加班费·违约金·服务期

我国宪法规定，公民有休息权。根据《劳动法》和有关法律规定，国家实行劳动者每日工作时间不超过8小时，平均每周工作时间不超过40小时的工时制度。用人单位应当保证劳动者每周至少休息一日。用人单位由于生产经营需要，经与工会和劳动者协商后可以延长工作时间，一般每日不得超过一小时：因特殊原因需要延长工作时间的，在保障劳动者身体健康的条件下延长工作时间每日不得超过3小时，但是每月不得超过36小时。当然，国家对加班人员也有一定的限制。     

如何理解宪法规定劳动者有休息的权利？

宪法第四十三条规定：“中华人民共和国劳动者有休息的权利。”“国家发展劳动者休息和休养的设施,规定职工的工作时间和休假制度。”劳动者的休息权是指为了提高劳动效率,保障劳动者的生活和身体健康,根据我国法律和制度的规定,劳动者所享有的休息和休养的权利。休息权和劳动权是密切联系的。劳动者享有休息权,是为使劳动者的精力和体力得到恢复,并且参加政治、文化生活,以便他们保持旺盛的精力,为社会主义建设做出贡献。     

医务人员休息权研究

休息权是宪法赋予公民的基本权利之一。救死扶伤是医务人员的天职,当这个义务在反复被强调的同时,医务人员的基本权利并未得到有力保障。由于休息权的立法不够完善,保障制度没有得到有力执行,法律监督有待加强,医务人员法律意识淡薄,导致医务人员休息权不能依法实现。为了更好的保护医务人员的休息权,加强对医务人员的保护措施,限制用人单位随意延长工作时间的现象,让医务人员得到充足的休息,使医务人员的劳动力资源可持续发展,具有非常重要的现实意义。     

保护劳动者加班权益关键在执法有力

宁夏银川市人大常委会日前公布了新修订的《银川市劳动保障监察条例》，对众多劳动者格外关注的“用人单位违法延长劳动者工作时间”等违法行为作出具体规定。用人单位违规延长劳动时间将吃罚单。     

加班时间过长也违法

新颁布的《中华人民共和国劳动法》第41条规定:“用人单位由于生产经营需要,经与工会和劳动者协商后可以延长工作时间,一般每日不得超过一小时;因特殊原因需要延长工作时间的,在保障劳动者身体健康的条件下延长工作时间每日不得超过三小时,但是每月不得超过三十六小时。”     

带薪年休假的具体实施研究

休息权是受宪法保护的宪法性权利。带薪年休假是劳动者一项不可剥夺也不许放弃的重要休息权。年休假属于人格权范畴,具有支配性。劳动者享有年休假请求权,这种请求权只有权利遭受侵害时才能行使。为了保护劳动者能够充分享有和行使年休假的权利,劳动者和用工单位都应该采取具体措施,使年休假制度更加规范化、具体化。     

保障民工的休息权

广州市番禺区一家私营企业的近千名员工联名申诉，向企业讨要休息权。“农民工讨要休息权”，这在我国还是一件新鲜事。虽然，劳动法明确规定，劳动者享有休息休假等多项权利，但事实上，在大多数用人单位加班加点早已是家常便饭，而作为弱势群体的农民工，其休息权更是得不到保障。     

工资纠纷若干问题阐析

劳动法意义上的工资,即用人单位依据国家有关规定或劳动合同的约定,经货币形式直接支付给本单位劳动者的劳动报酬,一般包括计时工资、计件工资、奖金、津贴和补贴、延长工作时间的工资报酬及特殊情况下支付的工资等。劳动合同法第三十条第一款规定了用人单位应当按照劳动合同约定和国家规定及时足额发放劳动报酬,实际包含三层意思:1.用人单位应当按照劳动合同约定和国家规定向劳动者支付劳动报     

公民的基本权利和义务讲座（二）

(五)社会经济权利社会经济权利是指公民依照宪法的规定享有的经济物质利益的权利。它是公民实现其他权利的物质上的保障。从我国宪法和有关法律的规定看，社会经济权利主要包括公民个人财产权、劳动权、休息权、获得物质帮助权。     

问:用人单位如果发生克扣或者无故拖欠劳动者工资、或拒不支付劳动者延长工作时间工资报酬的、或低于当地最低工资标准支付劳动者工资的、或解除劳动合同后未依照《劳动法》规定给予劳动者经济补偿的,劳动者应当怎么办?

问：用人单位如果发生克扣或者无故拖欠劳动者工资、或拒不支付劳动者延长工作时间工资报酬的、或低于当地最低工资标准支付劳动者工资的、或解除劳动合同后未依照《劳动法》规定给予劳动者经济补偿的，劳动者应当怎么办？答：如果发生上述侵害劳动者合法权益的，劳动者有...     

