Talk:Labour law/Archive 1

Earlier work[edit]

This is an article in process. I should be able to adequately address American labor law, but will need some help when it comes to international labor law issues. Anyone out there with expertise in that area? :) F. Lee Horn

I can help you with the french law if you want. Just tell me, i'll pick the answer here. Thx for your article.

"Unions" section[edit]

What country is the "Unions" section refering to? Quite clearly it is talking about a specific country, but which? AJR 00:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be about the UK. See [1] and [2]. / Alarm 10:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attention[edit]

Needs attention, of course, because it's really incomplete. Except if history of labor law is in another entry which I've missed? Without writing several thousands pages on the subject, more than a few lines would be welcome! Kaliz 01:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential employment and labour law merger - what's the difference?[edit]

There are articles on both employment law and labour law. As far as I can work out (though I'm not a expert), the distinction is only a real one in some countries, such as Canada. I cannot see that in British literature any distinction is made. But this poses a problem of organisation - should the two articles be merged? Or can anyone point to a clear, internationally workable distinction? Can anyone tell us the definite situation in their country? The other problem is, even if the (I think) Canadian distinction is used, then it's clear that some law relates to both unionised and non-unionised workplaces - '8 hour day' laws, for example. Help! Breadandroses 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this as an off the cuff merger proposal. After the general discussion, this page is already sectioned into countries, with links like "Main article: United States labor law". Using Canada as an example, its section would contain a link for both:

- Main article: Canada Labour Code
- Main article: Canadian employment law,

with the short synopsis discussing both areas and their differences. --Bookandcoffee 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works if it really is a distinction limited to Canada, if so, both labour law and employment law can redirect to 'labour and employment law'... if no one tells us different within a week or so, I guess I'll just do it. Breadandroses 11:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the tendency is to use Employment Law for the rights of employees and workers (for example not to be unfairly dismissed or discriminated against). Labour law, if used at all, tends to deal with collective employment law (trade unions, recognition, that sort of thing). At the moment there is a stupid page titled British Labour Law which is not what we call it. I am unhappy at the use of a POV term that is alien to my jurisdiction. Francis Davey 14:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (an employment lawyer).[reply]

The same distinction is also used in the U.S., minus the "u" in "labour." If this distinction is used in most English-language jurisdictions, this article really needs to be revised accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The "Scope and Function" section is horribly POV, with its "musts" and "shoulds", etc. Morwen - Talk 13:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean? Can't see any language like that? Breadandroses 12:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structural Suggestions[edit]

My view: This entry should deal with Labour and employment law in its broadest and most international sense, so I recommend that all references to Canadian employment law are stripped out and put into a seperate Canadian Employment and Labour Law entry.

Examples of broadening the scope of the entry are including International Organisations which impact on labour law questions such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (IFTU). Supernational organisations, such as the European TUC might also be worth a mention.

In terms of discussing the law itself, I suggest that this entry should be a comparative treatment of different international systems of labour law (e.g. those based on teh old British common law model, the E.U. model, the U.S. model and any other models which apply to more than one state).

I hesitate to perform a wholesale edit on this page given the amount of work that has gone into it, but I do think it is in need of some attention. If people are happy, I'll give it a whirl, I guess we can always restore the page.

Alternatively, this page could be a 'list page' (disambiguation? - sorry, I'm new to this) which lists the various jurisdictions / organisations etc.

--Ravells 14:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravells, thanks for this, a few thoughts:

There should be an article which describes what 'labour law' is, and does so by describing the sorts of things it has in it. It would be great for the article to talk about international labour law, but not exclusively of what actual labour law is like.
The reference to Canadian law at the top is because some Canadian people think the distinction made in their country is universal, and could edit the page accordingly, making confusion (or so I thought; I was wary because I'd just combined the 'labour law' and 'employment law' pages last week).
I think that it would be great for you to do an edit, but perhaps first you could add what you'd like to add, and then we can re-assess, rather than taking a bunch of stuff out?
Perhaps you could get rid of the paragraphs for introductions by country, and instead have a heading 'list of articles on labour law in particular countries, as well as something on the models of labour law you mention?

