![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Trade union Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Trade union |
![]() | This redirect was nominated for retargeting on 19 May 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I'm not sure if its me, or if that section isn't entirely coherent. It does seem to be a rebuttal of much of the rest of the article, which also doesn't seem to belong there. The article is on opposition to trade unions, and while we should encourage both sides of the controversy to be heard, a pro-labor section attempting to rebut the "theories... above" probably shouldn't be there. 72.225.230.77 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, if you tag the article, create an entry on the talk page about it and make your objections clear. It will aid in improving the article. 72.200.136.66 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) ( TaintedMustard)
Please read this e-mail from Jimbo Wales: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. Jimbo writes:
Thus, I am removing all unsourced claims from this article. -- WGee 21:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the entry "Because most unions in the United States support and even receive funds from the Democratic Party, Republican and conservative union members may feel their interests are not represented by the union." While many unions donate money to the Democrats as their avenue of politial expression, I have never heard of the Democratic Party giving money to unions - and this statement goes as far as saying this is true of "most unions"! Is there any evidence for this? Dave Smith 16:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to insert a point, but those of us in countries where unions are part of the political establishment and forget their role in helping members could do with a paragraph. The simple and extreme cases are China and Burma, but the problem is pretty common in my personal experience of the UK. There's scope for "you do not understand" comments, such as saying that duff unions in places like the UK still work for the collective interest but are criticised for bad individual work in paying legal fees, or that they are still democratic in some workplaces but less so in those where votes are important etc etc but the truth is they are so bad that colourful language would be inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganline ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have revised the above paragraph. As written, it was awful. It provided no sources, it is inaccurate, it is poorly written, it is biased, it makes sweeping assertions that are unsupported, and makes categorical statements which allow for no exceptions.
Here is the revised paragraph:
These statements still lack citations, but i believe they are more fair, more balanced, and less POV. Richard Myers 10:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In my view the content in the Common objections to unions section is still awful, even after i've tried to balance it by adding other views, in that it makes sweeping generalities utterly without sourcing them, and in some specific cases the sweeping statements allege things that are demonstrably illegal or wrong. It seems to me that many who read the section will wonder why it is tolerated. I'd still like for the entire section to be re-written, but it is very easy for someone to complain that their pet allegation was removed, or to make such allegations again. The unverified claims tag will have to stay until someone decides to spend more thought and effort on honest ways to present common objections to unions. Richard Myers 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not think it is fair to assume all insider workers are productive. 168.103.82.44 ( talk) 08:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Godwins law again. The first paragraph concerns ideologies, general ones, like nationalism. Not a specific party. Don't re-add hitler. Larklight ( talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted about 3 edits of J.R. Hercules. The first we've discussed: it is not appropeot to mention Hitler in the opening paragraph. The second revision is particulary galling- I added ref.s for that selfsame statement to the trade union page! And Freidman didn't just claim it: these are facts! POlease refrain from POV unconstructive edits. Larklight ( talk) 09:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Get rid of Hitler. Not important for subject, and detracts attention from the impotant stuff. Otherwise, extremely poor article. Very fragmented.-- HJensen, talk 10:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As User:J.R. Hercules hasn't stopped re-inserting, I've given him an official vandalism warning notice. Larklight ( talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So what was the point of this request for comment? All solicited opinion expressed here has opposed including Hitler in the opening paragraph, yet there is no sign of being willing to work constructively to address the concerns raised. As to civility and assuming good faith, JRH's behavior speaks for itself. CosineKitty ( talk) 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This section has come out because it is obvious Wikipedia:Complete bollocks, even compared with the poor state of referencing of the rest of the article. One case where trade unions have argued for a lower salary than the employer was offering? I don't think so. Even if you found one case, you would need to set it against the many cases where unions have successfully negotiated higher salaries. And the whole "you can't refuse certain benefits and get more money isntead" is almost always a result of employers being inflexible, never unions.
Trade unions do drug tests? Really? Only in the US. Elsewhere unions are more likely to be opposing mandatory drug tests. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am removing this section for the following reasons:
1. No
verifiable sources were cited.
2.
Wikipedia:Complete bollocks.
3. The entire argument is a fallacy and based on the assumption that an individual has the ability to negotiate all terms of employment with a company. Benefits and frequency and duration of breaks are typically dictated by corporate policy and not a function of specific individual agreements.
