Very funny skit here

But a question for discussion, what are the Liberal Party trying to appeal to when they run the scare/truth campaign about all the ex-Union folk on the Labor party? Why are we meant to hate/fear them?

[Edit: Got the skit from this persons blog]

Who knows. I’m more worried about Business interests and multi nationals getting all the power… oh wait… too late.

Geoff

A poor rip off of Monty Python’s sketch in Life of Brian on “what have the romans ever done for us?”.  It was done so much better by them.

Notwithstanding that, I agree with the sentiments expressed in it - those who have no bargaining power need some collective identity or they’d never get anything.  But I also agree with the liberals (to a tiny extent - oh how scary) that the unions hold too much power within the labour party and do at times abuse that power, particularly in the construction industry.  Unions are essential to give those with no bargaining power a voice, and when I was a teenage slave for a large retailer if it hadn’t been for the unions I would have got no meal break, overtime allowance or other small but essential rights and I never would have had a hope in negotiating such rights.  Since 1992 I have worked in the legal profession and negotiated on my lonesome all of my work contracts, but from a position of subtantial bargaining power; so there is a limit to the need for unions in those circumstances. 

Scare campaigns are the lowest common denomiator of political posturing, but I think the liberals have made a valid point that there is too much union control of workplaces in Australia and that there is a disproportionate level of power wielded in the labour party by union officials.

However, Kathryn I also think that the specific people seeking office in our next parliament are not scary rabble-rousers, like the geezer Howard is displaying as your typical union boss.  [I don’t like the look of him, but.]

We got a pamphlet, very similar to the material now revealed to have been put out by the Exclusive Brethren in the previous Federal election campaign, in our letter box [despite our No Junk Mail sticker] which is outrageously dishonest. It tells us that all people in the Labor Party are anti-business, and it tells us the exact composition of the next Labor cabinet, should Kevin Rudd win. I would think not even Mr Rudd knows the full details yet!

We got a pamphlet, presumably put out by the Exclusive Brethren, in our letter box [despite our No Junk Mail sticker] which is outrageously dishonest.

Imagine the EB being dishonest. What is the world coming to?

Hmmm, imagine Howard taking a retro-step and using Unions as a scare tactic. What is the world coming to?

Yeesh! I am over this election. Maybe I’ll vote for the Silly Party (too late to stand I guess)

(That’s a Monty Python reference for KR’s benefit.)

Owen Atkins - 27 October 2007 01:20 AM

Who knows. I’m more worried about Business interests and multi nationals getting all the power… oh wait… too late.

I nearly fell of my chair gasping for breath. So true. The equation presented by the govt’s election ad is simple: Business = Good; Unions = Bad. Why?

My beef with capitalism here and the US, which is skewed in favour of business, is that it keeps demonizing unions and portraying business as the good guys. Don’t we know our Industrial Revolution and more recent history? Unbridled business is scary and cruel. Unbridled union power becomes over-indulgent.

I think govt intervention via legislation, unions and institutions like The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (does it still exist in one form or another?) are necessary to help balance the interests of both.

Business esp multi nationals have had the upper hand for a long long time. While a society can call its govt to account on election day, we have very little power, if any, to call to account big business and multi-nationals policies and practices.

PS the You Tube skit is very clever and very funny. About time.

I thought I’d answer the question in the Title of this thread, from my positive experience with the NSW Teachers’ Federation union.

Four months ago, I was teaching a class of 31 Year Three students in Sydney’s west, of which 19 students were boys.

Due to the boys being in the clear majority, and mostly from non-religious families/parenting styles that could not control their behaviour nor model correct behaviour methods - my approach to & method of teaching tended towards the authoritarian end of the spectrum at times.  (I have found that this leads to enhanced learning for classes where boys “rule”, as it were, because if you can get the boys to behave the whole class behaves...in my experience anyhow.)

Unfortunately the mothers of two of my girls did not appreciate my attempts to ensure that the class was managed well and that all students could make more than the necessary progress in literacy & numeracy (through controlling the boys’ behaviour by authoritarian style discipline).

One wrote a letter of complaint, full of a bit of truth with a lot of misinterpretation and some fabrication as well.  And I received no support from the school executive staff about the smaller dissatisfactions leading up to the letter being written.  My senior staff did not help me nip the issues in the bud, they didn’t even bother to keep my adequately informed, and they certainly gave me no advice as to how to deal with the complaint.

BUT through the whole unfair ordeal, it was the NSW Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) union that supported me, wholeheartedly & completely.

