Anti Union homies

[Mr. Fabulous]

Okay, so over the last six months or so, as we lead up to the elections, there has been a lot of discussion on here about unions. Now, obviously most of the posters on here are anti-union. Which is no real surprise, as most of the peeps on here are pro-capitalism. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

So anyway, I read an interesting blog post today, which I wanted to share with y'all.

Blog post that I read today

So okay, I read this and thought about how it relates to the discussion about unions on Somersoft. Now, the blog is deliberately designed to hit emotionally, so be aware of that. But it does hit home. For example:

"There are plenty of ways that the modern world continues to exploit and enslave other groups of people, if not explicitly, then implicitly. Where did your iPhone come from? Who built it? What are the conditions under which they labor? Do you care? Do you want to care?"

You might be thinking 'How does this relate to discussion of unions in Australia in 2013?'

Well, *if* we didn't have unions and union men hadn't fought and died (yes, I literally mean died) for workers' rights, the statement above wouldn't relate to China or Vietnam or Indonesia or any of the other countries which the first world exploits, it would relate to Australia, aka: us, that is, you and me (well, to about 98% of us).

I know most of you despise unions, because you think they bar you from reaching your goals and they hurt business and blah blah blah. Stock standard victim mentality. In reality, the fact is, that in Australia, businesses are encouraged. How do I know this? I own and run my own business. My accountant, who is excellent at his job and also a really marvelous dude, provides me with a string of benefits that are not available to me as an employee. Now, that doesn't mean that being a business owner is all ice cream and rainbows. Owning and running a business is hard work, but the rewards (if one succeeds) are also extremely beneficial. Which is why people go into business. You have to take the risks to get the rewards.

So, getting back to the main point. I know it is difficult for most people here to imagine it, but without the support of unions, both today and in the past, those jobs that are now done by some kid in China, would still be here in Australia and none of us would be sitting here, in our luxurious position (and frankly, having a lifestyle where we have enough to eat, to put clothes on our backs, shelter over our heads AND on top of all that, able to afford the technology to communicate over the internet and invest, using spare funds from our jobs IS a luxury to 99% of the world's population) is thanks to the men that decided that unionising the workforce was something worth fighting and dying for.

So next time you're having a sook about how the unions are ruining our country, while you're on your paid leave or having a paid sick day or whinging about how your super isn't returning as much as you'd like, think about how you got those privileges, because most of the rest of the workers on our planet would swap their position for yours in a heartbeat.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, who knows where our workforce would be without unions, it would be interesting to see a parallel universe that made a different choice. I'm a PAYG but my family was a PAYE family while I was growing up so I have seen both sides. No system that is in place is every going to be un-corruptible, we will always try to game the system to the extreme to personally benefit the most from it, whether that be a fake compo claim or getting the most out of our workers for little in return.

"There are plenty of ways that the modern world continues to exploit and enslave other groups of people, if not explicitly, then implicitly. Where did your iPhone come from? Who built it? What are the conditions under which they labor? Do you care? Do you want to care?"

 

[The Fence]

So, getting back to the main point. I know it is difficult for most people here to imagine it, but without the support of unions, both today and in the past, those jobs that are now done by some kid in China, would still be here in Australia....

Correct!

Unions responsible for jobs leaving our shores.

That's the way I understand your wording above. The rest of your post is in complete contrast to this.

Next time you have a little sook about losing your job just remember the union people who died trying the rid this country of manufacturing and the jobs that went along with it.

 

[Rolf Latham]

Id expect you might find the likes of Sharon Burrows, Julia, Kathy, Sally, Louise and many other influential women in Leadership of Unions on are not men.

And while jobs are being shipped to China, India, Philipines et al, faster than most would like, some argue that is happening because Union Membership is half today what it was near 2000, others see it as a natural progression of the same cycle that brought wealth to Australians in the first place.

Thats where the facts rest and emotional noise takes over.

Nostalgia on a personal level might be ok, but Nostalgia on an organisational or national level could be a form of delusion.

Most can recognise that we cant see todays problems through the lens of yesterdays solutions.

By all means, let us recognise the positive contribution of Unions on Australian Society, because there is plenty...........but if we do that, we also need to address the plenty not so good.

ta

rolf

ta
rolf

 

[The Fence]

A far more balanced and appreciative post thanks Rolf.

 

[topcropper]

Correct!

Unions responsible for jobs leaving our shores.

