For most of the 20th century, unions have been a central part of the working life of many employees. From 1914 until 1990, two in five workers were members of a union. Although the union movement experienced a few fluctuations - membership grew rapidly in the 1920s, the postwar decade and the Whitlam era, and waned during the Depression and the 1960s - for the greater part of the 20th century, unions were the dominant force on the Australian industrial scene.
How times have changed. Twenty years ago, 50 per cent of all workers were members of a union. Today the unionisation rate is just 23 per cent. Even in the public sector, once a bastion of union strength, union members are now in the minority. Even in an era of casualisation, computerisation and feminisation, deunionisation is probably the most significant change to have hit the labour market over the past generation. A marker of the decline in union power is how rare strikes have become. The number of days lost to industrial disputes today is just one-quarter of its level in the early 1980s.
In this, Australia is not alone. Declining unionisation is a common pattern across the developed world. With the exception of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, union membership has fallen in most rich countries over the last two decades. But the collapse of the union movement has been more rapid in Australia than in any other country, save perhaps New Zealand.
What has driven these changes? To understand the transformation, it is useful to briefly dismiss two common explanations for union decline. The first is that unions declined because workers became more sceptical about them. In fact, attitudes tend to be a mirror image of union strength. When union membership swelled during the 1970s, Australians became more likely to tell pollsters that they thought unions had too much power, and less likely to agree that unions had been a good thing for Australia. Correspondingly, as unions waned during the 1990s, the fraction of people who thought unions had too much power, or that Australian would be better off without unions, steadily decreased.
Another interpretation is that deunionisation was a result of the decline in real wages that took place under the Prices and Incomes Accord of 1983. Yet as David Peetz points out in his 1998 book Unions in a Contrary World, this explanation implies that unionisation should have declined more during the 1980s (when real wages fell) than in the 1990s (when real wages rose). In fact, the reverse is true. The biggest fall in unionisation occurred during the 1990s.
If not because of changing attitudes and the Accord, then why? The decline of Australian unions comes down to the following factors: changes to laws governing unions; more product market competition; rising inequality; and, structural change in the labour market.
The most significant of these is the changes to the legal regime governing Australian unions. Peetz points out that between 1990 and 1995, conservative governments in five-out-of-six states introduced legislation aimed at prohibiting compulsory unionisation (banning “closed shops”), encouraging individual bargaining, and making the transition to non-award coverage easier. (Ironically, this mirrored the process that occurred in the 1920s when a succession of state Labor governments enacted legislation favouring compulsory unionism and wage arbitration, leading to a surge in union membership.)
In the late-1980s, more than half of all employees were required to be a union member as a condition of their employment. In the 1990s, freed from the requirement to belong, large numbers of workers chose to opt out. Unsurprisingly, the unions hit hardest were the ones which were most reliant on compulsory unionism laws. The new regime was locked in place in 1996 when the newly elected Howard Government virtually abolished compulsory unionism nationwide, and made it more difficult for unions to recruit or strike.
The second most important driver of deunionisation is rising competition. Spurred by microeconomic reforms, tariff cuts and a revitalised Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the markets for buying most products and services are now substantially more competitive than they were in the 1970s. When firms enjoy a monopoly or oligopoly position, it is easier for them to pay higher wages to their employees. Prices are higher in non-competitive markets. In the jargon of economics, higher prices generate “rents”. These rents are then shared between employers (who enjoy higher profits than they would in a competitive market) and workers (who earn more than in a competitive market). When monopolies are broken down, and markets become more competitive, management must start cutting costs. This places pressure on management to adopt stronger anti-union tactics in order to reduce the wage bill.
The third explanation for falling union membership is the growth in earnings inequality. To understand how this works, it is important to recognise that unions do not just aim for higher wages, but also for greater pay compression. This occurs through standardised pay schedules, and claims which request the same increase for all workers (for example $10 per week). The less pay dispersion there is within a company, the easier it is for unions to organise: workers are more likely to make common cause with those who earn similar wages.
In general, economists have focused on the way in which deunionisation affects inequality. Studies in Britain, Canada and the US have identified deunionisation as an important factor in the growth of inequality in those countries. In Australia, Jeff Borland found that, between 1986 and 1994, 30 per cent of the increase in earnings inequality among among males in full-time employment could be explained by declining unionisation. But the reverse could also be true. If inequality rises (because of technological change, globalisation, or some other factor), unions could find it harder to forge a successful coalition between low-paid and highly paid workers.
The final factor is structural labour market change. Across the developed world, unions have a better time recruiting in the manufacturing and public sectors, among full-time workers, and in large firms. The rise of the service sector, downsizing of government, casualisation of the workforce and the rise of smaller firms are all trends that disadvantage unions.
