Introduction

Since in this blog I have often referred to particular union reps referring to collective agreements as fair in some way, I thought it would be useful to provide further examples of this rhetoric to substantiate the view that unions function as ideologues for the continued existence of employers–even if the unions are independent of the power of particular employers and hence represent independently the workers in relation to the particular employer of the workers.

I have already provided a series of examples in this series on their view of the fairness of collective agreements and collective bargaining, implied or expressed explicitly, specifically the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) (the largest union in Canada) and Unifor (the largest union of workers who work for employers in the private sector) (see Fair Contracts (or Fair Collective Agreements): The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part One and Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Three: Unifor (Largest Private Union in Canada)).

The Rhetoric of the Manitoba Federation of Labour (MFL): Fair Contracts or Fair Collective Agreements

I now proceed to provide evidence for the ideological role of the MFL.

What is a fair contract or collective agreement? Since workers who work for an employer are necessarily means or instruments for purposes defined by employers (a minority), and those workers do not determine those purposes, how can any wage be fair (see The Money Circuit of Capital)? Perhaps some “leftist” can explain it. More likely, though, the so-called left will remain silent about the issue.

Usually, in collective agreements there is a management rights clause (and even when there is not, such rights are impicit and recognized by arbitrators). Such rights usually include such management rights as hiring, firing, disciplining and directing the work ofworker s–subject to the limits of the collective agreement and relevant legislation.  Such rights hardly are “fair” since they permit management to control workers’ lives in various ways and, ultimately, to treat them as means for purposes undefined by the workers themselves (see The Money Circuit of Capital and Employers as Dictators, Part One). How can any collective agreement in any way compensate for the loss of freedom of Manitoba workers (and workers who work for employers in general)? 

My argument from another post also applies to the issue of a “fair contract” or “fair collective agreement”: 

As shown in the last post, unions persistently claim that, through collective bargaining and a collective agreement, there can arise somehow (by magic?) “a fair and equitable collective agreement.” There can be no such thing as long as there exists a market for workers, where human beings are treated as things and as means for purposes over which they have little control. To claim otherwise is to bullshit workers–and workers deserve much better than this.

The Rhetoric of the MFL: A Fair Contract or Fair Collective Agreement

1. December 11, 2024 (https://mahcp.ca/show-of-solidarity-for-striking-cupw-members/):
   

   SHOW OF SOLIDARITY FOR STRIKING CUPW MEMBERS

   Canada Post’s management and their allies want to close post offices, slash jobs, and make it harder to receive your mail. Canada Post is a public service and should not be parceled off to private interests. It belongs to all of us. We can’t let that happen. The MFL is holding a SHOW OF SOLIDARITY RALLY in support of postal workers who are out on strike for a fair deal!

   In Solidarity,
   Kevin Rebeck
   President, Manitoba Federation of Labour

2. From September 13, 2024 (https://mfl.ca/events/info-session-on-anti-scab-legislation/):
   

   Info Session on New Essential Service and Anti-Scab Legislation
   Big changes are coming to the rules that govern how unions and employers negotiate collective agreements in Manitoba, and all unions will be affected.

   On the plus side, unions will soon be able to organize new workplaces through a simple, single-step process of getting a majority of workers to sign a union application card – that’s right, we’ve finally won 50% + 1 card check!

   And for the first time in Manitoba history, scab labour will be banned, so workers have a fair chance to fight for their rights and both sides have an incentive to reach a fair deal.

3. From Fall 2022 (No url since it is a pdf file, and I use Chrome extension for pdf files):
   

   PRESIDENT’S REPORT 

   More public sector unions and workers win fair deals
   
   More and more public sector workers are fighting for fair deals and winning them for their members. … 

   But through the strength of our solidarity, Manitoba’s unions eventually forced new Premier Heather Stefanson to back down and repeal the wage freeze law, and a number of fair deals have been negotiated as a result….

   Finally, I know many of you were out in Oakbank this summer to show your support for the Operating Engineers 987 members who were on strike for a fair deal from their employer, the RM of Springfield. After two months on the picket line, these members won a fair contract.…

   Members of MGEU Local 441 have been trying to negotiate a fair deal with their employer, Les Tournesols Child Care Centre, for almost a year. Unfortunately, the employer wants to cut workers’ benefits like sick leave and vacation instead of using available government funding to improve wages and working conditions. I have been proud to stand on the picket line with these workers as they fight for a fair deal.

