Compulsory unionism

Press, 8 July 1983, Page 12

Compulsory unionism

Sir, — Susan Taylor’s description of the fate of unionists in repressive regimes (June 22) underlines the necessity for freedom of association — a basic freedom. I am sure she would acknowledge that this includes the freedom of non-associa-tion. Thus, I find it hard to understand why she supports compulsory unionism, which is a violation of this. New Zealand is the only Western country with such a system. Other Western countries have the comforts of civilisation she describes, so it is not true that compulsory unionism is necessary to gain these. In fact the activities of unions in many cases are threatening workers’ job security and levels of pay through disruption of business activity. This will lead to an over-all decrease in everyone’s standard of living. — Yours, etc., D. J. BAKER. July 1, 1983.

Sir,—David Shanks’s letter (July 6), lacks the logic he claims for it. It amounts to a quote-happy exercise in sarcasm seeking to portray capitalism as the victim, not the cause, of compulsory unionism in New Zealand. I was a rank-and-file unionist at the time it was debated before becoming law. A major reason for workers’ support was the expectation that it would eliminate the victimisation often resulting from exercising the alleged freedom to join a voluntary union. Trade unionists have since shed much of this particular illusion, because the class struggle became more intense, not archaic. They are now fighting to defeat industrial laws which legalise victimisation. To put themselves into a state of flux based on illusions as advocated by David Shanks and others would be the biggest step backwards they could take. — Yours, etc R. TATE. July 6, 19($.