Typical consultant-speak. High on word-count, high on the use of other people's work, low on original input or insight.

A number of questions immediately spring to mind, just on the choice of references:

What are the qualifications that the Pope brings to the consideration of the place of unions in the conduct of human affairs? Or, for that matter, Cardinal Pell? As individuals, of course, they have every right to make their opinions known. But I would place their understanding of the actual mechanics of workplace relations somewhat lower than those of someone who actually works for a living.

It would be fascinating to take a quick look at the Cardinal's workplace agreement, for example. Or even his job objectives. And by the way, to which Union do they belong...?

And citing the wish-list of virtues that is the UDHR of 1947 is laziness in the extreme, even for a consultant.

In 1947, the world was gripped with post-war idealism, and the UDHR is its perfect expression.

I challenge the writer to explain exactly what "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment" means in an age dominated by international trade and ever-encroaching capitalism. Are those who start businesses to be forced to employ people at the will of the United Nations? If not, exactly what force does it, or can it, have?

It's just a bunch of long grey words. Good to look at, but useless in a fight.

And the final argument is a doozy - we like togetherness, so we must perforce like Unions. How lazy is that? Over the years I've worked in teams that were so together, we were practically family. Not a Union in sight.

Unions have in the past occupied a valid position defending those exploited by cavalier and greedy bosses. Most of their work is done, with the legislation to protect workplace conditions, health and safety etc., now firmly in place. All they can do now is make a loud noise and pretend they still add value.

Quelle croque, monsieur.

A very good article, if perhaps a little idealistic. As a unionist who raised my family, and consolidated myself financially for my old age via a unionised work environment I totally support the right to collectivly bargain for group advantage, as I also support the right of a business owner to maximise profit by providing service, efficiency, and organisational skills. I do not support the right of a business owner to maximise profit by an on-going process of hire and fire as many seemed to do under the draconian workchoice legislation - a legislation that was seen to be unfair and discriminatory even by the instigators. People are not merchandise - as the writer points out the tendency to form groups for mutual support is a basic human characteristic across society and will not be thwarted by short sighted politically motivated legislation.

Like any organisation, the concept of the organisation itself is not the problem.

This is why I have issues with the incessant attacks on unions. The concept of unions isn't bad, and you can't just attack unions for being unions. May as well attack businesses for being businesses or factories for being factories.

It's stupidity, but it doesn't stop people on OLO or elsewhere, lining up to say how bad unions are and how they're the death knell of our economy ad nauseum.

To them I say, like people, unions aren't bad or good. They are simply out to represent their members, and they do this with varying degrees of success and a sliding scale of good or bad behaviour.

Some unions have acted abominably, but others have represented their members fairly and without improper behaviour.

There is still a place in our economy for unions, but I'm of the view that it is a much smaller role than it once was, and there needs to be some adaptation in the focus of unions. I think if they take on more of a liaison role with business organisations and perhaps act as recruiters and job placement specialists, they'll be able to diversify and occupy a more relevant niche.

At the end of the day, even if their role is very minor, it's still nice to know they're there to balance out business interests.

GYM FISH.. you support the right to collectively bargain... ok.. so far so good...

Do you ALSO support (in real world practical terms) the right of a person not to be a union member, nor to participate in industrial action, and to work out their own agreement with their employer?

I live near Johnson tiles. Do I need to say more about heavy handed union thug tactics? (for which a unionist was jailed)

The problem with 'collective bargaining' is a lot like 'Church'... "Oh.. THAT bloke is not 'one of us'...hmmmm" and then..in the union world its a hell of a lot more than a bit of malicious gossip that is utilized to bring him/her into line.. the euphemism is 'organize'.... for that... you might well read

-social ostracization (at best)
-smashed windscreen of your car
-being followed by burley men
-death threats...

When Unionsist take the view "I don't agree with his position, but I'll fight for his right to have it" then we will have alllmost brought in the Millenium or Utopia.

GOD...... the only issue the Bible addresses is "injustice" so.. make of that what you will. It translates into the real world as this "Don't muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain" ... so simple.. so beautiful.. so profound.. and also OBVIOUS !

If you beat, starve, harrass the poor old ox to work harder... errr.. it will probably drop dead before you get what you want.
It must benefit FROM the work it does.. So it is with workers.
At the same time, who is going to run a business which is being bled dry by blood sucking parasites who have been fed a load of garbage about 'class wars' by power hungry opportunistic Unions (like the ETU and formerly the BLF)etc ?
Who wants a society which is extorted by the ETU simply because it controlls 'infrastructure'... We need ONE more 'MUA' style bludgeoning...and its the ETU, with Dean Mighell first to the metaphorical guillotine.

