Introduction
One of the few things that I agree with the academic leftist Jeff Noonan, professor of philosophy at the University of Windsor, Ontario, is that leftists must start where workers are at:
Political engagement begins from trying to understand where people are coming from.
But where people are coming from can be interpreted in at least two ways: objectively–what their real situaiton is, and subjectively, what their attitudes towards their interpreted situations are. In relation to workers, there is their objective situation of being treated as means towards ends defined by employers (see The Money Circuit of Capital).
Subjectively, though, there are undoubtedly a variety of attitudes and interpretations of their own work and life situations.
Some among the radical left do not even address the issue of what workers think of their own jobs. It is hardly idealist to inquire into such attitudes.
I will start to gather evidence about the attitudes of some workers in unionized (and non-unionized) settings where I have calculated the rate of exploitation of those workers. I will also in the not-too-distant future start a similar inquiry process for unionized public-sector workers with the largest employers in Canada and in various Canadian cities.
Objective Exploitation and Oppression of Safeway Workers
In a previous post, I calculated the rate of exploitation of Empire workers for 2019 (which included Safeway workers) (see The Rate of Exploitation of Workers at Empire Company (or Sobeys or Thrifty Foods or FreshCo or Safeway Canada or IGA or Foodland Workers), One of the Largest Private Employers in Victoria, British Columbia, Or: How Unionized Jobs Are Not Decent or Good Jobs ). I will copy part of the conclusion from that post:
The rate of exploitation or the rate of surplus value=s/v=555.8/3,174.8=18% .
That means that for every hour worked that produces her/his wage, a worker at Empire Inc. (and its subsidiaries) works around an additional 11 minutes for free for Empire. It also means that, within an hour worked, a worker at Empire Inc works 51 minutes to produce her/his wage or salary and 9 minutes for free for Empire.
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).
In a 2-hour (120 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 1 hour 42 minutes) (102 minutes) and works 18 minutes for free for Empire.
In a 4-hour (240 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 3 hours 24 minutes (204) minutes) and works 36 minutes for free for Empire.
In a 5.5-hour (330 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 4 hours 41 minutes) (281 minutes) and works 49 minutes for free for Empire.
In a 6-hour (360 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 5 hours 6 minutes (306 minutes) and works 54 minutes for free for Empire.
In a 7-hour (420 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 5 hours 57 minutes (357 minutes) and works 1 hour 3 minutes (63 minutes) for free for Empire.
In a 8-hour (480 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 6 hours 48 minutes (408 minutes) and works 1 hour 12 minutes (72 minutes) for free for Empire.
In a 8.5-hour (510 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 7 hours 14 minutes (434 minutes) and works 1 hour 16 minutes (76 minutes) for free for Empire.
In a 9-hour (540 minutes) work day, the worker produces her/his wage in 7 hours 39 minutes (459 minutes) and works 1 hour 21 minutes (81 minutes) for free for Empire.
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 also unfree during that time (see The Rate of Exploitation of Magna International Inc., One of the Largest Private Employers in Toronto, Part Two, Or: Intensified Oppression and Exploitation and Employers as Dictators, Part One).
Political Considerations and Conclusion
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 in Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)) 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 results in something fair?
In practice, Safeway workers work for more than necessary to produce the equivalent value of their wages and benefits, and their surplus labour produces Safeway profits (surplus of value).
You would think that, given these circumstances, Empire workers would find their work situation mainly negative. Indeed, there are leftists who have argued that workers explicitly experience alienation from their work. David Graeber (2018), in Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, states (page 19):
The result was to reveal that men are far more likely to feel that their jobs are pointless (42 percent) than women do (32 percent).
Drawing upon data provided from another survey, he states:
… the survey makes abundantly clear that ( 1) more than half of working hours in American offices are spent on bullshit, and (2) the problem is getting worse.
In another survey, we read the following (Peter Fleming (2015), The Mythology of Work: How Capitalism Persists Despite Itself, page 3):
A recent survey … reveals that only about 13 per cent of the global workforce considered themselves ‘engaged’ by their jobs. The remaining 87 per cent feel deeply alienated.
Subjective Attitudes of Safeway Workers Towards Safeway and Their Working Situation
The data provided below, however, does not substantiate such views.
To obtain such data, I provided a review of my last employer–Lakeshore School Division–for the website Indeed in order to gain access to company reviews.
I have chosen Safeway Canada as representative since it has 2,135 reviews, which can provide a substantial variety of reviews without being excessive (Sobey’s has over 4,000).
Of course, the numbers above will have changed in a relatively short period of time.
Safeway Canada Workers’ Attitudes Towards Safeway and Their Working Conditions
In similar posts, I provided a more detailed quantitative breakdown of the reviews (see for example Should Not the Radical Left Take into Account the Attitude of Workers Towards Their Own Jobs? Part One, The Case of Magna International Workers), but such detail requires much more time. Unless there is a political reason for engaging in such detailed work, I will only provide the total quantitative data.
The ratings are from 5 to 1, with 5 being the most positive evaluation and 1 the worst.
