Page 1331 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As with any other service, union membership will have to be sold on the basis of its merits and benefits, not on the inclusion of a clause in a person's employment contract. I have also been informed that, if this amendment is passed, the union movement will seek inclusion of compulsory union clauses in awards. This is a matter for the union after this debate and would then be a matter for the Industrial Relations Commission.
It is important to see this move in perspective. We already accept that it is wrong to discriminate against a person on the basis of ethnic origin, disability, health status, marital status, sex or sexual preference, unless there is a particular need for a special requirement of a particular profession. Exceptions have been made under Federal legislation to allow for certain discriminatory practices, in particular affirmative action; but I can see no argument that supports the notion that there is something about union membership which makes one person more suitable for a position than another. If two people applying for a position are equal on merit, it should not be their membership of an association or union or some requirement that they join before taking up their position that decides the matter. If there are benefits which flow from union or association membership, these can be promoted to the employee on the job, and the decision to join or not to join is then one of personal choice.
It concerns me also that, since the creation of the so-called mega-unions, many workers have become almost disenfranchised. Their views cannot be adequately put forward and their individual needs catered for, as all issues raised with delegates are subject to national priorities. Even when a union operates here in the ACT and has effective coverage via an ACT award, its priorities are still subject to and to some extent dictated by events in other larger employment bases such as New South Wales. What compulsory unionism means, in my estimation, is that superunions do not have to be accountable to members but can be assured of funds and a mandate. Some unions have strong member involvement and would fare well even if membership were not compulsory. However, there are some other unions where compulsory membership does not engender a feeling of worker ownership but, instead, is just one more deduction that comes out of the pay packet after tax.
There are other compulsory aspects to mandatory union membership, such as the union dictating which superannuation fund can be used for employee and productivity benefits paid as superannuation contributions. In one case, a casual worker has been forced to join a superannuation fund that levies an administration fee every year which is more than the employee has deposited as contributions. The result is that, for the honour of working sporadically, this person gets to pay compulsory union fees and an annual administration fee for a superannuation fund which he will never be able to benefit from. This person has his own superannuation fund, but the union will not allow employer contributions to be deposited there; it is not the union-approved fund. It is this type of example which shows how compulsory unionism often works against the benefit of employees. I feel that it is imperative that each employee be allowed to assess the benefit to themselves of being in a union and have the fundamental right not to join if they so choose.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .