The Final report into the trade unions has been handed down, and it is clear that there has been widespread and deep seated misconduct and corruption, and that there is need for a regulator to oversea the unions along the lines of the BCC which the ALP and Greens have been blocking.

From the Australian:

"Trade union Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon has laid bare a roll-call of “louts, thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers, those who threaten violence, errant fiduciaries and organisers of boycotts” in his findings on the two-year inquiry into union corruption.

In the scathing final report, which details examples of “widespread” and “deep-seated” misconduct within the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Australian Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union, the Health Services Union and the National Union of Workers, Mr Heydon called for an all-powerful “regulator” with the power to shut down unions and employer groups.

He refers former trade union boss turned Victorian MP Cesar Melhem to Victorian prosecutors for consideration of possible corruption and false accounting charges.

Former Health Services Union secretary Kathy Jackson is also referred to prosecutors to consider whether she should be charged for obtaining property and financial advantage by deception.Trade union Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon has laid bare a roll-call of “louts, thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers, those who threaten violence, errant fiduciaries and organisers of boycotts” in his findings on the two-year inquiry into union corruption."

Dear SM,

Do levels of corruption exist in all organisations?

Frankly, I don't know.

It seems where power and money are involved the
temptation exists.

Which is a pity. Hopefully the Royal Commission will
clean things up with possibly the help of the
unions themselves. Surely they must realise that
their reputation has taken a battering - and trust
(as with the Church) needs to be re-instated.

What now seems to be the standard procedure is for employers to pay
the unions an agreed amount each year for invoiced services.
Then as we have seen with the HSU very loose overseeing of expenditures
is par for the course.
So rip off the members by pay reductions & the amount is obtained by
false invoicing and nudge nudge wink wink say no more and off to the
brothel & the dress shops and jewelers all on the credit card.

In one case set up a printing business for the wife and charge like a
wounded bull.

I find it hard to believe that the word did not get around most unions
that this was the way to rip off the members.
Then to make sure no one looked too close select the most compliant
union employees to be members of parliament and if the other party
made noises, just yell political witch hunt very loudly.

Dear Bazz,

Let's hope that the Royal Commission will
correct this misuse.

Any corrupt union organisation or member
should pay the full penalty - according to the
law.

What drives me mad is that somehow the government will use the logic that the unions are full of corruption, therefore we should abolish penalty rates.
And the sheeples will say OK.

Foxy, from what I have read the unions are not governed by law regarding
accounting, trading while insolvent, hidden commissions etc.
The governance should be similar to what is required of companies.
Some of the companies should be up for prosecution because they must
have known that the invoicing was fraudulent.
They paid out on invoices for services that were never supplied.

Both ends of these dodgie transactions should be criminal offenses.

Thugs and bullies, It is up to a court to find out what sort of corruption has occurred if any. Dyson’s opinion is not enough evidence of anything. Abbott could have written that before the Royal Commission started. Why wasn’t it referred to the police instead of spending all of that money to find some thugs and bullies. School grounds are full of them. Union officials thieving from their own union, surely that could have been handled by police.
Now the police are going to start all over again to find out what thugs and bullies mean.

The difference 579 is in the rules of evidence.
A Royal Commission can demand answers to questions, it also can obtain
documents that police have to show evidence that certain documents
exist.
It can go on fishing expeditions that the police cannot.
It can only prosecute for refusing to answer.
I think that is the knub of it. I am no legal expert.

Foxy,

There is a potential for corruption in every organisation.

The most effective deterrent to corruption is to make governance transparent, to it difficult to be corrupt without being detected, and to make the punishment sufficiently severe.

For businesses these steps are in place, and while there are many corrupt businessmen, most get caught and are punished. However, for unions virtually none of these protections are in place.

What is needed to prevent corruption is to simply apply most of the protections that apply to companies to unions primarily:

Independent auditing of the books,
Annual financial report with minimum requirements
Rules on what money can be used for elections etc,
Enforcement of these laws by the same bodies that regulate companies, not the toothless FWA.
Strict rules on conflicts of interest such as:
-What services can be provided by unions to the employers they deal with
-A ban on these services being a requirement of an EBA,
-A ban on donations to unions from the employers

This is actually in the best interests of the unions themselves, as the rampant corruption is driving them to extinction.