--
SeedFeeder (
talk)
10:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The article purports to be about "opposition to trade unions", yet the existence of a section formerly entitled "Racism" (now retitled by me, and not too accurately by me either) exists as another editor's own personal argument against trade unions. While the content of the section is more-or-less accurate, the reason for it being here, in this particular article, isn't supported by any stated reasons (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). The contents of the section belong in Trade union. I'm going to delete the section if a valid, academic reason for it being here is not articulated within the section. J.R. Hercules ( talk) 02:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is entitled "Opposition to trade unions", which would lead a reader to think it was about attempts to disrupt or disband organized labor unions (union busting). Instead the article, as written, is actually more of a "Criticism of trade unions." -- SeedFeeder ( talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In the "Unemployment" section, there's a tag {{ref|monopoly}} which doesn't work. Any ideas if it's actually associated with one of the existing refs, or is it something obsolete? CRETOG8( t/ c) 00:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about CRITICISM of labor unions. We should remove the unbalanced tag from the 2nd portion. 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.102.197 ( talk)
Hi, I added the Weaver v NATFHE paragraph in the (former) 'Racist Policies of/in the past' section, then I realised that as this is a present issue, I need to break the section into 'racist policies' with 'past' and 'present' subsection headings. Then I realised that it might be OK to call a past issue "racist" if verifiable (and I'm not saying it is verified, I note the above July '08 comment which I think is on this matter but I am not following it up, just leaving as I found it), but for a present issue, under NPOV we couldn't justifiably call the legal precendent set by Weaver v NATFHE "racist" without some very solid referencing. So I changed the section and subsection headings again to what they are now (4 Challenges from affirmative action perspectives, 4.1 Racist policies in the past, 4.2 Present challenges). I don't think they are great headings, so if anyone can come up with better headings avoiding the above problems, fire away. Thanks, SeventhHell ( talk) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick observation, "ununionised" is a very strange word, especially for a sub-heading. Richard Myers ( talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the NPOV tags in the economic effects section as they appear to be quite old or resolved. In any case there has been no activity on the talk pages. -- Quadalpha ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Should there be any mention of unions' known or suspected ties to organized crime? Bobby H. Heffley ( talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
At least within the jurisdiction of Local 52 of the IATSE (which is responsible for a substantial portion of major films made in the US), film electricians are in fact members of the theatrical union, and not the electrician's union. It is still true that there is a particular job within the electrical department (that of house electrician) which is largely responsible for switch flipping, although they do a bit of wiring and electrical work as well. I don't know that this is also true nationally or internationally. 68.96.116.126 ( talk) 20:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The inefficiency section is incredibly weak. It should probably include claims that it can be difficult to fire bad employees. For example, firing bad teachers in new York can be drawn out and costly http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Solving-puzzle-of-bad-teachers-2232004.php#ixzz1biGX6MyK 96.40.236.93 ( talk) 21:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to trade unions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to trade unions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Opposition to trade unions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is trash and should be deleted. It's basically a POV fork based on horrible sourcing (crappy Heritage Foundation and Mises Institute op-eds by non-experts). A trade union article exists which has an "impact" section, as well as sections on the "politics" of trade unions. There is no reason why well-sourced and noteworthy "oppositions" to trade unions cannot be included in the main article. The existence of this fork disperses the efforts of Wikipedia editors, leads to lower quality content, and makes Wikipedia's readers stupider. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Trade union Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Trade union |
![]() | This redirect was nominated for retargeting on 19 May 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I'm not sure if its me, or if that section isn't entirely coherent. It does seem to be a rebuttal of much of the rest of the article, which also doesn't seem to belong there. The article is on opposition to trade unions, and while we should encourage both sides of the controversy to be heard, a pro-labor section attempting to rebut the "theories... above" probably shouldn't be there. 72.225.230.77 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, if you tag the article, create an entry on the talk page about it and make your objections clear. It will aid in improving the article. 72.200.136.66 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) ( TaintedMustard)
Please read this e-mail from Jimbo Wales: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. Jimbo writes:
Thus, I am removing all unsourced claims from this article. -- WGee 21:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the entry "Because most unions in the United States support and even receive funds from the Democratic Party, Republican and conservative union members may feel their interests are not represented by the union." While many unions donate money to the Democrats as their avenue of politial expression, I have never heard of the Democratic Party giving money to unions - and this statement goes as far as saying this is true of "most unions"! Is there any evidence for this? Dave Smith 16:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to insert a point, but those of us in countries where unions are part of the political establishment and forget their role in helping members could do with a paragraph. The simple and extreme cases are China and Burma, but the problem is pretty common in my personal experience of the UK. There's scope for "you do not understand" comments, such as saying that duff unions in places like the UK still work for the collective interest but are criticised for bad individual work in paying legal fees, or that they are still democratic in some workplaces but less so in those where votes are important etc etc but the truth is they are so bad that colourful language would be inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganline ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have revised the above paragraph. As written, it was awful. It provided no sources, it is inaccurate, it is poorly written, it is biased, it makes sweeping assertions that are unsupported, and makes categorical statements which allow for no exceptions.
