Introduction
I was, in part, inspired to start this blog because of the incredible lack of critical thinking on the part of the pro-union left here in Toronto. In particular, when I tried to bring up the issue of whether striking brewery workers could ever except to obtain “a fair deal, good jobs, pension security and fair benefits” (verbatim by Tracy McMaster, (union steward, former president of the Greater Toronto Area Council, to which are affiliated 35 local unions of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU)), and former vice president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU)), I was met with hostility by the so-called left here in Toronto.
Given the arrest of protesters against Heather Reisman’s funding of an organization that contributes to the Israeli military (Reisman is the CEO of Indigo–see Idealization of the Rule of Law Once Again: The Case of Indigo CEO Heather Reisman and Activists Against Israel’s Palestinian Genocide), I thought it would be appropriate politically to calculate the rate of exploitaiton of workers at Indigo–something which the left here in Toronto simply ignore. The radical left should use all possible occasions to expose the real nature of our society–a society characterized by exploitation of workers and their oppression.
That real nature involves producing and reproducing our lives on a daily basis while being exploited and oppressed. The left these days, though, seem to go from one “moral outrage” to another with no guiding thread that unites them. What unites them is–the daily exploitation and oppression of workers, citizens, immigrants and migrant workers. By not connecting this fact to the more immediate issues, the left becomes at best reformist and will never seriously challenge the class power of employers–as indeed it has not done for decades.
Historical materialism looks at the process in which workers in particular produce and reproduce our social lives in the context of the class power of employers, with its associated economic, political and social structures.
This post looks at the rate of exploitation of workers of Indigo Books and Music, which includes the subsidaries, according to its 2018 annual report:
Indigo operates under the following banners:
Indigo operates under the following banners: Indigo Books & Music, Chapters, Coles, Indigospirit, The Book Company, and indigo.ca. The Company employs approximately 7,000 people across the country.
Normally, I have been using the 2019 annual reports in order to calculate the rate of exploitation of specific capitalist companies since the emergence of the Covid pandemic was bound to skew such calculations. However, in the case of Indigo, like Bombardier, there was a loss recored in the 2019 annual report. Like Bombardier, I therefore used the 2018 annual report. As I wrote in the post on the rate of exploitation of Bombardier workers:
I used data from 2018 rather than 2019 to calculate the rate of exploitation of Bombardier workers because, in 2019, there seemed to be no calculable rate of exploitation since in 2019 there was an actual profit loss. Unless there are specific reasons for including abnormal years, it is better to calculate the rate of exploitation using more normal data. Besides, any company that operates at a constant loss by failing to exploit workers will cease to exist after a certain period of time.
Of course, if the rate of exploitation is calculated for a number of years, then losses need to be included. I have not found any books or articles that deal with how to handle such losses in calculating the rate of exploitation for such a year. It is, in any case, probably better to include such years in a multi-year calculation of the rate of exploitation in order to gain a more accurate view of the rate of exploitation in the medium- and long-term. Perhaps some readers can provide suggestions on how to do so.
The Nature of the Rate of Exploitation
But what is the rate of exploitation? And why not use the usual rate of profit or the rate of return? The rate of profit is calculated as profit divided by investment. Since employers purchase both the means for work–buildings, computers, office supplies, raw material–and hire workers–we can classify investment into two categories: c, meaning constant capital, or the capital invested in commodities other than workers; and v, or variable capital, the capital invested in the hiring of workers for a certain period of time (wages, salaries and benefits).
The purpose of investment in a capitalist economy is to obtain more money (see The Money Circuit of Capital), and the additional money is surplus value when it is related to its source: workers working for more time than what they cost to produce themselves. The relation between surplus value and variable capital (or wages and salaries) is the rate of surplus value or the rate of exploitation, expressed as a ratio: s/v.
When the surplus is related to both c and v and expressed as a ratio, it is the rate of profit: s/(c+v).
