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 Contract Faculty and Bishop’s University
Period of collective agreement, July 2015-June 2020. From page 4:
Article 3 Management Rights of the Corporation
Subject to the provisions of this Agreement and to the provisions of the Statutes of Bishop’s University, the Association acknowledges the right of the Corporation to operate and manage Bishop’s University, and to exercise all the powers, authorities, rights, and privileges conferred on the Corporation of Bishop’s University by the Act 7 Victoria chapter 49 and amendments thereto, or by any other Act or its regulations.
Contract faculty at Bishop’s University seem to be members of CAUT (Canadian Association of University of Teachers). Of course, CAUT refers to fairness and fair collective agreements–a standard cliche of union reps these days. We read on CAUT’s webpage (https://www.caut.ca/node/10785):
NOVEMBER 2, 2021CAUT stands in solidarity with Ontario college faculty seeking fair contract settlement
(Ottawa – November 2, 2021) The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is fully supporting Ontario’s college faculty as they seek to reach a new contract with the province’s College Employers Council (CEC).
“The demands that the union has focused on are fair and reasonable and are necessary for preserving the quality and integrity of post-secondary education in Ontario,” said CAUT executive director David Robinson.
College faculty, represented by the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union CAAT-A bargaining team, are seeking gains on workload, partial-load working conditions, equity, Indigenization, and intellectual property rights.
While a mediation report issued last week characterized the union’s demands as “unreasonable”, Robinson says the proposals reflect what already exists in most university and college agreements across the country.
“It is entirely reasonable to request that all work that faculty do be fairly and properly compensated,” said Robinson. “It is also more than reasonable to insist that Indigenous faculty and faculty from equity-seeking groups receive recognition and fair working conditions.”
Robinson added that the CAAT-A bargaining team’s proposals on intellectual property would extend to Ontario’s college faculty what is enjoyed by their counterparts in other provinces.
“Faculty ownership over the course materials they produce is a necessary condition for quality education. It ensures that students’ learning is guided by faculty experts, and not by administrators or government officials. And it protects academic freedom by giving faculty control over the development and use of their ideas.”
Robinson notes that while employers in most settings own the intellectual property produced by their employees, common law and tradition have typically granted academic staff first ownership of copyright over the works they create.
CAUT is the national voice of more than 72,000 academic and general staff at over 120 universities and colleges in all provinces.
How can being an employee in any sense be considered fair? To be an employee is to be treated as a thing for the purposes of others (see The Money Circuit of Capital). It would be interesting to see how CAUT would answer such a question–or for that matter, any other union. Unfortunately, discussion of such topics is generally absent at union meetings.
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?
The Abolitionary 