This post connects to the broader argument outlined in The Money Circuit of Capital.
Introduction
I have tried to calculate the rate of exploitation of workers in various Canadian capitalist companies (see for example The Rate of Exploitation of Workers at Magna International Inc., One of the Largest Private Employers in Toronto, Part One or The Rate of Exploitation of the Workers of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), One of the Largest Private Employers in Toronto and in Canada ). I think it is time to expand such calculations to capitalist emloyers in other countries and continents. To that end, I will try to calculate the rate of exploitation of workers for some of the largest capitalist employers in various continents.
One such large capitalist employer in Africa is Sonatrach, an Algerian oil company. Here are some more details about this capitalist employer, taken from Wikipedia:
Sonatrach is the national state-owned oil company of Algeria. Founded in 1963, it is known today to be the largest company in Africa with 154 subsidiaries, and often referred as the first African oil “major.” In 2021, Sonatrach was the seventh largest gas company in the world.
The Nature of the Rate of Exploitation
But what is the rate of exploitation? And why not use the usual rate of profit or the rate of return? The rate of profit is calculated as profit divided by investment. Since employers purchase both the means for work–buildings, computers, office supplies, raw material–and hire workers–we can classify investment into two categories: c, meaning constant capital, or the capital invested in commodities other than workers; and v, or variable capital, the capital invested in the hiring of workers for a certain period of time (wages, salaries and benefits).
The purpose of investment in a capitalist economy is to obtain more money (see the money circuit link mentioned at the beginning of this post), and the additional money is surplus value when it is related to its source: workers working for more time than what they cost to produce themselves. The relation between surplus value and variable capital (or wages and salaries) is the rate of surplus value or the rate of exploitation, expressed as a ratio: s/v.
When the surplus is related to both c and v and expressed as a ratio, it is the rate of profit: s/(c+v).
In Marxian economics, you cannot simply use the economic classifications provided by employers and governments since such classifications often hide the nature of the social world in which we live. The rate of profit underestimates the rate of exploitation since the surplus value is related to total investment and not just to the workers. Furthermore, it makes the surplus value appear to derive from both constant capital and variable capital.
I decided to look at the annual report of some of the largest private companies in various cities in Canada if they are available in order to calculate the rate of exploitation at a more micro level than aggregate rates of surplus value at the national or international level. Politically, this is necessary since social democrats here in Toronto (and undoubtedly elsewhere) vaguely may refer to exploitation–while simultaneously and contradictorily referring to “decent work” and “fair contracts.” Calculating even approximately the rate of exploitation at a more micro level thus has political relevance.
I used data 2019 to calculate since the data for later years, due to the Covid pandemic, undoubtedly skewed the normal exploitation of Sonatrach workers. Perhpas once annual reports for 2024 have been published, it would be better to look at such rates of exploitation for that year since the pandemic’s effects may have diminished substantially by that time.
Conclusions First
As usual, I start with the conclusion in order to make readily accessible the results of the calculations for those who are more interested in the results than in how to obtain them.
The Rate of Exploitation of Sonatrach Workers
To calculate the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value, we need to divide “Surplus value (s)” or “Income before income taxes” by “Variable capital (v) or Adjusted Personnel costs.
So, with the adjustments in place, the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value=s/v=2,248,147/383,890=5.86, or in percent terms, 586%.
This means that, in terms of money, $1 of wage or salary of a regular Sonatrach worker results in $5.86 surplus value or profit for free. Alternatively, for every hour worked, a Sonatrach worker works 352 minutes (or 5 hours 52 minutes) for free for Sonatrach. Or, within one hour of work, a worker receives an equivalent of her hourly wage in 9 minutes and works for free for 51 minutes for Sonatrach.
Of course, during the time that the worker works to receive an equivalent of her/his own wage, s/he is subject to the power of management and hence is unfree (see, for instance, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario and Employers as Dictators, Part One).
In an 8-hour (480 minutes) working day, Sonatrach workers spend 70 minutes (1 hour 10 minutes) to obtain their wage for the day, and they spend 410 minutes (6 hours 50 minutes) in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Sontrach.
In an 8.5-hour (510 minutes) working day, Sonatrach workers spend 74 minutes (1 hour 14 minutes) to obtain their wage for the day, and they spend 436 minutes (7 hours 16 minutes) in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Sontrach.
In a 12-hour (720 minutes) working day, Sonatrach workers spend 105 minutes (1 hour 45 minutes) to obtain their wage for the day, and they spend 615 minutes (10 hours 15 minutes) in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Sontrach.
