Letter to the People's Voice editor on Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders

Your June 16-30, 2017 issue editorial “New Hope for Working People” says Jeremy Corbyn “campaigned as a socialist” and notes the “continuing popularity of Bernie Sanders”.

I went through the Labour Party Manifesto for 2017 and found, though it has many good things, it has no socialism. They promised to reverse some privatization. The investment bank they proposed is based on private capital. They promised promoting cooperatives and worker buy-outs, which are short of ownership by the working class as a class i.e. through the state. Even the Communist Party of Britain, which I think would be in the thick of it, has not said Corbyn campaigned as a socialist.

As for Bernie Sanders' popularity, alas Donald Trump enjoys continuing popularity as well. Bernie Sanders has endorsed Donald Trump's policy on North Korea, has demonized the elected leaders of Venezuela and Syria as “vicious dictators”, and uses air quotes when mentioning Israel's human rights violations. I think air quotes should be reserved for any suggestion that politicians like these are “socialist”.

Closer to home, the BC Greens have already told the BC NDP that card-check union recognition will “never happen”.

The myth that “working people reject the concept of socialism”, which your editorial said was “decisively disproven” by the Labour Party's performance (though it was a loss) in the UK election, and perhaps also by the NDP-Green Party accord (though the Liberals won the most votes), was disproved much earlier by veritable socialist revolutions in Russia and Cuba, among other places, and the popular support they enjoy. However, though it was disproved long ago, I think we will find this myth still has some life left, despite Corbyn, Sanders, and the BC NDP-Green accord.

Saleh Waziruddin (St. Catharines, Ontario)

Statistics Canada report released on IWD breaks down the gender pay and employment gaps

(Slightly edited from version published in the People’s Voice newspaper, March 17, 2017)

by Saleh Waziruddin

Even if women worked the same exact same jobs as men 77% of the gender pay gap would persist, according “Women and Paid Work”, a Statistics Canada report by Melissa Moyser (PhD) published on International Women's Day as part of the series “Women in Canada: A Gender-Based Statistical Report”. Women are paid 87 cents for every dollar men are per hour, but this would be as much as 97 cents if women were paid the same as men within the same occupation (not just industry). In manual labour jobs men are paid $7.24/hour more than women, but even in predominantly female jobs women were paid $4.60/hour less than men for the same work.

The report recognizes that most of the gender pay gap is from patriarchy directly, much more than from the gendering of labour under capitalism into predominantly male and female jobs and industries. This is also confirmed by a 2015 study by Tammy Schirle which showed the gender pay gap between provinces was mostly due to the gap within the same occupation in each province rather than the difference between provinces in industries and jobs. A 1996 study by Michael Kidd and Michael Shannon showed the more detailed the job classification that statistics are taken from, the greater the gender pay gap, and concluded that the gap cannot be explained by the individual or personal characteristics of the workers themselves, suggesting it is due to patriarchy directly.

The Statistics Canada report also shows that in large cities high day-care costs are directly associated with large gender employment gaps. Toronto, with the highest day-care costs in the country, had a gender employment gap of 12.6%, and in Vancouver (one of the highest day-care costs) it was 11.8%. The effect is more obvious when we consider Quebec has a low-cost publicly subsidized childcare program, with Montreal having an employment gap of 6.4%. In Ottawa the employment gap is 7.3% but across the river into Quebec the gap is only 2.6% in Gatineau.

Women had twice as many absences from work as men because of family responsibilities. Over the working life this adds up to an average of one and a half years away from work for women but only eights months for men.

Three quarters of part-time workers are women, and one quarter of them said caring for children was the reason they are not full-time vs only 3.3% for men. The proportion of workers working more than one job within each gender has flipped from 1976. Workers with multiple jobs went down by almost half from 2.8% to 1.7% for men but for women this almost doubled from 2.8% to 4.5%. Almost 40% of women with multiple jobs have a part-time as their main job, but this is less than 20% for men.

The report also shows the importance of access to post-secondary education for women's equality. The gap in employment rate between having a high-school vs a college degree was 13.8% for women but just 8% for men.

Statistics Canada found the gendering of jobs is uneven and has gotten worse since 1976. Women who work are twice as concentrated into predominantly female jobs than men are into predominantly male jobs since then. The proportion of women who are in predominantly female jobs has almost doubled since 1976 from 35% to 60%. In computer science jobs the proportion of women has actually decreased since 1987.

