Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Since the second half of the 1990s, cross-sectoral and company level bargaining has developed into a key movement in transnational industrial relations in the European Union...."

"[This book explains how collective bargaining has changed in important and lasting ways over the past decade. We are now seeing a new and powerful strain of the concession bargaining that traces its roots back to the early 1980s. The collective bargaining of the past decade can be characterized as ultra-concession bargaining because it is an intense and self-perpetuating deviation from earlier concession bargaining. Employers now act and unions react, rather than the other way around. Employers no longer have to establish a credible case of financial hardship, or commit to the traditional quid pro quo of saving jobs in return for lower labor costs, or guarantee singularity (that concession bargaining is a single even that will not have to be repeated). Not all collective bargaining occurs as this extreme variant but it has become the prevailing form. Essentially, there has been a sea change in collective bargaining in America.The book describes the transformation of collective bargaining in a lively and readable manner, avoiding academic, legalistic or technical jargon, and it will appeal to persons interested in the future directions of collective bargaining and unionism in America, (e.g., the general public, graduate and undergraduate students in human resource management and industrial relations courses, and labor relations managers and union activists and staff). The book deals with aspects of union revival as it asks whether ultra-concession bargaining is cause or outcome of the unions’ declining influence in the American economy and society. Above all, by using published reports on bargaining and interviews and surveys of bargaining settlements, the book shows where the concession bargaining is now and where it is heading.​, This book explains how collective bargaining has changed in important and lasting ways over the past decade. We are now seeing a new and powerful strain of the concession bargaining that traces its roots back to the early 1980s. The collective bargaining of the past decade can be characterized as ultra-concession bargaining because it is an intense and self-perpetuating deviation from earlier concession bargaining. Employers now act and unions react, rather than the other way around. Employers no longer have to establish a credible case of financial hardship, or commit to the traditional quid pro quo of saving jobs in return for lower labor costs, or guarantee singularity (that concession bargaining is a single even that will not have to be repeated). Not all collective bargaining occurs as this extreme variant but it has become the prevailing form. Essentially, there has been a sea change in collective bargaining in America.The book describes the transformation of collective bargaining in a lively and readable manner, avoiding academic, legalistic or technical jargon, and it will appeal to persons interested in the future directions of collective bargaining and unionism in America, (e.g., the general public, graduate and undergraduate students in human resource management and industrial relations courses, and labor relations managers and union activists and staff). The book deals with aspects of union revival as it asks whether ultra-concession bargaining is cause or outcome of the unions’ declining influence in the American economy and society. Above all, by using published reports on bargaining and interviews and surveys of bargaining settlements, the book shows where the concession bargaining is now and where it is heading.​]"

"Sistem peradilan pidana merupakan suatu proses yang ditujukan untuk menanggulangi kejahatan melalui proses peradilan yang dilakukan terhadap pelaku tindak pidana. Sistem peradilan pidana diwujudkan melalui suatu ketentuan yang disebut dengan Kitab Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP). Sejatinya KUHAP ditujukan untuk melindungi hak-hak seorang tersangka dan/atau terdakwa serta mengatur tugas masing-masing dari sub-sub sistem peradilan pidana guna menciptakan suatu keterpaduan sistem peradilan pidana. Namun demikian, implementasi KUHAP masih jauh dari tujuan sebenarnya sehingga berpotensi menimbulkan pelanggaran-pelanggaran terhadap hak-hak tersangka/terdakwa. Oleh sebab itu perlu adanya suatu pembaharuan terhadap KUHAP. Pembaharuan tersebut diwujudkan dalam Rancangan Kitab Hukum Acara Pidana (R-KUHAP). Dalam R-KUHAP, terdapat nilai-nilai yang diadopsi di negara common law, salah satu dari nilai tersebut adalah lembaga plea bargaining. Akan tetapi R-KUHAP tidak secara mutlak mengadopsi nilai lembaga plea bargaining yang ada di negara common law. R-KUHAP hanya mengambil nilai plea guilty (pengakuan bersalah) yang merupakan salah satu nilai dari lembaga plea bargaining. Kedudukan lembaga plea bargaining (plea guilty) yang diatur dalam R-KUHAP melalui suatu klausul Jalur Khusus terdapat dalam tahap adjudikasi. Diadopsinya lembaga plea bargaining (plea guilty) dalam RKUHAP disebabkan adanya manfaat dari lembaga ini. Salah satu manfaat tersebut terlihat dalam perwujudan suatu peradilan cepat, sederhana dan berbiaya murah dalam implementasi lembaga plea bargaining (plea guilty). Disamping manfaat yang diperoleh, terdapat juga suatu potensi kerugian apabila implementasi dari lembaga plea bargaining (plea guilty) tidak berjalan dengan baik sehingga dapat menyebabkan miscarriage of justice (peradilan sesat). Oleh sebab itu dalam implementasi lembaga plea bargaining (plea guilty) nantinya diperlukan keterpaduan dari 3 (nilai) dasar hukum sebagimana dikemukakan oleh Friedman yaitu substansi hukum (perwujudan peraturan perundang-undangan yang terkait plea bargaining), struktur hukum (keterpaduan antar sub sistem dalam sistem peradilan pidana), dan budaya hukum (kesadaran dari aparat penegak hukum terhadap kewenangan yang dimilikinya) guna mencegah timbulnya miscarriage of justice (peradilan sesat).

