PROTECTIVE LABOR LEGISLATION. By Elizabeth Faulkner Baker; A LEGACY TO WAGE-EARNING WOMEN, A SURVEY OF GAINFULLY EMPLOYED WOMEN OF BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT, AND OF RELIEF WHICH THEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE THOMAS THOMPSON TRUST. Lucile Eaves and Associates, Women's Educational and Industrial Union

Social Forces ◽  
1926 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 650-652
Author(s):  
C. G. Woodhouse
Author(s):  
Robyn Muncy

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), designed to enshrine in the Constitution of the United States a guarantee of equal rights to women and men, has had a long and volatile history. When first introduced in Congress in 1923, three years after ratification of the woman suffrage amendment to the US Constitution, the ERA faced fierce opposition from the majority of former suffragists. These progressive women activists opposed the ERA because it threatened hard-won protective labor legislation for wage-earning women. A half century later, however, the amendment enjoyed such broad support that it was passed by the requisite two-thirds of Congress and, in 1972, sent to the states for ratification. Unexpectedly, virulent opposition emerged during the ratification process, not among progressive women this time but among conservatives, whose savvy organizing prevented ratification by a 1982 deadline. Many scholars contend that despite the failure of ratification, equal rights thinking so triumphed in the courts and legislatures by the 1990s that a “de facto ERA” was in place. Some feminists, distrustful of reversible court decisions and repealable legislation, continued to agitate for the ERA; others voiced doubt that ERA would achieve substantive equality for women. Because support for an ERA noticeably revived in the 2010s, this history remains very much in progress.


1992 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 1076-1077
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Gutek

Author(s):  
Lesja Kosmii

Goal. The purpose of this work is to analyze the norms of the current labor legislation regarding the regulation of the relations between the employee and the employer in the introduction of any restrictions and anti-epidemic measures in the conditions of national quarantine and prevention in such conditions of violations of labor rights of employees. It is important that during the course of the COVID-19 coronary pandemic measures, they were not only effective but also violated human rights, including work. Method. The methodology includes a comprehensive analysis and generalization of available scientific and theoretical material, experience of foreign countries and formulation of relevant conclusions and recommendations. During the research the following methods of scientific knowledge were used: terminological, comparative, functional, system-structural, logical-normative. Results. During the research it was found that the Ukrainian legislature, including foreign experience, was able to respond promptly to the quarantine situation by adopting anti-crisis laws, which did not neglect labor legislation. This is understandable, because in connection with the announcement of quarantine in the whole territory of Ukraine, employers had to make personnel decisions, and the current legislative framework did not clearly regulate the issues that arose. Scientific novelty. The study found that the updating of labor legislation in the area of labor relations regulation during the national quarantine period allows the employer to use certain forms of labor organization, in which the basic labor rights and guarantees of employees can be preserved. Practical importance. The results of the study can be used in law-making and law enforcement activities, as well as by employers in regulating labor relations with employees during the quarantine period.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document