It is no part of this paper's policy to condemn the idea of collective bargaining or to oppose the right of working men and women to unite and organise in order to better their working conditions.
But, when any group of individuals, no matter how noble the purpose of their organisation, is perverted to serve the ambitions of ruthless individuals and becomes a menace to the community, then this paper, will start sounding the tocşin — loud and long!
Recently the Association of Canadian Manufacturers declared in a brief submitted to the Minister of Labor, that it was time serious thought was given to protecting employers, individual employees and the public against syndicates and unions of workers which had become excessively powerful organisations, not alone because of their large membership and their great financial resources, but also because of their capacity to paralyze the economy of the country at will.
Time, the American news magazine, in its Canadian edition of January 12, 1959, reported how Henry Feinstein, a subordinate of Teamster union boss, James Hoffa, threatened to picket the police stations in New York ad prevent delivery of supplies so that the police commissioner would "get a taste of Teamster economic force and pressure." Commissioner Kennedy's reply was to the effect that, if the police were unionized by Hoffa, the people could stop paying a salary to the commissioner because Hoffa would then be the real authority in the police force.
Mrs. Gilberte Côté-Mercier, writing in Vers Demain of January 15, 1959, said as follows:
"The syndicates are not officially communist, but whatever practices the Communist's employ to achieve their specific ends, the unions employ or call for, such as class warfare, war against private property owners and private business, the closed shop, obligatory contributions to pension funds, forcing workers to strike, persecution of non-workers to the point where they are refused work and are subjected sometimes to physical violence, employers subjugated to the dictates of the union bosses, affiliation of unions to leftist parties with obligatory contributions to the war chests of these parties, etc. etc."
Today in the United States, the total membership of all unions is close to 17,490,000. One great alliance, the A. F. of L. — C. I. O., controls 16,200,000 workers making up 139 affiliated, subordinate unions. Fifty other national unions, not linked directly with this giant, count 1,200,000 members. in Canada, 800,000 unionists belong to unions paying tribute to and obeying the mighty A. F. of L. — C. I. O.
Again in Canada, the Canadian Labor Congress under boss Claude Jodoin, can bring to bear the pressure of 1,150,000 members when soever and wheresoever it wishes. This is a formidable force in a country which numbers a population of only 17,000,000.
In brief, it would appear that the unions are no longer associations of workers freely combining without any prejudice to the fundamental right to earn a living where and how a man wishes. It would appear that more and more, the individual must join or be left without work; and having once joined, must of necessity pay a respectable portion of each pay envelope to the support of high-salaried union officials and to the financing of activities never envisaged by those who first conceived of unions.
It would appear that the individual member has little or no say as to whether he goes out on strike or stays at work. It would appear that if he dares defy the union and crosses the picket line, he risks not only his livelihood but his neck as well. Witness the CBC in Montreal spending thousands of dollars daily during the strike of producers to protect their non-striking employees from physical violence.
As we said at the beginning of this article, we have no quarrel with the idea of unionism.
But when a man like James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters' Union, can envisage controlling the police forces of the nation, then unionism has gone too far. When unions can decide whether or not a man shall have the right to work — in effect, to live — then unionism has gone too far. When union leaders begin advocating measures, such as compulsory state health insurance, the nationalization of industries, etc., which can only lead to Socialism with its restrictions of human liberty and its eventual decline into Bolchevist Communism, then unionism is going too far.
Today, union leaders are reaching for the same power held by prime ministers and presidents. And some are getting a good share of it. This is not a good thing. No country can suffer two governments. There can be only one governing body; the duly elected representatives of the people.
Social Credit places the interests of the individual above all else. It is for the individual and his primary grouping, the family, that Social Credit has fought and is fighting an unceasing battle to strike from society the shackles of financial dictatorship. The Union of Electors, the principal organization in North America propagating Social Credit doctrine, will not stand idly by and permit the power of trade unionism to be used to subjugate millions of workers to a movement whose purpose seems to be to deliver complete power into the hands of a few individuals.
If we must have unions then let them be unions whose power is, in fact, in the hands of an enlightened and determined membership. If the unions are to remain beneficial to their members and to the community, then the men and women who make-up the membership must be constantly on the alert, ever, prepared to take aggressive action against any officials or any group of members who may wish to carry the unions into activities prejudicial to the union members and the community. In a word, the members must retain firm control over the union.
They have to keep their organisation free, from the teint of Socialism and Communism. And that is not easy. For officials or groups of members will try ever so insidiously to persuade the members to put the power of the union behind measures which lead to centralization — to the concentration of power into the hands of one or a few. The members must be on their guard against any measures which take from the individual the right or the capacity to exercise a function (properly his own) by himself, for himself, when and where he so wishes to exercise that function; e. g., imposing state health insurance (obligatory) instead of giving the citizen the means of providing for himself in medical matters.
The Union of Electors, in spreading the doctrine of Social Credit, teaches the individual how to get the results they want from their government by applying pressure on their elected representatives. As in matters of government, so too in the affairs of unions, the policy of applied pressure by members upon their elected officials is one which will keep these colossal organisations from becoming a menace to the country.
But the application of such pressure requires individuals who are not only anxious to do what should be done, but know what should be done and how it should be done. Educated individuals are needed. The Union of Electors will teach the individual what he must know in order to exercise the necessary influence upon those whom he has chosen to manage and direct his affairs, whether_they be affairs of the country or the affairs of a union.
This paper, The Union of Electors, and its French-language counterpart, Vers Demain, are designed to teach the principles of right government, not only in the state but in private organization such as are the unions. It is so designed because its constant preoccupation is the liberty and the rights of the individual and how they shall be protected by the individual himself from those who would usurp those rights and privileges to further personal ambition. These two journals are texts from which all men, union members included, can draw lessons which will enable them to preserve their rights and independence and those of their country. Help this paper to accomplish its task by making it more widely read.
Earl MASSECAR
Subscribe