Do Union Members Actually Support Such Behaviour - AFL/CMFEU?

SBOB on 12/06/2024 - 12:37

Rather 'interesting' story from todays news.
Paywalled, so bypass or find alternate sources
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/john-setka-shirtfron…
Some article extract over here
https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/1ddg2oz/cause_misery_v…

but in summary
CFMEU Victorian leader John Setka has threatened to impose a “work to rule” campaign against the AFL on any league-related projects, including the proposed Tasmanian stadium, unless the league sacks the former building watchdog Stephen McBurney as its head of umpiring.

Mr Setka said the construction union would not co-operate with the AFL to address any delays or cost overruns on league-related projects until Mr McBurney, who as Australian Building and Construction Commissioner initiated legal action that resulted in millions of dollars of penalties against the Construction Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, was sacked as the AFL umpires boss.

Did the CMFEU boss just openly say the quiet part out loud?
Zero to do with the reasons for unions like improved working conditions, better safety standards etc… Just going on revenge and spite now?
Can't see how this is 'benefiting' members, or a justifiable use of the Vic union leaders 'power'.
Another day in crazy land :)

Education & Work

Comments

  • pharkurnell on 12/06/2024 - 12:59

    They follow the leader…Thats their strength.. its not wise not to…

    • ThithLord on 12/06/2024 - 14:44
      +1

      Still sore about your flogging, m8?

      • spackbace on 12/06/2024 - 14:59
        +5

        I knew I used good bait today

  • MrFrugalSpend on 12/06/2024 - 13:02
    +12

    The idea of unions is good.
    There needs to be some reasonableness and fairness from both sides of negotiations.
    However, some of them, in some areas at least, act more like legalised organised crime gangs then reputable organisations with versions of blackmail / ransom, intimidation, threats etc to get their leaders' way - fair or not.
    As a member, you join and be part of it, or you don't reap the benefits and have the job…

    • Hardlyworkin on 12/06/2024 - 13:35
      +18

      I agree that there are Unions and then there is the CFMEU.

      • HeWhoKnows on 13/06/2024 - 08:01
        +5

        CFMEU is a market controlling monopoly

        Like any other market controlling monopoly, it needs to be broken up to dilute its excessive power.

    • outlander on 12/06/2024 - 16:59
      +8

      True, but right now I'd say unions are 5% of whats wrong, and employers are the other 95%. Are you going to focus on getting that 5% perfect, or start with the bigger part of the problem.
      Part of what gives the CFMEU such power is that wages everywhere else have been eroded to dust.
      That means that A) Members don't want to speak out and B) Leadership is afraid of losing their power and thus act more aggressively

      • MrFrugalSpend on 13/06/2024 - 10:27
        +2

        Not sure where you are working but right now (perhaps its different in Vic), but in Qld with all the big projects I am seeing employers bend over backwards and unions asking stupid high money for apprentices (e.g. $150K) in a two-speed economy whereby if you are working on a big union job you are paid $250K + for some trades - hardly "eroded to dust" when the minimum wage is circa $46K for those being left behind in other industries.

        Meanwhile the construction companies are failing and dropping like flies because they aren't making anything with the rising costs and continual inflationary pressure that the unions aren't going to miss demanding increases to match.

        The ironic thing is they then stop work over safety concerns, which is fine because it needs to be sorted, but most of the time the site manager is pulling his hair out trying to get the contractors to comply with cleaning up the site and working safely because his a$$ is on the line, and it is some of the tradies and labourers, the union members themselves, that aren't following the work method statements and job safety analysis requirements they have been contracted, inducted, and trained to do their job safely (given safety is everyone's responsibility)….. - go figure.

        The union rep blames the site manager company in entirety, runs their name through the mud posting videos on social media, and pushing the narrative you have bought into that management are just careless capitalist pigs who don't want to see people go home safely…. it's just not reflective of reality. People can be on the same side to achieve a win-win safe and productive objective, but some (only some) union reps go for the jugular in adversarial win-lose fashion.

    • Haulien on 13/06/2024 - 10:43
      +3

      Honestly wish SDA in the retail sector was more like CFMEU.

