【摘要】：在勞動(dòng)法領(lǐng)域,個(gè)體工商戶被賦予用人單位資格,與其他典型用人單位(企業(yè))同樣承擔(dān)著無差別的法律義務(wù),這有一定依據(jù)但是卻不充分：這在一定程度上反映了部分個(gè)體工商戶已經(jīng)發(fā)展到具備企業(yè)外觀的現(xiàn)實(shí),但卻沒有全面考察個(gè)體工商戶的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力；這是對(duì)《私營企業(yè)暫行條例》的沿用,即將雇員八人以上的個(gè)體工商戶視為企業(yè),八人以下視為非企業(yè)組織體,但“七上八下”本身就存在諸多詬病,已被《個(gè)體工商戶條例》拋棄；這無疑有利于保障勞動(dòng)者,但卻顧此失彼忽略了個(gè)體工商戶的利益。個(gè)體工商戶被納入法定用人單位范圍產(chǎn)生了一系列弊�。焊淖兞藗�(gè)體工商戶的自然人本質(zhì),理論上導(dǎo)致對(duì)其法律性質(zhì)認(rèn)定混亂；實(shí)踐中個(gè)體工商戶用人單位義務(wù)過重；尤其是用人單位這一主體資格從勞動(dòng)法逐漸向其他法律領(lǐng)域滲透以后,導(dǎo)致個(gè)體工商戶在行政、刑事領(lǐng)域也承擔(dān)了很多不合理的義務(wù),最終在多方面影響了個(gè)體工商戶的發(fā)展乃至生存,不能發(fā)揮其應(yīng)有的社會(huì)價(jià)值。通過綜合分析可知個(gè)體工商戶不適合作為用人單位。首先,個(gè)體工商戶的綜合發(fā)展?fàn)顩r在根本上決定了其不應(yīng)承擔(dān)過重的用人單位義務(wù)。通過分析得出：雖然數(shù)量上個(gè)體工商戶在市場主體中占有絕對(duì)地位,但是資金額所占比重卻很低,實(shí)力弱小；雖然存在一部分實(shí)力較強(qiáng)的個(gè)體工商戶,但是“大戶”與全體個(gè)體工商戶相比,數(shù)量非常少,并且“大戶”與私營企業(yè)相比仍存在很大差距,仍處于弱勢地位。其次,個(gè)體工商戶的自然人本質(zhì)與用人單位組織性特征不相容。個(gè)人經(jīng)營的個(gè)體工商戶本質(zhì)上是自然人,家庭經(jīng)營的個(gè)體工商戶是基于家庭關(guān)系形成的共同共有關(guān)系,“大戶”雖有發(fā)展卻并不足以影響個(gè)體工商戶整體的性質(zhì)定位。最后,個(gè)體工商戶具備非現(xiàn)代性,營利性不完全,經(jīng)營中家庭人身性強(qiáng)等特征,這些特性使其不適宜作為用人單位。尤其要說明的是,弱化甚至否認(rèn)個(gè)體工商戶的用人單位資格并不代表對(duì)勞動(dòng)者利益放棄保護(hù)：雖不成立勞動(dòng)關(guān)系,尚有雇傭關(guān)系存在,后者更有利于平衡個(gè)體工商戶與其雇員之間的利益。由此,勞動(dòng)法領(lǐng)域?qū)�(gè)體工商戶法律資格的認(rèn)定需要做出以下調(diào)整：基礎(chǔ)性前提是區(qū)分“大戶”“小戶”,進(jìn)而促進(jìn)“大戶”轉(zhuǎn)為組織體,賦予其用人單位資格；但“大戶”轉(zhuǎn)企后仍需與傳統(tǒng)企業(yè)差別對(duì)待并要尊重其勞動(dòng)關(guān)系的家庭性；“小戶”不僅不宜作為用人單位反而要加強(qiáng)對(duì)“小戶”的勞動(dòng)權(quán)益保障。
[Abstract]:In the field of labor law, individual industrial and commercial households are given the status of employing units, and have the same legal obligations as other typical employers (enterprises). This has some basis but not enough: to some extent, it reflects that some individual industrial and commercial households have developed to the reality of having the appearance of enterprises, but they have not comprehensively investigated the economic strength of individual industrial and commercial households; This is a continuation of the "Provisional regulations on Private Enterprises," in which individual industrial and commercial households with more than eight employees are regarded as enterprises, and those below eight are regarded as non-enterprise organizations. Has been abandoned by the "individual Industrial and Commercial regulations"; This is undoubtedly conducive to the protection of workers, but ignore the interests of individual industrial and commercial households. The fact that individual industrial and commercial households have been brought into the scope of statutory employing units has a series of drawbacks: changing the nature of natural persons of individual industrial and commercial households, theoretically leading to confusion of their legal nature, excessive obligations of individual industrial and commercial households and employing units in practice; In particular, after the subject qualification of the employing unit gradually infiltrated into other legal fields from the labor law, the individual industrial and commercial households also assumed a lot of unreasonable obligations in the administrative and criminal fields. Finally, it affects the development and even survival of individual industrial and commercial households in many ways, and can not play its due social value. Comprehensive analysis shows that individual industrial and commercial households