Identity Politics, Personal Pronouns, the Exploitation of the Working Class and the Union Cliche of Fair Contract

I had a debate, of sorts, with a so-called Marxist here in Toronto. I referred to J.P. Hornick, leader of the Ontario Public Employee??? Services??? Union (OPSEU):

Over the years we have turned the LCBO [Liquor Control Board of Ontario] from a majority casual workforce, over 85% in 2017, to one where we now have 30% guaranteed post and fill full time, as well as a thousand new permanent part time positions. This has brought the casual/non status relief workers down to 57% of the workforce. This was done through class struggle unionism, including the turfing of the reactionary business union regime of Smokey Thomas.

There is still lots of work to do, but this is how good jobs are created. We are governing our unions, and we are getting ready to govern society.

Comment by person 1:

Turfing Smokey Thomas is great, but have wages kept up with inflation? Has the union been able to stop privatization? Workers deserve big props for fighting the cuts but I’m not convinced that Hornick’s leadership represents a fundamental shift away from business unionism

Comment by the so-called Marxist:

well, we achieved life changing gains by converting casual workers to full and permanent part time, which include benefits and pension access and severance payments for years of service worked.

And we held off privatization of LC retail for now with our most recent contract. It’s going to be another major fight in 2027.

Comment by person 1:

There’s already beer and seltzers in convenience stores — even if it didn’t result in job losses now, it sets the stage for cuts in the future. I think it sets a bad precedent to count that as stopping privatization.

Comment by the so-called Marxist:

hey we are some of last Liquor store clerks in North America, no other CA [collective agreement] of public liquor workers even comes close to the contract we’ve built up over the years.
I always say to fellow members, they didn’t want to give us full time jobs when they had a complete monopoly, so they can’t really make the business case they are looking for cuts now. I mean they will, but we have a strong basis for rejecting it.

And victory is never certain. There was a propaganda push after the round to declare Ford “won”, which was to save face. The changes they wanted to implement would have stripped us of immediate job security and obliterated work life balance. Many workers would probably be facing layoffs right now if not for the strike.

And we never would have pulled off that strike with majority support if not for JP’s leadership and the changes they began to bring into the union as a whole.

I know this stuff can be hard to discern from the outside, but don’t believe the Ford gov propaganda, booze was coming to corner stores eventually, it was either that or stand alone private liquor stores, which they have in BC competing with BCL locations.

As a Marxist im sure you would be aware of the massive array of capital we were going up against, and continue to fight.

My comment to the so-called Marxist:

Of couse, Hornick is better than Thomas–but she hardly aims at challenging the class power of employers in any way; being militant is hardly sufficient. Quotes from her on my blog [what is a fair contract? When there is an implied or explicit management rights clause that gives management the power to direct the workforce as it sees fit, subject to the limtiations of the collective agreement and relevant legislation? Is this an expression of union cliches? Union rhetoric? 1. On May 5, 2021, we read:

“Tweet

JP Hornick

@JPHornick

Fair contracts keep our communities safe but @VON_Canada

thinks frontline heroes deserve zeros during the worst wave of COVID-19! Go back to the table with a fair deal! #VONCares, #paidsickdays, #istandwithvonnurses

12:45 PM · May 5, 2021·Twitter Web App”

2. From http://www.local244.ca/2022/jobaction , dated January 17, 2022:

W2R Update #4: Town Hall Meeting, Jan 5, 2022 06:30 PM

…

5. What should I tell my students about work-to-rule?

You are invited to adapt either of the following messages, to suit your purposes…:

“In response to the College Employer Council’s decision to unilaterally impose employment conditions after college faculty voted to support strike actions (https://www.collegefaculty.org/…/opseu-sefpo-stands-in…/), Ontario college faculty are now following work-to-rule guidelines established by the Faculty Bargaining Team.

