Union memberships

August 10th, 2006 at 8:21 am by David Farrar

It is interesting to read that the rate of union membership in the private sector has dropped to a miniscule 9% (was 48% in 1990), yet in the public sector is a massive 68%.

But it is little surprise. You see people get bribed in the public sector to join unions. Here is how it goes. Ministers instruct CEOs to accept a pay settlement which includes a higher level of pay if an employee is a member of the union and on a collective contract. They call this “partnership”. Then your average civil servant, who is by no means dumb, looks at option A of no bonus cash and option B of say $1,500 bonus cash and they choose option B which requires joining the union. So then $400 of the $1,500 goes to the union as a membership fee. And then the union passes a portion of it either directly onto the Labour Party, or they spend it campaigning for Labour in the election. It’s a nice wee circle.

The 9% membership level in the private sector I think shows that most people don’t see the benefits of being in a union outweighing the costs. There are situations where being a union member is a very sensible idea, and I’ve even helped a few people join in the past when they were faced with a “bad boss”. When you are 19 it can be hard to stand up for your rights. As you get older and more experienced you often find you don’t need someone to advocate on your behalf.

The other factor in the low membership might be the buoyant job market. When unemployment is this low, employees can have more power than employers. If you have a crap employer then you find another job and quit. The employer may then struggle to replace you, and hence have a higher incentive to keep staff happy.

Tags:

61 Responses to “Union memberships”

  1. err.. () says:

    I suspect another factor in the low membership is the sheer fucking uselessness of many of the unions in NZ…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MrTips () says:

    One place where employer attempts to offer employees higher pay, simply by being a member of the union, fail is the universities.

    This is because, even though the union (AUS) parade their success in negotiating, the ratio of union to individual contract staff is about 3:7. Naturally, the VCs can’t get away with offering higher pay to union members as the other 70% would be highly miffed. Furthermore, union membership just hasn’t risen in academic circles, despite efforts.

    It won’t be long before IE staff suddenly realise – as some already have – that they should negotitate their own salaries based on academic, research output. After all, if you are producing, the University gets more overhead income and you justify your salary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. GPT () says:

    The govt doesn’t pay bribes to join just any union but only Labour approved unions. Join the PSA get a bonus, join NUPE get nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. gd () says:

    And the delicious irony is that the Socialists would label a third world country who did this as corrupt And do it with a straight face.Still the tide is turning as the Otago Uni study shows.The Socialists agenda is now being shown as well wide of the mainstream thinking.The tipping point has been reached and passed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Linda () says:

    Dare I say it – but bribing people to join unions with taxpayer money (and getting some of it back to the Labour Party via unions fees) is CORRUPT!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. james.c () says:

    Union membership is more common in large companies. The 9% is likely representative of the large number of employees in small and medium business. A more useful stat would be how many employees are union affiliated in private businesses of, say, 500 plus employees.

    Then you could more accurately compare with the public sector, and would be free to conjure up your lame conspiracy theories.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. sonic () says:

    You mean that unions try and ensure that their members benefit from joining?

    The Sky is falling!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. sonic () says:

    Just one other little point. If business pays National money and then gets it back via tax cuts what is the difference again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Juha () says:

    If National was to champion employees’ cases, I’m sure the unions would contribute to that party as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Linda () says:

    National’s policies will truly benefit all NZers. Tax cuts will have a positive impact on everyone. A healthy business environment means more demand for employees, more demand means better working conditions.
    Less red-tape means more time spent on productive work. ‘Workers’ also have the freedom to start their own businesses and take risks with their capital. Lower tax means it will be easier to build capital.
    The student loan bribe was desinged to benefit only those who have tertiary education. Lower taxes mean a truckie can buy or up-grade his truck more easily. people could pay off their houses more quickly. Young people will find it easier to build a deposit and get mortgage finance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. sonic () says:

    “National’s policies will truly benefit all NZers”

    Why do the majority of us have no intention of ever voting for them then?

