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?