The equality of men and women rights in the labor area in the EU and Russia-comparative analysis

It is enshrined in international instruments, national constitutions and laws. However, despite considerable progress, much of the world there is inequality between men and women. It also concerns labor relations. If we compare inequality in labor relations for various reasons, it turns out that the basis of gender - is the most common discriminatory basis.The situation of Russian women in employment is regulated by a number of international conventions: the ILO Convention № 45 (1935), "Employment of women on underground work in mines of all kinds'; ILO Convention № 100 (1951) "On equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value"; ILO Convention № 103 (1952) "On Maternity Protection"; ILO Convention № 111 (1958 ) "On Discrimination in employment and occupation"; ILO Convention №156 (1981). "On Equal Treatment and Equal Opportunities for Men and Women Workers: Workers with Family Responsibilities».Other documents: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms 1948, the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Unfortunately, a common feature of these documents is that they are public is almost unknown. Similar provisions exist in the Russian legislation, primarily in the Constitution: the man and the woman have equal rights and equal opportunities for their implementation (Part 3 of Article 19.); everyone has the right to freely dispose of their abilities to work, choose the type of activity and profession, to remuneration for labor without any discrimination (Art. 37), and others. The declaration of gender equality does not mean the achievement of real equality between men and women, as evidenced by the international women's movement growth.It should be noted that in the past decade in many Western countries legal acts which established a special labor protection of women is gradually canceled. Acts under the special protection of women's work or significantly weakened by exceptions and reservations, either directly canceled by legislative or other governmental authorities or courts declared contrary to the laws on the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of gender and declared devoid of legal force (the latter is typical of the United States). The strong trend is visible in the Nordic countries, according to a Swedish lawyer R. Nielsen, "the current legislation is characterized by an almost complete absence of specific rules on labor protection of women".On the one hand, the labor rights of Russian women thoroughly protected by the RF Constitution, the Labor Code and other acts of labor. But in fact, women are quite vulnerable and uncompetitive on the market toil. According to Russian scientists now occupies 74th place in the world in the field of gender equality, and employment discrimination has become even greater, than in Soviet times, the magnitude [3, p. 62]. The differentiation of the legal status of women in the labor market, fixed the Labour Code, should contribute to the level of social protection of the worker, but not a reduction. With its decline, we just find ourselves in a situation of discrimination.The norms of the Russian legislation can cause difficulties for the employer, who has decided to hire a woman. In our view, many of the norms of the Labour Code, one way or another women's rights need to be converted by the legislator of the imperatives in discretionary rules. And at the level of the collective or individual employment contracts the employer with the employee could envisage the presence or absence of privileges to women who would be determined by the reproductive function and mental and physical characteristics of the floor. Modern Russian business often shows examples of collective agreements in which the provisions governing the work of women is much higher than the level of guarantees norms of the Labour Code. As pointed out by V.N. Kaurov "guarantees and privileges granted to women turn into antilgoty because" [6, p. 130], provided that they are not at the expense of their who declares that not at the expense of the state, which declared itself a social, but at the expense of the employer, to which it has assigned its responsibilities to ensure that benefits and who is not profitable, and it is not necessary. In the analysis of judicial practice in cases of discrimination in employment is evident almost complete absence of case law relating to breach of the principle of equality. The reason for this lies in the fact that the worker to prove discrimination in court is almost impossible. And the burden of proof under the Russian legislation lies with the worker, which in our opinion is quite controversial. Resolution of the Russian Federation of the plenum of the Supreme Court of 17 March 2004 "On application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Russian Federation Labor Code" drew attention to the issue of proof of discrimination. Item 10 of the Regulation states: "Since the current legislation contains only an illustrative list of reasons that an employer may not refuse to hire a person seeking employment, the question of whether there was discrimination in case of failure to conclude an employment contract shall be decided by the court when considering a particular case”. The question of the presence or absence of discrimination is given at the mercy of the judge, which does not provide any criteria for making a decision. We have seen it is necessary to develop at the legislative level of the proof system of discrimination, similar to how it is done in the US, and the allocation of clear criteria according to the employee would be able to determine whether he had been discriminated against. Normally, national legislation determines the level of proof required: the burden can be heavy (for example, no doubt) or light (for example, more likely than not). To protect the rights of victims of discrimination, national legal systems and supranational European Union approved a general rule in favor of the plaintiffs: the burden of proof is, in principle, on the other side, which claims of discrimination against her. But the claims must be proved only to the extent of low probability. If the applicant can provide more evidence of discrimination, the burden of proof shifted to the employer that either refute this evidence, or give conflicting information ("change" or "transfer" the burden of proof). The relevant rules are based on the fact that it is usually the employer is in the advantageous position of owning all the documents and other evidence, and if you do have a good reason for "special" treatment, it will be easy to prove.ConclusionsGender equality is often discussed at various levels in Russia, the State Duma is considering a draft law on State guarantees of equal opportunities for men and women. Analyzing the content of this bill, we can conclude that even if the law is passed, it will not change the situation.Change is possible only if amendments to legal acts, which determine the position of women in employment. In particular, it is necessary to convert the privileges that exist in the Russian legislation, the guarantee that women, if desired, could take advantage of. A crucial role in eliminating discrimination and promoting equality in the workplace belongs to the state.Legislation should facilitate the settlement of problems of discrimination in the workplace. We believe that it is necessary to reform the Russian legislation on women's occupational safety and health based on the ILO gender policy. In particular, the need to adopt instruments adapted to a more modern approach to ensure equality. As an example, you can specify the principles that apply to both women and men. This is stated in the ILO N 171. Health Protection Convention in specific cases should be provided for all employees, regardless of gender. Special measures against women should be made only when such work, which can be potentially dangerous for women's reproductive function. Although it requires to take into account scientific advances.It is important to create a special authority, such as the Equal Opportunities Commission in the United States. The Authority should monitor discrimination in employment, and has the authority to resolve disputes about discrimination in labor relations. The employer must prove yourself, whether discrimination is present. In this case we are talking about registered prizumutsii guilt employer discrimination, and to develop clear criteria for discrimination, which would earn jurisprudence and would enable workers subjected to discrimination, to protect their rights..List of references1. Voronina O.A. Feminism and gender equality. M., 2004. P.152. 2. Kiselev I.Y. Comparative Labor Law countries with developed market economies. M., 1995. 3. I. Kalashnikov, Nedohlebova E. Gender aspects of employment. // Man and trud.2005.№11. 4. Semenyuta NN // The prohibition of discrimination in labor relations. Bulletin of Omsk University 1997 Issue 2.5. Kaurov VG Protection of workers on international labor law, labor law US and Russia: A Comparative Study. Diss. cand. jurid. Science. Vladivostok.2001. 6. ABC of the rights of women and gender equality. M., 2004.7. Lushnikov, AM Gender equality in the family and work: lawyers /A.M notes. Lushnikov, MV Lushnikova, NN Tarusina.- M.: Prospekt, 2006.8.Isaev E.A.Principle of equality in employment law: the gender dimension // The young scientist. - 2010. - №10. - S. 178-181.