http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/compulsory-unionism.html

So what is the government’s role in all of this? Rather than supporting compulsory unionism or abolishing it, they should merely mandate that all unions with compulsory membership create a more direct and democratic way for members to adjust union fees.

A simple solution to all of these problems is to make each union election a referendum on union fees. This would provide sufficient motivation for people to turn up and vote. Even if they didn’t know who the candidates were, they would have an opinion on whether the fees should go up or down. This could be combined with measures intended to stabilise union income, for example limiting the annual change in income to 10%, or by making the rate of change proportional to the demand for change – for example if 53.7% of members voted for an increase in fees and 46.3% for a decrease, the fees would go up by 3.7%.

Although the topic is "Compulsory Unionism", which is what caught my eye, the actual point, which is about a more democratic way of setting union membership fees and how they should be adjusted, is actually quite clever, and pertinent in this election year as a large potion of the ALP's funding comes from the Union movement. As both the ALP and the Coalition have become more centrist and both have embraced similar versions of "Economic Rationalism" orthodoxy, the old "class warfare" in the UK, Oz, and NZ is essentially redundant. I have belonged to unions, and I have sat at the "executive roundtable" fighting my fellow managers about job losses. People are naive if they think they don't need unions. Your suggestion about union membership fees is brilliant and would placate many disgruntled union members.

Compulsory unionism is unacceptable anywhere but abhorrent in a democracy. There is absolutely no justification for it.
Unions have their place but they need to be run on democratic and non-compulsory lines with a secret ballot for all votes.
Interesting way of setting fees - would be even more interesting if donations to political parties (or should I say the political party?) were preferably disallowed altogether but, at very least, required to be voted on by the rank and file. Other political rantings (such as the misleading advertisements against the IR policies - yes a senior union official informed me that they were designed to be deliberately misleading in order to get the union message across) - these political rantings need to be banned altogether and replaced with accurate information.
Doubt this will suit the unionists though - they have run the ALP for far too long.

Bl&*dy hell Communicat there is no such thing as compulsory unionism.
Yes rat bags try it on but it is illegal has been for years and as a union official I say so it should be.
However rank and file should have much more say in running unions, the door is open they can have a say, but few will.
My personal view, mine, not any union, has always been fees to the lower income end be half fees.
Yes some can not afford to be in a union, constantly I am informed that my view is wrong, the ACTU once sent a girl who had never gone without a feed in her life to tell me no Australian could not afford full fees.
One day a union will be brave enough to cut fees for low income workers, please do not waste effort in telling me about casual fees I know.
That union if it truly serves its members will make a net gain in income as new members flood in, good thread wrong title.
Oh can anyone point to one single union official who did not rise from the rank and file?
In a way unions are run by rank and file.

Now now did I say unionism was compulsory - no, just that it should not be compulsory. There should be no coercion whatsoever to join a union (but of course there are still some 'no ticket, no start' situations and unions still claim right of entry, especially OH&S grounds, when it suits their agenda).
Rank and file? Not too sure about that - without secret ballots if you don't vote the way the hierarchy want you to vote then you might as well forget going up the ladder. No wonder union leaders don't like the idea of the secret ballot.
I think what concerns many people who might otherwise join a union is the forced donation to a political party not of their choice. People have wised up to this and it disturbs them.

Australia had compulsory student unionism until recently.

I hope one day we can debate unions without bias, without lies, and without manufactured information.
Yes unions contribute to the party bought to life by the trade union movement the ALP.
[ Oh in truth unions are not ever in control of its child the ALP it is another lie and fear tactic history tells us clearly]
And some do not like fees they pay being used that way, I understand and think they should have the right to see that money go to conservatives if they want.
Radical? no just constant change to keep up with the new reality's of life.
Now how can those who clearly are biased against unions forget the very real unions bosses have?
And the massive contributions they give to the other side of politics?
Far outweighing unions cash to Labor?
Once, is it now 30 years ago? you had to be in a union, not now.
The fact is unions did play a very big part in the great economic position we are in the Hawk accord comes to mind.
Back to the threads intent, fees.
While I speak for myself it is clear to me fees being raised can not forever be the answer to cash problems.
At some time in the future some unions will understand a business side exists for every union ,and constant change and improvement is required.
A focus on increasing services will increase membership, so will reduced fees.

The only union I have ever been a member of was the student union in UK, when a student, without choice.

In the commercial / technical college I attended, we did have a very belligerent left wing union president who decided to call a lightning strike. Studying accounting is an intensive process and we did not feel obliged to miss classes to appease the desires of some scruffy red nong who was there only to play at doing a diploma is flower arranging (or whatever). Cutting the story short, we countered his call to arms with an extraordinary general meeting and kicked the tosser out of office. We then lacked proper union representation but did we care, guess we did not.

Belly your defense of unions is a little too strident. When we see scumbag union officials being frog marched out of the labor party for using their self admitted intimidation and illegal standover tactics, we know that the sanitized image which some would promote is a crock of doggie doos and that a lot of unions smell no better than that same doggie doos.

