工作不是爱好:企业家长式作风的司法复兴及其问题含义

L. Strine
{"title":"工作不是爱好:企业家长式作风的司法复兴及其问题含义","authors":"L. Strine","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2555816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article connects the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby to the history of “corporate paternalism.” It details the history of employer efforts to restrict the freedom of employees, and legislative attempts to ensure worker freedom. It also highlights the role of employment in healthcare coverage, and situates the Affordable Care Act’s “minimum essential guarantees” in a historical and global context. The article also discusses how Hobby Lobby combines with the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius to constrain the government’s ability to extend the social safety net, and shows how those decisions put pressure on corporate law itself.","PeriodicalId":83094,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of corporation law","volume":"41 1","pages":"71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Job Is Not a Hobby: The Judicial Revival of Corporate Paternalism and Its Problematic Implications\",\"authors\":\"L. Strine\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2555816\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article connects the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby to the history of “corporate paternalism.” It details the history of employer efforts to restrict the freedom of employees, and legislative attempts to ensure worker freedom. It also highlights the role of employment in healthcare coverage, and situates the Affordable Care Act’s “minimum essential guarantees” in a historical and global context. The article also discusses how Hobby Lobby combines with the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius to constrain the government’s ability to extend the social safety net, and shows how those decisions put pressure on corporate law itself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of corporation law\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"71\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of corporation law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2555816\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of corporation law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2555816","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

这篇文章将最高法院在Burwell v. Hobby Lobby一案中的判决与“企业家长式作风”的历史联系起来。它详细介绍了雇主努力限制雇员自由的历史,以及立法努力确保工人自由的历史。它还强调了就业在医疗保险中的作用,并将《平价医疗法案》的“最低基本保障”置于历史和全球背景下。这篇文章还讨论了Hobby Lobby如何与最高法院早期在“联合公民”和“全国独立企业联合会诉西贝利厄斯案”中做出的裁决相结合,限制政府扩大社会保障网络的能力,并展示了这些裁决如何对公司法本身施加压力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Job Is Not a Hobby: The Judicial Revival of Corporate Paternalism and Its Problematic Implications
This article connects the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby to the history of “corporate paternalism.” It details the history of employer efforts to restrict the freedom of employees, and legislative attempts to ensure worker freedom. It also highlights the role of employment in healthcare coverage, and situates the Affordable Care Act’s “minimum essential guarantees” in a historical and global context. The article also discusses how Hobby Lobby combines with the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius to constrain the government’s ability to extend the social safety net, and shows how those decisions put pressure on corporate law itself.
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