Talk:Trade union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trade union article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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 24th of each month.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
Image:Fairytale_browser.png

This article is within the scope of the Organizations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of organizations. We are developing a framework that will sort every category by location, field, ideology, and type. We need a few more people to help coordinate this ambitious project. If you have any technical experience with templates, or just have an interest in the topic, add your name, and check out the talk page to get involved.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Trade union, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
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.

archive 1

Contents

[edit] History re-work

I started a re-working of the history section. It's true that bad working conditions and wages did lead to the organization of workers (al a Marx and Ingels), but my (albeit limited) understanding is that the first wave of organization had more to do with excluding outside workers - specifically the unskilled, and the immigrant (not to mention women). I thought it would work to mention both the fears of the crafts and the unrest of the new workers in the intro, and then move to an early history focusing more on the crafts, and only mentioning the less successful (or slower) organization of semi-skilled and unskilled workers.

Would Workers of the world be too dramatic of a section title for the second portion of history that would outline both the political rise of the worker and the evolution of the crafts up to – oh I don't know – WWII and the changes from there? And when does this history become a global history? When do unions outside Europe and North American begin to form?

BTW, I'd like to move the "cleanup" and "verify" tags down the article to the history section, and then hopefully move them farther down as this progresses. Does that make sense?Bookandcoffee 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "history" and "Origins and history" catgorys are redundent.--Hacky 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I've moved the criticism section down to the bottom where I think it fits better. I'd like to request that we standardise on British English spelling. e.g. privatise, organisation, labour, trade union etc, unless the specific name or whatever calls for American spelling. At the moment it is a mish-mash of different styles, I will go through and standardise it. Also, we need to make the lead much shorter. Three paragraphs should be sufficient. We have to decide what we want in them. Also, the sectioning of the article could do with some work, but I'm sure we've all known that for a while :) - FrancisTyers 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it would be easy enough to split the intro - the second half deals with variants of "Structure and politics", and could be sectioned off as such. What did you have in mind for the remainder of the article? --Bookandcoffee 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The following is just something I made up right now, please feel free to alter it, suggest improvements etc. - FrancisTyers 00:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • History up until present day (including origins)
    • Origins
    • Unions in Western countries
    • Unions in Communist countries (including Solidarnosc etc.)
    • Unions in developing countries
  • Unions today
    • Problem of international comparison
    • Free unions
    • Unions in Communist countries
    • Trade unions by region and country
  • Structure and Politics (both progressive and conservative features of the politics)
  • Impact of Unions (minimum wage, 8 hour day, child labour, health and safety etc.)
  • Shop types
  • Criticism
  • References
  • External links
I think it's a great idea to reorg the sections. I'm nervous about the history section though. Divisions like western/developing attract controversy and misunderstanding - and a country like India is neither Western/Communist or developing. Having said that, I don't have a solid suggestion. Borrowing Mattley's idea, is there a recognized text that could provide a neutral division? And while I'm here, this is such a huge topic, should we be actively working toward creating sections that are overviews, with the aim of larger "main article" pages, or is that something that just occurs organically?--Bookandcoffee 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I would agree (thinking again) that it probably isn't best to separate out Communist unions etc. Perhaps we could have a section entitled Types of trade unions? Does anyone have access to Britannica, perhaps we could take their section layout? With regard to section overviews etc. I think we just keep adding text until it gets too big and then make a separate article, like with Trade unions in the United Kingdom etc. - FrancisTyers 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pluralisation

I've made a couple of minor changes to the article, as the correct plural of "trade union" is "trades unions" and not "trade unions". The latter, whilst commonly used, should only be used when describing several unions who represent the same sectors of employment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.12.234.51 (talk • contribs) .

What are you basing that assertion on? Mattley (Chattley) 22:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There's an interesting note somewhat related to this in Webb's History of Trade Unionism at the start of chapter III.

The distinction between a Trade Union and a Trades Union is exactly that which the names imply. A Trade Union is a combination of the members of one trade; a Trades Union is a combination of different trades. [...] The Particular significance of Trades Union as distinguished from Trade Union must be carefully borne in mind throughout this chapter, as it has passed out of use and occurs now only as a literary blunder.

