The Changing Paradigm: Freedom, Jobs, Prosperity
Trade Unions and Civil Society
The Hon. Gary Johns
The economist Colin Clarke, who among other distinctions, was
the only Australian whose work was quoted in Keynes' General
Theory, remarked to me when I was an economics student, and
resident at Mannix College, Monash University, that the wages
of Australian workers had little to do with the deeds of the trade
union movement. They had to do with the economic factors in the
generation of wealth (the guns, steel and germs view of economic
advancement). He may have been right, and I unfortunately, lacked
the presence of mind to ask if he thought unions had impeded the
growth of wages. In the absence of his response, we can nevertheless
observe that probably all successful modern economies have contained
a free trade union movement. We can further observe that, from
time to time, these associations have cooperated with governments
to achieve mutual economic and social objectives. In other words,
the role of trade unions cannot be so easily dismissed. They are
significant actors in free societies, and it is best they are
understood to be so.
The environment that confronts trade unions in 2002 is extraordinarily
different to that which they faced at their origins, and in their
heyday. The new environment consists of a political and intellectual
consensus that competition, not protection, is the appropriate
response to the challenges of a more highly integrated world economy.
It consists of a legislative climate, less favourable to a union
monopoly in workforce representation. It consists of a legislative
climate more favourable to individual legal action, and to the
legal intervention by other intermediaries, thus further undermining
the trade unions' monopoly. It consists of macroeconomic management
and a welfare state that reduces the risks that may result from
working in the free market. It consists of an electorate less
motivated by class politics, and where a great deal of political
activism centres on post-material values and themes. Consequently,
it also consists of a greater competition for political space
from other political activists, particularly in the form of Non
Government Organisations (NGOs).
The responses by the trade union movement to the new environment
have been considerable. At times in the last twenty years, where
the option was available, trade unions have worked closely with
government. At times, they have sought to build considerable head-office
capacity, in order to equip them to operate in every area of government
policy. At times, they have sought to restructure, principally
through amalgamation, to achieve strength through fewer and larger
unions. At times, they have sought to return to local activism
and recruiting, particularly after a period of appearing to 'run
the government'. And, at times they have had to rethink their
political allegiance to the ALP, and to forge links with NGOs.
To understand trade unions and civil society, it is important
to clarify the sense in which civil society is understood, and
more important, the way in which political actors seek to use
it. Trade unions---along with friendly societies and mutual cooperatives---are
among our earliest manifestations of 'activist' civil society;
they are original NGOs. They exist as a collection of private
individuals seeking solutions to collective, as well as to individual,
problems. However, and just like Australian political parties,
they are also part of the system of government, the democratic
institutions and the rule of law that helps keep us 'civilised'.
The trade unions' preferred vehicle for advocacy depends on the
extent to which trade unions share the ruling party's objectives
for the labour market, and the impact of its chosen vehicle on
its organisational strength. On the government's part, if the
objective is free employment contracts, unions are unlikely to
be a useful ally. If the object is the orderly conduct of employment
relations, they may well be useful.
Ideologues use both concepts of civil society, 'activism' and
'government', as it suits their purpose. The political 'left'
prefers the commanding heights of government to achieve their
collectivist aims, and when successful, government and the state
become, in their view, the true expression of the will of the
people. When out of government, or when government fails them,
the Left believe that the will of the people exists in civil associations.
At these times, government is demonised as the instrument of corporations.
The political 'right' also prefers the commanding heights of government,
if only to keep them out of the hands of the Left. The Right like
the idea of private association, however, because they are less
instrumental and collective in their goals, civil associations
under their stewardship generally have less political impact.
For example, the Red Cross is quintessentially an organisation
peopled by conservatives (the Right), and its objects are focussed
on individual amelioration, not on system change. By contrast,
the Australian Conservation Foundation, in latter years, has been
overtaken by the Left and has vowed to change the economic and,
it seems, the political system (in a way that places the environment
first). They recently announced, that 'by 2050 Australia will
be a civil society. There will be a high level of community engagement
in decision-making processes, ... a higher level of trust ...
with their decision-making institutions.' Translated, this means
that civil associations will overtake the state. A government
of activists ensues! This position is at the extreme, one that
cashed-up NGOs favour.
