Plunder Downunder: Transplanting the Anglo-American Labor Law Model to Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how the federal Constitutions of Australia, the United States, and Canada and judicial interpretation of those Constitutions have shaped national labor law policy in each of those countries. In particular, the extent to which the distribution of federal and State/provincial legislative powers has enabled federal governments to deregulate labor laws is analyzed. In the United States, judicial interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and the pre-emption doctrine played a significant role in giving the federal government control of labor law policy. The federal collective bargaining laws, which have not been significantly amended since 1959, have enabled the emergence of a deregulated labor law model in the United States. The United States' experience is contrasted with the Canadian federal Parliament's limited control over labor relations and the difficulties it would face in deregulating Canadian labor law. In Australia, the Howard federal government has embarked on a bold experiment to use its legislative powers over corporations to create a new deregulated, national labor law regime that would see the role of the Australian states in regulating labor relations diminish. If the High Court upholds this new approach, then the Australian corporations power could play a similar role that the interstate commerce clause played in giving the United States a national collective bargaining regime.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".