The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Unionism is not a four letter word...

Unionism is not a four letter word...

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All
Does the mention of 'unionism' really strike fear into voters hearts today? Do people equate unionism with trouble-makers in our society?
Didn't unions strengthen workers' collective bargaining powers, which they used to negotiate improved wages, shorter hours, better workplace conditions, and fringe benefits.

In the silver and zinc mines of Broken Hill, New South Wales, the miners won the world's first thirty-five hour week, half a century ahead of Europe and America. Long before most of the world, Australia had a minimum wage, child benefits,pensions, and the vote for women...

At some point in our working lives - we all belonged to a union. Be it a 'student's union' at uni or a professional association or union associated with our work ... so why the fear?
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 2:56:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, those were the days ...

How I miss the industrial unrest when, as a young mother on the widow's pension with three children under four years of age, I was unable to access public transport because the buses were on strike.

How fondly I remember having to load the whole family into a taxi and have the driver take me to no less than three different ATM locations to access my money - because the first two were closed for servicing.

How I enjoyed paying the massive fare out of my meagre fortnightly allowance. How grateful I was for the trade unions.

How happy I was when my family drowned in rubbish during the garbage strike. All the rich, and even the middle class, simply hopped in their cars and took their waste to the tip. Not so the poor, who were stuck with it. The kids looked so sweet cavorting among the refuse spilling out over the yard, and not a single one was lost to cholera or dysentery.

Oh, how we would laugh when friends had their honeymoons ruined due to air strikes!

And how charming to watch the evening television footage of big, bogan thugs intimidating and bullying those who dared to disagree with them and actually wanted to work. "Put in the boot," we would yell, "Put in the boot!"

What a wonderful industrial relations system it was. Even I joined the student union when I began my tertiary studies. How empowered I felt to discover that choice was simply not an option. How I appreciated them donating money to the political party of their choice on my behalf.

Fortunately, it appears that the good old days are just around the corner again. Peace and prosperity are obviously just so boring. There's nothing like a bit of conflict to make for interesting times.
Posted by 61, Thursday, 25 October 2007 1:17:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
61 how good of you to expose your lack of understanding, much of todays living standards we owe to those who won them union members.
We can focus on bad things or even bad unions both exist, or we can truly contemplate life without unions.
About 22% in total of us are in unions, yet believe me most pay rates are set with unions in mind.
Even those who are radical anti union often pay one dollar over award in AWAs just to keep unions at bay.
Increasingly and wisely unions are refusing to fix it, for non unionists in trouble.
For far too long union officials have let the idea of fair go mate , get non members out of trouble.
You can not expect that to continue smash your car then insure it? no longer going to happen.
This may not increase membership but daily is reminding some why unions are just workplace insurance.
I a proud union official drove for 7 hours yesterday to spend 1 hour over lunch with members .
No warfare no heat no hate just issues resolved every one of them and hand shakes all round.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 25 October 2007 6:19:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
unions are parasites, they only exist to steal employers wealth. employers are bandits, greedy, selfish, and cruel.

we better find a different way, as this unending war between capital and labor is extremely inefficient, as well as socially disruptive.

there are other models of economic society, that have potential for rewarding energy and ambition while allowing all to make a decent living. we won't break out of this dysfunctional model until we stop accepting the status quo as 'good enough'.
Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 25 October 2007 7:22:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's the alternative to a union?. Faith in my employer to watch out for me?. Faith in the government to help me if I wake up without a job?.

I'm not a massive unionist, but I also don't have any faith in my employer to do right by me if it comes to the crunch.
Posted by StG, Thursday, 25 October 2007 8:00:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Workers Compensation, OH & S, employer sponsored superannuation, paid annual leave, maternity leave, Medicare, the award system and pay rises through collective bargaining.

These are just some of the things lobbied and fought for by the Union movement that we all take for granted today.

How many of these were just spontaneously handed out by philanthropic employers and governments? None?

Most of these are now either under threat or being compromised for the sake of ideology and once they’re gone, they won’t be coming back.

Who else would have fought James Hardie on behalf of the victims of asbestos-related diseases?
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 25 October 2007 8:49:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Wobbles. Have you ever met a non-unionist who refused to put their hand out to accept the benefits won by unions? Neither have I.

When I meet people who have been sacked unfairly or been given a really hard time by an unscrupulous employer, my heart sinks when they answer "No" to my first question, "Are you a member of the union?" It's like a family whose house has been burnt down weeping when they realise that they neglected to take out insurance. Tragic.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 25 October 2007 11:25:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I'm not a massive unionist, but I also don't have any faith in my employer to do right by me if it comes to the crunch.”

Likewise StG.

Most posters are polarised for or against unions, but the truth is that there are advantages and disadvantages and that a balance somewhere in the middle ground would provide the best overall outcome.

“How many of these were just spontaneously handed out by philanthropic employers and governments? None?”

Agreed wobbles.

But there are downsides to the things that you mention, such as enormous pressure sometimes being exerted on employers, threats to viability or reasonable profit margins, work efficiency, etc, etc.

Don't condemn unions, but don’t worship them either.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 25 October 2007 1:36:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One day we may be able to debate unions with understanding and truth, to know not all unions carry the brand of extremism.
That the industrial relations world DEMOS see,s does not exist.
Yes once most unions had roots in Communism or Socialism, the only Way in the years 1900, to at least 1950 to get results from employers who almost thought they owned workers.
Who won the 40 hour week? who took the need for 4 hours work on Saturday away?
Now is it not clear the 38, and 36 hour week came via unions?
Our lifestyle changes have been good for this country.
Workplace warfare? it is not true! unless and until no other way exists to be heard.
Would DEMOS know some small country town workers will get a warning in the last pay week before the election?
Vote Labor and do not come to work on Monday!
Can it be any here do not understand the actions of bad unions are just that, dreadful!
But surely you know the actions of bad bosses are just as likely and just as bad?
Why ignore the bosses unions?
The power behind workchoices.
How can we judge unions as always wrong and the other side as always right?
Come DEMOS with me to reality, see the resolution of disputes based on just fair minded discussion, hardly your view of IR.
The lie Howard and Costello sell on this subject is known by them to be a lie.
Yes like me they know it is just not true.
Even the thugs and mugs union ,[my true lifetime view of them] has no power to turn Rudd.
And for that I am grateful.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 26 October 2007 6:47:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Take a look at what the nurses have achieved in Victoria. They've improved staffing conditions in hospitals and now their salaries are comparable with nurses in other states. Could they have achieved all that without a union?
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 26 October 2007 2:43:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If only I could take the most anti union posters to work with me, yes then they could go with some Ferrel's in the movement but a balance and understanding would result.
Just one workplace warfare story.
A very big job using cheapest contractors.
One key contractor is not giving meal breaks, gear is unsafe trucks have bald tyers.
Lack of personal protective clothing, even sun screen for out door workers.
Unions have the power even now to stop that job, take away the key contractor that stops the job.
It did not happen.
Prime contractor was informed of issues and told without action we stop it on Monday.
They agreed.
Contractor agreed to use three day shut down to fix every issue.
Would union haters want unsafe practices to kill?
Or is there merit in closing a job down if it can be fixed without danger in closed down times on weekends?
Fair go blokes most unions are just workplace insurance.
The difference is some very small minority's would wait till Monday and stop the job just to prove they can do it.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 26 October 2007 3:15:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Belly,

If unions would have been around in my dad's day - he might have had it a bit easier, and be still alive today. Dad worked in a rubber tyre factory, double shifts, and died of a massive coronary at the age of 52. I remember the conditions he had to work under - it was a nightmare...today things would have been different - that much I know!
Sure, unions aren't perfect - but what is? But as you wrote - it's the only insurance we have.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 26 October 2007 6:16:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks foxy but they have been around a very long time in your dads time too.
My dad ,father of 16 kids died of hard work and a hard life at 54 years of age ,he was a union delegate.
He was no radical but was spat on and miss treated yet known to be one of the best workers on the job.
So many put the boot in yet have no understanding the life we have unionist or not is often a product of union actions.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 27 October 2007 6:12:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In any discussion on trade unions there needs to be a clear distinction made between militant unions and their officials, the difficult/diagraceful working conditions in the past that were the catalyst for the creation of the trade union movement, the working conditions that exist today, and simply being a member of a trade union in today's economy.

To talk of the evil of trade unions as a whole is to turn a blind eye to the history of working conditions. Start to think about what we were taught at school if you will, about the industrial revolution and the working conditions and the acceptable minimum working age. The immorality of many employers of that time were why unions were formed. It was a working persons' revolution and simply had to happen.

While things today are radically better, they are not perfect and there is still the need for a lobby group for workers who are not getting a fair deal. Now that is not saying that all employers are bastards or that all unions are out to screw all employers. Neither of those scenarios is accurate.

However, if it is fear of militant unionism you want to discuss then think about that idiot that was kicked out of the Labor Party yesterday, Joe Macdonald I think his name was. Militant unionism is still alive and kicking.

Everthing in moderation. We still need unions but we do not need standover merchants or those who try to hold the community to ransom inorder to achieve their aims. And we do not need 70% of the front bench of our federal govt occupied by former trade union officials. But that's just my opinion of course, but I'm sure others just might agree with that opinion.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 27 October 2007 5:07:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Will all 70% fit on the front bench? There are not that many positions to be occupied - it's merely a political ploy ("red under the bed") continuously used by the Liberal party since the Menzies era. Today, they have nothing else to argue so they go back into the past hoping voters are gullible enough to believe them.

Kevin Rudd has not finalized the membership of the "front bench,
and he's made it quite clear that he will pick the best qualified people for the positions required not according to whether they're a member of a union or not!
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 27 October 2007 5:37:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Red under the bed, no, nothing remotely resembling that. Both parties play the fear card, not just the Libs, we both know that I suspect. A trade union dominated Labor front bench is undesirable with the concern that labor is a mouthpiece for militant trade unionism. I doubt that it is that seious and I'm not naive or gullible so do not need the Libs to tell me what to think. I make up my own mind.

I would object to the Libs, for example, having an over representation of Catholics or fundamentalist Christians on their front bench. Neither Labor's unions nor the Liberals religious influence is what I find to be ideal. A dominating percentage of self seeking individuals from any extemist group does not make for good democracy.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 27 October 2007 5:51:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A front bench made up of some former union members might be the answer you're looking for Ditch. Because these people worked on behalf of, and represented, a very wide cross-section of our society.
For example, nurses, firemen, police officers, builders, electricians, teachers, ambulance workers, and so on.

Unlike the Liberal Party's front bench which consists predominantly of lawyers and corporate executives.

Anyway, because you live under a democratic system of government, the choice is yours... but if its diversity you're looking for in you politicians - Labour may just have the representation you seek ...
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 27 October 2007 6:12:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I think Labor has to find the strength to deal with the arseholes like Macdonald. And I acknowledge that they have in this particular case. It is the extremists like him that are Labor's biggest problem. Most of us have a lot to thank the union movement for historically but times have changed and the union movement needs to change also. The worst case scenario is a roll back of ALL the labour changes that the current govt put in place to a situation where business has to cowtow(?) to the unions and their radical wage demands.

Like it or lump it, every healthy economy needs a strong business sector. It is not an evil and that is the fear card that Labor tends to play. The economy is strong, partly because of good management and a lot to do with the strong global economy. We most definitely do not need a union dominated labor govt making changes simply becaue of union ideology at the expense of the business sector. There's a lot to be said for the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" line. Sure, correct the cases where workers are being taken advantage of under the workplace reforms the Libs made, but don't give the unions a free run at things.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 27 October 2007 6:36:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch you do have an understanding of the issue, a pleasant surprise in a world intent on not seeing the differences.
After the election, if it costs me my job, I want to further talk about this issue.
It is my honestly held view extremists [and his hatred of all unions]
Bought workchoices into the mind of John Howard.
Extremists are in fact the enemy of working Australians , and non extreme unions.
The better unions should take note of that and openly untie the rope that puts them alongside such unions tied to a big rock and heading for the bottom of some sea.
Unions that do so place themselves and their members at a advantage
workplaces do not need vandals but open honest negotiation to resolve issues.
Please do not devalue some of those ex union people, such as but not only Bill Shorten review his CV on the AWU web site he is as good as any government minister.
Unions can not and will NEVER control Rudd's government.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 29 October 2007 6:36:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fact is that there is no real need for Unions today.

