This is an archive of past discussions about Union security agreement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Removed section as it reads like an editorial, indeed it is titled "rationale" and seeks to put forth justifications as presented by one man - this is outside our purview and not the encyclopedia's place. 12.144.158.16 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
One person? There are more than 20 cites there! You are providing your own opinion as to whether this article is one-sided. One-sided articles fall under WP:NPOV, and removing whole quantities of properly cited, unbiased published sources is not appropriate. If you think there is NPOV, then tag the article as such. I think you are mistaking the rationale for why union security agreements exist for an excuse or improper justification. Rationales are perfectly fine: Society passes laws against pollution because the rationale is that these are market failures known as externalities; society passes laws against speeding because speeding tends to cause more deaths; society passes laws against incest because incest involves a power-imbalance in the family and has negative genetic outcomes. Rationales are fine. Wikipedia does not care what the rationale is. Wikipedia requires there be no original research by editors, full citation of sources, and sources be pubished, third-party, and unbiased. All those criteria are met here. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
There are not any proper cites - just a list really. A cite under contention will require proper notation as to what precisely is being referenced. Title and author is insufficient to establish anything. 12.144.158.16 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
If you feel that page numbers are missing, tag the article with the "missing page numbers" tag. But deleting citations because they lack page numbers is inappropriate. Although one must assume you are acting in good faith, your repeated attempts to delete a single section of this article repeatedly is showing your bias. - Tim1965 (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
But this section presents only the reasons for and not the reasons against, among which are the portion of union dues that go to political candidates and organizations which some employees might oppose, and the fact that the common union preference for promotion and pay based on seniority disadvantages employees with less seniority but better job performance. Bostoner (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Which means that a section on problems, concerns, issues with, whatever it should be called... that this section needs to be added -- not one removed. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