Trade unions are old players at positioning themselves in civil
society, but they suffer the twin difficulties of having been
part of government, and thus---as far as their competitors are
concerned---part of the problem. Second, they have to service
a membership, not just entertain a support base, as do advocacy
NGOs and political parties. They carry some heavy ideological
and structural baggage.
The Death of Labourism
Australian trade union ideology was never Socialist, it was
Labourist. 'Australian Labourism's central principle was that
the capitalist state could be managed to the advantage of working
men by a combination of a strong trade union movement with a parliamentary
Labor Party. In Australia, Labourism added three distinctive credos:
protection, to keep out cheap goods; a White Australia policy,
to keep out cheap labour; and a system of compulsory arbitration,
to keep the fair employer fair.'  The latter, in particular,
also stimulated the growth of trade unionism.
Among Labour thinkers, the belief that the capitalist state
can be managed to the advantage of workers, albeit in a globalised
economy, remains. In 2002, however, almost nothing else of Australian
Labourism does. Working men, have become working men and women.
To the extent that the culture of union solidarity was based on
the male breadwinner, it is now long gone. Indeed, 'workers' no
longer exist in a single dimension---as a unit of production,
or in a single master/servant relationship with their employer---the
consumer is now sovereign. The purpose of production is the satisfaction
of the customer, not the producer. More workers have experienced
self-employment and thus begun to
understand the exigencies of employing labour and creating wealth.
More workers are employed in small organisations, where the
distance between performance and earnings is shorter than in a
large one. More workers own capital, for a long time as homeowners,
but more recently as recipients of redundancies and superannuation.
Indeed, many have become investors, either indirectly through
their superannuation funds, or directly through shares.
This is not to argue that house ownership and share ownership
are inconsistent with a large union presence. Australian home
ownership has been consistently high throughout the period of
decline in trade union density, and the nation with the highest
level of individual share ownership, Sweden at 66 per cent, is
the country with the highest level of union membership, at 91
per cent. Nevertheless, in recent decades, Australians appear
to have chosen a path of high individual capitalisation and low
In 1976, over half (51 per cent) of all employees were members
of a trade union, in 2001, less than one quarter (24.5 per cent
or 1.9 million people) were members. Clearly, in the last
quarter of the 20th century, trade unions have been losing members
and/or recruiting only a small proportion of employees entering
the workforce. There appear to be various factors contributing
to the decline in union membership: The open economy and the
burden of increased competition have fallen on industries that
were traditionally more unionised. The growth of employment has
occurred in industries that have low levels of union membership.
The rise in part-time employment has made recruiting more difficult.
Since 1990, and Accord Mark VI, enterprise bargaining and a shift
away from centralised wage negotiations, has diminished the role
of unions, and changes in State jurisdiction legislation have
made compulsory unionism more difficult. The Workplace Relations
Act 1996 reduced the matters that could be covered by federal
awards, and provided for individual Australian Workplace Agreements
and collective agreements between employers and employees. Other
changes included revised provisions for unions' right of entry
to workplaces, restrictions on industrial action, and the banning
of discriminatory action against non-unionists (removal of 'closed
shops' or compulsory unionism) and unionists.
The open economy and its needs, and governments prepared to
encourage the workforce changes they regard as essential to prosper
in the open economy are the principal drivers of change. In addition,
the consciousness of extracting an income from capital has changed
the mindset of the 'wage labourer'. More workers have become knowledge
workers, they have become valuable commodities---as opposed to
industrial fodder---in their own right. They are expected to think
about the performance of the organisation, and their performance
in it. In short, once the worker realised that his or her well-being
depended on the contribution to the success of the enterprise,
and not in screwing the enterprise, the game of industrial relations
Despite these massive changes, trade unions are still the largest
collection of citizens in any association, the biggest NGO. Unlike
other NGOs---environmental, human rights---however, they are bound
to represent the direct interests of their members, and they are
accountable by means of the election of officials. Most of the
largest NGOs consist of supporters and a collective of activists
and professionals, who are not directly accountable, and who do
not operate in the direct interest of, nor service their members
or supporters. In these NGOs, scrutiny by the membership is less
pressing, less accepted. One of the prices that trade unions have
had to pay for their prominence is a high level of state regulation
and scrutiny. The same cannot be said for NGOs in general.
