The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > When did unions become the bad guys? > Comments

When did unions become the bad guys? : Comments

By Luke Faulkner, published 3/10/2007

Unions have to change and actively market these changes or they face the prospect of ending up in a museum.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
The article well sums up the long-term trends that have impacted on unionism. I doubt if it could be put much better.

The state of unionism these days is that the members have no power, and so the union has no power. Consequently, the union is being forced to move to political strategies to get its message across. Unfortunately, the only way the unions will ever get any power back is if the Government and employers start bending workers over a barrel again. I'd like to think that the business world is more self-enlightened than that and realises that, in the end, doing this is counterproductive when attracting workers in a competitive environment.

Getting back to unionism, if you're an individual member the union will only help you if one of the following criteria are met:

1. The union can win your case.
2. It doesn't have to go too far out of its way to help you (ie you're part of the brethren).
3. It can get some political capital out of your predicament (eg, like the union ads against WorkChoices).

If, as an individual member, your situation doesn't satisfy one of these criteria, you'll be given short shrift.
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 11:10:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting article.
I had always been a union activist and had total faith in the union and the Labor party till 2000, when I was bullied at work and confidently turned to my union for support. To my amazement the union organiser told me that there was no hope of justice and that I should "accept the things you cannot change".
My story is told in more detail on the Bad Apple Bullies website at http://www.badapplebullies.com/investigations.htm
I rang the ACTU to tell them that my union would not help me, and they told me that workplace bullying was endemic in Australia and that unions could not afford to support the numbers of members who were being bullied. There was the added problem that my union - the Queensland Teachers' Union - is for both workers and bosses (teachers and administrators at every level) and the union has a "member versus member" rule which states that no member will be helped if they are "in dispute" with(i.e. being bullied or harassed by) another member.
In my opinion unions became the bad guys when they adopted a policy of allowing members to be abused at work because it was cheaper than protecting them. This policy exposed union members to workplace abuse.
For example, in recent research 97.5% of teachers claimed that they had been bullied at work. 50% of teachers leave the job after just five years. And teachers are reported to work with feelings of profound sadness. These are the benefits of union membership.
So what are our union fees actually being used for? Why - to pay actors huge fees to act out fabricated workplace problems in TV adverts, and to persuade the mug punters that, if they have a problem at work, unions will protect their workplace rights.
Well, I am not an actor and I am not being paid a huge fee, and I can tell you that when I needed help in 2000, my union abandoned me.
That was when unions became the bad guys.
Posted by Dealing With The Mob, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 11:31:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put.. A union should only exist to ensure minimum rights and conditions are met. Beyond that they have little influence on Australian workplaces today. I do fear though for the little guy who has very little bargaining power to begin with. Alas, for they will always be trampled on.
Posted by NoSoupForYou, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 11:40:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With any organisation that you have to pay to join, you won't join if you perceive no benefit.

With unemployment at an all time low, the ability to jump ship to improve conditions, means that employers are competing to keep workers, and the benefits of union membership and long time employment are fading.

In my time I have seen two types of union, one which is militant and who tries to score points off management at every turn, and one which engages management and acts as two way conduit for concerns and improvements. The second while having a lower profile tends to get all the major gains such as pay and many more smaller wins for the individuals and management, and job conditions and productivity improve hand in hand.

As the other comments suggest, unless the unions see themselves as providing a service to all parties, the workers will simply shop elsewhere.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 12:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that few people would disagree that unions have had some positive impacts in the past, however in more recent times, unions have been involved in a series of both public and not so public situations which casts some very bad light on them.

An example from my own experience is the ETU when I was consulting to an energy company - a union official threatened to walk the whole staff out because two apprentices were being paid differently.... the difference (a rounding error) was the equivelent of 5 cents a year. Is this what we call acceptable behaviour?

Working in HR and payroll, I have plenty more stories like this.

A more public example is the waterfront dispute - the MUA had not only been deliberately working at lower than capacity levels, but had been the epitome of what was descibed here... overalls and all. This was a very public display of an entrenched union behaving very badly.

