The Pay Equity Bargaining Process in Newfoundland: Understanding Cooperation and Conflict by Incorporating Gender and Class
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the latter half of the 1980s, when it was becoming apparent in Canada that previous equal pay policies had failed to close the gender wage gap, a number of provincial governments introduced pro–active pay equity policies. All these initiatives required the negotiation of pay equity in unionized workplaces. Leading up to the implementation of pay equity in Ontario, industrial relations specialists predicted an insurmountably conflictual process, whereas governments expected a new level of partnership with unions. Given these opposite expectations, the article aims to identify any significant patterns of cooperation and conflict in the pay equity bargaining process and to explore reasons for their dynamic. Based on a case study of Newfoundland’s health sector, neither prediction was correct as both conflict and cooperation occurred. It is argued that both the specificity and differences in the negotiations studied can be better understood by exploring the complex intertwinings of gender and class, namely, the ongoing articulation of their main manifestations: a reinforcing hierarchy and a transformative labour–feminist politic in the unions involved. The article concludes with some theoretical and policy observations concerning the importance of building in gender and class to current models of cooperative collective bargaining, as well as recognizing their importance in the pay equity process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".