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.

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.

"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?

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.

You can have the last say Frank. Happy now?

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.