Katika karne ya 20, vyama vya wafanyakazi vilikuwa sehemu muhimu ya maisha ya kazi ya wafanyakazi wengi. Tangu mwaka 1914 hadi 1990, wafanyakazi wawili kati ya watano walikuwa wanachama wa vyama vya wafanyakazi. Ingawa harakati ya vyama vya wafanyakazi ilipata mabadiliko machache - uanachama ulikua haraka katika miaka ya 1920, muongo wa baada ya vita na enzi ya Whitlam, na kupungua wakati wa Mshuko wa Kiuchumi na miaka ya 1960 - kwa sehemu kubwa ya karne ya 20, vyama vya wafanyakazi vilikuwa nguvu kuu katika eneo la viwanda la Australia. Nyakati zimebadilika sana. Miaka 20 iliyopita, asilimia 50 ya wafanyakazi wote walikuwa wanachama wa vyama vya wafanyakazi. Leo, kiwango cha ushirika ni asilimia 23 tu. Hata katika sekta ya umma, ambayo wakati mmoja ilikuwa ngome ya nguvu ya vyama vya wafanyakazi, washiriki wa vyama vya wafanyakazi sasa ni wachache. Hata katika enzi ya casualization, computerization na feminization, de-unionization ni pengine mabadiliko muhimu zaidi ya kuwa hit soko la kazi juu ya kizazi iliyopita. Kiashiria cha kupungua kwa nguvu za vyama vya wafanyakazi ni jinsi mgomo umekuwa nadra. Idadi ya siku zilizopotea kwa sababu ya migogoro ya viwanda leo ni robo tu ya kiwango chake mwanzoni mwa miaka ya 1980. Katika jambo hilo, Australia si peke yake. Kupungua kwa ushirika ni muundo wa kawaida katika ulimwengu uliositawi. Kwa kuwa Denmark, Norway na Sweden ni nchi za kwanza katika nchi hizo, idadi ya wafanyakazi wa vyama vya wafanyakazi imepungua katika miaka 20 iliyopita. Lakini kuanguka kwa harakati za vyama vya wafanyakazi kumekuwa kwa kasi zaidi nchini Australia kuliko katika nchi nyingine yoyote, isipokuwa labda New Zealand. Ni nini kilichosababisha mabadiliko hayo? Ili kuelewa mabadiliko hayo, ni muhimu kuondoa kwa ufupi maelezo mawili ya kawaida ya kupungua kwa vyama vya wafanyakazi. Ya kwanza ni kwamba vyama vya wafanyakazi vilipungua kwa sababu wafanyakazi walianza kutilia shaka vyama vya wafanyakazi. Kwa kweli, mitazamo huwa ni picha ya kioo ya nguvu ya chama. Wakati uanachama wa vyama vya wafanyakazi ulipozidi kuongezeka katika miaka ya 1970, Waustralia walikuwa na uwezekano mkubwa wa kuwaambia wapiga kura kwamba walifikiri vyama vya wafanyakazi vilikuwa na nguvu nyingi, na uwezekano mdogo wa kukubali kwamba vyama vya wafanyakazi vilikuwa ni jambo zuri kwa Australia. Kwa hivyo, kwa kuwa vyama vya wafanyakazi vilipungua katika miaka ya 1990, idadi ya watu waliofikiri vyama vya wafanyakazi vilikuwa na nguvu nyingi sana, au kwamba Australia ingekuwa bora bila vyama vya wafanyakazi, ilipungua kwa kasi. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""kuondolewa kwa vyama vya wafanyakazi ni matokeo ya kupungua kwa mishahara halisi ambayo ilitokea chini ya Mkataba wa Bei na Mapato wa 1983.""" "Kama David Peetz anavyosema katika kitabu chake cha mwaka 1998 ""Syndicates in a Contrary World,"" ""Ufanyabiashara wa vyama vya wafanyakazi ulipungua sana katika miaka ya 1980 na 1990 na kwa sasa ni wa chini zaidi." Kwa kweli, kinyume chake ni kweli. Kupungua kwa idadi ya wafanyakazi wa chama cha wafanyakazi kulifanyika katika miaka ya 1990. Kama si kwa sababu ya mabadiliko ya mitazamo na Mkataba, basi kwa nini? Mabadiliko ya sheria za vyama vya wafanyakazi nchini Australia, ushindani mkubwa katika soko la bidhaa, kuongezeka kwa ukosefu wa usawa na mabadiliko ya muundo katika soko la kazi. Jambo muhimu zaidi kati ya hayo ni mabadiliko katika mfumo wa kisheria unaotawala vyama vya wafanyakazi wa Australia. "Pietz anasema kwamba kati ya 1990 na 1995, serikali za kihafidhina katika majimbo matano kati ya sita zilianzisha sheria zinazolenga kupiga marufuku ushirika wa lazima (kuzuia ""duka