The mismatch between goals and means is a major cause of crisis in labour law. The regulations that we use - the legal instruments and techniques - are no longer in sync with the goals they are supposed to advance. This mismatch leads to a problem of coverage, where many workers who need the protection of labour law are not covered by it, as well as a problem of obsoleteness, as labour laws are not sufficiently updated in light of dramatic (...) changes in the labour market. Adopting a purposive approach to interpretation and legislative reform, this volume addresses this crisis of mismatch. It first articulates the goals of labour law, both general and specific, through an in-depth normative discussion and a consideration of critiques. The book then proceeds to reconsider our means, asking what we need to change or improve in the laws themselves in order to better advance the goals. Some of the proposed solutions are at the level of judicial interpretation, others at the legislative level. The book offers several examples for the way a purposive analysis should be performed in concrete cases. It also recommends institutional structures that are suited to ongoing adaptation of the law to ensure that our goals are advanced even when circumstances frequently change. Finally, in response to the crisis of enforcement in this field, which frustrates the achievement of labour law's goals, several proposals to improve compliance and enforcement are considered. (shrink)

This comment questions the relevance of the Stag Hunt model, employed by Alan Hyde in his contribution to this volume, to the context of international labor standards. Despite Hyde's insistence to the contrary, it is argued that in some cases child labor could create a comparative advantage to developing countries. This shows the difficulty with Hyde's reliance solely on market failures to justify international labor standards. The exclusion of other justifications results in an extremely diluted international labor law.

Israeli courts were recently faced with the question whether an employer is allowed to voice objections to unionization during an organizing drive. Since the legislation fails to provide an answer to this question, it was up to the courts to come up with a solution. The National Labor Court in Histadrut v. Pelephone held that employers have no say and must refrain from any communications whatsoever with the workers regarding the decision whether or not to join the union. The Supreme (...) Court later affirmed this decision. This Article explores this legal question and examines whether this decision was justified, and whether it should be adopted in other countries as well. It first discusses the justifications for the conflicting freedoms in this scenario — the workers’ freedom of association and the employer’s freedom of speech — to appreciate their relative strength in the circumstances. It then examines whether it is possible to achieve a certain balance. To this end, the Article critically reviews the legal mechanisms adopted by other legal jurisdictions in this regard, shedding light on their effectiveness and the difficulties of organizing in practice in each jurisdiction. The main argument advanced in this Article is that the solution has to be purposive — to advance the goals of labor law, specifically freedom of association — and that the purposive analysis must be contextual. A rule prohibiting the employer from voicing opinions is surely an infringement of freedom of speech, and strong reasons are needed to justify it. Whether strong enough reasons exist depends on several contextual factors. Essentially, the question is whether it is possible, given the current context, to secure real freedom of association without such a rule. By context we mean two main things: first, the real-life current experience concerning the struggles of organizing; and second, the existence of alternative legal mechanisms that might address this problem. (shrink)

The question of who is covered by labour law is highly contested and often debated. This article addresses several problems related to the coverage question, and employs some novel concepts as an aid to better understand and analyse these problems. It begins by explaining the different aspects of labour law coverage and how all the branches of government are involved in setting it. It is then argued that we are currently facing a major coverage crisis in labour law. The concepts (...) of universalism and selectivity, long used in the welfare state literature to describe possible methods for the delivery of benefits in terms of their coverage, are introduced and adapted to the labour law context. The article then proceeds to make several arguments by using this new framework. Firstly, a descriptive-historical argument: during the 20th century there was a development from selectivity to universalism in labour law, and then back to selectivity of a different kind . Secondly, a normative argument: a balance must be struck between universalism and selectivity. Several proposals are offered to assist in achieving a better balance compared to the current situation in many countries. Finally, a critical argument: some proposals to ‘expand’ labour law beyond the confines of the employment relationship are considered, showing the dangers of extreme universalism. (shrink)