Bibliographic record
Abstract
RtSUMtOn parle souvent de frminisation et de souplesse pour d6crire ce qui se produit sur les march6s du travail des pays industrialists depuis les ann6es 1980, bien qu'on ne s'entende pas sur leur signification.En examinant la toute nouvelle Loi sur les normes d'emploi de l'Ontario, l'auteur tente de d~montrer que la souplesse et la f6minisation sont deux ph~nom~nes lins ensemble A une diminution de la qualit6 des relations de travail types.Les changements ainsi apport~s aux normes minimales de la province en mati~re de travail t~moignent d'une philosophie n6olib6rale sur le plan de la r~glementation du march6 de l'emploi, notamment par rapport A la question des heures de travail.Ces modifications refl~tent toutefois une certaine consid6ration des difficults que pose aux travailleuses la responsabilit6 de s'occuper de leurs enfants et d'autres membres de la famille.En plus d'expliquer les contradictions qui en r6sultent, cet article illustre comment la politique du gouvernement ontarien en ce qui concerne les normes d'emploi aura vraisemblablement pour effet d'accroitre 1'ensemble des in6galites qui existent sur le march6 du travail et d'aggraver la repartition actuelle du travail selon le sexe, en plus d'&re inefficace.En refusant de remettre en question ses postulats de d~part, le gouvernement de l'Ontario agit sur l'6conomie comme une machine favorable h l'entreprise mais nuisant A l'int6rt public.Ten years ago, I argued in this Journal that it was time to redesign employment standards legislation in order both to bring it better into line with changing forms of employment and to elevate its status as a mechanism for regulating the labour market.'I identified trends in the Canadian labour market, especially the increase in nonstandard jobs historically associated with women workers and increasing inequality in the labour market, that were, and continue to be, associated with labour market polices Judy Fudge teaches employment and labour law at Osgoode Hall Law School, where she has been a member of the faculty since 1987.She wrote her first brief to the Ontario government on the Employment Standards Act in 1989 and has not stopped since.She is a member of the Employment Standards Work Group-a coalition of community legal clinics, unions, workers' advocates, and social justice organizations that focuses attention on the need for improved labour standards and better enforcement of employment standards legislation.She would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for the Community University Research Alliance grant to study contingent work for supporting the research on which this paper was based.1.Judy Fudge, "Reconceiving Employment Standards Legislation: Labour Law's Little Sister and the Feminization of Labour" (1991), 7 J.L. Soc.Pol'y 73.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".