Talk:Trade union/Archive 1

message: *In the closed shop, a business may only hire workers who already belong to the union.
*In the union shop, a business may hire anyone, but workers must join the union within a designated amount of time after they start work.
*In the agency shop, workers may choose to not join the union, but must pay a fee to the union for its services in negotiating their contract.
*In the open shop, a business may employ anyone it likes, regardless of their union status, and workers are not required to associate with a union at all.
I remember some other variants. There is one where workers are only allowed to join a specific union; i.e. they can be non-union or belong to the specified union but not to other unions. There is also places where the employee makes it part of the terms and conditions not to join a union, or may allow it but just not recognise or negotiate with the union. I can't remember the names of these, but I think they may be open agency shop and non-union shop respectively.
This article needs to branch off into separate articles on the history of the British and American trade union movements (and presumably Australian et al) and concentrate on the concept of unionism rather than trying to be the all-encompasing mish-mash it is at the moment.
:Most British unions are members of the TUC, the Trades Union Congress, which is the country's sole national trade union center.
I could be wrong about this but I think in Scotland they have a Scotish Trades Union Congress (STUC) which is entirely seperate from the TUC which exists south of the border.SaulnTaylor
:Correct. My union held its annual conference in Perth about 10 years ago, and we were addressed by the STUC General Secretary who made it clear that they were totally separate from the TUC (my union affiliates to both of them). -- Arwel 01:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: concentrate on unionism now all-encompasing mish-mash

message: In regard to 'Unions not Guilds' I'd like to add to the Labor Union article the following comment, but due to it conflicting with the point of view in the existing article, I thought I should bring it up here first. According to the NPOV policy, I think this should be included as being part of a continuing debate about the origins of trade unions:
"Another recent historical view puts forward that the origins of Trade Unions is part of a broader movement of benefit societies, which includes Freemasons, Oddfellows, Friendly Societies and other Fraternal organizations." 
The source material for this view comes from articles by Dr Bob James, an Australian historian who has been researching in the field for the last 20 years: 
http://www.takver.com/history/benefit/
Particularly important are the articles on Secret Societies and the Labour Movement, The Knights of Labour and their context, and the book length treatise revised in May 2002 CRAFT, TRADE OR MYSTERY: Part One - Britain from Gothic Cathedrals to the Tolpuddle Conspirators. 
Tirin 08:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As there have been no comments on this proposal, I have rewritten the section to take into account the above research and tried to put forward major points of view and some brief historical context, so that the article concords with the NPOV policy. --Takver 06:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of Trade Unions

message: I recommend creating subtopic articles of the "labor unions" topic by country.  I'd like to start an article devoted solely to labor unions in the United States.  I'm a new contributor to wikipedia though.  I'd like to know what the protocol is for doing this.  I guess I can just go ahead and start it on my own but I would prefer to be more inclusive and work with those who already have an interest in maintaining pages about labor unions first.
Please advise.
--Nysus 18:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.  I'll do that.  So is "appropriate notice" official wiki protocol before making a major change?  And what constitutes a major change?  Thanks.
The basis "be bold" policy means you can even do things without notice, but on an article where a lot of people have contributed, I tend to try to make sure there is something like consensus before doing anything drastic. I figure it's a lot more pleasant to elicit (generally polite) objections up front than to have them pour in after-the-fact and often less than happy. -- Jmabel 05:03, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Negative Aspects
How come nobody addresses the negative aspects of unions, such as collectivism, and protectionism. How bout the antiquated "last hired-first fired" policies, and the forcing of companies to continue to produce products which the company cannot sell. or forcing the company to keep working when it needs to shut down to repair itself. For example, Ford's continued production of the full sized Crown Victoria and the death of Eastern Airlines. How about the near deaths of Catepillar and UPS? Unions are not the greatest. Why aren't we talking about why we aare losing so many members. We went non-union because we lost so many members that our dues became astronomical to the point we couldn't and wouldn't support it anymore. How bout their reputation for supporting people who truely should be fired for cause? Must I go on? Why does the puplic now view unions as basically self-serving entities? --Tomtom 17:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Because the point of the article is to educate readers about what a labor union is, not to discuss their accomplishments or failings.  Also, many of your points above are merely your opinion and have no place in an encyclopedia article.  Nysus 21:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tomtom. There should be more in this article about the problems that unions cause. "Accomplishments" and "failings" are just as relavent as the other things in the article. This entire article seems to be written from the point of view of a union member. There needs to be some employer perspective added to balance it out.--bigjarom 08:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking labor unions out into subtopics by country 

