MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2400391315

Who benefits from clarification? A discussion of the new Enforcement Directive and its proposed implementation in Sweden

2015· article· en· W2400391315 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matilda Nessvi

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueLegal and Labor Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDirectiveEnforcementEuropean unionBusinessMember stateAccessionData Protection DirectiveLaw enforcementService providerPolitical sciencePosition (finance)LawService (business)Public relationsEuropean Union lawMember statesInternational tradeMarketingFinanceComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The accession to the European Union was based on the financial gains that could be made on the single market. When acceding the Union the Member States gave up parts of their state sovereignty. This statement is not unproblematic. My thesis touches on the posting of workers. Since the adoption of the new Enforcement Directive on the Posting of Workers Directive, two reports on the Swedish implementation have been published, SOU 2015:13 and 2015:38. In addition, the Posting of Workers Committee has published its report on compliance of Lex Laval with the Swedish Labour Market Model. The posting of workers phenomenon is not a frequent issue within the Union. In spite of this, it has become somewhat of a hot potato, in Sweden not the least. After the implementation of the Posting of Workers Directive, the complexity of the issue was demonstrated by a number of interesting cases, among them the Laval case. This lead to changes in the area were discussed and initiatives for the Enforcement Directive were taken. It is in this difficult position my thesis takes place. The purpose of the thesis is to enlighten the new Enforcement Directive in Swedish law. What lead to the adoption of a new Enforcement Directive? What is the purpose of it? What are the proposed changes in Swedish law to implement it? And who is it protecting, the service provider, the posted worker or the national worker? The thesis gives presents and discusses the proposed changes in Swedish law on implementation of the Enforcement Directive, in light of the balancing between the economic rights of the service provider, the protection of the posted worker’s rights and the prevention of social dumping. In order to do so, an historical background to the legislation on posting of workers, in EU and Sweden, is given. The interim report, SOU 2015:13, proposes changes in the Posting of Workers Act, and a whole new law, to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of administrative fees or penalties, give a stronger possibility of recovery, a greater protection against reprisal from the employer, provide better access to information and a clearer definition of posting. The final report, SOU 2015:83, suggest changes to agree on the terms and conditions in the nucleus and that they are to be reported to the Swedish Work Environment Authority. It also proposes a new liability for subcontractors. Finally, a number of changes is suggested in the Review over Lex Laval report, to make the Posting of Workers Act compliant to the Swedish Labour Market Model and EU law. Among others, a new sort of collective agreement is proposed, only applicable in cases of posting of workers. 2 In conclusion there were shortcomings in the Posting of Workers Directive when it comes to clarity and sufficient control measures, illustrated in case law. The Enforcement Directive aims to correct them. All of the Swedish investigations are in compliance with the Swedish and EU Labour Law. If they are to clarify the posting of workers rules sufficiently, remains to be seen. Finally, it could be said that the new rules seem to benefit the protection of workers and the prevention on social dumping, rather than make it easier for the service provider.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,382
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,243 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetLegal and Labor StudiesTravaux en français237 207