"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.

Current Union problems

1.While Unions were relevant and useful at one point in our history, they are merely secondary agents of Labor Party ideology and, along with the Local Councils, a training ground for future Labor Politicians. The public are sick of this.

2.Unions want your subscription fees but refuse to support one member against another which makes them all but useless in workplace disputes.

3. They were (are) notoriously Undemocratic, forcing the introduction of secret ballots.

4. Their bosses are often bullying, uncompromising and power hungry.

5. They provide a net LOSS to the community due to their wish to force employers to employ staff who are unproductive or in excess of numbers and thereby make workplaces unprofitable.

Has anyone noticed that the structure of the Australian workforce has changed? Employment in manufacturing has declined not because of evil governments or ACTU leaders but because technological developments fundamentally changed the nature of manufacturing itself. Similarly, the growth of ICT industries has been driven by small flexible companies, staffed and owned (often jointly owned by directors and staff) by ICT professionals who have no need for or interest in union membership.

For unions to survive outside the public service and the building industries, in the second of which many tradesmen prefer to work as contractors than as employees, they need to look at the friendly societies of the 19th and 20th centuries which provided essential services to their members at relatively cheap rates. Schools, health insurance, medical and dental services and so on might be fertile grounds for unionists to explore if they weren't so busy blaming everyone else for their failure to see what was going on around them.

Still, I always enjoy John's articles. He's a genuine socialist who cares about people and infinitely preferable to the current crop of environmentalist lefties whose anti-human tendencies are so disturbing.

Just back from Tom's launch in Canberra.

Inspirational!

Senior Victorian, you say:

"Has anyone noticed that the structure of the Australian workforce has changed?"

Tom agrees industries change. Not that long ago the public service began to expand. Public Servants became unionised through the actions of committed unionists building through argument, discussion and strikes.

Nurses and teachers were built into stronger unions through the actions of committed unionists and strikes over pay and conditions.

The problem is not the restructuring of the workforce per se, but the response of the present leadership and their dominant do nothing ideology.

Tom talked about the MUA and how that was built out of the struggles against casualisation.

Tom talked at length about the class collaborationist Accord, favouring Capital at the expense of labor. It could only be sold to other militants by (former) militant leaders with real respect in the workforce like Carmichael.

Tom makes the point that while it is not a one to one relationship the decline in membership closely mirrors the decline in strike activity.

Why did 500,000 people join the first demo against Workchoices? Why did we vote Howard out? Tom argues if the union movement had mobilised workers to take industrial action against Workchoices Rudd and Gillard would not have been able to get away with Workchoices Lite.

One quibble Senior Victorian. I too have my disagreements with environmentalists (they have no or little concept of class, let alone its determinacy of things) but I think it is clear the way capitalism organises itself is inimical to the long term interests of all humans, threatened as we are by climate change and other environmental degradations. Liz Ross's book, Capitalism: It's costing us the earth, might be worth a read.

I'd urge people in Melbourne and Brisbane to go along and listen to Tom make the point that the more militants there are, the more socialists with a vision for a better society involved in the struggles, working together and across unions and campaigns, the better able we will be to re-build unions into the fighting organisations workers expect.

Well done Passy, well written and argued. Might I suggest an article?
What about unsung heroes? I would contend the Howard Govt. would have self destructed much earlier if it were not for the controlling and limiting actions of the Democrats.
They may have been a failure in their own right, yet they managed to make the Howard govt. look if not good, then at least less bad. As soon as the libs had control of the senate, the people saw their true nature, and gave them the flick.
In the same way, we who lived through the 60's and 70's may remember the turmoil of strikes, but at the same time we remember the gap between rich and poor was monumentally smaller.
The unions made Capitalism look good. Witness the current crisis.
the hypocrisy is breathtaking. While workers are told any pay increases must be linked to productivity, CEOs like Sol truj (sorry can't remember the spelling) get an extra mil or two, even when share prices go down.
I'm convinced the problem is with representation. just as our political reps are NOT representative of average aussies in terms of income, super or benefits, so also are our union reps themselves in higher tax brackets.
The unions also have to realise that the Laboral party is no longer the only game in town. In fact, the unions would find a much more empathic home with the Greens or the now virtually defunct Democrats.
Has no one else noticed the parliamentary leader of the Laboral party is a multimillionaire employer of labour?
Who before the election was implicated in problems of underpaying workers?
The laboral party has sold it's soul to the Liberal party, and all it took was a (series of) pay rise(s).
and so have the union bosses.

