halfway stopping point on the road
Well, to start with specific cases —
let's take the subject of collective bargaining.
It is certainly quite proper for the
ILO to endeavor to protect the right
of collective bargaining, but let me
tell you how far the ILO is going in
The ILO has proposed that if most
of the workers in an industry have
signed a collective bargaining agreement, government should have the
power to compel the rest of the workers in that industry to sign up likewise, regardless of whether or not
they wished to do so. What they want
is nation-wide collective bargaining
enforced by government decree.
But the Socialists go further than
that. Some of them in the ILO suggested that one-half of the Board of
Directors of a company should be
chosen by management, and the either
half should be chosen by the Union,
which would have an equal right with
the management as to the course of
action of the company. In case of a
deadlock, the matter would be submitted to government. This would put
government in the position of being
the controlling factor in the future
destiny of industrial enterprises.
Do you think this is far-fetched?
It is nothing of the sort. This device
is known as co-determination, and it
is the laic in Germany today.
THE BIRTH OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Well — let's go on to another subject. Let's take Social Security.
It may interest you to know that the
ILO brags that one of its earliest and
most successful technical assistance
projects was when it sent two experts
over to the United States to show us
how to set up our Social Security System! For Social Security was born and
bred in the ILO.
And Social Security, according to
the the ILO, is still in its infancy. In
1952 the ILO enacted a convention
entitled "Minimum Standards of Social Security." I want to emphasize
that word minimum, because it is the
intent of the ILO at some time in the
future to develop, God help us, what
thev are going to call Advanced Standards of Social Security.
Under the title "Minimum Stand-
arels of Social Security," the ILO
drafted an international law providing government benefits for practically "all the ills the flesh is heir to." It is
a blueprint for the biggest give-away
program yet devised.
Under this proposal government
would pay people money for the following:
Any condition requiring medical care
of a preventive or corrective nature, in-
eluding pregnancy, and ami morbid
rendition, whatever its cause.
Loss of earnings due to sickness or
Survival beyond a prescribed age.
Babies. The government pays you for
having them; the more you have die
more money you get.
Childbirth, including medical care
' and hospitalization.
Invalidity — which is defined as "inability to engage in any gainful activity."
Death benefits — that is, life insurance.
Originally included in this proposal
was a provision to the effect that all
life insurance must be compulsory and
subsidized by government, and any
insurance would be illegal unless government paid at least 25 per cent of
the cost of the premiums. This effort
at socializing insurance was aimed at
putting out of business insurance companies such as we have in the United
This convention also contained provisions for socialized medicine, such
as they have in England.
Well, now, we are getting echoes in
the United States.
Our House of Representatives has
passed a bill (H. B. 7225) which provides that if at any time after the age
of 50 a man becomes totally disabled
and is so certified by the government,
he can immediately collect the same
amount of Social Security benefits that
he otherwise would get alter retirement at age 65. That bill will he up
for consideration by the Senate at the
next session of the Congress.
Think what that means. To be eligible for total disability, a man must
be certified by government doctors.
This means doctors on the government payroll. This puts doctors in
government, and is the opening step
toward socialized medicine.
WHEN WILL IT END?
Now let's take it from the standpoint of insurance. Private insurance
companies now protect people against
total disability. But now government
comes along and enters that field.
So you have, therefore, in this bill,
the opening wedge toward socialized
medicine and socialized insurance;
and these provisions are lifted out of
the ILO Convention on Minimum
Standard of Social Security.
For example, the ILO convention
proposes government payments for
'invalidity," which it defines as the
"inability to engage in anv gainful
activity." Our bill, fl.B 7225, defines
"disability" as the "inability to engage-
in any substantial gainful activity" —
a change of only one word. Our bill
states that a person may be ruled dis
abled as the result of "any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment." The ILO uses the phrase
"any morbid condition, whatever its
cause." We will be hearing more, in
this country, about a morbid condition
NURSING A DECISION
In 1952 the ILO passed a convention called the Maternity Protection
Convention, which provides that:
An employed woman should be given
at least 12 weeks off to have her baby,
with free medical care and hospitalization.
During this period she would receive
from the government, in cash, an
amount equal to two-thirds of her pay.
A woman cannot be discharged while
on maternity leave.
Inte-rruptions for nursing the baby,
and I quote: "In eases where the matter
is governed by or in accordance with
laws and regulations," are to he counted
as working hours and paid for by the
1 sat in the Committee on Maternity
Protection, and at times I couldn't be
lieve my ears. In that Committee
resentatives from countries all
the world spent an entire half-day 01
bating as to whether or not an in'1''
national law should contain a pro^J ,,el
sion to the effect that a mother shen'1 «Ur furin
nurse her babv for one hour, dud1'- |~ tli,,v
., I . r . i .• 1 „ill j; • ltl
for vv orke
'"" in i,„
At its 1
"J'tecl a r
wtve I s
?gn to tl
the working clay, or for two hall h°j
nursing periods. As I recall it. I
held out for two hall-hours, and lsi'JI
held out for one full hour.
No conclusion was reached, for "j
reason, I imagine, that the m
the Committee knew little about '"
subject, and the women on the C"^j
mittee seemed singularly unequipl
for the purpose under discussion.
In that Committee I got a clear-1^
idea as to the relative positions.'
maternity and paternity in the
Apparently, in those golden crJ^
practically all women are supposed
work. Their babies are financedJ\
government benefits; and in ",
course they bring them to work ^
them, placing them in government'^
nurseries and leaving their machtfj
or typewriters, to nurse them on c<>
panv time. There is no distinction
tvvcen legitimacy and illegitimacy
The place of the father in Z
scheme of things, married or uni^
ried, is reduced purely to the f|mt ,
of paternity. The state takes over, ^
large extent, the functions of the &
ilv. It provides against a multitu
contingencies for which, in a I
society, the husband and fathe'
supposed to provide. «
ii, ■tli,s <
I „ u°n't fl
Under such circumstances, whu'v
comes of the family? What hec«K
J What Is the object oj|
of the homi
marriage? What ™
pens to the children, starting 1"
Facts Forum News, March, >'
3 -O ha