Talk:Builders Labourers Federation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Builders Labourers Federation 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

No mention of the gross corruption? The conviction for fraud of Norm Gallagher?

You are welcome to put it up. But try to be detailed. The BLF never had its day in court because an Act of Parliament destroyed them, not the courts.Dankru 11:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've put in some references as to leave it out is absurd. An encyclopedia can never give all details. I've also linked to the page on Gallagher.--Jack Upland 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophes?

The current punctuation of the article title is puzzling. Why is there an apostrophe in Labourers', but not one in Builders? Both words appear to be used as possessives, but Commonwealth English has a tendency to drop the apostrophes in possessives when they're part of a title. (This sometimes happens in the US, too.) I followed the link to the Queensland BLF, and they don't use an apostrophe in either word. Personally, I would choose correctness and put both the apostrophes in; it would also be reasonable to follow the organization's own usage (as far as I know from the link) and leave them both out. But why put one in and not the other? Has that been the way it's historically spelled by the BLF? --Reuben 03:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Reuben, I have made a judgment call on this one. You're right, in part. I believe it was orginally an apostrophe after the Builders', because the labourers were really working for the builders and hence possessive tense used. But the BLF themselves do not use apostrophes so this should be adopted. Dankru 10:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it. I never would have guessed that. --Reuben 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still exists in symbolic form

The BLF still exist in a symbolic form. ALthough they have formally folded (I believe), many unionists still wear the BLF logo as a matter of pride, and at many Union Rallys the arival of a contingent of BLF "boys" usually brings applause as a symbol of union defiance. Now, whats the best way to express that as a NPoV statement? Duckmonster 16 Dec 2005

In Queensland the BLF still exist with some 7,000 members. Definitely more than symbolism. Dankru 09:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)