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

This is one of those discussions that generates far more heat than light.

GYM-FISH points out that...

>>without trade union intervention in past employment processes there would be no basic conditions to lose in the first place<<

Hardly. There would be no employment at all without "basic conditions", so this is already an exaggeration. Nevertheless, it is clear that unions have been instrumental in the improvement of these conditions over time.

What is left unsaid, of course, is whether they still have the same basic raison d'être today, or whether conditions are now sufficiently civilized to render them redundant.

DonaldS, meanwhile, is reading from some 1950s polemic.

"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."

As an employer, DonaldS, who has invested his own hard-earned money (that's the "capital" that you clearly despise) into two separate ventures over the past twelve years, and employed dozens of people as a result, I resent, with every fibre of my being as well as my (still very substantial) overdraft, the manner in which you first of all denigrate my actions, and then presume to describe what I do as somehow "dangerous".

Where, for f*&%s sake, do you think employment comes from? Manna from bleedin' heaven?

Yes, I think unions are often thuggish. You should see how the Bar Council of Victoria treats anyone like Peter Faris who puts a foot out of line against the union position.

As for the AMA, they are always in the pocket of Coalition making sure they keep a tight rein on how many new members they'll have in the profession. Their motto: "We'll decide who comes into this trade and the circumstances in which they will come".

No ticket no start for either of these unions.

I'd reckon quite a number of Unions critics have never been in a Union to learn there are Union organisations that are run democratically and those that function dictatorially. Some are left wing ideologically , some are generally referred to as 'bosses unions'or 'company unions'.
Some Unions are militant and understand you don't get anywhere without possessing industrial clout whilst others have faith in the Arbitration System to be fair and unbiassed, going through the processes without recourse to strikes and stoppages.

Successive Governments have sought to curtail Union Industrial action through the introduction of legislation outlawing direct action and like the Howard Government, pretending to protect workers from themselves by the introduction of 'work choices' and Australian Workplace Agreements;asserting that Employers are all good and fair people whose main interests lie in the welfare of their workers.

Just as Employers have their 'unions'(chambers of Commerce etc) created to look after their interests; So workers feel the need to have their own organisations, working for their collective welfare.

The very existence of these representative ,opposing bodies makes for an industrial environment that is transparent and most likely to foster a functioning democratic society.

As for the quality of Unions, it is vital, if they are to be representative, and democratic in themselves,they must be controlled by their members who ratify all policy decisions in plebicites.
That situation augurs well for a practicing democracy

The complaint about the QTU is, of course, true.

Advising members to reclaim their union is easier said than done. The union executive control the contents of the union journal - the only real way for ordinary teachers to communicate with each other.

Websites that the Queensland government do not approve of are blocked on Queensland teachers' school computers.

To claim that "unions are what they want their members to be" is naive.

The union rules are all written by the group who are in power.

Most teachers are women, and they are working 'two shifts", so they do not have time to attend union meetings.

I went to the QTU AGM this year and - although I can't prove this - I am pretty confident that men and administrators were disproportionately represented. The Queensland Teachers' Union is what a small group of people - largely Labor-manic male administrators - want it to be.

When you are bullied you can't really go along to your local union group and discuss the problem, because that would involve defaming members of the local mob of workplace bullies. And nobody said anything about workplace bullying at the QTU AGM.

Oh, apart from one retired teacher - and they called a security guard to throw her out of the meeting.

The only way for a union member to communicate effectively with other members about workplace bulling is to nominate in union elections.

The group in power don't like you doing that - they like to choose their own "endorsed candidates".

But, at the moment, the Federal government finance union ballots that enable an ordinary union member to discuss issues of concern to other ordinary members.

Would a federal Labor government finance union ballots?

This policy enables women classroom teachers to have some - small - voice in the Queensland Teachers' union.

Or maybe I should say, "a small grizzle".

After all, they are only women teachers - they don't discuss, they just grizzle.

http://www.badapplebullies.com/investigations.htm

Dealing with The Mob is quite correct to highlight that unions that represent predominantly female workers like nurses, shop assistants and child care workers are pretty ineffective thus the women grizzle.

Unions representing predominantly male workers are more strident in their demands thus miners, construction workers get considerably more pay.

