Jump to content

Talk:Australian workplace agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

Both the content and wording of this article (especially after the introduction) are biased towards the criticisms and attempts to draw conclusions to the merits of AWAs. The material in this article that is anti-AWA is significantly greater than that which is pro.

i.e "AWAs have also faired poorly"; "Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for March 2005 give a much more realistic total picture showing that hourly wages of workers on AWAs were 2 % lower than the hourly wages of workers on registered collective agreements" Who is to say that ABS give a more realistic picture? And by whoes definition of 'poorly'. Where are the opposing views to the WA Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection's quote? etc etc etc.

The article seems to have been writen by somebody sympathetic to the unions, and against the subject matter of the article.

This is not NPOV. Rafy 02:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Workplace Agreements are a controversial issue. They have been widely criticised, and statistics, citations and references have now been provided to back these criticisms up in the article.
There is no requirement in the NPOV that different sides of a controversial subject be given a similar amount of wording or explanation. NPOV policy states clearly that Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views,..."
The article does give the Government viewpoint, and this is clearly stated ahead of critical viewpoints, which are fully explained, referenced, and cited.
The NPOV states that "assert facts, including facts about opinions". As the original person who drafted this article in May 2005 I have gone through and added citations where other wiki editors have suggested, plus a few extra ones.
While I do hold an opinion about AWAs, the information provided in this article is all reputably sourced. The criticisms of AWAs are supported by the statistics quoted and cited. I contend that the NPOV has not been breached in this article. --Takver 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you are dreaming. Whilst you selectively use quotations, they are clearly designed to portray one POV. Further to this, they almost exclusively state opinion over fact. Unsigned comment by 147.209.216.245
Actually, I have been deliberately restrained adding quotations to this article, and have instead used statistics directly from the OEA, and the ABS. Every reader can interpret the statistics the way they want, or access the source data in the citations. And at least I sign my comments --Takver 11:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken out many of the phrases and words that could be seen as POV. I would like to get this article to neutral ASAP. If anyone thinks anything currently within the article is still biased, let's discuss it so we can get rid of this tag. Master z0b 09:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definately not NPOV

[edit]

This article is not balanced. It pays lip service to the arguments in favour and gives a much more favourable and fuller account of arguments against. This is evident from the references used alone. Of the 16 references:

  • 5 are to opinions and criticisms expressed by either Unions, ALP MPs or ALP Governments.
  • 6 are to information that, though published by government bodies or from government sources, is consistently used (and arguably misused) by opponents of AWAs to criticise them.
  • 2 are to government sources that serve as nothing more then background information.
  • 2 are references to a federal court case that arguably puts AWA in a bad light.
  • Only 1 is from a source in favour of AWAs.

The only reference from a source in favour is that quote basically describing what an AWA is and nothing more (not really supporting AWAs). Also, this quote is hidden in a section titled "Opposing Views".

At the very least, the following should happen to fix it:

  • 1. There should be a section on the views in favour of AWAs.
  • 2. Both the view in favour and against should be moved to the end of the article. It seems odd to jump straight to the views before the full facts. I don't think thats typical of Wikipedia. It usually goes facts then summary of opinions.
  • 3. The article should make it clear that the existence of AWAs do not limit the ability of workers to seek employment by award or collective bargaining.

--TedEBare 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I didn't find any obvious POV expressed in the text and sources such as the ABS are credible sources. However I agree with point 2 - moving comments and criticisms to the end of the article. The article could be improved with further expansion perhaps with other sources added if they help to round out the topic. My main criticism is that the article does not make a great deal of sense to a reader who has no background knowledge of the subject. MrsPlum 09:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think that this article is probably biased against AWAs, however a quick search on the subject will turn up far more critisism than approval in general. Perhaps the view of several employer associations and the government would balance the issue, and I agree this should come first and critisisms later.
I will disupte the critisism that the ABS is not a good source of data, it is widely used and approved by both the government and it's critics. Also AWAs only represent a small fraction of the workforce and simply stating a fact is not biased.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master z0b (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 December 2006.
I am not trying to suggest that the ABS is unreliable, infact it is a creditable source. The problem is that like many creditable sources it can be selectively cited in order to present a view that is or appears biased.
Example: A creditable newspaper might present positive and negative aspects of an issues in many separate articles. Sure, based on this newspaper, you can write an article that gives equal coverage to both the pro and anti views. However, if the arguments of the anti view are throughly backed up by citing articles from this newspaper and the arguments for the pro view are presented without citing any sources, the anti-view will generally appear more valid then the pro-view. This is what I believe has happened here. --TedEBare 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the Article

[edit]

In reply to TedEBare, "The article should make it clear that the existence of AWAs do not limit the ability of workers to seek employment by award or collective bargaining."

For those applying for a job, it is solely up to Employers whether employment is offered initially under a collective agreement or an AWA, and such can be offered on a take it or leave it basis regardless of whether current employees are employed under a collective agreement or award. Working conditions in an AWA offered to a job applicant may be less than conditions provided to existing employees under AWAs or collective agreements. Workers on a collective Bargaining Agreement can refuse to sign an AWA, however Employers can deny promotion opportunities unless they choose to sign an AWA. So an AWA changes employment bargaining by giving the Employer much greater power in the employment contract.

Instead of criticising the fully cited criticisms made of AWAs and reducing the article to the lowest common denominator, perhaps you could help balance the article by contributing to it. I would welcome your improvements to this article by adding quotations stating "the view of several employer associations", fully cited of course.

