Abstracts
Résumé
Dans un contexte d’intégration économique, quel est l’impact d’un cadre réglementaire distinctif en matière d’emploi sur le développement économique ? L’article montre dans un premier temps le caractère fondamentalement distinct du cadre réglementaire québécois relativement au cadre américain. De là, il analyse cette question à partir d’entrevues réalisées auprès de dirigeants d’entreprises ayant des lieux de production dans ces deux espaces économiques. Cette démarche permet d’amorcer une réflexion théorique sur le particularisme institutionnel au sein d’un ensemble économique régional intégré. L’étude conclut qu’il est possible de préserver les spécificités du cadre réglementaire québécois dans la mesure où celui-ci s’inscrit dans une stratégie de développement de l’industrie manufacturière dans les secteurs à haute valeur ajoutée, lesquels exigent une main-d’oeuvre qualifiée. Il importe donc de soutenir la croissance des secteurs susceptibles de tirer avantage d’un tel contexte, notamment par l’appui à la recherche et au développement.
Summary
In a context of economic integration, does a distinctive regulatory framework for employment act as a restraint on economic development? This is often publicly asserted by representatives of Canadian employers, who maintain that the Quebec regulatory framework is detrimental to employment and penalizes Quebec in firms’ strategic decisions. On the basis of a comparison of the American and Quebec regulatory frameworks, this assertion is discussed in light of the perception of decision makers working in multinational firms established in Quebec and the United States. Our study reveals that the Quebec regulatory framework is perceived in a more cautious way by the decision makers interviewed. This calls into question some of the stereotypical ideas on this subject and leads us to initiate a theoretical exploration of the links between the regulatory framework applicable to employment and economic development policies.
Regulatory framework refers to the set of laws on labour and employment including those applicable to collective relations. In other words, it entails formal sources of labour regulation emanating directly from the state. In addition to this narrow definition of regulatory framework, we also seek to take into account the formal regulation associated with collective labour relations since the latter are themselves conditioned by law. Strategic decisions relate to firms’ choices of investment or development of operations, including those related to production locations and targeted markets.
Through an analysis of the relevant literature, the first part of the article identifies the research objective and presents the research design. The second part examines the two regulatory frameworks under consideration, with a particular focus on the distinct logic underlying each one. The third part of the article sets out the results of our study of leaders of firms operating in these two systems. The conclusion identifies a number of research avenues in the areas of both theory and public policies.
This study draws on two methodologies: a comparative analysis of the two regulatory frameworks and an exploratory empirical study of the perceptions of actors whose experience allows us to compare these systems. The co-authors personally conducted 22 interviews in eight firms between May 2004 and January 2005, usually at the head office located in the Quebec province. All the interviewees were involved in strategic decision-making—division heads, plant managers or more often, vice-presidents of human resources.
In the specific area of collective labour relations, during the Second World War, Quebec adopted a legal framework inspired from that established under the New Deal in the United States during the previous decade. Ever since, while its essential principles have been maintained, numerous changes have been made to Quebec’s legal system, thus intensifying its specific character and distinct nature in terms of labour relations. However, the examination of the entire regulatory framework, as explored in this article, highlights much more fundamental differences between the Quebec and American systems. In particular, the two frameworks are derived from two different legal regimes—the Civil Code and the Common Law—and in recent years, Quebec has made much more progressive and substantial advances in the minimum conditions that apply to the entire working population.
The particularities of the Quebec regulatory framework arise from its hybrid nature. Owing to its origins and history, it is at the same time a product of French civil law, certain characteristics of the British and Canadian approaches, and especially, more belatedly, of the American approach to collective labour relations. This hybrid nature places the Quebec system half-way between American liberalism and the interventionism associated with several countries in continental Europe.
