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 Regional Cancer Centres Employers Association and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada in Respect of the Medical Physcist Group

Here is another example of a management rights clause in a collective agreement.
Expired: June 30, 2019, page 6:

ARTICLE 4 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

4.01 The Union recognizes that the management of its operations and the direction of the working forces are fixed exclusively in the Employer and shall remain solely with the Employer except as specifically limited by the provisions of this Agreement and without restricting the foregoing, the Union acknowledges that it is the exclusive function of the Employer to:

(a) maintain order, discipline and efficiency;

(b) hire, assign, retire, discharge, direct, demote, promote, classify, transfer, lay off, recall and suspend or otherwise discipline Employees who have completed their probationary period, for just cause, provided that any such action contrary to the provisions of the Agreement may be subject to a grievance and dealt with as provided herein;

(c) determine, in the interest of efficient operation and highest standard of service, including research and education, job rating or classification, the hours of work, work assignments, methods of doing the work and the working establishment for the service;

(d) generally to manage the operation that the Employer is engaged in and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, to determine the number of personnel required, the services to be performed, and the methods, procedures and equipment in connection therewith;

(e) make, enforce and alter from time to time reasonable rules and regulations to be observed by the Employees.

4.02 These rights shall not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement.

4.03 No Employee shall be required or permitted to make a written or verbal agreement with the Employer or its representatives that conflicts with the terms of this Collective Agreement.

On The Professional Institute of the Public Services of Canada [Union] website (https://pipsc.ca/about/what-pipsc-does-for-you), we read the following:

What PIPSC Does For You

Fair collective agreements are the benchmark of a successful union!

The idea of fair collective agreements as an expression of the ideology of unions hides the reality of treating workers as things or means for purposes defined by others (see The Money Circuit of Capital), whether in the private sector or in the public sector.

Implicit References to Respect for the Law Reinforce the Exploitation and Oppression of Workers

As I have pointed out in other posts (see for example The Idealization of International Law by the Social-Democratic or Social-Reformist Left: The Case of the Genocide of the Palestinians by the Israeli Government), the radical left, in the context of the current genocide against Palestinians by the Israeli government, refer to Israel’s breach of international law without qualifying their statements by pointing out that Israel’s actions contradict their own alleged respect for the rule of law; we need not idealize law by pointing out when the ruling class and its government contradict their own self-proclaimed beliefs. Implicit reference to the absolute need to respect law, whether international or national, plays into the hands of the class of employers. After all, is it not legal for employers to exploit and oppress workers in Canada, the United States, Mexico, Guatemala and the rest of Central America, South America, Europe, Russia, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, China, India, and the Middle East? Is such exploitation and oppression against human rights? Is it not a human right to exploit and oppress workers on a daily basis?

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.

The law certainly does not prevent the exploitation and oppression of workers; workers may be able to use the law to limit their exploitation and oppression–but not abolish them.

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?