#labour law advocate

[lawgical-alliance-ind]

When do you need a labour law advocate?

Advocates for labour law, a subset of employment law, represent both employers and employees in disagreements and negotiations. However, labour laws focus specifically on industries with labour unions (teachers, policemen, bus drivers, etc.) and their specialized rules and regulations. Labour law lawyers will represent union members in disputes with employers and during discussions over strikes as well as companies in disputes with employees.

If you're an employer, you might want to speak with a labour attorney if

You’re threatened with a lawsuit, usually on the basis of mistreatment, unlawful overtime, discrimination, hazardous work conditions, or wrongful termination

You want to let go of a problematic union employee.

Where there is talk of a strike

If you're an employee, you might want to consult a labour attorney if

You wish to file a lawsuit against your employer for any sort of mistreatment

You’ve been terminated without due cause

You’d like to negotiate terms during a strike.

Before finding the best labour law lawyer in Delhi or in any state, you must need to know how much a labour lawyer will cost! Most of the time, labour lawyers bill by the hour, but in other circumstances, such as litigation that appear to have a high likelihood of success, a lawyer will bill on a contingency basis. On a contingency basis, you don’t pay anything upfront, and your lawyer will take a percentage only if you win your case. The rate you pay will vary depending on a number of things, such as the union you are a member of, the difficulty of your case, and your location in the nation. Be sure to establish a rate upfront with your lawyer.

If you are the one suing and your legal matter goes to court, either you will receive compensation from the other party, you will reach an agreement on a set of terms, or you will lose the case and return to your original situation. If you’re the one being sued, the options are about the same, but you’d be the one paying rather than having the opportunity to win money. There are alternatives to going to court, and a labour lawyer can help you decide which one is best for you.

So if you are tired of Googling labour law lawyers near me, you can check out Lawgical Alliance. There you will get to a few well-experienced advocates who can actually help you with your need. To learn more about their services and successful cases, visit their website.

[advocatemeghajha]

[sattvalegal]

Being an expert in labor and employment matters, Sattva Legal is one of the best employee law firms in Delhi. Expert legal representation for both employers and employees is the focus of our team, which comprises of the top labor lawyers in New Delhi. As renowned employment counsel in the Delhi High Court, we are acknowledged for our expertise and guarantee that your rights are upheld. Sattva Legal offers support for any type of legal matter, including contracts, disputes, and compliance. Put your trust in us for dependable and efficient legal solutions in the intricate world of employment, catered to your specific requirements.

[parionstr]

Understanding the Basics: A Comprehensive Guide to Labour Law in the United States

Abstract: 

This comprehensive guide provides a detailed exploration of labour law in the United States, covering its historical evolution, key principles, legal framework, and various facets, including employment contracts, at-will employment, wage and hour laws, occupational health and safety, discrimination and equal employment opportunity, collective bargaining and trade unions, employee benefits and social security, termination and redundancy, contemporary labour issues, global perspectives on labour law, recent reforms, challenges, and future trends. By incorporating recent news and case laws, this article aims to offer a comprehensive understanding of labour regulations in the United States.

Synopsis:

Labour law in the United States is a complex and multifaceted field that governs the relationship between employers and employees. It has evolved over the years to address the changing needs of the workforce and society. This comprehensive guide delves into the historical evolution of labour law, its key principles, legal framework, and various aspects, such as employment contracts, wage and hour laws, occupational health and safety, discrimination and equal employment opportunity, collective bargaining, employee benefits, termination, and more. It also explores contemporary labour issues, global perspectives on labour law, recent reforms, challenges, and future trends in labour regulation in the United States.

Read full article in detail Understanding the Basics: A Comprehensive Guide to Labour Law in the United States

Read more article from Parionstr

[nextlegal]

Are You Looking For The Best Employment law firm In Bangalore?

Next Legal is one of the best employment law firms in Bangalore. We provide your organization with the most up-to-date legal services at an affordable price. Our dedicated team of labour and employment lawyers knows all about your organization's specifics, and will be able to provide efficient advice on all aspects of employment law, including drafting employment agreements, confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements for the employees of Indian and foreign companies. Visit us today!

[submalevolentgrace]

Larry Simpson used to work in the sewing room of a disability enterprise. From 9am to 2pm, three days a week, he would count and sort bags of laundry from local hotels and hospitals. The work made him “very tired and drained”, the 36-year-old says. Under the current national minimum wage of $23.23 an hour, Simpson could expect to earn $348.45 for his three days of labour. But he was paid $4.20 an hour – a total of $63 a week – a rate that’s only legal for one reason: because he has an intellectual disability. “The pay was crap,” says Simpson. “I wasn’t getting enough money to live on.” Simpson was employed under the supported wage system – a carve-out in national employment law that allows companies to assess the productivity of a person with disability and then pay them as little as $2.90 an hour.

