Talk:International Labour Organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for 18th of each month.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

OK, first I'd like to apologise for incorrectly moving the page, I'm still a relative wikipedia newbie, and I overlooked the move function. However, shouldn't this article be at International Labour Organization, since that is the official name of the organisation? This is not a quibble over american/commonwealth spellings of words. Darksun 19:37, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I moved the page here from the International Labor Organization page, and made that into a redirect. Now, usually, I'll leave American spellings alone, however, the correct name of the organisation is the 'International Labour Organization', so that should be the main article title. Interestingly, the ILO uses the commonwealth spelling for Labour and US spelling for Organization. Darksun 17:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The UN English is supposed to be a neutral international English. (Anonymously added 31 Jan 2005)

Actually, "organization" is a British spelling as well. The ILO uses a spelling standard in line with the Oxford English Dictionary. SpNeo 02:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1998 declaration

Hi, not sure if the info here is true. Perhaps I'm just ignorant. Did the US really reject the 1998 declaration? Trying to find more info. (-EDR) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.53.57 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know what the US position is on the actual Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, but my read of the article text is that it is noting that the US, as with Burma, has only ratified 2 of the conventions that the 1998 declaration promotes.

• US record on labour Conventions: [1] (none)
• US record on the elimination of forced and compulsory labour Conventions: [2] (one)
• US record on the abolition of child labour Conventions: [3] (one)
• US record on elimination of discrimination in the workplace Conventions:[4] (none)

--Bookandcoffee 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the ILO web site [5] "... the Declaration commits Member States to respect and promote principles and rights in four categories, whether or not they have ratified the relevant Conventions - so the US has no option but to accept the Declaration if it is to remain in the ILO. It's track record on ratifying core Conventions is poor though. The "reason" given, apparently, is that the Federal Government cannot ratify Conventions on matters which are the prerogative of the individual States. Having said that, the country which seems to have ratified most Conventions is Cuba. Nuff said ... - Dave Smith 03:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what's with the "in brief" sidebar?

General Wikipedia style is that the first paragraph or two that serves as the article's introduction should also serve as a brief overview of the subject. Why is there a separate "in brief" sidebar at the right? It's mostly redundant, and in the parts where it's not, either they should be added to the intro, or shouldn't be up front. The blue also looks very odd. --Delirium 06:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The sidebar is part of an idea being put forward at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries. It's an attempt to do several things - to provide a quick overview, and also to establish a translation text for Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Internationalisation. Your comments would be most welcome on these pages. --Bookandcoffee 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)