While I concur with much of what you are saying, it when you say that unions are "engaging in savvy and engaging ways on issues of broad community concern such as the war in Iraq, refugees..." that makes me pull back in concern.
This is the very thing that me and most people I speak to on the matter hesitate when it come to joining a union. I don't wan't the unions to be so be presumptious as to claim to speak for me on issues are outside of the purview of my membership. They can rightly speak about worker's rights and conditions of employment etc but they cannot use the union membership as a platform to launch their own political agendas.

After the 2001 election, the ALP loss was blamed on the degree of union control. This was claimed immediately - without a shred of evidence. It is more likely that the ALP lost support because of all those multifarious activist groups who have jumped on the ALP bandwagon to further their own causes - to the detriment of the workers who provide most of the funding through their membership dues.

I am apalled by the proposed IR laws. The short-term impact will be bad enough. The long-term implications for Australian society are even worse, and yet to be considered by commentators. I strongly support the union protest, but when I see commentary such as this, where you see workers as useful cannon fodder for your political wars, people such as I are driven straight back into the government's arms.

Generation Y'ers are moving away from unions due to the changing fabric of employment.

Many of us are becomming skilled, more so than in previous generations, and more of us are inclined to want to own the ladder, not climb it thus we are becomming involved with busines, and many of us will choose to operate as a sub contractor or run a business.

Unions are unfortunately dying with young people, yes, but it due to the decrease in people opting to work in unskilled labour positions where union prescence is essential, and if we do, many of us wil only be doing it as a means to springboard them to their chosen endevours.

IR reform will ensure the gap widens between the have's and the have nots, and with the workforce changing, young people will choose to join a union if it benefits them. Unions are not dying, unskilled labour is dying in each new generation.

Common sense could prevail and the government could separate all industries and occupations into 'union' and 'non union' categories, and thus, we could encourage enterprise bargaining in applicable industries, yet protect the grass roots of society.

Why throw a blanket over everything? I am an employer and unions do make life difficult sometimes, but if they were not there bringing wages and conditions into line all the time, my workers who are employed in a small and meduim business will suffer, and as an employer, it means they ride the waves of business cycles with me, as we are working to maximise profits and productivity.

When laws ensure that an institution has a captive market then service levels are likely to be low. The IR reforms will take away the employees compulsion to join a union or bargain collectively. This loss of monopoly will encourage unions to become and to remain relevant.

I don't see this as an attack on employees rights. I see it as an attack on unions legislated monopolies status.

Bring on the IR reforms. And bring on unions that are relevant but optional.

Collectives are a great way for humans to deal with an experience the world. Whether it is shareholders in a company, members in a union, or partners in a marriage collectives are the norm in human affairs. What stinks is compulsory collectives forced on unwilling participants. I support and advocate "civil society" but I loath socialism.

We need a smaller regulatory influence in our lives and a smaller government sector. In its place we need more private enterprise, personal endeavour and civil society. Contrary to what those on the left believe, community is not a government service. Community is the thing that the government displaces when it takes over through public spending or regulation.

Part One

To Rebecca and Peter,

As oldies with a forward population, it is our great-great grandkids we should be thinking of. What with this neo-liberal individualist philosophy come back when it was chucked out during the Great Depression after the Roaring Twenties, because it was only a plan for the already rich, one thinks there are a host of young people now getting conned.

The advice to the young is not to take advice from budding economists but learn your history. Even recent history, back in the early seventies when even bank managers were telling small farmers and businessmen to quit while their luck’s in, because in the future it will be either get big or get out.

John Howard telling you young un’s to plan for your future together is only kidding you on to be by yourself in the future, somewhat under the old-style Master and Service laws with not only no worker’s organisations to help you, but no laws much to help you when you lose your jobs.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Part Two

Some say how you can tell something is wrong for the future, when trouble starts with the peasants, the farmers. Since “get big or get out” came in, we have seen the middle-men or the corporates having been granted the freedom to give poor prices to the dairy farmers for their milk, but charging almost what they like to the retailer. And so it goes on with the only way to make money is to invest in stocks and shares when we find we are mostly only helping to build up more big businesses to kill more little businesses.

What young thinking people should be doing is to realise the change will only be good for those whom we could call the smart-arses. Small farmers are now being encouraged to become agrarian socialists again as they had to in the 1930’s no matter whether it be right-wing or left-wing. With this get big or get out trickle down economy now really on the go, it is the humanities areas of the universities who should be looking to the future for the young. Not an encouragement for neo-liberal individualism, as John Howard advises, but for each other - which incidently what the terms liberalism and rationalism actually mean - as we find in our dictionaries, moderation in all things, and to share fairly and ethically our fruits of production

I completly agree with noddy's position regarding the use of members dues to advance the political agenda of the union.

The US has a very good law to slow down this flagarent misappropriation of members hard earned dolars. The union must (by law) inform all members of the percentage of their union dues that were used for purposes beyond the contract negociations and management for their specific employer. This excess amount must be refunded to the members if they so request, and many do.

What do you think the chances of this happening in Oz are?

