本文選題：勞動 + 基準��； 參考：《西南政法大學》2004年碩士論文

【摘要】：公平與效率是人類社會存在和發(fā)展的永恒主題，都是法律的重要的追求價值。兩者的關系如何、兩者之中何者優(yōu)先、能否達到統(tǒng)一、在什么層次上達到統(tǒng)一等問題，從來沒有統(tǒng)一的定論。具體到勞動法律關系中，公平與效率同是勞動法追求的目標，是勞動法基本的價值取向和立法目，我們?nèi)绾翁幚韮烧咴趧趧臃申P系中的地位?本文試從兩個層次上加以論述。首先，公平是勞動法的重要價值選擇，勞動法以勞動者基本權為中心，維護勞動者合法權益是勞動法恒定的價值追求。但是在當代效率背景下，勞動法追求公平的同時，不應忽視效率價值的實現(xiàn)。筆者認為，我們不應拋開具體的歷史階段、生產(chǎn)力發(fā)展水平、不同的國家、不同的社會制度等各種因素空談兩者的關系。我們也不可能對公平與效率的和諧關系的確立提出一個靜態(tài)的量化的協(xié)調基準，兩者的關系隨著諸多決定因素而處于一個相對的動態(tài)的變化之中。因此我們對公平與效率的協(xié)調不應苛求一個永恒不變的標準，而應立足于歷史，把握好現(xiàn)實，以動態(tài)的視線考察，根據(jù)不同歷史階段勞動立法的不同價值追求、社會不同發(fā)展時期對公平的要求與對效率的要求的兩種力量對比進行選擇。只有采取這樣的動態(tài)協(xié)調基準，其結果才能是符合特定歷史階段的社會發(fā)展要求。因此，脫離具體的歷史背景空談“公平優(yōu)先”或者“效率優(yōu)先”都不能正確的反映兩者的客觀聯(lián)系。公平與效率的協(xié)調基準不是一成不變的統(tǒng)一的放之萬世而皆準的，而是應緊跟歷史的發(fā)展步伐，根據(jù)不同時期的要求采取不同的協(xié)調基準。 其次，本文在論述了勞動立法對于公平與效率的價值選擇后，在第二個層面上進一步指出在維護公平的同時如何促使效率最優(yōu)化。勞動基準和集體合同，作為勞動法實現(xiàn)公平的兩種主要手段，卻對效率有著不同的影響。在當代效率背景下，勞動法應選擇更能在維護公平的同時促進效率最優(yōu)化的集體合同做為調整勞動法律關系的主要手段。立足我國國情，結合先進國家的立法例，我國對勞動關系的調控應以集體合同為主、勞動基準為輔。我國只應在最低限度內(nèi)規(guī)定勞動標準，充分尊重勞資雙方合意，實現(xiàn)公平與效率兩種價值的動態(tài)協(xié)調關系。 本文共分為四部分，共計三萬字。全文分為引言和正文兩大部分。 在引言部分，本文指出，在勞動法律關系中處理公平和效率兩者的關 系時，不應脫離不同的時代背景、生產(chǎn)力發(fā)展水平及其他具體因素，從理 論上空泛的抽象的談論兩者關系，不應割裂兩者的有機聯(lián)系，不應片面的 主張效率優(yōu)先或公平優(yōu)先而忽視兩者的良性互動、相互促進的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系。 筆者認為，本文對公平與效率關系的論述應將其具體置放在勞動法律關系 中考察，結合勞動法的立法目的和價值追求對其做出論述。 本文第一部分首先從法理學的角度對公平與效率進行了界定，然后進 一步指出在勞動法律關系中如何協(xié)調兩者的關系。筆者從勞動立法的不同 歷史階段對公平與效率的價值選擇以及勞動法和社會保障法的立法目的 的本質差別這兩個方面論述了在當代效率背景下，要求勞動法在追求公平 時，要以最能促使效率最優(yōu)化的方式作為，效率已經(jīng)成為當代勞動法的重 要價值取向。 本文第二部分用法律經(jīng)濟分析的方法對勞動基準和集體合同這兩種 調整勞動法律關系的重要手段進行了分析。在勞動基準方面，以最低工資 制度為例，通過對勞資雙方的效率影響，指出過高的勞動基準不利于效率 價值的實現(xiàn)。指出相對于勞動基準，集體合同在肩負實現(xiàn)公平價值的同時， 更能通過促使勞資雙方作為契約主體的實質平等而實現(xiàn)契約自由，在追求 公平的道路中顯得更具靈活性，更符合現(xiàn)代社會對效率的要求。因此，在 調整勞動法律關系的兩種手段中，我國應以集體合同為主、勞動基準為輔。 本文第三部分對當代效率背景下我國勞動基準和集體合同制度進行 了思考并指出了存在的某些尚需改進之處。在勞動基準部分，對于如何正 確對待發(fā)達國家提倡的國際勞工標準進行了重點闡述，指出我們應充分認 識到發(fā)達國家將勞動基準與自由貿(mào)易相結合的政治、經(jīng)濟上的目的，指出 脫離一國國情的過高的勞動基準會提高資方成本、削弱該國產(chǎn)品在國際市 場上的競爭力。在集體合同制度部分，對我國訂立集體合同的主體一工會 及罷工權進行了分析。 本文第四部分為結語。對本文的主要內(nèi)容進行了總結。
[Abstract]:Fairness and efficiency are the eternal theme of the existence and development of human society, all of which are the important pursuit value of the law. What is the relationship between them, the priority of the two, the unity and the level of unity, etc., there has never been a unified conclusion. In the legal relationship of labor, fairness and efficiency are the same as the pursuit of labor law. The goal is the basic value orientation and the legislative order of the labor law. How do we deal with the position of the two in the labor law relationship? This article tries to discuss it from two levels. First, it is the important value choice of labor law, the labor law takes the basic rights of workers as the center, and the maintenance of the legitimate rights and interests of the workers is the constant value of the labor law. But in the context of contemporary efficiency, while the labor law is pursuing fairness, we should not ignore the realization of the efficiency value. I believe that we should not open up the relationship between the specific historical stage, the level of productivity development, the different countries, different social systems and other factors. We can not be in harmony with fairness and efficiency. The establishment of the department puts forward a static and quantitative coordination benchmark, and the relationship between the two is in a relative dynamic change with many determinants. Therefore, we should not seek an immutable standard for the coordination of fairness and efficiency, but should be based on history, grasp the reality, look at the dynamic line of sight, and according to the different calendar. The different value pursuit of the labor legislation in the history stage, the comparison between the demands of fairness and the requirements of efficiency in different periods of social development, only by adopting such a dynamic coordination benchmark, can the result be in accordance with the social development requirements of the specific historical stage. Therefore, the "fair priority" is separated from the specific historical background. "" or "efficiency priority" can not correctly reflect the objective relationship between the two. The harmonization of fairness and efficiency is not uniform and unified, but should follow the pace of history and take different coordination benchmarks according to the requirements of different periods.
