Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization has been accompanied by a decline in unionization; however, while globalization presents extremely serious challenges to unions, globalization does not necessarily result in weakened unions. It is important for unions to identify and utilize ways to increase and leverage union power that are responsive to the pressures of globalization. Companies frequently introduce training during restructuring efforts aimed at remaining competitive in a global environment. This paper describes a joint union-management training program which offers an example of a pro-active union approach to joint training initiatives. The training took place in early 2004 in a typical paper mill in central Wisconsin. While the training was designed and undertaken in response to various competitive pressures, the content of the training was primarily determined by employee focus groups. The training design is examined against criteria for successful union involvement in joint ventures. The paper argues that, while joint ventures typically address management's production concerns at the expense of labor, a pro-active union can work to ensure that benefits also accrue to the union. Recent literature on union power in a globalized economy suggests that this training model could be used in other industries to enhance union knowledge and power.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".