¹ J. R. Kirwan, ‘Changing Trade Unions’, Christian Democrat, January 1961. It might perhaps be possible to argue that there is still an obligation on each individual to join, and that this obligation does not cease to exist for a few because the majority have already honoured it.

² It may be accepted that the ends of the British trade union movement in the industrial field are just. This does not mean that there are not occasions on which particular unions or even the T.U.C. pursue unjust ends. Occasional lapses would not oblige a worker in conscience to resign his membership, nor even alter the obligation to join. Nevertheless, it will be argued below that a member is under an obligation to do whatever he can to ensure that his union is pursuing just objectives, and that it is wrong for an individual worker to be subject to any penalty because he refuses to give active support to unjust policies.

³ Many members of the labour movement have been reluctant to apply to the expulsion of a union member where a union shop exists the arguments they themselves have used in the exactly parallel case of an association of manufactuers collectively stopping supplies to a price‐cutting dealer.

⁴ Granted that other methods of securing a settlement have been tried, and that the act of withdrawing one's labour is morally an indifferent act, the morality of any strike must be judged by the principle of ‘double effect’. This requires the fulfilment of three conditions. First, the strikers must not intend but only permit any evil consequences of their action. Secondly, the good they seek must not follow directly from the evil consequences. It would certainly be wrong to strike with the deliberate intention of causing hardship to innocent parties in order to influence the employers. Thirdly, the good in view must be sufficient to justify the evil consequences, and this can be extended to require that there is a reasonable chance of securing this good. (It is, of course, presumed that the strike is for a just cause.) Clearly, this balancing of the good the strikers have in view against the harm done to innocent parties by the strike, and the estimation of the chances of success are matters on which opinions can differ.

⁵ In fact, if the majority of workers are on strike, nothing is really gained by a small minority reporting for duty. Few big firms, certainly, would be able to find useful employment for a small minority of the workers. Since the worker would do little harm by staying away, the threat of a serious sanction being used against him would be sufficient to justify his joining the strike. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that this case is no different in principle from that of the soldier who is given an order by his superior officer to carry out an immoral act, e.g. to shoot innocent civilians.

⁶ There seems, however, to be no reason why the member should not seek an injunction to restrain the union from proceeding with the proposed expulsion. This might avoid the hardships that would otherwise result.

⁷ So, presumably, were many more, but only the political levy had been challenged.

⁸ Between 1927 and 1945, members wishing to pay the levy were required to contract in. Despite the importance attached to the two approaches by the unions and some of their critics, there really seems little difference.

⁹ Arguments used by the T.U.C. spokesman when their intention to make a loan was announced, to the effect that they had not considered the rights and wrongs of the dispute, and that the money was being given to relieve hardship among families of strikers are untenable. First, the facts were already public knowledge, and, in any case, to spend or lend £50,000 without knowing any‐thing about the cause for which it will be used is dangerously irresponsible. Secondly, relief to the strikers would undoubtedly help to prolong the strike and increase the hardships to many other innocent persons.

¹⁰ This applies whether he opposes the activities of the union because he disapproves of the ultimate aim or because he realises the immorality of the means being used.

¹¹ In the case of the E.T.U., of course, the leaders might well do all in their power to enforce a closed shop. This kind of abuse might only be affected, therefore, by legislation against the closed shop. An alternative would be the American system whereby a union is given negotiating rights for a limited period after a ballot conducted by a government agency. This would give workers an easy method of overthrowing an unsatisfactory union leadership by secret ballot. This would, of course, require the British trade union movement to revise its ideas about the Bridlington Agreement against ‘poaching’ by unions in fields where one union has a foothold.