Secondly, after discussing the value selection of labor legislation for fairness and efficiency, this paper further points out the two main means to realize fairness as labor law, but it has different influence on efficiency in second levels. Under the condition of our country and the legislation of advanced countries, the regulation of labor relations should be based on collective contract, and the labor standard is supplemented. Our country should only stipulate labor within the minimum limit, based on the national conditions of our country and the legislation of advanced countries. We should fully respect the dynamic coordination between the two values of equity and efficiency.
This article is divided into four parts, a total of thirty thousand words. The full text is divided into two parts, the introduction and the main body.
In the introduction part, this paper points out that the relationship between fairness and efficiency in labor law relations is closely related.
We should not be divorced from the background of different times, the level of productivity development and other specific factors.
On the abstract discussion of the relationship between the two sides, we should not separate the two from the organic aspect, and should not be one-sided.
We should advocate efficiency first or fair priority, but ignore the positive interaction and mutual promotion between them.
The author holds that the relationship between fairness and efficiency should be placed in the labor legal relationship.
The purpose of this study is to discuss the legislative purpose and value pursuit of labor law.
The first part of this article defines fairness and efficiency from the perspective of jurisprudence.
One step is to point out how to coordinate the relationship between them in the labor legal relationship.
The value choice of fairness and efficiency in the historical stage and the legislative purpose of labor law and social security law.
In the two aspects of the essential difference, it is discussed that under the contemporary efficiency background, the labor law is required to pursue fairness.
When efficiency is the most effective way, efficiency has become the focus of contemporary labor law.
Value orientation.
In the second part, two types of labor standards and collective contracts are analyzed by means of legal economic analysis.
The important means of adjusting labor legal relationship were analyzed.
The system, for example, points out that excessive labor standards are not conducive to efficiency by influencing the efficiency of employers and employees.
The realization of value. It points out that the collective contract bears the same value as the labor standard.
It is better to realize the freedom of contract by promoting the equality between employers and employees as the main body of contract.
In a fair way, it appears more flexible and more suitable for the efficiency of modern society.
In the two means of adjusting labor legal relations, China should take collective contracts as its main priority and labor standards as auxiliary.
The third part of this article carries out the system of labor standards and collective contracts under the background of contemporary efficiency.
Some points for improvement are also pointed out.
We must focus on the international labour standards advocated by developed countries, and point out that we should fully recognize them.
Recognizing the political and economic objectives of developed countries integrating labor standards with free trade.
The excessively high labor standards which are divorced from the national conditions will raise the cost of capital and weaken the products of the country in the international market.
In the part of the collective contract system, the main body of the collective contract is set up in China.
And the right to strike was analyzed.
The fourth part is the conclusion. The main contents of this article are summarized.

【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2004
【分類號】：D922.5

【引證文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 陸慧;集體談判制度中的主體問題研究[D];廣西大學;2006年

，

本文編號：1875843