Pre-Strike Ballots in Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chapter 3 contains a comparative review of pre-strike ballot requirements, describing the principal forms adopted around the world. It demonstrates that pre-strike ballot requirements can range from ‘light touch’ regulation specifying that union rules must contain provisions requiring the conduct of pre-strike ballots but attaching almost no consequence to failure to do so, through to highly prescriptive requirements which can have the effect of making it exceedingly difficult lawfully to take strike action. Chapter 3 then examines in detail the pre-strike ballot requirements that have been adopted in four jurisdictions: the United States, where there are no formal pre-strike ballot requirements; South Africa, where formerly stringent ballot requirements were replaced by light touch regulation in 1995; Canada, where there are formal requirements for the conduct of pre-strike ballots, but where they appear to be of only very marginal inconvenience to trade unions; and the United Kingdom which has adopted exceedingly complex provisions which betoken an almost obsessive desire to regulate the circumstances and manner in which strike action can lawfully be taken. The chapter also points to the case of Australia, which has adopted an approach that is, in many respects, similar to that of the United Kingdom—albeit with some significant differences. The similarities are such that the detailed study of the operation of the Australian provision affords many insights into the operation of the British provisions, and into the role of law as a means of regulating industrial behaviour more generally.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".