Hostility to the unions as a conservative force getting in the way of things is natural here and a certain amount of schadenfreud about their accelerated dismantling is understandable. But the leftwing case for weakening the union "movement" is very different from the liberal case being presented in this thread, just as Marx's opposition to protectionism because it aimed at preserving the status quo while revolutionaries naturally prefer the dynamism of free trade was very different from the liberal free traders case that globalization was for the benefit of the workers rather than for their profits.


 The leftwing case against workplace laws that prop up the unions is a natural extension of our experience organizing workers in the workplaces when there actually was some semblance of a genuine left in Australia. The main problem we ran into was the unions - both as direct opponents actively assisting the bosses to isolate activists and as a dominant bourgeois ideology among the workers that looked for do-gooder saviours such as union officials to solve their day to day problems instead of their own self activity as a class.


Steve's defence of that position is a classic example of the second problem. He attributes everything progressive that nurses have fought for to "the union" and assumes that weakening the union will undermine the ability of nurses to either defend existing conditions or advance.


Undermining workers conditions by weakening unions is indeed Howard's aim and perspective just as "Free Trade" in the 19th century was, and "globalization" today is, aimed at increasing profit for capital, not at accelerating the pre-conditions for the self emancipation of the workers.

 References to the greater flexibility achievable by weakening the unions is part of Howard's right wing case, not part of the left's case. Presenting things that way, as those disagreeing with Steve have done, one might just as well go on to argue explicitly for lowering wages in order to reduce unemployment (which is also perfectly true, but more obviously part of the right wing case).


The starting point for a left wing analysis has to be the effect of workplace law on the capacity of workers for self organization to become conscious of themselves as a class.


Whereas once unions were part of that process of self organization, they are now bureaucratic corporatist structures holding it back by feeding the sort of delusions about "union" victories that Steve is expressing.


 Weakening the unions certainly will enable bosses to win some struggles more easily and it will especially encourage a wider differential in wages and conditions between the best organized and worst organized enterprises and workplaces. That is the whole point (with consequences such as soaking up some youth unemployment by being able to offer kids more low wage jobs being only a side effect).


There are obvious limits to that process since in fact wages and conditions within each workplace and enterprise are influenced far more by the state of the economy as a whole and the overall class struggle than by the situation in particular industries, enterprises and workplaces.


This is obvious given the fundamental nature of a capitalist economy in which wage labor and capital are commodities that flow freely in response to price signals. Rates of profit being higher in one area than another cause capital to move towards the higher and wages and conditions being higher in one area than another causes the supply of labor to move towards the higher (including immigration). This causes corresponding reduction in the supply of capital in the low profit areas and in the supply of labor in the low wage areas with corresponding price movements in a dynamic equilibrium depending on price elasticities etc.


That is how market economies work and they cannot work any other way. This is simply elementary. That flexibility and dynamism is an essential part of capitalism and the right wing case that the hidden costs of the artificial limitations created by inflexible workplace laws actually reduce overall productivity more than what will be lost by less organized workers when the differential are allowed to grow as a result of workplace reform, may well be correct.


 Equally elementary is the dialectical essence of the left wing case for supporting greater dynamism and flexibility in workplace laws just as we do in trade laws and international relations. We want to encourage workers to get organized.


Having no grasp of dialectics Howard may think that removing barriers to wider differentials will simply be an advantage to bosses in undermining conditions in less organized workplaces. A more all sided analysis tells us that this means workers who continue to rely on unions or any other saviour from on high to fight their battles for them will pay a direct economic price. They will learn that "if you don't fight you'll lose" just as those who do fight will learn "dare to struggle, dare to win".


The long term result will be more organized workplaces just as the long term result of the unions substitution for actual organizations of workers has been to undermine the capacity of workers to organize themselves.