European Labour Market: Posted Workers Directive and the Social Implications of the Movement of Labour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Union protects, on one hand, freedom of movement and establishment; and on the other hand, the right to take industrial action. The interaction between these two principles becomes highly sensitive in situations where the purpose of collective action by workers is to limit the free movement of the employer. Such is the case in the context of the cross-border posting of workers needed to carry out a service in another Member State. This difficult issue arose in 2007 between the company, Laval, and the Swedish Workers’ Union Byggnads. The dispute led to a ruling by the ECJ and a subsequent decision of the European Committee of Social Rights. Laval un Partneri Ltd was a Latvian construction company that won a public tender offer for construction work on a school near Stockholm. Laval then proceeded to post Latvian workers to Sweden in accordance with the 96/71/EC Posting of Workers Directive (‘Directive’). It was estimated that Latvian workers earned 40% less than Swedish workers. The Swedish Building Workers’ Union demanded Laval to sign a collective agreement that would align the conditions applicable for Latvian workers to applicable Swedish standards enforced in the industry. As Laval refused to sign the agreement, the Swedish Workers Union, joined by the Swedish Electricians Union, initiated a strike against Laval and barricaded Laval’s construction site. The strike had caused its Swedish subsidiary, Baltic Bygg, to declare bankruptcy, forcibly sending all of its workers back to Latvia.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.043 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".