In Marxian economics, you cannot simply use the economic classifications provided by employers and governments since such classifications often hide the nature of the social world in which we live. The rate of profit underestimates the rate of exploitation since the surplus value is related to total investment and not just to the workers. Furthermore, it makes the surplus value appear to derive from both constant capital and variable capital.
I decided to look at the annual report of some of the largest private companies (if they are available) in order to calculate the rate of exploitation at a more micro level than aggregate rates of surplus value at the national or international level. Politically, this is necessary since social democrats here in Toronto (and undoubtedly elsewhere) vaguely may refer to exploitation–while simultaneously and contradictorily referring to “decent work” and “fair contracts.” Calculating even approximately the rate of exploitation at a more micro level thus has political relevance.
Conclusions First
As usual, I start with the conclusion in order to make readily accessible the results of the calculations for those who are more interested in the results than in how to obtain them.
Adjusted variable capital (v) or wages/salary and benefits, or “Total employee benefits expense
211.425 [217.925-6.5=211.425]
Second and Final Adjustment of Surplus Value or Profit (Earnings before income taxes)
34 [27.5+6.5=34]
The Rate of Exploitation of Indigo Workers
To calculate the rate of surplus value, we need to divide Final Adjustment of Surplus value (s) or Profit (Earnings before income taxes) or by “Adjusted variable capital (v) or wages/salary and benefits (Total employee benefits expense).
So, with the adjustments in place, the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value=s/v=34/211.425=16%.
This means that, in terms of money, for every $1 of wage or salary of a regular Indigo worker receives, Indigo receives $0.16 surplus value or profit for free. Alternatively, for every hour worked, an Indigo worker works 10 minutes for free for Indigo. Or, within one hour of work, a worker receives an equivalent of her hourly wage in 52 minutes and works for free for 8 minutes for Indigo.
Of course, during the time that the worker works to receive an equivalent of her/his own wage, s/he is subject to the power of management and hence is unfree (see, for instance, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario and Employers as Dictators, Part One).
In a 2-hour (120 minutes) work day, the worker spends 1 hour 43 minutes (103 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 17 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 4-hour (240 minutes) work day, the worker spends 3 hours 26 minutes (206 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 34 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 4.5-hour (270 minutes) work day, the worker spends 3 hours 53 minutes (233 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 37 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 5-hour (300 minutes) work day, the worker spends 4 hours 19 minutes (259 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend hour 41 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 6-hour (360 minutes) work day, the worker spends 5 hours 10 minutes (310 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 50 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 7-hour (420 minutes) work day, the worker spends 6 hours 2 minutes (362 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 58 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 7.5-hour (450 minutes) work day, the worker spends 6 hours 28 minutes (388 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 1 hour 2 minutes (62 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In an 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, the worker spends 6 hours 54 minutes (414 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 1 hour 6 minutes (66 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
It should be noted that I have used the verb “obtain” rather than “produce.” In Marxian economics, sales workers do not produce surplus value but rather transfer the surplus value already produced. This does not mean that these workers are not exploited capitalistically; they are used impersonally by the employer to obtain surplus value and a profit. Furthermore, things produced by others are used by employers such as Indigo to control their working lives in order to obtain surplus value or profit.
Political Considerations and Conclusion
Again, the rate of exploitation measures the extent to which workers work for free, producing or obtaining all the surplus value and hence all the profit for employers. However, even during the time when they work to produce or obtain their own wage, they are hardly free. They are subject to the power and dictates of their employer during that time as well.
Do you think that these facts contradict the talk by the left and unionists of “fair wages,” “fair contracts” (see Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One for the rhetoric of the largest union in Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)) and “decent work?” Do they ignore the reality of life for workers, whether unionized or non-unionized? If exploitation and oppression of workers is a constant in their lives, even if they are only vaguely aware of it, should this situation not be frankly acknowledged by their representatives? Do such representatives do so? If not, why not? Do workers deserve better than neglecting the social context within which they live and work? Should such problems be addressed head on rather than neglected?
