LETTERS

CRAIG THOMSON Corporate ideas pervade unions CRAIG Thomson's defence and everything leading up to it still remains an open book. Yet the whole sorry saga points beyond this particular individual to the corrosive influence wreaked on the union movement following its permeation by a corporate ideology and mode of organisation.

By InvestSMART · 23 May 2012

By InvestSMART ·
23 May 2012

Comments

CRAIG THOMSON

Corporate ideas pervade unions

CRAIG Thomson's defence and everything leading up to it still remains an open book. Yet the whole sorry saga points beyond this particular individual to the corrosive influence wreaked on the union movement following its permeation by a corporate ideology and mode of organisation.

The secretary/president of a union functions like a chief executive, drawing a large salary and enjoying benefits such as business-class travel unavailable to rank-and-file members. Decisions are made at the top level about disbursement of union money, seemingly with little input from ordinary members, thus mirroring the yawning gap in corporations between chief executives and their workers. Finally, many union officials hold interlocking board positions in superannuation organisations and other government-established boards, mimicking the interlocking directorships so prominent at the corporate level.

No doubt this does not apply to every union, but it is clear the Health Services Union exemplifies this corporatisation effectively. If allowed to continue, the process will render unions into empty shells benefiting only their officials.

Greg Bailey, St Andrews

Core of legal system

YOU may or may not believe Mr Thomson's explanation, but to allow Parliament to act as a kangaroo court is a serious blow to the democratic process as it risks trashing the principle of the separation of powers. Fair Work Australia's report is a collection of untested findings by a single investigator. It is no substitute for a decision by a court of law. The presumption of innocence is not an optional extra but the core of our legal system.

John Kotsopoulos, North Balwyn

Media under scrutiny. . .

DISTURBING issues have been raised regarding media conduct. When I read about Channel 7 reporters reportedly "hovering underneath the bathroom window" while Mr Thomson's pregnant wife took a shower, I realised some in the media believe they can act with impunity. Have we learned nothing since the death of WA lawyer Penny Easton, who some years ago was subjected to such extreme harassment by TV hacks? As Media Watch regularly reminds us, decency is more preached than practised by some media.

Rex Condon, Ashwood

. . . for its misogyny

ON MORNING radio on Tuesday, presenters ran a quick telephone poll asking whether female listeners would rather be Craig Thomson's or Peter Slipper's wife. The verdict was that women would rather be Mr Slipper's wife because "it wouldn't be their fault" if a man is suspected of being gay and has an alleged affair, the wife is not to blame. The implication was that if a heterosexual man has an affair or uses prostitutes, it is the wife's fault because she "wasn't good enough".

It is appalling that when men's behaviour is under scrutiny, it can be the invisible, unelected wives whose behaviour is called into question or even seen as the "cause" of men's misdemeanours rather than men being accountable for their behaviour. Such shows unveil the undercurrents of misogyny that still operate.

Pauline Hopkins, Beaconsfield

Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.

Share this article and show your support

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

What does 'corporatisation' of unions mean and why should everyday investors care?

The article describes corporatisation as unions adopting corporate-style structures — large chief-executive-like salaries, business-class travel for officials, top-down decisions and interlocking board roles. Everyday investors should care because this shift can affect how union funds and superannuation boards are run, creating governance and accountability issues that may influence members' savings and the institutions that invest on their behalf.

How does the Health Services Union exemplify the concern about union governance?

The article cites the Health Services Union as an example of corporatisation: officials drawing large salaries and benefits, decisions made with little input from ordinary members, and interlocking directorships. The piece warns that if this process continues it could turn unions into 'empty shells' benefiting officials rather than members.

What are 'interlocking board positions' and why are they relevant to superannuation governance?

Interlocking board positions refer to union officials holding roles on multiple boards, including superannuation and government-established boards. The article highlights this practice as mirroring corporate interlocks and suggests it raises concerns about concentration of power and potential conflicts of interest in funds that manage members' retirement savings.

What did the article say about Fair Work Australia’s report and legal process implications for investors?

The article notes that Fair Work Australia’s report was described as a collection of untested findings by a single investigator and not a substitute for a court decision. It warns that allowing Parliament to act like a 'kangaroo court' risks undermining the separation of powers and the presumption of innocence — issues that create legal uncertainty which can affect institutional stability.

Why does the presumption of innocence and separation of powers matter to investors?

According to the article, the presumption of innocence is 'the core of our legal system' and protecting separation of powers prevents Parliament from effectively substituting for a court. For investors, these principles matter because legal fairness and judicial certainty underpin stable governance and reduce unpredictable political or reputational risks for organisations tied to unions or public boards.

How can media conduct and public scrutiny affect organizations linked to unions?

The article raises disturbing examples of media conduct — alleging Channel 7 reporters hovered under a bathroom window while an official's pregnant wife showered — and notes Media Watch’s reminders about decency. Such intense media scrutiny and alleged harassment can damage reputations, increase public distrust and create additional volatility around organisations associated with the individuals involved.

What examples of misogyny in media coverage did the article mention, and why is that relevant to investors?

The article recounts a morning radio poll that asked whether women would rather be Craig Thomson’s or Peter Slipper’s wife, implying women could be blamed for men’s misconduct. This kind of sexist coverage matters to investors because it reflects cultural and reputational risks that can affect stakeholder trust, organisational culture and public perception of institutions linked to the controversy.

As an everyday investor, what governance red flags highlighted in the article should I watch for?

The article flags several governance red flags: top-down decision-making with little member input, large executive-style pay and perks for union officials, interlocking board roles with superannuation bodies, and unresolved legal or parliamentary inquiries. Monitoring these issues in unions and related funds can help investors assess potential conflicts of interest, reputational risk and governance quality.