评论
打印
The authors argue that the fees prevent genuine claimants from enforcing their employment rights.
该书的作者认为费用阻止了真正的索赔人行使他们的就业权利。
In many cases the expected payoff is lower than the fee for starting the tribunal—which is not necessarily refunded even if the claim is upheld.
在很多案例中期望的报酬比一次开庭的费用低—即使诉求被赞成，开庭费用也不会退还。
The authors calculate that abandoning even a claim guaranteed to succeed is the rational response for 35-50% of would-be claimants.
该书的作者推测，对于35-50%的潜在索赔人而言，放弃即使是一次势在必得的索赔是理性反应。
Worse, there is little evidence that the fees have deterred only frivolous or mendacious claims.
更糟的是，几乎没有证据证明费用只制止了无用的或是虚伪的诉求。
If that were the case one would expect the success rate of claimants to have risen.
如果是这样的话，人们将期望索赔人成功率上升。
Instead, since 2012-13 the proportion of complaints that are struck out or dismissed has roughly doubled.
相反，自2012-2013年，被踢出局或驳回的投诉比重约已加倍了。
It may be that people with small but legitimate grievances have been deterred, whereas those who feel confident enough to game the system have gone ahead.
可能是那些有小量但合法不满的人们被制止了，而那些足够自信去玩弄体制的人已经走在前面了。
Even if convinced by such arguments, the Supreme Court may not recommend the abolition of fees entirely.
即使被这种看法说服，最高法院可能也不会建议费用完全被废除。
A report last year from the Justice Committee of the House of Commons acknowledged that a contribution by users to the costs of operating courts was not objectionable in principle.
去年下议院司法委员会的一项报告承认使用者对运转法庭的费用的贡献原则上并不是令人反感的。
A recent government review made a similar argument.
最近一次政府评论也做了相似的看法。
Yet Ms Adams and Mr Prassl argue that the steepness of the fees makes them a “disproportionate restriction on litigants' right of access to the employment tribunals”.
但是Ms Adams 和Mr Prassl argue认为，费用的陡度使他们成了“对诉讼当事人通往就业法庭不成比例的限制”。
That is bad not just for litigants but for Britain's labour market generally.
这不仅对诉讼当事人不好，对英国的总体的劳动市场也不利。
译文来源考研英语时事阅读
