Precarious work, harassment, and the erosion of employment standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine experiences of harassment within the context of precarious work, which in Canada is shaped by subnational legislative frameworks. Design/methodology/approach A narrative inquiry approach to data collection and analysis was adopted. The paper draws from 72 interviews conducted with workers in precarious jobs from various industries in three cities in the Canadian province of Ontario, as well as 52 employment standards officers (ESOs) from 15 local Ministry of Labour offices in every region across the province. Placing workers’ stories in counterpoint to those of ESOs brings them into conversations about the law to which they would normally be left out. Findings The main finding of this paper is that harassment and employment standards (ES) violations are interrelated phenomena experienced as abuses of power and as tactics of control occurring within a context that is shaped by legislative frameworks. Originality/value This paper demonstrates that for workers in precarious jobs legislative frameworks and labor market practices in Ontario do not provide adequate redress for harassment and ES violations. In so doing, legislative frameworks render invisible the power imbalances within the employment relationship and obscure the interrelatedness of harassment and the wider erosion of workplace norms.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".