Aboriginal Canadians – First Nations peoples, Inuit and Metis – are the most disadvantaged social group in Canada, with significant gaps in their health, education and living standards compared to other Canadians. A 2010 social development index created by the federal government reported that, of the bottom 100 Canadian communities on the index, 96 were First Nations and one was Inuit; only one First Nation community ranked among the top 100 Canadian communities. These social disadvantages are reflected in the Canadian labour market: while the Aboriginal presence in the workplace has steadily improved during the past thirty years, there remain substantial differences in employment rates, job training, advancement to higher-responsibility positions and wage earnings that will not be closed any time soon. A meaningful legislative tool in the federal government’s hands is the Employment Equity Act, enacted in 1986 following the 1984 recommendations of the Commission on Equity in Employment (the “Abella Report”), and revised a decade later. There have been some remarkable employment equity gains for Aboriginal peoples over the past 25 years, but these gains have been too modest and incremental to qualitatively transform their labour force standing, let alone significantly close the social gaps separating them from the rest of the Canadian population. This essay attempts to measure the efficacy of employment equity over the past quarter-century on the working lives of Aboriginals in Canada, set against the landscape of their social well-being.
{"title":"Employment Equity and Canada's Aboriginal Peoples","authors":"S. Lynk","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2190448","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2190448","url":null,"abstract":"Aboriginal Canadians – First Nations peoples, Inuit and Metis – are the most disadvantaged social group in Canada, with significant gaps in their health, education and living standards compared to other Canadians. A 2010 social development index created by the federal government reported that, of the bottom 100 Canadian communities on the index, 96 were First Nations and one was Inuit; only one First Nation community ranked among the top 100 Canadian communities. These social disadvantages are reflected in the Canadian labour market: while the Aboriginal presence in the workplace has steadily improved during the past thirty years, there remain substantial differences in employment rates, job training, advancement to higher-responsibility positions and wage earnings that will not be closed any time soon. A meaningful legislative tool in the federal government’s hands is the Employment Equity Act, enacted in 1986 following the 1984 recommendations of the Commission on Equity in Employment (the “Abella Report”), and revised a decade later. There have been some remarkable employment equity gains for Aboriginal peoples over the past 25 years, but these gains have been too modest and incremental to qualitatively transform their labour force standing, let alone significantly close the social gaps separating them from the rest of the Canadian population. This essay attempts to measure the efficacy of employment equity over the past quarter-century on the working lives of Aboriginals in Canada, set against the landscape of their social well-being.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133661464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Workers today face many labour market transitions (e.g., between work and caring for family members). This article is intended to make two main contributions to the ongoing debate on how the law should regulate labour market transitions. First, it aims to promote a better understanding of existing and theoretically possible employment and social security provisions by placing them on a spectrum of regulatory models, from individual to integrative regulation. Second, it examines the concept of Integrative Employment and Social Security Rights (IERs), as one of the models on the spectrum. IERs are legal rights that apply to workers in several or all labour market transitions (e.g., the right to request working reduced hours). The application of IERs has several justifications (e.g., promoting individual autonomy and fighting discrimination) tempered with considerations that would at times limit their usage (e.g., inefficiencies). By presenting the justifications for IERs as well as the limitations on their normative application, the article provides a possible roadmap for rethinking employment and social security law.
{"title":"Integrative Employment and Social Security Rights","authors":"Lilach Lurie","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2189352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2189352","url":null,"abstract":"Workers today face many labour market transitions (e.g., between work and caring for family members). This article is intended to make two main contributions to the ongoing debate on how the law should regulate labour market transitions. First, it aims to promote a better understanding of existing and theoretically possible employment and social security provisions by placing them on a spectrum of regulatory models, from individual to integrative regulation. Second, it examines the concept of Integrative Employment and Social Security Rights (IERs), as one of the models on the spectrum. IERs are legal rights that apply to workers in several or all labour market transitions (e.g., the right to request working reduced hours). The application of IERs has several justifications (e.g., promoting individual autonomy and fighting discrimination) tempered with considerations that would at times limit their usage (e.g., inefficiencies). By presenting the justifications for IERs as well as the limitations on their normative application, the article provides a possible roadmap for rethinking employment and social security law.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115364970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A surprising yet documentable trend may be emerging from recent United States Supreme Court decisions – a trend favoring the rights of individual employees in cases requiring interpretation of federal employment statutes. Though marquee employment-context cases like Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes may be touted as exemplifying the pro-business tendencies of the Roberts Court, a closer and more comprehensive look suggests that the Court does not favor business interests at all, at least in the workplace. Indeed, the relative dark-horses of the Court’s last Term suggest the opposite – all three of the Court’s most recent decisions interpreting federal employment statutes expanded the rights of individual workers. And, perhaps more importantly, they did so in ways that reflect novel approaches to statutory interpretation, even sometimes casting aside otherwise well-established principles. Is the decisional trend reflected in these employment-law dark-horses mere happenstance? Or is it evidence of a more deeply-seated trend, a tendency to interpret federal employment statutes in ways that favor individual rights? This Article adopts the latter explanation, and breaks new ground in exposing for the first time the possibility of a pro-employee bent on the Roberts Court. It reveals this bent through a thorough exposition of the Court’s most recent cases interpreting employment statutes, then bolsters that theory with a retrospective examination of all such decisions rendered since Justice Roberts took the oath as Chief Justice in 2005. While outliers and exceptions certainly exist, this survey reveals the possibility of a pro-employee bent on the Roberts Court that is not only present, but indeed is well entrenched. Having exposed this trend, this Article then offers some ideas about the potential implications and predictive value of it.
{"title":"The Pro-Employee Bent of the Roberts Court","authors":"L. D. Taylor","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2027557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2027557","url":null,"abstract":"A surprising yet documentable trend may be emerging from recent United States Supreme Court decisions – a trend favoring the rights of individual employees in cases requiring interpretation of federal employment statutes. Though marquee employment-context cases like Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes may be touted as exemplifying the pro-business tendencies of the Roberts Court, a closer and more comprehensive look suggests that the Court does not favor business interests at all, at least in the workplace. Indeed, the relative dark-horses of the Court’s last Term suggest the opposite – all three of the Court’s most recent decisions interpreting federal employment statutes expanded the rights of individual workers. And, perhaps more importantly, they did so in ways that reflect novel approaches to statutory interpretation, even sometimes casting aside otherwise well-established principles. Is the decisional trend reflected in these employment-law dark-horses mere happenstance? Or is it evidence of a more deeply-seated trend, a tendency to interpret federal employment statutes in ways that favor individual rights? This Article adopts the latter explanation, and breaks new ground in exposing for the first time the possibility of a pro-employee bent on the Roberts Court. It reveals this bent through a thorough exposition of the Court’s most recent cases interpreting employment statutes, then bolsters that theory with a retrospective examination of all such decisions rendered since Justice Roberts took the oath as Chief Justice in 2005. While outliers and exceptions certainly exist, this survey reveals the possibility of a pro-employee bent on the Roberts Court that is not only present, but indeed is well entrenched. Having exposed this trend, this Article then offers some ideas about the potential implications and predictive value of it.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129079352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The main objective of this article is to analyse the issue of onus emanating from the enforcement of unilateral changes to conditions of employment. At the heart of the controversy that has faced the Labour Appeal Court was how to interpret dismissals that appear to be based on operational requirements, and yet at the same time, such dismissals also appear to have the effect of compelling an employee to accept a demand in respect of a matter of mutual interest between the employer and the employee. The core section in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 relating to disputes of this nature is section 187(1)(c) of the Act, and the central enquiry to such disputes is whether they are automatically unfair or operationally justifiable. The fine line that determines whether a dismissal is acceptable or not merits an analysis of the overall onus that faces an employer and employee. This analysis is the focus of the article, which deals predominantly with procedural issues. The issue relating to the promotion of collective bargaining will be assessed against the right to dismiss, based on an analysis of the situation in South Africa, and a brief comparison with the situations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Thereafter, recommendations are made to the South African legislature. KEYWORDS: Employee; onus; dismissals; unilateral; changes; conditions; employment
{"title":"Analysing the Onus Issue in Dismissals Emanating from the Enforcement of Unilateral Changes to Conditions of Employment","authors":"R. Ismail, I. Tshoose","doi":"10.4314/PELJ.V14I7.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/PELJ.V14I7.6","url":null,"abstract":"The main objective of this article is to analyse the issue of onus emanating from the enforcement of unilateral changes to conditions of employment. At the heart of the controversy that has faced the Labour Appeal Court was how to interpret dismissals that appear to be based on operational requirements, and yet at the same time, such dismissals also appear to have the effect of compelling an employee to accept a demand in respect of a matter of mutual interest between the employer and the employee. The core section in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 relating to disputes of this nature is section 187(1)(c) of the Act, and the central enquiry to such disputes is whether they are automatically unfair or operationally justifiable. The fine line that determines whether a dismissal is acceptable or not merits an analysis of the overall onus that faces an employer and employee. This analysis is the focus of the article, which deals predominantly with procedural issues. The issue relating to the promotion of collective bargaining will be assessed against the right to dismiss, based on an analysis of the situation in South Africa, and a brief comparison with the situations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Thereafter, recommendations are made to the South African legislature. KEYWORDS: Employee; onus; dismissals; unilateral; changes; conditions; employment","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124783342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Properly identifying, measuring and mitigating pension risks continues to be a critical element of fiduciary governance. The complexity and ongoing nature of the risk management process is sometimes overlooked as less important than realising a particular rate of return. Recent market volatility, large funding deficits and pressures from creditors, shareholders, rating agencies and plan participants make it harder for pension plan fiduciaries to avoid the adoption of some type of pro-active risk control strategy that effectively integrates asset and liability economics. At a time of great uncertainty, chief financial officers (CFOs) are increasingly being asked to shoulder the burden of making pension-related funding decisions that have the potential to materially and adversely affect plan participants, shareholders and creditors. As a result, the CFO is exposed to fiduciary liability, career risk and the economic consequences of an outcome with enterprise impact.
{"title":"Pension Risk, Governance and CFO Liability","authors":"Susan M. Mangiero","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2015879","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2015879","url":null,"abstract":"Properly identifying, measuring and mitigating pension risks continues to be a critical element of fiduciary governance. The complexity and ongoing nature of the risk management process is sometimes overlooked as less important than realising a particular rate of return. Recent market volatility, large funding deficits and pressures from creditors, shareholders, rating agencies and plan participants make it harder for pension plan fiduciaries to avoid the adoption of some type of pro-active risk control strategy that effectively integrates asset and liability economics. At a time of great uncertainty, chief financial officers (CFOs) are increasingly being asked to shoulder the burden of making pension-related funding decisions that have the potential to materially and adversely affect plan participants, shareholders and creditors. As a result, the CFO is exposed to fiduciary liability, career risk and the economic consequences of an outcome with enterprise impact.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"936 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123063173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Throughout the country, state “Certificate of Necessity” (CON) laws govern a variety of industries, from moving companies and taxicabs to hospitals and car lots. A legacy of economic thinking in the early 20th century, CON laws restrict economic opportunity and raise costs for products and services that consumers need. Unlike traditional occupational licensing rules, CON laws are not intended to protect the public by requiring business owners to demonstrate professional expertise or education. Instead, these laws are explicitly designed to restrict competition and boost the prices that established companies can charge.
{"title":"CON Job","authors":"Timothy Sandefur","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvd7w7s1.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvd7w7s1.20","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout the country, state “Certificate of Necessity” (CON) laws govern a variety of industries, from moving companies and taxicabs to hospitals and car lots. A legacy of economic thinking in the early 20th century, CON laws restrict economic opportunity and raise costs for products and services that consumers need. Unlike traditional occupational licensing rules, CON laws are not intended to protect the public by requiring business owners to demonstrate professional expertise or education. Instead, these laws are explicitly designed to restrict competition and boost the prices that established companies can charge.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125826480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The author testified at a U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises hearing on May 11, 2011. The hearing explored a discussion draft of legislation which would modify the whistleblower bounty provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The author's testimony suggested that the proposed reforms, which included a requirement of internal reporting to preserve a whistleblower's bounty eligibility, a change from mandatory to discretionary bounties, and a prohibition on contingency fees, would dull the incentives Dodd-Frank's bounty provision was meant to foster.
{"title":"Legislative Proposals to Address the Negative Consequences of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provisions: Written Testimony Submitted to the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises","authors":"G. Rapp","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1844586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1844586","url":null,"abstract":"The author testified at a U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises hearing on May 11, 2011. The hearing explored a discussion draft of legislation which would modify the whistleblower bounty provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The author's testimony suggested that the proposed reforms, which included a requirement of internal reporting to preserve a whistleblower's bounty eligibility, a change from mandatory to discretionary bounties, and a prohibition on contingency fees, would dull the incentives Dodd-Frank's bounty provision was meant to foster.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"126 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133546906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper pursues a line of enquiry regarding employment laws which promulgate standards (rather than rules), the legitimacy of which are premised on the need to scrutinise managerial autonomy pursuant to a norm-setting, rather than norm-reflecting agenda. Insights will be offered in relation to the expectations about the exercise of the managerial prerogative which the law transmits through such standards. The argument is advanced that a by-product of the common law and statutory policy initiatives lying at the heart of the regulation of managerial autonomy has been the emergence of differing behavioural standards in the employment relationship. In order to satisfy the common law and statutory obligations which it owes towards its employees, employers are expected to discharge a variety of standards of conduct and review. These differing standards can be grouped into a hierarchy, exploring how they function at higher or lower levels of managerial scrutiny. The paper proceeds to explore the rationales for the promulgation of such differing behavioural standards in different decision-making contexts. The paper goes on to analyse whether such differing standards are justifiable from a formalistic and doctrinal perspective and considers the desirability of a package of reform consisting of the re-alignment of standards in order to reflect fundamental values underpinning the employment relationship.