Might be an interesting aside for the history section ... --Bookandcoffee 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

We should definately look into sourcing this article. :) - FrancisTyers 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we make your structure changes (suspending the free/communist and history divisions) and then we can keep working our way down the page, cleaning and sourcing... --Bookandcoffee 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd second this.--NHSavage 20:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wage Labour and capital

I am having a bit of a problem with "and would later prove to be an important arena for change." for 2 reasons

  1. I don't understand what this part means - it needs expanding upon.
  2. I don't really know how the reference relates to Wage Labour and Capital

I am not against using KM's work but it needs to be clearer to me how it relates here. Oh and if we do use it the URL is http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

--NHSavage 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well I put up the reference as a bit of a knee jerk response to the need for a citation. Feel free to take it down. All I was intending with that final sentence was to lead in to the fact that eventually this pool of labour would be the agent(?) or at least the stage for the development of change. I was thinking of the development of industrial unionism, which appears more promenent later in trade history. I used "important" simply because, for good or bad, I think it's reasonable to state that it was the begining of large changes across the world.--Bookandcoffee 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
(Actually, I'll take the ref down myself... :) --Bookandcoffee 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the sentance would be better as: This pool of labour was to spontaneously organise in fits and starts throughout its beginnings[6]. These workers would later form the basis of industrial unions which were responsible for large changes across the world.
I think that this can stand without a reference here as long as we plan to write an industrial unionism section later... --NHSavage 08:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me - it definitely gives a clearer lead as to what comes next. Should we modify the "large changes"? - ...which were responsible for large changes in the labour and political landscape across the world.--Bookandcoffee 18:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] structure changes

I reordered the article, partly as discussed above, but I made a few different changes along the way. I didn’t change any text, but there is editing needed to make things flow better (assuming everyone is willing to go with the new structure). Specifically, the history section is in general need of improvement.

Largest changes (excluding location changes)

  • ”Structures and politics” was split out of the introduction into its own section.
  • “Origins” and “Early history” were combined, in a cut and paste under “Origins and early history”.
  • ”Peel’s Act of 1825” was created for a history section from the repeal of the combinations laws forward.
  • ”Unions in the world” was created to start the history of unions as they spread globally.
  • "Problems of international comparison" was changed to "Diversity of international unions" to balance comparision and differences.
  • ”Unions today” created as a major section for:
    • Structure and politics
    • Shop types
    • Diversity of international unions
  • “Benefits extend beyond membership” was changed to “Impact of Unions”
  • “News” was changed to “Union publications”

I think that's it for the large changes.--Bookandcoffee 22:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impact of Unions

The labour movement brought an end to abusive child labour practices in some countries [1], improved worker safety, increased wages for both union and non-union workers, raised the entire society's standard of living, reduced the hours in a work week, fought for and won public education for children, and brought a host of other benefits to working class families which are not seen in countries (such as China) that restrict the right of citizens to this form of free association.[citation needed]

This was removed so I put it here pending sourcing. KDRGibby, the reason "abusive" is removed is not because it is POV or whatever, but simply because an adjective is needed. Child labour isn't necessarily abusive. Perhaps we should change it to "exploitative child labour practices"? - FrancisTyers 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite below, feel free to edit:

The labour movement, along with socialists, some christians and others has continually fought for an end to exploitative child labour practices [2]. In some countries suceeding to end abusive child labour practices altogether.


exploitive also renders a moral pov. Exploited used to be an amoral economic term, but unfortunatly leftists have historically used it as a negative refrence point, so I must say it cannot be used.

I'm also in disagreement with your rendering of child labors disapearance as a result of labor union action, as well as your (or whoever) belief that labor unions resulted in higher standard of living for all of society...especially considering that economists Milton Friedman and Brink Lindsey argue that from the founding of the U.S. until WWI labor wages rose dramatically while only an average of 2% of the entire labor force was unionized (in addition only about 15% of the U.S. labor force is unionized)...while also further noting that people are paid based on the productivity they add to the company and the value of their labor, and that union members command (if at all) higher wages only by limiting the supply of labor thus creating a falsly high value and demand for that particular labor for that particular market. Knowing this labor unions role in raising wages for society is negligible if not downright impossible. Also again, noting the relativly small size of labor unions in comparison with the rest of the work force in America, at least, its unlikely that it was responsible for reduced work hours, public education, or any other benefit workers recieved.

