Obstruct Organizing

A third set of means resorted to by employers to preserve the secondary labour market is the direct suppression of attempts on the part of secondary workers to organize into unions, and where they have already done so, to extend their power.47 The struggles of workers from the surplus population in Canada have historically been, and continue to be, bitter and explosive owing to the harsh resistance of employers. For example, this has been repeatedly demonstrated in labour struggles waged by groups like hospital workers and farm workers, and particularly in union fights where women and immigrant workers are involved. In these cases, employers and the capitalist state resort to "bare knuckles" tactics of a type they seldom use with workers in the primary labour market.48

We have pointed out that because of the substantial benefits accruing to employers from the continued existence of the secondary labour market, including those of direct economic gain and enhanced social control over the working class, they engage in several categories of practices to maintain it. These include erection of barriers to entry Into the primary labour market, resistance to government measures to improve the lot of secondary workers, and suppression of attempts to unionize secondary workers. This evidence suggests that Gonick and Gordon are correct in their belief that employers have powerful vested interests in a divided labour market, and are to a large degree responsible for its perpetuation.

However, employers are not alone in benefitting from the plight of secondary workers. Gonick points out that workers in the primary labour market also gain from it. What are the nature of their gains, how do these workers help to perpetuate the divided labour market, and how significant are these practices in comparison with those of employers?

Primary Workers and the Dual Labour Market

Clearly, unions had little or no independent role in the creation of the divided labour market. Leo Johnson argues that the main factor in the rise of such a market was "the movements of capital". 49 Dramatic increases in the capital intensity of industries like mining, steel, auto and chemicals in the 1950's gave rise to the need for a stable, permanent labour force. Employers were willing to cooperate with unions to achieve this because owing to their monopoly position, they could pass the costs of higher wages on to customers in the form of higher prices for their products. As a result, strong unions were able to develop in monopoly sector industries in the 1940's and 1950's. In contrast, employers in labour-intensive competitive sector industries like retail trade, personal services and non-durable manufacturing could not unilaterally raise prices. Consequently they resisted unionization through such expedients as going out of business, moving to low-wage regions, or threatening to do so. Thus, while the uneven development of labour unions across economic sectors was the immediate cause of the formation of a dual labour market, the underlying cause was a factor which was beyond the control of unions--the movements of capital. 50