The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Decentring Labour Law: What's the Fuss All About?

by David Doorey June 21, 2010
written by David Doorey June 21, 2010

I presented a paper last week at the CRIMT/CIRA conference at Laval entitled “Decentring Labour Law”, and then Harry Arthurs, Cynthia Estlund, and Kerry Rittich gave their comments on my paper and on the broader issues related to “decentring” regulation and New Governance.  It was a raucous session, to say the least, that was followed by a lot of probing comments by an engaged (and sometimes enraged) audience.
What’s the fuss?  Well, you decide. You can read the draft paper here, which is obviously more nuanced than what I am about to say.  But this is what I argue in the paper, in a very general nutshell:
1.   A ‘decentred’ approach to regulation argues that the state is very limited in its ability to achieve policy objectives through direct legal commands (like “pay the minimum wage”) backed by financial penalties.  That command is routinely ignored by bad employers who see it as conflicting with more important objectives, and who do not perceive much risk from non-compliance.
2.  Therefore, the state needs to “get inside the head” of employers, to figure out what sort of legal command will cause employers to see compliance with the minimum wage as consistent with their own economic objectives.
3.  A decentred approach to improving compliance with labour & employment laws would emphasize the potential power of harnessing non-state actors and of “injecting risk” into the decision-making matrix of firms.
4.  This means identifying what employers’ perceive as sources of “risk”, and then considering how that risk might be harnessed by regulation to provoke useful risk management processes.
5.  With this in mind, I proposed the following idea:  Since Employers fear unionization, the risk of unionization can be put to use by the state to encourage Ers to comply with labour & employment laws.  How?  Like this:

An employer that is found in violation of a labour or employment law statute would forfeit many of the legal rights Ers are now given in our legal system to try to persuade and block their employees from supporting unionization.
For example, the employer would: forfeit its right to argue against unionization (it would have to remain neutral during an organizing campaign); forfeit its right to exclude union organizers from non-working areas of the workplace (organizers would be entitled to speak to ees in the cafeteria and parking lots); provide the union with a list of employees names and a way to distribute literature to ees;  the unionization decision would be determined by a “card-check” and not a forced ballot; and the state would assign a labour relations officer to monitor the employer’s behaviour closely during the organizing campaign, among other things.

I argued that this model would have a number of benefits, including:

1.  It would scare the hell out of Ers and therefore cause them to pay greater attention to compliance with laws so as to avoid being subjected to the more favourable union organizing rules.
2.  It would encourage unions and employee advocacy groups to seek out employees working for law-breaking ers and to represent them in hearings about legal violations.  This harness the expertise of non-state actors in improving compliance with government laws.
3.  It would facilitate union organizing of “bad” employers who ignore employment statutes.
4.  It would help reduce the incidence of employers who obtain a competitive advantage by undercutting employment laws while their competitors play by the rules.

I also argue that this sort of proposal might get support from a broader range of politicians than simply those who always support collective bargaining laws.  The reason is that most politicians already believe that employees of “bad” employers should have access to unions in order to protect them from their abusive employers.  The suggestion I made that caused the most controversy was the claim that  most politicians and employers believe that unions are a reflection of poor management, and that “good” employers will eliminate the “demand for unionization”.
This is of course the fundamental presumption of human resource management, but it is a highly contested claim within the labour law world. My point was that, since politicians and employers already believe the idea that unions reflect bad management, the proposal that employees of “bad” employers should have easier access to the unionization option fits within their worldview.
An employer that ignores the legal rights of its employees has no business trying to persuade the employees that they are better off without a union.  Those workers have a strong claim to the need for union assistance and the state should make the route to unionization free from employer resistance.
What do you think about my proposal?
Do you think it would receive hostile response from employers?  From unions?

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
What the Heck is Decentred Labour Law, anyhow?
next post
Summer Break

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
9h

If one these dimwits was a Sacha Baron Cohen-like comedian playing the role of a Republican would any one notice?

PatriotTakes 🇺🇸@patriottakes

Marjorie Taylor Greene believes generating electricity from “wind turbines and solar panels” will result in the loss of air conditioning and home appliances.

Greene: “I like the lights on. I want to stay up later at night. I don’t want to have to go to bed when the sun sets.”

Reply on Twitter 1558630572783722497Retweet on Twitter 15586305727837224972Like on Twitter 15586305727837224974Twitter 1558630572783722497
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
11h

A student told me she is translating chapters of my book into Korean because she learned a lot and wants it as a reference but English is her second language.

Any Korean speakers out there? What does this say?

일의 법칙

Reply on Twitter 1558595466182393858Retweet on Twitter 1558595466182393858Like on Twitter 15585954661823938581Twitter 1558595466182393858
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
11h

I have no idea who this person is or what is going on in Peterborough.

There’s a world of crazy around me that I’m missing.

Caryma Sa'd - Lawyer + Political Satirist@CarymaRules

Romana Didulo provides entertainment for the thinned out crowd in the form of her favourite song, Rasputin.

#cdnpoli #Peterborough #QAnon

Reply on Twitter 1558592062097956865Retweet on Twitter 1558592062097956865Like on Twitter 15585920620979568653Twitter 1558592062097956865
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.