I think yuo should add rather than take away at this stage, but go for it! Breadandroses 12:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help to generalize this sentence?

- In Canada 'labour law' relates to unionised workplaces, while 'employment law' relates to ununionised individuals. In most countries however, no such distinction is made

to

- In some countries (such as Canada), employment laws related to unionised workplaces are differentiated from those relating to particular individuals. In most countries however, no such distinction is made.--Bookandcoffee 17:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Breadandroses.

I entirely agree that the article should be a description of labour/employment law in its broadest sense and that the meaning of the concepts involved in what labour law is should not be lost in an exposition of labour law in an international context. Perhaps, 'international labour law (to the extent that there is such a thing) could occupy it's own page?

I'll work on the additional material, this may take a couple of weeks or so. Is there a convention on proposing new material? Do I just add it to the end of the existing article with a heading saying that this is a proposed change?

I think that Bookandcoffee's proposed edit is sensible and the edit should be made.

--Ravells 20:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I think you should just go for it - make the edits you think should be made, the ones you think, and perhaps Bookandcoffee's as well... that's normally the way! Breadandroses 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

red links[edit]

I reverted the changes by VirtualSteve. There's nothing wrong with red-links if they are headed to articles that still need to be created. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page.

Hi Bookandcoffee - lovely to talk to a Canadian. I appreciate your courtesy in responding to my redlink removals on Labour and employment law My intentions were good as you note. I have three points and would appreciate your reply before I return to the article.

1. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context states very clearly What should not be linked .... Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks unless the editor is prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones .... It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one.
2. The article has a In need of attention tag - one of the many things that needs attention is the redlinks.
3. The adjustment I made to the what you have reverted to on this redlink doesn't get you to the main article - but the one that I adjusted it to being Canadian labour and employment law does so I miss the point - I would suggest that you have the bracket style incorrect perhaps?

I understand your point that In many cases redlinks can be an important tool for letting people know there is information that is still needed but only if you or others are prepared to promptly write that page. The fact is that an article looks and feels clumsy when it is full of redlinks. The better way to seek that sort of new article assistance is probably to put a request for article pages in the discussion page. Get back to me (my field is Industrial and Employment Law) as I want to help but if you revert from wiki policy and methods it is a bit difficult. VirtualSteve 22:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation to promptly write the page, except in the very limited cases that policy cites. There is no justification under policy for removing these perfectly common and useful redlinks. Ambi 03:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article and labor rights[edit]

Just so people know... there is an article called labor rights. I don't know how far the two articles are worthy of being merged, but there should be some consideration of what the demarcation is. Breadandroses 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current definition of this page (although it can of course be changed) is that "labour & employment law" covers all relations between employers & employees, not only labor rights. Labor rights are rights obtained by the labour movement, "labour and employment law" is the legislation regulating economic activity (and is often not so nice to labor!). Lapaz 16:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge work permit here[edit]

