Introduction
When belonging to a leftist organization called the Toronto Labour Committee (Ontario, Canada), I worked on, in a minor position, on some statistics related to financial campaign contributions for the Toronto elections. Not being satisfied with this, I proposed that we start trying to develop a class analysis of Toronto. I indicated, though, that I did not really know how to proceed in this. I sent this over the Toronto Labour Committee listserve, and the response was–silence.
The following attempts to fill in, however inadequately, that silence. If others can provide more detailed and sophisticated statistics and analysis (while still being comprehensible), I would much appreciate it.
In earlier posts, I provided a list of some of the largest employers in Canada and some Canadian cities, according to profit, and other Canadian cities according to the number of employees.
The following is a short list of the largest employers in the Quebec City CMA, Canada, according to employment. A word on the term “Census Metropolitan Area.” It is a bureaucratic concept used by Statistics Canada for the production of various kinds of statistics. Its definition is: “A census metropolitan area (CMA) or a census agglomeration (CA) is formed by one or more adjacent municipalities centred on a population centre (known as the core).” Thus, the core is usually a major city, with surrounding smaller municipalities forming additional census statistics that are included in the CMA.
The reason why I think such a list would be useful is that it provides at least a somewhat concrete picture of who really has power in society and the extent of that power. Since most social-reformist leftists ignore the power of employers and assume such power as a background which they can assume as constant, they then consider their reformist policies without calling into question such power.
I have attempted to expand the list of largest employers in earlier posts. If readers have better statistics or statistics from other countries or cities, feel free to comment. This should be a work in progress.
It is taken from the following for 2017-2018: Major Private Sector Employers in the Quebec City CMA.
It should be noted that this list does not necessarily mean that the employers listed below are the largest private sector employers in Quebec City CMA (although many of them probably are). It should also be noted that the inclusion of some employers in the list contradicts the title provided by the site–universities, hospitals and school divisions are generally not yet in the private sector.
Since the statistics give a range of the number of employees, the total does as well.
List of Largest Employers
Employer Number of Employees
1.CHU (Centre hospitalier universitaire) De Québec-Université Laval 10,000 – 15,000
2. Desjardins Group 6,000 – 7,400
3. Université Laval 5,000 – 9,999
4. Desjardins Financial Security 4,000 – 5,400
5. Québec Heart and Lung Institute 1,500 – 2,999
6,. Commission Scolaire des Découvreurs 1,500 – 2,999
7. Institute in Mental Health of Québec 1,500 – 2,999
8. Énergir 1,000 – 2,400
9. Les Hôtels JARO 1,000 – 2,400
10. McDonald’s 1,000 – 2,400
11. Tim Hortons 1,000 – 2,400
12. Restaurant Normandin 1,000 – 2,400
13. Rôtisseries St-Hubert 1,000 – 2,400
14. iA Financial Group 1,000 – 2,400
15. La Capitale Insurance and Financial Services Inc. 1,000-2,400
16. Fairmont le Château Frontenac 700 – 999
17. RCR 700 – 999
18. National Bank of Canada 700 – 999
19. Teknion 700 – 999
20. Davie 700 – 999
21. SSQ General Insurance 700 – 999
22. Promutuel Insurance Group 700 – 999
Total Number of Employees: 42,400-72989
Average Number of Employees: 1927-3318
What does the social-democratic left have to say about such statistics? Unionize, unionize and unionize. For example, I responded briefly in early 2020 on Facebook to an organization that paired the idea of fighting for a minimum wage of $15 with the idea of “fairness” (I was met with–silence):
Fight for $15 & Fairness
This is an important article by Economist Jim Stanford, reporting on another year of positive employment trends. Contrary to all the BS peddled by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the CFIB claiming catastrophic consequences of higher minimum wage rates and better laws, labour markets are actually doing very well. “Average employment rose by 390,000 jobs in 2019, compared to 2018. That’s the biggest annual increment since 1979. …But I am more excited about evidence of a broad improvement in the quality of work….
Almost three-quarters of new jobs in 2019 were full-time positions — and all new jobs since April have been full-time. After years of growing part-time work (generally less secure, with lower wages), the share of full-time jobs is now rebounding. … Sustained low unemployment and strong employment growth help to explain these improvements in the quality of jobs: employers must sweeten the wages and conditions they offer in order to attract and retain workers. But active government policy has also been important: including higher minimum wages in several provinces, expanded public services (sparking more public sector hiring) and incremental measures (for example, by the federal government) to facilitate unionization and collective bargaining.”
Fred Harris We should certainly fight for higher wages and more sick days.
However, obtaining a full-time job is both positive and negative for many workers–but the above idealizes the positive aspect and neglects completely the negative aspect. The positive aspect is that workers need money to obtain what they need to live. It also provides them, within definite limits, some kind of meaningful life.
On the other hand, the negative aspect is the need for most to work for an employer. No mention of this at all. Why the silence over such a negative aspect of the present life?
Or is working for an employer pleasant? Ever hear of the term “company time?” People’s lives become directed by a dictatorship of supervisors and managers as representatives of employers.
Collective bargaining and collective agreements can limit the power of management to a limited extent–that is all. All you have to do to see that is look at the explicit management clause in collective agreements (or the implicit management clause that arbitrators have indicated exist).
Why the silence over the negative aspect of having to work for an employer?
Undoubtedly some of the workers in the above statistics are unionized (for example, Le Syndicat des Employes et Employees de l’Universite Laval represents some of the workers for University Laval)–but this is hardly a sufficient solution to the problem of the power of employers as a class. As I have repeatedly tried to show on this blog (see for example Do Collective Agreements Convert Working for an Employer into Decent Work?), unionization only limits the power of employers to dictate to workers what to do, how to do it, when to do it and so forth. Exploitation and oppression are hardly abolished by such limitations.
Conclusion
The social-democratic or reformist left have little to say about what workers experience on a daily basis–exploitation and oppression. Their standard of judgement is at best unionist–grounded in collective bargaining and collective agreements; they do not, however, address the definite limitations of collective bargaining and collective agrements in protecting workers from systemic exploitation and oppression.
What do you think? Do you and others experience exploitation and oppression at work? Or is there, generally, fair treatment of workers?
The Abolitionary 