A hypothesis on the economic nature of labour law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to introduce in the scientific debate on the future of EU labour law and its relationship with human and fundamental rights, a redefinition of the collective labour rights in terms of ‘collective labour freedoms’. This redefinition is undertaken in different steps and initiates from the so-called ‘Laval doctrine’ that has emancipated the economic freedoms (mainly referred to as the freedoms of the employers) from the social rights (mainly referred to as the rights of workers and trade unions): collective labour freedoms do not question the outcome of the balance struck by the CJEU but the possibility of balancing per se. In order to do so, this contribution proposes a different methodology that synthesises a socio-historical analysis of social rights as materially considered and acted by social partners with a positive reading of fundamental charters and constitutions in which the freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and industrial action are recognised as tools to regulate the interests of a social and economic nature (in form of an inseparable hendiadys) pursued by both sides of the labour market, employers and employees. Collective labour freedoms underline the inherent economic nature of labour law and, in line with the theoretical framework (but opposite in terms of political goals) with the German ordoliberals, they do not deny the freedom of market; moreover, they are valuable entitlements to achieve the social market economy as enshrined in Art. 3(3) of TEU. The article finally presents a possible outcome of the proposed methodology with an example taken from a pivotal case from the Italian Supreme Court on the limits to the exercise of the right to strike in non-standard forms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".