A couple of areas unions could progress to and still add value in the modern workplace are:

1. Join the Workplace Ombudsman as inspectors and policymakers and actually do something permanent about bad employers.
2. Become agents that change some of the old and tired cultures and bad practices that still predominate in a lot of workplaces. It's all well and good for the Government to talk about these things (eg NSW hospitals), but until someone organises on-the-ground change, it's only a dream.

Dear BOAZ
Having noted some of your many comments in OLO I am in no way surprised by the introduction of irrelevant biblical quotations, not to mention your childish and emotive use of non typical examples to add seasoning to your ridiculous polemicising of what is essentially a straight-forward point of view. One could quote examples of equally extreme behaviour by numerous business people and captains of industry. Should you wish to become enlightened in this regard, I suggest that you read some of the industrial history of the nineteen thirties and forties. Bible bashers such as the exclusive bretheran, adventists, mormons, jehovah's witnesses et al have long opposed unionism yet have been happy to take full advantage hard won union conditions.

Purely as an aside, why is that eclectic collection of myths, legends, chronicles of rape, torture, murder, incest and misogynistic brutality - ie the self styled 'holy bible'- always banging on about oxen? Whats wrong with llahmas, or polar bears?
Never mind BOAZ - when the rapture arrives, you will have the last laugh and be able to look down on me as you float above the clouds in a silver chariot or whatever it is. I will of course be smashing windscreens and picketing the holy gates of heaven itself. All the best - see you in hell.

Pericles

I my experience, no battle between ideologies is ever 'won'. Just because unions made great progress in achieving some legislated forms of equity in the workplace, it doesn't mean that they can just fade into history, comfortable in the knowledge that their job is done. I would have thought that the latest upheavals in our society would have demonstrated how easy it is to overturn legislation and change the fundamentals of our society. If you can legislate something in, then you always legislate it out.

Few principles are won for all time. After all, who would have thought that the enlightened democracies of the world would have ever attempted to justify torturing people. Surely groups like Amnesty helped win that fight long ago. Yet, here we are with the US refusing to condemn torture and actively using it in the 'war on terror' and the rest of us having to go back and retake that moral principle yet again.

Justice for both workers and bosses comes from the tension inherent in the relationship between labour and business, with the legislative/legal bodies acting as impartial 'reasonable people'. Just as business establishes bodies to collectively support themselves, then labour does the same through unions. This is absolutely necessary and unions will always have a role to play. The only time this becomes a problem is when one side (or the other) gets vastly unequal power. As it was in the 'bad old days' of the union movement; just as it is currently with the business movement, which is why the Liberal party got handed it's head.

Not all of WorkChoices was bad- but what it attempted to do was eliminate the necessary counterbalance in the equation. And that was the step too far

What are the unions currently doing for us?

In Victoria nurses had a recent industrial squabble (they said "strike" but they didn't down tools and nurses ended up working double shifts - 16 hours for 6 hours pay). It strikes me as immoral that you don't get paid for the hours you work - stealing? The nurses rejected a 3% over 3 year pay offer, they settled for a pay increase of 3.8% over 3 years (that's less than inflation girls) and kept their nurse patient ratios. Why are nurse patient ratios important? When nurses have too many patients to care for - the standard of care falls as nurses are spread to thinly to attend to their patients properly.

Victorians would also be familiar with the new Worksafe campaign reminding supervisors that they shouldn't ask subordinates to do jobs that they wouldn't do because they are too dangerous.

Bernie Banton's union has fought James Hardie to provide care for mesotheleama sufferers. British research in the 1920s identified the dangers of asbestos in the lungs yet companies could still make a profit building asbestos sheet houses until the 1970s.

As the Queen of Mean said "only the little people pay taxes" and the little people need unions to give them equal power with their employers.

I love the way that groups of employers can band together into organisations and lobby Governments to get what they want, yet try to deny their employees the same privelege.

They may not be industrial unions but the NFF, the AMA, the Small Business Council and many others are not much different from member groups of the ACTU.

The way that many eagerly pounced to exploit Workchoices like pitt-bulls onto a pre-school shows that things have not really changed that much from the "bad old days" and given the chance, some would like to return.

Divide and conquer has always been the best strategy and confrontation doesn't always come from below.

I also think the right to with-hold labour without the threat of imprisonment is one that seems to have been quietly taken away in recent years.