Where do these writers get their experience from? What world are they in? The unions have been selling workers out and stabbing them in the back for decades. That is why workers have left the unions in droves.
It is plain the writer is way out of his depth. For instance, it is the very treachery of the unions that pave the way for dictatorships. The sellouts and betrayals the unions initiate then laugh about, emboldens the far right wing forces.
But today, the unions because they are objectively based on a national reformist program have collapsed. They are a tool that has been made redundant by global firms and the globalization of production. The banks went global decades ago along with the IMF and the firms. Why? Because the globe could be searched for ever cheaper sources of labor and raw materials. Capital criss-crosses the globe endlessly searching for the greatest rate of return. The very capital workers create becomes a weapon used against workers.
Workers still need to be defended but that cannot take place on a trade union perspective. That can only take place on a socialist program grounded on internationalism.
What is this nonsense promoted by academics that Mussolini got the trains running on time? Is that his real legacy? When Hitler and Mussolini joined forces their legacy is the Holocaust, the slaughterhouse of Europe and the millions that perished in war. As well, the bankrupting of Italy and Germany. Compare that to the nonsense promoted about some trains that ran on time. (at the point of a gun!)

Don't worry. John Howard is solving this problem about what is the value of unions by insisting that everyone learn the History of Australia. This will show how much unions have been essential in struggling for fair wages and conditions, as well as where power can corrupt any social organization, top or bottom, and what needs to be done.

If Australians also abandon a bit of chauvinism, and teach the History of the World in schools, we can all learn about living in societies where workers have had no unions, and what that is like, and the long struggles for social justice.

I’ve been thinking of the Liberals anti-union ad, you know the one that says 70% of the Labor front bench are unionists and implied that they were also union officials. The one that some OLO posters have been touting – stupidly without checking the validity of the ‘facts’ in the ad.

The Liberal’s advertisement features several Labor front-benchers who, in fact, have never been employed by unions - Wayne Swan, Julia Gillard and Craig Emerson. Every time the stamp comes down say 'Unionist', the Liberals repeat the lie.

The Liberal ad doesn’t mention that Kevin Rudd worked as a diplomat, Stephen Conroy worked for an employer organisation, that Nicola Roxon worked for a High Court judge or that Tony Burke ran his own small business and spent six months working for Malcolm Turnbull.

It doesn’t mention that Anthony Albanese worked as a bank officer, Arch Bevis and Kim Carr as teachers, Craig Emerson and Chris Bowen as an economist. It doesn’t mention that several of Labor’s front benchers are lawyers by training and experience .

Talking of lawyers, if the ALP cared to run an equivalent advertisement, the Coalition’s Cabinet of 18 would be shown to come from an extraordinarily narrow background – 11 lawyers, 3 farmers, 1 doctor, 1 economist, 1 journalist (a failed seminarian) and a former military officer.

This ‘team’ is hardly a match for the breadth of experience of the ALP. Perhaps if the Liberals had more people who'd had more down-to-earth experience then they would never have introduced Workchoices.

Even if the Liberals could get their facts right in their ad, focussing on what ALP people did in the past may be seen as the Liberals' way of hiding their embarrassment that they have nothing much to say about the future.

The notion that Unions 'bought' or established better conditions and pay, is a notion fostered by economic novices. It is in fact the old "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is to say: "after the fact, therefore because of the fact".

Pay and conditions for individuals increased after the fact of unions, but not because of the fact of unions. The increases simply followed wealth created by new technologies. The unions just went along for the ride, saw political mileage in it, and sucked out some of the wealth for themselves on the way through. Just like they do today.

Things are the way they are for reasons, and no reason is valid unless it agrees with fundamentals, in this case, fundamentals of economics. The most fundamental economic principle is that wealth can never be artificially or arbitrarily created, any more than energy can be created or destroyed. It is extremely naive to think that the intersection of supply and demand in the market place is arbitrary, resulting in arbitrary wage and price levels: as though profits employers make are somehow artificially set, and can be eroded away arbitrarily by any energetic union.

What is rather the case, is that any 'win' by a union, simply results in a future lag in wage rises, or a hidden compensation back to the employers. For example, the overwhelming majority of people think that Superannuation is paid by their employer. It is not. Superannuation is paid (all of it) by the employee. The supposed contribution by employers is simply a portion of wage held back from the employee, and which the employee would normally get as a result of market forces. To think that the government just came along and said "hey, employers, we think you have too much profit, so we want you to donate some money into your employees' super funds", and that the employers said "awwww! shucks! awwww! ok then!" is admit to not knowing anything about economics.

Nothing, I say again NOTHING is received, unless first of all paid for in some form or other.

Liberty puts it well and I agree with most of what was said. However, I have a slight quibble with one quote: "Pay and conditions for individuals increased after the fact of unions, but not because of the fact of unions."

What happens when there are a number of individuals who have all worked hard for an employer, but who, because they have insufficient negotiating clout in the marketplace, do not get the remuneration they deserve given what they've put in? In cases like these, I think the above quote is wrong: they definitely do get a wage rise because of the fact of unions. This is true because the union acts as a counterweight against employers: the string that tethers the helium balloon from leaving planet earth and disappearing upwards.

