Introduction
As I indicated in an earlier post, I attended the second session spring 2024 education conference of Socialist Action (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA-mVbaSSOc&t=4354s) since the issue of what socialists should do in unions is of prime importance- but was excluded from it after I asked a couple of questions in the chat and responded to Barry Weisleder’s response to one of my chat questions (see An Interesting Response from Barry Weisleder, Canadian Federal Secretary of Socialist Action, located in Toronto). The questions were:
- What do socialists do to show the limitations of collective bargaining and collective agreements?
- [Lisa,one of the presenters referred to public ownership at one point]: Can public ownership not involve exploitation and oppression just as much as in the private sector?
I also asked, as a supplement, whether social reformers and social democrats do not tend to idealize the public sector. Barry Weisleder, federal secetary of Socialist Action Canada, then replied that public ownership is a step forward and that workers could advance through their struggles against both public and private employers. I then replied that this sounds contradictory since the conclusion that public ownership is a step forward does not follow logically from the idea that workers in both the public and private sectors could advance their struggles in both sectors.
Barry then quickly replied that this is not a debate but a socialist conference; I had little time to read any more of what he actually wrote since he booted me off not only chat but off of zoom.
I have already looked criticially in a previous post at the second presentation in the second session by Julius Arscott (see Review of Socialist Action’s Spring Education Conference 2024: What Socialists Do in Unions, Part One). Later, I provided a critique of the first presentation by Lisa Kreut (see ???).
This post will look critically at the third presentation of the same session, by Corey David.
Who is Corey David? Accoording to the website (https://corey-david.ca/):
Municipal Socialist Alliance candidate, Corey David, is running for City Council in the Scarborough Southwest, Ward 20 by-election. Corey was the Socialist Action candidate in the January 2021 Scarborough Agincourt by-election. He championed social housing, quality public long-term care and health care, workers’ power, and police abolition.
Corey is a member of the Amalgamated Transit Workers’ Union. Previously, he worked as a machinist for 7 years, and before that he supported individuals with developmental disabilities, working as front-line staff at Community Living Toronto and the Toronto District School Board.
In 2020 Corey David campaigned to stop the for-profit housing development at the Quarry Lands, which destroyed the natural habitat and park space— another reason radical change is needed at City Hall.
Being a Militant Trade Unionist
David’s presentation does not seem to be systematic. He refers to his own past experiences and his eventual employment by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). Since he, like any new employee, was initially on probation before receiving “permanent” status, he pointed out that he did not express his socialist ideas while on probation for tactical reasons since he could have been easily fired at that time.
He refers to the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 113, the union to which he belonged, as being in some ways better (more active) than the other union to which he had earlier belonged. The ATU reps between 11,000 and 12,000 transit workers. The union reps talk as it management were the enemy, and yet they spend a lot of time with management. They do not fight for the interests of workers as they should.
In the same year as this Education Conference–in 2024–there was a possibility of a strike occurring between ATU Local 113 and the TTC. Before that time, the last freely negotiated collective agreement occurred in 2014 (with the collective agreement expiring in 2018). In 2011, though, legislation had been passed that prohibited the transit workers from going on strike. The extent to which the 2014-2018 collective agreement was freely negotiated, of course, could be questioned. In any case, the Ontario Supreme Court struck down the legislation in 2023, thereby permitting the transit workers to engage in a strike legally. Two agreements were decided by an arbitrator, one in 2018 and one in 2021.
David implies that he urged other workers to vote for a strike. Some workers were reluctant to engage in a strike since they were concerned that the strike pay would be insufficient to pay the bills. But for the most part the workers overwhelmingly supported going on strike, especially since they had been forced to accept arbitrated settlements for a number of years; 98.28% voted to go on strike over job security, wages and working conditions. David implies that he contributed to this vote by being militant–by urging other workers to go out on strike.
Being a Militant Trade-Unionist Does Not Necessarily Mean Being a Socialist
David then stated something curious for a self-proclaimed socialist: he stated that the workers deserve “fair compensation.” He also refers to “fair wages.” To be fair, he points out that transit workers’ real wages have declined due to wage increases, he implies, not keeping up with inflation. However, he still assumes that transit workers somehow can receive something that he calls “fair compensation” or fair wages.” Would any socialist say such a thing. What is “fair compensation” in the context of the class power of employers?
As I argued in another post (see Should Not the Radical Left Take into Account the Attitude of Workers Towards Their Own Jobs? Part Two, The Case of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)):
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is one of the largest employers in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (see A Short List of the Largest Employers in Toronto, Ontario, Canada), with about 2,500 employees.
