Talk:Trade union/Archive 2

comment
Alz3eeam (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Global Scope
Seems pretty US and UK oriented, very surprised to see little Canadian references, or linkes to the Canadian labour congress in the list of trade union confederations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Labour_Congress

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.138.5.20 (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the focus is definitely on the US, with small sections on other countries. More should be added, especially for Europe which (as a whole) is probably more unionized than the US. Lunamia (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is laughably inadequate for the topic and is very UK-centric, despite some US asides and photos. I could find no useful information on this page for my research. This has to be one of the weakest pages in all of Wikipedia vis a vis the importance and scope of the topic at hand. For shame. 98.180.8.57 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
Why the British spelling?--Troop350 21:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IIRC the only reason for all of the american spelling in the article earlier was that before the move from labor union to the more regionally neutral trade union american spellings were used to be consistent with the title. After the move that wasn't necessary.Zebulin (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, also the English Language and the Labour movement both originated in Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlugg1 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 4 February 2008


 * also see "trades union(s)" further down the page.--94.193.101.33 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

should consider looking at spelling differences before changing organization or organisation to organiation (which is wrong). --XonqNopp Tk 08:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

History re-work
I started a re-working of the history section. It's true that bad working conditions and wages did lead to the organization of workers (al a Marx and Ingels), but my (albeit limited) understanding is that the first wave of organization had more to do with excluding outside workers - specifically the unskilled, and the immigrant (not to mention women). I thought it would work to mention both the fears of the crafts and the unrest of the new workers in the intro, and then move to an early history focusing more on the crafts, and only mentioning the less successful (or slower) organization of semi-skilled and unskilled workers.

Would Workers of the world be too dramatic of a section title for the second portion of history that would outline both the political rise of the worker and the evolution of the crafts up to – oh I don't know – WWII and the changes from there? And when does this history become a global history? When do unions outside Europe and North American begin to form?

BTW, I'd like to move the "cleanup" and "verify" tags down the article to the history section, and then hopefully move them farther down as this progresses. Does that make sense?Bookandcoffee 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "history" and "Origins and history" catgorys are redundent.--Hacky 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Centered1 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)The first sentence of the history section needs to be rewritten. Here is how it looks as of 5 p.m. EST on 8 October 2007: "The traces of trade unions existence could be traced from eighteenth century,that to in the Western society (with most changes occurring earliest in Britain) witnessed a transformation from an agrarian culture with craft-based production to a culture shaped by the first industrial revolution." Normally, I would just correct the grammar. However, I feel that the original author of the sentence might be the best one to do so. 1) The opening clause of the sentence uses the word "trace" twice in a confusing manner. 2) There needs to be a space after the first comma. 3) "that to" should most likely be "to that". 4) The verb following the part in parentheses does not seem to agree with a subject. "witnessed"

Changes
I've moved the criticism section down to the bottom where I think it fits better. I'd like to request that we standardise on British English spelling. e.g. privatise, organisation, labour, trade union etc, unless the specific name or whatever calls for American spelling. At the moment it is a mish-mash of different styles, I will go through and standardise it. Also, we need to make the lead much shorter. Three paragraphs should be sufficient. We have to decide what we want in them. Also, the sectioning of the article could do with some work, but I'm sure we've all known that for a while :) - FrancisTyers 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it would be easy enough to split the intro - the second half deals with variants of "Structure and politics", and could be sectioned off as such. What did you have in mind for the remainder of the article? --Bookandcoffee 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The following is just something I made up right now, please feel free to alter it, suggest improvements etc. - FrancisTyers 00:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * History up until present day (including origins)
 * Origins
 * Unions in Western countries
 * Unions in Communist countries (including Solidarnosc etc.)
 * Unions in developing countries
 * Unions today
 * Problem of international comparison
 * Free unions
 * Unions in Communist countries
 * Trade unions by region and country
 * Structure and Politics (both progressive and conservative features of the politics)
 * Impact of Unions (minimum wage, 8 hour day, child labour, health and safety etc.)
 * Shop types


 * Under "shop types" on the main page is states "A union shop (US) or a "post-entry closed shop" (UK) employs non-union workers as well, but sets a time limit within which new employees must join a union.". This is flat out incorrect.  I live in Ohio.  A non right to work state. I work for a company that has a "union shop" agreement.  The union cannot compel you to join after 45 days.  You must pay the union what it can prove are costs germane to collective bargaining, grievance adjustment and contract administration.  You still do NOT have to join the union in order to work or keep your job.  You can also resign your union membership at anytime.  My source?  the National Right to Work Foundation   www.nrtw.org  I should know, I resigned my union membership and always respond when I see this type of error.  "you must join a union".  That's an out an out lie.  It's old language that the Labor Board rules illegal.  Ask them.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.83.30 (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Criticism
 * References
 * External links


 * I think it's a great idea to reorg the sections. I'm nervous about the history section though. Divisions like western/developing attract controversy and misunderstanding - and a country like India is neither Western/Communist or developing. Having said that, I don't have a solid suggestion. Borrowing Mattley's idea, is there a recognized text that could provide a neutral division? And while I'm here, this is such a huge topic, should we be actively working toward creating sections that are overviews, with the aim of larger "main article" pages, or is that something that just occurs organically?--Bookandcoffee 21:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I would agree (thinking again) that it probably isn't best to separate out Communist unions etc. Perhaps we could have a section entitled Types of trade unions? Does anyone have access to Britannica, perhaps we could take their section layout? With regard to section overviews etc. I think we just keep adding text until it gets too big and then make a separate article, like with Trade unions in the United Kingdom etc. - FrancisTyers 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