Political Considerations and Conclusion: Does the Existence of a Union and a Collective Agreement Abolish the Exploitation and Oppression of Workers?
There apparently is a union that represents Sonatrach workers. However, it is debatable just how independent such a union is from Sonatrach. From Hocine Zobiri (Fall, 2015), pages 270-291 in The Arab Studies Journal, Volume 23, Number 1, page 273:
According to Algerian law, all sectors have the right to trade unions. In direct opposition to this law, however, sectors deemed “strategic,” including the state-owned hydrocarbon and electricity and natural gas companies, are informally prohibited from creating or joining “autonomous unions” outside the UGTA. “is sector is made up of the Société Nationale pour la Recherche, la Production, le Transport, la Transformation, et la Commercialisation
des Hydrocarbures (SONATRACH) and Socièté Nationale de l’Electricité et du Gaz (SONELGAZ), which together constitute a considerable amount of the state’s general budget. Union organizing was born of these industrial sectors, and most theories of the trade union were developed with regard to industrial unions. Paradoxically, however, the only sectors of Algerian enterprise free to form autonomous unions are health, public education, higher education, and administrative work.
Despite workers belonging to company unions within Sonatrach, workers of such unions seem to benefit somewhat from them. From John Entelis (2012), “Sonatrach: the political economy
of an Algerian state institution,” in pages 567-609, Oil and Governance: State-Owned Enterprises and the World Energy Supply, page 596:
The labor unions at Sonatrach are given somewhat more favorable attention by the government than the labor unions of other companies in Algeria and so many of the smaller companies operating in the hydrocarbons field see it in their own interest to somehow find a way to connect with the union at Sonatrach – in other words, these other unions have long campaigned to have the companies regrouped under Sonatrach.
Despite the advantages of belonging to a union at Sonatrach, Sonatrach workers have occasionally engaged in hunger strikes to protest their situation. From Joan Martínez-Alierin (2023), Land, Water, Air and Freedom: The Making of World Movements for Environmental Justice, pages 460-461:
… there are also local conflicts. One of the places where the oil and gas industry has seen local complaints in Algeria is Hassi R’Mel. This is Algeria’s largest natural gas field, discovered in 1956 alongside the Hassi Messaoud oil field, and has been operated by state-owned company Sonatrach ever since. …
Workers and unemployed youth have been largely unsatisfied with the working conditions and practices of Sonatrach in Hassi R’Mel, as well as with their respective company trade unions. Since 2010, they have been protesting their working conditions and the generally high unemployment rate by organizing hunger strikes, blockades and boycotts. In 2010, a group of young unemployed people went on a hunger strike for a week in order to protest unemployment and against favouritism in employment procedures. At the end of 2011, almost 2,000 workers of Sonatrach living in the Hassi R’Mel region went on a hunger strike and decided to boycott all the reunions and activities of their company’s trade union. They were demanding a 50 per cent salary raise. After a lot of protests, a salary agreement was finally concluded between the general directorate of Sonatrach but was not enough for workers.
In 2013, another group of Sonatrach workers went on a hunger strike to demand better
working conditions. To support their colleagues, more than 400 resident workers of Sonatrach living in Hassi R’Mel staged a protest outside the company’s production directorate administrative complex. The conflict between Sonatrach and local resident workers as well as unemployed youth groups continues, as concessions made were deemed to be unsatisfactory.
Workers and the unemployed are obviously not satisifed with the company unions within Sonatrach–although the unionized workers within Sonatrach have better conditions than those unionized outside it–but would exploitation and oppression be substantially reduced if the unions were independent unions. Working conditions and wages and benefits may be better, and to that extent an independent union is better than the company unions. Furthermore, such independent unions have greater potential for taking a more independent theoretical and practical position than company unions. An independent union is certainly preferable to a company union, but even an independent union at the local level of a particular employer in effect generally assumes the legitimacy of the power of employers as a class (see my criticism in the post Do Workers Work for a Particular Employer or for the Class of Employers? Part Two: Critique of Unions and the Social-Reformist or Social-Democratic Left).
Can workers who work for a particular employer even with an independent union work under a “fair contract” and can their work be characterized as “decent?” I think not. Independent unions can limit exploitation and can control some aspects of their working lives, but in principle workers are things to be used by employers even with unions. This does not mean that a non-unionized environment is the same as a unionized environment. With unions that are independent of particular employers, that is to say, are real unions, there is an opportunity for workers to develop organizations of resistance against the power of particular employers.