Unionism is a form of protectionism. Normal market forces that allow employer and employee to come to an agreement on their value to each other, are perverted. In much the same way as we believed for a long while that industrial protectionism was good for our economy and our workers, the protection of workers through unionism was a "given".

The reality is that the removal of protectionist policies in the global marketplace has been extremely beneficial to all, especially, don't forget, to the less prosperous economies. The same would be true for our workforce, if the market price was allowed to find its own level.

I have no quibble with the fact that unions have been important in the past, as a balance agent to feral and exploitative capitalism, but I have to question their value or contribution in today's working environment. The days when a corporation could hold its workers to ransom over pay and conditions are well and truly over, and it should follow that the unions are in the same position.

There are so many more rules and regulations covering what an employer can and cannot do with his workforce, that the utility of unions has to be questioned. If it is a matter of Health and Safety, we have vast reams of regulations to follow. If it is about hiring and firing, that also has never been more regulated than it is today. And there are fewer and fewer stories of corners being cut.

So maybe they have fulfilled their mission, and should be quietly put down. However, I recognize that is never easy to let go of the past, as there are a fair few who earn their livelihood through these arcane practices, both in the HR departments of the corporates, and in the ranks of union officials. Given some common sense and a few more years, though, we should all be able to see the light.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 29 October 2007 10:59:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles.... Did I hear you right when you say the days of employers holding workers to ranson over pay and conditions are well and truly over! Try telling nurses that.

At this very time, my privately run aged care employer is trying impose conditions that include stripping qualified workers of their professional titles and lumping us into their tidy little groups. It adds to the multitude of ambiguous clauses already offered. This very day, I am due to go into my place of employment with a resounding 'NO' on my ballot sheet.

As a qualified and hard working nurse I am sick of being insulted. Nurses need their union more than ever and yes, for protection but also and more so to help us negotiate FAIRER conditions.

So there IS a need for unions like ours. Mine is QNU. Faith in employers to the right thing just aint gonna happen mate. My employer admitted it is no longer a not for profit organisation to my face at my interview (ie wants to make money).

Employers want the bucks and I maintain that if you're not in a union, especially as a nurse the 'United we stand. Divided we fall' prevails. All power to the Victorian nurses.

Collective bargaining is the way to get pay rises and ever get ahead, if there is such thing as the latter. Sigh. Silence and non movement only condones the employers behaviour and wishes. We have to stand up and talk amongst ourselves. We deserve better.

Join your union and have a say. Your Rights At Work.
Posted by Cakers, Monday, 29 October 2007 12:01:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles lives in a parallel virtual universe: "The fact is that there is no real need for Unions today." And this gem of social analysis: "The days when a corporation could hold its workers to ransom over pay and conditions are well and truly over..."

Go tell that to the Victorian nurses, police and teachers. Go tell it to the workers at Spotlight, at Darrell Lea, at Cowra meatworks, at Boeing, etc, etc, etc.

Go tell it to the cheap workers imported under Visa 457 arrangments.

Who was it but unions who forced John Howard to soften the the worst features of WorkChoices and then instruct his prefects that the very word WorkChoices was so 'on the nose' that they and he would stop using that term? (A rose by any other name?)

He forgot to get the message across to Nick Minchin (Finance Minister) before Minchin let the cat out of the bag about plans to introduce even more draconian IR changes to screw the workers. Yes, that's the same Minchin who admitted that most workers were 'violently opposed' to what the Government had done in IR (The Age 3/8/2006).

Howard tried to keep secret the massively harmful effects of WorkChoices but someone with a conscience - or a score to settle - leaked the Office of Employment Advocate's report that confirmed that 45% of AWAs had stripped away all of the award conditions that Howard had guaranteed were 'proected by law' under WorkChoices (Sydney Morning Herald 22/5/2007).

No need for unions, eh Perciles? Go go that to the marines.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 29 October 2007 12:06:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, so which is it...unions are unnecessary because "normal market forces..allow employer and employee to come to an agreement", or because there are "so many more rules and regulations covering what an employer can and cannot do with his workforce"?
I thought "rules and regulations" prevented "normal market forces" from working properly. You can't have it both ways.

And even if normal market forces were adequate to do the job of unions in times of low unemployment, can you honestly claim they would be if a significant economic slowdown sent the unemployment rate back up again?

In one sense you are correct - the rules and regulations we have today are there *precisely* because of the actions of unions in the past, and to a large extent they are slowly becoming victims of their own success. But the most successful economies in the world still have 20-30% unionisation of their workforces, so they're a long way from dead.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 29 October 2007 12:38:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, I'll admit there is a serious flaw in my argument.

Where the "employer" is also the government, all bets are off. They are quite simply incompetent to run anything, so my apologies to nurses, police, teachers.

But wizofaus, that's weak.

>>I thought "rules and regulations" prevented "normal market forces" from working properly. You can't have it both ways.<<

Not so. Rules and regulations are simply a standard part of doing business, and are taken into account when you set up shop. That is why I mentioned them in the vein of how well the unions have done in the past, turning unbalanced business practices into workers' rights.

But to specifics.

>>Go tell it to the workers at Spotlight, at Darrell Lea, at Cowra meatworks, at Boeing, etc, etc, etc.<<

Spotlight, FrankGol? You know as well as I do that Spotlight adhered to the absolute letter of Howard's Workplace Legislation. Only to be scuppered by the same Prime Minister's "fairness test" backflip, which was simply a tacked-on attempt to put lipstick on the pig. I have no more sympathy for Howard's IR policies than you do, and the re-unionisation of the agreements has been notable for its brokering by a "pragmatic person willing to consider commercial interests".

http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/spotlight

No-one is suggesting that forcing workers to sign agreements, as in the case of Darrell Lea, is equitable use of market forces. It was the Government Ombudsman, I believe, who sorted out that bit of unpleasantness.

Cowra Meatworks closed down, following the union's "stand" against the sacking of 29 people, and the attempted re-hiring of 20. Big victory.

As for Boeing, the vast majority were unaffected by the long-running union dispute - which I presume you are referring to - that involved only a handful of employees. One thing is certain, Boeing in Seattle will search far and wide before giving any more work to Williamstown. Another big victory.

I am not, I repeat, a defender of Howard's IR policies, which are as divisive and anti-business as they appear to be anti-worker. But unions themselves are, I'm afraid, past their use-by date.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 29 October 2007 1:43:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

On your argument, unions are necessasry where employers are incompetent (as you assert it, that is all governments). By the way, does that include the Howard Government which just might have been incompetent when devising WorkChoices?

So, are you asserting that all governments are hopeless employers and all private enterprises are competent? I would have thought that you were conceding that Darrell Lea and Spotless at least were examples of incompetent management. In the case of both Darrell Lea and Spotless you are simplistic in describing the resolution. In both cases the union movement orchestrated effective employee and consumer campaigns that put so much pressure on their bottom lines that they went back to square one for commercial reasons. AWAs gave them short-term gain but longer-term pain.

You can keep on chanting the mantra, "unions are past their use-by date", but while their are reactionary governments like Howard's around encouraging short-sighted employers to cut workers' conditions, your sloganeering will bear no relationship to industrial relations in the real world.

My son who is a manager of a large industrial enterprise agrees with you that Howard's IR policies are "as divisive and anti-business as they appear to be anti-worker". I think you both exaggerate about the anti-business angle - don't confuse the unintended outcomes of WorkChoices with the Government's spiteful ideological intent.

But in terms of practical business management, my son says it is quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective to deal with the union delegates once a year than to go through the nonsense of negotiating hundreds of varying contracts and to repeat it every time his company hires another employee.

What's more, he argues that his workers are more more productive and more willing to compromise and cooperate when they are working to collegiate rules than when it's dog-eat-dog who-can-get-the-best-contract under WorkChoices.

Food for thought when the boss is praising the unions?
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 29 October 2007 2:50:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, you say: "Rules and regulations are simply a standard part of doing business" - well, yes, they are *today*, despite the never-ending protestations of economic libertarians and various vested interests. But they don't evolve naturally out of free market forces, rather they specifically work to allow the market to function in a manner that is beneficial to as many as the participants as possible. Further, so long as those rules and regulations are subject to the will of the government of the day, there will be a need for unions to ensure that misguided policies like WorkChoices don't become the norm.

Anyway, what you think about the place unions should or shouldn't have is really rather irrelevant - it's the workers that they represent who get to decide that.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 29 October 2007 3:19:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles I think your pool of knowledge on the issue is in a tea cup, lets forget unions.
Look closer at some bosses, soon I confront one who has refused to place new tyers on trucks with bald ones.
Who will not issue sunscreen to out door workers.
Who will not alow lunch breaks in 12 hour shifts.
Who sends men home, half way from depot to job, via phone! without pay!
Who has one IR policy for his casual workers, if they give me trouble I will not give them any more work.
My union, without blood will restore every right before I return to this forum, have no doubts fairness and honesty is not a thing this grubby boss understands, yet.
He will , no threat just this a well respected union will see it fixed or the major contractor will.
Consider such a boss, they exist in numbers right now how many times would that number grow without unions?
Posted by Belly, Monday, 29 October 2007 4:13:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, you've set the cat amongst the pigeons. Unions are at least an advance on the old master and servant days and have done us all some good. But to hold on to the old ways in an ever changing business scene is nuts. Unions still work reasonably well in govt. and large company areas, but in small business they can be poison.

Relativity's and flow-ons across trades or skills without reference to locality, product and markets is just plain stupid. Imagine if pay and conditions in a boom industry in a boom state were applied nation wide eg a machinist in a WA mine v. a machinist in a Geelong car plant.

Not even the most ardent union droogie can deny that unions pre '83 were also responsible for holding back our standard of living in some instances.eg the waterfront.

The pro union mantra that doesn't recognize both sides of the story is just cant and dogma. The harm the BLF, then the BWIU did to themselves here in NSW is remarkable. Bribery, corruption, intimidation and bloody minded actions lead to their unpopularity.

In the words of Paul Keating 'the unions are just not much good at what they do these days', 'they've gone to seed', " It's dying on the vine.it's dying out of lack of passion.Its reason for existence,and general incompetence.'
Posted by palimpsest, Monday, 29 October 2007 6:47:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to clarify though, Keating was criticising the unions for not doing their job well...not for being irrelevant. He's been far more vocal in critising the government for their attack on unions, pointing out that inflation has remained at ~2.5% for the last 16 years, which is hardly compatible with the idea that unions make irresponsible wage increase demands.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 7:28:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go again. I don't mind defending things that I say, but I obviously can't defend things that I didn't say. FrankGol, for example.

>>So, are you asserting that all governments are hopeless employers and all private enterprises are competent?<<

No, I'm not. OK?

And, to be honest, I think your son's approach is lazy in the extreme.

>>my son says it is quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective to deal with the union delegates once a year than to go through the nonsense of negotiating hundreds of varying contracts<<

It is a cop-out to delegate responsibility for the welfare of your staff to the unions. It is up to management to ensure that the right people are doing the right jobs, safely and competently, and that they are appropriately rewarded for doing so.

By treating employees like a herd of cattle, where one-size-fits-all, you actually diminish the accomplishments of the talented, and reward the laziness of the indigent. Every individual's terms and conditions should reflect their capabilities and their aspirations.

If management isn't doing this job, fire the management. Don't delegate it to the unions.

There is good management in the public service, just as there is bad management in the private sector. But the impediments to good management in the government sector are enormous.

