MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3098816369 · doi:10.46692/9781529208689.004

Trends in Collective Bargaining, Wage Stagnation and Income Inequality under Austerity

2020· other· en· W3098816369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian Cunningham, Philip James

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusterityCollective bargainingInequalityEconomicsEconomic stagnationWage inequalityLabour economicsEconomic inequalityWagePolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to explore the impact of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and austerity on collective bargaining and wage outcomes internationally. It takes as the starting point for its analysis the argument advanced in Chapter 1 that the current wave of austerity policies stems from a neoliberal economic consensus that has pervaded developed economies and emphasizes free markets, the removal of rigidities to capital and shrinking the state. That is a philosophy that in policy terms is the antithesis of one supportive of trade unions and collective bargaining, which are themselves under this ideology seen as impediments to markets and economic growth (Harvey, 2007). The chapter therefore adopts a perspective that sees the GFC and austerity as providing a convenient point from which to further consolidate neoliberalism's hold on society (McCann, 2013) and simultaneously undermine one of the chief forms of resistance – trade unions and collective bargaining. The first part of the chapter focuses attention on exploring trends in collective bargaining in the EU and North America (US and Canada) in the post-GFC period. In doing so, it identifies a common trajectory in nation-state policies that encompasses a shift towards identifying the GFC as a public debt crisis; the blaming of trade unions and their members (in particular public sector workers) for the crisis; and the introduction of reforms to collective bargaining and union security designed to reinforce deflationary austerity policies. The chapter's second part then examines trends in wage growth and equality since 2008 and discusses the factors influencing them and the extent to which they can be viewed as a product of the neoliberal-informed economic policies and reforms adopted in response to the crisis. Changes to collective bargaining in the EU Institutional context of collective bargaining in the EU under austerity Since 2000 there have been significant social, economic and political policy shifts that have fundamentally challenged the status of collective bargaining in the EU. Policies associated with a neoliberal agenda that view unions and collective bargaining as sources of rigidities in the market have been central to this change as the EU has focused on the neoliberal free market agenda of labour-market flexibility and downward pressure on terms and conditions to sustain economic growth (Waddington, Muller and Vandaele, 2019). This process of change received support from EU enlargement and the move towards economic and monetary union (EMU).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→