property protection, in a series of decisions against organised labour. The argument is pursued with reference to the prima facie tort theory of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the American ‘labour injunction’, and the labour law record of the author of the majority opinion in International News, Justice Mahlon Pitney.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121001886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}