IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v52y2023i1p179-213..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nonwaivability of Labour Rights, Individual Waivers and the Emancipatory Function of Labour Law

Author

Listed:
  • Vladimir Bogoeski

Abstract

This paper intervenes in ongoing discussions on emerging legislation and jurisprudence across jurisdictions offering employees the possibility to renounce established labour rights through individual labour rights waivers. Building on discussions about consent and coercion in the employment relationship, the paper argues that individual labour rights waivers in most cases undermine labour law’s overall emancipatory potential, as they reverse the decommodifying effects of nonwaivable labour rights by re-appropriating the capitalist market logic that those very rights seek to offset. The paper’s intervention is twofold. It first develops the argument about the emancipatory function of labour law, and uses it to examine the negative effects of individual waivers on labour law’s capacity to emancipate working people and society at large. Second, the paper introduces a jurisdiction that until now has not been considered in the discussions on individual waivers, namely Germany. Although discussions on individual waivers in the scholarly discourse in Germany are marginal, the paper examines what current exceptions to nonwaivability might qualify as waivers, and argues that the reasons why individual labour rights waivers are less present lie in the strong collective dimension of the ideational framework that underpins German labour law.

Suggested Citation

  • Vladimir Bogoeski, 2023. "Nonwaivability of Labour Rights, Individual Waivers and the Emancipatory Function of Labour Law," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 52(1), pages 179-213.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:1:p:179-213.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwac020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:52:y:2023:i:1:p:179-213.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.