Because it is impossible to be fired for incompetence, public sector management spends more of its time making work for itself in the form or reports, committees and conferences than looking after real people. Because there is no measurement of their efficiency or that of their staff, the scope for appalling decisions is enormous.

Because their importance is measured on the number of people that report to them, vast amounts of time are spent "justifying" the need to expand. As a result, the ratio of frontline staff - nurses, teachers, police - to back-office administration continues to decline.

In the private sector there is an absolute measure available at all times. It's called "staying in business". Unfortunately, this rarely crosses the minds of either government departments or union officials.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 8:18:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, the idea that unions aren't concerned about businesses staying afloat sounds a lot like Coalition propaganda to me. A union that lets the corporations who employ its workers go out of business is a union that thoroughly deserves to die, as it has failed in its number-one objective.

And, BTW, public servants can and *do* get dismissed if they are incompetent.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 8:33:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus says:

>>[Rules and regulations] don't evolve naturally out of free market forces, rather they specifically work to allow the market to function in a manner that is beneficial to as many as the participants as possible<<

This seems to be a classic description of "free market forces", don't you think?

I am not defending lousy management either, Belly. What I will say is that businesses that exploit their workers as you describe should not be in business. However, we disagree in that I believe that the number of such "bosses" is declining, where you believe that without unions, they would proliferate. We shall have to agree to differ on this point.

palimpsest puts it well.

>>[Unions] in small business... can be poison. Relativity's and flow-ons across trades or skills without reference to locality, product and markets is just plain stupid.<<

The days where we can make sweeping generalizations about workers and bosses are long gone.

In the same way that we have travelled a long way since "the old master and servant days " (thanks again palimpsest), and while freely acknowledging that unionism has played a significant part in breaking some of the major imbalances of that era, modern business can continue to move forward without forcing alliances that are not needed.

The problem with AWAs is not their principle, but their practice. In principle, everyone should want, and respect the need for, an individual relationship with the organization that employs them. In practice, there should be no need for these to be specifically codified by governments. Governments, after all, have only a fleeting understanding of what businesses do anyway, so are the worst possible people to set the rules of engagement.

Given that we have a separate set of i) health and safety regulations that are appropriate and enforceable and ii) wage rules that eliminate exploitation, there should be no need for separate legislation at the AWA level.

The government's approach to all this is counterproductive too. By insisting on the "us vs. them" fantasy with unions, they continue to legitimise an outdated and wasteful concept.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 8:46:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, very much depends on who you talk to. Generally, the extreme pro-free-market types (Friedman/Hayek et al) have been against any rule or regulation that isn't strictly necessary to ensure private property and the value of money are protected (i.e., laws forbidding trespassing, theft and counterfeiting). Just the other day the IPA's Chris Berg was moaning in The Age about how man rules and regulations beset corporations these days. Well...he's right...but corporations only have themselves to blame. Time and time again they've shown themselves to be lousy at self-regulation.

A free market should in principle be able to function just fine without rules and regulation on minimum wages and maximum hours worked etc. But that's exactly what we had in the 19th and early 20th century, and all it meant was that manufacturers so thoroughly exploited and underpaid their workers, that workers had neither the time nor money to create a decent sized market for their products. Sure there were a few enlightened employers like Henry Ford that saw the stupidity of this, but the majority fell into the trap of assuming that what seemed to be an easy way for them to lower costs and increase output was actually a strategy that made sense, when it clearly wasn't, given everyone else was trying to do the same thing.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 1:02:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles laments: "I don't mind defending things that I say, but I obviously can't defend things that I didn't say."

FrankGol says: "But in terms of practical business management, my son says it is quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective to deal with the union delegates once a year than to go through the nonsense of negotiating hundreds of varying contracts and to repeat it every time his company hires another employee."

To which Pericles replies: "It is a cop-out to delegate responsibility for the welfare of your staff to the unions. It is up to management to ensure that the right people are doing the right jobs, safely and competently, and that they are appropriately rewarded for doing so."

To which FrankGol replies: "I don't mind defending things that I say, but I obviously can't defend things that I didn't say." Thanks for the quote Pericles. How do you get from my "deal with the union delegates" to your "delegate responsibility for the welfare of your staff to the unions"?

For that matter, how do you get from my son saying "it is quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective to deal with the union delegates" to his being "lazy in the extreme"? Did you notice the four adjectives in his description? In his business, quicker, cheaper, more efficient and effective are great for the bottom line.

How do you get from my son claiming that "his workers are more more productive and more willing to compromise and cooperate when they are working to collegiate rules than when it's dog-eat-dog who-can-get-the-best-contract under WorkChoices" to "treating employees like a herd of cattle"? His MBA long taught him that treating people like a 'herd of cattle' (a la WorkChoices) is death to productivity.

Finally, you give me something I can agree with: "In the private sector there is an absolute measure available at all times. It's called 'staying in business'." Maybe that's why his company has made yet another record profit last year and promoted him to general manager of the whole enterprise. So much for a 'lazy' manager.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 2:45:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol says "treating people like a herd of cattle(a la workchoices)". Frank my experience as an employer, as a manager and as a worker has been that it is the unions that treat people as cattle, not employers. The old saying, 'there's plenty of room at the top" remains true, and employers everywhere are looking for employees who will take the extra step and the responsibility; and are only too keen to reward such efforts. My union experiences however, have been the opposite. Purloined into others (class) wars, forced to be mis-'represented' as part of a group by intimidation; I want nothing more to do with these bogus, petty bourgouise creeps.

Howards WC only accelerates something that started 25 years ago with financial deregulation and the opening up of our economy, coupled with workers comp and Super imposts on business. Rudds proposed changes undo some of Keatings work and attempt to appeal to the anxiety of workers, real or imagined.
Posted by palimpsest, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 3:46:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
palimpsest

Your "experience as an employer, as a manager and as a worker has been that it is the unions that treat people as cattle, not employers". What's more, you say, "Purloined into others (class) wars, forced to be mis-'represented' as part of a group by intimidation; I want nothing more to do with these bogus, petty bourgouise creeps."

All of that may well be true, for you. But where does the argument go when someone uses their experience to show the diametrically opposite case to be true for them?

Rather than making grand claims about unions - or employers - why not treat each case on its merits? Why not suspend judgment until the evidence is in? The old stereotype of the union (as caricatured in the Coalition ads, for example) has long since gone - except in some people's bitter memories. Your leading trade unionist these days is more likely to wear a suit and have a law degree than to have come off a building site.

You are almost certainly able to argue on the evidence that "Howards WC only accelerates something that started 25 years ago with financial deregulation and the opening up of our economy, coupled with workers comp and Super imposts on business".

But you would be acknowledging that it was the former head of the trade union movement - Prime Minister Hawke and his Treasurer Keating - who saw the need for those radical changes and convinced their union colleagues of the wisdom of the changes.

I'd be interested to know what specifically you would point to when you say, "Rudds proposed changes undo some of Keatings work".
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 5:03:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wish I could bag some of this! my garden loves such stuff, unions are not all the same confrontation not the only tool.
Small business men and women have invited me to come into non union shops and fix problems even write agreements in the middle of rampart workchoices.
Yesterdays post? problem solved all of them.
Well a new one popped its head up!
Casual worker 3 months on the job , fell ill at work, doubled up in very real pain ,his car at the depot 2 hours travel away.
His workmates feared he was dieing!
EVERY WORD IS TRUE
Boss under pressure said you can hang on for another hour!
Your replacement is half way here, take her Ute home.
Worker was truly ill, feared he would die.
Hitch hiked 15 klm to nearest town and a doctor, sent for his wife to drive him home after he left hospital 7 hours later.
he was sacked!
Who fixes that without a union?
A boss will be removed from his job soon.
How can adults think only unions are bad?
That no bosses act like this?
or that unions are always anti business?
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 5:45:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol, happy to acknowledge the work of Hawke and Keating- the best Liberal leadership of the last 30 years?

Your point, "why not treat each case on its merits?"is my point too. Attempts to reassert the universal primacy of Union involvement in enterprise bargaining, and the probability of pattern bargaining as a consequence, is something that will lead to each case not being considered on its own merits. This is one place that will undo some of the Keating revolution.

The old stereotype of the union still exists,not just with McDonald and his ilk, but out in the workforce. There is a group on my current site who are just itching for a Rudd govt. who see that as a green light to 'bung it on'. They will happily cost the other 250 money.

I've criticised Rudd's wishy-washy plan to implement his Fair Work policies. Just wish he had the front to take Keatings advice to legislate minimum wages and conditions and let us get on with it. Instead, he will slip in his policy over 5 years; ensuring that the changes will create maximum disturbance. We'll all be voting on the exact same proposals in 3 years time.

The great change in the last 20 years at work has been, the accent on getting the job done. not on finding ways to slow things down. Morale is better, and things much more enjoyable. A reinvigorated union movement will spoil this
Posted by palimpsest, Tuesday, 30 October 2007 6:58:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, FrankGol, have I upset you?

Here, have a hanky.

>>How do you get from my "deal with the union delegates" to your "delegate responsibility for the welfare of your staff to the unions"?<<

Easy, really. Any manager who chooses to treat his employees as a bunch of cattle, to be treated the same regardless of their differences, is trading away his responsibility to manage his staff.

>>For that matter, how do you get from my son saying "it is quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective to deal with the union delegates" to his being "lazy in the extreme"?<<

Even easier. Ask yourself "quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective" for whom?

Clearly, for the person who cares so little about his staff that he chooses to negotiate their pay and conditions with a single stranger, rather than take the time and attention to look after them as individuals.

>>His MBA long taught him that treating people like a 'herd of cattle' (a la WorkChoices) is death to productivity.<<

Red herring. The discussion here is not between Workchoices, which is hardly distinguishable from a union agreement, and the unions themselves. It is between managing your staff properly and delegating decisions on their working conditions to a third party.

By the way, most MBA courses agree with me.

>>Maybe that's why his company has made yet another record profit last year and promoted him to general manager of the whole enterprise<<

As evidence on its own, that could describe someone who has sold out his own workers to less-than-ideal working conditions, in exchange for higher profits and a cushier job for himself. Sounds suspiciously like those workers are being exploited, doesn't it?

But of course, I'm sure that's not the case with your son. It was just his ability to get a good deal for his people from the unions, without the trouble of actually talking to all those pesky employees, wasn't it?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 3:23:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

You've upset me? Nah! If your logic and evidence were better, I might be upset. But you're lightweight.

Creating meanings that simply aren't there is so pointless. And repeating mantras that have long been refuted is a waste of everybody's time. You're so thin, you're transparent.

For example: "Clearly, for the person who cares so little about his staff that he chooses to negotiate their pay and conditions with a single stranger, rather than take the time and attention to look after them as individuals." My manager son has never negotiated with a stranger. He knows the union people very well indeed and has worked cooperatively with them for years.

Nor does he treat people "like cattle". Nor does he delegate to unions his managment role. These are your fictions which you can masticate on for as long as you like but they aren't true and won't be true in the morning when you wake up.

Now let me get this straight: my son lets the unions do his work for him, the company rewards him because he "sold out his own workers to less-than-ideal working conditions, in exchange for higher profits and a cushier job for himself." How does that work? Every boss should hire a union to do their dirty work - the workers would fall for that wouldn't they?

I love your nine-out-of-ten-dentists-recommend survey technique, Pericles. "By the way, most MBA courses agree with me." I know, I know, the dog ate your testimonials.

Do you you know the difference between an MBA and a Creative Writing course, old son?
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 3:51:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Methinks he doth protest too much.

The example of your son - I think I may have met him once, tall guy, halo, walks on water? - is hardly the most convincing evidence for unionism, FrankGol. The point that we are supposed to be discussing is the benefits of unionism in the modern working world, not whether your son's MBA is bigger than my Grade 1 swimming certificate.

