Introduction
Collective agreements limit the power of the employer (aka management) to do what it wants. They are better, generally, than not having a collective agreement. However, the limitation of managerial power is itself very limited. Management still can use the collective group of workers for purposes not defined at all by those workers. Is this democratic? Or is it the opposite–dictatorship–day after day?
Social democrats, however, would consider the following management rights clause to be an expression of fairness, a fair contract, a good contract and economic justice.
Collective Agreement Between High Prairie School Division and CUPE Local 1038
From Collective Agreement between High Prairie School Division and CUPE Local 1038, September 1, 2020-August 1, 2024, page 2:
Article 2–Management Rights
2.1 The Union recognizes the right of the Employer to direct the Employee’s service in all respects in accordance with its commitments, and to make and alter from time to time, rules and regulations to be observed by the Employees, which rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with this Agreement.
2.2 The Employer shall be at liberty to transfer the bus drivers from one route to another, whenever such transfer is, in the sole opinion of the Employer, desirable for a more effective transportation system. After September 30th of each school year, except in the case of alleviating a conflict, the Employer shall provide twenty (20) working days’ notice in writing, of its intention to do so to those Employees affected by such a transfer. If affected drivers are both in agreement, the notice period may be shortened, with a copy to the Union.
The regular driver, who is transferred to a route where a conflict occurs in order to temporarily alleviate the conflict, shall receive no less pay than they are entitled to on their regular route.
2.3 The Employer shall be the sole judge of competence in relation to driving habits, accident record, care of equipment and all matters pertaining to the safe transportation of students and the efficient running of the bus fleet. Notwithstanding this clause, an Employee or the Union shall not be denied the right of instituting a grievance under Article 5.
2.4 The Employer shall provide copies of seniority lists to the Union and Employee(s) as of June 30th of each year. Such list shall be provided no later than July 31st.
2.5 All correspondence to the Local shall be sent to the address provided to the Employer.
2.6 Gender Neutral and Singular/Plural
This agreement is intended to be gender neutral and is to be interpreted on that basis where the context permits. Whenever the singular or plural is used in this agreement, it shall be construed as meaning the singular or plural where the context permits.
Conclusion
The above is undoubtedly an example of what decent work, economic justice and a fair contract mean for the social-democratic left.
Apparently, the radical left is NOT to criticize references to such union cliches–according to some among the left, such as Sam Gindin, purportedly a radical Marxist here in Toronto:
Debating whether a job is ‘decent‘ is a misdirection. Everyone pretty much knows, I think, that workers are exploited even if their conditions improve. ‘Decent jobs’ or a ‘good contract’ are a way of expressing defensive gains when radical gains are not even on the table and we – those on this exchange – don’t have the capacity tooter [to offer?] them any kind of alternative jobs. So criticizing them for this hardly seems an effective way to move them to your view – which is not to say you shouldn’t raise it but that you shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t suddenly act on your point.
I doubt that Gindin has tried to raise the issue of managerial rights in any significant way–like most union reps. He simply, like most of the so-called radical left, ignores the issue, or rather thinks that raising such an issue has minimal importance or is a “misdirection.” Such is the nature of much of the “radical left” these days.
The Abolitionary 