Unions: out there fighting for ordinary Aussies every day

Mark G says:

07:49am | 19/09/11

Erick,

Yes thats right another minority group that seems to think they represent the ‘average australia’. Almost sounds a bit like the greens. Oh did I say that out loud?

L. says:

07:55am | 19/09/11

“Australia has a population of 22.7 million. Therefore, unionists make up less than eight per cent of the population.”

That’s a dumb argument..

That 22.7 million you quote is a total figure, inclusive of children, elderly, and those who have never worked, military etc. While that 1.8 million unionists claim is obvioulsy for those of working age.

I suspect the figure of those represented by a union, while not stupidly high, is still a lot higher than the 8% of workers which you claim.

Mark G says:

08:03am | 19/09/11

The greens with their 1 of 150 seats in the house of reps and their 9 of 76 seats in the senate. With Bob Brown raising the point that the greens should be given the opportunity to hold the position of president of the senate.

acotrel says:

08:06am | 19/09/11

@Erick
‘Union bosses are a tiny minority of a tiny minority, yet they wield disproportionate power by their influence on the Labor Party.’

So you are claiming that unions are undemocratic ? - BULLSHIT ! !
  If you want an example of ‘disproportionate power ’ look at Rupert Murdoch !

Craig says:

08:32am | 19/09/11

Even the Greens have more supporters than the Unions.

Around double to be more precise (14-16%)

And Unions have about double the support of the National Party, who have significant influenc over the Coalition.

Interesting to consider who are the real minorities with influence.

W do at least have the right to vote for the Greens or Nationals.

Unions are a separate power unto themselves.

Dave-o says:

08:41am | 19/09/11

Except for the fact only roughly 11 million people are involved in full time work.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Amused says:

08:43am | 19/09/11

I agree Erick.  And I find it amazing that Ms Kearney is coming out with this pro Union opinion piece now, when everytime you see the news or pick up a paper we see more and more evidence of the Unions misusing members funds.  I would say she is in a panic to protect the big income they receive from members, so they, the leaders can continue to use the funds for their very own pleasures.  I would suggest that the Unions are losing control and the fat cats are in distress and that is what this Pro union article is about and nothing else.

Tubesteak says:

09:06am | 19/09/11

Compare apples with apples, Erick.

Of that 22.7m population there is only a workforce of about 10m.

Therefore, 1.8m is 18%.

The reason this is not higher is because some professions cannot be unionised, nor can some businesses (self-employed business owners, for example).

Last I checked, unions didn’t control any more power than the BCA, for example.

Erick says:

09:23am | 19/09/11

@L. - That’s a dumb comment. I never claimed that union members were less than 8% of workers, as you falsely assume. I claimed that unionists were less than 8% of Australia’s population, which is correct.

As such, they are a small minority and not representative of Australians in general - contrary to Ged’s own claim.

@Tubesteak & Dave-o - That’s irrelevant. The fact is that union members are a tiny fraction of the population. They certainly don’t represent workers, let alone the “ordinary Australians” who make up the other 92%.

marley says:

09:44am | 19/09/11

@tubesteak - yes, the current rate of unionization within the workforce is higher than Erick suggests, at about 18%.  That, however, is a massive decline from the 46% unionization figure 25 years ago.  And I don’t think non-unionization of the professions is part of the issue - after all, doctors can join the HSU and nurses obviously have a union. 

The fact is, unions have adapted poorly to the changing structure of the economy.  They have not been seen to provide value to many in the areas where employment has increased (financial services, service sector etc) and they are actually in conflict with the self-employed and small business sectors - which, to my mind, renders their claim to represent the average Aussie more than a bit hollow.

Do we need unions? Yes. But we need unions that have more going for them than history.

RyaN says:

09:47am | 19/09/11

Seems like those that don’t understand that political power affects every single last Australian (and even those that aren’t citizens), spin it how you like, these thug dropkicks don’t represent Australians, more they represent their own interests, their transition into the Labor party and their free whitegoods.
Unions are a joke and couldn’t give a flying toss about the worker these days.

Mark G says:

09:49am | 19/09/11

L.

Even if you halve the population figure to say around 11 million. 1.8 million still only represents a clear minority and certainly not the ‘average Australian’ whatever that is. The term ‘average Australian’ itself is really just a political tool to try and convince voters that particular political parties (liberal, labour or green) have the interests of the widest demographic in mind with their policies. There really is no group that represents such a wide range of political, religious, economic, cultural and racial viewpoints to claim that they represent this mythical beast called the ‘average Australian’. You may as well say we represent the interests of unicorns. Its amazing how many people class themselves as the ‘average Australian’.

Tubesteak says:

10:03am | 19/09/11

Erick
Unions represent their members. Of which there are 1.8m. Not all of these members are going to have the same beliefs and motivations. There is no political party or group that could represent all “ordinary Australians” because that would be nearly impossible to define. Unless, you define them as “working Australians” which will lead you back to unions.

Marley
Yes, some of the unions’ problem is that they haven’t maintained a relevant link into the changing nature of the workforce. But it doesn’t mean they can’t validly represent their members.

The reason they’re going to be at odds with small business owners is because they want different things. Small business owners want cheap disposable labour. Unions want the opposite.

Financial services is largely made up of professionals (cf accountants and lawyers). It is difficult to unionise them because they are a diverse group.

Kika says:

10:15am | 19/09/11

Erick -  1.8 million people are members of unions. 80,000 are members of the liberal party.  From a population of 22.7 million… what do you think?

Dave-o says:

10:26am | 19/09/11

@ Erik

Irrelevant? Don’t union members have families? Do we need to unionize kindies and retirement homes so you can have an accurate statistic to measure?

Kind of hypocritical of someone who is usually so vocal about so many issues regarding the marginalisation of men to be so complicit in belittling unions.

Erick says:

10:29am | 19/09/11

@Tubesteak - You make my point for me.

Ged Kearney claims that “the union movement ... represents ordinary Australians”. You admit yourself that it does not.

At the very most, the union movement represents 8% of Australians - and since those 8% have different views, it can’t even represent them.

marley says:

10:30am | 19/09/11

@tubesteak - yep, small businesses want cheap labour.  And mostly, its the businessman himself who provides that labour.

But in any case, is it better to work for a small business at (legal) minimum wage, or not to have a job at all?  Because unions do nothing on behalf of those who aren’t employed and cannot find jobs - to the contrary.  And they’re no friends of self-employed tradies either.  If they were really interested in the common Aussie, they’d be working with these people, not against them.  They’re as self-interested and as protectionist as the employers groups.

Mark G says:

10:40am | 19/09/11

Kika,

And the Labour party only has around 50,000 active members from a population of 22 million. What exactly is your point?

L. says:

10:45am | 19/09/11

“@L. - That’s a dumb comment. I never claimed that union members were less than 8% of workers, as you falsely assume. I claimed that unionists were less than 8% of Australia’s population, which is correct.”

Nice backpeddel.