are not suitable as employers. First of all, the comprehensive development of individual industrial and commercial households fundamentally determines that they should not assume excessive employer obligations. Through the analysis, it is concluded that although the number of individual industrial and commercial households occupies an absolute position in the market, the proportion of the capital amount is very low and the strength is weak; Although there are some strong individual industrial and commercial households, compared with all individual industrial and commercial households, the number of "large households" is very small, and the "large households" are still in a weak position compared with the private enterprises. Secondly, the natural person nature of individual industrial and commercial households is incompatible with the organizational characteristics of the employing unit. In essence, the individual industrial and commercial households are natural persons, and the individual industrial and commercial households run by the family are based on the common relations formed by the family relations. Although the "large households" have developed, they are not sufficient to influence the overall nature orientation of the individual industrial and commercial households. Finally, individual industrial and commercial households have the characteristics of non-modernity, incomplete profitability, strong personal character of the family and so on, which make them unsuitable for employing units. In particular, weakening or even denying the employer's qualifications of individual industrial and commercial households does not mean giving up the protection of workers' interests: although there is no labor relationship, there are still employment relations. The latter is more conducive to balancing the interests of individual businesses and their employees. Therefore, the legal qualification of individual industrial and commercial households in the field of labor law needs to be adjusted as follows: the basic premise is to distinguish between "large households" and "small households", and then to promote the "large households" to become organizational bodies and to give them the qualifications of employing units; However, the "large households" should be treated differently from the traditional enterprises and the family nature of their labor relations should be respected, and the "small households" should not be regarded as employers but should strengthen the protection of the labor rights and interests of the "small households".
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D922.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王利明;;論合伙協(xié)議與合伙組織體的相互關(guān)系[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年04期

2 方流芳;;個(gè)體工商戶的法律地位和財(cái)產(chǎn)責(zé)任[J];法律學(xué)習(xí)與研究;1986年06期

3 申麗鳳;民法典應(yīng)確立二元民事主體結(jié)構(gòu)——以“非法人團(tuán)體”問題為中心[J];河北法學(xué);2004年11期

4 肖立梅;;家庭的民事主體地位研究[J];河北法學(xué);2009年03期

5 張勝先;第三民事主體——非法人組織的立法思考[J];求索;2002年04期

6 蔣學(xué)躍;;民事主體的學(xué)理論爭及其初步結(jié)論——基于實(shí)證法的立場[J];求索;2011年01期

7 劉凱湘;張海峽;;論商法中的人合性[J];商事法論集;2009年02期

8 尹田;論非法人團(tuán)體的法律地位[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2003年05期

9 侯玲玲;王全興;;勞動(dòng)法上勞動(dòng)者概念之研究[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2006年01期

10 鄭尚元;;雇傭關(guān)系調(diào)整的法律分界——民法與勞動(dòng)法調(diào)整雇傭類合同關(guān)系的制度與理念[J];中國法學(xué);2005年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：2306032