Management Rights
The social-democratic left typically is incapable of dealing with the issue of the power of management. There is little or no discussion over such issues despite the existence of the power of the class of employers at various levels of society: economic, political, social and cultural. This silence expresses both the power of the class of employers and the poverty of the social-democratic left.
After the quote that I provide from a collective agreement about management rights, I outline–not what I would call a debate–but rather a recent confrontration that I had with a social-democrat (who both claimed and denied that he was a social-democrat) on a Marxist listserve.
Indeed, the social-reformist left often uses such phrases as a “decent job,” or “decent work”–as if for most people in a capitalist society there is such a thing. Alternatively, the standard used by the left to judge what constitutes decent work and a decent job assumes the legitimacy of the power of employers.
Such a standard is assumed and not justified, of course, by the social-reformist left. Indeed, I even heard one so-called radical leftist in Toronto claim that the phrase “decent work” expressed a defensive maneuver on the part of the left. Such a view is convenient for those who fear alienating unions.
However, is it in the interests of workers to hide the reality of work that is undignified and involves their treatment as things in one way or another?
In the following clause, should not the members of the union have discussed the clause thoroughly? What is the likelihood that they have? My wager is that they have not done so. If not, should not the union be criticized? Should not the radical left who fail to criticize such unions also be criticized?
From
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT between AIR CANADA
And those employees In the service of AIR CANADA As represented by UNIFOR LOCAL 2002 Contract No. 31
As modified by the Memorandums of Agreement dated June 13th 2015
Effective: March 1st 2015, to February 28th 2020
pages 2-3:
ARTICLE 3 RESERVATIONS OF MANAGEMENT
3.01 Subject to the provisions of this Collective Agreement, the control and direction of the working forces including the right to hire, suspend or discharge for cause, dispense with, to advance or set back in classification, to reassign, to transfer or lay off because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons, is vested solely in the Company.
3.02 These enumerations shall not be deemed to exclude other prerogatives not enumerated, and any of the rights, powers or authority of the Company are retained by the Company except those which are subject to the provisions of this Collective Agreement.
Confrontation with a Social Democrat
The social democrat implied that I was an intellectual without practical experience. I replied, in part with the following:
In the brewery where I worked (at first it was Carling O’Keefe Brewery and then Molson’s Brewery, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada), the pasteurizer (the machine that pasteurized the beer) made the bottling shop very, very hot in the summer and even early fall. The workers had traditionally worn either their own clothes or company-provided coveralls.
Occasionally, there were tours of the bottling shop since there was a catwalk where visitors could see the workers below. One day, the foremen started handing out T-shirts and pants. Workers were given the choice to wear either their own clothes, the T-shirt or the coveralls. On the T-shirt was inscribed “Let’s Just Say OV” (OV stood for Old Vienna beer, one of the kinds of beer producer there).
A few nights later, the two night shift foremen started handing out coveralls to those who were wearing their own clothes, saying that they had to either wear coveralls or the T-shirt and pants from that point on. A few accepted this, but I, who was working in my own clothing, refused to so. The foremen waited until 6:00 a.m.., when the bottling manager started working. At that time (an hour before the end of the shift), I was told to leave the premises–I was being sent home and disciplined for insubordination.
After consulting with the local union president, Bill Flookes, I showed up for my regular shift that night, wearing my own clothes. An hour into the shift, I was called in the office again. A foreman and the Union steward were waiting when I got there. In the discussion, I said that wearing the coveralls were too hot to work in. I willingly agreed to wear the company-supplied pants, but not the shirt that advertised the product. When asked why, I responded that I had nothing but contempt for capitalists and their representatives. The foreman sent me home once again.
After I was sent home, unknown to me at the time, another worker was ordered to replace me. That worker also had his own clothes on and refused to change into the T-shirt and pants or the coveralls after being ordered to do so. He too, was sent home. This occurred with another worker. The same thing happened; he too was sent home. A third worker was also sent home. Eventually, the foremen did not bother to send anyone further home; otherwise, they might not have had enough workers to operate the machines.
A discussion transpired between the bottling manager and the local union president, Bill Flookes, the morning of the second day that I was sent home. The bottling manager asked Bill if he knew what “that Marxist son-of-a-bitch had said?” The issue was dropped, and the workers could wear their own clothes if they chose–or coveralls. The company withdrew the demand around the T-shirt and pants. A few workers resented what I had started, since they no longer received free T-shirts or pants, but in general there was support for the refusal: As one worker remarked, “The issue was a question of principle.
I could of course go on (was a union steward in one place and participated in collective bargaining; was the chair of the Equite and Social Justice Committee; obtained a university certificate in labour relations, with courses in arbitratio, collective bargaining and labour law, etc.). My experiences in life, however, are irrelevant.
The writer simply wants to dismiss what I write with empty phrases, such as “Intellectuals isolated from political life tend to idealize the masses, and draw their conclusions from their ideals rather than material reality.”
He himself tries to hide his own lack of grasp of “material reality” through such subterfuges.
The social democrat responded to the above, in part, with the following:
I do applaud you for generating resistance to the compulsory wearing of the loyalty T-shirts when you worked at the brewery but you must admit this constitutes activity well within the bounds of the reformist practice in the unions and beyond which you consistently decry.
My response was (replacing the name of the writer by “he” since who wrote it is irrelevant):
Note that he neglects to mention that I explicitly made the issue political–by linking it to a refusal to wear a symbol of the capitalist firm and my statement to the foremen. Of course, such a single act will hardly challenge the power of capital. Some workers supported me, and others definitely opposed me. Mangement definitely opposed me, and I quit because of the pressure. If I had more support (not from social reformists like him–given that he admits that he is a social democrat or social reformist), then I probably would not have quit (although the work itself was certainly oppressive and exploitative).
Did the writer, when he worked, ever actually do anything at work that threatened his own livelihood? To claim that ” this constitutes activity well within the bounds of the reformist practice in the unions and beyond which you consistently decry” is social-democratic rhetoric. Opposing management in such a fashion was extremely stressful.
To claim that it was merely “this constitutes activity well within the bounds of the reformist practice in the unions and beyond which you consistently decry” reflects another ploy by social democrats–a lack of distinction between actions that question the premises of managerial (and employer) power and actions that do not.
Although I disagree with Sam Gindin, former research director of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW, now Unifor), we do see eye to eye on one thing: true internationalism, generally (there are of course exceptions–but they are exceptions, not the rule)–begins at home. As he wrote (2012) “Marx’ss Proletariat: What Can Today’s Labor Movement Learn from Marx?,” pages 15-23, New Labor Forum, Volume 21, Issue 2, page 21
Marx insightfully grasped this by arguing that though labor struggles are international in substance (struggles in one place always have international implications), they are national in form (we organize and fight primarily at home).9
Note 9: The working class, Marx and Engels emphasized, “must first come to terms
with their own bourgeoisie.” The Communist Manifesto, 11.
I doubt that we agree on much else, though.
Much of the debate within the so-called radical left these days concerns the war between Russia and the Ukraine, which undoubtedly, is important, but if any real socialist movement is going to arise and have some power, it will arise in the context of addressing domestic issues within the national state. That of course does not mean that international issues should be ignored. However, unless the class power of employers is addressed domestically, where will the power come from for those who wish to address realistically international issues? From the infernal debates on the war? I doubt it.
I will continue with a further description of my experience with the social democrat in another post.
The Abolitionary 