The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Growing the union's powerbase > Comments

Growing the union's powerbase : Comments

By Krystian Seibert, published 14/1/2008

To survive and grow, unions need to constantly change and adapt their role in society.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
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.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 14 January 2008 9:45:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 14 January 2008 10:06:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"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.
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 14 January 2008 10:13:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 14 January 2008 10:35:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"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?
Posted by RobP, Monday, 14 January 2008 2:59:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by runner, Monday, 14 January 2008 3:43:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP

You misrepresent the case - and probably misapprehend it too.

What's with your "socialisation (sic) of the system by stealth"? There's no stealth in my proposal. It's perfectly open. (What's more, you don't mean "socialisation" which is about making people, especially the young, fit for society. I think you were groping for "socialism"; but maybe it's all the same to you - any word will do when you don't know what you mean.)

Under the proposal, unions would not be paid anything except by their members and those non-members who want to accept what the unions win for them in negotiation with employers. If non-members want to negotiate their own terms and conditions and can do it better than the unions, good for them. What could be fairer than that? Surely that is payment by results? And it would stop the free-loaders getting something for nothing.

Your claim that all the unions do is "organise resistance" is a very out-of-date view of the role of unions. Step into the 21st century. Inane union-bashing cost the Howard Government dearly in November. Surely smart conservatives will have learned something from that experience. The old battles are over. We can and must work together.

I expect that many of the "average workers" whom you malign - "wouldn't have the wit or capacity to...create things" - will rightly take exception to your misguided snobbery, and your ignorance about how products get created.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 14 January 2008 3:45:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol,

You are a master at putting words in other's mouths and twisting what they say to suit your own politics.

All right, socialisation was the wrong word, collectivise would have been better. Or caramelise. Think about what I was really trying to say in the context of the argument. And, yes, I was talking about where unions were coming from, not where things are going. The fact that things are changing shows that greater energy and diversity is coming into the workplace which, ironically, has nothing to do with unions at all but those newer forces like the Howard Government. So, how about giving some credit there where it's due? Like a lot of clever lefties, you're trying to turn a necessity (the fact that the world has changed) into a virtue and then grab the proceeds of other people's hard work by changing the paradigm at the last minute.

There are plenty of workers who do not have the wit, interest or capacity to do new things. By that, I'm not trying to malign them or put them on the spot, just say it how it is. Everyone has their strengths and weakness, simple as that. The entrepreneurs take the risks and create new industries and the like, while the workers fill the hole. The entrepreneurs do their job and workers do theirs.
Posted by RobP, Tuesday, 15 January 2008 9:31:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It doesn't - or at least it shouldn't - work that way, The Blue Cross.

>>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.<<

It is normal business practice for the discounts to be provided by the product supplier, not the Union. Your concern that this might be traded off against workers' conditions should be completely unfounded.

The way it usually comes about is that the supplier has an arrangement whereby they provide you with a discount in exchange for being able to present their products to a "captive" audience. The trade-off in these relationships is normally only that the range of products available to you in this way is limited to the number of suppliers who have sufficiently large profit margins to offer such discounts.

It is also common practice for some suppliers to pay an amount directly to the intermediary, for the privilege of offering product to its constituency. So there is - or should be - no drain on Union funds in the provision of this service.

If your Union is in fact subsidizing your product purchases, I would recommend that you ask them to stop, immediately. It really isn't a productive use of your levy.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 15 January 2008 10:49:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frankgol's suggestion of applying a levy to anyone who benefits from a union's action is tantamount to giving the unions the power to impose a tax. This is going back to the dark days of the closed shop.

By not joining the union, the workers are effectively negotiating their own package. If the employer was to offer them less, the union would be delighted. The reason the employer doesn't offer less is because the employee is certain to walk.

The reason people "freeload" is because they feel that the union is a facilitator and not the driver behind the increase / change in conditions.

As a student I visited the Louve, and while looking at some of the pieces from the revolution, a guided tour from American express stopped at the piece I was viewing. With interest I listened to the tour guide upon which one irritated pensioner informed me that this was a private tour and I should either pay up or depart.

At this point being the diplomat that I was, I replied that unless AE had purchased the Louve, I had the right to be there and suggested he could do something interesting.

The unions occupy the same moral and legal ground as the grumpy gentleman, and if the unions try to "levy" them they will probably get a similar response.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 15 January 2008 11:07:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

You have it all wrong. Under my proposal unions would have no power whatsoever to impose a tax or a levy. Nor to run a closed shop. That's your misconstruction.

