Difference between revisions of "Seniority is a decisive redundancy selection criterion"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|scale=Metric | |scale=Metric | ||
|scale=Metric | |scale=Metric | ||
| − | |valuelabels=<ul><li> 1 = the only factor taken into account</li></ul> | + | |valuelabels=Not applicable in the strict sense since the scale is quasi-metric, but for coding the following values were used for orientation: |
| + | Seniority is | ||
| + | <ul><li> 1 = the only factor taken into account</li></ul> | ||
<ul><li> 0.5 = is one factor among several</li></ul> | <ul><li> 0.5 = is one factor among several</li></ul> | ||
<ul><li> 0 = is not taken into account / no selection regulation at all</li></ul> | <ul><li> 0 = is not taken into account / no selection regulation at all</li></ul> | ||
| − | + | New template for Version 2 adds: further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law | |
|techname=labor_redsec_sen | |techname=labor_redsec_sen | ||
|category=Labour and labour market | |category=Labour and labour market | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
<li>[[Legally mandated severance compensation increases with seniority]]</li> | <li>[[Legally mandated severance compensation increases with seniority]]</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| − | |description=This WoL indicator measures | + | |description=This WoL indicator measures whether a social selection is made in the event of redundancies for operational reasons and whether length of service is a factor to be taken into account in such a selection. |
| − | |codingrules=The WoL is a leximetric dataset on individual employment protection. It quantifies the strength of the standard-setting, privileging, and equalising function of individual labour law (see Dingeldey et al. | + | |
| − | |citation=Dingeldey | + | Labour law not only protects, but also segments, by privileging the standard employment relationship through higher standards of protection. The standard employment relationship is the classic model of the permanent, full-time employee with long-term employment with one employer. Other forms of work – part-time, temporary agency work, work under a fixed-term contract, frequent changes of employee – receive less protection, even though the employment relationships in which they are found already inherently entail greater social risks. This leads to a further disadvantage for employees who are already in a precarious position. |
| + | |||
| + | Length of service is a common factor used for prioritisation. However, the purpose of prioritisation is not to protect older employees, who are assumed to have a harder time finding a new job – after all, the prioritisation of length of service is almost always capped after about ten years. The situation of employees who have to change employers frequently is socially more precarious than that of those with many years of service. The purpose of prioritisation is thus apparently not to provide special protection, but to cement the standard employment relationship. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Employees are existentially dependent on the income from their employment relationship, so termination of this by the employer also means the termination of the employee's ability to make a living. However, redundancies for operational reasons are not individually but economically justified, so the question arises as to which employee will be made redundant. If the law defines criteria that take into account special protection needs and on the basis of which the employer has to make a social selection when determining the order of redundancies, the arbitrary determination of redundancies is taken away from the employer. | ||
| + | |codingrules=The WoL is a leximetric dataset on individual employment protection. It quantifies the strength of the standard-setting, privileging, and equalising function of individual labour law (see Dingeldey et al. 2022). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the law do not recognise notice periods for employees increasing with seniority and "1" to the law do recognise notice periods for employees increasing with seniority in steps for more than 10 years. Coding instructions and description of indicators are laid down in a technical paper (Fechner/Carlino, forthcoming). For country-specific information see WoL documentation (forthcoming). | ||
| + | |citation=Irene Dingeldey, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, Ulrich Mückenberger, Worlds of Labour: Introducing the Standard-Setting, Privileging and Equalising Typology as a Measure of Legal Segmentation in Labour Law, Industrial Law Journal, Volume 51, Issue 3, September 2022, Pages 560–597, https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwab016 | ||
|relatedpublications=<ul> | |relatedpublications=<ul> | ||
<li>Mückenberger, Ulrich, 1985. "Die Krise des Normalarbeitsverhältnisses - Hat das Arbeitsrecht noch Zukunft?" ''Zeitschrift für Sozialreform'' 31: 415-434; 457-475 | <li>Mückenberger, Ulrich, 1985. "Die Krise des Normalarbeitsverhältnisses - Hat das Arbeitsrecht noch Zukunft?" ''Zeitschrift für Sozialreform'' 31: 415-434; 457-475 | ||
| Line 24: | Line 32: | ||