Senior Victorian

I think another point is that manufacturing has not disappeared. The old battalions still exist and still have incredible although unused power. I am thinking here of transport, building, metalworkers and so on.

While the industries have changed, production is still an major component of our economy. If Transport Workers, or metal workers or building worekrs for example went on strike tomorrow, the place would shut down.

They don't take action anymore in any major way. What has changed?

I would suggest it is the union ideology of the leadership of the left unions. The economic crisis of the early 80s saw them retreat from a class based adversarial or conflictual model to one of collaboration. Essentially the new philosophy became what was good for the boss was good for the worker, and over time unions became the agents of the bosses in pursuing that agenda. They policed the workforce to make sure it did not strike for better wages and conditions. They traded off conditions that years of struggle had won.

Rank and file militants went along at first because they respected those left figures, people who had in the past led major strikes and won.

But as the rank and file became disoriented and disillusioned, the network of militants atrophied, and power became more and more concentrated in the hands not of the membership but of the officials.

The end result? Coverage at less than 20 per cent from a real peak at oen stage of 60 per cent. Indeed during the flood tide as Tom calls it (68 to 74) coverage increased 8 per cent, precisely becuse unions were taking action.a

I think their is another element here. It can be dangerous for capitalism if union officials don't have control of significant elements of the workforce. As membership numbers fall, this is more and more likely to happen. Workers can suddenly lurch into major industrial action if the "restraining" hand of union officialdom is not there.(Perhaps Fairfax was an example of this trend in a union context.)

May 68 in Paris is a classic example.

A big problem for the union in my opinion is the ALP, people see the union leader join the ALP and then their union pay over their dues to the ALP, or see them paying over their dues for ads that does not affect them

There was also a lot of corruptions in the unions, back where I work in the 90s the union official and the employer came to a deal and 2 weeks later the union official was driving around in a BMW. 1/2 the members quit the union soon after

The union just have not looked after the rights of their workers enough to warren memberships, they are always looking at what can the union official receive and which ALP seat they can get after an election

Technology improvements and global trade has decreased the power of labour in the economy, and this trend will continue.
The current economic cycle is turning, and unemployment will soon rise. The last decade has increased wealth inequality to obscene levels, and inflation will soon make this worse. Like the US, Australia will soon see real poverty increase to scary levels.
As the cycle turns, unions may yet see a resurgence.
But...
Technology continues to march on. Machines now generate more wealth than human labour does, and machines keep getting better.
If "0" is stone age and "10" is fully automated "android economy" we are passing "7" and accellerating to "8".
When we reach "10" labour is worthless and Capital is all.
Will we adapt as intelligent beings, or will we follow our natures?

Will we ever reach a point in society where crime falls to a point where we can finally disband the Police force and the Courts? I think not.

The days of all Workers' rights somehow being universally protected and respected haven’t arrived yet and until that’s the case, there will be a reason for Unions to exist.

If workers want Unions to be more relevant it’s up to them to elect better quality representatives – just like they should be more selective about their Members of Parliament (where I notice secret ballots are still not permitted).

In the early 80's I studied Industrial Relations at Uni. The 1st thing they taught was that the first objective of any organization was to maintain their own existence even at the cost of their members. This is clearly a case of the creation controlling their creators.

This piece of wisdom can be applied to both sides of the industrial fence. The only master now is profit and both corporations (inanimate creations) tend to dictate the terms the only god is profit.

Snr Victorian is partly right about the industrial environment has changed not least by globalized capital. Capitalism flourishes by ‘consolidation’ (getting bigger) however union growth is limited in that it needs to be local to be relevant to all members. Unfortunately it is only when big expensive issues like Work Choices that the benefit of unions is most obvious.

What doesn’t seem to be addressed by Passey is that back in the old days businesses were limited by their size, trade barriers and therefore the ability to move ‘off shore’ for manufacturing. Trade unions know that if a union is too aggressive in demands the controlling bean counters will simply pack up and move to where labour or laws are the least.

The only unions with any sort of real power are those who cover organizations that are anchored to Australia mining, construction, public sector etc.

I worry about enterprise unions in that they too will be subject to capital manipulation too. Tragically what is indicated is a winding back of liaise faire capitalism on a global basis or both the environment and the whole capitalist structure collapse under it’s own complexity and competing interests. It won't be communism either I suspect something far worse.

Ozandy

The whole history of capitalism has been to develop technology at the expense of labour. (This is the basis for Marx's argument that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall.) In the past unions have adjusted and built or re-built. Why is today any different to 100 or 150 years ago?