zilizofungwa"), kuhamasisha mazungumzo ya mtu binafsi, na kufanya mpito wa ""uhifadhi usio na malipo"" kuwa rahisi." Kwa kushangaza, hii ilionyesha mchakato uliotokea katika miaka ya 1920 wakati serikali za kazi za serikali zilipopitisha sheria zinazopendelea ushirika wa lazima na upatanishi wa mshahara, na kusababisha kuongezeka kwa uanachama wa chama. Katika miaka ya 1980, zaidi ya nusu ya wafanyakazi wote walihitaji kuwa wanachama wa chama cha wafanyakazi kama sharti la kazi yao. Katika miaka ya 1990, walipoachiliwa huru kutoka kwa mahitaji ya kuwa na uhusiano, idadi kubwa ya wafanyakazi walichagua kujiondoa. Haishangazi, vyama vya wafanyakazi vilivyogunduliwa vikali zaidi vilikuwa vilivyotegemea zaidi sheria za lazima za vyama vya wafanyakazi. Serikali ya Howard ilifungua mwaka 1996 na kuondoa sheria ya kuajiri wafanyakazi katika vyama vya wafanyakazi nchini humo. Kichocheo cha pili muhimu cha kuondolewa kwa vyama vya wafanyakazi ni kuongezeka kwa ushindani. Kwa sababu ya marekebisho ya uchumi mdogo, kupunguzwa kwa ushuru na Tume ya Ushindani na Watumiaji ya Australia iliyofufuliwa, masoko ya kununua bidhaa na huduma nyingi sasa ni ushindani zaidi kuliko ilivyokuwa katika miaka ya 1970. Kampuni zinazopata nafasi ya monopoly au oligopoly, ni rahisi zaidi kwa ajili yao kulipa mishahara ya juu kwa wafanyakazi wao. Bei ni ya juu katika masoko yasiyo ya ushindani. Katika jargon ya uchumi, bei za juu huzalisha "kodi". Kisha kodi hizo zinagawanywa kati ya waajiri (wanaofurahia faida kubwa kuliko ilivyo katika soko la ushindani) na wafanyakazi (wanaopata mapato mengi kuliko katika soko la ushindani). Wakati udhibiti unapoangamizwa, na masoko yanapokuwa na ushindani zaidi, usimamizi lazima uanze kupunguza gharama. Hii huweka shinikizo juu ya usimamizi kupitisha mbinu kali zaidi za kupambana na vyama vya wafanyakazi ili kupunguza muswada wa mshahara. Ufafanuzi wa tatu kwa ajili ya kuanguka kwa uanachama wa chama ni ukuaji wa usawa wa mapato. Ili kuelewa jinsi hii inafanya kazi, ni muhimu kutambua kwamba vyama vya wafanyakazi si tu lengo kwa ajili ya mishahara ya juu, lakini pia kwa ajili ya compression kubwa ya mshahara. Hii hutokea kupitia ratiba za malipo ya kawaida, na madai ambayo yanahitaji ongezeko sawa kwa wafanyakazi wote (kwa mfano $ 10 kwa wiki). Kadiri tofauti ya mshahara ilivyo ndogo, ndivyo inavyokuwa rahisi kwa vyama vya wafanyakazi kuungana na wale wanaopata mshahara sawa. Kwa ujumla, wachumi wamezingatia jinsi deunionization inavyoathiri ukosefu wa usawa. Uchunguzi uliofanywa nchini Uingereza, Canada na Marekani umebaini kuwa kuondolewa kwa vyama vya wafanyakazi ni jambo muhimu katika kuongezeka kwa ukosefu wa usawa katika nchi hizo. Jeff Borland, mtaalamu wa uchumi wa Australia, alisema kuwa ongezeko la asilimia 30 ya ongezeko la mapato ya wanaume wanaofanya kazi ya wakati wote, kati ya mwaka 1986 na 1994, linaweza kuelezwa na kupungua kwa ushirikiano wa vyama vya wafanyakazi. Lakini kinyume chake pia kinaweza kuwa kweli. Ikiwa ukosefu wa usawa utaongezeka (kwa sababu ya mabadiliko ya kiteknolojia, utandawazi, au sababu nyingine), vyama vya wafanyakazi vinaweza kupata ugumu zaidi kuunda muungano wa mafanikio kati ya wafanyakazi wenye mshahara wa chini na wenye mshahara wa juu. Jambo la mwisho ni mabadiliko ya muundo wa soko la kazi. Katika nchi zilizositawi, vyama vya wafanyakazi vina uwezo mkubwa wa kuajiri wafanyakazi katika sekta za viwanda na za umma, miongoni mwa wafanyakazi wa wakati wote, na katika makampuni makubwa. Kuongezeka kwa sekta ya huduma, kupunguzwa kwa serikali, upungufu wa wafanyakazi na kuongezeka kwa makampuni madogo ni mwenendo wote ambao unadhuru vyama vya wafanyakazi.