You may not have said it, but it is clearly impled in my, and other opinion. But seeing as it’s a stupid stat, why even quote it..??

MarkG says:
“Even if you halve the population figure to say around 11 million. 1.8 million still only represents a clear minority”

Which unlike Eric, I clearly stated when I said it isn’t a stupidly high number, but higher than 8%

MadKat of Melbourne says:

11:01am | 19/09/11

Kika - so that’s 80,000 definite votes for the Liberals next election - and how many of the 1.8 million union members will also vote Liberal because they are disillusioned.

acotrel says:

11:45am | 19/09/11

@MadKat
’ and how many of the 1.8 million union members will also vote Liberal because they are disillusioned.’

The good money is on the independents

Tubesteak says:

12:13pm | 19/09/11

Erick
No group could represent all Australians or even “ordinary Australians”, whatever that means. Holding Ged to account for that is facile.

Marley
Unions represent their members. Unless self-employed tradies or anyone else want to unionise themselves then unions should not have to be representative of them. To say they don’t represent the “common Aussie” is pointless. No-one represents the common Aussie.

Glen M says:

12:13pm | 19/09/11

Erick and others, Ged also makes the assumption that all union members support the union and other Labor policies .  The unions dont allow members who support liberal policy to direct the political contribution of members fees to the liberal party.  She assumes all those in the union support her views.

RyaN says:

12:35pm | 19/09/11

@Kika: people aren’t forced to join the Liberal party unlike the unions.

gobsmack says:

12:41pm | 19/09/11

Yes and of course if 150 people turn up to an anti-Carbon Tax rally, they must represent “ordinary” Australians.
And Erick speaks for all Australian males.

Paulh says:

12:57pm | 19/09/11

Well said.The Unions have lost the real reasons of why they are there.Most of what union fought for are now supplied in law .Unions RUN the Labor party, yet only a small amount of the workforce are in unions.Logically quite a few union members are in unions because they HAVE to be, also a fair % of union members do NOT agree with the politics of the union.
The labor hasn’t been a party of the people for years, the labor party is solely driven by its Union s, just look at how many of the cabinet are ex union leaders etc.The arrogance and atitude of the current Gillard gov is a reflection of the atitude of quite a few unions.Perhaps if the unions concentrated on what they should be doing and kept their nose out of politics things may change.

James1 says:

01:12pm | 19/09/11

Out of interest, could we please get some definitions of “ordinary Australians”?

AdamC says:

01:51pm | 19/09/11

James1, my working definition is anyone who are just like me except is heterosexual and lives further away from the city, but in a bigger dwelling.

Kika says:

02:21pm | 19/09/11

Hey I’m not making the point about numbers versus population. Erick did and that’s why I posed the question to him. Ask HIM what point he’s trying to make. Simple logic.

Erick says:

03:19pm | 19/09/11

@L.- I’m not backpedalling at all. My point is clearly stated in my first comment. It’s you who failed to read it correctly, and made a stupid reply based on false assumptions. I quote:

Erick@5:56am: “unionists make up less than eight per cent of the population”.

L.@7:55am: “a lot higher than the 8% of workers which you claim.”

As you can clearly see, I never claimed 8% of workers. That’s just something you made up.

Who’s backpedalling now?

Dee says:

04:16pm | 19/09/11

Eric how many paying members in the Liberal or Labor Party? I bet you less than 1.8 million combined but I could be wrong. Yet they wield disproportionate power by their influence.

Erick says:

04:19pm | 19/09/11

@Tubesteak - “No group could represent all Australians or even “ordinary Australians”, whatever that means. Holding Ged to account for that is facile.”

But Ged specifically claimed, in her own words, that “the movement ... represents ordinary Australians.”

I am holding her to account for what she actually said. And you agree that I am right. How is that “facile”?

Dee says:

04:20pm | 19/09/11

RyaN so politicians have your best interests in mind? You’re very foolish if you think so

RyaN says:

05:25pm | 19/09/11

@Dee: did I say that? Nup, looking back over my posts it seems I didn’t!

James says:

07:51pm | 19/09/11

Conservatives can attack unions all they want, but they cannot deny the reach of the movement and the way it represents ordinary Australians.
Reaching into the pockets of its members too it would seem.

Pierre Maurice says:

08:49pm | 19/09/11

Would you rather have the (even less of a minority) bosses representing the workers?  That appears to be the only other option.

dovif says:

07:47am | 19/09/11

LOL

Tell that to Thomson, and his lady of the night services

I bet he was thinking of his workers the whole time

sev says:

10:00am | 19/09/11

Ive seen union thuggery on young workers first hand.

Unions may have had a place in Australia 100 years ago, now its just a rort / scam for wannabe labor politicians.

Its time for real workers associations to deal with both political parties.

The real losers are the dumb union members.

acotrel says:

11:42am | 19/09/11

@dovif
‘Tell that to Thomson, and his lady of the night services’

Tell that to the catholic priest who was also named in Parliament, and tried by innuendo without an investigation !

acotrel says:

11:49am | 19/09/11

@sev
It’s common amongst the young to see everyone else as ‘dumb’ ! Perhaps you shouldn’t take your wages and conditions for granted, they were were hard worked for by the unions ! Perhaps we should raise the voting age to 65 ?

stevem says:

01:07pm | 19/09/11

dovif, I’m sure he was. After all, he was doing the same thing to the ladies as he was to his union!

Sev says:

11:49am | 21/09/11

acotrel says: 11:49am | 19/09/11
@sev

Take your hand of it . Previous generations of Union officials can claim to have gained “wages and conditions”
Todays unions are ripping off their own members on a daily basis.
Todays unions are taking money out of workers pockets.

Super D says:

06:53am | 19/09/11

I’m sure the safety of the contractors followed by CFMEU heavies would be guaranteed if they towed the union line.

acotrel says:

07:49am | 19/09/11

In about 2001, there was a death in a Melbourne CBD construction site every two weeks !  A change was effected which involved three unions cooperating to do Job Safety Analyses prior to undertaking tasks.  In effect , finding the best way to do a job.  The employers enjoyed an unfunded productivity gain.  When Howard sent the Cole Royal Commission on its witch hunt, it found the true situation, and scuttled away without ever giving due credit ! The benefits of the unions actions include a massive reduction in compensation payouts and pensions, and many families who would have lived without a parent, now enjoy seeing their dad come home from work every day ! And the employers make MORE PROFIT ! !

Could it be says:

07:52am | 19/09/11

The were not CFMEU heavies. They provided services under an outsourcing contract to motor cycle gangs to support CFMEU operations, rendering invoices inclusive of GST.

If not then the CFMEU would have been assisting in Tax Avoidance and fraud.

Surely the Labor Party and ACTU would not support this behaviour?

