Talk:Labour and employment law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

This is an article in process. I should be able to adequately address American labor law, but will need some help when it comes to international labor law issues. Anyone out there with expertise in that area?  :) F. Lee Horn

I can help you with the french law if you want. Just tell me, i'll pick the answer here. Thx for your article.

Contents 1 "Unions" section 2 Attention 3 Potential employment and labour law merger - what's the difference? 4 POV 5 Structural Suggestions 6 red links 7 This article and labor rights 8 Merge work permit here 9 Inappropriate page move? 10 Dismissal 11 General approach

[edit] "Unions" section

What country is the "Unions" section refering to? Quite clearly it is talking about a specific country, but which? AJR 00:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be about the UK. See [1] and [2]. / Alarm 10:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attention

Needs attention, of course, because it's really incomplete. Except if history of labor law is in another entry which I've missed? Without writing several thousands pages on the subject, more than a few lines would be welcome! Kaliz 01:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential employment and labour law merger - what's the difference?

There are articles on both employment law and labour law. As far as I can work out (though I'm not a expert), the distinction is only a real one in some countries, such as Canada. I cannot see that in British literature any distinction is made. But this poses a problem of organisation - should the two articles be merged? Or can anyone point to a clear, internationally workable distinction? Can anyone tell us the definite situation in their country? The other problem is, even if the (I think) Canadian distinction is used, then it's clear that some law relates to both unionised and non-unionised workplaces - '8 hour day' laws, for example. Help! Breadandroses 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What about this as an off the cuff merger proposal. After the general discussion, this page is already sectioned into countries, with links like "Main article: United States labor law". Using Canada as an example, its section would contain a link for both:

• • Main article: Canada Labour Code
  • Main article: Canadian employment law,

with the short synopsis discussing both areas and their differences. --Bookandcoffee 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That works if it really is a distinction limited to Canada, if so, both labour law and employment law can redirect to 'labour and employment law'... if no one tells us different within a week or so, I guess I'll just do it. Breadandroses 11:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, the tendency is to use Employment Law for the rights of employees and workers (for example not to be unfairly dismissed or discriminated against). Labour law, if used at all, tends to deal with collective employment law (trade unions, recognition, that sort of thing). At the moment there is a stupid page titled British Labour Law which is not what we call it. I am unhappy at the use of a POV term that is alien to my jurisdiction. Francis Davey 14:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (an employment lawyer).

[edit] POV

The "Scope and Function" section is horribly POV, with its "musts" and "shoulds", etc. Morwen - Talk 13:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Can't see any language like that? Breadandroses 12:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structural Suggestions

My view: This entry should deal with Labour and employment law in its broadest and most international sense, so I recommend that all references to Canadian employment law are stripped out and put into a seperate Canadian Employment and Labour Law entry.

Examples of broadening the scope of the entry are including International Organisations which impact on labour law questions such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (IFTU). Supernational organisations, such as the European TUC might also be worth a mention.

In terms of discussing the law itself, I suggest that this entry should be a comparative treatment of different international systems of labour law (e.g. those based on teh old British common law model, the E.U. model, the U.S. model and any other models which apply to more than one state).

I hesitate to perform a wholesale edit on this page given the amount of work that has gone into it, but I do think it is in need of some attention. If people are happy, I'll give it a whirl, I guess we can always restore the page.

Alternatively, this page could be a 'list page' (disambiguation? - sorry, I'm new to this) which lists the various jurisdictions / organisations etc.

--Ravells 14:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ravells, thanks for this, a few thoughts:

• There should be an article which describes what 'labour law' is, and does so by describing the sorts of things it has in it. It would be great for the article to talk about international labour law, but not exclusively of what actual labour law is like.
• The reference to Canadian law at the top is because some Canadian people think the distinction made in their country is universal, and could edit the page accordingly, making confusion (or so I thought; I was wary because I'd just combined the 'labour law' and 'employment law' pages last week).
• I think that it would be great for you to do an edit, but perhaps first you could add what you'd like to add, and then we can re-assess, rather than taking a bunch of stuff out?
• Perhaps you could get rid of the paragraphs for introductions by country, and instead have a heading 'list of articles on labour law in particular countries, as well as something on the models of labour law you mention?

I think yuo should add rather than take away at this stage, but go for it! Breadandroses 12:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it help to generalize this sentence?

• • In Canada 'labour law' relates to unionised workplaces, while 'employment law' relates to ununionised individuals. In most countries however, no such distinction is made

to

• • In some countries (such as Canada), employment laws related to unionised workplaces are differentiated from those relating to particular individuals. In most countries however, no such distinction is made.--Bookandcoffee 17:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your reply, Breadandroses.

I entirely agree that the article should be a description of labour/employment law in its broadest sense and that the meaning of the concepts involved in what labour law is should not be lost in an exposition of labour law in an international context. Perhaps, 'international labour law (to the extent that there is such a thing) could occupy it's own page?

I'll work on the additional material, this may take a couple of weeks or so. Is there a convention on proposing new material? Do I just add it to the end of the existing article with a heading saying that this is a proposed change?

I think that Bookandcoffee's proposed edit is sensible and the edit should be made.

--Ravells 20:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I think you should just go for it - make the edits you think should be made, the ones you think, and perhaps Bookandcoffee's as well... that's normally the way! Breadandroses 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] red links

I reverted the changes by VirtualSteve. There's nothing wrong with red-links if they are headed to articles that still need to be created. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page.

Hi Bookandcoffee - lovely to talk to a Canadian. I appreciate your courtesy in responding to my redlink removals on Labour and employment law My intentions were good as you note. I have three points and would appreciate your reply before I return to the article.