You have said in regard to my use of ABS statistics "The problem is that like many creditable sources it can be selectively cited in order to present a view that is or appears biased." Then please provide the citations to the statistics that offer a different view. Criticism without specific references to improving the article are not helpful.

How do I think the article can be improved?

  1. The summary paragraph needs to mention that the introduction of AWAs is a controversial industrial relations issue.
  2. The Opposing Views section should contain more cited opinions from Peak Employer and Business Organisations.
  3. If there are more recent statistics on AWA coverage and impact on working conditions, they should be added to the article, without deleting the stats on the introductory period.
  4. The article also needs a brief history of individual employment contracts in Australia, and their origin in recent times in the right wing free market ideology of the H. R. Nicholls Society, and their push for changes in employment contracts. This is necessary background to understanding the introduction of AWAs as part of a long term ideologically driven agenda.

I was asked to justify in June 2006 the widespread criticisms of AWAs by providing full citations. I provided the citations requested and several more. The article needs to reflect that there is widespread criticism of AWAs. Please re-read my comment above dated 11 June 2006. I do not think this article breaches NPOV policy. Each assertion or opinion is based on fact and cited. However, I do believe the article can be improved generally (see above). Takver 14:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article still has to present a balanced view, cited or not. If there isn't a fair hearing given to both sides of the argument then the article is by definition POV. The onus isn't on someone else to include the positive elements and supportive material, it is on each editor to make sure the article is neutral and fair when they have done with it. 70.189.213.149 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the description of NPOV isn't based on the amount of information on either side, unless it's obviously excessive, and even then that's not actually part of the criteria. To dispute the article's neutrality one should show things such as;

  • non- Neutral language
  • the text makes unsubstantiated Accusations
  • Insinuation
  • Bias in attribution
  • Information suppression etc.

Please see the Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial for further information. I've included a quote from that guide below to demonstrate my point that simply saying there is more info on one side is not strictly NPOV.

"Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them."

I don't see what's particularly wrong with this article in regards to the way it is written, I don't see any particular Weasel Words or anything. Also the federal government hasn't published any statistical information about AWAs except for what came out in the Statistics from the Senate Estimate Committee Hearing which makes it difficult to cite anything.

From my research the most consistent defense against the criticisms of AWAs were based on the premise that economy is doing better since their introduction. However since less than 8% of all workers are on such contracts, and the lack of data published by the government, that argument is hard to cite except in a "one critic said this" kind of way.

Ultimately, there are two sides of the debate, and I see why some feel that the neutrality could be disputed. However there seems to be far more work going into debating that and keeping the NPOV tag than there has been to fix the article by adding counter arguments, more information or other sources. Master z0b 06:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

The article represents negative and positive aspects of the legislation.--Samerin 08:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Neutrality tag

[edit]

The arguments on this page in defense of the article's neutrality are far more convincing and cited than the counter arguments. Whilst this article may have needed a tag questioning the articles neutrality in 2006, there was no reason for Martin bennett76 to update the tag to 2007 without adding or discussing anything else.

If anything I think this tag should be removed, if anyone thinks that the article needs more references or arguments for the positive aspects of these agreements then they can write them and source them, rather than just accusing the article of NPOV. Master z0b 06:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The arguments against the Neutrality have outlined their problems while those defending it merely resort to the same old "well why don't you add some stuff?" crutch. The problems with this article remain and as such the NPOV flag should also. 70.189.213.149 12:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well firstly, I didn't mean "well why don't you add some stuff?" I mean if the article is non POV please provide some evidence to do so. Simply stating that something is non POV because it doesn't have as much info on one side as another isn't enough.

Secondly and more importantly, a user named Martin bennett76 had changed the NON POV tag from an original date of 2006 to a much later date of 2007 with no comment or reason to do so. This is quite clearly inappropriate and was another factor for the removal of the tag, as it seemed that there was a deliberate attempt to maintain the dispute and the validity of the tag without doing anything to actually clean up the article. Master z0b 05:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up one sentence that was biased; using words like "stranded" and "stripped", I've made it more neutral. Master z0b 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm trying my best to remove non neutral langage. The issue of AWAs is very important and will become more so during the election so I would like to see this article in a clean, factual state before then so that voters can research the issue for themselves. In an effort to remain neutral myself I'm not going to add any new information to either side. If anyone feels this article needs more info to become NPOV then please be bold, add something here or to the page itself. Otherwise I'm going to request that the tag is removed again. Master z0b 12:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added an external link to the ACCI (Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a leading supporter of AWAs), and removed a silly paragraph that was clearly Vandalism. Master z0b 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence showing that while the labour movement may oppose AWAs they are widely supported by business groups and added a reference. I may also add something about very strong support for them in the mining industry and their wide spread use therin. After that I'm removing the POV tag. Master z0b 06:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly biased, it contains a heading dealing with opposition but little information in terms of support and benefits. I will begin working to improve the article however in its current state it is definitely non-neutral. Mr john luke (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

This is one of the articles that came up as edited multiple times from an Australian government office. You think they would learn to edit from their homes or summat, but anyway, this is one of the thousands of pages edited by government computers, so keep an eye out JayKeaton 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I tried a WHOIS on a couple of IPs but didn't come up withanything. Master z0b 15:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Australian workplace agreement. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_workplace_agreement&oldid=1199202607"