      CFMEU are bullies, but that's what a union needs to be. Sure, in this case they're fighting for the wrong thing. But when it comes to pay and safety, they get it done.

      Coles and Woolworths says bend over and SDA lubes themselves and workers up.

      SDA ask for anything, Colesworth say no (which is their right) and SDA tells it's members "we tried guys, they said no, sorry we can't do anything". They're not interested in fighting.

      • MrFrugalSpend on 13/06/2024 - 20:04
        +1

        The problem with that situation is the low barrier to entry to most retail positions and the high power of the Colesworth duopoly, plus the fact SDA are formed by that duopoly to avoid another real employee run union cropping up in its place.

        • Haulien on 14/06/2024 - 07:17
          +1

          There's a few trying to change things, main one being RAFFWU. But SDA makes me sad. With the members they say they have, they'd be able to get whatever they want just threatening to strike. But that'd require effort on SDA's part and them biting the hands that feeds.

  • askbargain on 12/06/2024 - 13:06
    +1

    is a stadium in tasmania a good idea?

    • May4th on 12/06/2024 - 13:17
      +2

      is there enough people in tassie to fill a stadium?

      • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2024 - 13:18
        +9

        If they count the heads it can look twice as full :)

  • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2024 - 13:16

    Setka is on the way out. He won’t be there by the end of the year.

    • EightImmortals on 12/06/2024 - 15:04
      +1

      What I don't understand is that with all those tradies there surely they could have whacked up a gallows?

      https://tinyurl.com/sb5546a8

      Oh well too late now I guess.

      • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2024 - 15:06
        +2

        I’m a big believer in unions but the CMFEU are not the best example.

      • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2024 - 15:40
        +1

        Is that an example of gallows humour?

    • SBOB on 12/06/2024 - 13:41
      +11

      But he's not calling for the guys sacking out of any kind of nepotism ?
      Seems to be purely because in his former job he issued fines for past cmfeu (illegal) behaviour.

      (and union bosses should probably see the irony of complaining about people getting high paying jobs for mates if that was the case)

      • ThithLord on 12/06/2024 - 13:45
        -4

        Seems to be purely because in his former job he issued fines for past cmfeu (illegal) behaviour.

        Where's the source for this illegal behaviour?

        • SBOB on 12/06/2024 - 14:11
          +3

          Are you suggesting the fines were just made up, and not due to behaviour that went against OHS and other regulations?

          Quick google gives me this run down
          https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/the-16m-cfmeu…

          • ThithLord on 12/06/2024 - 14:53
            +2

            @SBOB: The ABCC was a watchdog specifically set up to try and smash Unions.

            That article is paywalled, I can't see which behaviour they were fined for in it, nor in subsequent Googling

        • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 08:34

          Plenty of hits here if you are genuinely interested

          • ThithLord on 13/06/2024 - 08:47
            +1

            @larndis: I have no idea what I was Googling to miss all that; thanks for your link.

            • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 09:11
              -1

              @ThithLord: No idea what you were googling either. You're the one who asked for a source mate.

              Maybe try getting your head out of the sand.

              • ThithLord on 13/06/2024 - 09:12

                @larndis: Head out of the sand? I will stand with the CFMEU a million times over compared to standing behind the ABCC

                • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 19:11

                  @ThithLord: Evidence to support your view that the ABCC has behaved worse that the CFMEU?

  • Drakesy on 12/06/2024 - 13:43
    +16

    Ah Setka, what a dropkick.

  • ThithLord on 12/06/2024 - 13:45
    -6

    The ABCC was an absolute flog of an institution used to union-bust.

    Good on the CFMEU.

    • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 08:35

      Source?

      • ThithLord on 13/06/2024 - 08:56
        +3

        That was their primary goal - the machinations weren't exactly reported as fact.

        You can see, for example, the Building and Construction Commission attempting to fine steelworkers for attending a political rally. Steelworkers. Their produce and work doesn't even fall under the ABCC's purview, yet they had charges pressed against them.

