Principled Labor Law

Author(s):  
Sergio Gamonal C. ◽  
César F. Rosado Marzán

This book provides a Latin American perspective of the “idea” of labor law, which the authors call “principled labor law.” It a jurisprudential method based on worker protection, i.e., the protective principle, and its derivative principles: primacy of reality, nonwaiver, and continuity. We argue that principled labor law is needed given that many labor law scholars have declared a crisis in their field due to the ascendancy of “fissured,” “gig,” “precarious,” and “nonstandard” work. While some scholars reassert the basic idea of labor law—protecting workers—despite the contemporary world of work, others argue for a “capabilities” perspective that can displace traditional labor law, a “Third Way” perspective concerned with market regulation, or simply argue for laissez-faire. Latin American scholars, perhaps because of a language barrier, have had scant presence in those international debates. They would likely disagree with shifts away from labor protection. This book forcefully advocates for the continued empirical validity of labor protection as the basis for labor law. The authors describe principled labor law as observable in four cases: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay. To show the utility of principled labor law, the authors then apply the method to legal cases from the least labor-protective country in the industrialized world, the United States. Through principled labor law, the authors focus on the Thirteenth Amendment as a labor-protective constitutional provision, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The authors show how principled labor law can provide a clear and simple method for consistent, labor protective jurisprudence in the United States and, hence, likely elsewhere.

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Gamonal C. Sergio ◽  
César F. Rosado Marzán

This chapter introduces the book’s main goal: to provide a “principled labor law” method to decide hard cases. It describes principled labor law as a Latin American method embedded in the principles of protection, primacy of reality, nonwaiver, and continuity. It argues that principled labor law can be useful even in the least likely case of labor protection, the United States, and explains how, if useful for the United States, it is likely helpful for other jurisdictions. It describes how principled labor law complements perspectives favoring freedom of association—the so-called labor constitution—but opposes views attempting to eviscerate the idea of protecting weaker parties from contemporary law, or those that envision labor law as merely a regulatory endeavor. It also describes how principled labor law shares similarities with the purposive perspective of Guy Davidov, but also contrasts with that perspective, to the extent principled labor law is mostly concerned, and is, in fact, “rulified” in favor of labor protection. It explains that principled labor law seems particularly needed to evade problems of legal endogeneity. The chapter concludes by arguing that the book provides a countercultural narrative for labor law in the United States that is also consonant with international labor standards and, as such, better brings U.S. labor law into the mainstream. Principled labor law may be less countercultural in other countries, but may also help there to renew jurisdictional commitments in favor of labor protection.


2019 ◽  
pp. 93-118
Author(s):  
Gamonal C. Sergio ◽  
César F. Rosado Marzán

Chapter 4 describes the principle of nonwaiver in Latin America focusing on Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay. It posits that employers and workers cannot waive labor rights, given by law, through contract. It shows how the principle is expressly stated in some positive law, in court opinions, and in legal scholarship. It also details how the principle is typically applied in controversies over contract terms and claim settlements. The chapter also shows that the principle surfaces in Latin American cases related to contract modification and novation, even when such contracts contain terms that meet or exceed minimum labor standards. Second, the chapter finds a nonwaiver principle in the United States, mostly in its protection of free labor under the Thirteenth Amendment and in the positive labor law and jurisprudence. However, the chapter also focuses on the particular problem of so-called “procedural” waivers sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court’s coerced readings of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The U.S. Supreme Court permits employers to require employees to sign agreements to arbitrate legal claims, even if those legal claims are class or collective in scope. Evidence clearly shows that such “procedural waivers” undermine substantial labor rights. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue, we argue that such waivers need to either be legally banned or regulated by Congress, under its Thirteenth Amendment authority, so as to not undo workers’ rights in the United States and force workers to agree to terms they likely oppose. In fact, we argue that regulated arbitration might actually help to create legitimate labor courts in the United States, which that country still lacks.


Author(s):  
Alexandra Délano Alonso

This chapter demonstrates how Latin American governments with large populations of migrants with precarious legal status in the United States are working together to promote policies focusing on their well-being and integration. It identifies the context in which these processes of policy diffusion and collaboration have taken place as well as their limitations. Notwithstanding the differences in capacities and motivations based on the domestic political and economic contexts, there is a convergence of practices and policies of diaspora engagement among Latin American countries driven by the common challenges faced by their migrant populations in the United States and by the Latino population more generally. These policies, framed as an issue of rights protection and the promotion of migrants’ well-being, are presented as a form of regional solidarity and unity, and are also mobilized by the Mexican government as a political instrument serving its foreign policy goals.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanchi Malhotra ◽  
Imran Masood ◽  
Noberto Giglio ◽  
Jay D. Pruetz ◽  
Pia S. Pannaraj

