Management Rights, Part Eight: Private Sector Collective Agreement, Quebec

Here is another clause from a collective agreement concerning management rights, this time from the private sector–and in a province in Canada where French is predominant officially. Undoubtedly for the social-democratic left, it expresses a situation where there is decent work–a cliché among the left, who refuse to investigate its meaning in a democratic fashion. 

It should be pointed out that the power of employers (via the power of managers) is independent of language–their power is expressed in many languages, just as their use of workers for their own ends is expressed in many languages. Differences in languages (and differences in nations), therefore, should not be something for workers which divides them since they face the same enemy in various languages and across many borders–the class of employers as dictators.

Should we not be discussing this issue thoroughly? Why are we not doing so? Why is there hostility to such discussion? 

 

From

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
2013 – 2017
FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Between the APCHQ and
the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques
(CSD-Construction), the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN-Construction),
the Conseil provincial du Québec
des métiers de la construction (International),
the Fédération des travailleurs
et travailleuses du Québec
(FTQ-Construction)
and the Syndicat Québécois
de la construction (SQC)

page 7:

2.03 Management Right The signatory representative associations recognize an employer’s right to exercise its supervisory, administration and management duties in a manner that is compatible with the provisions of this collective agreement.

 

The Contradictions of Unions: Reformist and Radical Assessments

Steven Tufts, in an article first published on Wednesday, September 11, 2019, on The Star website, and republished on the Socialist Project website on September 25 (Pension Plans Should Not Invest in Companies That Harm Working People), tries to show that, despite unions consciously disassociating themselves from investments that harm workers, their own pension fund managers may pursue policies that contradict such conscious disassociation.

(As an aside, Professor Tufts is a representative of the Toronto Airport Workers’ Council (TAWC).

He writes:

For example, Caesar’s Entertainment partnered with Oxford Properties, the real-estate investment arm of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS). Community groups lead by No Casino Toronto did successfully mobilize against these proposals, which divided council at the time. Members of CUPE Local 79 also deputed against the proposals as front-line city workers would have had to deal with the negative social and economic impacts of gambling.

At the same time, fund managers at OMERS, the pension fund of Local 79 members, deputed on the economic virtues of casino development. Here we see the contradictions of pension fund investments that negatively impact the very workers making contributions.

However, Professor Tufts does not question how unions can escape this situation. Pension funds generally have to invest money in some capitalist companies, and those companies are expected to obtain a profit. If this is the case, then there is a typical social-reformist strategy of opposing particular kinds of investments or particular kinds of employers while implicitly accepting the need for capitalist investments in general or the need for a set of employers.

In other words, does not any investment “harm workers?” Professor Tuft remains silent on how workers can escape this contradiction. Of course, there are degrees of harm of workers by employers, with some employers definitely treating workers worse than other employers. However, do not all employers harm workers by necessarily treating them as things to be used to obtain more money (private sector) or by excluding them from the right to determine the purpose of their work (public sector)? (See The Money Circuit of Capital).

Professor Tuft further states:

All workers deserve pensions, but pension funds for some built on tax cuts and privatization schemes are neither just nor sustainable over the long term. Unions continue to shield themselves against efforts to politicize pension investments, but this has a cost.

This criticism aims at the neoliberal model of “tax cuts and privatization schemes.” What if the pension schemes did not rely on such tax cuts and privatization schemes? What happens if they relied on merely–exploiting other workers in a non-neoliberal way (as they did before the emergence of neoliberalism)? Would that eliminate the contradiction between workers’ interests as workers and their interests as future retirees? I fail to see how it would.

Indeed, Professor Tuft states:

It is time for union leaders to confront pension plans that seek to transform our cities in ways that harm working people.

Surely, all pension plans, whether private or public, are riveted with the basic contradiction of being funded by workers while being used to exploit and oppress other workers. This contradiction cannot be abolished without abolishing the situation where a class of employers exploits and oppresses a class of workers called employees.

If this basic contradiction is acknowledged, then variations in levels of harm to working people can then be assessed. However, as it stands, Professor Tufts’ article implies that there can be “pension plans that seek to transform our cities in ways that” do not harm working people. Such a view is typical of reformist policies that fail to address the harm necessarily caused to workers because of the existence of a class of employers and the accompanying economic and political structure.

By not acknowledging the general harm that all employers pose for working people, Professor Tuft does not acknowledge the need to create organizations that oppose the class power of employers as such.

Obviously, some employers are better than others. However, the social-democratic left never get around to criticizing employers as such. They remind me of movies and television programs. Often, particular police officers or particular companies are presented as bad–but not the police function as such or employers as such.

Despite Professor Tuft’s evident desire to go beyond the limitations of union principles, he evidently operates within them implicitly since he assumes that workers’ pension plans can somehow magically overcome the contradiction of exploiting and oppressing workers by not following the neoliberal model–as if the capitalist relations of exploitation and oppression did not exist before the emergence of neoliberalism.

Should we not go beyond the limits of neoliberalism and challenge the economic and political power of the class of employers?

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Seven: The New Brunswick History Curriculum and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of previous posts on the Canadian history curriculum. The background to the post is provided in the first post (see A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

Since the pdf curriculum document is not searchable, I have read through the document with an eye for key words: employ, work, class, capital (and their derivates).

On page 3, under the title Inclusion of Social History, there is a reference to the theme of the working class.

On page 9, it states the following: “Role playing of characters from any era in Canadian history, including those who displayed an entrepreneurial spirit and initiative in our past, can allow the student to become aware of the legacy that is to be followed in the future.”

Page 29 perhaps provides a brief opportunity for exploring the origin of employers and employees–although it is unlikely since the focus is different: “Students should examine the motives of the following groups for western expansion: … The Hudson’s Bay Company.”

On page 35, it is mentioned how technology changed rural and urban life–without any mention of who owned and controlled the technology and who had the power to introduce it into the workplace and why.

Page 36 refers to the changing role of women since they started working in manufacturing and its impact on the family, but there is no mention of why women would work for an employer in the first place.

On page 37, the second unit begins, with the title 1896-1920: Canada’s Century Begins, with the first section entitled Immigration and Imperialism. Since the concept of imperialism is connected to capitalism and the power of the class of employers, perhaps this section will bear some fruit about why employers and employees exist. Unfortunately, on the same page it is claimed that modern society is pluralistic–not a very promising view since pluralism considers there to be no dominant classes.

