When McKelvie and the National Party talk about a flexible labour market, it is that situation to which they refer. Their conviction is that small businesses require a non-union workplace to prosper and survive.
I have a different view.
I have a belief that those workers who make up that group — which has been described as the working poor — form an important part of our economy and society.
Their status should be no less than those in other sectors that enjoy union representation — doctors, teachers, lawyers, the police, nurses etc.
But, of course, I would say that, wouldn't I? Before retirement I was a member of that lower-paid cohort, a street sweeper.
The intent of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is to better enable lower-paid workers to be represented in the same way as the aforementioned middle-class workers.
It does not, as the National Party has claimed, represent a return to what it describes as a 1970s confrontation situation.
One would think National would want to keep quiet about the "confrontational seventies". The party was in government through much of the 1970s and early 80s and, under leader Sir Robert Muldoon, cynically fomented confrontation across various groups in society as a means of maintaining power.
Unions were one of those sectors that Sir Robert targeted — in particular the drivers' union. As a member of that union, I relied on it to negotiate my wage rates and work conditions.
Despite assertions that the union was militant, from memory I was only involved in two one-day stoppages over a period of about 30 years.
In the last few years of my employ, I worked in a non-union workplace initially established by use of zero hours contracts and whose managerial machinations had to be seen and experienced to be believed.
I know the value of union membership, both to its individual members as well as to the wider community. Unions have now, as they have always had in the past, a vital role in a democratic society.
If we are to re-establish a more egalitarian society and uphold the concept of a meritocracy, greater workplace involvement through union participation would be a necessary part of that process.
Since the change of government, we are beginning to see that happening.
Those workplaces that have retained their unionism — nurses and teachers, in particular — are seeking through union action, resolution of issues that, if left in abeyance would have serious implications for the wider community and economy.
Would an earlier appreciation by those unions of the need to challenge government policy have avoided the severity of the problems health and education services now face?
Other recent examples of beneficial union action are apparent.
New Zealander of the Year Kristine Bartlett, through her union, lodged an equal pay claim with the Employment Relations Authority that resulted in a protracted court battle that advantaged an estimated 50,000, mainly female, workers.
Former president of the NZ Council of Trade Unions Helen Kelly's activism on behalf of farm, forestry and film industry workers, as well as her representations on behalf of bereaved Pike River miners' families, has been widely acknowledged.
I would argue night and day about the historical value that comprehensive union coverage has delivered to our society, and for its relevance in a modern economy.
The Government amendments to industrial law will give greater opportunity for lower-paid workers to join a union if they wish and be party to properly negotiated work conditions and wage rates.
There is nothing radical or inherently confrontational about that.
The National Party's characterisation of it being confrontational is wrong but perhaps betrays a desire on its part that it be so. After all, confrontation with various sectors of our society has worked well for it in the past.
