Fat Cats,Production Networks,and the Right to Fair Pay

Should there be a legal right to fair pay so that anyone might challenge the relative fairness of their pay? International human rights law does not clearly support such a right, partly due to the uncertain meaning of fairness in pay. The article challenges this uncertainty, explaining the marginal relevance of theories of distributive justice. Standards of fairness should be discovered instead in principles of interpersonal justice, particularly the bilateral principle of good faith, and in associational principles of desert by reference to contribution and recognition of persons. These contain an egalitarian impulse providing moral reasons for rejecting market rates of pay and, it is argued, should apply beyond single corporate entities, to corporate groups and networks of companies sharing an integrated production scheme. Finally, appropriate regulations enacting a legal right to fair pay are explored with a view to achieving reflexive yet effective regulation using works councils to fix outer limits to wage dispersal ratios.     

Who’s Afraid of Property Rights? Rights as Core Concepts,Coherent, Prima Facie,Situated and Specified

Natural property rights are widely viewed as anathema to welfarist taxation, and are pictured as non-contextual, non-relational and resistant to regulation. Here, I argue that many of the major arguments for such views are flawed. Such arguments trade on an ambiguity in the term ‘right’ that makes it possible to conflate the core concept of a right with a situated or specified right from which one can read off people’s actual legal entitlements and duties. I marshal several arguments demonstrating this conflation. In particular, I examine the right to free speech, where contextualization and responsiveness to the requirements of other rights are assumed as a matter of course. I conclude that the existence of one natural right does not foreclose the existence of other natural rights. Arguments for or against welfare rights must be assessed, at least to some extent, independently of the assertion of a natural property right.     

CONFIDENTIALITY REVISITED:California Style

Stewart and I have lived through the legal adversary system and we know what havoc it could have wrought on our family…. We were nuts. We were crazy. We were your average psychotic divorcing parents…. What you do not see is we get well. We bailed out of the adversary court system because we could see it was no help to us. We were the lucky ones…. There are thousands like us who could use your help before the war gets started.
—Parent at the 1978 Midwinter Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, Los Angeles.     

MEDIATING JUDICIAL POLICY

Despite the widespread use of mediation to resolve public policy disputes, there is little written on the mediation of judicial rule disputes. A successful mediation of a dispute over proposed court rules to govern mediation of certain family law cases involving domestic violence concerns is reviewed. The authors conclude that the mediation provided (a) a confidential venue for disputing judges to respectfully disagree with one another, (b) an opportunity for collaborative problem solving, (c) an opportunity to reduce conflict among judicial colleagues. (d) a format for dialogue with other stakeholders, and (e) greater degree of influence with regard to the outcome of the dispute. Specific recommendations to encourage the effective use of judicial policy mediation are offered.