Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Compulsory unionism (Read 10810 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35519
I like fish
Compulsory unionism
Jul 5th, 2007 at 11:22am
 
http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/compulsory-unionism.html

So what is the government’s role in all of this? Rather than supporting compulsory unionism or abolishing it, they should merely mandate that all unions with compulsory membership create a more direct and democratic way for members to adjust union fees.

A simple solution to all of these problems is to make each union election a referendum on union fees. This would provide sufficient motivation for people to turn up and vote. Even if they didn’t know who the candidates were, they would have an opinion on whether the fees should go up or down. This could be combined with measures intended to stabilise union income, for example limiting the annual change in income to 10%, or by making the rate of change proportional to the demand for change – for example if 53.7% of members voted for an increase in fees and 46.3% for a decrease, the fees would go up by 3.7%.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10160
Gender: female
Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #1 - Jul 5th, 2007 at 12:23pm
 
That sounds very complicated Freediver, even though it's supposed to be simple.  Joining a union isn't compulsory except for those in the Public Services I assume?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10160
Gender: female
Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #2 - Jul 5th, 2007 at 12:27pm
 
Sorry - I didn't see your other posts.  It's not compulsory, but maybe if a tiny fee was requested - maybe $25 a year, not only would most people join, but the unions would be better off than they are now.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
daggett(Guest)
Guest


Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #3 - Aug 19th, 2007 at 7:50pm
 
Glad to see a pro-union article here, and at that, one that doesn't dismiss out of hand the concept of compulsory unionism.

I support compulsory unionism, because, without it union members can have their strength undermined by free-loading non-union members.  Having said that I have my own concerns about abuses of union power, but I think that that evil is vastly prefereable to abuses of power by employers which are so widespread these days.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frances
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3530
In a Castle in the Hills
Gender: female
Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #4 - Aug 10th, 2011 at 3:06pm
 
mantra wrote on Jul 5th, 2007 at 12:23pm:
Joining a union isn't compulsory except for those in the Public Services I assume?


Union membership is not compulsory in the public service and I don't think it ever has been - at least not in the last 20 or 30 years from what I've heard.  In common with a lot of other areas, union membership is slowly declining.  I don't know exactly what the current membership level would be (and of course, it would vary from one jurisdiction to the next) but I think it's somewhere between 35 and 40 percent of all employees.
Back to top
 

Sure God created man before woman. But then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece.
 
IP Logged
 
Belgarion
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1852
Gender: male
Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #5 - Aug 10th, 2011 at 3:38pm
 
About 18 months ago I joined the union. (CPSU) and our membership is slowly increasing. I have seen the union excesses of the 1970s and 80s and would never have thought I would ever join one. However I realised my employer had no interest in resolving an issue I had and the union was the only way I could make myself heard.  I don't believe in compulsory unionism however. That can make the union lazy, or become the personal fiefdom of certain leaders. A voluntary union must work hard to retain members and deliver real benefits. There is also the basic concept of freedom of association.

We are currently in the middle of negotiations with the government over our next certified agreement. In the past the union has negotiated for all employees, not just union members, however this time the union will only negotiate for members. Others must come to their own arrangements. This may lead to the situation were there are two different agreements made, one for union members and one for the others. Given the departments take it or leave it attitude so far the non-union agreement will suck.
Back to top
 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35519
I like fish
Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #6 - Aug 10th, 2011 at 6:05pm
 
Sorry, I seem to have missed some of the responses here.

Until recently it was compulsory for University students to be part of the student union. Union may be the wrong term for this as it is actually more like a fourth tier of government (Federal, State, Local, campus). Abolishing compulsory student unionism should be viewed in this context.

The article is not pro-union. I expect that this would significantly undermine student unions compared to what they were previously.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
hawil
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1268
Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #7 - Dec 11th, 2011 at 11:11am
 
mantra wrote on Jul 5th, 2007 at 12:27pm:
Sorry - I didn't see your other posts.  It's not compulsory, but maybe if a tiny fee was requested - maybe $25 a year, not only would most people join, but the unions would be better off than they are now.

