Thank you to the Unions

[Jiska]

I'd like to say a big thank you to the unions who have negotiated and fought for better working conditions for their members.

My pregnant wife works at a hospital and according to the union agreement is entitled to three months paid maturnity leave.

Thank Christ she doesn't work at a private business. If she happened to work at my workplace she'd get nothing except for 12 months unpaid leave, designated by law, topped up by taxpayers at the minimum wage for 3 months which would mean we couldn't meet our mortgage repayments. I feel grateful that the unions have fought to make her employer pay her for three months at full wage rather than living off the public purse at a minimum wage, effectively saving the taxpayer thousands of dollars.

 

[Maggie5]

I'd like to say a big thank you to the unions who have negotiated and fought for better working conditions for their members.

My pregnant wife works at a hospital and according to the union agreement is entitled to three months paid maturnity leave.

Thank Christ she doesn't work at a private business. If she happened to work at my workplace she'd get nothing except for 12 months unpaid leave, designated by law, topped up by taxpayers at the minimum wage for 3 months which would mean we couldn't meet our mortgage repayments. I feel grateful that the unions have fought to make her employer pay her for three months at full wage rather than living off the public purse at a minimum wage, effectively saving the taxpayer thousands of dollars.

Firstly congrats!
I doubt that anyone on this board can say that they haven't benefited from unions if truth be told.

 

[Floor Pie]

Congratulations on the kiddie!


I'd like to thank the unions for supporting a friend who was attacked and injured while working as a prison guard.

Suffered serious injuries, so his boss and HR tried to recommend he just resign.
Telling him that because he couldn't work, they needed to let him go and hire someone else. Telling him it wasn't fair on everyone else if they are understaffed because he won't quit. And informing him, that if another guard is hurt, because he wouldn't quit, that it would be on his head.

He contacted the union, joined, and they kicked some arse and made sure he was looked after, had the medical treatment he needed, and returned to work.
All without going bankrupt!

 

[noddy]

Unions for ever brother Jiska.

My wife received sweet fanny annie for the time off when she gave birth to our three kids other than a family endowment of around a $100 then it was back to work cleaning out hotel rooms, but seeing as we are now classed as members of the "Baby Boomers" fraternity i guess we can now relax in comfort and moan & grown on how much these welfare recipients of today receive from the government.

Good thread.

 

[mottrain]

Unions unequivocally are in some aspects and cases the biggest disgrace and detriment to the rights of business to operate freely and also workers. The fact firstly that some unions (see constructio) willingly will block and abuse those that won't sign up to it shows serious problems within the industry and with unions. They are absolute grubs who only seek to serve certain parties interests and block those who want to or will do better by not having their negotiations forced by one on their behalf.

There are some unions that do try to do the right thing by their members and as a result are respected moreso for example united voice, police union are some.

Generally unions however in a number of industries are complete crap and actually questionably provide positive benefits to the workplaces.

 

[AM]

I'd like to say a big thank you to the unions who have negotiated and fought for better working conditions for their members.

My pregnant wife works at a hospital and according to the union agreement is entitled to three months paid maturnity leave.

Thank Christ she doesn't work at a private business. If she happened to work at my workplace she'd get nothing except for 12 months unpaid leave, designated by law, topped up by taxpayers at the minimum wage for 3 months which would mean we couldn't meet our mortgage repayments. I feel grateful that the unions have fought to make her employer pay her for three months at full wage rather than living off the public purse at a minimum wage, effectively saving the taxpayer thousands of dollars.

Congrats on the impending birth.

I've never understood why so many employees don't get the importance of unionism. How much they owe to union activism. And how important collectivism is in so-so many ways.

Howard did all he could to adversely impact workers rights and conditions under the 'Howard's Battlers' con. And now the Mad Monk is trotting out the same disingenuous tripe. Don't fall for it. The reactionaries are the party of the well-to-do.

 

[The Coup]

Unions unequivocally are in some aspects and cases the biggest disgrace and detriment to the rights of business to operate freely and also workers. The fact firstly that some unions (see constructio) willingly will block and abuse those that won't sign up to it shows serious problems within the industry and with unions. They are absolute grubs who only seek to serve certain parties interests and block those who want to or will do better by not having their negotiations forced by one on their behalf.

There are some unions that do try to do the right thing by their members and as a result are respected moreso for example united voice, police union are some.

Generally unions however in a number of industries are complete crap and actually questionably provide positive benefits to the workplaces.

What kind of nutcase would give businesses the right to operate freely?