Faculty have chosen to focus on our students’ needs and not interrupt College courses with a strike at this time, while demanding that our employer negotiate a fair resolution to this labour dispute [my emphasis]. Work-to-rule means that we will be working only the time outlined by our current contract and workload assignments, or our job descriptions. This means that we may not be available for additional, volunteer work that we may normally do, or work outside of regular work hours. Therefore, we may take more time than usual to respond to emails or other forms of communication and any additional work-related requests.

Currently we are in Phase 2 of the planned work-to-rule job actions. For more information on these actions including a work-to-rule FAQ, please visit: https://www.collegefaculty.org/work-to-rule/.

We appreciate your patience and your support in our efforts to improve working conditions for Ontario college faculty and the learning conditions of Ontario college students.”

In solidarity,

Your CAATA Bargaining Team

Ms. Hornick was chair of the CAATA bargaining team at the time.”

I could provide evidence of her use of the cliche of “fair agreements,” “fair contracts,” etc.

3. See also my criticisms of Hornick’s claim that correctional officers somehow “protect us” on my blog (theabolitionary.ca) For example,

“During Correctional Services Staff Recognition Week, OPSEU/SEFPO joins every Ontarian in thanking Corrections workers for their courageous and selfless work to keep us safe [my emphasis]

In solidarity,

JP Hornick, OPSEU/SEFPO President

Laurie Nancekivell, OPSEU/SEFPO First Vice-President/Treasurer”

LOCAL244.CA

2022:jobaction [Local 244]

The so-called Marxist’s reply to me:

so, first off, JP’s pronouns are They /Them.

Second, we still work under the Rand formula [requires all workers in a unionized workplace to pay union dues, even if they aren’t union members, since they benefit from the union’s bargaining]., for all its faults, we are not in a position to challenge the legal basis of industrial unionism in Canada at this time.

What we can do though is get back to the original communist led CIO unionism that builds majority support among the membership to shut down production with the goal of getting some of our expropriated surplus value back in the form of strong contracts. [my emphasis] This goes hand in hand with our international solidarity efforts of implementing BDS and expanding the Arms Embargo now campaign for an end to the genocide and a Free Palestine.

These efforts have been fought tooth and nail by the Right wing in OPSEU, and they are organizing hard with the help of the Zionist lobby to overturn them this Convention. If you are available to help volunteer with the organizing efforts at upcoming Convention, that would be great Fred.

Third, I’m going to pass on commenting on the Corrections division, it’s a sore point for sure, but one I have written about elsewhere.

And lastly, is the criticism that we haven’t transitioned to a fully Red union yet fair? You have to start by building power at the point of production, something unions in North America have shied away from over the last 40 years, and something we have to relearn how to do.

I then responded both to the issue of the use of pronouns by indicating whether I should use the ‘we” pronoun rather than the “I” pronoun and the issue (if I remember correctly) of how his political position fails to aim for the abolition of the class power of employers by using such an aim to address the present situation that workers face.

I also wrote that, on my blog, I had indicated that the only action that would have prevented genocide in Gaza would have been an international coordination by the working class to prevent arms and other equipment from being sent to Israel. Since that did not happen, there has been genocide, and the left’s protests on the streets did not prevent the genocide. I asked this so-called Marxist whether there had in fact been genocide in Gaza.

The so-called Marxist then deleted my response, and we subsequently had a short discussion via Facebook Messenger:

So-called Marxist: Hey sorry I had to delete your last comment it was just way over the top

Fred:

Right. Censorship in practice. Specify in what way it ŵas way over the top. Feel free to delete me from your friend list.

So-called Marxist:

Well, first off you misgendered JP and then made some weird Jorden Peterson esq slight against pronouns, but then you wrote a novel on various unfollowed screeds that were bewildering. Are you an OPSEU member? How come you aren’t involved in Labour for Palestine?

We have a very active caucus

Fred:

Firstly, the issue was grammatical. Can anyone just change grammatical rules? They/them is plural. Can I then ask others to use we for “I”? Grammatical rules exist in order to avoid confusion.
Secondly, the claim that I wrote a lot of irrelevant material merely illustrates that you refuse to engage in a conversation. Your reference to a “novel” indicates that any conversation other than a superficial one would be considered a “novel.”

