Publicación de American Institutes for Research

Dive into our latest article written by Ann Bugeja and Christine Borg Millo. "The Fight Against Political Discrimination in Employment Matters – A Legal Review". The Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Malta) prohibits unjustifiable discrimination in employment, including political bias. Employers must protect employees from workplace discrimination and advocate against it, aligning with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Malta's Constitution. Read the full article available on our website 🔗➡️ https://lnkd.in/dZ7U8K6S #GVZHAdvocates #EmploymentLaw #EmploymentCommission

The European Commission should be more vigilant on the granting of equal opportunities of law enforcement officers who sign a contract with European Union agencies such as Europol, Eurjojust, the EPPO, CEPOL, Frontex and others. In fact, some member states such as Italy and Greece, expect their officers to resign from the sending authorities either as soon as the join the agency or after a while. Currently, there is no uniform EU-wide policy governing the employment status of national law enforcement officers who join EU agencies. This lack of standardisation allows member states to set their own rules, leading to a situation where some countries require resignation while others do not. Most of the other member states do not demand their officers to resign, which means that the officers from Italy and Greece do not have equal opportunities and they are obliged to make an important choice that will change their careers and lives forever. The European Commission should consider addressing this issue to promote equal opportunities and fair treatment across all member states. Regulation is needed. The Commission could propose new regulations or directives that establish consistent rules for all member states regarding the employment status of national officers joining EU agencies. Furthermore, the equality clauses that appear in the regulations of EU agencies like Europol, Eurojust, EPPO, CEPOL, and Frontex should include clauses in their employment contracts that guarantee equal treatment for all officers, regardless of their country of origin. This is a grave legislative lack that needs to be urgently addressed. The Commission could establish mechanisms to monitor compliance with any new regulations and take action against member states that fail to provide equal opportunities to their officers. Implementing such measures would align with the EU's broader commitment to equal opportunities and non-discrimination in employment. It would also enhance the diversity and effectiveness of EU law enforcement agencies by ensuring they can attract and retain talented officers from all member states without forcing them to make career-altering decisions prematurely. #europol #europeancommission #europeanunion #civilservants #lawenforcement

This year marks 30 years since NZ's landmark Human Rights Act 1993. At BuckettLaw, we're proud of the progress made. But know there's more mahi to do. Key milestones include: New protections for migrant workers 👷♂️ Historic Fair Pay Agreements in sectors like buses 🚌 More time to make sexual harassment claims ⏰ Religious workers get employment rights 🙏 However, some laws lag behind global standards. I suggest changes like: Wider anti-discrimination rules 👩🦰👨🦱👩🦳 Regular pay audits 💰 Stronger collective bargaining ✊ As we near the election, now's the time to shape the next 30 years of human rights and employment law. At BuckettLaw, we'll keep collaborating for progress. 🤝 Let's keep working to uphold rights for NZ workers! 💪 Read my full analysis here: https://lnkd.in/gQPyb58e What milestones do you want to see in the next 30 years? 💭

This year marks 30 years since NZ's landmark Human Rights Act 1993. At BuckettLaw, we're proud of the progress made. But know there's more mahi to do. Key milestones include: New protections for migrant workers 👷♂️ Historic Fair Pay Agreements in sectors like buses 🚌 More time to make sexual harassment claims ⏰ Religious workers get employment rights 🙏 However, some laws lag behind global standards. I suggest changes like: Wider anti-discrimination rules 👩🦰👨🦱👩🦳 Regular pay audits 💰 Stronger collective bargaining ✊ As we near the election, now's the time to shape the next 30 years of human rights and employment law. At BuckettLaw, we'll keep collaborating for progress. 🤝 Let's keep working to uphold rights for NZ workers! 💪 Read my full analysis here: https://lnkd.in/g3-tqzH6 What milestones do you want to see in the next 30 years? 💭

The US Department of Labor has issued its 2022 Report of Child Labor detailing the practices of countries across the globe. We have put together an overview of the most compelling finding of this report as well the key takeaways for employers to ensure compliance with child labor laws as the #DOL takes on an enforcement-focused approach. #employmentlaw #FLSA https://lnkd.in/gmecJrnB

Today labor attorney Lauren Hoye participated in a panel discussion entitled “Cultural Workers Unite! Legal and Strategic Issues with Cultural Worker Organizing” during the AFSCME Lawyers’ Conference. The panel focused on the growing trend of cultural workers seeking union representation and the wide variety of opportunities for strategic organizing and campaigns, as well as the legal challenges cultural workers face when organizing. #UnionStrong #LaborLaw #Unions

