Freedom Flyer 11

Jobs are not property, they are the consequence of a voluntary agreement between two parties, an employer and an employee (or group of employees, as in the case of a union). Having a job is of itself not a matter of "right," but is dependent on another kind of right entirely. That right is called "freedom of association," and is a right which Clarke seems to covet for organized labor, but would deny both to employers and to competing labor, whom he unhesitatingly refers to as "scabs".

When workers withdraw their services in the form of a strike, they are indicating that an agreement no longer exists and that they no longer want "their" jobs under the conditions presently offered by the company.

Clarke, however, wants it both ways. He claims that jobs belong to the strikers even though they are stating, with their actions, that they no longer find these jobs acceptable.

The question begged by Clarke's letter is: Whose fault is it if another individual says to a striker's employer, "I'm willing to accept your conditions and work for you"? Is a striker's anger really based on that individual's actions or on his own misjudgment of his value to the employer?

Clarke doesn't care about such details. He just wants to channel the striker's anger through physical violence and through "hatred and contempt" aimed at anyone who would dare to compete in the labor market.

Clarke, in total contradiction to his stand on business, would not call for controls to restrict the power of those mini-monopolies called unions; he wants them protected even further and, thus, given even more power. Perhaps it is the contradictions in his own Marxist-based philosophy that Clarke should expend some energy examining.

Yes, employee associations of all kinds (unions included) do have a valid place in today's world. But for the same reasons that any other group should not have the power to run roughshod over non-members, a line must be drawn limiting the power of unions to the employer-employee relationships of their members only.

In disagreement with this, Clarke and the London Union of Unemployed Workers want their philosophy and work attitude forced, even violently, on members and non-members alike.

Clarke's attitude toward the unemployed is such that they all must surrender their individual freedom of choice, their economic alternatives, and their competitive edge to accept terms of employment suitable only to Clarke and the LUUW.

Those who happen to disagree with the LUUW by negotiating freely with their employer or by accepting conditions of employment suitable only to their personal circumstances, should be wary of "pools of water", "ropes long enough to hang a body with", and people like Clarke who must resort to such methods as their only means of persuasion.