Labour relations

Could it be that unions are going the way of the dinosaurs:

Since the emergence of capitalism, workers seeking higher pay and safer workplaces have banded together in guilds and unions to pressure their employers for a better deal. That has been the approach of the American labor movement for the past 200 years.

That approach, however, has begun to change. It’s not because unions think collective bargaining is a bad idea but because workers can’t form unions any more — not in the private sector, not at this time. There are some exceptions: Organizing continues at airlines, for instance, which are governed by different organizing rules than most industries. But employer opposition to organizing has become pervasive in the larger economy, and the penalties for employers that violate workers’ rights as they attempt to unionize are so meager that such violations have become routine. For this and a multitude of other reasons, the share of unionized workers in the private sector dropped from roughly one-third in the mid-20th century to a scant 6.6 percent last year. In consequence, the share of the nation’s economy constituted by wages has sunk to its lowest level since World War II, and U.S. median household income continues to decline.  Read more »

Chris Trotter makes an astute observation on the CTU and their so-called muscle:

[T]he involvement of the CTU was clearly no help. CTU president, Helen Kelly, is always reminding us that, “with 350,000 New Zealand union members in 40 affiliated unions”, the CTU is “the united voice for working people and their families in New Zealand.” Hmmm. If that was true, all she needed to do was ask every one of those union members to sign the “Keep Our Assets” petition and everyone else could have gone home.  Read more »

Simon Bridges is a new minister, he needs things to do, here is an idea with which he can make himself useful:

Mr Springborg said he had launched a review to learn whether “these policies are about delivering for patients and workers, or if they are about delivering for union bosses and Labor”.

“I don’t think that’s right, people can join a union if they want, they shouldn’t be encouraged to join a union and we shouldn’t be having our staff [following] some sort of edict which was dreamt up by the Labor party and the unions,” he said.  Read more »

Matt McCarten whines about the “living wage”:

When I entered the workforce in 1980, a Kiwi worker was paid the same as an Australian for a similar job. Now our average wage is 20 per cent less in real terms. Interestingly, our minimum wage of $13.50 is 30 per cent less. Australia’s minimum, in our money, is $20.35. Even adjusting for their living costs, it’s $16.28 – $110 more a week for a full-time worker.  Read more »

Unions are in a death spiral, they have ceased to be useful and are inf act a hindrance on business. In the private sector in New Zealand we have managed to reduce the representation of unions to under 10%. We must work harder.

In New York they are celebrating the drop to 11.3%, which is a 97 year low…they must try harder too:

The long decline in the number of American workers belonging to labor unions accelerated sharply last year, according to data reported on Wednesday, sending the unionization rate to its lowest level in close to a century.  Read more »

Companies Office Lawyers have asked EPMU to forward their full audited accounts

The EPMU have been instructed by the Registrar of Incorporated Societies  lawyers to forward to them their full audited accounts so they can posted on the Incorporated Societies website for public scrutiny.

The current accounts filed on the Incorporated Societies Office carries a recognised New Zealand Auditors letterhead but no notes or Auditor’s statement.

This has been happening since 2005. They have failed to comply with the law for more than 8 years, almost all of them under the leadership of Andrew Little.

The EPMU have been asked to file immediately to the Societies Office and not to upload the accounts themselves onto the website.  Read more »

There was an interesting article on Aussie unions and the need for a new model to make unions relevant at work in the Australian Financial Review.

I believe there are almost identical circumstances in NZ.

So how can unions reform in a world made up of Generation X and Y workers and independent contractors?

This debate is not new for the Australian union movement, it’s been deliberating how it should address the continuing decline in membership for quite a while now. Essentially, this debate has centred on a service model and an organising model.

The service one focuses on serving members’ interests as a means to encourage potential members. It is a form of protection against unruly bosses while also providing support and information on workplace issues.

The second and widely adopted approach is the organising model. This one was promoted in the 1990s by the ACTU as a means to rebuild union membership as collective bargaining was decentralised to enterprise level. It is underpinned by class-struggle beliefs: members are recruited on the basis that their combined strength will counter the power of the capitalist employer.

This approach not only focuses on recruitment but on organising and training members as activists and on building unionism at the workplace. Critics point out this focus on activism has the potential to raise adversarial behaviour and industrial disputes

But this organising model has failed to increase union membership and the service model doesn’t go far enough to address changes in the workplace. In addition, recent union scandals and industrial disputes in the past 12 months that have resulted in the highest number of working days lost since 2004 suggest a new model is needed.

Dinosaurs are extinct and unions are the modern industrial equivalent of dinosaurs. Businesses have adapted to changing economic climate, but unions ahve failed to do so.

What’s at stake for the union movement? While it may claim that in membership terms, it is one of the biggest social movements in the country, with only 14 per cent membership in the private sector, it would seem a new model is required to make unions relevant at work.

The “Your rights at work” campaign may have helped topple the Howard government but it must be remembered that campaign was about individual rights, not collective rights or the union movement. In fact it could be argued it entrenched a mindset of individualism instead of winning the hearts and minds of the true believers

There is no doubt that unions have played and can play an important role. But that can only happen when they forge a value proposition that satisfies members and provides value rather than adopting the single-minded and narrow approach dictated by the organising model.

As the holiday season approaches, perhaps it’s time for the union movement to reflect on what will work in the modern Australian workplace.