Abstract Background Chagas disease is a pathogenic parasitic infection with approximately 8 million cases worldwide and greater than 300,000 cases in the United States (U.S.). Chagas disease can lead to chronic cardiomyopathy and cardiac complications, with variable cardiac presentations in pediatrics making it difficult to recognize. The purpose of our study is to better understand current knowledge and experience with Chagas related heart disease among pediatric cardiologists in the U.S. Methods We prospectively disseminated a 19-question survey to pediatric cardiologists via 3 pediatric cardiology listservs. The survey included questions about demographics, Chagas disease presentation and experience. Results Of 139 responses, 119 cardiologists treat pediatric patients in the U.S. and were included. Most providers (87%) had not seen a case of Chagas disease in their practice; however, 72% also had never tested for it. The majority of knowledge-based questions about Chagas disease cardiac presentations were answered incorrectly, and 85% of providers expressed discomfort with recognizing cardiac presentations in children. Most respondents selected that they would not include Chagas disease on their differential diagnosis for presentations such as conduction anomalies, myocarditis and/or apical aneurysms, but would be more likely to include it if found in a Latin American immigrant. Of respondents, 87% agreed that they would be likely to attend a Chagas disease-related lecture. Conclusions Pediatric cardiologists in the U.S. have seen very few cases of Chagas disease, albeit most have not sent testing or included it in their differential diagnosis. Most individuals agreed that education on Chagas disease would be worth-while.


2021 ◽  
pp. 003464462199600
Author(s):  
Diego Ayala-McCormick

It has become common to compare racial inequality in the United States with a “Latin American” pattern of racial inequality in which egalitarian racial ideologies mask stark socioeconomic inequalities along racial lines. However, relatively few comparative studies exist attempting to analyze variations in degrees of racial inequality in the Americas. To stimulate further research in this area, the following study analyzes census data on racial inequality in unemployment rates, educational attainment, homeownership rates, and income in Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the United States. The results suggest that while Brazil is similar to the United States in displaying large levels of racial inequality in the areas measured, Cuba and Puerto Rico display significantly lower levels of racial inequality and Colombia falls in between, undermining conceptions of a monolithic Latin American racial system.


2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Bittencourt Gonzalez Mosegui ◽  
Fernando Antõnanzas ◽  
Cid Manso de Mello Vianna ◽  
Paula Rojas

Abstract Background The objective of this paper is to analyze the prices of biological drugs in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in three Latin American countries (Brazil, Colombia and Mexico), as well as in Spain and the United States of America (US), from the point of market entry of biosimilars. Methods We analyzed products authorized for commercialization in the last 20 years, in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, comparing them to the United States of America (USA) and Spain. For this analysis, we sought the prices and registries of drugs marketed between 1999 and October 1, 2019, in the regulatory agencies’ databases. The pricing between countries was based on purchasing power parity (PPP). Results The US authorized the commercialization of 13 distinct biologicals and four biosimilars in the period. Spain and Brazil marketed 14 biopharmaceuticals for RA, ten original, four biosimilars. Colombia and Mexico have authorized three biosimilars in addition to the ten biological ones. For biological drug prices, the US is the most expensive country. Spain’s price behavior seems intermediate when compared to the three LA countries. Brazil has the highest LA prices, followed by Mexico and Colombia, which has the lowest prices. Spain has the lowest values in PPP, compared to LA countries, while the US has the highest prices. Conclusion The economic effort that LA countries make to access these medicines is much higher than the US and Spain. The use of the PPP ensured a better understanding of the actual access to these inputs in the countries analyzed.


1991 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-23
Author(s):  
Roger Rouse

In a hidden sweatshop in downtown Los Angeles, Asian and Latino migrants produce automobile parts for a factory in Detroit. As the parts leave the production line, they are stamped “Made in Brazil.” In a small village in the heart of Mexico, a young woman at her father’s wake wears a black T-shirt sent to her by a brother in the United States. The shirt bears a legend that some of the mourners understand but she does not. It reads, “Let’s Have Fun Tonight!” And on the Tijuana-San Diego border, Guillermo Gómez-Peña, a writer originally from Mexico City, reflects on the time he has spent in what he calls “the gap between two worlds”: “Today, eight years after my departure, when they ask me for my nationality or ethnic identity, I cannot answer with a single word, for my ‘identity’ now possesses multiple repertoires: I am Mexican but I am also Chicano and Latin American. On the border they call me ‘chilango’ or ‘mexiquillo’; in the capital, ‘pocho’ or ‘norteno,’ and in Spain ‘sudaca.’… My companion Emily is Anglo-Italian but she speaks Spanish with an Argentinian accent. Together we wander through the ruined Babel that is our American postmodemity.”


1977 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milton Silverman

A survey was conducted on the promotion of 28 prescription drugs in the form of 40 different products marketed in the United States and Latin America by 23 multinational pharmaceutical companies. Striking differences were found in the manner in which the identical drug, marketed by the identical company or its foreign affiliate, was described to physicians in the United States and to physicians in Latin America. In the United States, the listed indications were usually few in number, while the contraindications, warnings, and potential adverse reactions were given in extensive detail. In Latin America, the listed indications were far more numerous, while the hazards were usually minimized, glossed over, or totally ignored. The differences were not simply between the United States on the one hand and all the Latin American countries on the other. There were substantial differences within Latin America, with the same global company telling one story in Mexico, another in Central America, a third in Ecuador and Colombia, and yet another in Brazil. The companies have sought to defend these practices by contending that they are not breaking any Latin American laws. In some countries, however, such promotion is in clear violation of the law. The corporate ethics and social responsibilities concerned here call for examination and action.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document