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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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?