please fix the language redirected, the languages does not redirect to Trade union. Any ways I fixed the Arabic one.Alz3eeam (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Pluralisation
I've made a couple of minor changes to the article, as the correct plural of "trade union" is "trades unions" and not "trade unions". The latter, whilst commonly used, should only be used when describing several unions who represent the same sectors of employment. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.12.234.51 (talk • contribs).
 * What are you basing that assertion on? Mattley (Chattley) 22:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There's an interesting note somewhat related to this in Webb's History of Trade Unionism at the start of chapter III. "The distinction between a Trade Union and a Trades Union is exactly that which the names imply. A Trade Union is a combination of the members of one trade; a Trades Union is a combination of different trades. [...] The Particular significance of Trades Union as distinguished from Trade Union must be carefully borne in mind throughout this chapter, as it has passed out of use and occurs now only as a literary blunder." Might be an interesting aside for the history section ... --Bookandcoffee 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:129.12.234.51 is quite right: the TUC, for instance, is the Trades Union Congress. This is not an interesting aside, it's a matter of grammar. --Jbmurray 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * it depends on where it's being used. for example, when speaking about a group of different unions within one trade, it would be elecrical trade unions.  if you were speaking about trades unions in congress, you would be refering to multiple trades (i.e. carpenters, electiricans, teamsters, etc.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The plural of "trades union" is "trades unions", because "trades union" is a countable noun - see reference here: (you need to click on "word forms"). This makes sense - "trade union" is a union for a single trade, "trade unions" are several unions, each for single trade, "trades union" is a union for several trades, and "trades unions" are several unions, each for several trades. A google of "trades unions" shows this is the common plural used in British newspapers etc. The "Trades Union Congress" would seem to break this rule - it looks like they're using "trades union" as an uncountable noun. But actually you could have a singular countable noun there - "cat congress" doesn't sound wrong! The article was written using "trades union" as an uncountable noun (i.e. "one trades union", "two trades union") - I have edited it to use "trades union" as a countable noun (i.e. "one trades union", "two trades unions"), for the reasons given above. 2.26.93.236 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wage Labour and capital
I am having a bit of a problem with "and would later prove to be an important arena for change." for 2 reasons
 * 1) I don't understand what this part means - it needs expanding upon.
 * 2) I don't really know how the reference relates to Wage Labour and Capital

I am not against using KM's work but it needs to be clearer to me how it relates here. Oh and if we do use it the URL is http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

--NHSavage 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well I put up the reference as a bit of a knee jerk response to the need for a citation. Feel free to take it down. All I was intending with that final sentence was to lead in to the fact that eventually this pool of labour would be the agent(?) or at least the stage for the development of change. I was thinking of the development of industrial unionism, which appears more promenent later in trade history. I used "important" simply because, for good or bad, I think it's reasonable to state that it was the begining of large changes across the world.--Bookandcoffee 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (Actually, I'll take the ref down myself... :) --Bookandcoffee 02:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the sentance would be better as: This pool of labour was to spontaneously organise in fits and starts throughout its beginnings[6]. These workers would later form the basis of industrial unions which were responsible for large changes across the world.
 * I think that this can stand without a reference here as long as we plan to write an industrial unionism section later... --NHSavage 08:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me - it definitely gives a clearer lead as to what comes next. Should we modify the "large changes"? - ...which were responsible for large changes in the labour and political landscape across the world.--Bookandcoffee 18:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

structure changes
I reordered the article, partly as discussed above, but I made a few different changes along the way. I didn’t change any text, but there is editing needed to make things flow better (assuming everyone is willing to go with the new structure). Specifically, the history section is in general need of improvement.

Largest changes (excluding location changes)
 * ”Structures and politics” was split out of the introduction into its own section.
 * “Origins” and “Early history” were combined, in a cut and paste under “Origins and early history”.
 * ”Peel’s Act of 1825” was created for a history section from the repeal of the combinations laws forward.
 * ”Unions in the world” was created to start the history of unions as they spread globally.
 * "Problems of international comparison" was changed to "Diversity of international unions" to balance comparision and differences.
 * ”Unions today” created as a major section for:
 * Structure and politics
 * Shop types
 * Diversity of international unions

I think that's it for the large changes.--Bookandcoffee 22:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * “Benefits extend beyond membership” was changed to “Impact of Unions”
 * “News” was changed to “Union publications”

Impact of Unions
The labour movement brought an end to abusive child labour practices in some countries, improved worker safety, increased wages for both union and non-union workers, raised the entire society's standard of living, reduced the hours in a work week, fought for and won public education for children, and brought a host of other benefits to working class families which are not seen in countries (such as China) that restrict the right of citizens to this form of free association.

This was removed so I put it here pending sourcing. KDRGibby, the reason "abusive" is removed is not because it is POV or whatever, but simply because an adjective is needed. Child labour isn't necessarily abusive. Perhaps we should change it to "exploitative child labour practices"? - FrancisTyers 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rewrite below, feel free to edit:

The labour movement, along with socialists, some christians and others has continually fought for an end to exploitative child labour practices. In some countries suceeding to end abusive child labour practices altogether.

exploitive also renders a moral pov. Exploited used to be an amoral economic term, but unfortunatly leftists have historically used it as a negative refrence point, so I must say it cannot be used.

I'm also in disagreement with your rendering of child labors disapearance as a result of labor union action, as well as your (or whoever) belief that labor unions resulted in higher standard of living for all of society...especially considering that economists Milton Friedman and Brink Lindsey argue that from the founding of the U.S. until WWI labor wages rose dramatically while only an average of 2% of the entire labor force was unionized (in addition only about 15% of the U.S. labor force is unionized)...while also further noting that people are paid based on the productivity they add to the company and the value of their labor, and that union members command (if at all) higher wages only by limiting the supply of labor thus creating a falsly high value and demand for that particular labor for that particular market. Knowing this labor unions role in raising wages for society is negligible if not downright impossible. Also again, noting the relativly small size of labor unions in comparison with the rest of the work force in America, at least, its unlikely that it was responsible for reduced work hours, public education, or any other benefit workers recieved.

the "impact of unions" gives too much weight to unions that is not only undue, but unsourced, and apparently highly pov. (Gibby 05:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

child labor was also faught against by Christians, at least mention that while also deleting exploitive, and abusive. Those are moralistic and subsequently pov. (Gibby 05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I entirely agree that child labour was and is fought against by christians. Organisations such as Christian Aid play a rôle in calling for the end of child labour even today.


 * I'm afraid you can't say whether something can or cannot be used. We can't simply say that "brought an end to child labour" because not all child labour is illgal, let alone at an end. I certainly worked when I was a kid. How about "brought an end to the worse forms of child labour". I believe this is a widely used terminology. If you want to make US-specific additions you might prefer to do them in the Labor unions in the United States article. This article regards trade unions as an international phenomenon. - FrancisTyers 05:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The impact section mentioned no particular society, it is only rational to assume the society in question is one of your own. I also disagree with "worst form" of Child labor...I don't sit here and call Unions the ""worst form" of consumer exploitation" even though I believe unions to be just that. I think what would be acceptable is to say that "Unions fought against the use of child labor in what they considered to be dangerous or harmful working enviornments throughout much of the developed world" That just might be acceptable. (Gibby 06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Well, we're coming to a consensus then. I will see if I can think of a better way of wording that. Please note that we are discussing trade unions and not consumer exploitation or consumerism. Perhaps we could say something along the lines of:


 * "Unions have, since their inception fought against the use of what the International Labour Organisation describes as the "worst forms" of child labour, labour in working environments that they considered to be dangerous or harmful, and labour in circumstances they considered exploitative throughout the world ."