Maybe the ACTU advised the CFMEU give its outsourcing contractors a union credit card.

acotrel says:

07:12am | 19/09/11

@annie j
I support the ‘carbon tax’ !  If it is only a way to direct funds towards R&D in a worthy cause, it’s a good thing !  If we never achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide pollution, the technology spin off will make it worthwhile.  We no longer do defence R&D and manufacture, and the seed it provided for private industry has been lost !  The replacement will be nowhere near as expensive, and could actually improve our lives in a way that defence spending never can !

nihonin says:

07:27am | 19/09/11

@acotrel, can you please explain this statement by Craig Emerson : Mr Hockey’s uncompromising stance has sparked Labor criticism, with Trade Minister Craig Emerson warning (that the Coalition’s plan to dump the carbon tax would mean higher taxes) and lower pensions.

So is the ‘Carbon’ Tax about saving the planet or is it just another tax so the government doesn’t have to increase other taxes, to make up for shortfalls in the budget?

dovif says:

07:56am | 19/09/11

Ace troll

Stop with Gillard’s lies, look at Europe, the ETS has cost 10s of thosands jobs and how much “R&D” had there been, they buy solar fuel cells from China, because China does not have an ETS or a carbon tax, so it is cheaper

There will be thousands of lost jobs in Australia, and no “R&D” to make up for it. Unless you still believe in Gillard and her lies

Oh and the ALP policy will increase CO2 levels LOL

acotrel says:

07:56am | 19/09/11

@nihonin
I can’t follow the quote you’ve put up.  However I watched an explanation about the ‘carbon market’ during the weekend, and I found the trade implications quite obscure !  I’d have to do a lot more reading to understand the big picture.  I find it difficult to understand how our carbon credits affect what happens to coal fired power stations in India.
The trouble is that the World Trade Organisation is somehow involved, and so is ‘the level playing field’, and it’s all a bit of a mind bender.

L. says:

08:01am | 19/09/11

Acotrel says”
“I support the ‘carbon tax’ !  If it is only a way to direct funds towards R&D in a worthy cause, it’s a good thing !”

What utter crap…

If there were teh case, you would be support a tax funding R&D on things which are killing people TODAY, not possibly, maybe in 200 years.

You know, things like:
Cancer,
Diabetes,
Asthma,
Depression,
etc, etc, etc.

Nilbog says:

09:31am | 19/09/11

@ acotrel

anniej was talking about Ged supporting her member’s views. Given your consistent comments, day in day out, I seriously doubt you are employed and/or part of a union.

I have always pegged you as a middle aged housewife with too much time on her hands, and nothing else to do during the day.

If you are employed we’d all love to hear details. It might make people feel less sorry for you.

acotrel says:

09:36am | 19/09/11

@L
Research into all those good things you mentioned won’t improve our manufacturing capability.  I suggest you think long and hard about where wealth actually comes from, and what we will do when the resources boom ends !

nihonin says:

09:40am | 19/09/11

acotrel says:

07:56am | 19/09/11

@nihonin
I can’t follow the quote you’ve put up.

acotrel, the quote is the forth paragraph down in this article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-to-purge-labor-tax-policies/story-fn59niix-1226140386118

acotrel says:

10:06am | 19/09/11

@Nihonin
I believe I actually saw Craig Emmerson make that statement on TV.  I believe he was referring to Tony Abbotts idea to subsidise polluters to achieve cleaner processes.  I think he based his comment on Treasury modelling.  The simple fact is that if the state EPAs had ever been doing their jobs properly, they’d have been fining polluters, and we’d already be paying the price for their process rectifications.  The whole environmental thing has been bullshit since the 1960s.  The legislation was besed on ‘loss of amenity in the receiving environment’, and this led to a multitude of opportunistic bullshit artists getting control in the state EPAs . The net effect was that nothing happened, the EPAs were a paper tiger, and Abbott’s idea is simply going further down that track. It all sounds good if you say it quickly, but it’s a flawed approach, and impracticable.  If we only want window dressing, it’s the way to go.

L. says:

10:47am | 19/09/11

@Acotrel
“Research into all those good things you mentioned won’t improve our manufacturing capability.  I suggest you think long and hard about where wealth actually comes from, and what we will do when the resources boom ends !”

Rubbish.. You cure any of those, and Australia will be set. “big” Phama are soem of the richest companies in existance for good reason.

Syl says:

12:13pm | 19/09/11

Acotrel

“Research into all those good things you mentioned won’t improve our manufacturing capability.  I suggest you think long and hard about where wealth actually comes from, and what we will do when the resources boom ends !”

You honestly think that if we find a cure for Cancer, AIDS, Depression etc that we won’t accumulate wealth from it?  REALLY?

Wow….

acotrel says:

11:29am | 19/09/11

@John
‘Maybe you should look and see what Germany was creating just before wars end. The best example is the stealth fighter. ‘

The ‘stealth fighter’ was a wooden mock-up.  Even though the Germans had heavy water, the services of Werner Heisenberg, and the V2 rocket, they were a very long way of delivering an H- bomb.  Project Dorna was based on slave labour, and a few V2s got to London.  If the Germans had our motivated workforce they could have won.  As it was their whole system was self-defeating.

John the Zombie says:

12:41pm | 19/09/11

acotel you posted on the wrong site but let me provide a link for you to look at. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

The horten ho 229 was one of two protypes created by the Germans. It was the only stopped when Germany knew all was lost. You also realise that the swept back wing design of our current day fighters also cqme from German design. Yes the Germans had built the first fighter jet. The germans would not of required a nuclear bomb as with the ho 229 and messerchmitt Me 262 they could take out the Britsh Radar system allowing German bombers free reign over Birtian. Can you imagine if they had this bomber/fighter and also the jet fighter were built. They of out gunned both the mustang and spitfire.

Kassandra says:

01:18pm | 19/09/11

@ acotrel
You mean A-bomb I think. The H-bomb wasn’t developed until 10 yrs later.

marley says:

01:45pm | 19/09/11

@acotrel - the argument that the Germans could have won the war if they’d had “our motivated workforce” displays an exceptional lack of knowledge about the war. 

First, it was the Russians who were largely responsible for the German defeat, and the Russian workforce was motivated by the threat of execution, not industrial democratic values.  Oh, and they had forced labour, too. 

Second, the Germans didn’t have access to the resources necessary to sustain a long and brutal war - petroleum in particular was a real problem, as were a lot of other raw materials.  Their production was never going to equal that of the much larger and resource-rich USA, and that has nothing to do with industrial democracy either. 

The Germans lost because they couldn’t strike a killer blow at Russia, leaving them with a war on several fronts against enemies who had far greater materiel and human resources.

Socialist Workers Party aka NAZIs says:

03:28pm | 19/09/11

Hitler, the leader of the Solcialist Workers party actually had a very motivated workforce and a very motivated army.

Their Tanks were the best in the world the Tigers and Panthers were excellent tanks and can easily handle the US and Russian T-51 with ease

The Blitzkreig was revolutionary warfare and the Soldiers best trained in the world

Their U-boats were the most advance in the world

They had some of the best scientist, who were smuggled into the US after the war.

