“The Employment Act Is My Third Child.”

Interview with JUDr. Ladislava Steinichová.

JUDr. Ladislava Steinichová talks about her path to law, which began during the era of normalization, when her interest in psychology and sociology gave way to a decision to study at the Faculty of Law. In the interview, she describes how she helped shape the modern Czech framework for employment and why she calls the “Employment Act” her “third child.” She also opens the topic of making law understandable in everyday practice and her long-term focus on supporting disadvantaged groups in the labour market. The piece also introduces her cooperation with VOLONTÉ—from debt counselling in prisons and lecturing to joint publications and the partnership with Café Martin.

Path to law

When did you first start considering a career in law? Was it already during school, or later?

I originally had somewhat different plans: I wanted to study psychology and sociology, and I was preparing for that even before my school-leaving exam. But it was the era of normalization; those fields “weren’t in fashion,” and I was advised to “find something related and, when possible later, transfer.” I looked around in front of the Faculty of Arts, saw UMPRUM to the left and the Faculty of Law to the right—and the decision was made.

What attracted you to law the most back then?

Above all, the fact that the curriculum included sociology and psychology. And quite a lot of “history” as well, including Roman law, which I enjoyed.

Was it more a desire for justice, a fascination with law, or the influence of a specific life event? Were you influenced by anyone in your family, among your teachers, or in your circle?

There were no lawyers in my family, and the family council wasn’t exactly thrilled, because “law” back then was rather a tendentious field; in terms of future employment, the most likely option was an in-house counsel. Given that my school-leaving exam was from a business academy, my prospects for other university programs were limited.

Do you remember the moment when you told yourself, “this really is the right path for me”?

Because I didn’t have trouble with my studies, I worked in my free time as a tour guide and interpreter for two travel agencies. Sometimes I studied while on trips, and when people noticed, they would ask questions, talk about their problems, or ask for advice—and that ability to “advise and help someone” probably convinced me it was the right path.

What were your first impressions of the Faculty of Law, and which subjects spoke to you most? Which lecturers made the strongest impression?

My impressions from the first semester were rather bleak: an impersonal, chilly building, a different teaching system, the ideological engagement of some classmates… I even considered giving up, but pure pragmatism won out: I wasn’t going to sit all day in an accounting office for a pittance like some of my classmates, have only 14 days of statutory vacation for another five years, and take any longer break only in the form of maternity leave. And then we had Docent Kincl for Roman law—he was so outstanding that even older students came back to hear his lectures again, and he could explain the history, development, and meaning of law in a truly captivating way. There were many other excellent teachers as well, especially in civil law, where it was still more about law than about ideological lines.

Was your study more about memorization, or did it lead you to think and look for connections?

Law is specific in that some things you simply do have to learn by heart—at the very least you must know where to look, because what is written in a statute or code is binding. You have to master the system of law, because civil and criminal law are about entirely different things, and administrative law has its own specifics. Unlike Anglo-American law in, say, the US or the UK, we don’t have to cram individual “precedents”—court decisions that may be centuries old but are still used in similar cases today. From the standpoint of thinking and looking for historical parallels, you can come to understand why certain things happen and situations repeat. And that people have behaved in almost the same ways for centuries and faced similar problems—the costumes and scenery just change. And that rules of conduct, and by extension law, ensure the survival of communities. I have to say that this kind of thinking and “searching for connections” comes more often with age, but it’s good to have a springboard for it early on.

During your studies, did you already know which legal field you wanted to focus on? How did that decision come about?

We didn’t have electives back then—everyone studied everything—so a certain specialization only came with the choice of topics for the diploma thesis. I chose copyright and industrial designs at the time, but as I was writing I realized that area of law is about “things,” not about people, so it wasn’t quite for me.

Did your interests change during your studies?

I was wavering a bit between my ideas of “what I’d like” and reality. I had neither a family background in a law firm nor any pull there, and I didn’t want to go to court… On the further path toward the JUDr. degree I discovered the field of social security and wrote my rigorous thesis on its development, which was very interesting; that’s when I first came across the concept of “employment placement offices” and what they do—something that proved very useful to me fifteen years later.

Professional Career

What were your first steps after graduating? Did you start working in the field right away, or did you try out different career paths first?