I also disagree that machines create wealth. They transfer the embodied human labour within them. It is workers who create wealth. In fact, the less workers there are makes the workers who remain to turn on and run the machines even more industrially powerful. And it makes those workers who build the new machines very powerful too.

examinator, you say:

"Trade unions know that if a union is too aggressive in demands the controlling bean counters will simply pack up and move to where labour or laws are the least."

Globalisation is an old phenomenon. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto identified this systemic drive of capitalism to expand around the globe. I think the argument about moving offshore is overstated.

The stock of foreign direct investment in Australia stands at about $1.5 trillion. It is growing at about $180 bn a year. The stock of Australian direct investment offshore is just under $1 trillion, and it is growing by almost $130 bn a year.

The trickle down theory union leaders have adopted - what's good for the boss is good for workers - is the problem, not workforce restructuring or the threat of moving offshore.

dovif2 says:

"The union just have not looked after the rights of their workers enough to warren memberships, they are always looking at what can the union official receive and which ALP seat they can get after an election."

I agree that is one expression of the trickle down theory. Opportunistic careerists have been a problem for the workers movement since it first began to stand candidates for Parliament. Now almost every senior union official seems to be a careerist, either in their union leadership role or their desire to be bumped into Parliament.

I am not going to be popular in this thread but here gos
I am union till death.
An activist too.
And from the right of the movement.
Once born in fact to be from the very left.
Unions will survive in fact they will thrive.
But we must never hide our heads in the sand, tell it like it is.
WORKCHOICES a dreadful act by a now dead government.
However UNIONS let workers down, did filthy agreements with labour hire , just because they feared AWAs.
Right now, gee it hurts but it is true I fight for justice daily.
Passy we could find such fault in EVERY union but.
The darling of the left has construction casual laborers, the modern slave laborers.
BUYING their own PPE.
Those lucky enough not to pay have got one shirt, nothing more in three months!
They get for that first day a shirt they paid $25 for.
It has the name and phone number of the employer on it.
OH yes I got the money paid back, I pretended I did not know each had been handed a membership card from that Union, fill it in or you do not have a job.
I pretended it did not matter they are another unions coverage, mine.
And that the insults I faced did not matter.
In truth each of those poor bloody casuals on getting a full time job have asked, not been poached, to join my union.
Some who wear union shirts should not be in a union office with a mop and bucket in their hands.
We must regain the passion for fairness in the workplace, and recruit only the best to serve our reason for existing members.
Oh after all those years of working in construction, being in every union on site it pays of ,my membership is growing.
If we remember we owe respect to our members, loyalty and understanding even when we can not help we will see growth .

Belly, you say:

"Oh after all those years of working in construction, being in every union on site it pays of ,my membership is growing.
If we remember we owe respect to our members, loyalty and understanding even when we can not help we will see growth."

I agree. Even the CFMEU is not immune from the conservative pressures of the rest of the unon movement.

For example Carmichael, who led massive and successful strikes in the 60s and 70s, was one of the architects of the class collaborationist Accord and because of his respect among workers for the successful campaigns he had led, also the chief seller of the Accord to militants.

Militants in the current environment are not immune from the pressure to not only compromise but trade off conditions and tightly control the members and squash wild cat strikes.

One of the argments Tom Bramble makes is that is why it is improtant for a small socialist group like socialist alternative (300 or so members around Australia) to attract militants to it to help their socialist edcucation and join in the struggle to re-build unions and unionism over the long term. That includes building a network of rank and file militants in unions and across unions committed to rank and file control and militant action on wages, conditions and jobs.

Passy please hear me out.
I am an ex delegate of the BLF and once a member of the CFMEU.
We, each of us must confront our movements crimes against workers.
I will not name the unions but some labour hire firms are owned by ex officials.
The dreadful victimization of my mentioned casuals [in no way only one union does it] are members of one you mentioned.
In construction, on every bloody gate and entrance, warnings you must have PPE.
My victims work under that unions EBA.
It contains a clause saying you must work, MUST WORK? 150 hours before being issued with PPE?
You and I should cry for them, why mate have my refusal to see them not paid back every cent they spent seen me called such names?
WE do have to look inward to our selves if we do not do it now some unions will fall.
And the fight back will be hard or imposable, this EBA, this serving the contractor not the members to buy union cards shames us all.

