Talk:Union dues

message: The link led to a website that advocates opinions opposed to trade unions. Those can be shown in the main article and argued over with stakeholders there. The definition of union dues has nothing to do with appropriations of funds by a union. Also, not all unions are identical. Appropriations are typically subject to a democratic vote. Similarly, as citizens in a democratic society, we may vote for a head of state and then disagree with some of the decisions made by the successful candidate once in office. This does not mean that the head of state acted without a single person's permission. Instead, elected executives have defined mandates to make certain decisions, while others may require a special vote or referendum. Likewise, the insinuation was made in the reverted edit, that poor ethics are involved in seeking access to the political process, as unions admittedly do. So does big business and other self-serving organisations that lobby and otherwise seek to short-circuit the election process by advocating their causes directly to politicians or political parties. For instance, the American Association of Retired Persons is known to advocate on behalf of older people and their needs.--Achim 02:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The corruption that unions DO? They DO corruption? The website you refer to is obviously rabidly anti-uinion. That's fine - everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I think this is hardly the spot. Are you suggesting that big business and assorted lobby groups DON'T engage in political activities to advocate their causes? Democrats suck up to unions and vise versa, whereas Republicans do the same with big business. What makes either more or less ethical than the other? It's all fair game in a free society. Apart from that, you have said absolutely nothing about the fact that elected officials, such as union executives are given a mandate to make decisions, just like presidents of companies and so forth. If you're a shareholder of a company, does the president of that company have to ask your permission about whether or not he can buy a Xerox copier versus Canon? Just where is the union more or less ethical than any other self-serving organisation? Apart from that, please answer why you won't debate this on the Trade union page. You just revert and make a brief statement that is not responsive to the criticism. I suggest that you debate me on this because I think that your rabidly partisan link is a matter or vandalism, and I will treat it as such. Please answer my questions.Achim 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Anti-Union Web Site

message: The reason that I have the link posted is to show one of the many ways that unions misuse the money that they collect from the employees.   Therefore I feel that it should stay on the site.  John R G 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a reliable source that documents it and add THAT to the article.  The link you posted is simply a collection of links of political views.   Take a look at wp:rs.  While your linkspam link doesnt meet that requirement, I'm sure that there have been reliable sourced, published research on how Unions use the money they collect. Dman727 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To John R G, i respond — personally, i'd prefer to have a union-free — free America. But i'm not trying to spam Wikipedia with ideological links over it. Please start following the rules, and try to make Wikipedia better, not a link farm for opposing ideological arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with an encyclopedia. Richard Myers 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: Is there anything in this article worth merging into Trade union?  I'm not seeing anything. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: Is there anything they're not afraid of?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.34.103 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it with these yanks?