Compulsory unionism in New Zealand

Abstract

This thesis attempts to answer two general questions. First, is compulsory unionism, introduced in New Zealand in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1936, a step towards State authoritarianism? Second, if so, what is the probable nature of that authoritarianism - that is, who benefits from the use of compulsory unionism as a means of political control? The division of society into economic classes involves social conflict. The virtue of democracy is that it makes provision for the expression of this conflict in a way that allows the opposing sections within society to fight, not to annihilation, but to compromise. It follows that a democratic system is one in which the basic characteristic is the balance of social forces, one against the other. The balance is necessarily a delicate one. Its preservation entails not only fundamental agreement by the opposing sides on the political foundations of the system; not only more than one political party striving in the constitutional manner for the acceptedly temporary control of the State power; not only the right of all sane and law-abiding citizens to cast an effective vote for the party of their choice at regular intervals; but also the equal ability of all sections of society to group themselves into organisations which have their existence outside the State administration and political parties, and which are capable of freely exerting influence and pressure on both these institutions in an attempt to further the special interests of their members.