Because my tour-guiding had given me languages (Russian, German, and to some extent English and French), I first worked in the International Department of the Federal Statistical Office, collecting data and sending statistical reports to various international organisations. After my first maternity leave I chose a workplace closer to home and joined the Federal Ministry of Labour. I was taken on as a “promising young lawyer,” but assigned as a warehouse management clerk. Thanks to that, I got to know the ministry’s operations and backstage perfectly—secretaries, cleaners and drivers would come to my storeroom to draw supplies and occasionally complain about their bosses. To avoid any awkwardness (“a lawyer in the storeroom!”), I was transferred in under a year to the minister’s office, which let me see the institution from the top down. Two years after joining, I finally moved into a professional officer role in the Department of Labour, in the section handling foreign workers. Legally, that meant ensuring and inspecting foreign workers’ conditions and drafting international agreements in this area. In the latter half of the 1980s, perestroika began in the Soviet Union, structural changes were starting in our economy, and it became necessary (at first rather under the radar) to prepare regulations on unemployment, unemployment benefits, job-seeking and the creation of employment offices. I therefore changed agenda, was present at the birth of employment regulations, and half-jokingly said the Employment Act was my third child.

What did those first experiences give you?

That it’s no bad thing to “start from the bottom,” because every experience can come in handy. At the ministry of labour—first federal, later Czech—I worked in various agendas for 35 years. I didn’t even have to change employer; rather, my remit evolved, and I accumulated knowledge and experience in employment, labour law, social security, insolvency and more, which—given how interconnected the systems are—was a real asset in solving many problems. Over time I also held various managerial positions. I met many interesting people, both at the highest levels and all over the country. Unlike most colleagues, I spoke foreign languages, so after 1990 I was sent abroad and able to take part in drafting and negotiating a number of globally applicable ILO conventions in Geneva, and later in preparing EU directives and regulations in Brussels. I attended numerous conferences and meetings, for example the regular sessions of the EU Employment Committee and meetings of the heads of EU Member States’ public employment services.

What led you to work at the Faculty of Law at Charles University, and what do you still enjoy about it today? How does teaching differ from day-to-day legal practice?

The area of employment and its legal framework was entirely new here after 1989; it needed to be anchored within the legal system, which happened in cooperation with legal scholars as well. No one taught this at law faculties at the time, so I was invited to lecture. Although more experts helped create the legislation, my husband and I were the only practising lawyers involved—he, however, dislikes lecturing. I taught not only at the Faculty of Law of Charles University in Prague, but also in Olomouc and elsewhere, and at several secondary schools; I delivered hundreds of lectures for HR professionals and in-house counsel. It was also necessary to continuously train staff at the newly created employment offices… Each group of students requires a specific approach; you have to present “the subject-matter and the problem” from their point of view and hit their needs and experience—that calls for flexibility and real contact with people. In day-to-day legal practice it’s easy to fall into a certain routine; after all, the very wording of statutes often leaves little room for deviation.

What inspires you in your contact with students?

I had a great advantage: I was there at the birth of employment law as a new branch, and I’m the author or co-author of a number of legal norms—when you know what is in those regulations and why, what principles each provision is based on, and how they interrelate internally and with other laws, you have something to say. And when you have something to say, try to explain things and viewpoints to others, and at the same time listen to their questions and comments, it becomes a rich source of ideas and inspiration.

You co-author scholarly publications and commentaries on statutes—what kind of work do you find most fulfilling? What does the process of preparing such a publication look like?

With professional texts it usually depends on the “brief,” typically prompted by practical demand, and it makes no difference whether it’s a university textbook or a specialist publication addressing a specific issue for a defined group of users—you have to find out who you’re writing for and what they need from the author in their practice. Commentaries on statutes are a little different: there it’s important to explain the “philosophy of the law” and of its individual provisions—that is, why a particular regulation and wording were necessary. A commentary should assist both with the application of the law in practice and with the courts’ interpretation and decision-making. If the statute isn’t brand new, commentaries are often accompanied by case law as examples of real-world decisions.

Do you prefer working on commentaries to statutes, or on practice-oriented texts?

I don’t draw distinctions when I write; my core principle is that texts must be clear and genuinely useful to users.

Your career is linked with employment and labour law and with supporting disadvantaged groups. What drew you to that—chance, or a deliberate choice?

Disadvantaged groups in the labour market are addressed in ILO conventions and also in the Employment Act. When that Act was being drafted in the context of international standards, it was necessary to change perspective and, in addition to people already known from the Labour Code (such as persons with disabilities and young workers), include other groups for labour-market protection purposes—such as school leavers, mothers of small children, parents caring for children up to 15, people after serving a sentence, soldiers after discharge…

Which moments in this area have been the most enriching for you?