On the following page, it states:  “Although industrialization allowed business and industrial growth, poverty for the lower classes and segregation of the social and ethnic classes eventually led to labour unrest.” There is hence some promise of explaining the origin and nature of the employer and employee relation, but it is hedged about by the terms “poverty” and “segregation of the social and ethnic classes.” There is no explanation of the meaning of those terms. It is unlikely that a teacher would interpret the term “poverty” as “having to work for an employer;” rather, s/he is likely to interpret the term in terms of level of income exclusively. And it is implied that if “poverty” and “segregation of the social and ethnic classes” had not occurred, there would be no labour unrest.

This limitation then probably spills over into one of the suggested activities: “Summarize, in order of importance, the changes in Canadian society due to industrialization and urbanization,. [Note the lack of reference to the dual change of the emergence of a class of employers who owned the conditions for producing our lives and the emergence of another class of employees who lacked ownership of those conditions and who consequently had to work for the class of employers.] What were the major tensions and social divisions caused by this? [The implication was that it was not the emergence of a class of employers and a class of employees which resulted in “major tensions and social divisions,” but the “neutral” process of industrialization and urbanization. Who however made the decisions to industrialize in the first place? And did not the rural population move into urban areas in search of “jobs” when they lacked the means of producing their own lives?]

On page 39, reference to imperialism is to British imperialism, and no connection is drawn between imperialism and the drive of employers to accumulate capital, which spills over national borders in one way or another. In other words, the term imperialism lacks any reference to its foundation in the class of employers and the class of employees.

On page 64, despite one of the expected outcomes being an understanding of the causes and consequences of the Great Crash of 1929 and the subsequent economic depression, there is no mention of the irrational nature of the economic system called capitalism, with a class of employers dominating a class of employees, and with a drive to obtain more and more profit as the ultimate goal, as being a cause on the corresponding pages 45-46.

In general, then, the New Brunswick history curriculum provides the student and teacher with little opportunity for understanding how and why employers and employees emerged in the first place and why students will, in all likelihood, be working for an employer (unless, of course, they aim to transform the economy into an economy controlled by workers and communities).

The document is another expression of silent indoctrination by what it omits. It is an ideological document and does students a disservice by not enabling them to understand what they experience and why they experience what they experience.

 

Working For an Employer is Dangerous for your Health, Part Four

There was an article published in the weekly Star Metro Toronto on September 4, 2019 on a health and safety issue. I will quote the article in full in order to provide the context and details of the incident:

TTC [Toronto Transit Commission] fined more than $330,000 in worker’s death

Dedes suffered major injuries after being crushed between rail car and pickup truck

Ben Spurr (Transportation Reporter)

The TTC has pleaded guilty to one count of violating workplace safety legislation in the 2017 death of track maintenance worker Tom Dedes.

‘At a hearing Tuesday in a small courtroom on the second floor of Old City Hall, prosecutors working on behalf of the Ministry of Labour agreed to drop two other charges laid against the transit agency in /Dedes’ death.

As part of its guilty plea, the TTC agreed to pay a fine of $263,000, which was the amount prosecutors recommended, Including a mandatory 25 percent victim surcharge, the total amount the transit agency will pay is $331, 250.

Each of the charges, which are non-criminal provincial offenses, carried a maximum fine of $500,000 at the time they were laid [emphasis added].

Speaking outside the courtroom, Tom’s brother George Dedes said the TTC plea, which came with a promise to improve worker safety, would give his family some closure after two years of anguish.

“It signals that they are taking steps to address the issues, which is good news,” he said.

“You want some accountability. They’ve done what they had to do. Honestly what else could they do? They can’t bring him back. They can’t change what happened.”

Dedes, an 18-year veteran who was 50 at the time of his death, suffered major injuries in an accident at the TTC’s McCowan Yard in Scarborough at around 2:18 a.m. on October 1, 2017.

According to an agreed-upon statement of facts that was read into the court record, at the time of the accident Dedes and a crew of workers were preparing to head out on a job to replace a section of track on the Scarborough RT.

They were loading equipment from a pickup truck onto a work railcar, but as they were about to leave they discovered a power pack–a hydraulic unit used in track welding–on the flatbed of the car was dead.

They moved the truck closer to the car to try to jump-start the battery pack by attaching it to the truck engine with jumper cables. The cables were too short, however, and they had to lift the pack off the flatbed using a crane.

Once it was successfully boosted, they hoisted the pack back onto the flatbed, and some of the workers got into the pickup truck.

The car operators’ view was obstructed and he couldn’t see the truck. He began advancing the car just as Dedes was walking around the back of the truck to the rear driver’s side door.

Because the rail car was on a curved track, its tail end swung out and struck Dedes, crushing him against the pickup truck. He died in the hospital eight day later.

Last September, nearly a year after his death, the ministry charged the TTC with three offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, including violating regulations that require employers to ensure adequate lighting, and to provide markings or barriers to protect workers from vehicles.

Those two charges were withdrawn Tuesday and the TTC pleaded guilty to the third charge: failing to take every reasonable precaution to protect workers–specifically failing to provide a qualified employee to monitor work car movements.

The TTC says Dedes’ death has already prompted it to improve safety at its McCowan Yard and other facilities. Among the steps the agency has taken are upgrading lighting, installing visual markings and a barrier around the railcar track area, and retraining employees.

Contrast this with the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 113: (

TTC PLEADS GUILTY TO ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT VIOLATION REGARDING THE DEATH OF ATU LOCAL 113 BROTHER TOM DEDES

ATU Local 113 President Carlos Santos today released the following statement to members regarding the TTC pleading guilty to a violation of the Ontario Ministry of Labour Occupational Health and Safety Act that resulted in the death of our Brother Tom Dedes who worked as a track maintenance worker:

“This is a sad day for our union as we continue to grieve for Tom Dedes, an ATU Local 113 member who left us too soon. Today, we offer our deepest condolences and support to Tom Dedes’ family, friends and co-workers.

The TTC today finally admitted guilt for violating the Ontario Ministry of Labour Occupational Health and Safety Act by ‘failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.’

Today’s guilty plea is further evidence the TTC must do more to protect its workers. ATU Local 113 will continue to support our union representatives on the Joint Health and Safety Committee to ensure the TTC is held accountable and exercises due diligence with implementing all recommended changes to create a safer workplace for all.