The idea was that unions would negotiate outcomes for their members who paid their dues. Non-unionists could choose from the following options:

(a) to pay a fee to the unions to access the newly-negotiated conditions gained by the unions - in advance or after the event
(b) to continue with their status quo
(c) to negotiate with employers independently or through an alternative agent.

Under (c) they might do even better than under (a) as you rightly point out.

That would be their choice - and choice being a cornerstone of Howardian ideology, I thought you might approve.

In your parallel with the Louvre you acted within your legal and moral rights. It was inappropriate for the tour member to ask you to leave a space which you had paid to inspect.

But the parallel with unions is a weak one. The union has no right to hire and fire employees nor should it try to do that. The union has no right to determine the conditions of non-unionists (and for that matter can only negotiate the rights of unionists - not determine them).

Employees who choose not to be members of a union would not be forced to pay anything to a union; but if they want to benefit directly from the negotiating power, skill and expertise of a union they should pay an appropriate fee for that service.

A better parallel would be to a family wanting to send their kids to a private school without wanting to pay the fees.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 15 January 2008 11:37:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister: "If the employer was to offer them less, the union would be delighted."

That's a mischaracterisation of the purpose of the union. Sure there are some power hungry individuals who have twisted the purpose just as there are in all organisations. But the purpose of the union is to establish fair conditions and fair pay. While they might not go out of their way to assist non-union members, they don't get any joy out of their predicaments.

"The reason the employer doesn't offer less is because the employee is certain to walk."

Or that they might just end up joining the union to get the same deal anyway, and its in the employers best interest to minimise the power of the union.

"Frankgol's suggestion of applying a levy to anyone who benefits from a union's action is tantamount to giving the unions the power to impose a tax."

That's not what he's suggesting at all. He suggesting that the union bargained agreement could be 'sold' as a 'ready-to-go' work agreement, giving the non-union member the option of going with the union agreement or forging their own way. It's quite possible a non-union member could use the union agreement as leverage in their own negotiations, in effect benefiting from it, in which case they would not owe the union anything.
Posted by Desipis, Tuesday, 15 January 2008 11:42:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FG,

The comparison with kids at a private school is ridiculous, as the kids have no right to be there at all! If you want a school comparison, it would be like the PTA at a public school organising school lunches and expecting everyone to pay whether they agreed or not.

The fact that the unions are bitter that people are "freeloading" is reason to believe that they would prefer that non union members not get the same benefits. I never said that they would gloat about it.

Your proposal that
a) pay for benefits that the union provide,
b) accept the status quo
C) negotiate separately
is naive, as b) is never going to happen.

80% of employees choose option c) as this means that they can either accept the base conditions negotiated by the union by doing nothing or press for further benefits if they have skills above that separate them from the crowd, or are prepared to accept different conditions.

The purpose of the AWA enables the employee to be paid what he is worth and not what the average Joe Bloggs is worth.

The closed EBA ensures that everyone gets the base conditions and no one can benefit from (god forbid) working harder.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 15 January 2008 1:04:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister: "The fact that the unions are bitter that people are "freeloading" is reason to believe that they would prefer that non union members not get the same benefits."

They don't want non-union members to miss out at all. They just feel that the costs of achieving the benefits should be shared by all those who get them. Much in the same way they object to the way businesses use their bargaining power to claim the lions share of the business revenue as profit. It's about distribution of wealth based on contribution and not on bargaining power.

"The purpose of the AWA enables the employee to be paid what he is worth and not what the average Joe Bloggs is worth."

Given the way the federal election went I think its clear that the majority of people don't agree that the "free-market" of the AWAs are an appropriate measure of someones worth.
Posted by Desipis, Tuesday, 15 January 2008 2:34:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This prescription - cheap movie tickets - won't work.

The Accord in the 1980s started the rot with its class collaboration, and concentration of power in the hands of the trade union bureaucracy. Ever since then unions in the private sector have declined markedly in membership.

A return to class struggle and the empowerment of the rank and file would see membership increase.
Posted by Passy, Tuesday, 15 January 2008 7:56:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Desipis,

If I am correct, AWAs were around several elections ago, the issue this election was work choices not AWAs. The removing of AWAs was piggy backed onto the scrapping of work choices.

The employees at non union sites seem to get similar or better increases than union sites. The unions to a large extent are taking credit for simple improvements in the job market.

People don't join the union because they see no benefit. Those that do, do so more for a feeling of belonging than for benefits.

With the odd exception the days of the oppressive employer has gone, and with it the raison d'etre of the unions.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 16 January 2008 3:32:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

The way I understand it (which may not be correct), before work choices the AWAs existed along side other options and the employees had some control over choising the safety of awards or going it on their own. Work choices essentially forced workers who wanted the safety of awards onto AWAs and additionally put up roadblocks to remove union support from AWA negotiations.

