Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Labour Law Scholarship: Doorey's New Article on Workplace Law Reform

by David Doorey November 30, 2011
written by David Doorey November 30, 2011

One of my goals on this blog is bring labour and employment law scholarship to the great masses. That’s why I maintain this page of labour/employment law scholars, and why I promote new publications. In that vein, I’m introducing my new article, which will be published in a slightly revised form (after edits) in the near future in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal.  It’s a paper I presented at Cambridge University in England earlier this fall.
The draft version of the paper is available here for free download. It is called:

“Good Employer, Bad Employer:  Insights from Decentred Regulation for Improving Employment Standards Compliance”

Overview of Ideas in the Paper
Much of the paper describes a strand of legal theory called “decentred regulation“, which argues that sometimes simply ordering businesses to do things (“pay the minimum wage”) under threat of an order to comply, or perhaps a fine, is not a very effective way to get those businesses to comply.  The persistently high levels of non-compliance with employment standards laws provide a real life example of that thesis.
‘Decentred’ regulation theory argues that sometimes you can get businesses to comply with legal rules more effectively by changing the way that the rules are perceived by the businesses.  The trick is to find legal signals that will cause business leaders to perceive personal or business value in compliance–to make them want to do what the government wants them to do, not because they are afraid of a fine, but because it makes good business sense to comply.
In my paper, I argue that one way to do this in employment law is to create clearer incentives to comply with employment standards, and higher risks for non-compliance.  The most novel idea put forward in the paper is that non-compliance with a bundle of important rules in employment regulation (like minimum wage, overtime pay, and unfair labour practices) should be remedied not just with the usual order to comply and to give back pay, but also with a new system of rules for governing union organizing campaigns. “Bad” employers, who cannot even comply with basic employment regulation, should have fewer rights to resist the efforts of their employees to obtain assistance in the form of collective bargaining.
This is called a “Dual Regulatory Stream”:  Responsible law abiding employers are governed by a system of rules that gives them the right to campaign against unionization, to restrict access to employer property by union organizers, and to insist that employee wishes about unionization be tested in a mandatory certification vote.  In other words, the existing labour law system continues to apply to them.
However, irresponsible, Bad Employers, have demonstrated a lack of concern for their employees’ welfare.  The state should pay special attention to them, and their rights to interfere with employee efforts to access collective bargaining should restricted.  Once found in violation of the targeted laws by a Tribunal, Bad Employers should: lose the right to campaign against unionization, be required to permit union organizers access to the property to meet with employees, be governed by a ‘card-check’ union certification model rather than a mandatory vote model, and be subject to a form of fast-track first contract arbitration.
For law-abiding employers who already take employment regulation seriously, nothing changes under this model.  For that reason, this is a quite modest proposal, which also makes it somewhat pragmatic politically.  Their employees can still unionize under the rules already in place.  On the other hand, for employers who are prepared to violate employment regulations, there is a greater risk of being unionized under this model.  Why should a law-breaking employer be treated exactly the same as law-abiding employers?
The Dual Regulatory Stream approach would motivate many nonunion employers to pay much greater attention to employment regulation, in order to access the rights to participate in the unionization campaign afforded to only law-abiding employers, and to avoid a card-check and first contract arbitration.  Many of those employers will now be more motivated to learn about and comply with employment  laws.  The employees of those that do not comply will have easier access to the protections afforded by collective bargaining.  Moreover, under this model, unions and worker advocates will be incentivized to search out nonunion employers that violate employment laws, since they would be rewarded for their efforts by a more favorable union organizing climate.

This is just one idea that flows from the ideas in the decentred regulatory literature.  It is a controversial idea, and some people have criticized me and the paper on a number of grounds. Can you think what those grounds might be?  Some of the criticisms are valid, and I ackowledge them in the paper.  On the other hand, others have praised the ideas in the paper as a useful basis to begin a dialogue about how to re-imagine the ways that laws can be used to influence employer behaviour. For example, see this review by Professor Mike Zimmer of Loyola Law School in Chicago of an earlier draft of the paper.

Comments?  Hate Mail?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Is it Religious Discrimination to Force Employee to Wear a "666" Sticker?
next post
City of Toronto Rejects Motion to Require Council Approval of a Lockout of its Employees

You may also like

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

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

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

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
6h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
6h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
7h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • 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
  • 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.