Thirdly, your claim that “I wrote a novel on various unfollowed screeds that were bewildering.” If you did not understand something, the normal procedure would be to ask for clarification. Instead, you decided to engage in censorship.

Fourthly, I invite you to read some of my posts on my blog (theabolitionary.ca) so that you can criticize it–I would not censor you. One of the reasons for the blog is so that “the left” cannot censor me. Fifthly, no I am not a member of OPSEU. I have been a union member several times, a brewery union in Calgary, a support worker (and union steward in Prince George, B.C., where I also participated in negotiations), and as a teacher in Manitoba. I am retired–but continue to criticize the social-reformist left on my blog–and that includes Hornick, Unifor, CUPE, etc.

In any case, as I said, feel free to delete me from your friends list. I have no desire to waste what time I have on this planet engagining in irrelevancies.

Fred:

Right. I respect gay and transgender peopele as much as anyone. However, language is social. To think that a person can, as an individual, choose whatever pronoun wanted simply ignores the social nature of language. Consider pronouns. Pronouns are just that–they replace nouns. So, is Hornick plural? Do all individuals now use the following structure: They has gone to the store? In Spanish, there is a possessive adjective, “su,” which means its/your/his/her/their. It is ambiguous. To clarify, Spanish-speaking people can omit using su and use the structure “el de, la de, etc.” or use su with some clarification. I guess the left cannot even discuss the fact that language is social. It is interesting that you decided to delete my references to “We,” I. That was my point. I also find it interesting that you object to my objection to the unthinking acceptance of pronouns without objecting to the concept of “fair contract” used by Hornick. I find such a phrase disgusting.

Furthermore, your reference to surplus value contradicts your lack of objection to the use of the phrase “fair contract.” Anyone who seriously considers surplus value would find any reference to a fair contract objectionable. [After several hours without a response]

I have decided to delete you from my friends list. A person who prioritizes identity politics and trivializes surplus value and the exploitation of workers and lacks any critical stance towards “fair contracts” hardly shares a common goal with me. Engaging in censorship rather than engaging in a conversation about “identity poltiics” and the use of pronouns and how to deal with the use of such pronouns in a consistent manner gramatically also indicates a major concern with identity politics rather than with class politics.

Pronouns and Grammar

I certainly am open to discussing proper pronoun use for those who are oppressed because of imposed gender ascriptions with which they do not identify (my wife’s nephew in Guatemala is gay, and openly identifying onself as gay in Guatemala can be dangerous), but there should be a discussion on how to address grammatical issues. As far as I can see, my wife’s nephew is the most politically astute of her nephews). The so-called Marxist, however, had no desire to discuss the issue–but to merely impose a requirement of having to use “they” because Hornick chose that pronoun. I guess pronouns and verbs do not go together in a language.

Surplus Value, the Rand Formula and Collective Agreements

Surplus Value

The so-called Marxist referred to surplus value without addressing the issue of its nature–both the domination and exploitation of workers at present by previous rounds of exploitation.

As I argued in another post (see Review of the Pamphlet “Climate Change is a Class Issue” by Sarah Glynn and John Clarke, Part Two: Exploitation of Workers as Past and Not Just Present or Future, Second Section for a more detailed explanation):

When we consider the real accumulation of capital, where part of the surplus value (profit) produced for free by workers and appropriated by private employers (capitalists) for no equivalent is not consumed but ploughed back into further investments, not only is the original value of original capital preserved through the continued exploitation of workers but the relation between the original capital invested and the new capital invested due to the exploitation of workers increasingly becomes smaller and smaller relatively as the accumulation of capital and the continuous exploitation of workers proceed; more of more of the money advanced to hire workers originates from previous rounds of exploitation and not from the original capital. (The original accumulation of capital involves violence, robbery, murder and so forth). Given that an exchange of equivalent values occurs in the present exchange relation between workers and employers, past exploitation vanishes from sight.