 

[mottrain]

What kind of nutcase would give businesses the right to operate freely?

When I say freely, I mean without the union simply saying some activities should be blocked out of spite. Hence how the blockade at Myer happened for example.

 

[Jiska]

Unions unequivocally are in some aspects and cases the biggest disgrace and detriment to the rights of business to operate freely and also workers. The fact firstly that some unions (see constructio) willingly will block and abuse those that won't sign up to it shows serious problems within the industry and with unions. They are absolute grubs who only seek to serve certain parties interests and block those who want to or will do better by not having their negotiations forced by one on their behalf.

There are some unions that do try to do the right thing by their members and as a result are respected moreso for example united voice, police union are some.

Generally unions however in a number of industries are complete crap and actually questionably provide positive benefits to the workplaces.

Relevance to OP?

 

[mottrain]

Relevance to OP?

Complete relevance to op. You posted a positive piece on how great unions are for the role in the workplac. Fact is this is not always the case hence the counter or dissenting comment. If you bring in discussion comments like fighting for rights and only a union could've done this then it is completely plausible to expect responses to the contrary.

 

[rodney hoo]

It's not only the worker that unions have looked after some of their green bans have saved historic parts of Australia that if the developers had their way would be replace by concrete jungles.
I have been in senior management for 35 of my 45 year working in life but still continue to pay my dues to try & keep the union strong, I try & encourage the younger blokes but they don't seem to release what it took to achieve making working conditions good. Do some unions have corruption, yes but pales into insignificance compared to some polititians & big business, multinationals.
Good luck with the birth of your child.

 

[Jiska]

Complete relevance to op. You posted a positive piece on how great unions are for the role in the workplac. Fact is this is not always the case hence the counter or dissenting comment. If you bring in discussion comments like fighting for rights and only a union could've done this then it is completely plausible to expect responses to the contrary.

You haven't provided responses to the contrary. I don't see you arguing that non-unions have introduced such rights. All I see is an anti-unionist banging on about unions impeding business, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with workers rights.

We are all aware there are a few select unions which are a disgrace in the way they operate, just as there are businesses which are a disgrace in the way they operate. This is a thread on workers rights and entitlements (achieved via a union), in case you were able to comprehend through your rose tinted glasses. There is already an existing thead on Union corruption for a select few bad eggs, should you wish to sprout your crap in there. I have already denounced a number of unions in that very thread (yes, I am able to be objective)

 

[mottrain]

You haven't provided responses to the contrary. I don't see you arguing that non-unions have introduced such rights. All I see is an anti-unionist banging on about unions impeding business, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with workers rights.

This is a thread on workers rights and entitlements, in case you were able to comprehend through your rose tinted glasses.

Here we have a thread praising unions. You criticised the rights of business in the OP when you made the comment and I quote 'thank christ she doesn't work in a private business' along with providing criticism of what they would provide her at another organisation as stipulated by law. All I see is a pro unionist banging on about how wonderful unions are. If you took off your rose tinted glasses and actually read what was written by me, you would have seen where I stated that there are some in certain industries who don't benefit from unions and actually are worse off. If you cannot forseeably comprehend that people will criticise the role of union in a thread about workers rights and entitlements then you are delusional. Further if you don't think that people putting forward as a discussion in this thread the notion that unions disadvantage some or that the employees rights and entitlements may suffer by having a union negotiate on their behalf then you really don't have an understanding of what to expect in such discussions.

 

[Jiska]

Here we have a thread praising unions. You criticised the rights of business in the OP when you made the comment and I quote 'thank christ she doesn't work in a private business' along with providing criticism of what they would provide her at another organisation as stipulated by law. All I see is a pro unionist banging on about how wonderful unions are. If you took off your rose tinted glasses and actually read what was written by me, you would have seen where I stated that there are some in certain industries who don't benefit from unions and actually are worse off.

Quite the contrary. Here is a thread praising "a" union for providing workers with rights and benefits that "a" business did not. I didn't criticise the "rights" of business, I criticised the lack of worker benefits provided by business - there is a distinct difference.

The law stipulates that the GOVERNMENT will provide maturity leave at a minimum wage where the business has no maturnity leave policy. Therefore, the business is providing SFA, as businesses normally do because they care about their profit more than the worker, even though the worker is the person achieving the profit for them.

Unlike myself, you have not provided any examples of where a worker is worse off through Union involvement, you've simply made yet another unsubstantiated claim as seems to be a common occurrence.

