Labour Market Politics through Jurisprudence: The Influence of the Judgements of the European Court of Justice (Viking, Laval, Ruffert, Luxembourg) on Labour Market Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 Introduction At end of 2007 European Court of Justice (ECJ) went through several extremely controversial judgements which contained juridical and political explosives. The important decisions on Viking (ECJ, Case C-438/05 Viking (2007) ECR I-10779-10840) and Laval (ECJ, Case C-341/05 Laval (2007) ECR I-11767-118904) dealt with compatibility of national collective labour law with requirements of European law and have imposed as a consequence restrictions on strike action by trade unions. In judgements on Ruffert (ECJ, Case C-346/06 Ruffert (2008) ECR I-1989) and Commission against Luxembourg (ECJ, Case C-319/06, NZA 2008: 865), collective agreement clauses in public procurement law and a national implementation legislation of posting of workers directive were declared contrary to community law. In judgements economic freedoms have been systematically prioritised against fundamental social rights. The decisions produced widespread debates not only in European countries concerned. Critics warned of a radicalization of internal market integration with negative consequences for European welfare states (see different sources on: http://www.etui.org/Headline-issues/Viking-Laval-Rueffert-Luxembourg). The fear is not new that national scope of action is limited by European regulations, but sharp reaction indicate, that it now has come to a new level of restrictions: national institutions of negotiating partners and decision arenas are targeted and limited, a field on which countries until now could operate freely. Cologne -based political economist Fritz Scharpf even calls for a boycott of judgements: the only way is not to follow (Scharpf 2008: 19 ff.). The cases not only raise question of relation between European law and national law, but have impacts on national industrial relations systems and therefore on labour market policies of member states. The countries are under pressure to respond to judgements and have to adjust their policies accordingly. Regarding consequences of decisions on Viking - Laval - Ruffert and Luxembourg it is necessary however to differentiate between national systems. Due to diversity of different systems of industrial relations, impact of cases differ from country to country. The scope of action of governments, national trade unions and employers' organizations is restricted to differing degrees by ECJ decisions. This leads to a reduction of rights of workers and trade unions. In this analysis, it will be shown how member states, which were trigger for respective ECJ decisions or which are particularly effected by judgements, respond to ECJ jurisprudence - although article cannot cover issue conclusively. 2 Historical background The European Community (EC) was started in 1957 as a project of market based upon idea of four liberties: free movement of goods, services, capital and persons. Trade barriers were reduced between EC member states to achieve a common market in Europe. The European Economic Community's scope was limited to economic policy with social policy being excluded. The guiding principle was that individuals from other member states should enjoy same rights as nationals concerning terms of investment, access to labour market, trade in goods and provisions of services. The European Institutions (Commission and ECJ) were given task by treaties to ensure that these principles were upheld. Since then Commission and ECJ gradually empowered themselves and increasingly shifted boundaries between national law and European law at expense of member states (Hopner 2008: 2). The enhancement of fundamental freedoms was based upon idea to form project of European Union on basis of a gradual market extension. Although social policy initiatives tried to correct market-processes in terms of a positive integration, EU policy primarily focussed on establishment of economic freedom of movement. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".