They gave me tips on what to write when drafting written response to the complaint letter.

They read over my drafts and provided feedback, criticism, editing, wisdom in all of it.

They understood my concerns and were able to help me empathise with the concerns & emotions of the complaining mother as well.

Because of this union, the NSWTF, its very existence and the assistance it gave me, I was able to emerge from the ordeal with head held reasonably high and my professionalism as a teacher validated.

I owe the fact that I am still in teaching, in part at least, to a union.  If I’d been on my own, without the professional legal advice that the NSWTF union provided, I would probably have felt forced to pack teaching in altogether and find something else…

Taking away unions takes away the power of the individual to defend themselves against the might of non-Christian/worldly and therefore flawed political powers.

I’m not standing up for every union of every persuasion, as I know nothing of non-teachers’ unions.  However, it seems to me that a union can fight a lot more effectively than just one individual when it seems as if First World country rights look as if they are slowly being taken away by the government in power.

I have a feeling that all I just said will be fodder for flaming, oh well.

TZ.

[quote author="Owen Atkins” date="1193397109Yeesh! I am over this election. Maybe I’ll vote for the Silly Party (too late to stand I guess)

Owen I’ d vote for you, but I can’t decide whether I’m with the JPF or the PFJ or the PJF, but I’ll go with whichever doesn’t oppress me by denying my right to be a woman if I choose to be.  (You’ve got to see it, you really do, if you haven’t already)

Still, seriously, I’m with Tia - without her union protection she would have had a much worse outcome to a difficult situation not of her making.  Where the union system breaks down and where the liberal party ads start to have some degree of truth is where the unions control the workplace in toto, as in the construction industry.  I have construction clients who will do anything to please the union just to be able to keep the site open and working.  The solicitor sitting down the hall from me routinely goes to court to block unions efforts to shut down workplaces on the most spurious of reasons.  The unions powers that be have gone too far, and the liberal ad simply makes that point, albeit with a large degree of scaremongering. But Tia shows clearly of how great a benefit they can be when kept in check and operating in an appropriate role. 

Alan, what’s the liberal party’s official policy on unions?  Abolish them all, keep them but utterly emasculate them, or allow them some small sphere of operation in limited circmstances?

ed - layout issues

Alan, what’s the liberal party’s official policy on unions?  Abolish them all, keep them but utterly emasculate them, or allow them some small sphere of operation in limited circmstances?

Kathryn, I wouldn’t have a clue.  I don’t think unions cop any mention at all in the party platform.  Or the footy club, or the CWA for that matter.  I think the Liberal Party’s policy towards them all is the same:  freedom of association, but no legal privileges.

What’s Labor’s policy? 

Greg Combet:  We used to run the country, and it wouldn’t be a bad thing if we did again.

I’m very pleased that her Union provided such support for Tia during her dispute with the parents of the children she teaches.  I’d be much happier though if the State Government she works for (and all the others) agreed to allow school principals a bit of backbone.

Tia’s story is quite telling, for me.

Trade Unionism has almost disappeared in private enterprise, but it continues to survive and even flourish in the state sector.  I expect that dichotomy may reflect the differing choices available to workers unhappy with their pay and conditions.  In the private sector, you can just leave, and try another job for more pay or better conditions.  Employers compete for staff now; and they wouldn’t have any, if they allowed the conditions Tia labours under to persist.  The state sector, however, is (largely) a monopoly.  There’s nowhere else to go, so you need a union to support you.

Yes I know some private sector conditions are still exploitative, but you still have a choice, Sydneysiders:  Westward, look, the land is bright!

Comrades :)

One of my concerns is that with the decline of unions and other voluntary organisations in Australia we are moving towards a situartion where for many people the two levels they at which they engage with society are (a) the individual/famly and (b) the State.  Unions and other mediating organisations potentially provide a counterpoint and balance to the power of the State.  In that ense, I think I think you could makle a thoroughjy ‘conservative’ case for their continued existence and influence.

There are certain aspects of the Australian IR system which have not served unions or their members well - eg the granting of virtual monopoly coverage in certain industries and occupations.  I would rather see unions compteing for coverage with each other as this might encourage them to lift their game in areas such as workplace structures.  I also think that a lack of union militancy in recent times may have hindered recruitment - who wants to join a union unless its going to put up a decent fight now and then?

Cheers,

Mark

Mark.

Geoff asks the questions who are the Liberal Party trying to appeal to in their campaign against union influence in the ALP.

