Compulsory unionism

Press, 19 July 1983, Page 20

Compulsory unionism

Sir,—l run a small business and I am usually too busy to reply to the socialists who frequent your letter column. However, I have this to say about compulsory unions. It is my observation that some of the people who run compulsory unions may seek to wreck the private businesses that employer and employee together have worked damned hard at to improve our lot and prosper. Threats of high redundancy payments, ridiculous wage demands, and strikes and go-slows that are against everyone’s best interests are making it harder and harder to make a go of it. The biggest monopoly in this country is the one the unions have over half a million ordinary working people. Voluntary unions are not a threat to people and their working conditions; it is an important step towards getting rid of unemployment and improving our quality of life. — Yours, etc., NICK WILLIAMS. July 16, 1983.

Sir,—P. Wright (July 13) has yet to carry his thinking on the implications of his position of part-time worker-school attender past the stage of resenting compulsory unionism and accepting propaganda blaming unionism for unemployment. Politicians and business leaders during the 30s Depression trotted out this same tactic when I was among those secondary-school boys having extreme difficulty finding any kind of work. Our basic reasons for wanting work were probably the same as P. Wright’s reasons — financial need plus reluctance to be a drag on oup families; I learned very quickly that unemployment is caused by the way the capitalist system operates. ,P. Wright and others in his position need to learn 'the same thing so that when they become full-time work seekers they will not be fair game for fascist elements wanting to destroy real unionism, compulsory or voluntary. — Yours, etc., r. Tate. July 15, 1983.

Sir, — The pro-compulsory union correspondents (July 15) express a common misunderstanding . some well-meaning people should <be forgiven for. The fact that ( someone received a wage rise as a

result of joining a compulsory organisation, does not make that organisation free from the basic common law of “freedom of association.” This law also includes the right to not associate. I happen to think that playing tennis is very good for you. However, does this give me the right to demand that ail citizens must join my tennis club? Of course not! 1 am by no means a union basher, but I have deep respect for such laws and principles as “freedom of association” and maintain my right to choose my associates based on that freedom which can easily be destroyed. — Yours, etc., R. WEST. July 16, 1983.

Sir, — Mr Colin McCready, assistant secretary, Canterbury Hotel Workers’ Union, is quoted as saying that the abolition of compulsory unionism would be a “dreadful punishment” for many workers, and states also that there is no 1 groundswell for change (“The Press,” July 14). Surely Mr McCready has enough commonsense to see that workers should be able to decide whether they want to “punish” themselves by leaving the union or not. Also, if there is little support for change, why is he so concerned? The real answer is that the unions are afraid of voluntary membership because they will lose support. — Yours, etc.,

M. W. SHEPHERD. July 16, 1983.

Sir,—Nothing illustrates better the contempt this National Government has for people than the debate over compulsory unionism. The fact is .that the proposed bill is to be introduced some time in the future and nobody, not even the Government, knows its content. In the meantime the public are left to debate a shadowy, vague, philosophical proposal which has more to do with the election of a Deputy Prime Minister than it has with the general well-being of New Zealanders. And if the public are ground to a pulp in the process then that’s O.K. Winning is the name of the game. — Yours, etc., GRAEME YARDLEY. July 16, 1983.