The old certainties are less evident, and the workforce belief
in the purpose and strength of unionism has diminished. A survey
of workers' attitudes to trade unions, conducted by the NSW Labour
Council, shortly after Labor's Federal 1996 defeat, found that
while there was some residual commitment to unions based on the
heritage of the movement, they were nevertheless, perceived to
be 'dinosaurs.' Trade unions find themselves in an alien environment;
an open economy, a less regulated bargaining system, and competing
in a market of interest groups, but with a smaller and less loyal
membership. 'Coping with individualism of the new workforce will
be the trade union movement's greatest challenge. Traditional
collectivist notions will increasingly be seen by the workforce
as reflecting the philosophy of a by-gone era.'
Trade Union Responses
Trade unions have responded in one or more of three ways to
the emerging environment. The first is the oldest, the safety
of the government system. This avenue is not always available,
it depends on the government of the day, the prevailing economic
ideology and the strength of the trade union movement.
There have been times when both sides of politics have sought
a close relationship with the trade union movement. Alternatively,
there have been times when both, in turn, have disdained it. 'Menzies
had remarked, when Prime Minister in 1940, that it was impossible
to govern Australia efficiently without the consent of the trade
unions.' Indeed, Harold Holt as Minister for Labour and National
Service, established the 'Holt-Monk axis' during the 1950s. Holt
struck an agreement with the ACTU, in particular its president,
Albert Monk, that all trade union representations to the government
were to come through the ACTU. Ministers were not to receive deputations
from federal unions until the president of the ACTU had been notified.
The Whitlam Government, although close in many respects to
the ACTU, particularly through the joint presidency of Bob Hawke
of the ALP and the ACTU, failed to discuss its plan to introduce
across-the-board tariff cuts in 1973, and the ACTU vigorously
and successfully opposed the 1973 prices and incomes referendum.
By contrast, the ACTU Accord with the Hawke Government in the
1980s was a model of cooperation, each side offering, and able
to deliver, significant benefits to the other in pursuit of common
policy objectives. The Hawke Government was attempting to engage
the workforce in award restructuring and enterprise bargaining.
The trade union movement offered the government a voice in the
electorate that it would otherwise have not had. These objectives
could not have been achieved by government fiat, or with the simple
agreement of the Industrial Relations Commission. Workers had
to be engaged in the process, which required that they be convinced
of the worthiness of the cause.
Towards the close of this period, as the Assistant Minister
for Industrial Relations, I attended a meeting of steel workers
in Newcastle to discuss these questions. The meeting was coming
along pretty well, until one worker asked, 'are you blokes interested
in this stuff anymore?' It became immediately clear to me that
although the government and the union movement had set a task
for the workforce, to encourage enterprise bargaining, it had
failed to continue to rally the team and encourage the players.
In the twilight of the long Labor reign of 1983--1996, enthusiasm
for the cause had dissipated. The ALP/ACTU Accord was the high
point of union cooperation with the state. The unions used their
considerable power to prepare the workforce for a more open economy.
They helped weaken the addiction to what remained of the Labourist
credo; protection and compulsory arbitration. In so doing, unions
paid dearly for their role.
The prospects for close relations between the present government
and the union movement are obviously poor; the Coalition seeks
a freer employment market, unions desire protection. Nevertheless,
governments do not operate at the level of the enterprise, so
they do not have the same incentive as employers to foster local
bargains. They also have larger objectives in mind, such as the
maintenance of industrial peace, workforce training, controlling
inflation and ensuring full employment. Employers often seek the
assistance of government to achieve these objectives. The Coalition
will not relinquish too many of the levers they now control in
employment relations until they are sure that labour market reforms
are a significant factor in the achievement of their objectives.
In other words, the historical reliance of employment relations
on a collectivised and formal legal process of conciliation and
arbitration may be part of the problem, but no Commonwealth Government
will relinquish its entire interventionist arsenal. The portfolio
still exists, the formal political elements, like the Australian
Labour Advisory Council still exists, indeed, the industrial relations
infrastructure remains largely in place. There may come a time
when the electorate demands the use of such instruments. There
may come a time when the government wants to appeal to the workforce
through its representatives.
