【作者】 张光宇；

【导师】 张文显；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法学理论， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 文章从法律社会学的角度，综合法理学、宪法学、劳动法学、比较法学等学科理论和方法，对罢工、罢工权和罢工立法进行了探讨。提出，罢工，是指一个企业中一定数量的劳动者集体停止工作的行为。一般认为，其构成要件有五：首先，罢工是劳动者在自己方面与用工单位方面利害相反而又不能通过和平手段加以解决时采取的经济斗争手段。其次，罢工是以维持改善劳动条件或获得其它经济利益为直接间接目的。具有政治性、革命性或其它性质的罢工不属劳动法理论论述的范围。再次，罢工是指被招用劳动者所为的业务的停止。诸如承揽人、承租人、承包人等在各自所处的承揽、承租、承包关系中，为民事法律关系中的一方主体，不是建立了劳动关系的被招用者，他们即使发生集体性类似罢工的不作为行为，也不能称为罢工。复次，罢工仅为劳动合同的中断，不是劳动合同的终止，劳动合同并没有随罢工而失效。罢工结束后的复工，不是新劳动关系的缔结，而是原劳动关系的继续。最后，罢工是多数劳动者所为的有组织的业务停止。一人终止业务，不能叫罢工。但也并非必须企业内全体劳动者参加才算罢工，只要共同停止业务的人数达到能对用工单位一方产生一定影响和压力的程度，就可算罢工。罢工者之间须有某种程度的有组织的联系，而不是单个分散的停止业务。单个劳动者的停止劳动，仅为单个人违反劳动合同的行为，不能作为罢工行为而受到劳动法的保护。罢工的实质是劳资争议剧烈的具体表现，只要劳资双方存在，罢工就不可避免。可避免的是罢工发生的频率和罢工剧烈程度的降低。二战结束后，各国民主势力逐步壮大，同时，战后经济的跳跃式发展为劳资缓和奠定了相应的政治和经济基础，多数国家劳资矛盾逐渐缓和，劳资合作及对等谈判成为时代的潮流。罢工现象作为集体劳动争议的一种最激烈形式，主要是发生在集体谈判过程中，一般来说，西方国家的集体谈判大多数能够顺利进行，最后劳资双方达成集体协议。但当劳资谈判陷入僵局时，劳资双方都可以宣布谈判失败。?????　 通过对罢工概念及相关问题的探讨，笔者提出，罢工权是国家赋予劳动者的必要时对抗用工单位一方的权利。罢工权就其法律性质而言可以是一项经济权利，也可以是一项政治权利。罢工权是一项单个人的权利，但也是一项集体人权。单个工人或劳动者的罢工不仅毫无意义，而且还会给个人招致风险。罢工只有成为一种集体行为时它才能真正成为一项权利，也才有存在的价值。所以它是一种后续的权利。其前续权利是劳动者首先要有组织和参加工会的权利，没有工会，没有劳动者的组织，罢工权是不能实现的。罢工权当然也是一项个人权利，个人是否需要采取罢工行为完全由自己个人作出判断，他人并无权干涉，在这层意义上它应该是一项个人权利。集体权利是以个人权利为基础的，如果法律上个人没有罢工权，那集体的罢工权将不可能存在。 在对罢工及罢工权的基本问题探讨之后，文章详细的梳理了国外罢工问题及相应法律规制。文章还详细的对我国关于罢工立法的历史演变进行了叙述和分析。在以上的论述的基础上文章对完善我国罢工权立法提出了自己的基本的构想。文章提出，在我国进行罢工权立法有着现实的可行性。首先，我国民主法制建设已经取得长足进展，为罢工制度的建立奠定了基础。其次，我国劳动关系发生重大变化，既是罢工制度建立的必要性，也是该制度建立的可行性。从引进外资开始，我国资本结构发生重大变化，在外资企业、私营企业中，客观上存在劳资冲突，这是无庸质疑的现实，这些企业中的工人与其雇主进行合理的罢工斗争以争取合法的经济条件，也是对其它企业秩序维护的一种参照系。再次，国家在宏观调控中的成就为利用罢工制度为社会发展和进步服务提供了保证。最后，我国劳动关系调整机制已经做了相当的探索。探讨和分析了我国罢工立法的可行性后，文章对我国罢工立法提出了基本的构想。具体的包括：把罢工权上升到宪法的高度上。认为，罢工权实际上是宪法的公民言论、集会、结社、游行、示威自由权的延伸，罢工是劳动者表达自己意思的一种特殊方式，有明确的目的性，在一定条件下并不影响到除企业主外的其他人的合法权益，罢工这种特殊权利的行使并不违法。建议在《宪法》中增加有关罢工条款。将《宪法》第35条规定的中华人民共和国公民基本权利增加一项罢工的权利。修改完善现行的《劳动法》。在《劳动法》中增加有关劳动者行使罢工权的有关原则性规定，真正把罢工权做为劳动者的一项实体权利赋予给劳动者。建议在《劳动法》第三条第一款中增加劳动者有罢工的权利。在《劳动法》第七条中明确地把负责组织罢工做为工会的一项权利规定下来，罢工只能在工会组织下才是合法的，以保证罢工的有序进行。在《劳动法》第三十三条中对劳动者行使罢工权的目的是为了签订集体合同做为一项原则规定下来，以防止劳动者滥用罢工权。至于劳动者行使罢工权的程序性规定，应当通过制定专门的罢工法来规范。制定专门的罢工法。罢工法是规范罢工行为的基本法。罢工法的基本内容应当包括：罢工立法的指导思想；合法罢工的条件；罢工的申请、组织、批准等程序性规定；国家对合?更多还原

【Abstract】 With a combination of subjects like Jurisprudence, Constitution Law, Labor Law and Comparative Law, discussion about the concept of strike, right to strike and legislation on strike has been performed in the perspective of legal sociology. The author of this thesis believes that strike is the stopping of working of a certain number of workers in a collective way. Generally speaking, there are five component parts of this definition: First, strike is an economic way of the employees’ struggling against their employers when their interests run against each other and when there are no other peaceful ways of solving the problem. Second, the direct goal of strike is the improvement of working conditions and other economic benefits. Strikes of political, revolutionary or other natures do not fall into the category of the concerns of labor law. Third, strike refers to the stopping of working by the employed. Persons like leaseholders, tenants, contractors, though