Even if workers were not exploited, they would still be oppressed since they are used as things (means) for purposes which they as a collectivity do not define (see The Money Circuit of Capital). Does that express something fair? Management rights clauses (implied or explicit in collective agreements give management as representative of employers–and as a minority–the power to dictate to workers what to do, when to do it, how to do it and so forth–and is not the imposition of the will of a minority over the majority a dictatorship? (See Employers as Dictators, Part One). Is that fair? Do union reps ever explain how a collective agreement somehow expresses something fair? Is that fair?
Are the following examples of what union reps mean by a “fair contract?” “Good jobs?” “Decent work?” Other such cliches?
- COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIGO BOOKS & MUSIC INC. Coquitlam, BC
AND UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 247 Chartered by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC
TERM OF AGREEMENT: July 21, 2021 to May 31, 2023, pages 5-6:
ARTICLE 4 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
4.01 The Union recognizes and acknowledges that except to the extent specifically modified by this Agreement the Employer reserves all management rights and it is the Employer’s exclusive right to manage its operations and direct employees. Without limiting the foregoing, the Union acknowledges that it is the exclusive function of the Employer to:
(a) maintain order, discipline, efficiency;
(b) make, alter, and enforce rules and regulations, policies, and practices to be observed by employees;
(c) hire, classify, reclassify, direct, transfer, lay off and recall employees;
(d) assign work to employees and establish hours of work;
(e) discharge, suspend, or otherwise discipline employees; and
(f) manage the business in which the Employer is engaged and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to determine the nature and kind of business conducted by the Employer, the equipment to be used, the methods and techniques of work, the content of jobs, the schedules of employees, the number of employees to be employed, the hours of work, the extension, limitations, curtailment or cessation of operations or any part thereof.
4.02 The Employer agrees that it will exercise the functions referred to in Article 4.01 in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
2. COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN Indigo Books & Music Inc. (“Employer”) AND
United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local1006A (“Union”)
21.01 This Agreement shall remain in force and effect from date of ratification until the two (2) year anniversary (2023) and until all provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act have been expended.
Pages 2-3:
ARTICLE 4 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
4.01 Except as, and to the extent specifically modified by this Agreement, all rights and prerogatives of Management are retained by the Employer and remain exclusively within the rights of the Employer and its Management.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the sole and exclusive rights of the Employer include, but are not limited to:
(a) maintain order, discipline, efficiency;
(b) hire, classify, reclassify to reflect changes in job requirements, direct, layoff, assign work, methods of production and hours of production;
(c) discharge, transfer, promote, demote, suspend or otherwise discipline employees provided that employees who completed their probationary period will only be discharged or otherwise disciplined for just and sufficient cause;
(d) make, alter and enforce, from time to time, rules and regulations to be observed by the employees; and
(e) generally to manage the business in which the Employer is engaged and without restricting the generality of the foregoing to determine the nature and kind of business conducted by the Employer, the equipment to be used, the methods and techniques of work, the content of jobs, the schedules of employees, the number of employees to be employed, the hours of work, the extension, limitations, curtailment or cessation of operations or any part thereof. Further, the Union acknowledges and agrees it is the exclusive right of the Employer to determine and exercise all other functions and prerogatives which shall remain solely with the Employer.
4.02 The Employer agrees that these functions referred in Article 4.01 above will be exercised in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
Should workers not be discussing why management has these rights? Should workers not be discussing whether an unelected management should have such rights? Should workers not be discussing how to organize to abolish this dictatorship? Should workers not be criticizing any union rep who claims that a collective agreement somehow expresses a “fair contract?” A “good contract?” A “decent job?” A “good job?” All other such platitudes?
The collective agreement–like any employment agreement between workers and employers–fosters the illusion that the workers are paid for the whole working day and hides the economic coercion behind the “agreement” or contract.
Should not the left be constantly exposing this? Is it? What do you think?
But let us listen to a union rep on collective bargaining, once again, Tracy MacMaster:
Collective bargaining is limited and imperfect, but a fuck-ton better than none.
