Unions violate liberty of association when they enforce obligatory membership

Certain articles which have appeared in Vers Demain and The Union of Electors, and certain broadcasts and telecasts of the Union of Electors, have drawn from some workers, who are fervent supporters of unionism, the question: Is our movement against workers' unions?

The answer is, NO. We are not, and cannot be, opposed to workers' unions any more than we can be against organizations of employers or any other form of association, sporting, musical, scientific, etc., just as long as such associations do not pursue a goal which is subversive, immoral, unjust, monopolizing, or in any other way, harmful to the community.

Social Credit and Association

In what pertains to politics, economics and society, our movement is based specifically upon that philosophy which underlies Social Credit, a philosophy which cannot be restricted in its scope to the simple formula of monetary reform.

The authentic Social Credit philosophy places strong emphasis upon the individual, upon the individual's freedom to choose, upon the individual's right to make his own decisions and upon his obligation to assume the responsibility of such.

But if man was created a free being, he was also created a social being. Aware that he is not sufficient unto himself, the individual seeks to compensate for his deficiencies by associating in various groups with those like himself. In such associations all can profit from the pooling of whatsoever of value each has to offer.

Individuals having some self-knowledge, realizing that they have, with others, certain common problems to resolve, certain common interests to pursue, act from reason and intelligence, as well as following a natural instinct, when they associate in order to obtain for each one, that which they could, isolated, obtain only with the greatest difficulty, or not at all..

Let us consider the example of six automobilists whose six cars have all gone into a ditch. All six want to get their cars out. No single one of them, alone, is capable of getting his machine out of the ditch. So they get together in order to reach an end which is common to each of them. The six, together, pull all six autos out of the ditch, one at a time. Thanks to association, each of them has achieved the result he desired, a result which he could not have achieved alone.

This is what C. H. Douglas, the father of social Credit, calls, the increment of association; the accumulation of wealth through association thus bringing to each associated member a profit.

And it is this factor which justifies the Social Credit demand for the issuance of a national, periodic dividend to each citizen. We have only to consider the abundance and variety of modern production to realize that such, in its entirety, proceeds forth from this increment of association rather than from the activities of any particular individual or group of individuals.

As Social Crediters, then, we cannot be opposed to any legitimate association, as long as such an association respects the personal liberty of its members and the rights of others.

We might add here, without at this point going into any development, that in a society in which Social Credit principles had been applied to the economy, the problems presently engaging the worker would lose a great deal of their weight, The wage-earner would gradually give place to the associate in enterprises, and the wage itself would gradually blend into a general revenue based upon the dividend.

Liberty to form unions

When workers' union's first began, it was realized that workers would have to unite if they were to free themselves from an exploitation - a freedom they could not achieve singly and alone. The great industrial revolution of the last century was carried out under the sign of economic liberalism. In the frantic race among employers to achieve the highest production and the greatest profits, the bosses sought to get the maximum production output from their employees while paying them the least possible wages. They were not in the least concerned with the sorry plight which befell the employee and his family as a result of such practices. And if employees sought to unite in order to obtain better working conditions, the employer punished them by dismissal.

The workers were obliged to battle, and did battle bitterly and ferociously to gain liberty of association in unions. Right was on their side and they won the freedom to form unions.

Concerning liberty and constraint

When we are obliged to denounce certain policies and attitudes of unions we are not attacking unions as such, nor the freedom of workers to form unions. Rather it is a violation of this very freedom which we attack.

If such a freedom for individuals was violated in the past by employers, (and still is in certain cases in spite of legislation), it is equally true that today the freedom and right of the individual in such a respect is often violated by the unions themselves.

Liberty of association is, in effect, violated, when the union substitutes force and constraint in the place of such liberty. Constraint is the opposite of liberty and freedom.

Liberty to associate, in order to remain liberty, must also imply the liberty not to associate, or the liberty to contract out of such an association. Freedom of choice carries with it the freedom to refuse.

When a union is imposed upon individuals the liberty of the individual to choose is violated. The union seeks to impose itself by force when it seeks the right to deny a man the liberty to work unless he belongs to that union.