They only lost the war because
1. they fought a war on 2 front;
2. they could not keep FDR from supplying the English;
3. they had useless allies, ie Italians and Polish and
4. they did not learn from history, you cannot fight a war in Winter in Russia, the war has to end before you are unable to supply your troops

They had to send troops and his best generals to Africa because the Italian were useless. At Stalingrad, he had the Russians on their knees, but the Poles could not control their line.

The German was a great war machine, and shown socialism at its best. In fact some of their policies, would be championed by the Greens today.

St. Michael says:

05:25pm | 19/09/11

“They only lost the war because
1…
3. they had useless allies, ie Italians and Polish”

If you think Poland was ever an ally of Germany, you are very, very mistaken.

Shall we start with the fact Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939?
Or the fact there were two full wings of Polish airmen flying with the RAF in the Battle of Britain against the Germans, taking pretty much the highest number of German kills in the whole campaign?
Or that it was the Polish II Corps that took Monte Cassino back from the Germans in Italy?
Or that Poland basically lost 25% of its entire population during WW2, mainly due to Germany and Russia slaughtering the population?

Christ Almighty, man.  If that’s your understanding of WW2 you need to do some more reading.  Dumkopf.

L. says:

08:04am | 19/09/11

I believe it was the Unions which REFUSED to load the shops with ammo and military equipment during WW2 until they got their way.

What a swell bunch of guys…

L. says:

08:04am | 19/09/11

That sshould read “load the ships”

Fiddler says:

08:24am | 19/09/11

you mean like the unionists on the waterfront who were stealing from supply ships to support our soldiers? Why not mention the forty plus murders attributed to the painters and dockers in Melbourne? Unionism in Australia is a history of self serving thuggery which is sometimes directed toward helping their members

John the Zombie says:

08:33am | 19/09/11

acrotel you want to bring WW2 into this.

World War 2

In March 1943 opposition to a new gang rotary system led to a 16 day strike by members of the Waterside Workers’ Federation (WWF) in Sydney. The Curtin Government ordered troops to ‘keep the ships moving’. Following heated argument the workers agreed to the new system and returned to work on 13 April.

The union went to strike during the wat, putting the lives of soldiers at risk. Also acrotel the soviets won due to the fact they were able to mass
produce tanks in massive numbers.

Also Australia in the end used military personel to load military ships due to the man power numbers and the strike listed above.

We won WW2 because of the mistakes of Hitler and the bravery of the soldiers who fought. Maybe you should look and see what Germany was creating just before wars end. The best example is the stealth fighter. Also Germany refusd to believe that British war ships had radar.

Craig says:

08:36am | 19/09/11

Every organisations has its time.

And every tradition needs to be reconsidered when times change.

This is not WWII Australia and the same institutions do not necessarily work today.

Unions need to adapt or die - and their deaths will be lingering, with much thrashing and widespread damage if they don’t take responsibility and acknowledge that their usefulness has ended and they need to change.

St. Michael says:

01:42pm | 19/09/11

Bear in mind on the loading issue that there were actually two loading strikes: one before the war started, and one after.  Menzies was known as “Pig Iron Bob” because he insisted on continuing to ship iron to Japan when it was apparent to anyone with half an eye that the iron was likely to come back at Australia from the air and fired from Japanese rifles.  Thus a loading strike, which Menzies broke using the army.

Then, as indicated, the loading dispute during WW2.

Loading disputes are kind of amusing: it’s one reason why the union movement won’t publicly support Sea Shepherd, mostly because the Japanese whaling crews are usually maritime union members and there’s a principle of solidarity at stake.  Although one notes no refusal to load the vessels here.

rohan says:

03:02pm | 19/09/11

I recently found a complete late edition of the sydney morning hereald the day of Germany surrender.  long story how i found it but great to read to get a picture of what happend in australia that day.  one of the intresting things in the paper was all the articles about unions,strikes and wage increas that happening at the same time as the climax to the war.

acotrel says:

07:30am | 19/09/11

@thatmosis
I once worked for a multimillionaire, now dead, whom I still think of as a friend.  If he detected anyone in his workshop talking union, he simply speak to them and say ‘we haven’t been getting along too well lately, how would you like to take a month’s pay, and look for another job ?’  The employee will always take the money, and in doing so, leave themselves with no basis to make an unfair dismissal claim !  There was no union in his oganisation, and his employees were very well paid, especially when they worked on his offshore projects.  Unfortuanately we have many employers unlike him, who want tyo ‘make every post a winning post’, who believe that by scrimping every penny, they are on a winner.  When they do that they tend to kill off any cooperative approach.  The adversarialism which is promoted by some politicians extends right down to shop floor level, and is extremely counterproductive.  Adversarialism seems to be the LNPs reason for being, it needs it to exist !

Adam Diver says:

09:05am | 19/09/11

@ Acotrel,

You are single handingly destroying the comments section of the punch. Your long-winded anecdote had no bearing whatsoever on Thatmosis, comment and your conclusion was completely disconnected with the anecdote.

Add to that, that you repeat this idiocy ad nauseum throughout the comment thread, and congratulations you are officially the worst poster here.

Ironically you basically advocated work choices with a safety net, so a nice own goal for you as well.

acotrel says:

09:45am | 19/09/11

@Adam Diver
Keep scrambling, you still won’t hide the fact that the LNP thrives on the adversarialism which has destroyed industry in Australia !  Their total disregard for the benefits of industrial democracy, and their stupid ideological belief that they can base IR reform on coercion, clearly demostrate that they are unfit to lead Australia !  They still persist in their old ‘THEM AND US’ mentality, and it is wearing really thin !

scaper... says:

09:45am | 19/09/11

Adam Diver, a succinct observation. Being a reader of the Punch I see this tactic which in fact is lighting spot fires to deflect attention from the raging bushfire that is the useless government which is the septic arm of the union movement.

If the moderators allow this person to saturate threads then they do no service to the readership! Same with that other lonely deluded soul, Persephone.

acotrel says:

09:51am | 19/09/11

@Adam Diver
For your information :
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20021127amendment_13p9.asp

Adam Diver says:

10:49am | 19/09/11

The problem is Acetrol that your adversarialism comment whilst void of fact, still was irrelevent to the post above.

If its an important point, start your own thread, and perhaps try to sum up most of your ideas into the one post, benefitting everyone. If you have an intellectual point amongst your partisan garbage, I may even feel compelled to respond, and we can have a good debate or discussion.

TomZ says:

11:31am | 19/09/11

Adam Diver and scaper, a very good observation. I agree, this acetrol character is “single handingly destroying the comments section of the punch” with his filibustering. Obviously, there is no control over this gush of drivel.

MODERATORS - I suggest that an upper limit be placed on the number of posts and the length of posts by any single poster.

acotrel says:

11:38am | 19/09/11

@Adam Diver
‘The problem is Acetrol that your adversarialism comment whilst void of fact, still was irrelevent to the post above.’

The problem is that you cannott see yourself as part of the problem !

jf says:

11:42am | 19/09/11

acotrel says:07:30am | 19/09/11

Sounds like Work Choices.

