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.