Compulsory Unionism Chokes Freedom...
Gordon H. Clark
Butler University
Indianapolis, Indiana
Dr. Clark is a well known philosophy scholar and head of the Department of Philosophy at Butler University. He joined the Butler faculty in 1945 as a professor of philosophy, having previously taught at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois; and the University of Pennsylvania. As an undergraduate at Pennsylvania, he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, a national honorary society recognizing student achievemant. Dr. Clark received his A. B. in 1924 and Ph.D. in 1929 from the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author of "Selections from Hellenistic Philosophy", Thales to Dewey", "A Christian View of Men and Things", and "Religion, Reason and Revelation". A prominent churchman, in 1961 he served as Moderator of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
With very few personal exceptions the general tendency of kings, prime ministers, and presidents has been to increase their own power. George Washington and Calvin Coolidge contrast in this respect with Pericles, Caesar, Louis XIV, Bismarck, Stalin, and nearly all other rulers. Success in increasing one's power requires force and money. Therefore, history provides innumerable examples of extravagant expenditures, high taxation, the resultant debasement of coinage (now called inflation), plus a specially favored group, nobility or brown shirts, to supply the force.
In the United States today we have extravagant expenditure, irresponsible unbalanced budgets, foreign aid to communist nations, and a 47 or 37 cent dollar. We would not have had these things if there were no favored group that profits by them.
Does it need documentation to show how the laws grant to labor unions privileges that are denied to other groups? Not only denied to other groups, but made criminal offenses. The one-sided application of antitrust laws to business but not to unions is a sufficient example.
Aside from actual legislation, consider also the politico-economic climate of opinion. A violent reaction would follow if business interests tied up the waterfront for a week, but the public supinely accepts such restraint of trade when the unions halt shipping. Then, recently, we have seen presidential anger, apart from law, rescind the higher prices in steel without similar restrictions on labor. Again, the unions threaten a railroad strike, and the Secretary of Labor takes the occasion to harass the already demoralized railroad industry.
But to return to legality: one of the sources of the legal but iniquitous power of the unions is compulsory membership. In many businesses it is impossible for a workman to get or hold a job unless he pays a fee to the union. If management attempted any such scheme, it would be called extortion and treated as a criminal offense.
The unions make a specious defense by claiming that all workmen should help pay for the privileges that the unions have won. This piece of propaganda is exploded by applying it to the churches. I believe, indeed I strongly believe, that the churches, at least my Church, contributes great spiritual values to our society. Then, by the union argument, all people should be compelled to join my Church and pay dues - even if they think my Church is a positive evil. Fortunately for society, and even fortunately for me, too, on this question there is a large majority in favor of freedom of choice.
In politics, however, the nation has been infected by the philosophy of collectivism. To paraphrase Marx (or was it Mussolini?), you can't eat freedom; the individual is unimportant; only the masses count - that is, if they have a leader, a Fuehrer, a Big Brother, a paternal Uncle Sam. But history is clear that without an opposition party a nation becomes a dictatorship; and though we cannot eat freedom, we cannot breathe without it. Compulsory unionism with its pressures and its policy of extortion chokes freedom. And this is a dangerous political trend.
Why then has our freedom of economic choice been so curtailed? The union officials' ambition for power over people and control over large sums of money is one factor. Another factor is that compulsory unionism is a device by which workmen who belong to one political party can be forced against their desires to contribute to the election of the other party's candidate. Very clever! This will rid us of the two-party system!
More fundamental than the political issue is the moral issue. Compulsory unionism as extortion is immoral.
,Most unfortunately the morals of America have declined. Alcoholism (non-existent 35 years ago), divorce, and corruption in government are widespread and widely condoned, or at least not vigorously attacked. If there were a moral and spiritual awakening in our land, the present inequitable laws would be repealed and union membership, and support of political parties, would be made completely free and voluntary. This is highly desirable. We could well do without privileged classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment