union myths - #1 compulsory membership
Around the traps I've seen a few comments over recent months which show the ignorance of many on the Right in regard to unions. I guess I shouldn't really expect them to know, given that they've probably never been in one, but in the interests of enlightenment, here is the first is a series of explanations for those bloggers who currently wallow in their ignorance and then spread it around.*
Union Myth #1 - Union membership is compulsory
I've seen this bandied around a bit - that people are somehow forced to join unions.
Union membership hasn't been compulsory in NZ since the decade of the bubble-skirt, the 1980s. This comes from a speech by Ross Wilson given in 2002:
"From 1936 union membership became compulsory. This system of arbitration and compulsory union membership, which provided a system of centralised wage bargaining, continued until the 1980s."In fact even when membership was nominally compulsory, union membership still wasn't 100%, nowhere near. In 1985 union members were only 53.1% of wage and salary earners.
Union density now is much lower, around the 20% mark averaged across all sectors. Hardly evidence of a insidious regime of "compulsory unionism." And something you would have thought right-wingers could realise on their own, given none of them seem to be in unions.
*and because I am too lazy/busy to continue to run around trying to deal to these misconceptions when they are popping up elsewhere.
4 comments:
Except student unions.
And using taxpayers' money to bribe people to join unions is morally equivalent to forcing them to join.
Nigel: they're not bribing people to join unions; the union is exercising its market power to gain an advantage for its members. Most employers don't want different contractual conditions for union vs non-union staff, and so under the circumstances a one-off bonus is an easy solution for all parties.
i don't actually see students' associations as the same as unions. i used to, when i was involved in one, but now that i've worked for, and been an active member of, workers' unions i can see the differences. i plan to address this point in a future post, but in brief - students' associations are more like (or should be more like) local government.
people join unions for all sorts of reasons - for protection, for access to other benefits such as cheap insurance or banking services, because they believe in a collective approach, because they want their workplace to change, because they have been ripped off in the past, because they know that they are likely to get a better deal in bigger numbers (which is really what the financial advantages come down to).
there are clear financial advantages to joining the AA too, but I don't see anyone suggesting that's compulsory.
I am glad you see the advantages of voluntary unionism but differ from you in your suggestion student unions are like local government.
They are advocacy and service organisations.
Post a Comment