The article examines the legal regulations concerning the right of trade unions to obtain information from the employer. Trade unions, acting in the interests of the employees, have access to key data on working conditions and the company’s affairs. This disclosure of information enables them to conduct effective negotiations, participate in decision-making processes, and strengthen social dialogue in the workplace.

The author analyzes the issue of employee business travel in terms of its classification as working time. He views business travel more broadly, encompassing the time spent performing assigned work tasks at the destination, travel time, and, sometimes, rest time. He sees the inclusion of travel time as working time as the main problem. He emphasizes that this issue is approached differently in case law and labor law scholarship, a fact compounded by the limited legal provisions governing business travel. For clarity, he first addresses the concept and types of business travel. Next, he analyzes business travel through the lens of the definition of working time, specifically examining whether travel time can be considered a period of time at the employer’s disposal, and at a designated work location, which would imply its recognition as working time.

The paper is an analytical essay on the future of labour law under conditions of ‘new feudalism’, understood as an order of dependency based on the ownership of infrastructure and data, in which the protection of rights becomes conditional and selective. It begins with the claim that in such a configuration labour law loses its universalist character and increasingly functions as a licence granted to selected groups of workers rather than as an instrument for mitigating inequalities. The author shows how the concentration of ownership, the fissuring of workplaces and the digital organisation of employment lead to the deinstitutionalisation of labour law, the erosion of the collective subjectivity in the world of work and the progressive juridification of inequality. The platform economy and complex subcontracting chains are treated as a lens through which a broader tectonic shift becomes visible: the transfer of real power from workers to the owners of infrastructure and data. In conclusion, the text highlights the gap between ‘islands of progress’ case law and new regulations and the ‘sea of erosion’ of everyday enforcement, where institutions increasingly perform only the ritual of protection. The essay does not offer a catalogue of reforms but invites reflection on the language in which work can still be described and defended as a source of subjectivity, rather than merely as a transaction.

This paper explores the legal and institutional controversies surrounding the recognition of sex work as a legitimate form of labour in Europe. Taking as its starting point the 2024 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of M.A. and Others v. France, which upheld the criminalisation of clients under the Nordic model, the author argues that such rulings reinforce a paternalistic framework of ‘protection’ at the expense of the autonomy, safety, and rights of sex workers. The paper examines the various regulatory models in Europe – from prohibition to full decriminalisation – and their symbolic and practical consequences. The focus is on the tensions between human rights protection, public interest, and the agency of sex workers themselves. Recognising sex work as work requires an institutional shift: moving from a logic of punishment towards one of protection, regulation, and representation. The analysis also addresses the role of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the limited access to collective representation, and the experience of trade unions and grassroots initiatives such as the UK’s Sex Workers’ Union (SWU) and Argentina’s AMMAR. The conclusion is clear: no framework can be complete or genuinely equitable without acknowledging the agency and voice of sex workers.

The EU Directive 2023/970 is intended as a remedy for the persistent pay inequalities between men and women. It contains a comprehensive set of pay transparency mechanisms that seek to address the information asymmetry regarding salaries between employers and employees. These measures will not only apply during employment, but also at the pre-contractual stage. This article discusses the pay transparency prior to employment mechanisms provided for in the Directive (obligation to disclose the salary range at an early stage of recruitment, prohibition of asking about previous earnings, and therequirement of neutral and non-discriminatory job advertisements) and compares them with the current standards in Poland. The issue of the Directive’s personal scope was also addressed. The aim was to determine the extent to which the Directive’s implementation will affect the national legal framework for the recruitment process, as well as to put forward proposals for the wording of the provisions implementing the solutions in question.

The author analyzes the concept of “remaining at the employer’s disposal” as part of the definition of working time under Article 128 of the Labor Code. He sees the fundamental problem as identifying the premises for recognizing that an employee is at the employer’s disposal. He emphasizes that this issue is approached differently in case law and labor law scholarship, which necessitates systematization and a position that takes into account the current legal status and prevailing socio-economic realities. He adds that recognizing a given period as working time is important ­because it directly impacts the employment relationship between the parties. He also considers it crucial to address the relationship between the concepts of “remaining at the ­employer’s disposal” and “being in readiness for work,” as they are not synonymous and are sometimes used inconsistently. He also considers whether it is possible to be at the employer’s disposal in at least two concurrent employment relationships.