【作者】 魏丽；

【导师】 林嘉；

【作者基本信息】 中国人民大学 ， 民商法学， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 近年来,各地拖欠劳动者工资已成为一个相当普遍的现象,其中尤以拖欠农民工工资最为严重,为了解决这一问题,从中央到地方开展了一系列的清欠行动,但是这些措施缺乏法律上的依据,且不能从根本上解决工资拖欠问题,这使得我们思考如何通过法律制度来解决这一问题。许多国家为了保护劳动者的工资按时足额的支付,纷纷赋予劳动者工资优先权,来保护这一弱势群体的合法利益。 笔者通过考查中国古代的优先权制度和起源于罗马法成熟于近代欧美的优先权制度,认为从古至今优先权制度的设置是法律出于保护社会弱者和制定社会公共政策的需要,而赋予某一类主体以“特权”,从而构建一个更加和谐的社会。 广义的优先权可分为两类:优先购买权和优先受偿权。随着优先权在大陆法系的发展,优先权的概念逐渐演变为:优先权是指根据法律的直接规定,某一特种债权人享有的就债务人的一般或特定的财产有优先于其他债权人受偿的权利。根据优先权行使客体的不同,还可分为:一般优先权和特别优先权,本文讨论的工资优先权是属于一般优先权。 工资优先权是指根据法律的直接规定,劳动者因从事劳动而获得相应的报酬请求权,就债务人的一般财产享有优先受偿的权利。对工资优先权的性质历来有三种不同的认识:第一,担保物权说;第二,特殊效力说;第三,清偿顺序说。 笔者认为,由于工资优先权具备担保物权的担保性、变价性和支配性,是一项法定的担保物权。清偿顺序说将工资优先权仅视为清偿的顺序,缺乏实体法上的依据,所以不合理。特殊效力说基于工资优先权的特殊性——标的物不特定性和无须以占有或登记为公示,而否认其为担保物权。但是,随着担保制度的发展,出现了浮动担保与财团抵押,它们是就财产的集合体设定的担保,因此,标的物的不特定并不能否认工资优先权的担保性。同时,工资优先权是由法律直接规定的,无须以占有或登记为要件,其本身就是一种公示方式,所以此说也不合理。 工资优先权除了具备一般担保物权的特征外,还具有:法定性、权利客体论工资优先权 4的不特定性及无须以占有或登记为公示性。其不仅种类、内容法定,而且设定、担保债权的种类及效力法定。工资优先权可以基于债务人的一般财产,包括动产和不动产优先受偿。正因为其权利客体具有不特定性,其取得不以占有或登记为要件。工资优先权的赋予打破了债权平等原则,其合理性何在?笔者认为,现阶段的劳动力市场使劳动者对企业形成了一定的“人身依附性”,同时,在生产过程中,劳动要素总是处于被动的地位,由于劳动给付的无形性,造成了劳动者相应的风险防范手段的欠缺,工资支付的非连续性又使得工资拖欠存在客观可能性,因此,赋予劳动者工资优先权,为劳动者提供救济是必要的,这也是保障人权、维护社会稳定的需要。然而,我国现行的有关工资优先权的规定存在以下不足:立法零散,缺乏体系性;有关规定不具体,缺乏操作性;现行工资优先权的效力有限,对工资债权的保护力度低,不能满足现实的需要。最后,其他配套制度的不完善,不利于解决企业的欠薪问题。因此,本文在借鉴他国立法经验的基础上,结合我国的社会现实,设计出我国的工资优先权制度。工资优先权制度作为一项体系化的制度,在民法典中的定位为:首先,在将要制定的民法典中的担保物权部分规定工资优先权。其次,应完善我国的《劳动法》,在其中详尽的规定工资的范围,并在工资的保护部分详尽地规定工资优先权。再者,制定我国的《企业破产法》,具体规定工资优先权与其他权利冲突时的顺位问题。由于本文讨论的是工资优先权,能够享有优先权的工资的范围是讨论的重点,这一范围与工资的外延不完全相同。笔者在分析了工资优先权的内涵和外延的基础上,认为应将享有优先权的工资范围限定为:基本工资及延长工作时间的工资报酬、奖金、补偿性津贴和补贴。其他的工资构成及劳动者应得的补偿金应并入普通债权受偿。工资优先权的效力主要体现在工资优先权与其他权利冲突时的顺位上,本文从四个方面讨论:第一,当工资优先权与无担保的债权相冲突时,基于工资优先权的物权性,其应当优先于无担保的债权受偿。第二,工资优先权与其他担保物权相冲突时,通过分析各国的立法例,认为归根结底,这是由一国的立法政策决定的,笔者主张工资优先权应优先于其他担保物权受偿。第三,工资更多还原

【Abstract】 Recently, it is prevailing for many enterprises to refuse or delay wages of workers in due time, especially migrant workers. In order to solve this problem, both the central and local government have launched many campaigns to clear up debts of payments of workers. However, these campaigns lack legal grounds, and could not solve the issue fundamentally, which leads us to seek a legal resolution. In order to ensure the payment of wages, many countries grant wage priority to the employee, protecting the interests of the unprivileged group. Through doing research of the priority system of ancient China and its counterpart which stem from ancient Rome and developed in Europe and America, the author proposes that the priority system was established in order to protect the right of the weaker group and to set up public policy, by grant “privilege” to certain group of people and then to organize a harmonious society. Generally speaking, priority includes two categories: the priority of purchase and the priority of claim. With the involvement of the priority system in the Continent System, the concept of priority has involved to that according to the provisions of law, certain special creditors enjoys the priority of payment over other creditors on specified or general property of the debtor. As far as object matter is concerned, priority can be divided to two other categories: general priority and special priority. And wage priority belongs to general priority. The wage priority is priority of claims of payment by workers for accorded work directly provided by law, on the general property of the debtor. There have been three views on the character of priority of wages, the first is mortgage right theory, the second is the theory of special effect, and the third is the theory of sequence of payment. The author thinks that, as the wage priority has the character of mortgage,value and domination,therefore, it is a statutory mortgage right. The theory of sequence of payment, which suggests that the priority of payment is merely an order, lacking substantial grounds, and cannot be established. The theory of special effect, based on the specialties of wage priority - the uncertainties of its object matter and no need to be published by held or by registered, denies this priority to be mortgage right. The author holds that, with the involvement of mortgage right, the floating charge and the assets mortgage have emerged, the uncertainties of object could not be a reason to deny the character of mortgage right of this priority. In the meanwhile, law directly provides this priority, and there is no need to hold or to register to make it public. The characteristics of this priority are legalization, uncertainties of object matter and do not need to be made public by held or registered. Its legalization contains, its establishment, the obligatory right it ensures and its effect are directly provided by law. The priority of wages is based on the general property of the debtor, including chattels and the real estates. As its object matter is uncertain, it does not subject to the conditions of holding or registration. The wage priority breaks the equal status of creditors, what is its legal ground? The author thinks that, at present, the labor market makes the laborer to be “attached to” the employers, and in the course of working, labor ingredient is always at an inferior status. The laborers are in lack of preventing measures, due to the intangible character of laboring payment. And the non-continuous character of wage payment, there exists the possibility of delayed wages and refused payments. Therefore, it is necessary to grant priority of wages to workers, which is also for the protection of human rights and the stability of society. However, the present provisions of wage’s protection have the following shortages, the legislation is non-centralized and unsystematic; relevant provisions are not specified and could not be used; the effect of the present priority of wages are limited, and its protection of labors are n更多还原