The Limitations to Workers Accessing Eu Rights: Awareness, Advice and Enforcement

Attitudes to Brexit: A survey of nursing and midwifery students.

This chapter addresses how privileged treatment of third-country nationals translates into a special legal status on the basis of European Union (EU) law. It concentrates on entry and admission, employment and residence rights of third-country nationals. Under the EU visa policy the so-called black and white list determines whether a third-country national must be in possession of a visa or not to enter the territory of an EU Member State for short-term stays. Some privileged third-country nationals even enjoy entry rights for the purposes of taking up employment and other favourable rules relating to residence based on association agreements. With the adoption of a number of directives in the area of legal migration, the legal position of all third-country nationals, irrespective of nationality, has been reinforced, inter alia as regards entry, employment and residence, as well as family reunification.Keywords: admission rights; employment rights; entry rights; EU Member State; EU visa policy; European Union (EU) law; family reunification; residence rights; third-country nationals; trade union rights

INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 2 Volume 23 Issue 2 2016 IUR ❐ EDITORIAL Editorial: Trade union rights after the UK’s vote to leave the EU T his edition of IUR looks at the implications of what was, for many, an unexpected development with potentially far-reaching consequences : in June, UK voters voted to leave the European Union, by a margin of 52 to 48 percent in an average turnout of 72.2 percent. Owen Tudor of the British TUC (which campaigned for a Remain vote), but expresses concern : ‘the European Union has played a central role in protecting working people from exploitation , combating discrimination and promoting good employment practices’, while ‘UK governments strongly resisted equal treatment rights for agency workers, working time limits, and rights for workers to receive [workplace information and consultation]. During the referendum, only four trade unions officially called for a vote to leave the EU, while most other unions (including the country’s largest unions) called for a remain vote. Yet, as Alex Gordon points out, ‘analysis of the voting patterns revealed in the referendum result demonstrates a majority of working class voters, particularly in Britain’s former industrial heartlands; the north of England, Midlands and South Wales, voted (and in significantly large numbers) to leave the EU’ Trying to gauge international perspectives on ‘Brexit’, IUR uncovered clear concern at the deteriorating attitude towards Polish workers in the UK being expressed by the Polish trade union centre OPZZ, which has observed that ‘the campaign was won by xenophobia and populism, and as a result of exit from the EU, the situation for the majority of British people will worsen’. Esther Lynch of the ETUC observes that ‘the EU as a whole now faces a very difficult challenge … the anger and disillusionment of working people with the EU is not confined to the UK’, and adds that ‘social rights, in particular […] trade union rights, are not being accorded equal weight and emphasis compared with the protection and promotion of employers’ economic freedoms’. To address this urgent situation , Esther argues that ‘collective bargaining systems have to be restored as a fundamental right and because a pay rise for workers in Europe is central to a fair recovery from the crisis. The adoption of a social progress protocol is urgently required to restore the proper balance between economic freedoms and fundamental social rights in particular trade union rights’. Into this dynamic context, IUR welcomes the timely launch of the Manifesto for Labour Law: towards a comprehensive revision of workers’ rights, produced by the UK’s Institute for Employment Rights (IER). Observing that ‘the UK has ‘a framework of law born out of 19th century conditions, which has bypassed many advances of the 20th century, which ignores today’s economic and workplace realities, and which is not fit for purpose in 21st century Britain’, IER calls for the ‘restoration’ of the principles of collective bargaining ‘to provide a means of workplace democracy , to bring some measure of balance to the otherwise disproportionate power of employers, to redress wage inequality, to prevent the exploitation of migrants, to raise wages, increase demand and reinvigorate the economy, and to fulfil the UK’s binding legal obligations’. As Jon Jeffries reminds us, however, April this year saw the passing into law of the much-criticised Trade Union Act 2016. While parts of the original Bill were stopped (in part due to trade union negotiations linked to the then impending EU referendum) Jon Jeffries examines how the role of the Certification Officer was re-written. Looking at the trade union scene elsewhere; we report on unpopular changes to French labour law and the response of unions and youth movements; on Turkey we assess the trade union rights situation before and in the immediate aftermath of the failed coup attempt; we hear from David Bacon of the appalling treatment meted out to striking teachers in Mexico; report on the shocking sentence handed down to a South Korean trade union leader; and we publish a report back from the Global Labour Institute’s trade union summer school. Daniel Blackburn, Editor Next issue of IUR Articles between 850 and 1,900 words should be sent by email (mail...

