This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/how-relevant-are-australian-unions

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Qantas and job losses: the reality of union decline must be faced Qantas and job losses: the reality of union decline must be faced
(6 months later)
Last week’s announcement that Qantas will slash Last week’s announcement that Qantas will slash 5,000 jobs follows similar news of large-scale job cuts late last year from Rio Tinto, Caterpillar and Electrolux, as well as the pending extinction of Australia’s car manufacturing industry.
5,000 jobs follows similar news of large-scale job cuts late last year from Rio As Alan Joyce announced the cuts, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) was holding a major organising conference. Summing up the message from top union leaders, ACTU president Ged Kearney told delegates, “we want all Australians to live in a country that has a strong economy that works for everyone, not just big business, a country where you can have a secure job and make a decent living”. To win such a society unions must redouble their current efforts, because “together and united — and organised — we can achieve great things”.
Tinto, Caterpillar and Electrolux, as well as the pending extinction of Step back a moment from such lofty sentiments, said by hard working union officials deeply committed to improving the lives of their members, however, and the problem becomes apparent.
Australia’s car manufacturing industry. While the unions have been doing what they do, unemployment has edged up to its highest level in over a decade in the context of a long period of weak wages growth. Unions are critical of the growth of economic inequality and precarious work in un-unionised industries — alongside record profits for big business ­— but they’ve been unable to prevent these developments. And when Tony Abbott claimed unions had caused a “wages explosion”, union leaders rushed to distance themselves from any idea they had secured big pay rises for workers.
As Alan Joyce announced the cuts, the How have the unions become so passive on issues that were once their bread and butter?
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) was holding a major organising
conference. Summing up the message from top union leaders, ACTU president Ged
Kearney told
delegates, “we want all Australians to live in a country that has a strong
economy that works for everyone, not just big business, a country where you can
have a secure job and make a decent living”. To win such a society unions must redouble
their current efforts, because “together and united — and organised — we can
achieve great things”.
Step back a moment from such lofty sentiments,
said by hard working union officials deeply committed to improving the lives of
their members, however, and the problem becomes apparent.
While the unions have been doing what they
do, unemployment has edged up to its
highest level in over a decade in the context of a
long period of weak wages growth. Unions are critical of the growth of economic
inequality and precarious work in un-unionised industries — alongside record
profits for big business ­— but they’ve been unable to prevent these
developments. And when Tony Abbott claimed unions had caused a “wages
explosion”, union leaders rushed
to distance themselves from any idea they had secured big pay rises for
workers.
How have the unions become so passive on
issues that were once their bread and butter?
The social weight of unions is a pale shadow of what it was for most of the last century, when they were a central part of Australian life and politics. ABS figures show that union coverage dropped below 40% only once between 1914 and 1990. But in the last 30 years this collapsed from over half to 18% of workers, and just 13% in the private sector.The social weight of unions is a pale shadow of what it was for most of the last century, when they were a central part of Australian life and politics. ABS figures show that union coverage dropped below 40% only once between 1914 and 1990. But in the last 30 years this collapsed from over half to 18% of workers, and just 13% in the private sector.
It is no coincidence that the problems started during the Accord between the unions and the Hawke-Keating federal governments. In exchange for unprecedented influence in politics, along with some increases in the “social wage”, the unions agreed to significant cuts to real wages, known at the time as “wage restraint”. They also agreed to curb industrial action in order to deliver “social peace” for the sake of an economy suffering from “stagflation”.It is no coincidence that the problems started during the Accord between the unions and the Hawke-Keating federal governments. In exchange for unprecedented influence in politics, along with some increases in the “social wage”, the unions agreed to significant cuts to real wages, known at the time as “wage restraint”. They also agreed to curb industrial action in order to deliver “social peace” for the sake of an economy suffering from “stagflation”.
Ironically, unions signed up to the Accord in part because they feared the alternative would be the kinds of attacks that characterised Thatcherism in the UK. Yet they clung to the Accord as Labor drove through a full suite of neoliberal reforms — including financial deregulation, privatisations, the abolition of free higher education and deep tariff cuts. Unions not only began to lose members, but their remaining members were demoralised and passive in comparison with the confident, active members who had won better standards of living for themselves in previous decades. The decline of members and union coverage of workplace agreements continued in the harsher legal environment of the Howard years and was not reversed by Labor’s Fair Work Act.Ironically, unions signed up to the Accord in part because they feared the alternative would be the kinds of attacks that characterised Thatcherism in the UK. Yet they clung to the Accord as Labor drove through a full suite of neoliberal reforms — including financial deregulation, privatisations, the abolition of free higher education and deep tariff cuts. Unions not only began to lose members, but their remaining members were demoralised and passive in comparison with the confident, active members who had won better standards of living for themselves in previous decades. The decline of members and union coverage of workplace agreements continued in the harsher legal environment of the Howard years and was not reversed by Labor’s Fair Work Act.