Again, the rate of exploitation measures the extent to which workers work for free, producing all the surplus value and hence all the profit for employers. However, even during the time when they work to produce their own wage, they are hardly free. They are subject to the power and dictates of their employer during that time as well.
Do you think that these facts contradict the talk by the left and unionists of “fair wages,” “fair contracts” (see Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One for the rhetoric of the largest union of private-sector workers in Canada, Unifor) and “decent work?” Do they ignore the reality of life for workers, whether unionized or non-unionized?
If exploitation and oppression of workers is a constant in their lives, even if they are only vaguely aware of it, should this situation not be frankly acknowledged by their representatives? Do such representatives do so? If not, why not? Do workers deserve better than neglecting the social context within which they live and work? Should such problems be addressed head on rather than neglected?
Even if workers were not exploited, they would still be oppressed since they are used as things (means) for purposes which they as a collectivity do not define (see The Money Circuit of Capital). Does that express something fair? Management rights clauses (implied or explicit in collective agreements give management as representative of employers–and as a minority–the power to dictate to workers what to do, when to do it, how to do it and so forth–and is not the imposition of the will of a minority over the majority a dictatorship? (See Employers as Dictators, Part One). Is that fair? Do union reps ever explain how a collective agreement somehow expresses something fair? Is that fair?
The ideology of unions–that somehow they can produce a “fair contract” and “decent work”–needs, though, to be constantly criticized. Workers deserve better than the acceptance of such ideology by the left. Working for an employer, if the work force is unionized, does not change the fact of exploitaiton and oppression but only the degree of exploitation and oppression.
Should not the left be constantly exposing this? Is it? What do you think?
Data on Which the Calculation Is Based
The calculation of the rate of exploitation is undoubtedly imperfect, and I invite the reader to correct its gaps. Nonetheless, the lack of any attempt to determine the rate of exploitation at the level of particular employers has undoubtedly reinforced social-reformist tendencies.
Surplus Value (s) or Profit
Revenue
(In millions of DZD) [0.01 Canadian=approximately 1 DZD (Algerian Dinar)]
Sales of goods, manufactured products, services and related products 5 537 884 [This is equivalent to about $55.8 billion Canadian]
Stored or destocked production 6 177
Capitalized production 453 045
Operating subsidies 142 599
Production for the financial year 6 139 706 [5,537,884+6,177+453,045+142,599=6,139,705: perhaps a slight difference due to rounding]
Expenses
Purchases consumed 1 373 949
External services 1 188 920
Other external services 141 855
Total annual expenses 2 704 724 [1,373,949+1,188,920+141,855=2,704,724]
Operating added value 3 434 981 [6,139,705-2,704,724=3,434,981]
Personnel costs 383 440
Taxes & duties [Note 5.2.3] 1 376 136
Gross operating surplus 1 675 406 [3,434,981-383,440-1,376,136=1,675,405: again, the difference is perhaps due to rounding]
Other operational products 177 785
Other operating expenses 117 817
Amortization, provision and impairment loss expenses 795 627
Impairment charges and provisions for financial items 3 900
Net impairment of goodwill 46
Reversal of impairment losses and operating provisions 81 334
Reversals of impairment losses and provisions of financial items -2 075
Operating result 1 015 060 [1,675,406+177,785-117,817-795,627-3,900-46+81,334-2,075=1,015,060]
Financial income 69 579
Financial expenses 544 536
Financial result -474 957 [544,536-69,579=474,957]
Ordinary income before taxes 540 103 [1,015,060-474,957=540,103] [This is equivalent to about $5.5 billion Canadian]
Adjustments to Calculations
Why make any adjustments to the calculations used by the authors of the annual report? Marxian economics distinguishes between the actual situation–its essence, if you like–and appearances, which in a capitalist society often differ from the actual situation. Appearances can be very deceptive. Capitalist relations objectively distort the real nature of the kind of situation in which people find themselves. We need to adjust the calculations to transform the deceptive appearances into the actual situation.
I will make adjustments according to the order of the above data, with explanations of why I do or do not make adjustments for some (but not all) of the above categories.