Irish citizens living in the United Kingdom (UK) enjoy a privileged immigration status, which in turn facilitates access to a number of economic and social rights, perhaps most importantly a right to—and thereby rights in—work. European Union (EU) law played an important role in facilitating the latter, but with freedom of movement and the right to work of Irish citizens now dependent on the Common Travel Area (CTA) and associated legislative protections. This article argues that the CTA constitutes a workers’ rights ‘intervention’, which necessitates a clearer articulation of how this instrument fits within the wider context of post-Brexit UK employment law, including the rights deriving from the withdrawal arrangements governing the UK's departure from the EU. There are a number of asymmetries in the CTA that undermine its value as an employment rights conduit. Brexit, it is argued, has led to further fragmentation of the category of ‘Irish citizen’ in the UK, despite the purported recent recognition of such citizens as a distinct class within UK immigration law. More significantly, the CTA lacks normative purpose, and is a rather weak employment law instrument, in that it represents no more than a facilitation of national legislative intervention to ensure (roughly) equivalent treatment between British and Irish citizens in matters of employment (among other economic and social rights). The current CTA arrangements are thereby devoid of any underpinning (social) objectives or values and lack explicit recognition of their role as a facilitator of access to fundamental economic and social rights. Non-political, and rights-based conceptions of social citizenship are suggested as potential normative groundings for the CTA and derived (employment) rights in the absence of the protective framework offered by EU free movement and labour law.

The European Court of Human Rights (the Court, the ECHR) has made a significantcontribution to the protection of social rights in general and labor rights in particular. The articlefocuses on four specific areas that demonstrate the richness of case-law in this area. First of all, theauthor focuses on individual issues related to the general rights of workers, drawing attention to issuesof unfair dismissal, the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of religion and freedomof expression. Secondly, the author dwells on the protection of the rights of migrant workers underthe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Third, the articleexamines trade union rights in the light of freedom of association. Finally, reflecting the economiclandscape of the past decade, case-law is provided to demonstrate how austerity measures can affecthuman rights and how the Court has responded to this problematic issue.Social rights, including labor rights, have received many advantages from the fact that they wereconsidered in the case-law of the Court, since its practice clarified the boundaries and limited thestate’s unlimited discretion in the management of these rights. At the same time, a certain trend hasformed. If at first the protection of workers’ rights and freedoms sharply increased, which is confirmedby some textbook cases of the ECHR, now it is impossible not to notice a regressive trend that isassociated with labor legislation, expands the discretion of governments and significantly limits theeffectiveness of the Court when considering labor rights. However, this regressive trend should notbe regarded as irreversible. The article highlights how meaningful consideration of soft law principlesallows the Court to take a progressive position that promotes labor rights and how it can continueto help protect workers’ rights.

The United Kingdom is the first country to withdraw its membership from the European Union (EU). Immigration featured high on the Brexit news agenda and EU citizens’ rights to work and live in the ...

The recent vote by the UK electorate to leave the European Union (EU), known as Brexit, has potentially enormous implications for employment rights in the UK, most of which are now underpinned by EU law. At present the vote has no legal effect but if Brexit happens all these rights are legally vulnerable. The article examines how workers’ rights informed the debates surrounding Brexit, the history of the UK’s attitude to EU employment rights, and how the employment rights and remedies guaranteed by EU law currently affect UK labour law and policy. It analyses the legal mechanism likely to be adopted by the UK to change EU-guaranteed employment rights post-Brexit, and highlights some of the factors likely to contribute to the future form of UK labour law, including UK government policy, the effect of employment tribunal fees, the trading relationship between the EU and the UK, and the position of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

This study aims to analyze the fulfillment of the rights of women workers at the Department of Transmigration and Manpower. The rights of women workers are the focus of the research, because the rights of women workers should be fulfilled by the government to provide protection for women workers. The research method used in this study uses a qualitative method with a descriptive approach to answer the research problem. Research analysis techniques used are interviews, observation and documentation, triangulation and combinations. as well as regulations governing the protection of the rights of women workers. The conclusions obtained based on the research conducted in the research have applied regulations related to the protection of women's workers' rights to employees of the Transmigration and Manpower Office. In this case, the employee has received special rights for female employees as regulated in the labor law.