As I said, no argument that there was some good work done 20+ years ago, however todays negative image of unions is entirely their own doing.
Posted by BN, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 12:18:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, the unions became the bad guys, or probably more correctly "superfluous to requirements", when they stopped helping the little guy.

My experience was with the Community and Public Sector Union when one of its delegates told me that the union didn't help individuals with grievances. There was no explanation why, just a firm, don't-argue statement. It was then I realised the union was all bark and no bite and all its rhetoric about helping workers was recycled from its more successful past. The latest CPSU ads on TV are a complete joke and it's clear to me the union is just angling to attract soft-headed and idealistic members who want to feel secure but who, in reality, aren't.
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 1:01:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unions are political organisations, always have been , always will be. That's why John Howard hates them.

Some comment that unions are interested in politics, well, duh.. Given the damage and potential damage Workchoices can do to union members why wouldn't unions arc up ?

The fact is unions have so far been very successful in the Workchoices campaign, unions are not dead yet, comrades.

By the way everyone is entitled to have a moan but don't pass off personal experience as being representative of something bigger. If you think your union is not doing its job then become a delegate, or stand for election to the union council.

Unions can be buried in the mire of individual servicing and have to prioritise services. That may mean the union negotiates framework agreements so that members can help themselves, trains delegates to assist members, or trains / supports members to help themselves.

Unions are the whipping boys because they have succeeded in putting Howard on the back foot, it wasn't Beazley or Rudd, it was the unions that took the fight to Howard.

We may stop needing unions when bosses stop being bastards, but I suspect that even then we'll need some organised force to stand up for our human rights.
Posted by westernred, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 2:46:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A thoughtful article, which makes some good points. I’d disagree with only one aspect, the author’s overly favourable view of the Accord process. I think the Accord was an important turning point in perceptions of unions, for a number of reasons.

First, as the article makes clear, it removed any pretence that rank-and-file members could influence their own pay and conditions, and explicitly transferred power from workplaces to the corporatist elite – government, full-time union officials and the bureaucracy.

Second, the decline in real wages under the Accord was not just an unhappy coincidence but a deliberate effort by that elite to cut pay. They may have had good macro-economic reasons for doing so – to attack the unemployment and inflation that followed the wages break-out of the 1970s. And they may have tried to engineer compensating adjustments in the “social wage” by adjusting taxes and benefits. But the fact remains that the only government in Australian history that deliberately and explicitly set out to reduce workers’ real wages was Labor, under the Accord, with the connivance of the unions. Small wonder they lost the trust of some ordinary workers.

Third, under the Accord process, unions’ influence on workers’ terms and conditions was achieved through political not industrial processes. The strong emphasis even today on the legislative and political dimension of Industrial Relations policy reflects the unions’ ongoing attachment to a model in which their efforts are directed mainly at governments and industrial commissions, not employers, and their power is secured by legislation, not the commitment of members.

Forth, as a consequence, their concern for individual members’ everyday concerns sometimes seems cursory at best, as the experiences of many posters in this thread illustrate.

Undoing these damaging effects on the Accord and its aftermath might go some way to restoring the respect and affection with which unions were once held.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 3:11:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only a retired old Cockie, but reckon there could be a bit of a worry about - we now don't need unions any more?

With the seemingly endless demand from China for our seemingly bottomless pitstocks, as well as China lovelingly smothering us in cheap clothing and smallgoods, what more could a worker and boss together be blessed with?

Yet we must remember Hitler got rid of the unions and even gave wonderful bonuses for extra babies.

Also like Hitler our government now does its own arbitration meaning it makes its own laws, rather than letting them be partisan or politically neutral.

So it's all a matter of the workers trusting the government rather than a union body.

Seeing as never had to work under a boss except my slave-driving Old Man which meant I also had to work with workers, reckon I had lessons in those days about who holds the big end of the stick, the boss or the worker?