Such constraint presents itself under various forms. There is the closed shop: in order to obtain work in such a shop or factory it is necessary to be a member of the union. If an employer takes on a non-unions worker, that worker must immediately join the Union and pay the required dues. If he does not do so his dismissal is formally demanded. And the employer must comply with this demand under pain of seeing his employees walk out on strike.

With collective contracts the same result is obtained in another fashion: through a clause, called union security, which is inserted into the contract.

Union security here signifies the treasury of the union which is normally fed with the dues obtained from members. The clause which we denounce here has for its aim the nourishing of the treasury by obliging all employees, non-union as well as union, to contribute to it.

What is said, in effect, is: "You are not obliged to enroll in the union if you don't want to; but you are going to pay dues just the same if you want to hang on to your job."

Where is the difference between such a situation and the closed shop?

The Rand formula

The collective contract engages two parties: the employer and the employees. If there is only one union in the factory, then it bargains with the employer. If there are more than one union, then the largest union is recognized by the law as being the bargaining agent.

Once the contract has been accepted and signed by the two parties, it binds all the employees and the employer for the duration of the contract. For this reason it is called a collective contract. And the adjective, collective, applies, in many cases, to all the establishments engaged in the same industry in an entire zone that sometimes takes in an entire province.

The contract deals with wages, working conditions, the division of duties, promotions, complaints, pension funds, group insurance, etc.; and whenever possible, the union attempts to oblige the employer, himself, to collect union dues through the withholding of such dues from the pay envelope of each employee. This is then turned over to the union.

This is what is known as the Rand formula - after the name of the judge who was the first to give it his approval. The operation is generally called, the "checkoff".

We have seen how the employer becomes a tax collector for the government by this same method. We see now, more and more, that the employer is, addition, becoming a collector of union dues for the unions.

When such a clause becomes part of a contract signed between employer and employees, the employer is obliged to make such retentions from pay envelopes, otherwise he is accused of violating the contract. As for the employee who wants no part of the union, who does not want to pay its dues, who, perhaps, belongs to another union of his choice to which he is paying dues already, this employee still must have deductions made from his pay envelope for this union. He has no recourse from such deductions. The contract has been duly signed and must be enforced.

It happens, too, that the employer suffers pangs of conscience at having to retain such dues from the pay envelope of an employee without the employee's permission. But in order to alleviate, somewhat, these pains of conscience, such a clause may be modified without in any way changing the end sought for. The employer may ask each employee for permission to make such deduction from his pay. If the employee refuses permission, the company may then regretfully inform him that his services are no longer required; the company is obliged to withhold such dues; it does not wish to do so without the signed authorization of the employee; not being able to reconcile the refusal of the employee with the obligation of the contract, the employer simply resolves the problem by simply firing the employee. Thus the company and the union are able to wash their hands of the whole situation. The union says: "It is not we who are firing the man; it is the boss". The boss says: "It is the obligation imposed upon me by the union contract which forces me to dismiss you rather than dig into your pay envelope without your permission".

Since a collective contract can cover an entire region and a whole sector of an industry, it often happens that a worker who wants no part of a union finds himself hard put to find a means of earning a livelihood for himself and his family.

Majority and minority

It has become the custom in our day to confide to the majority the exclusive exercise of a collective function in the name of the whole. But this does not authorize the majority to extinguish the minority or subject it to oppression.

If a union, by reason of its majority, receives the right to bargain as the negotiating agent, the contract which it signs binds the entire group to the conditions of work. But the majority union should not, for this reason, force the minority to join its ranks or to pay its dues. If such a practice were followed in the world of politics, everyone would scream dictatorship, and with reason.

In Ottawa, for example, at the present time, the Conservative party has been invested with the power to govern, because it is the majority party in the House of Commons. The legislation passed by this Conservative government is binding upon all the citizens of the country. But the Conservative government has not, for this reason, the right to force the Liberal party or other minority parties to join its ranks and to make financial contributions to it. No majority party in Canada has even dared to think of such a procedure. You have to go to the Unions or behind the Iron Curtain to find practiced the policy of "Join us or die, pay or starve!".

The usurping of power

This obligatory contribution, enforced by the Rand formula, or by any other means, is an abuse of power, it is to give to a private organization the right to tax an individual against his will. It is to confer upon a union a power which, by right, belongs exclusively to government. Hence, it is more than a simple abuse. It is a usurpation of power.

