지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article explores the relationship between anti-discrimination rights in employment and equality, on the one hand, and the right to work, on the other hand, in an attempt to achieve a full understanding of this relationship, in terms of two different dimensions: the analytic, the moral. Firstly, the article aims to examine analytically the relationship between anti-discrimination rights in employment and the two values. Secondly, the article considers whether such a relationship is morally desirable.
In the explanation of anti-discrimination rights in employment with reference to equality, this article argues that it is undeniable that the current prohibition of both direct and indirect discrimination are based on equality. When it comes to specific protections for women and for people with disabilities, this article argues, equality does not explain why they are designed to protect only such groups.
In the justification of anti-discrimination rights in employment, the current anti-discrimination rights based on equality produce morally undesirable results. Because of the possibility that equally bad treatment may take place under equality-based anti-discrimination rights, the prohibition of direct discrimination may not necessarily lead to improving the quality of the working life of people. Moreover, the current prohibition of direct discrimination on several grounds rules out protection for people who suffer arbitrary discrimination on other grounds. As to the current prohibition of indirect discrimination, this article shows that it may, under certain circumstances, deter the adoption of positive measures with disparate impacts in favour of disadvantaged groups. What is more, the prohibition of indirect discrimination excludes equally disadvantaged members of advantaged groups from its protection.
In the possible explanation of anti-discrimination rights in employment with reference to the right to work, the article argues, the right to work would transform the prohibition of direct discrimination, thus overcoming the shortcomings of the current anti-discrimination rights based on equality. The prohibited grounds of discrimination would be extended inexhaustively under the right to work approach. In addition, equally bad treatment is recognised as morally bad in the logic of the right to work approach. In relation to the prohibition of indirect discrimination, the article argues, the direct protection of workers from the disadvantages caused by workplace rules would be consistent with the right to work approach. The direct regulation of workplace rules would solve the justifiability issues of the prohibition of indirect discrimination by protecting all workers from the adverseness of workplace rules, regardless of whether they belong to a particular group.
Overall this article firstly concludes that the right to work approach to anti-discrimination in employment, as an alternative to the equality approach, would explain anti-discrimination rights in employment more clearly and consistently. Secondly, it shows that, with reservations in relation to some parts of the prohibition of indirect discrimination, the right to work approach would transform the prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination in a more justifiable way than the equality approach, as the former would solve the justifiability issues caused by the latter.
In the explanation of anti-discrimination rights in employment with reference to equality, this article argues that it is undeniable that the current prohibition of both direct and indirect discrimination are based on equality. When it comes to specific protections for women and for people with disabilities, this article argues, equality does not explain why they are designed to protect only such groups.
In the justification of anti-discrimination rights in employment, the current anti-discrimination rights based on equality produce morally undesirable results. Because of the possibility that equally bad treatment may take place under equality-based anti-discrimination rights, the prohibition of direct discrimination may not necessarily lead to improving the quality of the working life of people. Moreover, the current prohibition of direct discrimination on several grounds rules out protection for people who suffer arbitrary discrimination on other grounds. As to the current prohibition of indirect discrimination, this article shows that it may, under certain circumstances, deter the adoption of positive measures with disparate impacts in favour of disadvantaged groups. What is more, the prohibition of indirect discrimination excludes equally disadvantaged members of advantaged groups from its protection.
In the possible explanation of anti-discrimination rights in employment with reference to the right to work, the article argues, the right to work would transform the prohibition of direct discrimination, thus overcoming the shortcomings of the current anti-discrimination rights based on equality. The prohibited grounds of discrimination would be extended inexhaustively under the right to work approach. In addition, equally bad treatment is recognised as morally bad in the logic of the right to work approach. In relation to the prohibition of indirect discrimination, the article argues, the direct protection of workers from the disadvantages caused by workplace rules would be consistent with the right to work approach. The direct regulation of workplace rules would solve the justifiability issues of the prohibition of indirect discrimination by protecting all workers from the adverseness of workplace rules, regardless of whether they belong to a particular group.
