Compulsory unionism
Sir,—W., Foot (May 20) should reexamine his argument in favour of compulsory unionism. His claim that if you do not like the rules of the club you do not play the game is fine but he ignores that workers do not have the same choice of belonging to a union that a sportsman has with his club, and when a worker withdraws from the game of work he does not have a job. Similarly, confused logic is used by E. L. Barclay (May 19) when he claims that in the same way that a rugby union would not agree to a nation-wide vote on its affairs, nor should the unions have to with theirs. The point being contested is not whether others should have a say over union affairs, but conversely, whether a union should be permitted to have control over an individual’s affairs, i.e. force him into union membership. Both your correspondents need to do more study. — Yours, etc., D. LEWIS. May 25, 1983.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19830530.2.92.6
Bibliographic details
Press, 30 May 1983, Page 16
Word Count
167Compulsory unionism Press, 30 May 1983, Page 16
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in