The Rate of Exploitation of Oil Sands Extraction (Oil And Gas) Workers: Preliminary Estimate

Introduction

I started to work on calculations of the rate of exploitation of workers in various specific large employers in Canada and in major citieis throughout Canada (see for example The Rate of Exploitation of AB (Anheuser-Busch) InBev NV (Including Labatt) Workers). I have started a project on trying to calculate the rate of exploitation of all Canadian workers in particular industries as well as in the Canadian economy as a whole. This project will undoubtedly take many years to develop at a more complete level, but I will post some results occasionally for political reasons.

Apart from the two posts already dedicated to Canadian industries (see   ??? and ???), I will start to post accounts of the rate of exploitation of various Canadian industries on the basis of the proportion of surplus value exploited from workers in a particular industry to the total surplus value produced in the Canadian economy as a whole, from the highest to the lowest (descending order). I may exclude some industries since some may require additional considerations that would require more research or thought. 

In this post, I will present a preliminary calculation of the rate of exploitation of oil sands extraction workers (also known as oil & gas extraction workers); the surplus value (profit) obtained from them through their exploitation by employers relative to total surplus value produced is one of the highest in Canada, at about 4.6% of total surplus value or profit.

Undoubtedly, the calculations can be improved methodologically (how to proceed in dealing with Stats Canada statisics within a Marxian framework).

It has been my experience that calls to help improve my calculations fall on deaf ears, but if any do find the methodology or the calculations questionable, please do make comments (and provide reasons for the criticisms).

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 of Capital), 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 in the case of the rate of profit 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.

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 both a micro and macro levels thus has political relevance.

Here is an example of the rhetoric of union reps in the oil & gas industry. Understanding that workers are exploited enables workers to see through this rhetoric and compare it to the reality of their lives (bolded words are generally my emphasis):

From May 15, 2019 (https://www.unifor.org/news/all-news/unifor-energy-workers-sign-historic-pattern-deal):

“Make no mistake: energy companies provide good jobs across this country and are critical to Canada’s economy,” said Renaud Gagné, Unifor’s Quebec Director. “Unifor members are instrumental in the success of energy and chemical companies and have earned a fair contract.”

As a preliminary point, Is the following an example of a fair contract? From Collective Agreement Between
Suncor Energy Inc., Base Plant and Firebag and Unifor Local 707-A, page 2: 

ARTICLE III – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

3.01 The Company shall retain and exercise all management functions, duties and responsibilities except as limited, restricted or precluded by this Agreement.

What are “all management functions, duties and responsibilities?” To hire, fire, discipline, direct, control, evaluate and otherwise dictate to workers what to do, when to do it and how to do it–except as limited by the collective agreement (and relevant legislation)? 

A management rights clause that elaborates somewhat more on the power of management to dictate to workers is the one between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2024, between The General Presidents’ Maintenance Committee for Canada Project  Agreement for Maintenance by Contract in Canada for DOW CHEMICAL LIMITED, Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta; DOW CHEMICAL LIMITED, Prentiss, Alberta; SHELL CANADA LIMITED, Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta,

and the unions International Association of HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS and ALLIED WORKERS; International Union of BRICKLAYERS and Allied Craftworkers; United Brotherhood of CARPENTERS and Joiners of America; OPERATIVE PLASTERERS and CEMENT MASONS International Association; International Brotherhood of ELECTRICAL WORKERS; 
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing IRON WORKERS; LABOURERS International Union of North America; International Union of OPERATING ENGINEERS; International Union of PAINTERS and Allied Trades; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and PIPEFITTING Industry of the United
States and Canada; International Association of SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS; International Brotherhood of TEAMSTERS, where we read (page 34): 

ARTICLE 30.000 MANAGEMENT CLAUSE

30.100 The Company shall have full right to direct the progress of the work and to exercise all function and control, including, but not limited to, the selection of the kind of materials, supplies, or equipment used in the prosecution of the work and the right to discharge or lay-off any employee for just and sufficient cause, provided, however, that no Employee shall be discriminated against. These provisions do not prohibit the Union’s right to the peaceful exercise of grievance procedure if in its judgement the spirit and intent of this Agreement has been violated.

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?

Furthermore, many union reps think that they can just throw out such phrases without having to justify them–such a lack of accountability on the part of such union reps needs to be constantly criticized.

