The Far-Reaching Implications of the <i>Laval</i> Quartet: The Case of the UK Living Wage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Laval quartet1 called in question the diversity of labour law rules and industrial relations systems at national level and brought the issue of the interaction between economic freedoms and social rights in the European Union (EU) into political focus.2 While related to the question of labour standards in the case of posted workers, Rüffert has been used to question in some cases the more general issue of the application of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to the inclusion of social and environmental considerations in procurement. Against this context, the paper examines the implications of Rüffert for the UK Living Wage. While the UK government has relied on the CJEU case law to challenge the inclusion of living wage clauses in public procurement, there is evidence of significant consolidation and even further promotion of the Living Wage Campaign. This may be attributed to the concerted efforts of non-judicial actors to respond to the challenges to the campaign following Rüffert3 as well to recent developments in UK procurement law that provide for a more supportive reading of living wage clauses in public procurement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".