Designing Collective Bargaining Frameworks for Self-Employed Workers: Lessons from Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity for workers to combine in order to further their economic and social interests is a fundamental right enshrined in the Conventions of the International Labour Organization. Despite this, access to lawful collective bargaining may be limited in national jurisdictions to a more restricted class of workers, namely 'employees'. In common law countries, self-employed workers (or independent contractors) are almost always excluded. The distinctions drawn in national collective bargaining schemes between who is covered and who is not are a product of twentieth-century forms of work organization which facilitated a clear delineation between 'employees' labouring for the benefit of their employer, and self-employed 'entrepreneurs' in business for themselves. However, the economic structures and forms of work organization underpinning that distinction have broken down. Workers in need of the protection and benefits collective bargaining offers may be excluded because their contractual arrangements do not fit the twentieth-century model of employment on which access to collective bargaining is commonly based. Exploring how the boundaries of labour law regulation should be redrawn for the new globalized, outsourced and restructured world of work is a major challenge confronting the labour law discipline. This article considers how we might redefine those boundaries in the context of collective bargaining to accommodate the needs of self-employed workers. Starting from the assumption that such workers should be provided with access to lawful collective bargaining, the article discusses the issues that arise in designing such a framework. The discussion will draw upon various schemes in Australia and Canada that have been designed for particular classes of precarious self-employed workers, considering the lessons that can be learned from those experiences.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".