Book review - Larry Savage and Charles Smith, Unions in Court: Organized Labour and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The constitutionalization of labour rights in Canada is one of the most remarkable and, perhaps, unexpected developments in the 36 year history of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Few observers in 1982 would have predicted that the Charter rights of freedom of expression and association would provide constitutional protection for picket-line activity, collective bargaining, and strikes. Indeed, for some critical observers, the advent of the Charter was viewed as an ominous development, advancing the neo-liberal project of degrading and bypassing democratic institutions to insure the maintenance of conditions favourable to capital accumulation and the power of economic elites. Who better, after all, than the judiciary, the guardians of individual market rights and freedoms, long hostile to collective action by workers, to entrust with this task? However, in recent years, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has provided workers with some cover against the assault of neoliberal governments pursuing austerity measures that restrict collective bargaining and the freedom to strike. How did this happen and what are its implications for the future of the Canadian labour movement? These are some of the questions Savage and Smith set out to answer in this insightful account of the labour movement’s engagement with the Charter and the SCC’s evolving jurisprudence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.009 |
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".