Talk:List of trade unions in the United Kingdom

Table vs list
I've a question I was hoping you all could help with. Should the remaining unions that currently aren't in the table be inserted, or should they be left as a bullet pointed list? I wanted to ask before doing anything drastic to the layout of the article! There is also new info from the Certification Office available which is dated July 2020. Any suggestions would be deeply appreciated... drkirstyross (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorting columns
Can anyone help fix the table so that the columns will sort? It does not seem to work, and I have no idea why! Thanks  Wik idea  23:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MULTI I have replied at Help talk:Table -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Union of Democratic Mineworkers
Why is the UDM in the list of non-independent trade unions? I don't see how it's dominated by employers. Epa101 (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this 2014 list (p.44), they are certificated as independent. The article gives a 2012 list, so it needs updating more generally.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion to outdated data
Bit confused why the data on membership numbers status etc has been reverted back to out of date 2012 data. Meanwhile cites used to update the information has been retained i.e the 2013-14 CO annual report and NI CO report 2012-13? Ditto for union status it appears. If we are to differentiate unions into two groups we do need a transparent rationale. Reverted table again lists unions on an arbitrary basis. There are other options for splitting unions into more than one list than using membership above and below 100,000 but it needs to be auditable via comparable data. TUs own website data per se is not acceptable for various reasoms, whereas at least differentiation based on the Certification Officer and his colleague in NI is a robust secondary source. It would be good to have editors have some discussion here. Tmol42 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't see why it was reverted to an older version (complete with spelling and, I think, other errors). The list should be based on the up-to-date 2014 information here.   As there is a sortable table, I don't see any real reason to exclude any of the certificated unions listed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have left things for a week now so as no response from editor who changed it presume it was a mistake. Propose to restore updated material and format of the tables etc. OK? Tmol42 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - do you have any comments?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't notice this thread until I had already updated a lot of data. As far as I could tell the only reason the list is split as it was is due to insufficient data or just insufficient effort to integrate it all. After digging through several national and international lists of unions and union federations and locals of unions etc etc...I think the best thing we can do to reduce redundancy overall is to take these list hierarchies into account somehow, rather than setting membership size as a basis for inclusion of data into each of the hundred different flat lists. djr13 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem re the table adjustments just now. The rationale for the split above and below 100k members was that it could be verified from a single source as Ghmyrtle also refers to. There is no single or multiple verifiable source(s) for individual TU membership I can find. As there are just 13 Unions that have 100k members or more and represent over 84% of all TU Members and no other union comes close in terms of numbers it seemed a practical solution to enhance the utility of the article. Having done several spring cleans of the article it certainly makes the task manageable each year too. I propose to restore the table and let it breathe for a while.Tmol42 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Officer report linked above seems to compile a lot of useful information, but is it a better source than the annual returns for each union? Or is it just a question of convenience? Annual returns can be easily linked with their summary page without need of future link-updating unless the organization is renamed, could be held in a small extra column. (Example: ...so much easier than OLMS...)
 * Does the Certification Officer verify any of the statistics? I'm only vaguely familiar with their reporting requirements. Consider for example that unions over 10,000 members must hire an external auditor, and smaller unions may "self-certify" which (as I understand it) effectively means under threat of perjury. Most seem to hire auditors anyway I think. The combined-report doesn't seem to report any extra attention went into the largest examples, but only that greater detail was described for them within that document, because precise detail for 13 takes less space than 166 but still covers the majority of union members. That's a lot of unions, but our table has only basic information, as hard as things like establishment year can be to find.
 * So a number of suggestions, but don't let it block progress on maintenance. I mostly hope for a convenient reference for basic information on all the various unions in each country. However, given the nature of large national federations, a lot of duplication happens with examples like List of affiliates of the Trades Union Congress. Basically I think we might need to focus on redundancy instead of table size. —djr13 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Certification Officers have to satisfy themselves that the returns are accurate, particularly the finances which depending on the size of the Union already requires an external assessor and sometimes an auditor. Recently extra powers were given for the CO to check/ investigate further such things as membership numbers, political levies, salaries etc. Not sure how much verification has been done each year.I don't think the 13 >100k member TUs was a function of space rather the adoption of an 80:20 rule linked to the significance of the larger Unions. The TU returns would count as Primary sources only, whereas the CO's Report is a secondary source.
