Introduction
At the beginning of writing this blog, I wrote up some posts that focused on the management-rights clause of collective agreements between a union and an employer in order to demonstrate the limitations of collective bargaining and collective agreements. I then integrated the issue of management rights into an anlaysis of the rate of exploitation of specific workers for a specific employer. However, I have decided to resume writing posts that focus on the management-rights clause of collective agreements. The reason for doing so is my experience on the so-called Marxist listserve MarxMail.world. In particular, one of the so-called Marxists on the listserve, Marv Gandall, wrote the following:
Should I in any or all of these settings, have insistently pointed out the “limitations of collective bargaining”? It wasn’t necessary to do so. Trade unionists, particularly those who are active, are already aware on the basis of their own experience with the negotation and administration of contracts of the system’s inherent limitations. It was enough to simply refer to the language of specific clauses to illustrate the point.
Such an absurd statement by a so-called Marxist; Gandall simply ignores one of the most objectionable aspects of unions–their ideological integration of workers into a system dominated by a class of employers. Gandall’s claim is at best a social-reformist point of view and, at worst, a fraud and lie. I responded to his statement with the following:
This is made-up. Union reps often use the term “fair contracts” and similar phrases to justify their idealization of collective bargaining and collective agreements.
Where does Gandall show that unions do indeed systematically educate their members on the “limitations of collective bargaining?” Evidence, please–not Gandall’s assurance that this is so. If they do indeed educate their members about the limitations of collective bargaining, why is it that they so frequently use the term “fair contract.?”
And what does Gandall think Marxists should do about this phrase? Nothing? What is his position with respect to the frequent use of this phrase by unions? What has his response been with respect to this phrase–given his frequent reference to “material conditions” of workers?
Gandall’s response was–silence. And what do most so-called Marxists on the listserve do? Nothing. Only a few openly challenge his reformist and fraudulent views. (One such exception is S. Artesian, who writes a blog called Anti-Capital (see https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/anti-capital-1/).
Collective Agreement Between Air Canada and Unifor Local 2002
The following is meant to show that management rights in collective agreements are quite extensive both in terms of the number of collective agreements that include them and in terms of the power that those rights confer on management. These rights are rarely discussed and criticized by union representatives with the members. Should they not be constantly discussed since they represent the power of the employers as a class over the worker as a class? (It should be noted that, even if a collective agreement does not contain such a clause, arbitrators have determined that such a clause is implicit in any collective agreement.)
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, page 5:
ARTICLE 3 – RESERVATIONS OF MANAGEMENT
3.01 The control and direction of the employee work force, including the right to hire, suspend or discharge for cause, terminate, to advance or step 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 Those enumerations shall not be deemed to exclude other prerogatives not enumerated. Any of the rights, powers or authority the Company had prior to the signing of the first Agreement, are retained by the Company, except those specifically abridged, delegated, granted or modified by this or any supplementary agreements that may be made in the future. It is understood that none of the foregoing shall detract from the right to lodge a grievance or appeal in the manner and to the extent herein provided.
3.03 It is expressly understood and agreed that management rights as set out in Articles 3.01 and 3.02 hereof are subject to the provisions of this Agreement, and shall not be exercised in a manner inconsistent herewith.
Unifor has persistently claimed that the collective agreements which it negotiates are somehow “fair” (see Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Three: Unifor (Largest Private Union in Canada)). Can Unifor’s union reps justify such assertions?
Conclusion
There is nothing fair about collective agreements which concentrate most decision-making power over our work lives in the hands of the representatives of employers called managers. Collective agreements limit such power–but they do not by any means challenge such power. Indeed, they do not challenge the dicatorship of employers (see for example Employers as Dictators, Part One). Nor do they challenge the use of human beings as things that are treated as means for other people’s ends (see The Money Circuit of Capital).
What do you think? Do collective bargaining and collective agreements express something fair? Do they enable workers to be treated as human beings and not as things? Do union members really discuss such issues to any great extent? Do so-called leftists or “progressives?” Why or why not?
The Abolitionary 