This will never be easy for me, I will always be pelted with verbal stones for my views.
While I have and forever will stand shoulder to shoulder with true left unions who fight for justice.
And while I came so many years ago from their ranks.
Even while I still am a militant activist trade unionist.
I do not think they have answers for the union movement, some answers yes not all.
We must look to our hearts and minds for the path to the future.
My story is true.
visit after visit to see the pain, the new slaves Casual Labour.
Working side by side with company employed workers.

$550 a week less pay doing the same work!
Watching the man who signed that act of slavery the EBA stride into lunch sheds place his document's on the table and leave before the men walked in.
To know they had one shirt?
Some bought hard hats? protective glasses? all bought boots some wore the last jobs issues but most paid cash.
I got the money back, yes without asking I got new members .
But now? I am told I am the product of unwed parents for getting in another unions way, yes they should have been in my union but.
Until we, every union, use with pride the term combined unions.
Until we value members more than in fighting.
Until we understand we yes use live in a world won for us by those who fought yesterdays fights.
And that we must hand it on in better shape we are not addressing falling membership.
I am proud of my right wing corner of the union movement , it is closer to my members reality, it truly values workers more than membership cards, well I do.

Belly

Yes unions will abuse the system, but not like bosses on their grand scale.

Part of the problem is that the leadership of all unions have become cops for capital, so that they do the bosses dirty work for them - wage cuts, not opposing job losses, trading off hard won conditions, and so it is not surprising that world view comes through in the way they treat their own members adn employees. That is not to condone it but to condemn it.

I prefer left wing unions. But in today's climate the too suffer from their adopting of the trickle down theory of class collaboration - what's good of the boss is good for workers.

The collapse in days lost is becuase the big battalions of the working class (mostly led by left wingers) have failed to defend wages, conditions and jobs.

Most right wing union leaders (most, not all) have never threatened let alone led a strike. Some left wing unions threaten adn occasionally do strike.

But who smashed the BLF in the 80s? Who smashed the pilots when they took action that could have destroyed the Accord. Left wing union leaders, in cahoots with ALP Governments.

And who smashed the shining example of democratic unionism in the form of the BLF in NSW in the 60s and 70s? The "left" forces from Melbourne under Gallagher, a member of the CPA M-L (aka "the Maoists").

The Left unions have many crime they have committed (including rigging ballots). But they have also led strikes in the past for better wages, conditions and in defence of jobs, and won. That past is now a foreign country. (Temporarily I hope.).

I agree about respect and the membership running the union, and oppose casualisation as all unions and their workers should. As I mentioned the MUA was built out of the struggle to get rid of casualisation, and the dilemma for unions is that it is now the MUA leadership which is overseeing casualisation

Passy, many of the day to day functions of the old Unions on building sites have been gazumped by OH@S and WorkCover, and most Head Contractors now make real efforts to provide safe and reasonable work conditions. There is in my experience little left for the union delegate to do at this level.

I agree that the Accord of the '80's changed the way of things, and as Keating likes to boast he pulled the rotten teeth of the Union Movement. He co-opted Union leadership when they got to sit on their own super boards etc, thereby making them 'co conspirators' in keeping workers at work and keeping the system working.

The Accord changed the old thinking, and few buy or even know about the old Capital v. Labour thingy now. The psychology has changed- as Senior Victorian pointed out, people prefer to work as subbys; with the potential to make more money and have more flexibility.

You have a romanticized view of the old days that ignores the burden of 'unproductivity' forced on us by union actions in the workforce. Hawke and Keating realised the need for productivity growth to underpin increasing national and individual wealth.

The way forward for Unions may include getting a bigger slice of the existing cake,( wadda wewan? the right to strike..); but has to centre on increasing the productivity of its members if Unions are going to be relevant.

Belly, steel caps $60, high-vis $6, eye wear $8, ear plugs $5. It is not unreasonable to expect somebody who presents themselves at work to do a job to come dressed for work.

Palimpsest

You mention productivity. Actually this is a bosses' concept and it means screwing more out of workers - eg longer hours, some technology to help (although as far as I can tell most new technology is geared around making us work our butts off 24 hours a day).

Our increased work and the extra value we create goes where? Into the pockets of the bosses. It is a way bosses think of addressing falling profit rates.

Also you say workers should pay for safety equipment. Why? Surely the boss should make the workplace safe and so should provide safety equipment free to workers.

Finally you seem to think that the boss will ensure safety standards are met. In the building industry, since Howard's anti-union laws, plus the witch hunters in the Australian Building and Construction Commission attacking unions, mean that unions have greater difficulty in enforcing safety standards. The result of driving unions off building sites and having the dogs of the ABCC let loose on unions is that death and injury rates are increasing on building sites.