Union leaders moved on to other activities to try to maintain relevance — such as running industry super funds or seeing involvement in ALP factions as a substitute for the social strength of unions themselves. Despite occasional vague criticisms of the Accord, the leaders of today’s unions show no sign of breaking from the disastrous strategy their predecessors embarked on in 1983. A movement based mainly on workers’ collective strength has become one hoping politicians and governments will deliver for it instead.Union leaders moved on to other activities to try to maintain relevance — such as running industry super funds or seeing involvement in ALP factions as a substitute for the social strength of unions themselves. Despite occasional vague criticisms of the Accord, the leaders of today’s unions show no sign of breaking from the disastrous strategy their predecessors embarked on in 1983. A movement based mainly on workers’ collective strength has become one hoping politicians and governments will deliver for it instead.
The example of Qantas exposes this strategy as a mirage. When Alan Joyce grounded the airline in late 2011, that most pro-union of prime ministers, Julia Gillard, rushed to ensure that her Fair Work Act was used to terminate the dispute – in the employer’s favour. Now union leaders have responded to the job cuts not by calling strikes but by demanding that Tony Abbott do something. Asked about Qantas telling hundreds of union members they would go, the leader of one union ruled out industrial action, and said nothing to suggest she thought a single job could be saved with union power.The example of Qantas exposes this strategy as a mirage. When Alan Joyce grounded the airline in late 2011, that most pro-union of prime ministers, Julia Gillard, rushed to ensure that her Fair Work Act was used to terminate the dispute – in the employer’s favour. Now union leaders have responded to the job cuts not by calling strikes but by demanding that Tony Abbott do something. Asked about Qantas telling hundreds of union members they would go, the leader of one union ruled out industrial action, and said nothing to suggest she thought a single job could be saved with union power.
We write this as union members, one of whom recently participated in industrial action that won some gains against an aggressive management, recruiting new members in the process. But we think localised good news stories are not enough, and that the reality of 30 years of uninterrupted union decline must be faced. Existing unions simply do not have the social power or strategic outlook to deliver for workers in most workplaces or on a national level. This is the real reason why more of workers, despite most expressing sympathy for unions in opinion polls, don’t join unions.We write this as union members, one of whom recently participated in industrial action that won some gains against an aggressive management, recruiting new members in the process. But we think localised good news stories are not enough, and that the reality of 30 years of uninterrupted union decline must be faced. Existing unions simply do not have the social power or strategic outlook to deliver for workers in most workplaces or on a national level. This is the real reason why more of workers, despite most expressing sympathy for unions in opinion polls, don’t join unions.
We take no comfort in the long-term decay of union organisation and power. But rather than starting from trying to imagine how we could tweak existing unions into something they aren’t, we should instead be asking a more basic question: “What kind of collective organisations do workers need and using what strategies can workers build them?”We take no comfort in the long-term decay of union organisation and power. But rather than starting from trying to imagine how we could tweak existing unions into something they aren’t, we should instead be asking a more basic question: “What kind of collective organisations do workers need and using what strategies can workers build them?”
That means asking what is needed to win wage rises and improve workplace conditions, to defeat hardline bosses and stop sackings, to refuse to submit meekly to laws that inhibit workers’ collective rights, and to take on politicians and governments who impose austerity on ordinary people in the interests of the rich and the powerful.That means asking what is needed to win wage rises and improve workplace conditions, to defeat hardline bosses and stop sackings, to refuse to submit meekly to laws that inhibit workers’ collective rights, and to take on politicians and governments who impose austerity on ordinary people in the interests of the rich and the powerful.
If international developments are any guide, in coming years there will be major social struggles in Australia over these and other issues. Workers would be best served by starting a conversation based around how to secure their collective interests, whether or not they are part of a union. It is a conversation that should not be delayed by the distant hope the existing union movement will solve it by itself.If international developments are any guide, in coming years there will be major social struggles in Australia over these and other issues. Workers would be best served by starting a conversation based around how to secure their collective interests, whether or not they are part of a union. It is a conversation that should not be delayed by the distant hope the existing union movement will solve it by itself.