Here is the revised paragraph:
These statements still lack citations, but i believe they are more fair, more balanced, and less POV. Richard Myers 10:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In my view the content in the Common objections to unions section is still awful, even after i've tried to balance it by adding other views, in that it makes sweeping generalities utterly without sourcing them, and in some specific cases the sweeping statements allege things that are demonstrably illegal or wrong. It seems to me that many who read the section will wonder why it is tolerated. I'd still like for the entire section to be re-written, but it is very easy for someone to complain that their pet allegation was removed, or to make such allegations again. The unverified claims tag will have to stay until someone decides to spend more thought and effort on honest ways to present common objections to unions. Richard Myers 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not think it is fair to assume all insider workers are productive. 168.103.82.44 ( talk) 08:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Godwins law again. The first paragraph concerns ideologies, general ones, like nationalism. Not a specific party. Don't re-add hitler. Larklight ( talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted about 3 edits of J.R. Hercules. The first we've discussed: it is not appropeot to mention Hitler in the opening paragraph. The second revision is particulary galling- I added ref.s for that selfsame statement to the trade union page! And Freidman didn't just claim it: these are facts! POlease refrain from POV unconstructive edits. Larklight ( talk) 09:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Get rid of Hitler. Not important for subject, and detracts attention from the impotant stuff. Otherwise, extremely poor article. Very fragmented.-- HJensen, talk 10:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As User:J.R. Hercules hasn't stopped re-inserting, I've given him an official vandalism warning notice. Larklight ( talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So what was the point of this request for comment? All solicited opinion expressed here has opposed including Hitler in the opening paragraph, yet there is no sign of being willing to work constructively to address the concerns raised. As to civility and assuming good faith, JRH's behavior speaks for itself. CosineKitty ( talk) 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This section has come out because it is obvious Wikipedia:Complete bollocks, even compared with the poor state of referencing of the rest of the article. One case where trade unions have argued for a lower salary than the employer was offering? I don't think so. Even if you found one case, you would need to set it against the many cases where unions have successfully negotiated higher salaries. And the whole "you can't refuse certain benefits and get more money isntead" is almost always a result of employers being inflexible, never unions.
Trade unions do drug tests? Really? Only in the US. Elsewhere unions are more likely to be opposing mandatory drug tests. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am removing this section for the following reasons:
1. No
verifiable sources were cited.
2.
Wikipedia:Complete bollocks.
3. The entire argument is a fallacy and based on the assumption that an individual has the ability to negotiate all terms of employment with a company. Benefits and frequency and duration of breaks are typically dictated by corporate policy and not a function of specific individual agreements.
--
SeedFeeder (
talk)
10:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The article purports to be about "opposition to trade unions", yet the existence of a section formerly entitled "Racism" (now retitled by me, and not too accurately by me either) exists as another editor's own personal argument against trade unions. While the content of the section is more-or-less accurate, the reason for it being here, in this particular article, isn't supported by any stated reasons (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). The contents of the section belong in Trade union. I'm going to delete the section if a valid, academic reason for it being here is not articulated within the section. J.R. Hercules ( talk) 02:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is entitled "Opposition to trade unions", which would lead a reader to think it was about attempts to disrupt or disband organized labor unions (union busting). Instead the article, as written, is actually more of a "Criticism of trade unions." -- SeedFeeder ( talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In the "Unemployment" section, there's a tag {{ref|monopoly}} which doesn't work. Any ideas if it's actually associated with one of the existing refs, or is it something obsolete? CRETOG8( t/ c) 00:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about CRITICISM of labor unions. We should remove the unbalanced tag from the 2nd portion. 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.102.197 ( talk)
Hi, I added the Weaver v NATFHE paragraph in the (former) 'Racist Policies of/in the past' section, then I realised that as this is a present issue, I need to break the section into 'racist policies' with 'past' and 'present' subsection headings. Then I realised that it might be OK to call a past issue "racist" if verifiable (and I'm not saying it is verified, I note the above July '08 comment which I think is on this matter but I am not following it up, just leaving as I found it), but for a present issue, under NPOV we couldn't justifiably call the legal precendent set by Weaver v NATFHE "racist" without some very solid referencing. So I changed the section and subsection headings again to what they are now (4 Challenges from affirmative action perspectives, 4.1 Racist policies in the past, 4.2 Present challenges). I don't think they are great headings, so if anyone can come up with better headings avoiding the above problems, fire away. Thanks, SeventhHell ( talk) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick observation, "ununionised" is a very strange word, especially for a sub-heading. Richard Myers ( talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the NPOV tags in the economic effects section as they appear to be quite old or resolved. In any case there has been no activity on the talk pages. -- Quadalpha ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Should there be any mention of unions' known or suspected ties to organized crime? Bobby H. Heffley ( talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
At least within the jurisdiction of Local 52 of the IATSE (which is responsible for a substantial portion of major films made in the US), film electricians are in fact members of the theatrical union, and not the electrician's union. It is still true that there is a particular job within the electrical department (that of house electrician) which is largely responsible for switch flipping, although they do a bit of wiring and electrical work as well. I don't know that this is also true nationally or internationally. 68.96.116.126 ( talk) 20:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The inefficiency section is incredibly weak. It should probably include claims that it can be difficult to fire bad employees. For example, firing bad teachers in new York can be drawn out and costly http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Solving-puzzle-of-bad-teachers-2232004.php#ixzz1biGX6MyK 96.40.236.93 ( talk) 21:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to trade unions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to trade unions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Opposition to trade unions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is trash and should be deleted. It's basically a POV fork based on horrible sourcing (crappy Heritage Foundation and Mises Institute op-eds by non-experts). A trade union article exists which has an "impact" section, as well as sections on the "politics" of trade unions. There is no reason why well-sourced and noteworthy "oppositions" to trade unions cannot be included in the main article. The existence of this fork disperses the efforts of Wikipedia editors, leads to lower quality content, and makes Wikipedia's readers stupider. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)