Jump to content

Talk:Trade union/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2
Archive 1Archive 2

concentrate on unionism now all-encompasing mish-mash

  • In the closed shop, a business may only hire workers who already belong to the union.
  • In the union shop, a business may hire anyone, but workers must join the union within a designated amount of time after they start work.
  • In the agency shop, workers may choose to not join the union, but must pay a fee to the union for its services in negotiating their contract.
  • In the open shop, a business may employ anyone it likes, regardless of their union status, and workers are not required to associate with a union at all.

I remember some other variants. There is one where workers are only allowed to join a specific union; i.e. they can be non-union or belong to the specified union but not to other unions. There is also places where the employee makes it part of the terms and conditions not to join a union, or may allow it but just not recognise or negotiate with the union. I can't remember the names of these, but I think they may be open agency shop and non-union shop respectively.

This article needs to branch off into separate articles on the history of the British and American trade union movements (and presumably Australian et al) and concentrate on the concept of unionism rather than trying to be the all-encompasing mish-mash it is at the moment.

Most British unions are members of the TUC, the Trades Union Congress, which is the country's sole national trade union center.

I could be wrong about this but I think in Scotland they have a Scotish Trades Union Congress (STUC) which is entirely seperate from the TUC which exists south of the border.SaulnTaylor

Correct. My union held its annual conference in Perth about 10 years ago, and we were addressed by the STUC General Secretary who made it clear that they were totally separate from the TUC (my union affiliates to both of them). -- Arwel 01:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

LO Landsorganisationen

Google suggests that LO isn't a single trades union in Sweden, but the confederation of Swedish unions. This could do with clarifying. Also, the link on the page (to LO) links to a disambiguation page that only lists the Norwegian union LO Landsorganisasjonen (which Google suggests is accurate). — OwenBlacker 15:38, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Origins of Trade Unions

In regard to 'Unions not Guilds' I'd like to add to the Labor Union article the following comment, but due to it conflicting with the point of view in the existing article, I thought I should bring it up here first. According to the NPOV policy, I think this should be included as being part of a continuing debate about the origins of trade unions:

"Another recent historical view puts forward that the origins of Trade Unions is part of a broader movement of benefit societies, which includes Freemasons, Oddfellows, Friendly Societies and other Fraternal organizations."

The source material for this view comes from articles by Dr Bob James, an Australian historian who has been researching in the field for the last 20 years: http://www.takver.com/history/benefit/

Particularly important are the articles on Secret Societies and the Labour Movement, The Knights of Labour and their context, and the book length treatise revised in May 2002 CRAFT, TRADE OR MYSTERY: Part One - Britain from Gothic Cathedrals to the Tolpuddle Conspirators. Tirin 08:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As there have been no comments on this proposal, I have rewritten the section to take into account the above research and tried to put forward major points of view and some brief historical context, so that the article concords with the NPOV policy. --Takver 06:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Industrial union, craft union

I was rather amazed to discover that we have no article on industrial union or craft union. For the moment, I've simply made them redirect to here, but the concepts each really deserves an article of their own. Is anyone interested in taking this on? I'm pretty swamped and even if I put it on my list, it would probably be months until I wrote more than a stub. -- Jmabel 05:43, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Aha! we had industrial unionism (a stub, which I've added to a little) and craft unionism. I've added the appropriate redirects.

Recent addition, I'm not sure it's a plus

The following was recently added to the lead paragraph:

Unions also use their organizational strength to advocate for social policies and legislation favorable to workers. Unions are founded upon democratic principles and leaders are selected through an election process.

Ideally, of course, these things are true, but in practice they are often not. Consider, for a relatively extreme example to the contrary, government-sponsored unions in the People's Republic of China. These matters deserve discussion in the article, but does this idealistic statement really belong in the lead paragraph? -- Jmabel 16:32, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Recent addition, I'm not sure it's a plus

You are right. I will make some changes to incorporate your concerns.

I think it is very important to mention the larger role unions play in society. Unions are more than just employee representatives that negotiate contracts. They have been a serious force for social change through their political activities.

I just added a clarifying sentence about the structure of unions varying from country to country. It's a bit redundant since it is covered later in the article, but I think it is important to put at least a blurb in there about the political structure of unions.

Breaking labor unions out into subtopics by country

I recommend creating subtopic articles of the "labor unions" topic by country. I'd like to start an article devoted solely to labor unions in the United States. I'm a new contributor to wikipedia though. I'd like to know what the protocol is for doing this. I guess I can just go ahead and start it on my own but I would prefer to be more inclusive and work with those who already have an interest in maintaining pages about labor unions first.