To give an example of the converse, many Aboriginals who worked on stations around Australia over the past 100 or so years have had their wages permanently withheld. By Liberty's argument, because they helped create wealth by their labour, they should get some economic benefit. So why haven't they? Because they didn't have a sufficiently strong or committed political collective or advocate who helped them. And they still haven't had one to this day. So unionism (ie weight of numbers) of one form or another is a necessary precondition in the world we live in to getting wage justice for many people.

RobP,

Unions are useful in their dissemination of information on terms and conditions amongst workers of like trade. In this they do perform the function of raising wages to the NORM for that sort of work, and so cause pockets of uniformed and therefore exploited workers, to receive the normal terms and conditions. So they perform the legitimate task of equalising wages and conditions across particular trades.

They do not, however, raise the norm. And this is the lie I have addressed. The norm is achieved via market forces, and no amount of robbing Peter to pay Paul, or artificially and arbitrarily reducing supposedly unnecessary, superfluous profits of employers to pay employees, is ever successful. Ultimately, the guy at the bottom will always pay for it. That is the 'beautiful predictability' of being at the bottom.

So your point concerns more the equalisation of terms and conditions across particular trades, and therefore does not undo the fundamental economics of what I have related in my previous post.

If you are interested, may I suggest a brilliant little paperback by a famous economist, Henry Hazlitt, entitled: "Economics in one lesson". Henry unravels all the fallacies.

Liberty

Let's see if I understand your economic theory.

Employers generously offer top wages because of new technologies. No coercion. They just do it because they can.

Then along come the pesky unions and find workers that the employers seem to have overlooked. The unions then provide information to these workers who have missed out and they are brought up to the NORM.

How am I doing so far? OK?

Then along comes this thing called market forces and lo and behold, these market forces raise the NORM, right?

So along comes the unions and equalise everything again (being careful not to raise the NORM, of course). Then it's time for market forces again, right?

Now I haven't had time to read the brilliant little paperback you recommend by your famous economist, Henry Hazlitt, entitled: "Economics in one lesson". And I know Henry will answer all my stupid questions because, as you say, "Henry unravels all the fallacies."

To tide me over until I can read "Economics in One Lesson", can you give me a clue on these silly questions:

1. If the employers offer top wages how do these "pockets of uniformed and therefore exploited workers" get into existence?

2. Can you tell me more about your theory: "That is the 'beautiful predictability' of being at the bottom"?

3. And I didn't quite get what you mean by: "Ultimately, the guy at the bottom will always pay for it". Please explain.

4. What would happen if the unions raised NORM higher than market forces?

Liberty,

Ultimately, the whole debate can be boiled down to two fundamental truths as you have said:

1. As a worker, you can only (sustainably) get what you have put in.
2. The unions do act as an agent to equalise wages up to a norm.

When looking at the big picture, the whole process tends to be like an articulated caterpillar movement: first, the front end moves up (industry going forward and making profits) and then the back end catches up (unions getting wage rises for the "laggards") thus scrunching the body of the caterpillar before going through the whole cycle again. In this analogy, if the front end goes too far, it splits itself in two: not a good idea.

Every time there is such an articulated movement in the economic sphere, of course, there will be a new set of winners and losers. However, like the caterpillar, the economy overall is at least making forward progress.

As to whether the unions do or do not raise "the norm" really depends on how you define "norm" as well as the previous history of the industry they're operating in. I'm sure that unions sometimes do raise wages above their sustainable limits and sometimes they don't. Sometimes raising them above the immediately sustainable limit is justified because they are making up for many years in the past where the industry's workers were underpayed, for example. Other times unions do it through pure power and greed. Eventually, all the employer/union toing and froing will reach parity and unity, regardless of who struck the first blow.

FrankGol, if the union raised its wages above market forces, one or more of the following would happen. The companies go out of business (bad for workers); the whole industry becomes unsustainable and it either reduces wages (bad for the next generation of workers in that industry) or it somehow offsets its losses onto other industries (bad for those workers); or you get lazy/contented workers (ie, why do anything different and be innovative when you're already getting a good wage?)

Frankgol,

I have had to answer you in 2 parts, owing to word count.

PART 1:

[[[[Let's see if I understand your economic theory. Employers generously offer top wages because of new technologies. No coercion. They just do it because they can.]]]]
No….they do it only when they have to. And they have to only when other employers threaten to attract their employees away from them. So in effect market forces provide the coercion.

