Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Race Discrimination and Migrant Domestic Workers: A Legal Loophole

Race Discrimination and Migrant Domestic Workers: A Legal Loophole ContextRegulation of employment relationships is fraught with tension. On the one hand, the existence of an employment contract suggests that contractual principles should dominate and that regulation should proceed on the basis of assumptions of freedom of contract and equality of the parties. On the other hand, it has become clear that the assumptions of contract law do not represent the reality of many employment relationships, and that regulations need to recognize that employment relationships form a framework in which abuses occur and in which inequality is perpetrated.1The problem for claimants is that even the more progressive regulations under employment law (such as work-related discrimination) do not entirely escape contractual assumptions. They aim still toward economic efficiency rather than, say, human rights protection. Furthermore, human rights legislation tends to be considered a separate area of law, an area of public protection that does not extend to private employment relationships. Thus the claimants fall through a loophole in employment law: employment rights do not adequately cover human rights abuses, and human rights law does not always penetrate employment relationships. International law is making the most inroads into closing that gap.AnalysisThis case, a joint claim by two workers based on similar http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Labor Rights Case Law Brill

Race Discrimination and Migrant Domestic Workers: A Legal Loophole

International Labor Rights Case Law , Volume 3 (1): 5 – Dec 27, 2017

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/race-discrimination-and-migrant-domestic-workers-a-legal-loophole-xk0UcM6OjS

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
2405-688X
eISSN
2405-6901
DOI
10.1163/24056901-00301019
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ContextRegulation of employment relationships is fraught with tension. On the one hand, the existence of an employment contract suggests that contractual principles should dominate and that regulation should proceed on the basis of assumptions of freedom of contract and equality of the parties. On the other hand, it has become clear that the assumptions of contract law do not represent the reality of many employment relationships, and that regulations need to recognize that employment relationships form a framework in which abuses occur and in which inequality is perpetrated.1The problem for claimants is that even the more progressive regulations under employment law (such as work-related discrimination) do not entirely escape contractual assumptions. They aim still toward economic efficiency rather than, say, human rights protection. Furthermore, human rights legislation tends to be considered a separate area of law, an area of public protection that does not extend to private employment relationships. Thus the claimants fall through a loophole in employment law: employment rights do not adequately cover human rights abuses, and human rights law does not always penetrate employment relationships. International law is making the most inroads into closing that gap.AnalysisThis case, a joint claim by two workers based on similar

Journal

International Labor Rights Case LawBrill

Published: Dec 27, 2017

There are no references for this article.