Mückenberger, Ulrich, and Simon Deakin. 1989. "From Deregulation to a European Floor of Rights: Labour Law, Flexibilisation and the European Single Market." ''Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Und Internationales Arbeits- Und Sozialrecht'' 3: 153–207. </li> | Mückenberger, Ulrich, and Simon Deakin. 1989. "From Deregulation to a European Floor of Rights: Labour Law, Flexibilisation and the European Single Market." ''Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Und Internationales Arbeits- Und Sozialrecht'' 3: 153–207. </li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| − | |projectmanagers=Karolin Meyer, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Andrea Schäfer | + | |projectmanagers=Karolin Meyer (2020), Jean-Yves Gerlitz (2018-2021), Andrea Schäfer (2021-2025), Heiner Fechner (2018-2025) |
|datarelease=<ul><li>Version 0.001: Initial release</li></ul> | |datarelease=<ul><li>Version 0.001: Initial release</li></ul> | ||
| − | |revisions= | + | |revisions=The template has been revised in 2024, but coding for the complete dataset is still ongoing; values in WeSIS Version 0.001 correspond to the original template. |
| − | |sources= | + | |sources=Own coding. |
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:58, 21 November 2024
| Quick info | |
|---|---|
| Data type | Numeric |
| Scale | Metric |
| Value labels | Not applicable in the strict sense since the scale is quasi-metric, but for coding the following values were used for orientation:
Seniority is
New template for Version 2 adds: further gradations between 0 and 1 reflect changes in the strength of the law |
| Technical name | labor_redsec_sen |
| Category | Labour and labour market |
| Label | Seniority is a decisive redundancy selection criterion |
| Related indicators | |
This WoL indicator measures whether a social selection is made in the event of redundancies for operational reasons and whether length of service is a factor to be taken into account in such a selection.
Labour law not only protects, but also segments, by privileging the standard employment relationship through higher standards of protection. The standard employment relationship is the classic model of the permanent, full-time employee with long-term employment with one employer. Other forms of work – part-time, temporary agency work, work under a fixed-term contract, frequent changes of employee – receive less protection, even though the employment relationships in which they are found already inherently entail greater social risks. This leads to a further disadvantage for employees who are already in a precarious position.
Length of service is a common factor used for prioritisation. However, the purpose of prioritisation is not to protect older employees, who are assumed to have a harder time finding a new job – after all, the prioritisation of length of service is almost always capped after about ten years. The situation of employees who have to change employers frequently is socially more precarious than that of those with many years of service. The purpose of prioritisation is thus apparently not to provide special protection, but to cement the standard employment relationship.
Employees are existentially dependent on the income from their employment relationship, so termination of this by the employer also means the termination of the employee's ability to make a living. However, redundancies for operational reasons are not individually but economically justified, so the question arises as to which employee will be made redundant. If the law defines criteria that take into account special protection needs and on the basis of which the employer has to make a social selection when determining the order of redundancies, the arbitrary determination of redundancies is taken away from the employer.
Coding rules
The WoL is a leximetric dataset on individual employment protection. It quantifies the strength of the standard-setting, privileging, and equalising function of individual labour law (see Dingeldey et al. 2022). The scale ranges from "0" to "1" where "0" corresponds to the law do not recognise notice periods for employees increasing with seniority and "1" to the law do recognise notice periods for employees increasing with seniority in steps for more than 10 years. Coding instructions and description of indicators are laid down in a technical paper (Fechner/Carlino, forthcoming). For country-specific information see WoL documentation (forthcoming).
Bibliographic info
Citation: Irene Dingeldey, Heiner Fechner, Jean-Yves Gerlitz, Jenny Hahs, Ulrich Mückenberger, Worlds of Labour: Introducing the Standard-Setting, Privileging and Equalising Typology as a Measure of Legal Segmentation in Labour Law, Industrial Law Journal, Volume 51, Issue 3, September 2022, Pages 560–597, https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwab016
Related publications:- Mückenberger, Ulrich, 1985. "Die Krise des Normalarbeitsverhältnisses - Hat das Arbeitsrecht noch Zukunft?" Zeitschrift für Sozialreform 31: 415-434; 457-475
- Mückenberger, Ulrich, and Simon Deakin. 1989. "From Deregulation to a European Floor of Rights: Labour Law, Flexibilisation and the European Single Market." Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Und Internationales Arbeits- Und Sozialrecht 3: 153–207.
Misc
Project manager(s): Karolin Meyer (2020), Jean-Yves Gerlitz (2018-2021), Andrea Schäfer (2021-2025), Heiner Fechner (2018-2025)
Data release:- Version 0.001: Initial release
Revisions: The template has been revised in 2024, but coding for the complete dataset is still ongoing; values in WeSIS Version 0.001 correspond to the original template.
Sources
Own coding.
