The author states:

"Unions play a crucial role in a democracy. They are all that stand between rapacious employers and otherwise powerless workers."

So then, who stands between rapacious unions and powerless employers? Think of the waterfront, the CFMEU and other unions who still (in practical terms) have a no ticket, no entry policy?

Here is a good link http://www.the-rathouse.com/2007/BH_Unions.html (scroll down to section 7. The moral legitimacy of violence by trade unionists.)

This is the role that the government is currentply playing, and they're doing it well.

The best observation in this article is that we must have democracy and accept its inefficiency. The unions are a good example. They were set up in the late 19th century to protect the worker from the ruthless attitude of the bosses. But, unions are hierarchies and subject to all the political maneuvering and self-serving behaviour found in large organisations.

In my view the writer makes some very good points. As a long time trade unionist I would be the last to deny that many union interventions have been over the top. However, like democracy itself, too many people become obsessed with the defects of the union process whereas the good points are simply assumed and largely overlooked. The wage earners of today largely ignore the fact that without trade union intervention in past employment processes there would be no basic conditions to lose in the first place. Ask the few remaining workers of the thirties what it is like to turn up en masse to a work site, and be told that 'there is only work for a few of you - the rest can go home' - the few being the complient few. I fear that history, in this and in many other facets of our daily lives, will repeat itself, and the whole issue of basic conditions of employment will have to be redefined and re-won.

Yet another article on the old glories of unions.

But in our time, in reality (sorry to introduce reality), when Queensland teachers are bullied at work they soon discover that their union will give them no support, because the school administrators (and even some administrators in Education Queensland head office) are also members of the Queensland Teachers' Union.

How crazy is that? The boss is in the same union as the worker.

This situation is a "get out of jail free card" for Education Queensland administrators - they know that they can bully teachers outrageously and there will be no consequences.

The union passively renders the teachers vulnerable to abuse.

And senior union officers transfer smoothly into senior positions in the Queensland government public service because of the warm relationship between the union and the employer.

When Labor governments are in power unions function to control and subdue workers, rather than to protect them.

Just a couple of quick points. First on the alleged power of unions exampled in the maritime industry: name the occasions and demands when union power as expressed by the Waterside Workers Fed, the Seaman's Union and since their amalgamation the MUA has been undemocratic and regressive. Can the same be said of their employers' history? No.
Second, no union is ever perfect, at all times. And there are also several different types of unions. The complaint about the QTU (or any union for that matter) - if it is true - is a complaint about management influence or control in the union. The answer is for members who are concerned about that to reclaim their union to the extent that it is necessary. That is hard work and time consuming, and almost certainly provided for in the union rules, and its better than grizzling. Further, it has been done before. The difference between unions and other associations is that they are what their members allow or want them to be.
Third, its impossible to talk meaningfully about union power without keeping in mind the various characteristics of employer power: for example, the power to hire and fire, the power to direct the speed and intensity of work, and the use of personal and corporate wealth. However, the most serious and dangerous power of employers is through their ownership of capital, that they can move about very much at will, and which is used for real, or even more commonly as a threat, against both their workers and governments. Yet this form of power is rarely scrutinised. As employers make their decisions about the movement of capital (small or large)they hold people's livelihoods in their hands and can change governments (as they have,) through a strike of capital, or its withdrawal and re-investment elsewhere. Yet, they are not elected.

I am still deciding for whom I will vote. It is no consequence whatsoever as to the Union affiliations of each candidate. I presume that their respective political parties have confidence in them and that the electors will vote for each candidate's abilities to represent the electorate and argue a case within party/personal constraints.

To suggest that a front-bench will be union biased is grossly insulting to voters. We do have some knowledge of political behaviour and we vote for a person who will represent us . Please Coalition propogandists, tidy up your nasty advertisement and vile insinuations.

Inferring union stickability when it comes to national affairs could indicate that your representatives have been sticking with the will of corporations and overseas interests [Hello George !] rather than ours. Is that what you are saying ?
Filip