The problem with the Australian politic is much deeper than a problem of doubtful Union representation of the workers!

To parade the Union movement in this article as it does, as being the main impediment to worker progress and industrial harmony, is shallow, and ideologically driven drivel...
Making more unions by another name, will fall squarely into the hands of the powerful (like Shorten).

Evidence of union corruption before the commission now is simply evidence of damage caused by non-compulsory unionism. A small group of union members now fight for conditions on the job, benefits to be shared by all, member or non member: Often, this is a ruthless game, people get lost on the journey!

What this author unknowingly concedes though, is the imperative of worker movements to defend conditions against a ruthless economy!

Yes, hopefully we will follow the historical example of Lech Valensa!

That's not what dinosaur unions are!

Dinosaur unions are the ones that see everything as adversarial and are keen to strike. In Australia they died out in the 1980s (the BLF was one of the last) but they're still a problem in Britain.

Having competition between unions sounds good, and for some services it is, but Australian experience has shown that for bargaining a single union is more effective.

Workers seem to have made up their own minds about unions - they are not joining them.

I'm not in the CFMEU because I'd like to keep the number of Comancheros bikies in my life at it's present level of zero.
Union sites are horrible anyway, you can't even leave a pencil lying around in case someone steals it, let alone the drug dealing and use on site, the standover tactics, no thanks, I've been there and I don't like living in fear and suspicion of my workmates.

Employers are encouraging workers not to join unions, but the workplace pays union fees for their workers. That has been the move for years now.
When unions get a rise or conditions it is passed onto all workers with out favor, which has always been the case.

It took unions to get earmuffs and safety glasses, unions are a necessary evil as seen by some. Without unions the worker would be cut to shreds, just the way the libs would like it to be.

Unions over the years have evolved to keep pace with what happens in the workplaces, this will always be the case. Pro worker breakaway groups is but a name, one thing is for sure they will be looking out for their benefit in their working lives. It goes to be proved as to any gains will be passed on or will it be, this is mine you get your own.

Unions will not be going anywhere anytime soon. The more union bashing that goes on, the more workers will be turned away from pro union bashing political parties.

Well you would say that, wouldn't you John?

Political funding has to come from somewhere, and not all of it is squeaky clean or known?

Corruption is just not the exclusive province of the union movement!?

The only way to prevent the corrupt element from exercising paid for control is to eliminate private/secret funding of election campaigns/political parties, and or, the very best democracy money can buy!

Were we to fund these things exclusively via the public purse, totally transparent cloud fundraising and the fact checking national broadcaster?

The allegation of patent politically inspired bias could never have arisen?

Now that it has, and where there's smoke there's alway fire?

Time for the commissioner to excuse himself on the grounds of perceived bias?

Moreover, there where were already perfectly good less expensive instruments available to investigate real corruption!

Just not used, given that wouldn't have created the anti union forore the political masters wanted John, and paid for with our money!?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty. As Johns is quite unable to respond to your questions, and discredited almost universally, further intervention is a waste of time. However, at the risk of being charged of playing the man and not the ball, I would insist on asking a preliminary question when assessing his credentials as an expert on the labour movement: what has he ever done to assist workers in his various turn-coat manifestations as Hon Member for Petrie, and Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations from December 1993 and Special Minister of State and Vice-President of the Executive Council from March 1994 until the defeat of the Keating government in 1996, through to his role of anti-union propagandist for the Murdoch press?

Hi Aidan,

You suggest: "Australian experience has shown that for bargaining a single union is more effective."

And a 'single union' bargaining with a 'single company' to monopolise the industry ? Making deals to wipe out any rival companies ? Deals which leave workers worse off ? Workers who, unknown to themselves, have become union members ? In the union which has done them over ? And which has been well-paid for it by the monopoly employer ?

Union members AND pay-offs ? Sweet !

Hi Loudmouth,

I don't understand your objection here. Unions are not the customers, so they don't have the power to grant any company a monopoly. They certainly can't wipe out any rival company.

Aidan, sweet boy :)

Ah, so innocent !

Shorten's AWU negotiated with ONE company, Cleanevent, to massively reduce penalty rates, just Cleanevent. Other companies couldn't compete and went out of business, and Cleanevent made hundreds of millions out of that monopoly position over ten or twelve years.

So the company won.

The union got annual pay-offs, as well as union fees and a huge bucket of union members to wave about at conferences and selection committees.

So the union won.

The workers got lower wages. And compulsory union membership they didn't even know about. So would you say the workers won in that case ? Or was there, effectively, a transfer of hundreds of millions from the workers to the company ?

I wonder if there is a decent union in the country. Any suggestions ?

Joe

Thanks to the author for an excellent article.

That 2 million savings , must resemble a lot of cleaners or a lot of overtime. Needs more investigation.

The interim report was supplied by Haydon ?/.
There is someway to go before anything final can be made.

This is old news from may 2015.

How does shorten get involved in this, or was that because he was the AWU front man.

The company concerned were new owners of a dying duck business which they were convinced to buy into because the status quo of a 2010 agreement. Hence the lower overtime rates and not the newer rates. If this did not happen the company would not have been sold and all of those people would not have had a job any more.
At that time it was legal to negotiate your own contract etc;

Have you wondered why the company concerned or workers concerned did not notify authorities of any grievances at the time.
It takes a Royal Commission to find a grievance which otherwise did not exist. If some one profited by other than negotiations with the company concerned, well they should be held to account

Hi Doog,

You ask:

"Have you wondered why the company concerned or workers concerned did not notify authorities of any grievances at the time."

My limited understanding is that rival companies actually did lodge complaints, before they went out of business.

And as for the workers involved, do you know many Anglo cleaners ? Anglo male cleaners ? And being mostly non-Anglo women, starting work at 3 am or 4 am, desperately hanging onto their jobs, one here and one there, do you reckon they had much industrial clout, that they could complain ?

But Shorten seems to have done alright out of it all.

Joe

Loudmouth Why do you say shorten did alright out of it all.

The only reason the company was sold and all of those jobs saved was the status quo of the contracts. This company was the largest with the most workers involved.

I don't think there was anything sinister about it. It had to happen that way or everybody would have been out of work.

Maybe a better question would be: why were the other struggling companies in the industry not able to match Cleanevent's pay and conditions?

Doog, Aidan,

My understanding, limited as I may be, is that the AWU did a one-on-one deal with Cleanevent, deliberately shutting out other companies, to pay Cleanevent cleaners a flat $ 16 per hour when the award rate - for all those other companies - was $ 26 per hour. How are they supposed to compete with a company which can undercut them, with union collusion ? So they go out of business, and the low-paying monopoly company makes millions, thanks to the AWU deal.

And the best thing for the union is that it not only gets an annual back-hander but, without them even knowing it, those non-Anglo workers, mostly women, are drafted into the union, to boost its numbers and clout at conferences etc. All paid for by Cleanevent. So the story goes.

I'm inclined to agree with Phillip Adams today, and not vote for any of the major parties next time. A vote for Nick, might do the trick !

Joe

Joe with your limited knowledge;. The company's concerned were all in the process of hiring 457 visa persons. That is why the renegotiations to stay with an out of date contract.

I think your figures are very rubbery along with the reported 2 million savings.

The union got the business concerned to go with the present workforce and not change to the proven slave labour 457 visa holders.

Shorten has a right of reply and be cross examined by an individual judge when the time is right.

Abbott's fingerprints are all over the Royal Commission so be careful of what has come out of it to date.