Interesting article and responses. Chris, are you or have you ever been a card carrying member of the DLP. Just wondering. It reads a bit like a sermon.

About the first time I've heard of God via Rome being invoked in the name of Australian unionism. I can sort of see where you're coming from in in psycho-social sense. You're spot on that we do perform some tasks better in groups but not all.

I agree with you that collectives (communities) are 'happier' (maybe more satisfied is a better word) than people who are alone (not necessarily lonely).

I reckon you're making a bit of an intellectual jump to therefore say that political unions are natural.

Interesting article and responses. Chris, are you or have you ever been a card carrying member of the DLP? Just wondering.

About the first time I've heard of God via Rome being invoked in the name of Australian unionism. I can sort of see where you're coming from in in psycho-social sense. You're spot on that we do perform some tasks better in groups but not all.

I agree with you that collectives (communities) are 'happier' (maybe more satisfied is a better word) than people who are alone (not necessarily lonely).

I reckon you're making a bit of an intellectual jump to therefore say that political unions are natural.

OK, so maybe I was so irritated by the article's tone and substance that I overreacted. But the reality as I see it is that the Union movement needs a serious makeover by serious people in order to lose its present image, and to formulate a mission and strategy that is relevant in today's workplace.

It wasn't accidental that the Liberals targetted Unionism in their attack-dog advertisements during the election campaign. They were supported by some heavy research into the Union's public image and the citizens' response to it. That the campaign ultimately failed does not mean that this research was faulty, only that there were other factors - such as the Howard Mendacity Quotient - that held greater sway in the night.

But I willingly accept that there is a need for worker representation in situations where working conditions are for whatever reason insupportable. What is not needed is the mindless rhetoric and gratuitous sloganeering that seems to accompany Unionism wherever it treads.

The danger is that the baby of necessary protection could be thrown out along with the bathwater of antediluvian business practices. It will require a significant reinvention to stop that happening, even with a Labor government.

I am not a Christian, DAVID BOAZ reconfirms I am right not to be in every anti union post.
However one poster tells us we no longer need unions ! because everything that can be invented has been, well all conditions are in place to protect workers?
WORKCHOICES?
To silly to think about, each day something changes in the workplace and needs fixing.
Unions are like any group from shooters to car owners people join for protection and services.
How can anyone? yes anyone? think unions have no place?, how many unionists are Christians too? still dislike them my right wing Christian friend?
Todays union issue, true story from a real union official.
3 years ago I found a firm employing 14 people paying flat rate no overtime less than award.
Took firm to court got back pay order of 12.000 dollars, and gave firm 2 years to pay by installments so it could continue to trade .
Found new contracts for firm and by request wrote at no cost a new agreement.
Firm did not trust it so paid 8.000 to get one written up, it was badly put together and required both a percentage payment and national wage increases!
Informed the boss it would mean by last year of agreement he would be paying much more than his competitors, he insisted he wanted it and signed it in court.
This very day his workers informed me they had no pay increase for 2 years!
Underpayments of 8% for every hour worked for 2 years!
And unions are always wrong?
Boss had this to say cut me a deal you did it last time!
Let me pay it of I should have taken your free agreement, the only difference was the national wages increases.
Just what we had begged him to listen to 3 years ago.
Cut him a deal? or should we think he was waiting for another round of workchoices to further cut his wages?
No more deal, bet on it his workers are human too.

GYM-FISH, I haven't laughed so loudly for a long time when reading your reply to our biblical expert.

Dear Boaz, when the ox falls to ground unable to work anymore, what's wrong with just picking up another ox to work to the ground? Plenty of Oxen to pick from. One is much like another when pulling that plough. If we work it hard and not give it too much of the wheat to eat all the more for me to sell. Everybody will be happy. The people with more wheat available to buy, the family with more money. Pity about those oxen though, but then they aren't people are they?

Me personally, I refuse to see myself as an ox, or any other beast of burden, even a cute llama. Collective bargaining is what I want.

I was listening to Radio National today and heard that terminally ill people can't access sickness benefits because in its desire to rid society of spurious mediterranean back claims the Liberal government ightened the requirements for sickness benefit claims so that sickness benefits are paid to people who

are blind

or meet all the following 3 conditions

1. have been treated for a condition and stabilised, terminal cancer isn't stabilised
2. permanently disabled with more than 20 points of disability
3. unable to work more than 15 hours a week

Sick people get put on Newstart Allowance, which pays $50 per week less and have to comply with looking for work requirements. A person who threw a Grand Mal epileptic fit in a Centrelink queue, the ambulance was called, patient was treated and breached for failing to hand in fortnightly form. When breached a person loses allowances for 8 weeks and Centrelink fought this breach as far as they could.

