MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2335315447 · doi:10.14288/1.0095667

Resistance to exploitation : East Indians and the rise of the Canadian Farmworkers Union in B.C.

2010· article· en· W2335315447 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carol R. Jhappan

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésResistance (ecology)Political scienceGeographyEcologyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

British Columbia has an undistinguished history of racial discrimination against ethnic minorities, most notably against "Asiatics", such as the Chinese, the Japanese and East Indians. Members of these "visible" minorities were allowed into the province in the past as cheap labour, often with the proviso that they enter designated occupations. These occupations were usually the low-status, low-paying jobs spurned by whites, such as domestic service and farmwork. "Asiatics" were systematically denied the opportunity to participate in the political sphere by Acts of disfranchisement, which in turn prohibited access to certain potentially powerful positions. Discrimination by statute was both blatant and intentional, and there is little doubt that the law sanctioned public animosity towards non-white minorities. One particularly subordinated sector of the work force was (and is) agricultural labour. Farmworkers are a minority both numerically and in that approximately ninety per cent of them in B.C. are of East Indian origin. As a group they have never enjoyed the benefits of protective labour legislation afforded other B.C. workers. Discrimination against farmworkers has taken the forms, either of omission from certain acts, or outright exclusion from protective provisions. Farmworkers have, until recently, been denied the right to unionize, as well as the coverage of minimum wages, Workers' Compensation and statutory safety regulations for farms, despite the fact that farmwork is the third most dangerous occupation in Canada. In 1979, a Farmworkers Organizing Committee was formed, which later became the Canadian Farmworkers Union. The C.F.U. represents a response to legislative discrimination, and its purpose is to fight for the rights and dignity of farmworkers. The strategies employed by the Union in pursuit of its goals have been those of a resource-poor minority, and are aimed at securing benefits for farmworkers comparable to those of other B.C. workers. This thesis is the story of that struggle. It is a struggle against injustice, inequality and exploitation. The thesis explores the grievances of B.C.'s farmworkers and analyses the tactics utilized by the C.F.U. The argument presented, however, maintains that although the Union has enjoyed some success in its attempts to eliminate discrimination, it has been partially pre-empted by the Social Credit government's Employment Standards Act of 1980. Further, the (limited) degree of success has, to an extent, obviated the basis of the C.F.U.'s continued struggle. The Union is currently at a political cross-roads, whereby its survival is threatened by the dual problems of a critical financial situation and a depleting membership, and not least by the unconcealed anti-unionism of the present Social Credit government and the resistance of the farmers' B.C. Federation of Agriculture. Because the C.F.U. is unparalleled in Canada, and because it is relatively new, little literature exists which is specifically related to the issue. Therefore, the primary research presented here is based primarily on interviews with individuals concerned in one way or another with the farmwork issue. They included members of and workers for the C.F.U., lawyers, trade unionists, politicians, bureaucrats, farmers, contractors and farmworkers. Where portrayals of the 'facts' differed, I have recorded the range of opinion (where numbers warranted), and where information was corroborated by newspaper reports or other written sources, I have quoted those sources for easy reference. Another major source of information was that provided by various written submissions (for example, recommendations and briefs) to the government and to the Human Rights Commission, as well as occasional informal papers written by concerned individuals.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,050
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,364

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0280,006
Communication savante0,0050,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,161
Écart entre enseignants0,156 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Même sujetCanadian Identity and History→Travaux en français237 207→