The dictatorship of unions

Example: the Giguère case

Etienne Giguère was night watchman in a hospital in Quebec city. This hospital is under the directions of nuns. But it is the National Syndicates which make the law. Every employee is obliged to enroll in the union there, as is the case in so many other institutions.

Etienne Giguère, however, happens to be a Crediter of the Union of Electors. Like a true patriot and citizen, he cherishes his liberty above all other things. Furthermore, being a Crediter, he is well aware to what point the unions have gone in demanding Socialist legislation from the governments; how the unions themselves exercise a complete dictatorship over their members; how they have become, in effect, in our country, as in many others, the chief instrument for the dissemination of Communist propaganda.

Etienne Giguère, therefore, refused to become a member of the union of employees in this hospital. The secretary of the union let Etienne know that if he didn't sign the union card he would be fired. The Sister, who was the comptroller of the hospital, also warned Etienne that he would have to give in and enroll because of the contract which the hospital had with the union. If he did not, then, in spite of his good conduct, in spite of the excellent service he gave the hospital, something which the Sisters warmly acknowledged, he would be let out.

Giguère deeply appreciated the good treatment he received at the hands of the nuns. Giguère declared that never had he had employers who treated him with such Christian charity, who gave him such an example of Christian deportment, and that consequently he did not see why he should become part of an organization (the union) which, in the final analysis, was warring against the nuns and was doing everything in its powers to achieve a position where it would be the givers of orders in the hospital instead of the religious directors.

Giguère persisted in his refusal to sign the union membership card. An official of the union's police force advised Giguère that if he refused to sign by November 9th (1960) he would be thrown out of his job. To which Giguère replied: "Sir, I do not oblige you to subscribe to Vers Demain (the French-language paper of the Union of Electors) even though it is Vers Demain which has been chiefly responsible for Family allowances, old-age pensions, and has many times blocked efforts to have taxes increased. So I don't see any reason why you should try to force me to enter the union."

On November 9, Giguère received his notice from the Sisters along with a message: We shall be happy to hire you back again once you have decided to become a member of the union.

The right of non-association

The unions claim the right of individuals to belong to their organizations. They seem to forget, however, the right of individuals to non-association with them, or the right of members to leave the unions. The unions have the right to exist. That much is true. But why do they arrogate to themselves powers not due to a free organization? By so doing they subjugate the individual to the power of the union. This is directly opposed to a Christian and humane philosophy. The group, even the State, exists to serve the individual, and its rights cannot be superior to those of the individual.

It is claimed that the unions work in the field of politics and gain great benefits for their members. For the sake of argument, let us admit so much. But the Union of Electors also works in the field of politics and is earning remarkable benefits and correcting numerous evils, not only for its members but for everyone without exception in the land. Why, then, should it not be obligatory upon everyone to belong to the Union of Electors, since it has been responsible for winning pensions for everyone and claims a dividend for each and every citizen? If such an obligation were ever realized, the leaders of the unions would be the first to raise a great hue and cry against this dictatorship of the Union of Electors. Why, then, do the unions claim exclusive rights which other organizations would not even dare dream of?

The answer of the union chiefs will certainly be: If the workers are not obliged to become members of our unions, our associations would be incapable of effecting anything in relation to employers.

We answer the union leaders thus: Gentlemen, if the workers do not freely join your organizations it is because you, the leaders of unions, are little concerned about getting results for the workers, being mainly concerned with your salaries as union officials, in spite of your incompetence and lack of success. If the workers are to be sufficiently impressed to join the unions it is up to you to make them appreciate your work and your guidance. The free union is the only guarantee that you will devote all your energy to serving the worker, because the fact that the individual worker can leave the union when he wants, without prejudice to his right to earn a living, is the only sanction he holds over you. If you are the great democrats which you claim to be, then you must certainly understand that the worker is free to belong or not to belong to your group, as he so desires.

The obligatory union should be declared illegal and outlawed in Canada, for we are living in a country that is supposed to be a democracy with freedom for all. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights, which was voted in Ottawa last August 4 - is it not a guarantee of the sovereign rights of the individual; does it not condemn implicitly the tyranny which unions exercise over their members?

Discrimination

There is much talk these days about discrimination. And our unions are among the first to fulminate against the racial discrimination in the United States and South Africa.

But have these same unions considered the discrimination which they exercise against the workers? If a worker refuses to become а member of the union, the union deprives him of his living... This is discrimination against the worker. It is every bit as diabolical as that shown against the negro in the States and South Africa in the universities of the southern States. Because a white student refuses to sit in the same classroom as a negro student, you the leaders of the unions, admonish them and council them to live and get along with the negros in the spirit of justice and charity. But the same principles of charity and justice do not seem to apply to your unions when it comes to allowing a non-union worker to work alongside a union member. One set of rules for others, another set of rules for the unions it would seem.

Communists

But these curious and violent methods of the union leaders do not in the least surprise us. Have they not become the most important organs of Communist propaganda?

It is a fact that workers' unions everywhere have become the greatest aids to the spread of Communist ideas. Their leaders have for long, now, been trumpeting the ideas of Moscow, no doubt with considerable encouragement from Khrushchev's money. It is not surprising that, using Communist techniques which have been proven a thousand times, they are so well able to organize strikes, lay the ground for revolutions, prepare workers for the raised fist, make them instruments of intellectuals who are in quest of power and at the same time create havoc and confusion in society by the misery they bring upon families! As for their full support of Socialism, their fomentation of class warfare and their hatred of private enterprise these are facts which are commonly acknowledged.

And all of this is supposed to flow from a great love for the worker. The unions do not - we repeat - do not defend the interests of the worker. If they did they would long ago have succeeded in having abolished the tax on the incomes of the poor workers. They would long ago have forced the government to stop putting its hands into the pay envelope of the worker and stealing money from therein before the worker even has a chance to see the colour of his pay. If the unions love the workers so much why don't they bend their efforts to ridding the worker of deductions from pay at source?

And the social dividend - a dividend for each worker, for their wives and for each of their children, such as are demanded by Crediters, why do the unions not raise their powerful voices in demanding this dividend instead of crying out for total and universal employment, which is an impossibility in this era of advanced techniques of production? It can only be because the unions have no fear of the Communist principles which dominate in unions to the detriment of their members' liberty. They prefer such principles to the principles of Social Credit which lead to liberty for each.

When will unions attack the dictatorship of banks as ferociously as they have attacked employers? Why have the unions never attacked the financial system which is the greatest enemy of the worker, robbing him of his goods - home, security, revenue, salary, enterprise, etc.? They prefer to attack private enterprise which has begotten so much good for the worker and would confer even greater good if helped by a financial system which served. But the unions, like the Communists, prefer the destruction of private enterprise. Social Credit would see every worker who was competent, become the owner of a private business (in groups or singly), thus laying private enterprise as the basis of a free economy. For this reason, the unions have no love for Social Credit which would free the worker.