Talk:Unite the Union

message: Despite references, this seems not be neutral. Mxwjci (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first reference doesn't back up what was being said; the second is not a reliable source (it's a blog). So, removed. It's there in the history of anybody wants to make a proper go of it. SeveroTC 13:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Right-wing Designation

message: The BA Cabin Crew Strike is one of the most high profile strikes in recent British industrial relations history; with even the Prime Minister intervening directly.  Press coverage has been extremely extensive, with newspapers such as the Guardian providing live coverage.  The strike has a high symbolic value for politicians on both the left and the right of the spectrum and both sides have been making use of it.  Many believe it may affect the outcome of the parliamentary elections.  It is also a strike where the current top management of Unite is directly and very visibly involved.  Hence the first conclusion I would like to draw is that this strike is not some minor matter that would not be worth mentioning on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, both sides to the strike (BA and Unite)have been providing very much contradicting information.  Unite argued BA bullies employees, BA argued that Unite bullies employees.  Unite argued almost all cabin crew was on strike, BA argued that over half of the cabin crew came to work.  With so much conflicting information I thought it would be an interesting effort to try to find the truth.  Whilst I cannot argue I have found the absolute truth, what is clear is that Unite has been spreading misinfomation about the success of the strike and that it, or at least its supporters, have been bullying other staff.  If you do not trust me on that, just check out http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/409697-british-airways-vs-bassa-airline-staff-only.html which is a forum exclusively for BA staff.  With there being proof of both the misinformation campaign and the bullying, I think it is fair to conclude that the way Unite has handles this strike is controversial.  This is why I have inserted it under "Controversies".
Neutrality:  The reason for the many quotes and references is that, given the disagreement between both sides, it is important to stick to the pure facts, i.e. what people have said.  This makes it somewhat harder to read, but I believe otherwise neutrality would be contested even more.  Now, in respect of the aim for neutrality, the aim of this new section is not to talk about all the good things Unite has done.  The aim is to cover a controversy in respect of a very high profile strike.  The whole page on Unite may require reworking to also mention some of its achievements, but that should not be a reason that a current controversy is not mentioned.  Those who believe that the contribution affects the overall neutrality should rather try to add than to delete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.155.143 (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it belongs on Wikipedia.  However not in the fashion currently presented, which reads more like a news website than an encyclopedia.  I deleted it today, in support of the editors who deleted it on previous days.  I can't point you to a good example of an industrial relations article on Wikipedia, but in my opinion 2007 Royal Mail industrial disputes is much better than the controversies section in Unite the Union.  It is ok to give day by day accounts of politically hot news events (a handful get to be featured articles: Stonewall riots, 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner). However, in my experience that only works if everyone discusses it: we cannot successfully collaborate on an article if we repeatedly revert each other.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I also concur it belongs in Wikipedia but it needs to be restructured.  As a suggestion I would make the title more descriptive instead of the current "tabloid headline"; I would structure the text in segments to deal with the different dimensions and I would add a dimension describing the reasons for the strike, after all an overwhelming majority of the cabin crew voted for it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.204.179 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: BA Cabin Crew Strike 2010

message: I was wondering if a list of notable strikes should be included. Or a section on it giving a fair summary of each of the major strikes. Like what it was over, how it was resolved, damage done to the company and country. Those sorts of things? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strikes 

message: Where is the evidence that the name of the union is "Unite the Union," rather than "the Union" being simply a recently-added descriptive tag? Nick Cooper (talk)
:You are right, though if the descriptive tag is good enough for Unite's web address, it is probably good enough for the title of Wikipedia's article (in my opinion). It might help to reword the opening sentence to make the name more obvious. It is not a recently-added tag: the description "Unite the union" has been used since it formed. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Union formed under these rules ... shall be known by the title of 'Unite the union'" (Rule 1.1). 2.25.223.218 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That solves it: I was wrong. Thank you! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Unite the 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 {newarchive} to http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/System/Other.asp?NodeID=94372
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420072942/http://www.amicustheunion.org:80/Default.aspx?page=9439 to http://www.amicustheunion.org/Default.aspx?page=9439
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 13:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Unite the 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120311211534/http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/pages/member_unions to http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/pages/member_unions
*Added  tag to http://union-news.co.uk/2013/01/unite-posts-50000-rise-in-members/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090219213756/http://re-electdereksimpson.com:80/ to http://www.re-electdereksimpson.com/
*Added  tag to http://www.jerry4gs.com/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090426064917/http://unitygazette.org.uk:80/2009/02/gazette-statement-on-amicus-section-jgs.html to http://unitygazette.org.uk/2009/02/gazette-statement-on-amicus-section-jgs.html
*Added  tag to http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/index.php/about-us/position-statements/534-statement-on-sex-selective-abortion
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: No info at all!? Boscaswell talk 21:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industries of workers represented?