Why? Because for bosses profit (not people) is all that matters. So some bosses cut corners to save costs at the expense of people's lives.

I think too that the collapse of Wall St is making people begin to question the present system, and that includes beginning to see the world in capital versus labour terms. In the US that is expressing itself as Main St versus Wall St.

Class is not dead.

The interaction between unions, employers and staff is a very complex one and none has a monopoly on the truth. Here are a few fundamental truths:

• No progress is made without workers at the grass-roots doing the work.
• No progress is made without employers driving change and looking to take their opportunities.
• Change causes pain for many people, while opening up opportunities for others.
• The human side always loses out these days.
• Unions help workers from falling too far behind the pack.
• Overall, unions ensure that the overperformers (in the workers ranks) subsidise the underperformers.
• Unions as collective groupings of people are fundamentally no better or worse than employers.
• The only agents that are fundamentally good or bad are individuals.

So, sometimes the unions do good things and sometimes bad things. The same goes for employers. Another truth is that both need the other.

In light of this, wouldn't it be good if Australia could improve its productivity through cooperation and without running the human side down.

Passy, my experience is that OHS has been a much more effective tool for workplace safety than building unions ever were. The culture of safety, the mandated ongoing training for workers, the requirement for individual responsibility of all on site, and the heavy penalties for non compliance all have produced a new and better culture at work. A quick peruse of the net indicates that injury and fatality rates are falling over the last decade.

Times have changed Passy, we do things differently now.

Safety has become the responsibility of everyone and turning up to work in the required dress is part of this. Yes employers should provide basic PPE, and subbys(self employed) should provide their own. Labour hire companies are required to provide for their employees.

Productivity is a measure per time unit and not of total time at work.

Productivity is not the bosses construct, it is the non inflationary way we all get to earn more.

The way forward is not to adopt 1860's thinking.

Palimpsest it is law, an employer by law, must suppy or pay for PPE.
All of it.
In defending Labour hire for not handing it out you give protection to some near criminals.

The future of the movement can not be far from its members, that is not the very left or even the ALP.
A union must first serve its members not a party that has forgotten its own birth, and midstream will always be the path most of our members want.
Increasing serious injury's are taking place in construction, employees are Lent on if they act on safety, believe me we are to see more trouble in this area.
Bantam rooster officials must go, it is no crime to talk to your members even to call them Friends.
A bantam enters the lunch room like a movie star preachers his spiel and walks out without truly making contact with members
To watch an official place those propaganda sheets on empty lunch room table and run of to another job sickens me.
As I enter the same shed and talk ,even more important listen to those men I see the sheets head unread to the rubbish bin.
We must not take workers for granted.
And to ignore them like this is seeing them ask why am I paying that bloke?
Fix ohxs issues asap do not use them as weapons.
Settle dispute by talking issue out not warfare.
service is our best tool

You do not need to be from the left to be an activist.
One last thing till I can fight no more I will fight this one town labour hire firm who knowingly give one shirt for a construction site worker working a six day week.
Fight to see they never again tell battling workers you must join this union or you do not work for us.
Only after I am dead will I forget the blackmail behind that gutless deal by a union.
I will forever believe forced unionism is pure evil.

Apparently my thinking is out of date. Yet the system itself and its manic competitive drive for profit is older than the politics and analysis which appeals to me.

Capitalism is capitalism, and it is the same in its essentials now as it was in 1848 or 1917 or 1989.

That's why Marxism is a relevant now as it was when Marx wrote the Communist manifesto and Capital.

Belly, most activists are on the left. Keep up the good fight

Passy you and I could talk left vs right for days, yet we both I have no doubt are militants and activists.
Yep I am fairdinkum you can be right and both.
That is the very reason unions need to change, to stay alive we must not wait for a return to the great depression.
We must find the same path as our membership not try to live in the past.
New ways to service membership must include helping our members find jobs, do C V,s for them have truly interesting home pages.
Listen to members at least as much as talk to them.
I think we should focus in construction at least on casualisation, it is a crime against workers.
We must one day focus on fees, it is no answer to raise fees as membership falls.
We actually can increase membership and income if we drop fees.
I highlight you can not plant spuds and harvest pumpkins, the right people, not mates must get union jobs.
Each Labor federal government has taken more away from workers ,unions too.
A truth we must except my life has been dedicated to the party yet the current party has members who think they do not need unions.
Far from winning members by going further left we just may do better by not pledging our vote to anyone.
Rudd and the once darling of the left Gilard have a task in front of them.
To draft IR policy that will last after the next conservative government.
You and I must be ready to work for our people not our party every time.
I know the new laws will not be quite what we want but wait until I see them.

