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,

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Secondly, it is hypocritical to complain of “old” data when your own ACTU statistics are derived from the superceded 2006 release.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

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.

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.

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.

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?