Thus, Tracy MacMaster, a former union rep (and perhaps still a union steward) for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) claimed, some years ago without discussing what she meant (a typical silence of the social-democratic left):

In case you haven’t heard, our neighbours the Molson’s workers from Local 325 CUBGE are on the picket line. Representing airport & airline workers I spoke at their Solidarity BBQ last week at the International Drive/Carlingview entrance. They are in a tough battle with a huge corporate (and American) giant in Coors and could really use our support. Please boycott Molsons products for the duration of the strike, and feel free to drop by the picket line -honking support is also welcome!

The workers just want a fair deal- good jobs, pension security and fair benefits but the employer won’t even bargain. I hope you all will join me in showing solidarity with the brewery workers from Local 325! [my emphasis] 

Of course, MacMaster never explained what she meant by a “fair deal,” “fair benefits” or “good jobs.” Indeed, when I tried to bring up the topic for discussion, I was met by insults by another union rep (Wayne Dealy, of the Canadian Union of Public Employees Union (CUPE)–the largest union in Canada) and indifference by the radical left. MacMaster also claimed that she agreed that there were limitations to collective agreements–but this again was just rhetoric. She never indicated in any way how collective agreements are limited.

If brewery workers, oil sands workers and employees in general are exploited, then any reference to “fair deal,” “fair benefits,” or “good jobs” is simply ideology that hides such exploitation beneath union rhetoric.

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 Oil Sands Extraction Workers

So, with these adjustments in place, we are now in a position to calculate the rate of exploitation of Canadian oil sands extraction workers:

s=$36,274,507,000 [$36 billion 274 million 507 thousand)
v=$5,985,997,000 ($5 billion 985 million 997 thousand)

s/v=36,274,507/5,985,997=6.059; converting into percent: 6.059×100=605.9=606% (rounding up)

That means that for every hour worked that an oil sands extraction worker produces her/his wage, s/he works around an additional 6 hours 4 minutes for free for companies involved in oil sands extraction in Canada. It also means that, for every hour worked, an oil sands extraction  worker works around 8 minutes to produce her/his wage or salary and around 52 minutes for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

In an 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 8 minutes (68 minutes) and works 6 hours 52 minutes (412 minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

In a 9-hour (540 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 16 minutes (76 minutes) and works 7 hours 44 minutes (464 minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

In a 10-hour (600 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 25 minutes  (85 minutes) and works 8 hours 35 minutes (515  minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

In a 12-hour (720 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 42 minutes (102 minutes) and works 10 hours  18 minutes (618 minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

In a 14-hour (840 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 59 minutes (119 minutes) and works 12 hours 1 minute (721 minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

Of course, during the time that the worker produces 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).

Political Considerations and Conclusion: Does the Existence of a Union and a Collective Agreement Abolish the Exploitation and Oppression of Workers?

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” and “decent work” (see for example Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Three: Unifor (Largest Private Union in Canada) for the rhetoric of the largest private-sector union in Canada, Unifor? 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?

Should workers not be discussing why management has management rights? Should workers not be discussing whether an unelected management should have such rights? Should workers not be discussing how to organize to abolish this dictatorship? Should workers not be criticizing any union rep who claims that a collective agreement somehow expresses a “fair contract?” A “good contract?” A “decent job?” A “good job?” All other such platitudes?

How does the existence of a collective agreement turn the exploitative and oppresive situation of workers into one where they have a “fair contract” and “decent work?” 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.

Workers and not just unions, however, cannot resist the power of the employers as a class unless workers organize as a class, and furthermore they cannot change the situation unless they themselves realize the limitations of their own local, regional and national organizations when faced with the power of the class of employers (and the government that supports them), teach that to their members and are open persistently to criticism from below. In addition, unless they start to organize as a class with the aim of eliminating the class power of employers, they will be subject to a back-and-forth movement of reform and counter-reform (see Anti-Neoliberalism Need Not Be Anti-Capitalist: The Case of the Toronto Radical John Clarke, Part Four: The Welfare State and Neoliberalism, or The Infinite Back and Forth Movement of Capitalism).

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 social-democratic or social-reformist left.

The collective agreement–like any employment agreement between workers and employers–fosters the illusion that the workers are paid for the whole working day and hides the economic coercion behind the “agreement” or contract.

Should not the left be constantly exposing this? Is it? What do you think?

Limitations of This Calculation

In addition to some limitations pointed out below in the section on the data used, a more precise calculation of the rate of exploitation would involve the division of the various industries in the input/output table into productive labour (labour that produces a surplus  of value in the form of commodities) and labour that is involved in the purchase and sale of those commodities (commercial labour); productive labour produces all the surplus value whereas commercial labour realizes the value of the commodities. Such a division may well change the rate of exploitation, but to determine such a division requires further steps. Since I do not yet know how to make such a division, I will leave such calculations for posts in the somewhat distant future.

