The Internationally Recognized Right to Strike: A Past, Present and Future Basis upon Which to Evaluate Remedies for Unlawful Collective Action?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of remedies for unlawful collective action is determined, under international law, by the impact which they have upon the ability of workers to organize collectively to defend their economic and social interests. In this way, the idea of a 'right to strike' operates as the basis for assessment of the legitimacy of remedies. This approach has been taken by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) supervisory bodies and transmitted to the bodies responsible for supervision of Council of Europe human rights instruments. Such an approach has, perhaps unsurprisingly, led to criticism of the potentially far-reaching remedies available to employers following the Court of Justice judgments in the Viking and Laval cases, which extended European Union (EU) free movement principles in ways that allow employers to prevent or penalize what would otherwise be regarded domestically as permissible industrial action and which compromise the right to strike. Two key examples are punitive financial sanctions which can be applied in Sweden and the scope in the UK for injunctive relief and unlimited compensation for employers. The difficulty is that ILO recognition of a right to strike is under threat by the employers' group, which is now objecting to the continuation of ILO jurisprudence which interprets ILO Convention No. 87 so as to link freedom of association and the right to strike. In this manner, the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) seeks to challenge the application of past ILO findings in European and domestic contexts. There would seem to be both a legal and a political battle to be fought in the ILO to defend its normative pedigree. If support for collective action is to be maintained, it may not be sufficient to look only at the past, but towards present challenges and manifold options for the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".