Well I guess all one can say from experience, guess it's a case of time and change will tell?
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 4:15:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The union movement not only failed to assist me but also actively worked against me. Why should I support them?
The union movement also supports one political party over others. Why should those who wish to vote in other ways have their union fees used to this end?
Rudd claims he will require the return of any TWU funds but the reality is that they will find some other means of accepting them.
I have asked it before but received no answer - why has the South Australian government been allowed to get away with providing the union movement with $3m (for supposed OHS training but in reality a drive for union membership and a means of diverting union funds to the ALP for the election campaign)?
Posted by Communicat, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 4:16:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Westernred, I had no workplace rights in 2000, well before Workchoices.

You are right in that the huge sum of money - members union fees - that has been used to employ actors to act out fabricated workplace problems has created the illusion that union members once had workplace rights, and the further illusion that unions protected those rights.

In 2000 I, too, was a gullible, contented little union sheep. I believed in the Queensland Teachers' Union. I had no doubt at all that the union would protect me from workplace abuse.

Then I was attacked at work. And I have been "helping myself" as you put it since 2000.

It is a pretty lonely road.

You are not welcome at union conferences once you know the truth about the union.

You are urged to "move on" - to shut up and stop spoiling the illusion.

The boss-bastards are in the unions, don't you get it? The unions protect the boss-bastards.

And, when union officers have finished protecting the boss-bastards who are in the union, they become boss-bastards themselves and are gloriously "merit-selected" into the well-paid ranks of the Queensland public service.

Because they have been such co-operative little public servants.
Posted by Dealing With The Mob, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 4:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly, the writer of the article attacks the unions from the right, from the bosses needs. The writer pushes a political line for even closer integration with the bosses. In other words 'we can all work in together to get things done better.' Not very original as every right wing and Stalinist trade union official espouses the same political line; the ACTU/ ALP Accord expressed this point precisely. Yes the accord that took wage indexation off workers and shovelled it into the banks and bosses; an enormous betrayal. Then there was an agreement to drive down all workers hard won conditions and boost cheap casual labour: This treacherous euphemism was called 'restructuring' the workforce including ripping up all awards.
The writer never explains why the youth see the unions as a dead dog. Why would youth join an organization that only, repeat only, professes to defend them and looks for every possibility to stab them in the back and sell them out. Every workplace in the world has been cut in half and the treacherous unions working directly or indirectly with the bosses either instigated much of it or went along with it. But the media always paint the unions up as militant very much like how they promote the treacherous politicians. Every so often the media too attack the unions from the right, to wheel them into line.
Posted by johncee1945, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 5:08:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While some of the current crop of unions might risk ending up as museum pieces, the proven effectiveness of collective bargaining in situations where employers fail to recognise the value of treating workers with respect and treating them accordingly is not likely to go away any time soon. In that sense the decline of unionism doesn't bother me, because on the unlikely chance that things really drift back to the days of the late 19th century and early 20th century where extreme exploitation of workers initially led to formation and growth of unions, then history is bound to repeat itself. But you'd like think that employers as a group have become a little more enlightened since then.
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 5:37:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yet we must remember Hitler got rid of the unions."
This is incorrect. Firstly the unions refused to mobilise workers to do over the fascists, instead tried to do deals with Hitler. Hitler then marched into power without a shot being fired and remember he was never voted in. The treacherous trade union officials told Hitler "we can be of use to you" "we can control the workers better than anyone."
One of the first things he did was hang some of the trade union officals. He attacks them from the right. Not that the union beauracrats did not want to work in with him, but Hitler is sending sending a clear message to the bosses and a way of demonstrating a sense of false strength. After the war the union officials did nothing, repeat nothing, about the existing fascists still in government jobs.
You would find many of the trade union officials in the ACTU are extreme right wing nationalists and many politicians of all stripes in parliament.
Posted by johncee1945, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 5:43:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Employers are more enlightened - and so is the media. Employees are also more media savvy. There are also other tools such as the internet which can inform the world.
Unions want to go back to the "good old days" when they had more influence, more power and more control. If Kevin Rudd thinks he can change the desire to do that and control the union movement then he is living on some other planet.
Posted by Communicat, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 5:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As always there are many unreasonable demands on unions. People wonder why their union didn't stand up to the antagonist when usually the problems are complex and are not solved by the union adopting sides. In my case my boss is also in the same union as me and it is difficult for my union to adjudicate if I had a dispute with him. Many time disputes are best sorted by HR departments and dispute mechanism's rather than involving a union.
Where I find benefit is in enterprise agreements, my union has secured a 20% rise over the next two years. My membership has more than paid for itself. In the past when I have negotiated my own wage, I have always undervalued my own worth and short changed myself.
Lastly many years ago I was a member of the ETU. We used to call the ETU a chinese candle because it never went out. How times have changed.
Posted by seaweed, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 9:34:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
UNIONS... became the bad guys the day Norm Gallagher and his thugs took control of the BLF.

