"The question for the left has to be: how can we rebuild unions and unionism?"

No, the question is: should unions be rebuilt?

Let me tell you a story: I was working at a bank when they put in a new HR and payroll system. The system shouldn't have been released to production because it wasn't ready, however the payroll staff had to make do (and i was helping to support them). Many of the payroll staff were FSU members prior to the system going live.

In variably the system started making errors and the payroll staff (myself included) were soon doing 80+ hours a week (extending up to over 100 a week at the peak) to try to fix the problems.

I watched the payroll staff (then FSU members) being verbally attacked by union reps because the payroll was putting out incorrect values.

Unsurprisingly, many of the payroll staff left the FSU.

This is the practical problem with unions. In theory, they're great institutions - a bunch of people joining together to look after common interests. However in practice, you can get a mob mentality which sometimes turns ugly, and in the case above, against the unions own members.

Another example: another client of mine had two apprentices being paid differently by a fraction of a cent per hour (equating to a 5 cent per annum difference, yet the union rep threatened to walk the all staff out because of this?

Is this what you're advocating Passy?

It's neither "unions" nor "Employer Organizations" which need to 'be'...

What we do need though is some kind of means of overcoming us/them where the 2 groups seem to be pitted against the other.

What does the Bible say about this?

1/ "Don't muzzle an Ox when it is treading out the grain" i.e. Don't deprive 'workers' from obtaining real world here and now benefit from the work they do.

2/ Jesus Parable. In one of them he speaks of a landowner who agreed with some laborers to work for $X per day. Later though, due to them not finishing the job quickly enough, he offered other laborers the same money for half a day. Still more were needed so other laborers were offered the same money for less than half a day.

The landowner was criticized by those who had agreed to work for $X for a day... "You are unjust". Actually he wasn't... they agreed for so much..and were paid it. Others agreed to the same for less time worked..and were paid. This illustrates the idea of supply and demand.
The landowner needed his harvest completed by a certain time. When this was not happening, the value and importance of extra labor goes up.

I think I'd be more comfortable with an overall 'fairness commission' along with the deliberate inculcation of selfless values in every level of society, with shame as the primary weapon of compliance... but backed up with some legal teeth also.

"I have learned to be content in all circumstances" said Paul.. and this applies equally to employers and employees. It negates GREED as a basis for living.

The real failure of some unions is that they see themselves as a political lobby group instead of a workers' advocate particularly during the 2007 election where unions were more concerned with 'winning an election' than with the grass roots.

In saying this and being aware of the problems with some unions particularly in the past where corruption was rife, I believe workers more than ever need a strong advocate.

Particularly now where the economy and industrial relations system is heavily biased in favour of employers. To the point of supporting and legitimising the actions (and interests) of the big end of town over any other rights or sense of fair play. The right to strike being one of the biggest losses for workers - as in the case of the Perth 107 and the ABCC.

Polycarp, I don't see the fairness in your story. If a group of workers are employed to get a harvest in they should all be paid the same for the same work regardless of the earlier agreement. Otherwise you might get situations where disempowered workers (like those with low English language skills) do not have the skills to negotiate better wages than their colleagues.

Supply and demand are meaningless terms when it comes to fairness in the workforce. In my experience employers are happy to use economics when arguing for reduced wages and conditions in the bad times but not applying the same formula in the good times. Workers are receiving less and less of the share even in times of economic prosperity (particularly in the lower income sectors like cleaning, hospitality, retail and some unskilled manufacturing).

Pelican,

"Particularly now where the economy and industrial relations system is heavily biased in favour of employers. To the point of supporting and legitimising the actions (and interests) of the big end of town over any other rights or sense of fair play."

My only concern is that it doesn't swing too far in the other direction. Some balance is required, and while that's a subjective thing (and therein is a whole host of other issues), if the rules are too far in one direction or another then there's a problem.

Unions are failing because they have lost relevance to most working people.

The good conditions many workers have today are brought about as much ( or more) by the improvements in the economy, as by union action.

Unions have certainly contributed to the present laws and conditions for workers. They should be commended for that.

However some unions also strangled, almost to the point of death, many industries. The shipping and building industries are two examples of unions out of control, damaging the economy and breeding corruption and violence. They were a blight on the economy and on society.

Furthermore, many unionists still don't seem to have realised that their bullying behaviour is not appreciated by the vast majority of Australians.

BN

I agree with you. There will always be difficulty in defining what is fair and getting that balance right won't always be easy. Extremism from either side only creates unrest and adversarial scenarios.

The only power that workers hold is withdrawal of labour. Where employers hold all the cards, it is essential that there is another body that is able to offically advocate for that labour. Labour has worth just as capital has worth. Theres should be some recognition of mutual dependence in the relationship.

Employers have their unions - the Busines Council of Australia and various chambers of commerce and associations. Unions by other names. Workers need the same.

That is why the whole Workchoices ideology really baffled me. Here we were in a time of little industrial unrest and along comes a policy like WorkChoices which was needed like a hole in the head. Next minute you have workers in the lowest paid sectors losing penalty rates and other long fought conditions (often gained by losing other benefits in trade-offs).

Makes you wonder about the intelligence of our politicians sometimes. In an effort to reduce the power of unions Howard did the very thing that would increase the need for unions and raise the profile of unionism.

For unions to revive themselves they will need a more outward looking focus and a commitment first to the grass roots membership.

Unions should desire to be better than their opposition by maintaining the high moral ground eg. eradicate bullying, secret ballots and corruption (maintain the moral high ground). It is only until unions behave in a different light that they will be seen in one.