The reason that people are deserting the unions is because any increases in salaries they get is not dependent on union membership.

This is mostly because if they are not happy they can easily move and the employer is more focused on keeping skilled experienced workers because replacing them is difficult and expensive.

The old union structures are still used by the employers to negotiate with their workers, as it is still an effective communication tool. However, if the unions disappeared, it would be replaced with something similar but non union, as has happenned in several companies.

The proposal to spruce up the union brand by extending this to purchasing will end up with the unions competing against other such organisations such as Amway etc.

If the unions want to expand they need to be relevant in the workplace and to work with the employers and employees as a facilitator rather than a dinosaur who cannot move past the one size fits all philosophy.

If it's true - as found in the survey - that more than 60 per cent of non-union workers admitted to ''free riding'', and that they don't join unions because they believe they receive the benefits anyway, it may also be true that the previous government made a serious error of judgment in its union-bashing campaign in the last election.

If - as claimed- a considerable majority of non-unionist employees are satisfied with the unions' collective approach and the improved employment conditions that their approach provides, there's a case for levying non-unionists for access to the benefits gained by unions.

Fee for service. If you don't want the benefits gained by unions, you can decline them and not be liable to the levy.

"Given this, there is an opportunity for unions to expand their role in our society..."

There are many unions that have already moved down this path. There are also organisations such as consumer unions that specialise in other areas. I think that employee unions should focus on employee issues. I think unions could possibly gain support by having a free 'basic' membership and rely on voluntary involvement for fund raising.

"This is mostly because if they are not happy they can easily move and the employer is more focused on keeping skilled experienced workers because replacing them is difficult and expensive."

Unfortunately this is not the case in many sectors of the economy, nor will continue to be the case during economic down turn in others. Ironically, it seems that some of the sectors that are most in need of collective bargaining power have the least union representation.

In Qld most unions are members of The Union Shopper, who deliver discounts on a range of goods.

But in a tight market, discounts on some goods will come at the cost of workers conditions I imagine, so it can only go so far.

Once-upon-a-time unions lobbied governments for public infrastructure so we all got a 'fair go' and the cost was worn by all of us through taxes.

Nowadays, the ALP support Liberal party policies and hove few of their own, so the idea of public infrastructure is anathema to them all.... in the ALP and in the unions, from whence comes all the ALP plonkers like Tanner, Swan, and the rest of 'em.

So, if the unions want to reinvent themselves, they could start by ditching the ALP and becoming a 'workers party' again, leaving the ALP to deal with their new mates, big business.

Given the almost Tory nature of 'Aussie wurkers'I doubt this would turn into a revolution we need fear, but it might allow unions to start lobbying for their members again, instead of the next Senate seat for their old and tired union secretary who still needs something to do and preferably with little or no effort, so the red or green seats beckon.

I hope that Combet makes a positive contribution while he warms the green seats, but look at the rest of 'em there.

Who ever hears what Jenny George has contributed to inproving the lot of the wurkers? And the Ferguson twins? Really, Crean seems to have been quite useful but that is about it.

George Campbell was ditched.... a good move... but what is 'Jock' going to achieve?

There will be no 'reinvention' of unions, just a gradual decline and then obscurity for most.

"there's a case for levying non-unionists for access to the benefits gained by unions."

Isn't this just socialisation of the system by stealth? Why should unions be paid what is essentially protection money given that they don't actually create any wealth or new products whatsoever. All they really do is organise resistance.

The compensation for unions should be in the fact that the more entrepreneurial types (and others) within the economy do/create things that the average worker wouldn't have the wit or capacity to. Isn't the fact that non-unionists do their best in other areas of society/economy compensation enough? Why are we always asked to featherbed the unions' nests?

In Western Australia where many individuals have negotiated far better deals than the unions could we see the unions demanding the same rates for their members. No doubt Frankgol and union buddies would be happy for union members to pay an extra levy if the unions were to gain the same advantages.