Danbury Hatters in Sweden: An American Perspective of Employer Remedies for Illegal Collective Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Court of Justice Laval quartet held that worker collective actions that impacted freedom of services and establishment in the E.U. violated E.U. law. After Laval, The Swedish Labor Court imposed exemplary or punitive damages on labor unions for violating E.U. law. These cases have generated critical discussions regarding not only the proper balance between markets and workers’ freedom of association, but also what should be the proper remedies for employers who suffer illegal actions by labor unions under E.U. law. While any reforms to rebalance fundamental freedoms as a result of the Laval quartet will have to be very sensitive to member state and E.U. institutions and practices, an American perspective may prove useful to figure out the way forward. The United States has a rich experience of court-imposed injunctions and punitive damages which ultimately were deemed excessive by the public. It required very assertive legislative and executive action to curb such excessive judicial incursions into the workplace. To the extent the American experience is relevant to the EU, it will be very likely that the E.U. will require political leadership and EU-wide labor law and policy to rebalance markets and workers’ rights in the EU. 1 A prior version of this paper was presented on May 27, 2011 in Florence, Italy, at “Remedies and Sanctions for Unlawful Industrial Action in a Comparative Perspective,” a conference sponsored by Regulating Markets and Labour Programme, Istituto Italiano di Scienze Umane and the University of Florence, Florence, Italy. The authors thank Marty Malin, Paul Secunda, Laura Wienreb and Steven Willborn for comments made to a prior draft of this paper. Any errors and omissions remain the sole responsibility of the authors. 2 PhD, JD, IIT-Chicago Kent College of Law and Regulating Markets and Labor (Remarklab). Make all correspondence to crosado@kentlaw.edu. 3 JD 2012, IIT-Chicago-Kent College of Law, Certificate in Labor and Employment Law.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".