message: The origin of the Trades Union is usually attributed to the six Tolpuddle Martyrs (named after their village in Dorset, England) in about 1831-33. In 1834 they were transported to new South Wales for seven years as an example to others. (anon 31 March 2005)
: The Tolpuddle martyrs were convicted for swearing a secret oath as members of the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers. The rules of the society show it was clearly structured as a Friendly Society. But clearly at the time, friendly societies had strong elements of what we now consider is the predominant role of trade unions. While the story of Tolpuddle has enriched the history of trade unionism, we should be careful not to subsume essential facts: that the organisation clearly labeled itself as a friendly society; and that friendly societies and unions share common attributes as benefit societies. Tolpuddle is discussed in some depth by historian, Dr Bob James, at http://www.takver.com/history/benefit/ctormys-05.htm#ch5s04 --Takver 14:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tolpuddle Martyrs

message: Is it just me, or is all the references to different "shops" entirely US-specific? Perhaps its better to remove the Anglocentric focus to articles such as Labor unions in USA or Trade unions movement in Britain? This article ought to be globally relevant, providing info on TU systems in differnt regions. --Soman 10:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this needs to be made less anglo-centric, however, yes we do have the different "shop" types in the UK iirc, although maybe not post-thatcher. I remember hearing the auto-industry was particularly fond of closed/union/agency shops. I would also like to see an article/section regarding the role of trade unions during wartime situations e.g spanish civil war, first world war etc. FrancisTyers 17:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have slightly extended the section on the issues of shop types to make the legal status in the UK and US clearer. It would be good if we could find out the status in some other countries. Maggie made everything except the open shop pretty much illegal except Equity - I'm not sure if they have a specific exemption or found a loophole...
I think we should keep the country specific information fairly general as a summary and pointer to regional/national trade union/labour movement articles. So, rather than specific detail on Trade Unionism in Australia, the Australian labour movement should provide the necessary detail and history. Similarly for Britain, USA, Europe, etc--Takver 23:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union shops? 

message: Generally, this article needs section covering other regions than the English-speaking world:
* Western Europe (including differences between Northern and South European TU movement)
* Latin America (development of TU movement, reorientation to unity efforts in many countries, such as CUT-Brazil, CUT-Colombia, etc.)
* South Asia (politically divided TU movement)
* Africa
* State-controlled TU system (Soviet type, currently existing in DPRK, Vietnam, Syria, etc.)
--Soman 10:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, which is why i slapped the "needs to be improved" tag on it, I just don't have the time. :( IMHO state controlled trade unions should encompass their own heading, including the history of them etc. i'm still surprised there is no reference to solidarnosc or independant trade unions within communist countries, nor the labour disputes in the soviet union prior to its collapse. just because a union is state controlled doesn't mean its members can't strike... Maybe some kind of plan could be arranged whereby the article is rearranged according to common agreement?  FrancisTyers 17:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info to be added 

message: no doubt people may well change it back but I have done a couple of simeple things to make this article LOOK better. It looked like crap. too much info on america. I agree it needs more international stuff but I have no knowledge here and could not be bothered. I was sick of looking at this article not being editted in any way.
:While I understand your frustration, and would be glad to see more editing to the text, I'm not convinced your edits really helped all that much, so I'm reverting for now. I would suggest that you check the Manual of Style before doing drastical changes to the layout of long-standing articles. The =Top-level header= is not used in the article body (it is reserved for the article title). "External links" is the standard name for the links section in all Wikipedia articles. While people surely might disagree on what looks best, the most important thing is that formatting is as consistent as possible across Wikipedia's 600,000 articles. You can change some aspects of the presentations by changing the skin in your preferences.
:As for the section on the U.S. I actually agree with you that it is too verbose in comparison to the other parts of the world. But just doing a cut and paste into a new Labor Unions in the United States of America article, replacing the info here with only a link, might not be the best solution. Since the history and situation of labor unions in the U.S. are of some importance to a general discussion on trade unionism, there should at least be a decent summary in this article. If you provide one (perhaps around 1/4th the length of the original text) that would be great. / Alarm 15:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes 

