A New Look at Shorter Hours of Work in the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that we need to look again at hours of work. One out of every five Canadians is working more than 40 hours a week as their regular hours, while one out of ten work over 50 hours. On top of this, overtime is excessive - paid overtime alone is the equivalent of 225,000 full-time jobs. A major study by the CEP in the pulp and paper industry has shown that overtime may be more expensive than hiring additional workers and that workers are willing to reduce overtime in order to save or create jobs. On reducing regular hours of work, the CEP has found that additional days away from work, once negotiated and experienced, are extremely popular. While more time off is about job creation, better health and safety and improving family and social life, it opposes the lean and mean approach of business corporations. Cet article soutient que nous devons repenser les heures de travail. Un Canadien ou une Canadienne sur cinq a une semaine de travail normale de plus de 40 heures et un ou une sur dix travaille plus de 50 heures par semaine. Qui plus est, les heures supplémentaires sont excessives. Les heures supplémentaires rémunérées comptent, à elles seules, pour l’équivalent de 225 000 emplois à plein temps. Un importante étude réalisée par le SCEP dans l’industrie papetière a révélé qu’il peut être plus coûteux de faire effectuer des heures supplémentaires que d’engager des employés ou employées additionnels et que les gens sont disposés à réduire leurs heures supplémentaires afin de maintenir ou de créer des emplois. Le SCEP a constaté que les personnes ayant consenti à réduire leurs heures normales de travail apprécient grandement leurs journées libres supplémentaires. L’augmentation du temps libre est destinée à créer des emplois, à accroître la santé et la sécurité et améliorer la vie familiale et sociale, mais elle s’oppose au régime minceur des entreprises.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".