I can understand Gen Y's being more techological that previous generations but would seriously question if they are more skilled. By skilled do you mean gaining a certificate for a job that many could do with their eyes closed 15 years ago? I have worked with people within the Y group and their basic general knowledge, knowledge of how business operates, banking systems, retail etc was minimal compared to the same age group 15 years ago. How do we define skills? Is it certificate based? Knowledge based? My skills are from work experience, and tried and tested. By the way, labourers are not a dying breed. Who builds the houses, sweeps the floors, washes windows, washes dishes,? Not everyone gets the opportunity to own the ladder.

The reason they (Gen Y's) feel they do not need a union is that all the benefits have been there for them (quite rightly too). Once these benefits are removed, they will then cry foul and realise the value of Unions. As to the Unions targeting this group, I say, good on them, because they know that these Gen Y's will be suffering and floating down the river without a paddle. My own children are in this group. I hope that there will be younger Union officials who can reach out and be helpful to this group, on their level and with an understanding of their needs and fears.

Unions are accountable for where they spend the monies. I would like to see them lower their fees so that more workers could afford to be a member, the more members, the stronger the Union

Tinkerbell,

you are misunderstanding me.

As a whole, gen y'ers are being educated for longer, going to year 12 and many more people are attending university than in the 60s and 70s when you had the opportunity. I am not attacking anyone.

I am not saying we are any smarter, in fact, what we make up for in embracing technology we lack in many things, perhaps socially etc.

By saying gen y'ers are not so bright as 15 years ago as you have worked with them, 15 years ago banking systems were far different as were the office environment, as it was pre internet days.

Compare apples with apples, 15 years ago they should have taken more on board as they had less to uptake than today.

Be reasonable please. we are not all going to ruin because of gen y'ers. We must be careful though that we dont 'trap' many gen y'ers who are forced to work whilst attending university, and degradating wages and conditions mean they have to work harder to make ends meet, making the drop out rate higher.

I hope the poverty trap is not set, so give gen y'ers more credit than you are, Tinkerbell, we have plenty on our plate, esp with IR coming.

Thank you Rebecca and Peter for your article.

Speaking from my own experience as a Gen Y, I don't know of a single person from my age group who is even considering joining a union. I suspect most of us will have no need given that we are likely to jump from job to job and industry to industry on a frequent basis as our conditions change.

This is not to say unions will die out completely as their will probably always be unions for nurses, doctors and emergency services.

Bruce 20.10.05 YES, the US has some laws to tame the Unions, perhaps that it why their minimum wage is $5.15 p.h. and has been for the previous 7 years, I hope you don't mind working for this amount in the future, for many years, since you endorse the policy

The federal minimum wage is slowly becoming irrelevant in the USA. Clinton passed laws to allow the states to set their own minimums. Many do and the number is steadly increasing. The state minimums where they exist are higher than the federal minimum. The US federal minimum does not tell the real story about the stituation in the USA. In many states the federal minimum could be zero and it would make no difference due to state law.

Any sane federal government in the USA should never increase the minimum wage. Leaving it instead to be set appropriately for the economic situation in each state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

The best state minimum wage in the USA is $7.35 in Washington DC, - hope they don't rush out and spend it all at once. I would not use those figures as a basis for proof that our current discussions re IR reforms should follow the USA.
As to the Gen Y'ers feeling that they will be able to negotiate their own contracts easier than X'ers and the rest of us etc, one can only hope that they do not work for a Company with more than 20 employees, as the only access they will have to discuss this with, will be the HR department, or their supervisors.
Maybe we need these Gen y'ers in there sitting with the rest of the workers and pulling off a great negotiation.
I have seen the best sales people (with fantastic negotiating skills), the best orators, the strong and the weak all fall under the hammer to the bosses. I wish them the best and hope they succeed.

Terje, I would like to leave you with a thought of fairness, a cornerstone of the Australian psyhe....
" For a worker to refuse to belong to a union is not an exercise in democratic freedom. It is to accept benefits that others have worked for without contributing to the costs. Democracy flourishes only when freedom is accompanied by responsibility" in other words the wages and conditions enjoyed by todays employees is not heaven sent the employee who have joined a union, have fought over 78 years for them, and if you want to come along and take them, without contributing to the unions costs to win these conditions for the workforce, and gain better wages and conditions in the future, and don't join a union, in my opinion, that makes you a bludger on your fellow employees who have contributed.

I a trade union official would never think it was my right or duty to tell a unionist how to think on Iraq or any issue.
I have wasted my time informing the ALP how construction workers thought on issues.
While I want a goverment change unions do not have the right, duty, or means to make members think as they want in politics.
However by containing myself to union matters, always answering the phone, never knowingly letting a member down, I witness trust and growth and true frendship from my members and me to them daily.
Its not a hard task, but astounding that any who can not produce these results are officials.
Again the view that unions have a right to demand anyone think in political one way tracks devalues and harms the real reason unions exist.
It is true however that this active ALP member voted for a man he would never be able to like or trust in the last election, but that was my choice no one twisted my arm.
And no secret my union is the AWU.

I too find it disturbing, that illiterate morons not only parasite of my union fees, but then attempt to dictate to me , or claim to voice my views on such issues as bringing democracy to Iraq , or who we should let into our country. I am surprised that Peter Lewis has attached his name to this article.