[someone-will-remember-us]

A new law in Belgium celebrated by activists for providing a “labour contract” to prostitutes will also enable their pimps to punish them with a government mediator if they refuse sex more than 10 times in a six-month period. The Belgian Parliament voted for the law on May 3, with 93 in favor, zero opposed, and 33 abstentions.  

The legislation is being touted as a win by UTSOPI, the Belgium Union of Sex Workers, which had lobbied extensively for the legislation. The law outlines that prostitutes will receive health insurance, a pension, maternity and holiday leave, and unemployment benefits. Their pimps will be forced to provide them with a “safety button” to use for emergencies.

Their website claims that the law “is a historic step in the battle for sex workers’ rights” and will create a “respectful, fair relationship” between prostitutes and their pimps, with UTSOPI spokesperson Daan Bauwens telling media that he believes “Belgium is really demonstrating that it aims to protect sex workers, regardless of any moral judgements about the profession people may have.”

Prostitutes are to be granted “rights” to refuse sexual acts, stop sexual acts, perform sexual acts in the manner they prefer, and refuse to sit behind Amsterdam-style windows (public facing windows where prostitutes are on display). However, should a prostitute use these “rights” 10 times within six months, their pimp can then call on a government mediator to intervene.

All pimps must have a registered office and apply to the Belgian government for approval to offer contracts to prostitutes. The contracts will be disguised as hotel-restaurant-café (HoReCa) contracts so that prostitutes can remain anonymous.

Andrea Heinz, a prostitution abolition advocate, called out the new legislation on X (formerly Twitter).

“There is little chance this will (actually) favour women. Under legalization/full decrim, pimps become ‘managers’ with the backing of the state to further entrench and maintain their power. Pimps see women they sell as products, not people deserving of full dignity & respect.”

Outside the realm of so-called “sex work” activism, social media users have expressed horror at the new law.

“So the [government] helps pimps to coerce sex, what a disgusting idea,” posted X user @Bob16747466.

[adropofhumanity]

ireland's senate has just unanimously voted to impose sanctions against isreel. in a remarkable display of solidarity with the palestinian people, the irish senate unanimously passed a bill to impose sanctions on isreel and prevent the passage of US weapons through Irish airspace to isreel. the bill calls on the irish government to advocate for an international arms embargo on isreel and to refer Israel to the international criminal court for its war crimes and crimes against humanity in gaza and the west bank.

☑ the bill is based on the principle that isreel's illegal occupation, colonization, and apartheid policies in palestine constitute grave breaches of international law and human rights, and that ireland has a moral and legal obligation to take action to end its complicity and hold isreel accountable. the bill also recognizes the right of the palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, and dignity, and supports their legitimate resistance to Israeli oppression.

the bill is a historic step in the global movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against isreel, which aims to pressure Israel to comply with international law and respect palestinian rights. the bill has been welcomed by palestinian civil society organizations, human rights groups, and solidarity activists, who have praised ireland for its courage and leadership in standing up to Israel's impunity and injustice.

the bill now awaits the approval of the lower house of the Irish parliament, the dáil, where it faces opposition from the ruling coalition of fine gael and fianna fáil, who have close ties with isreel and the US. however, the bill enjoys widespread public support in ireland, as well as the backing of several opposition parties, including sinn féin, labour, and the green party" — via deepshallowdive on instagram

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

genuinely curious because im new here, what do you mean by leftists wanting women to be a public resource?

this means advocating for things like paid surrogacy and sexual services where its essentially the female body that is being sold. so instead of women being a resource (for sex and childbearing) to her husband, she is available (for sale) to the public, which is what most modern/western leftists support. usually they argue since all labour under capitalism is coerced, that means any paid „service“ makes the exploited woman a worker who needs worker protection and rights. even though according to their own logic, since the sex/pregnancy is coerced (under financial duress in a capitalist society), its abuse. the law recognises this too until it comes to the sex industry.

for example, in my country germany, the left leaning center parties successfully pushed for the liberalisation of prostitution (womens „right“ to sell our bodies/mens right to buy us) over 20 years ago while abortion is still technically illegal (albeit decriminalised) and up until recently, gynaecologists were fined and even imprisoned for saying they do abortions on their website. surrogacy is not legal here, but wealthy couples just go to eastern european countries like ukraine to exploit impoverished women for it, because of course they do. of course they are more liberal but leftists consider surrogacy and sexual acts labour which makes the (female) body a resource, a means of production even. as far as i know marx was against prostitution so this is kind of ironic.

did this help? anyone feel free to add or correct me.