Restructuring and Reorganising
On the structural front, the number of separate unions fell
from 295 to 132 in the period 1990--1996, mainly through amalgamation,
but sometimes through absorption. For example, the National Union
of Workers was as much an absorption by the Federated Storemen
and Packers Union of lesser unions, as an amalgamation. In all,
from 1989, six unions progressively merged into the one larger
union. The six unions were established in the early part of the
20th century and some at least---United Sales Representatives
and Commercial Travellers Guild (Est. 1888), Federated Millers
and Manufacturing Grocers Union (Est. 1909), Commonwealth Foremen's
Association (Est. 1912)---were barely viable. So there was sense
in bringing together these many small unions. The union membership
of the union is now around 90,000. In contrast, while the
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union is Australia's
main trade union in those industries, it is an amalgamation in
name only. While it exists in three divisions, it is, in effect,
Larger unions were the strategic response to declining numbers,
they may also have hastened it. The standard critique of the
period of amalgamation is that larger unions may be less responsive
to workplace level issues and to individual member input. For
Trade union strategies in Australia have long relied on high
levels of leadership prerogative and the use of highly researched
argument placed before the country's various tribunals. In such
an environment the employment of analysts and legal advisers
rather than organisers and recruiters has more often been the
order of the day, with rank and file organisation and input into
trade union strategies being minimal at best. This top-down approach
has always had the potential to alienate members from the movement's
These sentiments, and the generally accepted analysis of the
causes of the decline in trade union density have sent unions
back to basics---organising and recruitment. For many years, trade
unions had become more professionally staffed and more policy-oriented.
Most particularly in the use of labour law firms as a training
ground for union officials. Wages, terms and conditions appeared
to take a back seat. The movement pursued issues in the public
arena increasingly outside the realm of work.
In terms of restructuring and reorganising, trade unions are
now heading in two directions, organising and recruiting on the
shop floor and chasing the new activists and their methods in
the new NGOs. The irony in this of course, is that the trade union
movement has in the past, often sponsored, or acted as the catalyst
for many of the most successful NGOs. Australian unions have a
combined revenue base of about $500 million per year, and the
ACTU believes that not enough of this is invested in organising
and recruiting. Currently around 210,000 new union members are
recruited each year in Australia. However, in order to maintain
current membership levels unions must collectively recruit 285,000
members each year. In the long-term, union density will only
increase if unions are active in areas where employment is growing,
not declining. Those areas are call centres, computer services,
tourism and hospitality, which are all increasing in employment---these
are the industries attracting young people. The unions aim to
establish delegates, activists and collective structures at every
union workplace, educate and activate delegates to recruit, bargain
and handle grievances. They aim to reallocate union resources
to recruit and organise new members in workplaces and industries
where jobs are growing and create an organising section in the
union, with a coordinator and specialist organising teams. These
are the aims of the Organising: Unions@Work program established
by the ACTU in 1999. The difficulty of achieving any growth, however,
is underlined by the fact that the program follows an earlier
version, Organising Works, which commenced around 1993,
with the aim of training young union officials and recruiters.
The ACTU Unions@Work campaign has also decided to 'form
strong alliances with other groups in the community.' In other
words, it feels the need to maintain its links with the post-materialist
values of one section of its membership, the middle-class, particularly
teachers. An example of this activity at an international scale
is the Millennium Review of the International Confederation of
Free Trade Union's (ICFTU). The 2000 ICFTU Congress determined
'to undertake the most radical review of the international trade
union movement since trade unionism.' It commissioned a survey
of NGOs operating at an international level, and investigated
the campaigning techniques used by them in pursuit of their objectives.
An analysis of that study, completed for Australian trade unions,
argues that the public perception of trade unions is that they
focus on labour rights only. It believes that trade unions have
not been effective at defining their role in the broader social
agenda. For example, often unions do not clearly explain their
role in establishing and maintaining basic human rights (of which
labour rights are only one component) to their own members, let
alone a broader audience. It has only been recently that unions
have had to justify many of their actions as union density has
been in decline. Demonstrating their role in the broader social
agenda has not been a priority.
These sentiments will serve to increase the divide between
the two constituencies of the union movement and possibly ensure
that unions become just another, albeit large NGO, rather than
a representative of employees in the workplace. To this end, they
will be of little use to their members and of no use to any government
who, at some point, may want an avenue to speak to the workforce.
