Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article examines how migration laws erode labour protections for migrant workers, highlighting critical implications.
This article examines how the principle of non-waivability in labour law is being systematically eroded for migrant workers. It argues that a fundamental tension exists between labour law — which seeks to protect and empower workers — and migration law — which prioritises the welfare of citizens, instrumentalises migrant labour, and seeks to limit redistribution of a nation’s resources, benefits, and opportunities to non-citizens. The article demonstrates how consent-based arguments, rooted in migration law, are used to justify the exclusion of non-citizens from otherwise non-waivable labour protections. By analysing legislative, judicial, and policy decisions, it reveals how these arguments contribute to a stratified labour market and the erosion of migrant workers’ rights. Using Israel as a case study, the article first outlines the traditional understanding of the legal mechanisms that temper non-waivability — legislated derogations, court settlements, and good faith — before turning to its core argument: consent-based reasoning, imported from migration law and governance, adds a further layer of erosion of non-waivable rights. The article illustrates how migration law’s logic infiltrates labour law, transforming non-waivable protections into conditional entitlements and reshaping the normative foundations of labour rights.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ben-Israel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: