Bibliographic record
Abstract
The North American model of workplace law is broken, characterized by declining frequency of collective bargaining, high levels of non-compliance with employment regulation, and political deadlock. This paper explores whether the theory of “decentred regulation” offers useful insights into the challenge of improving compliance with employment standards laws. It argues that the dominant political perspective on workplace regulation today is managerialist. Politicians with a managerialist orientation reject both the pluralist idea that collective bargaining is always preferred and the neoclassical view that it never is. Managerialists accept a role for employment regulation and unions, particularly in dealing with recalcitrant employers who mistreat their employees. The fact that managerialists and pluralists agree on this latter point creates a space for potential movement on workplace law reform. A law that encourages “high road” employment practices, while fast-tracking access to collective bargaining for “low road” employers could encourage greater compliance with employment regulation, while also facilitating collective bargaining at high-risk workplaces. This article examines lessons from scholarship on decentred regulation for the design of a legal model capable of achieving these results. In particular, it develops and assesses a dual regulatory stream model that restricts existing rights of employers to resist their employees’ efforts to unionize once they have been found in violation of targeted employment regulation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".