I have hardly denied that collective bargaining is better than none. I have belonged to several unions in my life, and I certainly would prefer to belong to a union when working for an employer than not belonging to one. However, I do not take seriously her claim that “Collective bargaining is limited and imperfect.” I see no evidence that Ms. MacMaster takes such a view seriously. Where is the evidence that she has inquired into “the limitations and imperfections” of collective bargaining? Rather, for Ms. MacMaster, collective bargaining provides an imperfect but ultimately fair contract.
Some among the so-called radical left try to convince such union reps of our views. Frankly, I think such an effort is, for the most part, a waste of time. Of course, there are exceptions, and it is necessary to use one’s judgement under specific circumstances and in relation to specific union reps. However, my judgement was and is that Ms. MacMaster would never be really convinced of the “limitations and imperfections” of collective bargaining.
Rather than indulging such union reps, it is in the interests of workers to criticize them and to expose their lack of a critical approach to collective bargaining.
I have yet to see any critical analysis of collective bargaining by Ms. MacMaster.
Even many so-called Marxists lack such a critical attitude. Let us listen to a so-called Marxist, Marv Gandall, concerning what unions do. He writes the following (on a Marxist listserve):
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. Indeed, when I called Gandall a crackpot leftist, one so-called Marxist, Michael Pugliese, responded with the following:
Is it really necessary to call , a long-time member of this listserv , a “crackpot leftist.”
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Data on Which the Calculation Is Based
The calculation of the rate of exploitation is undoubtedly imperfect, and I invite the reader to correct its gaps. Nonetheless, the lack of any attempt to determine the rate of exploitation at the city level has undoubtedly reinforced social-reformist tendencies.
Surplus Value (Profit)
(millions of Canadian dollars)
Revenue 1,079.4
Cost of sales (604.1)
Cost of operations (312.8)
Selling, general and administrative expenses (107.5)
Adjusted EBITDA (note 1) 55.0 [1,079.4-604.1-312.8-107.5=55.0]
Amortization and other related capital charges (28.5)
Net interest income 3.0
Earnings from equity investments 1.0
Earnings before income taxes 30.5
I will be using the category “Earnings before income taxes” rather than EBITDA since EBITDA is an internal measure rather than an official accounting measure:
Adjusted EBITDA is a key indicator used by the Company to measure performance against internal targets and prior period results and is commonly used by financial analysts and investors to assess performance. This measure is specific to Indigo and has no standardized meaning prescribed by IFRS. Therefore, adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. Earnings before income taxes, the most directly comparable measure determined under IFRS, is presented above for informational purposes.
Adjustments to Surplus Value (Profit)
I will address some of the items in the above account in order.
Selling, general and administrative expenses
In Marxian economics, selling expenses (and probably administrative expenses) are expenses from the point of view of the individual capitalist, but from the point of view of the capitalist class as a whole, it is an expense that is paid out of surplus value since its function is to convert value into the money form or to convert money into commodities.
The annual report has this to say about these expenses:
Selling, administrative, and other expenses include marketing, head office costs, and operating expenses associated with the Company’s strategic initiatives. …
Higher expenses in the current year were driven by increased investment in creative, construction and other head office areas to support sales growth and the transformation of retail and digital platforms.
Given the nature of the work that is involved in this company–mainly buying and selling already produced “books, magazines, gifts, and toys” (Wikipedia) (although “Indigo also manufactures its own brand of products, called IndigoLife” (Wikipedia), I will not make any adjustments on the basis of this category since most of the work involved in Indigo already involves the transfer of surplus value or profit through buying and selling rather than through the production of surplus value or profit. (For the distinction between workers who produce surplus value or profit and those who distribute (transfer) surplus value or profit, see Appendix 1: A Theoretical Interlude Concerning Productive and Unproductive Labour, in the post Husky ???)
