The Contradictions of Unions: Reformist and Radical Assessments

Steven Tufts, in an article first published on Wednesday, September 11, 2019, on The Star website, and republished on the Socialist Project website on September 25 (Pension Plans Should Not Invest in Companies That Harm Working People), tries to show that, despite unions consciously disassociating themselves from investments that harm workers, their own pension fund managers may pursue policies that contradict such conscious disassociation.

(As an aside, Professor Tufts is a representative of the Toronto Airport Workers’ Council (TAWC).

He writes:

For example, Caesar’s Entertainment partnered with Oxford Properties, the real-estate investment arm of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS). Community groups lead by No Casino Toronto did successfully mobilize against these proposals, which divided council at the time. Members of CUPE Local 79 also deputed against the proposals as front-line city workers would have had to deal with the negative social and economic impacts of gambling.

At the same time, fund managers at OMERS, the pension fund of Local 79 members, deputed on the economic virtues of casino development. Here we see the contradictions of pension fund investments that negatively impact the very workers making contributions.

However, Professor Tufts does not question how unions can escape this situation. Pension funds generally have to invest money in some capitalist companies, and those companies are expected to obtain a profit. If this is the case, then there is a typical social-reformist strategy of opposing particular kinds of investments or particular kinds of employers while implicitly accepting the need for capitalist investments in general or the need for a set of employers.

In other words, does not any investment “harm workers?” Professor Tuft remains silent on how workers can escape this contradiction. Of course, there are degrees of harm of workers by employers, with some employers definitely treating workers worse than other employers. However, do not all employers harm workers by necessarily treating them as things to be used to obtain more money (private sector) or by excluding them from the right to determine the purpose of their work (public sector)? (See The Money Circuit of Capital).

Professor Tuft further states:

All workers deserve pensions, but pension funds for some built on tax cuts and privatization schemes are neither just nor sustainable over the long term. Unions continue to shield themselves against efforts to politicize pension investments, but this has a cost.

This criticism aims at the neoliberal model of “tax cuts and privatization schemes.” What if the pension schemes did not rely on such tax cuts and privatization schemes? What happens if they relied on merely–exploiting other workers in a non-neoliberal way (as they did before the emergence of neoliberalism)? Would that eliminate the contradiction between workers’ interests as workers and their interests as future retirees? I fail to see how it would.

Indeed, Professor Tuft states:

It is time for union leaders to confront pension plans that seek to transform our cities in ways that harm working people.

Surely, all pension plans, whether private or public, are riveted with the basic contradiction of being funded by workers while being used to exploit and oppress other workers. This contradiction cannot be abolished without abolishing the situation where a class of employers exploits and oppresses a class of workers called employees.

If this basic contradiction is acknowledged, then variations in levels of harm to working people can then be assessed. However, as it stands, Professor Tufts’ article implies that there can be “pension plans that seek to transform our cities in ways that” do not harm working people. Such a view is typical of reformist policies that fail to address the harm necessarily caused to workers because of the existence of a class of employers and the accompanying economic and political structure.

By not acknowledging the general harm that all employers pose for working people, Professor Tuft does not acknowledge the need to create organizations that oppose the class power of employers as such.

Obviously, some employers are better than others. However, the social-democratic left never get around to criticizing employers as such. They remind me of movies and television programs. Often, particular police officers or particular companies are presented as bad–but not the police function as such or employers as such.

Despite Professor Tuft’s evident desire to go beyond the limitations of union principles, he evidently operates within them implicitly since he assumes that workers’ pension plans can somehow magically overcome the contradiction of exploiting and oppressing workers by not following the neoliberal model–as if the capitalist relations of exploitation and oppression did not exist before the emergence of neoliberalism.

Should we not go beyond the limits of neoliberalism and challenge the economic and political power of the class of employers?

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Seven: The New Brunswick History Curriculum and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of previous posts on the Canadian history curriculum. The background to the post is provided in the first post (see A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

Since the pdf curriculum document is not searchable, I have read through the document with an eye for key words: employ, work, class, capital (and their derivates).

