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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?