Le droit du travail américain : un droit plus favorable à l’investissement que le droit du travail québécois ? Une étude de la question...

The question under study is whether or not United States Labor and Employment Law is more favorable to foreign direct investment (FDI) than Quebec Labor and Employment Law within the context of NAFTA. To answer that question, the author first makes a literature review of the FDI localization determinants to clarify the importance of national labor and employment law in multinational companies investment decisions. This review reveals that the localization of FDI is a complex and multidimensional process involving a large number of factors, among which some are associated with demand, costs, characteristics of host-countries and risk. The national labor and employment law, although taking on a certain importance, is therefore only one factor among others. The review also reveals that the relative importance of FDI localization determinants, including national labor and employment law, varies according to other factors, such as the business sector of the company, its strategy, its size and the purpose of the FDI. Then, the author makes a comparative law study between Quebec and Massachusetts to identify the main differences which exist between both Labor and Employment Law regimes. This study allowed to identify important differences between both systems. In general, it is to be noted that Massachusetts’ Labor and Employment Law bases itself more on the principles of contractual freedom and “laissez-faire” than Quebec Labor and Employment Law, which is much more interventionist. Finally, the author analyzes the differences identified in the comparative law study in the light of the conclusions of his literature review on FDI localization determinants. He concludes that although Quebec Labor and Employment Law is on many aspects more advantageous than Massachusetts Labor and Employment Law for the purposes of FDI localization, it is rather the latter which, in general, turns out to be the most advantageous in this matter. Indeed, Quebec Labor and Employment Law may impose superior costs of labor and reduce labor market flexibility more than Massachusetts Labor and Employment Law. Yet, considering that national labor and employment law is only one factor among others in the FDI localization decision, Quebec is not without means. Indeed, it possesses other comparative advantages that it can assert with the multinational companies that are doing business in sectors where these competitive advantages are valued and susceptible to be exploited. Furthermore, considering that national labor and employment law has a relative importance which varies according to other factors, Quebec Labor and Employment Law has inevitably no same effect on all the investors. Finally, considering that labor and employment law performs social functions as much as economic functions, it is a false debate to emphasize only the "negative" consequences of the national labor and employment law on FDI. Indeed, it is to completely disregard the question of the social costs which labor and employment  law allows to prevent within a society.

Keyphrases: Canada, Massachusetts, labor and employment law, globalization, foreign direct investment (FDI), localization, determinants, comparative law, Quebec, Canada, United States, Massachusetts