Adam Diver says:

12:35pm | 19/09/11

@ Acotrel, weak response as usual. I am not so intellectually void, to be above any claims of hypocrisy, however I put it to you to provide evidence to your claims, at any stage in any argument at any time.

Saying I am part of the problem is ambigous and pointless, unless you can explain to me why. That word is relevant to you, particularly as a scientist and middle manager for 40 years (chuckle) because you seem to have forgotten it exist. This extends to others on the punch but

Your opinion is not interesting in itself. If it was, you would probably not need to troll here on an established site, and could create your own blog. What is interesting the the methodology behind the formation of your opinion. Not only is it interesting it is the basis of having a debate otherwise “debate” would consist of each party stating thier opinion and that would be it, you could replace the punch and its comment section with a poll.

acotrel says:

12:36pm | 19/09/11

@Tomz
Whenever your comments appear on this forum, I always check to see if my ‘pop-up blocker’ is still working !

MadKat of Melbourne says:

03:06pm | 19/09/11

I’ve come to the conclusion the acotrel is in fact Julia Gillard’s screen name ...

TChong says:

07:45am | 19/09/11

Thanks jf
For so ably putting up some examples of what happens when workers rights arent properly protected.
The examples you raise show happens when unions arent militant enough in ensuring wages and conditions in both the public and private sector.
Keep up the good work ,comrade.

acotrel says:

08:02am | 19/09/11

@Jf
Would you like to see organisations to have certified Safety Management Systems, legislated as a prerequisite for doing business in Australia ?

KH says:

08:13am | 19/09/11

On the one hand you bitch and moan about the ‘govun-ment’ being in your face all the time and trying to run your life, and on the other hand, the government apparently should be so involved they are actually employing people in businesses and ensuring each business operator is fully equipped for the job.  Make up your mind.

There is such a thing as personal responsibility.  If you hire Dodgy Brothers Roof Insulation, and your house burns down, maybe you are partly responsible because you are too cheap to pay for a proper installer.  You are even more responsible for your predicament if you don’t have insurance.  If you take a job at Dodgy Brothers Roof Insulation despite no training and a lack of safety gear, then maybe you are partly responsible for any injuries that may occur to you, and the operator is responsible for the rest.  Much easier to blame the government for individuals stupidity though, isn’t it. 

As for unions, they can only be involved if they know you exist.  Dodgy operators are more likely to avoid any scrutiny than invite it.

Fiona says:

08:28am | 19/09/11

Umm, actually jf, the union was helping (and still is) the nurses who haven’t been paid properly. They are quite happy to do this. Guess I’d know seeing as some of my nursing colleagues have been getting help from them. It’s been a systemic stuff up that probably would need a lot of unions involved.

jf says:

11:50am | 19/09/11

TChong says:07:45am | 19/09/11

“For so ably putting up some examples of what happens when workers rights arent properly protected.”

Thanks TChong. You see I do believe in unions. I do believe that worker’s are entitled to collective representation.

My point is that the union movement in Australia has become a greasy, unaccountable, unrepresentative, cesspool of self-interest and corruption.

Fiona says:08:28am | 19/09/11

“Umm, actually jf, the union was helping (and still is) the nurses who haven’t been paid properly. They are quite happy to do this.”

Well, that’s big of them given that they are paid handsomely to do so. I must say that they have been a hell of a lot quiter about this, one of the biggest industrial stuff-ups in history, than they are about a lot of other recent less consequential matters. Can you just imagine the bleating if this had occured under an LNP government?

KH says:08:13am | 19/09/11

Again, I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m just pondering what would have been had this happened under an LNP government. They certainly pick their battles the union movement. Sadly, they pick their battles on political self-interest rather than worker’s interests.

acotrel says:

12:16pm | 19/09/11

@jf
‘My point is that the union movement in Australia has become a greasy, unaccountable, unrepresentative, cesspool of self-interest and corruption.’

That’s politics generally !

dovif says:

04:59pm | 19/09/11

acotrel

you mean the unions that is the lone recruitment house of the ALP?

Where 80% of ALP paliamentary member once worked for one?

No wonder I have the same feelings about the ALP

It sure look like you are waking up

dovif says:

08:18am | 19/09/11

Another stupid comment from the clueless

Most people found work during workchoice and wages increased, the RBA told us recently the biggest thing holding back Australia’s wellbeing is the Fair Works Act. Ie the reason our wages had not gone up is because Australia is not productive enough, this is because the Union’s rewrite of the ALP’s IR policy

The ALP is reducing your wage everyweek, because of their IR policies

And TChong, you are spinning quicker then Gillard, soon your nose will outgrow hers

John the Zombie says:

08:59am | 19/09/11

quick note tchong. Super is regulated by the govt and is actual legislation and law. Yep structured awards are they way to go even though I may do extra and take on harder roles and jobs and yet those who choose to be lazy get the same as me.

Here is an example. I worked for a disability sector for govt. The area I worked in was a hostel housing over 10 ppl. In this hostel we had a client who was violent. Of the 10 staff who worked on a set shift (In total we had about 30 staff) I and only one other person would deal her as the rest out right refused to. I was a jnr compared to them but was able to develop skill sets learnt from the 7 other guys who had worked with the client. On some days I was required to deal with this client myself as others refused to siting ow the union have said we dont have to. So here I was doing the a greater role then the rest. I was able develop skills in dealing with this client which others refused but still getting paid the same. Ow yeah, I had also been bitten and had the client put their nails into me.

Do you not think that I should of been awarded a higher wage then the others who refused deal with this client or even upgrade thier skills to do it. Also even though I was a jnr my skills were well above most the snr employees there and the only ppl who were at a higher level were the 7 others who were able to work with the violent client.

Also you info is wrong as most white collar jobs the wages are agreeded to and increases are based ob your efforts not a piece of papper. Example is if you are a crap lawyer would you expect to be paid the same as a good lawyer, I guess not.

jf says:

11:55am | 19/09/11

TChong says:07:23am | 19/09/11

“If you dont want award structure, conditions,job security, regulated annual , family leave, dont need super, dont need complaints resolution , dont need OH +S, dont require formal recognition of whatever qualification, then you dont need unions.”

Apart from the fact that not all of these benefits were won by the unions, so in return for the unions winning certain rights that union members must in return put up with systemic corruption, rorting and thuggery.

Jane2 says:

04:20pm | 19/09/11

I worked in the hospitality industry for 7 years and saw my conditions go backwards because of the unions and it wasnt even for trading them in for much better wages since when I left 6 years ago I was on $16ph as a manager!

This is why Im not a union member.

TChong says:

07:59am | 19/09/11

Beejay
“a couple of “our” local members…kicked out” whats that story about ?
Are you implying that you are in a union, but you are against unions ?
Sounds like a BS type of “Ive been a lifelong X voter, ,but will now voteY “
Sure your not doing the spinning, Beejay?

NSW says:

08:30am | 19/09/11

When will you dolts stop banging on about the carbon tax? No one cares.

acotrel says:

12:21pm | 19/09/11

GIve ‘em a break NSW !  They’ve got to have a go about something, now that Abbotts painted himself into a corner with the asylum seekers !

