지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2024.11
- 수록면
- 467 - 496 (30page)
- DOI
- 10.30833/LTPR.2024.11.12.4.467
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Currently, in resolving labor-management disputes, a third-party labor committee composed of worker representatives, scholars, legal practitioners, and representatives of companies or organizations is established to hold public debates related to the resolution of the dispute. The importance of doing this is being pointed out.
In many labor-management dispute resolution procedures, public involvement is implemented, but public discussion plays an important role in attempting to resolve disputes. However, in public debate that develops through dialogue and communication in the real world, it is extremely difficult to realize public discourse through ideal dialogue and communication as Habermas did.
In reality, there are many cases where coordinated discussions do not take place among discussants or where specific participants arbitrarily lead discussions. In addition, discussion participants with different values or interests may not reach agreement on dispute resolution, which may lead to deadlock in discussions and block decision-making related to reconciliation and mediation.
In order to find the basis for legitimacy related to decision-making on labor-management compromise within the realistic practice of open discussion, it is inevitable to answer the normative question: What is a desirable open discussion?
In the field of labor law, a number of empirical and empirical studies relevant to public discussion have been accumulated. However, in conventional research, normative theories regarding ‘the fundamental attitude of desirable discussions’ are not sufficiently discussed. However, in a situation where such normative theory does not exist, it is difficult to find standards to evaluate their agreement for realistic public discussion and to improve the current situation for better discussion.
In ensuring the legitimacy of decision-making through the implementation of public discussion, it is an important task to identify the normative requirements that the discussion process must meet. Based on this awareness of the problem, this study organizes the meaning and tasks of public discussion related to labor-management disputes based on knowledge from discussion theory, including Habermas, and establishes the basic principles and normative requirements that public discussion must meet, we consider the basic ideas of evaluating the desirability of discussion. At this time, I introduces the concept of a discussion system and examines a theoretical framework to ensure the legitimacy of decision-making to resolve disputes across various discussions. In addition, the discussion ethics that this study is based on is an attempt to change the procedure to establish the basis for the possibility of universalizing moral judgments or norms in the form of Kant’s categorical imperative by moving it from the perspective of mutual subjects to the scene of practical discussion.
This article excludes debates about the rights and wrongs of this normative approach. Rather, we argue that achieving reconciliation should be justified and actively defended from the perspective of the formation of new norms.
In many labor-management dispute resolution procedures, public involvement is implemented, but public discussion plays an important role in attempting to resolve disputes. However, in public debate that develops through dialogue and communication in the real world, it is extremely difficult to realize public discourse through ideal dialogue and communication as Habermas did.
In reality, there are many cases where coordinated discussions do not take place among discussants or where specific participants arbitrarily lead discussions. In addition, discussion participants with different values or interests may not reach agreement on dispute resolution, which may lead to deadlock in discussions and block decision-making related to reconciliation and mediation.
In order to find the basis for legitimacy related to decision-making on labor-management compromise within the realistic practice of open discussion, it is inevitable to answer the normative question: What is a desirable open discussion?
In the field of labor law, a number of empirical and empirical studies relevant to public discussion have been accumulated. However, in conventional research, normative theories regarding ‘the fundamental attitude of desirable discussions’ are not sufficiently discussed. However, in a situation where such normative theory does not exist, it is difficult to find standards to evaluate their agreement for realistic public discussion and to improve the current situation for better discussion.
In ensuring the legitimacy of decision-making through the implementation of public discussion, it is an important task to identify the normative requirements that the discussion process must meet. Based on this awareness of the problem, this study organizes the meaning and tasks of public discussion related to labor-management disputes based on knowledge from discussion theory, including Habermas, and establishes the basic principles and normative requirements that public discussion must meet, we consider the basic ideas of evaluating the desirability of discussion. At this time, I introduces the concept of a discussion system and examines a theoretical framework to ensure the legitimacy of decision-making to resolve disputes across various discussions. In addition, the discussion ethics that this study is based on is an attempt to change the procedure to establish the basis for the possibility of universalizing moral judgments or norms in the form of Kant’s categorical imperative by moving it from the perspective of mutual subjects to the scene of practical discussion.
This article excludes debates about the rights and wrongs of this normative approach. Rather, we argue that achieving reconciliation should be justified and actively defended from the perspective of the formation of new norms.
목차
국문초록
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 노동분쟁 발생 시 주요 절차
Ⅲ. 기업이 윤리(모럴)의 주체가 될 수 있는지 여부
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Discussion Paper
비교사법
2016 .11
-
토론문
가족법연구
2021 .11
-
토론문
가족법연구
2021 .11
-
Discussion Paper
비교사법
2016 .11
-
토론문
가족법연구
2021 .11
-
토론문
가족법연구
2021 .11
-
권리분쟁과 쟁의행위대상
노동법학
2016 .12
-
토론
STSS지속가능과학회 학술대회
2015 .05
-
토론
STSS지속가능과학회 학술대회
2015 .05
-
토론
STSS지속가능과학회 학술대회
2015 .05
-
토론
STSS지속가능과학회 학술대회
2015 .05
-
토론문
가족법연구
2022 .11
-
토론문
가족법연구
2022 .11
-
토론문
가족법연구
2022 .11
-
토론문
가족법연구
2022 .11
-
노동분쟁의 해결에 있어서 중재를 통한 접근방법 연구 - 중재법의 적용을 중심으로 한 모색 -
노동법포럼
2016 .02
-
중국의 집단적 노동분쟁 해결제도에 관한 연구
무역보험연구
2018 .01
-
중국의 노동분쟁 일재종국(一裁終局)제도와 한국 기업의 활용방안에 관한 연구
무역보험연구
2019 .01
-
공과대학 학생들의 시각적 대시보드를 활용한 온라인 토론활동 경험
공학교육연구
2021 .01
-
한･일 양국 TV 시사토론프로그램에 나타나는 커뮤니케이션 양상
일본언어문화
2019 .01
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-25-02-091213258