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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 노동법포럼 제37호
- 발행연도
- 2022.11
- 수록면
- 95 - 152 (58page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2022.11.37.95
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
There are two main purposes for work-hours law: i) ensuring guaranteed protection of workers’ health and ii) ensuring workers’ work–life balance. work hours law in Korea consists primarily of the Labor Standards Act. After its enactment in 1953, discussions and changes related to the workhours law focused majorly on reducing standard work hours. In addition, flexible work hours and the protection of workers’ right to health have been reinforced recently. However, establishing such a legal system in a state wherein work hours are vaguely defined and expecting it to be effective is futile. The ineffectiveness of the system against this backdrop stems from the fact that although several revisions in the law—together with social discussions and research—take place with regard to the work hours law, there still exists considerable irrationality surrounding the develop- ment of the work hours law.
An analysis of the theories and precedents contained in the current legislation is also fruitful in determining the implications of work hours; however, it is particularly imperative to review Article 50 Clause 3 of the law. Two conceptual constituents of this Clause are as follows: (1) the direction and supervision of the employer (right to dispose of work hours) and (2) labor relations and obligation of work. A diversification of the concept of work hours may be facilitated based on the effectiveness and significance of these factors. work hours may be classified into the following types: (1) ‘Real work hours’, the employer’s command and supervision skills as well as the worker’s workplace relevance and obligation are strong; (2) ‘Recognized work hours’, including waiting time of Article 50 Clause 3 of the law, although the workers’ workplace relevance and obligation toward work still exist, the employers’ command and supervision levels are somewhat lower; (3) ‘Quasi work hours’, wherein employers’ command and supervision levels are considerably low but workers’ time sovereignty is significantly impacted owing to their strong sense of work relevance and obligation; and (4) ‘Nonwork hours’ wherein the workers’ relevance and sense of obligation as well as the employers’ command and supervision levels are considerably low (but never nonexistent). In addition, the concept of comparison of work hours does not entail rest time (as in precedents and common views) but private time such as days off, holidays, and vacations excluded from the prescribed working days.
work hours are the most significant core of working conditions. The work-hours law that restricts and regulates this has a strong public-law character and must be devoted to the protection of workers. However, it is necessary to ensure the time sovereignty of workers with judicial power and flexibility, and it is necessary to keep pace with the times. To enhance the rationality of work hours law, it is also important to consider the legislative theory. However, there is also a reason to secure proper timing through analysis of the interpretation of the current legal system. These efforts are expected to provide a stronger foundation for the legislative theory of the work hours law in the future.
An analysis of the theories and precedents contained in the current legislation is also fruitful in determining the implications of work hours; however, it is particularly imperative to review Article 50 Clause 3 of the law. Two conceptual constituents of this Clause are as follows: (1) the direction and supervision of the employer (right to dispose of work hours) and (2) labor relations and obligation of work. A diversification of the concept of work hours may be facilitated based on the effectiveness and significance of these factors. work hours may be classified into the following types: (1) ‘Real work hours’, the employer’s command and supervision skills as well as the worker’s workplace relevance and obligation are strong; (2) ‘Recognized work hours’, including waiting time of Article 50 Clause 3 of the law, although the workers’ workplace relevance and obligation toward work still exist, the employers’ command and supervision levels are somewhat lower; (3) ‘Quasi work hours’, wherein employers’ command and supervision levels are considerably low but workers’ time sovereignty is significantly impacted owing to their strong sense of work relevance and obligation; and (4) ‘Nonwork hours’ wherein the workers’ relevance and sense of obligation as well as the employers’ command and supervision levels are considerably low (but never nonexistent). In addition, the concept of comparison of work hours does not entail rest time (as in precedents and common views) but private time such as days off, holidays, and vacations excluded from the prescribed working days.
work hours are the most significant core of working conditions. The work-hours law that restricts and regulates this has a strong public-law character and must be devoted to the protection of workers. However, it is necessary to ensure the time sovereignty of workers with judicial power and flexibility, and it is necessary to keep pace with the times. To enhance the rationality of work hours law, it is also important to consider the legislative theory. However, there is also a reason to secure proper timing through analysis of the interpretation of the current legal system. These efforts are expected to provide a stronger foundation for the legislative theory of the work hours law in the future.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 소재
Ⅱ. 근로시간 개념 정의에 대한 종래 논의와 새로운 지평
Ⅲ. 근로시간 개념 정의 및 그 유형화를 통한 유연성 부여 검토
Ⅳ. 근로시간 개념 유연성의 의의
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
일본 근로시간법제의 변천과 정책적 시사점
외법논집
2021 .08
-
근로시간의 판단 기준
노동법학
2022 .03
-
근로시간 단축의 제도적 논의와 쟁점
노동법학
2020 .03
-
생활시간 개념의 도입 필요성과 노동법적 과제
노동법논총
2023 .04
-
연장근로시간 기준단위의 변경에 대한 정부 입법예고안의 타당성 검토 — 프랑스 근로시간제와 비교를 중심으로 —
노동법포럼
2023 .07
-
근로시간 제도의 유연화를 위한 과제
원광법학
2024 .03
-
일본 변형근로시간제도에 관한 연구
산업관계연구
2019 .06
-
근로시간 단축법 개정의 경과와 쟁점
노동법포럼
2018 .07
-
통상임금의 시간급 환산을 위한 기준시간수
노동법학
2023 .03
-
근로시간 단축이 삶의 질에 미치는 영향 분석
질서경제저널
2022 .03
-
독일 근로시간 및 휴식제도의 내용과 입법 정책적 시사점
강원법학
2023 .05
-
유연근로시간제 개선에 대한 연구
벤처혁신연구
2021 .09
-
근로자의 개별적 합의를 통한 근로시간에 관한 최저기준의 탄력적 적용 가능성에 관한 검토
법학연구
2022 .02
-
초연결사회의 시간주권 보장
노동법포럼
2024 .07
-
선택적 근로시간제의 적법한 도입과 활용에 관한 연구
사회법연구
2020 .01
-
노동법 상 근로시간 개념의 다원성에 관한 시론
노동법논총
2018 .12
-
근로시간 적용제외에 관한 중국의 입법 논의 동향 - 한국 적용제외 규정과의 비교를 겸하여 -
중국법연구
2015 .01
-
탄력적 근로시간제 개선에 대한 연구
벤처혁신연구
2022 .09
-
일본의 일하는 방식의 개혁과 근로시간법개혁
법학연구
2018 .11
-
주40시간제 도입과 기업의 교육훈련투자
산업관계연구
2015 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2023-360-000141183