Please advise.

--Nysus 18:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You've just given appropriate notice. If no one objects in the next day or two, you can :

  1. Copy out what is here to a new article
  2. Edit down the content here to a paragraph or two
  3. At the heard of the new article, insert a line saying See main article [[the new article]].

Jmabel 01:51, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll do that. So is "appropriate notice" official wiki protocol before making a major change? And what constitutes a major change? Thanks.

The basis "be bold" policy means you can even do things without notice, but on an article where a lot of people have contributed, I tend to try to make sure there is something like consensus before doing anything drastic. I figure it's a lot more pleasant to elicit (generally polite) objections up front than to have them pour in after-the-fact and often less than happy. -- Jmabel 05:03, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)


Negative Aspects

How come nobody addresses the negative aspects of unions, such as collectivism, and protectionism. How bout the antiquated "last hired-first fired" policies, and the forcing of companies to continue to produce products which the company cannot sell. or forcing the company to keep working when it needs to shut down to repair itself. For example, Ford's continued production of the full sized Crown Victoria and the death of Eastern Airlines. How about the near deaths of Catepillar and UPS? Unions are not the greatest. Why aren't we talking about why we aare losing so many members. We went non-union because we lost so many members that our dues became astronomical to the point we couldn't and wouldn't support it anymore. How bout their reputation for supporting people who truely should be fired for cause? Must I go on? Why does the puplic now view unions as basically self-serving entities? --Tomtom 17:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because the point of the article is to educate readers about what a labor union is, not to discuss their accomplishments or failings. Also, many of your points above are merely your opinion and have no place in an encyclopedia article. Nysus 21:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Tomtom. There should be more in this article about the problems that unions cause. "Accomplishments" and "failings" are just as relavent as the other things in the article. This entire article seems to be written from the point of view of a union member. There needs to be some employer perspective added to balance it out.--bigjarom 08:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Move of article

I suggest that the article ought to be moved (back?) to Trade union, since

1) It's linguistically not US-specific.

2) It better corresponds to the actual usage of the term internationally. In most English speaking countries (or rather said, countries in which English is used in political context, i.e. India, Nepal, Bangladesh, UK, many African countries, etc.) the word 'Trade Union' is more frequently used than 'Labour/Labor union'. Outside of the English-speaking world , though not being a language expert, the term used in Latin languages (i.e. all of Latin America, large parts of Africa and most of Southern Europe (syndicate, sindicato, etc.), the term used in Scandinavian languages and Dutch (fack, fag, vak), the term used in Russian (Profsojuz?), etc. Also its the term used in the English version of the names of the two major international trade union federations, ICFTU and WFTU. IMHO, this points to the fact that 'Trade Union' is a much more internationally recognized term, whereas 'Labor union' more specifically refers to a U.S. context. --Soman 19:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm amenable to this, provided that:
1) a disambiguation notice be added clarifying possible confusion for U.S. readers with craft unionism.
2) the article continue to explain the differing international usages in the lead (including Canada's use of "labour union", which you ignore above)
3) in discussing the United States specifically, "labor union" be used exclusively (just as "trade union" would be for the UK), per the Wikipedia:Manual of style.
RadicalSubversiv E 19:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would completly agree to all those three points. --Soman 22:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just remember that there are still specific meanings to "Craft" "Trade" "General" "Industrial" and "Labo[u]r" union (and even "Professional Organisation") seperate to common usage. Many "Trade" unions in Australia are actually craft unions, or professional organisations. Some (very few) are industrial unions.Fifelfoo 23:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... Here in the states, we use "labor union" to refer generically to unions regardless of their sector or organizing method (industrial vs. craft/trade). I was under the impression that "trade union" was the analogous term for much of the rest of the world. If that's not correct, we need to come up with a better title for the generic union article. Perhaps Union (workers organization)? RadicalSubversiv E 00:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I maintain that "Trade Union" would be the best title for the article, although it should carry clarifications on difference of usage of names in different countries. Naming it "Union (workers organization)" would not solve the issue, since the definition of "worker" is also ambigous and many trade unions organize non-blue collar sectors.
Any union that I'm familiar with considers its members to be workers. I suppose we could use "employees" if you prefer. But it's just an idea off the top of my head, not dedicated to it.
As per the distinction industrial union - sectoral/craft union, I find it to be of secondary importance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the old AFL-CIO vs. IWW dispute? If so, it should be taken into account that the organizational position IWW and similar movements represent a miniscule fraction of the international labour movement. Also, here in Sweden (were the SAC, sister org of IWW, once was a serios contender to the LO) there has never been any linguistic distintion between "One Big Union"-unionism and the mainstream union movement, both tendencies have use the same term, Fackföreningsrörelse (Trade Union Movement). Likewise in Spanish, sindicalismo (trade unionism), is common to both tendencies. --Soman 02:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The industrial union vs. craft union dispute is an important one, which both pre- and post-dates the heydays of the IWW. The CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) was made up almost exclusively of industrial unions and today the AFL-CIO includes unions organized along a variety of lines (industry, sector, craft, etc.), which is in fact currently a matter of much debate at the moment.
To return to the point, I think the key question is whether "trade union" can safely be assumed to refer to unions generically. In the United States, it doesn't. That's a big exception, but if it's the only one, we can deal with it. Fifelfoo's comments suggest that Australia is an exception as well, which makes me wonder about New Zealand, which suggests that we're now talking about much of the English-speaking world (and probably most of the English Wikipedia's readership). RadicalSubversiv E 02:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I must regret, I may have misrepresented myself. In Australia most people refer to "Unions" pure and simple. The 1980s and 1990s shook up most of the traditional structures. Some are closer to industrial unions (NTEU). Some are simply conglomerates (AMWU). If people don't just say "Union" (as in "Did you join your union?") they say "Trade Union" which is somewhat anachronistic in Australian English. There are a couple of exceptions (Australian IWW which is unregistered and miniscule, "Professional Associations" like APESMA which is a bosses union). But even the old-fashioned single craft unions are usually referred to at "Unions" or "Trade unions". So that's kinda a vote for "Trade Union". Fifelfoo 03:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Omission