 * - FrancisTyers 05:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine because you are attributing the moral pov to a source, ie the International Labor Organization, rather than treating the moral pov as an unbiased fact, thus it violates no wiki rules.

And, I define labor union as "consumer exploitation" but that is a story, and my opinion, for our own talk pages. (Gibby 06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC))


 * One thing that has been overlooked in this section is the fact that in workplaces that have adopted a union to represent the workers, there is no child labour, period. Indeed there are countries where child exploitation for labor takes place, these are areas where trade unions have not yet made a substantial impact on the laws that govern workers rights, union or no. Generally speaking, the countries and regions of the world that commonly utilize children to work in "X" jobs have very little in the way of legislation protecting workers of any age. Hamster Sandwich 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Naturally, unions increase wages for their workers by reducing the supply of labor for that job in a particular market which causes the value of that labor to reach a false level. They do this, generally, by knocking out low skilled labor from competing for jobs. Child labor was one such thing.  Don't give labor unions so much credit, they werent just doing this out of the kindess of their heart. (Gibby 15:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC))


 * That's why so many unions invest in training, is it? Unions increase wages for their workers, generally, by solidarity, negotiation and industrial action. To claim that union campaigns against the immoral use of child labour in industry was simply to narrow the field is complete nonsense. Much of the campaigning on the issue was at a time when being in a union at all was more likely to get you locked out and sacked. Donnacha 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The section in question certainly does need work. I suspect it will, in fact, prove impossible to find an adequate citation for such general statements about the impact of labour organisation. It could probably be done within individual country-specific articles, though. It is worth bearing in mind that this discussion is taking place somewhat at cross-purposes. KDRGibby's position that labour organisation does not have any of the effects attributed to it only makes sense if you are talking about the long term. It is nonsense to argue that labour organisation never raises wages, never results in improved conditions for workers, never puts an end to specific (abusive) practices and so on because all of those things can be shown to have happened time and time again. You can argue that these positive results are only felt in the short-term and only by certain sections, that they ultimately check economic growth and have a negative impact- that's a legitimate POV and - properly expressed and cited - should be included in the article. The view that trade unionism never raised wages or improved conditions is so obviously counter-factual it would not be held by any reputable, serious scholar. Mattley (Chattley) 13:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
I am of the opinion that in it's current form the section in question does not meet neutrality standards in citation, as the negative viewpoint of the section is all cited, but the positive is not. These points require citation or the whole thing really appears to be a one-sided argument.Faulah (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently reads "Supporters of Unions, such as the ACTU or Australian Labor Party, often credit trade unions with leading the labor movement in the early 20th century, which generally sought to end child labor practices, improve worker safety, increase wages for both union workers, raise the entire society's standard of living, reduce the hours in a work week, provide public education for children, and bring other benefits to working class families. [7]" Exceedingly pro-union, with no con-union statements at all for title "Impact of unions". POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annihilatron (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

", increase wages for both union workers," What? The whole two of em?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.69.63 (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, this looks biased in favor of unions. The criticism section probably contains some of the less popular arguments against them, and they are very weak. Perhaps it should contain economic arguments. Also, most of the language used about employers is biased against them. For example, "Rerum Novarum, spoke against the atrocities workers faced..." Throughout the article, words like that are used, rather than things like actual quotes or more objective language like Rerum Novarum, spoke against the working conditions of the time(link to a description of those conditions)".Dakane2 (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"In totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, Trade Unions were outlawed. In the Soviet Union and China, unions have typically been de facto government agencies devoted to smooth and efficient operation of government enterprises."

Well, it's good to know that China and the Soviet Union weren't Totalitarian. 75.65.51.187 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete?
Regarding. I'm not saying this is perfect, I'm going to work on it to be better. But it is not factually incorrect either, maybe a little over simplistic. Historically the trade union movement resulted in 3 outcomes.

1. Social democratic comprimise (Such as with the old US Democratic Party, which co-opted the labour movement with fordism.)
 * Getting a welfare state and workers rights, the right to unionize put in law. (In return for their support for liberal democracy.)

2. Communist Revolution!
 * Similar to above, minus the capitalists.

3. Failure
 * fascism, anti-socialist dicatorship.

-- Colle || Talk -- 23:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
''Microeconomists believe that trade unions increase unemployment by restricting the supply of labor to increase wages for members, while hurting low skilled workers. Furthemore, free market advocates like Milton Friedman and Brink Lindsey believe that Unions have no aggrigate effect on the increase of wages for society as a whole, citing the growth in wages within the United States during the late 1800s which appears to occur without the aid of unions.''

''Often the union of a particular industry puts pressure on politicians to subsidise the industry concerned. This benefits both the workers, companies and shareholders in that industry, and consumers of the product of that industry at a cost to other people.''

Please provide citations for these in order to re-include them. Also the first is kind of US-centric, perhaps you'd like to include them in the Labor Unions in the United States article. I mean, wow, you've got information for one country saying that Unions have no effect; 1. that could be due to weak unions, 2. that could be due to 1,000,000,000 other factors. - FrancisTyers 09:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I one uped it! (Gibby 09:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Thanks, thats much better, but having such a large Friedman quote is kind of undue weight, I could imagine we could have such large quotes on all economic articles, but it wouldn't particularly help and reminds me of the RfAr regarding Ayn Rand. I'll leave it in for now as there is no other criticism, but you could consider paraphrasing it? - FrancisTyers 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it basically states everything from the former criticism in one quote. And no Tony Sidaway that was not "aggressive editing" or hostile, "One upt it" means I found a nice quote that was even better than the stuff deleted. The "perverbial smack down" simply means I finally found something to put in there that will stop the deletion of material on unsourced grounds. Get it with it TS! Try narrow readings instead of total bs broad hippy spirit readings. (Gibby 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

