The Status of Owner-Operators under the Canada Labour Code: Is Change Needed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a comprehensive examination of labor workplace issues in the Canadian trucking industry, the status of owner-operators was analyzed by means of an extensive literature review, stakeholder interviews, and a nationwide truck driver survey. A central question was the status of owner-operators under the Canadian Labor Code (CLC). They are a significant presence, especially in long-distance hauling and are not covered under Part III of the CLC, which denies them certain benefits. They are recognized as “dependent” employees under Part I, which allows them to participate in collective bargaining and be represented by a union. PART III sets minimum standards for employment, among other things. Part of the motivation for the study was to determine if Part III was still relevant, given technological changes in labor markets and transportation practices. The motivations for being an owner-operator (O/O) are detailed, including the goal of earning more money by driving longer hours. Whether the O/O actually captures productivity gains from such practices depends on the type of contract he or she is operating under. Additionally, the flexibility that O/Os prize also creates benefits for the shippers who contract with them. Dependent O/Os work under exclusive contracts, which is how the vast majority work in Canada. The study suggests that changing current practices could create disruptions to the system without offsetting gains. Suggestions are made to refine the current system to improve O/Os’ business operations and provide them with other institutional support to make them less dependent on shippers.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".