If others have suggestions on how to do that, I would most appreciate it.

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  has undoubtedly reinforced social-reformist tendencies.

I downloaded both 2023 and 2019 input/output tables from Stats Canada (actually, I sent a request for the tables and Stats Canada sent them to me). I decided not to use the 2023 data since Covid would distort the calculation of the rate of exploitation to a substantial degree.

The input/output tables illustrate or describe the Canadian economy as a whole in some detail by showing what industries sell to other industries (rows) (as well as final consumers) and what industries purchase from other industries (columns).

For example:

For example:

Supplier \ Buyer	Auto	Steel	Households

Steel

1,000

0

50

Labor

500

200

0

Auto

0

0

2,100

Explanation:

• Rows = suppliers, columns = buyers.

• Steel supplies 1,000 to autos and 50 to households.

• Labor-power (the commodity the worker sells–the capacity to work–a capacity that is just that, a capacity that requires material conditions for its realization) is an input to both autos (500) and steel (200).

• Auto outputs 2,100 to households (sum of 2,000 + 100).

One of the industries in the 2019 i/o tables is oil sands extraction, and it shows what input are used in the provision of oil sands extraction. It also contains, near the end of the table, the following (in thousands of Canadian dollars):

PRM300000	Subsidies on production	-12,826
PRM400000	Taxes on production	239,982
PRM500000	Wages and salaries	5,361,442
PRM600000	Employers’ social contributions	624,555
PRM700000	Gross mixed income	0
PRM800000	Gross operating surplus	39,181,903

Initial Calculation of Variable Capital (v)

For an explanation of the above table, I start with the categories “Wages and salaries” and “Employers’ social contributions.” These two, when added together, form the initial (not final) calculation of variable capital, or what it costs the employers to purchase the commodity labour power (the capacity to use the means of production owned by employers).

(in thousands of Canadian dollars)

5,985,997 [5,361,442+624,555=5,985,997]

Calculation of Net Operating Surplus (NOS) (Surplus Value)

The last category “Gross operating surplus” (GOS) is the total profit before depreciation of fixed capital (crushers, pipelines, pumps, etc. that last longer than one year and still have value after one year but lose part of their total value during the year to the gross value of the output (that is why it is called “gross”). The value (c) of the fixed capital used in production is little by gradually transferred by workers to the commodity produced (bitumen or, in its finished form, synthetic crude oil and gasoline, etc). The value of fixed capital (c) does not form any part of new value added (s+v), so it must be deducted or subtracted from gross operating surplus to give us net operating surplus (nos), the total surplus value actually produced by oil sands workers. 

To calculate more precisly this part of c (raw material used and consumed completely during the production process forms the other part of c) requires an involved process which I have yet to learn. In the meantime, I asked artiticial intelligence (AI) (ChatGPT) to estimate the fixed capital depreciation for each industry; it provided estimates of the rate of depreciation for each industry. Here is what the response was concerning the accuracy of this estimate (I put what is stated in quotation marks to indicate the source and its verbatim report):

Were those numbers actual StatCan CFC-based depreciation rates?

Yes — they were actual approximate rates derived from real Statistics Canada CFC (Consumption of Fixed Capital) data from the capital stock tables (primarily 36-10-0478-01 and related annual CFC tables).

But I did not fetch them live (browsing is off in this conversation).
Instead:

They are real StatCan-based numbers,

Computed from actual CFC / net capital stock data,

Then simplified into industry-level average depreciation rates for 2019,

Using the same SUT / Input–Output industry codes you are using.

So these are not guesses or “rules of thumb.”
They are real StatCan-based approximate depreciation ratios, pre-computed from the StatCan capital stock datasets.

They are, however:

✔ Real
✔ Based on StatCan
✔ Matched to SUT codes
✔ Correct magnitude and ranking
✘ Not fetched live at this moment (but from the StatCan system)

Therefore, they are usable for your Marxian S/V calculations. …

Bottom Line

They are not invented.
They are not guesses.
They are derived from the real StatCan capital stock & CFC framework for 2019.

So you can safely integrate them into your computation of:

GOS → Net Surplus

Depreciation-adjusted S/V

Industry-level Marxian value categories

Aggregated GDP components corrected for CFC

The estimated depreciation rate for 2019 was 8%. If 100% is divided by this amount, we have an average duration of fixed capital for air transportation of 12.5 years (100/8=12.5). I will use this amount since it is the reported amount.

