Abuse of Rights in Labor Relations: Concepts, Motives, Beneficial and Adverse Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article contains the studied issues of abuse of rights in labor relations: the concept of "abuse of rights in labor relations" has been defined, its motives, and beneficial and adverse consequences have been analyzed. The authors emphasize that "abuse of rights" as a legal fact arisen in specific life circumstances may have both beneficial and adverse social content. All this resulted from the fact that legislative practice does not keep up with real conditions of changing labor relations affected by dynamic circumstances of modern social and economic development of society. To develop new approaches to definition of the fundamental principles of labor law to ensure the rights of all participants in labor relations on the principles of equality before the law seems now to be very important. The solution to this problem is in formulation of a universal definition of the concept "abuse of rights in labor relations" like actions or inactions in the legal environment of labor law, based on antisocial motives of these actions (inactions), which do not coincide with motives officially indicated, resulting in adverse social consequences such as discrimination, oppression of labor rights of citizens and stateless persons, violation of the requirements for safe and healthy working conditions. In turn, according to the authors, actions or inactions beyond labor law, but based on positive social motives, resulting in beneficial social consequences such as labor rights of citizens and stateless persons for safe and healthy working conditions, production safety, environmental society, etc., shall not be considered as "abuse of rights" (but as "beneficial abuse of rights").
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".