When did unions become the bad guys?

They want to be in control of their own lives, including their lives at work. Not only do they not want to hand over the responsibility for their pay and conditions to others - they don't see the need to pay for it either.

The stereotypical union official is seen by them as being an over-weight, tattooed, under-educated, overalls-wearing, stand-over thug - as portrayed by the TV commercials sponsored by business groups at present.

Union membership would be an embarrassment to the young, a sign that they need someone to look out for them because they can't do it themselves - not a badge of honour as it was a generation ago.

Who's out of touch?

Unions have themselves to blame somewhat for this perception. A number of their full-time officials can, indeed, be grouped in at least one of these stereotypical compartments.

As many unions appoint their full-time officials from the shop floor after being elected from the rank-and-file, very few have sought or received a higher education; it's not seen as a necessity in the “real world” of industrial relations.

While a growing number of Australian voters appear to view John Howard as being out of touch, the same could be said of the union movement.

Unions need to do some introspection.

There is a wealth of literature on ways and means unions can win back their appeal - and the methods don't seem overly difficult.

Unions can't expect to attract and retain those born in the 1980s and '90s by using the strategies developed in the 1930s and honed by fire throughout the 1940s-70s. Unions have to change and actively market these changes quickly or, as Paul Keating said, they face the very real prospects of ending up in a museum.