        Can I ask why you, personally, would prefer to see the ABCC in a good light, with vested interests in suppressing wages and attacking unions (can you find any news or publications of the ABCC pressing charges against shonky contractors or worksites? Or just against unions/union members?) rather than stand with the workers, whose vested interest is the safety of workers on site?

        • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 09:13
          +3

          My hubby worked in the sector and personally witnessed plenty of illegal behaviour by the CFMEU.

          Why do you, personally, believe the CFMMEU should be allowed to behave illegally?

          • ThithLord on 13/06/2024 - 09:14
            -1

            @larndis: Not that I believe they should be able to behave illegally, because absolutely I do not believe that - but because they're for the workers.

            • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 09:23
              +1

              @ThithLord: So if you don't believe in the ABCC, what measures to do support to deal with their continued illegal conduct?

              They are 100% much more concerned with their continued existence and maintaining power over the industry than in the workers.

              Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

              Even if the corruption was 'for the workers', we're all still worse off because of it.

              • ThithLord on 13/06/2024 - 09:31
                +1

                @larndis: There are already regulatory bodies that deal with their illegal conduct, hence why the ABCC was able to be abolished.

                • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 19:16

                  @ThithLord: So is it the legislation they were enforcing that you object to, or just having a separate agency for the construction industry?

                  Are you happy with the work of the Fair Work Ombudsman, including in relation to the construction industry?

          • p1 ama on 13/06/2024 - 21:04
            +1

            @larndis:

            My hubby worked in the sector and personally witnessed plenty of illegal behaviour by the CFMEU.

            What are some examples of this illegal behaviour?

            • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 22:28

              @p1 ama: Google has lots of details of what they have been fined and prosecuted for, if you choose to believe the CFMMEU is a model organisation that operates entirely within the law and is just unfairly targeted, I doubt any examples I provide will alter your views.

              • p1 ama on 13/06/2024 - 22:34
                +2

                @larndis: You don't get anywhere by being "a model organisation that operates entirely within the law" unfortunately. The CFMEU's sole role is to deliver for their members, which they have overwhelmingly done so.

                Laws are not written for "the little guy", and institutions do not protect "the little guy". Operating within the confines of the law against bodies that have the lobbying power to change those laws is of little use, unfortunately.

                • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 22:37

                  @p1 ama: OK, so are you saying you are happy for unions to engage in illegal behaviour if by some measure it benefits 'the workers'? Is there a line on what illegal behaviors are OK?

                  Is the impact on the taxpayer a consideration?

                  • p1 ama on 13/06/2024 - 22:49
                    +2

                    @larndis:

                    OK, so are you saying you are happy for unions to engage in illegal behaviour if by some measure it benefits 'the workers'? Is there a line on what illegal behaviors are OK?

                    Yes, that is what I am saying. Just because something is legal does not mean that it is right.

                    What I am saying is that when the system is stacked against a particular group of people, they will feel the need to push boundaries to have their concerns heard - i.e. civil disobedience.

                    There are plenty of examples where people have engaged in "illegal behaviour" only to have those laws changed and the world be a better place for it.

                    The line on what "illegal behaviours" (whatever you mean by that) is that it is in the interest of their workers, and that it does not cause material harm to anybody's safety or wellbeing.

                    Is the impact on the taxpayer a consideration?

                    Why should it be for a union? Do corporations care about "impact on the taxpayer"? If not, why should the unions?

                    FWIW, I'm not making a defence of unions, I am merely saying that we have an "establishment bias" where we think that it's completely okay for corporations to cut corners and act in grey areas of the law (particularly in construction, where this happens all the time), but not for unions to do so in response. Similarly, we expect certain things from unions (e.g. acting in the benefit of taxpayers), that we obviously would not expect from corporations.

                    It is a double-standard which has been reinforced through the media, through corporate narratives, through the fact that "people in suits" often appear as nice, respectable people.

                    • larndis on 14/06/2024 - 07:57

                      @p1 ama: Unions are some of the most corrupt organisations in the country, and the CFMMEU is the worst of the lot. They operate outside of the law, and are responsible for untold harm to individuals' safety and wellbeing. Just because one party might change laws to suit the unions does not mean those laws were unjust.