On page 3, under the title Inclusion of Social History, there is a reference to the theme of the working class.

On page 9, it states the following: “Role playing of characters from any era in Canadian history, including those who displayed an entrepreneurial spirit and initiative in our past, can allow the student to become aware of the legacy that is to be followed in the future.”

Page 29 perhaps provides a brief opportunity for exploring the origin of employers and employees–although it is unlikely since the focus is different: “Students should examine the motives of the following groups for western expansion: … The Hudson’s Bay Company.”

On page 35, it is mentioned how technology changed rural and urban life–without any mention of who owned and controlled the technology and who had the power to introduce it into the workplace and why.

Page 36 refers to the changing role of women since they started working in manufacturing and its impact on the family, but there is no mention of why women would work for an employer in the first place.

On page 37, the second unit begins, with the title 1896-1920: Canada’s Century Begins, with the first section entitled Immigration and Imperialism. Since the concept of imperialism is connected to capitalism and the power of the class of employers, perhaps this section will bear some fruit about why employers and employees exist. Unfortunately, on the same page it is claimed that modern society is pluralistic–not a very promising view since pluralism considers there to be no dominant classes.

On the following page, it states: “Although industrialization allowed business and industrial growth, poverty for the lower classes and segregation of the social and ethnic classes eventually led to labour unrest.” There is hence some promise of explaining the origin and nature of the employer and employee relation, but it is hedged about by the terms “poverty” and “segregation of the social and ethnic classes.” There is no explanation of the meaning of those terms. It is unlikely that a teacher would interpret the term “poverty” as “having to work for an employer;” rather, s/he is likely to interpret the term in terms of level of income exclusively. And it is implied that if “poverty” and “segregation of the social and ethnic classes” had not occurred, there would be no labour unrest.

This limitation then probably spills over into one of the suggested activities: “Summarize, in order of importance, the changes in Canadian society due to industrialization and urbanization,. [Note the lack of reference to the dual change of the emergence of a class of employers who owned the conditions for producing our lives and the emergence of another class of employees who lacked ownership of those conditions and who consequently had to work for the class of employers.] What were the major tensions and social divisions caused by this? [The implication was that it was not the emergence of a class of employers and a class of employees which resulted in “major tensions and social divisions,” but the “neutral” process of industrialization and urbanization. Who however made the decisions to industrialize in the first place? And did not the rural population move into urban areas in search of “jobs” when they lacked the means of producing their own lives?]

On page 39, reference to imperialism is to British imperialism, and no connection is drawn between imperialism and the drive of employers to accumulate capital, which spills over national borders in one way or another. In other words, the term imperialism lacks any reference to its foundation in the class of employers and the class of employees.

On page 64, despite one of the expected outcomes being an understanding of the causes and consequences of the Great Crash of 1929 and the subsequent economic depression, there is no mention of the irrational nature of the economic system called capitalism, with a class of employers dominating a class of employees, and with a drive to obtain more and more profit as the ultimate goal, as being a cause on the corresponding pages 45-46.

In general, then, the New Brunswick history curriculum provides the student and teacher with little opportunity for understanding how and why employers and employees emerged in the first place and why students will, in all likelihood, be working for an employer (unless, of course, they aim to transform the economy into an economy controlled by workers and communities).

The document is another expression of silent indoctrination by what it omits. It is an ideological document and does students a disservice by not enabling them to understand what they experience and why they experience what they experience.

The Silences of the Social-Democratic Left

I had two recent conversations with social democrats on two different (though undoubtedly related topics).

The first conversation is a representative of Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 4400 (education workers). The Local’s website indicates the following:

Toronto Education Workers/Local 4400 is made up of approximately 12,000 Education Workers who primarily work within the Toronto District School Board; Childcare Workers from various Childcare Centres and Caretakers from Viamonde French Board.

