Talk:Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association 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. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
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. |
|||
 |
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. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
Excellent clean up done by the anonymous person. However you removed a supposed POV which can be easily verified by checking wage rates. Also removing an external link to replace with a non-existant Wikipedia link was something I had to change. A link to a page which actually exists is much better, in my opinion Dankru 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand this article could be a tad anti-SDA. Maybe there needs to be more pros about them. However there are not many redeeming things to say, since they're supposed to be a 'trade union' not a bosses club.Dankru 05:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
'A tad' is putting it mildly. One mention a perception of being less militant, outside of the introduction, is enough. Why does the article not discuss (eg. the nature of the union's coverage, the transitory nature of its workforce, and from that the fact that it needs to recruit an extraordinarily high number of new members every month just to stand still (and it does)? I can't think of any other article on an Australian trade union that is so explicitly POV. Slac speak up! 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well Slac we could go into detail of the union's countless EBAs which pay below award, or the union's deals with conservative Christian parties in Victoria last federal election, or its blatant homophobia in more detail and its generally regressive social policy approach [1].
- If you think your arguments would make the article less POV then put them in. I think that a lot of the points you make are actually in the article. I agree with them to an extent, but they're often used as excuses not reasons for the union's stance on many issues.Dankru 09:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have atttempted to address concerns of bias. I will not back down on what is said regarding Awards and EBAs as these are fact and easily verifiable. Dankru 09:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Have removed a large section of material. While attempts seem to have been made to deal with POV, none of the material provided established the claims being made or was properly sourced. If there are references that can be cited of other unions or unionists criticising the SDA, then they need to be sourced. Don't get me wrong, I sympatyse with some of the coments, BUT wiki isn't really a forum for this type of opinion. As for the references to EBA's being worse than the award - maybe the appropriate reference point now needs to be the minimum "standards". --Hmette 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to think the section you removed is of considerable importance, and the portions relating the awards were cited in the form of awards - a comparison would be adequate in the form of citing the previous award in these cases. I agree that some portions were POV, but that doesn't necessitate the removal of the whole section; merely an extensive edit would suffice. Maybe in order to balance the cons of these regressive awards would be to include a section on member benefits? I am a member and get the newsletter ever now and then, and certain benefits would be notable on their wiki (such as textbook discounts for students/parents of students). I believe both sides of the story should be shown. Orbitalwow 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
