Talk:Opposition to trade unions

Card / Kreuger Work?

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)

OR and citation tags

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)

I don't see what clarification is possible. The objection is that large sections of the article are original research. They are not attributed to any notable or recognised authority but are apparently simply the musings of some wikipedian somewhere. Mattley ^(Chattley) 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Original Research tag that was placed under "Common Objections to Unions" that most certainly requires an explanation because everything stated in that section is common knowledge. As a result the tag has been removed. -- Stereoisomer 17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is common knowledge, you won't have any trouble finding citations, will you? Mattley ^(Chattley) 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The sky is blue and the grass is green. That's common knowledge. Does it need a citiation? No. Does every sentence in the Wikipedia need a citation? No. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Stop abusing Wikipedia. -- Stereoisomer 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And apples are not oranges. The section you are referring to consists of objections and criticisms of the subject of the article, that is to say, of points of view. They might be points of view with which you agree and come into contact with often, but however self-evident they might appear to be to you they are, nonetheless, points of view, not the universal and objective truth. One thing you don't seem to have considered is that your "common knowledge" might not be everybody's common knowledge. It is a big planet, after all. These objections need to be attributed to some person or organisation, otherwise the encyclopedia is simply endorsing a particular position. Once again, this is original research, POV material. Mattley ^(Chattley) 17:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The section I am referring to describes reality and you really need to just deal with it. It's inclusion is essential to making the article NPOV because it shows that labor unions are good *and* bad things. That's a fact. It is a fact that anyone who has ever come in contact with a labor union -- directly or indirectly -- is well aware of. And this reality is "old news" which is why it cannot be "original research". If anything is POV it is your one-sided, biased attitude. For example, "musings of some wikipedian somewhere"? The only person that describes here is you. -- Stereoisomer 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems you need to read up on civility and no personal attacks as well. No one has suggested that this material should be removed. However, it is perfectly legitimate and in line with policy to insist that it be sourced and cited - cite your sources, verifiable material only, no original research, neutral point of view.... Why do you object to that perfectly reasonable proviso? Here, by the way, is where a wikipedian somewhere started to add his musings, back when this article was part of the main trade union article. [1]. What makes these "musings" is that without attribution they are just somebody's opinions. Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the policy on personal attacks. Clearly you aren't because nothing I said could be considered a personal attack. And it is also clear that you have no interest in creating a factual article so this discussion is over.

Please read this e-mail from Jimbo Wales: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. Jimbo writes:

"here seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Thus, I am removing all unsourced claims from this article. -- WGee 21:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the "Common Objections to Unions" section could even remotely be classified as "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information". It is true that "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", but that is completely irrelevant in this situation becaue we're dealing with facts. Not only are they facts, but they are fundamental issues of trade unions that unionized industries and workers deal with on a *daily basis*. No offense, but if you don't know this then you clearly know next to nothing about unions and have no business editing or commenting on this article. I will concede the fact that it would be best to have sources cited for the items in this section in order to satisfy all parties at hand. (Even though thousands of articles with infinitely more questionable information have gone uncited for years.) However, flat out *deleting* these items was wholly inappropriate and bordering on vandalism.

Please sign your comments!

The entire section Common objections to unions is a list of distortions and biased assertions, some with no basis in fact. The original research tag is a too-gentle notice of a serious problem with the article. Glancing through the history, it appears that the unsourced biases have existed in the article for a very long time. I think that {{POV-section}} is justified if the section remains as is. Richard Myers 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Donations from Democrat Party

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)

I reinstated that objection with specific clarifications about which unions (AFL-CIO, UFCW) endorse the Democratic party (they always endorse everyone with a "D" next to their name and bash everyone with an "R" next to their name, regardless of their actual voting records, so you do the math). If you don't believe me, go to their websites and read their newsletters. I happen to be a UFCW member myself, so I know what I'm talking about.

I'm not from the US so I don't have a direct knowledge here. However, what I was reacting to was the statement that the Democratic Party donated money to the Unions. In 40 years in the labour movement I have never heard of this before. Unions donating to the Demoractic Party, yes - but the other way around? I've just done a quick Google search (it was very quick I will admit) but found nothing suggesting monies moveing in the direction being suggested by this artile. This isn't a question of politics but of accuracy. Dave Smith 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[ This comment refers to the unsigned comment by the self-proclaimed UFCW member, above. ] I have made some of the same criticisms about unions supporting the Democrats, but you have made them too categorically, and without nuance. You have introduced additional, inappropriate POV into a section that was already quite POV. Language such as "will virtually always" and "regardless of the actual voting records" clearly demonstrate a bias behind the statements you've contributed. These claims cannot be supported, for they are simply sweeping allegations. Richard Myers 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But I think the point needs to be emphasised again ... Is there any evidence that the Domocratic Party donates money to any Unions? This is not a question of opinion but of fact. Does it happen? I have never heard nor seen any suggestion that this is so. Dave Smith 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of routine funding of a union of workers by a political party, and i don't limit that to mainstream unions and the Democratic Party.

In my experience, political parties have always considered themselves dominant over unions, because political parties naturally consider the government to be the primary seat of power. And when there is a relationship, money always flows from the union to the party.

On the other hand, i do know of one counter-example. But i need to qualify it by observing that startup funding is not routine funding.

From 1905-1908, Daniel De León's Socialist Labor Party participated in the founding of the [[Industrial Workers of the World. I expect that the SLP covered some of the costs that were incurred at the founding of that organization. The Socialist Party of Eugene Debs participated, as well. But the SLP immediately began to introduce schemes that would milk the union for its members, and divert some of the union's funds to the party. For example, they wanted the initiation fee for new union members to be turned over to the party, and to be used in part for a subscription to the party's newsletter. Thus, the SLP viewed the founding of a working class union as an investment, as well as a continuing source of new party members. The IWW showed De León the door in 1908, and constitutionally precluded any sort of alliance with any political party, a prohibition that still exists 99 years later.

I think it would be reasonable to explore whether Labor Parties have ever funded unions in other countries — Britain and Australia, for example; and i have no experience to offer an opinion. But when it comes to the Democratic Party in the United States, i find such a suggestion close to absurd, and a probable attack on the party from its detractors.

When it comes to what happens routinely, they should complain about real faults, IMO. Like the fact that the Democrats routinely accept both money, and phone banking/hanging door knockers, etc., from organized labor, and then fail to deliver on their promises because it is the politically expedient thing to do. — Richard Myers 04:02, 15 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)

Revised paragraph

• The vast majority of unions in the United States (such as the AFL-CIO and UFCW) openly endorse the Democratic Party and will virtually always endorse the Democratic candidate, regardless of the actual voting records of the candidates. Thus union members that are politically conservative and/or Republican believe that their interests are not recognized by these unions. Another related criticism of unions in the United States is that they focus too much on politics (and even Wal-Mart bashing) and not enough focus on negotiating good collective bargaining agreements for its members.

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.

Example of inaccuracy

The AFL-CIO is not a union, it is a federation

Example of a sweeping assertion

"will virtually always endorse the Democratic candidate"

Example of an allegation that is uncited, and may be false

virtually always endorse ... regardless of the actual voting records of the candidates

Example of a categorical statement allowing no exceptions

"...union members that are politically conservative and/or Republican believe that their interests are not recognized by these unions."

Example of poor writing

"Another related criticism of unions in the United States is that they focus too much on politics (and even Wal-Mart bashing) and not enough focus on negotiating good collective bargaining agreements for its members."

Here is the revised paragraph:

• A significant number of unions in the United States, including the UFCW — which is afiliated with the Change to Win Federation — and many unions in the AFL-CIO, openly endorse the Democratic Party, and have often endorsed the Democratic candidate. Thus union members that are politically conservative and/or Republican may believe that their interests are not recognized by these unions. Some individuals believe that unions focus too much on politics (and even Wal-Mart bashing) and do not focus adequately on negotiating good collective bargaining agreements for their members. Others observe that Wal-Mart, as a major food provider, provides lower-paying, non-union jobs, competes directly with supermarkets with better-paying union jobs, and is therefore an appropriate candidate for union attention.