message: The article currently begins, "A union (labor union in American English; trade union in British English; either labour union or trade union in Canadian English) are organisations formed by employees in an industry with the functional purpose of providing representation to maintain and improve wages and working conditions to the members within the union." Besides the lack of subject-verb agreement (A union… are organisations…), which I'll fix, I don't believe this specific statement about "…to maintain and improve wages and working conditions to the members…" is correct. 
This would be true only of relatively conservative unions. For an extreme counterexample in the English-speaking world, consider the Industrial Workers of the World, a U.S. union that, while very minor and marginal today, was quite important in the early 20th century, and which actively rejected the slogan "a fair days wage for a fair days work" in favor of advocationg abolition of the wage system and institution of anarcho-syndicalism. In Spain, the Confederación General del Trabajo, with similar overt political views (although perhaps less radical in practice) remains an important trade union today.
Also, the notion that unions are working only narrowly for their own members is, again, true only of the more conservative unions; in this case, I don't even have to look to radical extremes for counterexamples. When unions have fought for minimum wage laws, institution of national health programs, limited work-weeks, etc., they are working on behalf of far more than their own membership.
Yes, there are unions that only work for the wages and working conditions of their own members. But putting this in the lead section of the article suggests that this focus defines a labor union, and that simply is not true. It would be like starting the article on corporation by saying "A corporation is a legal entity (distinct from a natural person) that often has similar rights in law to those of a natural person, which exists further their enrichment of its owners while, through its legal status, limiting their liability." We are correct not to do that there, and would be correct not to do that here.
Right now I will just fix the subject-verb agreement; I don't want an edit war, so I will allow a day or so for comment before I edit further. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
:Concur, go ahead. A note that secondary action is outlawed or greatly controlled (i can't make sense of the legalese) in the UK (and possibly other countries) might be appropriate, considering that members would be more likely to take action in defense of their fellow workers if it were not against the law. - FrancisTyers 07:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the lead sentence 

message: I would just like to mention the Unions affiliation to various movements on various socialist parties. After all, Trade Unionism is a socialst movemet, this is so far little mentioned in the article. Trade Unionism is domestic and ground level socialism. I feel like this should definitely be mentioned, as it is a key part of the left wing movement.
:Mention it then :) - FrancisTyers 07:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unions and Affiliation

message: I noticed someone reworded the opening sentence. Perhaps a solution to the problem of defining what a union is would be to borrow a phrase from someone else. Sidney and Beatrice Webb begin their famous 1894 volume on the history of trade unionism in Britain with 'A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment.' When it was objected that the last bit implied 'that Trade Unions have alwasy contemplated perpetual continuance of the capitalist or wage system' the Webbs altered the wording to read 'of their working lives' for the 1920 edition. Maybe that definition could be a useful base from which we then expand? All refs S & B Webb, History of Trade Unionism, 1666-1920 (London, 1919), p. 1. Mattley (Chattley) 12:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly comfortable with that; I think it's pretty close to what I wrote. My main concern is that we not take the narrow view that unions are necessarily collective bargaining agents. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you clarify what you mean so I can take it into account if I try to work on the opening para? Mattley (Chattley) 15:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Periodically, someone rewrites the lead in a way that makes collective bargaining part of the definition of trade union, which, of course, it is not. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A trade union is... 

message: :Labor Unions have also been known to favor white males. The average White male makes around six hundrend dollars a week while a African American Male makes five hundred a week.
I've removed this pending citation and possible re-write. - FrancisTyers 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The economic analysis of a cartel applies somewhat to unions, to those that try to fix the (minimum) price of work, to limit supply (e.g., by some criteria on membership or education) or to limit competition. On the other hand, unions often have also other functions than those of a cartel: they may advise the workers, warn about disadvantageous contracts or terms of employment etc. These latter functions are usually considered as beneficial for both the workers and for the society as a whole (though not necessarily for corporations or shareholders who are a true cartel).  
Appears to contradict itself and is not sourced. - FrancisTyers 17:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent anon contribution

message: I took a run at re-working the intro. It's sitting at User:Bookandcoffee/Labour, if no one objects I'll put it here in a couple days. Mostly it's just a re-write, with the same information, although the first part is from Mattley and does a nice job of starting things. I also changed the paragraph about Service model/organising model - what's there now seems a bit thin. (Mind you, all I did was crib the text from the two links, so it still needs work.) I also added a couple references. Oh, and there's a message box directing readers down to country specific info. I like it, but I don't know if it fits with wiki style.--Bookandcoffee 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there it is. I also started using footnotes for the reference section. Does anyone care if I convert the rest of the article using  footnotes?--Bookandcoffee 18:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do :) - FrancisTyers 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Labor Unions improved working conditions in many ways. Take for one example the mining situation in West Virginia. It was been widely believed that union members made around 50% more than non union workers. The labor union movement also brought an end to child labor. By union members getting paid more, their children did not need to work just to help the family get by. This enabled more children to attend school and get a higher education. Labor Unions also improved working conditions. They made the working place much safer for union workers. Labor Unions also increased wages for both union and non union workers. Some people may argue that strikes lead by the labor unions led to disaster. Although an estimated 80 million dollars worth of property was destroyed during strikes this does not mean the union is bad. If it weren’t for the strikes America would have no middle class. You would either be poor or rich and not in between like most families today. Strikes were the only way to make advances in getting higher wages and less working hours. Labor Unions also helped reduce the number of deaths on the job by making big business’s improve the conditions in the factory or in the mines.
I've moved this to the talk page as it doesn't fit the tone of the article, some of the information might be good to be included in a reworded form however. - FrancisTyers 01:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent addition

