AS

Now lets get to the cruch

does the labor party pay the unions

or

is it the workers who pay the unions to represent them.

when you work out that question which is really easy, but then again even belly cannot work that out.

If you are paying someone to do a job for you and he doesnt do it are you still going to pay him.

Stuart Ulrich

AS I must leave the thread TAPP will insult our movement now he has found it he has no different way.
I do not run away from you but surely you understand written English ? Gibo thinks unions are communist!
No one on this earth could be more opposed to them than me!
I except I can not talk to TAPP my pride in my movement will not let me .
My path in unionism is to see my movement except the challenges change brings .
but you can not bank on me to except your views this country is racist or our movement treats migrants bad , you give fuel to those who hate unions in such untrue statements.
I have about 40 women members in construction none are activists none want a bigger roll most have needed help more than once but not one will be a delegate.
Farewell to you in this thread if I leave others early it is to avoid feeding others who want only to insult.

Antonius I think you are right about needing stronger unions but I would add to that:

1. Stronger but free from corruption and political influence.
2. Foremost - the union has to represent the worker first. (As Tapp said, it is the worker who pays the fees and has a right to representation).
3. Unions are poorly administered at the ground level ie. membership administration (nightmare) and responsiveness.

Women, youth and those employed under 457 Visas need special attention because experience demonstrates that these groups are notoriously underpaid and underrepresented.

As someone who is pro-union, we need to get back to the very basic premise that a union exists to advocate on behalf of members. If we lose that then the union movement will die and all that will be left is a loosely organised and fragmented quasi political organisation.

On May 29, 2007, the Supreme Court (In USA)ruled that Lilly Ledbetter, a 19-year employee of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, could not sue for wage discrimination because she had not filed a claim within 180 days of Goodyear’s decision to pay her unfairly.

This happened even though she only learned she was making less than her male counterparts many years after employer began discriminating against her. In her case, the unlawful pay disparities occurred in small amounts that built up slowly, but steadily over time. Her employer unlawfully paid her less and pocketed the money.

Don’t let this happen to you or others. Take action to restore remedies for workplace discrimination and to ensure that employers do not profit from years of discrimination simply because they can keep it secret from their employees for a few months
.......
The U.S. House of Representatives passed "The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" (H.R. 2831) to correct this problem, and to ensure employers do not profit from years of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability, simply because their employees were unaware of the discrimination for 180 days. The bill clarified this wage discrimination is not a one-time occurrence, but rather, that each discriminatory paycheck an employer issues represents an ongoing violation of the law.

The bill will be voted on by the U.S. Senate as early as Wednesday. The time has come for the Senate to correct this wrong and let American workers keep their hard-earned dollars.
(From ACLU)
In Australia we have exactly the same problem if you are a victim of ANY DISCRIMINATION you can claim your rights ONLY WITHIN 6 MONTHS!!
WHERE ARE THE ALP AND GREEN PARTIES TO CHANGE THE LAW AS IN USA?, WHERE IS THE AUSTRALIAN UNION MOVEMENT? NONE IS INTERESTED FOR THE VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION, (MIGRANTS, WOMEN, RELIGIOUS MINORITIES, LESBIAN-GAYS,OR LABORS WITH DISABILITIES)
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios,

The laws governing unions have to change if unions are to have any power.

In 1996, the newly elected Howard government virtually abolished compulsory unionism nationwide and made it more difficult for unions to recruit or strike.

How can a union function effectively - without any power?

Foxy
1. I am against the compulsory unionism because in this case the Unions could ignore labors rights without any cost for them. I want the Unions to believe, care and fight for labors rights. I am member in the Union but really I do not know what they want, I am not sure. I do not care if they can help us, it depends from many factors,BUT IF THEY WANT TO HELP US, IF THEY ARE INTERESTED FOR US. In the past I asked for very simple things but the organizer was laughing or did not do nothing. I want strong unions but I do not know how they can restore their credibility.
Foxy, In many countries the Unions are enough strong, about 80% in Scandinavian countries, here we are very weak.
For me two are the main reasons 1. the Anglo Saxon way of Unionism, stand mainly on labor aristocracy and 2. the migrants, race discrimination. Why migrants, the lowest paid and under the worst conditions employees do not become member of the Union? The Union must improve its relations with migrants, with non Anglo Saxon labors. THERE IS A HUGE PROBLEM WITH MIGRANTS.