The Slavery of Trade Unions By Sir Guilford L. Molesworth 1918
"Over and over again we have heard of bodies of men leaving their work at the dictation of gangs of low ruffians, and protesting all the time that they had no fault to find with their employers or their wages, and that they wished to continue their work. . . . They are no longer men; they are slaves to agitators, unions, federations, and all the rest of the evil brood" (Industry and Property, Brooks, p. 146).
The attitude of the British worker towards his own labour is suicidal:—
He listens to the blandishments of Socialist agitators who only want to make a living out of him.
He allows a minority of interested men to tyrannize over his Trade Unions.
He goes out on strike and lets his wife and children suffer at the bidding of his own paid officials.
He believes in protection for labour, but not for the products of labour.
He makes the mistake of thinking that he can make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.
Herbert Spencer, the sympathetic defender of the labouring classes, in his work The Coming Slavery, has declared that
"All Socialism Involves Slavery."
The liberty of the Socialist is license to rob, oppress and enslave others. No one but an enthusiast devoid of common sense could expect any other result than disaster from a system that violates all rights of property, that deprives men of all incitement to labour, and involves the absolute negation of individual liberty. Herbert Spencer, taking the simple case of Trade Unions as illustrating one form of Socialist slavery, wrote:—
"A member of a Trade Union has joined others in establishing an organization of a purely representative character. By it he is compelled to strike if a majority so decide; he is forbidden to accept work save under the conditions they dictate; he is prevented from profiting by his superior ability or energy to the extent he might do were it not for their interdict. He cannot disobey without abandoning those pecuniary benefits of the organization for which he has subscribed, and bringing on himself the persecution, and perhaps violence of his fellows. Is he any the less coerced because the body coercing him is one which he had an equal voice with the rest in forming?....If men use their liberty in such a way as to surrender their liberty, are they thereafter any the less slaves? . . ." (The Man versus the State, p. 17).
In many cases the slavery is by no means voluntary. Men are driven to join the Unions by intimidation, terrorism or coercion, by social ostracism, by the dread of being denounced as a "scab" or a "blackleg" by their fellows, and also faced by the alternative of unemployment, or of joining the Union. Trade Unions would be a positive blessing if confined to their legitimate functions of defending their members from injustice, and expending their funds in unemployment, sick and funeral benefits, etc.; but influenced by Socialism they have become an absolute curse to the British workmen. They are aggressive, narrow and selfish in their aims, and partial in their action. They exercise a tyranny over the workers far more galling and despotic than is possible under any employer. The slave-drivers, or so-called "labour" leaders, are in no way representative of the true British workmen. They do not want to labour, but to live on the labour of others. They are, as a rule, highly-paid professional agitators who fatten on class discord and industrial unrest, and are callous to the suffering entailed on the workers and the poor by their acts.
"These agitators," said a Board of Trade official yesterday, "loathe peace. Their hungry eyes see the schedule for 'star' speakers at five, ten and fifteen guineas a meeting, and they seek an outlet quickly for their indignation at the hardships of the workers. Scores of these leaders of men who have engineered strikes, whether the men lose or win, have retired from the scene in late years in a state of affluence, while many have purchased businesses or gone to preferment where the bitter cry of the workers does not penetrate. Of all the safe means of closing his career prosperously, as the world counts it, the ladder of agitation is amongst the safest" (Standard, January 23, 1912).
The prizes for successful agitation vary from £400 a year as Members of Parliament, to £4,000 or £5,000 a year as Cabinet Minister. "Honest John Burns" (although he had previously declared that no one was worth more than £300 or £400 a year) accepted the salary of a Cabinet Minister—a prize he had gained by his successful organization of the great Dock Strikes which had proved to be disastrous to the workers and ruinous to the country; and there are now several equally successful agitators, who are enjoying huge salaries in posts under the Government.
Trade Unionists are but a fraction—between a fourth and a fifth of the labour of the United Kingdom as a whole—but yet they tyrannize over the non-Unionists or free-labour majority, unjustly depriving them of their right to work, and refusing to work with them. It is very common to find in workshops the notice "Non-Unionists need not apply." The iniquitous "Trades Disputes Act" (which the late Lord Chancellor denounced as "a Bill for legalizing tyranny, and a serious blow against the spirit of liberty which has reigned throughout our law ") has placed Trade Union leaders above the law, and enabled them to intimidate or "peacefully picket" the free labour majority if they insist on their right to work. The power thus conceded is freely exercised by the subordinate officials; and a Jack-in-office or "walking delegate" or "shop steward" may swagger into a workshop and insolently demand from the workmen an inspection of their cards, or threaten them with fines if they exceed the scanty Trade Unidn limit of work, or may order them to "down tools."
"When at length the arbitrary actions of the walking delegate become unbearable, and the employer forbids him the premises, then the men are called off and the job is pronounced 'black,' and any man who has the temerity to go to work on such a job does it at the risk of his life" (Why Trade Union Labour Fails, by Alfred Morton, for thirty-two years a Trade Unionist, p. 8). Trade Unionists are often required to fill in printed forms with the name of the shop, particulars of work in which they are engaged, where they have previously worked, what wages they received, and other data of an inquisitorial character, to enable the labour leaders to have a complete control over them.
The slaves have to pay tribute to the slave-drivers to the amount of nearly £300,000 a year, paid by Trade Unionists to Trade Union funds.
Napoleon has left the following picture of the manner in which freedom was devoured by democracy during the first French Revolution:—
"Liberty has never existed since it was proclaimed. . . . Never have the people, even under Louis XI or Cardinal Richelieu, or the most despotic states, had less liberty than during the whole period which has elapsed since the first revolution broke out" (Alison's Essays, vol. i, p. 115).
