Talk:Union dues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Union dues article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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
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.

Contents 1 Link to Anti-Union Web Site 2 NPOV Dispute 3 So many inaccuracies 4 Deletion? 5 What is it with these yanks?

[edit] Link to Anti-Union Web Site

The link led to a website that advocates opinions opposed to trade unions. Those can be shown in the main article and argued over with stakeholders there. The definition of union dues has nothing to do with appropriations of funds by a union. Also, not all unions are identical. Appropriations are typically subject to a democratic vote. Similarly, as citizens in a democratic society, we may vote for a head of state and then disagree with some of the decisions made by the successful candidate once in office. This does not mean that the head of state acted without a single person's permission. Instead, elected executives have defined mandates to make certain decisions, while others may require a special vote or referendum. Likewise, the insinuation was made in the reverted edit, that poor ethics are involved in seeking access to the political process, as unions admittedly do. So does big business and other self-serving organisations that lobby and otherwise seek to short-circuit the election process by advocating their causes directly to politicians or political parties. For instance, the American Association of Retired Persons is known to advocate on behalf of older people and their needs.--Achim 02:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is important because it talks about some of the coruption that unions do with the dues that they collect so I put it back up and it should stay there. John R G 06:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The corruption that unions DO? They DO corruption? The website you refer to is obviously rabidly anti-uinion. That's fine - everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I think this is hardly the spot. Are you suggesting that big business and assorted lobby groups DON'T engage in political activities to advocate their causes? Democrats suck up to unions and vise versa, whereas Republicans do the same with big business. What makes either more or less ethical than the other? It's all fair game in a free society. Apart from that, you have said absolutely nothing about the fact that elected officials, such as union executives are given a mandate to make decisions, just like presidents of companies and so forth. If you're a shareholder of a company, does the president of that company have to ask your permission about whether or not he can buy a Xerox copier versus Canon? Just where is the union more or less ethical than any other self-serving organisation? Apart from that, please answer why you won't debate this on the Trade union page. You just revert and make a brief statement that is not responsive to the criticism. I suggest that you debate me on this because I think that your rabidly partisan link is a matter or vandalism, and I will treat it as such. Please answer my questions.Achim 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute

The reason that I have the link posted is to show one of the many ways that unions misuse the money that they collect from the employees. Therefore I feel that it should stay on the site. John R G 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that documents it and add THAT to the article. The link you posted is simply a collection of links of political views. Take a look at wp:rs. While your linkspam link doesnt meet that requirement, I'm sure that there have been reliable sourced, published research on how Unions use the money they collect. Dman727 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Article in question is *Union Free America - Anti-union website and I feel that it is very important because it shows some of the abuses that unions due with the money they collect from the employees. John R G 19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To John R G, i respond — personally, i'd prefer to have a union-free — free America. But i'm not trying to spam Wikipedia with ideological links over it. Please start following the rules, and try to make Wikipedia better, not a link farm for opposing ideological arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with an encyclopedia. Richard Myers 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So many inaccuracies

This article makes so many statements that are just inaccurate.

Whilst some of the practices may be true in some unions in the USA this is not necessarily the general pattern. For instance, the statement that "Many unions also spend a considerable portion of their members' dues to lobby and campaign for politicians they support." is not so in my country. The assertion that "In collective bargaining agreements, the wage level is typically prescribed on the basis of seniority and attained education and rank" cannot be stated as a fact. Whilst it is true that some Collective Agreements may recognise length of service, many do not. And the claim that "The dues are typically a percentage of gross wages" is definitely not true. In my country only three unions use this method with the rest using the more common flat rate contribution. In some countries, strike funds are illegal. Also, the balance between centralised and de-centralised financing will vary considerably from union to union and country to country. Again, just to show how under-researched this article is, not a single union in my country has contributions collected by local branches and then forwarded to head office.

In my view, this article will actually confuse the reader as to the real position which is far more complex than described. What we have here is a description of one set of arrangements based on an assumption that this model is a general pattern that applies world wide. There should be serious discussion on whether this article has any value at all if it cannot be very dramatically expanded and broadened in its scope. At the moment it seems to be an avenue for someone's personal feelings about how union contributions are spent in their particular country. - Dave Smith 11:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since posting up the earlier comment I've searched the AFL-CIO web site and can find nothing to confirm the original claim that "In 2005, a non-election year, the AFL-CIO spent 30 percent of its budget on these activities." However, a quick Google search found this site which collates information taken from 990 tax forms. According to this, "A political expenditure is defined in the IRS's instructions for the 990 form as an expenditure 'intended to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of anyone to a federal, state, or local public office, or office in a political organization, or the election of presidential or vice presidential electors.'" So the source seems a reliable one. These returns show that in 2002, the AFL-CIO spent $249,269 out of a total budget of $70,167,560 on reported political expenditure. If my calculations are correct that is about 0.35%. A far cry from the 30% claimed for 2005. Maybe the decimal point slipped ...

If this really is an article about Union dues (called contributions in many countries) then there also needs to be some reference to the debate about check-off. In some countries this is build into Collective Agreements that are legally enforceable but in other countries these Agreements are not legally binding. The UK is one such example. This means that employers can (and do!) withdraw check-off as a political weapon to undermine or destroy the finances of unions that are getting too 'uppity'. Some Unions have, as a consequence, take a policy position of not using check-off, which puts control over union finances in the hands of the employers, and have instead preferred to use Bank Standing Orders or cash collections. Look at the recent 2005 New York City transit strike for an example of where check-off was withdrawn.

Let's get down to basics. Is this really an article about Union Dues or simply a way of expressing opposition to the way in which some unions chose to spend their money. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a political platform. Let's get some real facts and discuss this subject in some depth if it is going to remain - Dave Smith 12:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For an explanation of the errors in this article, one need only look at who one of the contributers is. User:John R G edits this article and Right-to-work law, and the user has conducted editing wars in an effort to link both articles to a virulently anti-union website.

One of his early edits:

Here is an article on how unions take your union dues and use them for political purposes without your permission.

[1]

In short, some contributers (well, at least one contributor) isn't interested in providing information to readers, but has been, rather, attempting to use the article to bash unions.

best wishes, Richard Myers 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion?

Is there anything in this article worth merging into Trade union? I'm not seeing anything. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is it with these yanks?

Is there anything they're not afraid of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.34.103 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)