Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1969. Uniting The Unions

Last week the Canterbury branch secretary of the Engineering and Related Trades Union, Mr L. Fortune, described the efforts of his union to prevent aircraft engineers from forming a separate union. Mr Fortune also denied a suggestion that his union intended to take over the Canterbury Boilermakers’ Unidn. Regardless of the pros and cons of any particular issues within and between unions, Mr Fortune’s statements -invite consideration of the problems inherent in the present structure of industrial unions in New Zealand. It is surprising to find that the labour committee of the National Development Conference did not think it worth while to report on the subject when it considered the importance of industrial relations. The striking characteristics of New Zealand’s union structure are that the registered unions of both employers and employees are very numerous; that employees’ unions outnumber employers’ groups by about 370 to 250; and that the employees’ unions each have, on average, only about 1000 members. Hie consequences of this multiplicity of unions are somewhat modified by the association of district unions in, usually, national organisations. For the most part, employers, who have the more cohesive organisation for negotiations, ally themselves according to the industry to which they belong. Employees, on the other hand, are commonly divided according to their crafts and general classes of work, regardless of the industry in which they work. Employers, in short, are organised “vertically” by industry; employees are grouped “ horizontally ” by the nature of their work. Neither arrangement is perfect, though it is difficult to see how employers could associate in any other way—unless through the further consolidation of industries. The craft unions—such as the boilermakers and painters—and those unions whose members serve a wide variety Of industries—such as clerical and transport workers and engineers—are likely to oppose any far-reaching reorganisation of unions under which they would lose their identity. The constitution of the Federation of Labour says that the federation shall help to develop “trade “ union organisations on the lines of class and industry”. The recent conference of the federation resisted a proposal by the engineers that the federation’s national council should, condemn the fragmentation of unions, explore the “ long-standing, declared “policy of amalgamating kindred unions”, and determine which unions might amalgamate. The conference rejected this proposal, mainly because it implied directing unions. The conference endorsed the present constitution and decided that it could best be made effective by the federation’s national and district councils and the affiliated unions organising workers “ around the commodities produced and the services they render rather than “around the tools they use”. It was agreed that craft unions should hold ballots in each industry on amalgamations to form industrial unions. Models for such amalgamations are to be found in the composite awards negotiated for very large construction contracts and in the Public Service Association. The common ground is that the employees are working for one employer; but this does not seem to make the vertical organisation of employees less practicable. One obvious advantage is that the arrangement would virtually eliminate demarcation disputes and other disputes between unions. It would give all employees in a growing and efficient industry equal opportunity to negotiate for their share of the proceeds of higher productivity. This might seem to contradict the dictum that all employees, in any industry, should be paid “ the rate “ for the job ”. The answer is that even inefficient or declining industries must be prepared to pay the rate for the job; indeed, they would have to do so or lose workers to the more prosperous industries employing the same class of worker. The strength of union organisation and the proficiency of union officials are clearly matters of interest to employees; and both should be improved by the amalgamation of unions, even if sections for particular districts and classes of work are retained. The Public Service Association works on this principle. Overseas experience provides many warnings against the fragmentation of unions. How this may be avoided—and probably any solution would have to provide for many

exceptions—should receive the continued attention of unions. If an industrial relations conference is held, as recommended by the labour committee of the National Development Conference, this subject should be on the agenda.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19690514.2.122

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31987, 14 May 1969, Page 16

Word Count
710

The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1969. Uniting The Unions Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31987, 14 May 1969, Page 16

The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1969. Uniting The Unions Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31987, 14 May 1969, Page 16