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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.