Full bibliography

Despite the fact that the American Wagner model is the foundation of labour law in both Canada and the United States, that law has evolved in different ways in the two countries. The author argues that this can be accounted for by adopting a historical-institutionalist perspective, which explains differences by looking at formative historical conditions and the institutional norms and traditions to which they gave rise. The conditions and norms the author identifies in each country lead him to conclude that the Canadian and American Wagner models are driven by different underlying rationales: the American version is predominantly concerned with economic gain and limited state interference, whereas the Canadian version seeks to maintain order and stability through the exercise of state control. For the time being, Canada's version has proved more effective at sustaining higher levels of union density. The paper then asks what these differences might tell us about the future of labour law and unionization in Canada. The author argues that Wagnerism in Canada has been a double-edged sword. While it has given unions greater institutional security, that same security has discouraged labour leaders from pursuing meaningful reforms to avoid union decline. The author also observes that there has been an erosion of the distinct institutional norms and traditions that have historically prevailed in Canada, brought on by an ideological shift towards neo-liberalism and globalization. From a historical-institutionalist perspective, however, policies that deviate too far from a nation's historical trajectory are unlikely to survive for long.

Publisher: HeinOnline