Post 23 Right against Exploitation Article 23 : Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour : (1)Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. (2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them. Summary : Article 23 prohibits trafficking in human beings, begar (forced labor without payment), and other similar forms of forced labor. It provides the state with the authority to impose penalties for such practices. Key Points: 1) Prohibition of Human Trafficking: Trafficking in human beings for any purpose is prohibited. Example: Selling or buying people for prostitution or forced labor is illegal. 2) Ban on Forced Labour: All forms of forced labor, including begar, are prohibited. Example: Forcing someone to work without pay or under threat of punishment is illegal. 3) Applicability to State and Private Individuals: The prohibition applies to actions by both the state and private individuals. Example: A company cannot force employees to work under threat without proper wages. 4) Exceptions for Compulsory Service: The state can require compulsory service for public purposes, such as military or social service, but without discrimination based on religion, race, caste, or class. Example: Mandatory military service during a national emergency must apply equally to all eligible citizens. 5) Legislation and Penalties: The state is empowered to enact laws providing penalties for the violation of this article. Example: The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, which penalizes bonded labor practices. Examples: Human Trafficking: Any form of human trafficking for forced labor or sexual exploitation is prohibited and punishable. Forced Labour: Agricultural workers cannot be forced to work on land without fair compensation. Compulsory Service: Citizens may be required to perform national service in times of need, but this must be non-discriminatory and legally mandated. Article 23 ensures protection against human trafficking and forced labor, upholding human dignity and personal freedom, while allowing for compulsory public service under lawful and non-discriminatory conditions. #HumanRights #Article23 #NoForcedLabour #EndHumanTrafficking #IndianConstitution #LaborRights #HumanDignity #LegalProtection #AntiTrafficking #ConstitutionalLaw #LegalAwareness #KnowYourRights #BondedLabour #ForcedLabourBan #CivicRights

What changed in the procedure for interim measures at the ECtHR? 👀 Several observers of the Strasbourg Court (myself included) have noted with excitement that last week the European Court of Human Rights has issued a press release concerning changes to the procedure for interim measures. 👉 You can find it at this link: https://lnkd.in/eF-pweYB As interim measures are my "bread and butter", you can only imagine how thrilled I was when I saw the press release on the ECtHR's website! After the excitement, however, perplexity came. Sadly, the answer to the question "What has changed, then?" is: "Unclear.. Probably, nothing." 🤷♀️ The press release mostly seems to be a reaction to the UK Government's harsh stance against the ECtHR, taken following the debacle of the so-called Rwanda flights (flights meant to deport asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda, which were prevented to take off by interim measures of the ECtHR. For the very few readers who have not followed this saga, the decision to deport asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda has recently been considered as unlawful also by the UK Supreme Court: https://lnkd.in/ez9-P3R4). Considering the UK Government's reaction at the time, it is interesting to notice that the only real novelty mentioned in the ECtHR press release is that the name of the judges issuing interim measures will be now disclosed. This was not the case so far, thus creating controversy (especially from unsatisfied Government officials, notably the UK ones) as to the lack of transparency of the procedure. However, apart from this novelty, there is really nothing more in the press release. It is certainly important for the Court to remind everybody that "a failure by a respondent State to comply with interim measures undermines the effectiveness of the right of individual application guaranteed by Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights", as this constitutes the ground for the legally binding nature of these measures (.. binding nature contested by whom? Exactly, always by the UK Government!). But again, this is not a new principle, as the case law stating it dates back to 2005. Nor it is new that the ECtHR gives reasonings for interim measures "only on ad hoc basis", or that it is using more and more the practice of "adjourn+ ask questions" (i.e. of "stalling" the decision on requests for interim measures, sometimes a successful strategy as the problem solves itself, but sometimes a dangerous tendency as it allows for severe violations to carry on over time). The press release, in the end, just informs us that the judges of the ECtHR are considering "certain proposed amendments to Rule 39", which "have been submitted today to Contracting Parties for written comments". But it does not really tell us which these changes are. So nothing seems to have changed.. yet. To be continued!

“Mexico’s labor industry is plagued with significant challenges in providing legal services for workers...According to Justice in Mexico, organized crime institutions rank as Mexico’s fifth largest employer. These criminal institutions employ approximately 160,000 to 185,000 people, and on a weekly average, 350 people are recruited into organized crime.”      Check out our latest intern op-ed by Andrea D. Fuentes, “Strengthening Unions to Fight Organized Crime: Labor Reforms as a Path Forward for Mexico.” It highlights #Mexico’s economic climate, #unionization rates, #labor laws, and ABA ROLI's current program addressing workers' rights protection.      Read more: https://bit.ly/42nvvcj  

President Javier Milei's inauguration in December 2023 marked the start of substantial labour law reforms in Argentina. Through an emergency decree, a series of measures tackling individual and collective labour issues have been introduced, sparking debates and legal challenges across the nation. As Argentina awaits the judicial and legislative review of these reforms, the decree's implications for employers and the broader employment landscape remain a focal point. For a closer look at these developments, read our article: https://lnkd.in/e3WTsX7b Article written by Eduardo Juan Viñales of Bruchou & Funes de Rioja #LabourLawReform #Argentina #Milei #EmploymentPolicy #LegalUpdate