Talk:International Labour Organization

Title of This Page

OK, first I'd like to apologise for incorrectly moving the page, I'm still a relative wikipedia newbie, and I overlooked the move function. However, shouldn't this article be at International Labour Organization, since that is the official name of the organisation? This is not a quibble over american/commonwealth spellings of words. Darksun 19:37, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I moved the page here from the International Labor Organization page, and made that into a redirect. Now, usually, I'll leave American spellings alone, however, the correct name of the organisation is the 'International Labour Organization', so that should be the main article title. Interestingly, the ILO uses the commonwealth spelling for Labour and US spelling for Organization. Darksun 17:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The UN English is supposed to be a neutral international English. (Anonymously added 31 Jan 2005)

Actually, "organization" is a British spelling as well. The ILO uses a spelling standard in line with the Oxford English Dictionary. SpNeo 02:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Within the text of the document, both American and Commonwealth spellings are used. It should really be consistent, with the exception of the AFL. Ketchupstan (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a checkup and found two places where the name might better be spelled with a Z, but since they are in the title of a publication (I think), perhaps they should be with an S after all. Anyway, in this article there will always be some problems with the spelling of the name. We have to go with whatever the original source uses. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The ILO changed the spelling of its name in 1992. It originally used "Organisation," but has been using "Organization" since that date. Scholarship seems to (mostly) reflect this spelling difference before and after 1992. However, throughout the article, cited publications' names have been edited to reflect a Z. Most articles published 1991 or earlier should have S, and I don't think it is our place to retroactively change their titles. Mysticfeline (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

1998 declaration

Hi, not sure if the info here is true. Perhaps I'm just ignorant. Did the US really reject the 1998 declaration? Trying to find more info. (-EDR) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.53.57 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know what the US position is on the actual Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, but my read of the article text is that it is noting that the US, as with Burma, has only ratified 2 of the conventions that the 1998 declaration promotes.

• US record on labour Conventions: [1] (none)
• US record on the elimination of forced and compulsory labour Conventions: [2] (one)
• US record on the abolition of child labour Conventions: [3] (one)
• US record on elimination of discrimination in the workplace Conventions:[4] (none)

--Bookandcoffee 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the ILO web site [5] "... the Declaration commits Member States to respect and promote principles and rights in four categories, whether or not they have ratified the relevant Conventions - so the US has no option but to accept the Declaration if it is to remain in the ILO. It's track record on ratifying core Conventions is poor though. The "reason" given, apparently, is that the Federal Government cannot ratify Conventions on matters which are the prerogative of the individual States. Having said that, the country which seems to have ratified most Conventions is Cuba. Nuff said ... - Dave Smith 03:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

what's with the "in brief" sidebar?

General Wikipedia style is that the first paragraph or two that serves as the article's introduction should also serve as a brief overview of the subject. Why is there a separate "in brief" sidebar at the right? It's mostly redundant, and in the parts where it's not, either they should be added to the intro, or shouldn't be up front. The blue also looks very odd. --Delirium 06:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The sidebar is part of an idea being put forward at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Summaries. It's an attempt to do several things - to provide a quick overview, and also to establish a translation text for Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Internationalisation. Your comments would be most welcome on these pages. --Bookandcoffee 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Relationship to International Labour Office?

The article states that "Its secretariat is known as the International Labour Office" - I have no idea what this means and following the links on secretariat doesn't help. Can someone clarify this? Egret (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked for this simple clarification. Often we write as though everybody in the world understands what we are writing. I will try to explain in the article. Let me know what you think. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Striving for simplicity and accuracy

I used to work for the ILO. I am quite familiar with its gobbledygook. I hope to edit this article so it is understandable, simple and accurate. I hope you will join me in this endeavor. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Page suffered mass vandalism

The page was attacked by a vandal, who wrote the word penis in capitals about 7,000 times over. I removed the spam, but the vandal had completely destroyed the "Goals" section. I hope somebody will be able to replace it correctly. If I've done something wrong I apologise, I'm only passing through. Huw Dawson (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we all. ;) RashersTierney (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Annual Budget???

What is the total annual budget of the ILO? That factoid seems pretty basic to include here. Most other UN bodies have it listed. I've seen widely varying numbers on the web; can't find it on the ILO's own page. Tks. [Special:Contributions/195.229.241.173|195.229.241.173]] (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem from this, 93rd conference press release, that the budget for 2006 was $568.6 million. See also Programme and Budget for 2008–09. Will dig a little more; a bit surprised its not more easily accessible. Still haven't had my morning coffee, so don't quote me yet.RashersTierney (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

History section

This account is far too long on the background. It then suddenly jumps from 1919 to 1946, beginning of LoN to its demise, without a word of what the ILO did before and during WW2. And hardly a mention of the people involved. Can we start by pruning back somewhat on the 'genesis'? RashersTierney (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Theoretical history

Does anyone have a source for this claim: "Over the course of World War I, the international labor movement proposed a comprehensive program of protection for the working classes, conceived as compensation for labor's support of the war" (i.e. that it was due to a discourse of compensation for war support)? There is a reference to an academic paper at the end of the paragraph (which is behind a paywall), but it is not clear which points the reference is meant to back up. - X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.23.7 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"...it was clear that the world war was drawing rapidly to a close. It was equally obvious that trade unions would seek to have social principles included in the post-war treaty as a quid pro quo for workers' wartime sacrifices and that belligerents would be anxious to accommodate them." p 17 Edward Phelan and the ILO RashersTierney (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A plethora of links . . .

There are just too many official links. Unless there is objection, I will winnow and sift these links down to just a few. See Wikipedia:NOTLINKS#LINK. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So sad

That people don't recognise the importance of the ILO in the United Nations Development Group.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody keeps wanting to put this fact about the UNDG into a paragraph about the membership and organization of the ILO, where it does not belong. Therefore I keep omitting it from that section and placing it elsewhere. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you fail to not the importance of the ILO inthe UNDG. Shame.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization of headers?

So many big headers... so many big headers with small paragraphs underneath. (E.g. "Training and teaching units"... Can we consolidate some (governing body, conventions, recommendations, conference) under "Structure"? Maybe some under "Policy?" "Programs?" I am not an expert... I just think the page looks messy. love, groupuscule (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I suggest you go ahead and do what you propose. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

'United Nations' is a name

'United Nations' is a name, not a description. 'International Business Machines' is another example of a name (as opposed to a description). The expression 'the United Nations' is therefore confused language, like it also would be mistaken to refer to IBM as 'the International Business Machines'.

It would improve the language of this article if United Nations were properly referred to by using its name as just that, a name. That is to say one should refer to UN as simply 'United Nations', and avoid referring to it as 'the United Nations'. Of course this also applies to 'International Labour Organization' (a name, not a description). --62.16.186.44 (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)