• 1. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context states very clearly What should not be linked .... Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks unless the editor is prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones .... It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one.
• 2. The article has a In need of attention tag - one of the many things that needs attention is the redlinks.
• 3. The adjustment I made to the what you have reverted to on this redlink

Main article: Canadian labour and employment law

doesn't get you to the main article - but the one that I adjusted it to being Canadian labour and employment law does so I miss the point - I would suggest that you have the bracket style incorrect perhaps?

I understand your point that In many cases redlinks can be an important tool for letting people know there is information that is still needed but only if you or others are prepared to promptly write that page. The fact is that an article looks and feels clumsy when it is full of redlinks. The better way to seek that sort of new article assistance is probably to put a request for article pages in the discussion page. Get back to me (my field is Industrial and Employment Law) as I want to help but if you revert from wiki policy and methods it is a bit difficult. VirtualSteve 22:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no obligation to promptly write the page, except in the very limited cases that policy cites. There is no justification under policy for removing these perfectly common and useful redlinks. Ambi 03:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article and labor rights

Just so people know... there is an article called labor rights. I don't know how far the two articles are worthy of being merged, but there should be some consideration of what the demarcation is. Breadandroses 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current definition of this page (although it can of course be changed) is that "labour & employment law" covers all relations between employers & employees, not only labor rights. Labor rights are rights obtained by the labour movement, "labour and employment law" is the legislation regulating economic activity (and is often not so nice to labor!). Lapaz 16:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge work permit here

Shouldn't we? Lapaz 16:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Does it become a Right to work section? What about the differences in different countries? I guess they would be split out into each 'by country' article but I wonder if on its own it would be possible to leave country comparisons together on the page where they would be easier to contrast? (BTW nice work on the article!)--Bookandcoffee 20:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Right to work is another thing, IMO. Currently it redirects to right-to-work law, which is ill-advised IMO (it makes a "right" into a US law, which is more than questionable). It is my understanding that "right to work" may be interpreted in two different manners: right to have a work, that is to work in any cases; or "right to have a work", that is to be payed, that is to be "given" a work (a right which would amount more or less to an effective prohibition of unemployment: everybody has the "right" to work, that is to be payed and not excluded of society). Now work permit is not the same at all, since it simply refers to the administrative authorization to work, usually for immigrants. So it would fit well into a "immigrants & labour law" section (I find it quite interesting that my quick look at the page Labour law in the United States did not adress at all the fundamental issues of immigrants, thus illustrating the sociological division between US trade unions and unorganized migrant workers...). I think it is very important to avoid, when it is possible, national divisions on a global encyclopedia such as the English Wikipedia, and it is thus very good to contrast various approaches to common problems. This help us understand others better... Lapaz 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I see your point on Right to work, although I would hazzard a guess that the redirect to right-to-work law is a function of the lack of a suitable article, rather than most people's understanding or intention. As for the work permits, it does make sense to me to have them here. I'm just wondering how the differences would be contrasted, when the direction of this page is to note the general properties, and split the differences out into each country. Does it mean (in the long run) that there is a section on "immigrants & labour law", with a link to World contrast of Immigrants & labour law or some such thing? I think I'm getting ahead of myself there, if the section gets too big it just gets routed into {{main|Immigrants & labour law}} doesn't it. --Bookandcoffee 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate page move?

Why was this page moved from labor to labour despite naming conventions? The "consensing" to which the mover referred was a comment about the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour was created by a Canadian. Darkildor 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiya - I might have been in the wrong, I was a very new wikipedia at the time, so my reason may have been insufficient. However, it is worth noting that after my original move, a double redirect was fixed by another user. It's hard to see from the history what that that page (the one to which the redirect pointed) was originally called, I think it might have been already named using the 'labour' spelling. Also, I'd note that UK spellings get changed to US ones all over wikipedia, all the time, and no one notices... if this was a mistake it was an honest one, I suggest leaving be. Breadandroses 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dismissal

I've had to change and/or revert some pretty inaccurate edits in the dismissal section. Its important not to confuse the notion of what is a dismissal as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996 with any other notion of unlawful termination of employment. Fair dismissals may be otherwise unlawful and vice versa. The article still seems to focus on unfair dismissal to the exclusion of other issues (such as wrongful dismissal).

Constructive dismissal is a fine, accurate and widely used term for employee initiated dismissals in circumstances entitling them to do so. If I get time, I'll copy in the relevant parts of the ERA.

I do know what I am talking about here - this is an area I know very well and have successfully argued in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Francis Davey 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General approach

I find this article rather confused in scope and structure. I suggest that it should be restricted to a discussion of the common concepts in employment law, and that there should be separate pages for the different jurisidictions.

I agree. I have tried to tinker with it a bit, but it needs some overhaul. Note: its very difficult to write general articles on law of any kind. Much of the wikipedia law effort is a real mess at the moment because its very POV (usually US POV), but almost impossible to sort out because its hard to know what anyone else actually does outside one's own jurisdiction. Perhaps the thing to do is to move material to the main articles and leave a paragraph or so for each jurisdiction that traces some useful information outside the main stream. Francis Davey 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have some further queries about the UK material. I am not sure that the Protection from Harassment Act is really employment law - or that the part-time/fixed contract regulations would normally be seen as anti-discrimination statutes. Similarly, acts like the DDA, SDA, RRA have much wider applicability than just the employment sphere.Sjoh0050 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The PHA can be used in employment, though its not really an "employment law". There is some dispute as to how to classify some kinds of anti-less favourable treatment legislation, one approach is to describe it as anti-discrimination. Best moved to the main article? Francis Davey 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)