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)

Yes, the revised wording is definitely an improvement. But the more I read and re-read this article as a whole the more I think it is just not what is needed in an encyclopedia. Some of the information on theoretical opposition from the left is of interest, but so much of this article simply reproduces "views" that would could find in any capitalist owned newspaper or in a rum shop or palour. It's far too shallow. I've had a look at the trade unions entry and whilst that is more comprehensive there are some similar tendencies towards expressing opinions rather than facts or researched or sourced positions. I don't like being critical without accepting a responsibility for making some improvements but at the moment I am too pushed for time. I have added this article to my list of things to look at ... Dave Smith 11:57, 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 think we are of one mind on this. I have it on my "to do" list but I don't kow when that might be. Dave Smith 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - don't edit wiki very much, but came across this article when doing some research, and it stands out as quite skewed. Don't you think the "Common objections..." section should just be scrapped? It looks like a bunch of straw man arguments with pat dismissals. Not very encyclopedic. Matt Yoder 01:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The section definitely needs a solution. I'm opposed to mass deletion because i believe these arguments will come back. There's no reason a diligent and fair-minded person couldn't make something worthwhile out of what's here. But it will take some effort, in my view. And, sources, please.

Businesses oppose unions for a very understandable reason — union workers are, on average, better paid, and therefore unions raise the cost of doing business. Why is there such a shopping list of scattered allegations against unions, and not this one simple observation? Perhaps some of those opposed to unions don't want the question of profits examined too closely. But exactly that reason for opposition motivates the broadest anti-union coaltions of business associations, chambers of commerce, economic think tanks, investors' groups, etc., throughout the capitalist world. Richard Myers 10:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that this section does need a rewrite, there's a flaw in your logic here. Specifically you seem to be saying that the only people who are critical of unions are business owners. Many laborers do not like unions either and would find a lot to agree with in this section. That's why this article is important: it dismisses the myth that unions are a 100% good thing for laborers. -- Stereoisomer 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of sources and better order and clarity would help, but the essential problem is one of rather biased (dare I say inherently pro-union) hermeneutics. The opposition isn't speaking for itself. Its points are simply being articulated and dismissed within a pro-union framework. Is this an informative article or propaganda? I think I'll just go back to the library instead. Matt Yoder 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Insider workers are productive?

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)

Hitler

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)

Again, please don't re-add this one party. If you can think of any other ideologies famous for opposibng unions, please add them. If you really want to add the nazis, you'll have to nmake a list of every single party to oppose unions, as it is no way special to nazism. Larklight (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't make the rules for this website. And I see from your Wiki profile that you have a self-professed political agenda against trade unions in general; hence, your desire to whitewash this article. Then again, supporters of cheap labor and globalization have never exactly been known for intellectual honesty. J.R. Hercules (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One, I have no 'self-professed agenda against union- I'm a member of a union! And secondly, even if I was, this is irrelivant: Hitler et al is not apropeot here, as he wasn't unusual in that regard. Larklight (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

J.R. Hercules, stop adding that irrelivant and POV comment. Larklight (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have initiated an Rfc for this article. Secondly, your opinion that Hitler's Nazi party should not be mentioned in the article is ludicrous in the extreme, especially as the second sentence of the article had previously read: "Attempts to reduce the effects of trade unions may include union busting activities by private companies or state action, especially, during the twentieth century, by governments of authoritarian regimes." Apparently, in your world, providing specific examples to illustrate a statement constitutes "POV". As for your bizarre assertion that "The first paragraph concerns ideologies...not a specific party" -- you're referring to the particular sentence which lists some ideologies. But since I edited the previous sentence in that paragraph, which has nothing to do with the subsequent sentence listing ideologies, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on. (P.S. Look up the definition of "vandalism", as it seems you don't understand what the word means.) J.R. Hercules (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, just becuase one editor has not commented on the talkpage does not mean he cannot refer to messages left by others, messages which reflect a general consenscious on the issue. While I have maintained an assumption of good faith on your actions, I can reach no conclusion no other than that you wish to include examples of dicators to discredit the subject. The openning paragraph should be general, not specific, and not focus on any one part. If you wish to create a list of people who are famous for opposing unions, such as Margaret Thatcher, you may. People who are famous for other reasons are not relivant, especially not in the introduction. Finally, please discuss on the talk opage before editing. Larklight (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My revision

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)

Request for comment

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)

I agree the mention J.R. is repeatedly inserting is grossly inappropriate, especially in the article lead. Intentional or not, mention of ties to the Nazi party is very much a loaded statement. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What's strange about your comment is that you post a link to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but apparently didn't read it fully. The policy clearly states the following formula for maintaining neutrality: "A simple formulation: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can."