That's the way I understand your wording above. The rest of your post is in complete contrast to this.

Next time you have a little sook about losing your job just remember the union people who died trying the rid this country of manufacturing and the jobs that went along with it.

Ha ha. That's how I read it too, and it's correct.


See ya's.

without the support of unions, both today and in the past, those jobs that are now done by some kid in China, would still be here in Australia .

 

[weg]

These workers were already well paid, so for an industry on it's knees this was NOT a great deal long term.

Nor was it right for Labor union to offer financial sweeteners to struggling unionized companies using taxpayers revenue when they helped create the hardship in the first place.

Well done unions!

I hope some of these workers are suited to mowing lawns or cleaning gutters for a job - get used to no unions there.

Holden signs record pay deal as unions wins 22 per cent wage rise

by: Ewin Hannan, Industrial editor
February 14, 2012 12:00AM


GM Holden has agreed to an extraordinary wage deal that will lift the income of 4000 employees by up to 22 per cent by 2014, despite the carmaker seeking a taxpayer-funded assistance package from the Gillard government.

In a deal hailed by union leaders as "spectacular", workers will receive a "guaranteed" 18.3 per cent increase over the next three years, with some workers to receive up to 22.3 per cent.

Holden refused to comment on the deal yesterday but The Australian has obtained full details of the agreement, which the union said contained no productivity trade-offs. "In the automotive industry it represents the best deal yet to be negotiated and is highly recommended to members," union leaders Ian Jones and John Camillo wrote in a circular to members outlining the deal.

They said the "value of the wage deal is magnified tenfold when you gauge it against the latest CPI (inflation) figures of 2.1 per cent and the horrendous state of automotive manufacturing in this country".

The deal provides for increases in wage and payments equal to 8 per cent for all workers in the first year, and a guaranteed 5 per cent rise with another potential 2 per cent in the second and third years. The agreement involves a 3 per cent wages increase for each year and a guaranteed "hardship recognition payment" of $1750 in the first year and $1000 in the second and third years.

Workers will also receive a 2 per cent "base wage variable bonus" in the first year, with similar increases potentially available in the subsequent two years. Mr Jones told The Australian the hardship payments recognised the financial sacrifices made by Holden employees during the global financial crisis when they were stood down for extended periods on 50 per cent of normal pay.

Holden is negotiating a new assistance package with the federal, Victorian and South Australian governments and critics of the taxpayer-funded support are likely to attack the level of pay rises agreed to by the company.

Earlier this month, Holden told the state government it would cut an undisclosed number of casual and full-time jobs at its Elizabeth plant in Adelaide's north.

Federal Liberal MP Jamie Briggs yesterday questioned pay rises previously awarded to Holden employees, saying recent enterprise agreements did not appear to be delivering productivity and efficiency gains. Mr Briggs said if taxpayers are "handing over large wads of cash", they would expect that companies receiving support would make improvements to their operations.

Holden workers received pay rises of 28 per cent over two enterprise agreements that operated between November 2004 and November last year.

In their circular to members, Mr Jones and Mr Camillo, the chairman of the Federation of Vehicle Industry Unions, said the latest "outcome sees a spectacular approximate minimum 18.3 per cent leap in members' income over a three-year period with a potential for that to rise to 22.3 per cent by the end of the agreement".

Union members will be able to refuse to work overtime if they believe the request to be unreasonable.

The deal also allows workers to bank up to 40 overtime hours on a voluntary basis, which can be cashed out when the employees require it.

Education leave for union shop stewards has been doubled while the company had agreed to new meeting processes and procedures for the Holden Victoria Shop Stewards Committee.

Workers will also receive improved leave provisions, including five days for paternity leave that can be drawn from sick leave. Male workers will also have access to up to 14 weeks paid leave if they are the primary carer.

"The deal is a good balance between fixed increases applied at the base wage and other payments that add to members' disposable income," the circular says.

"In the automotive industry it represents the best deal yet to be negotiated and is highly recommended to members."

Mr Jones said limiting the fixed pay rises to 3 per cent annually reflected the objective of GM Holden's parent company to keep a lid on wages.

"If you look at what is a trade-off from the employer perspective, it means their fixed wage costs are manageable and not blowing out," he said.

 

[Trogdor]

Ha ha. That's how I read it too, and it's correct.


See ya's.

Correct, and mining will continue to be the next victim of union caused loss of jobs to overseas.

