 I started out working in restorative justice out of the criminal law context where I felt that I had been teaching criminal law for about 25 years and was more part of the problem than the solution. And this kind of individualistic response to punishment began to make less and less sense to me. Meanwhile, I had been acting as a labor arbitrator since about 1984 and sitting in rooms listening to lawyers argue cases in front of me. And I just began to become more and more uncomfortable with my role as an arbitrator because it seemed to me that there had to be a better way to get problems in the workplace than what I was being required to do. And at about the same time, well, a little while back I never taught really labor relations and stuff until later in my career. And I suddenly realized that as an arbitrator I'd been working for about 20 years in relation to a paradigm that no longer existed. And workplaces have changed and yet the way in which lawyers view workplaces has very often not changed. So I guess I'm interested in the kind of big institutional stuff and how it trickles down to what happens in individual kinds of problems in workplaces. So just let me talk for a couple of minutes about the way in which sort of workplaces have changed in ways that are sometimes hard to understand. But all of us, right, almost all of us, none of us are coupon clippers, right? We all work for a living and our employment relationships are critical to our lives. The people that we interact with on a daily basis. The way in which we work and how we relate is critical for our employers in terms of its productivity, profit in the private sector, capacity to compete. We've got, I think, restorative approaches become important for consumers and clients and even shareholders. And that restorative approaches can benefit all of these people in ways which are quite significant. But where we come from, I'm a lawyer, right? And we have something called the contract of employment. And the contract of employment is actually a kind of post-Second World War creation of the welfare state. And that we attach all sorts, or we used to, attach all sorts of benefits to the contract of employment. If you had a solid contract of employment, you had a pension, right? You had benefits, you had ways to relate to people. If you were in a unionized workplace, you had an advocate for you to help you solve problems. Well, that's all changing, right? The vertically and horizontally integrated firm is becoming a thing of the past. We're doing away with defined benefits pension plans because what's happening, there's a guy named David Weil, an American from Boston, works at Harvard in the Department of Justice. He's written a book 2014, it's called The Fishered Workplace. And by what he means by that is the workplace is crumbling, it's being divided into little bits and pieces. It's called The Fishered Workplace. Why work became so bad for so many and what to do about it? And the workplace that he describes is international value chains where production has been fragmented around the world or even in the domestic economies of the advanced nations. We find that workplaces now, I mean, Marriott Hotels owns one hotel. The original hotel, which is their symbol that Mr. Marriott ran, the rest of them all franchises. The people at the front desk don't work for the hotel, they work for a subcontracted company. The people who are doing up your room work for a separate company. The people who are doing the payroll work for a separate company. The people who are, you know, I think we still have people who are employed in this trade center. They're lucky in a certain way. So what that's created is this fragmented workplace where people don't relate adequately to one another and they can't even relate to the organization which maintains the brand, which retains your product loyalty to the brand, controlling every aspect of what goes on in the hotel except for labor. Labor relations are unregulated, which means there's a kind of competitive market with all those subcontractors who have an incentive not to apply appropriate labor standards from the jurisdiction. So that's what I see as a kind of horrible big picture which has emerged, right? And emerged in a legal environment which still sees sort of command and control as the way in which we deal with people. If people don't do the right thing, we suspend them. We punish them or use capital punishment in the labor market, we fire them, right? It's a punitive model. Yes, I know, quality circles and, you know, flat team-based management and sophisticated organizations and teachers and management schools talk about what might be thought to be a more restorative approach. But generally, our notion of disciplining employees is about proportional punishment, the same kind of thing which criminal lawyers argue about and judges impose. So I think we have to have a different approach. In 1919, the International Labor Organization was created and one of its mantras at the time was that labor is not just a commodity, that people are not slaves and yet in a certain way we continue to treat labor as a commodity and treat people as if they're slaves. I think that we have to change that. We have to change the values. I'm really partial to the work of Amartya Sen, labor economist who adopted or promoted a human capability approach to the way in which we think about economics, that we have some sort of freedom where we have the choice to make choices that we have reason to value. In order to do that, we have to have political kinds of freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, rule of law, protective benefits in societies. There is a huge kind of relational environment which enables freedom of a relational sort. I think that Amartya Sen doesn't talk about relational autonomy the way our friend Jennifer Nadelsky does, a law professor at the University of Toronto. But I think that that kind of relational understanding of the big structure ought to get fine expression in relational rights rather than individual rights and there are some sophisticated theorists of contract law who work in the area of relational rights that I can't talk to you about. But relational values of equality and dignity and respect and mutual concern have to characterize our workplaces. So how do we do that? I think that there are sort of substantive policy preconditions which can be brought to bear in terms of our thinking. I think that there are procedural opportunities and I think that we have to think about all of this quite frankly in an international context. Let me give you a couple of examples. I think that we have to prevent, we have to apply our legal policies to prevent people from using sham kinds of calling people independent contractors when they're not, they're just employees and avoiding labor regulations in that kind of way. We should be treating volunteer interns who are trying to create relationships as people who ought to get paid. There are so many examples. In unionized workplaces, unions become a kind of hierarchical organizations very often whose relationship with their members is not healthy, it's not democratic and we have to take a restorative approach to internal understandings of labor kinds of contexts. But at least in a unionized context, people who are members of unions have some protection and the employer knows that they have to deal with people on some sort of intelligent basis the next day because the union is there. But in non-unionized workplaces, there are sophisticated theorists of management relations now in some management schools that are starting to apply restorative justice in managing organizations and I think that that can be quite helpful. And I think we should be using restorative conferencing rather than standard grievance arbitration in many contexts, particularly where there's a kind of poisoned workplace or where there's bullying going on from the shop floor or from management, right? Working across bargaining units, a technical North American kind of concept, restorative conferencing can be useful. But there's a constant fear among government policymakers that if we have decent labor standards we're going to not get investment, right? This kind of race to the bottom which we have to transcend and I think the Rana Plaza thing which happened in Bangladesh is a fascinating example where the international labor organization responded to what's called now consumer-cratic approaches to labor relations and I think if Richard Derib is right that by educating students to a restorative approach the consumer-cratic kind of pressures to have good labor standards may bear fruit. Anyway, it's a big picture, little attempt to have some big kind of ideas but values are critical in all this and institutions. We can't solve the stuff just on the individual level. Thank you. Sorry to go over that.