This section is extremely one sided and not just in terms of the US but the world. There is a great deal of debate among labor economists about the impact of unions on low wage workers. But since the article uses Friedman lets start with the US. Bronfenbrenner is the single most reliable source on union organizing data in the US in the last 15 years so I will use her as the source (and you can find comparable data on the UK, Canada, and Australia where they have used her research model to assess changes in union density and organizing there as well). What she has shown in her work is that since the late 1980s the majority of new workers organized in the US have been women and workers of color in low wage jobs in service sector industries such as health care, building services, hotels and public education. So where in the 1930s unions turned industrial jobs in the auto and steel industry into middle class jobs, today they have raised the living standards for hotel workers in high union density cities such as New York or Las Vegas so that now these are middle class jobs. Which means that counter to the Friedman model, in recent years the entire focus of unions has been on low wage workers and they have actually been very effectively organizing low wage workers and raising their wages and providing them with the kinds of benefits that only union jobs provide. Thus I would argue strongly that the Friedman quote should either be taken out or it should be rewritten as part of a longer paragraph that includes many of the different views on the subject of the issue of unions and wages. Source Kate Bronfenbrenner and Robert Hickey “Changing to Organize: A National Assessment of Union Organizing Strategies,” Organize or Die: Labor’s Prospects in Neo-Liberal America. Ruth Milkman and Kim Voss eds. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press/ILR Press, 2004.

The other error about the discussion of labor unions in the US that Bronfenbrenner's statistics reveal is that unions in the US are not strongest in the public sector. While it is true that union density is higher in the public sector than it is in the private sector that doesn't mean that unions are stronger there, it just means that unions face less opposition from employers in the public sector so they have been able to organize more easily. The public sector workers still do not make up the majority of the unionized workforce AND while union density in the public sector is holding steady the major growth in union membership has come among private sector workers in the service sector such as nurse aides, hotel housekeepers, janitors and security guards, workers in wireless and IT, airline ticket agents, food service workers, laundry workers, etc.

Sources Tom Juravich and Kate Bronfenbrenner "Preparing for the Worst: Organizing and Staying Organized in a Changing Public Sector Climate." Organizing to Win. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudy Oswald, and Ron Seeber, eds. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press, January, 1998.

Kate Bronfenbrenner and Robert Hickey “Changing to Organize: A National Assessment of Union Organizing Strategies,” Organize or Die: Labor’s Prospects in Neo-Liberal America. Ruth Milkman and Kim Voss eds. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press/ILR Press, 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1460lab (talk • contribs)

Objections to Unions
This recently added section is seriously lacking in sources. A few are provided for premises but not for the arguments extrapolated from those premises. None of the arguments are attributed. A lot of the arguments would be fine, if sourced. Some, though, strike me as being criticisms of exceptions rather than of the rule - ie criticism of the exceptional power of US unions in a few key industries in the postwar decades - but phrased as criticism of unions in general. Mattley (Chattley) 19:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What say we move unsourced portions to the talk page pending citation? - FrancisTyers 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be okay if there were only a paragraph or two but there are ten bullet points all needing attribution. It makes up perhaps a fifth of the article as it currently stands. Mattley (Chattley) 21:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have tried to reword rather than remove, pending citation, but the material below is too far gone for that. Mattley (Chattley) 12:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unions openly and directly eliminate the relationship between pay and quality of labor. While they do claim to guarantee quality, the company is no longer free to discipline or remove employees who are unproductive, nor even to pay based upon performance. This reduces the quality of labor for the industry, a famous example being US automakers versus non-union Japanese automakers. One famous adage in the US is "do not buy an American car made on a monday or friday, because the union workers are distracted on Friday, anticipating the weekend, and hung over on Monday, from the weekend". Consumer Reports has gone so far as to publish a means of decoding a car's VIN, to see if it was built on a Friday. Another example is the typical teacher's union's direct opposition to performance-related pay, or any other reforms linking teachers to the education of their students.
 * Unions can become an antagonist between workers and management, as lawyers are reputed to do during otherwise amicable divorces. The typical union management pitch has, for 150 years, been class warfare; "owners are bad, management is evil", preventing healthy work relationships between workers and management, which would have allowed a more productive company and positive work environment.

19th century unionism
I have taken out the material indented below. Most of it isn't strictly relevant and a lot of it is just plain wrong. I have put in a bit about socialist and anarchist influence on continental trade unions which this seemed to hint at. Mattley (Chattley) 20:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In the 19th century, unions were dominated by the Communist and Anarchist movements, which saw themselves as pivotal to the success of unions and Labor. By the middle of the century, many unions were dominated by members of those two movements, looking to either Communist Karl Marx or anarchist Mikhail Bakunin as their leaders.
 * In The Revolution of 1848, a pivotal part of this Europe-wide attack on establishment governments was Marx and others ordering unions to strike, paralyzing and devastating whole economies, while the leaders demanded, and fought violently for, control of the governments of the nations so afflicted.
 * During the latter half of the century, Marx and Bakunin formed an International Workers Association as a coalition of the unions which answered to them, and assembled the First Internationale, starting in 1864, a meeting of the union leaders in an attempt to form a sort of world government of the workers. The struggle between authoritarian Marxist union leaders and Anarchist union members reached a head at that point, and political maneuvring drove Bakunin from the organization in 1872 at the Hague Congress, resulting in Marxist dominance of the union movement for the next century, though Anarcho-syndicalism was still a strong minority player.
 * This was followed by a Second Internationale starting in 1883, which is considered by some to be the predecessor of the League of Nations and Comintern, therefore, the United Nations.

Opposition to trade unions
Something else that occurs to me: we need to be careful of undue weight with all this objections and criticism stuff. Most of it appears to come from a free market extremist perspective and to be opposition to trade unions per se. In significant portions of the world, political opposition to trade unions outright - as distinct from opposition to specific practices and support for limitations on their activity - is very much a minority point of view. Even Thatcher never tried to ban unions altogether. The UN declaration of human rights includes the right to organise, does it not? We are in danger of suggesting that absolute opposition to unionism is more significant than it really is. At the same time though, we are currently ignoring the very significant opposition that unions have and do encounter in the real world. Perhaps the solution would be to create a new article Opposition to trade unions where we could discuss all the most notable opponents, e.g. the Nazis, Fascists, Stalin, the Chinese Communist Party, Libertarians and Wal-Mart. Mattley (Chattley) 13:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is considered politically "extremist" often isn't so in economic academia. Free banking, Pigou taxes, balanced budgets, international currency, privately owned waterways, massive fiscal stimulus, elimination of the income tax, and the like are all things that receive substantial discussion in econ literature but would get a politician tarred as an "extremist" were he to run on implementing one. If having a section on theoretical criticisms of labor unions is appropriate to begin with, then it's appropriate to cite a few well-respected economists regardless of how "extremist" their positions might be considered in US politics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.157.29 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Splendid idea, although not all libertarians are anti-union. - FrancisTyers 13:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Many libertarians, especially left libertarians, consider unions to constitute legitimate free association. I've heard a left libertarian argue that Taft-Hartley is an illegitimate abridgement of worker freedom. - Jmabel | Talk 01:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Most Libertarians believe that it is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but that it is usually a bad idea to do so, and it is almost certainly a bad idea for an employer to go along with it. Furthermore, as with most issues, Libertarians believe that unions should enjoy no government support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd (talk • contribs) 24 August 2006.
 * Outside of the US, the largest libertarian organisations are probably those of an anarcho-syndicalist perspective. So clearly not all libertarians think they're a bad idea. Donnacha 00:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Enjoy no government" is an odd phrase here. Is there another word missing at the end of it? - Jmabel | Talk 18:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, I was typing too quickly. The word was support.  Libertarians don't think pretty much anything should have government support.  --Todd ( Talk - Contribs ) 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging from economically illiterate comments above, I think Wikipedia needs to institute a NPOV policy for the discussion section as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sabaton10, after you remove the POV comments of one side, views once in the middle become the furthermost to that side and are removed too, and the process repeats until only one comment is allow to exist at a time. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

removed verify tag
I've added three links to verify various facts and deleted one reference (equity) which was incorrect. So I've tentatively removed the "verify" tag, pending any othr objections LOL. Jameswilson 03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote
Is that quote at the top of the page really neccessary? Its formatting isn't regularly seen in Wikipedia articles and there is nothing exemplary about the quote that makes it neccessary to add to this article.--Jersey Devil 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a little unorthodox, certainly, but the reason for adopting it was that it proved difficult to find a definition of 'trade union' that was both NPOV and informative. This diff gives an idea of the difficulties we were getting into with previous attempts to give an initial definition . I thought a quotation might be a good solution as it means we can attribute the definition to a third party, in this case the Webbs, who have as good a claim to be authorities on the topic as anyone. It met with general agreement and was adopted. It is, as I say, a little odd as an opening to an article. But for all that, it is the most cogent, concise, and useful definition of trade union I've come across. Any alternative would need to solve the problem of giving a satisfactory initial definition, which is trickier than it might seem at first sight. Mattley (Chattley) 23:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is unorthodox but probably a good choice. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain this link?
The recently added Preston & South Ribble Trades Union Council link is so graphics-heavy that it brought my browser to its knees. I have no way to even tell whether the material is of value. Admittedly, I'm not working on the most up-to-date computer. Could someone tell me what is there to merit the inclusion of this link? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a local trades council and campaigns site based in the North West of England. It is not bad as these things go but too specific for here. Mattley (Chattley) 09:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Conference
Can someone clarify the use of the term 'conference' with regard to unions in North America? For instance, the 'Rail Conference' of the Teamsters. My assumption is that it is just a grouping of related or affiliated unions. It might help if it is described with reference to the 'division' term that is used as well. Noisy | Talk 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Version 0.5 Nominations
There is an August 31 deadline for nominating articles to be included in the Version 0.5. I think we should nominate this article. It certainly meets the importance criteria, and its inclusion might push us to iron out some of the last deficiencies.--Bookandcoffee 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominated.--Bookandcoffee 15:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

diversity of international unions
In this section there are several sentences about the US which seem to be an odd collection of very specific examples which have minimal ability to demonstrate the range of unions in the world. It seems too much space for details on the US for such a brief section on international unions. Moreover, the specific examples given seem to minimize the extent to which local and regional unions and labor councils in the US endorse candidates from other parties (besides Dems). Syndicalista 16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Article summary
This tag has been added to the article. It is currently being developed at WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries as part of an effort to improve articles and facilitate translation efforts. Please feel free to comment either here, or at the project page, about how you think this idea can be implemented/improved. The text within the In Brief box is of course open to your editing. Thanks--Bookandcoffee 21:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Canada Vs. United States
An interesting point that I think this article could use would be a comparision (or at least a mention) of the Canadian and US union density gap. Canada and America have similar economies, observed the same union growth; however, diverged greatly and now have an approx. gap of 17 percentage points (if I recall correctly). Riddell has done much research on this issue (using Farber's method) and has come to some interesting conclusions (that supply is the cause 2/3 of the difference [only 15% is due to structural differences]).

Just a thought; what do you guys think? UAAC 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, about the types of shops, there is a modified union shop ... Basically a union shop with a grandfather clause. Important or not, it's there. UAAC 04:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

History intro
I reworked the intro to the history section. I was just trying for a better flow, but I did remove the somewhat bland(IMO) statement "Working conditions and wages did not meet modern standards."--Bookandcoffee 22:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Geographic limitations
"See also" list has a very strong US and secondarily UK bias. Can we turn the "see also" list into just articles of broad international significance + one top-level article per country, then move the per-country material to the respective country articles? - Jmabel | Talk 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence
Cut: "In Britain the number of members of the Trade Union Part trebled between 1880 and 1900 showing how the working classes were now pulling tegether to try and change their way of living." What is the "Trade Union Part"? and the second part of this is totally subjective. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"organize"
Is ugly but i guess its ok in some countries?--Villainone 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand, but I'm guessing that the issue is "-ise" in Commonwealth English is like "-ize" in American English. - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Can anyone cite "The higher cost of labor in union-employing businesses increases overhead and raises the price of the goods and services those companies offer. This also affects the overhead expenses of other businesses who rely on union-employing businesses for goods and services, raising the price they must offer to the customer as well. " or should it be removed?--Villainone 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a citation offhand, though one should be easy to find. I would imagine that virtually all economists would agree that would be the expected effect; the question, of course, is how the numbers net out (in general, only those on the right would say that this effect is large enough as to net out to a negative for society; also, most economists would say that this will only tend to happen if wage increases outstrip productivity increases). I would guess that if someone is seriously interested in following this up, the paper whose abstract is here would be worth trying. Ditto this one. This might also be of interest, especially the paragraph that begins "One explanation would be in terms of firms' pricing policy." - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Any economist should agree that items will only sell for what the market allows. Regardless of any speculation of what experts might think, there needs to be citations made, or certain text removed. --Villainone 06:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, pretty much by definition, items will only sell only at a price the market allows. But as Vilfredo Pareto showed over a century ago, there may be more than one such price. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To Lquilter
I took those scare quotes back out from Right to Work. None of the other jargon or names of laws have them. The Fair Share law is a similar act that we don't have scare quoted. I agree with your edits in the violence section, you have improved that section from what I wrote to be more neutral. In the criticism section though, you edited in the weasel words "some union critics"... which leads to the question "which union critics?".. I think it is safe to say anyone who is opposed to unions views them as a illegitimate government protected monopoly on labor. If there are exceptions to that, we should find those exceptional groups and cite them specifically. We shouldn't leave it weaselly. Gigs 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, just noticed that. Precision in language is useful, but I think it is more accurate to say that some union critics have that view. It is not the case that all union critics have the view you describe. --Lquilter (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

