Wage Restraint in Manitoba: Is Freedom “Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose”?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Federal and provincial governments have, over the last 50 years, passed legislation from time to time freezing the wages of public sector workers, but their power to pass such legislation has become both murkier and more constrained over the past 15 years due to the Supreme Court of Canada’s evolving jurisprudence on the right to collective bargaining under the Charter. The recent experience of the Government of Manitoba with the Public Services Sustainability Act is illustrative. This article analyzes the latest wage restraint regime in this province, the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench decision that declared it unconstitutional, and the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision that reversed the ruling of the lower court. Three interesting aspects of Manitoba’s experience with a potential s. 2(d) Charter breach are examined in detail: the necessity to consider government action in addition to legislation; the requirement to incorporate the lack of consultation and negotiation into the analysis; and the need to examine the impact of the overall wage restraint scheme on bargaining power. These three issues are extremely relevant to policy-makers considering the implementation of wage restraint legislation, and to the litigation currently underway in other provinces, such as Ontario.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".