Our society has become seriously mean, if people with long term illnesses like cancer or TB can't access sickness benefits then we should get rid of all benefits so the malingering bums with bad backs or drug induced psychosis can fend for themselves like the acutely ill do.

GYMFISH..I see you "exercised" your literary skills there in ripping into me :) not bad..

I think you missed the point though. I was not taking one side or the other, but pointing to the fact that 'justice' is the key to good industrial relations. The Biblical proverb about the OX (or lama or polar bear.. you name it.. I don't mind) was simply a word picture about if your income relies on the efforts/labor of another, its in both your and the 'laborer's interests for the Laborer to be happy in his work.

Employers who have mistreated or seek to exploit workers are totally abhorrent to me just as power hungry unions are.
Let me quickly make a distinction.

UNIONS which look after the genuine interess of the workers ARE OK....

UNIONS which go beyond this, and seek to hold onto power..and invent 'issues' and blackmail the country, so they can remain relevant, are NOT OK. (e.g. ETU)

EMPLOYERS who deliberately seek to reduce the 'labor costs' irrespective of justice and purely for bottom line increase are NOT OK.

EMPLOYERS who look for a balance of economic prosperity and wage justice ARE OK.

There.. have you got it now?

By the way mate.. the Topic mentions 'and God'.... don't you think it is appropriate to mention Him in our posts? or are you planning to send me to some gulag for that hmmmm? :)

YVONNE.. yoohoo :) *points to the above*..... but one more thing.

Do you support the right of a worker NOT to be part of a union?
and...not to be threatened or intimdated in the slightest way if he/she feels so?

Because the day some union thug comes to me and tells me 'you have to join'..is the day he finds out just how passionate a man can be about his freedom :)

BELLY.. I think you understand my position mate.. no offense.. I know ur not part of the bad crowd of unionists :) cheers.

I have no argument with your position on Unions and employers Boaz, probably because we are both small-business owners. But there's not a lot of relevance to God, I'm afraid.

>>By the way mate.. the Topic mentions 'and God'.... don't you think it is appropriate to mention Him in our posts?<<

The only reason the author mentioned the G-word was to add a little ginger to an otherwise terminally insipid piece. Look again at the context in which God is invoked:

"The spirit of individualism thrives on fear. It thrives on turning one against another. It thrives on keeping secrets in individual contracts and keeping workers looking over their shoulders. There’s nothing about that in what Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Pell had to say about working life and unions... [a]nd there’s certainly no hint of it when Jesus said, 'When ever two or three of you gather, there I am with you'."

We have the pontifications (sorry!) of the Pope and George Pell as evidence of Jesus' support of the Union movement, and his own words (as reported) on the topic of prayer...

"Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Our friend also left out the part about "together in my name" - not even an ellipsis, you will note - which is somewhat significant. The concept of a BLF prayer meet is somewhat mind-boggling.

Typical of a consultant, though.

So, unless you are a particular fan of the concept of Pope and Pell, Industrial Relations 'r' Us, then it's a pretty godless article.

If the bloke believes in God using his belief to tie it to his view of unions is ok by me, even if that means flogging the union movement in Gods name.
However , yes BD I too share your view of that union, not all are silly enough to think being idiots is the only way to represent workers rights.
Thankfully most bosses are not using self interest to claim all unions are wrong.
Being a small business man gentlemen is not evidence that you are always right unions always wrong.
It is not the act of a hero but based on many things including the quest for better lifestyle.
That drives some to be in business.
I have no more support for idiots in unions shirts than any small firms owners but highlight yet again some bosses are little more than thugs and mugs too.

Boaz, I'm sooo relieved.

On the issue of compulsory union membership, I'm a bit divided. It's a bit like compulsory voting. I used to be dead set against that, it interfering with freedom of choice. I set out to proof my strongly held belief one semester doing a lot of research for a paper I had to present, but to my chagrin (I don't really like to be shown to be 'wrong'!) I changed my mind.

Thuggery, vandalism, intimidation or any kind of stand-over tactics by any party - Union or Employer - I think is disgusting.

Ideally every worker should be able to negotiate a fair deal with an ethical fair employer. Sadly most humans are wired to 'win' and to get the 'best' for themselves. In the case of the vast majority of workers it is not an equal competition. Not even now with high employment prospects. That's why unions are necessary. To balance the competing interests.