Women are more likely to work in jobs with the lowest 20% of wages than in jobs with the top 20% of wages, and the opposite is true for men. Even when they require the same skill level (education and training), predominantly male jobs have higher wages than predominantly female jobs, often by more than $4/hour.

The report recognizes that men in predominantly female jobs are often in a “glass escalator” (“glass” because it is “invisible”, “escalator” because men are promoted even when they don't want to be). This phenomenon was first recognized in a 1992 paper by Christine Williams, and subsequent research shows this mainly applies to white men, heterosexual or not openly queer, with citizenship. At the other end of the spectrum the statistics for women's wages don't reflect the lower wages due to inequality of women of colour, openly queer women, transwomen, and non-citizen women. This means the inequality within predominantly female jobs is even higher than it already appears from statistics which look at gender without further breaking down by race, sexuality, citizenship, or transgender status.

A 1996 comparison of the gender pay gap between Canada and Australia in another paper by Michael Kidd and Michael Shannon showed that the gap was much narrower in Australia, both due to a stronger labour movement but also because equity was driven pro-actively rather than case-by-case as in Canada. At the time of the study 80% of Australian workers' wages were covered by decisions made by federal tribunals.

A 1994 study by Denise Doiron and Craig Riddell found that the decrease in the gender unionization gap in Canada between 1981 and 1988 prevented an increase in the gender pay gap for all workers (with or without a union) of 7 percent. This means without the increased unionization of women relative to men, all women would have a gender pay gap that would have been worse in 1988 (and possibly now) than it was back in the early 1980s.

Having another go at the gender pay equity gap (Contribution to Discussion Bulletin 4 for 29th Communist Party Ontario Provincial Convention)

by Saleh Waziruddin of the Eric Blair Club (St. Catharines)

Alas when I wrote my convention contribution (discussion bulletin #2) comment about how point #29 of the Draft Political Resolution focuses on capitalism's gendering of labour without looking at the effect of patriarchy itself on the gender pay gap within the same occupation, I was only writing from a purely theoretical understanding about how pre-capitalist patriarchy persists (semi-)independently of capitalism, confirmed by anecdotes from a club member about her experiences as a woman working in an auto plant. Little did I know how the actual story is much more interesting, until on International Women's Day this month Statistics Canada released “Women and Paid Work”, a report which is part of the series “Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report”.

The report found that the gender pay gap within the same job (not industry but job) is a much bigger factor on the gender pay gap than the gendering of the labour force into industries and jobs which are predominantly male and female. Specifically achieving gender parity within the the same occupations, without changing the gendering of labour (not that we shouldn't change this!), would raise women's wages by $2.87 per hour on average and the gender pay gap would close to 97 cents on the dollar. The gender pay gap is larger within traditionally predominantly female occupations, as well as white collar and non-traditionally female retail and service occupations, at about $4/hour.

I did some further reading and it turns out this is not a new finding. A 2015 study by Tammy Schirle showed the gender pay gap between provinces was mostly due to the gap within the same occupation in each province, rather than the difference between provinces in the distribution of industries and jobs. A 1996 study by Michael Kidd and Michael Shannon showed that the more detailed the job classification that statistics are taken from, the greater the gender pay gap, and concluded that the gap cannot be explained by the individual or personal characteristics of the workers themselves, suggesting it is due to patriarchy directly. This is confirmed by many other studies.

The report also shows that the gendering of employment has gotten worse for predominantly female occupations. The proportion of women who are in predominantly female jobs has almost doubled since 1976 from 35% to 60%. Also the proportion of women working multiple jobs has almost doubled since 1976, and almost 40% of women with multiple jobs have a part-time as their main job whereas this is less than 20% for men.

Also, Ontario is one of three provinces without employment equity legislation which covers the gender employment gap, different from but related to the gender pay gap. In 1995 under Mike Harris the Employment Equity Act of 1993 was repealed under the argument by minister Marilyn Mushinski that "legislated hiring and promotion quotas are unnecessary, unfair and ineffective", an “alternative fact” debunked by real facts. We should bring back employment equity legislation as a step towards equality.

So the amendment I proposed earlier was too modest, I propose instead an amendment each to the Draft Political Resolution and to the People's Alternative Program for Ontario.

