The legal politics of globalization and workers with disabilities in Canada and the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Workers with disabilities face profound marginalization in both Canada and the United States as determined by a wide variety of measures including labour market participation rates, poverty rates and income levels. However, the advent of deregulated labour markets in a fast-changing world of globalization means both enormous opportunities and perils for workers with disabilities. In this dissertation, I explore the contradictory implications of globalization for workers with disabilities and the important role that legal regulation can play in structuring choices and allocating resources and power. I advocate throughout in favour of the social-political model of disablement as the most persuasive in explicating the systemic problems faced by people with disabilities in Canada and the United States. This approach focuses on the structural barriers and discriminatory attitudes imposed by society on people with disabilities and contrasts sharply with earlier failed paradigms such as the medical and economic models of disablement. These barriers range widely from ignorant attitudes about the capabilities of people with disabilities that malignly encourage discrimination in the workplace to physical impediments such as staircases which make it impossible for many with mobility impairments to access workplaces, educational institutions and public services and the lack of information throughout society and the media in formats accessible to blind people. I maintain that two major implications of the social model for the legal regulation of workers with disabilities are (a) greater worker control over the day to day decisions in the workplace and (b) the provision of disability supports across a disabled person's lifespan that would be decoupled from employment status or income level. I assess some of the major schools associated with the Law and Economics scholarly tradition in light of their salience for the two prongs that I have articulated. These include, inter alia, Behavioural Law and Economics, the Law and Social Norms School, Institutionalist and Neo-Institutionalist Law and Economics, and Critical Race Theory Law and Economics. Finally, I apply the two implications of the social model to evaluate selected key trends of globalization including human capital intensive workplaces, flexible working arrangements, the emergence of new technologies and telework.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».