UNIONS... became the bad guy when Dean Mighell and his ETU thugs blackmailed the whole state with 'sorry we are all sick' and bragged about how they got much more than they could have expected by 'tactics'.

UNIONS...became the bad guys when the Maritime Union felt it had 'high moral ground' by blackmailing the country and having 'inherited' jobs for their boys...

Of course..if this was a 'When did Employers become the bad guys' thread.. we could find stuff to hang on them too :)

Of course...if UNIONS just represented the genuine and fair.. rights and opportunities of workers they would be the good guys.
So..those which actually DO this.. are to be applauded.

What irritates me.. is that people being selfish, will elect people who promise unsustainable outcomes just to get elected as a Union rep. Then..the company goes under..and they ALL lose their jobs.....except...the Union official.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 9:35:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Mr Hockey anybody remotely associated with Unions cannot provide an objective report; apparently because they have a political barrow to push. In other words, whatever political group carefully studies a particular matter using ethical methods, the results cannot be trusted. Mr Hockey is clearly indicating that whatever utterances come from Coalition members, the content cannot be trusted. Afterall, they could only be making comments that have only ideological content. This conclusion is logically consistent with his comments in relation to the recently publicised report on "Work Choices".

It should be no surprise that the "Work Choice" study found that some segments of the workforce are worse off under AWAs. Premier Court had introduced a similar regime in WA, as had the Conservatives in New Zealand; with poor results for particular occupations. Prue Goward, now a Liberal politician has found that AWAs have been detrimental to women.

Introducing a "fairness test" in relation to "Work Choices" is tacit agreement by the Coation Government that the AWAS system of wage negotiation is flawed. However, anything Mr Hockey states as being "fair" is subject to the ideological test above.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 10:06:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thread and most posts are quite right, as a Union official I agree, some unions, no doubt at all will end up in a museum.
Some officials from every union I ever knew should not be in the building with a mop and bucket in their hands.
That should be enough to get me in trouble, but again it is true.
It however is also true that the history of the union movement is mostly a proud one.
The future is in the hands of those who sit in yesterdays leaders chairs.
We should not be afraid of change, of constant improvement, and of an understanding our members are the only reason unions exist.
While yesterdays unions used the tools they had, no shame in being a Socialist or even communist once.
Unions should understand our members have moved on, I have no Comrades but an awful lot of mates, every one of my members.
New services new ideas new directions are a must.
Did any one else shudder at the end of the British Labor conference at the singing of keep the red flag flying?
From new Labor? in 2007?
Solidarity is not an old fashioned word just one some refuse to understand.
Unions, some of them, will except the challenge.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 4 October 2007 6:18:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i think unions became the bad guys early on, when they tried to create a stable income for the workers, while capital and management had to live in the world of constant change. it seems to me that labor should regard itself as an equal partner in an enterprise, not as a beggar, and not as a bully.

the way to do it is to re-constitute unions as labor companies, owned by their members. in this form they can tender to supply labor under a general contract, supplying x bodies of y skills, for z dollars. this relieves production companies of the need to maintain personnel support departments, and allows workers to manage their own training, super, and insurance.

this isn't going to happen. even if i'm right, even if this would be a better structure for society, no changes are ever made before catastrophe occurs. so we will straggle on, complaining endlessly about results, but never, ever thinking about changing the system that produces those results.

writers have occasionally said that homo sap is the animal that thinks, but that's only half right: we are the animal that thinks we think. habit is our master, with help from doublethink and newspeak.
Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 4 October 2007 3:51:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DEMOS SAID:

"I think unions became the bad guys early on, when they tried to create a stable income for the workers, while capital and management had to live in the world of constant change."

and..speaking as a small business person.. I have to say that is probably the best comment so far.. "exactly".....

