The Industrial Relations Commission has endorsed the ability of unions to collect a "service fee" from non-unionists who benefit from union-negotiated pay rises.
"Fee for service" unionism was adopted as policy at the 2000 ACTU national congress. ACTU secretary Greg Combet claims that this could lead to an increase in union membership. NSW Labor Council secretary Michael Costa wants changes to NSW industrial legislation to allow unions to charge fees to non-unionists.
Unions have indicated that they will attempt to include the service fee in agreements being negotiated with Crown Casino, Coles-Myer, the Commonwealth Bank, Woolworths, Franklins and many other companies. This could result in huge numbers of young, casual retail and service workers receiving bills.
If the ACTU succeeds in its claim for a $28 living wage increase, will it send a bill to the two million working poor who are often not union members, let alone covered by awards?
A "user pays" approach is not progressive unionism, but further testament to the rise of business unionism. Charging non-union members a fee for their pay rises will not reverse the trade union movement's failure to convince most workers of the benefits of collective organising and action to defend and advance their interests.
Many large unions are desperate to find a solution to the serious decline in their membership. Total trade union membership is hovering at just 25% of the workforce. On the other hand surveys continue to show that well over 50% of workers not only support unions, but would join one if asked.
This was clearly demonstrated by the depth of support for the MUA during the waterfront dispute in 1998 and in the solidarity given to struggles by workers at Joy Mining, Yallourn and BHP workers. Unionists have also shown a willingness to mobilise against the Workplace Relations Act and the attacks on workers' compensation entitlements. Thousands of workers attended the September 11-13 blockade of the World Economic Forum in Melbourne.
Unfortunately, the lack of workplace-based organising and nearly two decades of minimal campaigning by union leaderships in defence of working conditions have left their mark. This has been acknowledged by some unions with a belated effort to change to an "organising approach", embodied in the ACTU's Organising Works program. It at least attempts to convince workers that, by working together for improvements in wages and conditions, there are obvious benefits from union membership.
The strength and success of Australia's trade unions in the past rested on workers' understanding that they benefit from collective organising and solidarity. This flowed from their experience of fighting together and making the gains against the greed of employers.
Historically, gains by stronger and better-organised unions flowed to workers in less organised industries. This was an important lesson in working-class solidarity and helped to encourage the spread of unionism.
This is why employers have vociferously campaigned for an end to preference for unionists clauses and, in cahoots with Coalition and Labor governments, have promoted laws that attack unions and ensure that gains do not flow to all employees. These are a conscious efforts to divide workers, with the ultimate goal being to completely destroy unions and run roughshod over isolated workers.
It is understandable that active unionists are frustrated that there are fewer comrades participating in industrial action. However, sending a bill to workers for a union-negotiated agreement is a sure-fire way of alienating people from the unions even more. It suggests that unions are like health insurance companies. It slides right into the "user pays" mentality that neo-liberalism is spreading.
If the trade union movement is to win the ideological battle and convince workers that collective action is most effective, then we need a principled approach that prioritises the collective and solidarity.
The concern that gains are graciously handed on to non-union members can be better addressed by fighting for union-only agreements or union member-only clauses. This would directly confront the Workplace Relations Act and the individualism pushed by bosses to promote individual contracts.
The workers' struggle is a struggle of the majority. The labour movement and working class can move forward if it takes the majority with it.