Compulsory unionism

Press, 6 July 1983, Page 12

Compulsory unionism

Sir,—When unions were struggling for recognition employers took advantage of the many employees who were too mean to pay the union subscription but accepted the benefits obtained for them by the union. Now the boot is on the other foot and the strongest unions are pressing their members’ welfare to the disadvantage of all sections of the community and calling strikes for political rather than industrial purposes. This position could be remedied by legislation making the election of union officials and the calling of strikes subject to a secret ballot, organised by the Ministry of Labour on General Election lines. The wives of union members should vote on the question of calling a strike, since they, as managers of the family budget, have as much interest in the issue as their husbands. Such a measure would bring some much needed stability into New Zealand industrial relations. — Yours, etc., H. F. NEWMAN. July 2, 1983.

Sir,—As a young New Zealander 50 years ago I experienced ashore and afloat first-hand the harsh conditions of many British working folk. Yet they were remarkably cheerful. I witnessed too, the unemployed “hunger marchers” from

Jarrow-on-Tyne, arriving at Hyde Park. For seafarers hours were long, pay poor, accommodation limited and leave scant. Employment was precarious. Yes — a good case for trade unionism. But today in our bounteous land, by comparison with many, despite unemployment, the achieved conditions which earlier folk strove for, are being brainlessly sabotaged by Left-wing militant union leaders, often imported. The trade union pendulum has swung in reverse and almost stopped the clock. I do not oppose unions, guilds and so on just on principle. One respects well-mannered, balanced union leaders like Tony Neary and one or two others, but surely today, we have a strong case for voluntary unionism; alternatively anarchy. — Yours, etc., JOHN LESLIE. July 3, 1983.

Sir,—R. Tate (“The Press,” July 4) displays the common automatic reaction of concluding that if one objects to compulsory unionism, it follows that one must be “antiunion.” If R. Tate bothered more about logic and less about sinister “camouflaged” plots, rational debate could be possible. There is nothing wrong in joining a union. It is only wrong to be effectively forced to join. Equally, there is nothing wrong with R. Tate indulging in crass nineteenth century dialectics complete with “class struggles,” “workers’ resistance” and “bitter battles” with the nasty capitalist state. It is wrong, however, to be effectively conscripted into defending these jaundiced and archaic barricades. This should be voluntary rather than compulsory. — Yours, etc., DAVID SHANKS. July 4, 1983.

Sir,—There is a lot of twaddle printed about compulsory unionism in New Zealand. Voluntary unionism does work very successfully in other parts of the world. I lived in North America for over 17 years and worked in such factories as Westinghouse and Caterpillar. If a person did not wish to belong to a union he did not have to. To get over the question of paying for the privileges the unions won for the workers, the non-unionist used to have the equivalent of his union fees deducted and paid into a welfare fund. This gave him a choice of what to do with his money and still pay for the right of enjoying good wages and benefits. Workers in the United States enjoy some of the best wages and conditions in- the world. One of the most successful businesses in the world, Sears Roebuck, does not have a union but its 200,000 or so employees enjoy benefits by common sense negotiation that they would have never won by confrontation.

— Yours, etc., DEREK H. ROUT. July 3, 1983.