Managing workers’ capital? Limits and contradictions of labour investment funds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Labour-controlled investment is often touted as an alternative, pro-worker form of finance. Since 1983, the province of Quebec in Canada has experimented with workers’ participation in the form of workers’ funds controlled by the two major trade union federations. Drawing on research from secondary sources, archival material and semi-structured interviews, this article offers a comprehensive portrait of one of Quebec main workers’ funds, the FTQ Solidarity Fund. To date very little has been said about the impact of workers’ funds on firm governance, employment quality and labour relations. The article argues that any attempt to use investment to shape firm behaviour in the interests of workers and local unions is a limited and contradictory project. The argument is sustained through a discussion of the historical formation and institutional practices of the Solidarity Fund. The presence of large union-controlled investment funds offers local firms an alternative source of capital investment, protecting small and medium-sized firms from more aggressive financial actors. However, the main results show persistent tensions and contradictions between the Fund’s social goals and financial logics, as well as unintended effects on workplace union practices and power.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".