unionization in the world
This graphic needs a citation or it will be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Villainone (talk • contribs). 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The data in this graphic are out of date. For example, union membership in the UK is shown as being about 42%, whereas the actual value is below 29%, as shown in this reference: Drphysics (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph
You don't need to earn a wage to be a member of a union, you can be currently unemployed or retired and still be a member. Ian 10:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a really good observation. Do you have a suggestion for an alternative (or additional) sentence? We've had trouble in the past with finding a phrase that was acceptable to differing points of view, but if we can find something that works, that would be great.--Bookandcoffee 16:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this? "A trade union or labor union is an organization of individuals associated through employment, or labour. These organizations may be comprised of individual workers, professionals, past workers, or the unemployed. The most common purpose of these organizations is 'maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment'"
 * --Bookandcoffee 03:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the starting sentence to the above (with a slight mod). Comments?--Bookandcoffee 09:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good, thanks. Ian 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Trade unions worldwide and by region and country
This section is starting to get cumbersome - and as we inch toward having articles for all 190 or so countries it's going to get messy. I'd like to replace the section with the "in topic" templates like you can see at the top of. I would leave the world-wide overview, and move the continent overviews into the appropriate sub-pages. This is a fairly large move, so I'll wait for comments, and probably make the move around the 20th of August if there are no objections.--Bookandcoffee 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have started making this change. I'm going region by region, and checking to see if anything in the "blurbs" needs to be merged into the main article.--Bookandcoffee 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Finished the blunt work. Here's the diff for the complete changes I made . Previously the section linked to 11 articles, and now there are links to all 34 "Trade union in..." articles. Although that's still a little depressing considering there are 276 countries, territories, and dependencies listed!--Bookandcoffee 19:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Trade union - labor union

 * IMHO, it is self-defeating to redirect labor union to this article. Members of the United Steelworkers of America were not each and all in possession of a skill.  Many of them were janitors, etc.  Mopping a floor is not difficult.  Labor unions and trade unions should not be agglutinated into one massive article, YO.HeyYallYo 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, opinions about the value of janitors aside - it's essentially just a spelling issue. In the US, and some other places, organizations of people employed in workplaces are generally called "labor unions". In other places, like Europe, these same organizations are called "trade unions".--Bookandcoffee 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with confusing trade and labor unions with each other is not one of properly or improperly valuing janitorial labor (or any other kind). It is a problem, IMHO, of very basic definition.  A Trade Union is a Labor Union which admits members on the basis of employment and skill in a common trade.  A Trade Union is the most common kind of contemporary Labor Union, and includes teacher's unions, carpenter's unions, teamsters, etc.  In contrast to this model of labor union, an Industrial Union is a labor union which admits members based on their employment in a particular industry, regardless of skillset.  Thus, an Industrial Union (such as the Industrial Workers of the World, or the early Congress of Industrial Organzation) admits all workers at a single work-site or in a single industry.  In a public school setting, this means that teachers, janitors, etc., are all members of the same industrial union, while in a trade union, the janitors and teachers would not be in a single union.

This is a fundamental and very important difference, and it seems deeply misleading to equate all Labor Unions to "Trade Unions." This article should be reformed and renamed to indicate this difference. Erik.w.davis (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In total agreement. In the history of the American (USA) labor movement, there was a distinction between the craft unions and the worker's movement (as exemplified by the Wobblies and the CIO). This culminated in the merging of the AFL and the CIO and the suppression of the Communist Party (which was swollen with former IWW members). To insist on the term "Trade Union" because it is "European" is to abandon the NPV in favor of terminology preferred by the enemies of labor. The proper term in the USA is collective bargaining and collective bargaining unit, both of which have a clear legal meaning. Another appropriate term would be "labor organization". "Trade unionism" in the USA is a pejorative phrase employed by soi-disants anti-communists.
 * I believe that North America and Europe/UK should have separate pages. Also Latin America & Caribbean, which have a distinct labor history, should have a separate page. These pages should be linked with perhaps a very general page with a timeline of the development of labor organizations in Modernity. 98.180.8.57 (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
The article's spelling is right now a confused mess of styles, BrE here, AmE there, etc. Would anyone have objections if I standardised spelling across the article (naturally, not in proper nouns)? laddiebuck 22:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is a dispute about what version of spelling to use, convention is to find out what was the initial spelling used, and use that. Wongm (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
I removed this from the criticism section. It appears to be original research, and is not referenced. It is also not accurate: "given that the original rationale for the existance of unions was to prevent exploitation by employers..." This is an oversimplification, as one of the roots of unions (itself ironic in this context) was the exclusion of others from crafts and guilds.--Bookandcoffee 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not OR; I'm writing out the standard stuff - Milton Friedman mainly - on the nature of Unions. Most of it comes from Capitalism and Freedom. I concur that saying *THE* original rationale is an oversimplification.  Toby Douglass 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You might find a number of different people - mainly not Milton Friedman - who would not necessarily agree that this criticism was "the standard stuff". I don't have a problem with the actual point of view being stated, but it needs to be represented in the context of the author who states it, that is - as the opinion of a well recognized economist. Opening the section by saying "The fundamental economic problem modern unions exhibit is that they are monopolistic." is an astonishingly a very strong statement, and I would need want to see a considerable number of references from a variety of sources to convince me that this statement is accurate! This may be what Milt says - but then it needs to be represented exactly as such.--Bookandcoffee 08:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You can find someone to say anything.SecretaryNotSure 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that is "standard economic theory." I've never heard an economist say anything else. A labor union is a wage cartel. There's no dispute over that. There might be some dispute over if that's "good" or not or what the effects are.SecretaryNotSure 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The part about "1987 judgment in the Weaver v NATFHE case in the UK", I wonder, is it really a criticism of trade unions as a whole, or is it a citique of specific UK labor legislation? Grindsprint 10:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grindsprint (talk • contribs)

Text from another page
I redirected Workers political organisation to here. The following text may be of use to those with a knowledge in the subject - perhaps it can be factored in? Workers’ political organisations (WPOs) have significant historical precedents in Queensland, inasmuch as they successfully laid the foundation of labour organisation in the early part of the 20th century. For example workers’ political organisations in Rockhampton, Fitzroy and Ipswich were the vehicle for taking workers into the ALP. Similarly the women workers’ political organisation, under the leadership of Emma Miller sought political representation in state and federal parliaments, and the promotion of the interests of women in the body politic. Grass roots organisation leading up to the federal election of December 1903 were aimed at achieving these aims. Their activities included three mock elections, public meetings distribution of leaflets and door-to-door canvassing, and visits to women in factories and workshops.

