MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379621191 · doi:10.1353/iur.2021.a838110

Progress and contradictions: New Zealand's new sectoral bargaining framework

2021· article· en· W4379621191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Blackburn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Union Rights · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRatificationFreedom of associationHuman rightsPolitical scienceTrade unionOpposition (politics)LegislatureInternational tradeLaw and economicsLawEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8 | International Union Rights | 28/2 FOCUS | A CHANGING POST-PANDEMIC WORLD FOR LABOUR In 2018 I worked with the NZCTU’s legal advisor to co-author a submission to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review of New Zealand, which took place the following year. It was an interesting project to be involved with, because the violations of trade union rights in New Zealand are obviously less severe than many of the situations ICTUR normally responds to, but it was nonetheless an example of a country in which a very strong trade union framework had been dismantled, with sweeping and lasting impacts on the world of work. Does the new sectoral bargaining framework herald an effective tack back to a robust labour rights system? New Zealand remains one of very few countries in the world not to have ratified the most fundamental international instrument on trade union rights, ILO Convention No, 87. Historically, this peculiarity had come about not because of opposition to trade unionism, but conversely because New Zealand believed that its 1930s-era compulsory trade union system was superior to – and would be incompatible with – the post-war liberal trade union rights model of ‘freedom of association’1. The New Zealand Government thus refrained from ratification of the ILO instrument and only ratified the UN’s two core human rights Covenants (the ICCPR and the ICESCR) with formal reservations against the freedom of association principles. But the reservations New Zealand lodged were specifically worded to apply to ‘existing legislative measures’ in 1978, and were intended to protect a compulsory union membership system that ended decades ago. As ICTUR and the New Zealand Trade Union Council wrote in 2018 submissions to the UN Universal Periodic Review, ‘this once principled stance has simply become an embarrassing anachronism’ that ‘sends the wrong message about New Zealand’s commitment to freedom of association and the protection of that right’2. For most of the 20th Century registered trade unions enjoyed monopoly bargaining rights and a system of compulsory unionism, until the dramatic changes wrought by the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) of 1991, which remained in force until 2000. The Act supported individual bargaining and individual contracts rather than collective agreements and curtailed the grounds on which strike action could lawfully be initiated. Membership in NZCTU-affiliated unions halved over the decade. The fall was attributed to the ECA but also widespread privatisation and high unemployment. National bargaining was terminated in several sectors, and by 1993 there had been a 45 percent fall in the number of workers covered by collective agreements. In 1994 the ILO ruled that the ECA breached ILO Conventions 87 and 98, but the Government ignored the ruling. According to the NZCTU the ECA encouraged the growth of ‘poor quality jobs’, with an increase in casual and part-time work and exploitation of vulnerable workers by bad employers. It had also led to a ‘collapse of trust and good will’ in industrial relations. In elections in Nov. 1999 the Labour Party returned to office and introduced the Employment Relations Act (ERA). The ERA retained a focus on individual contracts and a workplace bargaining model, giving registered unions the exclusive right to negotiate collective agreements and introducing a new legislative concept (based on Canadian models) of good faith negotiations in collective bargaining. The NZCTU regarded the Act as only a moderate improvement that ultimately failed in many of its stated objectives. Following the National party’s return to power in 2008 a raft of reforms were introduced, which the NZCTU denounced as an attack on union membership, exercise of union rights, collective bargaining and, therefore, wages and conditions. For all the praise that the country’s current Prime Minster and Labour Party leader Jacinda Ardern earned internationally as a ‘liberal beacon’, and ‘the anti-Trump’3, the problems for New Zealand’s workers and unions have as yet remained structurally unchanged since the 1990s. Just this year NZCTU leader Richard Wagstaff reported that ‘at least 30 percent of New Zealand’s workers – over 635,000 people – are in insecure work. We believe it may well cover 50 percent of the workforce. 95,000 workers have no usual work time, 61...

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.041
Scholarly communication0.0220.017
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0080.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Union RightsSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207