Introduction
A local leader of a leftist workers’ organization here in Toronto stated that I kept repeating the same thing. Yes, I did–the issue is the same throughout. How can the so-called left refer to a fair wage or a decent job even in unionized settings when workers are used as things by employers for their own purposes? I will continue to post fairly regularly management clauses from various collective agreements to show that, unless otherwise specified in the collective agreement, workers are subject to the power of employers as a class. They may work for a particular employer, but the economic power which employers wield as a class means that the power which obliges any particular worker to seek to work for an employer is the “general employer” or the employer as a class. In general, no worker is obliged to work for a particular employer, but every worker is obliged to work for an employer due to economic blackmail. Practically, employers say: ‘If you do not like it here, there is the door.’
Unions modify the general power of a particular employer–but they do not challenge that power.
Collective Agreement Between The Mechanical Contractors Association of N.B. Inc. and Local Union 325 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada
From Collective Agreement Between The Mechanical Contractors Association of N.B. Inc. and Local Union 325 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, 2022-2025, page 8:
ARTICLE 4 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
4.01 THE UNION RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO OPERATE AND MANAGE ITS BUSINESS IN ALL RESPECTS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
4.02 THE UNION ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS THE EXCLUSIVE FUNCTION OF THE EMPLOYER TO HIRE, PROMOTE, DEMOTE, TRANSFER AND SUSPEND EMPLOYEES AND ALSO THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO DISCIPLINE OR DISCHARGE ANY EMPLOYEE FOR JUST CAUSE, BUT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
TRANSFER IS DEFINED AS: FOR LOCAL 325 THE TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES PRESENTLY EMPLOYED ON INDUSTRIAL JOBS TO OTHER INDUSTRIAL JOBS THE EMPLOYER MAY HAVE IN THE SAME GEOGRAPHIC AREA. SUCH TRANSFERS WILL BE PERMITTED PROVIDING MORE THAN SIX (6) EMPLOYEES ARE INVOLVED. IF MORE THAN SIX (6) ARE REQUIRED IT WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE BUSINESS MANAGER. IT IS AGREED THAT TRANSFERS SHALL NOT DISPLACE EXISTING EMPLOYEES FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS. AN EMPLOYEE HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE A TRANSFER WITHOUT BEING PENALIZED AND IF THE EMPLOYER HAS NO OTHER WORK FOR HIM HE SHALL BE LAID OFF. IT IS ALSO AGREED THAT TRANSFERS FROM WORK COVERED UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENT TO WORK COVERED UNDER THE COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT, OR VICE VERSA, SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED.
4.03 THE EMPLOYER HAS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO APPOINT A FOREMAN WHO IS NOT NAME HIRED AT THE FOREMAN’S HOURLY RATE OF WAGES, AND WHEN REQUIRED, REVERT A FOREMAN BACK TO A JOURNEYMAN’S RATE. SHOULD ANY DISPUTE ARISE ON THE JOB OVER THE APPOINTMENT OR DEMOTION OF A FOREMAN THE EMPLOYEES MUST REMAIN ON THE JOB AND AT WORK UNTIL SUCH DISPUTE IS SETTLED UNDER THE GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURE.
Since this clause forms part of the collective agreement, does the collective agreement express a fair contract? Does it express the freedom of workers? Does it express a democratic way of life or its opposite? Does it express economic democracy? Economic dictatorship? Economic justice?
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. Nor do they challenge the exploitation of workers (see for example The Rate of Exploitation of Workers at Magna International Inc., One of the Largest Private Employers in Toronto, Part One).
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 