Talk:Opposition to trade unions

message: I'm not sure if its me, or if that section isn't entirely coherent.  It does seem to be a rebuttal of much of the rest of the article, which also doesn't seem to belong there.  The article is on opposition to trade unions, and while we should encourage both sides of the controversy to be heard, a pro-labor section attempting to rebut the "theories... above" probably shouldn't be there. 72.225.230.77 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card / Kreuger Work? 

message: I do not think it is fair to assume all insider workers are productive. 168.103.82.44 (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insider workers  are productive? 

message: Godwins law again. The first paragraph concerns ideologies, general ones, like nationalism. Not a specific party. Don't re-add hitler.Larklight (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please don't re-add this one party. If you can think of any other ideologies famous for opposibng unions, please add them. If you really want to add the nazis, you'll have to nmake a list of every single party to oppose unions, as it is no way special to nazism. Larklight (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't make the rules for this website. And I see from your Wiki profile that you have a self-professed political agenda against trade unions in general; hence, your desire to whitewash this article. Then again, supporters of cheap labor and globalization have never exactly been known for intellectual honesty. J.R. Hercules (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One, I have no 'self-professed agenda against union- I'm a member of a union! And secondly, even if I was, this is irrelivant: Hitler et al is not apropeot here, as he wasn't unusual in that regard. Larklight (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: J.R. Hercules, stop adding that irrelivant and POV comment. Larklight (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have initiated an Rfc for this article. Secondly, your opinion that Hitler's Nazi party should not be mentioned in the article is ludicrous in the extreme, especially as the second sentence of the article had previously read: "Attempts to reduce the effects of trade unions may include union busting activities by private companies or state action, especially, during the twentieth century, by governments of authoritarian regimes." Apparently, in your world, providing specific examples to illustrate a statement constitutes "POV". As for your bizarre assertion that "The first paragraph concerns ideologies...not a specific party" -- you're referring to the particular sentence which lists some ideologies. But since I edited the previous sentence in that paragraph, which has nothing to do with the subsequent sentence listing ideologies, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on. (P.S. Look up the definition of "vandalism", as it seems you don't understand what the word means.) J.R. Hercules (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, just becuase one editor has not commented on the talkpage does not mean he cannot refer to messages left by others, messages which reflect a general consenscious on the issue. While I have maintained an assumption of good faith on your actions, I can reach no conclusion no other than that you wish to include examples of dicators to discredit the subject. The openning paragraph should be general, not specific, and not focus on any one part. If you wish to create a list of people who are famous for opposing unions, such as Margaret Thatcher, you may. People who are famous for other reasons are not relivant, especially not in the introduction. Finally, please discuss on the talk opage before editing. Larklight (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler

message: I reverted about 3 edits of J.R. Hercules. The first we've discussed: it is not appropeot to mention Hitler in the opening paragraph. The second revision is particulary galling- I added ref.s for that selfsame statement to the trade union page! And Freidman didn't just claim it: these are facts! POlease refrain from POV unconstructive edits. Larklight (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My revision

message: This section has come out because it is obvious Wikipedia:Complete bollocks, even compared with the poor state of referencing of the rest of the article. One case where trade unions have argued for a lower salary than the employer was offering? I don't think so. Even if you found one case, you would need to set it against the many cases where unions have successfully negotiated higher salaries. And the whole "you can't refuse certain benefits and get more money isntead" is almost always a result of employers being inflexible, never unions.
Trade unions do drug tests? Really? Only in the US. Elsewhere unions are more likely to be opposing mandatory drug tests. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative salary effects

message: The article purports to be about "opposition to trade unions", yet the existence of a section formerly entitled "Racism" (now retitled by me, and not too accurately by me either) exists as another editor's own personal argument against trade unions. While the content of the section is more-or-less accurate, the reason for it being here, in this particular article, isn't supported by any stated reasons (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). The contents of the section belong in Trade union. I'm going to delete the section if a valid, academic reason for it being here is not articulated within the section. J.R. Hercules (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat-racking and POV sections

message: This article is entitled "Opposition to trade unions", which would lead a reader to think it was about attempts to disrupt or disband organized labor unions (union busting). Instead the article, as written, is actually more of a "Criticism of trade unions." --SeedFeeder (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title is misleading

message: In the "Unemployment" section, there's a tag  which doesn't work. Any ideas if it's actually associated with one of the existing refs, or is it something obsolete? CRETOG8(t/c) 00:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  monopoly ref tag 

message: This is an article about CRITICISM of labor unions.  We should remove the unbalanced tag from the 2nd portion. 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced POV 

message: Hi, I added the Weaver v NATFHE paragraph in the (former) 'Racist Policies of/in the past' section, then I realised that as this is a present issue, I need to break the section into 'racist policies' with 'past' and 'present' subsection headings. Then I realised that it might be OK to call a past issue "racist" if verifiable (and I'm not saying it is verified, I note the above July '08 comment which I think is on this matter but I am not following it up, just leaving as I found it), but for a present issue, under NPOV we couldn't justifiably call the legal precendent set by Weaver v NATFHE "racist" without some very solid referencing. So I changed the section and subsection headings again to what they are now (4 Challenges from affirmative action perspectives, 4.1 Racist policies in the past, 4.2 Present challenges). I don't think they are great headings, so if anyone can come up with better headings avoiding the above problems, fire away. Thanks, SeventhHell (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaver v NATFHE, new paragraph etc. 'Racist Policies of the past' section 

message: Just a quick observation, "ununionised" is a very strange word, especially for a sub-heading. Richard Myers (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Harm to ununionised labour" 

message: I'm going to remove the NPOV tags in the economic effects section as they appear to be quite old or resolved. In any case there has been no activity on the talk pages. --Quadalpha (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tags 

message: Should there be any mention of unions' known or suspected ties to organized crime? Bobby H. Heffley (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organized crime 

message: At least within the jurisdiction of Local 52 of the IATSE (which is responsible for a substantial portion of major films made in the US), film electricians are in fact members of the theatrical union, and not the electrician's union. It is still true that there is a particular job within the electrical department (that of house electrician) which is largely responsible for switch flipping, although they do a bit of wiring and electrical work as well. I don't know that this is also true nationally or internationally. 68.96.116.126 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This section remains uncited several months down the line.  I'm removing it.  --Dannyno (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim About Theatrical Lighting 

message: The inefficiency section is incredibly weak. It should probably include claims that it can be difficult to fire bad employees. For example, firing bad teachers in new York can be drawn out and costly http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Solving-puzzle-of-bad-teachers-2232004.php#ixzz1biGX6MyK 96.40.236.93 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inefficiencies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to trade unions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107232744/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_v108/ai_3579390/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_v108/ai_3579390/
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) 21:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to trade unions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060725114900/http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/2002_Emploi_justice_sociale.pdf to http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/2002_Emploi_justice_sociale.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Opposition to trade unions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111211064646/http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff8.cfm to http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff8.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004121038/http://pmaci.customer.netspace.net.au/ncop.htm to http://pmaci.customer.netspace.net.au/ncop.htm
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) 05:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article is trash and should be deleted. It's basically a POV fork based on horrible sourcing (crappy Heritage Foundation and Mises Institute op-eds by non-experts). A trade union article exists which has an "impact" section, as well as sections on the "politics" of trade unions. There is no reason why well-sourced and noteworthy "oppositions" to trade unions cannot be included in the main article. The existence of this fork disperses the efforts of Wikipedia editors, leads to lower quality content, and makes Wikipedia's readers stupider. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely low-quality article that should be deleted