    Tax cuts for the rich, brought to you by the party for the rich.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Linda () says:

    So you’d rather take from the rich and give to the poor? My, you are a right little Robin Hood aren’t you. But if you know the story at all, you’d know it was the Sherrif who was OVER TAXING the workers who was the target of Robin Hood – he just wanted the workers to keep more of their own money. Sounds as if Robin Hood had more in common with Don Brash than tax-and-spend Clark/Cullen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mark () says:

    Heh. Linda.

    I think that unions are very important to protect workers where their labour is essentially a commodity to the employer, and it would be easy to replace the worker.

    Whereas workers who are in demand for some reason (i.e. skills, braings, willing to do stuff that noone else wants to do) are fine with having ‘market rates’, since it will probably be significantly higher than the average salary.

    DPF, I’m not sure that I agree with you that only clueless 19yr olds need the protection of a union. Aren’t there a lot of older people who have been tossed in the dumpster and have trouble finding work as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. james.c () says:

    Hi Linda, you forgot “a hand up not a hand out”, as well as “iwi, kiwi”, then you would have completely dribbled out Nationals entire policy platform in only five lines.

    Shame about your understanding of economics, with such a great fluency in sloganese and all. Keep the faith Linda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. sonic () says:

    “So you’d rather take from the rich and give to the poor”

    Thanks for admitting that National supporters prefer things the other way round.

    xxx

    S

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. burt () says:

    Unions, the great propoganda arm of the socialists. Steal from the most lowly paid workers to support their aganda.

    Ever seen a Union Rep not being paid more than the members they piss on ? They drive better cars (with lovely logo’s on them) and they live in better houses than their members. These are the true fat cats and the loyal Labour supporters are just too stupid to see it or they are two corrupt to admit it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. burt () says:

    Furthermore, the pollies get 8-10% increases every year and the general public service get 2-3%. The unions then say they are good negotiators, pay you fees boys and girls.

    Go figure !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Linda () says:

    Wrong Sonic

    We don’t want to take it from anyone. Certainly there needs to be tax to fund basic things only the govt can provide – and we could argue all day where to draw that line. But it is an obligation to only take the BARE MINIMUM.

    My personal preference would be to drop income tax completely – and only tax spending. This is not the current policy of any party.
    But we are constantly told we need to save more – and spend less. Well, taxing spending (gst) would discourage spending and encourage saving. The rich spend more – and pay more tax. The poor spend less and pay less tax. The individual could then control how much they spend and how much tax they pay.

    I realise this would put many accountants out of work (no income tax – no need for loop holes) and reduce the size of the IRD dept. This would be good. It would still be simple to target assitance where it’s needed.

    Companies would pay a low level of turnover tax – and that’s it. They could pay it every couple of months with their GST return. No fancy tax-friendly structures would be needed. Accounts would be simple to keep – and simple to audit. Compliance would be high.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. sonic () says:

    “My personal preference would be to drop income tax completely – and only tax spending”

    Which would save your average Kiwi millionaire how much?

    Or is that just an amazing coincidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. tim barclay () says:

    Why should people be paid more to be in an approved Union. This little matter is ripe for challenge in the employment court by those who do not get this bonus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. DavidW () says:

    Sonic said

    “Which would save your average Kiwi millionaire how much?

    Or is that just an amazing coincidence?”

    What a shallow and facile thing to say. About as absurd as saying that the move to a higher tax rate in 2000 provided a saving to the lower income groups. The money certainly wasn’t needed as we have seen with the huge surpluses.

    But then I keep forgetting about the politics of envy and the principles of socialism – reduce every man to the lowest common denominator. By rights Sonic you should be advocating the abolition of examinations, conferrment of qualifications as of right rather than ability and you should be totally against performance incentives of all kinds.
    Hope you wouldn’t mind being treated by a “doctor” who got his degree under that scenario.

