Election

[silentC]

Obviously unions do a lot of good in general, no-one debates that. You also can't debate that they have an image problem in general too. Compulsory unionism sucks. That's what we need to steer clear of. The idea of a couple of boys being sent around to your house to 'persuade' you to sign up. All the intimidation and bastardry that goes on. Surely no-one wants that back.

[Gra]

Obviously unions do a lot of good in general, no-one debates that. You also can't debate that they have an image problem in general too. Compulsory unionism sucks. That's what we need to steer clear of. The idea of a couple of boys being sent around to your house to 'persuade' you to sign up. All the intimidation and bastardry that goes on. Surely no-one wants that back.

Agreed, I just thought I would bring the agrument back to a bit of reality after a bit of union bashing. Yes they are crooks in the unions, show me an industry that doesnt have them.. I grew up in a union house and saw what advantages they brought. I now work in a non union industry (White collar, IT). I can see those that dont REQUIRE a union not understanding the need for a union, but I have also seen what employers will try to get away with without the union.

What is needed is some balance between the two extremes. I am afraid no-one has come up with a good balance yet, but what has passed recently (Last 10 years) hasnt helped

[silentC]

The main problem, as I see it, is that if you allow people to work in a job without membership of the respective union, members get ticked off that some people are enjoying the benefits negotiated for all without the overhead of the fees and the involvement in union 'activities'.

On the other hand, if you try to force people to become members, you create this environment of coercion.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe some form of government-funded representation could work. Sort of like the Ombudsman or legal aid, which works on behalf of employees, without any membership requirements, with the legal right to make representations to employers on behalf of any employee or group thereof.

[Sebastiaan56]

I agree C, I believe one of the reasons that union membership is dropping is that people do get the benefit of their activity for free. There is no easy solution. I reckon we will see conditions further erode as globalisation kicks in. I reckon its only begun.

LOML part times as a nurse. The Health Dept payroll regularly gets her wages wrong, always to their benefit. Payroll stonewalls her so she trots off to see the union every couple of months and hey presto it gets fixed. And thats the Govt!

Dont worry about it Waldo, Howard (John and Janet - both) are now the stuff political science students will study for years to come. In cricket terms a good innings.

[Gra]

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe some form of government-funded representation could work. Sort of like the Ombudsman or legal aid, which works on behalf of employees, without any membership requirements, with the legal right to make representations to employers on behalf of any employee or group thereof.

What say an arbitration commision???

[silentC]

Yes, just like that

[wheelinround]

Why not an Arbitration Forum that way people can still work (well be there anyway) get paid and all have big or or or in desperate situations while the rest of us

[monkeyman]

This fear of the unions as if Stalin was about to take power in Australia and turn the country into a Soviet Union amuses me. It's reminiscent of the "reds under the beds" era and shows how successfully the coalition's PR machine tapped into peoples simple fears.

I think Kevin Rudd made it clear last night that he wants to work against differences identified as the Union/Business, State/Federal, indigenous/non-indigenous dichotomies.

People who start talking negatively about the country's future under Labor are engaging in self-fulfilling prophesies. Even the most red-necky Australian would agree that a lot of the money John Howard was throwing around should be channelled towards improving our health systems.

Very nicely put Rossluck

[TEEJAY]

People who talk negatively about labour are not wishing for a negative self fulfilling prophecy - they are simply good enough at remembering the times of previous labour occupation and wishing this time is different.

If they are nothing of previous recent Labour governments GREAT and i hope they get re-elected.

We shall see.

And if it becomes a dogs breakfast again then surely it isn't the gov'ts fault it is because people were fulfilling a negative self prophecy - get real!

[Waldo]

And before anyone gets hoodwinked by Rudd's Education Revolution and putting computers in the hands of every secondary school student doing years 11 and 12 I'd like to point this out

A client, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development has put this tender out

http://www.tenders.vic.gov.au/domino...shing.nsf?Open

I have no doubt that Rudd will claim ownership of this as when the tender is awarded it will be in his term of office, and will say that he's extending his grand plan to teachers and principals of schools alike.

[Waldo]

People who talk negatively about labour are not wishing for a negative self fulfilling prophecy - they are simply good enough at remembering the times of previous labour occupation and wishing this time is different.

If they are nothing of previous recent Labour governments GREAT and i hope they get re-elected.

I agree with you Teejay, I wouldn't have voted for Beatie when I was still in Qld, but he proved he wasn't from the same mould as other Labor counterparts, with some exceptions eg. council amalgamations, he made the hard decisions like new dams (although the recommendations for the dam sites were made in '91) and desalination. So I'm not one-eyed after all.

[dazzler]

This may be a little left field but the best thing about the change in govt is the govt loses the nepatism it has with the heads of the govt agencies which is a good thing.

It takes a few years for the networks to get established.

I was stunned a few years ago in a govt meeting when a boss said that Minister X had told them to make a prominant complainer to shut up and stop causing trouble and the organisation should focus on him.....a bridge too far!

[Rossluck]

The main problem, as I see it, is that if you allow people to work in a job without membership of the respective union, members get ticked off that some people are enjoying the benefits negotiated for all without the overhead of the fees and the involvement in union 'activities'.

On the other hand, if you try to force people to become members, you create this environment of coercion.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe some form of government-funded representation could work. Sort of like the Ombudsman or legal aid, which works on behalf of employees, without any membership requirements, with the legal right to make representations to employers on behalf of any employee or group thereof.

Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks Silent. This type of open-minded ability to see both sides is what we need. Instead of dumping on unions we need to consider why we've needed them over time: because historically those with the power to employ have often mistreated workers and abused their rights. Just as unions are something we all wish we could do away with, so is this mistreatment of workers.

Unions, and the union movement emerged from this mistreatment of workers. And this union of people who joined forces as the only way of contesting this mistreatment do get annoyed when their fellow workers happily enjoy the benefits they gain while shunning their union.

People like Waldo have obviously never experienced this terrible feeling of powerlessness at the hands of an unscrupulous employer. I certainly have. Here's one mild example: I once worked underground in a mine, where your life and health are threatened and your life expectancy is reduced because of the dust that you swallow. One day an idiot manager suddenly decided that the ten minutes the company allowed the miners to wash their hands before the 30 minute "crib" break was to be used for washing hands only. Instead of washing your hands and walking into the Crib room for lunch a few minutes early, you were now required to stand outside like an idiot until the 30 minute break officially started, then walk into the crib room.

This was demeaning and disrespectful, and made the miners feel like school kids. We called the AWU, an official had a "frank talk" with the said manager, and the next day we were invited to sit down an enjoy our break whenever we were able.

[Waldo]

People like Waldo have obviously never experienced this terrible feeling of powerlessness at the hands of an unscrupulous employer.

Fairgo Rossluck, you don't know jack about me, so keep the comments to yourself.

[Alastair]

And turnabout,

What about the terrible feeling of powerlessness at the hands of unscrupulous unionised labour?

I have watched the issues as a result of not being able to do anything about proffessional bludgers. More important, having to pay them the same as exceptional workers, and not being able to reward those better, as they are on the same award.

The point here is "unscrupulous", and while employers can be the bad guys, so by any stretch can unions. (and have been!)