Power, who has it, and the uses to which it's put (whether benign or baleful), are questions of enduring fascination and debate. So it's passing strange that in the days following Wednesday's release of the final report of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption there's been little public discussion about the power that the institution of trade unionism wields in Australia – whether it be the tremendous influence it brings to bear in "determining the composition of the Australian Senate and state and federal parliaments more generally" or its willingness to "operate like a Venetian oligarchy or a Whig Parliament with very few electoral contests".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Indeed, the uproar about Commissioner Dyson Heydon's damning assessment has come not from the public but from the union movement itself. And far from expressing contrition, embarrassment or remorse, the talk from the ACTU, the Labor Party and Bill Shorten himself has been of star chambers, or witch hunts and of "smokescreens" for the unwinding of penalty rates and further industrial relations changes. In fact, conflating union reform proposals with WorkChoices and the abolition of double-time penalty rates (a recommendation of the Productivity Commission) is itself an attempt to muddy the waters. And it underlines not just the reach of union power but the extent to which the movement will go to preserve it.
If public reaction to Commissioner Heydon's findings was inclined to disinterest rather than concern, then fatigue, cynicism and a lingering admiration for the achievements of trade unionism may be factors. Disclosures of union corruption, cronyism, bullying and intimidation were near regular occurrences before Tony Abbott set up the royal commission in February 2014, and the testimony heard by Mr Heydon in the months was frequently discursive and mind-numbing. Suspicions of political partisanship – seemingly affirmed by Mr Heydon's hurried withdrawal from a speaking engagement at a Liberal Party function after it became public – were another reason that some tuned out of proceedings. And there remains a solid core of people who believe that whatever one might think of unions, their behaviour and tactics are better or no worse than those employed by employers and big business – and that without their efforts, many workers would be substantially worse off in terms of pay and working conditions.
The admirable gains that unions have made on behalf of their members (and of workers more generally) is not in dispute. Mr Heydon mentioned it in his report, and said he expected this positive contribution would continue. But as he noted, the unions' ability to monopolise labour supply, the political power they wield, and poor regulatory oversight (itself a consequence of that political power) has created a climate conducive to union corruption and wrong-doing.
It's been argued that big business and employers have enabled this activity and that by extension they are equally as deserving of censure and investigation. This is true, and in fact Mr Heydon recommended in his final report that a number of employers, including constructing firm John Holland and Chiquita Mushrooms, be referred to police and prosecutors for investigation on a number of matters. But what employers have not done, and which arguably the unions have, is put the interests of their executives above those their members (or shareholders). For many (but not all of Australia's 109 registered unions) one of the main focuses is fund-raising – whether by fair means or underhanded – rather than advancing the interests of members. Boosting the political aspirations or career advancement of those who control the money also seems to be a priority for many and boosting membership counts allows them to extend influence and power of officials or factions within the Labor Party. That some unions have taken their eye off the ball is evident in the complete absence of union members at 7-Eleven stores or Pizza Hut restaurants, sectors of the service industry which might be seen as natural recruiting grounds but which are apparently ignored.
If the public interest demands that trade unions be cleaned out and properly regulated, the deep historical ties between the ALP and its affiliated unions mean opposition co-operation is unlikely. Indeed, Bill Shorten's comments on Thursday indicated he will seek to stymie reform efforts. That's entirely to be expected given he is a product of the incestuous union/ALP nexus. But his attitude will, in all likelihood, erode the power of unions to perpetuate without care or responsibility.
