Australian Senate rejects bill obligating union officials to the same standards as company directors
4 replies, posted
[quote=ABC News]The Senate has again rejected a bill for greater oversight of unions, setting up a double dissolution trigger for the Federal Government.
In a late-night vote, the legislation was defeated 34 votes to 33.
The Coalition wanted to set up a Registered Organisations Commission to regulate unions, a move Labor has been fighting.
[b]If passed, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill would have imposed the same disclosure and transparency obligations on union officials as company directors.[/b]
The bill also increased civil penalties and introduced criminal penalties for union leaders involved in fraud.
In making his final pitch to the Senate, Employment Minister Eric Abetz said unions and companies should be held to the same standard.
[b]"Why should a corrupt union official who has ripped off hundreds of thousands of dollars from a union only be liable for a fine of $10,800, when for the same corrupt conduct a company director would be liable for five years' imprisonment or a fine for $360,000 for ripping off shareholders?" he said.[/b]
"What is the material difference? What is the moral difference?[/quote]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-18/senate-rejects-control-over-unions-double-dissolution-trigger/6704528[/url]
Let's pretend the article didn't mention the double dissolution trigger, because we don't need to have that discussion because it's not going to happen.
I rarely agree with Abbott but could get behind this. Unions need to be transparent.
[QUOTE=download;48482708]I rarely agree with Abbott but could get behind this. Unions need to be transparent.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I feel like unions are like businesses: they can be good, but unregulated they can also become very damaging.
The more transparent unions are, the more businesses can exploit what they may/may not know.
In the end, the workers lose.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;48483214]The more transparent unions are, the more businesses can exploit what they may/may not know.
In the end, the workers lose.[/QUOTE]
The union members might as well lose in the opposite scenario, where they pay dues to the union and that money is used for things such as hosting lavish parties for union higher-ups, but the members wouldn't know that because they wouldn't know what their dues paid for, such as how much is used for actual negotiations. I'd say that the members win when there's more transparency.
It's the same for public companies. They are required to release comprehensive annual financial reports which may contain sensitive information which competitors could take note of, but it's ultimately about protecting the company's creditors and shareholders by providing them with the information about the health of their investment.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.