Any manager (except your son, of course) who considers his staff of so little value that he prefers to negotiate with a third party, rather than with the worker directly, doesn't understand the role of management.

Any business (except your son's of course, complete with corporate halo) that treats its workers so badly that they choose to appoint a third party to negotiate on their behalf, deserves to fail.

Unions have done a great job in the past, when industrialism was at its peak and where not to work meant starvation. All these battles have been won.

In fact, you might have noticed some of the more contemporary concerns focus on the fact that welfare for the unemployed is so good, it might actually act as a deterrent to seek work. There are no longer throngs of desperate out-of-workers lining up at the soup kitchens.

In these conditions, what do unions bring to the table, except more bureaucracy and pointless make-work activities? They have been very useful in the past, but their time is up.

Except of course when they can be instrumental in getting promotions for compliant managers.

Have a great day.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 1 November 2007 8:39:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
ROFL – agree with the matter – but especially love the art –more please…
Posted by Horus, Friday, 2 November 2007 4:10:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

When you sort out the chaff from the wheat in everything you've said, this what it amounts to:

1. My son's firm is really happy with him as manager: productivity is up and the shareholders are delighted with their improved dividends.
2. My son is happy because he is running a big enterprise very successfully and he gets great job satisfaction.
3. The workers are happy because they are taking home a fair pay for a fair day's work and know where they stand with their employment conditions.
4. The union is happy because they are doing a good job negotiating excellent terms on behalf of their members.
5. The Government is very happy because the company pays its taxes on time and their export earnings are among the best in the nation.

6. Pericles is not happy because he knows better than all the above and can't get his mind around the fact that the interested parties are cooperating to produce a good all-round outcome. Oh, and the union (wash your mouth out!) is playing a part.

Ah, well! You can't keep everyone happy.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 2 November 2007 7:00:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have good unions and bad unions we also have good bosses and bad bosses.
You must be careful in talking about the differences in unions or you will be censored but the truth remains in place.
Workchoices was a mistake that hurt workers as much as it hurts Howard now.
Unions will continue to exist and the good ones grow, my enmity to those who are not good unions, who hurt workers by actions that are indeed thuggish remain.
But are matched by actions of bad bosses every day.
Down on the ground ,the workshop floor the debate is real the results are too, who else but unions cares if the boss insults his workers hourly?
why is it wrong to demand it stop?
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 3 November 2007 5:40:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the contrary, FrankGol, I am blissfully happy that all is so beautiful in your son's garden. It must be those sandals.

However, I reserve the right to disbelieve you on a couple of points, one of which is that the unions are a necessary part of this model company.

All of the points you make - except of course the happiness attributed to the unions - are part and parcel of any well-run business. What you haven't been able to explain is what it is that the unions provide, that management cannot.

What is the missing element that they provide, that a modern, aware and above all competent, management cannot?

What is it that they bring to the table that shouldn't, in a proper business, be there already?

I'm asking what, exactly, is the fairy dust?

It shouldn't be knowledge and understanding of the business, its competitors or its regulatory environment; management should know that.

It shouldn't be knowledge and understanding of the needs and concerns of the employees; management should know that.

Given that we are no longer in the dark ages in terms of industrial development, what, exactly, is the value to the business of separating the workers from the management by communicating only through the union's mouthpiece?

Who benefits?

Apart from those happy union officials, of course.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 3 November 2007 9:23:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

I’m glad I’ve made you happy – except you complain that I haven’t told you what unions do that management don’t.

The obvious answer is that unions' prime role is to protect and further the interests of their members. That is, they do exactly what the Australian Bankers’ Association do, or the Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry, or the Australian Industry Group, or the Business Council of Australia or the National Farmers Federation.

Although unions come in all shapes and sizes ranging from the AMA, the Bar Council, the CFMEU, the AEU, the Nurses Federation, the Police Association, the AWU and the SDA, they all do the same sort of things.

Unions:

1. negotiate better wages and work conditions than employers might care to offer;
2. ensure that workplaces are safe and healthy and raise awareness about these issues among both workers and employers;
3. protect against unfair treatment including unfair dismissal;
4. act as advocates in matters such as redundancy pay, compensation and superannuation rights when enterprises go belly up;
5. provide expert advice to members on all of the above, and especially act for workers in disputes;
6. negotiate consumer discounts for members;
7. lobby governments on improvements to workplace laws.

You may be interested to know that In Australia today, Union members

• earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs;
• get better sick leave and holiday leave entitlements;
• are more likely to receive long service leave and paid maternity leave;
• are safer at work;
• are better trained, have better working conditions and more job security.

Are you happier now? Shouldn't you be joining today?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 3 November 2007 1:58:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You may be interested to know that In Australia today, Union members

• earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs;
• get better sick leave and holiday leave entitlements;
• are more likely to receive long service leave and paid maternity leave;
• are safer at work;
• are better trained, have better working conditions and more job security."

I'd appreciate seeing your evidence for those claims Frank. Care to oblige?

Thanks.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 3 November 2007 3:44:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch

I take it you’re serious in your quest for information about unions, rather than just a time-waster. So here’s some sources of information about union benefits and some commentary. You don't normally find this information in the daily press.

ACTU:
http://www.actu.asn.au/joinaunion/UnionMembership/default.aspx

Evatt Foundation:
http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/175.html

ABS:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6310.0Media%20Release1Aug%202006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6310.0&issue=Aug%202006&num=&view=

Speech on unions and WorkChoices by Senator FAULKNER Senate Hansard 29 November 2005

Mark Bahnisch, “Just how unpopular are the dreaded unions?”
Crikey.com 15 June 2007

Pericles,

This reference might interest you too:

Stephen Mayne, (founder of Crikey, member of the MEAA and Independent candidate for Higgins – Peter Costello’s seat), compiled a list of “Unionists who cross the Rubicon”, Crikey.com 29 March 2006. In that article, Mayne provides an extensive list of former union leaders who now work in management.

It’s worth reading his introductory paragraph:

“Industrial Relations can make or break a business. Look behind successful companies like Grocon, Linfox, Multiplex and Westfield and you'll find IR managers who understand the unions and how to stay sweet with them. It's not unusual for these managers to have risen through the ranks of union officialdom themselves, and it is this familiarity that make them a potent weapon in the hands of business. Here we list former union officials who have crossed the rubicon into management...”

His long list is frequently up-dated.

Liberal sympathisers who comment on the current lack of talent in the State Liberal Parties often comment on how the ALP gets a huge advantage by having young men and women learning important skills (management, relationships, organisational, debating, communication, personal, etc) in the unions before entering parliaments.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 3 November 2007 6:14:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank, I wouldn't have asked if I wasn't serious.

Thanks for the info, I'll take a look through it.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 3 November 2007 7:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"• earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs;
• get better sick leave and holiday leave entitlements;
• are more likely to receive long service leave and paid maternity leave;
• are safer at work;
• are better trained, have better working conditions and more job security."

Earn an average $118 per week more than non union members in similar jobs......honestly? Seeing as though I'm having difficulty finding that info in your links can you point me to it? Thanks.

I also have a lot of difficulty believing union memebrs are safer at work. Why and how? Or whether thhey are better trained and have better work conditions. Why would that be so?

And I'm serious so please don't ask again.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 3 November 2007 7:44:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank, the following quote is from your ABS link.

"Almost three-quarters (73%) of employees had paid leave entitlements in August 2006 (i.e. were entitled to paid holiday leave and/or paid sick leave in their main job). The proportion of full-time employees with paid leave entitlements was 86%, compared with 43% of part-time employees. A higher proportion of male employees had paid leave entitlements than female employees (76% compared with 70%)."

Yet only 22% are union members. These figures don't tally with your claim that union members enjoy better conditions than non-union members. You sure you haven't just thrown a few links my way without checking that they contain evidence of your claims? I'm still willing to acknowledge the truth of your claims providing you can make the evidence available. Want to try again?
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 3 November 2007 8:36:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch

I’m not here to be your research assistant, but I’ll ‘try again’ at your earnest request. Look in the first supplied reference.

You go on to say you have “a lot of difficulty believing union members are safer at work”. It’s not rocket science. Unions have led the way on workplace safety laws. It is unions who blow the whistle on unsafe practices. The laws allow union inspections of workplace safety.

Workers who are backed by unions are more likely than non-unionists to complain if workplaces are unsafe. Union members are better trained in OH&S and typically, after such training, a unionist in each workplace is a designated OH&S officer.

All of this is set out in the National Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (http://www.ohs.anu.edu.au/ohs/index.php ) which is funded by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, endorsed by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council (Including Jo Hockey).

Unions publish OH&S Fact Sheets and advice on related topics like workplace bullying, stress at work, working in heat, fatigue, and screen-based work. (http://www.actu.asn.au/HelpatWork/OccupationalHealthSafety/Helpandresources/default.aspx)

Non-union workers have to rely on the conscience of employers. When self-interest is running in the race, back it every time.

The World Bank, hardly a radical organisation, said: “Studies in industrial countries indicate that the role of labour unions in ensuring compliance with health and safety standards is often an important one.” (http://www.hazards.org/unioneffect/features.htm)

Your quote from the ABS link shows your misunderstanding of the basis for comparison between union and non-union members.

On more general data you might like to read:

Pittard, M. (2006) ‘Back to the Future: Termination of Employment Under the WorkChoices Legislation’, Australian Journal of Labour Law, 19.

Plowman, D. and Preston, A. (2006) ‘The New Industrial Relations: Portents for the Low Paid’, Journal of Australian Political Economy, 56: 224 – 242

Colin Fenwick (Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, Melbourne University), “How Low Can You Go? Minimum Working Conditions Under Australia's New Labour Laws”, Economic & Labour Relations Review, (16(2) 85, 2006) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELRRev/2006/5.html)
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 4 November 2007 1:22:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol, we will continue to disagree on this, I'm afraid.

>>...I haven’t told you what unions do that management don’t... unions' prime role is to protect and further the interests of their members.<<

Management's primary role is to understand and cater for the interests and aspirations of the employees in their care. This involves treating them as individuals, as opposed to cattle. One byre fits all, all fodder to be the same, regardless of their differences and so on.

People have different aspirations, mental and physical capabilities and domestic circumstances, and these need to be taken into account when determining the tasks that they are able to cope with, and are to be rewarded for.

Furthermore, these characteristics will change over time, so the deal you do today with a happily married man with a wife and two kids, might need to adapt to that of a man going through a messy divorce and all its accompanying joint-custody disasters.

As it would for a woman, you need to work through lifestages including motherhood, even the other half of the situation of the guy in the previous paragraph.

This is management's task. It need not, should not, be delegated to a third party, whose interests extend only to the collective noun "employees".

The rest of your list simply confirms the collective nature of unions' work - health and safety, government lobbying etc. - or is makework - "negotiate consumer discounts for members".

And I too would like to see the evidence - not just another statement of the same "fact" - of your assertion that unionists "earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs".

I could find no corroboration of this in any available statistics. Just saying something doesn't make it true, you know.

Also, comparing unions to self-obsessed jobs-for-the-boys talking-shops such as the ABA, BCA etc. simply reinforces my point. These are also outdated dinosaurs, existing only as a perceived counterweight to the union movement. That they perform no other visible function only highlights their self-centred, wasteful processes for what they are.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 4 November 2007 3:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I’m not here to be your research assistant, but I’ll ‘try again’ at your earnest request. Look in the first supplied reference."

For what? Evidence that union members earn $118 / week more than non members? You claim it to be so you supply the evidence. I'm not here to be YOUR research assistant Frank. There is no support for your claim in your link.

As for safety, you claim union members are safer at work than non members. Nonsense. There are not two distinct sets of safety standards for employees. Surely you cannot have been asserting that this was the case.

However I see that you have altered this claim to one that now states that unions have led the way in work safety reforms. That is a whole lot different from your original claim. And a unionist does not have to be designated as O,H&S officer.

"Non-union workers have to rely on the conscience of employers. When self-interest is running in the race, back it every time."

