Collective Representation and Bargaining for Self-Employed Workers: Final Report
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This report seeks to identify and discuss feasible models for collective representation and bargaining for self-employed contractors in the federal jurisdiction. The term “self-employed contractors” refers to workers who would be classified as “independent contractors” under the Canada Labour Code (CLC) Part I and, consequently, be excluded from the ambit of CLC collective representation and bargaining provisions. The study utilizes fieldwork, in the form of interviews and focus group discussions, in four sectors of interest, namely, road transportation, broadcast media, technology, and telecommunications, in order to explore and assess potential models for statutory collective representation and bargaining for self-employed workers. At the outset, the report provides necessary background for the models sought to be tested through fieldwork by delineating freedom of association obligations under the Canadian Charter and international labour law and outlining key approaches or models by categorizing them along a continuum from collective representation to collective bargaining. The literature reviewed includes research on the capacity and activities of non-union organizations as well as theories and findings pertaining to the propensity and needs of workers to organize. The report, with respect to each sector of interest, identifies fundamental features of organization of work by self-employed workers that are relevant to collective representation and bargaining. It also examines the degree of unionization of each sector, with a specific emphasis on self-employed workers, and applies relevant theories of organizing propensity to theoretically evaluate the possibility of self-employed workers in the sector organizing. Moreover, the report sheds light upon cross-sectoral considerations relevant to organizing, including confusion pertaining to the applicability of federal jurisdiction, the perceived prevalence of misclassifying employees or dependent contractors as independent contractors, conflict of interests amongst workers, and the accentuated vulnerability of recent immigrants and foreign workers, whilst pointing out the limited capacity of non-union organizations to engage in collective representation or bargaining on behalf of self-employed workers. Additionally, the report also outlines six potential statutory models to facilitate collective representation and bargaining for self-employed workers in the four sectors of interest: (i) CLC Extension Model, which applies the provisions of CLC Part I to self-employed workers, (ii) Sectoral Bargaining Model, which establishes a sectoral bargaining system that allows the “most representative” association to bargain a sector-wide minimum standards agreement operating in parallel with the CLC, (iii) Bernier Model, under which worker associations may seek certification for one of three forms of workplace representation, namely, individual representation in relation to individual workplace matters, workplace consultation and information rights, and collective bargaining, whilst gradually advancing along this gradation; (iv) Sectoral Standard-Setting Model, under which the representatives of self-employed workers and employers would negotiate, with government representative participation, minimum standards, which would be incorporated into enforceable regulations after being accepted by the government; (v) Worker Forum Model, which provides for individual representation at the workplace level and collective representation at the sectoral level, and (vi) Protection for Collective Activity Model, which makes CLC unfair labour practice protection and relevant remedies applicable to self-employed workers so as to cover both organizing and non-organizing activity insofar as it is collective and pertains to workplace concerns. Lastly, the report, based on this analysis, provides recommendations for each of the sectors of interest.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».