Submissive labor

Russian entrepreneurs need workers who lack the ability to resist employers

Petr Bizyukov The innovations in the field of labor relations proposed by big business have nothing to do with either the liberation of labor or its modernization. But they can lead to an increase in social tension to critical limits.

Mikhail Prokhorov , who headed the Right Cause party at the end of June, never tires of explaining his position on changing the Labor Code. Apparently, because this novice politician is known to the general public precisely for his radical views on labor relations.

Yesterday in his blog , Prokhorov tried to soften his most scandalous proposal - the transition to a 60-hour work week. According to the businessman’s explanations, we are talking exclusively “about the opportunity to work 60 hours a week - at will, if the employee and the employer both want this and do not want unnecessary difficulties with registration.” Those who want to consume more need to work more, the oligarch explained, that is, “white-collar workers” who count on “foreign cars, Japanese TVs and vacations abroad,” and not miners, metallurgists and workers at the machine.

True, when at a recent meeting with trade unions a businessman once again complained about the outdatedness of labor legislation and regretted that the Labor Code was not a social elevator, it was by no means only about white-collar workers who wanted to “consume the most.” But about everyone, including unpretentious metallurgists and workers at the machine.

Rules for using the elevator

If an extravagant, apolitical oligarch can afford eccentric statements, then politics (if he really needs the support of voters), apparently, first needs to understand some basic things. First of all, what

The Labor Code is not a social elevator, not because it is outdated, but because it cannot be! The code is, roughly speaking, the rules for using the social elevator, but not the elevator itself.

And elevators are social institutions in all their diversity, in the totality of social practices, traditions, and, of course, laws. They are elevated to the upper social floors or, conversely, lowered from there by such institutions as the education system, family, etc. In each society, a working career depends on the characteristics that have developed there; in some cases, the career is more successful the more you know and can do, and in others, how loyal you are to the authorities or close to elite clans. To understand how the social elevator mechanism works, you need to try to find out what kind of mechanism it is, what are the features of the social environment in which it should work.

Temporary employee

At first glance, the reasons and goals of reform stated on behalf of the business community look attractive. There are a lot of words about the need to change modern labor relations, about abandoning excessive regulation, about labor flexibility, about taking into account new realities. It is emphasized that all this is necessary to make labor freer, to facilitate the creation of jobs and finally allow disabled people, young people and older workers to find work.

This is how the picture appears: a free worker plans his working career, calculates how much time he will give to the next employer, is hired for a year or two, is not afraid of work - he plows without counting the time, moves freely from one place to another, does not hold on to his functionality. And most importantly, he is not afraid of being fired: if he is fired in one place, he will be hired in another! And the employer, not shackled by outdated standards, quickly forms teams of performers, provides everyone with work, conditions, and equipment. And, as a result, an explosion in business efficiency, an unprecedented increase in labor productivity with inevitable prosperity and harmony. But studying the practice of labor relations makes us doubt the chosen means, and most importantly, the declared goals.

Just look at the use of fixed-term employment contracts, the grounds for concluding which are proposed to be expanded. What does this give to the employer? Much. First of all, there is no need to build long-term relationships with the employee, or think about his career or salary. This is a technocratic approach: take it, use it and put it aside - nothing personal. And also

A fixed-term employment contract almost completely excludes the employee’s ability to demand anything and defend himself in any way.

Life shows that conscripts are very easy to manipulate. They can be forced to do other work, they can be forced to agree to overtime and additional work, and this work cannot always be paid at an increased rate, or it can simply not be paid. All this is achieved due to the fact that submission becomes a condition for renewing the contract for a new term. And, of course, a “temporary” employee will not join the trade union. What is the point of him, for example, thinking about a collective agreement for next year? After all, in a year he may no longer be here. It’s more important not to unite with your colleagues, but to suck up to your bosses so that the contract is extended for another year.

And if you add a cheap and simple dismissal procedure to a fixed-term contract, which is so often discussed in the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs , then the situation will generally sparkle with bright colors. After all, no one says that a fixed-term contract should remain unchanged. Firstly, it is proposed to give the employer the right to unilaterally change the terms of the contract, and secondly, it is possible to fire without waiting for the end of the term. By the way, the author has already seen a copy of a fixed-term employment contract with an open (!) date. This will make it possible not only to use the employee as you want, but also to “educate” him. For example, under the threat of dismissal, transfer to a low-skilled and low-paid job someone who “does not like” the bosses, who finds out why they are paid less than promised, or not paid at all. There are plenty of examples of such massacres today. Workers who created a trade union are suddenly transferred from different brigades to one, and, as luck would have it, this particular brigade never has profitable work, but only cheap and dirty work. Or a teacher, outraged that her classroom is cold and damp, finds out that now she will have no extra pay or opportunities for part-time work.

Work more for the same money

Let’s return to Prokhorov’s initiative on “the possibility of increasing the working week to 60 hours for one employer with the consent of the employee,” clearing it of lyrics about greedy and lazy “white collar” workers. On the one hand, there is a touching desire to let the employee earn more, but on the other hand, there are a lot of questions. The first of them is – isn’t it possible for an employee to earn enough within the normal working hours? Secondly, won’t a surge in voluntary desires to work more be provoked by a reduction in wages, when a normal salary can only be earned in 60 hours? Third - given the lack of opportunities for resistance among workers on a fixed-term contract, what will prevent you from making “voluntary work” of 60 hours a condition for the extension of employment? There are still questions, but

and it’s clear: the main point of this proposal is not to let you earn money, but to force you to work more for the same, or even less, money.

To the initiatives of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs it is necessary to add a proposal to simplify the procedures for attracting migrants. After all, what are they good for? They are not only uncomplaining and cheap - they work to lower standards. Working next to them, our workers, willy-nilly, have to put up with a gradual decrease in wages, worsening working conditions, and overtime. At the same time, migrants, it turns out, are quite successful in solving their problems - they support their families in their homeland, pumping back hundreds of millions of dollars received here. In 2010, more than $2 billion was transferred to Tajikistan, and more than $1.5 billion to Kyrgyzstan, and these are not just transfers - these are salaries received in Russia. Those of them who have worked here hard and humiliatingly for several years manage to solve a considerable part of their family’s problems and even save money for a house or their own business. There are others who have made it their goal to stay here. For them, like all migrants, the main thing is to get hooked; their task is not well-being, but rooting, creating a future for their children. In general, they solve their problems. But they do this at the cost of the collapse of the system of social and labor standards in Russia. More precisely, it is not migrants who do this—those who hire them do it.

Russian business is ready to create places and accept only those who are ready to receive little, who will not demand more than they will give them.

And at the same time, an idea arises: if migrants can work in such conditions, then why can’t our own people be put in the same conditions? It turns out that it is possible! For several years now, agency labor schemes have been used in the country, the main idea of which is that one person hires a person and another person provides the work. At the same time, the first one has no problems with working hours, overtime, or working conditions: he has no work at all. And the second one has all this, but he is not bound by any obligations with the employees, because they formally have no relation to the jobs where they actually work. So the “migrant worker effect” - silent, cheap - can be obtained with “domestic material”.

Age discrimination

Well, how can we forget the idea of raising the retirement age? Demographers have long calculated that even a one-time increase in this age to 65 years will not bring relief to the Pension Fund. Yes, the numbers look impressive: about 10 million people will not retire, but will remain among the workers - this will save about 150 billion rubles a year from the Pension Fund. But with a deficit of approximately 1 trillion rubles, the involvement of such a number of pensioners will not solve much of anything. But how the situation in labor relations will change! After all, an army of several million people will appear, ready to work under any conditions, just not to lose their jobs. Today

Research shows that the most common type of labor discrimination is age discrimination. Workers of pre-retirement age are considered a “socially weak category”. They are ready for almost any deterioration, “just to work until retirement.”

Such workers perform the same role as migrant workers and lower social and labor standards. And as their numbers increase, so will the pressure on standards, or what remains of them.

One-sided liberalism

Putting together the consequences of the most persistent initiatives promoted by the business community, several conclusions are drawn. Firstly, the proposed transformations in the field of labor relations have nothing to do with either the liberation of labor or its modernization. They will definitely lead to an increase in social tension, and to critical limits. Secondly,

If we consider the real consequences of the proposed initiatives, it becomes clear that their main goal is the formation of labor relations that exclude the possibility of workers to assert and protect their interests.

Russian business needs not free, but submissive labor, the bearers of which are workers who are deprived of the ability to resist employers.

A worker on a fixed-term contract, who can easily be fired, and whose terms of employment can be unilaterally renegotiated, is no different from a powerless migrant, agency worker and elderly person clinging to any opportunity to stay at work. Moreover, the latter at least have some hope. One hopes to live until retirement and throw off this yoke, the other cherishes the hope of transforming their labor disenfranchisement into social capital in their homeland or gaining a foothold in a more prosperous country, creating a future for their children.

And for those who are not migrants or people of pre-retirement age, no one promises anything. Usually, infringement of rights must be compensated for in some way. For example, the expansion of fixed-term contracts should be accompanied by the fact that such a contract cannot be terminated before its expiration date, or, as is customary in business, offer a “golden parachute” tens of times higher than the monthly salary. No one is saying that a simplified dismissal procedure should be accompanied by the creation of a strict and effective mechanism for prosecution for discrimination. Finally, there is no talk of liberalizing the legislation on strikes, allowing workers to actually participate in the process of shaping the terms of employment, payment, etc. I wonder why there are no such proposals? Apparently because

Russian business understands liberalism only in its own favor. What brings him money is liberal, modern, market-based. What brings money to employees. – this is a damned legacy of the Soviet past and a shackle for business.

Submissive labor and a powerless worker is a lot of money! Submissive labor means the abolition of wage increases, the refusal of compensation for harmful working conditions and the removal of the need to create safe conditions. This is an opportunity for an unlimited increase in working hours without corresponding payment. This is an uncontrollable rise in prices, which you won’t need to look back on; these are the same enormous profits for the sake of which you can reduce millions of your fellow citizens to the state of semi-slaves.

Today, workers still retain the institutional ability to somehow resist this. You can be outraged by unfair dismissal, you can demand payment of arrears of wages and even their indexation. You can appeal to the court, to the authorities, to public opinion. But if we implement the proposed program for eliminating the rights of an employee, allowing him to defend his interests, then there will be no more violations of the rights of employees due to the lack of the rights themselves. The elevator will work, only it will carry from top to bottom, and not vice versa.

The author is a leading specialist in socio-economic programs of the Center for Social and Labor Rights.

Submissive work - Gazeta.Ru