Is this the lamest political fear campaign advertisement ever?

A union organiser runs at John Howard during a public appearance and is removed by security, so it metaphorically follows that the unions are running towards government trying to get their hands on it.

Lame.

This is a government that is rightly shitting itself about next Saturday.

Just now on ABC’s Insiders, Treasurer Peter Costello claimed that being a union member is equivalent to being a union official. Pressed by host Barrie Cassidy to explain how Shadow Treasurer Wayne Swan was a union official as claimed by Liberal Party advertising, the best Costello could do was point towards his AWU membership.

In the interest of full disclosure I must declare that I am a union official due to my membership of the AEU. The Liberal Party says that 70% of the Labor front bench are union officials, so lets try and work out what percentage of GrodsReaders are union officials. Drop a quick ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in comments to indicate your union membership status.

UPDATE: Screw the comments thing; let’s GrodsPoll it.

I am very disappointed at the news that the “Union thug” pro-WorkChoices commercials have been pulled because two of the thugs were convicted criminals. The Liberals (sorry, the BCA) must be very hard up for actors, because it seems like everyone who appears in these commericals is a criminal, or becomes one.

I found the idea of union thugs marching into dressmaking shops and turning off the power quite a hilarious idea, far exceeding the laughs in my own satire. If it wasn’t funny enough, they then added that “doomsday” music, darkened the colours, and claimed that Unions will tell people how to run their business if the reforms are scrapped.

Yeah, right.

That ad had more laughs than a single episode of The Wedge. The BCA should realise that if you’re going to do a scare campaign, you should do it properly. It shouldn’t leave it’s audience in stitches. I propose that for their next ad they get the Union thugs to chase the small business owners around Benny Hill style.

You can still download the ad from the BCA site – just click this link and save as.

When I started teaching this year I thought long and hard about whether I should join the teachers’ union, the AEU. In the end I handed over my direct debit details and signed up for a few reasons: Firstly, I believe that teachers (and subsequently, I) should be paid more money and I think that the AEU does and will work hard to ensure that pay rates continue to rise; secondly, I want the legal backing that the union will give me if I’m ever in a workplace situation that requires it; and thirdly, the union is fighting against the scourge of contract employment in the teaching profession.

So I guess you could call me a union man in that I belong to one and I largely support the work that they do. (Largely support because there are times when the union muscles into debates, such as curriculum development, when I don’t support them. Single-issue organisations trying to hijack nuanced debates that require reasoned and sensible discussions between experts and stakeholders pisses me off.) I also guess that you could call me a Labor man in that I have previously, and plan to continue, voting for or preferencing the ALP.

However, something in Jason Koutsoukis’ Age column really struck me this morning:

As one prominent union leader told me the other day, for an opposition to lose an election after the government has been in power for more than 10 years it has to be really bad.

“And we’re just not that bad. In fact, I think we’re starting to look good.”

Bit Freudian that: union leader letting slip that he sees no difference between the ALP and the union movement. Playing right into John Howard’s hands, that sort of comment.

And rankles me — a Labor voter and union member — who wants the two to maintain a degree of seperation.