Sniggid, hello, all recent media reports suggest a new growth in Union membership. When the vast bulk of non union workers begin to realise that their wages and conditions did not fall out of the sky,they may also contemplate joining. Unions are perhaps victims of their own success.Their ability over the last 100 years to enshrine in law minimum wages, meal breaks, super etc etc has resulted in freeloading by todays me society. The obssesion Howard, Boaz and Sniggid have with Unions also demonstrates that they are far from irelevant. Destroy the Unions, break down wages and conditions.This is class warfare at its most base, and its perpatrators do not have the courage or moral fibre to be honest about it. Hands up everyone who recalls the Boss coming into work announncing a pay rise?

Sniggid,

Granted the majority of employers may not act as you suggest, but can you honestly suggest that only an insignicant minority will?

If so you are DELUDED. (See Boeing ACT/ Leighton QLD/ BHP WA/ etc.)

Mate, if you are so very anti-union - you go back to working a 60 hour week if you want (for no extra benefit). UNIONS earned you the rights that you appear to think employers got together and agreed to grant. THEY DID NOT.

If you wish to understand the problems caused by lockouts i suggest you read some of the submissions to the senate inquiry into AWA's. They ARE rude and they are barbaric.

Aaron

What absolute rubbish. I belonged to a union for 30 years and got the best salary and condition increases by far after I left the union and negotiated a workplace agreement for myself and other colleagues.

You are still on the "them and us" union view of the world. It has changed. Of course there is a role for unions in the future. There will be employees on collective agreements and employees on AWA's. The trick for the future of unions is how to provide a service to individuals who want AWA's. That is the message.

Sniggid, your experience was that the union held you back but in my experience non-union workplaces have

- not paid equal wages for equal work I.E. women earn less than men
or the best bargainer earns the most money , this has nothing to do with competence
- not paid overtime
- not had minimum call out times
- not had maternity leave
- fired workers who are almost due long service leave
- fired workers who are almost due to retire
- pressured workers families to accept small compensation payouts immediately after a severe industrial accident
- directed their employees to undertake political acts that further management's objectives when those objectives were contrary to employees best interests. OK, in plain English, Brian Quinn director of Coles Myer directed all supermarket staff to go shopping in Myer when CML was pressuring the Victorian state government to introduce Sunday trading.
[ What's wrong with Sunday trading? Customers spend the same amount of money but over a longer period. I.E. it takes more time to sell the products ]

Many families will discover that the family Christmas lunch will disappear.
Note in Dickensian London, only the middle classes had Christmas lunch. Also at that time half the textile workers of Manchester contracted crickle and died during a very severe depression. [crickle = starvation]

We have seen hoteliers welcome this legislation so they will no longer have to pay penalty rates for public holidays.

In a civilised society the weaker members of the workforce are protected from rapacious employers and unfair work practices. The IR bill remmoves all protections.

I have no issue with the concept of AWAs, I'm sure many people do very well out of them. In fact, as the law CURRENTLY stands, that is the point- the 'no disadvantage' test means that if you negotiate individually, you MUST have a better outcome than if you were on a standard agreement.

But that is NOT what the Government is wanting- they are wanting to reduce and remove entitlements, to make people worse off. I find that an unconcionable action by a government. I am clearly naieve and foolish, but I thought the role of Government was to work towards making it's citizens' lives better. Removing hard-won entitlements does not make people's lives better, it makes them more stressed, less happy, and more suspicious of each other (hmm, is James getting more than me for less work? Is Lisa getting maternity leave when I dont?).

I just fail to see any logical rationale for these changes. We already have indvidual agreements, and they are working fine with a strong award 'base line'. That said, the system was complicated and the ambit claims system was combative, but in trying to streamline systems, we should not throw out both baby and bathwater!

Sniggid, please tell us excactly how the Union held you back for 30years. Then tell us about this fantastic deal you did for you and your mates. I am sure we are all desperate to learn your tricks, so we can prosper under CHOICES.