1. 首 页
  2. 思想政治
  3. 文档
  4. 公文写作
  5. 职场
  6. 英语学习
  7. 英语听力
  8. 中文
  9. 简笔画
  10. 个人简历
  11. 生活相关
  12. 讲话稿
  13. 自我鉴定
  14. 策划书
  15. 演讲稿大全
  16. 合同范文
  17. 工作总结
  18. 工作计划
  19. 活动总结
  20. 口号大全
  21. 名人名言
  22. 公务员
  23. 英语考试
  24. 国学经典
  25. 日记
  26. 日语
  27. 试题库
  28. 德语
  29. MBA
  30. 俄语
  31. VOA打包下载/BBC打包下载
经济学人:劳工VS资本 艰苦年代的正义(01)

Britain

英国

Labor VS Capital: Justice in an age of austerity

劳工对资本:艰苦年代的正义

Charging workers from employment tribunals erodes their rights.

劳资审裁处向雇员收费会损害他们的权利。

Eight years after Britain emerged from recession, average real earnings are still below their peak.

英国从经济萧条恢复过来8年后,其平均实际收入仍低于他们最高峰时期。

But measly pay is not the only thing squeezing workers.

但是微薄的工资并不是压榨工人的唯一手段。

Since 2013 employees who think they have been wronged by their employer—underpaid or dismissed unfairly, for instance—have had to pay up to £1,200 ($1,500) to go to an employment tribunal, which was previously free.

自2013年,凡是认为被雇主冤枉的雇员—要么工资太低要么无解雇,比如—已不得不付总计1200英镑(1500美元)去劳资审裁处,而这以前是免费的。

A challenge to the legality of such fees came before the Supreme Court on March 27th.

3月27日,这种费用合法性的挑战在最高法院之前到来了。

A judgment is expected by the summer.

预计夏季会有一次裁判。

Since the decline of trade-union membership in Britain, the employment-tribunal system has been the main mechanism for enforcing individual employment rights.

自英国工会会员人数下降以来,劳资审裁处体系就一直是实施个人就业权的主要机制。

In 2012-13 there were roughly 190,000 tribunal claims, equivalent to one for every 130 or so employees.

2012至2013年约有19万起法庭索赔,相当于约每130个雇员中就有一个。

After fees were introduced the number of claims dropped by about 70%.

在介绍完费用后,索赔的数量降了约70%。

There were only around 60,000 in 2014-15.

在2014-2015年仅有约6万个。

The government has welcomed the decline as evidence that bogus claimants are being deterred.

政府欢迎这种下降现象,并把它作为虚假索赔人被制止了的证据。

“Like Japanese knotweed,” one government minister wrote in 2014, “the soaring number of tribunal cases was squeezing the life and energy from Britain's wealth creators.”

一位政府部长在2014年写到,“像日本虎杖,数量飞涨的法庭案件从英国财富创造者里压榨生命和精力。

But a paper in the Modern Law Review by Abi Adams and Jeremias Prassl of Oxford University suggests a different interpretation.

但是由牛津大学的Abi Adams和Jeremias Prassl编写的《现代法律评论》里一篇文章暗示了另一种解说。

相关信息
  1. ·经济学人:非洲企业家 求知若饥虚心若愚(上)
  2. ·经济学人:收缩包装 经济增长与经济衰退程度挂钩(02)
  3. ·经济学人:短期借贷 原则与利率 (01)
  4. ·经济学人:短期借贷 原则与利率 (02)
  5. ·经济学人:重蹈覆辙 中西部的农业危机有多严重(02)

使用搜索工具,可以更快找到你想要的资料!

特别推荐
最新资料