The so-called Marxist, typically, looks at surplus value only as something which has been produced and now needs to be (re)distributed. The issue of the use of surplus value from previous rounds of exploitation to further dominate and exploit workers is simply ignored.

No contract even begins to address the continued exploitation of workers by means of previous rounds of exploitation.

The so-called Marxist’s claim that “the membership [should] shut down production with the goal of getting some of our expropriated surplus value back in the form of strong contracts. [my emphasis] has as its goal, as I pointed out in the passage that he deleted, an increase in wages. Such a goal is fine, but going on strike to achieve such goals without any explicit link to overcoming the class power of employers will not produce a “strong contract” (there is no such thing in the context of the existence of a class of employers–employment contracts express generally the weakness of workers in relation to employers). Indeed, if the contracts became so strong as to threaten the viability of a capitalist enterprise, workers would then threaten their own livelihood.

To be sure, there are stronger contracts and weaker contracts, and stronger contracts are better for workers than weaker contracts–but why bullshit workers into believing that there is such a thing as a strong contract, a fair contract, a fair deal and similar cliches?

In any case, this so-called Marxist’s claim that a strong contract focuses mainly on job security and higher wages–typical worker and trade-union demands. However, no union can ensure job security in a capitalist context since employers ultimately have the right and power to close shop. In addition, if higher wages lead to a decreased profit rate, the capitalist might just decide to close shop as well. This does not mean that workers should not struggle to achieve higher wages or job security, but any achievements in those areas are always provisional and subject to limits defined by the accumulation of capital and the average profit rate.

The Rand Formula

The so-called Marxist’s claim that “Second, we still work under the Rand formula, for all its faults, we are not in a position to challenge the legal basis of industrial unionism in Canada at this time.”

What has this got to do with Hornick’s use of the union cliche “fair contracts”, “fair deal” and “fair resolution”?

This statement ignores the issue of referring to collective agreements as “fair.” Being “under the Rand formula” does not oblige union reps to bullshit workers by using such phrases. Hornick uses such phrases, and such use needs to be criticized. Furthermore, the Rand formula does not change the nature of the collective agreement as only limiting (and not challenging) the power of employers; the implied or explicit management rights clause of collective agreements concentrate decision-making power over many issues relevant to workers’ lives.

Collective Agreements

This so-called Marxist contradicts himself. He writes:

We are governing our unions, and we are getting ready to govern society [my emphasis].

But he also claims the following:

Second, we still work under the Rand formula [requires all workers in a unionized workplace to pay union dues, even if they aren’t union members, since they benefit from the union’s bargaining]., for all its faults, we are not in a position to challenge the legal basis of industrial unionism in Canada at this time.

He further claims:

And lastly, is the criticism that we haven’t transitioned to a fully Red union yet fair? You have to start by building power at the point of production, something unions in North America have shied away from over the last 40 years, and something we have to relearn how to do.

So, “we” (who is this “we”?) “are getting ready to govern society”–but just not now. Getting ready to do so will occur sometime–in the distant future? Social democrats or social reformers always push socialism into some far off future. Of course, socialism cannot be realized immediately–but we always must start from the present in order to get to the future, but we also must use our future aims or goals to organize the present in order to realize that future goal. As I wrote in that part of my response that was deleted, a real aim or goal is used to organize present activities in order to realize that aim (just as a target is used to control our actions in order to hit the target).

In any case, collective agreements are hardly the means for “getting ready to govern society.”

The LCBO strike did improve the collective agreement (see https://opseu.org/en/news/lcbo_bargaining_update_post_strike/246869/ for a list and description of improvements to the collective agreement. I place the changes at the end, as an appendix). There is not, it appears, a copy of the full collective agreement. Presumably, the above list and description of changes to the old collective agreement, which expired on March 31, 2024 were incorporated in the new collective agreement, with all other provisions that did not contradict the new provisions probably being retained.

