工人组织权、议价权和罢工权的宪法化:一个人耸耸肩的眼光

H. Arthurs
{"title":"工人组织权、议价权和罢工权的宪法化:一个人耸耸肩的眼光","authors":"H. Arthurs","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1645259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court of Canada may well conclude in Fraser that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms confers upon agricultural workers the full panoply of bargaining rights provided under contemporary Canadian collective bargaining legislation, from the right to be represented exclusively by the bargaining agent chosen by the majority, to the right to engage their employer in good faith negotiations, to the right to strike. If the Court does so, its decision will be greeted with delight by progressive legal scholars, proponents of countervailing power as a strategy of labour market regulation, and true believers in the potential of constitutional and international rights discourse to transform political economy and social relations. There will be congratulations all 'round: to the skilled advocates who will have achieved a famous victory against long odds; to the imaginative academics who will have erected the conceptual scaffolding on which counsel’s arguments will have been constructed; and not least, to the judges who will have finally liberated themselves from the tyranny of precedent and sloughed off 200 years of curial antipathy to workers and their interests.Of course, not everyone will be delighted. Dour devotees of legal logic and historical accuracy are likely to grimace or roll their eyes; neo-liberals who favour unregulated labour markets and managerial unilateralism will cry havoc; and sceptics who question the capacity of courts to bring about deep and lasting change, and the wisdom of asking them to do so, will simply shrug. I consider myself to be a progressive scholar who recalls the bygone era of collective bargaining with great nostalgia; I admire skilled lawyers and free-thinking judges and have built the odd conceptual scaffold for both in my time; and I retain an atavistic attachment to logic and historical accuracy. But because most of all I am a sceptic, I will shrug.Of course, I will shrug with one shoulder only. Clearly, the Agricultural Employees Protection Act was a cynical attempt to perpetuate the unjustified exclusion of workers on farms and in food processing plants from the regime of collective bargaining. Clearly these workers should have the same rights to organize, bargain and strike as workers in auto plants and banks - however modest the value of those rights may turn out to be in practice. Consequently, if the Supreme Court decides in their favour, one shoulder will remain firmly in place; but the other will shrug.","PeriodicalId":215343,"journal":{"name":"Labor Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constitutionalizing the Right of Workers to Organize, Bargain and Strike: The Sight of One Shoulder Shrugging\",\"authors\":\"H. Arthurs\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1645259\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court of Canada may well conclude in Fraser that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms confers upon agricultural workers the full panoply of bargaining rights provided under contemporary Canadian collective bargaining legislation, from the right to be represented exclusively by the bargaining agent chosen by the majority, to the right to engage their employer in good faith negotiations, to the right to strike. If the Court does so, its decision will be greeted with delight by progressive legal scholars, proponents of countervailing power as a strategy of labour market regulation, and true believers in the potential of constitutional and international rights discourse to transform political economy and social relations. There will be congratulations all 'round: to the skilled advocates who will have achieved a famous victory against long odds; to the imaginative academics who will have erected the conceptual scaffolding on which counsel’s arguments will have been constructed; and not least, to the judges who will have finally liberated themselves from the tyranny of precedent and sloughed off 200 years of curial antipathy to workers and their interests.Of course, not everyone will be delighted. Dour devotees of legal logic and historical accuracy are likely to grimace or roll their eyes; neo-liberals who favour unregulated labour markets and managerial unilateralism will cry havoc; and sceptics who question the capacity of courts to bring about deep and lasting change, and the wisdom of asking them to do so, will simply shrug. I consider myself to be a progressive scholar who recalls the bygone era of collective