Subsequently we have seen the formation of many organisations that might be characterised as workers’ political organisations, including strike committees, union support groups and rank-and-file committees. Their role has been critical at times, and less successful at others due to circumstance and their own organisational capacity. While not necessarily consciously related they have had as a common element their focus on grass roots activity, and especially shop-floor organisation. What would workers’ political organisations look like today? We would not presume to offer formulaic prescriptions but for what it is worth, offer some general guiding principles, which are open to interpretation within a specific context. We would argue that workers’ political organisations: •	are founded in workplace organisation; •	are focused on workers themselves achieving their goals without appeals to members of the ruling elite; •	seek to extend democratic principles throughout their workplace and unions, •	aim to advance workers interests as a whole, not on a sectional or even national basis; •	cast aside the dogmatism and narrow discipline of the sect and seek an engagement with workers as human beings, not on a one-dimensional ideological basis. •	should ignore zealots, and be wary of agent provocateurs and adventurists; •	strive for unity between workers, organisers and officials of their unions. Their argument is with the boss and their lackeys; •	are based upon the aspirations of workers to socialism, the abolition of private property and worker control of production.

There may be other options to tackle the entrenched dominance by the captains of industry, the global moghuls and their business empires, who have for centuries inflicted misery, wars and mind-numbing propaganda on the working class.

The formation of Workers Political Organisation will move the debate into a space from where workers can examine all options that will help build organisations that effectively challenge the capitalist might, and usher in a truly human age.


 * Wow, good job destroying another page on labo(u)r. Ayn Rand would be proud. A WPO appears to be just what it says--a political organization--not a collective bargaining unit. Thanks for conflating the two. I do not know about the law in Australia, but in the United States labor organizations have PACs to fund political activities because it is illegal to use dues monies in campaigns for political office. Historically, the political engagement of labor organizations has varied widely. But yes, let's be ignorant and lump disparate entities with different goals together. Who will notice? 98.180.8.57 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Osborne judgment
There is a small, stubby orphan article at Osborne judgment if anyone knowledgable in this field is looking for something to do. cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Taff Vale could do with help too. Both need incoming links in the main articles on unionism in Britain. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cross-industry trade unions - what are they?
I have seen a translation of cross-industry trade union that explains them as "trade unions of employers or employees". Is that right? Are there unions of employers that are actually called trade unions? If yes, this article needs that elaboration, too.ML-Est (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition/difference between Boss/leader and worker
It has become apparent that there is no wikipedia article on this. I know there is no solid definition ("a boss is a worker too"), but someone should have a stab. I was trying to distinguish between trade unions and business associations, as they both represent business right?! Chendy (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

some/many
User:Ndriley97 has now twice tried to change the wording in the union & criminal activity section from "some" to "many". "Many" suggests a preponderance or majority, and that is not remotely close to true. Therefore, "some" is the appropriate term. I invite Ndriley97 to set forth an argument for use of the word "many". --Lquilter (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that User:Ndriley97 should be required to provide substantiation for such a change. My impression, though I'd welcome being corrected, is that there is a decided non-NPOV streak to Ndriley's contributions. &mdash; Dave (Talk) 03:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood - I will not change it again. Ndriley97 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Exclusivity
The lead currently states that "Most unions assert a right to mandate that only its members, and no others, may be permitted to work at certain jobs". This seems very surprising, especially as this practice is later described as being illegal in the US, UK, and Germany, and prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and doesnt' list anywhere where it currently is legal. Nor do I know of any such place myself. I've put a "citation needed" tag on the claim for now. Wardog (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fight for the "closed shop" was finally lost in Britain under Thatcher. I suggest that this reference should be changed - the policy was a historic aim by some trades unions. —Saltmarsh 13:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Paragrapgh
"Trade unions, historically, have subject to union busting activities from various private companies, as well as political repression from governments of authoritarian regimes, such as Adolf Hitler's Nazi party    and Burma's military dictator, Ne Win."

I've moved this paragraph to the talk page. At the moment it's not worth adding in, but the references could be useful. More importantly, I think mentions of which groups opposed unions might be useful, rather than simply the list of arguements. Placing authoritarian regimes at the top is a mistake though, as the first bit of suppression would probably be when they were outlawed as anti-compedative. Anyone fancy making a new paargraph on the history? Perhaps it could be merged with the main history bit. On second thoughts, that'd be much better =) Larklight (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's best if the first thing mentioned in a "criticism" section doesn't imply anyone criticising the subject is a Nazi... – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look Larklight (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hitler was pro union. He established a national labor union for all workers. That is why unions were disbanded. I dont see this mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.102.239 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are describing is an entity much like the company union in the US, which was eventually banned by the US government. The "company union" was controlled by the employer and had no true independence. I suspect the NSDAP national union was part of the process of Gleichanschaltuung and in fact represents a move to crush any independent, autonomous organization of workers in the Third Reich. It would be ridiculous to assert that the NSDAP was pro-labor or pro-union in the context of actions such as the imprisoning of all known Communist party leaders and activists for most of the 1930's and the rounding up, beating, and even killing of German Socialist Party leaders by SA (Storm Troopers) shortly after the Nazi party's seizure of power in the early 1930's. Some of the earliest victims of Dachau (originally an SA KZ, later transferred to the control of the SS) were prominent Socialist Party activists. Note Niemoller's famous poem in which first Communists and then trade unionists are rounded up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 98.180.8.57 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

unions y or y not?
unins are those who make it so the standard american can live well and provide for his or her family. i mean who the heack wouldnt want to go union would you rather take low pay, no benifit's and a jerk for a boss???????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.66.24 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

International Labor Unions
To my understanding, labor unions were primarily American (as far as 19th century is concerned). The reason being is because the first big businesses in the entire world didn't exist till the 19th century, in America, where labor unions would've taken place. Like trying to list a section on the first ironclad warships used in the 19th century and saying "This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Well, that is because ironclad warships wasn't world-wide... it was United States only.