message: A case could be made for government opposition to trade unionism during the early 1970s, but surely not in the 1960s or the winter of discontent.  Any references to support this wild assertion?
Gravuritas (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK section- Government opposition to Trade unionism? 

message: Hi,
The info on Europe was put in the Scandinavia section as it referred mainly to it. I don't see how a picture of a few workers standing around adds much to the article, but I can leave it in if you want.Noodleki (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: November 2013

message: A trade union is an associationof workers formed to represent negotiate. protect. and improve workers rights. and interest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iftekharulislam120 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRADE UNION 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Trade union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003061752/http://www.labourfile.org/superAdmin/Document/113/table%201.pdf to http://www.labourfile.org/superAdmin/Document/113/table%201.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This information looks about a decade out of date... nevertheless the image also needs to be converted to a table. -124.190.107.75 (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prevalence" section 

message: There were a lot of missing commas and apostrophes. Cannon Ahrens (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar Issues 

message: Some of the subsections of the article such as: Germany, Costa Rica, Colombia, India, and Japan are very short with lack of information. The links in each of the subsections are very informative about the trade unions in those countries yet they are still underrepresented. But for some of the countries listed, trade unions are not that popular. The subsection 'Criticisms" is also underrepresented. The contributors to this section mostly talked about the United States. With all of the other countries they talked about in the full article, they should have talked about some of the criticisms of some of those countries. Cannon Ahrens (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underrepresentation  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Trade union. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1994/b337360.arc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121190936/http://www.actu.com.au/AboutACTU/HistoryoftheACTU/default.aspx to http://actu.com.au/AboutACTU/HistoryoftheACTU/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727111519/http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/education/spotlight/issue_51/history.html to http://www.mapleleafweb.com/old/education/spotlight/issue_51/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717010518/http://www.solidaritycenter.org/files/ColombiaFinal.pdf to http://www.solidaritycenter.org/files/ColombiaFinal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505020834/http://sitrapequia.or.cr/gestor/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52 to http://sitrapequia.or.cr/gestor/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927061114/http://www.jil.go.jp/english/laborsituation/2009-2010/detailed_2009-2010.pdf to http://www.jil.go.jp/english/laborsituation/2009-2010/detailed_2009-2010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203054931/http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/united.kingdom_3.htm to http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/united.kingdom_3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722154704/http://www.acirrt.com/pubs/Trainingwagesupdate.pdf to http://www.acirrt.com/pubs/Trainingwagesupdate.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110417233015/http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/ITALY/FREEDOMOFASSOCIATIONTRADEUNIONFREEDOM-IT.htm to http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/ITALY/FREEDOMOFASSOCIATIONTRADEUNIONFREEDOM-IT.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726035804/http://hesa.etui-rehs.org/uk/newsletter/files/BTS012EN_12-15.pdf to http://hesa.etui-rehs.org/uk/newsletter/files/BTS012EN_12-15.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050625080457/http://www.actu.asn.au/ to http://www.actu.asn.au/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718192916/http://www.ugt-cat.net/subdominis/ajlleida/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=116 to http://www.ugt-cat.net/subdominis/ajlleida/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=74&Itemid=116
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) 06:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A trade union, also called a labour union or labor union (US), is an association of workers in a particular trade, industry, or company created for the purpose of securing improvement in pay, benefits, working conditions or social and political status through collective bargaining and working conditions through the increased bargaining power wielded by creation of a monopoly of the workers.
As it stands, this is not a sentence crafted to be read, but a sentence constructed to persuade the reader to quickly skim forward. — MaxEnt 11:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence boilerplate 

