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.