U.S.-Russia-East Asia Comparisons of Dispatch (Temporary) Worker Regulations


Full Text:


Russia had few temporary workers in the 1990s, but after the fall of the Soviet Union and the entrance of foreign MNCs, the percent of workers on temporary contracts grew in 2014. In 2016, a new law was implemented that bans hiring temporary workers except through government-accredited agencies, but only for the purpose of substituting for employees who are temporarily absent from the workplace; to assist in the temporary expansion of production or services (for up to a maximum of nine months); and to provide temporary employment to certain approved categories of workers (i.e., fulltime students, single parents, parents of multiple children, and former convicts).
This paper will compare and contrast the current labor protections of temporary dispatch workers in the U.S. and Russia, with consideration also of the recent legislative labor protections provided in the East Asian countries of China, South Korea, and Japan.
Following the Introduction, the paper, in Part I discusses the phenomena of “fissurization,” in employment relations and its resulting legal implications for the regulation of “dispatch (agency)” workers in the above countries. Part II compares and contrasts the regulatory approaches of the U.S. with Russia and the East Asian countries of China, Japan, and South Korea; and the Conclusion follows. Perhaps the menu of regulatory legislation provided in this paper will be useful for those looking for the tools to construct dispatch regulation in the U.S.

About the Authors

Ronald Brown
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
United States

Professor of Law, William S. Richardson School of Law

2515 Dole Street, Room 241, Honolulu, HI 96822-2350, USA

Olga Rymkevich
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Senior Researcher, Marco Biagi Foundation

10 Largo Marco Biagi, Modena, 41121, Italy


1. Brown R.C. An Employee By Any Other Name? in Attività transnazionali: sapere giuridico e scienza della traduzione 107–122 (P. Sandulli, M. Faioli, eds., Roma: Nuova Cultura, 2011).

2. Cooke F.L. & Brown R. The Regulation of Non-Standard Forms of Employment in China, Japan and the Republic of Korea, Conditions of Work and Employment Series Nо. 64 (Geneva: ILO, 2015) (Feb. 20, 2017), available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_414584.pdf.

3. Grabell M. U.S. Lags Behind World in Temp Worker Protections, ProPublica, February 14,

4. (Feb. 20, 2017), available at https://www.propublica.org/article/us-lags-behindworld-in-temp-worker-protections.

5. Lyutov N. Russian Law on Discrimination in Employment: Can it be Compatible with International Labor Standards?, 4(3) Russian Law Journal (2016).

6. Ohta Y. Permanent v Temporary Workers – Employment Law Japan Spring 2016 Update, JSB (Feb. 20, 2017), available at https://www.jsbonline.com/knowledgebank/post/244/amendment-to-the-worker-dispatch-act-of-japan.

7. Smirnykh L. & Wörgötter A. Why do Russian Firms Use Fixed-Term and Agency Work Contracts?, IZA Policy Paper Nо. 54 (January 2013) (Feb. 20, 2017), available at http://ftp.iza.org/pp54.pdf.

8. Smirnykh L. Agency Work in Russia: To Be or Not to Be?, 57(21) Problems of Economic Transition (2014) (Feb. 20, 2017), available at https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=a4h9NWkAAAAJ&citation_for_view=a4h9NWkAAAAJ:KlAtU1dfN6UC.

Supplementary files

For citation: Brown R., Rymkevich O. U.S.-Russia-East Asia Comparisons of Dispatch (Temporary) Worker Regulations. Russian Law Journal. 2017;5(1):6-32. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2017-5-1-6-32

Views: 664


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)