COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 129, 2 June 1936, Page 8

COMPULSORY UNIONISM

We doubt if the effect of the compulsory unionism section of the Arbitration Amendment Act is fully understood by the people who »re directly affected. The memorandum issued to bank officers by their guild and the comments of the Minister of Labour thereon help to make the position clear. The guild invited bank officers to express an opinion on the question of registration as a union or continuance as a guild. One of the vital paragraphs in the memorandum stated:

H it is decided hot to register as a union, we have the assurance of the Minister of Labour that we shall not be absorbed automatically in a general clerical union. The Minister, in effect, contradicts that assurance by stating: Whatever the result of the ballot may be, bank officers not accepting the advice given to them by myself, which is to register under the Arbitration Act if they want to retain the separate identity of their organisation, are in grave danger of being absorbed by an outside organisation. If that happens they will be entirely responsible for it themselves.

We cannot interpret this as meaning anything but that organisations of employees must accept the form of organisation dictated by the Government. They are to be dragooned into forming and registering as a union under the threat of being forced into a general organisation of which they may strongly disapprove. This is compulsory unionism with a vengeance." It gives practical effect to the threats already uttered by the Government against what Ministers and union organisers have described as company unionism. These threats have presented e any attempts to form a separate organisation and thus to retain the identity of workers in a particular calling as being the outcome of machinations by the employers. It has not been conceded as even possible that- some groups of workers have such amicable relationships with their employers that they are anxious to continue on the same basis.

There is another and equally serious side to this business. A union formed by fifteen employees in a particular calling can apply for an award and the Court must include in that award a clause making membership compulsory upon all employees, though there may be fifteen hundred outside. Such a union may include many members who are not sympathetic with the aims and policy of the, Labour Party, but if the union decides to affiliate with the Labour Party those members will see their contributions devoted in part to support of a political parly which they do not favour. One of the recently-formed unions which has at present a membership probably not one-tenth of what it will attain under compulsory unionism has already decided to apply for affiliation with the Labour Party and the Alliance of Labour. It may be said that this affiliation, if effected, will hold good only so long as the majority approve;'but even if the majority approve it is wrong that a minority should be compelled to support a political party to which they are opposed. We drew attention to this when the Arbitration Bill was before Parliament and suggested that at letfst it should be provided that no part of a membership fee compulsorily exacted should be usable for political purposes, but no amendment to this effect was made. Now the Labour Party, which has had so much to say in the past concerning party funds, has placed on the Slalutc Book a measure which may be used to exact contributions from those who are opposed to it. This is not democratic and it is not just.