Comments on: A mutual agenda

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:41:04 +0000

Yes, that’s an appalling story - shamelessly trying to remove worker’s rights. That’s where the benefits of unions and enterprise bargaining becomes patently obvious.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:48:37 +0000

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that enterprise-level bargaining produces better productivity - but enterprise-level decision makers (i.e. managers/directors) never seem to be able to grasp this.

How disgraceful is Telstra at the moment, by the way? Trying to force people onto AWAs before the new government gets rid of them. Some of the stories I have heard are awful, it really is being run like a bad US corporation these days.

By: guera

guera — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:11:50 +0000

I think my law firm experience left me a bit scarred too. I left that job 8 years ago and the legal industry 7 years ago, yet all the details are still fresh in my mind and I get angry thinking about it all again. At least the good thing is the jobs I have had since have all compared very favourably! Plus I am finding my current job (full time mother of two) infinitely more satisfying, even though the pay and hours are crap and my “bosses” are demanding!!!

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:06:55 +0000

I pretty much agree with the above comments. Unions are a great idea in theory, but it really depends on the particular union in question as to whether it’s also a great thing in practice. I certainly don’t hate unions, but some certainly have flaws.

Some unions do have a hold of fear over a particular industry (people too scared to speak out against what the union proposes, or union bullies who abuse their power). I’ve never been comfortable with that aspect of unionism, but unfortunately, such things can happen in any organisation involving large groups of people (companies, governments, sports teams, nations).

Other unions don’t always look out for the interests of their members very well (like the one mentioned in Guera’s comment). I know teachers who became very disillusioned with the Teacher’s Union because they felt it didn’t look after the interests of teachers well. Some of those in positions of power in the union hadn’t been in a classroom for years, and thus had no idea what it was like “at the coalface” any more. Now there are an enormous proportion of young teachers on one year contracts, because the agreement between unions and the government allowed “wriggle-room” for this to occur.

But the problem with the Howard government’s campaign was that it just played on fear, it didn’t really address the issues of job security and workplace safety or anything like that. It was negative.

On another topic, Guera, law firms are a particular bug bear of mine too. When I first started this blog, I think about 50% of my posts were on that topic. I’d just resigned from my former firm… To say I was bitter was an understatement, although I think I can look at it a bit more objectively now. Maybe. I’m getting all heated up again just thinking about it…maybe not.

By: guera

guera — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:48:42 +0000

They should all be working towards the same end (a happy, healthy productive workplace) but it seems their individual agendas get in the way a lot of the time. I like the theory of unions and I’m sure there’s lots of instances where they greatly help employees on an individual and collective basis, but sometimes the agenda of the large unions is in direct contrast with what the employees want. Years ago I spent some time in the industrial relations section of the law firm I was working in and we acted for a large employer trying to introduce a new safety policy. Despite the fact that the employees overwhelmingly wanted the policy introduced, the union fought all the way, because of the implications on a national level. I found it hard to see how they were helping the employees they were supposed to be representing on that particular worksite, but then, maybe that opens all those questions of the “greater good”.
I have also been at the wrong end of the baffling practice of law firms of treating their employees appallingly, and then being completely shocked when they leave! I even somehow fell into a de facto “employee representative” role and met with partners to try and address the working conditions and attrition rates. All my suggestions fell on deaf ears and I left after 4 years. As far as I know, young lawyers are still complaining about the same things and still leaving at the same rate.
(Sorry - getting off topic, I think - its a pet rant of mine!)

By: pete m

pete m — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:10:30 +0000

Unlike Howard, I don’t think unions are evil, or irrelevant. but I do see a great need to reign in their power over employers in certain places, like the wharfs and building, while at the same time retaining their good work on employee protection of wages and safety.

Good luck with you job security concerns - being in a union will not change that in the short term, but should help get your campaign going.

What if all the sessional lecturers decided not to work unless put on contract? If the uni sees they will lose 20% of their workforce overnight, surely that’s got to generate some shift in how you are treated. Just needs a collective will.