Comment Home / Reviews & Opinions

Bob White's Moral High Ground

In a recent column in The Financial Post, (April 6, 1992) Bob White, president of the Canadian Automobile Workers union and one of Canada's most vocal trade unionists, dismissed the opposition of business people to the proposed Ontario labour law reforms as an attack on workers' rights. He accused them of refusing to share economic power and being indifferent to the wellbeing of children, the poor, and working people. "The Ontario government has demonstrated a commitment to working people. Isn't it time these employers associations stopped screaming and show a similar concern for the people of this province?"

By contrast, according to White, trade unions are democratic vehicles and the true defenders of workers and all who are dependent on a social safety net. But his claim that unions are democratic rings hollow. In fact, the unions he represents ardently defend compulsory unionism as a central, even indispensable, component of their movement.

"Unions constitute a positive factor in contributing to productivity, workers' commitment, and stability," writes White. But by fomenting dissatisfaction and distrust toward the employer, he and his cohorts do the very opposite, often in the name of some Utopian ideal of a socialist (state-directed) society. (Read, for example, the extensive policy document issued by the Canadian Labour Congress, "A New Decade: Our Future," which presently serves as a discussion guide intended to indoctrinate Canadian workers. In reality this document is a not-so-subtle call for class warfare.)

White writes that it is "time to ratchet down the rhetoric." It would be helpful if he refrained from wrapping himself in the mantle of social justice while depicting employers (and all other critics of his position) as socially irresponsible and morally inferior. Instead, he claims the moral high ground in his support of the planned labour law reforms, designed to hasten a socialist reconstruction of society.

White's strident promotion of an us-versus-them ideology is a sure recipe for poisoning the relations between labour and management. It is indeed time for both sides to "ratchet down the rhetoric" and go back to the drawing board.

Harry Antonides Harry Antonides
Harry Antonides is the founding editor of Comment. ... read more »


Add Your Comments


Copyright © 1974-2012 Cardus. All Rights Reserved.

| More

Feature Essays

  1. If Wishing Made it So: Teaching Students to Make Change

    May 14, 2012 | Gloria Stronks and Julia Stronks

    Parents and teachers want children to have the skills to make a difference. But what can we teach to help them survive their teen years, 20s, and 30s with convictions and charac...

Reviews & Opinions

  1. Do Not Open—No User Serviceable Parts Inside

    May 22, 2012 | David Greusel

    Why do so many of us have to work where the windows don't open? Engineers, architects, and lawyers have their reasons, but must workplaces be less humane than homes?
  2. Morality, markets, and Michael Sandel

    May 18, 2012 | Nick Spencer

    In Santa Ana in California prisoners can buy a cell upgrade. In Dallas, Texas, underachieving children are paid to read books. These are, alas, some of the saner and less offens...

Six Questions

  1. Saying "there is not enough time" is heresy

    May 2, 2012 | Stephanie Gehring

    SIX QUESTIONS . . . The new culture I am making is an attempt to say hold still and look at this.

Cardus Blog

  1. Plus ca change

    May 22, 2012 | Peter Stockland

    On today's 100th day of protests by Quebec students, Journal de Montreal columnist Richard Martineau offers a scabrous depiction of his province. Citing former Laval University ...
  2. Broken Union

    May 18, 2012 | Josh Reinders

    When the Quebec student protests started, my earliest feelings were of sympathy. These were fellow student, with whom I felt a kinship. Finally someone had taken up arms against...

Print Issue

  1. March 2012: Legacies
    Comment Magazine - Legacies Our culture does not know how to deal with legacies. We either treat the dead with some combination of awe and fear, or we think of our forebears as unworthy of remembrance, to ...