Probably personal contacts with people from minority segments of the population—both ethnic and social—with foreign workers, and with representatives of people with disabilities. Getting to know their differences and needs.

How do you view the biggest changes in Czech labour law you’ve encountered in your career? Which do you consider positive?

The biggest change was the adoption of the Employment Act in 1990, which enshrined the free choice of occupation and employment, including the option to go and work abroad. Work also ceased to be an obligation, and “not working” ceased to be a criminal offence.

Is there anything you would like to change about the current legal framework?

I would welcome a clear and well-structured body of law, an end to verbal ballast, and an end to changes or add-ons scattered across numerous, often disparate statutes.

Collaboration with VOLONTÉ

How and when did your collaboration with our organisation come about? Who brought you into it?

I was invited to work with VOLONTÉ by Ing. Zuzana Bejó, whom I had known from the time when my main agenda at the Ministry of Labour was the employment of foreign nationals and monitoring their working conditions. We collaborated throughout my service at the ministry and have continued seamlessly ever since.

What was your first role?

At first I worked as a debt counsellor in a project aimed at helping prisoners address their debts, and at the same time I lectured on the basics of employment law. The aim was to motivate prisoners to work and help them navigate the job-search process, including cooperation with the employment office after release.

Which projects have you taken part in so far, and what has been the most interesting for you? Do you recall a particularly powerful moment from practice?

Over the years at VOLONTÉ I have taken part in most projects, because some legal minimum was always needed. A powerful moment was entering the prison environment, where I had never been before—especially seminars with young offenders. I also found counselling for maternity and parenting centres interesting, and a particular highlight was the Women 50+ project.

The publication Mini-Guide to the World of (Not Only) Financial Literacy is among our joint outputs—how did this collaboration work, and what was your brief?

In creating this publication—as with some earlier ones—I acted not only as the author of my chapter, but also prepared templates for standardised letters and applications.

What surprised or inspired you while writing?

I was pleasantly surprised by the synergy among the co-authors and by our shared conviction that the booklet could help people in practice, at least to some extent, with difficult life situations.

What does it mean to you to work on projects that have a direct impact on the lives of people in difficult situations? How does this differ from academic work?

For me, practical impact has always mattered more than academic work. I consider VOLONTÉ’s projects valuable because good advice and a helping hand offered in time are crucial for people in difficult circumstances.

What has this experience given you personally?

A sense of fulfilment that I can still put earlier knowledge and experience to good use and thereby help people who need advice and support.

How would you describe the atmosphere and collaboration within the VOLONTÉ team? Which values do you see as shared?

I regard the work at VOLONTÉ as solid teamwork, and most people who have worked there or still do are on a similar wavelength. It is no accident, I think, that the projects are of a high standard and their delivery is generally well regarded. My activities for VOLONTÉ don’t require me to be there every day; I usually meet the team at various events, but whenever I stop by the office in Karlín, I’m happy to be there.

What are you most proud of in our collaboration—a specific project, an outcome, or a human story?

I’m probably proudest that in 2017, while implementing several projects, I managed to establish cooperation with Café Martin, a training café for people with intellectual disabilities or mental illness. Lectures and various other events for VOLONTÉ and partner organisations (e.g., the Centre for the Integration of Children and Youth in Karlín) still take place there today, so the benefit is twofold—both for VOLONTÉ’s “clients” and for the protected workplace Café Martin.

Looking Ahead

What topics would you like to open up in our future collaboration? Do you already have specific ideas or projects in mind?

Given that VOLONTÉ designs projects in response to societal demand and has long-term priorities and proven activities, there are people who are more competent in this area. At the same time, no one holds me back—quite the opposite—from bringing my own perspective into projects and defining the content of my own “module.”

In your view, what can the legal profession offer the non-profit sector, and conversely—what can the non-profit sector offer a lawyer? Do you see something in this collaboration that moves you forward personally?

A certain knowledge of law is a general necessity in everyday life. Beyond the fact that the non-profit sector operates within specific legal boundaries, the substantive scope of its activities typically cannot be carried out without legal knowledge—and therefore without a lawyer. A lawyer, in turn, has the opportunity to experience practice in less formal circumstances.

What advice would you give young lawyers considering work in the helping professions? What should they be prepared for?

They should be prepared to be genuinely approachable if they want to help, and their conduct and advice must be understandable to ordinary people. They also need to accept that their income, compared to other areas of legal practice, will not be particularly high.

What could help them succeed in this field over the long term?

When work isn’t only about income but also becomes a passion, success usually follows.