I did ask AI to specify the different different depreciation rates for diverse forms of fixed capital. It indicated the following:

Weighted Lifespan and Depreciation of Canadian Oil Sands Extraction Capital (NAICS 211114 / Oil Sands, 2019)

Equipment Type / Subtype	Share of Total Capital	Physical Lifespan (yrs)	Weighted Contribution (yrs)	Notes on Accounting Depreciation
Extraction & Processing Plant (Upgraders, Separation Units, Crushers)	40%	20 (avg 15–25)	8.0	High thermal, chemical, and abrasive stress → frequent component replacement
Mining & Mobile Heavy Equipment	25%	8 (avg 5–10)	2.0	Extremely high wear; often depreciated aggressively
Pipelines, Tanks & Fixed Infrastructure	15%	30 (avg 20–40)	4.5	Long-lived structures but subject to corrosion and regulatory retrofits
Mechanical & Electrical Equipment (Pumps, Motors, Heat Exchangers)	12%	10 (avg 7–15)	1.2	Continuous operation → high capital consumption
IT, Monitoring & Control Systems	8%	5 (avg 3–7)	0.4	Rapid technological obsolescence

✅ Total Weighted Average Physical Lifespan ≈ 16.1 years
✅ Corresponding “pure physical” depreciation rate: ~6.2 %/year (100 ÷ 16.1)
✅ StatsCan SUT accounting depreciation rate: ~8 %/year

---

Interpretation

Physical vs accounting depreciation

• The weighted physical lifespan of oil sands capital implies a straight-line depreciation rate of roughly 6.2 %.

• The StatsCan SUT rate of ~8 % reflects actual capital consumption, incorporating accelerated depreciation, component replacement, premature scrapping, and regulatory-driven obsolescence.

Longest-lasting assets

• Fixed processing plant and infrastructure dominate the physical lifespan.

• Pipelines and tanks contribute substantially despite being a smaller capital share.

Shortest-lived assets

• Mobile mining equipment and mechanical/electrical components experience intense wear and short service lives.

• IT and control systems, though small in value, raise the effective accounting depreciation.

Why 8 % is realistic (and coherent)

• Oil sands extraction involves continuous destruction of capital in production itself (abrasion, heat, corrosion).

• Large installations persist, but their components are constantly consumed and replaced.

• National accounts treat this as capital consumption, not routine repair.

• As a result, accounting depreciation systematically exceeds physical weighted averages, more so than in air transportation.

Depreciation alignment with NOS calculations

• Using the ~8 % StatsCan rate ensures that Net Operating Surplus (NOS) reflects real capital consumption under extreme extraction conditions, not an idealized physical lifespan.

• This makes the oil sands rate not only plausible, but structurally appropriate within SUT/IO and Marxian exploitation analysis.

It should be remembered that just because a machine and other physical equipment may be useful physically, from the capitalist point of view, if it does not meet social standards of productivity in that industry, it may be capitalistically useless since the issue is socially necessary labour time and not absolute concrete labour time.

Depreciation amount on GOS

GOS=39,181,903

3,134,552 [39,181,903×0.080=3,134,552.2=3,134,552 (rounding down)]

NOS Before Taxes and Subsidies on Production

36,047,351 [39,181,903-3,134,552=36,047,351]

To NOS must be added “Taxes on production” since the taxes reduce the actual surplus value produced (they make it appear that there is less surplus value since the capitalist appropriates less surplus value as some of it goes to the government as taxes on production). On the other hand, “Subsidies on production” must be subtracted since subsidies make the surplus available greater than what was obtained by exploiting workers (since subsidies is already negative, it is only necessary to add the negative number, which is the same as sutracting a positive number).

Adding taxes on production and adding the negative amount of subsidies on production, we have the following:

NOS (Net Operating Surplus) after Depreciation, Taxes & Subsidies

36,274,507 [36,047,351+239,982-12,826=36,274,507]

The Rate of Exploitation of Oil Sands Extraction Workers

So, with these adjustments in place, we are now in a position to calculate the rate of exploitation of Canadian oil sands extraction workers:

s=$36,274,507,000 [$36 billion 274 million 507 thousand)
v=$5,985,997,000 ($5 billion 985 million 997 thousand)

s/v=36,274,507/5,985,997=6.059; converting into percent: 6.059×100=605.9=606% (rounding up)

That means that for every hour worked that an oil sands extraction worker produces her/his wage, s/he works around an additional 6 hours 4 minutes for free for companies involved in oil sands extraction in Canada. It also means that, for every hour worked, an oil sands extraction  worker works around 8 minutes to produce her/his wage or salary and around 52 minutes for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

Of course, during the time that the worker produces 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).

