>   SEARCH    
 > BROWSE >  >  >    - subject
 > GALS Home  - author
 > GALS Articles  - journal
 > GALS Books   
    - ALL sorted by

  Australia
 
McCallum, Ron, "Plunder Down Under: Transplanting the Anglo-American Labour Law Model to Australia", [GALS Working Paper Series #2-05 -- this paper was delivered as the 19th Annual Benjamin Aaron Lecture, Los Angeles, 11 October 2005]

Abstract:
This paper compares and contrasts the federal approaches to labour law in the three Common Law federations of the United States, Canada and Australia. In the United States, curial interpretations of the Constitution have lead to the Congress having national labour law powers. On the other hand, the legislative divide between the Canadian Government and the Provinces, has meant that it is the Provinces who have control over the vast bulk of labour law in the private sector. Throughout the twentieth century, the jurisdiction over labour law in Australia has been divided between the Australian and State Governments. Presently, the Australian Government is attempting to deregulate Australian federal labour law and to limit Australia’s traditional processes of conciliation and arbitration. Furthermore, the Australian Government is seeking to utilize its constitutional powers to create one deregulated national labour law system for Australia. If successful, this will mean that the five remaining separate State labour law systems will be diminished. If the Australian Government is successful in using its legislative power over corporations to create a national labour law regime, State controls will be minimized. Much will depend on the way the Australian High Court interprets the corporation’s power within the framework of the Australian Constitution.

Subjects: Australia, Case Studies: Country-Specific
Newsletter: Vol 5, Issue 3
Full-text links: || PDF || 

  Case Studies: Country-Specific
 
McCallum, Ron, "Plunder Down Under: Transplanting the Anglo-American Labour Law Model to Australia", [GALS Working Paper Series #2-05 -- this paper was delivered as the 19th Annual Benjamin Aaron Lecture, Los Angeles, 11 October 2005]

Abstract:
This paper compares and contrasts the federal approaches to labour law in the three Common Law federations of the United States, Canada and Australia. In the United States, curial interpretations of the Constitution have lead to the Congress having national labour law powers. On the other hand, the legislative divide between the Canadian Government and the Provinces, has meant that it is the Provinces who have control over the vast bulk of labour law in the private sector. Throughout the twentieth century, the jurisdiction over labour law in Australia has been divided between the Australian and State Governments. Presently, the Australian Government is attempting to deregulate Australian federal labour law and to limit Australia’s traditional processes of conciliation and arbitration. Furthermore, the Australian Government is seeking to utilize its constitutional powers to create one deregulated national labour law system for Australia. If successful, this will mean that the five remaining separate State labour law systems will be diminished. If the Australian Government is successful in using its legislative power over corporations to create a national labour law regime, State controls will be minimized. Much will depend on the way the Australian High Court interprets the corporation’s power within the framework of the Australian Constitution.

Subjects: Australia, Case Studies: Country-Specific
Newsletter: Vol 5, Issue 3
Full-text links: || PDF || 

  Comparative Labor Law
 
Arthurs, H.W., "Compared to What? The UCLA Comparative Labor Law Project and the Future of Comparative Labor Law", [GALS Working Paper Series #1-06]

Abstract:
This article describes the work of the Comparative Labor Law Group from 1965 to 1978 as a particular “moment” in the life of post-war labor law. That “moment” had its origin in the post-war compromise, and was waning by the late 1970s. It was a time in which there was widespread agreement that the purpose of labor law was to provide justice in the workplace and that workers should enjoy economic and employment security. The author shows that a crisis in political economy, legal institutions and legal theory undermined the consensus and with it, the underpinnings of traditional labor law and comparative labor law scholarship. The national labor law systems that were the focus of the consensus moment withered under the combined onslaught of technological change, the rise of the service sector, neo-liberal ideology, the restructuring of key industries, the expansion of knowledge-intensive work, the entrance of women and excluded groups into the mainstream workplace, and changes in the nature of work itself. In the wake of the demise of the national labor law systems, new sources of normative authority derived from private rule-making institutions have increased their governance role in work relationships. Such systems include corporate codes of conduct, the UN Global Compact, the institutions of trade regimes, and other “soft law” initiatives. The author calls for a new type of comparative labor law that compares these diverse, semi-autonomous systems of non-state normativity in order to develop a “new syntax, grammar, and vocabulary of comparativism which will help make them mutually intelligible.”

Subjects: Comparative Labor Law, Corporate Codes of Conduct, Trade Conditionality
Newsletter: Vol 5, Issue 10
Full-text links: || PDF || 

  Corporate Codes of Conduct
 
Arthurs, H.W., "Compared to What? The UCLA Comparative Labor Law Project and the Future of Comparative Labor Law", [GALS Working Paper Series #1-06]

Abstract:
This article describes the work of the Comparative Labor Law Group from 1965 to 1978 as a particular “moment” in the life of post-war labor law. That “moment” had its origin in the post-war compromise, and was waning by the late 1970s. It was a time in which there was widespread agreement that the purpose of labor law was to provide justice in the workplace and that workers should enjoy economic and employment security. The author shows that a crisis in political economy, legal institutions and legal theory undermined the consensus and with it, the underpinnings of traditional labor law and comparative labor law scholarship. The national labor law systems that were the focus of the consensus moment withered under the combined onslaught of technological change, the rise of the service sector, neo-liberal ideology, the restructuring of key industries, the expansion of knowledge-intensive work, the entrance of women and excluded groups into the mainstream workplace, and changes in the nature of work itself. In the wake of the demise of the national labor law systems, new sources of normative authority derived from private rule-making institutions have increased their governance role in work relationships. Such systems include corporate codes of conduct, the UN Global Compact, the institutions of trade regimes, and other “soft law” initiatives. The author calls for a new type of comparative labor law that compares these diverse, semi-autonomous systems of non-state normativity in order to develop a “new syntax, grammar, and vocabulary of comparativism which will help make them mutually intelligible.”

Subjects: Comparative Labor Law, Corporate Codes of Conduct, Trade Conditionality
Newsletter: Vol 5, Issue 10
Full-text links: || PDF || 

  Trade Conditionality
 
Arthurs, H.W., "Compared to What? The UCLA Comparative Labor Law Project and the Future of Comparative Labor Law", [GALS Working Paper Series #1-06]

Abstract:
This article describes the work of the Comparative Labor Law Group from 1965 to 1978 as a particular “moment” in the life of post-war labor law. That “moment” had its origin in the post-war compromise, and was waning by the late 1970s. It was a time in which there was widespread agreement that the purpose of labor law was to provide justice in the workplace and that workers should enjoy economic and employment security. The author shows that a crisis in political economy, legal institutions and legal theory undermined the consensus and with it, the underpinnings of traditional labor law and comparative labor law scholarship. The national labor law systems that were the focus of the consensus moment withered under the combined onslaught of technological change, the rise of the service sector, neo-liberal ideology, the restructuring of key industries, the expansion of knowledge-intensive work, the entrance of women and excluded groups into the mainstream workplace, and changes in the nature of work itself. In the wake of the demise of the national labor law systems, new sources of normative authority derived from private rule-making institutions have increased their governance role in work relationships. Such systems include corporate codes of conduct, the UN Global Compact, the institutions of trade regimes, and other “soft law” initiatives. The author calls for a new type of comparative labor law that compares these diverse, semi-autonomous systems of non-state normativity in order to develop a “new syntax, grammar, and vocabulary of comparativism which will help make them mutually intelligible.”

Subjects: Comparative Labor Law, Corporate Codes of Conduct, Trade Conditionality
Newsletter: Vol 5, Issue 10
Full-text links: || PDF ||