Charting a New Course in a Fissured Economy? Employer Concepts and Collective Bargaining in the US and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The legal concept of the employer plays an increasingly important and contested role in the modern economic context of broad-sweeping organizational fissuring. This article focuses on the role of employer concepts specifically in the collective bargaining domain, where they hold the unique potential to substantially affect access to regulated collective bargaining, its efficacy, and the extent of worker bargaining power. Building on a critical engagement with previous normative literature on fissuring and on the concept of the employer, the paper examines the interaction of fissuring and employer concepts in the context of the US and Canadian ‘Wagnerist’ collective bargaining regimes, and compares the trajectory of employer concept doctrine in each of these two countries in recent decades. The comparative analysis suggests that while employer concept reform within collective bargaining regimes remains constrained in important respects in both the US and Canada, these concepts have also recently diverged in important formal respects shaping their effects in fissured contexts. This divergence is comprised of a formal expansion of their scope in Canada; a narrowing of their scope in the US; and an effective inversion of the US joint employer concept consequentially into less of a remedial, and a more restrictive device. As a heuristic, comparison of US developments with those in its neighbour’s regime that has much else in common, help to highlight the extraordinarily restrictive nature of most recent US doctrine, including the 2020 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) final rule on joint employer status, its facilitation of fissuring, and the formidable task confronting US labour of somehow bringing lead firms into the regulated collective bargaining process. Employer Concept, Fissuring and Collective Bargaining, Joint Employer, Scope of 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".