the "impact of unions" gives too much weight to unions that is not only undue, but unsourced, and apparently highly pov. (Gibby 05:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

child labor was also faught against by Christians, at least mention that while also deleting exploitive, and abusive. Those are moralistic and subsequently pov. (Gibby 05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

I entirely agree that child labour was and is fought against by christians. Organisations such as Christian Aid play a rôle in calling for the end of child labour even today.
I'm afraid you can't say whether something can or cannot be used. We can't simply say that "brought an end to child labour" because not all child labour is illgal, let alone at an end. I certainly worked when I was a kid. How about "brought an end to the worse forms of child labour". I believe this is a widely used terminology. If you want to make US-specific additions you might prefer to do them in the Labor unions in the United States article. This article regards trade unions as an international phenomenon. - FrancisTyers 05:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The impact section mentioned no particular society, it is only rational to assume the society in question is one of your own. I also disagree with "worst form" of Child labor...I don't sit here and call Unions the ""worst form" of consumer exploitation" even though I believe unions to be just that. I think what would be acceptable is to say that "Unions fought against the use of child labor in what they considered to be dangerous or harmful working enviornments throughout much of the developed world" That just might be acceptable. (Gibby 06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Well, we're coming to a consensus then. I will see if I can think of a better way of wording that. Please note that we are discussing trade unions and not consumer exploitation or consumerism. Perhaps we could say something along the lines of:
"Unions have, since their inception fought against the use of what the International Labour Organisation describes as the "worst forms" [3] of child labour, labour in working environments that they considered to be dangerous or harmful, and labour in circumstances they considered exploitative throughout the world [4]."
- FrancisTyers 05:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine because you are attributing the moral pov to a source, ie the International Labor Organization, rather than treating the moral pov as an unbiased fact, thus it violates no wiki rules.

And, I define labor union as "consumer exploitation" but that is a story, and my opinion, for our own talk pages. (Gibby 06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

One thing that has been overlooked in this section is the fact that in workplaces that have adopted a union to represent the workers, there is no child labour, period. Indeed there are countries where child exploitation for labor takes place, these are areas where trade unions have not yet made a substantial impact on the laws that govern workers rights, union or no. Generally speaking, the countries and regions of the world that commonly utilize children to work in "X" jobs have very little in the way of legislation protecting workers of any age. Hamster Sandwich 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Naturally, unions increase wages for their workers by reducing the supply of labor for that job in a particular market which causes the value of that labor to reach a false level. They do this, generally, by knocking out low skilled labor from competing for jobs. Child labor was one such thing. Don't give labor unions so much credit, they werent just doing this out of the kindess of their heart. (Gibby 15:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC))
That's why so many unions invest in training, is it? Unions increase wages for their workers, generally, by solidarity, negotiation and industrial action. To claim that union campaigns against the immoral use of child labour in industry was simply to narrow the field is complete nonsense. Much of the campaigning on the issue was at a time when being in a union at all was more likely to get you locked out and sacked. Donnacha 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The section in question certainly does need work. I suspect it will, in fact, prove impossible to find an adequate citation for such general statements about the impact of labour organisation. It could probably be done within individual country-specific articles, though. It is worth bearing in mind that this discussion is taking place somewhat at cross-purposes. KDRGibby's position that labour organisation does not have any of the effects attributed to it only makes sense if you are talking about the long term. It is nonsense to argue that labour organisation never raises wages, never results in improved conditions for workers, never puts an end to specific (abusive) practices and so on because all of those things can be shown to have happened time and time again. You can argue that these positive results are only felt in the short-term and only by certain sections, that they ultimately check economic growth and have a negative impact- that's a legitimate POV and - properly expressed and cited - should be included in the article. The view that trade unionism never raised wages or improved conditions is so obviously counter-factual it would not be held by any reputable, serious scholar. Mattley (Chattley) 13:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

Regarding [5]. I'm not saying this is perfect, I'm going to work on it to be better. But it is not factually incorrect either, maybe a little over simplistic. Historically the trade union movement resulted in 3 outcomes.

1. Social democratic comprimise (Such as with the old US Democratic Party, which co-opted the labour movement with fordism.)