 

[Doc_]

Why should a business have to pay someone 3 months wages for not working????
If you cant afford to have kids, don't.

 

[mottrain]

Quite the contrary. Here is a thread praising "a" union for providing workers with rights and benefits that "a" business did not. I didn't criticise the "rights" of business, I criticised the lack of worker benefits provided by business - there is a distinct difference.

The law stipulates that the GOVERNMENT will provide maturity leave at a minimum wage where the business has no maturnity leave policy. Therefore, the business is providing SFA, as businesses normally do because they care about their profit more than the worker, even though the worker is the person achieving the profit for them.

Unlike myself, you have not provided any examples of where a worker is worse off through Union involvement, you've simply made yet another unsubstantiated claim as seems to be a common occurrence.

Yes you did. You criticised their right and willingness to offer what was mandated by law in a way which screamed it is not good enough. You have again criticised the rights of business further in explaining your previous post despite you claiming you did not . By you claiming that the lack of worker benefits provided by business is inadequate you are criticising the rights of business to not offer any further awards.

If you actually went back and read my post again, you would see stated that people are worse off for having unions negotiate on their behalf. Further the example stated where workers were abused and harassed for not joining a union which is a form of bullying like in construction. Hence if you cannot see how such harassment from a union is detrimental to a worker who gets abused regularly then I cannot help you.

 

[Jiska]

Yes you did. You criticised their right and willingness to offer what was mandated by law in a way which screamed it is not good enough. You have again criticised the rights of business further in explaining your previous post despite you claiming you did not . By you claiming that the lack of worker benefits provided by business is inadequate you are criticising the rights of business to not offer any further awards.

Why should a business have to pay someone 3 months wages for not working????
If you cant afford to have kids, don't.

Just as well the law exists or they'd get nothing. Under the philosophy advercated by you two, businesses would offer no maturnity at all and no middle class Australians would have children because they couldn't afford to. The only people who'd be able to afford children would be people living in the far outer suburbs who can afford to live on one income. You'd basically wipe out the entire upper middle class, generally the ones who own the businesses and run them. Brilliant.

If you actually went back and read my post again, you would see stated that people are worse off for having unions negotiate on their behalf. Further the example stated where workers were abused and harassed for not joining a union which is a form of bullying like in construction. Hence if you cannot see how such harassment from a union is detrimental to a worker who gets abused regularly then I cannot help you.

There are a handful of unions that operate in a disgusting way. I have previously denounced unions such as the CFMEU which should be smashed in to smithereens and destroyed. I suppose that's the difference between you and me. I can have a view that unions are a good thing but still believe some of them are a disgrace and should be dismantled. You, however, blindly believe the same rule should apply to all. It's fair to say, however, that there are hundreds of unions that do the right thing. You can't just lump them all together because of a few bad eggs. That's like saying all white Australians are mass murderers because Knight and Bryant shot people dead. No doubt there are good businesses out there that support their workers and do actually offer paid maturnity leave, I know a mate who works for one that does. Hence my post attacking a particular business and not all of them, which you have convieniently and predictably chosen to dismiss and/or ignore.

 

[Redalert]

Just wanted to comment that it depends heavily on the nature of the industry. I work part-time in financial services where unionisation is effectively non-existent, and yet policies like maternity leave are still commonplace because businesses want to retain employees rather than losing them. They also offer part-time work for women who are seeking to get to back to work after having children, so on the whole I'd say they're pretty progressive when it comes to this sort of thing.

However, I should point out that this is a relatively lucrative sector (although they're being squeezed hard now), so that could be a big reason why they can afford to focus on staff retention because they view it as long-term investment.

Also big congratulations to you mate, hope all goes well

 

[mottrain]

Just as well the law exists or they'd get nothing. Under the philosophy advercated by you two, businesses would offer no maturnity at all and no middle class Australians would have children because they couldn't afford to. The only people who'd be able to afford children would be people living in the far outer suburbs who can afford to live on one income. You'd basically wipe out the entire upper middle class, generally the ones who own the businesses and run them. Brilliant.


There are a handful of unions that operate in a disgusting way. I have previously denounced unions such as the CFMEU which should be smashed in to smithereens and destroyed. I suppose that's the difference between you and me. I can have a view that unions are a good thing but still believe some of them are a disgrace and should be dismantled. You, however, blindly believe the same rule should apply to all. It's fair to say, however, that there are hundreds of unions that do the right thing. You can't just lump them all together because of a few bad eggs. That's like saying all white Australians are mass murderers because Knight and Bryant shot people dead. No doubt there are good businesses out there that support their workers and do actually offer paid maturnity leave, I know a mate who works for one that does. Hence my post attacking a particular business and not all of them, which you have convieniently and predictably chosen to dismiss and/or ignore.

