This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0160449X08328944v1 34/1/21    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hilgert, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Mapping the Boundaries of Human Rights at Work

Questioning How the ILO Defines Labor Rights and Social Justice

Cornell University

Over the past twenty years, International Labour Standards have been cited increasingly as the authoritative, worldwide body of jurisprudence on workers' rights as human rights. Continuing the debate on what constitutes labor rights, the author contrasts the definition of workers' rights under international human rights standards with U.S. labor history's notion of "pure and simple unionism," examining the boundaries of rights defined by international standards in a comparative historical context. The standards examined include workers' right to organize; coercive employer speech; access to employer premises; nonmajority representation; the right to strike, picket, and boycott; union security clauses; the scope of bargaining; government enforcement; and the legal doctrine of employer association rights. Aligning U.S. labor relations law with international human rights standards would in part be a social advancement, but significant aspects of the standards advocate pure and simple unionism more than the original National Labor Relations Act, raising questions about how labor movements should use international standards as advocacy tools and public policy goals.

Key Words: human rights • ILO • international labor standards • workers'rights

This version was published on March 1, 2009

Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1, 21-38 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0160449X08328944


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?