---

The criminal justice system is a process that is intended to solve crimes through judicial proceedings conducted against criminal offence. The criminal justice system is realized through a provision called the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). Indeed the Criminal Codeaimed at protecting the rights of accused and/or defendant sand set tasks for each of the sub-systems of criminal justice in order to create an integration of the criminal justice system. However, the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code is still far from the goal and thus potentially give rise to violations against the rights of accused/defendant. Therefore, the need for a reform of the Criminal Procedure Code. The reform embodied in the draft Criminal Procedure Code (R-KUHAP). In draft Criminal Procedure Code, there are values that are adopted in common law. One of these values is plea bargaining. However ,the draft Criminal Procedure Code does not ultimately adopted the values of plea bargaining that exist in common law. The draft Criminal Procedure Code is only take a guilty plea which is one of the values of the plea bargaining. The position of plea bargaining (plea guilty) is regulated int he draft Criminal Procedure Code through a “Special Track” clause contained in the adjudication stage. Adoption of plea bargaining (guilty plea) in the draft Criminal Procedure Code due tothe benefits of this institution. One of the benefits is seen in the embodiment of a fast, simple and low-cost judicial/trial in implementation of plea bargaining (plea guilty). In addition to the benefits, there is also a potential loss when implementation of the institution of plea bargaining (plea guilty) do not work properly till causing the miscarriage of justice. Therefore, implementation of plea bargaining (plea guilty) will be required integration of three values of law as advanced by Friedman namely substance law (embodiment legislation related plea bargaining), structure law (coherence between sub-system in criminal justice systems), and cultural law ( of consciousness of law enforcement officials the authority to file to prevent the spread of miscarriage of justice."

"Triparite consultation has become widely estabilised in china and is often referred to as "Collective bargaining" by the Government and the All-China Federation of Trade

---

"

"Penyelesaian perkara tindak pidana khusus narkotika seharusnya dapat diselesaikan secara lebih efektif dan efisien, dengan menjunjung tinggi asas peradilan cepat, sederhana, dan biaya ringan. Penyelesaiaan perkara secara lambat menimbulkan masalah lain, seperti berupa penumpukan perkara. Indonesia telah mencoba beberapa sistem untuk menerapkan sistem peradilan pidana yang lebih efektif dan efisien, seperti whistleblower dan justice collabolator, namun pelaksanaan sistem tersebut belum mampu mengatasi permasalahan penumpukan perkara. Rancangan KUHAP mencoba menggabungkan nilai-nilai hukum yang terdapat dalam sistem hukum Civil Law dan sistem hukum Common Law, dengan tujuan meningkatkan efektivitas hukum acara pidana dan mewujudkan suatu peradilan yang cepat, sederhana, dan berbiaya ringan serta melindungi hak dan kewajiban para pihak yang terkait dalam peradilan pidana. Salah satu hal yang diambil dari sistem hukum Common Law adalah konsep pengakuan bersalah (plea of guilty) yang dikenal dengan lembaga Plea Bargaining. Plea Bargaining yang dimaksud ialah sebuah proses penyelesaian perkara yang lebih cepat dan efisien, berupa pembelaan pengakuan bersalah atau tidak ada kontes (nolo contendere). Jalur khusus mengadopsi nilai-nilai yang ada di plea bargaining, walaupun tetap terdapat perbedaan-perbedaan yang dengan jelas memisahkan kedua konsep tersebut. Hasil penelitian ini menemukan bahwa Jalur Khusus yang ada di KUHAP masih memiliki beberapa permasalahan, seperti pengaturan yang di RKUHAP untuk mengatur jalur khusus kuranglah terperinci. Dalam RKUHAP, jalur khusus hanya diatur dalam satu pasal, yaitu pasal 199 RKUHAP. Dengan kurangnya pengaturan terhadap jalur khusus, dapat mengakibatkan kemungkinan terdapat tahapan yang terlewatkan dan terdapat pelanggaran hak asasi dalam proses pidana tersebut.

---

The settlement of cases of narcotics crimes should be resolved more effectively and efficiently, by upholding the principles of quick, simple and low cost trial. The slow settlement of cases creates other problems, such as a backlog of cases. Indonesia has tried several systems to implement a more effective and efficient criminal justice system, such as whistleblowers and justice collectors, but the implementation of these systems has not been able to solve the problem of case accumulation. The draft Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP) tries to combine legal values contained in the Civil Law legal system and the Common Law legal system, with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of criminal procedure law and creating a trial that is fast, simple and low cost and protects the rights and obligations of the parties involved in criminal justice. One of the things taken from the Common Law legal system is the concept of plea of guilty, known as the Plea Bargaining institution. Plea Bargaining in question is a process of solving cases that is faster and more efficient, in the form of plea plea guilt or no contest (nolo contendere). Jalur Khusus adopts the values that exist in the plea bargaining, although there are still differences that clearly separate the two concepts. The results of this study found that the Jalur Khusus in the Criminal Procedure Code still has several problems, such as the arrangement in the RKUHAP to regulate Jalur Khusus is less detailed. In the RKUHAP, Jalur Khusus is only regulated in one article, namely article 199 RKUHAP. With the lack of regulation on special routes, it can result in the possibility of missed stages and human rights violations in the criminal process."