Amendment for the Draft Political Resolution (replacing my earlier submission on Point #29):

WHEREAS analysis in the 2017 Statistics Report “Women and Paid Work”, as well as many previous studies, show that the gender pay gap within occupations has a vastly greater effect on the overall gender pay gap than the gendering of labour under capitalism; and

WHEREAS the proportion of women going into predominantly female jobs and proportion of women working multiple jobs has almost doubled since 1976; and

WHEREAS almost 40% of women with multiple jobs rely on a part-time job as their main job whereas this is less than 20% for men with multiple jobs

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following be inserted into the Draft Political Resolution Point #30 before the last sentence: “Studies including Statistics Canada's 2017 report “Women and Paid Work” show the gender pay gap within the same occupation has the largest effect on the overall gender pay gap. The proportion of women who are in predominantly female jobs has almost doubled since 1976 from 35% to 60%, and the proportion of women working multiple jobs has also doubled since 1976. Almost 40% of women with multiple jobs rely on a part-time as their main job whereas this is less than 20% for men with multiple jobs. ”

and for the Draft People's Alternative for Ontario:

WHEREAS Ontario is one of three provinces without Employment Equity Legislation since the 1995 repeal under the Mike Harris Government of the 1993 Employment Equity Act

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT under the “Raise Wages and Incomes” section of the People's Alternative Program for Ontario a new point be added after the 3rd point: “re-enact Employment Equity legislation for equal consideration for and treatment in employment, requiring positive and supportive measures by employers and enforcement by an Employment Equity Commission and an Employment Equity Tribunal.”

Feedback on Political Resolution and People's Alternative Program (Contribution to Discussion Bulletin 4 for 29th Communist Party Ontario Provincial Convention)

Saleh Waziruddin, Eric Blair Club (St. Catharines)

Trump's appeal to white supremacy and patriarchy, not (just) class

#4 talks about the frustration and desperation of the working class from deep economic crisis looking for radical change as voting in part (one particular part perhaps!) for Trump. However the support for Trump wasn't on (just?) a (however misguided) class basis, but on a basis of white supremacy and patriarchy. It wasn't class solutions that these voters were fooled by, but the coded promise of the “restoration” of white, patriarchal supremacy. America being “great” again isn't about it being a workers paradise once more (never was), but about going back to more white supremacist and patriarchal days. To look just at class motivations and (broken) class promises is to miss this key phenomena.

Yes we need both class & anti-racist (and anti-patriarchy) foci but this is not about sectarianism

#7 classifies class-only focus as left-sectarian and an anti-racist, democratic focus as also a mistake. Certainly both foci are needed. But this doesn't mean a class-only approach is sectarian, which is about taking pride not in what is common with the movement but what sets your group apart from the movement i.e. its unique shibboleths, as Marx wrote to Schweitzer about the Lassallians in 1868. Left sectarians might only focus on class but so could racists or sexists. It's good to point out both mistakes but incorrect, and unnecessary, to call the first mistake sectarianism.

Ultimately you can only curb corporate power by taking it over

#9 talks about “curbing” corporate power. The election platform mentions plant closure legislation and ending pro-business trade deals. However corporate power can only be truly curbed by taking over its source of power, its wealth and means of production. Regulating it with laws is worthy but not a sustainable curb and we should point this out. As the US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler said in his anti-war book “War is a Racket”, the people must conscript the corporations and capital before the corporations and capital conscript the people (into the next world war).

PEGIDA

#15 mentions “Pegida” but this is an acronym (PEGIDA) for Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamicisation of The Occident/West), worth spelling out.

Sometimes there isn't a peaceful solution

#16 calls for working for a “peaceful, negotiated” way out of the Syrian crisis while respecting Syrian sovereignty. This is an unnecessary and moralistic point. It's not possible to have a peaceful solution or to negotiate with many of the terrorists fighting the government, so why put forward the idea that it is so?

If we respect Syria's sovereignty we have to recognize the government's not only right, but exercise of not just its right but its duty for self-defense and protection of its people from armed attacks. This means the way out is definitely not going to be peaceful, although of course the less violence the better – but this means ending foreign support for terrorism in Syria, not a peaceful solution.

As President Bashar Al-Assad said in his famous speech soon after the crisis began:

“If we chose the political solution and sought it since the first days, this doesn’t mean not to defend ourselves, and if we chose the political solution since the first days, this means that we need a partner that is capable and willing to move in a political process and enter a dialogue process on the national (sic) level. If we chose the political solution and didn’t see a partner, that doesn’t mean that we didn’t desire one; this means that we didn’t see a partner during the past stage. To be clearer, for instance, if someone wants to get married and sought a partner but didn’t find someone to desire and accept them, this doesn’t mean that he doesn’t want to be married. ...