Shouldn't we? Lapaz 16:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Does it become a Right to work section? What about the differences in different countries? I guess they would be split out into each 'by country' article but I wonder if on its own it would be possible to leave country comparisons together on the page where they would be easier to contrast? (BTW nice work on the article!)--Bookandcoffee 20:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right to work is another thing, IMO. Currently it redirects to right-to-work law, which is ill-advised IMO (it makes a "right" into a US law, which is more than questionable). It is my understanding that "right to work" may be interpreted in two different manners: right to have a work, that is to work in any cases; or "right to have a work", that is to be payed, that is to be "given" a work (a right which would amount more or less to an effective prohibition of unemployment: everybody has the "right" to work, that is to be payed and not excluded of society). Now work permit is not the same at all, since it simply refers to the administrative authorization to work, usually for immigrants. So it would fit well into a "immigrants & labour law" section (I find it quite interesting that my quick look at the page Labour law in the United States did not adress at all the fundamental issues of immigrants, thus illustrating the sociological division between US trade unions and unorganized migrant workers...). I think it is very important to avoid, when it is possible, national divisions on a global encyclopedia such as the English Wikipedia, and it is thus very good to contrast various approaches to common problems. This help us understand others better... Lapaz 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I see your point on Right to work, although I would hazzard a guess that the redirect to right-to-work law is a function of the lack of a suitable article, rather than most people's understanding or intention. As for the work permits, it does make sense to me to have them here. I'm just wondering how the differences would be contrasted, when the direction of this page is to note the general properties, and split the differences out into each country. ~~Does it mean (in the long run) that there is a section on "immigrants & labour law", with a link to World contrast of Immigrants & labour law or some such thing?~~ I think I'm getting ahead of myself there, if the section gets too big it just gets routed into {{main|Immigrants & labour law}} doesn't it. --Bookandcoffee 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely stuff on work permits simply goes in an article about immigration law? Since it's been about six months since last discussed, I'm taking the sign off. Wikidea 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate page move?[edit]

Why was this page moved from labor to labour despite naming conventions? The "consensing" to which the mover referred was a comment about the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour was created by a Canadian. Darkildor 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - I might have been in the wrong, I was a very new wikipedia at the time, so my reason may have been insufficient. However, it is worth noting that after my original move, a double redirect was fixed by another user. It's hard to see from the history what that that page (the one to which the redirect pointed) was originally called, I think it might have been already named using the 'labour' spelling. Also, I'd note that UK spellings get changed to US ones all over wikipedia, all the time, and no one notices... if this was a mistake it was an honest one, I suggest leaving be. Breadandroses 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissal[edit]

I've had to change and/or revert some pretty inaccurate edits in the dismissal section. Its important not to confuse the notion of what is a dismissal as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996 with any other notion of unlawful termination of employment. Fair dismissals may be otherwise unlawful and vice versa. The article still seems to focus on unfair dismissal to the exclusion of other issues (such as wrongful dismissal).

Constructive dismissal is a fine, accurate and widely used term for employee initiated dismissals in circumstances entitling them to do so. If I get time, I'll copy in the relevant parts of the ERA.

I do know what I am talking about here - this is an area I know very well and have successfully argued in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Francis Davey 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General approach[edit]

I find this article rather confused in scope and structure. I suggest that it should be restricted to a discussion of the common concepts in employment law, and that there should be separate pages for the different jurisidictions.

I agree. I have tried to tinker with it a bit, but it needs some overhaul. Note: its very difficult to write general articles on law of any kind. Much of the wikipedia law effort is a real mess at the moment because its very POV (usually US POV), but almost impossible to sort out because its hard to know what anyone else actually does outside one's own jurisdiction. Perhaps the thing to do is to move material to the main articles and leave a paragraph or so for each jurisdiction that traces some useful information outside the main stream. Francis Davey 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some further queries about the UK material. I am not sure that the Protection from Harassment Act is really employment law - or that the part-time/fixed contract regulations would normally be seen as anti-discrimination statutes. Similarly, acts like the DDA, SDA, RRA have much wider applicability than just the employment sphere.Sjoh0050 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PHA can be used in employment, though its not really an "employment law". There is some dispute as to how to classify some kinds of anti-less favourable treatment legislation, one approach is to describe it as anti-discrimination. Best moved to the main article? Francis Davey 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

section on Georgia[edit]

I am trying to edit this section which in my opinion does not fit into the other content. But the editing might be heavy and I am afraid to be accused in vandalism. May I ask other people to tell if they agree that this section is to be substantially edited to fit in the context?--Lia Todua 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really long section, and I wonder if it wouldn't be better to provide a one paragraph summary, linking to a new main article on Georgian labour law (as I think could be best done for all the countries) - then any heavy editing, improvements, etc could be played out on that page. What do you think? Wikidea 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

From the lead section:

Labour rights have been integral to the social and economic development

I understand "economic development," but what is "social development." In either case, in what way can it asserted that labor rights are integral to either of these two (I'm not stating they aren't but it needs to be communicated)? Thanks --131.238.207.185 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My company is three days late already on my pay check! I still am employed with them, but thy said there not sure when my paycheck will be here. what do i do? Is there any compinsation for it being so late? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.124.150 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would talk first to the employer (which I expect you've already done) and then to the union. If you want to keep the job, unfortunately, going for legal measures is a very bad idea! If you were however losing your job there could be compensation for a late payment (if your contract says it should be paid on a particular day) if you have some kind of loss (i.e. you can show you have lost money because your paycheque was late). You can't, unfortunately, just get compensation. It has to compensation for the loss of something. Wik idea 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and restructure[edit]

People may notice I've been doing some work. I've changed many of the sections about to put them in a more logical order, and merged one or two things. I've not deleted much at all, but added substantially to a number of sections and introduced new ones, which can be filled out in more detail and (most importantly) with sources soon. Any questions, or requests, please ask. Wik idea 22:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

"...such as this carpenter from Tennessee, USA"

I removed the "Tennesee, USA" bit from the picture comment. The fact that it is irrelevent and, seemingly, wrong [As he doesn't look like a carpenter, more like a model doing a carpenter's job in the dark!]. Scarian ^Talk 12:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:ILO logo.svg[edit]

The image Image:ILO logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

i work for a contract job and i am in the union our new contract was giving back to us on the contract biding and on the new contract we get a25cent raise it is said that we get it but we was told that we will not get the raise cause our former manger gave us a raise and now we cant get the raise because we make 25cent more than we suppose to due to the raise we was giving by our old manager i want to know can they do this by not giving us our raise and they has sign a new contract saying we would get the raise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.127.92 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry to hear about this, it sounds like you aren't being treated completely fairly. But I think that the best people to talk to would be your trade union representatives. From a legal view, if you had a written statement that you were getting that 25 cent raise, then that would help. But it sounds like you need to talk to someone who knows all the details. Wik idea 00:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States labor law[edit]

The following is directly copied from http://deskinlawfirm.com/working_more_than_72_hours_in_a_week_cannot_be_required, the external link posted within the section: "Mechanical Employees can not be terminated for refusing to work more than 72 hours in a workweek. If you prepare agricultural products for market you can work over 72 hours a week, if you want to, but you cannot be required to. If you harvest products you must get a period of 24 hours off after working up to 72 hours in a seven-day period. There are exceptions to the 24 hours break period for certain harvesting employees, like those involved in harvesting grapes, tree fruits and cotton. If you work in the canning, freezing, and preserving industries you must get a period of 24 hours off after working up to 72 hours in a seven-day period." 24.247.12.198 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article to talk page[edit]

Heres an helpful fact in the uk if you have a part time contract but you work full time for longer than a 8 week period you are legaly entilted to demand a permanent contract. [IP anon]

Working Conditions[edit]

The image has been re-captioned with the text "The average life expectancy of a Liverpool mineworker was 30 years in 1900.". There is no reference to back up this statement and Liverpool was never a strong mining area so it seems an odd statistic to add. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

collective vs individual labour law[edit]

No references in the article to support the claim that collective labour law refers to tripartism or "the relationship between employer, employee and trade unions" and individual labour law refers to something closer to employment standards. ALL labour law is collective in that it applies to a class of workers who have collective rights, claims and entitlements to certain provisions in the workplace and labour market. This is the opposite of corporate rights which are EXCLUSIVE/PRIVATE in that they have exclusive rights, claims, and entitlements, for example, to control the labour process, appropriate the labour product, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Labour law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060213065526/http://www.af-north.org:80/lordstown.html to http://www.af-north.org/lordstown.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Labour law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Labour law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labour law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labour law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313181121/http://www.sarahedmundslegal.co.uk/faqs/equality-british-employment-law to http://www.sarahedmundslegal.co.uk/faqs/equality-british-employment-law

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]