  • Getting a welfare state and workers rights, the right to unionize put in law. (In return for their support for liberal democracy.)

2. Communist Revolution!

  • Similar to above, minus the capitalists.

3. Failure

  • fascism, anti-socialist dicatorship.

--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 23:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I removed these, please feel free to readd them if you think they significantly add to the quality of the page. Please see Wikipedia:External links. - FrancisTyers 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of those links do indeed qualify under the very style guide you cite. And Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive; you don't remove ALL links, knowing that many are valid, just in case some are not...instead, you only remove the suspect ones to this page. I'll put them back, and then you can remove the actual ones you consider questionable. As it is, right now readers see ZERO links, which makes no sense. --Kaz 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It didn't take that long to go through them and sort out the wheat from the chaff. This is an article about a form of organisation found all over the world. Links to individual unions (US ones, of course), articles about individual work-groups (miners, engineers or auto-workers maybe, but millwrights?) and a bunch of articles by freemasons, including one about activities in one county of California are a little too narrow, wouldn't you say? I'm astonished anyone felt the need to add these back in, frankly. Mattley (Chattley) 12:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually it does make sense, this is an encyclopaedia, not a repository of external links. If you had given reasons why those links fit the bill instead of merely stating it as fact I may have been able to reply with more detail. My reasoning remains. - FrancisTyers 13:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Its not so bad I suppose, I've removed a few, here is my reasoning:
  • [6] - This is just a list, we have lists here on Wikipedia, this could just be a list. Perhaps we could add an Opendir link for trade unions?
  • [7] - I'm sure there are a hundred other organisations worldwide just like this, it isn't particularly brilliant prose - perhaps could be added to the Labor Unions in the United States article?
  • American Labor Unions Under Stress - This is a really interesting link and the information should be reported here (and possibly in Labor Unions in the United States and it used as a reference. Looking at it thats a good point actually - why don't we have a map of the world with trade union membership? Would improve the article don't you think?
When deciding on external links, think... "if we added all the sites of this quality, would the amount of links be greater than the size of the page?", this is a good rule of thumb (at least for me). - FrancisTyers 13:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Microeconomists believe that trade unions increase unemployment by restricting the supply of labor to increase wages for members, while hurting low skilled workers. Furthemore, free market advocates like Milton Friedman and Brink Lindsey believe that Unions have no aggrigate effect on the increase of wages for society as a whole, citing the growth in wages within the United States during the late 1800s which appears to occur without the aid of unions.

Often the union of a particular industry puts pressure on politicians to subsidise the industry concerned. This benefits both the workers, companies and shareholders in that industry, and consumers of the product of that industry at a cost to other people.

Please provide citations for these in order to re-include them. Also the first is kind of US-centric, perhaps you'd like to include them in the Labor Unions in the United States article. I mean, wow, you've got information for one country saying that Unions have no effect; 1. that could be due to weak unions, 2. that could be due to 1,000,000,000 other factors. - FrancisTyers 09:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I one uped it! (Gibby 09:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Thanks, thats much better, but having such a large Friedman quote is kind of undue weight, I could imagine we could have such large quotes on all economic articles, but it wouldn't particularly help and reminds me of the RfAr regarding Ayn Rand. I'll leave it in for now as there is no other criticism, but you could consider paraphrasing it? - FrancisTyers 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it basically states everything from the former criticism in one quote. And no Tony Sidaway that was not "aggressive editing" or hostile, "One upt it" means I found a nice quote that was even better than the stuff deleted. The "perverbial smack down" simply means I finally found something to put in there that will stop the deletion of material on unsourced grounds. Get it with it TS! Try narrow readings instead of total bs broad hippy spirit readings. (Gibby 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

