FG,

The comparison with kids at a private school is ridiculous, as the kids have no right to be there at all! If you want a school comparison, it would be like the PTA at a public school organising school lunches and expecting everyone to pay whether they agreed or not.

The fact that the unions are bitter that people are "freeloading" is reason to believe that they would prefer that non union members not get the same benefits. I never said that they would gloat about it.

Your proposal that
a) pay for benefits that the union provide,
b) accept the status quo
C) negotiate separately
is naive, as b) is never going to happen.

80% of employees choose option c) as this means that they can either accept the base conditions negotiated by the union by doing nothing or press for further benefits if they have skills above that separate them from the crowd, or are prepared to accept different conditions.

The purpose of the AWA enables the employee to be paid what he is worth and not what the average Joe Bloggs is worth.

The closed EBA ensures that everyone gets the base conditions and no one can benefit from (god forbid) working harder.

Shadow Minister: "The fact that the unions are bitter that people are "freeloading" is reason to believe that they would prefer that non union members not get the same benefits."

They don't want non-union members to miss out at all. They just feel that the costs of achieving the benefits should be shared by all those who get them. Much in the same way they object to the way businesses use their bargaining power to claim the lions share of the business revenue as profit. It's about distribution of wealth based on contribution and not on bargaining power.

"The purpose of the AWA enables the employee to be paid what he is worth and not what the average Joe Bloggs is worth."

Given the way the federal election went I think its clear that the majority of people don't agree that the "free-market" of the AWAs are an appropriate measure of someones worth.

This prescription - cheap movie tickets - won't work.

The Accord in the 1980s started the rot with its class collaboration, and concentration of power in the hands of the trade union bureaucracy. Ever since then unions in the private sector have declined markedly in membership.

A return to class struggle and the empowerment of the rank and file would see membership increase.

Desipis,

If I am correct, AWAs were around several elections ago, the issue this election was work choices not AWAs. The removing of AWAs was piggy backed onto the scrapping of work choices.

The employees at non union sites seem to get similar or better increases than union sites. The unions to a large extent are taking credit for simple improvements in the job market.

People don't join the union because they see no benefit. Those that do, do so more for a feeling of belonging than for benefits.

With the odd exception the days of the oppressive employer has gone, and with it the raison d'etre of the unions.

Shadow Minister,

The way I understand it (which may not be correct), before work choices the AWAs existed along side other options and the employees had some control over choising the safety of awards or going it on their own. Work choices essentially forced workers who wanted the safety of awards onto AWAs and additionally put up roadblocks to remove union support from AWA negotiations.

"With the odd exception the days of the oppressive employer has gone."

That's incredibly naive.

"Latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on working hours shows more than half of Australia's 8.6 million employees are working overtime without being compensated." - http://www.careerone.com.au/jobs/job-search/job-market-insider/awa-not-to-blame-for-extra-unpaid-overtime

While I agree that this has little to do with AWAs, it does show that more than half of Australian workers are still being ripped off through unbalanced employer/employee relationships. There is still a great need for organised and coordinated employee support.

Desipis,

As one of those who on a fixed salary work hours from 50 - 70 hrs a week, I would also fall into that category of "working overtime without compensation", However, I don't feel oppressed, as my salary takes that into consideration.

Using this to show that employers are still oppressive is to be completely oblivious to reasons people work those hours.

People take the jobs completely aware of what is entailed, and know that to go to a normal 9-5 job would generally entail moving to a less interesting lower paid job.

People compete for these jobs because they are well paid, interesting and ladder to higher paid jobs still.

Generally with the skills they gain they can move swiftly to other positions in other companies. Any employer attempting to "oppress" them will simply see them disappear.

As an manager I am fully aware that it takes months to get someone suitable to fill a position, and further months before he is productive. Replacing someone is hugely expensive and time consuming and to be advoided at nearly all costs.