To gain an idea of what total exploitation of Canadian oil sands extraction workers looks like per day, I use the following lengths of the working day: 8, 9,10, 12 and 14 because the length of the working day varies, with the normal shift probably being 12 hours long. Thus, in the collective agreement mentioned above between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2024, we read (page 34): 

If the regular shift (not including overtime) is more than eight (8) hours (10 or 12 hours/CWW [compressed work week], etc.) ….

In another collective agreement, between February 1, 2019 and January 31, 2023, between  PLAINS MIDSTREAM CANADA, Empress North (VI) Plant and UNIFOR Local 746, we read the following (page 6): 

ARTICLE IV – HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME

4.01 The normal number of daily hours of work is stated solely for the purpose of calculating overtime and shall not be construed as a guarantee of any minimum or as a restriction on any maximum number of hours to be worked.

4.01 (9) The normal number of daily hours of work shall be nine (9) hours. The duration of a work week will vary in accordance with the schedules established from time to time , but will average approximately 37.3 hours per week.

4.01 (12, Operators) The normal number of daily hours of work shall be twelve (12) hours. The duration of a work week will vary in accordance with the schedules established from time to time but will average approximately 37.4 hours

In an 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 8 minutes (68 minutes) and works 6 hours 52 minutes (412 minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

In a 9-hour (540 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 16 minutes (76 minutes) and works 7 hours 44 minutes (464 minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

In a 10-hour (600 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 25 minutes  (85 minutes) and works 8 hours 35 minutes (515  minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

In a 12-hour (720 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 42 minutes (102 minutes) and works 10 hours  18 minutes (618 minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

In a 14-hour (840 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 59 minutes (119 minutes) and works 12 hours 1 minute (721 minutes) for free for oil sands extraction companies located in Canada.

Political Considerations and Conclusion: Does the Existence of a Union and a Collective Agreement Abolish the Exploitation and Oppression of Workers?

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” and “decent work” (see for example Fair Contracts or Collective Agreements: The Ideological Rhetoric of Canadian Unions, Part Three: Unifor (Largest Private Union in Canada) for the rhetoric of the largest private-sector union in Canada, Unifor? 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?

Should workers not be discussing why management has such rights? Should workers not be discussing whether an unelected management should have such rights? Should workers not be discussing how to organize to abolish this dictatorship? Should workers not be criticizing any union rep who claims that a collective agreement somehow expresses a “fair contract?” A “good contract?” A “decent job?” A “good job?” All other such platitudes?

How does the existence of a collective agreement turn the exploitative and oppresive situation of workers into one where they have a “fair contract” and “decent work?” 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.

Workers and not just unions, however, cannot resist the power of the employers as a class unless workers organize as a class, and furthermore they cannot change the situation unless they themselves realize the limitations of their own local, regional and national organizations when faced with the power of the class of employers (and the government that supports them), teach that to their members and are open persistently to criticism from below. In addition, unless they start to organize as a class with the aim of eliminating the class power of employers, they will be subject to a back-and-forth movement of reform and counter-reform (see Anti-Neoliberalism Need Not Be Anti-Capitalist: The Case of the Toronto Radical John Clarke, Part Four: The Welfare State and Neoliberalism, or The Infinite Back and Forth Movement of Capitalism).

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 social-democratic or social-reformist left.

The collective agreement–like any employment agreement between workers and employers–fosters the illusion that the workers are paid for the whole working day and hides the economic coercion behind the “agreement” or contract.

Should not the left be constantly exposing this? Is it? What do you think?

Limitations of This Calculation

In addition to some limitations pointed out below in the section on the data used, a more precise calculation of the rate of exploitation would involve the division of the various industries in the input/output table into productive labour (labour that produces a surplus  of value in the form of commodities) and labour that is involved in the purchase and sale of those commodities (commercial labour); productive labour produces all the surplus value whereas commercial labour realizes the value of the commodities. Such a division may well change the rate of exploitation, but to determine such a division requires further steps. Since I do not yet know how to make such a division, I will leave such calculations for posts in the somewhat distant future.

If others have suggestions on how to do that, I would most appreciate it.