【摘要】：在勞動法領域,個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))同樣承擔著無差別的法律義務,這有一定依據但是卻不充分：這在一定程度上反映了部分個體工商戶已經發(fā)展到具備企業(yè)外觀的現(xiàn)實,但卻沒有全面考察個體工商戶的經濟實力；這是對《私營企業(yè)暫行條例》的沿用,即將雇員八人以上的個體工商戶視為企業(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《個體工商戶條例》拋棄；這無疑有利于保障勞動者,但卻顧此失彼忽略了個體工商戶的利益。個體工商戶被納入法定用人單位范圍產生了一系列弊病：改變了個體工商戶的自然人本質,理論上導致對其法律性質認定混亂；實踐中個體工商戶用人單位義務過重；尤其是用人單位這一主體資格從勞動法逐漸向其他法律領域滲透以后,導致個體工商戶在行政、刑事領域也承擔了很多不合理的義務,最終在多方面影響了個體工商戶的發(fā)展乃至生存,不能發(fā)揮其應有的社會價值。通過綜合分析可知個體工商戶不適合作為用人單位。首先,個體工商戶的綜合發(fā)展狀況在根本上決定了其不應承擔過重的用人單位義務。通過分析得出：雖然數量上個體工商戶在市場主體中占有絕對地位,但是資金額所占比重卻很低,實力弱�。浑m然存在一部分實力較強的個體工商戶,但是“大戶”與全體個體工商戶相比,數量非常少,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,個體工商戶的自然人本質與用人單位組織性特征不相容。個人經營的個體工商戶本質上是自然人,家庭經營的個體工商戶是基于家庭關系形成的共同共有關系,“大戶”雖有發(fā)展卻并不足以影響個體工商戶整體的性質定位。最后,個體工商戶具備非現(xiàn)代性,營利性不完全,經營中家庭人身性強等特征,這些特性使其不適宜作為用人單位。尤其要說明的是,弱化甚至否認個體工商戶的用人單位資格并不代表對勞動者利益放棄保護：雖不成立勞動關系,尚有雇傭關系存在,后者更有利于平衡個體工商戶與其雇員之間的利益。由此,勞動法領域對個體工商戶法律資格的認定需要做出以下調整：基礎性前提是區(qū)分“大戶”“小戶”,進而促進“大戶”轉為組織體,賦予其用人單位資格；但“大戶”轉企后仍需與傳統(tǒng)企業(yè)差別對待并要尊重其勞動關系的家庭性；“小戶”不僅不宜作為用人單位反而要加強對“小戶”的勞動權益保障。
[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".
【學位授予單位】：西南大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.5

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

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

2 方流芳;;個體工商戶的法律地位和財產責任[J];法律學習與研究;1986年06期

3 申麗鳳;民法典應確立二元民事主體結構——以“非法人團體”問題為中心[J];河北法學;2004年11期

4 肖立梅;;家庭的民事主體地位研究[J];河北法學;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 蔣學躍;;民事主體的學理論爭及其初步結論——基于實證法的立場[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;論非法人團體的法律地位[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2003年05期

9 侯玲玲;王全興;;勞動法上勞動者概念之研究[J];云南大學學報(法學版);2006年01期

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

，

本文編號：2306032