Precarious Employment Trend: Features of its Development in Labor Legislation and the Problems of Other Norms of Industry Affiliation Influence on the World of Work, Taking into Account International Labor Standards

Abstract

The paper notes that the conceptualization of the basic concepts related to precarious employment and the adoption of norms and legal acts adequate to these relations in the system of labor legislation of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) are at the preparatory stages. In the paper, the features of the manifestation of precarious employment in the labor legislation of the EAEU countries are analyzed by the example of norms on a fixed-term labor contract taking into account international labor standards. The labor legislation of the EAEU countries shows a tendency to expand the scope of fixed-term employment contracts, including towards lowering the level of legal guarantees for workers (Article 41 of the Labor Code of Belarus, Article 30 of the Labor Code of Kazakhstan, Article 82 of the Labor Code of Kyrgyzstan, Article 348.12 of the Labor Code of Russia), which contradicts the rules of ILO Recommendation No. 166 on the termination of labor relations on the initiative of the employer (Article 3) and the fundamental Convention No. 105 on the abolition of forced labor (Article 1), ratified by all states of the Eurasian Economic Union. In the paper, in the context of the development of precarious employment, the problems of the influence of norms of a different sectoral affiliation on the world of work are analyzed (by the example of Kyrgyzstan). It is noted, in particular, that the practice of applying the patent system to regulate the world of work does not contribute to resolving the issues of legalization of labor relations, and the tax authorities are not motivated to prove the existence of labor rather than civil law relations, even when they meet the criteria set forth in the ILO Recommendation No. 198 on labor relations and in Art. 13 of the Labor Code of Kyrgyzstan. The conclusion is formulated in relation to the restrictions of the labor inspectorates established by the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic dated May 25, 2007 No. 72 and by the Decree of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic dated December 17, 2018 No. 586 as contrary to the ILO priority Convention No. 81 on labor inspection in industry and trade (Part 1 of Article 12) ratified by Kyrgyzstan. Serious inconsistencies of measures to deregulate administrative responsibility to the tasks of the labor legislation of Kyrgyzstan to counteract precarious employment are identified.