The Public Interest
Collective legal processes, which---like compulsory arbitration---determine
employment relations, may be in abeyance, but individual ones
are certainly not. The statutory scheme that ensures a redundant
worker's entitlements at the collapse of a firm does not require
the intervention of a union. Superannuation entitlements are guaranteed
by statute. The right to sue an employer for unfair dismissal,
or for discrimination on the job have been enhanced. Collective
bargains, while still a strong part of the system of wage and
condition setting, are nevertheless buttressed by minimum conditions,
making those who wish to negotiate without union support more
able to do so. The ability to sue for injury has ballooned. The
statutes for health and safety are comprehensive and policed by
the state. In a myriad of ways, statute has put trade unions out
of a job. Workers may need lawyers, but they do not necessarily
It is now easier for other collectives to intervene in more
legal matters than was once the case. Some of these will impinge
on employment relations. The High Court of Australia in, Truth
About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Management
Ltd (2000) has widened the capacity of NGOs to
take legal action against business. The consensus of the High
Court in TAM v MIM was that the Parliament had the power to legislate
to allow 'any person' or 'a person', or the like, to have standing
under Commonwealth statutes. The Court stated that the Parliament
may 'allow any person to represent the public interest and, thus,
institute legal proceedings with respect to a public wrong.' It
further observed that a number of laws had been enacted in recent
years, which allowed proceedings to be brought, by any 'interested
person' (for example, in certain laws relating to the environment,
industrial relations and financial markets) or 'person affected'
(for example, in certain companies and securities, investment
and environmental laws). This widening of the law of standing
could prove fertile ground for lawyers and NGOs to press their
agendas through the Courts in environmental, industrial relations,
companies and securities and anti-discrimination, as well as privacy,
and finance and investment arenas.
A more recent ACTU agenda that responds to the fact that workers
are not one-dimensional is that of shareholder democracy. That
is, the desire of employees as shareholders to enforce certain
obligations on corporations. This attempt to democratise the economy
encompasses corporate governance, the social responsibility of
corporations and ethical investment. ACTU President Sharan Burrow
has argued that Australian companies be required to report on
their performance on the so-called 'triple bottom line'---economic,
environmental and social performance.' For example, 'there should
be statutory support such as Amnesty International's human rights
framework for Australian companies.' This is, of course, the
old protectionism dressed in new clothes.
These sentiments clearly support the Australian Conservation
Foundation submission to the draft Financial Services Reform Bill
asking for the compulsory details contained in a Product Disclosure
Statement for a financial product (superannuation, managed investment,
and life insurance products with an investment component) be expanded
to include the following, 'the extent (if at all) to which environmental,
social or ethical considerations are taken into account in the
selection, retention and realisation of investments'. As far
as I can ascertain, the Financial Services Reform Act 2001
requires such disclosure of all financial products. This means
that, other than for a nil return response, products will be screened
in one or more of the following categories:
1. Environment---logging native forests, wood chipping, mining,
air and water pollution, land degradation/salinity, genetic engineering,
2. Human rights---exploitation of women and children, child
labour, destroying indigenous culture/economies, racism/discrimination,
and repressive regimes.
3. Community citizenship---aggressive trade, closure of rural
services by banks, large retail outlets displacing small business,
4. Workplace practices---wages and conditions, hiring policy,
safety, and education.
5. Animal welfare---fur products, animal testing, transport
and enclosure issues.
6. Product integrity policies and practices such as offensive
7. Corporate regulatory compliance.
8. Corporate governance.
9. Involvement in the manufacture, distribution, or promotion
of products considered being socially harmful---gambling, alcohol,
tobacco, and defence industry.
A good illustration of the contradictions inherent in these
agendas is the CFMEU position on sustainable development and the
Kyoto Protocol. On the one hand they mouth the environment litany,
'increasingly [workers] want the assurance that their assets---whether
their labour power or their savings---are being utilised in an
environmentally sustainable manner.' On the other hand, they
argue that 'sometimes it seems that the message from environmental
groups is that the coal industry workforce should agree to be
'phased out' because the use of coal is too polluting. We reject
that view because it is absurdly simplistic, environmentally unnecessary,
unjust and unworkable ... As part of any effective global solution
of the greenhouse issue there will be a continuing role for coal
for many decades to come---and Australian coal is amongst the
cleanest and cheapest to produce.'