Some workplaces pay union membership for their workers, as a course of negotiations. The unions will enjoy a fight to find anything other than being bullies and thugs, which was a foregone conclusion. Unions are not a profit making venture, they hold funds paid to the union by members for various activities, these activities are not in any textbook. No one knows what may arise at any particular time.
An organization set up by the workers to watch over their interests. As you may have noticed there has been no mass demonstrations against their own unions. Why do you think this is so.
No one likes renegades in the union internal structures, There lies a problem with the very top brass, taking liberties. Maybe the position at the top is held for to long a time.
Talks with union and business is mostly done without any written records as to whatever was talked about. It would be a hard ask to regulate unions as a business I can not see the relevance and do not think any such agreement would be reached between members and officials, of any significance. Before any conclusions are made we should find out what bullies and thugs mean in a court of law

Foxy: Let's hope that the Royal Commission will correct this misuse.

Not a chance in Hell. The BLF was shut down & made illegal. replaced by the CMFEU. The very same people managed the new Organization. That's what all these Organizations do.

Eg; About 1966/7 the ASCO ran the Canteens in service Establishments. There had been many complaints about their pricing & practices. I 1966 1 R.A.R came home from Vietnam. The Unit had set up it's own Unit Canteen & made 1 cent less then a million Dollars. ASCO demanded that the money be handed over to them. They lost that one. ASCO Went to Vietnam to the Task Force at Baria & in the first year supposedly made a million Dollar loss. There prices were very noticeably higher than the 1 R.A.R. Unit Canteen. An investigation found that ASCO had been ripping the Troops of for years. The Organization was closed down. AAFCANS was formed & provided for the Troops. Notably though, all the people that ran ASCO now ran AAFCANS. & AAFCANS has been ripping the Troops off ever since.

Cont.
I left the Army in 1969 & worked as a Barman. It was well known as the Wharfie's Pub. Now apparently if you are a registered Communist you couldn't be the President of the WWU. So they elected a little drunk guy as President & got him a job on the Wharf. He never ever set foot on the Wharf. They set him up every day at the Pub & he drank. The Wharfie's paid the Bill at the end of the day. They would have their meetings & push the paperwork in front of him to sign each day. One day one of the Wharfies got caught stealing a Transistor Radio. One of the little tiny ones when they first came out. He was charged. An investigation was done & all the Union Hierarchy was caught & Charged. They then had Rolling Strikes. Negotiation's were done & the Charges were dropped. The entire Union Hierarchy & a few others were suspended for 6 months. Then an entire container of white paint went missing. Investigations done & never found. But, strangely every Waterside Worker in Brisbane got their house painted White, for free, that year.

I just bet there are people here that relate to all that & have the same sort of horror stories.

I do believe they should have the same type of Royal Commission on influence the big Industry Giants have over the Liberal/National Parties. Now, that would be interesting.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Great post!

Excellent suggestions.

Dear Jay,

I hope that you're wrong about the Royal
Commission into union corruption.
I hope that it achieves everything it's meant
to do.

Foxy: I hope that you're wrong about the Royal Commission into union corruption. I hope that it achieves everything it's meant to do.

So do I foxy, but don't hold your breath. Negotiations done behind the scenes will smooth thing over for both sides & it will be business as usual & everything will go back to as it was.

There will be the usual sniping for the Media to make it look good, but that's it.

Don't hold your breath.

May be the new government will put pressure on
the Royal Commission - especially since this is
an election year.

It wouldn't hurt Labor's image either to pursue
cleaning up the unions. Especially considering -
the Opposition leader's
past close connections with the unions.

Foxy,

Thanks for your comments. I hope you are faring better.

The newly released TURC report has exposed systemic corruption and the links with the Labor party. Shorten has two options:

1 Oppose the reforms to protect Labor's revenue stream and risk a DD election rout.

2 Support the reforms and have a realistic chance at the next elections, but lose the revenue and union base.