    You total Dipshit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. sonic () says:

    I see David has no arguments left at all, just childish insults.

    If you have any evidence that I have ever argued for the “abolition of examinations” please be so kind and produce it.

    Otherwise we note with interest that when the well-heeled are asked to pay their fair share they squeal like piglets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Bob Howard () says:

    I think all workers should belong to a union. That is not only for their protection but as we have seen from overseas especially Ireland consensus between employers, government and unions benefits everybody.

    Bribing government workers with taxpayers money to join unions is corrupt.

    If only 9% of private sector workers join unions it means workers generally are happy with their situations or the unions are seen as useless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. space () says:

    The student loan bribe was desinged to benefit only those who have tertiary education.

    Or those who will have one. Skilled trades have qualifications too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ross () says:

    I know of one govt dept, and others may be the same, where the employer doesn’t negotiate with individual employees (unless they’re senior managers) but simply gives all staff the same terms and conditions as union members. Not much incentive to join a union. But equally there’s no bribing going on either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. DavidW () says:

    Sonic
    Fair by whose reckoning – yours or mine?? Surely there is room for independant thought in amongst the repeating of the mantra “rich is bad, all else follows” Then again what is rich? Certainly not me but I’ll tell you that I wouldn’t mind it at all if only I could see my way past the horde with it’s hand in my pocket

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. culma () says:

    Sonic – “My personal preference would be to drop income tax completely – and only tax spending” This is your statement.
    I agree, get rid of the 48 extras this sack of shit govt has increased or introduced to the tax structure. This would achieve the exact thing Cullin has dictated NZer’s saving more money.
    You are even starting to think and talk like the right, welcome to the light son.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. gd () says:

    sonic If you go talk to any tax lawyer or accountant you will discover that for many of the rich in NZ GST is the largest and for some the only component of their taxes.Thats why smart governments have higher consumption taxes than income taxes Its not about conspiracy Its about getting rich and staying rich The rich view income taxes as voluntary payments. They can and do shift their capital to minimise their exposure.Thats why tax haven exist.Just as we have a pain thresehold so we have a tax thresehold.If a government seeks to tax above that thresehold then they get nothing if the citizern moves their capital out of the reach of the IRD.The only class the government can guarantee to always collect from is the wage and salary earner. They have no chioce in the matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. sonic () says:

    Culma, you seem a little confused over who posted what. Go back and read the thread again.

    That’s Conservatives for you, no reading comprehension at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. culma () says:

    Sorry – I see now I was just getting a little excited that some left wing fuck wit had worked out what the rest have known for a while, but yes I see now that the glimmer of intelligence was actually the thoughts of someone else.

    You carry on with your crusade. Oh and by the way what union do you belong to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. brian_smaller () says:

    Not sure if there is a union for lazy parasites like sonic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. culma () says:

    brian – that makes him a minority and therefore eligible for a union of his own and a grant to boot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Fred () says:

    Ah, the union comrades don’t yet get it’s all over.

    Another failed cartel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Sean Rahui () says:

    David,

    For a start the country”s largest union the PSA is NOT affiliated with the labour party and therefore your comment that union fees get syphoned back to the labour party is incorrect.

    Secondly why shouldn’t unions be able to ring fence their results and have them apply to the very members that have funded, and supported and possibly taken action to get it in the first place? For years, unions put in the hard graft and those who are too selfish to contribute to the end result also reap the results. Why shoud they be able to do this?

    Finally you miss the point completely on unions being an advocate or a bargaining agent. They are not and never have been simply limited to this one function, as was the case under the Employment Contracts Act. A strong accountable union working in real partnership ( something perhaps you should actually understand before you incorrectly trash it) can assist in a strong and productive workplace while also delivering real participation and real results to members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. david () says:

    “A strong accounatble union working in real partnership can assist in a strong and productive workplace” Sounds good, do you have any examples of where a union does this in NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. sonic () says:

    Ah the childish insults pop out again, first sign that they have lost the argument.