[gothhabiba]

“poverty we have in favour of abundance we have yet to organise” i fundamentally disagree. Its fundamentally impoverishing to take away child from their carers and give them to a bunch of strangers. if thats not whats going to happen what is exactly? so far all i read is a dystopian nightmare and people saying “but no it will be great i promise”

[regarding this post and broader recent discussion of family abolition]

I'm getting a lot of responses in this same emotional valence (as does anyone who talks about "family abolition," and again, this is the exact emotional response which Sophie Lewis preëmpts and responds to at the beginning of Abolish the Family)—I'm chusing this message to respond to not to pick on you specifically but to try to unravel some of the assumptions that underlie this objection.

1.

I did my best to outline some of the major actionable demands of a programme of family abolition and include links to further readings that laid each of these demands out, including the abolition of parent's property rights over children & freedom to mete out "corporal punishment," the end of social and economic dependence on the family that works to impoverish 'family outcasts' or to force them into abusive situations, &c.

Yet, amongst all of these things, the questioning of the naturalness of the social/economic/legal/political category of "mother" (and investigation of how the category is sexed, gendered, & racialised) is what draws the most ire, and commonly the only thing that is responded to in people's objections to "family abolition"—as though it is the weakest part of the argument, and not the conclusion we necessarily come to through an understanding of the economic and social position of the "wife," the "single mother," the "single woman," &c.

What about the affective / emotional nature of the presumed "naturalness" of the mother relation causes the questioning of it to meet with such a disproportionate amount of resistance? Could we understand this individual emotional attachment to the concept of motherhood and its positioning as "natural" to be part of, or a result of, the naturalizing work that discourses about femininity and labour* do?

2.

Where does this spectre of an infant being "taken away from" its biological parents (actually, and tellingly, "mother" far more often than "parents") come from, and why does it keep being dragged forth? Communal raising of children is indeed part of the speculative programme for (most?) people who advocate for the abolition of the "family," but what part of that entails that a child must not be raised in part by, or anywhere near, their biological parents?

If no family abolitionist is saying that every child ought to be reassigned to some other random communal housing unit immediately upon birth (and, if anyone is, I have yet to come across it!), why is this the image that is brought up repeatedly in response to arguments for family abolition, as though the image is 1. an argument in itself, that 2. meaningfully responds to the programme being put forth? In what inheres the shocking nature, the emotional effectiveness, of this image? What assumptions and attachments does that effectiveness reveal?

3.

You've said that it is "fundamentally impoverishing" to a child for them to be "take[n] away" from "their carers" and "give[n] to a bunch of strangers." You haven't laid out how we can determine who a child's "carers" are—the "carers" fundamentally, properly, 'rightly' belonging to the child in your grammatical construction (in fact, in terms of property law, we ought to say the people the child belongs to—and we can see this arrangement reassert itself in your use of the word "give").

Incredibly, "carer" seems here to mean something other than "the people who are caring for the child"! "Stranger," similarly, must mean something other than "people the child has never had contact with," since in this fantasy these are the people who are raising the child... So if "carer" doesn't mean "person who cares for," and "stranger" doesn't mean "person who is strange," then where do these labels come from? What assumptions are you recreating when you use them in this frankly counter-intuitive sense with the assumption that I will know what you mean? (See also a message I got reading "i am not a mother but i already know i would rather die than have my baby call some strange women mom," emphasis mine.)

I think that probably you've used "carer" because you know that "biological parent" is a weaker proposition—and yet, in regards to the legal structures I'm talking about, it is biological parenthood which confers automatic, presumptive "rights" over a child upon someone (in default of other specific legal arrangements which someone must chuse to enter into in order to renounce those automatic, presumptive rights).

It is the idea that biological parenthood (or adoption, or "using" a surrogate, or any of the arrangements people may enter into that fall between these categories) ought to give one or two people complete control over another human being, such that that human being has no recourse at all from abuse, coercion, forced isolation, being raised in a cult, being denied transition or other medical care or put through conversion therapy, &c., so long as their caretakers do not in theory fall afoul of the very high standard of legal "child abuse" in a way that someone in practice actually cares to pursue—it is this reality, which is ideologically baked into your assumption of who a child's natural, automatic "carers" are for them to be "taken away from" in the first place, that family abolitionists want to change.

But nothing about biological parents no longer having automatic, presumptive rights to do basically whatever they want with or to their children automatically means that children will be taken away from them in the sense of enforced physical distance!

I think we need to look at what is ideologically entailed in assuming that a) parenthood in which a parent does not have quasi-property rights over their child is not "real, natural" parenthood, such that removing "parental rights" equates to "taking a child away"; b) certain people are just inherently strangers or strange to a child by virtue of the circumstances of their birth in relation to the circumstances of the child's birth, regardless of the actual social relationship they have with that child, and the ways in which this division between "naturally connected" versus "naturally distant," "natural proper and correct" versus "naturally strange," "inside" versus "outside," and the concept of the "stranger" (and the foreigner as the "eternal stranger," the racialised as the "eternally foreign") play into a situation where you can say "a bunch of strangers" and assume that you will be understood, and that this will be understood to be obviously bad.