Net interest income 3.0
Since the purpose of calculating the rate of exploitation of specific capitalist companies is to determine the extent of exploitation of the specific workers in that company, and since interest is derived from the exploitation of workers as a class, I exclude it from the calcuation. Accordingly, it is necessary to subtract 3 from 30.5:
First Temporary Adjusted Surplus Value or Profit (Earnings before income taxes) 27.5
Earnings from equity investments 1.0
The annual report has the following to say about this category:
The Company holds a 50% equity ownership in its associate, Calendar Club, which operates seasonal kiosks and year-round stores in Canada. …
In the first quarter fiscal 2018, the Company invested in Unplug, a U.S. meditation studio, resulting in a 20% voting interest and representation on the board of managers.
Unlike interest income, although Indigo may or may not control the companies involved, it does jointly exploit workers in the current year and is, at least in part, actively involved in the exploitation of workers who technically work for other employers. Consequently, there is no nee to make an adjustment.
A further adjustment to surplus value or profit arises when we consider the other component of the rate of surplus value (wages or salaries and benefits–variable capital).
Variable Capital (or Wages/salaries and benefits)
Supplemental operating and administrative expenses information:
(thousands of Canadian dollars)
Wages, salaries, and bonuses 190.468
Short-term benefits expense 20.097
Termination benefits expense 4.049
Retirement benefits expense 1.723
Share-based compensation 1.588
Total employee benefits expense 217.925
The above data, however, are misleading since the salaries and perks of managerial employees is included in the above amount. We need to take into account the “compensation” received by management since such compensation is not mainly for the coordination of the work of others but for the exploitation of others–hence it is pure surplus value. The following information is relevant:
Share-based Awards
The Company has established an employee stock option plan for key employees.
There is a discrepancy between the above category of “Share-based compensation” and the following:
16. SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
The Company has established an employee stock option plan (the “Plan”) for key employees.
During fiscal 2018, the pre-forfeiture value of the options granted was $2.7 million
Directors’ Compensation
The Company has established a Directors’ Deferred Share Unit Plan (“DSU Plan”). Under the DSU Plan, Directors annually elect whether to receive their annual retainer fees and other Board-related compensation in the form of deferred share units (“DSUs”) or receive up to 50% of this compensation in cash. All fiscal 2018 Directors’ compensation was in the form of DSUs. The grant date fair value of the outstanding DSUs was $3.8 million.
If we add up share-based compensation of $2.7 million and DSUs of $3.8 million, we obtain 6.5 million, not 1.588 million. The figure of 6.5 million will be added to surplus value or profit (Earnings before income taxes), and will be subtracted from “Total employee benefits expense.” The category “Share-based compensation,” of course, would be deleted.
Adjusted variable capital (v) or wages/salary and benefits, or “Total employee benefits expense”
211.425 [217.925-6.5=211.425]
Second and Final Adjustment of Surplus Value or Profit (Earnings before income taxes)
34 [27.5+6.5=34]
The Rate of Exploitation of Indigo Workers
To calculate the rate of surplus value, we need to divide Final Adjustment of Surplus value (s) or Profit (Earnings before income taxes) or by “Adjusted variable capital (v) or wages/salary and benefits (Total employee benefits expense).
So, with the adjustments in place, the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value=s/v=34/211.425=16%.
This means that, in terms of money, for every $1 of wage or salary of a regular Indigo worker receives, Indigo receives $0.16 surplus value or profit for free. Alternatively, for every hour worked, an Indigo worker works 10 minutes for free for Indigo. Or, within one hour of work, a worker receives an equivalent of her hourly wage in 52 minutes and works for free for 8 minutes for Indigo.
Of course, during the time that the worker works to receive an equivalent of her/his own wage, s/he is subject to the power of management and hence is unfree (see, for instance, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario and Employers as Dictators, Part One).
