Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

When did unions become the bad guys?

By Luke Faulkner - posted Wednesday, 3 October 2007


How things have changed since April 1983 when Bob Hawke's union credentials were seen as a big plus in his quest to get into the Lodge. Hawke's ability to work in partnership with the union movement through the Prices and Incomes Accord was a direct result of his ACTU history.

While a drover's dog could have won the 1983 election for the Labor Party, it is unlikely that the Accord would have been introduced, let alone remain in operation for the entire period of the Labor Government, had Hawke not had a union history.

The union movement, the Accord and the federal Labor government worked well together during the Hawke years.

Advertisement

The fact that the Labor Party was the political child of the union movement was not only openly confessed to, but proactively touted; especially come election time. And it worked, time and time again.

The wider Australian community which benefited from tax cuts, funding for job creation and training, extra child care places and other benefits negotiated as features of the Accord, was also happy with the role of unions.

This period of widespread union popularity and acceptance under Hawke and the Accord was not unusual but, rather, a reflection of how things had always been in Australia. Unions were an acceptable, indeed a necessary, feature of Australian working life.

So, when did unions become the bad guys? As always, there is more than one explanation.

Poisoned chalice

First there was the Accord itself.

Odd though it may seem, it could well be argued that the period in which unions had most input into the formulation of government policy was also the one which heralded their downhill slide; with one addition - Paul Keating.

Advertisement

Each of the “editions” of the Accord (and there were eight of them) specified how, when and where pay improvements could be secured.

Pay rises were no longer won - they were awarded and any union which tried to step outside the very strict stipulations of the Accord was quickly and severely punished.

The airline pilots' dispute in 1989 is the most obvious example of the Government response to rogue union action, though there were a number of others.

Unions became complacent. Life was easy.

The fighting spirit that had been honed over previous generations and which had resulted in great benefits being won for working people was weakened by the Accord.

With this loss of spirit came a loss of respect - from friend and foe alike.

Union members noticed the inability to strive for improvements in pay and conditions over those stipulated, and the concurrent (though possibly not related) decline in real wages over the Accord.

They blamed their full-time officials and then questioned the benefits of spending their weekly union dues when most of the same benefits negotiated under the Accord were accessible to the wider, non-union, community. The decline in union popularity started with their own members.

Keating's EFAs

Paul Keating is another reason for the demise of union popularity. Keating wasn't Hawke. He believed that unions inhibited organisational flexibility and productivity.

He introduced “Enterprise Flexibility Agreements” (EFAs) - organisation-specific non-union collective bargaining mechanisms.

This was the first in a series of anti-union changes to the industrial legislation laws.

Between 1991-1996 he increasingly divorced himself and his government from being perceived as being political tool of the union movement. The last three editions of the Accord clearly reflect this change.

The Accord became a series of motherhood statements rather than a comprehensive policy document.

We are all aware that anti-union laws have increased over the years. What was forgotten is that Keating started it with the introduction of EFAs.

Worker confidence

There is also a sociological explanation for the decline in union acceptance. Put bluntly, younger, more educated and therefore more confident workers don't see themselves as needing a union. Many believe they have the skills and power to be able to represent their own interests.

They want to be in control of their own lives, including their lives at work. Not only do they not want to hand over the responsibility for their pay and conditions to others - they don't see the need to pay for it either.

The stereotypical union official is seen by them as being an over-weight, tattooed, under-educated, overalls-wearing, stand-over thug - as portrayed by the TV commercials sponsored by business groups at present.

Union membership would be an embarrassment to the young, a sign that they need someone to look out for them because they can't do it themselves - not a badge of honour as it was a generation ago.

Who's out of touch?

Unions have themselves to blame somewhat for this perception. A number of their full-time officials can, indeed, be grouped in at least one of these stereotypical compartments.

As many unions appoint their full-time officials from the shop floor after being elected from the rank-and-file, very few have sought or received a higher education; it's not seen as a necessity in the “real world” of industrial relations.

While a growing number of Australian voters appear to view John Howard as being out of touch, the same could be said of the union movement.

Unions need to do some introspection.

There is a wealth of literature on ways and means unions can win back their appeal - and the methods don't seem overly difficult.

Unions can't expect to attract and retain those born in the 1980s and '90s by using the strategies developed in the 1930s and honed by fire throughout the 1940s-70s. Unions have to change and actively market these changes quickly or, as Paul Keating said, they face the very real prospects of ending up in a museum.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

First published on ABC Online on September 25, 2007.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

42 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Luke Faulkner is a lecturer in Australian industrial relations in the School of Management, University of South Australia.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Luke Faulkner
Article Tools
Comment 42 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy