Talk:Transport and General Workers' Union

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.
Organized Labour Portal
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.

[edit] Recent controversy

3/08 There is now a copy of the T&G rule book online for the first time which should probably be added from here. If anyone knows where or how to add it, the link is http://www.employees.org.uk/rules.html Veganline (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

--


This new addition seems to be fraught with problems. It has personal opinions, some of the references are simply to blog pages, and some to the statement seems to be totally untrue. Look a this:

"... TGWU local volunteer officials are sometimes criticised for being political hobbyists who elect each other at a public meeting of several members to represent a 1,000 member branch & its significant bank account without a postal or online ballot, rather than being typical union reps, and concentrating resources on their own hobbies ..."

The reference for this is a personal blog page.

I have changed the link to show the critic - a man called Jim Denham who has had 1,300 page views on his CV page - as well as his reference to the original source, TGWU 1/1148 branch minutes 14th November 2004. These minutes are typical. Obviously, like all criticisms, they are criticisms by a person, but the new link makes it clear that I have not just written a blog and cited it!
I took this sentence out. I have no idea what 1300 pages views means, but I'm willing to bet it's a blog term. If you can find a credible third party news or research source that makes this claim them by all means put it in the article.--Bookandcoffee 18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to quibble, but perspective is important, and particularly the views of people who have tried to claim services off UK unions in times of crisis. I will give the point some thought, for the sake of members like myself who have tried to claim these services. The same goes for the paragraph below. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veganline (talk • contribs) 18:46, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps the same link could back up less critical sentence, such as "volunteer branch officials can and do divert money to other organisations, according to ". minutes of branch meetings". This would associate Wikipedia with the quoted minutes, but less directly to the recent controversy surrounding them. Supporting material (but not accounts) comes from the Star Turn artical in the branch newsletter.National union accounts also show donations Veganline 09:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Another point in the same sentence is that turnout at branch 1/1148 elections is low. I was at the last one and can post the minutes to the net and cite them if that helps. What I did instead was to cite the law which allows branch elections to be held anyhow. If anyone knows any good citations for T&G branch turnout that would be great. Or the merged GMB or new Unite.
I took the second sentence out as well, as it is directly dependent on the unsourced "at a public meeting of several members" --Bookandcoffee 18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And this:

" ... Further criticism in many branches centres on the quality of their human resouces & legal service, sometimes funded on a collective conditional fee. ..."

Where is the source of this information? What is meant by "sometimes funded on a collective conditional fee". The reference given does not make any reference to any payments or fees.

There is no way to link straight to the end of paragraph seven, but a search for "conditional fee" should get you there. It is a fairly new system in the UK of allowing no-win no-fee lawyers to charge a fee to the other side on condition they win. The quote is that the Labour government has "introduced the collective conditional fee agreement, which is a very helpful way of funding the personal injury claims"; in paragraph three "Ninety-five per cent of the T&G’s legal expenditure is taken up with instructing solicitors on [personal injury] claims". I think this is useful information to T&G members. If 90% of legal spending is on personal injury, with employment law and complaints against the union sharing the last 10%, it's no surprise that there is criticism in my branch.
I suggest adding a short sentence just before this link: "Less than 10% of the union's legal budget is spent on employment law, with complaints against the union next on the list". This is in paragraph three which is easier to find

And then there is:

"The union is not registered with the financial services authority for this main part of its work [6] and has no clear contract with members to provide help at work, tending towards oral advice relayed by volunteers 7.

The "main part" of any union's work is representing its members - usually in individual matters or collectively through collective bargaining. It would be difficult to see how its legal services could be described in this way. And again reference [7] seem to make no mention to back up the statement.

I have changed my text to say "-only for other services-". The other services are mainly selling Liverpool Victoria pensions to members at a profit which the reference calls "insurance mediation".


Finally we get:

" ... Unlike some friendly societies outside the union movement, it is not owned by its members in any clear way, being structured more as a trust ..."

It is not even clear what this means. As far as I know the T&G is not structured differently than any other UK trade unions when it comes to the relationship between the members and their union. So what's this all about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TriniSocialist (talk • contribs) 01:19, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I put that quote in, so I have taken it out again. It's just a small point, which I thought might be interesting to potential members outside the union movement.
I will have another look at this page in a week or two to see if there is any of my own work I can change for the better, particularly if people who have a personal experience of the union want me to. Veganline 15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I am suggesting that Dundee Pilots be merged here, as that article contains, well, nothing except that they merged with with GWU in 1945. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The merge is now done. I just stuck the one sentence of the Dundee Pilots article in the history section, since there was so little context to go on. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)