 * Please note the table currently displayed was the original out of date one which was reverted back, deleting the up to date table I had just added which was based on the most recent CO's Report. Providing membership information on all 173 TUs and updating annually would be a thankless task which frankly will not be done year on year. (The current table displayed is 2 years old and had not been touch until a week ago.) The links to the 173 or so Unions will change each year as and when they are updated so by linking individually to each return will create a big maintenance task. Instead we could rank TUs in bands based on membership, for example by size <1,000, 1,001 - 10.000, 10,001 - 100,000, >100,000. This would have the advantage of requiring minimum annual updating. Providing a link to the TU annual returns index url would facilitate access to individual data. Alternatively, the TUC classify their Member Unions (NB: less than 50% of all Unions) by industrial sector, that would benefit from providing utility and stability of the article and avoid unbalanced recording of data. Either way I would avoid having logos and other superfluous TU info in the table which rapidly degrades.
 * In conclusion, I've seen too many grand ideas on Talk Pages which rapidly fail so propose a simple solution which can be created quickly and developed if there is a will to do so.Tmol42 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey djr13 please can you stop fiddling with the table whilst were trying to reach concensus on format and content here. I accepted your changes before were made as you had not been aware of the discussion here and came here with some questions and constructive suggestions which I have just spent some considerably time thinking about and responding to. Frankly, fiddling with a table which was a randum list of unions to start with is not the way ahead. Please can we sort out and agree what is needed first here and then implement it collaborately.Tmol42 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for continuing, I just couldn't stand to have it stay outdated. I've been intending to (and occasionally have been) using the list as a starting point for updating articles. You made a lot of points, so I'll need to address them by line...
 * "The TU returns would count as Primary sources only, whereas the CO's Report is a secondary source." I think they would both count about equally as a primary source, unfortunately.
 * moot point I guess but the CO report is an analysis following evaluation of the YU AR21 form and other information availible to him.Tmol42 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Providing membership information on all 173 TUs and updating annually would be a thankless task which frankly will not be done year on year." It will need to be done either way, for any of these unions which have articles. I haven't dared count how many there are. It's a bit tedious, like any other basic information updating task.
 * Presume it is to an extent at least already done or should be on the individual TU articles. There are only c.80 articles on current TU out of a potential total of in excess of c.173. Far better to keep the articles current than end up with inconsistency and redundancy between list(s) and the suite of articles.Tmol42 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The links to the 173 or so Unions will change each year..." They won't. I provided an example above, copied below: just link the summary page. The summary is persistent, so you don't have to find a new link every year and it allows quick access to the newest reports when it comes time to update the number. You only need to change the link if the union is renamed, merges, etc. or if the government overhauls their site. (Example: ...so much easier than OLMS...)
 * maybe viable today but the .gov sites are frequently replaced or urls changed and old sites archived. I would give current setup a 2 year life expectancy. Instead prefer to provide one source for a list or table and could use the A-Z TU Returns landing page url. Tmol42 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Instead we could rank TUs in bands based on membership, for example by size <1,000, 1,001 - 10.000, 10,001 - 100,000, >100,000." or "...classify...by industrial sector..." This would work fairly well if we reduced the page down to a list rather than a table. Splitting into multiple tables is somewhat discouraged.
 * This seems to suggest the basis of some concensus on the the way forward for this article. Size ranges has the advantage in that it is possible to use a reliable source. While industrial sector runs the risk of being based on a synthesis.Tmol42 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Either way I would avoid having logos and other superfluous TU info in the table which rapidly degrades." Yes...the two most rapidly degrading items for most unions is the membership number (especially since we don't date it) and the link to bylaws. These are very significant, however, so if we cease carrying this information on the list/table, we really should first move the information to the respective articles. djr13 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be a fairly manageable task to update and c/e articles.Tmol42 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So in sum, can we take the penultimate * above forward and check out what rs material is available for industry sector option and whether size ranges approach is viable, then agree on a winner?Tmol42 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have additional sources in mind, that is great, though I've been satisfied with using these essentially primary sources for very basic data, and have been trying to systemically update union articles using them. The biggest hassle is that most articles are missing any source for their count at all.
 * I'm not sure if any reliable source exists listing unions by sector, to avoid synthesis. The tiers-of-membership seems arbitrary although the 100k and 10k splits both have a root in different effort-saving practices of Certification. We could also organize by federation memberships (EG with TUC), though that's sometimes quite complicated.
 * I prefer merging the table and "other independent unions" list into one (whether that's a table or list) and keeping all certified-independents together in one, but if you think it'll help I won't stop you from splitting it. And the benefit of a table is that they are sortable, so you can rearrange entries alphabetically, by founding year, or by membership, which is the main reason the MOS discourages splitting tables.
 * Also good idea on Trade unions: the current list and schedule. Even if it's not used as a source that is an excellent external link for the list, as is Certification Officer: annual reports which would assist future editors in finding Officer reports. We also need to be sure to link to List of affiliates of the Trades Union Congress. djr13 (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the above and suggestions:
 * On Industry Sector, I've looked around and no surprises agree there is no single authoritative source. The TUC (which itself covers just 53 Unions) is all I can find. Falling back on the ubiquitous primary sources, as for the membership numbers we can use the TUs own websites but would this surely fail WP:SYNTHESIS?
