The Austerity Cacophony and the End of Serious Platforms

[pietillidie]

[David]

[Mugwump]

[stui magpie]

Now this could be an interesting discussion.

First off, I agree with Ptiddy that there doesn't appear to be any leaders of vision out there. Ones with the guts to look longer term rather than just the next election.

I also agree that the Hawke/ Keating government was a good one and made a lot of reforms for the good. Unfortunately I got to see the behind closed doors result of the union reform that didn't make the media which changed my views on them forever.

Howard was the next good leader and interestingly speaking of unions, did as much to strengthen them as Hawke/Keating did. The latter tore down the existing structure and forced them to build far better foundations but they also spoon fed them power they'd never had before. Howard made them get their shit together.

Thatcher IMO was the enema England badly needed. I'm sure it wasn't pleasant but the joint was farked. She tore stuff down and broke a lot of things, built a lot of new things but more importantly by razing a lot of shit to the ground she created the opportunity to build anew not just bring back the past. Single most important English PM since Churchill.

[Mugwump]

[pietillidie]

[pietillidie]

Unfortunately I got to see the behind closed doors result of the union reform that didn't make the media which changed my views on them forever.

You've probably explained this before, but what was the story here?

[pietillidie]

I think the very limited retrenchment of public spending (we are still running a deficit!) was necessary. A decrease from an unsustainable level s not absolute austerity, though it may feel like it.

But even if the whole Brexit thing didn't come to pass, wouldn't the seething anger still be there on the back of those cuts?

I think we both agree the Germans have it most right (even if I think the EU is a positive force and a critical counterweight to the US and China). But how on earth would the UK ever be able to shift in that direction enough, fast enough, for it to be a meaningful policy platform? And how could it be done on the back of a contraction in spending?

Sometimes, I think the UK's problems seem overwhelming...because they are!

My point on H-K was not so much comparison, though I did unwisely make the comparison to Thatcher, but more this idea of leaders and parties being able to piece together a policy platform. A plan to drag the UK in the direction of Germany would need something similarly comprehensive. Is it realistic given the present structure of the economy, or are we just musing theoretically?

[Mugwump]

[stui magpie]

Unfortunately I got to see the behind closed doors result of the union reform that didn't make the media which changed my views on them forever.

You've probably explained this before, but what was the story here?

This was from my perspective. I'd grown up being a believer in unions and was a union member. In the lead up to 93 when they introduced the first enterprise agreements in the IR reform act 93, the government was moving to keep the unions who were chaffing at the bit with the wages accord happy. So they pushed hard behind the scenes to increase union involvement in all Government run enterprises (such as Telecom where I worked)with something called "The participate approach" which essentially meant joint union and management decision making, not just consultation.

My first hand experience of this was when the department I was in wanted to make some major organisational changes. A joint union management working party was established (most of the union reps were from Sydney and had their flights and accommodation in Melbourne paid for by Telecom) and the working party worked for months to come up with a joint agreed document which the union then refused to sign.

I remember speaking to one of the union guys who I had got to know and asking him why? They had gotten everything they'd asked for. He agreed and just with a cocky grin said they wouldn't sign it because they didn't have to.

That was the moment the wool really fell away from my eyes and I saw (most of ) them for what they were. They had no real concern over their members, they were in it for the power and the graft.

The same scenario was played out many times in may workplaces as a result of employers being handcuffed and bent over by union officials who were only interested in looking after themselves.

That world came crashing down in 1996 with a change of government and the workplace relations act and the changes to freedom of association laws which made "no ticket no start" illegal and it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.

It meant they no longer had members and power handed to them on a platter, they had to suddenly re learn how to work for a living again and actually start focusing on members rather than themselves.

[Mugwump]

Unions arose in a context where the individual labourer had no power relative to capital, and was thus highly vulnerable and often exploited. That was true in the 19th and early 20th century and unions did a great deal of good in that era.

In a world where the returns to capital are not greatly higher than the rate of interest, where knowledge work means the individual worker has quite a lot of differentiated value, and social protection and employment laws give individuals rights against their employer, the purpose is very cloudy. Unions have thus become just another agent pursuing narrow, sectional, rent-seeking interests, or mindless defenders of the work-shy and unprofessional individual.

Today, in Australia and the UK, they are mostly large corporations which produce no consumer benefit, operating in a monopoly context (mostly government, where they cannot kill the host) and/or heavy industries with a very high capital/labour ratio). In such a context, they advance the interests of their office-holders and their "shareholders" at the expense of the public.

Now, it does not have to be this way, and in much of Northern Europe, notably Germany and Netherlands, and in parts of Asia, they are able to serve a wider role looking at the interests of workers in the context of national, industry and enterprise competitiveness. But that requires a very different legislative context, and a very different quality of union leader.

[HAL]

What does have to be this way and in much of Northern Europe Germany and Netherlands they are able to serve a wider role looking at the interests of workers in the context of national industry and enterprise competitiveness ?

[pietillidie]

Unfortunately I got to see the behind closed doors result of the union reform that didn't make the media which changed my views on them forever.

You've probably explained this before, but what was the story here?

This was from my perspective. I'd grown up being a believer in unions and was a union member. In the lead up to 93 when they introduced the first enterprise agreements in the IR reform act 93, the government was moving to keep the unions who were chaffing at the bit with the wages accord happy. So they pushed hard behind the scenes to increase union involvement in all Government run enterprises (such as Telecom where I worked)with something called "The participate approach" which essentially meant joint union and management decision making, not just consultation.

My first hand experience of this was when the department I was in wanted to make some major organisational changes. A joint union management working party was established (most of the union reps were from Sydney and had their flights and accommodation in Melbourne paid for by Telecom) and the working party worked for months to come up with a joint agreed document which the union then refused to sign.

I remember speaking to one of the union guys who I had got to know and asking him why? They had gotten everything they'd asked for. He agreed and just with a cocky grin said they wouldn't sign it because they didn't have to.

That was the moment the wool really fell away from my eyes and I saw (most of ) them for what they were. They had no real concern over their members, they were in it for the power and the graft.

Fair enough, and pretty compelling insight from yourself at close quarters. These are the things that those generalising from the outside can't see.

Now, it does not have to be this way, and in much of Northern Europe, notably Germany and Netherlands, and in parts of Asia, they are able to serve a wider role looking at the interests of workers in the context of national, industry and enterprise competitiveness. But that requires a very different legislative context, and a very different quality of union leader.

You'd think the time is right for a new model. I'm surprised social entreprenuers haven't grabbed hold of the opportunity to bring service workers together somehow, minus all the old union guff. There is no reason that the same technology which facilitates mobility can't be used to bring interests together in a productive way. Flexibility is dominating over stability to a detrimental extent at the moment, although I understand the fear of organisations turning into mobs.

This tension between flexibility and stability is a central theme in my work and study in the employment/careers field, although I'm not sure where to run with it yet.

[Mugwump]

[stui magpie]