Many will be familiar with the love/hate opinion I have of unions.
I love unions because fundamentally supporting employees is important. We live in a world where the agency of the individual is limited compared to the risks and importance of the workplace to our lives.
But unions are unconvincing in their approach to addressing this - and in my experience as a member unpleasantly unprofessional to deal with to boot (I can only imagine what it's like being involved professionally).
The complex, networked world we live in does not fit well into an oppositional approach to industrial relations - an 'us' vs 'them' perspective. This is truer in some workplaces than others, and some unions get it better than others.
Yes sometimes a hard line is and will always be necessary. But when? How do different approaches contribute to a better workplace and better lives? What role do unions have in education and improving transparency? Finding employment? Supporting networking and bringing people together? Supporting individuals to improve their value, through training or otherwise? Career planning?
All of these things contribute to good workplaces, but how they contribute is not easy to understand - the world of work is complex. To understand what to do to best deliver a better employment situation for employees requires a sophisticated understanding of this world.
Do unions have this? Do they take an informed approach?
Unions do some valuable work, but I'm yet to find evidence that they're doing it well.
John Baxter
@JohnSBaxter
From unions I've had experience with the CFMEU (NSW Construction branch) and AIMPE do education, training and employment well. LHMU, sorry United Voice as they now call themselves, and SDA are useless at most things. A reflection of any number of things; member density, longevity in the industry, formal qualifications required vs unskilled, industry regulation.
ReplyDeleteI think Quiggins point about unions often being seen as external to the workplace is interesting. For the CFMEU and AIMPE the unions everyday involvement in the workplace through OH&S practices give their delegates and officials very different relationships with members, as opposed to the other two who only contact members when they need something from them.
In many ways the SDA especially has no reason to be interested in education/training/careers, for the overwhelming majority of their members training means leaving to enter a different industry/union.
Cheers for this response from 'Liam', which blogger appears to have disappeared...:
ReplyDelete"From unions I've had experience with the CFMEU (NSW Construction branch) and AIMPE do education, training and employment well. LHMU, sorry United Voice as they now call themselves, and SDA are useless at most things. A reflection of any number of things; member density, longevity in the industry, formal qualifications required vs unskilled, industry regulation.
I think Quiggins point about unions often being seen as external to the workplace is interesting. For the CFMEU and AIMPE the unions everyday involvement in the workplace through OH&S practices give their delegates and officials very different relationships with members, as opposed to the other two who only contact members when they need something from them.
In many ways the SDA especially has no reason to be interested in education/training/careers, for the overwhelming majority of their members training means leaving to enter a different industry/union."