Plenty of business can be done without the cooperation of the employees, Free Trade Zones are heavily surveilled by armed security, for example. This is coercion, not cooperation. In this sense the exploitation of the weak by the strong persists and requires laws that are able to counter exploitative practices though in a different context. In addition, with increased capital flows, immigration and labor laws must be rethought in tandem, for as capital flows, so, too, does labor. For a progressive take on this, see Franco Barchiesi's "Citizenship as Movement" at http://www.commoner.org.uk/09barchiesi.pdf

Plenty of business can be done without the cooperation of the employees, Free Trade Zones are heavily surveilled by armed security, for example. This is coercion, not cooperation. In this sense the exploitation of the weak by the strong persists and requires laws that are able to counter exploitative practices though in a different context. In addition, with increased capital flows, immigration and labor laws must be rethought in tandem, for as capital flows, so, too, does labor. For a progressive take on this, see Franco Barchiesi's "Citizenship as Movement" at http://www.commoner.org.uk/09barchiesi.pdf

Dear Cedric, you are absolutely right. In one sense, the wrath of the state and the employers on labour has increased including their indifference in implementation of labour laws. This is no doubt a very serious concern. The NGOs and all right-thiking people will have to address this issue as to what they can do in this regard. Of course, for all these 3 decades the powerless is just watching their doom. But at the same time, so far as those holding personal power or even the collective power are concerned, we do need to identify what changes should be carried out in the existing labour laws so that they are in tune with the current realities.

I am not at all sure that law is the answer. Marx, for instance, argued that the law and legal system existed to keep the power setup of the society or nation-state in place. That may be why the 19th and 20th centuries experienced labor strikes. Law cannot do what a lack of production can. These days it is exceedingly difficult for laborers to unionize, for individuals to bring suit if their wages are stolen by the employer (which happens quite a lot), or to individually negotiate for improvements in work conditions or compensation -- in other words, the same old problems. I am curious, then as to how you might see this situation as in some sense new or different from the past (this is an open ended inquiry as you might have information I lack). But I do not see a solution to the adversarial positions of employee and employer with things as they are. I have read about ideas such as the entrepreneurial model in which all laborers are encouraged to think of themselves as individual enterprises. But doesn't that sound like a clever way to make employees think that they are not expendable, that they have individual bargaining power, etc. Economies still guard against inflation using surplus labor, a percentage of unemployed workers (3% to 10%). When its economy tanked in the 1980s, South Korea was required to change its labor law, to enable employers to layoff workers in order to qualify for an IMF (?) loan. Against such a system, what individual is really an entrepreneur? 

There is, of course, an argument parallel to that regarding sustainability and CSR which says that exogenous force (legislation, for example) will generally fail in the face of innovation by contrarian strategists who are willing to walk close to the edge of ethicailty. The emergence of triple bottom-line and the stress on the economic advantages to firms of behaving in a sustainable way have been much more powerful agents of change than have any pure ethical moral argument. Employers may or may not have a moral compass. We hope they will have, but the reality is they may not and there is little that either legislation or moral blackmail can do to create that moral compass.

That being so, however, does not mean that we should cease trying, and to attempt at least a partial answer to the question asked...

1. Conduct guided by a respect based on joint economic benefit of the mutuality of employer and employed. neither can do without the other.

2. Conduct guided by a respect for the human rights of the employed to family life, freedom of speech etc

Having worked in highly unionized and highly un-unionized industries for many decades, my experience is that what is destructive is a failure on either party to pursue tenet 1 above. Then everyone gets to live on the streets....

Dear @John, you have made an important point about employee rights, respect and  dignity. The issue is how could these and other related values be imbibed in the new labour law thinking. For example, a lot of re-thinking on labour law reforms is going on in India these days, as India has far less FDI than countries like China; and one of the reasons for this is obstructive labour laws and bureaucracy, which tends to keep the investors away.

