Can this be true?
Especially in light of the widespread evidence that confirms Shorten negotiated deals and side deals that left everyday workers 'worse off' while the Union and he personally were 'better off'.
Just look at some of the articles ; -
- Cleanevent staff lost $400m under deal by Bill Shorten’s AWU - The Australian 8 July 2015,
- Bill Shorten's AWU 'sold out' workers for $300,000 - SMH 14 Oct 2015,
- Unibilt admits to false records for its payment for Bill Shorten's research officer - SMH 16 Oct 2015,
- ALP leader Bill Shorten failing to escape AWU ‘fraud’ vortex - The Australlian 15 Oct 2015,
- Unions royal commission: Stephen Sasse claims side deal with Bill Shorten - The Australian 12 Oct 2015,
Can Shorten still be correct when he says he has always served in workers' interests?
Mmm. In an Alice-In-Wonderland world one could argue that the Union is more important than the worker. That the prosperity and longevity of the Union, the fair-minded, diligent advocate fighting for workers rights, is paramount. Without them, the poor worker would be worse off. Even if the worker has to sacrifice some of his hard earned wage, it is justified because it will ensure that he can be protected now and in the future by a stable, prosperous Union organisation. The justification is even greater if the Union manages to project a disproportionate influence on the government of the day, and even succeeds in having ex Union officials, in large numbers, elected to parliament. This gives the worker a seat at the table, a part of the decision making process. So surely the worker must be better off.
Indeed, Mr Shorten's argument would go something like that.
If you believe that, you can believe he is telling the truth. But can you?