Representing over 400 Job Classifications, and over 1,000 Worksites.

They were set to go out on strike in the context of major budget cuts for school funding due to retrenchment by the Conservative provincial Ontario government of Doug Ford.

Duane Kennedy, Unit D Steward Co-Ordinator for Local 4400, made the following comment on a Facebook page:

Duane Kennedy Too bad they couldn’t get it right , we will strike not for new bargining dates it will be for a fair contract

I am unsure what he was referring to in relation to “new bargaining dates.” It may be to the title of a video and an accompanying textual explanation that is related to a video link on the Facebook page:

CUPE says strike next week if no dates scheduled

The union that represents school support staff says they will walk off the job next week if the province doesn’t agree to more talks

I asked the following:

Fred Harris What is a fair contract? Collective agreements limit the power of employers to dictate to workers, but they do not eliminate the power of management to dictate to workers what to do.

I guess it is fair for employers to treat workers as things?

The response was–silence. Why is that? Was my question out of line? Was it inappropriate? Did it express, as CUPE Local 3902 executive director Wayne Dealy indicated when I brought up the issue of whether working in a capitalist brewery constituted “decent work,” , the rantings of a “condescending prick?”

Or is it perhaps that union reps use the phrase “fair contract” without facing up to the fact that management has the power to dictate to workers in various ways whether there is a collective agreement or not?

Let us consider a couple of collective agreements between CUPE Local 4400 and the Toronto District School Board.

COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT
Between
Toronto District School Board
And
Local 4400,
Canadian Union of
Public Employees
UNIT C
September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2019

Page 66 of this collective agreement has the following clause:

ARTICLE D – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
D.1 The Union recognizes that it is the right of the Employer to exercise the
generally recognized regular and customary functions of management and
to direct its working forces. The Employer agrees not to exercise these
functions in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Collective
Agreement.

As I have indicated in other posts, the management rights clause gives management (as representative of the employer) far-ranging powers to direct workers as it sees fit. The collective agreement limits that power but in no way calls that power into question.

Consider another collective agreement for the same local:

COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT
Between
Toronto District School Board
And
Local 4400,
Canadian Union of
Public Employees
UNIT D
September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2019

Page 66 of this collective agreement has the following clause (identical to the other collective agreement):

ARTICLE D – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
D.1 The Union recognizes that it is the right of the Employer to exercise the
generally recognized regular and customary functions of management and
to direct its working forces. The Employer agrees not to exercise these
functions in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Collective
Agreement.

How are these collective agreements (collective contracts) fair contracts? Why did not the CUPE union rep not respond to my question? My hypothesis is that–he could not. The term is a cliche for union reps, used to justify their activity of limiting their criticism of an employer to–an employer. They do not question the power of employers to direct workers in general but only wish to limit that power.

For a collective agreement to be fair, it would be necessary to show that managerial power to direct work forces as it sees fit (subject to the collective agreement) is fair. Where is there such a justification?

Where is there a fair contract? Can union reps provide examples of such a contract among regular workers? I would like to see such an example so that I know what they are talking about. Would you not like to see some examples so that we have a target that we can aim at?

This idea of a fair contract is, frankly, bullshit. It does not deal with–and cannot deal with–the daily lives of workers in unionized environments. Workers are subject, in various ways, to restrictions on their lives. How is that fair? The power of managers to dictate what to do, when to do it, how to do it and how much to produce (legally although certainly not always factually) leads to various kinds of injustices–up to and including the injury and death of workers.

Another “conversation” I had (really, a monologue–such is democracy these days) was about a 57-year old man, Enrico Miranda, who was killed in a capitalist factory (Fiera Foods) here in Toronto. He had been working for a temporary-worker agency for about ten years, five of which were for the industrial bakery Fiera Foods, located in As Mr. Miranda cleaned a machine, he was crushed by it and died.