TomZ says:

12:31pm | 19/09/11

NSW obviously they do care, dolt.

Bomb78 says:

09:29am | 19/09/11

Elizabth1 - this annoys me too. I hate it that I can work harder and longer, be more productive yet get paid the same as others because ‘it’s the award’. I am happy for unions to represent people, but I’d like the option to negotiate for myself, freely and openly with my employer.
And with my extra income I’ll be happy to buy you a one way ticket to any socialist paradise you want.

Huonian says:

09:51am | 19/09/11

Hear, hear, Elizabeth.  I am not a union member and it galls me that the union claims to respresent me when it clearly does not.  Everyone should have the right to deal direct with the employer, or through an agent such as a union if they choose.

In the past I’ve negotiated my own work arrangements and have always got a deal that suits me far better than the award.  Unions have no business sticking their bibs into my business.  Sod off!

Elizabeth1 says:

10:50am | 19/09/11

Good negotiating skills Huonian.
If you are in private enterprise you can already negotiate your own employment conditions.  Even in my industry, which has awards, if you are so productive and such a good deal for your employer you would be able to negotiate to be paid in a different pay scale.  Whats stopping you?

Ozpuck says:

12:22pm | 19/09/11

@Bomb78

The Award is the minimum at which you must be paid. 

I repeat, minimum.  Not maximum, not total amount, but minimum.

If you’re so good that you deserve a pay rise, and you work in the private sector, then you should be able to negotiate a pay rise above the award wage.  If your employer is saying “it’s the Award” then that is just a cop-out.  Either they can’t afford it, they don’t want to differentiate amongst their employees or they don’t value your skills the way you do.

Public sector managers rarely have the discretion to vary pay rates from the Award, so yes, everyone gets the same regardless of value and productivity.

But I agree with Elizabeth1.  I’ve never had known a non-union member knock back a pay-rise that’s come through an award or an enterprise agreement, particularly when the increase was negotiated by union representatives

Ben C says:

01:03pm | 19/09/11

@ Elizabeth1

Yes, sort out the union members from non-union members. The non-union members can then negotiate individual, better-than-award conditions, while union members get the award. After all, that’s what was negotiated for them, correct?

Elizabeth1 says:

01:39pm | 19/09/11

Ben c - yes that’s what I said. I have no comment on the assumption that people negotiating for themselves would do better in conditions and money. I am all for changing the law and seeing how the individual bargaining goes though.

Ben C says:

02:33pm | 19/09/11

@ Elizabeth1

My point is that union members would probably end up getting less than non-union members. So much for unions then, hey?

Ben C says:

03:05pm | 19/09/11

My last comment made not much sense. Should learn to pull the trigger less often.

@ Elizabeth1

I would argue that individual bargaining would reap more benefits. Someone negotiating their own contract would be more open about what they want, and what they are willing to do for it. Union members, on the other hand, will get what the union has negotiated, and most of the time there will be no changes to output from the workers. Further, because awards are all published by Fair Work, the non-union member can then delay their negotiations, find out what the union members are getting, then negotiate a contract that is slightly better than union members are getting.

Elizabeth1 says:

04:51pm | 19/09/11

Ben C - I think you are saying that because the process is transparent and union members may not specify productivity gains there is an opportunity for non union members to offer more productivity and push for higher wages.  Could work I suppose. I am a union member and I negotiated the top of my band before I started employment.  Straight out of Uni. I really cant see whats stopping people doing this themselves now.  If a worker can guarantee that their performance at a specified level and offer benefits on top of what is expected I think they have a case and should go for it. Research by the University of Melbourne found enterprise bargaining had not favoured workers who negotiated for themselves.
http://cclsr.law.unimelb.edu.au/partnerships-at-work/Taiwan Paper, 26 August 200511.pdf

Jane2 says:

04:33pm | 19/09/11

No you didnt. There are free services you could have used. Unfair dismal and bullying is against the law.

IhateBullies says:

08:16pm | 19/09/11

Jane2 says there are free services you could have used.

What are they Jane2 says?

Can you please provide links?

I know about Unfair dismissal and bullying being against the law - can you please advise where free services for representation in negotiations and hearings can be found?

St. Michael says:

11:02pm | 19/09/11

@ IhateBullies:

- Citizen’s Advice Bureau.
- Legal Aid.
- Fair Work Ombudsman (for anything other than an unfair dismissal claim, including underpayments, sham contracting, and sackings for being pregnant/black/lesbian/disabled/all of the above.

Elizabeth1 says:

12:59pm | 20/09/11

Those services are not free St Michael. Advice is free from Legal Aid, grants can be applied for if you need representation in court.  FairWork has an application fee for unfair dismissal - dont know the cost.  This can be removed if you can show undue financial hardship.  Not sure about the Citzens Advice bit.  Will they represent you at a negotiation?

St. Michael says:

06:27pm | 20/09/11

“FairWork has an application fee for unfair dismissal - dont know the cost.”

$55.  It’s on their website.  That’s Fair Work Australia.

I see you skipped over the Fair Work Ombudsman, which is a government body whose job is to enforce the Fair Work Act.  And it certainly will represent against an employer in court.

Elizabeth1 says:

08:19pm | 20/09/11

St. Michael – thanks for that.  I had a look a Fair Work Australia Ombudsman -  still not convinced.  KH says she is a victim of bullying.  Without knowing the circumstances I can’t say how this will apply but … “However, bullying or harassment do not necessarily constitute unlawful discrimination under the FW Act unless the behaviour can be shown to be adverse action linked to a ground or attribute listed in section 351. Forms of bullying or harassment which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the FWO may be unlawful as a breach of occupational health and safety laws. People experiencing bullying or harassment in the workplace are encouraged to seek advice and assistance from their local occupational health and safety body”.  I will let you look up adverse action if you are interested. 
http://www.fairwork.gov.au/guidancenotes/GN-6-FWO-Discrimination-Policy.pdf
Also,  I may be ignorant but to me the words employee, industrial association is not a good sign for a free service.
“An employee who has been a victim of adverse action under section 351 of the FW Act can apply to Fair Work Australia (FWA) for the matter to be resolved through a compulsory conference.  If the matter cannot be resolved, the employee, an industrial association or an inspector can make an application to the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court for a civil penalty to be imposed against the employer “.
http://www.pigott.com.au/uploads/36725/ufiles/publications/some-discrimination-issues-under-the-fair-work-act.pdf

Ben C says:

02:36pm | 19/09/11

Actually, jg, they were standing up for workers. You just need to define the workers they were standing up for…

Max, of Rocky says:

10:32am | 19/09/11

Ah Adam,

could not agree with you more 8-)

What happened to honest, unbiased, analytical, fearless reporting ?

