THE PRESS TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1986. Compulsion for employers?

Press, 22 April 1986, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1986. Compulsion for employers?

The Minister of Labour, Mr Rodger, has hinted at a tricky problem that he may set before the employers’ organisations: this is the notion that employers’ unions should have compulsory membership, just as Mr Rodger believes in compulsory membership of unions of employees. The director of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, Mr Colin Mclnnes, has noted that the idea of compulsory employers’ associations is inconsistent with the associations’ arguments against compulsory union membership. Like employees’ unions, the associations doubtless want strong membership. In theory, but perhaps only in theory, the more complete membership would mean the widest possible representation of views in the negotiations of awards and in the declaration of association policy. Membership, in theory, might imply that all employers have a commitment to maintaining agreements and policies to which they have been, however remotely, contributors. Speaking about the Government’s review of industrial relations, Mr Rodger favoured strong unions, well equipped with talent to conduct their business. He implied that industry would work better all round if all unions were well managed. All this may be so. Evidence elsewhere can be found to support his view. In practice, it is just as important to have active and attentive participation by union members in their affairs as it is to have completeness in membership. In fact, it is almost certainly much more important. This can be said equally of employers’ organisations. An employer must accept, by law, the

application of an appropriate award. This is so, regardless of whether the employer is a member of the body that negotiated the award. The employer may be better informed and a more efficient employer if supported by the sendees that an association can provide. There must be many instances in which a small employer would have benefited from an employers’ association services, and many unnecessary arguments could be avoided. Making membership compulsory is not, however, going to make all employers more responsive, better informed, or more exact in their application of awards. As is perfectly obvious, plenty of problems arise in spite of an employer’s membership. Mr Rodger is probably towing a red herring across the debate. He would certainly have trouble in defining usefully who should be regarded as an employer. Thousands of people engage labour and apply award rates and observe award conditions — or closely enough for all reasonable purposes. To include all these people in the membership of an employers’ organisation would be wildly absurd, and would not make a jot of difference to industrial relations. It would not encourage participation in an association’s affairs. The result would be merely to clutter the administration of an association, and put up the costs of employing people. It is to be hoped that Mr Rodger is not serious; otherwise we will see the church vestry, employer of the churchyard gardener, and the family shop, employer of one assistant, and a host of similar employers, swept into a machine that will break down from the weight of irrelevance.