"Over and over again we have heard of bodies of men leaving their work at the dictation of gangs of low ruffians, and protesting all the time that they had no fault to find with their employers or their wages, and that they wished to continue their work. . . . They are no longer men; they are slaves to agitators, unions, federations, and all the rest of the evil brood" (Industry and Property, Brooks, p. 146).
The attitude of the British worker towards his own labour is suicidal:—
He listens to the blandishments of Socialist agitators who only want to make a living out of him.
He allows a minority of interested men to tyrannize over his Trade Unions.
He goes out on strike and lets his wife and children suffer at the bidding of his own paid officials.
He believes in protection for labour, but not for the products of labour.
He makes the mistake of thinking that he can make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.
Herbert Spencer, the sympathetic defender of the labouring classes, in his work The Coming Slavery, has declared that
"All Socialism Involves Slavery."
The liberty of the Socialist is license to rob, oppress and enslave others. No one but an enthusiast devoid of common sense could expect any other result than disaster from a system that violates all rights of property, that deprives men of all incitement to labour, and involves the absolute negation of individual liberty. Herbert Spencer, taking the simple case of Trade Unions as illustrating one form of Socialist slavery, wrote:—
"A member of a Trade Union has joined others in establishing an organization of a purely representative character. By it he is compelled to strike if a majority so decide; he is forbidden to accept work save under the conditions they dictate; he is prevented from profiting by his superior ability or energy to the extent he might do were it not for their interdict. He cannot disobey without abandoning those pecuniary benefits of the organization for which he has subscribed, and bringing on himself the persecution, and perhaps violence of his fellows. Is he any the less coerced because the body coercing him is one which he had an equal voice with the rest in forming?....If men use their liberty in such a way as to surrender their liberty, are they thereafter any the less slaves? . . ." (The Man versus the State, p. 17).
In many cases the slavery is by no means voluntary. Men are driven to join the Unions by intimidation, terrorism or coercion, by social ostracism, by the dread of being denounced as a "scab" or a "blackleg" by their fellows, and also faced by the alternative of unemployment, or of joining the Union. Trade Unions would be a positive blessing if confined to their legitimate functions of defending their members from injustice, and expending their funds in unemployment, sick and funeral benefits, etc.; but influenced by Socialism they have become an absolute curse to the British workmen. They are aggressive, narrow and selfish in their aims, and partial in their action. They exercise a tyranny over the workers far more galling and despotic than is possible under any employer. The slave-drivers, or so-called "labour" leaders, are in no way representative of the true British workmen. They do not want to labour, but to live on the labour of others. They are, as a rule, highly-paid professional agitators who fatten on class discord and industrial unrest, and are callous to the suffering entailed on the workers and the poor by their acts.
"These agitators," said a Board of Trade official yesterday, "loathe peace. Their hungry eyes see the schedule for 'star' speakers at five, ten and fifteen guineas a meeting, and they seek an outlet quickly for their indignation at the hardships of the workers. Scores of these leaders of men who have engineered strikes, whether the men lose or win, have retired from the scene in late years in a state of affluence, while many have purchased businesses or gone to preferment where the bitter cry of the workers does not penetrate. Of all the safe means of closing his career prosperously, as the world counts it, the ladder of agitation is amongst the safest" (Standard, January 23, 1912).
The prizes for successful agitation vary from £400 a year as Members of Parliament, to £4,000 or £5,000 a year as Cabinet Minister. "Honest John Burns" (although he had previously declared that no one was worth more than £300 or £400 a year) accepted the salary of a Cabinet Minister—a prize he had gained by his successful organization of the great Dock Strikes which had proved to be disastrous to the workers and ruinous to the country; and there are now several equally successful agitators, who are enjoying huge salaries in posts under the Government.
Trade Unionists are but a fraction—between a fourth and a fifth of the labour of the United Kingdom as a whole—but yet they tyrannize over the non-Unionists or free-labour majority, unjustly depriving them of their right to work, and refusing to work with them. It is very common to find in workshops the notice "Non-Unionists need not apply." The iniquitous "Trades Disputes Act" (which the late Lord Chancellor denounced as "a Bill for legalizing tyranny, and a serious blow against the spirit of liberty which has reigned throughout our law ") has placed Trade Union leaders above the law, and enabled them to intimidate or "peacefully picket" the free labour majority if they insist on their right to work. The power thus conceded is freely exercised by the subordinate officials; and a Jack-in-office or "walking delegate" or "shop steward" may swagger into a workshop and insolently demand from the workmen an inspection of their cards, or threaten them with fines if they exceed the scanty Trade Unidn limit of work, or may order them to "down tools."
"When at length the arbitrary actions of the walking delegate become unbearable, and the employer forbids him the premises, then the men are called off and the job is pronounced 'black,' and any man who has the temerity to go to work on such a job does it at the risk of his life" (Why Trade Union Labour Fails, by Alfred Morton, for thirty-two years a Trade Unionist, p. 8). Trade Unionists are often required to fill in printed forms with the name of the shop, particulars of work in which they are engaged, where they have previously worked, what wages they received, and other data of an inquisitorial character, to enable the labour leaders to have a complete control over them.
The slaves have to pay tribute to the slave-drivers to the amount of nearly £300,000 a year, paid by Trade Unionists to Trade Union funds.
Napoleon has left the following picture of the manner in which freedom was devoured by democracy during the first French Revolution:—
"Liberty has never existed since it was proclaimed. . . . Never have the people, even under Louis XI or Cardinal Richelieu, or the most despotic states, had less liberty than during the whole period which has elapsed since the first revolution broke out" (Alison's Essays, vol. i, p. 115).
For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here
No comments:
Post a Comment