THE PRESS THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1983. Compulsory unionism

Press, 30 June 1983, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1983. Compulsory unionism

The Minister of Labour, Mr Bolger, has hinted again at the repeal of award provisions that give unions the power to compel the membership of workers that they seek to represent. This power, embodied in awards by the unqualified preference clause, provides unions with a guaranteed membership and a guaranteed income. The merits and failings of the system have been debated before, but previous challenges to it — notably the abortive campaign for secret ballots of workers for their opinions — have withered. The National Party stood in the 1975 General Election on a pledge to introduce the ballots, leaving the choice of compulsory or voluntary unionism to the workers in each union. Traditional apathy meant that in many instances the response to the ballots was poor; in every ballot that was held, however, the marked preference of those who voted was in favour of compulsory unionism. By last year the Government had softened the legislation, dropping the requirement for a new ballot every three years and leaving it to the workers to force a ballot. This must be held if required by 50 members of the union, or by 10 per cent of the union’s membership, whichever is the less. Mr Bolger’s initiative in preparing a review of union membership for discussion by his Cabinet and caucus colleagues is a further step in the debate, but not an unexpected one. On several occasions this year he has spoken publicly of the possibility of repealing the unqualified preference provisions. Several members of the Government caucus are strongly opposed to compulsory unionism and remits against compulsory unionism are well supported at just about every conference the National Party holds. The recent expulsion from union membership of freezing workers who refused to pay a union levy — and their consequent dismissal from their jobs because they did not hold membership in the union — has fuelled the caucus opposition. Mr Bolger’s review of union membership probably is a reaction, at least in part, to the mood of his party. His renewed questioning of the justification for compulsory unionism has been made more pertinent, perhaps unwittingly, by recent statements from the vice-president of the Federation of Labour, Mrs Sonja Davies, and the Labour Party’s spokesman on industrial conciliation, Mr F. M. Gerbic. Mrs Davies has been reported as saying that “the trade union movement as we know it will disappear” if the unqualified preference provision is removed. Mr Gerbic said that “many unions will go under if voluntary unionism is set up.” When such supporters of compulsory unionism doubt the willingness of workers to support unions voluntarily, it must be in the belief that many workers neither want nor think they need union membership, or that they do not want it badly enough to ensure the unions’ survival. The element of compulsion in the unqualified preference clause is repugnant to many New Zealanders; in practice it serves industrial harmony better than many might realise. The present system is not without faults. A change to union membership by industry, rather than by occupation, for instance, could offer substantial benefits for workers, employers, and the country. To argue for such a change, however, is not to argue against compulsory union membership. The practical advantages of the unqualified preference provision probably outweigh the philosophical objections to it. One danger with voluntary unionism is the potential for chaos as rival unions compete for dwindling membership, to the point of

disrupting production in their struggle to get union coverage. Union recognition disputes, inter-union rivalry, and demarcation disputes undoubtedly would become more common. The present system does not prevent demarcation disputes; but it provides remedies by way of the Arbitration Court for such disputes to be settled amicably. By and large, amicable settlements have been achieved in demarcation disputes in recent years. The philosophical objection to compulsory unionism lies in the principle of free association in that employment becomes conditional upon membership. Were employers enabled to insist that their employees must belong to some organisation or society of the employers’ choice, many objections would be raised. When a majority of employees elect to work in a closed shop, employing union members only, the insistence on membership gains considerable respectability. In New Zealand, which is a rare example, the closed shop idea is universal; and employers, for their own purposes, are joined in associations that represent their views and interests in industrial matters. In theory, though often not in practice, employees of all attitudes and persuasions play cneir part in forming the policies and in determining the actions of unions. Given the strength that unions have in industrial affairs, their actions should fairly reflect the views of their members. Union leadership, like effective leadership in all things, may go beyond the individual ideas of members; nevertheless, leadership should have the support and confidence of a majority of union members. Very often, through indifference, even antipathy, a great number of union members stay away from union activities. Power may then be exercised by default; decisions may then be made on minority, views only; subsequently, the union’s position may be weakened when dissatisfied members eventually speak up or fail to back a course of action. Although the question of freedom to associate, and of freedom not to associate, may seem to be a profoundly good cause to uphold in general, the practicalities of industrial matters must cany a great deal of weight. In looking at the performance of unions, the Government might do the country more good by urging all union members to exercise their rights and to do their best to obtain responsive and responsible management than it will do by removing incentives to active membership. Wise Ministers of Labour have examined this question before and have come to the firm conclusion that the greater benefit to all lies in strong and active union membership. Extremists, left alone, will be extreme. Those who are indifferent or careless, left alone, are likely to be put upon. The political reality for Mr Bolger is that the repeal of the unqualified preference provision is a card he can play only once. It is a powerful card, as the fears expressed by Mrs Davies and Mr Gerbic confirm. In his earlier references to repeal, Mr Bolger has usually coupled his remarks with a warning that union leaders should be more responsive to the wishes of rank and file membership and more responsible in their demands. If his present review of compulsory unionism is intended as a lever against F.O.L. dissatisfaction with the freeze on prices and incomes, Mr Bolger must be wary of crying “wolf’ too often. If he intends to pursue the issue to the point of legislation, he wifi have to provide more convincing arguments than have emerged so far that the benefits of repeal will be real and lasting.