You don't know if you will get orders next week..month.. year.. and if something goes wrong with something you have made or sold... it can be quite a worry.. and it could also 'halve' your available cash in one foul swoop.

Well said Demos.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 4 October 2007 4:49:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DEMOS I find your post interesting, but to me it highlights a very real problem the union movement has, lack of understanding.
In another forum some time ago the dreadful impact of labour hire / casualisation on workers was highlighted.
Shameful wages conditions are some of those results, and some from within the union movement, rank and file members, lay the blame on union shoulders.
Quite wrongly but if it is what they think try to convince them they are wrong.
Some unions, blinded by the light of the damage have done deals with some labour hire firms, it is a clear danger unless rates of pay and work conditions are far better than the rest.
Unions often, more than you may wish to hear, are blamed for things out of their control.
And unions are far from dieing.
I do honestly think the future for responsive unions following its members is good.
We will always be bad boys for some, remember my post above we have poor performing officials.
But we also have people who have by their own action lost a job unions could not save.
These type are often the ones highlighting wrongs that did not happen.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 4 October 2007 5:16:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Trade Union and Labor Movement were co-invented in a cave back in the dark days. If they can't do any better than their self betterment in order to prop up Labors advertising campaigns, what then is their current need. For that matter I feel that the whole scene needs a major shakeup, as the old Nationals, Liberals, Greens and Labor have been throwing the same tired unbelievable lies at the Australian citizens for so long now, that Humphrey B Bear may as well bash the Unions up at the House of Representatives time. I would believe him more and the ABC could cull a show from Channel 9 in the process.
Posted by QLDPCS, Friday, 5 October 2007 12:21:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are we only talking only about Trade Unions or should we include the other numerous self-interested professional lobby groups (such as the NFF, BCA, AMA and so on) that exert significant political influence and extract financial benefits from the taxpayer?

The reason that Trade Unions were created in the first place still exists, despite all the "fairness tests" and political spin.

Who else was going to fight for the victims of James Hardie for example?
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 5 October 2007 1:59:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wobbles makes a fair point. Unfortunatley the Dean Mighells of the Unions are making us tar them all with the same union brush.

How about we all stop chasing our own tail and start all over (well lets at least make the work place a rewarding and happy place to be in) then see what happens?

I am personally fed up with big wigs in my company dealings treating me like the number they have allocated me, as I am sure most are. We have to voice our opinions yet how can you when casting a vote only gets a union vote on the left and a big wig vote on the right. I took exception at a propaganda leftlet in my PO Box aimed at Small Business. I am actually a Micro, so that's how important I am in the scheme of things.

Time for a big change.
Posted by QLDPCS, Friday, 5 October 2007 2:15:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not sure who QLDPCS is, but I do not think you have an understanding of workplace harmony.
For some , bosses, workers, and yes unions it is a task too hard to achieve.
It is often not easy even with the best of wills.
And in no way is it only the unions always at fault.
Bad bosses have long ago learned to blame unions for dreadful acts by management.
I remain convinced however that some unions must evolve, find new ways to represent workers.
The lights on the hill are a truth of our past but it is time to move on from an era our members no longer want much to do with , in fact do not understand.
I would ask that we one day look at the sins of management fueled by workchoices.
Like free beer on site after work for staff and heavy penalty's for ordinary workers who do exactly the same, with beer they paid for, some bosses are the villains or is it just dumb?
Posted by Belly, Friday, 5 October 2007 11:15:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, when you say,"... we also have people who have by their own action lost a job unions could not save. These type are often the ones highlighting wrongs that did not happen."

Do you really know for a fact that this is true?

Or are your words just a union lullaby, sung to the sheep to fuddle their thinking and soothe their concerns?

I ask this because I have discovered in my FOI documents the soothing lullabies that public servants sing to each other to justify taking no action to deal with my complaint.

"We have investigated this lots of times over the years and found no evidence of bullying" is a favourite.