Legislative and Judicial Politics of LGBT Rights in the European Union

LRN MK

The gig economy in the European Union (EU) has significantly transformed traditional labour markets, prompting critical discussions about worker rights and protections. This article presents a narrative review of the literature on gig work within the EU, focusing on the Platform Work Directive. It explores the challenges of employment status classification, rights and protections for gig workers, the role of algorithmic management, social security inclusion, the impact on platform companies, and policy implications. By synthesizing existing research, the article highlights the broader policy implications for labour protection across the EU and considers potential future developments in this rapidly evolving sector.

In this paper, the authors will try to review the solutions of the new Labour Law in Republic of Serbia, and especially its social aspect through the position and rights of workers. On the other hand, the authors seek to determine whether is and in which extent the new Labour Law fulfilled the expectations of the legislator as well as the promises which were given to the people, that this Code will make harmonization of labor law with international standards and EU law. In anticipation of the official report of the Council of Europe, the authors try to give their assessment of the compliance of the new Labour Law with the European Social Charter. Although it was announced as a 'harbinger of the future progress of the country', which will prevent undeclared work, increase the rate of employability, harmonize regulation of labor law with the EU standards, improve workers' rights, through the analysis the authors in this paper try to show that the new Labour Law, is not only far below the standards of international labor and social law, but it violates the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and reduces the level of achieved human rights. With this octroyed act, adopted without public debate, there is a legitimate basis for the exploitation of workers and expanding range of possibilities which employers are used in order to achieve their own interests at the expense of the rights of employees. Special emphasis in this paper will be given to solutions that were given to the rights of motherhood and parenthood under the new law. Some of the provisions which will be subject to criticism by the author are: an increase definite term work for two years (thus extending the social and economic insecurity), for past labour it just takes time spent at the last employer, (because of that will be less salary and up to 15%), increasing the duration of the probationary period to six months, indirectly denying the right to limited working hours through the obligation of the employee to be always 'available' to the employer and the possibility of redistribution working hours per free discretion of the employer. According to the author's effects of bad legal provisions will have a negative impact on the entire social sphere, the falling birth rate, the deterioration of the economic situation of employees, the decline in the housing market, the reduction of banking business and others. At the end of the paper the authors point out the necessity of forming working groups to amend the law and the adoption of amendment must be the result of public hearings with participation of all relevant factors. Only in this way it is possible to achieve harmonization of labor law with the European Union and better protection of rights of employees.

The decision of the British people to leave the European Union (EU) raises foundational questions for many legal fields. The effects are especially likely to be felt within domestic employment law, which now has a strong basis in EU law. Of particular concern is the removal of the nascent EU fundamental employment rights influence over domestic legislation. Employment lawyers have long relied on fundamental rights as a means of preserving the autonomy of their subject from general private law. One manifestation of this turn to fundamental rights concepts has been the ‘constitutionalisation’ of employment rights. EU law, notably the Charter of Fundamental Rights, has become a key underpinning of this constitutionalisation process. This article considers the effects of the constitutionalisation in the United Kingdom employment sphere of some of the rights found in the Charter’s Solidarity Title, through its role in the emergence of a hierarchy of sources or ‘norms’ in the employment field. In order to address the question of the Charter’s influence on the hierarchy of sources in the employment context, three interrelated processes are examined. The article begins by exploring the ‘constitutionalisation’ process, by setting out the nature of the Charter and the effects of its employment rights on the hierarchy of sources. This is followed by a consideration of the ‘deconstitutionalisation’ process brought about by Brexit, before finally examining whether a potential ‘reconstitutionalisation’ process might be underway by looking at key terms of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the potential to replicate the Charter in domestic law.