Dear @Debi, employee rights is the key issue! Yes, respect and dignity of the workers is very important. In Serbia, the Labour Law is a key Law of the greatest importance. The law was adopted as a matter of urgency, regardless of the regulations and legally binding procedures and without the coordination with social partners at the Social and Economic Council. So, Trade Union plans large protests!

It is funny when Government say that the new Labor Law will not encourage dismissals but employment!

The most pressing issue today is for a livable wage. A minimum wage puts people in poverty from which they cannot escape. Soon, in the U.S. there will be moral wage minimums set by law so people with low skills can at least live above poverty in one of the richest countries in the world. 

Labor laws should be always subject to amendment and updating due to the need to organize relations among laborers and employers in accordance with new developments in the market place. New values are some of these developments in the market place that should be included in the labor law.

@Mahfuz's answer resonates with me. Ultimately, too hard a bargain on the part of unions will drive some firms out of business. As many of us here are saying, it's a mutuality between employer and employed. For example in many developed countries the minimum wage is rising. Now that has to be a good thing, but it doesn't happen by legislation alone, since, in order to fund increasing low level wages firms have to make profit.

But please be clear, this is not some right wing, Republican, Tory exploitation of workers positions., but quite the opposite. I would like to see minimum wages rise dramatically and a smaller ratio between top and bottom earnings, but I am also realistic enough to know that commerce is  a mutual endeavour between capital, management and worker.

@Mahfuz's market point, then, is central in that exogenous legislation alone will not in and of itself provide the economic and financial momentum to pay those livable wages.

I believe we should encourage all that is positive and let things happen by themselves. So I would encourage the participation of all in every detail to the best of company. That should be the north!

Labour laws needs to be changed with an out look of INCLUSIVE approach rather than as a class of employees to be subjected and extracted of work. ... (Apprentices Act)

The Indian Labour laws specify in many ways the limitation clauses or minimal level of protection to the working class which is not amended  in tune to the realities of world...(Standing Orders Act, Provident fund act, Employees State Insurance Act, ...)

The share on prosperity is never a chance of yield to those class of people even ever they slog and make the organization grow and reap more profits, (Bonus Act)

Dear @Krishnan, I agree that the need for a greater degree of inclusivity is an new value that must be focused on while identifying the reforms issues in labour law. Otherwise, any reforms without a greater degree of social equity would be counter-productive. In Indian context, for example, some 93 % of employees in the country  are in the informal sector and thus out of  the purview of the protection envisaged in labour law. I also agree that  the periodic updation of coverage limits should be carried out too. So should be the limits on fines and penalties imposable on violation of labour laws, which in many cases looks ridiculously low. But, I am afraid issues like bonus or profit sharing may not work in the era of marketization.

Dear Ljubomir, I fully agree with your point. Indeed, in the era of marketization, labour laws and unionism are in a state of crisis in most parts of the globe. More terminations of employments contracts are taking place in the name of promoting flexibility--a new value in labour law that employers want to be reflected in them. In their attempt to raise the FDI, governments are overlooking some of the clear writings on the wall in terms of labour law violation. Therefore, I believe, that whatever labour laws reforms we agree to, the standard of implementation has to be raised for any reforms to be successful. Therefore, rigorous implementation has to be accepted as a new value in labour law.

Today , we have increased the bar in Industries both in Knowledge and Skills, The Minimal Operational force in Industries envisaged by another 5 plus years will have more of Diploma and Graduate Engineers.

Diploma replacing the Work-hands and Graduates replacing the Charge-hands. These classification of employees surpass the wage/ salary limits prescribed by the Laws and are more susceptible to Instability of employment thereby outperform... As these people contribute directly to the bottom line, it requires some - not the typical statutory bonus but more a REWARD LINKED INCENTIVE.

Though they are called as Management cadre but not really covered as such..

Yes, @Krishnan, I agree. In effect, you talk of variable pay. Surely, that is increasing across industries, and in many cases even for the rank and file workers. For a higher degree of motivation, that is quite understandable. Many critics, however, say that it is a rejuvenation of neo-Taylorism, and more stressful to workers, as there is a limit for "fly more and get more" possibility.

