Helping Out in the Family Firm: The Legal Treatment of Unpaid Market Labor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the work of individuals who help out informally with a family member's job, often without pay. Examples include the relative who works in the back room of the family business, the executive spouse who hosts corporate functions, the political wife who campaigns with her husband, or the child who does chores on the family farm. The term "unpaid market labor" (UML) is used here to describe the ways that family members collaborate directly in paid activities that are legally and socially attributed to others. The practical legal problems that can arise in relation to UML are illustrated in the context of Canadian and U.S. tax cases regarding the distinction between business and personal activities. The article surveys empirical evidence about the nature and extent of UML undertaken in industrialized countries, and recent studies which suggest that family collaboration in breadwinning may be growing in response to the pressures of economic globalization, technological change, and labor market restructuring. The author proposes a framework for incorporating an analysis of UML into feminist critiques of the market/family dichotomy in law, and responds to possible concerns that doing so may commodify family relations or implicitly devalue unpaid care work.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".