Talk:Union security agreement

A fact from Union security agreement appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the ILO's Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 neither authorizes nor prohibits union security agreements, "such questions being matters for regulation in accordance with national practice"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/September.

Wikipedia

Organized Labour Mid‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rationale: Section removal[edit]

Removed section as it reads like an editorial, indeed it is titled "rationale" and seeks to put forth justifications as presented by one man - this is outside our purview and not the encyclopedia's place. 12.144.158.16 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One person? There are more than 20 cites there! You are providing your own opinion as to whether this article is one-sided. One-sided articles fall under WP:NPOV, and removing whole quantities of properly cited, unbiased published sources is not appropriate. If you think there is NPOV, then tag the article as such. I think you are mistaking the rationale for why union security agreements exist for an excuse or improper justification. Rationales are perfectly fine: Society passes laws against pollution because the rationale is that these are market failures known as externalities; society passes laws against speeding because speeding tends to cause more deaths; society passes laws against incest because incest involves a power-imbalance in the family and has negative genetic outcomes. Rationales are fine. Wikipedia does not care what the rationale is. Wikipedia requires there be no original research by editors, full citation of sources, and sources be pubished, third-party, and unbiased. All those criteria are met here. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are not any proper cites - just a list really. A cite under contention will require proper notation as to what precisely is being referenced. Title and author is insufficient to establish anything. 12.144.158.16 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that page numbers are missing, tag the article with the "missing page numbers" tag. But deleting citations because they lack page numbers is inappropriate. Although one must assume you are acting in good faith, your repeated attempts to delete a single section of this article repeatedly is showing your bias. - Tim1965 (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this section presents only the reasons for and not the reasons against, among which are the portion of union dues that go to political candidates and organizations which some employees might oppose, and the fact that the common union preference for promotion and pay based on seniority disadvantages employees with less seniority but better job performance. Bostoner (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that a section on problems, concerns, issues with, whatever it should be called... that this section needs to be added -- not one removed. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Union security 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: 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) 19:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]