Talk:Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain

User:ADCUnion's 2020-08-07 edit war
As of 13:10, has reverted all reference to Farrah and Aslam's case against Uber as being backed by the IWGB, with the (paraphrased) edit summary IWGB has not and does not represent Farrar and Aslam. OK. Some sources, however, state precisely the opposite:
 * 1) CNBC: "The labor union representing drivers Farrar and Aslam, the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB)..."
 * 2) Boston Corporate: "The firm faced off in court with the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB), a labor union representing drivers Farrar and Aslam..."
 * 3) Institute of Employment Rights: "The Uber drivers in question, Yaseen Aslam and James Farrer, who were backed at the appeal case by their union the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB)..."
 * 4) Independent: "The Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) is representing appellants in the Deliveroo and Uber cases..."
 * 5) ITV: "...the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which represents Mr Aslam and Mr Farrar."I'll be adding these sources to the article shortly. But, the, err, ADC Union clearly did not. If you mean that the involved section of the IWGB—the UPHD—later rebranded as the ACDU, fine: but they did not retroactively defend a case that took place four years before its founding on 20 July 2020.You clearly have both a conflict of interest with a concomitant inability to edit this topic neutrally.  ——  Serial  12:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

So when did the claimants joined IWGB? It seem like IWGB are taking credit for workers who put their necks on the line while IWGB had no liability, Looking at the judgement there is no mention of IWGB. Other then the claimants saying they are members of IWGB union and gave them free publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4682:101:2DCB:638D:7869:F1F6 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Serial 54129, who said anything about UPHD, ADCU or any retroactive defence of a case? What is your source for this and what has it got to do with our proposed edit? We are simply saying it is not true that the IWGB 'took over' the case. Please state your sources. Its important we are all fair and above board. Thanks.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * IWGB logo.png