Charles Krauthammer explains why it is that unions kill jobs:

The fact is that in the right-to-work states, unemployment is 6.9%. And in the other stays the non-right-to-work, it’s 8.7. So you can choose to have fewer workers who enjoy higher, inflated, unnatural, if you like, wages, uncompetitive wages. Or you can have competitive wages and more people employed, more people with the dignity of a job and less unemployment, more taxation and more activity. I think it’s it the right choice but I understand how it’s a wrenching choice.

Michigan has spanked the unions and defeated provisions that would have seen unions given veto control over state laws. It is astonishing that unions can spend so much of members money campaigning on patch protection measures.

Unions went for broke in Michigan and they lost big time.

Michigan voters soundly defeated a measure that would have given public-sector unions a potent tool to challenge any law — past, present or future — limiting their benefits and powers. It would also have permanently barred Michigan from becoming a right-to-work state where payment of dues is no longer required as a condition of employment in unionized companies.

Will this defeat now open the right-to-work floodgates?

Although both sides raised a whopping $20-plus million for their campaigns, ultimately the proposal lost by a wide margin because of opposition across the political spectrum. Both theDetroit News and the Detroit Free Press, the state’s flagship conservative and liberal papers respectively, counseled a “no” vote. The Free Press, usually an ardent supporter of collective- bargaining rights, concluded: “Michigan just can’t afford those kinds of limitations in an era when debt from pension and health obligations to current and retired employees are pushing many local governments to the brink of insolvency.”

All of this would have rung the death knell for the last two years of fiscal reforms by GovernorRick Snyder, a moderate Republican, paving the way for future tax increases on individuals and businesses. This would have been economically devastating for Michigan, which went into a recession several years before the rest of the country — and is only now beginning to post a slow recovery. Its unemployment is still about a point above the national average.

The unions may wish they had never overplayed their hand in this battle. They were field-testing a strategy to take back existing right-to-work states that allow legislative action through ballot referendums.

Rodney Hide comments on the news that the Registrar of Incorporated Societies is looking closely at the Maritime Union.

The Maritime Union of New Zealand is in the same pickle as the New Zealand Meatworkers’ Union. It, too, has hidden millions of dollars of spending from the legally required public scrutiny.

Following my complaint, the Registrar of Incorporated Societies, Neville Harris, has ordered the Meatworkers’ Union to re-file six years’ of accounts (Hidesight, Aug 24).

His clear expectation is that the full accounts be presented for approval at the annual meeting on November 7 and be filed promptly thereafter.

It will be fascinating to see if the union complies. It has fought long and hard to keep its accounts hidden. But I’m backing the Registrar to prevail. He has the necessary statutory power to ensure the union complies with the law.

There will be some sharp, critical eyes going through the accounts once they’re filed. There is a great deal of interest in the spending that the union has been so anxious to keep from public view.

Yes, the sharp eyes of The Owl, and me. We kicked this all off and now we are starting to see the makings of a scandal in the union movement. Rodney Hide thinks so too:

The legal obligation runs like this. To register, unions must be incorporated societies. The incorporation is important because it creates a body corporate distinct from the members of the union.

The union can thereby hold property and incur obligations in its own right.

Critically, being a member of an incorporated society does not impose on members any liability in respect of any contract or debt incurred by the society. There wouldn’t be too many union members if they were liable for union debts.

In return for the legal protection of members, incorporated societies incur legal obligations, one of which is the filing of an annual financial statement that is available for public scrutiny. That way, any creditors and others can see the financial health of the union.

However, that’s not been possible with the Meatworkers’ Union for years and nor is it the case with the Maritime Union. The accounts haven’t been presented in full and millions of dollars in spending has not been made public as required by law.

The lack of transparency is truly shocking. It’s especially so in light of the spending scandal that has in recent months rocked the Australian Health Services Union.

So far the Meatworkers and now the Maritime union have been caught. Millions of dollars of members monies are being hidden by these dodgy unions.

The Union established Branches at each port in accordance with the rules of the Union. These branches have been given delegated authority to manage their affairs on behalf of their local members. The Financial Statements have not included any information on the financial performance or position of each Branch.”

The accounts show the union taking in $338,058 in affiliation fees, of which $80,059 came from “Auckland Local 13”.

Branch president Garry Parsloe says union fees are 1.25% of wages and the average wage is $57,000, excluding bonuses and allowances. The union claims 300 members at the port. So that’s an income of over $200,000. But only $80,000 of that makes it to the union proper and is declared. That’s just one branch.

The 2003 accounts likewise just show the affiliation fees and not the full income and expenditure of the union. The failure to disclose properly goes back a long time.

More importantly…because they have failed to comply with the law the union actually does not legally exist. Nor do their agreements with employers. If I was a hardened employer I’d be testing this in court.

Rodney’s final note is in the comments:

The Registrar of Incorporated Societies replied to my complaint as follows:

“In light of the issues raised by the NZ Meat Workers and Related Trades Union matter, my office is currently reviewing financial statement compliance by those incorporated societies who are registered unions.

The Maritime Union of New Zealand is part of that review and there are some issues that my office will be following up with the Union.”

The way I read that is that every union is being investigated because unions are required to incorporate.

That’s a fulsome investigation. I know of only two unions who have unlawfully hidden spending though their branches but I have only looked at two!!

A scandal is brewing.