I don't think that for $25.00 a year any UNION boss would bother to collect it.
When i retired our fee was 1% of our gross wages.
I always believed in Unionism, but the leadership is often woeful, most of the leaders have one eye on trying to get into politics.
The ACTU provides many MP's, but they would not bother to reply to correspondence.
Many Union bosses are sitting on super boards and are well paid for it, yet the compulsory super will only really benefit the top 30% of earners, including politicians and Union bosses.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
hawil
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1268
Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #8 - Jul 1st, 2012 at 8:09pm
 
hawil wrote on Dec 11th, 2011 at 11:11am:
mantra wrote on Jul 5th, 2007 at 12:27pm:
Sorry - I didn't see your other posts.  It's not compulsory, but maybe if a tiny fee was requested - maybe $25 a year, not only would most people join, but the unions would be better off than they are now.

I don't think that for $25.00 a year any UNION boss would bother to collect it.
When i retired our fee was 1% of our gross wages.
I always believed in Unionism, but the leadership is often woeful, most of the leaders have one eye on trying to get into politics.
The ACTU provides many MP's, but they would not bother to reply to correspondence.
Many Union bosses are sitting on super boards and are well paid for it, yet the compulsory super will only really benefit the top 30% of earners, including politicians and Union bosses.

Could someone tell me, why I seem to stop so many posts in their tracks?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 31352
Here
Gender: male
Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #9 - Jul 1st, 2012 at 8:23pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 10th, 2011 at 6:05pm:
Sorry, I seem to have missed some of the responses here.

Until recently it was compulsory for University students to be part of the student union. Union may be the wrong term for this as it is actually more like a fourth tier of government (Federal, State, Local, campus). Abolishing compulsory student unionism should be viewed in this context.

The article is not pro-union. I expect that this would significantly undermine student unions compared to what they were previously.



The student union fee was always a strange thing - it mainly payed for campus facilities like the canteen and sports facilities, most of it had nothing to do with unions.

It needed to be fixed not removed.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 31352
Here
Gender: male
Re: Compulsory unionism
Reply #10 - Jul 1st, 2012 at 8:32pm
 
hawil wrote on Jul 1st, 2012 at 8:09pm:
hawil wrote on Dec 11th, 2011 at 11:11am:
mantra wrote on Jul 5th, 2007 at 12:27pm:
Sorry - I didn't see your other posts.  It's not compulsory, but maybe if a tiny fee was requested - maybe $25 a year, not only would most people join, but the unions would be better off than they are now.

I don't think that for $25.00 a year any UNION boss would bother to collect it.
When i retired our fee was 1% of our gross wages.
I always believed in Unionism, but the leadership is often woeful, most of the leaders have one eye on trying to get into politics.
The ACTU provides many MP's, but they would not bother to reply to correspondence.
Many Union bosses are sitting on super boards and are well paid for it, yet the compulsory super will only really benefit the top 30% of earners, including politicians and Union bosses.


Could someone tell me, why I seem to stop so many posts in their tracks?



Sorry but I have no idea in fact didn't even realise it.

Maybe you are not controversial enough - possibly people just agree with you point of view or comment and are happy enough to let it stand.

Only guessing. Though I think they would bother to collect the $25. But I would agree that one of the unions problems is that they are pricing themselves out of a job and as with most products they would be better off to trade in bulk, attract a lot of members at a lower rate.

I remember a union I was once with started a push for ex members to rejoin even if unemployed etc, I thought it was a good idea till I seen how much they wanted.

I bet they got nobody but had it been a nominal fee everyone would have been interested. All they needed was a small fee and not much service just an electronic newsletter the option to upgrade when employed and a bit of assistance on the odd occasion.

A mountain of members paying a small amount is better than nobody paying a truck load of cash.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print