Again, wrong. All workers are under the same set of guidelines when it comes to safety. To claim that unions have worked hard to make workplace reforms is one thing but to claim members and non members have different standards is absurd.

"Your quote from the ABS link shows your misunderstanding of the basis for comparison between union and non-union members."

Oh really. How so? You explain to me just what it is that I have misunderstood and what is the basis for comparison between members and non-members?

You like to make broad sweeping statements and claims without the evdence to back them up Frank. If you had read my previous posts in this thread you would have seen that I was not anti union and acknowleged their historical contribution to today's working conditions. What I object to though is rash claims made in support of any side of the argument that are false, and when asking for evidence am fed links to sites that don't offer what you claim they to.
Posted by Ditch, Sunday, 4 November 2007 8:45:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch

You say: "There is no support for your claim in your link."

There's none so blind...

A direct quote from the first site I referred you to.

"Union members earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees. Union members also get better sick leave and holiday leave entitlements and are more likely to receive long service leave and paid maternity leave. Union members are better trained, have better working conditions, more job security and work fewer hours."

Ditch, you say, "You like to make broad sweeping statements and claims without the evdence to back them up Frank." Your own claims about OH & S are clearly of that character. You have no understanding of the legislation in the various states coordinated through the Australian Workplace Relations Ministers Council - nor of workplace practices.

And as for your claim that you are 'not anti-union', my first instincts about you prove now to be absolutely correct. Last Saturday you wrote: "We still need unions but we do not need standover merchants or those who try to hold the community to ransom inorder to achieve their aims. And we do not need 70% of the front bench of our federal govt occupied by former trade union officials." So which unions did you have in mind - the ones in the Libral Party ads?

The Liberal Party propaganda - 70% trade union officials - is so transparently false, yet you have the gall to repeat the Liberal lie here while telling us you are not anti-union.

Next you'll be telling me that some of your best friends are unionists.

It's clear that you've read nothing that I laid before you with an open mind. You conveniently couldn't find the evidence that supported unions but had no difficulty citing evidence you thought (incorrectly) went in the opposite direction.

Go hold hands with Pericles. You can tell each other what you know about unions - it won't take long.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 4 November 2007 10:58:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the trade union movement puts up a web site and says union members earn an average of $350 a week, oh I mean $118, more than non members. I saw that Frank, but I want some evidence. Get it Frank? I don't want to read a claim made by the company that makes the product. Understand?

I work in the printing industry and the employees of the company I work for are paid well above award and for the tradesmen are high by industry standards. There is no umion lobbying in our factory whatsoever.

Or maybe you are referring to the stevedoring industry where wharfies are paid extremely well and have excellent working conditions. Remember how they held their emploees to ransom to get what they now have? Is that what we all should be doing.

And you have not commented on safety levels in the workplace this time. Given up on the idea that safety is better for union members have you? Wise move, because it's rubbish and I'm sure you realise that now.

As for my supporting mug unionists and stand over merchants like Joe Macdonald. No I don't. Do you?

This debate is fast reaching the area of "what's the point". You need to push your union barrow regardless of the facts. I've got better things to do with my time.
Posted by Ditch, Monday, 5 November 2007 5:51:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank you may like to know I have a mate, has been my mate for most of my life.
Once his sister was wed to my brother long before ww3, he is a printer, votes conservative.
Stirs me a lot ,hated unions, never needed them he said.
He is my mate, so after his new boss, after one boss for 27 years took away overtime and much more ,helped by workchoices I helped.
He is my mate and a union member funny how life is Frank not my union!
Posted by Belly, Monday, 5 November 2007 6:08:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch and credibility:

"Evidence that union members earn $118 / week more than non members?...There is no support for your claim in your link." Sunday, 4 November 2007 8:45:25 PM

"So the trade union movement puts up a web site and says union members earn an average of $350 a week, oh I mean $118, more than non members. I saw that Frank, but I want some evidence." Monday, 5 November 2007 5:51:53 AM

Ditch is not happy to accept ACTU data but quite content to parrot Liberal Party propaganda: "70% of the front bench...occupied by former trade union officials." And no rebuttal when challenged that that's a Liberal Party lie. Just " I don't want to read a claim made by the company that makes the product." Ditch's Party's lies are OK?

This self-described union neutral then reveals with pride: "There is no union lobbying in our factory whatsoever." Why would anyone be not surprised?
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 5 November 2007 9:24:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would also like to see the data, Frank. I am also interested. Claims made on a recruiting website for the ACTU does does constitute "data". The ABS website says basically nothing about unions except who is most likely to be in one.

This is not an attack, I am not in business. But I have been approached on a few occasions to join a union and I would like to see the data that says it will actually advantage me to do so.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 5 November 2007 10:03:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy

There are lots of sites that discuss the benefits of unions and I've listed a few in response to Ditch who didn't access them because he's not really interested in that side of the story.

The problem is that the daily press will not publish 'good' news about unions. While the journalists all belong to a union, their bosses don't like to run positive stories - they are much more interested in cliched and sterotyped stories about union 'thugs' and 'violence'. Note Ditch's instancing of the Watersiders and Joe McDonald - hardly typical, but that's what the mass media run and gullible consumers absorb.

The ACTU is one of the few organisations with research staff examining the kind of material that shows the benefits of unions, so it's not surprising that they put that kind of material on their website and publish their own fact sheets.

You say, "Claims made on a recruiting website for the ACTU does does constitute 'data'." That's a fair comment - I'd be skeptical too in your position. But you can interrogate the data with a critical mind (as you would with any other advertising). And there is nothing to prevent you asking the ACTU or the relevant union for more precise information (as you would if you were going to buy a car or join a political party).

I reckon it's worth thinking not just about the material personal benefits of union membership but also the less obvious mutual benefits - protection when things go wrong for you and support for other vulnerable people. I'm thinking of redundancies, company bankruptcies and defaulting and extended sickness and workplace injuries. I'm thinking also of bosses who sack competent young workers a day or two before their three-month probationary period is up because this gives them 'flexibility' and 'choice' (code words for exploitation).

Finally, it's worth asking who benefits when union membership falls? Who are the attack dogs baring their teeth at unions? And why?
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 5 November 2007 10:35:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank Gol I obviously am on your side and understand the real daily union actions are small ones.
But of great importance to those who need that help, insurance for the income and workplace safety of the voiceless.
Without trade unions we may well have the American style minimum wage and with it the dreadful impacts, street people.
While union numbers are shrinking , even under workchoices a balance and bottom in wages has been maintained ,by unions, even for non Unionists.
In time a new generation will fill the seats of todays union men and women, nothing to fear, nor are the changes they will bring.
But I do note in your debates here few will confront the simple fact without unions bad bosses and bad government will rule.
Those activists within the union movement, not all, who fought the good fight leading to the impending death of workchoices have my support.
Those who refuse to understand some bosses are grubs?no hope for them.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 5 November 2007 3:24:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly

Thanks for your enlightened support. And I'm sure your workmate appreciated your support too when it was needed.

It really worries me when I see young people too scared to join the union. Some have been totally intimidated by employer and government vilification campaigns against unions. No family should be without household and car insurance. No worker should be without protection from exploitation.

I agree with you that if Howard and his crew continue to get their way we'd be headed down the path of American employment conditions. And the fall in the standard of living for ordinary Australians would be a disaster.

Where would our nurses be without union strength and commitment? They too were painted in the media as 'militant'. The Howard Government, in this instance, were afraid to be too critical because they knew that in an election campaign period that was to risk alienating public sympathy.

You notice that the doctors' union (the AMA) is never criticised by either the government or the media. Yet they and the nurses' union, and other unions like the Australian Farmers' Federation, served precisely the same functions.

I don't see union members or officials as villains (but like politicians, plumbers and police there are always some you'd rather were out of business). We need strong unions now - as ever - when workers' conditions are under attack.

People like Ditch who parrot Liberal anti-union propaganda are hypocrits. On second thoughts, however, maybe ordinary people actually see through that stuff and appreciate that people from union backgrounds are more likely to have social consciences than the lawyers and big business advocates in the Liberal Party.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 5 November 2007 3:48:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Unions:

• earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs;
• get better sick leave and holiday leave entitlements;
• are more likely to receive long service leave and paid maternity leave;
• are safer at work;
• are better trained, have better working conditions and more job security."

Again, you have offered no evidence to support these points other than parroting union doctrine from their web site. Others here have also asked for clarification but you have offered none to any of us.

As Bugsy said of his own question, I was not "attacking", nor was I originally, but you have not made a civil response to any of my questions and went on the defensive with snide remarks from the outset. What's up Frank? Too difficult to be civil when asked for clarification?

The facts are Frank, union members are not "safer" at work than non union members. I said this earlier but you simply refused to comment.

They do not get better sick leave and holiday entitlement.

And so on. You do not support you claims with evidence and offer,

"But you can interrogate the data with a critical mind (as you would with any other advertising). And there is nothing to prevent you asking the ACTU or the relevant union for more precise information (as you would if you were going to buy a car or join a political party)."

Why can't YOU answer the questions put to you then if it's this easy?

And it is not liberal propaganda to say that 70% of the Labor front bench are ex union members. It's fact. Julia Gillard did not deny it on 2BL this afternoon. She'd know wouldn't she Frank?

One other thing. When being critical of this percentage in an earlier post that you quoted and threw back at me, my complete comment went on to say that I object to any type of faction dominance including a similar percentage of fundamentalist religious believers on a Coalition front bench. Fair enough?
Posted by Ditch, Monday, 5 November 2007 6:05:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch

Why would Julia Gillard waste time on the Liberals anti-union ad that says 70% of the Labor front bench are unionists, the one you have been touting inanely without checking the validity of the ‘facts’?

The advertisement names several Labor front-benchers who, in fact, have never been employed by unions - Swan, Gillard and Emerson. Every time the stamp comes down, the Liberals repeat the lie.

The Liberal ad doesn’t mention (nor do you) that Rudd worked as a diplomat, Conroy for an employer organisation, Roxon for a High Court judge or that Burke ran his own small business and spent six months working for Malcolm Turnbull (now a Liberal Minister).

It doesn’t mention that Albanese worked as a bank officer, Bevis and Carr as teachers, Emerson and Bowen as economists. It doesn’t mention that several of Labor’s front benchers are lawyers.

Talking of lawyers, if the ALP cared to run an equivalent advertisement, the Coalition’s Cabinet of 18 would be shown to come from an extremely narrow background – 11 lawyers, 3 farmers, 1 doctor, 1 economist, 1 journalist (ex-seminarian) and a former military officer. One was also a union official (shudder!)

This ‘team’ is hardly able to match the breadth of experience of the ALP. Perhaps if the Liberals had more people with more down-to-earth experience they might never have introduced Workchoices.

Even if the Liberals could get their facts right, focusing on what ALP people did in the past may be the Liberals' way of hiding their lack of anything to say about the future.

On OH&S, you still haven’t read the National Research Centre for OH&S Regulation document. So here’s a quote:

“What data there is suggests that the introduction of representatives has caused major changes in OHS attitudes and practices. They work best when the OHS legislation gives them a significant role, and when management adopts a positive attitude to OHS and gives representatives enough time to perform their duties. A further factor in the success of the representative provisions is union support.” (http://www.ohs.anu.edu.au/ohs/index.php)

Most OH&S reps are unionists.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 5 November 2007 11:23:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can have the last say Frank. Happy now?
Posted by Ditch, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 8:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch

I see you have no response on the Liberal lie campaign which you have been supporting.

"What is truth?" asked Pontius Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 10:06:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would it be discourteous to point out that you still, after many robust and argumentative posts, have been unable to support your claims about the beauties of unionism, FrankGol?

Simply quoting a claim made by someone else - who, by the way, has a declared bias on the topic - does not constitute evidence.

If you subtract all the unsupported claims that you make for unionism, you are left with emotion. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you try to use it as a substitute for facts.

