Coercion and Freedom in Labour Law: American, Canadian, and Israeli Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes as its starting point the fact that we live in democratic and progressive societies, and all need to participate in social structures. Whether we like it or not, we are all part of a political and social organization, just as we are part of multiple social communities. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, as individuals in a given society, our associative efforts should be our strongest means for action and self-fulfilment (See Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835). ). Social structures need to solve collective action problems, to facilitate collective action and safeguard the participants’ rights. Collective labour is a social structure, and one that needs to solve collective action problems. Based on Kelsen’s analytical framework, this article argues that freedom for the individual in the collective labour context is a form of political liberty: the employee is granted the right to vote and to define his or her collective representative will. The majority requirement and the need to pay union dues represent an inevitable compromise between the need to act collectively and the need to ensure individual freedom. It is argued that the demand to ensure total freedom for those taking part in collective bargaining is basically a call for its destruction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".