Wish I could bag some of this! my garden loves such stuff, unions are not all the same confrontation not the only tool.
Small business men and women have invited me to come into non union shops and fix problems even write agreements in the middle of rampart workchoices.
Yesterdays post? problem solved all of them.
Well a new one popped its head up!
Casual worker 3 months on the job , fell ill at work, doubled up in very real pain ,his car at the depot 2 hours travel away.
His workmates feared he was dieing!
EVERY WORD IS TRUE
Boss under pressure said you can hang on for another hour!
Your replacement is half way here, take her Ute home.
Worker was truly ill, feared he would die.
Hitch hiked 15 klm to nearest town and a doctor, sent for his wife to drive him home after he left hospital 7 hours later.
he was sacked!
Who fixes that without a union?
A boss will be removed from his job soon.
How can adults think only unions are bad?
That no bosses act like this?
or that unions are always anti business?

FrankGol, happy to acknowledge the work of Hawke and Keating- the best Liberal leadership of the last 30 years?

Your point, "why not treat each case on its merits?"is my point too. Attempts to reassert the universal primacy of Union involvement in enterprise bargaining, and the probability of pattern bargaining as a consequence, is something that will lead to each case not being considered on its own merits. This is one place that will undo some of the Keating revolution.

The old stereotype of the union still exists,not just with McDonald and his ilk, but out in the workforce. There is a group on my current site who are just itching for a Rudd govt. who see that as a green light to 'bung it on'. They will happily cost the other 250 money.

I've criticised Rudd's wishy-washy plan to implement his Fair Work policies. Just wish he had the front to take Keatings advice to legislate minimum wages and conditions and let us get on with it. Instead, he will slip in his policy over 5 years; ensuring that the changes will create maximum disturbance. We'll all be voting on the exact same proposals in 3 years time.

The great change in the last 20 years at work has been, the accent on getting the job done. not on finding ways to slow things down. Morale is better, and things much more enjoyable. A reinvigorated union movement will spoil this

Oh dear, FrankGol, have I upset you?

Here, have a hanky.

>>How do you get from my "deal with the union delegates" to your "delegate responsibility for the welfare of your staff to the unions"?<<

Easy, really. Any manager who chooses to treat his employees as a bunch of cattle, to be treated the same regardless of their differences, is trading away his responsibility to manage his staff.

>>For that matter, how do you get from my son saying "it is quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective to deal with the union delegates" to his being "lazy in the extreme"?<<

Even easier. Ask yourself "quicker, cheaper and more efficient and effective" for whom?

Clearly, for the person who cares so little about his staff that he chooses to negotiate their pay and conditions with a single stranger, rather than take the time and attention to look after them as individuals.

>>His MBA long taught him that treating people like a 'herd of cattle' (a la WorkChoices) is death to productivity.<<

Red herring. The discussion here is not between Workchoices, which is hardly distinguishable from a union agreement, and the unions themselves. It is between managing your staff properly and delegating decisions on their working conditions to a third party.

By the way, most MBA courses agree with me.

>>Maybe that's why his company has made yet another record profit last year and promoted him to general manager of the whole enterprise<<

As evidence on its own, that could describe someone who has sold out his own workers to less-than-ideal working conditions, in exchange for higher profits and a cushier job for himself. Sounds suspiciously like those workers are being exploited, doesn't it?

But of course, I'm sure that's not the case with your son. It was just his ability to get a good deal for his people from the unions, without the trouble of actually talking to all those pesky employees, wasn't it?

Pericles

You've upset me? Nah! If your logic and evidence were better, I might be upset. But you're lightweight.

Creating meanings that simply aren't there is so pointless. And repeating mantras that have long been refuted is a waste of everybody's time. You're so thin, you're transparent.

For example: "Clearly, for the person who cares so little about his staff that he chooses to negotiate their pay and conditions with a single stranger, rather than take the time and attention to look after them as individuals." My manager son has never negotiated with a stranger. He knows the union people very well indeed and has worked cooperatively with them for years.

Nor does he treat people "like cattle". Nor does he delegate to unions his managment role. These are your fictions which you can masticate on for as long as you like but they aren't true and won't be true in the morning when you wake up.

Now let me get this straight: my son lets the unions do his work for him, the company rewards him because he "sold out his own workers to less-than-ideal working conditions, in exchange for higher profits and a cushier job for himself." How does that work? Every boss should hire a union to do their dirty work - the workers would fall for that wouldn't they?

I love your nine-out-of-ten-dentists-recommend survey technique, Pericles. "By the way, most MBA courses agree with me." I know, I know, the dog ate your testimonials.

Do you you know the difference between an MBA and a Creative Writing course, old son?

Methinks he doth protest too much.

The example of your son - I think I may have met him once, tall guy, halo, walks on water? - is hardly the most convincing evidence for unionism, FrankGol. The point that we are supposed to be discussing is the benefits of unionism in the modern working world, not whether your son's MBA is bigger than my Grade 1 swimming certificate.

Any manager (except your son, of course) who considers his staff of so little value that he prefers to negotiate with a third party, rather than with the worker directly, doesn't understand the role of management.

Any business (except your son's of course, complete with corporate halo) that treats its workers so badly that they choose to appoint a third party to negotiate on their behalf, deserves to fail.

Unions have done a great job in the past, when industrialism was at its peak and where not to work meant starvation. All these battles have been won.

In fact, you might have noticed some of the more contemporary concerns focus on the fact that welfare for the unemployed is so good, it might actually act as a deterrent to seek work. There are no longer throngs of desperate out-of-workers lining up at the soup kitchens.

In these conditions, what do unions bring to the table, except more bureaucracy and pointless make-work activities? They have been very useful in the past, but their time is up.

Except of course when they can be instrumental in getting promotions for compliant managers.

Have a great day.

Pericles,
ROFL – agree with the matter – but especially love the art –more please…