Construction is already in a funk, and its made worse by the unions.

The issue isn't the concept of unions Mr. F, its the outrageous rights they have in Australia (made worse by the clowns currently in government), and their demands which come at the cost of the members in the long term, and hold the Australian economy to ransom.

This is especially true in the "male dominated" unions - trades, construction, mining, etc.. ETU, CFMEU, etc...

I acknowledge some unions (like nurses for example) walk a much more balanced line and play an important role.

 

[Dazz]

Graph at the top of page 5 says it all....

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/Deunionisation.pdf


It shows the union membership of the Australian workforce from 1911 thru to 2003.


Since then, in the last 10 years it has dropped thru the floor and is now down to 13%. The base of the graph doesn't go that low.

 

[truong]

It’s a flawed argument to say that an organisation deserves continued support because it has done a lot of good in the past. One should recognise and thank them for these achievements but should only support them on their present/future undertakings.

And that’s where use-by-date comes in. Lots of organisations, ideologies, parties, systems, regimes, even countries… that have done a lot of good during their times have nevertheless gone down when their usefulness is no longer the case. Eternal law of change and progress.

Unfortunately for unions, the current rate of their membership is indicative of the usefulness that society sees in them.

I surely don’t despise unions as you put it, but if they’re perceived as overly concerned with sectorial interests to the detriment of society then it comes a time when society will outgrow them.

As a side note, Mr F, pro-capitalism doesn’t equate with anti-unionism. In fact it was in anti-capitalist countries that unionism was destroyed by becoming a mere cheer squad for dictatorships.

 

[cu@thetop]

Video on SMH homepage thismorning about 12 year old coal miners in India.

Only a matter of time before the unions step in and ruin it for him on his $8/day wage.

Soon the jobs will go offshore from India (I'm thinking Bangladesh or Brazil) and India, like Australia will be left with overpriced labor and not enough work.

Curse the Unions I say.

Happily many of the miners are unlikely to survive given the hazardous occupation so that should balance the numbers somewhat and alleviate the problem in part.

 

[gottabespotless]

My large employers are in the business of making money ($2bn profit last year) and always looking for ways to make more so I don't think they'd be offering any pay rise, tea breaks, annual leave, sick leave, etc, to we plebs out of the kindness of their hearts. I also can't imagine one person alone could take them on and negotiate a better deal than they can get with the help of the union so I'm happy to pay a pittance each week in union fees for them to negotiate on my and my colleague's behalf.

Both my husband and father work jobs that are considered quite dangerous and, sadly, both have been involved/witnessed incidences at work where workmates have been killed and injured through no fault of their own. To say that the unions were of great help and assistance (and continue to be many years later) to the families of the workers killed in each instance is an understatement. From payment of legal bills, funerals, home maintenance, organising fundraisers, professional support offered to killed worker's dependents to education scholarships for member's children... the list goes on. All the while the employers were trying to wash their hands of any responsibility despite the unions earlier warnings that if safety and equipment was not improved injuries/deaths would occur.

 

[sanj]

My large employers are in the business of making money ($2bn profit last year) and always looking for ways to make more so I don't think they'd be offering any pay rise, tea breaks, annual leave, sick leave, etc, to we plebs out of the kindness of their hearts. I also can't imagine one person alone could take them on and negotiate a better deal than they can get with the help of the union so I'm happy to pay a pittance each week in union fees for them to negotiate on my and my colleague's behalf.

Both my husband and father work jobs that are considered quite dangerous and, sadly, both have been involved/witnessed incidences at work where workmates have been killed and injured through no fault of their own. To say that the unions were of great help and assistance (and continue to be many years later) to the families of the workers killed in each instance is an understatement. From payment of legal bills, funerals, home maintenance, organising fundraisers, professional support offered to killed worker's dependents to education scholarships for member's children... the list goes on. All the while the employers were trying to wash their hands of any responsibility despite the unions earlier warnings that if safety and equipment was not improved injuries/deaths would occur.

so no payrises are possible without unions? do you really believe that?

 

[gottabespotless]

I wouldn't say 'no' payrises are possible but I believe that better pay and conditions are achieved for workers in a unionised workforce. eg. I used to work in an office of a private employer with a staff of 15. None of us were in any union. My job involved general admin work. I was, rightfully, paid the award rate for my job. A friend then told me of a job vacancy doing admin work (ie. the same kind of work) within a govt department - the pay was almost TWICE as much. Why? I can only assume because of the 99% union membership of the workers.