No article on trade unionism can be complete without mentioning anarcho-syndicalism. Chamaeleon 12:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Not an important strand today (except maybe in a few Spanish-speaking countries), but very important a century ago. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Tolpuddle Martyrs

The origin of the Trades Union is usually attributed to the six Tolpuddle Martyrs (named after their village in Dorset, England) in about 1831-33. In 1834 they were transported to new South Wales for seven years as an example to others. (anon 31 March 2005)

The Tolpuddle martyrs were convicted for swearing a secret oath as members of the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers. The rules of the society show it was clearly structured as a Friendly Society. But clearly at the time, friendly societies had strong elements of what we now consider is the predominant role of trade unions. While the story of Tolpuddle has enriched the history of trade unionism, we should be careful not to subsume essential facts: that the organisation clearly labeled itself as a friendly society; and that friendly societies and unions share common attributes as benefit societies. Tolpuddle is discussed in some depth by historian, Dr Bob James, at http://www.takver.com/history/benefit/ctormys-05.htm#ch5s04 --Takver 14:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV check?

This was tagged with {{POV check}}, but as far as I can see no remark was made here indicating what the POV issue is supposed to be that raises a dispute. If no one has specifically indicated what the issues are in the next 48 hours, the tag should presumably be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


I agree, I can see no reason to tag for POV.


Jayanne

I, too, agree there is presently no issue requiring a POV check. I reckon remove the tag. --Takver 04:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removed as per discussion FrancisTyers

Recent insertion of POV material

Several recent edits seem to me to raise POV problems.

Recent additions:

The opposite human rights issue is that also the right to not to be a member of a union is a human right, and so is the right to work and the right to make decisions about oneself. The unions are often accused of terrorizing those workers who choose not to join the unions or to negotiate themselves on their salary and other terms of employment. Even in some democratic countries, the agreements made by the unions bind also those workers who are not members and want to choose their own terms.
…
The guilds have also been viewed as cartels, limiting the number of producers and thus stagnating the supply and development of products and production methods and hindering the rise of welfare and living standards.
  • Both of these are outside of the "Criticisms" section, but clearly they are criticisms.
  • "The unions are often accused of terrorizing…": Weasel words (No agency: who accuses? "Often"?) and an inflammatory word—"terrorizing"— combine to make a strong but baseless accusation.
  • (While I'm at it, weird grammar): "…negotiate themselves on their salary…"?
  • "The guilds have also been viewed as cartels…: again, no agency; also, there is an implicit, unattributed acceptance of a rather radical form of a standard critique of cartels: it is certainly a pretty extreme, minority view of guilds to say that they "…hinder[ed] the rise of welfare and living standards," but there it is in the narrative voice of the article.