{"title":"The Hierarchy of Differing Behavioural Standards in Labour Law: A Case for Limited Re-Alignment?","authors":"D. Cabrelli","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1371148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1371148","url":null,"abstract":"This paper pursues a line of enquiry regarding employment laws which promulgate standards (rather than rules), the legitimacy of which are premised on the need to scrutinise managerial autonomy pursuant to a norm-setting, rather than norm-reflecting agenda. Insights will be offered in relation to the expectations about the exercise of the managerial prerogative which the law transmits through such standards. The argument is advanced that a by-product of the common law and statutory policy initiatives lying at the heart of the regulation of managerial autonomy has been the emergence of differing behavioural standards in the employment relationship. In order to satisfy the common law and statutory obligations which it owes towards its employees, employers are expected to discharge a variety of standards of conduct and review. These differing standards can be grouped into a hierarchy, exploring how they function at higher or lower levels of managerial scrutiny. The paper proceeds to explore the rationales for the promulgation of such differing behavioural standards in different decision-making contexts. The paper goes on to analyse whether such differing standards are justifiable from a formalistic and doctrinal perspective and considers the desirability of a package of reform consisting of the re-alignment of standards in order to reflect fundamental values underpinning the employment relationship.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124215469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents and discusses various modalities of labour market flexibility and security. The focus is on employment protection legislation, part-time work and temporary agency work, drawing evidence and examples from the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain and the United States. The main thrust of the paper is that numerical flexibility and security are not incompatible but, rather, that flexibilisation requires security and vice versa. Another important conclusion is that a well-developed social dialogue, consultation and mutual trust between the social partners are important preconditions in striking a good balance between flexibility and security. The paper also contains some suggestions for possible directions for Turkish labour market reform and regulation.
{"title":"In Search of a Balance: Flexibility and Security Strategies in Employment Protection Legislation, Temporary Work and Part-Time Work","authors":"M. van Velzen, T. Wilthagen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1133939","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1133939","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents and discusses various modalities of labour market flexibility and security. The focus is on employment protection legislation, part-time work and temporary agency work, drawing evidence and examples from the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain and the United States. The main thrust of the paper is that numerical flexibility and security are not incompatible but, rather, that flexibilisation requires security and vice versa. Another important conclusion is that a well-developed social dialogue, consultation and mutual trust between the social partners are important preconditions in striking a good balance between flexibility and security. The paper also contains some suggestions for possible directions for Turkish labour market reform and regulation.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125076936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1987-08-01DOI: 10.7208/9780226261836-006
D. Bloom
This study analyzes a new set of data on the decisions of conventional arbitrators. The main goal is to draw inferences about the extent to which conventional arbitration decisions are fashioned as mechanical compromises of the parties' final offers, without reference to the exogenous facts involved in different disputes. The results of the analysis are remarkably clear: conventional arbitrators tend to split-the-difference between the parties' final offers with virtually no evidence of additional systematic reference to the facts of the cases. However, since there is a substantial amount of unexplained variance in the arbitration decisions, this evidence of mechanical compromise behavior should be viewed as characterizing the overall operation of conventional arbitration mechanisms and not the behavior of individual arbitrators in any particular case. Indeed, the results are consistent with the view that individual arbitrators pay close attention to the facts of the cases, but that there is considerable variation in the structure of different arbitrators' preference functions.
{"title":"Arbitrator Behavior in Public Sector Wage Disputes","authors":"D. Bloom","doi":"10.7208/9780226261836-006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226261836-006","url":null,"abstract":"This study analyzes a new set of data on the decisions of conventional arbitrators. The main goal is to draw inferences about the extent to which conventional arbitration decisions are fashioned as mechanical compromises of the parties' final offers, without reference to the exogenous facts involved in different disputes. The results of the analysis are remarkably clear: conventional arbitrators tend to split-the-difference between the parties' final offers with virtually no evidence of additional systematic reference to the facts of the cases. However, since there is a substantial amount of unexplained variance in the arbitration decisions, this evidence of mechanical compromise behavior should be viewed as characterizing the overall operation of conventional arbitration mechanisms and not the behavior of individual arbitrators in any particular case. Indeed, the results are consistent with the view that individual arbitrators pay close attention to the facts of the cases, but that there is considerable variation in the structure of different arbitrators' preference functions.","PeriodicalId":431496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Employment Statutes (Topic)","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1987-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121543387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：