In a 2-hour (120 minutes) work day, the worker spends 1 hour 43 minutes (103 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 17 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 4-hour (240 minutes) work day, the worker spends 3 hours 26 minutes (206 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 34 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 4.5-hour (270 minutes) work day, the worker spends 3 hours 53 minutes (233 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 37 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 5-hour (300 minutes) work day, the worker spends 4 hours 19 minutes (259 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend hour 41 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 6-hour (360 minutes) work day, the worker spends 5 hours 10 minutes (310 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 50 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 7-hour (420 minutes) work day, the worker spends 6 hours 2 minutes (362 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 58 minutes for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In a 7.5-hour (450 minutes) work day, the worker spends 6 hours 28 minutes (388 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 1 hour 2 minutes (62 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
In an 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, the worker spends 6 hours 54 minutes (414 minutes) to obtains her/his wage for the day, and they spend 1 hour 6 minutes (66 minutes) for free in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Indigo.
It should be noted that I have used the verb “obtain” rather than “produce.” In Marxian economics, sales workers do not produce surplus value but rather transfer the surplus value already produced. This does not mean that these workers are not exploited capitalistically; they are used impersonally by the employer to obtain surplus value and a profit. Furthermore, things produced by others are used by employers such as Indigo to control their working lives in order to obtain surplus value or profit.
I have used the lengths of the working day as 2, 4, 4.5, 5, 6, 7, 7.5 and 8, because the length of the working day varies.
10pm-3am
Working hours are 7.5 hours a day
As someone who works task i typically work from 5 am to 9:30 am but somedays I stay until 1 depending on what need to get done.
Most people work 4-8 hour shifts between 9am and 10pm
10 to 25 hours a week. Never full time hours ( 30 plus)
Ten hours per week
Political Considerations and Conclusion
Again, the rate of exploitation measures the extent to which workers work for free, producing or obtaining all the surplus value and hence all the profit for employers. However, even during the time when they work to produce or obtain their own wage, they are hardly free. They are subject to the power and dictates of their employer during that time as well.
Do you think that these facts contradict the talk by the left and unionists of “fair wages,” “fair contracts” (see Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One for the rhetoric of the largest union in Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)) and “decent work?” Do they ignore the reality of life for workers, whether unionized or non-unionized? If exploitation and oppression of workers is a constant in their lives, even if they are only vaguely aware of it, should this situation not be frankly acknowledged by their representatives? Do such representatives do so? If not, why not? Do workers deserve better than neglecting the social context within which they live and work? Should such problems be addressed head on rather than neglected?
Even if workers were not exploited, they would still be oppressed since they are used as things (means) for purposes which they as a collectivity do not define (see The Money Circuit of Capital). Does that express something fair? Management rights clauses (implied or explicit in collective agreements give management as representative of employers–and as a minority–the power to dictate to workers what to do, when to do it, how to do it and so forth–and is not the imposition of the will of a minority over the majority a dictatorship? (See Employers as Dictators, Part One). Is that fair? Do union reps ever explain how a collective agreement somehow expresses something fair? Is that fair?
Are the following examples of what union reps mean by a “fair contract?” “Good jobs?” “Decent work?” Other such cliches?
- COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIGO BOOKS & MUSIC INC. Coquitlam, BC
AND UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 247 Chartered by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC
TERM OF AGREEMENT: July 21, 2021 to May 31, 2023, pages 5-6:
ARTICLE 4 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
4.01 The Union recognizes and acknowledges that except to the extent specifically modified by this Agreement the Employer reserves all management rights and it is the Employer’s exclusive right to manage its operations and direct employees. Without limiting the foregoing, the Union acknowledges that it is the exclusive function of the Employer to:
(a) maintain order, discipline, efficiency;
(b) make, alter, and enforce rules and regulations, policies, and practices to be observed by employees;
(c) hire, classify, reclassify, direct, transfer, lay off and recall employees;
(d) assign work to employees and establish hours of work;
(e) discharge, suspend, or otherwise discipline employees; and
(f) manage the business in which the Employer is engaged and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to determine the nature and kind of business conducted by the Employer, the equipment to be used, the methods and techniques of work, the content of jobs, the schedules of employees, the number of employees to be employed, the hours of work, the extension, limitations, curtailment or cessation of operations or any part thereof.