A community organization called the Jane and Finch Action Against Poverty (JFAAP), located in the Jane and Finch neighbourhood of Toronto (one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Toronto), organized a rally (along with some union members) to protest the fifth killing of temporary workers at the capitalist factory in the past 20 years. (The factory is located about six kilometers from Jane Street and Finch Avenue, in North York, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.) Seventy percent of its workforce consists of temporary workers. Many are hired through temporary agencies.

In Ontario, when temporary workers are injured on the job and are employed by temporary agencies, the premiums of employers who hire workers from temporary agencies and who pay into workers’ compensation are unaffected since they are not considered to be the employer but rather the temporary agency. It is, in effect, a way of avoiding to pay higher premiums in the case of injuries to workers.

On their Facebook page, JFAAP posted:

Posted @withrepost • @mayworkstoronto Another temp worker death at Fiera Foods. The 5th worker killed while on the factory floor of this company. Up to 70% of this company’s workers are temp workers, twice as likely to be injured on the job as full employees. Fiera has had more than 150 health and safety violations. When Enrico Miranda was killed last week, Fiera Foods did not even stop production. Under Canada’s Criminal Code, Fiera Foods should be held criminally responsible. ‘Kill a worker, go to jail.’ #canlab #fierafoods #onpoli
Funeral fund to support the family: https://www.gofundme.com/f/funeral-help-for-tay @ Fiera Foods

I made the following comment:

Fred Harris “Kill a worker, go to jail”: a fitting slogan, but how is it going to be achieved? It would require much more power than at present among communities and the working class. How, for example, to prevent the whittling down of legislation to make corporations criminally responsible for deaths (see Stephen Bittle’s work on the whittling down of such legislation after the Westray mine deaths).

The response was–silence. It is all very good to make demands that are needed by people, but unless we can find a way of actually realizing such demands, they are mere wishes. The social-democratic left often resort to such wishful thinking rather than facing up to the power required to realize certain demands. That power is–class power, not just “community power” (although the two could go hand in hand).

In another post, JFAAP posted:

My comment: Fred Harris Fiera certainly should be criticized, but are all these “accidents” due to the use of temporary workers? Could they not be the result of a combination of the use of such temporary workers and the more general fact that workers are things to be used by employers? By the fact that workers are “costs” (with a price) for employers?

Or are the approximately 1,000 deaths at work in Canada mainly due to the use of temporary agencies?

Also, can labour laws ever really protect workers in the context of a society driven by the pursuit of profit?

The response was–silence.

JFAAP’s response reminds me of all those movies and television programs (including Netflix, of course), where there is one or a few “bad cops,” and yet the police in general are treated as good. Fiera Foods certainly is worse as an employer in terms of health and safety than many other employers–but what of all the other employers whose health and safety records are better? Why not criticize them? Why let them off the hook on a daily basis?

This attitude of criticizing a particular employer and not employers as a class (just like the criticism of a particular cop rather than the police as such) can be called “the bad apple syndrome.”

It is much easier to criticize particular employers than it is to criticize employers as a class.

Or are my concerns just the concerns of an “insane” person (as Errol Young, a member of JFAAP, once called me)? Or are my concerns a reflection of the fact that I am a “condescending prick” (as a representative of CUPE Local 3902, Wayne Dealy, once called me)?

Or is it that both union reps and reps from community organizations refuse to face up to the limited effectiveness of their concepts of justice and fairness? That they refuse to consider the class power of employers and how that situation in general is unfair?

What do you think?

What’s Left, Toronto? Part Six

As I indicated in an earlier post, on September 19, 2018, several leftist activists gave a talk about what was to be done in the city of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The talks were posted on the Socialist Project website on October 7, 2018 (also posted on YouTube) (What’s Left, Toronto? Radical Alternatives for the City Election). As I indicated in my earlier post, over the next few months, I will be analyzing some or all of the talks from a Marxian perspective.

The fifth talk was made by Mercedes Lee, who is a member of the organization No One Is Illegal (Toronto), which is a group of immigrants, refugees and allies who fight for the rights of all immigrants to live with dignity and respect.

