Revisi Undang-Undang Ketenagakerjaan Ke Dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2023 Tentang Cipta Kerja: Tinjauan Teori Utilitarianisme Dan Hedonistic Calculus
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
A relatively new approach to forming statutory regulations in Indonesia's national law is the omnibus law method, which combines several statutes into one. However, this has resulted in numerous legal issues within the employment sector as seen through Law Number 6 of 2023 regarding Job Creation. In light of these challenges, a study was conducted by examining how norms are regulated under the revised Manpower Law and whether they align with utilitarianism and hedonistic calculus theories. The author adopted normative research methods for their inquiry and sought to determine if revisions made pursuant to Law 6/2023 adhered appropriately to regulatory provisions established by previous iterations such that insights could be gathered about how effective it will be going forward while also evaluating whether its implementation conforms with philosophical principles espoused those schools mentioned earlier - ultimately concluding what impact any changes may have on employees given current employer practices across industries nationwide.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Adhistianto, M. F. (2020). Politik Hukum Pembentukan Rancangan Undang-undang Cipta Kerja (Studi Klaster Ketenagakerjaan). Pamulang Law Review, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.32493/palrev.v3i1.6530
Alfiyani, N. (2020). Perbandingan Regulasi Ketenagakerjaan dalam Undang-Undang Ketenagakerjaan dan Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja. AN-NIZAM Jurnal Hukum dan Kemasyarakatan, 14(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.44633/an-nizam.v14i2.318
Anderson, M. (2011). Machine Ethics (S. L. Anderson, Ed.; 1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978036
Archambeault, W. G. (1983). Implicatios for Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus for the Study of Deterrence: Marijuana Use and Vehicular Speeding. American Journal of Police, 3, 229.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2020). Omnibus Law dan Penerapannya di Indonesia. Konstitusi Press (Konpress).
Bentham, J., & Mill, J. S. (2004). Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Penguin UK.
Besar. (2016, Juni 30). Utilitarianisme dan Tujuan Perkembangan Hukum Multimedia di Indonesia. Business Law. https://business-law.binus.ac.id/2016/06/30/utilitarianisme-dan-tujuan-perkembangan-hukum-multimedia-di-indonesia/
Cannon, J. (2008). The Intentionality of Judgments of Taste in Kant’s Critique of Judgment. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 66(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-594X.2008.00287.x
Chung, H. (2023). Prospect Utilitarianism and the Original Position. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 9(4), 670–704. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2022.31
Erwin, M. (2021). Filsafat Hukum: Refleksi Kritis terhadap Hukum dan Hukum Indonesia (dalam Dimensi Ide dan Aplikasi) (Cetakan VIII). Rajawali Pers.
Fios, F. (2012). Keadilan Hukum Jeremy Bentham dan Relevansinya bagi Praktik Hukum Kontemporer. Humaniora, 3(1), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v3i1.3315
Firdaus, M. (2021). Pengaturan Ketenagakerjaan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 tentang Cipta Kerja Klaster Ketenagakerjaan Menurut Perspektif Hukum dan HAM [Skripsi]. Universitas Lambung Mangkurat.
Firdaus, M. (2023). Perlindungan Hukum bagi Pekerja/Buruh dalam Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2022 tentang Cipta Kerja pada Klaster Ketenagakerjaan dari Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia [Tesis]. Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang.
Firdaus, M. I. (2023). Metode Omnibus Law dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia (Studi Perbandingan Negara Kanada, Amerika Serikat, Filipina dan Vietnam). Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 30(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol30.iss2.art1
Häyry, M. (2021). Just Better Utilitarianism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(2), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000882
Jhering, R. von. (1999). Law as a Means to an End. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.
Manullang, E. F. M. (2022). Misinterpretasi Ide Gustav Radbruch mengenai Doktrin Filosofis tentang Validitas dalam Pembentukan Undang-Undang. Undang: Jurnal Hukum, 5(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.5.2.453-480
Mill, J. S. (2020). Utilitarianisme: Prinsip Kebahagiaan Terbesar (E. A. Astanto, Ed.; A. Sari, Penerj.). Basa Basi.
Muhaimin, M. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Mataram University Press.
Nurhayati, Y., Zahir, M. Z. M., Ifrani, I., & Komarudin, P. (2022). Investment in Indonesia After Constitutional Court’s Decision in the Review of Job Creation Law. Lentera Hukum, 9(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.19184/ejlh.v9i3.32368
Pratiwi, E., Negoro, T., & Haykal, H. (2022). Teori Utilitarianisme Jeremy Bentham: Tujuan Hukum Atau Metode Pengujian Produk Hukum? Jurnal Konstitusi, 19(2), 268. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1922
Rahayu, D. P., & Sulaiman, S. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Thafamedia.
Rzepka, R., & Araki, K. (2013). Possible Usage of Sentiment Analysis for Calculating Vectors of Felific Calculus. 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, 967–970. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2013.70
Saepullah, A. (2020). Konsep Utilitarianisme John Stuart Mill: Relevansinya terhadap Ilmu-ilmu atau Pemikiran Keislaman. Aqlania: Jurnal Filsafat dan Teologi Islam, 11(2), 243–261.
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2004). Penelitian Hukum Normatif. PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Strauss, L., Bartlett, R. C., Kaye, D., Kowal, H., & Bartlett, R. C. (Ed.). (2022). The Hedonistic Calculus and the Problem of Courage (356c–359c). Dalam Leo Strauss on Plato’s “Protagoras” (hlm. 0). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226818160.003.0016
Suadi, A. (2021). Sosiologi Hukum: Penegakan, Realitas dan Nilai Moralitas Hukum. Kencana.
Sunaryo, S. (2023). The philosophy of social injustice for all Indonesian laborers set forth in Job Creation Law. Legality : Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 31(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v31i1.25330