    Here is a little point, why should non-union members benefit from the work done by union negotiators paid for by union members?

    I thought you Tories were against “freeloaders” it seems you are, unless you are the freeloaders that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. DavidW () says:

    Sonic

    If two oil companies can legitimately have the same price at the pump in spite of them having different shareholders, distribution systems and presumably management structures, why should two workers not present themselves to an employer for the same rate of pay if they are each performing the same work even though one may be a union member and the other not?

    Maybe you can try to convince me that an employee who is a member of a union somehow adds more value to my business or generates a higher level of income or just simply works harder than a non-member and can therefore justify being paid more.

    Please note here that I have not gone so far as to suggest that non-members may make more valuable employees by virtue of the fact that they are likely to be more amenable to incentives for greater output as tempting as this may be.

    Awaiting your justification with interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. culma () says:

    Sean – you say – “unions being an advocate or a bargaining agent”.

    The labour market is that tight what exactly do unionists do to justify extracting money out of people?

    I’m interested as I have never been a part of a union, and will never be!
    I know my wife was forced into it, and laughed when the relevant pay rise she got almost covered her union fee’s. She was employed in the health sector though!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. sonic () says:

    David, in a free market system I’ve always thought that the whole rational for any actor is to make the maximum gain for his/her labour.

    Workers can gain more through organising together through unions.

    Personally I disagree with variable pay rates, I’ve always held to the old idea of a “rate for the job” however if unions do work to negotiate a better deal for their own members why should those who have not contributed benefit?

    On the point of each worker presenting themselves at a different rate, the problem for workers is that this quickly becomes a “drive to the bottom” especially in less skilled labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. DavidW () says:

    Sonic

    I take it then that you are a free market supporter and you see unions as purely a mechanism for negotiating an advantage in the marketplace.

    This doesn’t really square with your emphasis on protecting the weak against the ravages of rapacious capitalists in earlier posts. Nor does it explain satisfactorily why a regulator or shareholder (ie the government) should insist that no other bargaining mechanism can be successful in obtaining a rate higher that that agreed by the union.

    This is the situation we have in many of the public sector unions. The free market is artificially distorted which makes a bit of a nonsense of it all really.

    On more general terms and consistent with where this thread started I seem to also remember that along with the ERA came a training subsidy of significant proportions that effectively provided unions with an enormous subsidy from the public purse. Does anyone know if this is still operating and how much is fed into the FOL system as a result?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. sonic () says:

    I’m not a free market fan particularly (lets not go there too much) the point I was trying to make is that it tends to be those who sing the praises of the market that then complain about unions.

    You still have not addressed my repeated point of why non-union members shouls benefit from deals negiotated by the union. Could you do so?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. DavidW () says:

    Sonic
    I also note that you favour a rate for the job rather than a rate for the work done. Are you serious?

    This is back to the lowest common denominator theory and frankly panders to all the worst aspects of human nature. I thought that even the most rabid left-wingnuts (except for the PPTA) had abandoned that as destructive. Are you a teacher by any chance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. sonic () says:

    If I was a teacher I would note your inablilty to answer a simple question.

    Any chance you could take the time to do so?

    “the worst aspects of human nature”

    Weird I never thought of solidarity, friendship and standing up for each other as part of the bad aspects of human nature, silly old me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. brian_smaller () says:

    “Weird I never thought of solidarity, friendship and standing up for each other as part of the bad aspects of human nature, silly old me.”

    When I was involved in a union as a representative for my comrades back in the 80s all I saw around me at union meetings were self-serving parasites who wouldn’t have known how to do a good job if they tried. They were the worst people I ever met and I felt no friendship or solidarity with them, and they had none for us IT people working in the old Post Office because they didn;t lift a finger to help us. We were too white collar for them.