The problem right away with this approach is that what is meant by dignity and respect is never elaborated. Does that mean with a standard typical of left-reformists and social democrats–a “decent” job (unionized) and treatment according to human rights codes?

Ms. Lee indicated that the group believes that granting citizenship to a privileged few is part of a racist policy that is designed to exploit and marginalize immigrants.

What does this mean? To be sure, the use of the lack of status as a citizen to exploit more intensely or more extensively certain kinds of workers needs to be resisted. But this seems to imply that, if you have citizenship, then you are not marginalized. There are of course degrees of marginalization, and immigrants and refugees certainly often experience more oppression and exploitation than citizens. However, it is also necessary to see if citizens who are members of the working class are in many ways marginalized in order to consider critically whether being a citizen should be a standard for evaluating whether human beings are treated “with dignity and respect.” As this blog has persistently argued, workers who are obliged, due to their economic circumstances, to work for an employer, do not “live with dignity and respect.”

Ms. Lee does raise her criticism to a higher level by contending that it is necessary to criticize the international economic systems that lead to war and to the creation of a flood of immigrants and refugees in the first place. However, this high level of criticism needs to be brought down to earth in the form of a criticism of such platitudes among union reps and the social-democratic left that refer to “decent work,” “economic justice,” “fairness,” “a fair contract,” and the like. To be radical requires such a move to a more concrete level in order to ensure that the daily lives and experiences of workers as exploited and oppressed are recognized and measures can thus be taken to fight explicitly against them in the locals where they exist–including the country where one lives, such as Canada.

Ms. Lee seems to move in this direction by arguing that it is necessary to recognize indigenous sovereignty rights. But why limit the criticism to this level? Why not the sovereign rights of workers to control their own lives? How can they do that (and how can indigenous peoples do that) unless they control the conditions required for their continued living (such as machines, buildings, raw materials and so forth)? There is no mention of this need for this general form or kind sovereignty here–which is what is required if a radical program is to be developed that does not limit itself to sovereignty in particular forms while failing to criticize the general lack of sovereignty of citizens over their own lives as they produce those lives on a daily basis.

She considers it to be a radical principle for people to move freely, to return freely and to stay in one place freely (presumably, not be deported). This freedom in Canada is apparent–when Trudeau for example engages in photo-ops to welcome refugees, but in reality, for a country of its size and resources, Canada accepts a miniscule amount of immigrants and refugees.

There have been struggles over the issue of immigrant detention, which has involved hunger strikes for sixty days, and this has led to victories. There are now less people detained, and those who are detained are detained for less time. On the other hand, the Trudeau government has, as a result of this organization, allocated $138 million to expand immigration centres (where immigrant detainees are incarcerated). It has also expanded the forms of detention and used so-called more humane forms of detention in order to appear to institute more progressive immigration policies. The Trudeau Liberal government is astute in that it tries to appear to be progressive, and this approach contrasts with the former federal Canadian government under Stephen Harper (Conservative), which simply did not hide its indifference (or indeed its hostility) towards immigrant detainees. Under the Trudeau government, immigrant detainees may not be physically detained, but they are subject to ankle-bracelet monitoring and voice-recognition phone check-ins.

Ms. Mercedes attempts to unite the Trudeau federal government’s more subtle approach to controlling immigrants to the more explicit anti-immigration position of such politicians as Doug Ford (premier of Ontario). She also provides a concrete example of how, in 2004, the Canadian Border and Services Agency arrested and dragged some immigrant students (Kimberly and Gerald) from classroom and placed them in a van, along with their mother, grandmother and Canadian-born babysitter. No One Is Illegal found out about this through some students informing them, and No One Is Illegal, with the support of parents, teachers and students, organized a rally in front of the Immigration Detention Center at Rexdale (a community in Toronto).

The issue became national as the media got wind of what had happened. The students were released, and they and others went to the Toronto District School Board to demand a policy that undocumented students would have access to schools without fear and that immigration enforcement officials would not be allowed to enter the schools.

