对泰勒评论的回应

J. Shackleton, J. Whyte
{"title":"对泰勒评论的回应","authors":"J. Shackleton, J. Whyte","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3853077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Taylor Review should be commended for recognising the success of the UK’s flexible labour market and for refusing to endorse the outright bans on zero-hours contracts and app-based “gig” economy advocated by the Labour Party, trade unions, and other pressure groups. However, its recommendations for further regulation of these types of work seem likely to inhibit their growth and reduce the benefits going to both consumers and workers. The Review fails to make a convincing argument that large numbers of workers are disadvantaged by working in different ways from the traditional model and downplays the costs of forcing businesses to treat self-employed people as “dependent contractors”. Many of the Review’s proposals for promoting “Good Work” are probably harmless, often because they are mere waffle. However, they underestimate the difficulties of assessing just what employees want from work, and of changing business behaviour. The proposed requirement to publish elaborate indicators of the “quality” of work will be an additional burden on firms and the taxpayer, and promote the mistaken notion that businesses exist to serve employees rather than consumers.","PeriodicalId":292127,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Contract Law (Topic)","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Response to the Taylor Review\",\"authors\":\"J. Shackleton, J. Whyte\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3853077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Taylor Review should be commended for recognising the success of the UK’s flexible labour market and for refusing to endorse the outright bans on zero-hours contracts and app-based “gig” economy advocated by the Labour Party, trade unions, and other pressure groups. However, its recommendations for further regulation of these types of work seem likely to inhibit their growth and reduce the benefits going to both consumers and workers. The Review fails to make a convincing argument that large numbers of workers are disadvantaged by working in different ways from the traditional model and downplays the costs of forcing businesses to treat self-employed people as “dependent contractors”. Many of the Review’s proposals for promoting “Good Work” are probably harmless, often because they are mere waffle. However, they underestimate the difficulties of assessing just what employees want from work, and of changing business behaviour. The proposed requirement to publish elaborate indicators of the “quality” of work will be an additional burden on firms and the taxpayer, and promote the mistaken notion that businesses exist to serve employees rather than consumers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":292127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Employment Contract Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Employment Contract Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Employment Contract Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

《泰勒评论》应该受到赞扬,因为它承认英国灵活的劳动力市场的成功,并拒绝支持工党、工会和其他压力团体所倡导的彻底禁止零时工合同和基于应用程序的“零工”经济。然而,它关于进一步监管这类工作的建议似乎可能会抑制它们的增长,并减少消费者和工人的利益。该报告未能提出令人信服的论据,即大量工人因以不同于传统模式的方式工作而处于不利地位,并淡化了迫使企业将自营职业者视为“依赖承包商”的成本。《评论》提出的许多促进“好工作”的建议可能是无害的,因为它们往往只是胡扯。然而,他们低估了评估员工想从工作中得到什么以及改变商业行为的难度。公布工作“质量”详细指标的拟议要求,将给企业和纳税人带来额外负担,并助长企业存在是为了服务员工而不是消费者的错误观念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Response to the Taylor Review
The Taylor Review should be commended for recognising the success of the UK’s flexible labour market and for refusing to endorse the outright bans on zero-hours contracts and app-based “gig” economy advocated by the Labour Party, trade unions, and other pressure groups. However, its recommendations for further regulation of these types of work seem likely to inhibit their growth and reduce the benefits going to both consumers and workers. The Review fails to make a convincing argument that large numbers of workers are disadvantaged by working in different ways from the traditional model and downplays the costs of forcing businesses to treat self-employed people as “dependent contractors”. Many of the Review’s proposals for promoting “Good Work” are probably harmless, often because they are mere waffle. However, they underestimate the difficulties of assessing just what employees want from work, and of changing business behaviour. The proposed requirement to publish elaborate indicators of the “quality” of work will be an additional burden on firms and the taxpayer, and promote the mistaken notion that businesses exist to serve employees rather than consumers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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