When I look back at the 1970’s, unions with at their political zenith. They lost the momentum when real people started to realize the stupidity of socialism, the lies it is based upon and the strong arm tactics which the unions used to play their political puppets.

I have nothing against unions however, they have long been infiltrated by Trotskites and fellow travelers whose real motives have nothing to do with unionism and everything to do with their own agenda.

I agree the unions were their own worst enemy and were often run by the more radical militants in later years. However without the unions the workers have no protection and they will come to see the results of that over time. For example some people who would be seen as some of the most respected pillars of society have no objection at all to employing practically slave labour in some of their overseas businesses. See nothing wrong with pocketing profits that should have been used to train skilled Australian workers and tradesmen and selling out their fellow Australians by bringing in cheap foreign labour from overseas.

One question about foreign labour bought in on work visas? If they have a child while here,how do you then deport the parent of an Australian baby? Does anyone know the answer to this? Is the child an Australian citizen having been born here.

Col rouge A refreshing post, it reminds me of how little some know about my movement.
In threads like unions a difference exists, in fact in most of my posts you will find my thoughts that unions are different and the best still evolving.
Student union? hardly form to say you know unions.
Sorry but I am not extreme left, not radical, and find extremism is as much my enemy as the worst bosses.

Past radicalism was sometimes what it took to get fairness in a world that some considered they owned workers.
In the 1950,s 44 hour weeks and no protective clothing, often hungry and always battling workers defended the right to have rights at work.
They do today too and I have the feeling they are about to win yet another battle.
Just maybe conservative Australia by its impending loss will look back on the defeat as the turning point that made them understand unions are not always evil.
This is the time some militant unions will remember too,change or die
Not just my view members view too.
Do you know I put the blame for workchoices firmly at the feet of some true idiot actions of extremists in some unions?
Howard grew to believe wrongly that all unions fit in one box.
That YES MY THOUGHTS NOT MY UNIONS my delegate was dragged of a building site and told he would be bashed by a man better used as a bouncer, no union should not be shamed by use of such thugs.
You may not understand the difference between unions but you have no right to put me among the dieing extremist unions.
But never forget any fight is not too tough for a true union in defense of its members rights.
Unions a Difference Does Exist.
And your rights at work are worth fighting and voting for.
PS
I have constantly been spoken to like that caught on video by blokes from that same group.
LOVE IT!seems the constant flow of refugees from some unions to mine is offending some?

"Without the unions workers will have no protection" - nonsense! These days the media is only too happy to do the job for the unions. Any company caught treating workers badly will get a drubbing in the press, indeed they might get a drubbing in the press or on talk-back radio even if they are innocent of any wrong doing. Unions can and often do have a field day with the truth if they believe it will show 'them' in a bad light. (Funny how the people who pay their wages are slways seen as the enemy...I know quite a few 'bosses' whose take home pay is less than those of the workers, who work longer hours and take far greater responsibility but apparently they are the enemy.)
We will, of course, ignore the great variety of laws and forms of legal redress available...apparently they count for nothing in the union philosophy as they are not controlled by the unions.

I wonder what the legals are regarding conflict of interest when Union officials are members of a political party and they are involved in the decision making process regarding donations to that same party.

One of my concerns with what I've seen of the trade union movement is that all to often the interets of the ALP are put ahead of the interests of the workers the unions claim to represent.

If the union movement wants to regain relevance it needs to seperate itself from political ties and start working for union members rather than a single political party.

R0bert

Whilst there is an argument that unions shouldn't donate money to political parties because some members do not support that course of action, we can also extend that idea to public companies that donate to political parties against the wishes of some shareholders. If there is going to be an even playing field then the obvious solution is that all political parties can only accept donations from individuals only. I get the feeling that reforms like this will disadvantage the coalition greater because they have a more disparate core of supporters beyond their corporate base.
The idea of charging people for the bargaining efforts of the union were discussed by our union recently. The prevailing view within our union is that even though it is fairer for the members, ultimately trying to charge non-unionists would be ultimately counter productive and increase union hostility. The best way to increase membership is via services and providing value.

rObert and Communicat our two conservative posters I understand your reason for those posts.
rObert has some balance and it is only fair I say so Communicat can you not read and watch the Medea?
Can it have escaped you that the very reverse to your claims is true?
Most Medea is very much against unions and Labor.
Lets go back to the reasons we have news Medea, to report the news of the day.
It stands to reason sometimes, it would appear almost by accident they do so!
Some story's can not be managed, some truth must e told, some not anti union or worker story's will escape the news manufacturing Medea, but on balance our Medea is, well fox like.
I still hold the view, truly that you may well be a minister in this government, true no rubbish.
The true unconcern for Truth, the willing ness to miss use the facts .
I want those who think like you to know unionists and workers who are not unionists, the victims of workchoices are not evil.
They vote green and Democrat liberal and national and they vote ALP.
The most important thing they have in common is they are Australians.
We will line up on polling day not insulting or threatening each other.
So why the lie? why are those who work and those who are union members found wanting in your posts?
Communicat is it not clear to you this undeclared war on some Australians is the greatest failure of this government.
That the right to arbitration of disputes is no crime? that just maybe the NSW system was fair and honest enough to be our national system?
That to flog every union for the sins of a few was over kill?

