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!)