                      I strongly disagree that their behaviour is OK just because of the pretence that it's done 'for the workers'.

                      The ends do not justify the means. The country, as a whole, is worse off because of these deeply corrupt organisations.

                      My beliefs are based on my hubby's first hand experience of the sector, not 'media spin' or any other vague excuse. Very happy for you to believe otherwise though.

                      • larndis on 14/06/2024 - 08:27

                        @larndis: Also, the ABCC, FWBC, FWO, etc etc. are independent authorities that are not directly under the control of a government minister. If either party, while in power, has exerted political pressure to influence the operations of these agencies then that is also corrupt.

                        But if these agencies were left alone to do their jobs, instead of being used as a political football, then yes I do support them in upholding the law against unions and employers.

                      • p1 ama on 14/06/2024 - 23:34

                        @larndis:

                        My beliefs are based on my hubby's first hand experience of the sector

                        And what was his position, was he a worker, or did he work for a construction company?

                        If he worked for a construction company, then well done to the union for getting under his skin, as that's what their members pay them to do. I'm sure he got under the skin of the workers many times in his day. Fair game, I would say.

                        • larndis on 15/06/2024 - 08:32

                          @p1 ama: What is your experience in the sector exactly?

      • p1 ama on 13/06/2024 - 21:11
        +3

        FWIW, given the overwhelmingly pro-corporate bias of The Australian (the original source cited by the OP), it's only fair to look at other sources to get a more balanced view.

        https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/…

        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-17/construction-watchdog…

        This gives direct evidence for the claim that the ABCC was used to union-bust, quotes include:

        A fortnight after Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke confirmed he would enact Labor's election promise to shut what he called a "politicised and discredited organisation", the commission is starting legal action against the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) and an official.

        "The ABCC has always operated as a taxpayer-funded arm of the Liberal Party, set up to attack workers and their unions and deliver a political dividend to the Coalition and their building developer donors," argued the national secretary of the union's construction division, Dave Noonan.

        Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke has labelled the controversial union-busting agency "totally unnecessary" and has restricted its powers.

        And in case you want to know exactly what the ABCC has gone after unions for:

        The latest action is against the CFMMEU and official Arron Platt. The commission alleges Mr Platt used "threatening and offensive language" towards site management while exercising his right of entry — going on-site to talk to workers — at a $64-million Woolworths distribution centre being built in Auburn, New South Wales.

        So they were trying to stop a union official from exercising his right of entry (to go on-site to talk to workers), after which he used "threatening and offensive language", and now they are trying to push this through the courts. If preventing a union official from going on-site is not union-busting, then what is?

        Of the 41 cases the commission has before the courts, 35 are against the CFMMEU, three involve the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union (CEPU) and one is against the Australian Workers' Union (AWU). The main category of "contravention" – 25 of the 41 – covers alleged breaches of right-of-entry laws by unions going onto work sites.

        Just another point of evidence to show what sort of organisation the ABCC is.

        Is that enough "Source" for you?

        • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 22:29

          Is that enough "Source" for you?

          No

          • p1 ama on 13/06/2024 - 22:36
            +1

            @larndis: I'm curious what you are suggesting then, that the ABCC is a completely neutral arbiter?

            FWIW, your position is completely untenable. From any objective point of view, unions (including the CFMEU) has their own agenda, and the ABCC also has their own agenda. They are both mudslinging each other.

            You can't really be suggesting that the ABCC is completely neutral and somehow seems to just have the ire of everyone apart from the LNP and their corporate buddies?

            • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 22:41

              @p1 ama: Who do you consider "everyone"?

              How do you suggest they earned the reputation that has been referenced by many in this thread? Is it all completely baseless?

              How much time do you spend on construction sites?

  • Doyen on 12/06/2024 - 13:58
    +3

    The courts found the union did something illegal warranting penalties. This action suggests the justice system is not respected which reinforces a perception about unions.

  • jv on 12/06/2024 - 14:13
    +3

    No different to the BLF.

    They use the same business model as illegal bikie gangs…

    • Nugs on 12/06/2024 - 15:25
      +2

      I prefer the KLF
      .