"With the odd exception the days of the oppressive employer has gone."

That's incredibly naive.

"Latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on working hours shows more than half of Australia's 8.6 million employees are working overtime without being compensated." - http://www.careerone.com.au/jobs/job-search/job-market-insider/awa-not-to-blame-for-extra-unpaid-overtime

While I agree that this has little to do with AWAs, it does show that more than half of Australian workers are still being ripped off through unbalanced employer/employee relationships. There is still a great need for organised and coordinated employee support.
Posted by Desipis, Wednesday, 16 January 2008 5:00:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Desipis,

As one of those who on a fixed salary work hours from 50 - 70 hrs a week, I would also fall into that category of "working overtime without compensation", However, I don't feel oppressed, as my salary takes that into consideration.

Using this to show that employers are still oppressive is to be completely oblivious to reasons people work those hours.

People take the jobs completely aware of what is entailed, and know that to go to a normal 9-5 job would generally entail moving to a less interesting lower paid job.

People compete for these jobs because they are well paid, interesting and ladder to higher paid jobs still.

Generally with the skills they gain they can move swiftly to other positions in other companies. Any employer attempting to "oppress" them will simply see them disappear.

As an manager I am fully aware that it takes months to get someone suitable to fill a position, and further months before he is productive. Replacing someone is hugely expensive and time consuming and to be advoided at nearly all costs.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 16 January 2008 5:52:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"That would be their choice - and choice being a cornerstone of Howardian ideology, I thought you might approve."

No doubt, said with tongue firmly in cheek and spin in hyperdrive. Yes, but the Howardists earned the right to have a choice. Unions, on the other hand, after having politically poo-pooed choice for so long, want to now jump on the "choice" bandwagon when it suits them. Interesting how the rhetoric changes when there's a smell of union power in the air.

Another point in the general discussion about unions is that the talk is all about getting new members and building up unions. The other side of the coin should be a frank assessment by unions about why members have been leaving. Just yesterday I saw the best piece of one-sided proselytising by a union official I've ever seen. One couldn't help but admire the passion and the clarity of the person and the message. However, while the sentiments were great, the reality is far different. It's exactly that one-sided passion that causes the problems for many ordinary people/workers out there. It's a case of one man's meat being another's poison.

If unions are to have a future, they need to compromise on their ideological purity and accept that a diversity of views are a reality in the workplace and work with them, not against them.
Posted by RobP, Friday, 18 January 2008 9:14:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles.... I never said anything about the union paying for the discounts... you invented that.

I know every well how it works thanks.

Discounting, when taken to the extreme, sends business broke. And then where would all the Shoppo's be?

Of course, 'discounting' is also a scam, and preys on union members and others who fall for it.

Generally, it indicates the 'retail' price is too high in the first place.

The 'wurkers'.... always taken for a ride, eh?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 21 January 2008 10:28:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women continue to be victims of discrimination in and out from their workplace. Although in the top lever there are 50% men and women in the lower lever, there are not many women organizers to promote women rights and write new members in the Union
Migrants, non Anglo Saxon This category of employees is under the worst conditions, low income, no opportunities, bulling, humiliation, etc. If the Union continues to ignore (I do not speak on papers or on the top level I mean in the floor)their basic rights then there is no hope for the Union to increase its members from this category.
3.Democracy in the Union Movement.
Democracy is the system for the poor, for the weak, for the members. We must have some basic rules, a maximum time without elections. I remembered when I was counselor in the Union /printing division, we decided for elections, (after 8 years) we gave candidates’ forms to Union Bureaucracy for the Electoral commission but they forgot to give them to Electoral Commission!!. If we want a strong Union movement we must respect Union member’s rights to play an important role on Union’s policies and elect Union's leaders, in regular times.
Union Autonomy The Union Movement must be autonomous from political parties and ready to fight them if they ignore or promote policies against labour’s benefits.
Society The Union Movement must improve its connections, its relations with Australian society. Labor’s real life start after their shift. Unionists are not hard, uncivilized persons, they are mature, sensitive and responsible persons not only in their workplace but even more out from their workplace. There are many poets, musicians, artists etc in the Union movement,Enter to people’s hearts from the early ages, start from the children. Create summer camps for member’s and friend’s children. In Europe hundreds of thousands children go to Union’s camps every year. Use these camps for pensioners. cooperate with schools.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid
Posted by ASymeonakis, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 10:08:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy