It does raise the question on whether the Labor Party should allow individual voting members (which has tended towards branch stacking) or whether it should revert to its old system where only unions decided on public office candidates.

It is a social democratic party or a labor party? A very interesting question. Can the two be resolved?

James, I find it very difficult to appreciate the nitty-gritty of government–union relations when ALL our federal and state governments have for decades been chronically out of touch with the constituency and chronic panderers to the big end of town.

This is the biggest problem with our so-called democratic system. It is apparently insurmountable. We simply CANNOT expect our governments to protect us from the looming threats to our future wellbeing. We can only expect them to react as the pressures bite.

We only ever have the ‘choice’ of voting for one manic pro-growth party or the other, with no chance of any sensible sustainability-oriented party getting in.

We apparently can’t expect any party to convert our ever-increasing collective wealth into real improvements in health, education and overall quality of life.

So with this reality, the nature of government relations with certain unions, or of them upholding or not upholding core principles therein, really doesn't seem to amount to a molehill.

"Clearly, it would be ludicrous for ETU to hold out hope for better treatment at the hands of a Coalition government whether at the state or federal level."

As someone who has worked in the energy industry in Queensland for almost 30 years including during the Joh years and as an ETU member (forced) during the campaigns of the 80's the previous statement says more to me about the authors politcal leanings than the realities of how workers have been treated by ALP and Coalition governments in Qld.

In my view treatment of workers has been far more destructive under the ALP than under the Coalition. Maybe the need for a union with party political agenda's and loyalties which all to often have been placed ahead of workers well being is lessened when the Coalition is in power so if the issue is how the ETU is treated rather than how workers are treated there may be some truth to the claim.

Where was the ETU during the Maddock years when workers were having careers trashed and seeing the network run down for the sake of cash flow to George St? Where was the ETU when Beatty was claiming he knew nothing about what happening to the network during that period? If he did know nothing then why had the ETU not briefed him?

During the last round of EBA negotiations the ETU was happy to take a large pay gain for it's members and aid in quashing the concerns of members of other smaller and less powerfull unions.

It's time unions started representing their members rather than the government. Breaking affiliation with the ALP would be a good start.

R0bert

Anybody who thinks that the ALP has a particular interest in workers is living in the past.

Firstly, due to a misunderstanding the older title:

"The ETU's self-destructive threat to leave the Labor Party"

... was retained, instead of my preferred title:

"What will disaffiliation from the Labor Party achieve for the ETU?".

I have been told that that cannot be changed now that the newsletters have been sent out.

As I hoped to make clear from the article I am not necessarily against the ETU disaffiliating from the Labor Party, but mere disaffiliation, without taking other positive steps towards achieving effective politcal representation in our state and Federal parliaments will achieve little for the ETU.

Lev, it's hard to be able to prescribe the best democratic structure for the Labor Party. Whether more weight is given to unions or party branches, there will still be problems in the current circumstances. The problem will never be fully solved until the rank-and-file party members and union members become more active and remind their officebearers and parliamentary representatives that they are there to serve them instead of things being the other way round.

Ludwig,

I totally with your point that sustainability and population stability are the critical issues of our epoch. On my blog (http://candobetter.org/blog/3) I make this clear.

However, it will be extremely difficult to fix that if we don't fix the current situation where our democratic institutions are nearly always manipulated in order to frustrate the best interests (and even clear stated will of the public in the case of the current attempts to privatise NSW's electricity - see http://candobetter.org/node/630).

The corruption of the Labor Party to turn it into yet another party that governs, without consulting either the electorate or its own constituency, in the interests of our selfish elites is a major facet of this problem.

When we fix that, then we stand a much better chance of confronting the dire threats we face.

One path towards fixing that is for unions like the ETU to insist that Labor Parliamentarians represent their members instead of land speculators, mining companies, financiers and other corporations.

(Thanks to those who made other comments. More later)

James Sinnamon (author)

I would think that the Queensland Government may have as its priority ensuring the public have access to affordable and reliable energy supplies. They may also want to do that at the least cost to the public purse.

I am not sure exactly how the ETU figures in that equation ?

Should the people of Queensland have to pay extra for their power to keep the ETU happy and affiliated ?

It is said that Labor is not what it used to be, but then again neither is anything else. There are coherent arguments for competition in energy generation which will benefit consumers , many of those poor souls who don't earn anywhere near what the ETU members are earning will pay less for their power.

The issue of ALP democracy - I wonder if the simplest way to achieve a more representative party is to give a vote to all ALP members and to registered members of affiliated unions. That would broaden the base of the party. They could periodically elect a State council which could then select parliamentary candidates and an Executive. While unions would have an advantage in that they could promote their candidates for the Council they would have to work at it. It would also be possible to have rules which would enable a more open process.