As for the (also recently added) "Criticisms" section itself:

  • "Trade unions are often accused to benefit the insider workers…": again, besides bad grammar ("…accused to benefit…"?) "…often accused…" is not a citation.
  • The criticism of minimum wage is not particularly a criticism of trade unions, and probably does not belong here
  • "The economic analysis of a cartel applies completely to most unions…": I need hardly say that "applies completely" is POV.
  • "Often the union on a particular industry…" (again, bad grammar) "…puts pressure on politicians to subsidize the industry concerned…" Probably true, but deserves citation. Note also, the implicit assumption that subsidies are bad.

I think I've laid out the issues with this material pretty thoroughly, but I don't particularly wish to do take on the editing, and especially I'm not interested in doing the research to find citations. I would rather not simply revert, although I feel that this material as it stands does more harm than good to the article. Would someone commit to taking it on and fixing it? Otherwise, I guess I will just revert it, though I understand that is probably not as good a course of action as someone fixing it up. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I had a quick go, but didn't want to go any further. I make take it up later... FrancisTyers 21:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Good job on the "article 23, subsection 4 of the UDHR" thing, but I see you have again reproduced the claim that unions use "terror", which seems to me to be utterly out of line in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved the "terror" thing from the "History" section to the "Criticism" section and toned it down a bit. This is a work in progress I guess, I'm fairly sure there have been cases of union members "terrorising" (read pressurising?) non-union members. I am unhappy with the "Some unions", as it makes it sound like the "terrorism" is being directed from above and not just shop floor workers pissed off at a scab (to coin a phrase). That said, I'm going to leave it in for now, if you can think of a better way of wording it that would be cool :) FrancisTyers 06:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's a long way from pressure—or even violence—to "terror". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, furthermore, I don't see anything in the Corporation article about corporations complicit in using forced labour. I guess I'll remove it, if the guy really wants it included, he can add it back and we can discuss it more. Also, I think some of the stuff in "Criticism" could be split out into "insider-outsider theory" and "minimum wage" articles. FrancisTyers 09:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rather than "pressure" or "terrorizing", trade unionists have traditionally argued they have a right of "moral persuasion" of fellow workers.--Takver 23:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Union shops?

Is it just me, or is all the references to different "shops" entirely US-specific? Perhaps its better to remove the Anglocentric focus to articles such as Labor unions in USA or Trade unions movement in Britain? This article ought to be globally relevant, providing info on TU systems in differnt regions. --Soman 10:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be made less anglo-centric, however, yes we do have the different "shop" types in the UK iirc, although maybe not post-thatcher. I remember hearing the auto-industry was particularly fond of closed/union/agency shops. I would also like to see an article/section regarding the role of trade unions during wartime situations e.g spanish civil war, first world war etc. FrancisTyers 17:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have slightly extended the section on the issues of shop types to make the legal status in the UK and US clearer. It would be good if we could find out the status in some other countries. Maggie made everything except the open shop pretty much illegal except Equity - I'm not sure if they have a specific exemption or found a loophole...

I think we should keep the country specific information fairly general as a summary and pointer to regional/national trade union/labour movement articles. So, rather than specific detail on Trade Unionism in Australia, the Australian labour movement should provide the necessary detail and history. Similarly for Britain, USA, Europe, etc--Takver 23:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Info to be added

Generally, this article needs section covering other regions than the English-speaking world:

  • Western Europe (including differences between Northern and South European TU movement)
  • Latin America (development of TU movement, reorientation to unity efforts in many countries, such as CUT-Brazil, CUT-Colombia, etc.)
  • South Asia (politically divided TU movement)
  • Africa
  • State-controlled TU system (Soviet type, currently existing in DPRK, Vietnam, Syria, etc.)

--Soman 10:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I agree, which is why i slapped the "needs to be improved" tag on it, I just don't have the time. :( IMHO state controlled trade unions should encompass their own heading, including the history of them etc. i'm still surprised there is no reference to solidarnosc or independant trade unions within communist countries, nor the labour disputes in the soviet union prior to its collapse. just because a union is state controlled doesn't mean its members can't strike... Maybe some kind of plan could be arranged whereby the article is rearranged according to common agreement? FrancisTyers 17:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unions in France

I don't think that the juxaposition of the sentences "France is thought to have one of the lowest union densities in Europe, however unions are much more likely to strike" and "France also has a much higher unemployment rate than the nations of Northern Europe." is NPOV.

I agree that both statements are true, but their juxtaposition is implying a simplistic conclusion which is non-NPOV. --Josce 15:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This would require careful treatment. The situation with unions in France is that their membership tends to be heavily concentrated inside the public sector (public education, public transportation...). There, people tend not to fear layoffs, and can cause great disturbances by going on strike. The situation is very diffirent in the rest of the economy, or even in some other public sector areas.
I've tried to reword the paragraph, but even then I think it still isn't quite right. We definitely need somebody who knows about workforce relations in France to discuss this — because the rest is probably fuzzy talk gathered from press commentaries. David.Monniaux 16:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Some changes

no doubt people may well change it back but I have done a couple of simeple things to make this article LOOK better. It looked like crap. too much info on america. I agree it needs more international stuff but I have no knowledge here and could not be bothered. I was sick of looking at this article not being editted in any way.

While I understand your frustration, and would be glad to see more editing to the text, I'm not convinced your edits really helped all that much, so I'm reverting for now. I would suggest that you check the Manual of Style before doing drastical changes to the layout of long-standing articles. The =Top-level header= is not used in the article body (it is reserved for the article title). "External links" is the standard name for the links section in all Wikipedia articles. While people surely might disagree on what looks best, the most important thing is that formatting is as consistent as possible across Wikipedia's 600,000 articles. You can change some aspects of the presentations by changing the skin in your preferences.
As for the section on the U.S. I actually agree with you that it is too verbose in comparison to the other parts of the world. But just doing a cut and paste into a new Labor Unions in the United States of America article, replacing the info here with only a link, might not be the best solution. Since the history and situation of labor unions in the U.S. are of some importance to a general discussion on trade unionism, there should at least be a decent summary in this article. If you provide one (perhaps around 1/4th the length of the original text) that would be great. / Alarm 15:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the lead sentence

The article currently begins, "A union (labor union in American English; trade union in British English; either labour union or trade union in Canadian English) are organisations formed by employees in an industry with the functional purpose of providing representation to maintain and improve wages and working conditions to the members within the union." Besides the lack of subject-verb agreement (A union… are organisations…), which I'll fix, I don't believe this specific statement about "…to maintain and improve wages and working conditions to the members…" is correct.

This would be true only of relatively conservative unions. For an extreme counterexample in the English-speaking world, consider the Industrial Workers of the World, a U.S. union that, while very minor and marginal today, was quite important in the early 20th century, and which actively rejected the slogan "a fair days wage for a fair days work" in favor of advocationg abolition of the wage system and institution of anarcho-syndicalism. In Spain, the Confederación General del Trabajo, with similar overt political views (although perhaps less radical in practice) remains an important trade union today.

Also, the notion that unions are working only narrowly for their own members is, again, true only of the more conservative unions; in this case, I don't even have to look to radical extremes for counterexamples. When unions have fought for minimum wage laws, institution of national health programs, limited work-weeks, etc., they are working on behalf of far more than their own membership.

Yes, there are unions that only work for the wages and working conditions of their own members. But putting this in the lead section of the article suggests that this focus defines a labor union, and that simply is not true. It would be like starting the article on corporation by saying "A corporation is a legal entity (distinct from a natural person) that often has similar rights in law to those of a natural person, which exists further their enrichment of its owners while, through its legal status, limiting their liability." We are correct not to do that there, and would be correct not to do that here.

Right now I will just fix the subject-verb agreement; I don't want an edit war, so I will allow a day or so for comment before I edit further. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Concur, go ahead. A note that secondary action is outlawed or greatly controlled (i can't make sense of the legalese) in the UK (and possibly other countries) might be appropriate, considering that members would be more likely to take action in defense of their fellow workers if it were not against the law. - FrancisTyers 07:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


Unions and Affiliation

I would just like to mention the Unions affiliation to various movements on various socialist parties. After all, Trade Unionism is a socialst movemet, this is so far little mentioned in the article. Trade Unionism is domestic and ground level socialism. I feel like this should definitely be mentioned, as it is a key part of the left wing movement.

Mention it then :) - FrancisTyers 07:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Union Legality

I came here hoping to find information on how unions work. How do they attain the right to become a legal entity? Why can't the employer just fire all the union employees or refuse to keep them? Why don't other unions try to scoop membership by telling the employer that they'll bring along employees who accept a lower wage? As a former member of several unions, I've never quite understood how all this works. --207.81.158.123 05:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Laws protect unions right to exist. If you look at the history of unions, before these laws, employers had the power to destroy unions. The history of American unionism is the bloodest and most violent of all industrial countries. 700 dead. A great book on this that answers your questions is: The War on Labor and the Left: Understanding America's Unique Conservatism
I will try to expand this article in the future. Travb 16:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Often if employers fire union members they are breaking freedom of association laws in the country, which take their legitimacy from international law. Sometimes other unions do try to scoop membership by bringing in people who will work for less. The Australian Workers Union has done this on occasion to the CFMEU in civil construction. It ususally leads to a lot of problems obviously. Dankru 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A trade union is...

I noticed someone reworded the opening sentence. Perhaps a solution to the problem of defining what a union is would be to borrow a phrase from someone else. Sidney and Beatrice Webb begin their famous 1894 volume on the history of trade unionism in Britain with 'A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment.' When it was objected that the last bit implied 'that Trade Unions have alwasy contemplated perpetual continuance of the capitalist or wage system' the Webbs altered the wording to read 'of their working lives' for the 1920 edition. Maybe that definition could be a useful base from which we then expand? All refs S & B Webb, History of Trade Unionism, 1666-1920 (London, 1919), p. 1. Mattley (Chattley) 12:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly comfortable with that; I think it's pretty close to what I wrote. My main concern is that we not take the narrow view that unions are necessarily collective bargaining agents. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean so I can take it into account if I try to work on the opening para? Mattley (Chattley) 15:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Periodically, someone rewrites the lead in a way that makes collective bargaining part of the definition of trade union, which, of course, it is not. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent anon contribution

Labor Unions have also been known to favor white males. The average White male makes around six hundrend dollars a week while a African American Male makes five hundred a week.

I've removed this pending citation and possible re-write. - FrancisTyers 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The economic analysis of a cartel applies somewhat to unions, to those that try to fix the (minimum) price of work, to limit supply (e.g., by some criteria on membership or education) or to limit competition. On the other hand, unions often have also other functions than those of a cartel: they may advise the workers, warn about disadvantageous contracts or terms of employment etc. These latter functions are usually considered as beneficial for both the workers and for the society as a whole (though not necessarily for corporations or shareholders who are a true cartel).

Appears to contradict itself and is not sourced. - FrancisTyers 17:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I took a run at re-working the intro. It's sitting at User:Bookandcoffee/Labour, if no one objects I'll put it here in a couple days. Mostly it's just a re-write, with the same information, although the first part is from Mattley and does a nice job of starting things. I also changed the paragraph about Service model/organising model - what's there now seems a bit thin. (Mind you, all I did was crib the text from the two links, so it still needs work.) I also added a couple references. Oh, and there's a message box directing readers down to country specific info. I like it, but I don't know if it fits with wiki style.--Bookandcoffee 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well there it is. I also started using footnotes for the reference section. Does anyone care if I convert the rest of the article using {{ref}} footnotes?--Bookandcoffee 18:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do :) - FrancisTyers 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition

Labor Unions improved working conditions in many ways. Take for one example the mining situation in West Virginia. It was been widely believed that union members made around 50% more than non union workers. The labor union movement also brought an end to child labor. By union members getting paid more, their children did not need to work just to help the family get by. This enabled more children to attend school and get a higher education. Labor Unions also improved working conditions. They made the working place much safer for union workers. Labor Unions also increased wages for both union and non union workers. Some people may argue that strikes lead by the labor unions led to disaster. Although an estimated 80 million dollars worth of property was destroyed during strikes this does not mean the union is bad. If it weren’t for the strikes America would have no middle class. You would either be poor or rich and not in between like most families today. Strikes were the only way to make advances in getting higher wages and less working hours. Labor Unions also helped reduce the number of deaths on the job by making big business’s improve the conditions in the factory or in the mines.

I've moved this to the talk page as it doesn't fit the tone of the article, some of the information might be good to be included in a reworded form however. - FrancisTyers 01:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

UK section- Government opposition to Trade unionism?

A case could be made for government opposition to trade unionism during the early 1970s, but surely not in the 1960s or the winter of discontent. Any references to support this wild assertion? Gravuritas (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hi, The info on Europe was put in the Scandinavia section as it referred mainly to it. I don't see how a picture of a few workers standing around adds much to the article, but I can leave it in if you want.Noodleki (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of misleading and incomplete clause?