Purpose This paper aims to examine maternity rights for women workers in Tanzania with a particular reference to the Employment and Labour Relations Act 2004 (ELRA). The paper appraises whether the legal provisions are effectively implemented or remain largely theoretical because of gaps in enforcement and application. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on desk-based qualitative research to examine the law on maternity rights protection in Tanzania and explores its deficiencies in protecting the maternity rights of female employees in the country. It investigates non-law factors that impinge on the law governing maternity protection, highlighting the gaps between the legal entitlements provided in the law and real-world enforcement. Findings The ELRA and other laws provide different aspects of maternity protection for workers in Tanzania. The realization of maternity rights for workers in the country is undermined by legal and extralegal challenges, thus creating gaps between what the laws provide and the reality on the ground. Practical implications The paper underscores the necessity of implementing legal and policy reforms to address deficiencies of the law and to adopt and implement policy measures that will address extra-legal barriers, thereby ensuring the enhanced realization of maternity rights for women workers in Tanzania. Originality/value The paper examines the protection of maternity rights for women workers in Tanzania, highlighting the complex interplay of policy, legal, economic, social and systemic issues that influence or impact the realization of maternity rights at work.

FOCUS | UNION RIGHTS OF STATE ADMINISTRATION AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES WORKERS 21 26/1 | International Union Rights | According to EPSU, the European Federation of Public Service Unions, two recent developments are in sheer contradiction with an EU minimum social standard approach, which by definition must apply to all workers. The first concerns the 20 year-old right of trade unions and employers to co-design EU social legislation. In Spring 2015, the European Commission launched a consultation on reviewing the EU directives on the rights of workers’ representatives to information and consultation on restructuring, collective redundancies. Importantly, the Commission asked EU social partners whether these rights should apply to public administrations. This was welcomed by EPSU which had long argued that the directives should apply to both public and private sector workers. There is no reason why labour and tax inspectors, law-drafters, workers in social security, asylum officers, cleaners in a ministry, could not have a say on decisions affecting their workplace. As austerity measures became coordinated at EU level, it was all the more essential that EPSU members could at least benefit from EU labour standards. On-going digitalisation including the use of artificial intelligence in the state sector also makes the need for timely consultation rights of workers urgent. Together with 17 governments in their capacity as employers in the EU social dialogue committee, EPSU responded positively to the Commission. In December 2015, both sides reached an Agreement to provide workers and their trade union representatives with EU standards on information and consultation rights on matters of direct concern to them, such as restructuring, collective redundancies, health and safety and work/life balance. The Agreement closes an out-dated loophole in the EU legal framework on workers’ rights to information and consultation. As working conditions and employment relationships had become increasingly close to those of the private sector, both the employers and trade unions agreed that this loophole was oudated and deprived workers of EU legal protection enjoyed by others. To make the agreement legally binding on all central governments, both sides asked the Commission to transform the agreement into a directive for Council to decide upon, in line with the procedures provided for in TFEU Article 155.2. In March 2018, however, after years of delaying tactics and only a few months after the proclamation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, which reaffirms the importance of equal treatment between workers and EU-level social dialogue, the Commission took the unprecedented decision to reject the request by EPSU and the employers. For EPSU, the Commission has acted in flagrant disregard for the autonomy of the social partners protected by the EU Treaties. In the face of this unprecedented, opaque and poorly argued decision, the leaders of EPSU affiliates decided to launch legal proceedings against the Commission at the European Court of Justice. EPSU wants the decision to be annulled. It is the first time a European labour organisation takes the EU’s executive arm to court. As of today the judgment is still pending. It is expected to clarify the rules of the EU social dialogue, the criteria against which the Commission can decide or not to give social partner agreements legal strength. It is central to the so-called EU social model underpinned by EU-level collective bargaining. Whether the Court vindicates EPSU’s claim or not, the political case for EU social standards on information and consultation rights in governments will still remain to be won. Following the EU parliamentary elections in May 2019, the new Commission must reverse the decision made by the Juncker Commission and table a legislative proposal. The second development concerns the Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working conditions which was agreed last February by the EU institutions. It was introduced to update the Written Statement Directive of 1991 and improve rights for atypical workers, particularly those on low and/or unpredictable hours such as zero-hour contracts. It obliges employers to provide basic information about working conditions from day 1 of the employment and provides new rights. These new rights cover notice for shift changes; payment if work is cancelled; training paid by the employer, limits to probationary periods and...