      • lddv04 on 12/06/2024 - 19:16
        +4

        But only at 3 AM!

        • Nugs on 13/06/2024 - 18:00
          +1

          Eternal
          The White Room was one of the first CD's I got
          .

  • p1 ama on 12/06/2024 - 14:44
    +4

    Why is it the case that workers are marginalised, pressured, and abused every day, including by organisations that actively union-bust, and not a word is said about it. However, when a union (or individual employees) dare to stand up for themselves, it's a scandal?

    The ABCC has a history of misleading workers about the role of unions. The previous commissioner (before our mate Stephen McBurney) was a previous Director of the FWBC, where he was fined by a federal court for dissemination of false information to the industry of which the FWBC was a regulator. In other words, he gave false information to workers. With this sort of track-record, why would you defend the ABCC?

    Are there certain shenanigans that take place in unions, of course there are, any large group of people with a leadership structure will always have backroom deals and power struggles. However, unions, including the CFMEU, have overwhelmingly delivered for their members and all have lasting legacies.

    • Ugly on 12/06/2024 - 15:59
      +5

      There’s a difference between standing up and standing over.

      • p1 ama on 12/06/2024 - 22:49
        -1

        Oh please, the AFL is a multi-million dollar organisation with thousands of employees. They can deal with a bit of shithousery from Setka and friends. Worst case scenario, they find some other blokes to build their shit.

        • Ugly on 13/06/2024 - 06:55
          +4

          “ they find some other blokes to build their shit.”

          You’re obviously not in construction. No one goes against the CFMEU in Victoria.

          • p1 ama on 13/06/2024 - 10:43
            +1

            @Ugly: Then that's too bad for them, maybe they should cave into Setka's demands and fire their mate.

            That's the nature of collective bargaining. Why should it be assumed that the AFL can (by default) get their way?

        • larndis on 13/06/2024 - 08:35

          That's not how a monopoly works

    • lddv04 on 12/06/2024 - 19:21
      +2

      … that workers are marginalised, pressured, and abused every day, including by organisations that actively union-bust…

      Source please

  • gfjh567gh3 on 12/06/2024 - 16:23
    +5

    The same union that sicced outlaw bikers onto their own members when they were demonstrating against the mandates and general lockdown protocols?
    Unions are like any bureaucracy that forget the goal of the organisation, and start growing for their own justification.
    A union should run lean and stick to its core mission statement. Instead, they get their tentacles into companies, and serve as a spring board for its executives to get into politics.

  • Ocker on 12/06/2024 - 18:35
    +2

    Unions have moved well away from their basic objectives when tat the time they were a force for the employee's to be reckoned with.
    Today there are just a few renegade union's intent of preserving their diminishing power.
    Their heyday is well and truly over, hence their declining membership, from 41% of employees in 1992 to just 12.5% in 2022

  • big1964 on 12/06/2024 - 18:54
    +1

    Ah its funny how this is reported mostly by right wing shock jocks (the biggest spokesman for the liberal party 3aw Tom Elliott) news Corp a (comment from Dutton) all anti union the reason why you pay fees is to get the best deal from from union leaders.
    I am tipping there are alot of people out there who won't admit that they would like someone like setka leading their union to get a better deal.

  • GordonD on 12/06/2024 - 18:55
    +1

    Do union members support such behaviour?

    The answer is that it is irrelevant whether they do or don't.

    It is the nature of organisations where the members elect their representatives - be it unions, political parties, democracies or whatever - that's the last choice they get until the next election. And they get very little choice even then.

    Organisations like these don't exist to serve the members, and do what they want. They are a mechanism to multiply the power of those who have grabbed the power within the organisation to choose who the members will be offered the choice to vote for. It is the fundamental flaw in democracy that it has been hijacked by parties, party machines and factions, all with their own agendas - that's why they're there - and that the rest of us only get the pre-packaged choices they offer us to choose between, not the policies we want.