It impossible to calculate the rate of exploitation of Toronto Transit Commision (TTC) workers since what they produce, although it has a revenue component linked to it by means of, for example, revenue from payment of passangers and revenue from advertising (as reported in the annual reports–see https://www.ttc.ca/transparency-and-accountability/Annual-Reports), also receives substantial subsidies for operating expenses and expenses related to the purchase of means of production (called in the annual report capital subsidies). Thus, operating revenue constituted only 37 percent of total revenue, with the other revenue originating from subsidies. Similarly, in 2022, operating revenue amounted to only 26 percent of total revenue. When the subsidies are disregarded, in both 2019 and 2022 the TTC operated at a substantial loss.
However, as I have argued elsewhere, this situation does not mean that they are not exploited and oppressed (see the public-sector section of The Money Circuit of Capital). They do not, however, produce surplus value in any calculable fashion, so a quantitative characterization of their exploitation is impossible. However, if they may well perform surplus labour and thereby indirectly permit an expansion of the production of surplus value (profit) by reducing the costs of production of workers for employers, thereby increasing surplus value (profit) for private employers. …
Even if TTC workers were not exploited, they would still be subject to the oppression of management since they are subject to the dictates of the employer–even when they are unionized; the employer-employee relation is not a democracy but a dictatorship (see for example Employers as Dictators, Part One).
Any socialist who talks about fair compensation or a fair wage in the context of the class power of employers is socialist in name only.
By falling into the cliche of “fair wages” or “fair compensation,” David, like so many radical leftists, ignores the specific power of management to direct the workforce as it sees fit, subject to the limitations of the collective agreement. Like Lisa Kreut, he does not enlighten workers about their exploited and oppressed situation. Indeed, by using the union cliche “fair compensation,” he conceals the true nature of that situation. Surely part of being a socialist is a fight ideologically against viewpoints that hide the reality of the economic, social and political situation of workers.
In 2024, there was no strike since the ATU at the last minute indicated that a framework for a new collective agreement had been achieved.
The framework for a new collective agreement modified the old, 2014-2018 collective agreement but did not change many clauses of the old collective agreement. Thus, the management rights clause still remained in effect (and even if there were no such clause in the collective agreement, arbitrators read into the collective agreement similar rights). That clause reads, in part (page 22):
Section 8. Management and Discipline
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the management, supervision and control of the TTC’s operations and the direction of the working force remains an exclusive Management function. This right of Management shall, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, include the right to plan, schedule and direct and control operations; to study or introduce new or improved methods, equipment or facilities; to maintain or establish new or improved rules and regulations covering the operation of the system; to hire, rehire, promote, demote, assign and lay off and transfer employees; and to discharge, suspend or otherwise discipline employees for just cause, provided that employees who have not completed their probationary period may be dismissed by the TTC for any reason satisfactory to the TTC, and the right of a probationary employee to grieve or otherwise challenge such dismissal shall be only as contained in Article 1, Section 22 of this Agreement, and no further. In no case shall the exercise of the above responsibilities of Management be contrary to any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Management shall acquaint the Union in advance of any important contemplated action which affects employees covered by this Agreement.
David provides no evidence that he tried to enlighten other workers about the limited nature of the collective agreement, the limited nature of the collective-bargaining process and the limited nature of the power of trade unions as legal organizations. He makes no reference to the management rights clause and its dicatorial implications for the members of ATU (and, by extension, to the working class as a whole since managerial rights constitute the rights of all employers).
David’s complaints about the ATU’s not addressing the complaints and needs of workers may or may not have to do with the limitations of unions as such legally. There are, of course, better unions and worse unions in that some unions do indeed address more or less issues that workers face and organize workers as a fighting organization rather than just maintaining a paper membership. However, there is no indication that the ATU questions the premises of the class power of employers, and the role of a socialist is to try to have workers question such premises.
Conclusion
I have now looked at all three of the presentations of members of Socialist Action on being a socialist in unions. In the case of Julius Arscott, the Strategic Action Plan that was produced with his input is hardly distinguishable from another Strategic Action Plan produced by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)–a social-reformist trade union. Corey David provides no evidence, other than perhaps being a militant by advocating that transit workers go out on strike, of engaging in socialist tactics or expressing socialist views in the ATU. Finally, Lisa Kreut’s efforts in the Hospital Employees Union (HEU) of initiating an organizing drive to oppose previous cuts in wages that affected especially lower-wage workers aimed to gain the wages lost and pay equity, although certainly desirable, were not linked to any wider issues–such as the control of workers’ lives despite the existence of a collective agreement. The issue was co-opted by the Hospital Employee Union (HEU) and became part of its wage comparability review, with no larger aim of challenging the class power of employers.
The efforts of the three presenters, in effect, failed to engage in any challenge of the class power of employers. Without such a challenge, no socialist society can arise.
The name of the organization “Socialist Action,” at least on the basis of the nature of the political interventions of the mentioned three members, should be changed to the name “Social-Democratic Action”–it fails practically to aim for a socialist society but merely for a reform of capitalism.
The Abolitionary 