*E.g., women are naturally caretakers, having a child is naturally the ultimate fulfillment for any woman (thus women who do not or cannot give birth are not fulfilling their function or are not "really" women), women love and are never exhausted by any aspect of gestation, childbirth, or childcare and they certainly don't need any help, &c.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The arrest of a national labour leader by Ottawa Police last week is the culmination of a “threatening and chilling” trend of law enforcement stifling the right to protest in the nation’s capital, human rights advocates say. Last week, Ottawa Police arrested labour leader Alex Silas during a press conference and rally in support of striking workers. Silas was released Wednesday with five criminal charges: Mischief, causing a disturbance by impeding, intimidation by blocking or obstructing the roadway, and counsel of an uncommitted indictable offense.

Continue Reading

Tagging @politicsofcanada

[lawgical-alliance-ind]

[akajustmerry]

since my last post about it did not clarify, Fran Drescher being anti vaccine mandate IS antivaxx. it doesn't matter that she, as an individual, got the COVID vaccine. claiming to be against the mandate, not the vaccine itself is a common tactic used by antivaxxers. Many antivaxxers also do still get vaccinated while advocating antivaxx sentiment. If someone, Fran Drescher or otherwise, was truly pro-vaccine, they would not have a problem with them being mandated, period. It's the same kind of faux mental gymnastics bigots use when they say shit like, "I don't have a problem with gay people. I just don't think the law should allow them to be married." Fran Drescher is antivaxx and she's also a massive financial supporter of the Israeli Defence Force, having donated millions in fundraising over the years to the IDF to support their occupation of Palestinian lands. Both those things are indefenseable to me and many others, but they also don't cancel out what she has done and continues to do for labour rights in the film industry. "Fran Drescher is antivaxx and pro-Israel" and "Fran Drescher is a vital leader in current labour rights movements in Hollywood," are not mutually exclusive statements. It just means there's more work to do, more people to listen to, and no one person should ever be touted as a symbol of resistance for all because human rights advocacy is never going to be achieved through reliance on individuals or exceptionalism.

[parionstr]

Understanding the Basics: A Comprehensive Guide to Labour Law in India

Abstract: 

This comprehensive guide explores the intricacies of labour law in India, providing a detailed understanding of its historical evolution, key principles, legal framework, and contemporary issues. Covering topics such as employment contracts, wage and hour laws, occupational health and safety, discrimination, collective bargaining, employee benefits, termination, and more, this article aims to shed light on the complex landscape of labour regulations in India. By examining recent news and case laws, we will also delve into the current challenges, reforms, and future trends in Indian labour law.

Synopsis: 

Labour law in India is a multifaceted field that governs the relationship between employers and employees. It has evolved over time to address the changing needs of the workforce and society. This comprehensive guide will explore the historical evolution of labour law, its key principles, legal framework, and various aspects, including employment contracts, wage and hour laws, occupational health and safety, discrimination and equal employment opportunity, collective bargaining and trade unions, employee benefits and social security, termination and redundancy, contemporary labour issues, global perspectives on labour law, recent reforms, challenges, and future trends. Throughout the article, we will integrate recent news and case laws to provide practical insights into the current state of labour law in India.

Read this full article in detail Understanding the Basics: A Comprehensive Guide to Labour Law in India

Read more article from Parionstr

[mxjackparker]

I don't get why you want pimping to be legal when its literally abuse of prostituted people like how can u claim to be an advocate for them

Laws which criminalize "pimping" make it illegal for anyone to profit from another person selling sex or to manage the way they do it. In practice, this makes the following things illegal:

Sex workers paying rent, because our landlords would technically be profiting from our prostitution. - Makes us more likely to be homeless.

Having a friend help write an escorting advert as a sex worker, because someone helping us write advertisements or make bookings is considered to be managing our prostitution. - Criminalizes our friendships.

Hiring security as a sex worker, because they're profiting from our engagement in prostitution. - Makes us less safe.

On top of this, agencies and brothels that we do work for become criminalized, since no-one can employ or manage us without breaking the law. We're left with fewer options and more dangerous workplaces.

I'm not a supporter of brothel owners or escort agency owners, just like I'm not a supporter of capitalists in any profession who profit from the labour of their workers. I also condemn the abusers who force us to sell sex when we don't want to, and clients who rape us. None of this means the above laws would be helpful.

Sexual assault is already illegal, as are kidnapping and trafficking and forced servitude. If someone is being forced to sell sex against their will, the abusers responsible are already criminalized.