Hugh Collins

Reaching an agreement on a common EU labour law that balances the demands of capital, labour, and other interests perhaps presents the EU with the greatest challenge so far, not just because it is politically controversial (both in the sense that the rules will be disputed and in the sense that many will dispute that the EU has a role at all)), but also because it is doubtful that common rules would be suitable for the variety of capitalist institutional arrangements in the different countries, particularly with respect to the divergence between the more corporatist arrangements of Germany and Scandinavia, on the one hand, and the more liberal market approach in the UK.  

Biography

Hugh Collins is Professor at the London School of Economics (LSE), Department of Law. He joined LSE in 1991 when he was appointed to the chair of English Law. He studied law at Oxford and Harvard. Previously he was a Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford University. He has also visited and taught in several American law schools including as a Visiting Professor at Boston University and NYU Law School, and has spent extended periods of research at Harvard and the University of Virginia. He serves as General Editor of The Modern Law Review and is co-founder of the European Review of Contract Law and operates as editor of its Articles. He was rapporteur for the Study Group on Social Justice in European Law, and a founder of the Society for European Contract Law (with Profs. Grundmann and Bianca). He participated in invited lectures in recent years at the universities of Helsinki, Rome-Sapienza, Paris Sorbonne, Amsterdam, Genoa, Catania, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, and Waseda.

Abstract

The Impossible Necessity of European Labour Law 

When the EC/EU was founded, it was believed that it would be unnecessary in the common market to regulate labour relations at the federal level, and also politically very difficult because each country had established a delicate legal balance between the interests of capital, labour, and government (the taxpayer). But this arrangement is probably no longer possible because of the free market in services and the growth of the service economy. Creating an EU labour law that balances the relative interests of the groups could present the EU with its greatest challenge so far, not just because it is politically controversial (both in the sense that the rules will be disputed and in the sense that many will dispute that the EU has a role at all), but also because it is doubtful that common rules would be suitable for the variety of capitalist institutional arrangements in the different countries, particularly the divergence between the corporatists arrangements of Germany and Scandinavia, on the one hand, and the more liberal market approach in the UK. But the EU would be well advised not to go down the route of the USA and its federal labour law for a number of reasons – the uniform straightjacket has atrophied employment law, failed to adapt to a service economy, and also failed (as the recent health reform problems demonstrated) to join up labour market regulation with the development of a welfare system. So the EU needs to find some paradoxical solution which both achieves a uniform federal solution but at the same time is sensitive to local difference and capable of evolution. No easy task.