The Toronto District School Board initially resisted this campaign, arguing persistently that they could not order its staff to break laws. No One Is Illegal explained persistently as well that it was the Board’s job to educate students and not to enforce immigration laws. The Board refused to listen. Kimberly and Gerald organized a rally of around 5,000 along Bloor Street, calling for immigration justice. The Board would still not budge. Parents, teachers, students and other supporters and allies began protesting weekly at the Board office. The Board finally agreed to debate the issue. The room was packed with organizers and supporters, who wore pins with the label “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The Board voted unanimously to make schools accessible to undocumented students and to refuse access to immigration enforcement officers in schools. Immigration Enforcement, which initially defended its actions, also indicated that it would not enter schools.

In terms of organizing lessons, Ms. Lee argues that it is only mass mobilization and direct action that is effective and that the success of No One Is Illegal has been based on addressing specific incidents and hence specific needs, with some of those directly affected taking a leading role (along with other activists not directly affected, presumably). The success of the actions depended on having an immediate positive impact on community members. Government policy that is not backed up by organizing strength at the community level will always face the real threat of the government backtracking on its policy. Policy ultimately is about solidarity, which ensures that everyone has the right of access to basic services without fear and with dignity.

Ms. Lee argues that it is necessary to build safe zones that permit the right of access to such basic services without fear and with dignity, shutting out immigration enforcement. The work of No One Is Illegal is thus about creating a world where immigrants and migrants are no longer dehumanized.

This presentation, as noted above, has limitations in that the standard of what constitutes human dignity is left unspecified, which the reader can then fill in as s/he sees fit. Leaving such a conception of human dignity unspecified then allows the typical standard of a life characterized by working for an employer to fill in as the standard. This limitation definitely needs to be overcome if No One Is Illegal is to become truly radical.

Compared to all the presentations so far, though, it is indeed the most radical since it, potentially, does call into question capitalist society by calling into question an essential aspect of that society: the capitalist state. The capitalist state requires, among other things, two components in order to protect the monopoly of control over the means of production by a minority called employers: the monopoly by the capitalist state of the means of force in order to protect the monopoly of control over the means of production by a minority called employers, and a way of identifying those individuals who are subject to its power and those who are not.

Passports and other similar kinds of documents have been an administrative way in which to identify those who are legitimately in its borders (and overseas to a certain extent) and those who are not so that it can legitimately demand services from such individuals (such as taxes) and–simultaneously–those who are subject to such power can also demand services from the specific capitalist state. (See John Torpey, The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State; also see the view that the capitalist state is increasingly characterized by administrative law in order to control workers: Mark Neocleous, Administering Civil Society: Towards a Theory of State Power). In Canada, for example, landed immigrants and Canadian citizens have the obligation to pay taxes if they work for an employer (after earning a certain level of income), and they also have the right of access to health care (regardless of the level of their income).

No One Is Illegal, by contravening the nature of the capitalist state as controller of who legitimately has access to services of the Canadian capitalist state, potentially questions one of the linchpins of the power of the Canadian capitalist class.

However, this potentiality needs to be nurtured to the point that it becomes a reality by making an explicit criticism of the standard characteristic of most leftists–decent work, a fair contract, and so forth. If such leftist clichés are left standing, then the potentiality of No One Is Illegal to be radical will be wasted, and it will become just another reformist organization, demanding that all immigrants be treated in the same way as landed immigrants and Canadian citizens. Such a demand is both progressive and regressive since it is certainly better to have immigrants, whether documented or not, to be on the same footing as others within a capitalist state (thereby limiting the ruling class tactic of divide-and-conquer); on the other hand, it is regressive because the inadequate standard of being treated the same as other residents (mainly members of the working class, although there is also definitely a section of small employers) in a capitalist context.