Then, when I make an FOI application for the "lots of" investigation reports, all copies suddenly "vanish".

It is just so much quicker and easier for public servants (and maybe also union officials) to sing soothing lullabies to each other, rather than to actually make the effort to deal with the abuse
Posted by Dealing With The Mob, Saturday, 6 October 2007 4:08:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DWTM are you fairdinkum? or are you in fact just trying to highlight your own problems?
Can you truly think NO WORKER EVER GOT THE SACK BECAUSE THEY DESERVED IT?
Fact is every week some one is sacked and can not be helped a 27 year job came to an end not long ago.
That person had 23 warnings, 5 of them final, for having the day after pay day of 39 times in the last 12 months and a average of 22 times a year for every year!
Your view no one ever deserves the sack, that was your view wasn't it? is proof some think unions let them down when it was a self inflicted wound.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 6 October 2007 3:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can understand where DWTM is coming from. It's a classic excuse from "Yes, Minister" when public servants hide behind phrases like, "there's more to the picture than you can see" and "it's just a part of workplace diversity", etc. The simple fact is they have worked out that these phrases allow them to hide and do nothing.

This is just laziness on the part of the bureaucracy; a former senior public servant referred to this sort of thing in the Department of Defence as learned helplessness. And it is endemic. The fact is that bad workplace behaviour is bad workplace behaviour regardless what a departmental official says it is or what spin is put on it. To understand the department's reaction, it's useful to think of it as an organism: it will evolve and do whatever it has to to survive. The idea that it imparts fairness to people who have been badly treated is complete rubbish. The unfortunate thing is that some unions have become bureaucratised as well. So going to them for help is almost as bad as telegraphing your intentions to the people you are complaining about.
Posted by RobP, Saturday, 6 October 2007 7:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP thanks your support for the idea that I may have a slanted view is welcome.
It wins my case for me, that unions are often wrongly blamed for things and people hear that is untrue and run with it.
I am a whistle blower, having taken on the NSW public service and lost.
I understand the futility of expecting justice from any public service, that industry puts more effort into self defense than work outcomes.
But now 2 posters appear to hold the view no one is ever sacked unfairly.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 7 October 2007 5:52:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair days works, for a fair days pay, we all say. Who needs to be sacked with that in mind and then who needs the Unions?
Posted by QLDPCS, Sunday, 7 October 2007 6:07:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

I'm not taking sides in the debate between you and DWTM. It seems you are making the wrong assumption that where opinions differ, people are in constant disagreement. I agreed with DWTM because I have personally seen the sort of things he talks about up close. And, by the way, they are very real. That's not to say that your viewpoint isn't also legitimate in your own particular workplace environment.

Where you both have something in common is that you can see where people, in different ways, are being victimised in their workplaces and are prepared to say something about it. I think that's a good thing.

If many more people did the same, things would rapidly improve.
Posted by RobP, Sunday, 7 October 2007 11:45:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP well put. If the workers could have a good relationship with their bosses, we would all be better off.
Posted by QLDPCS, Sunday, 7 October 2007 11:48:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
QLDPCS I have watched your posts from the time you came to the forum, welcome.
I as you will see, often take to my side of politics and the union movement.
To be balanced in debate you must try to say what you truly think.
And if not , if you are my side or nothing, you in fact are often wrong.
I remain open to you convincing me you are not a voice for something other than balanced debate.
But you do have the task ahead to convince me.
Unions will be around long after your bones are dust, workchoices has told those who will listen, without safe guards in the workplace the balance is tipped far from fairness.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 7 October 2007 4:18:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe after reading the whole thread again DWTM and DAVID BOAZ while helping me prove my point are right.
I have no doubt DWTM was let down by a union, and that union is blind for having such a rule.
BD my old sparing partner, you too are right! if only you could understand the difference.
Not all unions belong in that waste paper basket of criminal actions.
My work life is haunted by CRIMINAL ACTIONS of radical unions, that betray the movement and membership of ALL UNIONS.
We fail the movement by not educating the public about that difference, we fail our selves by not defining the line between unions.
I have indeed had a delegate, a quite man, hard working man , pulled from a machine and told this.
You have the first punch! because no matter what you say you are going to get a flogging!
If I have to kick your door in at 2 am~
I still am a union official that idiot is not.
My delegates crime?
As the thug walked into his lunch room he said Gday mate we are all in the other union.
Have no doubt unions are not evil some however are in need of new directions.
Some would be better employed as doormen in a red light area.
Some miss use members dreadfully.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 8 October 2007 6:26:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly and hello to you. I am trying to balance a debate, so are right about that point.

