Regulating employment relations, work and labour laws : international comparisons between key countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexity of employment arrangements in various countries tends to make it difficult to understand them. Nevertheless, it is important to 'take stock' periodically, particularly from an internationally comparative perspective. This remarkable book is a giant step in that direction. It is especially valuable in the context of increasing globalisation. For each of nine key jurisdictions - the European Union, Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan -experts present detailed information and analysis on key issues, shedding valuable light on trends in such specific areas of employment relations as the following: * atypical work and flexible work arrangements; * dispute settlement procedures such as negotiation, conciliation, mediation, arbitration and other forms of governmental or judicial intervention; * job security, anti-discrimination, and gender equality; * recognition of unions and employers' associations and forms of employee representation; * how collective bargaining is regulated, who the collective agreements cover and what they contain; * parental leave and childcare policy; * the capacity of individual agreements to override or not override collective agreements; * minimum wage levels; * overtime and shift work; and * paid leave entitlements. As a general framework, an introductory chapter offers a highly insightful summary of the underpinnings of current analysis of globalization, including discussion of the varieties of capitalism thesis, the divergence/convergence debate (with its models of bipolarization, clustering, and hybridization), and elements of historical and political-economic path dependency in various cultures. The information gathered here provides a powerful new understanding of the increasing 'disconnect' between the prevailing institutional framework for employment relations and the sweeping changes that are taking place in the world of work. With this book's analysis, practitioners and policymakers will be able to overcome their dated assumptions and more effectively accommodate each others' interests in the face of the complex mix of continuity and change that they are confronting. The team of authors are authoritative experts in these countries. They are active in policy or legal analysis, business and/or scholarship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".