[[[[Then along come the pesky unions and find workers that the employers seem to have overlooked. The unions then provide information to these workers who have missed out and they are brought up to the NORM.]]]]
More fundamentally, the unions find employERS that have been overlooked by the MARKET PLACE.

[[[[Then along comes this thing called market forces and lo and behold, these market forces raise the NORM, right?]]]]
Market forces only raise the norm if the market force in question is “increased productivity”. So it is important to depart from the general “market forces”, and actually state what particular market force is in mind.

[[[[So along comes the unions and equalise everything again (being careful not to raise the NORM, of course). Then it's time for market forces again, right?]]]]
Market forces operate independent of, or tangentially to, the benefit of unions. Market forces simply drive the norm up or down. Unions make sure that the norm is universally applied. If the norm is naturally universally applied in a particular society anyway, unions are redundant.

Frankgol,

PART 2:

[[[1. If the employers offer top wages how do these "pockets of uniformed and therefore exploited workers" get into existence?]]]]
Employers, acting out of a desire for profit rather than love, will only offer top wages (the NORM, or equilibrium determined by the intersection of supply and demand), when they have to. If they are aware that their employees are NOT aware of the NORM, they may actually offer less, hoping to get away with it. That is where unions come in.

[[[[2. Can you tell me more about your theory: "That is the 'beautiful predictability' of being at the bottom"?
3. And I didn't quite get what you mean by: "Ultimately, the guy at the bottom will always pay for it". Please explain.]]]]
Because employers produce wealth before their employees who helped them produce it are paid for their contribution (ie because the product is necessarily produced before the workers are paid out of sales revenue), it is necessarily the case that employees will always bear any potential decrease in employers’ wealth, before the employers bear it, otherwise the employers will not produce in the first place. It is a point of logic/philosophy, which requires some contemplation.

[[[[4. What would happen if the unions raised NORM higher than market forces?]]]]
This is a contradiction in definitions. The NORM is always determined by market forces. What I think you might be asking is “what would happen if the unions raised wages above the NORM determined by market forces?”. RobP’s answer to you answers this question.

Liberty

Thanks for taking the time to give clarification. Now I understand.

1. The market place (let's call it MP) is like a giant machine independent of the people who benefit from it or are victims of it. I won't ask who made MP - that's like asking a Christian, who made God.

2. MP creates Normal Wages (NW) who has to obey MP's cousin Market Forces (MF). MP warns employers who are in danger of losing low-paid employees that they should pay higher wages, otherwise...MF will punish them.

3. But, unfortunately, MP is not perfect - there's a vision defect. MP sometimes overlooks employees who don't get the warning about Norm and MF.

3. So another powerful machine called trade unions (let's call them TU) comes along to alert employers who have been overlooked by MP. TU makes sure that Norm is "universally applied."

4. But MP can't be as powerful as first thought because, if they thought they could get away with it, employers would ignore MP's law about MF. If all employers put their heads together and decided they could get away with it, wouldn't MP and MF encourage them to pay less than Norm? TU couldn't keep up with its job of seeing that Norm is universally applied?

5. Now another conundrum. Employers can only pay workers when the workers have made things for employers to sell. But, if I follow your summary of Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson", here I can see a snag. What happens if the workers say, "No, you are not paying us the Norm so we won't make any more products until you have paid us the Norm"? Hasn't the giant machine MP started to move in the other direction, and won't it soon start to spin out of control?

You say, "Henry unravels all the fallacies." Is that when he says the Government steps in and bans TU from interfering with MF and MP?

FrankGol,

You've just said what Liberty said, but used baby language instead. Why bother?

Would it be too much to ask that you come up with something original and actually contribute to the furthering of the debate?

RobP says: "You've just said what Liberty said, but used baby language instead. Why bother?"

Is this the same RobP whose own posting told us that the whole process of market forces is like : "an articulated caterpillar movement: first, the front end moves up (industry going forward and making profits) and then the back end catches up (unions getting wage rises for the "laggards") thus scrunching the body of the caterpillar before going through the whole cycle again. In this analogy, if the front end goes too far, it splits itself in two: not a good idea."

I'm sorry, I thought this was the comedy debate not a discussion of unions and the economy. An irresistible image came unbidden to my mind of the caterpillar turning into a beautiful butterfly and flying away. Not good economics at all.

FrankGol has just incisively said absolutely nothing as usual. The caterpillar analogy was an attempt on my part to intellectualise the overview of what actually happens (as opposed to what is ideal) in the union/employer domain. The point I wanted to make is that, no matter how separated in time the ebb and flow is, eveything gets evened up.

Now, we know you get your jollies, FrankGol, in ridiculing anything that remotely approaches a realistic viewpoint. Relevance deprivation syndrome at work, perhaps?