MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379624109 · doi:10.1353/iur.2015.a838504

Opinion: For whom does a labour chapter work?

2015· article· en· W4379624109 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Union Rights · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Labor and Employment Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementGovernment (linguistics)Order (exchange)Action (physics)Panacea (medicine)Political scienceLabour lawWork (physics)Scope (computer science)Trade unionLaw and economicsLawEconomicsInternational tradeFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 22 Volume 22 Issue 1 2015 OPINION ❐ TRADE AGREEMENTS What does the CAFTA-DR labour dispute tell us about the potential to protect labour standards in TTIP? establish that the alleged violations (which it insists are unsubstantiated) cannot amount to a breach of CAFTA-DR Article 16.2.1(a), namely ‘a failure to effectively enforce its labor laws, through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade between the Parties’. The Guatemalan government argues, inter alia: (i) that the action or inaction of the relevant bodies (including labour courts) is outside of the scope of the provision, which covers only the executive branch of government (para. 181); (ii) that in order to qualify as ‘sustained or recurring’ a course of action or inaction must ‘have formed part of a deliberate policy of neglect… with the intended consequence of having an effect on the exchange of goods or services among all of the States that are part of CAFTA-DR’ (para. 273); and (iii) that trade between the Parties has, in any case, not been affected (para. 472). Whatever the merits or otherwise of these interpretations , what is abundantly clear is that the labour provision in CAFTA-DR is by no means a juridical panacea for the enforcement of labour standards among its members. The panel is chaired by Canadian labour law professor Kevin Banks, but as Guatemala has been keen to point out, CAFTA-DR is a trade agreement, not a labour agreement. And the language of the provision reflects this. However, there are limits to this case that do not derive from the legalese of the text alone. The systematic use of violence against trade unionists has been – somewhat dubiously – omitted from the US submission. Seven members of the Guatemalan Izabal Banana Workers’ Union (‘SITRABI’) have been murdered since 2008 when SITRABI co-signed the CAFTA-DR complaint , and a total of sixty-four union leaders have been killed in Guatemala since 2007. Apparently, the USTR does not consider such matters as violations of the CAFTA-DR labour chapter. As a result, the failures of the Guatemalan authorities to investigate these deaths or prosecute those responsible for them will not feature in the current dispute. Trade agreements are for trade, labour chapters are for…? During the negotiations and signing of CAFTADR , national unions across all of its member countries opposed the agreement. Between 2002 and 2005, numerous mass demonstrations took place in Guatemala demonstrating against its potential impacts. The ITUC joined this opposition1 . Even Barack Obama opposed CAFTA. Opposition focused not only on labour standards , but also on the effects of trade liberalisaT he case against Guatemala under CAFTA-DR (the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement), initiated in September 2014, is the first labour dispute under a trade agreement to proceed to arbitration. Guatemalan unions, in cooperation with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (‘AFL-CIO’), lodged their first complaints through the CAFTA-DR mechanism in 2009, alleging gross violations of labour rights in Guatemala. It has taken more than six years from that date for the US Government to initiate the proceedings, following repeated delays, extensions, and abandoned attempts at consultations with the Guatemalan government. This landmark moment provides a useful opportunity to consider the potential for including labour rights provisions in free trade agreements . The allegations against Guatemala have been widely reported: unions have long highlighted widespread anti-union discrimination and the murder of trade unionists, and in 2014 the ITUC ranked Guatemala one of the worst places in the world for workers. For workers in the EU, such horrors might seem far removed, but with the race under way to create the mega-regional Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (‘TTIP’) – and with it, a new and expansive world of trade-related regulation – the question of whether labour provisions in trade agreements actually work (and for whom do they work) is worthy of some critical reflection. The action and inaction of Guatemala (and the US) The US has negotiated labour provisions into 13 FTAs – with 19 partner countries – over 22 years, each with some degree of enforceability. The United States...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.299 · 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