Thanks Belly. I was a union militant, but as my union became more and more conservative (adopting the Accord and all the sell offs, trade offs and sellouts that went with that) and power became centralised in a small group of officials at the expense of delegates, to be a militant became a tag, not a reality.

I suspect you and I are on the same side, so let's not fight over terms like left and right.

I support compulsory unionism. To not belong to a union is not an exercise of a democratic right but an undermining of the democratic rights and industrial power of unionists. Of course, if unions actually defended their members and their living standards and jobs instead of trading off hard won conditions for a pittance, we would see a marked increase in union membership.

When we had to be in unions ,unions got fat and lazy.
I agree we unionists should not have to work for non unionists.
We could have fee for service, but it would be fairer if we won wages and conditions ONLY for our members on every site and job.
Recruitment is the hardest job we do.
However it is in the hands of a good union official our most rewarding.
New directions are coming brother, we must not be afraid of them.
And yes we must train activists and militants ,but not to drag our members in directions they do not want to go.
On Wednesday I will fill both roles.
After 3 months battling that non supply of PPE , finally winning re payment, and each week being told it fixed.
I will bring a news letter to the site.
Done here at home.
Page one? the major contractors mission statement on PPE.
Saying every one on site shall have set out minimum standards.
Shirts boots glasses long pants more.
Page two the full story of 16 separate requests to them to fix it.
Third names of current long term casuals who have worked three months and only been issued one high vis shirt, no boots, no hard hat.,no protective glasses.
And who have not been fixed or even spoken to about why.
First copy to local work cover office last line of news paper tells of that action ,second copy to project manager.
Well after 80 copy's go to lunch rooms.
Want a laugh? he will tell me you should have come to me first!
Unions are not the only birth place of workplace strife.

In reply to palimpsest; So glad you brought up the question of productivity.
As an egalitarian first last and always, I have no problem with wage rises being keyed to productivity, IF: the rule applies to everyone.
The pay scales of CEOs worldwide have reached 'obscene' levels -even the second richest man, Warren Buffet thinks so- not through increases in productivity, but through 'market forces'; ie. if you want the best, you have to pay for it. Sol whatshisname got a 1 meg plus pay rise, even when telstra shares were going down.
parliamentarians routinely give themselves pay rises, despite overseeing a drop in the standard of living for their constituents.
Everyone gets percentage increases, which simply means the ones with least need get 10 or 20 times more cash than those with most need.
Our Pollies trot out the stupid excuse: 'if we don't offer more money, we won't attract the best talent'.
Does this not imply that all pollies who are currently in parliament -before the pay rise- are no talent bums who should quit immediately, to make room for these new, talented people?
What does this say about long serving pollies, like Howard, Button, Keating, etc.?
When you offer more money, you attract greedy, self serving bastards who are only interested in increasing the gap between themselves and the ones they have sworn to SERVE, not rule over.
This applies as much to union officials, as it does politicians.
So long as we look up to, admire and envy those who rip us off most, this condition will not change

As a former union member in a public sector union, this is a summary of what I experienced and saw the union doing wrong:

• The union didn’t include the members in true democratic decision-making – in other words, there’s no such thing as Industrial Democracy, even in the union itself.
• The union only had staff meetings over the 6 months or so leading up to the workplace negotiations and were never sighted for the rest of the 3-year term of the agreement once the agreement was ratified.
• The union tells the members one thing in meetings, then changes its mind in private without clearly informing the members. As the most passionate unionists tend to have a siege complex, they privately and resolutely defend this as being necessary.
• The union officials get a small number of staff reps to do all the substantial, grinding negotiations (to the detriment of their health) on behalf of staff and effectively act only as consultants and recruitment agents. Great work if you can get it.
• The union promises the world, particularly to young and idealistic members, but actually delivers very little. By the time the members work this out, they’ve already given a decade or two of service and payments to the union but have achieved little for themselves. Unions 1, Members 0.

The problem with the union can be summed up in a word: narrowness. Narrow thinking, a narrow gene pool making the decisions and narrow activity. While this strategy works well when they’re on top, when the paradigm changes, their strengths will be turned into weaknesses.

The only true and lasting strength comes from embracing diversity. The sooner the union practises this, the better.

