If you were a conspiracy theorist it would be easy to see Tony Abbott's
actions against unions as revealing his true dastardly intentions
despite all his soothing statements before the election.
But I see it
just as standard Coalition behaviour, motivated more by a search for
political advantage than by a desire to free the economy from the
scourge of unionism. Indeed, when the union movement finally expires -
which can't be too many years off - I'd expect the Coalition to shed a
private tear at the loss of such a useful whipping-boy.
When you
contemplate the royal commission into union corruption, remember that,
since the days of Malcolm Fraser, all Coalition governments set up such
commissions. We know they sometimes backfire against the government or
employers, and rarely lead to the conviction of many unionists. Royal
commissions are about raising a hue and cry, not getting wrongdoers into
jail.
As politicians on both sides well know, unions have long
been on the nose with the public. This is partly because it's always
easy for proprietors of the established order to portray unions as
troublemakers and partly because of the public's race memory of the way
the unions were always staging disruptive strikes in the decades up to
the mid-1980s (yes, that long ago).
The Coalition wouldn't still
be so keen to press the public's anti-union button, however, if the
unions weren't still so closely associated with its political opponent,
the Labor Party - a linkage that, if anything, strengthened as Julia
Gillard sought to shore up her leadership against the ever-present
threat from Kevin Rudd.
This is not to imply there's no corruption
in the union movement. There is, just as there is among businesses -
and politicians, for that matter. Just how widespread corruption is in
the union movement is hard to know and the royal commission is unlikely
to tell us, though you can be sure the relatively few instances it
uncovers will be highly publicised.
A second ulterior motive is
the Coalition's resentment of the way the unions channel big donations
to Labor, but never to it. By contrast, business will donate to Labor
rather that the Liberals whenever it thinks Labor's likely to win.
And,
of late, we've seen signs of a third level of political prejudice
against the unions. How is it the "end of entitlement" seems to apply
far more to manufacturers than to farmers or formerly government-owned
airlines?
Could it be because highly protected manufacturing tends
to be highly unionised, with the unions playing a leading role in
fighting for continued government assistance, particularly when Labor is
in power?
It's worth remembering that manufacturing is the
traditional base of the union movement. Manufacturing's declining share
of total employment is part of the explanation for the movement's
decline.
Manufacturing's further decline will hasten the eventual
demise of the unions - or perhaps their relegation to the public sector.
Just 13 per cent of private-sector workers are union members, compared
with 43 per cent of public-sector workers, making 18 per cent overall.
But note that only 19 per cent of manufacturing workers are members.
You
may think the public's strong reaction against WorkChoices contradicts
the idea that unions are on the nose. Not really. The unions'
advertising at the time rightly alerted part-time and casual workers to
the greater scope for unreasonable employer behaviour under WorkChoices,
but while this made many anxious it led few to conclude the answer was
to join a union. For many workers, unions are a relic from a bygone age.
Remember
that the Coalition's attempt to extract political mileage from the
unions, bad employers' attempt to blame the unions for their poor
relations with their own staff (e.g. Qantas) and the national dailies'
attempt to suck up to big business, all involve leaving the public with
the impression the unions are a much bigger bogyman than they actually
are.
What the people with the hidden agendas will never tell you
is that more than 80 per cent of enterprises don't have a union
presence. Only about 40 per cent of employees are covered by collective
agreements, some of which have been drafted by employers without union
involvement.
If the government really did stamp out union
corruption, or prompt Labor to cut its ties with the unions (thus
depriving many union leaders of an attractive career path), or shame
union leaders into giving up their lucrative fees as trustees of
industry super funds, it would get the union leadership back to its
knitting, giving their movement a better chance of surviving.