The TTC’s admission of guilt and the resulting fine is a somewhat hollow victory for Tom Dedes’ family, friends and co-workers who still deal with the tragic events and will continue to deal with the circumstances of his loss for the rest of their lives.

The TTC should have ended this case much sooner. The TTC legal team had possession of all the reports, statements and Ontario Ministry of Labour documents for a long time, but waited until attending court, one month shy of two years since the incident occurred, to admit guilt and settle. As is usual in these cases, the only people who come out ahead are the TTC’s lawyers as the TTC continues to waste taxpayers’ money fighting cases dealing with important health and safety matters.

For the TTC, the case is over when the fine is paid. However, for those left behind who continue to work day after day at the TTC, the situation is far from over.

For almost two years, family, friends, co-workers and investigators have dealt with trauma. Thoughts of that night, reliving the experience throughout the investigation and anticipating reliving the events in an unfamiliar court environment have caused many sleepless nights and stressful days for those involved. Looking at these experiences, our union’s position is that the TTC failed to provide an adequate support system for the employees who witnessed the incident and experienced trauma, which is unacceptable.

The file is closed on the case, but the work is not done. Now, we move forward. We learn from this horrible lesson and do our best to ensure another group of workers does not need to go through this experience.

We remember Tom Dedes and we continue to offer support, kindness and understanding to those still suffering. We look ahead and do our jobs safely. We have the right to work safe and come home safe. Now, more than ever, members need to have an awareness of their work environment and exercise their rights if, at any time, they do not feel safe.

ATU Local 113 will continue to fight for the TTC to provide a safer workplace and proper support for all workers who experience trauma.”

The emphasis of the union is, on the one hand, the emotional aspect of the death and, on the other, the moral irresponsibility of TTC management for ensuring safety and in providing timely closure for family and friends of those who die.

Although the union’s attitude is certainly more humane than the attitude of TTC management, it is debatable whether that is all that can be learned from this situation. To say the following by the ATU union fails to address the issue of the power of management as representative of employers:

We look ahead and do our jobs safely. We have the right to work safe and come home safe. Now, more than ever, members need to have an awareness of their work environment and exercise their rights if, at any time, they do not feel safe.

This fails to take into account the level of fear characteristic of the work environment, whether implicit or explicit. Workers know, even though they rarely explicitly admit it, that they are economically dependent on employers in general and their specific employer in particular. This economic dependence often prevents them from asserting their “rights” out of fear of retaliation by management.

Secondly, the inadequacy of worker rights with regard to safety are not even acknowledged. Yes, workers have the right to refuse to work if they consider the work to be unusually unsafe–but if their work is usually unsafe, they have no right to refuse to work. Thus, when I worked as a teacher, the educational assistants were informed that they could not refuse to work with students who were violent in one way or another because such situations formed part of their normal duties.

Thirdly, the union avoids the issue of the extent to which workers can engage in work that is unsafe no matter how many precautions they take since it is employers and their managerial representatives who generally provide the working context for work and not workers.

Fourthly, the union does not even bring up the issue of the charge(s) not being criminal charges. In the case of deaths caused by individual citizens, charges can have a criminal character. Why are they not here? Why the silence over the issue by the union?

The inadequacy of the union point of view can also be seen in an exchange I recently had the Toronto Airport Workers’ Council (TAWC) Facebook page with someone concerning safety at work. The following exchange occurred:

Jonathan Horchata Delgado Give the crews the proper training and guidance they need in an environment that encourages it. Your accident rates will plummet. You’re only as good as the training you have.

Fred Harris The view that “accidents” are caused mainly by a lack of training is a myth. Employers control many conditions over which workers have no control–and employers in the private sector are out to obtain as much profit as they can. There is hardly any wonder that people are injured or die.

As I wrote on my blog:

I submitted an article for the popular education journal Our Schools/Our Selves concerning the issue of safety (and the lack of critical thinking skills that is embodied in two Ontario curricula on Equity and Social Justice). In that article, I quote:

More than 1000 employees die every year in Canada on the job, and about 630,000 are injured every year (Bob Barnetson, 2010, The Political Economy of Workplace Injury in Canada. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press, p. 2). The same year as the publication of that work saw 554 homicides (Tina Mahonny, 2011, Homicide in Canada, 2010. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, p. 1) —the number of employee deaths at work under the power of employers was around double the number of murders.

Murders are the focus of the social media and the criminal legal system. Inquiries into murders do occur, and some are very thorough. On the other hand, inquiries into the extent to which the pursuit of profit played a major role in the death of employees (or the extent to which the undemocratic nature of work of public-sector employers) are lacking. There is an implicit assumption that such deaths are acceptable and the cost of living in the modern world. Should not those concerned with social justice query such an assumption? Is there much discussion concerning the facts? Or is there silence over such facts? Should those concerned with social justice inquire into the ‘perspectives and values’ of curriculum designers? Should they attempt to “detect bias” in such documents?

Should not the issue of the relation between the pursuit of profit and needless deaths be a focus for public discussion on an ongoing basis if social justice is to be addressed? Where is the public discussion over the issue? Indeed, if critical thinking is to lead to “issues of power and justice in society,” you would expect to see inquiry into the power of employers and the relation of that power to the death, dismemberment and injury of workers. Is there any reference to such an issue in the two curricula documents?

Are not workers in our society bought and sold on a market called the labour market? As long as they are, they are “costs” to employers, and as costs employers tend to try to reduce such costs in order to obtain more profit (in the private sector). One of the ways in which they can reduce costs is by not spending much money on equipment and training that relates to safety. The temptation will always be there as long as employers exist and have control over workers. See (The Money Circuit of Capital) for an explanation.)”

The view, furthermore, that employers can invade our privacy any way they like because other employers do it is absurd; it assumes that what employers do in the first place is somehow legitimate.

 

Jonathan Horchata Delgado Fred Harris i agree that employers shouldn’t be invading privacy, as it breeds a culture of fear and mistrust, and big gap between managers and crews, and I see your point about training, but, well trained staff with good resources, even if the equipment isn’t top tier, shouldn’t be a deciding factor in safety. Companies are always about profits, true. I still believe that if you’re trained and feel you have access to proper resources, and skill is nurtured, your accident rate would still be low. I’m speaking from experience once working for probably the worst company for equipment, and we had nearly zero accidents. Also, in the military, which many good companies utilize or training matrixes, teach the human factor is the main quotient in accidents. Not disagreeing in total with you, but I wouldn’t blanket accidents and training as a myth completely. 

