Introduction
A local leader of a leftist workers’ organization here in Toronto stated that I kept repeating the same thing. Yes, I did–the issue is the same throughout. How can the so-called left refer to a fair wage or a decent job even in unionized settings when workers are used as things by employers for their own purposes? I will continue to post fairly regularly management clauses from various collective agreements to show that, unless otherwise specified in the collective agreement, workers are subject to the power of employers as a class. They may work for a particular employer, but the economic power which employers wield as a class means that the power which obliges any particular worker to seek to work for an employer is the “general employer” or the employer as a class. In general, no worker is obliged to work for a particular employer, but every worker is obliged to work for an employer due to economic blackmail. Practically, employers say: ‘If you do not like it here, there is the door.’
Unions modify the general power of a particular employer–but they do not challenge that power.
Collective Agreement Between Cape St. George Ambulance Service and Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees
From Collective Agreement Between Cape St. George Ambulance Service and Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees, Effective: 2023-2025, pages 12-13:
ARTICLE 9 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
9.01 The Employer retains full and exclusive authority for the management of their business in all respects, subject to the provisions of this Agreement.
9.02 Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed that it is the exclusive function of the Employer:
(a) to determine qualifications, skills, abilities and competency of employees;
(b) to determine the required number of employees;
(c) to hire, select, assign work, monitor and manage productivity, promote, demote, lay-off, discipline and discharge employees for just cause and to increase or decrease the working force from time to time;
(d) to determine productivity levels, job competence, materials to be used, design of products, facilities and equipment required, to prescribe tools, methods of performing work and the location of equipment, the location work is to occur, and the scheduling of work; and
(e) to establish, implement, monitor and enforce policies, procedures, rules and regulations to be observed by Employees, and noncompliance may involve discipline, including dismissal.
Since this clause forms part of the collective agreement, does the collective agreement express a fair contract? Does it express the freedom of workers? Does it express a democratic way of life or its opposite? Does it express economic democracy? Economic dictatorship? Economic justice?
There is nothing fair about collective agreements which concentrate most decision-making power over our work lives in the hands of the representatives of employers called managers. Collective agreements limit such power–but they do not by any means challenge such power. Indeed, they do not challenge the dicatorship of employers (see for example Employers as Dictators, Part One). Nor do they challenge the use of human beings as things that are treated as means for other people’s ends. Nor do they challenge the exploitation of workers (see for example The Rate of Exploitation of Workers at Magna International Inc., One of the Largest Private Employers in Toronto, Part One).
The law certainly does not prevent the exploitation and oppression of workers; workers may be able to use the law to limit their exploitation and oppression–but not abolish them.
What do you think? Do collective bargaining and collective agreements express something fair? Do they enable workers to be treated as human beings and not as things? Do union members really discuss such issues to any great extent? Do so-called leftists or “progressives?” Why or why not?
Does this clause express a situation where workers experience “decent work?” But let us listen to a supposed radical leftist here in Toronto, Sam Gindin:
Debating whether a job is ‘decent‘ is a misdirection. Everyone pretty much knows, I think, that workers are exploited even if their conditions improve. ‘Decent jobs’ or a ‘good contract’ are a way of expressing defensive gains when radical gains are not even on the table and we – those on this exchange – don’t have the capacity tooter [to offer?] them any kind of alternative jobs. So criticizing them for this hardly seems an effective way to move them to your view – which is not to say you shouldn’t raise it but that you shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t suddenly act on your point.
I doubt that Gindin has tried to raise the issue of managerial rights in any way–like most union reps. He simply, like most of the so-called radical left, ignores the issue, or rather thinks that raising such an issue has minimal importance or is a “misdirection.” Such is the nature of the “radical left” these days.
The Abolitionary 