Compulsory unionisation is in breach of our constitution

I refer to the Labour Party agreeing in principle with forcing workers to join a union, according to its election manifesto. Unless I am missing out on something, to my mind, should such compulsory unionisation materialise it will be directly going against the provision of article 42 of our constitution that lays down: “Except with his own consent… no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of peaceful assembly and association, that is to say, his right peacefully to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to trade or other unions or associations for the protection of his interests.” The emphasis should be laid on the keyword ‘freely’.

Apart from the legal issue involved, there could be the other issue of whether compulsory membership of labour unions benefits all workers. If union membership is compulsory then anyone who cannot or does not wish to join the union simply cannot work. That is certainly not a benefit to the workers being excluded from employment opportunities.

Other exponents have touted the benefits of union membership without

discussing any of the pitfalls. Unions claim to represent the interests of the workers but, actually, a union represents the interests of the union first and foremost and any benefit to the membership is collateral.

Mark Said – Msida

To join or not to join

If union membership is compulsory then anyone who cannot or does not wish to join the union simply cannot work. Photo: Shutterstock.com  

There is no gainsaying the fact that collective bargaining ultimately leads to a collective agreement, which tends to adjust wages and, at the same time, ensure the objective of maintaining the relativity of wages.

On the basis of this argument, an all- unionised workforce provides the ideal setting for a higher degree of equity in the wage policy. It might, of course, lead to a spiral rise in the cost of labour. To mitigate such a possible adverse effect on productivity, the government may step in by setting up an apparatus or a government entity that would oversee the micro and macro consequences of the possibility of such scenario.

The remit of such an entity would be to ensure that the union acts in a socially responsible way by taking into account the external (third party) effect of the negotiated wage packet.

Of course, the question arises about the individual human right to dissociate, which may be infringed by such a scenario.

We have, however, to bear in mind that a sizeable number of non-unionised workers are employed in sectors where they have no voice to influence their working conditions and increase their pay packet.

These workers might have never been given the choice to associate or dissociate. 

Saviour Rizzo – San Ġwann

The effects of a closed shop

Employers, workers, politicians, journalists and whoever may be following the current debate about forced or free membership of workers in trade unions might all do well to watch closely the 1954 film production On the Waterfront directed by Elia Kazan, starring, among others, the famous Marlon Brando.

This is an excellent exposition about where the closed shop concept factually ends up, openly or covertly, in a marriage that effectively effects all workers and their families.

Worth watching calmly.

John Consiglio – Birkirkara