Stored or destocked production 6 177
There is no explanation of the meaning of these terms in the annual report. I assume that “stored” here means that current production is stored or remains unsold but is counted as additional income for accounting purposes in order to balance the books , whereas “destocked production” means that previous production from earlier years is sold. In the case of stored production, it would be necessary to consider it as an additional investment derived from surplus value since unsold inventory is in effect unintended investment. On the other hand, in the case of “destocking,” it would be necessary to subtract from “Ordinary income before taxes” since the inventory sold would be derived from production in earlier years.
Since the annual report does not specify whether 6,177 is net investment, I will not make any adjustments. Perhaps others can provide more information about the category and any logical reasons why adjustments should be made based on this category.
Capitalized production 453 045
This category seems to be a category pertaining to investment of current surplus value or profit that is “capitalized” or reinvested in the current year in fixed capital–but does not seem to show up in the income statement in many annual reports. The reason for this may be that this annual report uses the French method whereas the other annual reports use the Anglo-Saxon method. From Zuca Marilena and Tinta Alice (2012), “The profit and loss account major tool for the analysis of the company’s performance,” in pages 382-387, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 62, page 383:
During the development of economic theory, there were two models of Profit and Loss Account : French model and Anglo- Saxon model.
The French model is characterized by:
– The concept of production including the sold one, the stocked one and the capitalized one;
-the nature of expanses. This structure of expanses allows establishing intermediate management balances and highlights value division among enterprise partners.
The Anglo-Saxon model has the largest applicability: USA, Great Britain, Canada, Holland and Japan; and it is different because:
– It is based on sales as a sole source of income;
– Expanses are classified by functions: production (costs), distribution, administrative function, financial and other expenses.
Unlike the French model, the Anglo-Saxon model does not use notions like: capitalized production, because production costs go directly to assets, stocked production because production costs of unsold goods go straight to stocks value. This practice is based on the principle that wealth created by company is generated by selling the production.
The annual report adds 453, 045 as part of “Ordinary income before taxes”–which is consistent with Marxian economics. Consequently, it is unnecssary to make any adjustment here.
First Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Ordinary income before taxes)
Operating subsidies 142 599
Since the idea of calculating the rate of exploitation of particular employers is to determine the extent to which the particular employer exploits its workers, income derived from other sources should be excluded; consequently, I subtract this amount.
First Temporary Adjusted Surplus Value or Ordinary profit before taxes
397,504 [540,103-142,599=397,504]
Second Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Ordinary income before taxes)
First and Final Adjustment of Variable Capital (V) (Personnel costs)
A further adjustment to surplus value (profit) (Ordinary income before taxes) involves a simultaneous adjustment to “Personnel costs” (Variable capital or because of adjustments in the category “Taxes & duties [These are not income taxes].” This category is further broken down as follows:
5.2.3. Taxes and duties
(In millions of DZD)
Taxes & duties on wages 450
Tax on professional activity 17 098
Property taxes 377
Non-recoverable taxes and duties on turnover 1 982
Taxes & duties other levies related to oil activity 1 345 731
Other taxes & duties 10 498
Taxes & duties 1 376 136
The first subcategory, “Taxes & duties on wages” should be added to “Personnel costs” since they form part of the cost of production of workers (see my discussion of such issues in the post The Rate of Exploitation of General Motors Workers). On the other hand, the subcategory “Tax on professional activity” is probably a tax on fees paid to professionals or independent contractors and is probably derived from surplus value. All the other subcategories related to taxes are considered to be paid out of surplus value since, in general, taxes paid by employers are derived from surplus value.
Final Adjusted Variable capital (V) (Personnel costs)
383,890 [383, 440+450=383,890]
Second Temporary Adjusted Surplus Value or Ordinary profit before taxes
1,773,190 [397,504+1,375,686=1,773,190]
Third Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Ordinary income before taxes)
As I wrote in another post:
Since the idea of calculating the rate of exploitation of particular employers is to determine the extent to which the particular employer exploits its workers, income derived from the exploitation of workers other than its workers should be excluded.
The idea of calculating a particular rate of exploitation should aim to determine, as accurately as possible, to what extent a specific capitalist company exploits a specific group of employees. Therefore, “Financial income” is a very general category that does not derive from the exploitation of workers identifiable as being employed by a particular capitalist company but from the general exploitation of workers. If others have good reasons for including such income, I would like to hear their reasons.
Accordingly, it is necessary to subtract 69 579.