These days, I work as a shop assistant in a workplace where the majority of workers are in the union. I earn more money doing this than if I went back to working in the office of the private employer. Just how it is...

 

[DaveM]

Why is it that 50 years we could build huge infrastructure projects easily and at an affordable cost. Nowdays, everything costs at least a billion and takes 5 times longer than it used to.

Oh thats right.. we used to have affordable labour forces. Now everyone wants top dollar for minimal work... one of my construction clients was saying the other that they are having to pay 70k+ for a site labourer to shovel dirt on a building site.

 

[John_]

Held back from posting in this thread regarding unions.........but god i hate them.

 

[Trippy]

A friend then told me of a job vacancy doing admin work (ie. the same kind of work) within a govt department - the pay was almost TWICE as much. Why? I can only assume because of the 99% union membership of the workers.

What some people don't realise is that these higher wages and benefits have to be paid for by someone...if it is a govt department then tax payers are paying for it. If it is private industry then the end customer is paying for it. I am an employer and have no issue paying my staff $1 mill a year each ...providing I can pass on the cost and make my fair share. But this is not the case. Wages and conditions have escalated to the point where these costs cannot be passed on while maintaining suitable work levels. Small, medium and large business are contantly reducing labour levels and shipping jobs off shore. The union seems to think the answer is to continually increase wages and benefits regardless of the economy or global economic conditions. The pattern bargaining model they used during the mining boom does now not work and has left us in a very very poor position....

Swan only came out this morning saying:

FEDERAL Treasurer Wayne Swan says the budget revenue has taken a $7.5 billion "sledgehammer" hit because of twin factors - a high dollar and lower terms of trade.

Mr Swan said over the past six months the federal government has been contending with a "unique economic event" - lower terms of trade but a dollar that won't budge.

"That's caused a hit, like a sledgehammer to revenues in the budget, since the mid-year update of something like $7.5 billion," Mr Swan told ABC TV on Sunday, adding that the impact will extend across the forward estimates.

"The sustained high dollar, global headwinds and subdued price pressures across the board have contributed to weaker than expected nominal GDP growth and substantial revenue write-downs," he said later in his economic note.

He said the global growth outlook was looking "fragile".

"Conditions in some of the major advanced economies are very challenging," Mr Swan said, slamming the application of "mindless austerity" in Europe.http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...mmer-revenue-hit/story-e6freono-1226625324000

This country (and employees and employers alike) need to realise we still have a very rough road ahead. Endless wage and condition increases are making us globally uncompetative. Forget about wage freezes...we need wage reductions...forget about paid maternaty leave and all the other ridiculous benefits we enjoy, we can't afford it...

 

[weg]

gottobespotless, work safety legislation is policed by Workcover/Worksafe.

Husband who is fully compliant with all the very strict laws has nothing to do with the unions except on one government job where he has a programmed maintenence contract, and the union OH&S rep there is always swanning around trying to give them a hard time (they have nothing on them).

Unions like to have you believe they control and monitor work safety but while work safety is legislated, a company has to comply with what the laws state.

 

[gottabespotless]

gottobespotless, work safety legislation is policed by Workcover/Worksafe.

Husband who is fully compliant with all the very strict laws has nothing to do with the unions except on one government job where he has a programmed maintenence contract, and the union OH&S rep there is always swanning around trying to give them a hard time (they had nothing on them).

Unions like to have you believe they control and monitor work safety but while work safety is legislated, a company has to comply with what the laws state.

Very glad to hear that your husband is fully compliant with the safety laws of his industry, Weg. I have no doubt that most businesses would be. I also have no doubt that no employer wants any harm to come to any of their workers on the job.

When I referred to the deaths/injuries sustained to workers in my family member's industries, the employers were govt departments. In one instance in particular, workers had identified a number of issues relating to safety (in particular, certain equipment... or actually the lack thereof) and raised these concerns with their union - the union had then asked that the govt (the employer) provide the workers with such. The govt took their time providing the needed safety equipment (perhaps due to the cost?) and in that time lives were lost.

 

[Nemo30]

I think safety is at the forefront of everyones minds these days, particularly since new workplace safety laws came into place meaning you could be charged with manslaughter if something happens.

I'm anti union too. Cant stand them.