4.02 The Employer agrees that it will exercise the functions referred to in Article 4.01 in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
2. COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN Indigo Books & Music Inc. (“Employer”) AND
United Food and Commercial Workers Canada Union, Local1006A (“Union”)
21.01 This Agreement shall remain in force and effect from date of ratification until the two (2) year anniversary (2023) and until all provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act have been expended.
Pages 2-3:
ARTICLE 4 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
4.01 Except as, and to the extent specifically modified by this Agreement, all rights and prerogatives of Management are retained by the Employer and remain exclusively within the rights of the Employer and its Management.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the sole and exclusive rights of the Employer include, but are not limited to:
(a) maintain order, discipline, efficiency;
(b) hire, classify, reclassify to reflect changes in job requirements, direct, layoff, assign work, methods of production and hours of production;
(c) discharge, transfer, promote, demote, suspend or otherwise discipline employees provided that employees who completed their probationary period will only be discharged or otherwise disciplined for just and sufficient cause;
(d) make, alter and enforce, from time to time, rules and regulations to be observed by the employees; and
(e) generally to manage the business in which the Employer is engaged and without restricting the generality of the foregoing to determine the nature and kind of business conducted by the Employer, the equipment to be used, the methods and techniques of work, the content of jobs, the schedules of employees, the number of employees to be employed, the hours of work, the extension, limitations, curtailment or cessation of operations or any part thereof. Further, the Union acknowledges and agrees it is the exclusive right of the Employer to determine and exercise all other functions and prerogatives which shall remain solely with the Employer.
4.02 The Employer agrees that these functions referred in Article 4.01 above will be exercised in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.
Should workers not be discussing why management has these rights? Should workers not be discussing whether an unelected management should have such rights? Should workers not be discussing how to organize to abolish this dictatorship? Should workers not be criticizing any union rep who claims that a collective agreement somehow expresses a “fair contract?” A “good contract?” A “decent job?” A “good job?” All other such platitudes?
The collective agreement–like any employment agreement between workers and employers–fosters the illusion that the workers are paid for the whole working day and hides the economic coercion behind the “agreement” or contract.
Should not the left be constantly exposing this? Is it? What do you think?
But let us listen to a union rep on collective bargaining, once again, Tracy MacMaster:
Collective bargaining is limited and imperfect, but a fuck-ton better than none.
I have hardly denied that collective bargaining is better than none. I have belonged to several unions in my life, and I certainly would prefer to belong to a union when working for an employer than not belonging to one. However, I do not take seriously her claim that “Collective bargaining is limited and imperfect.” I see no evidence that Ms. MacMaster takes such a view seriously. Where is the evidence that she has inquired into “the limitations and imperfections” of collective bargaining? Rather, for Ms. MacMaster, collective bargaining provides an imperfect but ultimately fair contract.
Some among the so-called radical left try to convince such union reps of our views. Frankly, I think such an effort is, for the most part, a waste of time. Of course, there are exceptions, and it is necessary to use one’s judgement under specific circumstances and in relation to specific union reps. However, my judgement was and is that Ms. MacMaster would never be really convinced of the “limitations and imperfections” of collective bargaining.
Rather than indulging such union reps, it is in the interests of workers to criticize them and to expose their lack of a critical approach to collective bargaining.
I have yet to see any critical analysis of collective bargaining by Ms. MacMaster.
Even many so-called Marxists lack such a critical attitude. Let us listen to a so-called Marxist, Marv Gandall, concerning what unions do. He writes the following (on a Marxist listserve):
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. Indeed, when I called Gandall a crackpot leftist, one so-called Marxist, Michael Pugliese, responded with the following:
Is it really necessary to call , a long-time member of this listserv , a “crackpot leftist.”
If the shoe fits, wear it.
The Abolitionary 