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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).