in their relations of renting and contraction, they are one of the main bodies of civil legal relations, their nonfeasance, for all its likeness of strike, cannot be called strike because they are not the employed in the labor contract. Fourth, strike is the breaking of the labor contract, not the termination of it and the labor contract does not lose its effectiveness because of the strike. The workers’ returning to work after the strike is not the beginning of a new labor contract for it is only the continuation of the old one. Last, strike is the stopping of working of a majority of workers in an organized way, therefore, the stopping of working of a single worker can not be called strike. On the other hand, it is not necessary for all the workers to stop working to make a strike. If the number of workers who refuse to work poses certain effect and pressure on companies, is then can be counted as a strike. There should be some degree of organized relations between the strikers and not the stopping of working of separate individuals. The stopping of working of a single individual is counted as his breaking of the labor contract and therefore, it cannot be protected by the labor law as strike does.In essence, strike is the concrete representation of the radical conflicts of the labors and the capitalists and strikes cannot be avoided if the two parties continue to coexist. What are avoidable are the frequency and the degree of severity. After the Second World War, the strengthening of the democratic powers and the leaping development of the postwar economy provide the political and economic foundation of the lessening of the conflicts between the employers and the employees. With the lessening of the conflict of the two parties, cooperation and negotiation become the main trend. Strike, as the most radical form of collective struggles, mainly occurs in the course of the group negotiations. Generally speaking, the group negotiations can proceed smoothly with the reaching of a final agreement as the result. If the talks fall into a deadlock, both the employers and the employees can announce the failure of the negotiation.By way of the discussion of the concept of strike and other relevant problems, the author of this paper holds that the right to strike is the right of the employees, given by the government, to counter the employers whenever necessary. The right to strike, by its legal nature, can be a political right as well as an economic right. The right to strike is the right of an individual and it is also without any doubt the right of a collectivity. The stopping of working of a single worker or employee is not only of no significance; it can also bring with it certain risks. Only if strike becomes a collective deed can it become a real right, which has its value of existence. The right to strike is an after-right and the fore-right is the right of organizing and taking part in the labor union. Without the labor union and any other labor organizations, the right to strike can never come off. Certainly, the right to strike is also an individual right and it更多还原