'Forced unionism': non-union members face paying levy if Labor backs RBTU push 07:48

Have you seen what is now the official position of the New South Wales Labor Party, and thus the government, when it comes to our railways and bus services? So these are the ideas that the Rail, Tram and Bus Union managed to convince the New South Wales ALP Conference to support. Here's a few of them, right. So a commitment to not convert any existing heavy rail lines into a metro train.

A commitment to prioritise the expansion of the heavy rail network over new metro lines, bringing transport cleaning back in-house, restoring the ability for a railway worker or bus driver to make a workers' comp claim,

sustained during a commute to and from work. So while you want to train to work, if you hurt yourself, you can do a workers' comp claim. Removing the $17 access fee on the airport line and giving unions the power to prosecute safety breaches by Sydney trains or the bus operator. But what about this one?

allowing unions to levy a fee against non-members who benefit from unions' action and negotiation. Now, I hope some of this is lip service from Chris Minns and his government, that they're saying they'll support it, rather than it being hard and fast policy of the government. Some of it I agree with. I agree with removing the $17 access fee on the airport line when that contract comes up.

But there's got to be some dangerous stuff in there, don't you think? Well, Toby Warnes, he's the secretary of the RTBU, and he's on the line for us. Toby, g'day. G'day, Chris. Now, can you talk to me about the final one that I just mentioned there, allowing unions to levy a fee against non-members? What's the thought behind this? Chris, so unions put in countless amounts of hours, millions,

bargaining for better wages and conditions, which, as we know in this country, apply to everybody who's covered by the enterprise agreement or the award. We're actually, and your listeners might not know this, but we're the only country in the world that allows that system to take place

I've explained it to people before. You wouldn't go into a clothing store and demand that the clothing be given to you for free until you can be satisfied that the clothing is worth a purchase. So we think that the services that unions provide should be adequately compensated for people who are benefiting from those services. Sure, but you provide those services knowing there's a segment of the workforce that are not union members. You do it knowing this full well.

Look, that's right, Chris. But I mean, as is well publicised, that segment of the workforce is falling and quicker than many of us would care to admit. So we think there needs to be a shift in the dynamic to try and convince people of what the value that unions actually provide to their bread and butter, to their terms and conditions. But is that your job?

Absolutely it is, Chris. Rather than get the government to force non-members into paying fees? Oh, but you're talking about non-members here who are benefiting from the work that the union does. So they're benefiting from the higher wages. They're benefiting from the better conditions. Shouldn't they have to pay for that? No, not because you've negotiated for higher wages and conditions knowing that there are non-members who will benefit. You did it because you guys have got jobs doing it.

No, but that's right. But so we're the only sector of the economy who are expected to do something for free for people who aren't paying for a service. I just don't see that as fair. What about some of the other parts of the platform? Giving unions the power to prosecute safety breaches by Sydney trains. What do you make of that?

Well, that's just bringing back things to the way that they were. WHS prosecutions used to be well within the ambit of unions to prosecute. We think that we've seen the safety regulator fall down in a number of aspects over the past at least decade, and we think that having unions able to prosecute safety breaches...

will absolutely, first of all, hold safe work to account, but also ensure that bosses are providing a safe area of work. Feels very CFMEU-y. No, it doesn't, Chris. It's more about accountability. We hope that we don't have to prosecute anyone for a safe working breach. Yeah, but you will.

Well, we hope we don't, Chris. We hope that SafeWork steps up to the plate. And as you would have seen in our amendment, there's many things within the SafeWork Australia realm that need to be fixed up. And we think that if you give somebody else the ability to prosecute those breaches, that the regulator will actually step up and do its job better.

I did note too, restoring the ability for a railway worker or a bus driver to make a workers' comp claim sustained during their commute to and from work. So the idea is if I've got a shift, I'm on my way to work, I'm on the train and I roll my ankle or something, what? I can get a workers' comp claim in? Yeah, so that's just a journey claim, Chris. That was changed by Barry O'Farrell in 2012. We think that that needs to be rolled back. I know that a lot of...

And providers provide that at their own expense. If you walk out the front door to go to work and you're on your way to work, we think that you're in the process of providing the service to the employer that you're employed by and that they should cover the workers' comp bill if you're in yourself. But the idea of why Barry O'Farrell did that was because iCare was just unsustainable.

Yeah, I understand that, Chris. But, I mean, there has to be another way. Like, we can't have workers paying for their own medical bills when they're injured on the way to work just because the government couldn't figure out a sustainable system in which to cover these sorts of claims. Except, you know, a rolling ankle. How many do you actually get workers' comp claims of people going in to and from work?

Chris, there's not that many. And that's why I think it was probably the low-hanging fruit that Barry O'Farrell picked to try and sort of cut the edges off the system. But we just think it's an important point. Like, workers' comp should cover you when you leave the house in the morning to when you get home safely at night. You should be covered by your employer's workers' compensation scheme. So say if you walk out the front door and you go, right, I'm on my way to work.

You say goodbye to your husband or wife and you think to yourself, and then you roll your ankle on the gutter out the front of your house. Should you be covered? Well, we say that once you leave your property, I mean, you've hit a semantic there, Chris. But it's true. It's true there. It goes to the point is how much should we honestly decide? At what point is just the individual supposed to be responsible for, you know what, sometimes it's just bad luck. Well, we say that if you leave your property to go to work, then you should be covered immediately.

on the journey there and then on the journey home. I think it's as simple as that. I don't think it's a big impost on the workers' compensation scheme. As I said, I think it was a trimming of the edges rather than a full fix. And I think we need to go back to a point where workers are covered from when they leave their house to when they get home. Toby, just before I let you go, is it your understanding as part of the union movement, as a secretary of one of the bigger unions, that this is now New South Wales government policy?

It's part of their policy platform, Chris. So it does have to be part of their policy. Whether or not that policy is implemented is up to the government, but we'll certainly be pushing them to do it. Forced unionism, hey? Toby, thanks for coming on.