I suspect the Libs know that a lot of small businessmen and farmers and others have long memories.  I will never forget, for instance, the milk processing strike in WA in the early 1980s, when my Dad and my brothers and I had to milk the cows twice a day and tip out the milk on the ground because the trucks didn’t come to collect it, and my mum went to Perth to work in a factory to try to keep the industry going.

In WA, union intimidation on building sites is a matter of public record.  The CFMEU invented the so-called “blue flu” on the Perth-Mandurah railway line project in which their members struck simultaneously all alleging the same illness.  The cost of the project has blown out to twice the government’s initial estimate.  This kind of thing started happening as soon as we got a State Labor Government again - but Howard’s Australian Building and Construction Commission has clipped their wings somewhat.  I imagine a great many employers are awaiting 25 November with great trepidation.

There is still a lot of deep suspicion about the union movement in middle Australia, especially amongst older Australians. Then again, the union movement has been pretty well behaved the last 15 years or so.

And I think if Rudd gets in power, he will not be so easily influenced. It’s one thing to tell an aspiring back-bencher what to do - it’s quite another thing to tell the PM what to do.

Rudd is essentially a conservative, and I don’t believe he wants the labour market re-regulated too much. Even his plan to abolish workchoices is spaced out over several years - at least partly to protect the mining industry.

Geoff Chambers 26 October 2007 10:58pm
But a question for discussion, what are the Liberal Party trying to appeal to when they run the scare/truth campaign about all the ex-Union folk on the Labor party? Why are we meant to hate/fear them?

I have ancient memories (back in late ‘70s til late ‘80s) of being compelled to be in a union, if I wanted to have work at this particular workplace. Also, of groups going out on strike, and my department not actually striking, but in “sympathy” not working but still going to work and picking up pay. I didn’t respect such a system.

I suspect a lot of those practices perhaps have largely gone and that (in answer to Geoff’s question) younger people don’t have the same experience of unions as older people have.

I am grateful for the NSW Teachers’ Federation, and love their motto:
Qui docet discit
which we used to say meant
He who teaches, learns
and then
[and properly]
The one who teaches, learns
but now it is rendered as
It’s amazing what you learn when you teach
which i also good.

I appreciate what Tia said and believe that this shows the proper role of unions. I think that in this sinful world we really do need them, and am so sorry that younger people don’t see the point of them.

However, in the interests of fairness, I also have to say that at times there was an ugly side, in my experience. In some schools, if you didn’t go on strike, you would be ostracised. Cut out of the car pool, ignored in the staffroom, and in extreme occasions, lectured by other teachers in your classroom, in front of your class!

I’m opposed to compulsion, both people being compelled to join, and being compelled to be non-unionists.

Craig Schwarze - 27 October 2007 04:47 PM

Rudd is essentially a conservative, and I don’t believe he wants the labour market re-regulated too much. Even his plan to abolish workchoices is spaced out over several years - at least partly to protect the mining industry.

Agreed, Rudd is a conservative but his party is not. I think Mr Rudd will be PM. He is very similar to the outgoing PM, but his party is not.  They have a platform of supporting and encouraging the Unions over and above their real infuence in society. I was a member of a Trade Union for 10 years. They were a fairly good and helpful union all round but they had this annoying habit of making pay claims that were far greater than they were entitled to.

In the industry I belonged to in the 1980s they had so intimidated our industry that our employers brokered an “Industrial Allowance” with the Unions. That is they agreed to pay each employee $1500 extra a year extra so they would not walk out on strike unless they gave 3 days notice. 1500 bucks in 1981 was a significant amount. This had the aproval and even encouragement of the State Labour Council (the overarching Trade Union body). It was nothing more than industrial robbery.

When the Tories got in in NSW in 1988 the Labour Council were so outraged at some of the cutback and redundancies that they organised a general strike called a “Day of Outrage”. Some of us thought the strike was ridiculous and refuse to be a part of it. We were then subject to threats and intimidatory tactics by the union to pull us into line. I never forgot that.

While I think that collective associations can be helpful - they gave me great help and support during one major work issue; the problem of unbridled power and intimidation can mean that they can be less than helpful.

Kevin Rudd aint the problem, it is those in his government that will be the problem. At least we have had stability under Howard in government, it is hard to see Julia Gillard and her ilk remaining as loyal to Kevin as Peter Costello was to Mr Howard (at least in not challenging). The factions being what they are in the ALP my guess is at when Rudd’s fairly conservative agenda makes their powerbase unhappy he will end up being rolled. I give him five or six years.

And please, don’t get me started on Student Unionism.....