What I am against is sheer blatant and blind Unionism ala Mighell, McDonald, Renolds etc etc etc

If you want to know some good the unions can do for you, I suggest you ask them?
Posted by QLDPCS, Monday, 8 October 2007 6:35:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hoorah!

The Federal Australian Education Union read my post on On Line Opinion and then looked at the Bad Apple Bullies website a couple of hours ago.

Maybe now I will get some union support.

Or maybe I will be threatened.

What are the odds?
Posted by Dealing With The Mob, Monday, 8 October 2007 4:05:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
QLDPCS I am a proud union official And proud my union never acted like that , did you read my post?.
It is true you know, And my side won the battle.
And DWTM congrats, do you know you are not the only one?
In my mind hundreds of people have been let down by SOME in the union movement.
That is why I said constant improvement is needed.
And I know my members do not want us to change.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 8 October 2007 4:56:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The boss-bastards are in the unions, don't you get it? The unions protect the boss-bastards."

This insight is spot on. The more I look at things, the more I realise that unionism, like capitalism and the hierarchical system in general is like a giant pyramid scheme: the earlier you set up the system, the higher you are up the pyramid and the more power, privilege, influence etc accrues to you. Of course, the lower down the tree you are, the less you get. Simple as that.

From the point of view of the ordinary person, the only way to beat the "boss-bastards" is if the whole top-down paradigm changes. And the only way to do that is through the power of people demanding a change in the whole structure.
Posted by RobP, Monday, 15 October 2007 9:56:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP

"From the point of view of the ordinary person, the only way to beat the "boss-bastards" is if the whole top-down paradigm changes. And the only way to do that is through the power of people demanding a change in the whole structure."

To what? One of the most frustrating things about this country is that there are so many people who are willing to complain about the problem without tossing up any suggestions as to how to fix that problem.

So what's your solution? Are you seriously advoacting a system where there are no cheifs and only indians?
Posted by BN, Monday, 15 October 2007 9:59:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BN,

In the case of the health system, for example, the idea of nurse practitioners has potential. As well as taking the power out of the hands of the select few, ie doctors, the skills of a wider range of people (ie nurses) can be brought to bear, both to spread the work load and to deploy a wider range of skills (and bodies) to counter the diversity of problems in the health system.

You say, to what system should we move. I think a lot of people would be happy with anything that takes the pressure off them. If a system change is not possible in a given industry, then they would be happy with a system that brings more resources, opportunities through training etc to a problem so that things are not done in a half-baked manner as is so often the case.

These ideas have been said before, I know. Anyway, what's your solution?
Posted by RobP, Monday, 15 October 2007 10:18:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP,

In a general sense, the current system suits me right down to the ground, but I realise that i'm in the minority in that context.

I think we need an evolution from the current system (as a whole). We need to recognise that we live in a global community and we need to recognise (rather than hide) from the impacts/challenges that brings. This is somehting that we are not doing.

And unions who behave as if we are still living 30 years ago are not going to help us as a country in this. To help us as a country, they either need to evolve or get out of the way. If they don't do either, then they will be even more the bay guy than they are now

I'm an advocate of wholesale change. You mention the health system - long before we talk about nurse practitioners taking on casework, let's talk about the prohibitive recruitment and training practices that go on in medicine. Doctors taking 7+years of study, internships and then potentially more time for specialisation and then getting paid a pittance... Nurse Practitioners take 10+ years to get fully qualified... It's no wonder we have a human resources catastrophe in health!

Scrap the system and start again, and build it based on the world now. That's a place to start.
Posted by BN, Monday, 15 October 2007 10:59:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy