Talk:FDA (trade union)

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

First Division Association

The FDA changed its name to "FDA" in 2000. The "First Division Association" is, therefore, no longer in existence.

Additionally, the FDA is a registered trade union, and has been for decades.Guineveretoo (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guineveretoo, you want to place the entire question of whether an organisation is a bona fide trade union in the hands of a state official rather than decide on the basis of who its members actually are. It would be helpful if you would outline your definition of the word 'worker', not a legal or 'moral' one (not sure how you can be 'morally' a worker) but yours. I repeat, if the IoD registered as a trade union, would you automatically accept it as such, propose it be admitted into the TUC etc. because its members draw a salary irrespective of their actual function in the workplace, i.e. bosses opposed to workers? Haldraper (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and to report factually, as far as possible. The fact is that the FDA is a trade union, registered as such, and legally constituted as such. Another fact is that the FDA is not the only trade union who has members who, as well as workers, are also managers aka "bosses". In fact, most trade unions will have such members. So, your argument about managers/"bosses" not being workers is irrelevant. If you wanted to have the debate on whether civil servants, at any level, are truly "bosses", it's a much wider one, and not appropriate here, I would suggest.

I cannot answer wrt the IoD, as I don't know what it is.

Fact - FDA is a registered trade union, and this should be reflected on the wikipedia page.

Another fact - FDA is no longer known as the "First Division Association" and has not been for many decades. It changed its name from "the association of first division civil servants" at its conference in May 2001.

A further fact - the members of the FDA are mostly NOT senior civil service, and all of them, including the senior civil servants, are workers by anyone's definition, in that they do not own the organisation and do not have complete freedom on how they act, but do, themselves, have bosses.

yet another fact - several trade unions, including PCS and Prospect, also have senior civil servants in membership, yet you have not singled them out with a suggestion that they are not "trade unions", or insisted that PCS or Prospect change their name back to the constituent names under which they were previously known. Guineveretoo (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) ~~Could you please clarify what we're discussing here? ie what do you both believe the name of the article should be? Thanks. Chzz ► 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Can I just clarify what we're discussing here? As I understand it, Guineveretoo thinks that the article should be called FDA (trade union), whereas Haldraper thinks it should be First Division Association. Is that correct? Chzz ► 00:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked on the website; I note that, in every instance on the site, they refer to themselves as the FDA. I also noted the following section;

What does the FDA stand for?
Across government we are known simply as 'The FDA', which is less of a mouthful than our erstwhile proper name: the Association of First Division Civil Servants.
This was the name registered in 1918 when the organisation was founded to protect the interests of senior civil servants, who were at that time known as the 'first division' within the civil service hierarchy.
Over a period of decades, what became widely known as the 'First Division Association' established a reputation for successfully representing the interests of senior managers and professionals in government. Given the public sector's fondness for acronyms, the moniker 'the First Division Association' evolved naturally into 'the FDA'.
The union formally adopted the FDA as its name in the year 2000.

Based upon this information, in an ideal world, the article should simply be called "FDA', however, as we have the considerably more notable U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we need an addition to the name.

As there is some disagreement over the term trade union), I also noted that the website states, "We are a professional association and union for the UK's senior public servants..." (reference here).

Therefore, I propose the following name; FDA (professional association).

We should also have a redirect from "First Division Association" and "Association of First Division Civil Servants", both pointing to the article.

I also suggest that the article should begin as follows;

The FDA (formerly First Division Association) is a professional association...

I welcome any comments. Chzz ► 00:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

chzz, your suggested title is OK with me, as you say it's how the FDA primarily describes itself on its website. The problem with FDA is that trade union acronyms in general stand for something - PCS, NUT - whereas words like UNITE or UNISON are pronounced as such. FDA has created the confusion by choosing the initials of its former legal name which can't be easily pronounced as a word and thhus leads people to assume it stands for what is has been called for most of its existence.

