Partnering against Insecurity? A Comparison of Markets, Institutions and Worker Risk in Canadian and Swedish Retail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article provides insights on how union power influences the outcomes of labour‐management partnerships, with a focus on insecurity. It examines matched pairs of food retailers in Canada and Sweden. Trends in wages, scheduling and union coverage from 1980 to 2016 are compared. Actors in both contexts adopted partnering strategies in response to intensified price competition. However, the Swedish partnerships produced stable work arrangements, while working conditions eroded considerably in Canada. Bargaining structures, union security and identity are examined to explain the variations. As market competition intensified, the Swedish union gained leverage by using partnerships to fight unfair competition and promote sectoral well‐being in the process. Meanwhile, the Canadian union lost leverage, instead using partnerships to align employment practices with those of low‐cost market entrants and enhancing store‐level performance at all costs. The argument is that markets can be a resource for unions, even in low‐skilled service sectors, but only under inclusive institutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".