RobP

You misrepresent the case - and probably misapprehend it too.

What's with your "socialisation (sic) of the system by stealth"? There's no stealth in my proposal. It's perfectly open. (What's more, you don't mean "socialisation" which is about making people, especially the young, fit for society. I think you were groping for "socialism"; but maybe it's all the same to you - any word will do when you don't know what you mean.)

Under the proposal, unions would not be paid anything except by their members and those non-members who want to accept what the unions win for them in negotiation with employers. If non-members want to negotiate their own terms and conditions and can do it better than the unions, good for them. What could be fairer than that? Surely that is payment by results? And it would stop the free-loaders getting something for nothing.

Your claim that all the unions do is "organise resistance" is a very out-of-date view of the role of unions. Step into the 21st century. Inane union-bashing cost the Howard Government dearly in November. Surely smart conservatives will have learned something from that experience. The old battles are over. We can and must work together.

I expect that many of the "average workers" whom you malign - "wouldn't have the wit or capacity to...create things" - will rightly take exception to your misguided snobbery, and your ignorance about how products get created.

FrankGol,

You are a master at putting words in other's mouths and twisting what they say to suit your own politics.

All right, socialisation was the wrong word, collectivise would have been better. Or caramelise. Think about what I was really trying to say in the context of the argument. And, yes, I was talking about where unions were coming from, not where things are going. The fact that things are changing shows that greater energy and diversity is coming into the workplace which, ironically, has nothing to do with unions at all but those newer forces like the Howard Government. So, how about giving some credit there where it's due? Like a lot of clever lefties, you're trying to turn a necessity (the fact that the world has changed) into a virtue and then grab the proceeds of other people's hard work by changing the paradigm at the last minute.

There are plenty of workers who do not have the wit, interest or capacity to do new things. By that, I'm not trying to malign them or put them on the spot, just say it how it is. Everyone has their strengths and weakness, simple as that. The entrepreneurs take the risks and create new industries and the like, while the workers fill the hole. The entrepreneurs do their job and workers do theirs.

It doesn't - or at least it shouldn't - work that way, The Blue Cross.

>>In Qld most unions are members of The Union Shopper, who deliver discounts on a range of goods. But in a tight market, discounts on some goods will come at the cost of workers conditions I imagine, so it can only go so far.<<

It is normal business practice for the discounts to be provided by the product supplier, not the Union. Your concern that this might be traded off against workers' conditions should be completely unfounded.

The way it usually comes about is that the supplier has an arrangement whereby they provide you with a discount in exchange for being able to present their products to a "captive" audience. The trade-off in these relationships is normally only that the range of products available to you in this way is limited to the number of suppliers who have sufficiently large profit margins to offer such discounts.

It is also common practice for some suppliers to pay an amount directly to the intermediary, for the privilege of offering product to its constituency. So there is - or should be - no drain on Union funds in the provision of this service.

If your Union is in fact subsidizing your product purchases, I would recommend that you ask them to stop, immediately. It really isn't a productive use of your levy.

Frankgol's suggestion of applying a levy to anyone who benefits from a union's action is tantamount to giving the unions the power to impose a tax. This is going back to the dark days of the closed shop.

By not joining the union, the workers are effectively negotiating their own package. If the employer was to offer them less, the union would be delighted. The reason the employer doesn't offer less is because the employee is certain to walk.

The reason people "freeload" is because they feel that the union is a facilitator and not the driver behind the increase / change in conditions.

As a student I visited the Louve, and while looking at some of the pieces from the revolution, a guided tour from American express stopped at the piece I was viewing. With interest I listened to the tour guide upon which one irritated pensioner informed me that this was a private tour and I should either pay up or depart.

At this point being the diplomat that I was, I replied that unless AE had purchased the Louve, I had the right to be there and suggested he could do something interesting.

The unions occupy the same moral and legal ground as the grumpy gentleman, and if the unions try to "levy" them they will probably get a similar response.

Shadow Minister

You have it all wrong. Under my proposal unions would have no power whatsoever to impose a tax or a levy. Nor to run a closed shop. That's your misconstruction.

The idea was that unions would negotiate outcomes for their members who paid their dues. Non-unionists could choose from the following options:

(a) to pay a fee to the unions to access the newly-negotiated conditions gained by the unions - in advance or after the event
(b) to continue with their status quo
(c) to negotiate with employers independently or through an alternative agent.

Under (c) they might do even better than under (a) as you rightly point out.

That would be their choice - and choice being a cornerstone of Howardian ideology, I thought you might approve.

In your parallel with the Louvre you acted within your legal and moral rights. It was inappropriate for the tour member to ask you to leave a space which you had paid to inspect.

But the parallel with unions is a weak one. The union has no right to hire and fire employees nor should it try to do that. The union has no right to determine the conditions of non-unionists (and for that matter can only negotiate the rights of unionists - not determine them).

Employees who choose not to be members of a union would not be forced to pay anything to a union; but if they want to benefit directly from the negotiating power, skill and expertise of a union they should pay an appropriate fee for that service.

A better parallel would be to a family wanting to send their kids to a private school without wanting to pay the fees.

Shadow Minister: "If the employer was to offer them less, the union would be delighted."

That's a mischaracterisation of the purpose of the union. Sure there are some power hungry individuals who have twisted the purpose just as there are in all organisations. But the purpose of the union is to establish fair conditions and fair pay. While they might not go out of their way to assist non-union members, they don't get any joy out of their predicaments.

"The reason the employer doesn't offer less is because the employee is certain to walk."

Or that they might just end up joining the union to get the same deal anyway, and its in the employers best interest to minimise the power of the union.

"Frankgol's suggestion of applying a levy to anyone who benefits from a union's action is tantamount to giving the unions the power to impose a tax."

That's not what he's suggesting at all. He suggesting that the union bargained agreement could be 'sold' as a 'ready-to-go' work agreement, giving the non-union member the option of going with the union agreement or forging their own way. It's quite possible a non-union member could use the union agreement as leverage in their own negotiations, in effect benefiting from it, in which case they would not owe the union anything.