This section is extremely one sided and not just in terms of the US but the world. There is a great deal of debate among labor economists about the impact of unions on low wage workers. But since the article uses Friedman lets start with the US. Bronfenbrenner is the single most reliable source on union organizing data in the US in the last 15 years so I will use her as the source (and you can find comparable data on the UK, Canada, and Australia where they have used her research model to assess changes in union density and organizing there as well). What she has shown in her work is that since the late 1980s the majority of new workers organized in the US have been women and workers of color in low wage jobs in service sector industries such as health care, building services, hotels and public education. So where in the 1930s unions turned industrial jobs in the auto and steel industry into middle class jobs, today they have raised the living standards for hotel workers in high union density cities such as New York or Las Vegas so that now these are middle class jobs. Which means that counter to the Friedman model, in recent years the entire focus of unions has been on low wage workers and they have actually been very effectively organizing low wage workers and raising their wages and providing them with the kinds of benefits that only union jobs provide. Thus I would argue strongly that the Friedman quote should either be taken out or it should be rewritten as part of a longer paragraph that includes many of the different views on the subject of the issue of unions and wages. Source Kate Bronfenbrenner and Robert Hickey “Changing to Organize: A National Assessment of Union Organizing Strategies,” Organize or Die: Labor’s Prospects in Neo-Liberal America. Ruth Milkman and Kim Voss eds. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press/ILR Press, 2004.

The other error about the discussion of labor unions in the US that Bronfenbrenner's statistics reveal is that unions in the US are not strongest in the public sector. While it is true that union density is higher in the public sector than it is in the private sector that doesn't mean that unions are stronger there, it just means that unions face less opposition from employers in the public sector so they have been able to organize more easily. The public sector workers still do not make up the majority of the unionized workforce AND while union density in the public sector is holding steady the major growth in union membership has come among private sector workers in the service sector such as nurse aides, hotel housekeepers, janitors and security guards, workers in wireless and IT, airline ticket agents, food service workers, laundry workers, etc.


Sources Tom Juravich and Kate Bronfenbrenner "Preparing for the Worst: Organizing and Staying Organized in a Changing Public Sector Climate." Organizing to Win. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudy Oswald, and Ron Seeber, eds. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press, January, 1998.

Kate Bronfenbrenner and Robert Hickey “Changing to Organize: A National Assessment of Union Organizing Strategies,” Organize or Die: Labor’s Prospects in Neo-Liberal America. Ruth Milkman and Kim Voss eds. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press/ILR Press, 2004. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1460lab (talk • contribs).

[edit] Objections to Unions

This recently added section is seriously lacking in sources. A few are provided for premises but not for the arguments extrapolated from those premises. None of the arguments are attributed. A lot of the arguments would be fine, if sourced. Some, though, strike me as being criticisms of exceptions rather than of the rule - ie criticism of the exceptional power of US unions in a few key industries in the postwar decades - but phrased as criticism of unions in general. Mattley (Chattley) 19:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What say we move unsourced portions to the talk page pending citation? - FrancisTyers 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be okay if there were only a paragraph or two but there are ten bullet points all needing attribution. It makes up perhaps a fifth of the article as it currently stands. Mattley (Chattley) 21:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to reword rather than remove, pending citation, but the material below is too far gone for that. Mattley (Chattley) 12:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unions openly and directly eliminate the relationship between pay and quality of labor. While they do claim to guarantee quality, the company is no longer free to discipline or remove employees who are unproductive, nor even to pay based upon performance. This reduces the quality of labor for the industry, a famous example being US automakers versus non-union Japanese automakers. One famous adage in the US is "do not buy an American car made on a monday or friday, because the union workers are distracted on Friday, anticipating the weekend, and hung over on Monday, from the weekend". Consumer Reports has gone so far as to publish a means of decoding a car's VIN, to see if it was built on a Friday. Another example is the typical teacher's union's direct opposition to performance-related pay, or any other reforms linking teachers to the education of their students [8].
  • Unions can become an antagonist between workers and management, as lawyers are reputed to do during otherwise amicable divorces. The typical union management pitch has, for 150 years, been class warfare; "owners are bad, management is evil", preventing healthy work relationships between workers and management, which would have allowed a more productive company and positive work environment.

