What Fran said ..... except, not knowing any German, I would have typed 'shyster'.

During the two decades I was active in the Labor Party we generated considerable change at branch level.

Not least the reforms of the Victorian branch in the late 1960s. That was driven entirely by the branches in the first instance.

Since the mid-1980s it has seemed pointless. A member is a number, no longer a participant.

A great reply Craig.

I am in the middle of attempting to get a "local' to run in Dobell. All the so-called "big hitters" are out "injured'..."heart problem" and there is a reluctance by the branches up on the central coast to go against "Sussex St"...oh, I am a ALP member, I rejoined 15 months ago after many decades out of the loop..for all the reasons you have mentioned and "others".

Yes, the informal vote was up around 2% in the 2010 election. I think the Abbott factor will reduce this number, the information on him is overwhelming (his legal appearances and the many stories) i have traced most of his and his fathers (Richard) history...it gets much worse, next year will see Abbott being put in a position of "defending his family history"!

I got back involved because I was not "going to take it any-more" a line from that great movie "Network" if we can get more involved we will be able to control our party, this I truly believe.

Thanks again for your reply, I will copy and past and send it to our branches, it is needed!

While I welcome your general support Craig, I certainly wouldn't endorse the following observation:

{The other factor that I thought Dr Gallop made too little of is the fact that unions have lost the support of working men, with the Union movement now largely dominated by white-collar women, in the form of bureaucrats, nurses and teachers, none of which groups should have any right to regard themselves as entitled to Union support in my view. }

I strongly believe that union representation is valuable in each of the cases you mention -- indeed, I am a proud member of Federation at my school. I am also troubled by your concern at "domination of the union movement by white collar women". I don't think this is true in any event, but even were it so, the composition of the labor movement has changed since the 1950s, both in terms of gender and occupation. I certainly don't accept that the ALP has been debauched by women and white collar workers.

I don't at all agree that the occupations represented by the Law Society and the AMA are comparable to those advocating for nurses, clerical workers or teachers.

Working people need inclusive societies and inclusive governance. Unions are a part of that picture, though it's clear that the ALP is not. It's as simple as that.

Best of luck Tony. Is Thomson going to contest? The mind boggles...

Fran, let's look on the positive side; at least we have some common ground. The devil is, as always, in the details of the differences.

Firstly, there is no doubt that the union movement has become dominated by the white collar (mostly female) unions.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/membership-fall-crisis-for-unions/story-fnbkvnk7-1226343081983

"The overall figure of 18 per cent was made up of a small rise in the proportion of public sector workers who belong to a union offset by a small fall in the private sector. Unionisation in the private sector stands at 13 per cent."
and
"Over time, the fall in union membership has been steep, almost precipitous. In August 1992, 43 per cent of male workers and 35 per cent of females were union members in their main jobs. The figure is now 18 per cent for both male and female workers."
and
"The mainstay of union membership are now teachers, nurses and public servants. The sector with the highest union membership is education and training, followed by public administration and safety."

So let's not quibble over the facts.

Secondly, teachers and nurses, with the support of the ALP, have successfully managed to upgrade the necessary qualification to a degree-level with higher degrees de rigeur if one wishes to rise within the profession. This is typical of the other professions I mentioned and creates a class-difference between the workers in those fields and the traditional union membership base. Most trades and labour unions represent workforces in which qualifications can only be gained by working in the field as a prerequisite (apprenticeships, certifications, etc) and are narrowly task-focussed rather than a broad generalist education that qualifies one for employment in a field as a professional knowledge worker. Another class-difference is that the white-collar unions are largely Government-based, whilst the blue-collar ones consist largely of private-enterprise employees and the interests of these groups are unlikely to be congruent.

Third, both through their larger numbers and the fact that they are better-educated they have taken over control of the agenda of both the Union movement and the ALP. The manufacturing, construction, transport and agricultural sectors are in huge trouble in this country and yet our Government spends most of its time telling us about how we need to promote more women into senior roles rather than making the effort to promote the welfare of the largely male workforce in those struggling industries. There is little effort being made to provide opportunities for such men to improve their qualifications to professional level, yet women make up around 2/3 of all tertiary students and nearly 60% of young professionals. I could go on for several pages...

