Freedom Flyer 11

Dear Editor:

Mr. Taylor entirely misses the point when he says that CUPE is not CUPW and chides us opponents of unionization for raising the spectre of strikes and drawing analogies to militant union activities such as that of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW). The point is that it does not matter whether it is CUPE, CUPW or any other labor union, because the basic principle of all of them is the same, "mandatory" membership, in other words, forcing some individuals to pay union dues, regardless of whether they wish to be members or not. Mr. Taylor goes on to say that no one really wants to go on strike. Does someone then force them? He also says that the right to strike is a protection to be used as a last resort. Protection for who and against what? What about the right not to strike? We as "Anti-unionists" are not opposed to unions, associations, organizations, etc.; we are only opposed to the "mandatory" part of the group, where some individuals have rights, (the right to strike) but others do not (the right not to strike, but to work.)

I would like to quote a paragraph from our local newspaper - London Free Press, Friday, May 29, 1987, Section A2: "Charter safety urged for union rights." I quote: "'Without adding collective bargaining principles to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unions may lose the right to negotiate mandatory union membership,' says Jeff Rose, President of Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).'To bargain successfully Rose said, individual needs have to be suppressed to serve the needs of the majority.'" End of quote.

Suppressing the needs of the individual in order to serve the needs of the majority is precisely what we must not allow in our University (or in our country for that matter). The leaders of Communist Russia and many of the eastern and third world countries have been advocating this and are practicing it now. The unions are advocating it in our country; who will advocate and perhaps even enforce and practice it next? The unions speak of collective rights. This is a contradiction of terms. A group or collective, large or small, is only a number of individuals; it can have no rights as a group, other than the rights of its individual members. The notion that rights belong to the group but not to the individual means that rights belong to some people, but not to others, it means that some people can have the right to impose their wishes on others and the criterion for such a privileged position consists of numerical superiority. It is only when a number of individuals voluntarily agree to be part of a group, association or union, that it can function without violating the rights of some of its members. Any group, association or union that does not recognize the principle of individual rights, is not an association, but a gang or worse.

No matter what advantages unions seem to promise, their basic philosophy is still associated with words and actions such as "Mandatory," "Compulsory," "Force," "Demands," "Threats," and sometimes even "Violence." A university (a place of teaching and research) should have no room for such words and actions.