The General Workers Union is suggesting that it should be mandatory for all workers to be members of a body that safeguards their interests. The same union is also suggesting that should workers be given the option to not enrol as members, they will still be required to pay a fee because, the GWU is arguing, any benefits and improvements to working conditions brought about by a union are passed on to non-members too.
That a union makes these proposals is understandable. Mandatory membership would mean more money pocketed by the unions. Paying a fee for non-enrolment would also mean more cash in the unions’ coffers.
What is less understandable is the Labour government’s opening to such suggestions, with Prime Minister Robert Abela saying in a recent meeting with the GWU that he agrees with the union’s position.
Should it proceed down this line, we are sure that the government will be facing tough opposition from the employers, who will see this move as nothing less than an imposition aimed to further create issues to the entrepreneurs who, after all, are providing a livelihood to their employees via their investment, in whatever sector of the economy that happens to be.
Unions say that they have been instrumental in obtaining better working conditions for workers, with employers rebutting that the behaviour of unions have often stalled progress and resisted necessary change.
But, aside from the obvious differences of opinion on this matter between the unions and the employers, there is one fundamental issue which the GWU is ignoring when it makes such a suggestion – and this is freedom of association.
As things stand now, everyone has the right to join a trade union, but everyone also has the right to not join a union (or whatever other organisation, be it political or otherwise). Imposing union membership on workers who do not want to be represented by a union at their workplace goes against those workers’ right not to join a union.
What the GWU is suggesting is that workers will be obliged to become a member of a union, even if they do not believe in the principle of union membership, or simply do not agree with one or more values endorsed by unions. If the suggestion is implemented, this would mean that workers will be forced to forfeit part of their wage on something they do not want or do not believe in. What is perhaps worse is that, if they opt not to pay union membership, they will still be required to pay a fee to financially support a union.
It is rich that a union which is supposedly there to safeguard workers’ rights is proposing that workers use part of their wage against their wishes. The union should work to protect the rights of all workers irrespective of their affiliation or non-affiliation, not seek to impose a financial penalty on them. What would unions do if, say, workers will start to be obliged to part with some of their wage to sustain something which is not linked with trade unions?
We are sure that unions would be the first to order industrial action if an employer attempts to force workers do something unwillingly. So why are they expecting those workers who choose not to be a union member to be forcefully enrolled and, if they don’t, still have to pay the union for refusing membership?