Donald Richberg, a long-time friend of organized labour, had this to say of the problem, in his work, Labour Union Monopoly:

"Today, when unions have enlarged to huge numbers and the coverage of union contracts is often industry-wide, the requirement that a man must join a union in order to obtain a particular employment has become in fact a requirement that he must join a union, a private organization, in order to be able to work. In one industry after another the door has been closed to the employment of any except union members. It is a simple fact today that compulsory unionism is a denial to millions of men of any ability to earn a living except by agreeing to pay dues and submit to the discipline of a private organization."

The right to work, like the right to life, is a natural right. This right no more comes under the jurisdiction of unions than it does that of governments. It is the protection of this right which should be the role of unions as it should be the role of governments.

Totalitarianism

As the publications of the Union of Electors have already pointed out, there is a remarkable similarity between the comportment of the Communist party in the field of politics and that of obligatory unionism in the field of labour. Neither one nor the other will admit of any opposition or dissidence. Both insist upon forcing their conditions upon members and non-members alike. Both punish those who refuse to join, by making life impossible for them.

Both trample upon the liberty of the individual, asserting that the end justifies the means. It is to make union strong, say the promoters of obligatory unionism and forced contribution. As if such an argument justified the flouting of principles and the violation of the individual's right to choose for himself. No, the end does not justify the means.

Today, when unions are tending to the support, not to say direction, of political parties — specifically the Socialist party — many workers are outraged at being obliged to support such a party and make contributions to it. And when workers are put in a position where they have to trample on their principles or lose their means of earning a living, then we have had just about enough of such a type of unionism.

Let us repeat here once more: we are not against union security as such. Not at all. The union must have security if it is to accomplish the end for which it is instituted. But such security must come from the freely-given contributions of members who have freely joined its ranks. If the members are not capable, of themselves of paying their dues, then they are very poor members. They have no sense of their responsibilities. Is it not then the task of the union to develop in such members a sense of responsibility rather than developing irresponsibility by forcing the employer to do that which the members of the union ought themselves to do?

"A moral obligation"

There are those who say that a worker has a moral obligation to belong to a union. They say that this obligation stems from the need for solidarity among the workers so that each individual worker will strive for the good of others as well as for himself.

Even if this were true it does not follow that an individual can be forced to fulfill a moral obligation. A man may have a moral obligation to go to church on Sunday. But this does not means that the minister or priest has the right to drag him out bed and tow him to services Sunday morning. Or to deprive him of the right to feed himself and his family if he refused to attend such services.

The leaders of unions are complaining that there is a growing opposition to unions in certain sectors of business and industry. They lament the fact that even among the public there are signs of hostility towards unions. Let the leaders of unions examine their consciences and they will, without doubt, find good reason to strike their breasts. Wheresoever a group conducts itself in a fashion redolent of totalitarianism, there will be found opposition and hostility. Just as such opposition is to be found when a group attempts to regulate its problems at the expense of the public - as when repeated rounds of wage increases are exacted with a resulting rise in the cost of living for all, even of those who find no increase in revenue in such a spiral.

The objection of Social Credit

With regard to the last-mentioned point. It is a fact salaries always lag behind prices. But in striving to make wages catch up with prices, the workers should long ago have learned that they cannot reach this end by the means they employ. This, for the very good reason that the employer cannot add a dollar to their salaries without including this dollar in the prices which he charges for his goods.

For a long time now, the school of Social Credit has been pointing out the futility of such a course. It has presented the means of bringing wages to the level of prices without having them skyrocket, the one chasing after the other. Simply stated, the solution is the addition of purchasing power which does not enter into the price of goods.

The unions have turned their backs upon Social Credit instead of helping it in the movement towards a solution which would benefit everyone, workers' families as well as the families of farmer's - and likewise those who have been deprived of the help of a breadwinner in production.

lit is quite evident that the unions have preferred to cast their eyes in the direction of Socialism. Have not the union leaders shoved their unions over to the side of the Socialist panty of Canada, themselves furnishing the officers to man this party? If the ranks of the unions are going to serve as nurseries for the ranks of Socialism, they surely cannot expect the reputation of unionism will remain in good repute among the people, and certainly not among Crediters. For such a use of unions would destroy the authenticity of unionism and make of it a mere tool for the acquisition of power by a few.