Gorn gorn gorn says:

11:06am | 19/09/11

Adam
Her article is a cry for help.
She feels the Labor Government is killing her members and the tax on carbon dioxide is a tax on a minority group or gas (2% of the earth’s atmosphere). She admits it change nothing other than get the budget balanced via her members pockets and provide a hip pocket inducement come the next election.

Ged has done nothing for workers whose jobs are disappearing quicker than a tonne of coal on a boat to China.

She has a disappearing pool of workers as manufacturing is gone, contact centres are in the Philippines and India, clothing is gone, footwear is gone, banking and finance is leaking jobs and on it goes. All under her watch. Soon we will have no skill sets in Australia, we would have transferred them to China.

Your questions will fall on deaf ears as she has lost her way. Sadly our ACTU has let itself get caught up in politics and a need to balance the budget rather than attend to its core business and core responsibilities.

jf says:

12:02pm | 19/09/11

To be fair, Ged is a union executive so is necessarily going to support the unions. The weekends Financial Review had some interesting articles on this topic.

James1 says:

10:49am | 19/09/11

Indeed.  I feel sorry for my comrades in the private sector.  When your choice is between being screwed by a union and being screwed by your boss, you know its gonna be rough.

Really though, I don’t see unions as being any different to employers.  Both groups are looking out for one thing - their own enrichment.  Neither really cares about the country, or anyone else - except insofar as it affects themselves.  That’s why I love capitalism.  I love it even more because both sides are convinced the other side is akin to the devil, and that they themselves are paragons of virtue, at the same time as they behave in startlingly similar ways.

I recall having an exchange with TrueOz on these threads about this once.  Mr Oz claimed that, in order to keep his profit margins high he needed to move his business offshore because greedy unions were eating into his profits.  I put it to him that he was just the same as the unions, looking out for number one and seeking to maximise his own income.  Mr Oz never replied, sadly.

St. Michael says:

11:32am | 19/09/11

“I recall having an exchange with TrueOz on these threads about this once.  Mr Oz claimed that, in order to keep his profit margins high he needed to move his business offshore because greedy unions were eating into his profits.  I put it to him that he was just the same as the unions, looking out for number one and seeking to maximise his own income.  Mr Oz never replied, sadly.”

At least with a business the owner is able to admit, with a clear conscience, that his profits are foremost in mind.  That is, after all, why he got into business at all and in the case of company directors that is what the law requires of them.

Business owners traditionally do not get extensive blog columns featuring pictures of Bernie Banton and extolling how they’re all about supporting the workers and nothing else.  The business owner is a wolf in wolf’s clothing.  By contrast your average union secretary is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

AdamC says:

11:45am | 19/09/11

James1, your assessment is sort of true, at least in theory. However, I don’t believe either side is so fixated on screwing the other as is often portrayed. I aso think, by and large, employers are happy to pay the market rate for labour. That in itself is a principle that unions philosophically refuse to accept: everyone’s labour is worth a certain amount and there are significant limitations as to how unions can influence that.

Unions are effective where there are monopoly rents to share between workers and proprietors, such as where tarrifs used to shield local manufacturers or where industries were set up to be anticompetitive clubs, such as the airline industry. When these rents have diminished, either wages have fallen (at least relatively), or the industry has continued to shrink. The current Qantas brouhaha is an excellent case in point.

James1 says:

12:36pm | 19/09/11

Those ideas might work in practice, Michael and Adam, but do they work in theory?

Seriously though, thanks for those.  Interesting complexities.  However, Michael, I have argued with many a business owner who claims that the unions are anti-Australian because they are driving jobs offshore, all the while ignoring their own role in shifting jobs offshore.  Not all business owners recognise that they are wolves.

Adam, I have no response to your post - well put.  It just shows that you have some first hand knowledge of this that I lack, having never worked in the private sector on either side of that equation.  Thanks for pointing out the flaws in my wholly theoretical, outsider’s analysis.

St. Michael says:

01:39pm | 19/09/11

@ James: “However, Michael, I have argued with many a business owner who claims that the unions are anti-Australian because they are driving jobs offshore, all the while ignoring their own role in shifting jobs offshore.  Not all business owners recognise that they are wolves.”

At least if you can tell the wolf by the colour of his pelt and the green eyes, it’s easier to shoot him or at least avoid him.  The wolf in sheep’s clothing is the more dangerous one because it lulls you into a false sense of security with its peaceable looks until you’re close enough to be eaten by it.

Nil desperandum, I’m not disagreeing with what you say.  I tend to think it’s more institutional or systemic factors that make it economically rational to seek infrastructure overseas, but that’s another story entirely.

AdamC says:

02:04pm | 19/09/11

James1, thank you. However, I must admit my private sector employment experience is quite limited, so I can’t claim any special ‘insider’ perspective. Like seemingly many Punchers, I also work for a government agency. So I know what an EL1 is, and have a copy of the APS code of conduct and everything!

Reflecting on my observation, I think what I meant was that organisations (at least, better run ones - and I include public sector employers in that) can identify, and are willing to pay for, genuinely scarce skills and talents. Where things get quite rancorous is where there is articifial scarcity in shelered industries, like construction.

Also, there are definitely industries in which labour is effectively a mere commodity. I would list cleaning services, some hospitality and retail sectors in that. Employers in those areas are likely to be very focussed on minimising wage costs.

St. Michael says:

01:34pm | 19/09/11

The main problem with most of these proposals is that they fly in the face of unions’ core business and mindset, which, like it or not, is to secure pay rises via intimidation and whether or not they match the profitability of the business concerned.

If a union does not secure pay rises above what the employer would give anyway, rationally it has no reason to exist.  The number of unfair dismissals in the FWA system amounts to roughly 10,000 applications in a year, out of a workforce of 10 million.  A proportion of these are self-represented or not through the union movement.  That’s not enough to sustain or justify the unions’ existence.  And their other activities are pretty thin on the ground in terms of “enforcement” of “rights.”

And the only weapon a union ultimately has to secure pay rises is the threat of a strike or industrial sabotage.  Viewed from that lens a union operates only via what in criminal terms is a “protection racket”: pay us X amount of money or we will screw up your workplace.

I would be just as happy to take all the staff engaged in the union movements dealing with “enforcement” of workers’ rights and put them in the Fair Work Ombudsman retooled to prosecute unfair dismissals (which it presently can not.)

I would also be just as happy to allow unions’ agreements not to cover non-union workers.  The rational economic response of most employers would be to pay above-union wages to people who aren’t part of the union agreement, mostly because doing so would ensure the swift removal of the union from the workplace concerned.  Not to mention higher wages for the workforce, or at least performance-keyed wages.

la la land says:

06:01pm | 19/09/11

In regard to wage rises St Michael one of the issues with many Unions is they are usually prepared to have several workers at a business terminated to make a wage rise viable for the employer and to then trumpet the increase as a benefit of union representation.

It isn’t because employers in the industry segments in which the unions operate can either move offshore or buy offshore rather than manufacture or value add in Australia.

An appropriate example is the footwear industry, glass and many products used in large construction projects.

