TurnRightThenLeft,

I think the key point not spelt out by Julia Gillard (indeed, it has been glossed over) is that while there is a nod to rights to join or not join a union, there will be clear and strong inducements for employees to join unions.

Conditions will be included in collective agreements known as "bargaining fees", imposed by the majority of employees on the minority. They work by requiring employees who are not union members to pay a fee to the union (either directly or through the employer) which is usually in excess of the cost of union membership, supposedly in return for bargaining services in negotiating the terms of the collective agreement. Employees sensibly enough join the union at a lower cost, rather than be forced to pay the higher fee.

Restrictions on (and doubts about) the ability to have such clauses have in the past stopped the widespread inclusion of such conditions under all previous legislation allowing for collective agreements (under both Labour and Coallition governments). Julia Gillard advertises expressley that such restrictions on the content of agreements are to be removed.

Result? 100% union membership, willing or otherwise. I take no position whether this is a good or bad thing, but it is intellectually dishonest not to recognise it is the true position flowing from what has been foreshadowed.

Regards, Zetetist.

Even if Labor were in power the unions would struggle for members. Many unions had lost most of their members well before John Howard arrived on the scene. Unions lost members because they did not represent members and instead wasted precious resources on such issue as abortion, political affairs in other countries, endless in-fighting etc etc.

Howard and business need unions much more than workers need unions. After all, unions have been convenient whipping boys for decades.

Zetetist.

I assume you a referring to the Liberal Party's "Labor conference watch" website when you make this assertion regarding bargaining fees.

What Gillard said was "Under Labor’s system, bargaining participants will be free to reach agreement on whatever matters suit them".

Is this the "advertises expressley that such restrictions on the content of agreements are to be removed" you mention?

A bargaining fee is a charge made for the negotiation of a workplace agreement. They are not dissimilar to fees charged by professionals such as solicitors. In the federal jurisdiction, a workplace agreement may take a variety of forms. In the course of negotiating such an agreement, an employer may be charged a fee by a bargaining agent, as may an employee or a group of employees.

Don't believe the spin, employers are paying bargaining fees right now. But they are paying them to their industry bodies or rather industry unions.

The ABS produced a statistic that says union membership is falling. They used the same sort of survey methods that are used to determine the unemployment rate.

The ACTU says that union membership is rising, presumably by counting the number of union members.

I think that if you enjoy the benefits that a union has negotiated for your workplace like, 30 minute meal break after 5 hours work, standard 8 hour work day, 4 weeks annual leave entitlement then the union should be able to get recompense for the work their negotiator has done on your behalf. The wages most people get have been negotiated by unions saying that this job needs this amount of training, and thus should be paid $22 per hour etc.

If you don't want to be a union member then expect to work for 10 hours a day without a meal break, without annual leave entitlement, and if the employer can only afford to pay you $5 per hour, well then that's your wage.

100 years ago if a worker was injured or died at work, well that was his fault for being inattentive. Unions have made those work sites safer, reduced the injury and death toll and ensured compensation is paid to injured workers. Pilbara iron mining companies used to be notorious for trying to steamroller the grieving family into signing compensation contracts hours after the accident before they had a real understanding of their loss and the costs of living as a severely disabled person. Remember that miners are fit young people whose only asset is their strong body and keeness to work. As they work in dangerous occupations banks traditionally wouldn't give them loans so they rent housing or pay cash for a house.

WD the problem isn’t so much that people are incapable of making their own decisions, it’s that they may not always have the clout to do so. Individually, workers are replaceable, and are less likely to be listened to or respected in their individual negotiations. This isn’t as much of a problem for high skilled workers who have bargaining power, but becomes a major problem for those in other industries. Like another poster referred to, we have a standard 8 hour work day because collectively people demanded it, not because individuals attempted to individually negotiate for it.

Australia’s economy is booming at the moment, but any two bit economist will tell you that for every boom there must be a bust. When that bust comes will workers still face a fairly regulated environment that looks after basic rights? Or will it become a situation where they are forced to agree to work unreasonably long hours, without guaranteed annual leave, overtime, penalty rates etc, just to make them a more attractive candidate for a highly sought after position?

When that bust comes I’m sure unions will regain their relevance. But we will have to fight all over again to regain rights that were secured years ago, and which should be maintained.

Julia

I've only three questions: I'd have more but they all revolve around the needs and expectations of families who earn combined less than $45,000pa or $800 each week.

How many Unions represent employees earning less than $30,000 a year?

How many Union Oficials earn $30,000 or less each year?

Do you agree with Kevin Rudd that some families are only battling with earnings of $250,000 each year?

Straight answers without the usual political waffle will suffice.