The new environment and the trade union response, begs the
questions, what is a trade union and what does a trade union do?
Is a trade union official a human resources adviser, a political
representative, an investment adviser, a human rights advocate,
a lawyer, a tout for Ansett airlines, or someone who bullies
The answer is not simple, because trade unions are not of a
piece, their behaviour and rhetoric varies enormously. For example,
the AWU sticks to core business. 'Through the first independent
survey of 2500 AWU members last month, ... members listed their
top concerns as job security, workers' entitlements, education
and further training, and safety.' Similarly, 'The TWU's main
priority is to protect and improve the livelihood of transport
workers and their families.' These are very earthy pretensions
with no regard to post-materialist agendas. Likewise, the SDA,
which is the largest trade union in Australia with more than 230,000
members is very down-to-earth in its approach and appeal,
'good wages and conditions do not just happen. They come about
only because unions work for them.'
By contrast, the AMWU's agenda and rhetoric is megalomaniac.
'If we are to build a safer and more secure world, we must fearlessly
struggle for the implementation of core labour standards in all
multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. We must work to fundamentally
transform the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF so that social,
environmental and humanitarian issues, not the interests of the
corporations, dominate ... we must fight for a new world order.'
The most bizarre and ideologically destructive union, are the
teachers. Only a teachers' union president could make the following
speech (post September 11), and not be stoned (double entendre
[W]e have identified the need to contribute to an anti-war
and anti-racist movement in this country. The last Federal election
and the tawdry politics, which preceded it, have sullied us all.
John Winston Howard seeks to drag us back to the political correctness
of the past---where the white, Christian and middle-class values
dominated political thought and practice. When it was acceptable
to be racist. When Tory parties were the beneficiaries of distant,
foreign wars. Where the stranger was feared, not welcomed.
Our greatest power to resist this reactionary phase is in
the curriculum. The way we work as public educators dedicated
to producing a liberal, inclusive, anti-racist, non-sexist young
generation can hold off the regressive tide. Our greatest hope
is amongst the young. This is perhaps the most vital work of
teacher-unionists in the immediate future. To build a better
world in the hearts of our young.
When unions speak on political agendas it is unlikely they
speak for most of their members, often they speak for a minority.
The only issues on which they can speak with any confidence are
workplace issues. The legitimacy with which unions have spoken
at large about politics was always contested, but now it is without
much weight at all. Moreover, the market place for the services
they provide has changed. Others can do the job cheaper.
Trade unions will have to decide if they are to service their
members' immediate workplace needs, and deliver a service at a
price which the customer is prepared to pay, or to become an advocacy
NGO shouting anti-system slogans and relying on supporters, or
indeed to become another political party and rely on public funding.
If trade unionism can reinvent itself, it will probably be as
a collection of service providers rather than as a political force.
It cannot persist as it is, falling between stools.
1. Lyons, M. 2001. Third Sector:
The Contribution of Nonprofit and Cooperative Enterprises in Australia.
Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 100.
2. Hagan, J. 1981. The History of the ACTU. Melbourne:
3. Latham, M. 1998. Civilising Global Capital. Sydney:
Allen and Unwin. Tanner, L. 1999. Open Australia. Sydney:
4. Participation rate for females 55.2 per cent of workforce in
2000-1, up from 53.8 per cent in 1995-6. ABS, 2001. Australia
Now, 'Labour: The Labour Force' (Year Book Australia)
5. 22 per cent worked in their own business, and this has been
steady for the last 6 years, but own account workers has been
growing faster than the labour force. ABS, 2001. Australia
Now, 'Labour Employment Arrangements' (Year Book Australia)
6. Over the period 1989-90 to 1999-2000, the average annual rate
of growth in numbers of businesses ranged from 0.1 per cent for
businesses with 200 or more employees to 4.9 per cent per year
for businesses with 1-4 employees. ABS, 2001. Australia Now,
'Industry Overview: Number of Businesses and Employment by Size
7. Between 65 and 70 per cent of households for the last 50 years.
ABS, 2001. Australia Now, 'Housing Special Article-Changing
8. In the latter part of the 1980s, only 9 per cent of the Australian
adult population held shares directly. By 1999, 41 per cent (5.7
million Australians) held shares directly. A further 13 per cent
held shares indirectly, via a managed fund or personal superannuation
(other than compulsory employer superannuation funds), taking
the total to 54 per cent (7.6 million). ABS, 2001. Australia
Now, 'Financial System Special Article-Equity Capital Raisings
on the Australian Stock Exchange' (1999-2000).
