Bibliographic record
Abstract
Should the law support union recognition by employers? If so, what form should this legal support take? These are the questions that Alan Bogg addresses in his excellent monograph,The Democratic Aspects of Trade Union Recognition. His focus is New Labour's 1999 statutory recognition procedure for trade unions, which he situates within the historical context of the United Kingdom's distinctive approach to the relationship between labour law and the social practice of collective bargaining – aptly (and famously) named collective laissez-faire by Otto Kahn-Freund (1972). Combining political philosophy and legal analysis, Bogg argues for robust legal support for trade union recognition that preserves the autonomy of trade unions to determine their own constituency and recognises their distinctive power to strike. Inspired by the idea of deliberative democracy and an ethical commitment to freedom as non-domination, he argues that civic republicanism provides the best normative basis for trade union recognition procedures. He contrasts this normative framework with the rights-based individualism and state neutrality characteristic of the liberal approach, which, he argues, is embodied in the United States and Canadian versions of industrial pluralism. Bogg also demonstrates the ‘yawning chasm between New Labour's civic rhetoric and New Labour's liberal legal reform agenda’ (pp. 118–19) when it comes to trade union recognition procedures. He concludes by offering a series of proposals that would enhance union recognition and further the values of freedom as non-domination, democratic participation through deliberative democracy, and community.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".