Abstract

ABSTRACT In Britain, employment protection legislation developed in ways far more dynamic, contradictory and toothless than is commonly assumed by conventional theories. Contrary to prevailing understanding, the first job security laws were intended to increase labor market flexibility, encourage mobility and undermine union power. They were introduced by Conservative governments, curiously offering organized labor some benefits, even though both sides of industry opposed legal intervention. Hence, job security could be obtained and extended without capital (and at first labor’s) consent. What is more, opposite to the liberalizing pressures one would expect to see in an archetypal market economy, the UK has been characterized by far more protective measures than deregulatory ones. However, the record shows that in many ways they have failed to offer tangible benefits to workers. Thus, there is a significant gap between law in the statute books and law in action. Additionally, two-tier labor market reform has contributed to the growing dualism between insiders and outsiders and might explain why deregulation of temporary employment has been the name of the game in the last couple of decades in the UK.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call