Search results

Discusses the long existing and confusing problems of establishing the relationship of who is, and who if not, a dependent worker. Reflects developments which have occurred in British law as it affects the employment field, plus an evaluation and analysis of some of the different types of employment relationships which have evolved by examining, where possible, the status of each of these relationships. Concludes that the typical worker nowadays finds himself in a vulnerable position both economically and psychologically owing to the insecurity which exists.

The issue of non‐standard forms of employment has sparked controversy in Greece. At the same time the expansion of atypical employment has been identified by policy makers as a central component of economic policy in combating high unemployment. However, there is a marked absence of empirical studies on this issue. This study sheds light on contractual flexibility surveying thirty establishments. The survey used an employer questionnaire to assess the extent to which Greek employers have engaged in various forms of atypical employment as well as the driving forces and managerial perceptions of the pertinent institutional framework. Results reveal that temporary work is the primary source of contractual flexibility, and that this is mainly used to adjust corporate capacity to demand variations, not to cut labour costs. Managerial discontent with governmental legislation on working time flexibility has led employers to embrace the EU's flexibility‐security approach through collective bargaining.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the legal relationship tying workers to employers. It explores how the individual who is categorised as an employee is distinguished from a self-employed or independent contractor or a worker. The common law tests for classifying employment status are analysed against a backdrop of emerging research literature. Recommendations for reform are provided, drawing from the work of prominent scholars such as Mark Freedland and Simon Deakin.

The paper reviews court decisions and examines arguments raised in relation to the binary divide between employed and self-employed. The paper is largely conceptual.

This paper has shown that divergence between law and realities of employment still puzzle modern law reformers and judges alike. The common law test have proved to be inadequate and new solutions have been recommended. One of the suggest solutions is to import the doctrine of good faith into the tests.

The paper makes recommendations that will further refine and clarify the employment relationship in a bid to create a more inclusive “labour law” capable of protecting a wider range of atypical and vulnerable work relations. This paper will inform managers on the challenges in relation to classification of employment status brought about by the growth in atypical work.

Investigates the Polish Labour Code and how it has been updated to modern standards similar to those int he rest of Europe. States the Polish Labour code doctrine is for maintaining the multiplicity of employment contracts, defined by the Labour Code in corresponding to various needs and interests of both employers and employees. Sets out four main conclusions in depth, which cover labour relations contracts in full and how they are perceived to affect the workers and bosses.

The welfare state as suggested and recommended by the Beveridge Report of 1942 and as subsequently applied since the mid 1940s, is a far cry to the welfare state which exists today in Great Britain, for, as a result of economic pressures, the recession, various other factors, and particularly the political ideology of the present Tory government under Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and Mr. John Major which has been in power since 1979, it becomes clear that the golden age of the welfare state has lost much of its shine. Should the present government continue in office after the next general election, it could well be that the welfare state will dwindle into non‐significance. Indeed, there is currently a crisis in the British welfare state when compared with the ideals of Beveridge of freedom from want and providing people with their needs.

The wording “atypical forms of employment” is grounded on juxtaposing it with typical employment, i.e. full‐time employment, for indefinite period and in one place of work. However one can notice that different forms of atypical work have spread so much at present that the expression “atypical” is becoming less and less adequate for the majority of them.

Following the notable growth of temporary employment, a series of incentives were approved by the Spanish Government to promote both the hiring of workers on a permanent basis and the conversion of contracts from temporary to permanent employment. Nonetheless, hiring and dismissal cost reductions have had a small impact. This paper examines the determinants of Spanish employers’ reliance on temporary workers and their “temp‐to‐perm” conversions. Approved wage and dismissal cost reductions for permanent workers promote the hiring of permanent workers but have virtually no impact on contract conversions, which primarily respond to employers’ flexibility needs and unions’ pressures for increased employment stability.

Reviewing the persistence of high levels of unemployment in the EU, finds that this has been accompanied by an increasing incidence of low pay and the adoption of “atypical” employment contracts. The policy response, drawing on the experience of the US economy, has been to advocate the creation of flexible labour markets. It suggests that it is not possible to account for the deterioration in the European labour market in terms of an increase in the supply of labour. The fall in demand for labour is examined in terms of long‐run structural changes and in particular it draws attention to the impact of increased import penetration. Finally it discusses the consequences for public funding of welfare, investment in education and training, and the emergence of a permanent labour surplus economy.

During the course of European integration social policy has become an increasingly important policy area of the European Union. The paper analyses whether the EU’s social‐policy measures improve the living conditions of the socially weaker groups. All three areas of European social policy are analysed: the co‐ordination of the member states’ social security systems, the harmonisation of the working conditions and the promotion of equal opportunities, social integration and vocational training. This paper shows that the EU’s social‐policy measures have numerous disadvantages. In particular, they often are detrimental to the very people who the EU intends to protect and promote.