The Press MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1961. Voluntary Unionism

Press, Volume C, Issue 29537, 12 June 1961, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1961. Voluntary Unionism

In adhering to its intention to abolish compulsory unionism the Government is adhering to principle. If a union is strong enough and has the support of its members it will still be able to wrest the right to a “closed shop" from employers, and have the backing of the Arbitration Court That is perhaps fair enough, though it may run counter to the wishes of a substantial minority of unionists in some cases. It is neither fair nor right tor the State to declare that, regardless of the wishes of workers in an industry, the State itself will insist on a “closed shop", which is the position today. Why should workers be dragooned into a sectional organisation without the right even to be consulted? In divesting the State of this autocratic power, the Government does not intend to go back to the law immediately before the introduction of compulsory unionism in 1936, because at that time the “closed shop” was not legal. The Government is going back to the custom in New Zealand before 1916 (in which year the “closed “ shop ” was held to be illegal by the Courts) and to the prevailing custom in most industrialised nations. It is hard to understand why this proposal to let unionists make their own decision should cause so much annoyance among the trade union hierarchy and so much foreboding among employers. The president of

the Federation of Labour (Mr F. P. Walsh) will need no “ bloody revolution ” to obtain for his unions all the preference to unionists and protection members could wish providing always that they do wish for these things. If Mr Walsh chooses to fight the Government industrially on this issue it will be only because he is spoiling for a fight and is looking for an excuse. He sounds sometimes as if he were whipping up the enthusiasm of his supporters for just that In fact the unions have had such an easy time for the last 25 years, with the State disciplining their members for them, that the abolition of compulsory unionism is not likely to make much difference to industrial organisation. From sheer force of habit members will continue to support their unions without thinking much about any alternative. But it is proper that they should be able to think about it if they want to. The change in the law may make it a little more difficult for unions to collect subscriptions, since employers will not be under the same compulsion to act as collecting agencies. That does not seem a very formidable difficulty for union officials, who are presumably paid to perform such duties. Nor should the shifting of responsibility for policing observance of the “ closed shop ” to'unions cause any real trouble. Again that seems a proper function of union officials.