I'm inclined to believe the same ideal here. Everywhere else in the world, big productions were government owned, assigned jobs, or small family businesses, so labor unions would've taken the form of a government revolt. Only the United States had big businesses at the time. In fact, the National Labor Union wasn't only the first labor union in the United States, it would've been the first labor union ever. Colonel Marksman (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cough. The existence of the 8-volume book "British Trade Unions 1707–1918" (Google it) suggests you're wrong. Encarta concurs . Rd232 talk 21:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And the first ironclad was launched in France in 1859. See La Glorie. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The first trade unions occurred in agriculture, not industry. See Tolpuddle Martyrs, for example. (Not by coincidence that capitalism also started in agriculture).--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Union external links
every union that exists should not be able to post an external link this article, wikipedia is not a collection of links. Members should strive to remove these commercial links whenever possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebeing (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 October 2008
 * Not sure how to construe trade unions as commerical organisations, in most countries their status is as non-profit organisations and face regulations which companies would regard as severe limits to "freedom". As this is an article about trade unions, it is hard to understand why there shouldn't be external links to trade unions. I would also note the above editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

unusable
this article is pretty much unusable in its present form; I move to delete it and make a fresh start. It is really poor. the second paragraph seems to suggest that not only the industrial revolution, but *marxism* started in the united states. Perhaps it is simply muddy writing; but one detects an undercurrent of ignorance and an attitude to history that we see a lot of here in Florida. Why not delete wholesale, and call for experts to make a fresh start. 76.109.129.235 (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

19th Century American Unionism paragraph
This section of the article on "Trade Unions" is written at the junior high level. I would grade at a best a C+ to any high school student attempting to turn this in for a grade. Statements like "get the job done", "they were different from ones in the past," and "workers realized what unionism was all about" are ambiguous, worthless, and degrading to a subject of immense historical and political consequence. I am not a member of Wikipedia, and have never taken issue with any article on the site until now; someone knowledgeable on the subject should make necessary changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.168.70.215 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

sentence removed
I have removed this sentence:

This gave rise to the concepts of Marxism and communism.

I am not in any sense an anti-marxist, nor an anti-communist. The problem is one of exclusion, rather than inclusion. If this reference were to be complete, it would observe that such conditions gave rise to socialism, distributism, syndicalism, anarchism, and a host of other "-isms" in addition to Marxism and Commmunism. How do we choose among these, without making the statement unfairly selective and inaccurate?

But this article is not about any, nor is it about all of these. It is about unions. Unions are sometimes, in some ways, related to these concepts, and in other ways, not at all. Therefore, either the sentence must be re-written for accuracy and completeness, or it must be removed. Richard Myers (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The IWW
This article makes no mention of the Industrial Workers of the World under the section detailing unions in the United States. They are a significant part of US labor history, and ought to have a section in this article.

-Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.66.66 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sam: I agree. I am not clear headed enough right now to create it, but will gladly edit someone's contribution. A brief summery and link to the main IWW article would probably suffice. Delirium of disorder (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

False or misleading information that needs to be changed.
"Nazi Germany, Trade Unions were outlawed" needs to be edited.

Trade unions in Nazi Germany were disband and replaced by the national labor union (The National Socialist Union of Employers and Workers). So what is written is very misleading and gives the impression that there were no unions in Nazi Germany when in fact all workers and employers were in a union.

Source: http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/Nazis_were_socialists_article_Nazi-German_Labor_Unions_info 98.87.102.239 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Globalize the history section
...or rather, create a "Unions around the world section". The US section needs to be cut drastically, to about 20% of present. We need sections on unions in Africa, India, Middle East, Latin America, etc.. --Soman (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unions in the United States
Are we able to flesh out the differences between American and, say, European/Oceania unions? Most other nations don't have the same rampant monopoly over their trade that American unions have. 124.168.246.58 (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane


 * It would help if this comment was explained in a little greater detail. Richard Myers (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This made me do a double take
"The AFL-CIO is very supportive of political issues and they show their concern by giving out information about existing political issues to families. This information is spread by volunteers and activists and includes where all the candidates stand on the issues." There are so many things wrong with this sentence it's not even funny. It's quite possibly the vaguest, (and completely butchered) POV statement I've ever seen. This loner sentence has been marked since March. Just pointing it out to whom it may concern Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource
Unions Win More Freedom to Organize in Workplace Melanie Trottman, excerpt ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate picture subject for heading
The picture at top, with caption "Labour union demonstrators surrounded by soldiers during the 1912 Lawrence textile strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts" is inappropriate for the Trade union lead picture because it depicts members of the Industrial Workers of the World, which is not a trade union; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1912_Lawrence_Textile_Strike_1.jpg for the caption: "Massachusetts militiamen with fixed bayonets surround a parade of peaceful strikers. The Lawrence textile strike was a strike of immigrant workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts in 1912 led by the Industrial Workers of the World.'

If the IWW was mentioned in this article as having a significant role in the history of trade unionism (as it has,) perhaps there would be rationale for using the picture. However, there is no direct mention of the IWW in this article, most likely because it falls into the category of an industrial union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaimonion (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article's scope, as indicated by redirects, is somewhat larger than the technical definition of mere Trades unions, and covers all forms of unionism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

UK Union Memberships
I would suggest that the section of the article which notes "By the end of the 1980s, membership had fallen to just over 6,000,000" be revised to consider the trade union membership statistics available from the ONS. Although it does cite a BBC article, I believe it may be factually inaccurate with regards to the actual state of unions at the time.

The statistics for union memberships suggest that they actually reached a peak of 13 million in 1979, and this decreased to around 10 million by 1989. You can view the complete data-table here:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/employment-matters/research/trade-union-stats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.60.11 (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Marx?
The name/term Marx(ism) only appears ONCE throughout this entire article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Vexatious Plurals
I have undone most of this edit which seems to have been a search & replace job (it broke a category, book titles, wikilinks and many links in the navbox). In most cases the singular of the thing we want a plural for is a "trade union" (a union of people engaged in a trade), and the plural of this is "trade unions". There is a somewhat arcane usage for a thing of which the singular is "trades union": a union for people engaged in a variety of trades. This is explained above in the "Pluralisation" topic. The plural of this would be "trades unions" - but in most cases here the straightforward everyday construction is what we want. Mcewan (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)