Search

On 17 March 2022, P&O Ferries summarily dismissed 786 seafarers without notice or consultation in a clear and openly admitted transgression of legality, but two months later its parent company's chief executive officer claimed that 'nobody was hurt'. Drawing on the work of Zygmunt Bauman and Alain Supiot, this article offers a critical account of the scandal based on three main arguments. First, it develops the new concept of an 'authoritarian liquid transgression' (ALT), defined as a transgression of a democratic legal norm that seeks to leave no trace or excess (that which resists immediate liquefaction), thus aiming at complete erasure. Second, it argues that the P&O event is a paradigmatic example of an attempted ALT by dissecting three main steps in the business strategy (liquefaction, effacement, and simulation) but also traces competing privatized and politicized narratives of its excess. Third, the article suggests that the event will be viewed as a liminal event for the United Kingdom's authoritarian neoliberalism since it acted as a window that offered a brief glimpse of the brutal nature of authoritarian neoliberalism at work but also of an alternative solid construction of labour law and its remedial framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 1980s and 1990s, Conservative Governments contemplated but ultimately refused direct interventions in strikes in essential services as unenforceable and ineffective. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 crosses this Rubicon. It does so not by a participatory framework but by granting Ministers and employers virtually unrestrained powers to restrict (and effectively prohibit by neutralising the impact of) industrial action by imposing minimum service levels. This article offers a critical account of the Act based on three main claims. First, it argues that the Act is shaped by what is termed ' coercive dual unilateralism', an authoritarian crucible of three elements: (i) executive unilateralism, (ii) employer unilateralism and (iii) coercion (severe sanctions compounded by chilling legal uncertainty of ill-defined duties). Secondly, it challenges the Government's claim of the Act's compliance with ILO standards and Article 11 ECHR as a misconstruction. Thirdly, it finds that the Act satisfies all three authoritarian markers (stifling of dissent, direct state coercion, elevation of social order as an external justification for restrictions) identified in Bogg's seminal account of the TUA 2016 as a shift away from neo-liberalism to authoritarianism. But it resists a 'beyond neo-liberalism' conclusion. Instead, it argues that the Act should be seen as the product of a 'strong-weak' state (strong in power, weak in securing consent) that seeks to fortify neo-liberalism against a sharpened contestation reflected in the current strike wave. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the provisions of the United Kingdom-Australia Free Trade Agreement (UKAFTA) and UK-New Zealand FTA (UKNZFTA), particularly their labour clauses. Also cited are the potential effects of said clauses on labour rights and protectionism, and the reasons why said clauses promote minimalism as a dominant pattern.

The ILO centenary celebrated in 2019 offered an occasion for reflection on the past, present and future of international labour law. With inequality described by ILO as 'one of the most daunting challenges for future of work', international labour law confronts the task of developing regulatory responses to the ever-widening gap between the remuneration of corporate executives and those of low-paid workers. In search of new solutions for reversing this process, this article makes the case for the recognition of a new international labour right against extreme wage inequality grounded in the 'just share' imperative of the Declaration of Philadelphia. It also advances a novel regulatory model for implementing this right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2010, multiple waves of EU/IMF-imposed legislative reforms have led to extensive deregulation or 'de-construction' of Greek collective labour law. While there are many accounts of the Greek reforms, no systematic attention has been devoted to the following paradox: how is such a de-construction possible, in a jurisdiction enjoying a strong domestic constitutionalisation of labour rights, and apparently observing multiple transnational collective labour rights, derived from the CFREU, ECHR, and ILO Conventions? This article sets out to investigate the constitutional dynamics behind the process termed here as 'de-constitutionalisation' of collective labour rights. It seeks to add two contributions to the existing literature. Firstly, taking its cue from Eric Tucker's mapping of multi-level 'capital' and 'labour' constitutions developed in the Canadian context, it suggests that the Greek case of de-constitutionalisation is the cumulative result of a specific configuration of interactions between 'aggressive' EU-IMF conditionality at the level of transnational capital rights, and 'defensive' articulation of labour rights at domestic and transnational levels. As will be seen, these interactions disguise an asymmetric clash between a strong constutionalisation of capital rights at transnational level, and a weak constitutionalisation of labour rights at both transnational and domestic levels. Secondly, the article projects the Greek case onto the broader constitutionalisation debate, which questions the desirability of constitutionalising collective labour rights as an effective response to neo-liberal policies and laws. While submitting that the Greek developments support the sceptical side of this debate, in particular by providing a continental European confirmation of Tucker's thesis, the article offers several new reflections of relevance to the constitutionalisation debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]