You, as an active female member of the dominant female union, are a part of the problem, I'm afraid. In my view it's time for you and those like you to stand up on your own, disassociate yourself from the unions and the ALP and allow the party of the worker to once again flourish with the worker at its heart, rather than as an arm of the feminist movement and a vehicle to promote the interests of a few opportunists at the top.

Take pride in your professional status and set up genuinely independent professional bodies, just as members of the other professions have done.

If that doesn't happen, then the ALP and the labour movement are doomed to irrelevancy and ultimately to fall by the wayside. That would be tragic, since the alternative is the LNP and a few fringe-dwellers.

Fran:"I don't at all agree that the occupations represented by the Law Society and the AMA are comparable to those advocating for nurses, clerical workers or teachers."

I'd be very interested as to your reasoning. Discussing this yesterday, a good friend supported your view and in doing so made the point that the difference is to do with the level of personal autonomy and responsibility that applies. He suggested that bureaucracy, teaching and nursing are essentially skilled labour following direction for the most part, rather than independently responsible and autonomous professionals who decide for themselves and whose decisions guide others. Nurses do as directed by doctors, teachers follow curricula and teaching methods developed and set by others, bureaucrats are bound by many layers of management.

He disagreed vehemently with my rather poorly-expressed view that the nature of the educational process creates a difference in the class of the worker, pointing out that each of these jobs have traditionally been trained on-the-job and that the move to academicising training was driven by factors largely unrelated to the performance of the job, such as reducing the training load on teaching hospitals and schools, cost-shifting the training to the tertiary education budget, clawing back some from the students in the way of fees and status raising. In the case of bureaucrats its also about absorbing the large increase in graduates of fields that are not attractive to private enterprise. He pointed out that the academic standards for entry to tertiary places in these fields are quite minimal, often lower than might be required to gain an apprenticeship in some blue-collar trades.

In this interpretation, such groups are, as you say, natural trades unionists rather than sharing much in common with the professions beyond the institutions that provide their training. Do you agree with his take on things?

I have to say that I still viscerally feel there's a genuine class-difference between the groups mentioned and the traditional industrial union member, but I'm struggling to express its nature. Perhaps it's actually a social class difference, with the groups discussed all being determinedly middle-class rather than working class and hence having a very different set of aspirations and workplace expectations, leading to very different industrial issues and a real lack of understanding of the problems of blue-collar workers?

Excellent comments Wilma.

To be honest I'm not sure what makes a good reformist politician - at least in the CV sense goes. Some of the best (eg Keating) have been little else than political apparatchiks, while at least in NSW here have simply inherited their seats. They are amongst the worst of them.

It's interesting though the role that talented and committed women are playing in this government - I suspect it's largely because they are coming from outside the dominant boys' club and union machinery - having been imposed on the party by administrative fiat. They aren't in hock to anyone.

I'm afraid I have very little time for most unions and union officials any more having been working with them and watching them for a large part of my life. I'd start with nobbling any male union officials getting a walk-up start on preselection. Maybe five years back on the shop floor before making a run.

Trouble is that - as a corporatised "manager" of the labor market - modern unions seem to have become the provisional wing of the HR department if you like - where all the work is done in courts, tribunals and commissions, where lucrative careers in super management offer a viable career move other than politics. Meanwhile the membership drops like a rock. Unions are less and less representive, less and less relevant, less and less popular or supported.

How does Labor unshackle itself from a historical relic hell bent on sinking into the ocean floor?

Unions must modernise themselves and regain their relevance beyond their institutional functions. But can Labor wait for this to happen if ever?

I think we must start to consider a future in which unions and the ALP have a strikingly different relationship, in which their influence is in some way a reflection of their popular support and membership.

Either that or a future in which the drivers of parliamentarist reform are outside the Party - perhaps permanent minority government and coalition. That is probably the most likely and indeed most preferable.

But I do not accept this notion - implicit in Geoff's piece here - that the criterion of succesful internal Party reform and restructuring is proven by winning a term or two. It's what you do when you get there that counts, not just being a "marketable product"..

