Talk:Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
Excellent clean up done by the anonymous person. However you removed a supposed POV which can be easily verified by checking wage rates. Also removing an external link to replace with a non-existant Wikipedia link was something I had to change. A link to a page which actually exists is much better, in my opinion Dankru 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand this article could be a tad anti-SDA. Maybe there needs to be more pros about them. However there are not many redeeming things to say, since they're supposed to be a 'trade union' not a bosses club.Dankru 05:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
'A tad' is putting it mildly. One mention a perception of being less militant, outside of the introduction, is enough. Why does the article not discuss (eg. the nature of the union's coverage, the transitory nature of its workforce, and from that the fact that it needs to recruit an extraordinarily high number of new members every month just to stand still (and it does)? I can't think of any other article on an Australian trade union that is so explicitly POV. Slac speak up! 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well Slac we could go into detail of the union's countless EBAs which pay below award, or the union's deals with conservative Christian parties in Victoria last federal election, or its blatant homophobia in more detail and its generally regressive social policy approach [1].
- If you think your arguments would make the article less POV then put them in. I think that a lot of the points you make are actually in the article. I agree with them to an extent, but they're often used as excuses not reasons for the union's stance on many issues.Dankru 09:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have atttempted to address concerns of bias. I will not back down on what is said regarding Awards and EBAs as these are fact and easily verifiable. Dankru 09:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Have removed a large section of material. While attempts seem to have been made to deal with POV, none of the material provided established the claims being made or was properly sourced. If there are references that can be cited of other unions or unionists criticising the SDA, then they need to be sourced. Don't get me wrong, I sympatyse with some of the coments, BUT wiki isn't really a forum for this type of opinion. As for the references to EBA's being worse than the award - maybe the appropriate reference point now needs to be the minimum "standards". --Hmette 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to think the section you removed is of considerable importance, and the portions relating the awards were cited in the form of awards - a comparison would be adequate in the form of citing the previous award in these cases. I agree that some portions were POV, but that doesn't necessitate the removal of the whole section; merely an extensive edit would suffice. Maybe in order to balance the cons of these regressive awards would be to include a section on member benefits? I am a member and get the newsletter ever now and then, and certain benefits would be notable on their wiki (such as textbook discounts for students/parents of students). I believe both sides of the story should be shown. Orbitalwow 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- None of the removed material had any accurate source references. Referencing primary source material such as the Awards and attempting some sort on analysis would be an exercise in original research and isn't the purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't become a forum for listing every known positive for or grievance against the SDA or other unions for that matter. Balancing out the positives against the negatives doesn't create an encyclopaedic article of NPOV. As it stands, this article is poorly sourced. I've removed one of the links - this is clearly not within the scope of the guidelines for links. While its easy to attack the approach of a particular union, often the circumstances behind an industry or a particular negotiation aren't clear. In the retail industry, negotiating any form of agreement is difficult given the level of "churn" in employment, and the general combination of fear and apathy of employees. Add to this mix federal industrial laws, which allow for AWAs and non-union agreements, and make it very difficult to organise industrial action, or even participate in a negotiation process, sub-standard EBA outcomes are almost inevitable. If you want to blame someone for this, the union probably shouldn't be the first port of call. --Hmette 02:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup.
Deleted two sentences (heavily POV) and replaced one outgoing link. The article now links directly to the relevant VLRC report mentioned, rather than to an activist blog. Also corrected a spelling error. (211.29.117.5 13:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
- Can't remove POV against SDA without removing POV for SDA -- (Fro onlookers: I'm simplifying the situation here, obviously it's not just an eye for an eye situation). It appears you're just trying to unbalance the article. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have no interest in unbalancing the article, quite the contrary. I welcome your commitment to neutrality. If you want to keep the current edit, please verify the assertions and include alternative POV. If you cannot, they will be deleted, as per the Wikipedia style guide on unsourced material. I have re-replaced one external link, deleting the link to an activist blog and linking to the actual VLRC Report mentioned, added citation requests where necessary, balanced the account in line with the Brisbane Times article and tried to even out the anti-SDA POV in the third line with a pro-SDA reply. The whole article needs a proper cleanup, but I don't have the time. Perhaps you'd like to refer it to Wiki? (211.29.117.181 10:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
Great work on citations. Only trouble, the Carney article linked at [5] doesn't criticise the SDA, actually says it 'must be doing something right'. Please verify the claim that "The SDA has also been criticised as having a disproportionate influence over the Australian Labor Party". Also, query use of the term 'socially conservative'. If something is rejected by most members of the society (like human cloning, or gay marriage) it is not aptly described by the adjective conservative. Perhaps change to 'mainstream'. If that is the case, you'd need to indicate that those who criticise the SDA for holding mainstream views are, by definition, radicals? (58.175.49.51 04:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
- That's an out of context quote, if you read the part under it you can see the article is attacking the union influence over the ALP. Also, conservative is a term that can describe a mainstream viewpoint. Infact, the Liberal party is described as conservative and the Republican Party (US) which until the mid-terms held the majority of Congress is also described as conservative. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sda.jpg
Image:Sda.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
