Talk:Australian Workplace Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Australian Workplace Agreement is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] NPOV

Both the content and wording of this article (especially after the introduction) are biased towards the criticisms and attempts to draw conclusions to the merits of AWAs. The material in this article that is anti-AWA is significantly greater than that which is pro.

i.e "AWAs have also faired poorly"; "Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for March 2005 give a much more realistic total picture showing that hourly wages of workers on AWAs were 2 % lower than the hourly wages of workers on registered collective agreements" Who is to say that ABS give a more realistic picture? And by whoes definition of 'poorly'. Where are the opposing views to the WA Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection's quote? etc etc etc.

The article seems to have been writen by somebody sympathetic to the unions, and against the subject matter of the article.

This is not NPOV. Rafy 02:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Australian Workplace Agreements are a controversial issue. They have been widely criticised, and statistics, citations and references have now been provided to back these criticisms up in the article.

There is no requirement in the NPOV that different sides of a controversial subject be given a similar amount of wording or explanation. NPOV policy states clearly that Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views,..."

The article does give the Government viewpoint, and this is clearly stated ahead of critical viewpoints, which are fully explained, referenced, and cited.

The NPOV states that "assert facts, including facts about opinions". As the original person who drafted this article in May 2005 I have gone through and added citations where other wiki editors have suggested, plus a few extra ones.

While I do hold an opinion about AWAs, the information provided in this article is all reputably sourced. The criticisms of AWAs are supported by the statistics quoted and cited. I contend that the NPOV has not been breached in this article. --Takver 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

you are dreaming. Whilst you selectively use quotations, they are clearly designed to portray one POV. Further to this, they almost exclusively state opinion over fact. Unsigned comment by 147.209.216.245

Actually, I have been deliberately restrained adding quotations to this article, and have instead used statistics directly from the OEA, and the ABS. Every reader can interpret the statistics the way they want, or access the source data in the citations. And at least I sign my comments --Takver 11:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definately not NPOV

This article is not balanced. It pays lip service to the arguments in favour and gives a much more favourable and fuller account of arguments against. This is evident from the references used alone. Of the 16 references:

• 5 are to opinions and criticisms expressed by either Unions, ALP MPs or ALP Governments.
• 6 are to information that, though published by government bodies or from government sources, is consistently used (and arguably misused) by opponents of AWAs to criticise them.
• 2 are to government sources that serve as nothing more then background information.
• 2 are references to a federal court case that arguably puts AWA in a bad light.
• Only 1 is from a source in favour of AWAs.

The only reference from a source in favour is that quote basically describing what an AWA is and nothing more (not really supporting AWAs). Also, this quote is hidden in a section titled "Opposing Views".

At the very least, the following should happen to fix it:

• 1. There should be a section on the views in favour of AWAs.
• 2. Both the view in favour and against should be moved to the end of the article. It seems odd to jump straight to the views before the full facts. I don't think thats typical of Wikipedia. It usually goes facts then summary of opinions.
• 3. The article should make it clear that the existence of AWAs do not limit the ability of workers to seek employment by award or collective bargaining.

--TedEBare 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't find any obvious POV expressed in the text and sources such as the ABS are credible sources. However I agree with point 2 - moving comments and criticisms to the end of the article. The article could be improved with further expansion perhaps with other sources added if they help to round out the topic. My main criticism is that the article does not make a great deal of sense to a reader who has no background knowledge of the subject. MrsPlum 09:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article is probably biased against AWAs, however a quick search on the subject will turn up far more critisism than approval in general. Perhaps the view of several employer associations and the government would balance the issue, and I agree this should come first and critisisms later.

I will disupte the critisism that the ABS is not a good source of data, it is widely used and approved by both the government and it's critics. Also AWAs only represent a small fraction of the workforce and simply stating a fact is not biased.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master z0b (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 December 2006.

I am not trying to suggest that the ABS is unreliable, infact it is a creditable source. The problem is that like many creditable sources it can be selectively cited in order to present a view that is or appears biased.

Example: A creditable newspaper might present positive and negative aspects of an issues in many separate articles. Sure, based on this newspaper, you can write an article that gives equal coverage to both the pro and anti views. However, if the arguments of the anti view are throughly backed up by citing articles from this newspaper and the arguments for the pro view are presented without citing any sources, the anti-view will generally appear more valid then the pro-view. This is what I believe has happened here. --TedEBare 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the Article

In reply to TedEBare, "The article should make it clear that the existence of AWAs do not limit the ability of workers to seek employment by award or collective bargaining."

For those applying for a job, it is solely up to Employers whether employment is offered initially under a collective agreement or an AWA, and such can be offered on a take it or leave it basis regardless of whether current employees are employed under a collective agreement or award. Working conditions in an AWA offered to a job applicant may be less than conditions provided to existing employees under AWAs or collective agreements. Workers on a collective Bargaining Agreement can refuse to sign an AWA, however Employers can deny promotion opportunities unless they choose to sign an AWA. So an AWA changes employment bargaining by giving the Employer much greater power in the employment contract.

Instead of criticising the fully cited criticisms made of AWAs and reducing the article to the lowest common denominator, perhaps you could help balance the article by contributing to it. I would welcome your improvements to this article by adding quotations stating "the view of several employer associations", fully cited of course.

You have said in regard to my use of ABS statistics "The problem is that like many creditable sources it can be selectively cited in order to present a view that is or appears biased." Then please provide the citations to the statistics that offer a different view. Criticism without specific references to improving the article are not helpful.

How do I think the article can be improved?

1. The summary paragraph needs to mention that the introduction of AWAs is a controversial industrial relations issue.
2. The Opposing Views section should contain more cited opinions from Peak Employer and Business Organisations.
3. If there are more recent statistics on AWA coverage and impact on working conditions, they should be added to the article, without deleting the stats on the introductory period.
4. The article also needs a brief history of individual employment contracts in Australia, and their origin in recent times in the right wing free market ideology of the H. R. Nicholls Society, and their push for changes in employment contracts. This is necessary background to understanding the introduction of AWAs as part of a long term ideologically driven agenda.

I was asked to justify in June 2006 the widespread criticisms of AWAs by providing full citations. I provided the citations requested and several more. The article needs to reflect that there is widespread criticism of AWAs. Please re-read my comment above dated 11 June 2006. I do not think this article breaches NPOV policy. Each assertion or opinion is based on fact and cited. However, I do believe the article can be improved generally (see above). Takver 14:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)