- Provides real-life study of the principles explored in the book, demonstrating the operation of law in practice and the unexpected consequences of regulatory models
- Shows how the operation of legal provisions is shaped by economic, political, and social context, and shows there are many ways of addressing a legal policy issue
- Comparative study looking at Australia, Canada, South Africa, the United States, and the United Kingdom, which helps provide a holistic view of strike ballots
- International law and most national legal systems recognize the right to strike as a fundamental human right. However, the most common qualification for a strike is that the action must first be approved by ballot. These types of requirements are often said to be necessary to protect the democratic rights of the workers – the so-called democratic imperative. But is that truly their aim?
This book draws on detailed empirical study of the Australian legislative provisions for pre-strike ballots; a comparative analysis of law and practice in a range of countries including Canada, South Africa, the United States, and the United Kingdom; and the approaches of the supervisory bodies of the International Labour Organisation to evaluate the true purpose and effect of the ballot requirement. While in some cases the ballot requirement provided additional bargaining leverage for unions, overall, the study showed that the principle purpose of ballot requirements is to curtail strikes rather than vindicate the democratic imperative it claims to support.
Exploring collective bargaining and union democracy, this is an essential title for those involved in or studying labour law. This book also demonstrates the fundamental shortcomings of ballot regimes, and provides and accessible exploration of the operation of said regimes, which makes this a helpful tool for unionists to understand their rights as workers. It also considers significant policy questions in the field and is relevant in the respect of the international labour law regime.
INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR
This year, the theme of World Day of Social Justice is ‘A Call for Social Justice in the Digital Economy’. So, we had a chat with labour law expert, Professor Shae McCrystal, about the digital economy and how it has changed the way we work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
What is the main challenge for labour law in a digital economy?
The main challenge for labour law in a digital economy is keeping pace with continuing disruption to the manner in which workers are engaged, and managing the challenges presented by an effectively border-free labour market.
Many digital platforms exploit existing regulatory weaknesses to engage low skilled and low paid ‘self-employed’ workers at rates below regulatory minimum standards set for employees.
The regulation of self-employed workers is designed for those genuinely in business for themselves, not for those labouring in the businesses of others, but the legal definitions we use have not kept pace with technological changes.
This enables low skilled ‘gig’ workers to be disguised as ‘self-employed’ and left without those regulatory protections specifically targeted at them.
Your latest book looks at strikes as a means of protecting and promoting the social and economic interests of workers. What is the future of strikes in times of growing remote and gig work?
Industrial action, or the realistic threat of industrial action, is a crucial tool in the arsenal of working people to seek to better their working conditions. However, access to lawful industrial action is heavily regulated, and in Australia is restricted to employees in a single enterprise during bargaining for a proposed agreement.
The inability of working people to use industrial action to support their rights in self-employment, and for all workers to strike in solidarity across enterprises, limits the utility of strikes for all workers, and those engaged in remote and gig work.
This is further complicated where gig work can be done across borders, given that the use of industrial action as a toll of international solidarity is generally prohibited by domestic laws.