9. OECD, 1997. Employment Outlook, 'Trade
Union Membership as Percentage of Employees, Selected Countries',
10. Trade Union Members, Australia (Cat. no. 6325.0); Employee
Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Australia (Cat.
11. Griffin, G. and S. Svensen, 1996. 'The Decline of Australian
Trade Union Density', Journal of Industrial Relations,
38(4): 505-47. Bodman, P. 1998. Trade Union Amalgamations, Openness
and the Decline in Australian Trade Union Membership', Australian
Bulletin of Labour, 24(1): 18-43.
12. Costa and Hearn, 1997, Appendix 1, 265.
13. Costa, M. 1997. 'Union Reform: Union Strategy and the Third
Wave.' In Costa, M. and M. Hearn, eds. Reforming Australia's
Unions. Sydney: Federation Press, 20.
14. Hagan, 1981, 318.
15. National Union of Workers http://www.nuw.org.au/historyandbackground.html
16. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union http://www.cfmeu.asn.au/
17. After overcoming a decade of post-amalgamation factional fighting
and a rapid decline in manufacturing. We have arrived at the crossroads.'
from an address by AWU National Secretary Bill Shorten to the
National Press Club. 20th February 2002. 'Can Labour Win? New
Directions for an Old Union.' http://www.awu.net.au/media/media_releases/news57.html
18. Abbott, K. 1999. 'Lessons for the Australian Trade Union Movement
from the Industrial Relations Policy Experiences of Britain and
New Zealand', Policy, Organisation and Society, 18: 39-58.
19. Bramble, T. 1995. 'Deterring Democracy? Australia's New Generation
of Trade Union Officials', Journal of Industrial Relations,
20. 'I came to the AWU in 1994, after working for a labour law
firm' Bill Shorten, 20th February 2002.
22. Medforth, R. and P. Maguire, 2001. Lessons From The
Campaign Strategies of Nongovernment Organisations. Unpublished
analysis of the survey of NGOs by the International Confederation
of Free Trade Union's.
23. HCA 11 (9 March 2000).
24. Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 2000. 'High Court
Empowers Social Action Groups'.
25. Burrow, S. 2000. 'Whispers Outside the Bedroom Door: Making
Working Australia's Money Talk'. The Sydney Papers, The
Sydney Institute, 12(4): 93.
26. The submission was made on behalf of the following organisations:
Australian Conservation Foundation, Environment Victoria, Friends
of the Earth Australia, Greenpeace Australia, The Wilderness Society,
John Poppins-Coordinator BHP Shareholders for Social Responsibility,
The Ethical Investment Trust (A Community Aid Abroad/Oxfam Initiative).
27. John Maitland 'Shareholders and the Non-Financial Agenda Workers
Capital' Presentation to The Politics of Shareholder Activism:
A Centre for Corporate Public Affairs Conference
28. 'The greenhouse effect, targets and Kyoto Information for
coal industry unionists.' CFMEU Policy Paper/Backgrounder, Mining
and Energy Division, October 1997.
29. The ACTU had worked closely with the Tesna (Lindsay Fox and
Solomon Lew) bid for the Ansett assets.
30. The Australian Teachers' Union has recommended to state schools
that they not invite the Governor-General to visit, based on his
remarks about cases of sexual impropriety leveled at the church
in his time as Archbishop of Brisbane.
31. Bill Shorten, 20 February 2002.
32. Transport Workers' Union of Australia http://www.twu.com.au/
33. Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association http://www.sda.org.au/
35. Address By Doug Cameron National Secretary, AMWU International
Metals Federation Congress, Sydney, November 11, 2001 http://www.amwu.asn.au/images/speech_cameron_imf.pdf
36. Opening address by Denis Fitzgerald, Federal President, Australian
Education 'Union New Times, New Directions' Annual Federal Conference,
January 16-18, 2002
Why HR Nicholls?