权利争议罢工:正当性否定论

发布时间：2018-04-16 19:52

本文选题：罢工 + 权利争议　；参考：《当代法学》2017年04期

【摘要】：权利争议本应通过仲裁和诉讼途径寻求救济,实践中劳动者却频频采取罢工手段迫使企业满足其诉求。域外学者大多基于"团体协约相关性"理论和"争议行为正当性"理论,认为权利争议罢工不具正当性。在实证研究的基础上,从法理学、法社会学和法经济学三个维度论证分析可见,权利争议罢工不具正当性。权利诉求本身不能证明权利争议罢工行为的正当性;我国的实际国情和社会事实表明:权利争议罢工违背程序公正,甚至损害实体公正;权利争议罢工将增大交易成本和社会成本。对罢工行为应根据其性质,分类加以规范,即:对权利争议罢工,不应赋予其合法性,应采"禁止"规范思路;对劳动者集体行使劳动抗辩权,应赋予其合法性,并采"允许+衡平"规范思路;对利益争议罢工,可赋予其合法性,并采"赋权+限制"规范思路。
[Abstract]:Disputes of rights should seek relief through arbitration and litigation, but in practice, workers frequently take strike means to force enterprises to satisfy their demands.Most of the foreign scholars based on the theory of "the relevance of group treaty" and the theory of "legitimacy of controversial behavior", think that the right to dispute strike is not justified.On the basis of empirical research, from the analysis of jurisprudence, sociology of law and legal economics, it can be seen that the right dispute strike is not justified.The right claim itself can not prove the legitimacy of the right dispute strike, the actual situation of our country and the social facts show that: the right dispute strike violates the procedural justice, even damages the entity justice;Rights disputes strike will increase transaction costs and social costs.The strike should be regulated according to its nature, that is, the strike should not be given legitimacy, but should adopt the idea of "prohibition", and the right of collective labor defense should be given legitimacy.It also adopts the idea of "allowing balance", giving legitimacy to the strike of interest dispute, and adopting the normative idea of "empowerment and restriction".
【作者单位】：华东政法大学;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金重点项目“集体劳动争议处理和应对的法律机制研究”(14AZD048)的阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D922.591

【相似文献】