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 the Board of School District No. 57 (British Columbia) and the Professional Employees Association
I use to work for this District in the early 1990s as a bilingual library technician; I was also the union steward for support workers at the board office and participated on the negotiating team.
The following is the short clause about management rights in relation to professional employees.
According to many on the left, who refer to decent work, decent jobs and a fair wage, this context is irrelevant–according to their own silence about this context when using such terms.
From: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 57 (PRINCE GEORGE) AND THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2004, page 3:
ARTICLE 3 RIGHTS OF THE BOARD
a) The Union recognizes the right and responsibility of the Board to manage and operate the school district, and agrees that the employment, assignment, direction and determination of employment status of the work force is vested exclusively in the Board, except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or applicable legislation.
Many unions have have persistently claimed that the collective agreements which they negotiate are somehow “fair” (see for example Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One: The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Three: Unifor (Largest Private Union in Canada)). Can their 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 