Julia, What a load of nonsense.
What is fair about a union movement that demands that people DON’T have the right to vote anonymously? What is fair about a union movement that demands workers ONLY engage in collective bargaining?
For years most major infrastructure projects in this country were plagued by industrial action often brought with no rhyme or reason. Workers who put up their hand to work and increase productivity without union approval were branded scum and physically attacked. The wharves dispute in 1996 was a perfect example- what was wrong with asking unions to increase productivity when the efforts of their members were lagging behind workers on every other continent, despite superior equipment and conditions?
Today unions are nothing more than relics. The union bosses are in it for themselves and don’t give a dam about the workers or the wider community. As long as they get their share of exposure at a mine collapse or company bankruptcy meeting they are happy.

The basic flaw in the Labor thinking is that people are incapable of making their own decisions and need the "advice/assistance" of unions.

I accept that some people would like asistance in their negotiations and as long as they are entitled to seek that assistance, beit a lawyer, a friend, a union officer, that is fine. It is their choise.

But for those who do consider themselves capable, why are they to be dictated to by anyone else?

WD

wre, that's the kind of empty hysterical rhetoric I've come to expect from both extreme ends of this debate.
Nicely demonstrated - by the same logic, lets take the transgressions of multinationals and chalk it all up to the evils of business in general - y'know, just to even things out somewhat.

Sure, unions have abused their power. So have businesses. Let's take a step back to the real world for a minute here and not pretend either are saints or devils, and both employers and employees are quite capable of abusing whatever rights are given to them.

Gillard talks about balance. As much as I hate to agree with such a simplistic sound bite, she's right. Whether her reforms will do that, I'm not as confident. That being said, the changes she's proposing do not roll back the bulk of the Howard government reforms, if anything, they're rather cautious. We all knew business would react negatively to anything that may impinge upon certain elements of workchoices.

Now... the crucial thing here is to ensure unions aren't allowed to monopolise membership - that is, employees have the right to opt out of a union without fear of reprisals. I haven't seen anything to indicate Labor's policies would have it otherwise.

Secondly, I get sick of everybody assuming that whatever the unions say is focused on self interest, yet when business raises an eyebrow they aren't questioned. Both are in this for their own interests okay? Now union interests aren't always synonymous with the interests of their members, but by and large they are - the solution here is to ensure unions do represent their members, to to get rid of unions as as much as I hate to admit it, they have a role - you can't simply hand all the rights to the employers.

Enough hysterical rhetoric please. Neither side of this debate is without self interest.

TurnRightThenLeft
Firstly, the only party to this debate that is ‘hysterical’ is the union movement. The scare tactics they have employed, particularly in the ALP advertisement campaigns are nothing short of a disgrace. Furthermore, if you’ve ever been privy to a union vote, you’ll realise just how good union leaders are at working a group into a ‘hysterical’ state where pack mentality is used to intimidate anyone who uses his/her own mind to make their own decisions. Since ‘hysterical’ is the catch word though, Greg Combet’s little performance was interesting this morning- talk about losing one’s grip (on power/ reality that is).
The difference between business and unions, is that business is answerable to a share holder, a regulator and ultimately the bottom line. The better the bottom line gets, the better it is for employees. There is no better example of this than the mining and resources industry right now. It is no coincidence that that industry is leading the charge against Gillard either. I doubt you could find me a miner who is happy for his salary to be held to ransom by union industrial action that he has no say in as an individual.

It is amazing how many accuse Mr Howard of being a fifties man and yet we now have Ms Gillard trying her best to appease her mates by turning the clock back a long way. Only a small percentage of people want anything to do with the unions. The new railway line from Perth to Mandurah is a constant reminder of how much unions inconvenience people and cost the taxpayer. Labour should have plenty of targets for such a long serving Government. With the majority of Australians never having it better they should wake up to the fact that they are on a loser on this issue. The bottom line is that when it comes to fairness both employer and employee have never had it better. Of course in any system you will find employers and employees abusing the system.

wre - some valid points there, but when you said that business is answerable to shareholders and the bottom line, you're ignoring the fact that the interests of both these stakeholders run contrary to those of employees - so we're left with the regulators, and that is essentially government - that is this debate.

At present there's not all that much problem with workchoices, especially in the mining industry - with such demand for jobs there's going to be reasonable deals offered to employees. Providing the mining boom holds (and I can't see the resource demand falling significantly any time soon with China and India being the way they are) then we're okay - but one day there probably won't be the same demand for jobs - it's then that we'll have renewed respect for enforcing employee rights.

Sure, unions have often shamelessly acted in their own interests to the detriment of the economy - so has business. My question to you is, without some kind of adversarial presence to business such as the unions, how are you going to have any kind of surety regarding workers rights? Or aren't workers rights even a valid concern in Australia any more?
That makes things tough for the unskilled. Very tough.

What is it you propose to ensure employers don't abuse their employees?