《远大前程》失败了?:北美自由贸易协定后加拿大和美国集体谈判制度的发展轨迹

E. Tucker
{"title":"《远大前程》失败了?:北美自由贸易协定后加拿大和美国集体谈判制度的发展轨迹","authors":"E. Tucker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.707132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the beginning of the free-trade era one contentious area has been the impact of trade liberalization on labor law. Opponents of NAFTA (and some supporters) predicted a regulatory race to the bottom (RTB) would ensue leading to increasingly deregulated labor markets. The result would be weaker collective bargaining laws, lower minimum standards, and a decline in the social wage. In recent years a number of scholars have examined the question in light of more than fifteen years experience under CUFTA and ten under NAFTA and there seems to be a growing consensus that, contrary to those 'great expectations', labor laws in North America have not been significantly weakened. In this article, I re-examine the effects of NAFTA on collective bargaining law in Canada and the United States. My contribution to the debates comes down to two points. On the one hand, I argue that the emerging consensus understates the impact of NAFTA-style trade liberalization on the legal regulation of collective bargaining because its focus is artificially narrow. In reaching their conclusions, 'new consensus' scholars have looked exclusively at changes in private sector collective bargaining legislation. I argue this produces a misleading picture of the impact of trade liberalization because it omits public sector collective bargaining and, even more importantly, it fails to consider the impact of trade liberalization on the effectiveness of statutory collective bargaining schemes. If the focus is broadened to include public sector bargaining and labor law's effectiveness, then one finds there has been more labor market deregulation than consensus scholars acknowledge. On the other hand, I accept that, even after broadening our analytical lens, the downward trajectory of the collective bargaining regime has not been as steep as many RTB theorists predicted. I argue that the model upon which this prediction was based was overly structural and that a more nuanced one is needed. Such a model must better take into account a range of factors that mediate the impact of NAFTA-style trade liberalization on labor market regulation. These mediations occur at the economic level, within the collective bargaining regime itself, and in the external environment that shapes the direction of state action.","PeriodicalId":315561,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Great Expectations' Defeated?: The Trajectory of Collective Bargaining Regimes in Canada and the U.S. Post-NAFTA\",\"authors\":\"E. Tucker\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.707132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From the beginning of the free-trade era one contentious area has been the impact of trade liberalization on labor law. Opponents of NAFTA (and some supporters) predicted a regulatory race to the bottom (RTB) would ensue leading to increasingly deregulated labor markets. The result would be weaker collective bargaining laws, lower minimum standards, and a decline in the social wage. In recent years a number of scholars have examined the question in light of more than fifteen years experience under CUFTA and ten under NAFTA and there seems to be a growing consensus that, contrary to those 'great expectations', labor laws in North America have not been significantly weakened. In this article, I re-examine the effects of NAFTA on collective bargaining law in Canada and the United States. My contribution to the debates comes down to two points. On the one hand, I argue that the emerging consensus understates the impact of NAFTA-style trade liberalization on the legal regulation of collective bargaining because its focus is artificially narrow. In reaching their conclusions, 'new consensus' scholars have looked exclusively at changes in private sector collective bargaining legislation. I argue this produces a misleading picture of the impact of trade liberalization because it omits public sector collective bargaining and, even more importantly, it fails to consider the impact of trade liberalization on the effectiveness of statutory collective bargaining schemes. If the focus is broadened to include public sector bargaining and labor law's effectiveness, then one finds there has been more labor market deregulation than consensus scholars acknowledge. On the other hand, I accept that, even after broadening our analytical lens, the downward trajectory of the collective bargaining regime has not been as steep as many RTB theorists predicted. I argue that the model upon which this prediction was based was overly structural and that a more nuanced one is needed. Such a model must better take into account a range of factors that mediate the impact of NAFTA-style trade liberalization on labor market regulation. These mediations occur at the economic level, within the collective bargaining regime itself, and in the external environment that shapes the direction of state action.\",\"PeriodicalId\":315561,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.707132\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.707132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

从自由贸易时代开始,一个有争议的领域就是贸易自由化对劳动法的影响。《北美自由贸易协定》的反对者(以及一些支持者)预测,随之而来的将是监管上的“逐底竞争”(RTB),导致劳动力市场的监管日益放松。其结果将是集体谈判法的削弱、最低标准的降低以及社会工资的下降。近年来,许多学者根据在《北美自由贸易协定》下超过15年的经验和在《北美自由贸易协定》下超过10年的经验来研究这个问题,似乎越来越多的人认为,与那些“伟大的期望”相反,北美的劳动法并没有明显削弱。在本文中,我重新审视了北美自由贸易协定对加拿大和美国集体谈判法的影响。我对辩论的贡献可以归结为两点。一方面,我认为正在形成的共识低估了北美自由贸易协定式的贸易自由化对集体谈判法律监管的影响,因为它的焦点被人为地缩小了。在得出结论时,“新共识”学者只关注了私营部门集体谈判立法的变化。我认为,这对贸易自由化的影响产生了误导,因为它忽略了公共部门的集体谈判,更重要的是,它没有考虑到贸易自由化对法定集体谈判计划有效性的影响。如果将焦点扩大到包括公共部门谈判和劳动法的有效性,那么人们会发现,劳动力市场的放松管制比共识学者所承认的要多。另一方面,我也承认,即使在拓宽了我们的分析视角之后,集体谈判制度的下行轨迹并不像许多劳资谈判理论家预测的那样陡峭。我认为,这一预测所基于的模型过于结构性,需要一个更细致的模型。这种模式必须更好地考虑到一系列因素,这些因素调解了北美自由贸易协定式的贸易自由化对劳动力市场监管的影响。这些调解发生在经济层面,在集体谈判制度本身内,以及在塑造国家行动方向的外部环境中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'Great Expectations' Defeated?: The Trajectory of Collective Bargaining Regimes in Canada and the U.S. Post-NAFTA
From the beginning of the free-trade era one contentious area has been the impact of trade liberalization on labor law. Opponents of NAFTA (and some supporters) predicted a regulatory race to the bottom (RTB) would ensue leading to increasingly deregulated labor markets. The result would be weaker collective bargaining laws, lower minimum standards, and a decline in the social wage. In recent years a number of scholars have examined the question in light of more than fifteen years experience under CUFTA and ten under NAFTA and there seems to be a growing consensus that, contrary to those 'great expectations', labor laws in North America have not been significantly weakened. In this article, I re-examine the effects of NAFTA on collective bargaining law in Canada and the United States. My contribution to the debates comes down to two points. On the one hand, I argue that the emerging consensus understates the impact of NAFTA-style trade liberalization on the legal regulation of collective bargaining because its focus is artificially narrow. In reaching their conclusions, 'new consensus' scholars have looked exclusively at changes in private sector collective bargaining legislation. I argue this produces a misleading picture of the impact of trade liberalization because it omits public sector collective bargaining and, even more importantly, it fails to consider the impact of trade liberalization on the effectiveness of statutory collective bargaining schemes. If the focus is broadened to include public sector bargaining and labor law's effectiveness, then one finds there has been more labor market deregulation than consensus scholars acknowledge. On the other hand, I accept that, even after broadening our analytical lens, the downward trajectory of the collective bargaining regime has not been as steep as many RTB theorists predicted. I argue that the model upon which this prediction was based was overly structural and that a more nuanced one is needed. Such a model must better take into account a range of factors that mediate the impact of NAFTA-style trade liberalization on labor market regulation. These mediations occur at the economic level, within the collective bargaining regime itself, and in the external environment that shapes the direction of state action.
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