Wiley:
>> I'll be very interested to see how attitudes change towards those with "conscientious objections" to maintaining the position the majority voted for. <<
It may have escaped your attention, but companies are not democracies, and what the "majority" may or may not have decided is irrelevant to those outside the union. Union membership is not compulsory here (thank God), and hopefully never will be. People have a right to choose.
I remember, many moons ago when driving a courier van in NZ in the university holiday, I was legally required to join the union... compulsory unionism being the way at that time. When I had cause to enlist the help of said union, I found them totally unhelpful, lethargic and uninterested in their members. Because they did not need to recruit members, and were therefore not accountable, their performance was pathetic. That is the danger of compulsory unionism.
The type of militant unionism on show in Australia (just like the UK of the '50s) is equally inept when it comes to getting results- for the simple reason of supply and demand, as wonderbusdriver has mentioned above.
These days, if you want to get results, you need to be smart as well as strong. Ganging up on non-union members, threatening their families etc., will not endear us to anyone. We have to be smarter than that.
Yes, some non-union members may benefit from industrial action. So what? Some have legitimate objections to being uninvolved in unions.
The sort of thing hinted at by Wiley (and others) is childish, immature and despicable. If you can't win members by reason and argument, you have already lost the moral high ground.
For those who think I'm anti-union, I'm not; I've been in unions all my working life, and have served as a union official. I do, however, believe in a civilised approach to union activities (unlike our Australian brethren during '89).