This is a controversial point but here goes, current union leadership don't seem to want to protect long term employment. I make this assumption as I cannot think of 1 unionized occupation (not including government) in this country whose future is secure. It begs the question why would one continue paying union fees when the actions of your leadership are increasing the chances of redundancy.
Maybe this is because the government and major business leaders seem more determined to smash unions than run secure profitable companies.
I seem to remember Alan grounding the fleet at an enormous expense to the business after months of no negotiations with the unions. The media demonised all of the unions involved, and then Qantas negotiated and gave the unions most of what they were asking for. Had management turned up to the enterprise agreement meetings and negotiated rather than stonewalling, and used their time to run the business as they should, things would be very different today.
Ric_god, your comment shows just how effective Qantas's and the governments campaign against the unions in the media has been. At the end of the day, the union is the workers as a group, and if you think they all want to do themselves out of a job, you are kidding yourself.