I could be expected to stand and defend the union movement from things said in the last two posts.
I however have to agree both have highlighted true problems in every union.
I am sure even mine, but with respect some officials earn far more the they get.
No over time and 24/7 never not answering the phone, maybe getting out the door and on the way at minutes notice.
I have gone with a past official at 2 am to stop a member hanging himself.
I will always be branded for it but I truly do think only the best should serve in unions to get kicked in the ribs because another union official thought of it in another state as just a job hurts.
Do not write us off unions still have men like my boss who shares my love and passion .
He again and again reminds us we only hold our chairs in the name of those who came before and are duty bound to hand them over in good condition.
Some unions, more than most think, will fall they seem unable to move into this century.
Some officials far too easily forget why we exist.
If I let members down ever, if I do not return every call act on every issue I have no right to call myself union.
It is not change unions should fear but no change.

We need to be careful about productivity.

There are two aspects - making workers work harder and introducing new technology which increases output per worker over standard hours.

The first can be done in a range of ways - employer bullying in the workplace, a layer of managers whose sole task is to screw more out of us, and lengthening the working day are some examples. Australia now has the second longest working hours of any country, with disastrous consequences for life outside work, and sky rocketing OH&S issues.

The second approach - new technology to beat competitors in the drive for more profit is inherent to capitalism. But I fail to see why my wage increase should be dependent on whether the boss invests, and what he or she invests in.

Paradoxically this drive for new technology can lead to falling profit rates over time. If labour is the source of value, investing more and more in machines compared to labour reduces the rate of return on costs (ie profit.) There are countervailing tendencies like lengthening the working day, or productivity increases reducing the cost of necessities to workers, or the destruction (either on paper or by war) of capital, but these impose new strains, pressures and crises elsewhere just to restore profit rates.

Keep going Belly. Paid union officials should receive no more in salary and benefits than their members.

Rob P, I think the concentration of power in the hands of officials, and those officials having a trickle down approach - what's good for the boss is good for the members - is at the heart of the problem.

The coming Australian recession, with unemployment increasing by about 200,000 by the end of next year, will wipe out many unskilled casual jobs.

The union movement is in such a parlous state that although there will be anger among members and non-members, the present leadership will not mobilise them. And to be frank they may not be able to mobilise them becuase 25 years of class collaboration have undermined the confidence of workers to defend wages and jobs.

Part of this comes from the propping up the economy site.

The RBA might today cut by 1 percent. The markets are factoring a one per cent cut in by the end of the year anyway so why not do it now?

None of the rescue actions address the real issue - the stagnant rate of profit.

The ruling class will, driven by their economic crisis, attack workers' wages, conditions and jobs savagely. The solution is to abolish the profit system and the instability and destruction inherent in it and replace it with a democratically planned economy run by workers - socialism.

The first step is for unions to defend wages, conditions and jobs. Given the failure of the union leadership to do this over the last twenty five years, unless the rank and file organise independently of the ACTU and other leaders, then we could all go down with the ship of capitalism.

In Australia the wages share of national income is now at its lowest in over 40 years. Remember, this happened during an unprecedented boom. What is likely to happen to wages now that the Australian economy could go into recession?

As the global capitalist economy free falls into recession even depression, the ideas of Marx are still relevant today.

Workers need urgently to organise and fight to defend their jobs and wages against the class enemy who will now go on the attack. Whether they do so or not is another question.

But looking at history there is hope. The Communist Party of Australia - despite its thorough Stalinism by this stage - built a fightback among militant sections of the working class and unemployed during the Depression and laid the groundwork for their leadership in the trade union movement in the 40s up to the 70s.

Left wing groups like Socialist Alternative are small now (like the CPA were then) but don't have the baggage of Stalinism. They may be able to build in the workplace over time and gather support from the militant minority to help defend wages, conditions and jobs.

I Passy take a different road than you at this point in the debate yet we share many views.
Do you know the 300 militants you spoke about up the thread, for me at least highlights the real change in unions.
Only 300? yes it would be extremely hard to gather more.
At an anti workchoices mass meeting 60 unionists signed a protest because they did not wish to be called comrade.
The electoral power unions have should be used for them no one else.
Yes of the choices with a chance the ALP looks favorite but after Rudd's IR comes down?
Mate I would work for less, but do you know I already do?
My members in construction earn twice my wages.
Yes twice.
Yet at the bottom end members earn so very little it hurts.
Do not judge every one by the lowest standards , saw a mate of mine drive home bar foot, yes he lent his shoes to a real bushy member to wear to a funeral.
Got a very rough bottle of port and his shoes the next visit.
Unions will change some will fall but terminal? never.
From my entry into this thread I have admitted faults in some , and highlighted the real damage done to the whole movement.
This week I must target actions that hurt my members, those actions came from another union, we must stop confronting one another and give more value to workers.