There is one sentence here which is uncited:

"Originating in Europe, trade unions became popular in many countries during the Industrial Revolution, when the lack of skill necessary to perform most jobs shifted employment bargaining power almost completely to the employers' side, causing many workers to be mistreated and underpaid."

In its current structure it has one clause - "the lack of skill necessary to perform most jobs" - which in my judgement would be better re-worded to clarify its meaning and to make the phrasing more neutral:

"Originating in Europe, trade unions became popular in many countries during the Industrial Revolution, when the lower expertise required to produce the same output made workers more easily replaceable and shifted employment bargaining power almost completely to the employers' side, causing many workers to be mistreated and underpaid."

My edit was reverted, citing addition of uncited content. If someone would like to find some citing for it, you are welcome to do so. ChaffinchNZ (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello ChaffinchNZ. I saw the revert and template at your userplage, and I reacted a bit like you. The sentence you changed is in the lede which is supposed to be a summary of the body which is why it did't have a source. The sentence in question is probably meant to be a summary of the history section sourced to Webb*2, but I don't think the orginal lede was an optimal summary and at first glance your latest edit seems fine to me (allthough the "shifted bargaining power" may have a potential to mislead a bit; without saying anything about many of these was coming from a more unformal economy; which I believe they did) Regards,Iselilja (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds very contentious to me, and probably wrong. Much of early trade unionism in the UK was in the skilled trades, not unskilled. Underpaid? In all seriousness, what exactly does that mean? In England the agricultural workers during the industrial revolution were paid less in the South than they were in the North, because people were being attracted to the cities from the land. So what is criterion for /underpaid/, and by comparison with the rural poor, what does mistreatment mean?
Gravuritas (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

TRADE UNION

A trade union is an associationof workers formed to represent negotiate. protect. and improve workers rights. and interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iftekharulislam120 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Prevalence" section

This information looks about a decade out of date... nevertheless the image also needs to be converted to a table. -124.190.107.75 (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Grammar Issues

There were a lot of missing commas and apostrophes. Cannon Ahrens (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC) I also came across a few misspelled words so I fixed them. Cannon Ahrens (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Underrepresentation

Some of the subsections of the article such as: Germany, Costa Rica, Colombia, India, and Japan are very short with lack of information. The links in each of the subsections are very informative about the trade unions in those countries yet they are still underrepresented. But for some of the countries listed, trade unions are not that popular. The subsection 'Criticisms" is also underrepresented. The contributors to this section mostly talked about the United States. With all of the other countries they talked about in the full article, they should have talked about some of the criticisms of some of those countries. Cannon Ahrens (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on 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) 06:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence boilerplate

A trade union, also called a labour union or labor union (US), is an association of workers in a particular trade, industry, or company created for the purpose of securing improvement in pay, benefits, working conditions or social and political status through collective bargaining and working conditions through the increased bargaining power wielded by creation of a monopoly of the workers.

As it stands, this is not a sentence crafted to be read, but a sentence constructed to persuade the reader to quickly skim forward. — MaxEnt 11:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is how I replaced the lead sentence in my own notes:

A trade union is an association of workers formed to wield collective bargaining power.

Everything else in that sentence is quickly repeated in the rest of the lead anyway. — MaxEnt 11:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

American English changed to UK English

This article was started in American english, and unilaterally turned to UK English, as too often happens on Wikipedia. It should be turned back. If something is started in US English, leave it be. If it's not noticed for a while, it doesn't make it right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 January 2015‎ (UTC)

American English is not the principal English spoken worldwide, nor is it the principal English spoken in the union movement. English English is the principal English spoken worldwide, and is the principal English spoken in the union movement. I'll bother signing this comment, and hope to be included in ongoing conversations on the matter, as both a linguist and a union organiser. :) Her Radicalness (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I have taken this from lead:

A trade union (or a labor union in the U.S., or a union in Australia) is an association of workers forming a legal unit or legal personhood, usually called a "bargaining unit", which acts as bargaining agent and legal representative for a unit of employees in all matters of law or right arising from or in the administration of a collective agreement.

