Does the end justify the means ?

Do Canadian workers have freedom of association?

The following editorial, along with title and subtitle, is taken from The Guide, official organ of The Christian Labour Association of Canada, whose purpose it is, among others, to bring to the labor union movement a recognition of the place Christian principles must hold in unions. The publication offices of this paper are at 944 Grandview Avenue, Sarnia, Ontario. Emphasis supplied.

*    *    *

In the January 1961 issue of this publication, in an article entitled Coercion or Free Choice?, we quoted several significant statements made by some prominent leaders and friends of organized labour who recognize the value of voluntary unionism. The statements clearly indicated that the authors were strongly opposed to compulsory unionism. They pointed out that trade unions should be built on the basis of conviction, by persuading people that they should join because of what the trade union stands for. While one prominent union leader was of the opinion that the trade union movement cannot live very much longer on the basis of compulsion, on the basis of "belong or starve", a friend of organized labour urged the labour movement to respect man's freedom and dignity. He declared: "Let the unions remember that the right to work comes from God, not from them."

However, many persons excuse coercive unionism because they believe it is necessary in order to raise wages and improve working conditions. These people are of the opinion that in the interest of the trade union it is not wrong to force a worker to join a definite union regardless of whether it is one of his free choice or not. They have no objections whatever to the provisions included in Labour Relations Acts which allow an employer and a union to include in a collective labour agreement a clause which requires employees to become and remain members in good standing of a specified union as a condition of employment. To the contrary, they stoutly maintain that the government has the right to legalize this type of coercion! They also claim that the principle of the majority rule justifies compulsory unionism. Thus it is said that if the majority of employees unite in organizing a union, democratic principles require that their selection of that particular union should be binding on all.

Does this conclusion follow? Is it proper to invoke the majority rule to force unwilling persons into membership in an organization? There are those who are of the opinion that an organization, for example, a union, may lay claim to the same powers as the state. However, we believe that this is a wrong comparison which fails to recognize the independence and limits of the various spheres of life. The authority to force adherence and submission to law and order is a peculiar authority belonging to the state only. By disregarding this truth men are in danger of falling prey to a totalitarian view of society.

If a victorious majority could compel a losing minority to join them, then why should not the Progressive Conservatives following the federal election of 1958, have been able to force all the Liberal and Socialists to become members of the Progressive Conservative party?

Or suppose that a majority of our war veterans should become members of the Canadian Legion. Should they then be able to drag in the others who might prefer to join some other organization of veterans or stay out of all of these groups? Of course, none of these things would be allowable. None of these organization possess the authority to compel men to join. Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that in a true democracy the majority does not dictate the minority, but the majority must respect and honour the rights and freedoms of the minority.

It is interesting to note what the late Mr. Donald R. Richberg, a long-time friend of organized labour, said in connection with this problem in his book "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. They cannot even withdraw from a labour union if violently opposed to its economical or political policies without losing the ability to earn a livelihood. This is in reality an involuntary servitude..."

Present labour legislation requires the minority of employees who are not members of a labour union to accept the terms and work under the contract of the majority. When a government enacts laws by a majority vote the minority is required to obey these laws. However, the minority, a political party in opposition, is not required to stop its opposition; nor is it required to contribute to the political support of the majority party. Even members of the majority party are at liberty to withdraw from such an association. Those who are in favour of compulsory unionism (closed shop, union shop, etc.) are advocating a theory which is also used by the Communists: there should be only one party to which everyone should belong and contribute. When workers are required to join and support a union not of their choice as a condition of employment one wonders just where this situation is different from the situation in certain countries where a dictatorial regime is in power. There may be a difference in degree but not in principle!

Those who advocate this monopoly rule and welcome these totalitarian methods are quick to point out that this is done in the interest of the union, namely, in the interest of achieving better working conditions and higher wages. These same people also claim that compulsory membership provisions are necessary to protect the organization from various threats to its continued existence. These threats may originate from the employer, from rival unions, or from the employees themselves.

There is no doubt that the chief threat in the past originated from the employer, and many Canadian unionists still regard their actions with a great deal of suspicion. Most employers discount to a very large degree the threat from employer action if the employees really desire the union. The law greatly restricts employers in their activities to prevent the formation of unions and rightly so! Moreover, if the union is strong enough to secure a union shop or closed shop clause through collective bargaining, the union probably does not need the protection that these clauses provide. Most employers are not likely to concede such clauses unless they are convinced that the unions have the strength to win them. To have this strength, most of the employees must be union members. With this situation, any chance the employer has of eliminating the union is almost nonexistent.

We are of the opinion that employers should strongly oppose compulsory unionism. They should leave it up to their employees to decide whether or not they will join a certain union. When employers sign a contract which includes a provision requiring employees to become and remain a member as a condition of employment, they are interfering with the God-given freedoms and rights of their employees. They are violating some of the fundamental principles of Labour Acts and the Bill of Rights. These 5 laws guarantee freedom of association - freedom to choose which organization one wishes to join or not to join. Mr. J. C. Gibson, a lawyer, pointed this out also, when he said:

"There is no substance to the oft-repeated assertion that only employers oppose compulsory union membership. But to the extent that employers oppose it, that is within their duty as well as their right. There are in effect three parties to a compulsory union membership agreement — the employer, the union, and the employees. The arrangement cannot be put into effect without the signature of the employer to the contract and without his agreement to discharge every employee who does not comply with its terms. The employer has a grave and even awesome responsibility when he undertakes to make an agreement which will be destructive of the fundamental liberties of his employees whether they number ten or ten hundred or ten thousand."

The Christian Labour Association of Canada is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Acts. It has the interests of the workers at heart and will do everything possible to promote the economic social and moral interests of the workers through the practical application of Christian principles in collective bargaining and other means of mutual aid and protection. It is the aim of the CLAC to organize workers in trade and industrial unions, for the purpose of propagating, establishing and maintaining justice in the sphere of labour and industry. However, in order to achieve this goal it has no desire to use the methods advocated by the proponents of compulsory unionism. We are convinced that it is impossible for unions to become accepted by either the public or by the employers when they continue to resort to totalitarian methods and tactics which are in clear conflict with the Bible.

"Many labour unions foster a narrow class-consciousness and often promote animosity against employers rather than respect for them. They strive to monopolize the thinking and loyalty of the worker to the extent where other God-given obligations cannot receive their due." Many unions actually base their activities on the spirit of class-struggle. They regard management's action and proposals with suspicion and hostility. Therefore they vigorously "sell" the value of unionism to the employees by pressing exaggerated and unrealistic demands, by anti-management propaganda, and by the processing of every grievance no matter how trivial. No matter how strong the union or no matter what the real attitude of management toward the union may be, the union does not feel that it is accepted until management grants a security clause forcing some employees to make a compromise with religious convictions when they are compelled to become a member of a union not of their choice or to lose their job!

The aim of the union should be to establish justice in the field of labour. The means used to reach this sound objective should not violate the fundamental right and privilege given to all mankind, namely, to live and labour in liberty with direct responsibility to God. Both the union and the employer should not disregard the fact that man has been given certain fundamental rights and freedoms by his Creator. As a matter of fact, both labour and management should see to it that workers are allowed to exercise these rights and freedoms.

When loss of employment or compromise with religious convictions are the result of the methods employed to reach the objective (supposedly justice!), the workers should take a good look at the problem and take the appropriate measures to correct the situation. We should do so in the light of God's revelation. We are confident that if we take notice of divinely ordained laws, we will find the proper means to reach justifiable objectives.

G. V.