neration would no longer be determined by demand and supply on the labour market, but by the government or some other kind of centralised institution (on what criteria?). While it is certainly true that markets too often fail to produce a fair distribution of income, it should not be overlooked that the price mechanism underlying free markets fulfils an important coordinating function, attracting labour supply to the economic sectors where it is needed most. This coordinating function would be thwarted if pay rates were set by the state. The arguments in favour of equal pay are presented in the fourth part of the book. It is argued that rewards other than money could be used to incentivise activities and professions that have a positive impact on society. The authors advocating equal pay for all refer, above all, to solidarity, pointing to the fact that the amount of pay earned by workers often depends on factors for which workers are not accountable, such as health or certain physical abilities. A possible objection to this argument is that ‘equal’ and ‘just’ are not necessarily synonymous terms. As known since Aristotle’s time, only like cases are to be treated alike. Thus, the equal treatment of unequal cases is unjust. Can all works performed really be said to be equal or of equal value? Moreover, granting an equal rate of pay may not result in equal economic treatment of all workers, since some individuals may have greater needs than others due to disease or other natural disadvantages, for example. In my view, the authors supporting equal pay for all could have discussed these aspects more thoroughly. What these considerations show is that an equal rate of pay is neither sufficient nor necessary to achieve an egalitarian system of wealth distribution. This fact is acknowledged by the authors of the second and third parts of the book, which – in my opinion – contain the most convincing contributions. Here, various regulatory alternatives to equal pay that are designed to reduce income disparities are discussed, such as a minimum income for all citizens or pay ratios (i.e., provisions requiring that the highest wages in an organisation or profession cannot be x times greater than the wages of the lowest-paid workers). Compared with the idea of an equal pay rate for all workers, these regulatory proposals seem much more practicable and may be of actual interest for policymakers. In sum, the book offers many different views and perspectives by experts from a wide array of disciplines. It is absolutely worthwhile reading for lawyers, philosophers, economists, social scientists, and policymakers alike.

中文翻译：

---

书评：员工参与的双重性质。Sára Hungler 的经济和人权问题

就业将不再由劳动力市场的供求决定，而是由政府或其他某种中央集权机构（根据什么标准？）决定。诚然，市场经常无法产生公平的收入分配，但不应忽视自由市场背后的价格机制发挥着重要的协调功能，将劳动力供应吸引到最需要的经济部门。如果工资率由国家设定，这种协调功能就会受到阻碍。支持同工同酬的论点在本书的第四部分提出。有人认为，金钱以外的奖励可用于激励对社会产生积极影响的活动和职业。提倡人人同酬的作者首先提到了团结，指出工人赚取的工资金额通常取决于工人不负责的因素，例如健康或某些身体能力。对这一论点的一个可能的反对意见是“平等”和“公正”不一定是同义词。众所周知，自亚里士多德时代以来，只有相同的情况才能被同等对待。因此，平等对待不平等案件是不公正的。所有完成的作品真的可以说是平等的或同等价值的吗？此外，给予同等工资率可能不会导致所有工人的经济待遇平等，因为例如，由于疾病或其他自然不利因素，某些人可能比其他人有更大的需求。在我看来，支持人人同酬的作者本可以更彻底地讨论这些方面。这些考虑表明，平等的薪酬水平对于实现财富分配的平等制度既不够也没有必要。本书第二部分和第三部分的作者承认了这一事实，在我看来，其中包含最令人信服的贡献。在这里，讨论了旨在减少收入差距的各种同工同酬的监管替代方案，例如所有公民的最低收入或薪酬比率（即，要求组织或专业中的最高工资不能比最高工资高 x 倍的规定）最低工资工人的工资）。与所有工人同工同酬的想法相比，这些监管建议似乎更加切实可行，并且可能对政策制定者产生实际兴趣。总共，这本书提供了来自广泛学科的专家的许多不同观点和观点。对于律师、哲学家、经济学家、社会科学家和政策制定者来说，这本书绝对值得一读。