It was added last year without a citation in the lead or the body of the article. This might be true is some countries, but it is certainly not true in all. For example, this says that unions are not legal persons in Britain. I think it gives a distorted view about what unions are. In any case, it is too technical to have as an opening sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Impact" section

This article is missing an "impact" section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The article shouldn't have a criticism section. It should have an impact section instead. Maybe User:Davide_King might be interested in looking to fix this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I strongly agree. Criticism sections are undesirable in general. I also think the Australia section focuses excessively on the White Australia Policy. Unions achieved a great deal here in Australia that is not mentioned but the White Australia policy which was broadly supported by Australians and supported by all sides of politics at the time is given undue weight in this section. In more recent times unions have been involved in Aboriginal rights activism, women's and immigrants rights etc. and they played a major role in dismantling the White Australia policy. As it stands the Australia section makes it look like we are a pack of racists in the union movement, which is not true. I'm happy to do the work improving the Australia section. Bacondrum (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, thanks for mentioning me. I agree with your point and also with Bacondrum about the White Australia Policy. Snooganssnoogans, based on what I have seen from you, I think you are especially good at researching sources, so I count on you to add high quality sources and peer-review studies and summarise what they say.--Davide King (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I will proceed to make several changes: I'll create an "Impact" section that summarizes research and expert assessments on the topic, and I'll throw partisan arguments into whatever subsections that they belong to. I'll move whatever worthwhile content exists in the Opposition to trade unions into this article and then delete the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Citing 20-year old low-impact journal articles

This edit[1] should be reverted. We should not be citing 20-year old pieces in a low-impact libertarian journal, Journal of Labor Research. We should in particular not do it to rebut content from recent research in the top journals in economics, political science and sociology. This article[2] (which selfdescribes as an "essay") is not a study in any real sense: it's a poorly argued blogpost (I strongly encourage to open it and compare its contents to those of the other studies cited in the same section). I also don't think we should be citing a review article from the same libertarian low-impact journal, even if that article is structured more as a real review article rather than a blogpost. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 EJ study writes that only research subsequent to the publication of those two articles "have offered credible evidence on causal effects" regarding unions and firm productivity.[3] Thus, it's kind of absurd to be citing a blog-style essay and a review of much older research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources are not necessarily rebuttals, they are just sources - a study from Norway found one thing and research from the US found another (and a source from Belgium yet another). Some studies find the effects of unions vary depending on country, so it's not even contradictory to conclude that unions may have heterogenous effects in different countries (as well as different effects over time). Actually, we should probably mention this fact in the page, it's even mentioned in the Barth article.

I am aware of what the Barth article says on causation, although I would point out this is one source saying there has been no credible research - that's not to say it's wrong, I just don't have enough info on labour research to conclude if what the source is saying is correct (that only four prior studies are credible when it comes to causation). Research on unions (at least with regard to ecnomics) has been rather limited unfortunately.

Do you have direct access to the Vedder article? I cannot seem to get access to it. Sdio7 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Opposition to trade unions" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Opposition to trade unions. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 19#Opposition to trade unions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Missing article for Unionization drive

I notice that unionization redirects here and that we have no article devoted specifically to the process of unionization. This would be a good new page to write if anyone is interested. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, I've been bold and changed the redirect to Organizing model. Also, at the moment, Union organizing redirects to Union organizer. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Employment" under History section, and term "workers"

I added a few lines about the concept of employment as it is understood, and "wage slavery" as it was expressed by its critics. The introductory section referred to an influx of workers from the countryside to the cities during the Industrial Revolution. However, the concept of "employment" as a practice was new, and these "hired men" were not yet workers. This has to be explained in context of not only a move from rural to urban, but a move from self-agency of production, where a farmer sold a product, to a loss of self-agency as worker, where the worker sold themselves and their labour, losing control over their lives and the means to plan and be self-sufficient. This is a very important notion, since in the production of commodity, the worker also becomes a commodity with an assigned labour cost, and this needs to be understood, since it is a moral affront to many people. Historiaantiqua (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cannon Ahrens.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

‘Protecting the integrity of the trade’

Back in 2012, an editor added ‘protecting the integrity of the trade’ as the first listed goal of unions in the first sentence of this article. The editor claims this is the ’original goal of guilds’ in the edit note.

Is that true—seems questionable? And unions ≠ guilds anyway? Can someone explain what this means in this article? Does it mean advocating quality standards in the union's industry? Is there a more straightforward way to word this?—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 05:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Altercari guilds and unions are similar and yet different in their function. North American unions actively attempted to kill the plastering trade as a fully trained plasterer (stuccoist) is a highly skilled Artisan that sets their own rates and terms and can rapidly train up an army of apprentices. No need to bow to collectivist politics when one has empirically based merit. 66.11.178.141 (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trade_union/Archive_1&oldid=1187197466"