行政院送立法院之“工會法"修正案，將;JU于第十二條關於工會會員“攝制入會"改為“自由入會\"，並提出是基於保障個人消拯結社自由之論說，但作者指tI:工會同盟自由與結社自由並不相同，並自工會團結之根本性質及愛工抗爭主芝動的歷史過程中，認為所謂“消拯同盟自由\"概念之出現自始就是被利用來對抗工會的工具，唯有積桂同盟自由才是勞動條件自決之勞工手段並進一步論證“同盟自由之必然不保障消經同盟自由\"，駁斥二者為“一種兩面\"之流行說法。在我函現行勞動體制下，是採t于自由入會制度，划等於是以肯定個別勞工之消校同盟自由為籍口而實際上卻剝奪工會之生存、存續保障，應屬有悴，憲法價「值秩序，嚴重構成違憲!惟有在工會之生存、行動及協商榷均獲得確保之前提條件下，始可改採自由入會制度。

Ther Executive Yuan has proposed a revision of the Statute on Unions to the Legislative Yuan. Calling for a shift from 冗ompulsoryunion membership" t。“voluntary membership，\" the proposed revision is claimed to be a defense of individual freedom of association. The author， however， offers that the notion is at odds with social freedoms. Furthermore， given the context of control in which the proposal are offered and the history of union struggles lead the author to suggest that so· called freedom of association proposal emerging at this time is being used as a tool to oppose unions. The real condition of associative freedom is workers autonomy. Taking the matter a step further， the author contends that freedom of association can be regarded from two different vantage points. Under present conditions of labor regulation in Taiwan， freedom of association of this sort is actually an excuse to take back some of the already existing resources of the unions.