    As an aside, an awful lot of them were cloth-cap socialists from England.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. burt () says:

    Sonic

    If you were a teacher you probably wouldn’t note anything. Being Union thru and thru you would have worked out years ago it makes no difference what you do because we are all the same and should be paid the same even if we do nothing. It’s the job title that is important remember, not the job you actually do.

    Teachers, trained to recognise that every individual has different teaching requirements, all wanting to be paid the same… go work that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. PaulL () says:

    Interesting book a was reading a while back, commenting on the need for unions in the state sector. The money quote was:

    “In the UK, teachers’ wages are low in spite of the fact that there is a shortage of qualitified teachers. This is because the government, the single employer, has massive bargaining power. Ordinarily, when there is a shortage of workers, competition between employers would bid up wages. Only a monopoly employer could possible maintain a situation where there is a serious shortfall of teachers but salaries do not rise to respond.”
    (The Undercover Economist – Tim Harford, pg 27)

    The argument here being that the left, as general supporters of publicly supplied education (v’s publicly funded education), are creating the exact situation that you then need strong unions to combat. An alternative solution would be to move to an environment where schools were govt funded but not govt run, thereby allowing teachers to be paid what they were worth, and schools to be answerable to the consumers not the Wellington bureaucracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. sonic () says:

    “When I was involved in a union as a representative for my comrades back in the 80s all I saw around me at union meetings were self-serving parasites who wouldn’t have known how to do a good job if they tried”

    I’m sure they loved you too, but anacdote does not an argument make.

    Still no answer to my little question I see, may I restate it?

    If unions do work to negotiate a better deal for their own members why should those who have not contributed benefit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Mellie () says:

    Brian, it seems a little blinkered to throw mud all over today’s unions because of a nasty experience you had in the 1980s. I daresay you gout your revenge through the ECA and you should get over it and get a clue as to what the union movement is actually doing these days.

    David, we’ve had very few policy ideas from National as to how we’re going to get teachers back to a position of dignity and respect and society. Two logical points to start with would be pay and training standards.

    Pay teachers more and you will get better people wanting to become teachers. At the moment teaching is seen as a back-up option and people sure as hell don’t get into because they’ll be paid well.

    National and its companions further to the right always seems blind to the professional work that the teachers’ unions (ie. including teachers) contribute to the curriculum. The sooner they start acknowledging the work that those unions do and stop mindlessly banging on about unions this and unions that, the sooner they will find teachers feel like voting for them.

    Until then…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Bryce () says:

    David
    I think you have misread the statistics. These proportions, such as the 9% figure, refer not to union *membership* but to participation in collective employment contracts. Although related, this is quite a different thing.
    Cheers
    Bryce

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Farrar () says:

    Bryce – thanks for that. I doubt there are many union members on individual contracts in the private sector but yes it is different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Rumpole () says:

    Perhaps the higher union membership in the public sector reflects the fact that public sector employees see their employer as so untrustworthy as evidenced by the lack of Good Faith in negotiating that they need the backing of a union. Funny thta the majority of strikes etc seem to be in the public sector.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. public servant () says:

    I’d love to know which government department pays a $1,500 bonus to union members. It sounds apocryphal to me. The most I’ve had are $100 (before tax) annual payments “in recognition of the contribution of the PSA to collective negotiations”, which cover slightly more than half the annual union dues. I think now they’ve decided from on high not to do that anymore, and give out an extra day’s leave instead.

    Every other condition the PSA negotiated (such as they were) was automatically passed on to my freeloading and anti-union colleagues on their strikingly similar individual contracts. Some bribe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Bryce () says:

    David – you might be right about the 9% private sector figure for collective agreements being very similar to union membership. For the public sector I think it’s likely to be quite different (which would actually make the comparisons even more striking). The problem is that the original Stuff story was very badly written and didn’t really deal with union membership density. I’ve been trying to track down more information on this – any ideas?
    Bryce

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Fred () says:

    Sonic,

    quote: “You still have not addressed my repeated point of why non-union members shouls benefit from deals negiotated by the union. Could you do so?”