We lost the USSR. There was corruption, but there were no any homeless and jobless. You couldn't find a prestigious job if you were without ties and money, but you could get good education, good medical care, free of charge and free to all. Old people were provided for adequate pension- they were not hungry. Our people were friends and brothers. We didn't know about drugs. Every person had some social guaranties and was sure in the tomorrow.I think, quality of life, health must  be the main value.The top value is a human life.  

Dear Irina, your thread is very valuable. Similar is the situation in China. But they could rise in the comity of the promising  nations  without destroying the political form, though hardly any communism is left there except state control and ethnocentrism. Indeed, we have to choose between promoting social justice or  freedom of entrepreneurialism as the main plank of the state policies. Soviet people chose the latter when USSR was dismantled, perhaps on the belief that everyone would lead a life that allows freedom and dissent in addition to the basic necessities that you mentioned. When and under what conditions and by adopting which values can that be possible. That is really the objective of this question: how do we reconcile this dilemma? 

Xi is a a head of the politics of "zero tolerance" to corruption. "It must be battle both with flies and tigers". "Every Communist Party official should keep in mind that all dirty hands will be caught"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-03/china-s-xi-broadens-graft-crackdown-to-boost-influence.html  

Dear Debi, I think, we, ordinary people, can hope only on our own humanistic values- it doesn't matter, where we work, who and what we are. Help people in their problems as much as you can. Thus, in our Lyceum, in our Sunday school we try to help the needed. We collect money to help people, try to organize charitable activities, give help and attention to the old colleagues and disabled. To Mother Teresa, "if you can't feed a lot of people, you must feed only one". 

Dear Irina

I well appreciate that; and salute you for your compassionate attitude and gesture. But the question is whether as a researcher, can we say that it helps us building a model of economic and social development. We can only hope that other people would also  go the Irina way. But a theory does not preach, otherwise, it would not have  followers. The system itself has to identify what needs to be done and how it would be addressed in such a way that it becomes sustainable within and in relation to the working of the global economy.

That is how, we need to look at things.  That is also how we need to look at the new values of labour law.  Interestingly, in India a law has recently come into existence whereby every company would have to invest a minimum of 2% of its net profits on corporate social responsibility. Time would tell whether this is a good systemic change to address the social sector issues.

Dear Debi, may be these three problems in economy of Russia will be interesting.http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/01/24/russias-three-biggest-problems/

Indeed, the three problems identified in the attachment appear very interesting, Irina. Thanks for this.  This article also shows how institutions can become dysfunctional if their working is bureaucratized through state involvement, control and interference. So we need to look for new values even for institutions like labour law for being purposive in the changed order.  

It is a difficult question to be answered because there are many factors that need to be considered when you are discussing the content of a labor law. These are, among others, the following: the political system of the country; the dominance economic system; the influence of the business community; the level of economic and social  development of the country; the influence of the labor unions; the influence of transnational corporation within the economic system; the political development of the workforce. 

I fully agree with Jorge. The labor laws may be country specific and depend on socioeconomic indicators, human development index etc. However one universal aspect could be that, labor laws must specify not only the rights but also the duties of the work force. In today's highly competitive business environment, laborers should be considered as assets and not liabilities by the organizations in order to create competitive advantage through skill development. Labor laws must be such that it will help business to develop human capital for growth. The logic behind the labor laws should not be based on the assumption that management would be exploitative, rather it should be on positive assumptions that management would be cooperative and developmental.

You are absolutely right- legality-enlightenment-satiety.

This may sound trite, but there must be plain language, ease of access to information, requirements to post basic standards in visible locations, and a great deal of education.  Many labour laws were created for union rights, written by or for lawyers or employment experts and are impossible for most workers -- or even experts -- to access and understand.  There should be clarity on minimum wages, maternity protections and hours of work and other basic standards, as well as information on collective rights.  We can spend a lot of time with more sophisticated answers, but let's start by plainly communicating the rights and responsibilities to those directly affected.