Guineveretoo, where to start! :-) First of all, the IoD is the Institute of Directors, the professional association representing company directors, I would say the FDA is the civil service equivalent of that. Senior civil servants, like company directors, do not own their offices, do have superiors they have to answer to, that does not make them workers. From the start of the industrial revolution, company owners have employed managers and directors to oversee and supervise their workers, that is what the senior civil service does. There are not only two categories here, owner/State and worker, there is a layer in between the two which is what we are talking about. I am not aware of any senior civil servants who are members of PCS - maybe you are - but if there are again I would suggest it is an anomaly equivalent to the factory manager being a member of the shopfloor union. If you read the page as it now stands I don't see much to object to: I have not posted anything derogatory about FDA and have left in place references to its TUC affiliation and self-definition as a union in quotation marks. Haldraper (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FDA is not the only trade union whose name no longer stands for something. GMB, for example, no longer stands for anything, and neither does NAPO. If you look at the certification officer website list I put up, you will see many others, in fact.

thank you for explaining what you meant by the IoD - I agree with you that it is not a trade union, but I completely disagree with you that the FDA is equivalent, and there are many thousands of civil servant members of the FDA who would agree with me.

i hope my post which was put up earlier, but appears below this one, is sufficient for Wikipedia to accept and acknowledge that this dispute is over, and for the FDA to be reinstated in its correct place as a trade union. Guineveretoo (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz, thank you for your helpful intervention. In fact, the FDA is a registered trade union, and not a registered professional association. In fact, there is no such thing as a registered professional association. But it is important to clarify that the FDA has the same status as any other registered trade union. The Certification Officer registers trade unions, and the FDA can be found by searching their list, at this link http://www.certoffice.org/links/index.cfm?action=display&strLetter=f&strType=t&showActive=1. That Certification Officer website also defines a trade union as follows:

Definition of a trade union

1.19 Section 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides as follows: “In this Act, a “trade union” means an organisation (whether temporary or permanent) - (a) which consists wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers of that description or those descriptions and employers or employers’ associations; or (b) which consists wholly or mainly of – (i) constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil the conditions in paragraph (a) (or themselves consist wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions), or (ii) representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations, and whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers and employers or between workers and employers’ associations, or the regulation of relations between its constituent or affiliated organisations.”

the same website states "The fact of being on the relevant list is evidence (in Scotland, sufficient evidence)

that the organisation is a trade union or employers’ association."

it is, therefore, indisputable that the FDA is a trade union, and it should be marked as such, and appear in the Wikipedia lists of trade unions. Guineveretoo (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guineveretoo, you are again falling into the trap of regarding (anti-trade union) laws and the state officials who police them as the equivalent of unchallengeable holy writ as promulgated by priests. You agree the IoD isn't a trade union, good. But the FDA whose members carry out the same function in the civil service as the IoD in industry is because the certification officer says so? The logic of that is that you would have to recognise the IoD as a trade union if it too registered. Haldraper (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. I am stating some indisputable facts about the FDA, and about trade unions in the UK. Wikipedia attempts to be a resource of factual information. The fact is that the FDA is a trade union. The IoD is not. You are ignoring the fact that only a minority of FDA members are senior civil servants, anyway, and the fact that other trade unions also have a minority of members who are senior civil servants, because you are not interested in the facts, but have some strange political view which is not relevant to whether or not the FDA is a trade union. Guineveretoo (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting into 'Through the Looking Glass', 'A word means exactly what I choose it to mean' territory here, except that instead of Humpty Dumpty you have awarded an obscure state official, the certification officer, the final, unchallengeable say on what is and what isn't a trade union: 'Dorset Landowners Association you're in, sorry Tolpuddle martyrs your papers weren't in on time' -:) Haldraper (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a state official who believes the FDA to be a trade union, but all its members, the TUC, and all the other unions who are affiliated to the TUC! You are the one who is reinterpreting words to your own, weird, agenda.

the FDA is a trade union. You are going to lose this argument, because there is no possible dispute for that fact. So, perhaps it is time that you moved on to other pages, and let people who know what a trade union is, continue to edit this one. Guineveretoo (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guineveretoo, I think we've exhausted this debate and I object to being called 'strange' and 'weird' for raising reasoned objections to calling the FDA a trade union. Haldraper (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is strange, because you have not raised any reasoned objections at all. The fact is that the FDA is a trade union, and is called the FDA. I didn't, however, say that you were weird, but that your agenda for this obsessive refusal to acknowledge that the FDA is a trade union is weird. This dispute has to end soon. Guineveretoo (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same response as I gave at WP:ERA - If it's recognised as a trade union by the TUC then as far as I am concerned it's a trade union, or am I missing something? – ukexpat (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it is particularly relevant to wikipedia what Jonathan Baume said at the TUC in 2006. He has spoken at every TUC for years, but only this one speech has been referenced - last year, he successfully moved a motion, and lead a debate, in support of the Equality Bill. Guineveretoo (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

noteworthy as it shows him out of step with other general secretaries unlike other speeches you cite, also interesting contrast with his politics in 70's. Haldraper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Details and sources