    Democracy only works on a small scale. When you can directly affect the person who is representing you. The bigger the scale, the more layers in it, and those at the top of the pyramid are responding to the layer immediately below them, and the number of layers blocks the voices of those at the bottom that the whole thing is supposed to represent.

    • GordonD on 13/06/2024 - 10:32
      -2

      Look at Albanese for example. When he was a newly elected member he pleased the people immediately below him in the party hierarchy, the members, and co-founded the Friends of Palestine group, and burned US flags, etc. And now that has gotten him to the top he's still pleasing the people immediately below him, kissing the Friends of Israel's backsides and supporting $368 billion for US/UK nuclear subs. Even though neither of those things is particularly supported by the party's members.

  • jrvb42 on 13/06/2024 - 09:11

    Whether it is unions or government, I'm not fond of using bullying tactics, especially via an unrelated entity (sports is often misused, be it AFL or Olympics, etc).
    I'm more concerned that this thug seems unwilling to graciously accept the verdict and fines handed down.
    Of course, gracious thugs are quite hard to find.
    It's wrong, and the guy needs jail time to contemplate that. No need for a trial, since he clearly doesn't respect the law.

  • Redoctober00 on 13/06/2024 - 09:40

    'Work to Rule' just means you don't take on extra duties or hours outside of your employment contract. Employers hate this as they usually don't keep people employment contract/duties updated and add in surveys that are are estimating workers are giving up 5 hours a week in unpaid overtime to their employer.

    In my opinion, Unions have basically lost the power to take strike action as the amount of red tape involved in them performing this action has become almost unfeasible.

    When managed right i believe unions are an important tool for workers. You insure your car and house why not insure your job. Having someone outside of your organisation that can apply pressure and offer legal advice is a handy thing to have. Go visit an industrial lawyer and see what they are charging, plus from my experience they often tell their clients what they want to hear or go along with a losing case when they should have advised the worker to cut their losses.

    Unions do have their own agenda's and often the industry with the largest membership numbers will set that agenda. See it with some of the Education unions - lots of save the refugee's and gender bathrooms making their priority list rather than things that put money in their workers pockets or get really improvements to conditions.

    • Nugs on 13/06/2024 - 18:00

      "why not insure your job"
      Unions don't help keep jobs
      .

  • jhaley3180 on 13/06/2024 - 10:21

    Ha ha ha… Since when is "work to rule" or in otherwords words in accord with the requirements of your agreement, within policies and exactly as your position description defines… Since when is doing that a stand over tactic?

  • barratttc on 13/06/2024 - 11:26
    +3

    He's a union thug, scum and wife basher.

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 13/06/2024 - 16:24

    Steak is a thug, plain and simple.

    I’m usually a big advocate of unions, but seriously, he is something else.

    • SBOB on 13/06/2024 - 17:37
      +2

      Mmmm steak

  • Emcaljoe on 14/06/2024 - 15:12

    The ABCC were a disgrace. The anti worker laws that Howard et al legislated were a disgrace (and it's a disgrace that labor didn't repeal them all). Setka is a disgrace BUT…he delivers what it says on the bottle. Good pay and safe working conditions. Other unions, apart from maybe the maritime union are a disgrace.

    I worked for unions in the late 90s to mid 2000s. A decent union. To have every word you utter or write in a proposal to an employer possessing the threat of a fine (at least) hanging over your head is no way to operate.

    Don't (profanity) dare use Setka (who I have met) as representative of unions in Australia… because he's not BUT I doubt many of his members have a problem with him…

    Bit like boards or shareholders don't have a problem with the same executive (arseholes) who treat their employees like shite to better the bottom line

  • 2esc on 14/06/2024 - 17:28

    The power CFMEU has is surprising if your on one of their sites the pay for a particular job is dramatically higher than on any other site.

    The vast majority of Traffic controllers get paid around $30 an hour yet on a CFMEU they receive a base rate of $49 per hour and that doubles to $98 an hour for 16 hours of double time it works out $206,000 salary for a road traffic controller on a CFMEU site in Victoria which is based off a six-day, 56-hour work week.

    The public due to the media think all traffic controllers get this pay. Anything the CFMEU are involved in seem to end up having cost blow outs.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join