En översyn av översynen : En studie av SOU 2015:83s förslag om utvidgad rätt att vidta stridsåtgärder i ljuset av lex Laval och EU-rätten
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year of 2007 was indeed a year of turmoil for the Swedish labor law. This was the year of the preliminary ruling in the case “Laval un Partneri” (C-341/05), in which the ECJ ruled that the right to take collective action against foreign employers who post employees to work in Sweden as stated in Swedish labor law at the time constituted a disproportionate restriction on the freedom to provide services. Due to the ruling of the ECJ, the Swedish legislature governing the right to take collective action toward these employers had to be modified. Changes were made in order to align the Swedish labour law with the EU-law, especially concerning the Posting of Workers Act. These amendments came to be referred to as “lex Laval”, and they constitute a restriction on the right to take collective action. As a result of a heated public debate regarding the right to take collective action, lex Laval is now about to be amended. The purpose of the revision of the legislation is to, once again, extend the right to take collective action. This is motivated by a demand of improved possibilities to control the working conditions which the employers actually apply to the posted workers. This is said to be in line with the EU-law since the approval of the new Enforcement Directive (2014/67/EU) in 2014. The main purpose of this essay is to give an account of the legislative changes made to the Swedish labor law in consequence of the Laval case as well as the expected changes to come, and to analyze these coming changes from an EU-law point of view. Will they constitute a disproportionate restriction on the freedom to provide services just like the legislation before the Laval case did? In addition, the essay will also give an account of the public debate regarding posting of workers, both on a Swedish national level and on an EU-level. In the light of the debate, the essay will also analyze the European Commission’s proposal of a new directive amending the existing Posted Workers directive (96/71/EC) in relation to the latest proposed change of lex Laval.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".