The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1961. Voluntary Unionism

Press, Volume C, Issue 29621, 18 September 1961, Page 10

The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1961. Voluntary Unionism

The Labour Party, having made such a show of opposing the introduction of the bill ending compulsory unionism, may feel obliged to continue to fight to the limit of Parliamentary procedure. That would be a pity, with so much important work before the House of Representatives, because the argument can only be on principle, and the principle is dead against the Opposition. Because the bill provides for unqualified preference to unionists it will in practice make po difference at all if a majority of workers want the “ union shop ”, The bill will make an important difference in principle, because the decision will be made by the unionists themselves and will not be forced on them by the State. Unqualified preference to unionists is the rule in most countries with democratic government (though a few American States have adopted “ right -to - work ” laws which outlaw the “ union shop”); and the absence of compulsory unionism has not caused all the mischief that Labour members predict for New Zealand.

Something has been said of New Zealand’s record in industrial relations. The record is by no means perfect, and, to put it temperately, union officials have not always helped to mprove the record. Insofar as industrial relations have been good, compulsory unionism has been less important than a relative prosperity that has permitted satisfaction of union demands. If New Zealand’s easy times have ended, compulsory unionism would not do much to reconcile unionists to any slowing down in the advance of their living standards. One practical result of the aboilition of compulsory unionism is that union officials

will have to do their own work instead of relying on the State to do it for them. Is the Labour Party attitude really no more than tenderness for those union secretaries who are not confident of their ability to discharge their responsibilities properly? An inconsistency in the Labour attitude is the insistence that employers do not want the amendment. If that is so and whatever the reason, the end of Statedirected unionism should make little difference to union officials. They and the employers could agree on unqualified preference; and that would be that, irrespective of the wishes of union members. Can the Labour Party have an uneasy feeling that, if employers in some industry wanted a union ballot on unqualified preference, the simple majority might not be forthcoming? In that unlikely event, of course, the “ union shop ” should not be forced on unwilling unionists. The Labour Party has always, we understood, been attached to the principle of majority rule. That is exactly what the bill provides. Another principle of democracy is that the interests of minorities should be protected. The bill goes as far as possible in that direction by widening the definition of conscientious objection. To go further would frustrate the will of the majority. The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) has been wise to abandon any attempt to give a particular employer and his employees the right to contract out of an unqualified preference clause in an award. Such a provision would have been a constant source of industrial friction, even if a suitable formula could have been devised. Where the interests of the majority and a minority are in direct conflict the will of the former must prevail.