I understand that there are many folk out there who are still bitter about the 89 dispute. Just as there are many who are still bitter about the SEQEB dispute in 85 in Qld. But the important point is that those two disputes have nothing in common with the current workplace laws at all.
In the 89 dispute a union (on behalf of its members) made claims upon employers which the employer (and the government of the day) deemed to be unreasonable. Both the employer and government put a lot of dollars into winning the dispute (at a huge personal and financial cost to many pilots and other airline staff).
The current workplace laws however are designed to ensure that no organisation or group of employees can make ANY claims upon their employers at all. By introducing AWA's and removing the ability for unions to recruit members and then negotiate on behalf of members the potential for an employee to make any meaningful improvement to their terms and conditions is nullified.
The anti-coercion laws are little more than a cosmetic assurance that all employees will be treated fairly. It is absolutely true that AWA's can be compulsory for new staff and it is also true that existing staff can be advised that the only access they will have to future pay increases is by virtue of an AWA. If an existing employee refuses to sign an AWA an employer is well within their rights to offer no further wage increases until the employees wage is equal to the minimum wage or Australian Pay and Classification Scale for their role.
When this position is maintained and any attempts to commence collective bargaining are resisted by the employer (very easy nowdays), all employees will eventually end up being covered by an AWA. Of course all AWA's will have different expirey dates so that they never line up and give the employees the opportunity to negotiate collectively again.
I haven't seen any instances where the implementation of an AWA has meant an improvement of standards for the employee concerned.