What has happened to all the information which was on the page? It was sourced from the FDA website, from the TUC and from the certification officer. Isn't that sufficient? I understanding removing stuff which is just a report that someone is supposed to have said something, but it now looks like virtually the whole page has been removed! Guineveretoo (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted and referenced correctly with in-line citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversies"

Regarding this revert. Please can somebody tell me:

Why Tony Blair being 'criticised' (no attribution, expansion or explanation of this criticism is given) for making Liz Symons a peer, is relevant to this article? This information, as a bare statement of little apparent relevance to the article, which is about the FDA, not Symonds or Blair, looks for all the world like an attempt to smear either the FDA by association, or one or both the living people named, using Wikipedia. This is not acceptable. If the content cannot be re-written to makes its relevance clear, it should be removed, as has been attempted once.

Why "the FDA was one of the few affiliates to vote against support for the Trade Union Freedom Bill" is in any way, a 'controversy'? No explanation is given as to why this is controversial, and given that this was a vote, presumably the FDA are entitled to vote however they wish. Without expansion of its relevance, this bare statement being included under the heading 'controversies' again looks like an attempt to smear the FDA using Wikipedia. Once again, this is not acceptable, and if it cannot be rewritten, it should be removed, as has been attempted once.

If the response to the above is nothing better that 'it's referenced', as the original revert suggested, then I'll be requesting a third opinion as to the merit of including this material. People should be under no illusion that there is no barrier in policy to the removal innappropriate material, referenced or not. MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to rename the section but the material is clearly relevant.

Symons was General Secretary of the Association up until being made a life peer by Blair, something for which we have a reliable source saying it caused controversy amongst trade union leaders. Surely notable.

Again, the FDA's voting against support for the the Trade Union Freedom Bill might not be controversial but it is notable and we also have another reliable source for it.

Unless you want to dispute the veracity of either source, your charge that this is "an attempt to smear the FDA using Wikipedia" falls flat.

Further, as one of the more active editors cutting material deemed critical of the organisation turned out to be a FDA employee, in line with WP:COI can you tell us what your relationship with it is Mick? Haldraper (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, if you even think of accusing me of ulterior motives here again without evidence you will be answering for it at WP:ANI faster then you can breathe. Second, I did not ask for a ref for the information, I asked why it was relevant. Your change here, while an improvement by eliminating the suggestion of a 'controversy', still does not explain the relevance of either piece of information to this article, which is about the FDA, not its leaders, not the trade union movement, not Blair, or the TUC. As you clearly think this is "critical material", the potential to smear the FDA by including it, without stating how it is relevant, is rather obvious. I will warn you just the once, to comment on the material, and the material alone. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, Symons and Baume were General Secretaries of FDA when respectively they were made a life peer and gave a speech to the TUC Conference attacking the Trade Union Freedom Bill, both of which the national press found notable enough to report. That's why it's relevant to this page. And your repeated charge that this is a "smear" is as I said before misplaced. By definition, a "smear" isn't true: are you saying that Toynbee is lying about her trade union sources criticising Symons' peerage or that the industrial correspondent has invented the words Baume is quoted as saying? Haldraper (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that where you see relevance, I see bare unexpanded titbits of info, clearly included only to imply something about the FDA that the text otherwise does not say. I did not ask you if it was referenced, and I did not ask you to simply restate what the sentences say. Why you keep repeating this is beyond me. My request is clear, either expand the info to make it relevant to this article, beyond mere inference, or it goes. 'They were general secretaries' is simply not good enough, certainly not for the Blair titbit, and arguably, without any mention of the context, not for Baume either. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You like throwing your weight around don't you Mick? "faster then you can breathe"; "either expand the info...or it goes". Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. We don't just cut referenced material without consensus, whatever your bluster about "smears" and "titbits". Haldraper (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FDA (trade union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704061415/http://www.miphealth.org.uk/about-mip/ to http://www.miphealth.org.uk/about-mip/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on FDA (trade union). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]