I'm no unionist but...

This article in the SMH this morning is a bit of a worry. The IR laws are being changed significantly. I understand this is a paraphrase by the reporter:

John Howard has promised conditions such as penalty rates and overtime will be protected unless specifically traded away under his overhaul of industrial relations.

Basically, you've got them unless you don't.

I'm a contractor in IT. I live by their 'enterprise bargaining' and have no affiliation to any form of collective. It has its pros and cons. I earn a lot when I'm working, but there is little security to it. The market for the type of IT work i do can fluctuate heavily of which I have little say in.
Working this way for me, was a choice. Being without dependants & a mortgage, I chose to accept the volatility of the market in return for more money.
Not everyone is in the same boat. Not everyone can trade that security. Not everyone is in a niche market where the employee can stand up to the boss easily without simply being replaced.
I would not like to be in a trade or such and having the boss pressuring you into a new agreement where you forgo you're benefits. The employer has too much of an upper hand. I can't recall where it comes from, but there was someone quoted "If you don't accept this contract, there is a line of guys out there who will." That isn't accepting an agreement. That is coercion.

If nothing else, these changes actually give relevance to unionism again. Unions have been slipping out of sight to the mainstream, and haven't really cottoned on that the shape & demographic of the working class has changed a fair bit. Office workers, who were traditionally middle & upper middle class are now as much the working class as the plumber and sparky.

Unions can re-invent themselves if they so choose. These IR changes tip the balance a little too far in the favour of business, at the expense of labour, whatever type it is. Relevant unionism could help bring back that balance.