4. From May 30, 2022 (https://www.facebook.com/ManitobaLabour/posts/8385671648125165/):
   

   MFL President Kevin Rebeck was proud to stand in solidarity with CUPE Local 204 members today as they fight for a fair contract.

   We depend on these hardworking Manitobans and the critical work that they do for our health care system. Unfortunately, these workers have been without a contract for five years because of Brian Pallister and Heather Stefanson.

   Enough. Let’s tell this Stefanson government that it’s time to start working for working families. It’s time for a fair deal.

5. From June 10, 2021 (https://www.facebook.com/ManitobaLabour/posts/the-manitoba-federation-of-labour-supports-the-manitoba-nurses-union-every-step-/6447773775248305/):
   

   The Manitoba Federation of Labour supports the Manitoba Nurses Union every step of the way. You deserve a fair contract and to be treated with respect by this government.

6. From April 20, 2021 (https://www.gov.mb.ca/legislature/hansard/42nd_3rd/sed_10/sed_10.html):
   

   LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

   THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT…
   
   WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

   Re: Bill 48

   The Manitoba Federation of Labour (MFL) is Manitoba’s central labour body, made up of 30 affili­ated unions and representing the interests of more than 100,000 unionized workers in our province. The MFL advocates for the interests of working families in the private and public sectors, including the need for strong public services, good jobs, and fairness in the workplace….

   This government’s wage-freeze law was deemed unconstitutional and “draconian”² by the Court of Queen’s Bench last summer. And yet, this minister and this government have only continued to pursue their obsession to impose wage freezes on hardworking Manitobans, rather than let them bargain fair contracts with their employers.

   At this moment, over 2,000 members of IBEW 2034 are on strike as they try to negotiate a fair contract free from interference from this government. It is not too much to ask that the Manitobans who keep the lights on and the power going for Manitoba Hydro get the opportunity to bargain fairly with the profitable Crown corporation that employs them. We have seen these members go above and beyond for this province, including during the record-breaking ice storm of October 2019. It is time for the Premier and his cabinet to get out of the way of these workers and the fair deal they deserve

7. From March 18, 2021 (https://www.facebook.com/ManitobaLabour/posts/show-your-support-for-the-members-of-ibew-2034-as-they-seek-a-fair-contract-with/6008690132490007/):
   

   Show your support for the members of IBEW 2034 as they seek a fair contract with Manitoba Hydro.

   These hardworking Manitobans keep the lights on and the power going across our province. Add your voice and tell Brian Pallister to back off from interfering with the collective bargaining process between IBEW 2034 and Manitoba Hydro.

8. From September 10, 2020 (https://www.facebook.com/ManitobaLabour/posts/5113127628712933/):
   

   The MFL is back on the UFCW Local 832 line today to support Winnipeg School Division bus drivers who are on strike for a fair contract. Come out and show your support, 1810 Selkirk Ave.

9. From August 17, 2020 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-government-appealing-wage-freeze-ruling-1.5690033):
   

   Manitoba government plans to appeal court ruling that quashed wage freeze

   The Manitoba Federation of Labour said the lower-court ruling was clear and should be respected.

   “It is unfortunate that the Pallister government has chosen to drag this process out further instead of bargaining fair contracts with Manitoba’s dedicated public-sector workers,” federation president Kevin Rebeck said in a statement.

10. From November 21, 2016 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/unions-react-throne-speech-1.3861317):
    

    ‘We have some huge concerns’: unions blast PC throne speech

    Throne speech delivered Monday promises cost-cutting measures, regulation of wage increases….

    “This government has already interfered once with a collective bargaining process, we hope that that doesn’t continue, and that people are able to get a fair deal for fair wages.”

Political Implications

Unions evidently use the rhetoric of fair contracts, fair agreements and the like to justify their limited approach to the issues facing workers. This attempt to justify their own implicit acceptance of the power of the class of employers needs to be constantly criticized by being brought out into the open and discussed. 

However, the social-democrat or social-reformist left often see no point in such open and direct criticism–despite claims to the contrary. 

I will conclude this post with a conversation between Sam Gindin (a self-claimed “leader” of radical workers here in Toronto despite his probable own explicit denial of such a title) and me: 

Re: A Good or Decent Job and a Fair Deal
Sam Gindin
Sat 2017-02-18 8:05 AM
Something is missing here. No-one on this list is denying that language doesn’t reflect material realities (the language we use reflects the balance of forces) or that it is irrelevant in the struggle for material effects (the language of middle class vs working class matters). And no one is questioning whether unions are generally sectional as opposed to class organizations or whether having a job or ‘decent’ pay is enough. The question is the autonomy you give to language.

