Talk: Labor union
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
- 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)
| Contents |
LO Landsorganisationen
Google suggests that LO isn't a single trades union in Sweden, but the confederation of Swedish unions. This could do with clarifying. Also, the link on the page (to LO) links to a disambiguation page that only lists the Norwegian union LO Landsorganisasjonen (which Google suggests is accurate). — OwenBlacker 15:38, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
Origins of Trade Unions
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)
Industrial union, craft union
I was rather amazed to discover that we have no article on industrial union or craft union. For the moment, I've simply made them redirect to here, but the concepts each really deserves an article of their own. Is anyone interested in taking this on? I'm pretty swamped and even if I put it on my list, it would probably be months until I wrote more than a stub. -- Jmabel 05:43, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Aha! we had industrial unionism (a stub, which I've added to a little) and craft unionism. I've added the appropriate redirects.
Recent addition, I'm not sure it's a plus
The following was recently added to the lead paragraph:
- Unions also use their organizational strength to advocate for social policies and legislation favorable to workers. Unions are founded upon democratic principles and leaders are selected through an election process.
Ideally, of course, these things are true, but in practice they are often not. Consider, for a relatively extreme example to the contrary, government-sponsored unions in the People's Republic of China. These matters deserve discussion in the article, but does this idealistic statement really belong in the lead paragraph? -- Jmabel 16:32, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Re: Recent addition, I'm not sure it's a plus
You are right. I will make some changes to incorporate your concerns.
I think it is very important to mention the larger role unions play in society. Unions are more than just employee representatives that negotiate contracts. They have been a serious force for social change through their political activities.
I just added a clarifying sentence about the structure of unions varying from country to country. It's a bit redundant since it is covered later in the article, but I think it is important to put at least a blurb in there about the political structure of unions.
Breaking labor unions out into subtopics by country
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)
You've just given appropriate notice. If no one objects in the next day or two, you can :
- Copy out what is here to a new article
- Edit down the content here to a paragraph or two
- At the heard of the new article, insert a line saying See main article [[the new article]].
Jmabel 01:51, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
