Compulsory unionism

Press, 24 June 1983, Page 14

Compulsory unionism

Sir,—May I put the case for compulsory unionism? In times past, unions have won for us: reasonable working hours; holidays and week-ends for family, recreation, personal interests and home care; acceptable stress levels; comfort, safety and hygiene at work; refreshment breaks; some job security and, usually, sufficient pay. They still help workers and the unemployed. Would critics like to work without those benefits? In

American-dominated developing countries where gross social injustice exists with tiny, excessively privileged, military-backed ruling classes and vast, underprivileged, under-employed working classes, human rights and social welfare provisions are scandalously minimal. There, trade unionists are grievously persecuted, cruelly limited in scope, frequently abducted by soldiers, imprisoned or murdered without trial, and made to “disappear.” Hence, strong, independent, compulsory unions are one guarantee of democracy. What percentage of us “take responsibility” and employ ourselves? Does D. Lewis (June 22)? — Yours, etc., SUSAN TAYLOR. June 22, 1983.

Sir,—After reading the statement by Mr Knapp of Social Credit that unionism is perverted (“The Press,” June 16), it reminded me that it has been said many a time before by the so-called leaders of our country. It is pretty obvious to the majority of people that those most hurt by unions are the average worker, and it is us that unions claim to be helping. If Mr Muldoon is supposed to be running the country the best that he can, then why has he not stopped the unions from forcing people to join them? I do not think he does not know about it. Whoever can stop the unions gets my vote. — Yours, etc., E. S. NEWTON. June 22, 1983.