Thanks foxy but they have been around a very long time in your dads time too.
My dad ,father of 16 kids died of hard work and a hard life at 54 years of age ,he was a union delegate.
He was no radical but was spat on and miss treated yet known to be one of the best workers on the job.
So many put the boot in yet have no understanding the life we have unionist or not is often a product of union actions.

In any discussion on trade unions there needs to be a clear distinction made between militant unions and their officials, the difficult/diagraceful working conditions in the past that were the catalyst for the creation of the trade union movement, the working conditions that exist today, and simply being a member of a trade union in today's economy.

To talk of the evil of trade unions as a whole is to turn a blind eye to the history of working conditions. Start to think about what we were taught at school if you will, about the industrial revolution and the working conditions and the acceptable minimum working age. The immorality of many employers of that time were why unions were formed. It was a working persons' revolution and simply had to happen.

While things today are radically better, they are not perfect and there is still the need for a lobby group for workers who are not getting a fair deal. Now that is not saying that all employers are bastards or that all unions are out to screw all employers. Neither of those scenarios is accurate.

However, if it is fear of militant unionism you want to discuss then think about that idiot that was kicked out of the Labor Party yesterday, Joe Macdonald I think his name was. Militant unionism is still alive and kicking.

Everthing in moderation. 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. But that's just my opinion of course, but I'm sure others just might agree with that opinion.

Will all 70% fit on the front bench? There are not that many positions to be occupied - it's merely a political ploy ("red under the bed") continuously used by the Liberal party since the Menzies era. Today, they have nothing else to argue so they go back into the past hoping voters are gullible enough to believe them.

Kevin Rudd has not finalized the membership of the "front bench,
and he's made it quite clear that he will pick the best qualified people for the positions required not according to whether they're a member of a union or not!

Red under the bed, no, nothing remotely resembling that. Both parties play the fear card, not just the Libs, we both know that I suspect. A trade union dominated Labor front bench is undesirable with the concern that labor is a mouthpiece for militant trade unionism. I doubt that it is that seious and I'm not naive or gullible so do not need the Libs to tell me what to think. I make up my own mind.

I would object to the Libs, for example, having an over representation of Catholics or fundamentalist Christians on their front bench. Neither Labor's unions nor the Liberals religious influence is what I find to be ideal. A dominating percentage of self seeking individuals from any extemist group does not make for good democracy.

A front bench made up of some former union members might be the answer you're looking for Ditch. Because these people worked on behalf of, and represented, a very wide cross-section of our society.
For example, nurses, firemen, police officers, builders, electricians, teachers, ambulance workers, and so on.

Unlike the Liberal Party's front bench which consists predominantly of lawyers and corporate executives.

Anyway, because you live under a democratic system of government, the choice is yours... but if its diversity you're looking for in you politicians - Labour may just have the representation you seek ...

Yes, I think Labor has to find the strength to deal with the arseholes like Macdonald. And I acknowledge that they have in this particular case. It is the extremists like him that are Labor's biggest problem. Most of us have a lot to thank the union movement for historically but times have changed and the union movement needs to change also. The worst case scenario is a roll back of ALL the labour changes that the current govt put in place to a situation where business has to cowtow(?) to the unions and their radical wage demands.

Like it or lump it, every healthy economy needs a strong business sector. It is not an evil and that is the fear card that Labor tends to play. The economy is strong, partly because of good management and a lot to do with the strong global economy. We most definitely do not need a union dominated labor govt making changes simply becaue of union ideology at the expense of the business sector. There's a lot to be said for the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" line. Sure, correct the cases where workers are being taken advantage of under the workplace reforms the Libs made, but don't give the unions a free run at things.