When you’re under attack and you defend yourself, it’s called self-defense, not choosing a security (military - SW) solution. We didn’t choose war; war was imposed on Syria, and when the state defends the people and we defend ourselves, no reasonable person can call that choosing a security (military - SW) solution. Defending the homeland is a duty and an only choice, and accepting the political solution doesn’t mean not defending ourselves, but also accepting the political solutions means the existence of a political partner that is capable of dialogue and willing to engage in it.

….But who do we conduct dialogue with? With those who are carrying extremist thinking, and do not believe except in blood, killing and terrorism?

Should we conduct dialogue with gangs that receive their orders from abroad and follow a foreigner who orders them to reject dialogue because it believes that dialogue will foil his schemes aiming at weakening and undermining Syria?”

As Plekhanov wrote in his reply to Bernstein in 1901 “Cant Against Kant”, it's one thing to say violence is barbaric and backwards, but it's another thing to then use this to say someone attacked in the street must therefore fight with their hands tied behind their back. We should just drop this language of a “peaceful, negotiated” way out as it suggests a dangerous fantasy. This is confirmed by the multiple violations of cease-fires by the terrorists.

This language is from a Central Committee statement. We can use another quote from the same statement without this problem. In any case, whether it's from the Central Committee or from St. Peter sending it down directly from the Pearly Gates, if it's in the political resolution it's legitimate to discuss.

Getting the economy correct

#27 says in the last quarter of 2015 household spending was responsible for all of Ontario's economic growth. In 2015 all my troubles seemed so far away, but alas it's 2017 and they are definitely here to stay. While household spending might be the biggest component of all spending, the latest data is from the 3rd quarter of 2016 and shows exports lead household spending as a contribution to Ontario economic growth by 0.8% to 0.5% (as components of total GDP growth).

#24 says the economy is driven by the services producing sector, but goods-producing industries had real GDP growth equal to that of service industries at 0.5% for the 3rd quarter of 2016 for Ontario.

Sexism in pay gap for the same work

#29 talks about women disproportionately making up low-wage workers but this isn't just because women are relegated to lower-paid work or unaccessible childcare or unpaid housework. Raises and salary negotiations happen under patriarchy and so women get paid substantially less for the (exact!) same work as men. One of my club members was working side-by-side with a man doing the same work on the same machine in an auto plant but getting substantially less per hour purely because she is a woman in a patriarchal society.

Good rhetoric on carbon tax-type solutions

I really like #74's point about how pro-business environmental solutions make the working class pay twice, once for the loss of environment and then from their “pocketbook”.

Feedback on Election Program

It's good that mental health care is back in our program, it has been our policy but has been left out of several election platforms. The addition of a food and nutritional program is also great.

Our past platforms have been short on culture before even though this issue gets high visibility thanks to the political work of cultural workers, so it's good we have a fuller culture program.

We have an item on protecting farmland but likewise there should be an item under “Climate and Environmental Justice” to protect wetlands and greenbelts from real estate developers, especially under “off-setting” schemes as is threatened in Niagara Falls at Thundering Waters under a $1 billion real estate development project being opposed with mass protests.

For “Equality and Rights for All” we have strict civilian control and oversight but we also need special (i.e. dedicated) prosecutors to prosecute the police, as is demanded in the USA, because regular Crown attorneys have a working relationship with the police that creates a conflict of interest in prosecuting police.

Under “Democratic Electoral Reform” not just permanent residents but all denizens (a more inclusive term than “residents”, for example seasonal foreign workers are legally non-residents though they may have been cumulatively working in Canada longer than some of us have been alive), including foreign students, workers without immigration status, temporary and seasonal foreign workers should get the right to vote. After all they are effected by municipal policies.

Foreigners are allowed to vote in certain US municipalities in general (no restrictions), why should Ontario Communists lag behind? And why just municipal elections, we should demand they be allowed to vote in provincial elections. In one Swiss canton (made up 23% of foreigners) even stateless people who have been living there for five years are allowed to vote at the canton-level and not just vote but run for municipal office! What are we so afraid of in Ontario anyway?!