Laval and Trade Union Cooperation: Views on the Mobilizing Potential of the Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Laval case has been thoroughly examined from both legal and political perspectives, few references have been made to its implications for cross-border trade union cooperation. Using qualitative data from interviews with European trade union representatives, this article explores whether Laval hampered or stimulated transnational cooperation and mobilization.The analysis reveals that, although the interviewees identified the Laval case as particularly significant, they had difficulty mapping out a common route for dealing with the potential consequences of the case, such as wage dumping. Competing discourses co-existed as to the measures to be taken, displaying important and historically rooted differences between European trade unions regarding the context, scope and objectives of transnational collective action. In contrast, it could be argued that the risk of wage dumping arising from the Laval case and the ongoing discussion to find ways to manage this risk led European trade unions to address controversial issues that were in need of attention. It emerges from the interview materials that the management of these issues arguably entailed mobilization but, above all, the effect on transnational union relations appeared to be constitutive.
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 | 0.001 | 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".