Fred Harris I did not say that it was “entirely” a myth–but to view training as the deciding factor in accidents is a myth.

And the view that “if you’re trained and feel you have access to proper resources, and skill is nurtured, your accident rates would still be low.” It is not about “feeling you have access to proper resources” but actually having such resources–and that is in the hands of employers, in general–employers whose aim is profit.

Furthermore, workers are “costs” for employers, and as costs, the “cost” for probable accidents is factored into determining whether to cut corners, etc.

Of course, some training can reduce accidents–but the idea that it is mainly the fault of workers that “accidents” occur is a myth.

Further evidence of the limitations of the union point of view is the posts on the TAWC Facebook page about “accidents.” The reference is to a worker killed when a luggage vehicle flipped over, pinned and killed at the North Carolina Charlotte-Douglas International Airport:

https://www.fox46charlotte.com/news/airline-employee-killed-after-luggage-vehicle-flips-pins-worker-at-clt-airport

At the above link, it says: One of the construction workers at the airport said: “It’s like a racetrack out there.” The reporter explains: “He was referring to how busy the tarmac is out there, with so much traffic in the area.”  Why would it be like a “racetrack” out on the tarmac? Perhaps because it was more profitable for the various airlines than a less intensive workplace? One of the ways that employers can obtain more profit is by increasing the level of intensity of work.

The union, however, never mentioned this factor as a social cause in the accident. There will be an investigation, but it is highly doubtful that the accident will be linked to the pursuit of profit. Since, however, workers are mere means for obtaining more money (see The Money Circuit of Capital), it is understandable why the tarmack would be like a racetrack.

American Airlines, of course, expressed the following rhetoric:

American Airlines is deeply saddened by the death of one of our team members from Piedmont Airlines late last night. Right now our priority is caring for his family, and for our team in Charlotte.

Let us now listen to the union point of view in relation to safety in general:

TAWC commented on its Facebook page:

Sending love and solidarity from YYZ to the friends, family, and coworkers of the worker that lost his life last night in Charlotte.

Work smart, stay safe, and look out for one another. Airport workers across the globe share the same goal, we all want to go home safely at the end of the day.

On August 14, 2019, the TAWC made a comment about another “accident”–this time a Delta tug operator was killed on the job:

Work Smart!
Work Safe!

Deepest sympathies to yet another fallen airport worker

Solidarity is undoubtedly important. And working as safe as you can is also important. But how can workers really work safe (and smart) when they are subject to pressure to work as fast as possible in order to make as much profit as possible for the employers (or in order to minimize costs in the case of both public sector and private sector employers)? It remains a mystery to me.

The Toronto Airport Workers’ Council had the following on their Facebook site on August 19, 2019:

Another serious accident involving a baggage tractor. This time it’s one of our YYZ colleagues.

We wish a speedy recovery to our YYZ Coworker.

Work Smart! Work Safe!

On a Twitter linked to this, Tom Podeloc posted:

INCIDENT Baggage handler trapped under a tractor. Extricated by Toronto Pearson Fire. Transported to trauma centre by Peel Paramedics with serious injuries. Scene being held for investigation. Occurred on the ramp between T1 & T3.

Of course, union references to such incidents and the call for both solidarity and more training is important. However, is this really enough? Should not union reps recognize that the existence of a class of employers and the existence of social structures that support their existence necessarily contribute to death and injury?  Why do the unions ignore the existence of a class of employers as such, the social structures that support them and the deadly consequences that flow from their continued existence?

It is hardly enough to call for solidarity and to work safely. Workers cannot work safely as long as employers as a class exist and as long as their exist social structures that support the existence of such a class of employers.

Workers deserve better than a call for solidarity on the basis of the continued existence of a class of employers–they deserve to be treated as human beings–an impossibility under the given social structures and relations. Full solidarity demands questioning the power of employers as such. Otherwise, human carnage, injury and suffering will continue needlessly.

Working for an Employer May Be Dangerous to Your Health, Part Three

The attitude of much of the left in Toronto (and I suspect elsewhere in Canada and the world) is that working for an employer is not all that bad. Why else would the left not object to references to “decent work,” “fair contracts,” “economic justice,” and so forth by union reps, or the coupling of some needed labour-law reforms and an increase in the minimum wage in Ontario with the concept of “fairness”? (All these terms are used by the social-democratic left in Toronto.) This attitude of treating working for an employer as really not that bad is something they share with their bourgeois counterparts.

Personal crime is considered to be real crime–but corporate crime is not really treated as something as bad or worse than personal crime. This can be seen when comparing the attitude of Canadian federal legislation towards personal crime and the attitude of that government and other participants when formulating legislation that was supposed to protect workers from acts deemed criminal in nature by corporations following the Westray mine explosion. The first quotation relates to the government’s attitude towards personal crime. From Steven Bittle, Still Dying for a Living:
Shaping Corporate Criminal Liability After the Westray Mine Disaster,
doctoral dissertation, page 2:

Consistent with the cultural obsession over crime control, in the fall of 2003, the
Canadian government introduced stringent new anti-violence legislation aimed at some of Canada’s worst offenders – those with a well documented track record of reckless behaviour and responsibility for multiple and egregious acts of violence. The legislation had all-party support (Archibald, Jull and Roach 2004: 367), signalling a consensus for the need to better protect Canadians from violent crime. The government characterized its legislative initiative as a significant step towards ensuring that offenders are held criminally responsible for their harmful
behaviour (Department of Justice Canada 2003). Legal observers suggested that it represented a fundamental change, perhaps even a revolution, in assigning criminal liability (Archibald, Jull and Roach 2004: 368). News items cautioned would-be criminals that they were in for a wake-up call once the new law took effect (Mann 2004: 29). It thus appeared that if violent crime was the problem, then harsh new penalties were the solution.