Overall this article firstly concludes that the right to work approach to anti-discrimination in employment, as an alternative to the equality approach, would explain anti-discrimination rights in employment more clearly and consistently. Secondly, it shows that, with reservations in relation to some parts of the prohibition of indirect discrimination, the right to work approach would transform the prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination in a more justifiable way than the equality approach, as the former would solve the justifiability issues caused by the latter.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 평등에 기초한 고용상 반차별권의 설명
Ⅲ. 평등에 의한 고용상 반차별권의 정당화의 문제
Ⅳ. 고용상 반차별에 대한 노동권 기초적 접근의 가능성
Ⅴ. 맺으며
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (44)
참고문헌 신청
1. [단행본] - B. Hepple / 2000 / Equality: a New Framework / Hart Publishing
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 최윤희 / 2006 / 미국에서의 결과적 차별행위(Disparate Impact) 이론에 대한 고찰 / 노동법연구 (20) : 1 ~ 34
3. [기타자료] - 조용만 / 2004 / 고용차별금지법의 국제비교 - 영미법계의 연령․장애 차별금지법제를 중심으로 / 한국노동연구원 : 3 ~
4. [학위논문] - 전윤구 / 2004 / 근로관계에서의 균등대우 실현을 위한 과제 / 박사 / 고려대학교
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 이승욱 / 2003 / 여성고용에서의 간접차별에 대한 실효적 규제를 위한 법적 규율 / 노동법학 (17)
2. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 최윤희 / 2006 / 미국에서의 결과적 차별행위(Disparate Impact) 이론에 대한 고찰 / 노동법연구 (20) : 1 ~ 34
3. [기타자료] - 조용만 / 2004 / 고용차별금지법의 국제비교 - 영미법계의 연령․장애 차별금지법제를 중심으로 / 한국노동연구원 : 3 ~
4. [학위논문] - 전윤구 / 2004 / 근로관계에서의 균등대우 실현을 위한 과제 / 박사 / 고려대학교
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 이승욱 / 2003 / 여성고용에서의 간접차별에 대한 실효적 규제를 위한 법적 규율 / 노동법학 (17)
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
한국에서 차별금지법 제정에 있어서 성적지향을 둘러싼 갈등과 전망
중앙법학
2014 .09
-
미국의 차별적 영향 이론과 유럽연합의 간접차별 법리
노동법연구
2009 .09
-
청소년에게 인지되는 차별피해가 차별가해 경험에 미치는 영향: 차별목격과 차별감수성의 조절효과를 중심으로
피해자학연구
2019 .01
-
장애인차별금지법상의 차별과 판단 : 노동영역을 중심으로
노동법논총
2009 .04
-
고용차별판단 심사기준
노동법논총
2017 .04
-
고령자 고용촉진을 위한 연령차별금지의 확립과 정년제의 개선
노동법논총
2006 .12
-
장애차별의 개념과 작동 : 영국의 2010년 평등법(Equality Act 2010)상 장애차별 개념을 중심으로
노동법학
2011 .03
-
남녀차별금지법(1999~2005)의 여성정책적 의미
법학논집
2007 .01
-
비정규직 차별시정제도의 실효성 연구
노동법학
2018 .03
-
고용에서의 연령차별금지의 법적 현황과 과제
노동법연구
2003 .12
-
Understanding the perceptions and attitudes of older employees toward age discrimination in South Korea
International Journal of Gerontological Social Welfare
2015 .06
-
여성을 위한 적극적 우대조치에 관한 연구
서강법학
2008 .06
-
포괄적 차별금지법의 필요성 : 평등기본법을 위하여
이화젠더법학
2018 .12
-
Anti-Discrimination Laws of Foreign Countries
[NHRC] 국가인권위원회 발간자료
2004 .01
-
비정규직 차별시정례(중노위ㆍ법원)에 대한 검토(Ⅲ)
노동법학
2010 .09
-
平等關聯 美國聯邦大法院 判例의 近來의 動向
공법학연구
2005 .12
-
교육에서의 평등 : 긍정적 차별화
사회이론
1989 .12
-
소비자차별금지에 관한 연구
정책연구보고서
2013 .09
-
사적 자치와 차별금지법
저스티스
2018 .04
-
비정규직 차별금지의 쟁점과 과제
노동법학
2012 .06
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-336-000520434