Third Temporary Adjusted Surplus Value or Ordinary profit before taxes
1,703,611 [1,773,190-69,579=1,703,611]
Fourth and Final Adjustment of Surplus Value (s) (Ordinary income before taxes)
The category “Financial expenses” needs to be transferred from an expense to actual surplus value produced but paid out as interest. I explained the reasoning for this in another post:
In Marxian theory, it is necessary to question whether some expenses are expenses for both the individual employer and for the class of employers (and fractions of their class, such as those who live on interest); in such a case, the expense is deduced from total revenue. On the other hand, there are expenses that are expenses for the individual employer but are not expenses when looked at from the point of view of the class of employers; in such an instance, they are paid out from the surplus value produced or obtained by workers and are to be included in income before taxes.
Accordingly, it is necessary to add 544, 536 to “Ordinary income before taxes” since interest is derived from surplus value–although it is an expense from the point of view of the particular employer.
Fourth and Final Adjusted Surplus Value or Ordinary profit before taxes
2,248,147 [1,703,611+544, 536=2,248,147]
The Rate of Exploitation of Sonatrach Workers
To calculate the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value, we need to divide “Surplus value (s)” or “Income before income taxes” by “Variable capital (v) or Adjusted Personnel costs.
So, with the adjustments in place, the rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value=s/v=2,248,147/383,890=5.86, or in percent terms, 586%.
This means that, in terms of money, $1 of wage or salary of a regular Sonatrach worker results in $5.86 surplus value or profit for free. Alternatively, for every hour worked, a Sonatrach worker works 352 minutes (or 5 hours 52 minutes) for free for Sonatrach. Or, within one hour of work, a worker receives an equivalent of her hourly wage in 9 minutes and works for free for 51 minutes for Sonatrach.
Of course, during the time that the worker works to receive an equivalent of her/his own wage, s/he is subject to the power of management and hence is unfree (see, for instance, Management Rights, Part Four: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Ontario and Employers as Dictators, Part One).
The length of the working day varies:
I also came across an old (1994) collective agreement in French that indicates that the normal work week would not exceed 44 hours per week (8.5 hours per week) , with a maximum of 12 hours per week (see https://solidmed.eu/en/documents/collective-agreement-sonatrach).
I will assume a range of possible workdays: 8, 8.5 and 12 hours.
In an 8-hour (480 minutes) working day, Sonatrach workers spend 70 minutes (1 hour 10 minutes) to obtain their wage for the day, and they spend 410 minutes (6 hours 50 minutes) in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Sontrach.
In an 8.5-hour (510 minutes) working day, Sonatrach workers spend 74 minutes (1 hour 14 minutes) to obtain their wage for the day, and they spend 436 minutes (7 hours 16 minutes) in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Sontrach.
In a 12-hour (720 minutes) working day, Sonatrach workers spend 105 minutes (1 hour 45 minutes) to obtain their wage for the day, and they spend 615 minutes (10 hours 15 minutes) in obtaining a surplus value or profit for Sontrach.
Political Considerations and Conclusion: Does the Existence of a Union and a Collective Agreement Abolish the Exploitation and Oppression of Workers?
There apparently is a union that represents Sonatrach workers. However, it is debatable just how independent such a union is from Sonatrach. From Hocine Zobiri (Fall, 2015), pages 270-291 in The Arab Studies Journal, Volume 23, Number 1, page 273:
According to Algerian law, all sectors have the right to trade unions. In direct opposition to this law, however, sectors deemed “strategic,” including the state-owned hydrocarbon and electricity and natural gas companies, are informally prohibited from creating or joining “autonomous unions” outside the UGTA. “is sector is made up of the Société Nationale pour la Recherche, la Production, le Transport, la Transformation, et la Commercialisation
des Hydrocarbures (SONATRACH) and Socièté Nationale de l’Electricité et du Gaz (SONELGAZ), which together constitute a considerable amount of the state’s general budget. Union organizing was born of these industrial sectors, and most theories of the trade union were developed with regard to industrial unions. Paradoxically, however, the only sectors of Algerian enterprise free to form autonomous unions are health, public education, higher education, and administrative work.
Despite workers belonging to company unions within Sonatrach, workers of such unions seem to benefit somewhat from them. From John Entelis (2012), “Sonatrach: the political economy
of an Algerian state institution,” in pages 567-609, Oil and Governance: State-Owned Enterprises and the World Energy Supply, page 596:
The labor unions at Sonatrach are given somewhat more favorable attention by the government than the labor unions of other companies in Algeria and so many of the smaller companies operating in the hydrocarbons field see it in their own interest to somehow find a way to connect with the union at Sonatrach – in other words, these other unions have long campaigned to have the companies regrouped under Sonatrach.