    May I have a go at this?

    So the great deal hammered out by the hard nosed union negotiator results in the union member being paid more for the same job? This would not be fair and equitable. A union principle (I’m guessing here) would be same pay for the same skills and expertise no matter who you are.

    Ummm try this then. So (you bastard you’ll be the last to be saved when the balloon goes up) you didn’t pay the wages of the hard nosed union negotiator who beat your employer into submission to get you the pay that you deserved in the first place? Well as it happens I have a perfectly good relationship with my employer and I’m happy with my my own ability to negotiate my own pay. OK granted that not everyone is in this situation. So this then. Okaaay my employer is underpaying me, time to move on. Or this. Well as it happens I’m perfectly happy working in a vineyard in Marlborough for the pay I’m getting so long as no one knows I’m here and by the way I’m doing a job no one else (legally in NZ) wants to do. No unionist is needed to intervene here, a perfectly valid win win situation (sorry couldn’t resist).

    So the great deal hammered out by the hard nosed union negotiator results in the union member being paid more for the same job? Well being a deal it’s a two way transaction. The union must have offered the employer something worth more to the employer than the cost of the extra being paid to the union members. This is corrupt, and no better than protection money.

    Conclusion, unions are about ordinariness, collectivism, grimy British coal mines, exploitation, mindless solidarity and perceptions of class. If you have to feel that life is a “battle” and you choose that battle to be unions against ??? then it’s simply a misguided attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. David Farrar () says:

    Vic Uni used to have good data on trade union membership so I would try the appropriate department there in the first instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Bryce () says:

    The stats quoted in the orginal story in stuff (url below) are from the Industrial Relations dept at VUW, but there is still nothing on either the VUW site or theirs. Nor anything on the CTU site etc. When I track it down, I’ll post a comment on http://www.liberation.org.nz – Bryce

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3759564a11,00.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. phillipjohn () says:

    80 % of New Zealanders work in businesses that employ less than 20 people. Organising these sites is logistically impossible because you spend say an average of $3,000 a year recruiting, negotiating agreements, and making sure the bosses live up to the conditions of the agreement. Let’s be generous and say you have 10 members on site and get $5 a week from each of them. So you’re loosing $500 a year. Doesn’t pan out hey? That’s why union membership is so low in New Zealand. The same is true for all countries who have decentralised bargaining regimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. phillipjohn () says:

    80 % of New Zealanders work in businesses that employ less than 20 people. Organising these sites is logistically impossible because you spend say an average of $3,000 a year recruiting, negotiating agreements, and making sure the bosses live up to the conditions of the agreement. Let’s be generous and say you have 10 members on site and get $5 a week from each of them. So you’re loosing $500 a year. Doesn’t pan out hey? That’s why union membership is so low in New Zealand. The same is true for all countries who have decentralised bargaining regimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. phillipjohn () says:

    80 % of New Zealanders work in businesses that employ less than 20 people. Organising these sites is logistically impossible because you spend say an average of $3,000 a year recruiting, negotiating agreements, and making sure the bosses live up to the conditions of the agreement. Let’s be generous and say you have 10 members on site and get $5 a week from each of them. So you’re loosing $500 a year. Doesn’t pan out hey? That’s why union membership is so low in New Zealand. The same is true for all countries who have decentralised bargaining regimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. phillipjohn () says:

    80 % of New Zealanders work in businesses that employ less than 20 people. Organising these sites is logistically impossible because you spend say an average of $3,000 a year recruiting, negotiating agreements, and making sure the bosses live up to the conditions of the agreement. Let’s be generous and say you have 10 members on site and get $5 a week from each of them. So you’re loosing $500 a year. Doesn’t pan out hey? That’s why union membership is so low in New Zealand. The same is true for all countries who have decentralised bargaining regimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.