Belly. I am currently a union member - basically paying protection money. I'm informed that my union does not pay fee's to the Labor Party otherwise I'd be out as quickly as I could. I see some validity to the argument about unions doing the negotiation for pay and conditions but also see that the unions work very hard to keep other players out of the field so my sympathy on that issue is limited.

When I first started work I was required to be in a union, the ETU at the time and had the pleasure of being a member during the mid 80's during the Qld electricity dispute. I resigned shortly after I sat in a meeting with an ETU official who made it clear that he considered threatening phone calls in the middle of the night (threatening violence against the kids of strike breakers), removing ladders from under people, etc were legitimate tactics in industrial action. I attended union meetings where those willing to oppose what union heavies wanted were physically threatened and knew guys who were assaulted for not voting the way others wanted.

From what I saw of that dispute it was all about people trying to get at Joh rather than any real interest in worker conditions and safety.

As an employee of a state government owned organisation I've seen workers treated with a far higher level of disregard and contempt by Labor than the Nationals ever did. The ties between the unions and Labor mean that little is done by the unions when it's Labor mistreating workers - to much mixed loyalty there.

I see a lot of unions organisers who still speak in the language of the old country, still fighting their battles against the "Torries" and the class divisions of a land on the other side of the planet.

R0bert

RObert you are looking back a fair bit into the past, and I would find t hard not to agree with what you say about that time.
Things however have changed, I became a union official after a lifetime of senor delegate work.
A long time working for a NSW government department as a delegate on the single bargaining unit and at ground level.
Under both forms of government, both had to be watched ALP and conservatives.
Strange in workers comp the best deal came from a Liberal; leader.
I am no longer a government employee because I was a whistle blower.
Such is life my union job came the only way they should ever come.
Members liked me ,trusted me, and joined the union, only the best are good enough to serve the members.
Protection money? are you fair dinkum? we insure our cars but not after we smash them.
Modern unions start the service from day one few services would exist without members and few members without service.
No idea about foreign union bosses if they are the best to lead its ok by me.
Hey have you noticed the outcome of any public service investigation is a white wash?
I know some great people work in such jobs but just once would like the thief's bought to heel not the whistle blower.
However I assure you unions are not all warlike not all radical and no way all who work for them should,, but few ring in to tell of problems left unsolved why? never could work that out , no support from me for poor performers in unions.

Belly, I know that most are not as bad as the ETU was in the 80's.

True my main examples are from some time back - I've avoided close involvement with unions since.

In more recent times we had the states electricity infrastructure run into the ground to pay dividends to the state government. Not only the physical assetts suffered but staff suffered severly during that period. Because of the specialised nature of the work done by many it's not always practical to just move onto another employer. The unions were well aware of what was going on and were either negligent in not telling the government or told them and kept quiet when Beatty claimed (after it became public) that he knew nothing about what was going on. My guess is the latter.

My guess is a similar scenario prevailed in other government owned enterprises which have been run into the ground by Qld Labor during their terms in office.

R0bert

RObert your honesty in admitting your views are based on the actions of one union nearly 30 years ago is noted.
As is you advice you have kept no contact with unions from that date except your membership as future insurance.
It is my personal view few understand the difference between unions.
And fewer still understand the direction and tactics of a minority of rat bags in the movement.
Whatch this space, no matter who wins this election we have seen the last of radical and extremist unions having any real power.
For a time some unions will find membership shrinking, and for some it will be forever.
But other fair dinkum unions will grow and do so constantly.
I find it sad that far too many can not tell the difference, and that a few unions think more of radicalism than members.
It is not generally known by Joe public but officials who put members first and hold themselves accountable are targeted by idiots in union shirts who prefer war over negotiation.
I am proud to be union, proud of my union and proud to win with honor by other than thuggish tactics.
That is the future of the movement while some acts of the past are not good others are a matter of great pride to me.

Belly, there is a significant difference between close contact and no contact. I've not observed any involved in my workplace (we have a number) who I think put their members ahead of the ALP. On the other hand the nurses union and police union appear willing to go public with issues impacting their members. There are a mixture.

On the original topic - I don't think union membership should ever be a condition of employment (as they once were) nor should unions take money collected from membership fee's to fund any political party. As long as safeguards were in place to ensure no member was bullied for not doing so it might be appropriate to allow individual members to nominate to pay some extra to support a party (as I pay extra on my electricity account to support a rescue chopper).

I think we are already agreed that all sides of politics need watching when it comes to worker protections.

R0bert