The proposal to introduce some form of mandatory trade union membership in Malta has reignited a contentious debate. Promised in the Labour Party's 2022 electoral manifesto and endorsed by trade unions, with General Workers Union chief Josef Bugeja emphasising the point in a recent interview with this media house, the policy is presented as a way to combat worker exploitation and improve labour conditions. However, making union membership compulsory poses significant legal, ethical, and practical concerns.

Worker exploitation is undeniably a real problem, especially among low-paid and foreign workers. Poor conditions and precarious contracts demand serious attention. But mandatory union membership addresses the symptoms, not the root causes, of this exploitation. Malta already has strong labour laws on paper; the real challenge lies in enforcement. Strengthening inspections, increasing resources for regulators, and holding abusive employers accountable would be far more effective and fair.

At the heart of the issue is the principle of freedom of association. This right is protected by Malta's Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and international labour agreements. Just as individuals have the right to join a union, they also have the right not to. Compulsory unionisation, even selectively applied, infringes on this fundamental freedom and sets a dangerous precedent.

Unions play a crucial role in protecting workers' rights and promoting fair conditions, but their strength should come from voluntary support. Trust in unions must be earned through effective advocacy and representation, not imposed by law. Forcing workers into unions undermines this trust and shifts the burden of fixing structural problems onto the very people who are most vulnerable.

Politically and legally, the proposal is risky. No other EU country mandates union membership, and Malta could face legal challenges in European courts if it proceeds. This would further harm the country's international reputation, already stained by financial grey-listing and controversial policy decisions.

Domestically, employer groups such as the Malta Chamber of Commerce, the Malta Employers' Association and the Malta Chamber of SMEs have voiced strong opposition, arguing the policy disrupts the balance of Malta's generally stable industrial relations framework.

Even within the union movement, the policy is divisive. Former UĦM leader Gejtu Vella has criticised it in the past, warning that forced membership undermines the core values of unionism. Moreover, the financial benefits to unions, through increased membership fees, have been largely unspoken, raising questions about underlying motives.

With less than two years left in the legislature, the government appears eager to fulfil manifesto pledges. But such urgency should not override constitutional rights or democratic norms. Electoral promises must be weighed against practical implications and protection of fundamental rights.

If the aim is truly to defend workers, better alternatives exist: improved enforcement of labour laws, increased funding for oversight bodies, legal aid for vulnerable workers, and educational campaigns to inform employees of their rights. These measures uphold freedom and are more likely to deliver lasting improvements in workplace conditions.

Mandatory union membership risks violating rights, eroding trust, and damaging Malta's credibility. It is not a path toward genuine worker empowerment. A fairer, more effective solution lies in reinforcing existing protections - not in coercion.