Who benefits from clarification? A discussion of the new Enforcement Directive and its proposed implementation in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".