To answer whether No One Is Illegal (Toronto) is more than a social-reformist or social-democratic organization, I sent an email to them twice. I sent them the following:

Hello again,

It has been two weeks since I contacted you. I have not received a reply. Would you please clarify your position since I am debating whether to join your organization or not.

Thank you.

Fred Harris, Ph. D

From: Frederick Harris
Sent: May 19, 2019 10:16 AM
To: No One Is Illegal – Toronto
Subject: Non-exploitation of temporary immigrants

Hello,

I have looked at your website and was wondering about two points. It is claimed that No One Is Illegal is anti-capitalist and opposed to the exploitation of temporary workers.
My understanding of anti-capitalism is that it is the opposition to the power of employers as a class since they, by their very nature, exploit workers (in the private sector) and oppress them (in both the public and private sector) by using them as means (things) for purposes foreign to the workers themselves.

Is No One Is Illegal opposed to the power of all employers as a class?

The second point–about opposition to the exploitation of temporary workers–implies either that No One Is Illegal against the exploitation of all workers (including temporary workers), or it is opposed exclusively with the disadvantages which temporary workers experience relative to non-temporary workers in Canada (in which case the standard is the worker who is a landed immigrant or Canadian citizen so that temporary workers should be put on a par with such workers). This needs clarification.

Would you please clarify these two points.

Thank you.

Fred Harris

I did eventually receive a response, to which I replied in Spanish and English since, on the one hand, I knew the person to whom I was replying knew Spanish and, on the other hand, to show that despite my linguistic abilities my services were not considered to be useful for the organization “at this time”:

Re: Non-exploitation of temporary immigrants
Frederick Harris
Mon 2019-06-10 4:00 PM
Stuart Schussler
Buenos dias,
Gracias por la respuesta. Me acuerdo de ti. Discutimos, brevemente, de la idea de oponerse al poder de los empleadores como clase cuando trabajabamos en un proyecto con Justin Panos . Me diste la impresion de que no era posible.
Cuando no se integra la oposicion a la clase empleadora en su trabajo cotidiano, es uno en contra del capitalismo en realidad? Lo dudo. Es facil decirlo–pero mucho mas dificil integrar tal punto de vista en su practica cotidiana.
No me soprende de que yo no pueda participar en tal organizacion.
Incluire tu respuesta en mi blog algun dia. Practico la politica de exponer.
Fred
Good day,
Thank you for replying. I remember you. We discussed, briefly, the idea of opposing the power of employers as a class when we worked on a project with Justin Panos. I got the impression that for you this was not possible. You gave me the impression that this was not possible.
When opposition to the class of employers is not integrated into one’s daily work, is one really against capitalism in reality? I doubt it. It is easy to say it–but much more difficult to integrate such a point of view into one’s daily practice.
It does not surprise me that I cannot participate in such an organization.
I will include your answer in my blog one day. I practice the politics of exposure.
Fred
From: Stuart Schussler sschussler@gmail.com
Sent: June 10, 2019 12:21 PM
To: arbeit67@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Non-exploitation of temporary immigrants
Hi Frederick,
To respond to your questions, yes, we are opposed to the fact that there is a class of people who profit from the work of others, to the exploitation of labour by capital. In practice, opposing capitalism is a more complicated question and we frequently work in coalition with NGOs (for example), which are also employers. Since we’re a migrant justice organization we’re looking for practical ways to oppose the systemic exploitation of temporary workers and non-status workers.
With your second question, we’re opposed to any exploitation of workers but we recognize that temporary workers are especially exploited, so we focus our attention on their issues.
We are not bringing in new members to the group right now, but we appreciate that you’re learning about our work. All the best,
Stuart, on behalf of NOII- Toronto

I will let you draw your own conclusions concerning the issue of the extent to which No One Is Illegal (Toronto) is really anti-capitalist or whether it is just rhetoric–whether it is realizing its potential for being radical through questioning the very foundations of the employer-employee relation or diverting its potentiality by restricting its actions within the confines of the employer-employee relation in general.