bargaining with great nostalgia; I admire skilled lawyers and free-thinking judges and have built the odd conceptual scaffold for both in my time; and I retain an atavistic attachment to logic and historical accuracy. But because most of all I am a sceptic, I will shrug.Of course, I will shrug with one shoulder only. Clearly, the Agricultural Employees Protection Act was a cynical attempt to perpetuate the unjustified exclusion of workers on farms and in food processing plants from the regime of collective bargaining. Clearly these workers should have the same rights to organize, bargain and strike as workers in auto plants and banks - however modest the value of those rights may turn out to be in practice. Consequently, if the Supreme Court decides in their favour, one shoulder will remain firmly in place; but the other will shrug.\",\"PeriodicalId\":215343,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Labor Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Labor Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1645259\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labor Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1645259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

加拿大最高法院很可能在弗雷泽案中得出结论,《加拿大权利和自由宪章》赋予农业工人当代加拿大集体谈判立法所规定的全部谈判权利,从由多数人选择的谈判代理人独家代表的权利,到与雇主进行真诚谈判的权利,再到罢工的权利。如果最高法院这样做,它的决定将受到进步的法律学者、作为劳动力市场监管策略的反补贴权力的支持者,以及真正相信宪法和国际权利论述有可能改变政治经济和社会关系的人的欢迎。到处都是祝贺的声音:祝贺那些经验丰富的辩护人,他们将克服重重困难,取得一场著名的胜利;那些富有想象力的学者们,他们将搭建起概念性的框架,辩方律师将在此基础上进行辩护;同样重要的是,对于那些最终将自己从先例的暴政中解放出来,并摆脱了200年来对工人及其利益的反感的法官们。当然,不是每个人都会高兴。法律逻辑和历史准确性的忠实信徒可能会做鬼脸或翻白眼;支持不受监管的劳动力市场和管理单边主义的新自由主义者将会大声疾呼;而那些质疑法院带来深刻而持久变革的能力,以及要求法院这样做是否明智的怀疑论者,只会耸耸肩。我认为自己是一个进步的学者,对过去的集体谈判时代充满了怀旧之情;我钦佩技艺高超的律师和思想自由的法官,并在我的时代为这两者构建了奇特的概念框架;我对逻辑和历史的准确性保持着一种返祖式的依恋。但最重要的是,因为我是个怀疑论者,所以我会耸耸肩。当然,我只会耸耸一个肩膀。显然,《农业雇员保护法》(Agricultural Employees Protection Act)是一种玩世不恭的尝试,旨在将农场和食品加工厂的工人不合理地排除在集体谈判制度之外。显然,这些工人应该拥有与汽车工厂和银行工人同样的组织、谈判和罢工的权利——无论这些权利在实践中可能被证明价值多么微薄。因此,如果最高法院作出有利于他们的裁决,那么一个肩膀将继续坚定地留在原地;但另一方会耸耸肩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Constitutionalizing the Right of Workers to Organize, Bargain and Strike: The Sight of One Shoulder Shrugging
The Supreme Court of Canada may well conclude in Fraser that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms confers upon agricultural workers the full panoply of bargaining rights provided under contemporary Canadian collective bargaining legislation, from the right to be represented exclusively by the bargaining agent chosen by the majority, to the right to engage their employer in good faith negotiations, to the right to strike. If the Court does so, its decision will be greeted with delight by progressive legal scholars, proponents of countervailing power as a strategy of labour market regulation, and true believers in the potential of constitutional and international rights discourse to transform political economy and social relations. There will be congratulations all 'round: to the skilled advocates who will have achieved a famous victory against long odds; to the imaginative academics who will have erected the conceptual scaffolding on which counsel’s arguments will have been constructed; and not least, to the judges who will have finally liberated themselves from the tyranny of precedent and sloughed off 200 years of curial antipathy to workers and their interests.Of course, not everyone will be delighted. Dour devotees of legal logic and historical accuracy are likely to grimace or roll their eyes; neo-liberals who favour unregulated labour markets and managerial unilateralism will cry havoc; and sceptics who question the capacity of courts to bring about deep and lasting change, and the wisdom of asking them to do so, will simply shrug. I consider myself to be a progressive scholar who recalls the bygone era of collective bargaining with great nostalgia; I admire skilled lawyers and free-thinking judges and have built the odd conceptual scaffold for both in my time; and I retain an atavistic attachment to logic and historical accuracy. But because most of all I am a sceptic, I will shrug.Of course, I will shrug with one shoulder only. Clearly, the Agricultural Employees Protection Act was a cynical attempt to perpetuate the unjustified exclusion of workers on farms and in food processing plants from the regime of collective bargaining. Clearly these workers should have the same rights to organize, bargain and strike as workers in auto plants and banks - however modest the value of those rights may turn out to be in practice. Consequently, if the Supreme Court decides in their favour, one shoulder will remain firmly in place; but the other will shrug.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信