message: This article was started in American english, and unilaterally turned to UK English, as too often happens on Wikipedia.  It should be turned back.  If something is started in US English, leave it be.  If it's not noticed for a while, it doesn't make it right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.153.167 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 January 2015‎  (UTC)
American English is not the principal English spoken worldwide, nor is it the principal English spoken in the union movement. English English is the principal English spoken worldwide, and is the principal English spoken in the union movement. I'll bother signing this comment, and hope to be included in ongoing conversations on the matter, as both a linguist and a union organiser. :)
Her Radicalness (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: American English changed to UK English

message: I have taken this from lead:
:A trade union (or a labor union in the U.S., or a union in Australia) is an association of workers forming a legal unit or legal personhood, usually called a "bargaining unit", which acts as bargaining agent and legal representative for a unit of employees in all matters of law or right arising from or in the administration of a collective agreement. 
It was added last year without a citation in the lead or the body of the article. This might be true is some countries, but it is certainly not true in all. For example, this says that unions are not legal persons in Britain. I think it gives a distorted view about what unions are. In any case, it is too technical to have as an opening sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal personhood? 

message: This article is missing an "impact" section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article shouldn't have a criticism section. It should have an impact section instead. Maybe User:Davide_King might be interested in looking to fix this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I strongly agree. Criticism sections are undesirable in general. I also think the Australia section focuses excessively on the White Australia Policy. Unions achieved a great deal here in Australia that is not mentioned but the White Australia policy which was broadly supported by Australians and supported by all sides of politics at the time is given undue weight in this section. In more recent times unions have been involved in Aboriginal rights activism, women's and immigrants rights etc. and they played a major role in dismantling the White Australia policy. As it stands the Australia section makes it look like we are a pack of racists in the union movement, which is not true. I'm happy to do the work improving the Australia section. Bacondrum (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

text:  , thanks for mentioning me. I agree with your point and also with  about the White Australia Policy. Snooganssnoogans, based on what I have seen from you, I think you are especially good at researching sources, so I count on you to add high quality sources and peer-review studies and summarise what they say.--Davide King (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Impact" section 

message: This edit should be reverted. We should not be citing 20-year old pieces in a low-impact libertarian journal, Journal of Labor Research. We should in particular not do it to rebut content from recent research in the top journals in economics, political science and sociology. This article (which selfdescribes as an "essay") is not a study in any real sense: it's a poorly argued blogpost (I strongly encourage to open it and compare its contents to those of the other studies cited in the same section). I also don't think we should be citing a review article from the same libertarian low-impact journal, even if that article is structured more as a real review article rather than a blogpost. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2020 EJ study writes that only research subsequent to the publication of those two articles "have offered credible evidence on causal effects" regarding unions and firm productivity. Thus, it's kind of absurd to be citing a blog-style essay and a review of much older research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing 20-year old low-impact journal articles 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Opposition to trade unions. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 19#Opposition to trade unions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Opposition to trade unions" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I notice that unionization redirects here and that we have no article devoted specifically to the process of unionization. This would be a good new page to write if anyone is interested.  talk 23:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've been bold and changed the redirect to Organizing model.  Also, at the moment, Union organizing redirects to Union organizer.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing article for [[Unionization drive]] 

message: I added a few lines about the concept of employment as it is understood, and "wage slavery" as it was expressed by its critics.  The introductory section referred to an influx of workers from the countryside to the cities during the Industrial Revolution.  However, the concept of "employment" as a practice was new, and these "hired men" were not yet workers.  This has to be explained in context of not only a move from rural to urban, but a move from self-agency of production, where a farmer sold a product, to a loss of self-agency as worker, where the worker sold themselves and their labour, losing control over their lives and the means to plan and be self-sufficient. This is a very important notion, since in the production of commodity, the worker also becomes a commodity with an assigned labour cost, and this needs to be understood, since it is a moral affront to many people. Historiaantiqua (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Employment" under History section, and term "workers" 

message: Back in 2012, an editor added ‘protecting the integrity of the trade’ as the first listed goal of unions in the first sentence of this article. The editor claims this is the ’original goal of guilds’ in the edit note.
Is that true—seems questionable? And unions ≠ guilds anyway? Can someone explain what this means in this article? Does it mean advocating quality standards in the union's industry? Is there a more straightforward way to word this?—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 05:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Altercari guilds and unions are similar and yet different in their function. North American unions actively attempted to kill the plastering trade as a fully trained plasterer (stuccoist) is a highly skilled Artisan that sets their own rates and terms and can rapidly train up an army of apprentices. No need to bow to collectivist politics when one has empirically based merit. 66.11.178.141 (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‘Protecting the integrity of the trade’