Introduction
I was surprised to read an article from Kiri Vadivelu (December 31, 2024, “No to Legislative Strikebreaking! Victory to Postal Workers!”) in The Red Review, a “Socialist Action journal.” [Socialist Action is an allegedly socialist organization]. Vadivelu was a candidate for mayor in the last municipal elections in Toronto–and I voted for him since he seemed to express some of the views that I share.
Idealization of the Social-Democratic or Social-Reformist Slogan “Fair Wages”
For this reason, I was surprised to read his article on the recent postal workers strike in Canada by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and the federal government’s forcing the workers back to work. I certainly agree that such a move by the federal government should be criticized, but this hardly justifies Vadivelu’s implicit idealization of his use of the social-democratic slogan “fair wages”:
By weakening CUPW, Ettinger [CEO of Canada Post] is attacking the very bench mark CUPW sets for fair wages in the entire delivery sector. This is nothing short of class warfare….
Postal workers set the benchmark for fair wages and rights in this industry. Attacking our union isn’t just an attack on CUPW—it’s an attack on every logistics worker in Canada.
Historically, CUPW was a militant union. As a consequence of Vadivelu’s use of this trade-union cliche, I decided to see whether CUPW used this social-reformist or social-democratic cliche as well (or its equivalent, such as “fair compensation”). Indeed, it does (see ???). Such cliches need to be persistently criticized by socialists.
This post continues by providing evidence that, like CUPW, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL) uses the cliche “fair wages” without justifying such a cliche or even specifying what it means by the cliche.
What are fair wages? 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 wages in any way compensate for the loss of freedom of Unifor workers (and workers who work for employers in general)?
My argument from another post also applies to the issue of “fair wages”:
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 SFL: Fair Wages
- From June 20, 2024 (https://www.facebook.com/SKFedLabour/posts/under-scott-moe-wages-have-dropped-by-565-its-time-to-fight-for-fair-wages-and-s/898314422310982/):
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour’s Post
Under Scott Moe, wages have dropped by 5.65%. It’s time to fight for fair wages and support our communities. Send a letter today. - From 2023 (https://sfl.sk.ca/campaigns):
The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour encourages and promotes various campaigns recognizing a need for advocacy from workers and their unions. These campaigns give our member unions & their leadership an opportunity to take a stand and show their support. At the SFL, we’re fighting for all workers. We’re fighting for things like:
- Fair wages so that no worker lives in poverty, [so, fair wages means “not living in poverty.” Of course, if you define being in poverty having to work for an employer (see ???), then there is no such thing as a fair wage under such conditions. The definition of “poverty” obviously has to do with level of income (a typical social-reformist or social-democratic definition of poverty and lack of poverty) and not the economic dependence of workers on employers. Compare the following:
From Geoffrey Kay, The Economic Theory of the Working Class. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1979, pages 2-3:
“The absolute poverty of the working class is visibly present in the conditions of work where everything the worker touches belongs to another. The means of production he uses, that is, the machines, buildings, materials, etc. all belong to the employer, who also owns the output. The only thing the worker owns is his capacity to work, and his economic welfare depends upon his being able to sell this at the best possible price. In the course of this [the twentieth) century, particularly during the period of the post-war boom, this price measured in terms of the commodities it can purchase, the real wage, has risen to unprecedented heights, at least in the advanced industrial countries of the west.
As a result of this and the maintenance of full or near full employment backed up by social welfare, the working class has enjoyed greater prosperity and security than at any time in history. In these circumstances it appears strange to talk of absolute poverty, and the old socialist claim that the working class has nothing to lose but its chains seems and archaic relic of the past when the working class did indeed live in dire poverty. Yet the fact remains that the working class today has no greater economic autonomy than its forbears a hundred years ago.
Consider the situation of a contemporary worker who loses his job. This has happened to several million workers in the industrialized world since the long boom faltered in 1973 not counting the other millions of young people who have never found jobs at all. Many of the workers who have recently suffered unemployment for the first time, earned wages that allowed them to enjoy all the trappings of ‘affluency’—decent housing, cars, television, refrigerators and so on. But the loss of the job puts the standard of living immediately in jeopardy, particularly if unemployment lasts for anything more than a few weeks. In the unlikely event of a working class family having a large private income, its initial response to unemployment is to cut back spending on marginal items, and attempt to maintain its lifestyle intact in the hope that new work will be found shortly. As the period of unemployment lengthens, it begins to eat into savings, but this does not hold out much hope.
Working class savings are notoriously low, and often take the form of insurance policies that can only be cashed in at a considerable loss. If the family decides to sell of its consumer durables, apart from reducing its standard of living immediately, it will invariably make further losses as second-hand prices are always far below prices for new articles. Moreover, many working class purchases are financial by hire purchase where the interest element makes the actual price higher than the market price, and the family that sells off relatively new times bought in this way often finds that, far from releasing cash, it lands itself in further debt. Working class affluence is entirely dependent upon wages: remove these—i.e., unemployment—and the absolute poverty of its social situation shows through very quickly. In the nineteenth century unemployment meant immediate destitution; the modern worker is clearly much better off than his forbears—for him and his family poverty is a few weeks, maybe even a few months away.”
- Fair wages so that no worker lives in poverty, [so, fair wages means “not living in poverty.” Of course, if you define being in poverty having to work for an employer (see ???), then there is no such thing as a fair wage under such conditions. The definition of “poverty” obviously has to do with level of income (a typical social-reformist or social-democratic definition of poverty and lack of poverty) and not the economic dependence of workers on employers. Compare the following:
- From January 3, 2023 (https://www.facebook.com/SKFedLabour/posts/its-past-time-for-workers-to-see-fair-wage-increases-and-have-access-to-stable-b/582822370526857/):
It’s past time for workers to see fair wage increases and have access to stable benefits. Companies are seeing record profits, time to pass some of the revenue on to those who do the work.
- From May 3, 2022 (https://sfl.sk.ca/news/media-releases/minimum-wage-increases-a-victory-for-working-people-in-saskatchewan-sfl):
Minimum wage increases a victory for working people in Saskatchewan: SFL
Johb [president of the SFL] also said that the labour movement will keep pushing for increases to the minimum wage to ensure that all workers in the province receive a living wage.
“People shouldn’t have to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet. The SFL and the provincial labour movement will keep fighting for fair wages for all workers that keep pace with the rising cost of living.”
- From June 30, 2021 (https://sfl.sk.ca/news/saskatchewan-needs-affordable-accessible-childcare):
Saskatchewan needs affordable, accessible childcare
We need to make sure that Scott Moe hears that any plan for child care must be accessible and affordable. It also needs to make sure child care workers can make a fair wage.
- From June 2, 2021 (https://www.facebook.com/SKFedLabour/posts/call-us-crazy-but-we-think-people-deserve-a-quality-life-raising-the-minimum-wag/1656624877864524/):
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour’s Post
We’re hard-working people and all deserve to have fair wages. - From March 4, 2021 (https://sfl.sk.ca/news/media-releases/labour-protect-worker-rights-not-gig-employers):
Labour: Protect worker rights, not gig employers
The Canadian Labour Congress and provincial and territorial federations of labour find Uber’s self serving proposal for Flexible Work+ dangerous, undermining and offensive to the rights and dignity of workers. …
Governments have a responsibility to make work better – to provide workers with security, safety and fair pay.
- From October 19, 2020 (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2815699238661147):
When we launched our Putting Workers First campaign in the spring, we were thinking forward to this election and what an opportunity it is to elect people who will stand up for the issues that matter to our members. We believe strongly that it’s working people who built this province, and yet too many elected officials don’t support things like safe workplaces, fair wages, and strong services – and that’s just not right.
- From Feburary 4, 2019 (https://sfl.sk.ca/news/media-releases/020419ff15):
In January over 1,000 people joined the SFL Fight for 15
“The Fight for 15 is about ensuring fair pay and decent work for all. In Saskatchewan, huge corporations are paying low wages – not small businesses,” said Johb [president of the SFL], “over half of all minimum wage earners in this province work for businesses with 100 or more employees. Corporations like Tim Horton’s, McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, Lowes, Cineplex, and Loblaws can afford to pay their workers a fair wage,” she added.
- From January 30, 2015 (no url since it is a pdf document, and I use Chrome extension to download pdf files):
SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH WORKING FAMILIES, RESTORES BALANCE TO LABOUR RELATIONS
Today working people across the country have won a major victory at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), as it ruled on a case brought forward by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL) and its affiliates. The historic and precedent-setting decision has determined that the Saskatchewan Party government’s Public Service Essential Service Act (Bill 5) is unconstitutional because it violates workers’ rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This decision marks another step forward in enshrining workers’ rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The implications of the SCC’s ruling are far-reaching. Any government across Canada that moves to limit the rights of working people will find themselves vulnerable to legal challenges. The right to strike will ensure workers can not only form unions and collectively bargain for fair wages and working conditions, but it will help address the fact that workers need a critical counterbalance to the power wielded by employers.Conclusion
The SFL uses the cliche “fair wages” or its equivalent, likely to justify its unions attempting to “sell” certain collective-bargaining proposals to union members as well as to criticize the employer’s intransigence if the employer refuses to meet the bargaining team’s target wage. Nowhere does the SFL specify what it means by “fair wages” (although it does imply that it is equivalent to a “living wage” or a wage above the poverty line) or how fair wages can be fair in the context of the domination of the class power of employers.
The Abolitionary 