The union movement has had a positive impact on issues of imbalance between employers and employees in the past. My only angle on all this is to point out that they may be irrelevant - in their present format - to today's business world.

Your inability to accept this is shared by most rusted-on unionists because it is their livelihood - it's all they know, after all - but that still doesn't confer on them any particular value.

Have a great day.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 5:50:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

You say: "Simply quoting a claim made by someone else - who, by the way, has a declared bias on the topic - does not constitute evidence." Leaving aside 'declared bias' (declared by whom?) - I actually agree with you.

I made no secret of the multiple sources of my information. I put the ACTU source at the top of my list pointing out that the mainstream media rarely publish anything complimentary about unions. However, I did also quote the World Bank, Stephen Mayne and the National Research Centre for OH&S Regulation (the last-named being a national body representaive of both ALP and Coalition Governments). I also gave links to the ABS and four academics Pittard. Have you read any of these?

However in logic, the fact that a source is biased doesn't necessarily render the information it provides false. The facts can be examined on merit. And I suggested readers do that.

Should I never, ever believe anything I find on the Liberal Party website because the Party is likely to be biased? Should I never believe anything about nuclear energy because the nuclear industry provided the information? Should I never believe anything the Americans say about Iraq because they have a special interest? Why can't I examine the claims and decide if they have merit?

Moreover, quoting a claim by someone else is the usual way most of us operate in the world unless we are professional researchers. I've looked through your last dozen posts, Pericles, and I couldn't find any first-hand evidence for any of the claims you make in any of your posts. Although there was your October 30 post where you cite George Orwell and George Brown.

Let's examine your claim on 29 October: "The days when a corporation could hold its workers to ransom over pay and conditions are well and truly over, and it should follow that the unions are in the same position".

You provide neither evidence nor argument to back it up. So I presume this would be what you call an 'unsupported claim' based only on emotion?
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 10:40:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are straining at gnats here.

I offered an opinion:

"The days when a corporation could hold its workers to ransom over pay and conditions are well and truly over, and it should follow that the unions are in the same position"

You offered - not an opinion, but a "fact"

"You may be interested to know that In Australia today, Union members... earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs"

If it was on the other hand only your opinion, shouldn't you have declared it as such? Or framed the statement in a way that we could charitably interpret it as merely an opinion?

As it happens, I opened every one of the links you provided, and none of them offered any further clue as to where the supporting evidence - a survey, presumably - came from.

And if anyone was biased towards trade unionism, I suspect that it would be the ACTU, wouldn't you? So I don't believe that they would feel the need to declare it, as such.

>>However in logic, the fact that a source is biased doesn't necessarily render the information it provides false. The facts can be examined on merit. And I suggested readers do that.<<

If there were any facts available, that is exactly what readers would do.

Sadly, all we are faced with is pious hope, masquerading as fact.

Or - more likely - a massive exaggeration from a totally unrepresentative sample. Unfortunately, it appears that we will never know, will we?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 6:06:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

I'm accused of offering a fact whereas you offered an opinion - as if opinion has higher status than fact. I plead guilty.

I also plead guilty to openly giving the source of that fact. Are you objecting not to the fact, but merely to the source of the fact? I gave many other facts and cited seven sources. The only fact you object to comes from just one of my sources, the one you obviously dislike. You didn't object to my citation from the World Bank, nor Stephen Mayne, nor the National Research Centre for OH&S Regulation.

You say, by contrast, you offered an opinion: "The days when a corporation could hold its workers to ransom over pay and conditions are well and truly over...".

Where do you signify that it's just your opinion? Where do we see 'I Pericles think the days... are over? What's the meaning of the word 'ARE' in your sentence? A bit disingenuous?

You claim you couldn't find evidence to support the fact. In my earlier post I suggested that the ACTU would be open to an approach for further information. Are you content to assume that because it's from the ACTU, and not the Honest John Liberal website, the claim is false?

One more example from your writing on Sunday. You said: "Management's primary role is to understand and cater for the interests and aspirations of the employees in their care." Is that fact or opinion?

I might contest your claim - and assert: "Management's primary role is to ensure that the business makes a profit pleasing to shareholders." Now is that fact or opinion? If we're both stating fact, at least one of us is wrong.

If they are both opinions then we need another filtering system to assess the quality of opinions. I have at least tried to ground my statements by reference to evidence. What about you? When I described my son's management practices, you told me that he and I were wrong. Fact or opinion? It's hard to deal with an evidence vacuum.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 10:44:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you will insist on quoting a statistic of $118 a week without a proper citation of the source of that study, you are less than credible in your statement.

You should put up or shut up.
Posted by 61, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 10:55:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
61

Where have you been? Counting sheep? "If you will insist on quoting a statistic of $118 a week without a proper citation of the source of that study, you are less than credible in your statement. You should put up or shut up."

You may have been asleep since Sunday 3 November when I gave the source as the ACTU:
(http://www.actu.asn.au/joinaunion/UnionMembership/default.aspx)

Ever since then I've been fighting off the infidels who can't accept anything the ACTU says and prefer to stick to opinion rather than fact. But the source itself has been debated ad nauseum.

Now, I'm a big boy and don't mind people attacking my sources. But really, 61, it's a bit rich to be asked after umpteen posts and counter posts to name my sources.

You can go back to sleep now.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 7 November 2007 11:25:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now Frank I can't sit here and read posts like your's and not respond. You speak as though you have the say on who should contribute to this thread and who shouldn't.

61 is right. Put up or shut up. The $118 claim on the ACTU website has no evidence to support it whatsoever. Offer some. It's a simple request but you won't offer any support for that claim. It reads like an advertisement. Morning Fresh gets dishes cleaner or Toyota sets new standards in car luxury. Do you just accept such claims Frank or only those from the ACTU because you're a dyed in the wool unionist?

Evidence, please not more ACTU propaganda.
Posted by Ditch, Thursday, 8 November 2007 5:43:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm - in Frank's defence, that figure of $118 has been around since at least March 2006:

"Commenting on new ABS data released this morning, ACTU President Sharan Burrow said: "There has been a 4% jump in union membership in the year to August 2005 with an extra 70,000 workers joining unions according to the ABS. This is a major jump considering these figures only capture union membership in the period to August 2005 - prior to the main public debate over the passage of the Government's new laws in November. These figures show that working Australians are voting with their feet and turning to unions to help them protect their job security, wages and basic entitlements in the face of the Howard Government's industrial relations changes. The ABS data shows that union members earn an average $118 more per week than non-union members."

http://www.actu.asn.au/work_rights/news/1143524308_5647.html

I heard Ms Burrow repeatedly citing the $118 figure the other day on Radio National, and I'd be astonished if the Coalition hadn't investigated the figure with a view to refuting it, given the prominence of IR in the ALP election campaign. So the figure comes originally from the ABS, where the original data are undoubtedly locatable for those who wish to make an issue of it.

My own view is that unions still have a vital function to play in our society, where (despite Pericles' optimism) many employers regard their employees as "human resources", to be exploited like any other raw material.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 8 November 2007 6:45:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'mon CJ, don't fall into the same trap.

"The ABS data shows that union members earn an average $118 more per week than non-union members"

is still not the same as :

"Union members... earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs"

All this says - on its own - is that the average wage of the 20% of the population who are in a union is higher than that of the 80% who don't. Nothing about "similar jobs".

And the vagueness of "ABS data shows" doesn't fill me with confidence either. Which data? And does their definition of union include all those employer groups that FrankGol insists are also "unions"?

In the normal universe, the absence of supporting statistics is the responsibility of the person who offers the "fact" in the first place. Furthermore, using lack of corroborating research by people who haven't made the claim, does not constitute proof, or even evidence, that the figures are right.

And FrankGol, you are getting just a little bit precious:

>>I'm accused of offering a fact whereas you offered an opinion - as if opinion has higher status than fact. I plead guilty.<<

Oh, please.

Facts are vastly more important than opinions, which is why you have a few people here interested in reaching the basis for your claim. If it can be supported by credible data, it is a significant contribution to the debate, and could very well have the capacity to change people's opinions on the matter.

Opinions - which is the currency that most people deal in here (it's not called On Line Opinion for nothing, you know) - are offered freely and without the necessity to flag themselves as such. If you have facts that can impact the opinions of others, you offer them.

If those facts are unsupported by evidence, people who are interested, as I am, will continue to question them until we can classify them as reasonable or irrelevant.

Sheesh, why is this such a difficult concept to understand?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 8 November 2007 7:51:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles: "'The ABS data shows that union members earn an average $118 more per week than non-union members'

is still not the same as :

'Union members... earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs'

All this says - on its own - is that the average wage of the 20% of the population who are in a union is higher than that of the 80% who don't. Nothing about "similar jobs".

The actual data on which the $118 claim is based are located on p. 48 of ABS Statistics Release 6310.0 - Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Australia, Aug 2005.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D0C52615006E2F2FCA25713E001838D7/$File/63100_aug%202005.pdf

The ABS data and the ACTU claim don't say anything about "similar jobs" - indeed, the data are averaged across occupations and gender. So if Frank claimed that Union members are $118 per week better offf than non-Union members in "similar jobs", then this is unsupported by the data, and Pericles is correct in questioning this aspect of Frank's interpretation.

However, there is no reason to suppose that the ABS data or the ACTU claim in my quotation are incorrect. There is also no reason to suppose that all employers have become enlightened with respect to their relations with their employees in the past decade - as Pericles apparently envisages.

My opinion "that unions still have a vital function to play in our society, where... many employers regard their employees as "human resources", to be exploited like any other raw material" therefore still stands.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 8 November 2007 10:47:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan

I set out the facts in my first post and then decided I wasn’t going to do more homework for Ditch and Pericles when they could do some research of their own to show they were genuinely interested in the facts. I merely gave them some leads and expected them to follow through.

It soon became clear that they weren’t genuine. You were kinder to them. But now you give them detail, they play statistical games.

Pericles, while not able to challenge the fact that union members were paid more than non-unionists, claims that: “All this says - on its own - is that the average wage of the 20% of the population who are in a union is higher than that of the 80% who don't. Nothing about ‘similar jobs’".

The ABS tables can, in fact, be disaggregated by industry category, gender and whether full-time or part-time. But it needs work and I’m afraid our anti-unionists Ditch and Pericles are unwilling to do it.

So I will make it easier for them by way of another example. In August 2007, the ABS published a report called, “Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership Australia” (ABS 6310.0 August 2006). It clearly shows, for example, the superior position of union members in leave entitlements.

Table 19 shows that 90% of workers who are union members had leave entitlements at their work, whereas only 68.5% of workers who are not members of a union had leave entitlements at work. These are aggregated figures but the table shows the relative figures for 19 work categories.
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/66598EC1A4DA5983CA2572B100157AD2/$File/63100_aug%202006.pdf

And no, Pericles, the ABS definition of union does not include all those employer groups that I have suggested are unions.

And, no Ditch, I don’t just accept ABS claims because they are on the ACTU website nor because I’m a ‘dyed in the wool unionist’. I haven’t been able to be a union member for a decade now. But I would have nothing to be ashamed of if I were a member.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 8 November 2007 11:45:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm ... bullying, intimidation, standover tactics from a union rep ... now why does that seem so familiar? Oh, that's right (see earlier post). It's nice to know that some things never change.

And fancy someone somewhere saying that some ABS data someplace said something...

Oh my gosh, and the same person said it more than once! Unbelievable!!

And somebody else has heard nobody say that something wasn't incorrect.

Yeah ... right. Prove it (if you can).
Posted by 61, Thursday, 8 November 2007 1:25:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear 61

1. I am not a union member, so it's not possible for me to be a union rep.

2. Facts can annoy, alarm and perhaps at a pinch intimidate, but I doubt they can bully or 'standover' a reader.

3. As for your saying "someone somewhere saying that some ABS data someplace said something", on 3 November I gave this link to the ABS:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6310.0Media%20Release1Aug%202006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6310.0&issue=Aug%202006&num=&view=
And this link to the related website ACTU: http://www.actu.asn.au/joinaunion/UnionMembership/default.aspx

4. The issue was never the vagueness of what was said. From the start, it has been that anti-union people would not accept that (a) the data existed and (b) that it could be trusted because it was re-cycled on a union website.