我国城镇就业中的长相歧视研究

自然人长相的多元与差异是生物多样化的体现。对人体长相的喜爱、悦目与欣赏是人们爱美、求美与享受美的精神需要，但用人单位将自然人的长相作为提供职位的条件之一则混同了审美的个人心理需求与他人行使劳动权的宪法基本权利的社会活动的界限，将对人体美欣赏的精神需求作为提升企业形象的手段则混同了二者的区别。劳动者的长相不仅与履行岗位职责无直接的联系，而且也非劳动者完成岗位职责所必需，用人单位提供职位要求劳动者的长相条件不仅是不合理的，而且也是不必要的，在法律上构成就业中的长相歧视。禁止就业中的长相歧视需要在立法中明确禁止长相歧视的种类，这是国家为劳动者提供公平的就业机会、构建社会主义和谐劳动关系的法律保障。     

法律规制视野下的劳动者休假权——以节日文化与钟点时间的历史演进为进路

自机械钟表发明以来，钟点时间（clocktime）日益深入地影响了劳动者个人及其家人的身体作息。伴随着工厂制度和劳动力受雇用情况的出现，时间变成了金钱，变成了雇主的金钱。劳动者身体受到时间无所不在的牵制，也开始变成一个俗常的行为。特别是20世纪初以来，劳动者基本权利之演进和劳动者工作时间之人性化探讨，又不断彰显其在法律体系中的重要意义。因此，以节日文化的法律规制之历史演进为研究进路，研究在钟点时间（clocktime）的规约下，调整劳动法律关系出现的原因，从政治、经济特别是法律文化的视域，阐述节假日功能与劳动者休假权保护的多元商谈价值及其法理基础，就有了一种特别的人文关怀。     

Systematic construction of lawfulness of processing employees’ personal information under China's personal information protection law

With the rapid development and widespread use of digital technologies in the workplace in China, employers’ right to monitor and direct employees has often been abused, raising a number of disputes over the infringement of employees’ right to privacy in terms of their personal information. China must urgently develop an appropriate approach to balancing these two conflicting interests. However, there is currently no coherent and uniform regime governing the protection of employees’ personal information in China. The primary legal source on which employers can rely is the latest version of the Chinese Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which offers three lawful bases for employers’ processing of their employees’ personal information. These bases are employee consent; “necessity for the conclusion or performance of an employment contract”; and “necessity for conducting human resource management.” Concerns have been expressed regarding the reasonableness and effectiveness of the three lawful bases under the PIPL. First, it is both legally and practically problematic for the PIPL to rely so heavily on employee consent. Second, it is unclear whether the other two lawful bases relieve employers of the duty of notification and, if so, how to safeguard employees’ right to know. Third, the ambiguous standard of “necessity” requires clarification.This article argues that China should adopt many elements from EU law, while US law should be only followed in relation to the standard of “necessity”. In relation to employee consent, the EU approach is preferable to the US approach. As the EU approach does not generally regard employees’ consent as a lawful basis for the processing of their information and uses the other two lawful bases as alternatives to employee consent, this approach better reflects the customary practices of employee subordination and employer control in China. In contrast, US law deems employee consent to be an absolute general defense to the tort of privacy violation and adopts an employer favoritism approach to balancing these two conflicting interests, which is not appropriate in the Chinese context. In relation to the scope of necessity, three tests taken from the EU and US approaches should be considered by the Chinese courts. In addition, when processing personal information based on the other two lawful bases, employers should safeguard employees’ right to know through collective contracts concluded with labor unions or employee representatives under the Chinese Labor Contract Law, which would effectively address employers’ arbitrariness. Ultimately, these changes would produce a better balance between employees’ right to privacy in terms of their personal information and employers’ need to subordinate and control employees.     

The United Kingdom Right to Request as a Model for Flexible Work in the European Union

Flexible work, the practice of giving employees some control over their working time, can transform the modern workplace. Once the province of scattered national legislation, the European Union is now considering the inclusion of flextime rights in the Working Time Directive (WTD), the leading EU legislation related to work time. In this article, we propose that the European Commission should adopt a right to request flexible work as part of the WTD. Adoption of the right to request flexible work would significantly alleviate the challenges employees face in maintaining work–life balance. The right to request flexible work can also provide benefits to employers by increasing employee loyalty and productivity. Finally, adoption of the right to request flexible work into the WTD would improve the overall effectiveness of the EU's employment law framework in an increasingly fast‐paced and competitive society.     

工作场所外待命时间劳动法属性认定的困境突破:劳动基准法和劳动合同法的共同应对

雇员按雇主指示在工作场所外待命能否被认定为工作时间及应否获得工资等权益保护,是劳动法上的典型难题。这一问题可分别从劳动基准法和劳动合同法两个视角认识和解决:雇员在工作场所外待命,乃是受雇主拘束管理的劳动给付行为,应计为劳基法上的工作时间,使其享有最高工时限制、最低工资保障、劳动保护和工伤权益保障及必要休息时间等对价权益;而待命工资支付问题,本质上属于劳动力市场上的交易行为,应允许劳雇双方依劳动合同法“自愿、合法、公平”原则协商解决。     

宪法保留：对基本自由权利限制的限制原则

法律保留原则要求某些重要事项必须留给立法机关以法律的形式加以规定,目的是约束行政权,防止行政权滥用,并在客观上要求司法机关依法裁判;然而,宪政的本质特征之一是有限政府的理念,即使是立法机关的权力本身也应当是有限度的。实际上,宪政国家违宪审查制度的普遍确立正是主要基于对立法权滥用的矫正;而我国从依法治国到依宪治国思路的转变也在事实上承认了立法权本身存在滥用的可能。因此,从法律保留到宪法保留,是保障人民基本自由权的重要原则,这一原则立基于对多数决暴政的恐惧和对有限政府理念的信奉,它在一定程度上杜绝了宪法一手承认人民基本自由权利,而法律的另一手却又予以剥夺的弊病。     

论就业歧视利益冲突之法律平衡与协调——兼论我国反就业歧视法律制度的完善

在劳动力市场就业环节中,雇员(包括求职者)和雇主有着不同的权利和利益,用人自主权和平等就业权是就业歧视现象所隐含的利益结构中最核心的内容。在分析这两者的法学基础上,本文剖析了美国反就业歧视法律制度是如何有效地在就业歧视的例外性规定、举证责任配置、赔偿制度等方面平衡协调雇主和雇员各自利益的。针对目前我国反就业歧视法律制度的现状和缺陷,作者就价值取向、适用主体、保护范围、救济途径、赔偿制度及就业准入制度和劳动力市场基础等几个方面提出了完善和创新的相关思路。     

“法律监督机关”的立法内涵、演进逻辑及内在机理

“法律监督机关”是我国宪法对人民检察院的性质定位。1979年《人民检察院组织法》首次将“法律监督机关”法定化,立法内涵为注重法律监督下重建法制权威,是在中国检察理论和实践中形成的机关,侧重刑事诉讼监督和打击犯罪。1982年宪法使“法律监督机关”成为了宪法规范上的国家机关,基于宪法职能和诉讼制度改革而侧重于加强诉讼监督,并在监察体制改革下进行了自我更新,成为与监察委相互配合行使法律监督职能的机关。“法律监督机关”内涵演进的内在机理是人大体制下权力分工模式的必然要求,落实宪法规定的法律监督职能的重要选择,以及参与宪制层面政治体制改革的要求。“法律监督机关”概念内涵具有延展性,会随着立法修订和制度变迁衍生出新的内涵和解释,不断凸显中国特色社会主义检察理论的特性。     

解读阿列克西的宪法权利规范水平效力理论

阿列克西的宪法权利理论是有关公民宪法权利规范司法适用的理论,是有关公民之间宪法权利冲突与权衡的理论,因此该理论必然是有关宪法权利规范在公民之间进行司法适用的水平效力理论。因此,为使该理论能够成立,阿列克西一定要对其宪法权利规范水平效力的途径、内容、程度与合理性等问题进行理论上的建构。他的宪法权利规范水平效力建构的"三层次"说,是在德国的司法实践和学界的"客观价值辐射理论"和"三种模式"建构基础上所进行的整合与重构,具有很大的独特性、涵盖性与合理性。     

Data Analytics and the Erosion of the Work/Nonwork Divide

Numerous statutes and common law doctrines conceive of a dividing line between work time and nonwork time and delineate the activities that must be compensated as work. While technological innovations and increasing desires for workplace flexibility have begun to erode this divide, it persists, in part, because of the ways in which the division protects employers and employees alike. Nonetheless, the explosion of data analytics programs that allow employers to monitor and rely upon a worker's off‐duty conduct will soon weaken the dividing line between work and nonwork in dramatically greater and more troubling ways than ever before. The emergence of programs allowing employers to track, predict, rely upon, and possibly control nonwork activities, views, preferences, and emotions represents a major blurring of the line between work and nonwork. This article contends that these advances in data analytics suggest a need to reexamine the notion of work versus nonwork time and to question whether existing protections adequately consider a world in which these lines are so significantly muddled. As a society, we need to acknowledge the implications of the availability of massive quantities of employees’ off‐duty data and to decide whether and how to regulate its use by employers. Whether we, as a society, decide to allow market forces to dictate acceptable employer behavior, choose to regulate and restrict the use of off‐duty data for adverse employment decisions, or find some middle ground that requires disclosure and consent, we should choose our own course rather than allowing the technology to be the guide.