反思劳动法的未来

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW University of Toronto Law Journal Pub Date : 2020-11-20 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.3536540
David J. Doorey
{"title":"反思劳动法的未来","authors":"David J. Doorey","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3536540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":46289,"journal":{"name":"University of Toronto Law Journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"165 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflecting back on the future of labour law\",\"authors\":\"David J. Doorey\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3536540\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Toronto Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"165 - 206\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Toronto Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3536540\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Toronto Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3536540","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:加拿大劳动法的未来不会通过突然的立法海啸来席卷广泛的部门集体谈判或其他一些戏剧性的新制度来取代自20世纪40年代以来一直统治的瓦格纳模式。相反,变化将首先以较小的前震形式出现。关于这些前震可能是什么的线索,可以在20世纪80年代发生的两次重要辩论中找到。第一场辩论由保罗•韦勒(Paul Weiler)牵头,探讨了比较劳动法以及美国和加拿大版本瓦格纳模式之间的交叉。韦勒设想的混合瓦格纳模式借鉴了两个版本的特点,以促进工人在工作中获得集体的声音,这对我们在加拿大可能走向的方向具有指导意义。第二次辩论涉及《加拿大权利和自由宪章》对加拿大劳工法未来的潜在影响。大卫·比蒂(David Beatty)认为,《宪章》将在加拿大引发一场对话,最终导致瓦格纳模式的瓦解,取而代之的是一种强调个人自由平等、扩大集体谈判范围的新模式。在早期的宪章诉讼中,加拿大最高法院完全拒绝了比蒂对后宪章劳动法的规范性设想。然而,在重要的方面,自2001年以来的《宪章》法理学可能正在追赶这一愿景,即使最高法院并不经常正式采纳他的论点。因此,有必要重新审视他的思想,以找到我们在劳动法方面可能走向何方的线索。文章最后对加拿大劳动法的变化做出了一些预测,这些预测来自于大约四十年前的这些辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reflecting back on the future of labour law
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
26
期刊最新文献
Joseph Heath, The Machinery of Government Ableism’s New Clothes: Achievements and Challenges for Disability Rights in Canada A Person Suffering: On Danger and Care in Mental Health Law Interpreting Dicey Against Moralism in Anti-Discrimination Law
×
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