The proposed legislation for corporate crime expressed a different attitude in various ways, such as the time elapsed between the Westray mine explosion (May 9, 1992) and the proposal for legislation for corporate crime, or the attitude of participants in the legislative process concerning the seriousness of the crime. From Little, page 2:

However, peeling back the veneer of the federal government’s so-called crackdown on violent crime reveals a much different story. To start, it took more than ten years to introduce a new law in response to a single and violent mass killing in which twenty-six Canadians died. What is more, despite widespread political support, many politicians – particularly those with an affinity for law-and-order policies – cautioned against going too far in terms of holding offenders
criminally responsible for their harmful acts (Bittle and Snider 2006). Also curious was that both the media and general public expressed little interest in the new law, hardly the status quo for issues of violent crime. Moreover, since its enactment, there have been only two charges laid; a particularly worrisome trend given that recent research reveals an increase in the forms of violence that the legislation was intended to address (Sharpe and Hardt 2006). In fact, it would
appear that the most significant development associated with the new legislation is the emergence of a crime (un)control industry, one in which lawyers offer for-fee courses that potential offenders can take to learn about the new law and the steps they must follow to avoid criminal responsibility (for example, see Gonzalez 2005; Guthrie 2004).

The focus on violent personal crime that leads to injury or death and the absence of such focus on corporate crime that leads to injury or death is tantamount to a form of silent indoctrination. Such silent indoctrination parallels the silent indoctrination of school history curricula, which do not permit students to come to understand how and why employers (and employees) arose (see previous posts on this silent indoctrination in schools).

This focus on violent personal crime, of course, forms the regular diet of many television programs. Similarly, the silence concerning violent corporate crimes (if indeed they are considered crimes at all) also forms the regular diet of most television programs and documentaries.

Should there not be constant discussion concerning this silent indoctrination within the labour movement? Is there? If not, why not? Or is the macro problem of around one thousand workers dying every year at work and hundreds of thousands of injuries (and diseases) not a problem that is to be immediately addressed but only “in the long run?” For those who die or who are injured, there is no “long run” since the problem which they face is immediate and due to ignoring the macro problem in the past.

Where is the left that is bringing out these issues? Or is the left busy formulating platitudes, such as “decent work,” “fairness,” “economic justice,” and so forth? ]

Does not the left have an attitude that working for an employer is really not all that bad? Do they not share the same attitude as the politicians, who did not want to go too far in the legislation? Or those on the left who talk of “decent work,” “fairness,” “economic justice,” and so forth while all the while assuming that decent work, fairness and economic justice can somehow be realized while the class power of employers still exists.

What do you think?

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Five: The Alberta, Northwest Territories and Nunavut History Curriculum and Their Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of previous posts on the Canadian history curriculum. The background to the post is provided in the first post (see A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

Given that the Nunavut and Northwest Territories history (social studies) curriculum follows the Alberta curriculum, the following is relevant for Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

The Alberta curriculum has two aspects to the grade 12 social studies curriculum: 30-1 deals with perspectives on ideology and 30-2 deals with understandings of ideologies.

Using the search term “employ,” I came up with zero relevant hits. The same result applies to the grade 11 curriculum: 20-1 is Perspectives on Nationalism and 20-2 is Understandings of Nationalism. In the grade 10 social studies curriculum, which consists of 10-1: Perspectives on Globalization and 10-2 Living in a Global World, there is only one relevant hit: students are to examine the impact of globalization on employment issues; it is unlikely that the issue of why work assumes the form of the employer-employee relation would be addressed given the lack of concern for such an issue in the other provincial curricula.

Using the search term “work” resulted only in one hit in all three curricula—in a negative sense of referring to research skills that prepare students for the world of work—without specifying the existence of employers and employees as aspects of work in modern capitalist relations. The curriculum designers evidently did not consider it necessary to explain the emergence of the employer-employee relation; they presupposed its existence—as do many intellectuals. Both the curriculum designers and many intellectuals lack critical thinking skills.

Using the search term “class,” I found, on pages 20 and 32 of 30-1 and 30-2, respectively, a reference to class in the context of exploring themes of ideology, and class system on pages 21 and 33 of 30-1 and 30-2, but that is all. Although there exists a possibility for exploring the question, such a possibility is very remote since there is no elaboration of what the inquiry would involve. It is doubtful that the authors of the curriculum even thought about it.

Using the search term “capital,” on pages 21 and 33 of 30-1 and 30-2, respectively, there is a reference to laissez-faire and welfare capitalism, but again without elaboration. On page 25 of 30-2, there is a reference to capitalism, but it is conjoined with the term democratic, and claims that they are linked to the values of individualism and liberalism. Many employees, however, have experienced the opposite: the suppression of their individuality as they are required to follow the rules and orders of representatives of employers. As for liberalism—the concentration of wealth indicated above in the Saskatchewan curriculum indicates the extent of liberalism characteristic of modern capitalist relations in Canada (and throughout the world).

These curriculum documents express more the ideology of the capitalist class than they do the working class since they are silent about the experiences of the working class as employees and, indeed, as a class in opposition to the power of the class of employers.

The left in Ontario has not remained silent about Ontario conservative premier Doug Ford’s backwards move of rejecting a revised sex-ed curriculum and the reversion to a 1998 sex-ed curriculum. However, it has remained silent over the indoctrination which occurs in the history curricula of various provinces. Why is that?

The Toronto Airport Workers’ Council (TAWC): One Step Forward and Two Steps Backward?

I thought it appropriate, on May 1, the International Workers’ Day, to refer to something that disturbed me on Facebook yesterday–a post by the Toronto Airport Workers’ Council (TAWC), which included some remarks (and a video) by Howard Eng.
Howard Eng is the CEO of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, the operator and manager of Toronto Pearson International Airport, the largest airport in Canada, with between 40,000 and 50,000 workers.

The step forward is the effort and success by some union members at the airport in creating a workers’ organization that not only cuts across union jurisdictions–the Toronto Airport Workers’ Council–but also makes efforts to create solidarity among airport workers across countries.

The two steps backward is the obvious reliance on representatives of employers in achieving goals of the TAWC. It is not that any workers’ organization should not make compromises; it is how such compromises are dealt with internally within the union membership which determines whether such compromise is worthwhile.

Compromise with management needs to be explained as a tactical necessity for the time being because of the superior forces of management at the time–and not justified in somehow expressing common interests. Workers, ultimately, do not have common interests with employers (unless it is argued that it is in the interests of workers to be treated as things for purposes which they themselves do not define. See https://theabolitionary.ca/the-money-circuit-of-capital/ for an explanation of how workers are necessarily treated as things by employers, whether in the private or public sector.)

A video featuring a short speech by him was posted, without comment, on the Facebook page for the Toronto Airport Workers’ Council (TAWC). There was also a picture of Mr. Eng and a woman (presumably a union rep) in front of a YYZ solidarity banner (YYZ is the city airport code for Toronto Pearson International Airport).


On the Facebook page, it is stated (and Mr. Eng is quoted. See https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=tawc%3A%20toronto%20airport%20workers’%20council&epa=SEARCH_BOX ):

The GTAA and the TAWC have been working to collect data on the makeup of our workforce, on best practices used by other airport when dealing with labour issues, and on safety initiatives. He was glad he “has the support of the unions, working collaboratively together to move forward, not just for our airport but for everyone that works here.”


Howard didn’t shy away from speaking about the difficult times we have had over the years and the challenges that have come. He asked for patience and to keep bringing forward our issues so that we can do our best to come up with solutions to address them.


Howard finished by stating: “change takes time. Let’s work together to make this a better place to work for the 50,000 that work here.”

This statement by Mr. Eng is typical employer rhetoric: workers and management are, ultimately, one big family, and need to cooperate to achieve a common goal. There is no comment by union representatives on the Facebook page to counter this rhetoric.

I did not make some comments concerning this.

My first comment:

Did any of the workshops aim to counter the ideology expressed by this representative of employers? Or was there silence over the issue?

There was one reply:

Alex Ceric Change does not take time. I’s a very simple decision to improve the live of the workers. And when that decision is made the change is instantaneous. What takes time is for them do drop off a cookie crumb here and a cookie crumb there until it amounts to one single improvement.

I just wrote a reply:

This is pure rhetoric. The bottom line is profit at the airport, is it not? Safety comes second to that bottom line. Or does it not?

Besides, it is not just a question of change but what kind of change but also who makes the decision to change and how that decision is made.


Mr. Eng has power to make change, within limits. Who gave him that power? Why does he have it? Does his possession of power imply that a majority of workers have less power?


And on a technical note: change always takes time. No change is “instantaneous.” Please explain how any change is instantaneous.

Finally, the issue of Mr. Eng’s rhetoric that implies that management and workers have ultimately the same interest. What is TAWC’s position on such rhetoric? What is it doing to counteract such rhetoric, if anything?

My second comment:

I wonder how it is possible to address the problem of health and safety at a workplace when those who actually do the work are treated as things at work. To address health and safety requires democratic control over the workplace–for regular workers to be the “decision makers,” including determining who are the decision makers.

To refer to “opportunity to speak with the decision makers” sounds very anti-democratic, does it not? Who is the majority at the airport? The workers or the decision makers? If the decision makers are a minority and are not elected–would we not call that a dictatorship at the political level? And yet there is utter silence about the issue when it comes to the economic level.

Why is that?

No one has responded.

I have little doubt that many union reps at the airport, if they read this, will consider the writer to be a “condescending prick” (as CUPE local 3902 rep Wayne Dealy once called me). (CUPE is the Canadian Union of Public Employees). I would prefer to be called that and bring up issues which they hide rather than not be called that and remain silent over such issues. We workers deserve far more than the rhetoric of Howard Eng.

Do we workers not deserve more than such rhetoric?

Working for an Employer May Be Dangerous to Your Health, Part Two

I thought it appropriate to post on the issue of safety and health in relation to working for an employer at this time since, in Canada, April 28 is the National Day of Mourning, or Workers’ Mourning Day, for workers killed, injured or suffering illnesses due to workplace hazards.

Why do unions and the social-reformist left often speak in terms of “fairness,” “fair contracts,” “economic justice,” and so forth in the light of persistent deaths and injuries on the job? They do so in order to justify their own practices–which generally do not question the legitimacy of the power of employers as a class. By limiting their reference to fairness and justice to social relations within the present class system, they serve as ideologues or representatives of employers (even if they do not intend to do so).

Part of the purpose of this blog is to undermine the typical ways of thinking about social problems among the social-democratic or reformist left and among radicals. It is highly unlikely that any major social changes will arise without a frontal attack on the ways of thinking of many workers (including trade unionists). Tom Dwyer points out the importance of this task (Life and Death at Work: Industrial Accidents as a Case of Socially Produced Error, pages 97-98:)

The effect whereby notions of truth and justice are undermined is of great importance for sociology, anthropology, and, as we shall see in highly complex industries, for cognitive psychology. This effect potentially modifies cultural systems, contributes to the destruction of one set of visions of truth and justice and their replacement through the building up of another

Of course, notions of truth and justice are not just undermined and others arise through ideological means. Struggles against those in power play an important part, but the explicit critique of old, upper-class expressions of truth and justice and their replacement by new, working-class expressions of truth and justice are important in unifying the direction of diverse movements consciously and in modifying the direction of each separate struggle accordingly.

The idealization of unions by the left, on the other hand, play into the hands of employers since union representatives and rank-and-file members often diverge over key concerns related to, for example, safety and health issues (from Dwyer,  pages 78-79):

Studies from the United States illustrate this last point: the union movement perceives safety in a manner different to workers. A survey by the Upjohn Institute found that unionized automobile and steel workers placed job health and safety issues at the top of their priorities. This was corroborated by a national survey which found that in “the labor standards areas . . . most important to workers were those relating principally to the general area of health and safety.”121 In the Upjohn study, union leaders and top management “both thought money rather than working conditions deserved the most attention, an almost exact reversal of the blue collar attitudes.”122 In other words, these are clear
signs that the union movement integrates an uneasy tension between political demands, which are perceived, built, and responded to by its leadership, and social demands from its base.

It is high time the radical left begin to openly criticize the persistent ideological conceptions of truth and justice characteristic of trade union reps. If they do not, they form part of the problem rather than a solution to the social problems characteristic of capitalism and the domination of our lives by the class of employers.

A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part Four: The Saskatchewan History Curriculum and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees

This post is a continuation of  previous posts on the Canadian history curriculum.   The background to the post is provided in that first post (see A Case of Silent Indoctrination, Part One: The Manitoba History Curricula and Its Lack of History of Employers and Employees).