5. What specific facts are upsetting you?

6. I'm reminded of a discussion with someone who told me my recent book upset him because...[reasons]. He went on to state that my book said...[certain things].

I expressed surprise at his claim and denied that my book said anything of the sort. We went at it for a while - he making his claims and me as the author declaring my book said nothing of the sort.

Finally, in exasperation, I asked, "Have you read my book?" He replied: "Oh no, I wouldn't read a book like that!"

On that note, I'll leave this conversation - as I left that one.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 8 November 2007 1:51:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do hope you write better than you read - the bibliography would make for colourful reading to say the least (but perhaps fiction is more your style).

The "$118.00 a week" statement is obviously an article of faith for you. How annoying that us non-believers would dare to challenge a claim actually made on *gasp* the internet!!

Shun the unbeliever! Shuuuunnn! Shuuuunnn!

After all: "It is written" ... on the ACTU website no less!
[Ed. Admittedly without a reference - odd when it would so clearly strengthen their case].

Oooooooooooh!

Well, I'm convinced. It must be true. I have seen the light. Let's drink cyanide.
Posted by 61, Thursday, 8 November 2007 4:24:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have had a read of the article on the ACTU site (http://www.actu.asn.au/work_rights/news/1143524308_5647.html)
and I have read through the ABS data in the provided URL (http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D0C52615006E2F2FCA25713E001838D7/$File/63100_aug%202005.pdf).

The article definately states a $118pw benefit but this cannot be determined from the data provided. The data is only the figures for employees that are members of unions. It doesn't include comparison data.

What seems to be the closest equivalent is ABS publication 6306.0 for all employees (union members or not) (http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/284EA51F2E7BD8F9CA25728F000D10AC/$File/63060_May%202006.pdf) which was issued in May 2006. This cannot be what Ms Burrow based the comparison on as it was issued two months after her statement. It also suggests that the average weekly earnings for union members is at least $38pw less than the population average (Female, combined full-time and part-time). Other comparisons show greater differences in favour of the average over union-members-only.

The comparison data I am using is 9 months later than the union figures so it may be due to wages growth. If the annual wages growth was between 7% and 30% (depending on the full/part time male/female category) the two sets of figures would be the same (union members would be paid as much as the average employee). I believe (last time I looked was a while ago) that wages growth was about 5% so this wouldn't account for the difference let alone make up for the $118pw quoted.

It is possible that the comparison was based on the earlier "Preliminary" figures from May 2004 (6305.0.55.001). I haven't looked at these as yet.
Posted by Outside Observer, Thursday, 8 November 2007 10:49:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
61,

Personal abuse, I thought, was assigned to unions. But you’ve shown I was wrong.

You and your mates who think that the days of unions are over should read a new report: “Agreement-making under WorkChoices: The impact of the legal framework on bargaining practices and outcomes” by Carolyn Sutherland, published by the Office of the Workplace Advocate, October 2007.
(http://www.business.vic.gov.au/busvicwr/_assets/main/lib60148/4880%20agreement%20making_web.pdf)

Under WorkChoices, third parties traditionally involved in agreement-making - the AIRC and unions - are rapidly being replaced by an alternative third party, the industrial relations consultant. The report highlights problems arising from the removal of any vetting process before agreements are approved. Many WorkChoices agreements mislead employees about their legal entitlements and take them below the ‘safety net’.

The study reveals the extent to which employers are reducing and removing employee benefits through WorkChoices. In some industries there is very little genuine bargaining taking place.

Substantial numbers of employees have received no compensation for the removal of protected award conditions via employer greenfields agreements and AWAs.

There is plenty of evidence of employees losing control over hours of work, rostering and job location. Conditions from awards and State legislation are being overlooked, and so are the rights of employees even under their individual contract of employment.

The legal framework of WorkChoices appears to legitimate certain unfair employer bargaining practices. WorkChoices removes any positive requirement for employers to explain the effect of workplace agreements to employees, and provides only weak protections against false or misleading conduct and duress.

Common unfair (but not unlawful) practices under WorkChoices include:
• offering AWAs on a take-it-or-leave-it basis to new employees;
• using employer greenfields agreements on new projects to set a low base of employment conditions and to create a union-free environment;
• and ‘starving out’ employees by holding back pay rises until the employees enter into AWAs.

Some employers go further, using unlawful bargaining practices, targeting workers who refuse to sign AWAs by reducing their shifts, or threatening to remove other employee benefits, or ending their employment.

Unions are needed more than ever.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 8 November 2007 10:56:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have reviewed the earlier figures (6305.0.55.001, May 2004)(1) and also a May 2004 version of 6306(2). The best I can come up with is a $57pw benefit for male workers *if* union pays are compared to average pays 15 months earlier. However, if average wages grew by 5% pa the average male weekly earnings would have been $954pw by Aug05 when the union member male weekly earnings was $955pw. The $57 difference is now only $1 but it is in the union's favour - though it really isn't $118.

It should be noted that Ms Burrow states that the comparison is between union members and non-union members; not the average (which I have been using). The 6310 report(3) states that there were 8,526,600 employees and 1,911,900 of these were union members. This is 22.4%. So the claim is that 22.4% of the people are earning $118pw more than 77.6% of the people or that the average is $26pw (22.4% x $118 + 77.6% x $0) more than non-unionists are getting. This would put the claim as unionists are earning ($118-$26=) $92pw more than the average.

Again, the ABS data doesn't support this lower figure even if you compare the then-recent union wage figures with the older population figures that were around at the time.

It is possible that she is comparing union wages with even older average wage figures to get this sort of difference. It is also possible that she is not comparing the ABS figures with other ABS figures but with union collected figures on non-unionist earnings, possibly for a narrow employment type.

I cannot find what she was comparing the unionist wages to in order to make her claim. The ABS data for union wages at the time(3) does not support it when compared to the ABS data for the overall population that was available at the time.(1,2)

(1) 6305.0.55.001, May 2004. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/123414A6EB867767CA256F63007807BE?OpenDocument
(2) 6306 May 2004. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/79B17DC9AA273E9DCA25728F000D07C4?opendocument
(3) 6310 Aug 2006. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6310.0Main+Features1Aug%202006?OpenDocument
Posted by Outside Observer, Friday, 9 November 2007 1:07:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Outside Observer,

Thank you for at least taking the time and making the effort to understand the figures. That's a lot more than some anti-union critics are prepared to do.

Two quick comments:

1. You state: "It should be noted that Ms Burrow states that the comparison is between union members and non-union members; not the average (which I have been using)."

It's an odd methodology that when the whole basis of this argument is a comparison between union and non-union members' wages, that you are comparing union wages against a figure which by definition includes union wages. How would you control the distortion effect if union wages are, indeed, higher than non-union?

2. You say: "I cannot find what she was comparing the unionist wages to in order to make her claim."

What's to prevent you from picking up the telephone (1300 362 223 - local call cost only) and asking the ACTU how they derived their figure?
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 9 November 2007 8:50:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Frank, for someone who said they were going to leave this discussion, your contined posting makes me increasingly sceptical of your statements. But I'll still let you have the last say if you need to.

There is now only one of your original claims that you persist in arguing about. All the others are being ignored and rightly so as they were rubbish.

One of your recent quotes; "4. The issue was never the vagueness of what was said. From the start, it has been that anti-union people would not accept that (a) the data existed and (b) that it could be trusted because it was re-cycled on a union website."

No, that's not correct. My initial question to you was for evidence to back up your claim of $118 extra for union members. You wouldn't do so and accused me of asking you to do my resaerch for me. And yet in another recent post you suggetsed a member make a phone call to check another of your claims. No big deal making a phone call but that's not the point. You just wouldn't offer evidence and that was what myself and others objected to.

The usual procedure is Frank, for the maker of the claim to offer the evidence. The reader has the right to be offered relevant evidence for claims that are presented as facts. You just don't get it do you. There is no anti union sentiment in asking for evidence. None whatsoever. But for you the request represented a challenge to your beliefs, and that was too much for you to handle in a calm and measured manner. You immediately went on the defensive and couldn't make a post without attempting a lame snide remark at anyone with the affront to not swallow your story in full.
Posted by Ditch, Friday, 9 November 2007 7:33:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It took me about 5 minutes to locate the actual ABS source for the ACTU $118 claim when I decided to look for myself:

"The actual data on which the $118 claim is based are located on p. 48 of ABS Statistics Release 6310.0 - Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Australia, Aug 2005.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D0C52615006E2F2FCA25713E001838D7/$File/63100_aug%202005.pdf"

If you go to the table on page 39 of Release 6310.0 and subtract the average earnings of non-union employees from those of employees who are members of unions - Bingo! Exactly $118. Whether or not this figure was and is valid, that's certainly where it came from.

I think that some people are being a little precious here. There was never really any doubt about the veracity of the $118 figure was there - rather it was Frank's interpretation of it?

Surely you can make an argument against Frank without being unnecessarily pedantic about generally accepted sources.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 9 November 2007 11:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops. I meant to say "If you go to the table on page 48 of Release 6310.0", obviously.

Bugger!
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 9 November 2007 11:23:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I click your link CJ and this is what I am getting.

"A General Error has occurred on the system. You are attempting to locate a document or link which no longer exists or is unable to be found at the moment.

Please press the back button to go to your previous screen."

Not attempting to be precious, just cannot make the link.

CJ said, "There was never really any doubt about the veracity of the $118 figure was there - rather it was Frank's interpretation of it?"

I certainly didn't share your faith in the claim without some evidence CJ. I'll try the link again later.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 10 November 2007 12:48:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch,

JP Morgan's link has a redundant symbol at the end which invalidates the link. Try:

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D0C52615006E2F2FCA25713E001838D7/$File/63100_aug%202005.pdf

With all the other benefits unionists earn above non-unionists, you should not be surprised that Howard's Government introduced WorkChoices to try to undermine union membership. It's very sad that Government propaganda is so readily swallowed by Australian voters.

It's annoying that OLO posters refuse to believe any fact that might have 'union' associated with it. Worse, so many OLO posters won't make an effort to research the facts but demand to be spoon-fed.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 10 November 2007 12:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another classy post Frank, well done. You're keeping up the quality level of this forum with gay abandon. I'm proud of you mate.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 10 November 2007 1:12:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"JP Morgan's link has a redundant symbol at the end which invalidates the link. Try:

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D0C52615006E2F2FCA25713E001838D7/$File/63100_aug%202005.pdf"

So why couldn't have you offered the link yourself Frank about 30 posts ago? Why do you expect other people to do your research for you?
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 10 November 2007 1:29:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditch I over-estimated the intelligence levels of many OLO posters and under-estimated their capacity and willingness to find out for themselves.

So here's some spoon-feeding about the continuing need for unions.

ABC News OnlIne 10 November 2007

"Figures from the Australian Workplace Authority show almost half of all Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) lodged with it since May have been rejected for not complying with the Federal Government's fairness test.

"The Workplace Authority's report for October shows more than 25,000 agreements submitted do not meet the minimum standards set out in the fairness test.

"...Opposition industrial relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard says..."This is a piece of legislation that supposedly tells employers that if they take some conditions away they're supposed to offer fair compensation but they don't have to offer full compensation," she said. "And then they don't ever tell employers what fair compensation might mean."

"She says the Howard Government's attempt to fix WorkChoices has degenerated into a "bureaucratic nightmare".

"This system doesn't work for empoyees, they can still be ripped off and it doesn't work for employers who end up with their employment agreements in a backlog of almost 150,000."

"But federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Joe Hockey, says the figures prove the fairness test is working.

