Talk:Unite the Union

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

Controversy[edit]

The participants in the 2008 Airport Workers Strike at Belfast City Airport, Northern Ireland were formerly represented by Unite3. The dispute stemmed from a refusal by the union to pay legal fees they had previously promised to cover4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimnx (talk • contribs) 10 June 2008

Right-wing Designation[edit]

Despite references, this seems not be neutral. Mxwjci (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

BA Cabin Crew Strike 2010[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Strikes[edit]

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)[reply]

Actual name[edit]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
That solves it: I was wrong. Thank you! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Unite the Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Industries of workers represented?[edit]

No info at all!? Boscaswell talk 21:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Membership, turnout and voting[edit]

I have reverted to the original figures here and include citations. Unite's membership page stresses 'over 1.4m' members and this seems to be the most reliable source (even where unite claims different numbers elsewhere). Turnout was 124,147 (just under 9%, for simplicity). Graham was elected with 46,696 votes (just over 3%, for simplicity) of members voting for her. It is a striking and notable figure worthy of inclusion in the article's introduction. These figures are all included in the article already so I have put short and appropriate citations at the introduction. SteveCree2 (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the turnout and voting details at the introduction again. Please do not delete again. If you feel you the information should not be at the introduction, please engage here. I have also left messages at the talk pages of both users who have previously deleted the information. SteveCree2 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the principle of WP:BRD: if you make a bold edit, meaning an edit without a consensus on the Talk page, and it gets reverted; you start a decision without reverting back. You've performed your own calculations by synthesising two different sources, which is a type of original research, which isn't what we do on Wikipedia. Your edit also included material in the lead which isn't in the article, which isn't what the lead is for. The lead is a summary of the article, and a turnout percentage for a 2020 leadership election, even if it were well-sourced in the body of the article, would be recentist and given undue weight to include in the lead of the article. I hope that helps explain why Graham was elected on 25 August on a turnout of just under 9% having received the votes of just over 3% of Unite members is inappropriate material for the article. Ralbegen (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Ralbegen. Very helpful. I'll re-insert the figures in the article into the introduction without the percentages so that the introduction contains only the figures in the article? Do you agree with that?

Thanks for engaging! I'm afriad that would still suffer from recency bias: what's so special about the 2020 election results that numbers from it need to be included in the lead? The article is about the union rather than the 2020 general secretary election: Unite has existed for more than ten years and has had five GS elections, not to mention doing a lot of union work and playing an active role in British politics. Including who the current general secretary is in the lead fine, bceause that keeps the article up to date, but we don't need any more information about her in the lead. Ralbegen (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather dubious about the 1.4 million claim on the Unite membership page. The latest official numbers, in the Union's most recent AR21 return on gov.uk gives 1,277,491 members, but only 1,141,208 are paying into the General Fund (I guess the difference is retired members and maybe Community/Student/non-working members). However this return is rather dated being for 31 December 2019, but with Covid redundancies and furlough I'd have thought more likely lower now than higher. And a Guardian article suggests fewer were eligible to vote (seems retired members at least don't vote), though the Guardian article is repeating leaks from before the official result announcement (hence I didn't use it in the article):
More than 1 million Unite members were eligible to vote in the contest, but only about 124,000 ballot papers were returned – a turnout of approximately 12%.
I certainly agree it is WP:OR for us to do the sum of 124147 / 1400000 to calculate an approx 9% turnout, and something around 12% is more likely. But we need a very solid cite to give a turnout percentage. Rwendland (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Ralbegen. Thanks for agreeing that converting a figure to a percentage doesn't amount to original research. The Wikipedia article we're both referring to says 1.4m (as per last measured in 2020) in the text. Unite the union says 1.4m on its membership page, also referenced. The union's own membership page seems a perfectly good source. I've no idea what 'paying into the general fund' means, but it isn't the same as membership. My guess, no more than that, is that the union claims higher membership for leverage with government, but requires subscription to be up to date to vote? No matter, it's the membership the union claims, i.e. those eligible to vote (being up to date with subscriptions is an obvious sub requirement), which is all that being claimed. I see no need to correct the article in that respect. What's your view? SteveCree2 (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unite_the_Union&oldid=1202404813"