Charting a New Course in a Fissured Economy? Employer Concepts and Collective Bargaining in the US and Canada

IF 0.8 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.54648/ijcl2021018
Timothy J. Bartkiw
{"title":"Charting a New Course in a Fissured Economy? Employer Concepts and Collective Bargaining in the US and Canada","authors":"Timothy J. Bartkiw","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2021018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The legal concept of the employer plays an increasingly important and contested role in the modern economic context of broad-sweeping organizational fissuring. This article focuses on the role of employer concepts specifically in the collective bargaining domain, where they hold the unique potential to substantially affect access to regulated collective bargaining, its efficacy, and the extent of worker bargaining power. Building on a critical engagement with previous normative literature on fissuring and on the concept of the employer, the paper examines the interaction of fissuring and employer concepts in the context of the US and Canadian ‘Wagnerist’ collective bargaining regimes, and compares the trajectory of employer concept doctrine in each of these two countries in recent decades. The comparative analysis suggests that while employer concept reform within collective bargaining regimes remains constrained in important respects in both the US and Canada, these concepts have also recently diverged in important formal respects shaping their effects in fissured contexts. This divergence is comprised of a formal expansion of their scope in Canada; a narrowing of their scope in the US; and an effective inversion of the US joint employer concept consequentially into less of a remedial, and a more restrictive device. As a heuristic, comparison of US developments with those in its neighbour’s regime that has much else in common, help to highlight the extraordinarily restrictive nature of most recent US doctrine, including the 2020 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) final rule on joint employer status, its facilitation of fissuring, and the formidable task confronting US labour of somehow bringing lead firms into the regulated collective bargaining process.\nEmployer Concept, Fissuring and Collective Bargaining, Joint Employer, Scope of Collective Bargaining Regime","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2021018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The legal concept of the employer plays an increasingly important and contested role in the modern economic context of broad-sweeping organizational fissuring. This article focuses on the role of employer concepts specifically in the collective bargaining domain, where they hold the unique potential to substantially affect access to regulated collective bargaining, its efficacy, and the extent of worker bargaining power. Building on a critical engagement with previous normative literature on fissuring and on the concept of the employer, the paper examines the interaction of fissuring and employer concepts in the context of the US and Canadian ‘Wagnerist’ collective bargaining regimes, and compares the trajectory of employer concept doctrine in each of these two countries in recent decades. The comparative analysis suggests that while employer concept reform within collective bargaining regimes remains constrained in important respects in both the US and Canada, these concepts have also recently diverged in important formal respects shaping their effects in fissured contexts. This divergence is comprised of a formal expansion of their scope in Canada; a narrowing of their scope in the US; and an effective inversion of the US joint employer concept consequentially into less of a remedial, and a more restrictive device. As a heuristic, comparison of US developments with those in its neighbour’s regime that has much else in common, help to highlight the extraordinarily restrictive nature of most recent US doctrine, including the 2020 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) final rule on joint employer status, its facilitation of fissuring, and the formidable task confronting US labour of somehow bringing lead firms into the regulated collective bargaining process. Employer Concept, Fissuring and Collective Bargaining, Joint Employer, Scope of Collective Bargaining Regime
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在分裂的经济中制定新路线?美国和加拿大的雇主概念和集体谈判
雇主的法律概念在广泛的组织分裂的现代经济背景下发挥着越来越重要和有争议的作用。本文主要关注雇主概念在集体谈判领域的作用,在这个领域,雇主概念具有独特的潜力,可以实质性地影响受监管的集体谈判的准入、效力和工人议价能力的程度。在对以往关于分裂和雇主概念的规范性文献进行批判性研究的基础上,本文在美国和加拿大“瓦格纳主义”集体谈判制度的背景下,研究了分裂和雇主概念的相互作用,并比较了近几十年来这两个国家雇主概念理论的发展轨迹。比较分析表明,尽管在美国和加拿大,集体谈判制度内的雇主概念改革在重要方面仍然受到限制,但这些概念最近在重要的正式方面也出现了分歧,从而形成了它们在分歧背景下的影响。这种差异包括在加拿大正式扩大其范围;他们在美国的业务范围在缩小;并将美国的联合雇主概念有效地转变为一种更少的补救措施、更多的限制措施。作为一种启发,将美国的发展与其邻国政权的发展进行比较(这些国家有许多其他共同点),有助于突出美国最新原则的极端限制性,包括2020年国家劳工关系委员会(NLRB)关于共同雇主地位的最终规定,其对分歧的便利,以及美国劳工面临的艰巨任务,即以某种方式将铅公司纳入受监管的集体谈判过程。雇主概念、分裂与集体谈判、共同雇主、集体谈判制度的范围
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Published four times a year, the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations is an essential source of information and analysis for labour lawyers, academics, judges, policymakers and others. The Journal publishes original articles in the domains of labour law (broadly understood) and industrial relations. Articles cover comparative and international (or regional) analysis of topical issues, major developments and innovative practices, as well as discussions of theoretical and methodological approaches. The Journal adopts a double-blind peer review process. A distinguished editorial team, with the support of an International Advisory Board of eminent scholars from around the world, ensures a continuing high standard of scientific research dealing with a range of important issues.
期刊最新文献
Litigating the Algorithmic Boss in the EU: A (Legally) Feasible and (Strategically) Attractive Option for Trade Unions? Modern Slavery in Liner Shipping: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Statements The Requirement of Fair Negotiation (Gebot des fairen Verhandelns) and the Principle of Undue Influence in German and US Employment Law Regulating Platform Work in the UK and Italy: Politics, Law and Political Economy Regulating Algorithmic Management at Work in the European Union: Data Protection, Non-discrimination and Collective Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1