"It's farcical that the trade union movement and the Labor Party are whingeing about an employment safety net and now the employment safety net is working they're still whingeing," he said.

"It's farcical that they are rubbishing a system that is providing real protection for workers."

"The ACTU says the authority has a backlog of 142,000 workplace agreements, waiting to be fully checked to ensure workers are receiving their correct wages and entitlements. The Workplace Authority has acknowledged there has been a delay in processing agreements lodged after the fairness test was announced in May."
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 10 November 2007 1:53:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops again. Apologies for the broken link and thanks to Frank for posting the correct URL :S
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 10 November 2007 4:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan

I owe you an abject apology. Wasn't JP Morgan a plutocrat in the US banking and finance industry?

If so, I've done you a great disservice with that Freudian slip. JP Morgan certainly would have been opposed to unions on the principle that anybody who got between him and a pile of money was unAmerican.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 10 November 2007 5:18:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's another one for you Frank. Unions do not always achieve higher wages for their members. In fact the opposite can sometimes be the case. You won't see that on the union web site of course.

"Australia:
Union betrayals cut wages
By Terry Cook
14 January 1999

A report released this week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals that over the past four years the wages and conditions of trade union members in many key industries have fallen below those of non-union workers.

The report shows that while the rate of pay for union workers in eight of the industries surveyed were marginally higher than their non-union counterparts the opposite was the case in nine other major industries. This revelation makes a mockery of any claim by the union leadership that workers can defend their interests through the unions, even in narrow economic terms."

From here. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/wage-j14.shtml

I'm sure you'll find fault here as it doesn't support your beliefs, which only goes to show doesn't it, that we all have our examples to support whatever we want others to believe.
Posted by Ditch, Saturday, 10 November 2007 8:44:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Ditch

Thanks for the link. Can I trust it, though? After all:

(a) the data is relevant to 1998, nearly a decade old; and

(b) the Web Site is published by "World Socialist", that is, the International Committee of the Fourth International and we all know where they stand in relation to the ACTU, don't we?

and

(c) as someone said recently, just because something is put up on a website doesn't make it true. You have offered no evidence to support these points other than parroting World Socialist doctrine from their web site.

I think you should put up or shut up.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 10 November 2007 10:12:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No worries Frank. I've been called JP before - and worse :)

You'd be unsurprised to hear that I'm about the antithesis of my namesake as a businessman. Sometimes I'd like to be a bit more like JP, but I really couldn't be bothered. I make enough to get by quite comfortably without working too hard, so what would be the point?

However, I do employ people occasionally and I pay them the award wage, negotiated by the relevant union. It's a higher rate than they were being paid when we took over the business, so everybody's happy. I find that if I pay people at a recognised rate for the performance of specified duties, then I can quite reasonably expect a high standard of work performance.

I'm not a union member now, but I was for many years as a salary earner. Despite the demonisation of unions that is currently fashionable in some circles, I think that they have, and will continue to have, an integral role in the interface between workers and their employers.

Yes, they need to move with the times, but they still have relevance to many people employed, perhaps in the lower end of the market - but still in need of a collective voice when dealing with management,
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 11 November 2007 12:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have some nerve, Frank.

There is no reason Ditch should have to put up anything, given that you clearly could not be bothered to do so yourself; and CJ Morgan was the one who actually delivered the goods. (Thanks, CJ!) I for one appreciated the chance to examine this claim firsthand.

Secondly, it is hypocritical to complain of “old” data when your own ACTU statistics are derived from the superceded 2006 release.

In fact, the latest issue (released at 11:30 AM 03/04/2007) shows only a $57 a week difference – or LESS THAN HALF the amount currently being claimed by the ACTU, which is clearly fallacious. So glad I took the trouble to THINK FOR MYSELF.

Furthermore, even when the 2006 issue was current, the manipulation of the data was certainly misleading to prospective members; implying, as it did, that they were likely to receive around $118 a week more in their pay packets if they joined up. The ABS data certainly did not support this interpretation.

In industries such as: Electricity, gas and water supply, Wholesale trade, Retail trade, Communication services, Finance and insurance, Property and business services, and Government administration and defence the employee was actually likely to earn LESS as a union member

It would certainly not make economic sense for employees described in the situation above to trust their salary negotiations to collective bargaining.
Posted by 61, Sunday, 11 November 2007 3:39:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After all the bluster, FrankGol, are you at last prepared to admit that you gilded the lily?

>>You may be interested to know that In Australia today, Union members... earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs<<

You made up the bit about "similar jobs", didn't you?

Incidentally, in amongst the statistics "Mean weekly earnings in main job - By trade union membership" you find the following:

Trade Union Member - Full time Employee, Male: $1,053

Not a Trade Union Member - Full time Employee, Male: $1,051

If there is a need for unions, it is amongst the female and part-time population. As CJ says,

>>Yes, they need to move with the times, but they still have relevance to many people employed, perhaps in the lower end of the market - but still in need of a collective voice when dealing with management<<

In their present sloganeering, confrontational and anti-business form, unions are betraying those who need them most.

This is typified by their present reaction to the fairness test statistics, where they have firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick.

Julia Gillard comes closest to understanding the situation when she says "the Howard Government's attempt to fix WorkChoices has degenerated into a 'bureaucratic nightmare'."

Unions should concentrate on the reality, which is that the government's attempt to paper over the cracks in WorkChoice has made the entire system impenetrable and unworkable for the employer. There is no-one in the public service who can answer even the simplest questions, because no-one understands how it should work.

It's a massive, ideologically-driven bungle, and both Howard and Hockey should pay the penalty.

And while there may be a tiny minority of employers who are using this as a loophole to continue to oppress their workforce, most are tearing their hair out at the additional expense, and potential to end up in court for no reason.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 11 November 2007 8:56:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After the election I would like to debate the future of the trade union movement, even if it costs me my job.
Some of the anti union stuff in this interesting thread ,is true.
Biased but true, however not of all unions, I will find more enemy's than Friends for this statement but the truly left unions, and John Howard's failure to understand the difference, gave birth to workchoices.
Reform, further reforms from those started by the last ALP governments was a must.
If Howard had bought about true reform ,say the NSW system nation wide he would have the keys to the lodge as long as he wanted them.
However he blundered badly, it was like it or not a betrayal of those who had become the new conservatives his battlers.
His band aid fixes to it have made it worse, for workers and bosses.
You know I am not telling lies in saying some bosses are COMING TO UNIONS for help.
SOME bosses are coming to SOME unions for protection from SOME unions!
I hope one day unions will be brave enough to convert that last sentence, to except the challenge to move into the next century and keep unions relevant.
We in the movement I am so proud of must confront falling membership and understand time will not fix it our actions will.
A bad union official can see hundreds leave our movement forever.
We guardians of our movement must never except them in seats paid for by our reason to exist our members.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 12 November 2007 6:36:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate bubbles along well without me, I think an earlier post was deleted but while I am here another fact.
I do not play the mother duck very well you know the broken wing thing to protect the ducklings.
Maybe that is why I have good relationships with my mates/members and most bosses.
Honesty has value to me, but the lie that unions will control this government must be rebutted.
See unions sometimes fear Rudd, the left are supporting the greens! nearly as bad as those 2 lost seats in Tasmania to me betrayal.
This country has nothing to fear from such as Bill Shorten.
We find fault with unions in the party but daily hear ex members of this government now in bosses unions state such rubbish and no one says they are just that committed conservatives.
Unions are not to get 10% of what they want from Rudd Gillard, they however are not condemned to death by them either.
I would ask anti union posters to think in one on one terms, the real work unions do is more often one member being helped than every one out strikes.
Who does that without unions?
And without unions do bad boss, we have them too you know, get worse?
Post old Johns defeat unions will not be armed with ak47.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 12 November 2007 6:53:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
61

Oh dear, I presented a pastiche of your words and some from others, and you didn't even notice. Parody too subtle for you?

And Pericles,

You say: "And while there may be a tiny minority of employers who are using this as a loophole to continue to oppress their workforce, most are tearing their hair out at the additional expense, and potential to end up in court for no reason."

You would be able to give us the source of your statistical evidence, I presume? "A tiny minority of employers"? "Most are tearing their hair out"? Or is this mere opinion?
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 12 November 2007 8:26:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thread began with the question "Does the mention of 'unionism' really strike fear into voters hearts today? Do people equate unionism with trouble-makers in our society?"

And so I shared some of my personal pain.

I believe I am not alone in having suffered. I heard yesterday of a township in Western Australia who lost their primary industry during the pilots' strike of 1989 (because the pilots' $200K+ salaries weren't worth getting out of bed for). Apparently this exporting business, employing 400 locals, was ruined and has been reduced to a single restaurant where they have placed a sign that tells the story of the community grief and pain.

Is unionism a four letter word to them? How lightly are our hurts forgotten?

When unions had great power they abused it.

Am I afraid of them rising in power again?

You bet.

Am I anti-union?

I challenge anyone to find a post where I have said any such thing.

I am a romantic at heart. I love Jack Lang and the Green Bans. I love Lech Walesa. I love the coal miners of the nineteenth century, and the great causes they fought and even died for.

If all the unions went on strike tomorrow on behalf of the millenium development goals, I'd be cheering from the stands and I'd tighten my belt and batten down the hatches and I'd stand with them shoulder to shoulder. Or if they finally addressed the issue of equal pay for women, they would be my heroes and I'd put pin-ups of Sharan Burrow on my bedroom wall.

Sadly employers are not the only ones susceptible to greed. They are not the only ones who oppress the poor and weak. There is no union that defends the senior members of the community or the young mothers or the kids with no dad. There is no union that defends the unemployed or the disabled or the sick.

All these people are collateral damage in the "Cold War" logic of government, employer and union superpowers and who has the biggest stick
Posted by 61, Monday, 12 November 2007 9:30:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once more into the breach...

>>And Pericles, You say: "And while there may be a tiny minority of employers who are using this as a loophole to continue to oppress their workforce, most are tearing their hair out at the additional expense, and potential to end up in court for no reason."

You would be able to give us the source of your statistical evidence, I presume? "A tiny minority of employers"? "Most are tearing their hair out"? Or is this mere opinion?<<

Mere opinion, I'm afraid, FrankGol. No statistics, just observation at the coalface.

Sorry, I had forgotten how you are such a stickler for facts.

Or at least, your version of them.

Gee, it must be tough having such high standards.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 12 November 2007 12:46:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

"Mere opinion, I'm afraid, FrankGol. No statistics, just observation at the coalface."

No only a statistical muffin, but environmentally unsound! Shouldn't your observation and tilting at the power of the unions have been done at the windmill?
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 12 November 2007 1:47:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, you said that unions earn on average $118 a week more than non-union employees in similar jobs and you were wrong, and you didn’t even notice. Parody too subtle for you?

But the joke of the week has to be Frank panty-waistedly bleating, “It's very sad that Government propaganda is so readily swallowed by Australian voters.”

Ironic that the very same Australian voter who swallows erroneous trade union propaganda hook, line and sinker and regurgitates it without question for our intellectual consumption should criticise others for identical behaviour. Or perhaps it’s just extremely sad.

But Frank is sad.

In his Keatingesque way he continually over-estimates the intelligence levels of many OLO posters. Longsufferingly … practically surrounded by pigs and dogs … he self-righteously labours to show us the error of our ways (i.e. anything we disagree with). Just one more “dry as chips” sermon might convert us. Just one more patronising pastiche or scintillatingly subtle parody. If he could only preach a little longer – a little harder. (A little better! *tee hee*)

Frank, make some friends. Have fun. Be happy.
Posted by 61, Monday, 12 November 2007 1:53:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
61

I've had a ball with this post. Though your parroty was a bit unsubtle.

My friends are tearing me away to celebrate with their $118 bonuses.

See you soon, maybe.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 12 November 2007 2:06:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll work on it ...

; )
Posted by 61, Monday, 12 November 2007 2:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy