Re: The Teixeira thesis

[Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

There's a vast jurisprudence which has been built up by labour boards to
define who is a worker. The definition has arisen out of the innumerable
conflicts between labour and management concerning which employees are
eligible for inclusion in a new bargaining unit in union certification
cases. While the regulations and interpretations of labour boards are,
as you would expect, generally biased towards management, the criteria
which have been laid down in this area are, to my mind, pretty
reasonable - at least in Ontario and at the federal level, the two
jurisdictions I'm familiar with as a former union organizer. The US
state and NLRB definitions may be more restrictive, although I'd be
surprised if radically so. I'd be interested, if anyone knows.

In Ontario and federally, you're considered an "employee" and eligible
to join a union if you're in a position of so-called "economic
dependence" on an employer. It's a definition, incidentally, which also
extends to so-called "independent contractors" who are appearing in
workplaces with increasing frequency as employers lay off employees to
save on their pay and benefits and then hire them back "on contract" at
lower rates shortly afterwards.

The litmus tests used to separate workers from managers include, for
example, whether the individuals participate in senior management
meetings, have the power to grant pay increases, have substantial
involvement in the budget process, and have the power to hire and fire
and otherwise discipline employees. So Michael Eisner and most of his
associates and immediate subordinates wouldn't qualify.

There is, as we know, a grey intermediate area in large hierarchical
organizations with a highly developed division of labour and many job
classifications, where you'll find many supervisory employees who have
the authority to schedule vacations and grant other forms of time off,
assign work to other employees, change work procedures, and hear
grievances, among other things. My experience is that professional
supervisory personnel are usually included in the bargaining unit and
blue-collar supervisors more commonly are allowed to form their own
unit. You'll also find some segregated skilled trades units in some
workplaces, but all of the above are considered "working class" for
purposes of union eligibility. This is a more expansive definition than
the one offered by Michael Zweig below, which Michael Hoover cites, who
sees professionals and supervisory personnel as part of the "middle
class", an unfortunate but not uncommon error.

I think the definition arrived at by labour boards is a pretty good
approximation of real life. The different working class strata they
identify all have in common that they are dependent for their income on
pay and benefits rather than stock options and dividends. You'll recall
Marx's class structure differentiated between landlords dependent on
rent, capitalists dependent on profits, and workers dependent on wages.
I still think the distinction is a valid one, and that it is how you
earn your income which most affects your social behaviour. In the case
of workers, it powerfully and for obvious reasons affects their
attitudes to unions, collective bargaining, and social programs, and to
the political parties they consider sympathetic to these institutions.
Obviously, the strength of this commitment will generally vary in
relation to status and income, but I've found it to be present to some
degree or other in the case of all the different categories of workers -
professional, technical, service, and industrial - that I've worked with
or represented at one time or another.

Marv Gandall


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Hoover" <hooverm@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Teixeira thesis


>>> dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx 03/05/04 3:14 PM >>>
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>Why classify workers into "working class" and "not working class"?
>You meant to say "classify people into 'working class' and 'not
>working class'"?

Even Michael Eisner is a worker, at least for a little while longer.
So are bond traders.
Doug
<<<<<>>>>>

oh brother...

i've become bit partial to michael zweig's analysis (even as i continue
to dislike use of term 'middle class' as well as think he overstates its
size)...   michael hoover

The Capitalist Class (2%)
The main power capitalists have is over the people who work for them.
Based on this, and the money the business brings to the capitalist,
power at work extends into power in the broader society.

(snip)

The Middle Class (36%)
The middle class is in the middle of the capitalist class on the one
side and the working class on the other. The middle class is composed of
three broad sections: small business owners; professionals; and
managerial and supervisory personnel.
(snip)

The Working Class (62%)
Working class people have relatively little control over the pace and
content of their work and they don't supervise other workers - they're
not a boss. As with every social class, the working class is diverse. It
includes skilled workers and unskilled, blue collar, white collar, and
pink collar workers, those in services as well as manufacturing. The
working class is women and men, white, black, Hispanic, people of all
nationalities and religions.

One way to count the working class is to count people in the different
occupations that fit the definition. Based on U.S. Department of Labor
reports, in 1996 sixty two percent of the labor force was in the working
class. We need to distinguish occupations by the degree of authority and
independence in them. For example, a sales worker cashier is in the
working class, while a sales worker stock broker is in the middle class.