Despite the advantages of belonging to a union at Sonatrach, Sonatrach workers have occasionally engaged in hunger strikes to protest their situation. From Joan Martínez-Alierin (2023), Land, Water, Air and Freedom: The Making of World Movements for Environmental Justice, pages 460-461:
… there are also local conflicts. One of the places where the oil and gas industry has seen local complaints in Algeria is Hassi R’Mel. This is Algeria’s largest natural gas field, discovered in 1956 alongside the Hassi Messaoud oil field, and has been operated by state-owned company Sonatrach ever since. …
Workers and unemployed youth have been largely unsatisfied with the working conditions and practices of Sonatrach in Hassi R’Mel, as well as with their respective company trade unions. Since 2010, they have been protesting their working conditions and the generally high unemployment rate by organizing hunger strikes, blockades and boycotts. In 2010, a group of young unemployed people went on a hunger strike for a week in order to protest unemployment and against favouritism in employment procedures. At the end of 2011, almost 2,000 workers of Sonatrach living in the Hassi R’Mel region went on a hunger strike and decided to boycott all the reunions and activities of their company’s trade union. They were demanding a 50 per cent salary raise. After a lot of protests, a salary agreement was finally concluded between the general directorate of Sonatrach but was not enough for workers.
In 2013, another group of Sonatrach workers went on a hunger strike to demand better
working conditions. To support their colleagues, more than 400 resident workers of Sonatrach living in Hassi R’Mel staged a protest outside the company’s production directorate administrative complex. The conflict between Sonatrach and local resident workers as well as unemployed youth groups continues, as concessions made were deemed to be unsatisfactory.
Workers and the unemployed are obviously not satisifed with the company unions within Sonatrach–although the unionized workers within Sonatrach have better conditions than those unionized outside it–but would exploitation and oppression be substantially reduced if the unions were independent unions. Working conditions and wages and benefits may be better, and to that extent an independent union is better than the company unions. Furthermore, such independent unions have greater potential for taking a more independent theoretical and practical position than company unions. An independent union is certainly preferable to a company union, but even an independent union at the local level of a particular employer in effect generally assumes the legitimacy of the power of employers as a class (see my criticism in the post Do Workers Work for a Particular Employer or for the Class of Employers? Part Two: Critique of Unions and the Social-Reformist or Social-Democratic Left).
Can workers who work for a particular employer even with an independent union work under a “fair contract” and can their work be characterized as “decent?” I think not. Independent unions can limit exploitation and can control some aspects of their working lives, but in principle workers are things to be used by employers even with unions. This does not mean that a non-unionized environment is the same as a unionized environment. With unions that are independent of particular employers, that is to say, are real unions, there is an opportunity for workers to develop organizations of resistance against the power of particular employers.
Again, the rate of exploitation measures the extent to which workers work for free, producing all the surplus value and hence all the profit for employers. However, even during the time when they work to produce their own wage, they are hardly free. They are subject to the power and dictates of their employer during that time as well.
Do you think that these facts contradict the talk by the left and unionists of “fair wages,” “fair contracts” (see Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One for the rhetoric of the largest union of private-sector workers in Canada, Unifor) and “decent work?” Do they ignore the reality of life for workers, whether unionized or non-unionized?
If exploitation and oppression of workers is a constant in their lives, even if they are only vaguely aware of it, should this situation not be frankly acknowledged by their representatives? Do such representatives do so? If not, why not? Do workers deserve better than neglecting the social context within which they live and work? Should such problems be addressed head on rather than neglected?
Even if workers were not exploited, they would still be oppressed since they are used as things (means) for purposes which they as a collectivity do not define (see The Money Circuit of Capital). Does that express something fair? Management rights clauses (implied or explicit in collective agreements give management as representative of employers–and as a minority–the power to dictate to workers what to do, when to do it, how to do it and so forth–and is not the imposition of the will of a minority over the majority a dictatorship? (See Employers as Dictators, Part One). Is that fair? Do union reps ever explain how a collective agreement somehow expresses something fair? Is that fair?
The ideology of unions–that somehow they can produce a “fair contract” and “decent work”–needs, though, to be constantly criticized. Workers deserve better than the acceptance of such ideology by the left. Working for an employer, if the work force is unionized, does not change the fact of exploitaiton and oppression but only the degree of exploitation and oppression.
Should not the left be constantly exposing this? Is it? What do you think?
The Abolitionary 