David Beatty’s Redemption \n(and Other Thoughts on the Future \nOf Labour Law)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The future of Canadian labour law will not come by means of a sudden legislative tsunami that sweeps in broad-based sectoral collective bargaining or some other dramatic new system to replace the Wagner model which has governed since the 1940s. Instead, change will come first in the form of smaller foreshocks. Clues as to what those foreshocks may be are found in two important debates that took place during the 1980s. The first debate, led by Paul Weiler, explored comparative labour law and the intersection between the US and Canadian versions of the Wagner model. Weiler's vision of a hybrid Wagner model that drew upon features of both versions to advance worker access to a collective voice at work is instructive of the direction we may be headed in Canada. The second debate related to the potential impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the future of Canadian labour law. David Beatty led the argument that the Charter would cause a conversation in Canada that would eventually lead to the dismantling of the Wagner model and its replacement with a new model that emphasized equality of individual liberty and that extended the reach of collective bargaining. In early Charter litigation, the Supreme Court of Canada wholly rejected Beatty's normative vision for a post-Charter labour law. However, in important ways, Charter jurisprudence since 2001 may be catching up to that vision even if the Supreme Court has not often formally adopted his arguments. It is therefore important to revisit his ideas to find clues as to where we may be headed in labour law. The article concludes with some predictions about the changes that will come to Canadian labour law drawn from these debates of some forty years ago.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".