Trade union membership varies in different countries. In 2022, only about 45 per cent of employees were trade union members.
In the same year, the Labour Party proposed introducing mandatory union membership, even if the then deputy prime minister, Chris Fearne later promised that the government had no intention of making union membership compulsory.
The government is now reopening the debate on compulsory union membership. Junior minister Andy Ellul says the government plans to implement some form of mandatory membership “well before” the end of its term in office.
The four models proposed by Ellul are: a system in which every employee is a union member; mandatory union membership only for low-wage earners; obliging third-country nationals to be in a trade union; a sectoral system where mandatory membership applies to just some industries.
The decision was welcomed by the trade unions and opposed by the employers’ lobbies.
Unions claim that, under compulsory unionism, unions would ensure industrial discipline and the observance of industrial legislation.
In the present context of the growing exploitation of low-paid workers, especially those coming from third countries, the pro-mandatory union membership lobby makes sense.
Unions continue to play an essential role in this day and age. However, some may argue that what union leaders really want from compulsory unionism is the extra revenue from thousands of conscripted members.
The main objection to compulsory unionism is not to be found in the realm of industrial policy. Neither is the renewed interest in introducing compulsory unionism evidence of a more pronounced government determination to protect vulnerable workers.
In theory, our industrial laws, if adequately enforced, should curb the incidence of workplace exploitation. Exploitation persists due to weak political will to implement sensible legislation.
The element of union membership compulsion strikes at the heart of traditional democratic rights, guaranteeing freedom of thought and action to the individual.
The Declaration of Human Rights, signed in Paris in December 1948, states that everybody shall have the right to freedom of peaceable assembly and that no one may be compelled to join an organisation.
While endorsing a resolution to the freedom to form an association, the International Labour Office was also careful in affirming that the individual must remain free to join or not to join.
Union officials, assured of their membership and finances, are likely to become increasingly indifferent to the needs and wishes of the rank-and-file by whose contributions they are supported.
Under compulsory unionism, any members dissatisfied with the policies or services provided by their union may not be allowed to resign. Moreover, under compulsory unionism, members of a deregistered union would cease to be legally eligible for employment or would be obliged to join an alternative union before they could return to work.
Some trade unions may argue that non-union members participate in the gains secured by union activity and that they should, therefore, pay union dues. This argument overlooks that the attraction of all voluntary associations, friendly societies and NGOs lies in their benefits to members. That is why people join.
Trade unions need a more inspiring vision of their role in today’s society. They must ask themselves why so many workers are not interested in joining a trade union.
Employers’ lobbies must also understand that treating workers as a disposable commodity falls short of their moral obligations. The whole community benefits from the attempts of organised labour, businesses and industrial policymakers to work together to ensure that workers are not exploited.
But, ultimately, compulsory unionism could also be an assault on the freedom of individuals to make their own choices.