Talk:RMT (trade union)

	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.

Organized Labour Mid‑importance

	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.

Transport: Maritime

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Trains: in UK Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance).

On 12 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers to RMT (trade union). The result of the discussion was moved.

Balance on 2007 strike

I added the {{balance}} tag to the 2007 strike section. I think it is important to include views from all sides. Currently there is no information about the RMT position on the strike. Both the BBC and the RMT have information that should be incorporated.--Bookandcoffee 00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to predict the future, I imagine we're about to see a similar level of activity. What is most important is that we treat TfL and the RMT with equal weighting. A statement/opinion/claim made by one should be counterbalanced by the relevant statement/opinion/claim of the other. But if all the independant, reliable sources say one thing, we shouldn't automatically ignore this fact in the name of balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.161.114 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"widely regarded as one of the more radical trade unions in Great Britain"

Hi there, am I right in saying this sentence in the summary of the article shouldn't be there without citation? 82.28.207.187 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliations - Pro Russia paragraph

I've just revised slightly the third paragraph regarding the union's supposed pro-Russian allyship. One of the references is currently broken and a small amount of effort to fix it has come up to nothing, and I can't help but feel the whole section presents a highly non-neutral perspective backed up with possibly non-neutral sources. I've left it up since I don't feel strongly that it should come down, only that the section be improved and properly referenced and presented more neutrally - e.g. that the union response is included. eeveeman (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of the paragraph, as it stands, as it's discussing views of some members of the union - admittedly two are prominent ones - not the position of the union itself. I see there's an article on Eddie Dempsey which doesn't currently discuss his position on Russia and Ukraine, but a summary would be more appropriate there. Warofdreams talk 22:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I'm going to be bold and remove it, but if anyone really disagrees then they can revert and come here. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad such a simple resolution has been arrived at. Agree with the stance and action taken. eeveeman (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are its members?

The article needs to clarify what Rail, Maritime and Transport occupations are covered by the different unions. E.g., drivers are more likely to join ASLEF. I don't know enough detail to contribute. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Raladic (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– I don't think I've ever heard the full name being said for both unions (who were on a strike across the UK from 2022 until May this year). It's safe to say that these abbreviations are WP:COMMONNAME. It's also WP:CONCISE. Same can be said for RSPCA. The full name can remain first in the lead, just like BBC and NASA. JuniperChill (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force and WikiProject UK Railways have been notified of this discussion. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 12:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Organized Labour has been notified of this discussion. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 12:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 12:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support acronyms, but with a question. I've looked at 6 pages of results for a Google News search for tube strikes 2024 (which involved both unions). Only two articles of the circa 50 I looked at used the unexpanded form for RMT The Independent, LBC. The former also has articles where it doesn't expand the acronym but the latter consistently does, but this doesn't stop RMT being the very clear common name. Not a single one of the articles I looked at expanded the name of the other union, however the capitalisation was a mix of "ASLEF" and "Aslef". The former is slightly more common and appears to be the organisation's preferred capitalisation, but I'm not immediately familiar with what our style guidelines say on this question. Some examples:
- Aslef: BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, Metro, Wandsworth Guardian, City AM, Londonist, LBC
- ASLEF: UCL, London Travelwatch, Time Out, ITV News, Sky News, The Chiswick Calendar, RAIL, IanVisits, Railnews, Secret London, South London News. TfL
- Both: The Standard, News Shopper, Reuters
I support either capitalisation but it will be less disruptive to move the article only once. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, see MOS:CAPSACRS. It's why UNESCO and UNICEF are written (and also titled) that way. In other words, Wikipedia writes acronyms in all caps unless its almost always commonly written in that way, which is why laser is written that way. JuniperChill (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be capitalised simply because it is an acronym Danners430 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more complicated than that, hence laser, Yahoo, LaTeX and many others. The MOS guidance (which I looked for but failed to find) is clear though that we go with the spelling found in the majority of reliable, independent sources, implicitly defaulting to all caps if there is no majority. In this case a narrow majority use all caps. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom - I would support ASLEF (capitalised) over uncapitalised, as it is an acronym. Danners430 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not particularly concerned around the capitalisation issue, but FWIW no one (media, trade union movement, employers, government) says "A.S.L.E.F." (ie pronouncing the initials) it's always "Aslef" (as a word). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. The dotted form is also never seen in writing - it's always either "ASLEF" or "Aslef" never "A.S.L.E.F.". Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ASLEF —Also more in line with AFL-CIO and other well-known unions, and I don't think there are any other notable ASLEFs that this name change would contradict with. Spookyaki (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.