Because Freedom Party assisted the downtown London Eaton's employees in their successful attempt to resist union certification last fall, our reporting on the outcome of the highly publicized Eaton's strike is more than just a passing interest. It is a testament to the ever-eventual collapse of any "movement" that abandons the spirit of voluntarism and reason in favour of coercive tactics.

During the closing months of the Eaton's strike, left-wing interest and lobby groups were out in full force displaying their "support" of Eaton's strikers to the public --- a necessary move prompted by the reality that real support for the strikers was extremely low, both within the ranks of non-striking Eaton's employees and with the general public.

Of course, strike supporters could never admit it. Canadian Labour Congress President Dennis McDermott, in an effort to make the strike appear more significant than it actually was, openly challenged Eaton's during a press conference in December: "I say to the T. Eaton Company and the rest of them: You are not taking on just a few hundred or a few thousand employees in your own enterprise, you are taking on the entire labour movement in this country."

Given the validity of McDermott's comment, the "labour movement" in this country has some interesting components. In addition to the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union (the only union with a legally justifiable interest in the Eaton's strike), Eaton's has been subject to the lobbying, criticism, and charges of the Ontario Federation of Labour, the United Auto Workers, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Womens Strike Support Coalition, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, Bob Rae and the New Democratic Party, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But does the "movement" know where it's going? The above-mentioned groups all share one thing in common: a left-wing ideology that scorns economic freedom, competition (particularly in labour), and the profit motive. To achieve their ends they all appeal to or use the same agency --- government --- thus revealing the coercive nature of their means. The spectacle of all these lobby groups aligning themselves so clearly for easy ideological identification by the public was possibly the most significant aspect of the Eaton's strike and did more to promote public opposition to strikers rather than support. Considering the number of lobby and special interest groups that found it necessary to become involved in the Eaton's strike, the company fared extremely well --- proving where public support actually was.

As a consequence, the Eaton's strike proved to be a tremendous blow against the very "labour movement" that all the left-wing lobby groups hoped it would enhance. The labour movement's inablility to deal with economic and political reality has exposed it to be seen as a privilege-seeking movement that is even incapable of recognizing what "rights" are, let alone capable of advocating any of them. Thus, it finds itself resorting to coercive tactics (i.e., plastering stickers on the private property of Eaton's, creating physical blockades to prevent customers from shopping at the store, etc.) which, even though always having been an integral part of the "labour movement", were made far more visible by the inexcusable behaviour of those who chose to participate in displays of "support" for strikers. As a result, the movement has been left with less money, less credibility, and even less public support --- results the opposite of those its own supporters worked so hard to attain.

To add insult to injury, the five and a half month strike at Eaton's resulted in the signing of the same contract that was turned down by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union last November. As usual, the people hurt most by strike action are always the strikers themselves, leaving one to ponder why it is that so many people join and support "movements" that invariably work to their own detriment. Half a year of lost wages, tarnished reputations as desirable, competitive employees, and a promise of more of the same in the future are but a few of the prices that union members must pay to be regarded as part of the "labour movement."

It's a high price to pay, but for abandoning reasonable argument and negotiation in favour of coercive tactics, one could argue that even when it appears that legal and political justice seem lacking, economic justice eventually visits even those who cannot recognize it for what it is --- an (economic) expression of the public's freedom of choice.

Even though the press ignored Freedom Party in its coverage of the Eaton's strike, it didn't completely ignore the results of our efforts. In fact, in his March 15 Toronto Sun column, Business Editor Garth Turner went so far as to proclaim the strike an outright publicity "scam" by showing how much opposition to unionization within the company actually existed among the majority of employees themselves. As part of his evidence that that was the case, Turner used the piece of literature produced by Freedom Party for the employees of Eaton's in Downtown London. (Ours is the one on the left:'Vote NO...")

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002