But just a reminder: the research question is: Does the history curriculum (or, if not available, the social-studies curriculum) provide much of an opportunity for students to understand how and why employers (and employees arose)?

The Saskatchewan curriculum, though it is a pdf file, is non-searchable. Consequently, I contacted Brent Toles, of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, and he recommended that I look at units two and five of the Canadian Studies 30—History curriculum, unit two of Canadian Studies 30—Social Studies curriculum and unit two of Social Studies 10. Since my methodology involves limiting the research, as far as possible, to the Canadian history curriculum, I limited the non-computer-assisted search to units two and five of Canadian Studies 30. I did not, of course, use the regular search terms, but scanned the two units for any relevant material that may answer the research question.

The history curriculum contains little that would enable students to answer the question. In the nineteenth century, much of it has to do with the realization of a Canadian nation, with references to the national economy without any qualification as to the kind of economy it was becoming. There is reference to interest groups on page 206, and the possibility of variable influence, but the kinds of interest groups (such as employers or trade unions) is left unspecified. On page 210, it is noted that York, Montreal and Hamilton grew as people migrated there in search of employment in expanding manufacturing. No reference to exploring why workers would migrate (the conditions for workers to migrate in the sense referred to is the deprivation of independent means for survival—the formation of a working class) and no reference to exploring the conditions for such an expansion of employment (the creation of a capitalist class, or a class that owns and controls the means or conditions for workers to work and hence to live) is provided.

An implicit naturalistic explanation of why workers worked for employers is offered when it is noted that the Canadian Shield did not offer the best land for immigrants to become farmers. Some French Canadians migrated to New England to work in factories or worked in lumber camps or sawmills in the Canadian Shield. Who owned the camps and mills and why they did so is not even mentioned. Of course, a teacher who already knows the history of employer-employees relations could guide students, but since there is general silence about the historical origins of either class, it is unlikely that teachers would bring up the subject.

On page 212, there is a reference to Montreal’s business elite, but there is no explanation or reference for further exploration of how and why they became the business elite. On page 217, there is a reference to economic interests possibly forming the basis for influence, but what “economic interests” means is left vague. On page 219, there is a reference to regional economic power as the basis for national influence, and there is a reference to the government awarding contracts that influence levels of employment and industries in a region, but the issue of why and how employers emerged in Canada is simply ignored. On page 232, there is a reference to one of the problems with open voting, where a voter had to declare their preference openly: employers often coerced employees into voting according to their will. Why employers were not subject to the democratic process of control by workers is not even hinted at. (Indeed, if employers were subject to direct democratic control by workers they would not be employers at all since employers by their very nature have to have dictatorial powers over employees—the curriculum writers implicitly avoid having students explore the specific kind of property relations characteristic of the employer-employee relation and the power employers have over employees.)

On page 234, it is noted that the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association was created in 1874 and that employers employed 180,000 employees in manufacturing in 1871. There is no suggestion of exploring why and how they could employee so many workers. It is noted that they form a powerful “interest group,” but a group that daily controls the lives of 180,000 workers is more than just a powerful interest group. It is a class that dictates, on a daily basis, the lives of the working class for the purpose of ever accumulating profit.

On page 242, the authors note that powerful manufacturing interests supported national railway development and that the CPR was granted, among other things, exemption from paying taxes. There is a possibility for some exploration of how and why such powerful manufacturing interests arose, but it is hardly a focal point. The same could be said of the reasons why the CPR would be granted exemption from paying taxes. On page 244, the authors express their fetishistic understanding of the nature of capitalist relations by claiming that, in order to build the railway, it was necessary to import both capital and labour. Since capital is a relation and not a thing (a relation where a minority monopolize the conditions of livelihood of the majority who work for them through exchange relations), the importation of capital and labour could not occur unless workers had no means by which to live in the first place and another class had a monopoly of such means. No mention of this condition is provided.

On page 256, there is reference to the fact that most women worked as domestics but, by 1900, half of the textile workers were women. There is no distinction made between the two, but domestic workers, despite being hired, worked for someone at a personal level whereas work in a capitalist factory involves working for an impersonal employer whose primary concern is obtaining as much profit as possible in the shortest period of time and at the lowest possible cost. The authors of the curriculum do not even make such a vital distinction and thereby do not enable students to gain a proper understanding of the dynamics of a capitalist system and why the present life system is the way it is. They do a disservice to students.

On page 506, which is in unit 5, there is reference to the attempt to gain equal opportunity. Such a view does not address how equality of opportunity is to be obtained in the context of the power of employers to decide, to a large extent, where, when and how much to invest and accumulate. Equality of opportunity among workers means, essentially, leveling the playing field so that they can compete against each other as far as possible on equal terms—it does not mean the elimination of competition among workers, which has been one of the aims of unions historically.

On page 528, there is a reference to the waves of immigrants and the fear that this posed among workers that they would face stiff competition from such workers on the labour market. However, there is no indication that students should explore why a labour market existed in the first place—its conditions and consequences for the kind of life Canadians and immigrants were living. It is noted that the government was unconcerned about the concerns of workers about competition from other workers, but there is little exploration of why workers would be so concerned about such competition in the first place—their economic dependence on employers for a wage for their own existence and the maintenance of a standard of living that could be undercut through such competition.

On page 540, the neo-conservative (and neoliberal) ideology of the marketplace is mentioned, and yet the implications of a market economy—that workers become commodities and have to sell their capacity to work on the market since they do not own the conditions for producing other kinds of commodities—is not mentioned at all. On page 548, there is reference to increasing unemployment in the late 1970s and early 1980s—but who makes the decision to increase unemployment, why they make such decisions and why they have a monopoly over such decision-making power is not explored.

On page 550, it is noted that multinational corporations have increasingly been able to influence the decisions made by governments, but students earlier had not been given the opportunity to explore how and why national corporations earlier had influenced government; students would not unlikely perceive the continuity between present conditions and past conditions.

Reference on page 550 that globalization has led to restrictions on national sovereignty also are not linked to the daily restrictions on sovereignty of workers who are under the control of unelected employers, directly through supervisors or technology or indirectly through the power to hire and fire. It is also noted on the same page that multinational corporations have more than double the wealth of all nations’ central bank monetary reserves and international monetary institutions together, and yet it is not mentioned that the combined wealth of Bill Gates ($46.5 billion) and Warren Buffet ($44 billion), in 2005, added up to 90.5 billion, not much less than the wealth of 40 percent (120 million) of the total U.S. population, or $95 billion (Chrysia Freeland, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else (2012), p. 15). Nor does it mention that the Thompson family is one of the richest Canadian families (around $20 billion).