Three types of observation emerge from the interviews. First, the firms’ leaders tend to assess the characteristics of the Quebec regulatory framework for employment in the context of economic integration with the United States. Without making the regulatory framework a primary factor, the economic context is nevertheless seen as giving it considerable importance in strategic corporate decisions. Second, their perceptions go beyond the content of public discourses on the “costs of regulation” in order to specify what are, in their eyes, the main challenges and the real issues. It is then possible to define how the various aspects of regulation can influence certain types of corporate decisions. Third, although the decision makers interviewed did not call into question the foundations of the existing labour regulation regime in Quebec, they nevertheless suggest that this framework is only viable in certain sectors of economic activity and in certain types of production.
The hybrid nature of Quebec’s regulatory framework reflects European approaches, notably French civil law and recent laws on equity and social protection, but also the American collective labour relations regime. This phenomenon is, of course, significant for thinking about the economy and public policies but it also raises important theoretical questions in social sciences. The conclusion explores these two dimensions in light of the empirical data presented in this study. The key question concerns the possibilities and limitations of a distinct regulatory framework, with all its attendant particularities, in an environment in the grip of neo-liberal hegemony.
Resumen
En un contexto de integración económica, ¿cuál es el impacto de un cuadro reglamentario distintivo en materia de empleo sobre el desarrollo económico? El artículo muestra en un primer tiempo el carácter fundamentalmente distinto del cuadro reglamentario quebequense comparativamente al cuadro americano. Por ello, se analiza esta cuestión a partir de entrevistas realizadas con dirigentes de empresas que poseen centros de producción en esos dos espacios económicos. Este planteamiento permite iniciar una reflexión teórica sobre el particularismo institucional en el seno de un conjunto económico regional integrado. El estudio concluye que es posible preservar las especificidades del cuadro reglamentario quebequense en la medida que éste se inscriba en una estrategia de desarrollo de la industria manufacturera en los sectores de alto valor agregado, sectores que exigen una mano de obra calificada. Es importante, entonces, sostener el crecimiento de sectores susceptibles de sacar ventaja en ese contexto, sobre todo mediante el apoyo a la investigación y al desarrollo.
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Arthurs, Harry W. 2000. « The Hollowing Out of Corporate Canada ? ». Globalizing Institutions. J. Jenson et B. de Sousa Santos, dir. Burlington, Vermont : Ashgate, 29–51.
- Baldwin, John R., Desmond Beckstead et W. Mark Brown. 2003. Exode, rationalisation ou concentration ? Analyse des sièges sociaux au Canada, 1999 à 2002. 11F0027MIF, No 019. Ottawa : Statistique Canada, décembre.
- Beckstead, Desmond et W. Mark Brown. 2006. L’emploi dans les sièges sociaux au Canada, de 1999 à 2005. 11–624–MIF, No 014. Ottawa : Statistique Canada, juillet.
- Bélanger, Jacques et Paul Edwards. 2006. « Towards a Political Economy Framework : TNCs as National and Global Players ». Multinationals, Institutions and the Construction of Transnational Practices. A. Ferner, J. Quintanilla et C. Sánchez-Runde, dir. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 24–52.
- Béliveau, Nathalie-Anne. 2003. Les normes du travail. Cowansville : Éditions Yvon Blais.
- Bellace, Janice R. 1997. « Labor Law for the Post-Industrial Workplace : Breaking the New Deal Model in the USA ». Labour Law at the Crossroads : Changing Employment Relationships. J. R. Bellace et M. G. Rood, dir. The Hague : Kluwer Law International, 11–26.
- Block, Richard N. 2005. Normes du travail dans l’administration fédérale canadienne : comparaison entre les provinces et les territoires canadiens, les États des États-Unis et certains pays européens. Étude réalisée pour la Commission chargée de l’examen des normes du travail fédérales, <http://www.fls-ntf.gc.ca>.
- Block, Richard N., Karen Roberts et R. Oliver Clarke. 2003. Labour Standards in the United States and Canada. Kalamazoo, Michigan : W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
- Card, David et Richard B. Freeman. 1993. « Small Differences that Matters : Canada vs. the United States ». Working Under Different Rules. R. B. Freeman, dir. New York : Russell Sage Foundation, 189–222.