[edit] 19th century unionism

I have taken out the material indented below. Most of it isn't strictly relevant and a lot of it is just plain wrong. I have put in a bit about socialist and anarchist influence on continental trade unions which this seemed to hint at. Mattley (Chattley) 20:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In the 19th century, unions were dominated by the Communist and Anarchist movements, which saw themselves as pivotal to the success of unions and Labor. By the middle of the century, many unions were dominated by members of those two movements, looking to either Communist Karl Marx or anarchist Mikhail Bakunin as their leaders.
In The Revolution of 1848, a pivotal part of this Europe-wide attack on establishment governments was Marx and others ordering unions to strike, paralyzing and devastating whole economies, while the leaders demanded, and fought violently for, control of the governments of the nations so afflicted.
During the latter half of the century, Marx and Bakunin formed an International Workers Association as a coalition of the unions which answered to them, and assembled the First Internationale, starting in 1864, a meeting of the union leaders in an attempt to form a sort of world government of the workers. The struggle between authoritarian Marxist union leaders and Anarchist union members reached a head at that point, and political maneuvring drove Bakunin from the organization in 1872 at the Hague Congress, resulting in Marxist dominance of the union movement for the next century, though Anarcho-syndicalism was still a strong minority player.
This was followed by a Second Internationale starting in 1883, which is considered by some to be the predecessor of the League of Nations and Comintern, therefore, the United Nations.

[edit] Opposition to trade unions

Something else that occurs to me: we need to be careful of undue weight with all this objections and criticism stuff. Most of it appears to come from a free market extremist perspective and to be opposition to trade unions per se. In significant portions of the world, political opposition to trade unions outright - as distinct from opposition to specific practices and support for limitations on their activity - is very much a minority point of view. Even Thatcher never tried to ban unions altogether. The UN declaration of human rights includes the right to organise, does it not? We are in danger of suggesting that absolute opposition to unionism is more significant than it really is. At the same time though, we are currently ignoring the very significant opposition that unions have and do encounter in the real world. Perhaps the solution would be to create a new article Opposition to trade unions where we could discuss all the most notable opponents, e.g. the Nazis, Fascists, Stalin, the Chinese Communist Party, Libertarians and Wal-Mart. Mattley (Chattley) 13:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Splendid idea, although not all libertarians are anti-union. - FrancisTyers 13:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Many libertarians, especially left libertarians, consider unions to constitute legitimate free association. I've heard a left libertarian argue that Taft-Hartley is an illegitimate abridgement of worker freedom. - Jmabel | Talk 01:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Most Libertarians believe that it is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but that it is usually a bad idea to do so, and it is almost certainly a bad idea for an employer to go along with it. Furthermore, as with most issues, Libertarians believe that unions should enjoy no government support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd (talk • contribs) 24 August 2006.
Outside of the US, the largest libertarian organisations are probably those of an anarcho-syndicalist perspective. So clearly not all libertarians think they're a bad idea. Donnacha 00:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"Enjoy no government" is an odd phrase here. Is there another word missing at the end of it? - Jmabel | Talk 18:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I was typing too quickly. The word was support. Libertarians don't think pretty much anything should have government support. --Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed verify tag

I've added three links to verify various facts and deleted one reference (equity) which was incorrect. So I've tentatively removed the "verify" tag, pending any othr objections LOL. Jameswilson 03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Is that quote at the top of the page really neccessary? Its formatting isn't regularly seen in Wikipedia articles and there is nothing exemplary about the quote that makes it neccessary to add to this article.--Jersey Devil 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a little unorthodox, certainly, but the reason for adopting it was that it proved difficult to find a definition of 'trade union' that was both NPOV and informative. This diff gives an idea of the difficulties we were getting into with previous attempts to give an initial definition [9]. I thought a quotation might be a good solution as it means we can attribute the definition to a third party, in this case the Webbs, who have as good a claim to be authorities on the topic as anyone. It met with general agreement and was adopted. It is, as I say, a little odd as an opening to an article. But for all that, it is the most cogent, concise, and useful definition of trade union I've come across. Any alternative would need to solve the problem of giving a satisfactory initial definition, which is trickier than it might seem at first sight. Mattley (Chattley) 23:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is unorthodox but probably a good choice. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone explain this link?