Your point on justice goes for both parties. A Union ready to 'break' an employer and to demand what is not possible will soon lose employment for their members (and membership numbers!) with a business going bust. That this does not often happen goes to show how much pressure many businesses do need to do the right thing by their employees.

I'd say more small businesses have been brought to their knees not by employees, but by other unethical business practices within the business community that said business had to deal with.

My husband and I have had several very successful businesses, we've had our employee from Hell, but we've had more danger from unethical practices from other businesses, least of them being shopping centre owners.

"My husband and I have had several very successful businesses, we've had our employee from Hell, but we've had more danger from unethical practices from other businesses, least of them being shopping centre owners."

A good point, one rooted in real experience, that not many people talk about. Reminds me of what the Frank Lowys of this world do to small businesses. It just goes to show that, in the capitalist system, if you're big enough, you're untouchable.

What's the saying: if you owe the bank a million dollars, it's your problem, but if you owe them a hundred million, it's the bank's problem.......

RobP, yes, lots of personal experience. That's why when I hear business owners whinging about greedy selfish employees causing hardship I have to laugh.

We've had our run in with IR in regards with an employee, but we've found that yes, it is tough and so it should be, but if you are above board, honest and ethical issues can be resolved. Even if it means that an issue becomes too much a 'he said, she said' a decent comprise can be reached to resolve the issue.

It is too easy for business owners to point the finger at employees for the failure or lack of success of their business. It is more likely lack of business planning, knowledge/experience and shocking (often expensive) 'professional' advice.

I have never been able to fathom why a business needs some special type of protection from employees like the unfair dismissal clause. Why should you be able to dismiss an employee unfairly? Workers are generally not working because they are bored but because they depend on the income to survive.

A business is not there for some altruistic reason, neither is the employee.

What the business community needs to do is become honest in regard with what is tolerated between businesses in the 'name' of business. The only ones coming out laughing is the legal profession and the business that is bigger.

Is there such a thing as ethical standards of behaviour in business? Once upon a time a handshake used to be enough. Now even a complex legal document will not necessarily cover you if one party does not have the intention of abiding by it.

Focus on employees seems to be a method of focusing all business on a supposed 'common enemy' so as to limit focus on practices within and between businesses.

Yvonne, the problems you point out all boil down to human laziness. Businesses put all the blame on bad employees because the businesses have been often unwittingly drafted into supporting even bigger businesses in their war against unions. As you say employees are made the bogeyman. Why them and no one else? Simply because they're the easiest targets.

Then you have the big businesses like Westfield that, to stay on top of the heap, have to play the game harder than anyone else. Eventually standards slip, people take shortcuts and good, smaller businesses get unfairly treated.

While I've never been in small business myself, I couldn't resist having a swipe at Lowy. This guy's company is one of the worst in the business, yet he always seems to pop up smelling of roses when leaving his legacy in the world of soccer etc. Speaking of ethics, the popular media needs to have a good hard look at itself as well. And in particular, how it promotes people like Lowy - the Jew who worked hard and made good.

You're right that the spotlight needs to fall on all aspects of ethics in business. The elephant in the room is the way the size differential between businesses is becoming the sole determinant in who wins. As we all know, this is morally wrong.

Despite being united by superstition the Catholic Church is essentially a business, its primary purpose throughout its history from the very begining was the accumulation of capital. The "church" gained its wealth by exploiting a union, the Catholic people. This enables those who apologise for the excesses of the church to argue from either camp as either the exploiter or the exploited. Even though the overlords of the superstition follow the same taboo's and rituals of the cult they are also the ones speaking as Jesus and so amke up the rules to benifit the church at the expense of the members as they go along.

This article was to be expected, under the Liberals Pell wrongfully interfered with the lives of Australians through cult members within the party. The Catholic church and indeed the Pentecostal Church through its political arm Family First who swupported the anti Australian and Anti Family work chioces owe Australia an apology for their attempt to influence Australian lives to be within reach of exploitation.

The recent Popes are responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS amongst their cult members as well as encouraging rape in Central America. Nobody even the self claimed great Christian Crusader George Bush or the Islamic pop idol Bin Laden can claim to match the death and destruction encouraged by the Popes. \

I for one dont accept the authors argument. I read it as an attempt to try and mask history. I would have thought with the defeat of Howard and his cultural revolution those days should have been over.

The Catholic and Pentecostal Church should formally apologise to all Australians and families and never become involved with politics again. I believe only this could begin the healing of Australia in the post Howard era.