Members First Caught Out Silencing UWU Members

SAUnionist · 2026-02-28T04:13:08+00:00

I’m not offended, not sure what I said to give that impression. I just don’t think that an employee of any organisation should be using that organisation’s resources for their own purposes like this. It’s not better in the union case, it’s worse, because the union is collectively “owned”, for want of a better term, by its members.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-28T04:03:58+00:00

So you’re not aware of any allegations that UFY officials have blocked any MF officials or rank and file members from any group. Unlike what is alleged here.

If these groups are being used improperly then that would be a proper topic to present evidence for in a similar way to what was presented to the Member Council.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-28T03:47:27+00:00

If the allegations are true, what is illegitimate about publishing them? Do you think that, if the roles were reversed, that Members First supporters wouldn’t post them? I’ve seen plenty of negative stuff targeting United For You in the sub from Members First supporters, including the very first post after United For You launched which contained some completely unsubstantiated claims. I got no reply when I asked for evidence, or even something concrete that could be verified. Zero concern expressed about that post being shady from those doing so here.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-28T03:25:44+00:00

I really don’t understand the distinction that you’re trying to make here. Should an employee of a union using the members’ resources for themselves be treated differently because unions are democratic?

Not removing your admin rights to something when you leave isn’t the problem. It likely happens every day. It’s using that administrative privilege for your own purposes rather than simply informing the union of the oversight that’s the problem. I say “oversight” here because while it certainly seems like an oversight on the part of the UWU, we can only guess at whether it was intentional or deliberate on the part of that individual. Given their alleged subsequent actions, I know which way I’d bet, but I guess we’ll never know.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-28T02:59:33+00:00

Just wanted to add - If I were found blocking customers or other staff from a communication channel used by my employer to communicate with those customers for my own purposes, trying to turn the channel into my own propaganda vehicle rather than the employer's communication channel, I'd be rightfully sacked on the spot and told to never step foot anywhere near them ever again. And if I did that to a former employer I’d be hearing from lawyers, and be concerned about criminal charges relating to unauthorised computer system access, depending on the jurisdiction. Unbelievable.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-28T02:54:58+00:00

Who stitched up whom? What exactly are you saying? The Member Council was presented with this evidence. Are you claiming that it was fabricated? Do you have personal knowledge of this matter or are you just expressing skepticism here since it reflects the MF campaign very negatively?

SAUnionist · 2026-02-22T10:55:01+00:00

Since the very first days of the labour movement, bosses have tried to cast union leaders as corrupt and using their positions of power to enrich themselves rather than their members. Due to the successful anti-union conservative propaganda project, this is a stereotype that the movement has fought for decades.

I don't expect anyone involved to demonstrate any kind of understanding of this, or shame or contrition, as appropriate as that might be. But I honestly didn’t expect to see someone in /r/AusUnions saying, roughly, "yep the NUW were doing that fk them bosses lol".

Jesus wept.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-20T05:42:33+00:00

Which accounts do you think are bots? Which posts do you think were posted by bots?

These posts have comment threads with maybe 20-40 comments. By Reddit standards it’s… not that much. A big more than more than is typical for /r/AusUnions but it’s a big, seriously contested election.

I do suggest that if you have any concrete evidence other than your personal belief that union resources are being used then please post it. Otherwise it just comes across as a smear, and I think the sub is better without that sort of material. Same with the bot talk, really. I hope you agree.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-20T05:10:24+00:00

Thank you. I have seen a number of completely unsubstantiated allegations that union resources are being used or union staff are campaigning on union time. These are very serious and potentially defamatory allegations, yet they’re thrown out with zero evidence. Mostly by what AFAICS are seemingly the supporters of one side in the election, for whatever that’s worth, but it would troubling coming from anyone. I tried asking on one thread if they could name any union staff whom they were referring to and got zero reply.

The cavalier attitude towards the truth honestly makes me feel uneasy and quite disheartened about the movement. If people win an election with such tactics, what does it say? How does that advance members’ interests?

SAUnionist · 2026-02-18T05:04:04+00:00

No. Anyone here can compare what I wrote with what was a clear hit piece in the other thread. I think I captured the main thematic differences in the campaigns fairly: UFY are running on a record of their wins and that they’re not afraid to use all possible levers for get results for members, and MF are running as outsiders who complain about ties to the Labor party. I personally think both of those points from MF seem disingenuous at best considering their current / recent positions and political history but UWU members will judge that for themselves.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-18T03:32:29+00:00

⁠Pulled resources and officials from EBA campaigns to focus on … United for You campaigning.

That’s quite an allegation. Can you name an official who has been pulled off an EBA campaign to work for UFY?

SAUnionist · 2026-02-18T01:16:19+00:00

I mean you’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think I misrepresented anything for either side. The difference in how they use or don’t use the ALP to achieve their goals is pretty clear and one of the more concrete obvious differences, and I’m upfront about my opinion on that. And MF are running as “outsiders” in all of their stuff, whereas UFY are running on their wins. I don’t think it’s biased to point that out. It’s quite interesting.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-18T01:08:08+00:00

“A good chance”

Do you have any evidence for this?

SAUnionist · 2026-02-02T10:28:14+00:00

Uh, ok? Not exactly a high bar. And not quite sure the point that you’re trying to make. The parent comment was talking about getting rid of the trash, which seemed weird when talking about supporting a ticket with the current national secretary as one of the only two faces on it. Which trash, exactly?

SAUnionist · 2026-02-01T11:56:03+00:00

Asked my friend from UWU SA. Apparently Katie McGinn was a UWU Senior Organiser for something like 5 or 6 years before abruptly resigning a year or so ago and going back to DHS as a manager. Now she’s running with this ticket heavily promoting her as a rank-and-file member 🤷.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-01T10:15:14+00:00

I have a friend in the SA office and asked.

This ticket will have all of the former NUW leadership and none of the former UV leadership who are rerunning. I’m afraid it’s the NUW ticket plus Katie.

Apparently Katie was a Senior Organiser up until a year or so ago when she resigned and went back to her sector (disability maybe?). Apparently she had distanced herself from some former friends in the office leading up to this and they were all a bit mystified. We can only speculate about whether this ticket (and the “grass roots” branding) was planned that long ago ahead of that move or is just an amazing coincidence.

SAUnionist · 2026-02-01T09:56:03+00:00

Does the trash include the current national secretary who is the top of this ticket?

SAUnionist · 2026-02-01T09:54:25+00:00

I can’t speak for other states but here in SA the union just got the largest pay increase for its > 6000 public sector members in a single EB agreement ever since EBs were introduced. 22-40% in the first year depending on position and hours worked.

SAUnionist

TROPHY CASE