Wilma, it's far from bizarre to suggest that the Government of one of the founder's of Emily's List (who has never belonged to a union) is dominated by the policies of that organisation. I'm sure you see no problem in the suggestion that an Abbott Government would be dominated by policy informed by Abbott's Jesuitical background, so why are you in denial about the Gillard/Emily's list policy nexus?

Giillard owes her job to the support of both Left and Right factions, and her Emily's List organisation is cross-factional, being focussed narrowly on the social agenda of the middle-class feminist women who comprise it rather than on aspects of broader national interest. It is no surprise that her Government has shown no interest in the problems of the blue-collar workforce, whilst spending considerable policy effort on pushing things like quotas for women on boards and in senior roles - this is where her supporters see their own interests, after all, not in supporting smelly, uncouth blue-collar workers.

I'd encourage those who agree with that policy position to join the Greens and leave the party of the worker to look after the interests of workers. At present the worker has no voice at all, with all 3 parties ignoring them in favour of that middle-class female bloc vote which is so readily bought with handouts and so easily influenced by propagandists.

Peter, there is no "boys club", simply a bunch of self-interested people with few principles who are easily manipulated by collectives. The factions are one such set of collectives, but they are fragmented internally and essentially pragmatic. The strongly ideologically-based Emily's List group was always going to find it pretty straight-forward to push them over. As Gillard showed with her misogyny rant, it is impossible to reason with fanatical women. If one doesn't want a war, the only thing to do is give her her head and hope she tires herself out soon.

Not just trashed and abandoned John - stolen.

Peter, the observation that there is a formalised gender-based female organisation that is being destructive does not demonstrate the existence of a "boy's club".

I'm afraid your comment is typically fatuous.

Peter, I'm well aware of the decline in the traditional blue-collar sectors, whatever the ABS might like to call them. It isn't necessary or desirable, it seems to me and has been driven by factors that are not all intrinsic, although some are consequential on changes in technology and on the structural changes brought about by globalisation.

However, the fact that these industries are in decline does not lessen their need for good representation - if anything it greatly increases that need. When times are good, everyone does well enough and they may become resentful at paying union dues or feel confident that they have sufficient personal bargaining power not to need the union at all. Hawke recognised this and facilitated it and Howard used it ruthlessly in his drive to decouple unions from workplaces, which has obviously been very successful.

Unfortunately, we don't now live in good times and it seems unlikely they will return for a good long while. We are fortunate to have mining to add to our tax take and allow some buffering, but we are spending most of it on propping up middle-class incomes rather than on supporting those most affected by the upheaval in work. Our "worker's party" has chosen to abandon the worker who has no work, while spending billions on those who are already relatively privileged and on measures that actively encourage structural changes which hasten the decline in the opportunities available to such workers.

The unions, dominated by the middle-class women who work for Government , have been complicit and even lead this process, while the lawyers and political careerists who run the blue-collar unions have happily gone along with it on the promise of a safe seat when they want it, or the opportunity to get their snout in what remains of the trough.

So yes, Peter, the blue collar is in decline, but the work and the fluorescent-vested workers still exist, even if they are invisible among the power-dressing suit-wearers with their hands out.

The "party of the worker" is a disgrace for pretending otherwise and I will not give it my vote whilst that is the case.

Here it is from the horse's mouth, Wilma

"The EMILY's List journey began in 1994, when the ALP National Conference passed an Affirmative Action Rule requiring women be preselected in 35 per cent of winnable seats at all elections by 2002. Among the progressive women who drove this change were Julia Gillard, Deputy Prime Minister, former Premiers Joan Kirner and Carmen Lawrence along with Helen Creed, Candy Broad MP, Kay Setches, Leonie Morgan, Judy Spence, Meredith Burgmann, Jan Burnswoods, Carolyn Pickles, Sue Mackay and Fran Bladel."

Wikipedia defines middle-class this way:
"Achievement of tertiary education.
Holding professional qualifications, including academics, lawyers, chartered engineers, politicians and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth.
Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be "secure"."

In Australia today the term "working class" has largely been replaced by "bogan" or similar pejoratives in the popular usage. Do you know any nurses who'd refer to themselves as a bogan?

Whether there are some tiny numbers of males in the field is a red herring. It is overwhelmingly a female job and the union is overwhelmingly interested in the concerns of its middle-class female members, which are considerably different to those of working-class people - male or female.