Mickey T says:

01:11pm | 19/09/11

@Bitten - Ged represents more people (members) than the combined total of all politocal parties in Australia - She has every right to voice her concerns.

The working conditions you now enjoy were probably brought about by the hard work of union officials that you now denigrate.

Who the F… is Bitten?

Maria says:

11:33am | 19/09/11

I have just arrived home from night shift.
This is exactly the sort of conflicts of interest we are complaining about. Bumstead and his whole family seem to have managed to get jobs in the executive yet us rank and file members don’t even get to see the advertisements for these jobs. Why not?
How come he gets to drive a Merc? Holden not good enough?
My fees pay your wages Bumstead yet I never see anything from you or your family. I don’t think the bit about spunky hunks is funny. My husband Con, the hairy canary, in his speedos is enough for me.
In regard to the school fees are you saying my union will give me money to pay school fees or do my children have to go to Cranbrook to get a special deal? There is no such school in Albury.
I think you need to speak to us members Bumstead instead of telling everybody what you can do.

RyaN says:

12:40pm | 19/09/11

I think Mr. Bumstead will soon be a Labor MP, he sounds like just the man for the job.

Kipling says:

10:17am | 19/09/11

Unions are typified by the engagement of those who pay their dues…
The likes of Thompson and Williamson are more easily able to exploit their position by those members who view the union as something done to them rather than something they do for themselves…

poa says:

04:22pm | 19/09/11

Errr. My daughter like all the HSU members ,HAS NO CHOICE.
Funny that all these inquiries from FWA, The ATO, the NSW police. (now VIc police)  ASIC and the AEC are taking so bloody long.
Disgusting.
But what everyone expects from “their” union.

Kurisu Sonsaku says:

10:25am | 19/09/11

Ged also conveniently forgets that the ATO, ACCC & ASIC have the same coercive powers as the ABCC

Max, of Rocky says:

10:42am | 19/09/11

Yeah because our current (Labor) IR legislation has totally abandoned them and the government will not stand up and be counted because their dogmatic attitude says we are never wrong.

Bitten says:

10:53am | 19/09/11

I’d like some statistics on how frequently that occurs Kika - just who exactly complains about union irrelevancy and then finds their job under threat and then runs to the unions as you say? See unions operate on sweeping generalisations, soundbites and presumptions of people’s behaviour and situations - but when you call them on the detail and ask for real life examples, such as of the conduct you’ve attributed to union-detractors, suddenly it gets very quiet. And remember as always: anecdote does not equal evidence.

jf says:

12:09pm | 19/09/11

You’re wrong Kika. Most people on here seem to be saying that unions have a necessary role in protecting individual worker’s rights.

However, that role is so important, albeit less important than it used to, that it should be filled by entities and individuals genuinely working for worker’s rights and not pursuing personal interests or gain.

Kika says:

02:25pm | 19/09/11

Well I know first hand that in my workplace the union is actually doing something for people. I won’t name the company. But they are fighting for all our jobs and not just the few who are at risk of being offshored. I know also of a few people who got jammed by their new contracts and tried to seek help through an employee council and was basically told to accept the new contract regardless of it’s fairness. These people are lib voters and hate unions and actually considering joining to get advice and help about being right royally screwed by their employer.
It happens all the time.

RyaN says:

12:44pm | 19/09/11

Yawn, more baseless crap hey Chongy, I guess if you don’t have anything you can just start making it up as you go along.

Ben C says:

03:18pm | 19/09/11

Because no Opposition will sell their policies in detail 2 years out from an election. Wait 18 months, and then we’ll see the sell.

Dee says:

04:18pm | 19/09/11

Ryan is that all you got

RyaN says:

05:32pm | 19/09/11

@Dee: “Ryan is that all you got ” seems it’s a sentence and a half more than you have contributed Dee. Were you actually trying to say something?

St. Michael says:

10:58pm | 19/09/11

...you think an extra three shots when you’ve already put out 6 and an extra .02 width on the barrel is going to make a difference in the day-to-day course of your activities?

James1 says:

03:27pm | 19/09/11

Just because something once served a purpose does not justify its continued existence.  I don’t think many people here are saying that workers shouldn’t organise if they need to.  Most people seem to have a problem with the way that this organisation is conducted.

The nature of the struggle between the classes has changed, Dodge.  Unions need also to change lest they suffer from a severe case of relevance deprivation.

marley says:

03:39pm | 19/09/11

@Dodge - well, I think I’m reasonably familiar with union history, at least in Europe and North America, and I agree theirs is an honourable history.  They fought long and hard for legislation to protect the workers -wages, holidays, maximum working hours, minimum working ages, safety standards.  The point is, of course, that they achieved many of those goals, got the legislation in place, and now it is the government and its tribunals which provide much of that protection. 

Times have changed, and the unions, or some of them, have failed to change with those times.  The lack of democracy within the unions, the lack of accountability for members’ funds, the power-struggles with rival unions, the politicking on issues not necessarily of direct concern to members, are all real and genuine problems with the unions are failing to address.  They need to realize that we’re not in 1920 anymore, and dues-paying members have a right to expect accountability.

And for the unions to claim that they speak for the average Australian is laughable - they speak for their members and their members alone.  The average Australian doesn’t belong to a union.  And the unions certainly do nothing to encourage or facilitate the job creation that would benefit non-members.

The real tragedy is that the unions are rendering themselves irrelevant.  We need them, but their goals and methods are not appropriate for this day and age.  Businesses and governments have had to adapt; it’s high time the unions did as well.

Dodge says:

05:53pm | 19/09/11

marley, All that hard work will be wasted if we don’t continue working for the standards Unions set. Is your notion that the Corporate world has seen the light and wont seek to cut conditions, pay etc etc in order to increase profit and return more to shareholders? Sounds a little naive.

Your combined front is that of unionization not being necassary to the modern world, so firstly… I agree with the notion, let’s start with religion, I would gladly trade unionization to disband a more past its used by date construct - monotheist religion. In reality, I think unions are as important as ever. They have always been a naturally evolving force to counter the excesses of the rich and powerful. And people are only getting more rich and more powerful.

Unions can ‘speak for the common Aussie’ because that’s where they pull the cast majority of there membership from.. It’s not latte sipping accountants is it? 1.8 million working Aussies is big chunk of the workforce anyway you want to slice it.

Business has ‘had to adapt’... And they will ‘adapt’ when those forces do not exist anymore to push back on unhealthy, impractical, dangerous or just unnecassary conditions in the workplace.

As far as attempting to allocate management level corruption to unions… Well, I hardly think they have the Monopoly on that! Of course those acts should be investigated by relevant authorities.

jf says:

04:27pm | 19/09/11

Yes. And isn’t it a disgrace that the way that unions in Australia are currently conducting themselves is denigrating and trivialising those achievements.

St. Michael says:

11:04pm | 19/09/11

The point being it’s history.  And now protected by legislation and the Fair Work Ombudsman.

At the moment the only entitlement unions seem interested in fighting for is the entitlement to hit the brothel on a Friday afternoon.