Distribution of the Evaluations to the Various Ratings: Quantitative Data
#5 472
#4 682
#3 580
#2 214
#1 187
Total=2,135 [472+682+580+214+187=2,135]
I will consider #5 and #4 ratings to be positive evaluations of their work experiences with Safeway Canada. I split the #3 into two since some ratings with a #3 rating are positive evaluations while others are negative. I will consider #2 and #1 ratings to be negative evaluations.
I justify the categorisation of #5 and #4 as positive because, in addition to being quantitatively higher than #3–a nominal middle evaluation–comments made by some workers that correspond to the quantitative evaluation seem to indicate a positive evaluation. Further on, I give a couple of arbitrary examples drawn from each numbered evaluation.
Positive attitude towards working for Safeway Canada
472+682+290=1,444
1,444/2,135=68%
Negative attitude towards working for Safeway Canada
290+214+187=691
691/2,135=32%
To get a flavour for the ratings, I include immediately below a couple of comments from each rating. They are not meant to be representative since I chose them to reflect the above characterizations of the evaluations.
A Few Comments from Each Evaluative Category: Qualitative Data
#5
- Enjoyable
Customer Service Representative (Current Employee) – Cranbrook, BC – 2 February 2024
Good to work here, supporting people, job opportunities always available here, interested people can easily apply here, politeness amongst everyone is important, loved it!
Pros
Free meals occasionally
Cons
Stressful work - Fast paced
Deli Clerk (Former Employee) – Vernon, BC – 21 May 2023
Fast paced but also a fun place to work. Accepting of all disabilities and needs. Like working with a big family, and family oriented work place. Given the skills to work in industry. Would recommend.
#4
- not bad
Cashier/Customer Service (Former Employee) – Vancouver, BC – 19 June 2024
My workplace fosters a collaborative environment where creativity and innovation thrive. Regular feedback sessions ensure continuous improvement, and the management values transparency and open communication. The team dynamics are supportive, with a strong emphasis on mutual respect and inclusivity. Opportunities for growth and development are ample, supported by relevant training programs and mentorship. Overall, it’s a dynamic workplace that encourages personal and professional growth, making it an excellent place to contribute and grow - Fun place to work
Deli Department (Former Employee) – Kamloops, BC – 23 May 2024
I worked with a great team of people, my pay was good. A lot of expected overtime, a lot of kids that called in sick all the time, making staffing difficult for busy department. I loved the crew I worked with.
Pros
Team
Cons
Shift work
#3
- Okay to work
Cashier (Current Employee) – Safeway oceanpark – 15 July 2024
Customers are usually friendly and the coworkers are nice too. The pay is minimum and not much room for growth. Apart from that the store is nice and small. - meh
Cashier (Former Employee) – Alberta – 27 May 2024
good first job but lots of micromanaging managers that have been there forever and constantly complain. It was alright but not much room to grow and the pay sucks
#2
- Poor management
Deli Clerk (Former Employee) – North Vancouver, BC – 18 April 2024
Does not respect employees requests, although it’s a fast paced work environment they will put more pressure on you to work on your own if someone does not show up for their shift. - Trash workplace
Deli Clerk (Former Employee) – Edmonton, AB – 15 January 2024
Don’t expect much working for a big corporation like this. Overworked and underpaid. Employers could at least pretend to care about their staff but they barely do that. Hardly any recognition for the work you put in. Good coworkers are the only thing that made this job tolerable for me.
#1
- Toxic work environment
Baker (Former Employee) – Calgary, AB – 5 January 2024
A typical day at work would start with glazing donuts and setting up and baking frozen cookies, then we would start on making the bread doughs and the like. Dough proofing would be delayed overnight in different amounts depending on the store you were at, first baker in would be the one to star on proofing and baking the first batches and then the second baker would take over. Often times freezer and dry order reception throughout the day. Deep cleaning and the like, scraping freezer and cooler floors, etc. Management is very hit or miss, every store is different, hours may get cut, but not the production targets. Workplace culture depended very much on the store manager, it went from family like on some to unhealthy micromanaging and lots of tension. The hardest part was dealing with unrealistic Sobeys management and sales expectations. The most enjoyable part would be some coworkers.
Pros
Friendly coworkers
Cons
No job security or benefits unless you have seniority
Political Relevance
Such analysis forms only a preliminary tool for socialists interested in relating to workers working for this particular employer. It is crude quantitative and should be supplemented by a qualitative analysis of comments–a much more labour-intensive task.
Unlike Jane McAlevey’s approach, which focuses on organic leaders–leaders who form a key focus since winning their allegiance leads to other workers (or community members) being convinced to join a union or community campaign (see my review in the Links section)–the issue here is to see which workers are the most disgruntled and the least disgruntled in relation to a particular employer.
It may be thought that the more disgruntled workers would then be the focus of socialists’ efforts. That may well be, but the issue is of course more complicated than that. For example, for socialists the issue is not just being disgruntled against a particular employer but generalizing this to all employers. It would be necessary for socialists to use their judgement in determining how susceptible disgruntled workers are to such generalization. In some cases, less disgruntled workers may well be more susceptible to generalizing than more disgruntled workers. Initially, though, it does give socialists a preliminary method of approaching workers, at least in a general way. Of course, no specific workers can be identified through such an approach. That would be the responsibility of socialists engaging with specific workers or community members.
The Abolitionary 