The old collective agreement reads, on page 8:

c) The Union acknowledges that it is the exclusive function of management to:
• maintain order, discipline and efficiency;
• hire, dismiss, transfer, classify, assign, appoint, promote, demote, layoff, recall, suspend or otherwise discipline employees subject to the right to grieve as provided for in this Agreement;

• manage the operation and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the right to plan, direct and control operations, direct its employees, determine complement, methods and the number, location and class of employees as required from time to time, the scheduling and assignment of work, cessation of operations and all other rights and responsibilities not specifically modified elsewhere in this agreement.

The Employer agrees that these functions will be exercised in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Agreement.

The so-called Marxist (and many others on the left) have little or nothing to say about such a provision that constitutes in effect the dictatorial power of employers over workers (see for example Employers as Dictators, Part One and involves the reduction of workers as means for other person’s ends–see The Money Circuit of Capital).

The so-called strong contract does not question the authority of management to dictate to workers, and the so-called Marxist does not question whether there can be such a thing as a “strong contract” in the face of such rights. Workers should be enlightened about the limitations of collective agreements, not fed illusions about the stregnth of such contracts in the face of managerial power.

Conclusion

The radical left here in Toronto seem more concerned with respecting the personal identity of oppressed identities (such as gays and transgenders) than they are with the exploitation of workers. They use the concept surplus value without understanding its nature, they use the trick of referring to something irrelevant (such as the Rand formula) in order to avoid criticizing the cliche “fair contracts” and to avoid discussing the fact that managerial power is limited by a collective agreement but is hardly challenged by it.

Appendix

Concessions that we fought back because of the strike

As you know, the employer came to the table with a number of concessions that would have impacted each and every member. While we were fighting to raise the floor and protect the future of the LCBO, they wanted us to go backwards. Here are some examples of what the employer tried to do that we were able to fight back:

The employer proposed a number of schedule changes that would have eroded the work/life balance for retail, logistics and security workers and impact the ability to get overtime pay.
- This included scheduling logistics workers only one week at a time – providing no time to plan family commitments, medical appointments, etc.
They wanted to remove the practice of allowing members hired before Sept 4, 2001 the ability to decline work on Sundays.
The employer only wanted to guarantee one week of vacation during the period of May to Oct.
The employer wanted to expand the use of fixed term workers, making more precarious work.
The employer wanted to delete the letters of agreements on agency stores, contracting out and repatriation. These articles protect our work.

Summary of 2024 LBED Collective Agreement Improvements

Salary increase

Year 1 – 3%
Year 2 – 2.75%
Year 3 – 2.25%

Other wage grid changes:

Removal of Step 1 of the Retail CSR wage grid.

This raised the floor for our lowest paid members which increased the starting wage for all new hires. Fixed term and new casual wages were falling behind so it was critical that we increase the starting rate.

Casual Head Office clerical staff will be moved to the first step of the respective PFT grid for their department.

The clerical casuals working Head Office were paid significantly lower than retail store casuals and others working in their department. Now they’ll move to the first step of the grid.

Special wage adjustments

Millwrights and Electricians with a red seal will receive a special wage adjustment.

Clerk GRADE 5 (Contact Centre Only)

Agreed to new wage grid for Clerk Grade 5 Contact Centre that increased the hours of work from 36.25 to a 40-hour work week.

Benefits

Removed the per visit cap on the mental health benefit to a max of $3000/year

Co-pays and per-visit caps are a barrier to accessing treatment. Removing this cap will give members better access to mental health services.
Included psychotherapist as a recognized profession able to provide services.

Improved access to benefits for Casuals

Lowered the benefit entitlement hours from 1,300/calendar year to 1,000 hours worked in the previous calendar year to qualify for benefits.

1,000 Permanent Part-Time positions

Letter of Agreement – RE: Post and Fill

No later than September 30, 2024, thirty new PFT positions will be posted in Logistics
No later than March 31, 2025, thirty new PFT positions will be posted in Logistics
In retail, Permanent Part-Time (PPT) ratio will be not less than 12.5% or 1,000 positions (whichever is greater).