- Conseil de la science et de la technologie. 2006. Pour une gestion stratégique de l’innovation dans le secteur manufacturier. Québec : gouvernement du Québec.
- Daugareilh, Isabelle. 2005. « La responsabilité sociale des entreprises transnationales et les droits fondamentaux de l’Homme au travail : le contre-exemple des accords internationaux ». Mondialisation, travail et droits fondamentaux. I. Daugareilh, dir. Bruxelles : Bruylant et Paris : L.G.D.J., 349–384.
- Ford, Karen E., Kerry E. Notestine et Richard N. Hill. 2000. Fundamentals of Employment Law. 2e éd. Chicago : American Bar Association.
- Hall, Peter A. et David Soskice, dir. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism : The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
- Krugman, Paul. 2005. « Toyota, Moving Northward ». The New York Times, 25 juillet, A–19.
- Labrosse, Alexis. 2006. « La présence syndicale au Québec en 2005 ». Info-Travail, 2 (2), <http://www.travail.gouv.qc.ca>.
- Levasseur, Alain A. dir. 1990. Droit des États-Unis. Paris : Dalloz.
- Morissette, Lucie. 2006. Le processus de régulation des politiques publiques du travail : le cas de la réforme de l’article 45 du Code du travail au Québec. Thèse de doctorat, École de relations industrielles, Faculté des arts et sciences, Université de Montréal.
- Murray, Gregor et Gilles Trudeau. 2004. « Une régulation sociale de l’entreprise mondialisée ». Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 59 (1), 3–14.
- Piore, Michael J. et Sean Safford. 2006. « Changing Regimes of Workplace Governance, Shifting Axes of Social Mobilization, and the Challenge to Industrial Relations Theory », Industrial Relations, 45 (3), 299–325.
- Pope, Herbert. 1910. « The English Common Law in the United States ». Harvard Law Review, 24 (6).
- Stanford, Jim. 2000. « Canadian Labour Market Developments in International Context : Flexibility, Regulation and Demand ». Canadian Public Policy – Analyse de Politiques, XXVI, S27–S58.
- Streeck, Wolfgang. 1992. Social Institutions and Economic Performance. London : Sage.
- Streeck, Wolfgang. 1997. « Beneficial Constraints : On the Economic Limits of Rational Voluntarism ». Contemporary Capitalism. J. R. Hollingsworth et R. Boyer, dir. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 197–219.
- Streeck, Wolfgang. 2004. « Educating Capitalists : A Rejoinder to Wright and Tsakalotos ». Socio-Economic Review, 2 (3), 425–438.
- Summers, Clyde W. 2000. « Employment at Will in the United States : The Divine Right of Employers ». U. Pa. Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 3, 65–86.
- Taylor, Benjamin J. et Fred Witney. 1992. Labor Relations Law. 6e éd. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
- Trudeau, Gilles. 2004. « La grève au Canada et aux États-Unis : d’un passé glorieux à un avenir incertain ». Revue juridique Thémis, 38, 1–48.
- Trudeau, Gilles. 2005. « L’arbitrage des griefs au Canada : plaidoyer pour une réforme devenue nécessaire ». La Revue du Barreau canadien, 84, 249–276.
- U.S. Department of Labor. 2006. State Right-to-Work Laws and Constitutional Amendments in Effect as of January 1, 2006, with Year of Passage. <www.dol.gov/esa>.
- Vallée, Guylaine et Jean Charest. 2001. « Globalization and the Transformation of State Regulation of Labour : The Case of Recent Amendments to the Quebec Collective Agreement Decrees Act ». International Journal of Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 17, 79–91.
- Veilleux, Diane. 2004. « L’arbitre de grief face à une compétence renouvelée ». Revue du Barreau, 64, 217–311.
- Verge, Pierre, Gilles Trudeau et Guylaine Vallée. 2006. Le droit du travail par ses sources. Montréal : Les éditions Thémis.