 * Membership numbers are reported near the beginning of each union's annual report (in quite some detail actually, region and gender). Assuming these numbers are accurate isn't synthesis but they are more a primary source than not. It's important data though; I don't think there's any option but to break the rule and go with the most reliable primary source, information legally submitted by unions to the Certification Officer. One might argue that we shouldn't emphasize the data, with both articles and lists, as cataloging and comparing it all might be considered synthesis, maybe. It is something I may one day run into hurdles with much more significantly when I actually chart these over a decade-long period, such as with United Farm Workers. But it seems rather uncontroversial and not SYNTH to say, "the union reported this many members annually" or "unions rank in this order by their latest reports." djr13 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see however we already have an under-utilised category of 'Category:Trade unions by industry' to provide a steer.
 * I prefer, and agree with you, on having one table listing all scheduled / listed independant trade unions. Happy to include affiliations to any federations.
 * On membership ranges I quite like a logarithmic non-scale scale as its easy to manage with easy naintenance once a year rather than having arbitrary ranges to spread numbers more evenly,
 * Founding year has some complications given the many mergers. Presume most unions will provide a date based on the oldest originating union? Again there are already Category Lists providing a steer. Category:Trade unions by year of establishment.
 * Christ do I know how complicated it can be to find accurate (let alone precise!) information on the founding of unions. Many of them like to focus on "legacy" and cite the founding of unions generations before them as watermark moments leading up to the historical foundation of their own organization. Really with any of this information we can only go with the most reliable and precise we have available, which may be accurate enough to update articles with the precise day the union was founded (by whatever metric they're using to formalize that), or it may limit us to reporting the century it was founded in...sometimes even that isn't clear from available sources. djr13 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you ready/happy for us to make a start?Tmol42 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it sounds great, if there's anything I should do specifically to prepare or move data, let me know. I plan to make sure the articles are updated with membership numbers, and can copy other data, though I don't plan to seek out sources for founding dates. I might even add mentions of certification of independence. I'll try to spot any contentions over sourcing; any data in the list we use should always compare and defer to articles (if available), keep those updated and using the best source. djr13 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I will probably start drafting something when I have some time next week. Just wanted to check if you are content, as far as membership levels are concerned that we use the scale ranges I proposed above; viz <1,000, 1,001 - 10.000, 10,001 - 100,000, >100,000. I guess there would be scope to add two additional ranges at <500 and 5001-10,000 adjusting the related ranges.Tmol42 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ICTU
Is there any reason ICTU isn't in the list of federated unions? It covers Northern Ireland and the Republic, so I was thinking, if no-one has any objections, of listing it with an additional note, such as: * Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) (includes Republic of Ireland). Cf also the Wiki page, where it's listed separately for each state. michellegraham 14:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellegraham (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of trade unions in the United Kingdom. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626215921/http://www.atl.org.uk/Images/rules-and-constitution-july-2011.pdf to http://www.atl.org.uk/Images/rules-and-constitution-july-2011.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.cwu.org/assets/_files/documents/dec_12/cwu__1355831031_Rule_Book_-_April_2012_.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907112703/http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MU-Rules-in-large-black-print-Min-14-point.pdf to http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MU-Rules-in-large-black-print-Min-14-point.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028140752/http://www.teachers.org.uk/files/active/0/national-rules-2012-13.pdf to http://www.teachers.org.uk/files/active/0/national-rules-2012-13.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.tuc.org.uk/the_tuc/tuc-16855-f0.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Working with torture from a government service
Child maintenance service is torturing workers by harassing them and taking money from ther wages unlawfully. Having open hours 9am - 3.30pm working hours resulting on people to take time off and loosing wayges, Harassment by letters 3-4 every month with difrent amounts to pay and asessments, threats to pay or face enforced action to those who are paying correct amounts of % from ther wayges, Inflating earnings causing arrears and being forced to pay large amounts to get arears payed with in 2 years with no negotiation of amounts.

I'm hoping a train union can help the millions of working and professional people to look at the laws and regs and take action for the inhumane actions the child maintenance service is doing. And causing conflicts in families and the seperated parents. 79.70.14.0 (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Amalgamated Association of Miners
Hello, I was looking for an article about the trade union named Amalgamated Association of Miners, but i did not find it in this list. But I found the article, as you see. --Cabanero (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Description of Unite the Union is incomprehensible
Something’s up with the grammatical structure Transient Being (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Description sections are not description
Loads of the “descriptions” of the independent trade unions are not descriptions they are just the name again or the previous unions which merged to form it Transient Being (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Free Speech Union
Should the Free Speech Union be listed here? Is has 14,000+ members. Fig (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)