The Press TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1961. Compulsory Unionism

Press, Volume C, Issue 29682, 28 November 1961, Page 16

The Press TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1961. Compulsory Unionism

Perhaps the best comment on the bill to abolish compulsory unionism was the question asked by Mr George, the Government member for Central Otago: “ Well, what’s all the fuss “ about ”? Parliament’s protracted discussion on the very simple principle in the bill has produced no very clear answer, unless it was the observation of Mr Macfarlane. Opposition member for Christchurch Central, that employers he had spoken to wanted to let sleeping dogs lie. Is that all there is to the opposition to the bill? If not. perhaps the objections will be more clearly stated when Parliament gets down to considering what the actual clauses of the bill will do. Not all the blame for clouding the issue rests with Labour spokesmen. Some Government backbenchers have not helped the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) by appearing to misunderstand the intention and meaning of an uncomplicated measure, which does no more than provide that membership of a union shall not be compulsory unless that is the wish of a majority of the workers covered by the award. Mr Sim, the member for Waikato, for instance, has seen the bill as the first step towards giving any individual the right to contract out of union membership against the decision of the majority of workers in his industry. Such a development would be quite impracticable and would indeed incite the strife of which Opposition members have made so much. However, the responsibility for critical examination of the Government’s proposals rests primarily on the Opposition; and the members have not met it very well. They have given no more evidence than Government members that they have read the notable report on New Zealand industrial relatione by Dr, A. E. C. Hare, which should surely have been required reading before a stonewall on a union bill. The debates so far have shown how unfortunate it was that the sittings of the Labour Bills Committee were not open to the press. Did the trade union witnesses really have no more to say than their allies in Parliament? Is it true that they had not consulted their members before giving evidence? It would have

been better to have had their views at first hand. Four main points were made by Opposition speakers during what were virtually two second-reading debates. The least tenable of these was the attempt made by Mr Fox (Miramar) to mix up compulsory unionism with compulsory arbitration, though arbitration is not and has never been compulsory for unions —only for employers. Unions voluntarily gave up the right to strike many years before unionism was made compulsory so that they could get the benefits of the arbitration system. They can regain that right! at any time. Compulspry unionism and arbitration j are two entirely separate* matters. Mr Hackett (Grey Lynn) considered that the abolition of compulsory unionism would lead to a multiplicity of awards, without explaining quite why. Experience in other countries suggests the opposite, with the development of larger, “ vertical ” unions. Mr Hackett also forecast that freezing workers would use the provisions of the bill to “ have some “say ” about the engagement of men by their employers; but the bill will give the unions no more warrant than they have now for trying to dictate to the freezing companies (as at Burnside). Incidentally Mr Hackett was demonstrably wrong when he asserted that every newspaper in New Zealand disapproved of the bill. “ The “ Press ”, at least, has consistently supported it. The argument of Mr Mathison (Avon) that the abolition of compulsory unionism would make it difficult for small unions to survive deserves some attention, though it appears to contradict the view of Mr Hackett. But what does Mr Mathison’s fear really amount to? A small union will find it difficult to survive only if it lacks the support of workers in the industry; and why should the union survive if the workers do not want it? There is the whole principle of the bill. If the workers want unqualified preference they can have it. If they do not want this protection for a union why should Parliament or the Federation of Labour thrust it on them? No-one has yet explained why a minority dictatorship should be so conducive to good industrial relations in New Zealand but in no other country.