Belly

The 300 was a reference to a small but growing revolutionary socialist group. The number of union militants or wanna be militants is much larger but of course they are in the main isolated and corralled away from action by the paid officials.

I hope your campaign for lawfully mandated conditions is successful.

Andrew Leigh's article in OLO today (wed) - the decline of an institution - has an interesting two graphs at the end. To me they seem to show a correlation between strike activity and membership - the more strikes the more members. Because strike days have been in free fall for the last 25 years, so have membership numbers.

Passy Gday, I understood what you meant by the 300, it shouts at us both that things have changed.
300? in 1950 it may have been 30.000.
My whole point is unions can never convince members to strike other than as last resort.
The law would destroy forever the union involved if they did.
The fight must never be abandoned but we must not re fight yesterdays battles.
Shop floor reality is many will not again join unions, many think we exist only to strike.
And those who do want nothing to do with us.
I only yesterday had allegations that a water cart filling from muddy farm creeks was used to empty out without a second thought and fill drinking tanks with town water.
Once it could never have happened now? the fight continues.

Belly

I think you are correct to say that strikes as a last resort is an argument often used. But over the last 25 years the argument appears to have become strikes are not justified at all. There have been examples of justifiable strikes not supported by the leaders of that union or by other unions.

I think the coming economic crisis further weakens the ability of unions to defend wages, jobs and conditions as it weakens the confidence of workers. Fear is not an organising tool. There will be some powerful sections of the union movement who may be able to use strikes to retain jobs and wages and conditions, but given the disgraceful leadership approach of the last twenty five years, most unions will capitulate I think.

I hope to the heavens I am wrong, and know that the CPA during the 30s did build fighting organisations (eg Unemployed Workers Union, which actually won better suss,) and the CPA itself, and built up some unions and won them to militancy. So the model I have in mind is just that (without the Stalinism) - rebuilding unions through hard slog political and economic work, and gathering together more and more socialists to help in this task, and joining with militants to do just that.

That's one aim of socialist alternative, what Trotsky called the primitive accumulation of cadre. Another aim is to re-ignite the flame of militancy in rank and file members of unions (or some at least). I see these two as symbiotic.

The interesting thing about strikes is that they are a luxury the genuine working poor simply cannot afford.
When you talk about the strikes of 25 years ago, remember people had more 'disposable income' 25 years ago.
In the seventies, I worked construction sites. The hours were long, but the pay was high. On one site in Tasmania, we worked six days a week, including saturdays and sundays. Wednesdays we held a rolling strike for several months (on ordinary time). I can't even remember what we were on strike for.
In the eighties, during a period of high unemployment, I found myself working for a local council. The union was agitating for a 38 hour week (something I had already won as a boilermaker, 5 years before). Most of the labourers on the council were reluctant to even hold a stop work meeting, much less a strike.
Even the loss of just one hour's pay would have blown out their weekly budget.
This is the real 'trickle down' scenario. the high paid workers strike for better conditions, and the low paid workers get the flow on.
Except now, all the high paid workers are on enterprise bargain agreements, and there is no flow on.
the gap between rich and poor keeps getting wider, even within the working class.

On entering one of these threads on unions I pointed out I would not be popular.
And that I am union till death and an activist.
Yes unions have much to do, some more than others.
And past strikes won great gains, in just the fashion grim spoke of.
But the reality's of today are far different, we may well be headed for unemployment in numbers most alive today have never seen.
We however are not now or ever going to see the rebirth of the very left in numbers in this country.
Constantly in trouble for saying this, but the truth is while our members have moved on some unions have not.
Current laws would bankrupt unions who strike out side it.
Such a strike if called on todays construction sites would not bring 10% out the gate.
Two days ago a construction union held a well documented lunch time meeting on a site of 280 workers.
It was to talk about lost conditions 4 attended.
Yesterday I walked around lunch rooms asking for slave laborers, casuals to give me their names to add to a list telling of one shirt being total PPE issue in three months.
It was hard long work, fear filled men did not want to get involved.
Passy while we tread different paths I am sure we both cry for them.
Unions have much work to do but we must not stray far from reality.
My reality is these workers just have to have a win, if I fail they will never respect unions.
And the firm has to have a loss, no other way for those who treat men like that, it will happen.