The problem isn’t that workers refer to ‘fair pay’ but the reality of their limited options. Language is NOT the key doc changing this though it clearly plays a role. That role is however only important when it is linked to actual struggles – to material cents not just discourse. The reason we have such difficulties in doing education has to do with the limits of words alone even if words are indeed essential to struggles. Words help workers grasp the implications of struggles, defeats, and the partial victories we have under capitalism (no other victories as you say, are possible under capitalism).

So when workers end a strike with the gains they hoped for going in, we can tell them they are still exploited. But if that is all we do, what then? We can – as I know you’d do – not put it so bluntly (because the context and not just the words matter). that emphasize that they showed that solidarity matters but we’re still short of the fuller life we deserve and should aspire to and that this is only possible through a larger struggle, but then we need to be able to point to HOW to do this. Otherwise we are only moralizing. That is to say, it is the ideas behind the words and the recognition of the need for larger structures to fight through that primarily matter. Words help with this and so are important but exaggerating their role can be as dangerous as ignoring it.

What I’m trying to say is that people do, I think, agree with the point you started with – we need to remind ourselves of the limits of, for example, achieving ‘fair wages’. But the stark way you criticize using that word, as opposed to asking how do we accept the reality out there and move people to larger class understandings – of which language is an important part – seems to have thrown the discussion off kilter.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Frederick Harris <arbeit67@hotmail.com> wrote:

I was waiting to see whether there was any dispute concerning either the primary function of language or its material nature. Since there has been no response to that issue, I will assume that the view that the primary function of language is to coordinate social activity has been accepted.

What are some of the political implications of such a view of language? Firstly, the view that “But material conditions matter more” has no obvious basis. If language coordinates our activity, surely workers need language “to reproduce themselves.”

The question is whether coordination is to be on a narrower or wider basis.

Let us now take a look at the view that a contract (a collective agreement) is fair or just and that what workers are striving for is a decent or good job.

If we do not oppose the view that any collective agreement is fair to workers and that the jobs that they have or striving to have are decent jobs, then are we saying that a particular struggle against a particular employer can, in some meaningful sense, result in a contract that workers are to abide by out of some sense of fairness? Does not such a view fragment workers by implicitly arguing that they can, by coordinating their action at the local or micro level, achieve a fair contract and a good job?

If, on the other hand, we argue against the view that the workers who are fighting against a particular employer cannot achieve any fair contract or a decent job, but rather that they can only achieve this in opposition to a class of employers and in coordination with other workers in many other domains (in other industries that produce the means of consumption of workers, in industries that produce the machines and the raw material that go into the factory, in schools where teachers teach our children and so forth), then there opens up the horizon for a broader approach for coordinating activity rather than the narrow view of considering it possible to achieve not a fair contract and a decent job in relation to a particular employer.

In other words, it is a difference between a one-sided, micro point of view and a class point of view.

As far as gaining things within capitalism, of course it is necessary to fight against your immediate employer, in solidarity with your immediate fellow workers, in order to achieve anything. I already argued this in relation to the issue of health in another post.

Is our standard for coordinating our activity to be limited to our immediate relation to an employer? Or is to expand to include our relation to the conditions for the ‘workers to reproduce themselves’?

“They turn more radical when it becomes clear that the system can’t meet their needs and other forms of action become necessary -“

How does it become clear to workers when their relations to each other as workers occurs through the market system? Where the products of their own labour are used against them to oppress and exploit them? Are we supposed to wait until “the system can’t meet their needs”? In what sense?

I for one have needed to live a decent life–not to have a decent job working for an employer or for others to be working for employers. I for one have needed to live a dignified life–not a life where I am used for the benefit of employers. Do not other workers have the same need? Is that need being met now? If not, should we not bring up the issue at every occasion? Can any collective agreement with an employer realize that need?

Where is a vision that provides guidance towards a common goal? A “fair contract”? A “decent” job? Is this a class vision that permits the coordination of workers’ activities across industries and work sites? Or a limited vision that reproduces the segmentation and fragmentation of the working class?

Fred

The bottom line is that many who consider themselves radical socialists here in Toronto (and undoubtedly elsewhere)  indulge working-class organizations, such as unions. They are, ultimately, afraid to alienate social-democratic or reformist organizations. Consequently, they themselves, objectively, function as social democrats or social reformers and fail to engage workers in the necessary delegitimisation process of the class power of employers.