When did unions become the bad guys?

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.