Which is exactly what I'm doing. That Adolf Hitler (and Ne Win) actually abolished trade unions within their nations is beyond dispute; they are simple historical facts, nothing more. It would be bizarre reasoning in the extreme not to include mention of them in an article called "Opposition to trade unions", especially as they serve as among the few actual concrete examples in the article. J.R. Hercules (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any arguement that it would be silly not to mention them is missing the point: they do definitly not belong in the openning paragraph.

Additionally, it is true that talking about hitler is very loaded, and he wasn't even notable for his opposition to unions.

On the plus side, thankyou for returning to the talk page.Larklight (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning Hitler/Nazis in the opening implies that it is the canonical or primary example of union opposition. Let's make a comparison. Hitler was also a well-known vegetarian. But when I read the article on vegetarianism, I don't see any mention of Hitler there, and most certainly not in the first paragraph. For balance and NPOV, a mention of Hitler would be feasible if presented subordinately to more mainstream examples of opposition to unions. CosineKitty (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are out of place employing Smackbot and Twinkle to revert my edit; they are not to be used in this manner. And the bizarre rationale for comparing Hitler's dietary habits to Hitler's political actions in justifying hiding mention of his abolishing of trade unions is one that falls on its face every time around. J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not use SmackBot. Perhaps you are misreading the revision comment: it states that I restored the last version by SmackBot. I did not mark your edit as vandalism, nor do I consider it as such. I hope we can both consider this a difference of opinion. And there is no need to impugn the motives of people who disagree with your editorial stance. I am open to persuasion by anyone who disagrees with me but presents their case without a hostile tone. CosineKitty (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll revise what I wrote above: You were wrongfully employed Twinkle to revert my edit; Twinkle was not made to be used in that matter, as is elucidated in Wikipedia:Rollback policy ("Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and should never be used to revert good faith edits or in content disputes. By requesting the permission, you agree to only use the tool for the accepted purpose; any misconduct with rollback will lead to its revocation.") J.R. Hercules (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

When I read that page (which describes itself as "... no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear") it states that rollback is a special privilege. My account has no special privileges. But seriously, would you have been happier if I had manually performed the same action using my ordinary account? CosineKitty (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you demonstrate your gross dishonesty editing Wikipedia. If, as you claim, the issue is simply that mention of Hitler doesn't "belong in the openning (sic) paragraph", how does that explain your deletion of the same mention in the Trade Union article, when the "Criticism" section of that article is located almost at the bottom of that article's page?

Just face the facts -- you're looking to hide the simple truth, a detestable act whenever it's performed. J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page, I didn't delete it. Also, I've never said that the issue is one of placement, the issue of placement is part of the larger issue.Larklight (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"I moved it to the talk page, I didn't delete it." Thank you for the laugh of the day. J.R. Hercules (talk) 22:01, 22 June 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)

Negative salary effects

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)

Coat-racking and POV sections

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)

Article title is misleading

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)

monopoly ref tag

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)

Unbalanced POV

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)

Weaver v NATFHE, new paragraph etc. 'Racist Policies of the past' section

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)

"Harm to ununionised labour"

Just a quick observation, "ununionised" is a very strange word, especially for a sub-heading. Richard Myers (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tags

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)

Organized crime

Should there be any mention of unions' known or suspected ties to organized crime? Bobby H. Heffley (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Claim About Theatrical Lighting

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)

This section remains uncited several months down the line. I'm removing it. --Dannyno (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Inefficiencies

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107232744/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_v108/ai_3579390/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_v108/ai_3579390/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060725114900/http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/2002_Emploi_justice_sociale.pdf to http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/2002_Emploi_justice_sociale.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111211064646/http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff8.cfm to http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff8.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004121038/http://pmaci.customer.netspace.net.au/ncop.htm to http://pmaci.customer.netspace.net.au/ncop.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Extremely low-quality article that should be deleted

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)