Union Raiding Activity and the Value of Canadian Firms: Do Unions Pick Stock Market Winners?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the stock market performance of Canadian firms that are subject to union raids. Two methods of inference are employed: the usual standardized residual method and a bootstrap method that yields confidence intervals and hypothesis tests that are robust to non‐normal or heteroscedastic returns. Firms involved in raid applications outperform the market with an average cumulative abnormal return of 15% five months after the final decision on the application. There do not appear to be any significant differences between raid applications that are won by the raiding union and those that are lost. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that unions are rent seekers that target firms with above average expected returns to shareholders. Résumé Ce mémoire analyse la performance des entreprises canadiennes sur le marché boursier lorsqu'elles sont assujetties au maraudage syndical. Deux méthodes d'inférence sont utilisées: la première est basée sur la méthode des résidus standardisés et la seconde sur la méthode d'auto‐amorçage (bootstrap). Cette dernière donne des intervalles de confiance et des tests qui sont robustes aux rendements qui sont caractérisés par une distribution non‐normale et par de l'hétéroskédasticité. Les entreprises qui ont adopté le maraudage syndical ont obtenu un rendement superieur à celui observé sur le marché avec un rendement anormal cumulatif moyen de 15% cinq mois après l'adoption du maraudage syndical. Les différences entre les tentatives de maraudage syndical qui sont réussies et celles qui sontperdues ne sont pas significatives. Les résultats de l'analyse sont en accord avec l'hypothèse selon laquelle les syndicats étant à la recherche de gains visent les entreprises ayant un rendement pour les actionnaires supérieur à la moyenne.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".