Definitely didn't read the bit where I mentioned that there were some unions who operated in a positive way either.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Why should a business have to pay someone 3 months wages for not working????
If you cant afford to have kids, don't.

People replacing themselves with future members of the workforce is kind of important for the long term future of the economy.

In 20 years those babies will be producing things and paying tax. Pretty important resource, people, if nothing else.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Just as well the law exists or they'd get nothing. Under the philosophy advercated by you two, businesses would offer no maturnity at all and no middle class Australians would have children because they couldn't afford to. The only people who'd be able to afford children would be people living in the far outer suburbs who can afford to live on one income. You'd basically wipe out the entire upper middle class, generally the ones who own the businesses and run them. Brilliant.


There are a handful of unions that operate in a disgusting way. I have previously denounced unions such as the CFMEU which should be smashed in to smithereens and destroyed. I suppose that's the difference between you and me. I can have a view that unions are a good thing but still believe some of them are a disgrace and should be dismantled. You, however, blindly believe the same rule should apply to all. It's fair to say, however, that there are hundreds of unions that do the right thing. You can't just lump them all together because of a few bad eggs. That's like saying all white Australians are mass murderers because Knight and Bryant shot people dead. No doubt there are good businesses out there that support their workers and do actually offer paid maturnity leave, I know a mate who works for one that does. Hence my post attacking a particular business and not all of them, which you have convieniently and predictably chosen to dismiss and/or ignore.

As a pen pushing corporate suit I must say 99% of union people I've worked with have been honest, passionate, hard working operators who want the best for their members.

Like most areas there's a few corrupt scumbags who exploit the situation for personal gain. The issue is they're usually high profile senior figures, and some of them graduate into politics, so their corruption not only hurts the union in the first place, but burns the whole movement when they'd inevitably exposed.

I'm not sure it'll ever be possible to weed them all out.

 

[Jiska]

Just wanted to comment that it depends heavily on the nature of the industry. I work part-time in financial services where unionisation is effectively non-existent, and yet policies like maternity leave are still commonplace because businesses want to retain employees rather than losing them. They also offer part-time work for women who are seeking to get to back to work after having children, so on the whole I'd say they're pretty progressive when it comes to this sort of thing.

However, I should point out that this is a relatively lucrative sector (although they're being squeezed hard now), so that could be a big reason why they can afford to focus on staff retention because they view it as long-term investment.

Also big congratulations to you mate, hope all goes well

That's awesome to see. As I said I do know of people who's workplaces do have such policies and that's great. They should value their employees enough to be encouraging them to have families without financial hardship. Given it generally applies to women, it's an extension of their encouraging women to enter the workforce.

Definitely didn't read the bit where I mentioned that there were some unions who operated in a positive way either.

Nope, did read that and noted with commendation until I read all the subsequent crap judging all unions by the actions of a small few which raised my ire.

 

[Jiska]

People replacing themselves with future members of the workforce is kind of important for the long term future of the economy.

In 20 years those babies will be producing things and paying tax. Pretty important resource, people, if nothing else.

Probably better put than my previous post.

I don't want to sound elitist or judgemental because that's not my aim, but it's important that white collar workers have children to replace them. Generally those families that can afford to live off one income are blue collar workers. While clearly we need both, and neither is in any way more important than the other, if you come to the conclusion, based on history, that the majority of children born to white collar families end up in white collar jobs, then if white collar workers stop having children because they can't afford to, the only way to fill those jobs is through immigration. And we all know the views of anti-unionists on immigration.

 

[Jiska]

As a pen pushing corporate suit I must say 99% of union people I've worked with have been honest, passionate, hard working operators who want the best for their members.

Like most areas there's a few corrupt scumbags who exploit the situation for personal gain. The issue is they're usually high profile senior figures, and some of them graduate into politics, so their corruption not only hurts the union in the first place, but burns the whole movement when they'd inevitably exposed.

I'm not sure it'll ever be possible to weed them all out.

This is extremely well articulated as well. You should post here more often Bunk Moreland

There will always be rotten eggs in any situation. It's just a question of whether you choose to judge by the majority, or the minority.

 

[little graham]

Why should a business have to pay someone 3 months wages for not working????
If you cant afford to have kids, don't.

So why should tax payers have to pay rich families to have kids?