THE PRESS SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1983. Path to ‘voluntary’ disputes

Press, 9 July 1983, Page 16

THE PRESS SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1983. Path to ‘voluntary’ disputes

If the Government goes ahead with legislation to introduce a form of voluntary unionism, it will be wishing on the country a new, and probably prolific source of industrial disputes. However desirable, in theory, to civil libertarians and to those who support the rights of people to choose what organisations they will join, effective voluntary unionism, in practice, could turn out to make worse those abuses of trade union power that it seeks to curb.

New Zealand has had half a century of effective compulsory unionism in all but a handful of industrial organisations. In recent times, when those directly affected have been invited to indicate their feelings, unionists who have bothered to do so have voted overwhelmingly for continuation of an unqualified preference clause in industrial awards. The opinion of the country as a whole has not been tested on the issue.

Many people, including many trade union members, probably feel that some trade unions have too much power, and use their power in a reckless fashion to disturb the lives of the community in the pursuit of selfish or trivial objects. Even if this were so, a form of voluntary unionism is not the way to achieve more reasonable union demands, or more harmonious industrial relations.

With the announcement and its timing this week, the Government raises questions about its motives, and about where public pressure for voluntary unionism may be coming from. Industrial organisations do not want it. Employers are divided on the matter. No signifiant organisation in the community has run a campaign for voluntary unionism. The Government has still to make much progress in the important talks with employers and unions on the system of wage fixing that will follow the freeze on incomes. To raise a new and divisive issue in industrial relations now can only damage the talks, unless it is no more than a bargaining ploy to hurry up an agreement with trade unions on other matters.

Perhaps the intention is to drop the voluntary unionism proposals, if trade unions can be brought to early agreement elsewhere. Perhaps, as some unionists have suggested, the proposals are designed to distract public attention from unemployment, or even to provoke industrial strife in the run up to the

next General Election, due in November, 1984. If so, the Government’s intention could well do its cause more harm than good. The Minister of Labour, Mr Bolger, has said that under a system of compulsion, trade union leaders are not responsive to the wishes of their members. Given the apathy of the majority of members of many unions, this may be true. Under voluntary unionism, however, the same energetic or militant minority as at present would still dominate union leadership, but without the restraint of more moderate members. The result would be more aggressive trade unions, not more reasonable ones. Big employers know this. Most of them probably prefer the present arrangements, however frustrating at times, to a system where disputes between unionists and non-unionists in the same plant, or in related industries, would open up a whole new field for industrial unrest. At the core of New Zealand’s need for industrial reform lie two questions, neither easy to resolve and neither likely to be helped by voluntary unionism. Many unions need to be persuaded to take a more reasonable attitude in their negotiations, not only in the level of incomes they attempt to achieve for their members, but in their approach to such matters as technological change. As well, a way has to be found to make industrial agreements binding on unions and their members for the term of the agreement.

To have all trade unions consider the community’s well-being as well as their own may seem idealistic; to have unions take constant account of the restraints of productivity and of New Zealand’s international competitiveness may be wishful thinking. Yet agreement in these fields would probably do more good for everyone including trade union members than introducing a system of voluntary union membership, rich in the probability of more strife. The Government may be able to demonstrate overwhelming public support for voluntary unions; it may be able to draft legislation that overcomes the potentially disastrous flaws in a system of voluntary unionism. Until it shows these things, the superficial attraction of “union bashing” should not overwhelm a more thoughtful appreciation of the unhappy consequences that voluntary unionism would produce.