This was a huge achievement and would have never happened without the strike.

Casuals

Letter of Agreement – RE: Casual Hours

35% of casuals will receive no less than 1,000 hours annually

The Employer will still ensure that 35% of our casuals will work at least 1,000 hours annually. With the reduction of hours to qualify for benefits, this will mean that 35% of casuals not only have a guarantee of hours, but have access to benefits as well, after 5 years of being casual.

Privatization, contracting out, and agency stores

NEW – Letter of Agreement – RE: Marketplace Modernization

New joint task force will explore new business models to improve competitiveness in the expanded marketplace and protect jobs and public revenues. This gives us a seat at the table to talk about the future of the LCBO.

NEW – Letter of Agreement RE: Store Closures

No store closures as a result of marketplace modernization for the life of the collective agreement.

With the expanded marketplace, store closures were an inevitably. We needed to ensure that all stores would remain open regardless of the marketplace modernization. We will need to enforce this and prepare to fight to renew it in our next round of bargaining.

Renewed Letter of Agreement – RE: Contracting Out

Ensuring this letter was renewed protected our members from layoffs due to contracting out of our work

Our Employer continues to contract out/outsource our work to other warehouses, retailers and vendors. It was important to ensure that no lay offs would occur because of the continuous contracting out of our work. This will be an important piece to enforce.

Renewed Letter of Agreement – Repatriation

This letter ensures that if the LCBO wants to open a new agency store they must repatriate (bring back or not renew) a existing agency store. This letter is also attached to the agency store letter and was important to have both renewed to ensure no NEW agency stores would open.

Letter Of Agreement – RE: Agency Stores

Renewed the Letter of Agreement with a hard cap of 400 on the number of agency stores.

It was important that the LCBO was limited to a certain number of agency stores going forward considering the new expanded marketplace. Spirits can only be sold at LCBO stores and agency stores.

Letter of Agreement – RE: Agency Workers

The Employer agreed to not use agency workers in the Quality Assurance Departments in our Logistics facilities

The Employer was utilising a loophole in the old language that removed agency workers from Logistics.

NEW – Letter of Agreement – RE: CASE VOLUME AT LCBO RETAIL SERVICE CENTRES

1.25 million new cases will be serviced by Durham to compensate for the outsourcing of cases to Trillium.

Last year, the LCBO removed 1 million cases from Durham and provided that work to Trillium. It was important to ensure that case volumes increased to make up for the loss due to contracting out/outsourcing.

Layoff protections and severance

Append the geographic areas into the Collective Agreement

The CA speaks to geographic areas, and they cannot be changed by the Employer during the life of the agreement. Having this inside the CA is important because it ties to our bumping rights in the event of a layoff and identifies where the posting areas for job competitions.

Letter of Agreement – RE: Enhanced Severance – Privatization – Permanent Employees

Included calculation of all years of service in the event of privatization/marketplace modernization

This was critical because our members can work for years before getting a Permanent Full-Time position and these years were previously not included in the severance payment. Calculations were done on only a member’s Permanent Full-Time years of service and did not include credit for their years worked as a casual employee.

Termination Payments

In the event of layoff all years of service (including casual/fixed term/seasonal years of service) will be used for calculation

ARTICLE 12 – Termination Payments (PFT & PPT)

In the event of layoff, termination payments will include all years of service (including casual/fixed term/seasonal hours worked)

Given the casualization of our workforce over the years, in the face of privatization and possible layoffs in the future, we needed to ensure members were credited for all their years of service, not just Permanent Full-Time years.

Other

Regional Labour Management Committees

Added one additional member to the committee that meets with management. Having an additional member able to attend provides more voices at the table and more ability to advocate for Local/Regional issues.

Pregnancy & Parental Leave

Aligned the CA to reflect updated Employment Insurance standards. This reduced the waiting period and extended the coverage period.

Improved Bereavement Leave

Included 4 days paid leave of absence for the loss of child due to miscarriage or stillbirth