The Saskatchewan history curriculum, therefore, does not provide much of an opportunity for having students understand how and why employers and employees arose. The so-called left are oblivious to the problem. Is this not a problem?

A Short List of the Largest Private Employers in Canada, According to Profit

When belonging to a leftist organization called the Toronto Labour Committee (Ontario, Canada), I worked on, in a minor position, on some statistics related to financial campaign contributions for the Toronto elections. Not being satisfied with this, I proposed that we start trying to develop a class analysis of Toronto. I indicated, though, that I did not really know how to proceed in this. I sent this over the Toronto Labour Committee listserve, and the response was–silence.

The following attempts to fill in, however inadequately, that silence, but it is first addressed at the more macro level of Canada. If others can provide more detailed and sophisticated statistics and analysis (while still being comprehensible), I would much appreciate it.

I thought it would be useful to provide a list of some of the largest employers in Canada. The reason why I think such a list would be useful is that it provides at least a somewhat concrete picture of who really has power in society and the extent of that power. Since most social-reformist leftists ignore the power of employers and assume such power as a background which they can assume as constant, they then consider their reformist policies without calling into question such power.

I hope to expand this later. If readers have better statistics or statistics from other countries, feel free to comment. This should be a work in progress.

It is taken from the following: Largest Employers in Canada.

Obviously, there are different ways of considering what the largest employers are. At least four come to mind readily: according to profit, according to employment, according to total revenue (sales) and according to assets.

The following list of the 20 largest employers lists them according to (after-tax) profit for the year 2012. The profit is indicated in parentheses. The currency is Canadian.

Statistics relating profit to wages and salaries would be useful to obtain an approximate rate of exploitation (undoubtedly Marxian economists would find the procedure faulty, but if so, then they should provide their own correctives at a concrete level–unless they are only academics who are little concerned with bridging the gap between theory and the more empirical experiences of the working class).

1. The Royal Bank of Canada ($7 billion 442 million)
2. The Bank of Nova Scotia ($6 billion 466 million)
3. Toronto Dominion Bank ($6 billion 367 million)
4. The Bank of Montreal ($4 billion 115 million)
5. Imperial Oil ($3 billion 766 million)
6. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) ($3 billion 339 million)
7. Suncore Energy ($2  billion 783 million)
8. BCE ($2 billion 763 million)
9. Canadian National Railway ($2 billion 680 million)
10. Potash ($2 billion 79 million)
11.Thomson Reuters Corp. ($2 billion 70 million)
12. Husky Energy ($2 billion 22 million)
13. Great-West Life Co. ($1 billion 930 million)
14. Canadian Natural Resources ($1 billion 882 million)
15. First Quantum Minerals ($1 billion 772 million)
16. Goldcorp Inc. ($1 billion 749 million)
17. Manulife Financial ($1 billion 736 million)
18. Rogers Communications ($1 billion 730 million)
19. Sunlife Insurance ($1 billion 674 million)
20. Power Financial ($1 billion 626 million)

If you sum up the amount of profit for these 20 companies, you get $59 billion 991 million.

To get an idea of the meaning of this amount of profit, we can do several calculations:

  1. Divide this amount by the total population of Canada: 37, 177, 886 (estimated, March 10, 2019, but for calculating convenience let us say 40,000,000): That is $1500 extra per year more for every person in Canada.
  2. Divide this amount by the total employed in February 2019: 18 million 991 thousand workers (for convenience, 19 million): An extra $3157 per year for every employed worker.
  3. The redistribution of all profits according to the whole population or to those who are employed would probably not have a great impact on many individuals and families; of course, a more refined analysis, with incomes lower than the average being affected relatively more than others with incomes greater than the average.
  4. This can be seen if we divide this amount by the total unemployed in the last three months of 2018: 1 million 30 thousand (for convenience, 1 million): That is $59,991 per year more for every unemployed Canadian.
  5. If we combine #3 and #4, and divide by the sum of the two (unemployed, 1 million, + employed, 19 million, or 20 million in total): $3000 per year extra for every unemployed or employed worker. Again, as an average, the redistribution would not have a major impact if spread out equally among all employed and unemployed workers. Its impact would be all the greater the more the redistribution would be limited to those who are unemployed or to those with limited incomes.However, this does not mean that such redistribution of profits would merely involve propping up the level of income of unemployed and those with limited incomes. As I have argued in several other posts on the nature of socialism, a substantial portion of profits would be allocated to an investment fund that would be distributed nationally, regionally and locally to various communities. Some profits might be allocated initially to provide for those who are unable to work, but with the elimination of a market for workers and the abolition of a class of employers, workers would increasingly not need to resort to such supplementary funds.
  6. It should be remembered that the above statistics are limited only to the 20 largest private companies. There are many other companies with profits, and if all those profits were included in the calculation, the impact on total income would likely be much larger and more significant than it is here indicated.

The position of the social-reformist left, of course, is for some kind of redistribution of such profits–but not to the complete redistribution of such profits. For them, there is such a thing as “fair share of the profits” via changed tax policies.

For example, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) published a work by Toby Sanger entitled Fair Shares: How Banks, Brokers and the Financial Industry Can Pay Fairer Taxes (page 23) (The title itself shows confusion since something that is fairer need not be fair):

As other Canadians are paying for the costs of the financial crisis, Canada’s under-taxed financial industry should also be required to pay its fair share.

Again, at the provincial level, in Ontario on the Ontario New Democratic Party (NDP) website (https://www.ontariondp.ca/platform)-a social-reformist political party linked to unions).

Protect middle class families by having the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations pay their fair share

At the federal level, the NDP, in its pamphlet POLICY OF THE New Democratic Party of Canada  EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2018, page 3 reads:

Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes.

According to the money circuit of capital, though, there is no such thing as a fair share since it is inherently unfair to treat human beings as means for obtaining more money (see The Money Circuit of Capital).

What do you think of the profits of such companies? What is the source of such profits? What should be done with them? Should workers control them? Communities at various geographical levels?

Is there such a thing as a fair share under existing economic conditions of a class of employers controlling our selves.