The recently added Preston & South Ribble Trades Union Council link is so graphics-heavy that it brought my browser to its knees. I have no way to even tell whether the material is of value. Admittedly, I'm not working on the most up-to-date computer. Could someone tell me what is there to merit the inclusion of this link? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a local trades council and campaigns site based in the North West of England. It is not bad as these things go but too specific for here. Mattley (Chattley) 09:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conference

Can someone clarify the use of the term 'conference' with regard to unions in North America? For instance, the 'Rail Conference' of the Teamsters. My assumption is that it is just a grouping of related or affiliated unions. It might help if it is described with reference to the 'division' term that is used as well. Noisy | Talk 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version 0.5 Nominations

There is an August 31 deadline for nominating articles to be included in the Wikipedia:Version 0.5. I think we should nominate this article. It certainly meets the importance criteria, and its inclusion might push us to iron out some of the last deficiencies.--Bookandcoffee 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominated.--Bookandcoffee 15:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] diversity of international unions

In this section there are several sentences about the US which seem to be an odd collection of very specific examples which have minimal ability to demonstrate the range of unions in the world. It seems too much space for details on the US for such a brief section on international unions. Moreover, the specific examples given seem to minimize the extent to which local and regional unions and labor councils in the US endorse candidates from other parties (besides Dems). Syndicalista 16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Article summary}}

This tag has been added to the article. It is currently being developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries as part of an effort to improve articles and facilitate translation efforts. Please feel free to comment either here, or at the project page, about how you think this idea can be implemented/improved. The text within the In Brief box is of course open to your editing. Thanks--Bookandcoffee 21:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Canada Vs. United States

An interesting point that I think this article could use would be a comparision (or at least a mention) of the Canadian and US union density gap. Canada and America have similar economies, observed the same union growth; however, diverged greatly and now have an approx. gap of 17 percentage points (if I recall correctly). Riddell has done much research on this issue (using Farber's method) and has come to some interesting conclusions (that supply is the cause 2/3 of the difference [only 15% is due to structural differences]).

Just a thought; what do you guys think? UAAC 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, about the types of shops, there is a modified union shop ... Basically a union shop with a grandfather clause. Important or not, it's there. UAAC 04:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History intro

I reworked the intro to the history section. I was just trying for a better flow, but I did remove the somewhat bland(IMO) statement "Working conditions and wages did not meet modern standards."--Bookandcoffee 22:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographic limitations

"See also" list has a very strong US and secondarily UK bias. Can we turn the "see also" list into just articles of broad international significance + one top-level article per country, then move the per-country material to the respective country articles? - Jmabel | Talk 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incoherent sentence

Cut: "In Britain the number of members of the Trade Union Part trebled between 1880 and 1900 showing how the working classes were now pulling tegether to try and change their way of living." What is the "Trade Union Part"? and the second part of this is totally subjective. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "organise"

Is ugly but i guess its ok in some countries?--Villainone 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand, but I'm guessing that the issue is "-ise" in Commonwealth English is like "-ize" in American English. - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Can anyone cite "The higher cost of labor in union-employing businesses increases overhead and raises the price of the goods and services those companies offer. This also affects the overhead expenses of other businesses who rely on union-employing businesses for goods and services, raising the price they must offer to the customer as well. " or should it be removed?--Villainone 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a citation offhand, though one should be easy to find. I would imagine that virtually all economists would agree that would be the expected effect; the question, of course, is how the numbers net out (in general, only those on the right would say that this effect is large enough as to net out to a negative for society; also, most economists would say that this will only tend to happen if wage increases outstrip productivity increases). I would guess that if someone is seriously interested in following this up, the paper whose abstract is here would be worth trying. Ditto this one. This might also be of interest, especially the paragraph that begins "One explanation would be in terms of firms' pricing policy." - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Any economist should agree that items will only sell for what the market allows. Regardless of any speculation of what experts might think, there needs to be citations made, or certain text removed. --Villainone 06:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, pretty much by definition, items will only sell only at a price the market allows. But as Vilfredo Pareto showed over a century ago, there may be more than one such price. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Lquilter

I took those scare quotes back out from Right to Work. None of the other jargon or names of laws have them. The Fair Share law is a similar act that we don't have scare quoted. I agree with your edits in the violence section, you have improved that section from what I wrote to be more neutral. In the criticism section though, you edited in the weasel words "some union critics"... which leads to the question "which union critics?".. I think it is safe to say anyone who is opposed to unions views them as a illegitimate government protected monopoly on labor. If there are exceptions to that, we should find those exceptional groups and cite them specifically. We shouldn't leave it weaselly. Gigs 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/Talk%7ETrade_union_03d4.html"