Talk:Retail and Fast Food Workers Union

Neutral Point of View

I'd like to bring up that recent changes may breach the WP:NPOV rules. The editor added "is focused in the area of pushing criticisms of the SDA and retail and fast food companies, with little direct support or constructive input into resolving the issues facing members", citing only the facebook page and no credible sources. The organisation's criticisms of the SDA were already previously explained in further detailed in the paragraph above. The claim that "RAFFWU claims to be "member-driven", "fighting discrimination in all its forms"" should also be deleted since it appears to be PR fluff.

Secondly, unrelated to neutral point of view, the editor also has a very specific definition of what a trade union is, many are not registered under the Fair Work Act. The Health Workers Union Queensland branch is not registered, as well as the ACTU affiliated union Professional Footballers Australia. The specific claim that this union is not registered as an organisation under the Fair Work Act is true and should be included, however, it doesn't mean that it is not a trade union. An ACTU trade union (as well as one branch) is not registered, and the news sources in this article refer to it as a union. I brought this topic in here as I did not wish to cause a WP:EDITWAR over the use of the term 'trade union' by an editor which only edits this specific page with POV content. Catiline52 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Also this page needs to be redone entirely. Does every single workplace agreement require a large paragraph? Only the notable information should be included, such as the McDonalds protests, the sections about concerns over EBAs go into significant detail over minor issues which aren't covered by independent sources.Catiline52 (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe this page still needs rewritig. This Wikipedia page has a lot of citation needed references and may need to rewritten as well this page doesn’t cover this dispute over its legitimacy as a trade union. Happy chat further about this GassyTrucker (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

^ Seriously? There is no "dispute over its legitimacy as a trade union". Unless WP policy has suddenly been changed such that the prohibition against original research has somehow been abolished. I'm very sure it hasn't.

And it'd be too generous even to describe the edit attempts in question, mostly from single-purpose IPs and quasi-single-purpose IPs, and red-linked accounts of that nature, as being "original research", such edits are just empty assertions of feelpinion as far as I can see.

Anyone who wants that claim to be taken seriously obviously needs to present information from a reliable published source, as per WP policy, that backs up such a claim. But of course, there is no such reliable, published information which backs that up though. JayBee00 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Clear bias

Frequent contributors to this page appeared to be engaged in a

Wikipedia:EDITWAR

against any an all criticism about RAFFWU, despite the page containing substantial unreferenced paragraphs in favour of RAFFWU, they are focused solely on removing any and all references to RAFFWU's status as an unregistered trade union. Every other union on the

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregistered_and_unregistered_Australian_unions

Page has prominently displayed references to this status as it substantially impacts the ability of the association to represent its members, conduct workplace inspections, and negotiate. In fact, other such organisations such as Unite, also in the retail space, are clearly labelled as such. The only reason that this has not been applied to RAWWFU is due to one frequent contributor that has stooped to framing people keen to correct this mistake as some kind of unfounded conspiracy, an editor need to step in and prevent this person from imposing their political agenda. Hjmkomgbd (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Correcting the previous user about issues of WP editing policy/conventions and conduct and how they apply to this article, debunking that "clear bias" claim

I assume the fairly remarkable accusation Hjmkomgbd is making is directed towards me? And no, consistency is not, nor ever has been, a "political agenda". Though it isn't specific WP policy, it certainly is a commonly held view among many of us actively maintaining WP pages. And reverting WP:OR content inserted without sourcing, based on personal opinions, including vandalism, is also entirely legitimate and entirely in line with WP editing policy.

WP edit-warring policy is also very specific, generally referring to particular types of situations involving frequent back-and-forth editing. It does not automatically refer to any time anyone might revert any edit. It seems like Hjmkomgbd doesn't understand WP policy in this area. If so, I would advise this user to go back and read those two WP policy pages again.

I would also point out that at no time prior to this have any of the various IPs and red-linked accounts seeking to insert such content in various forms ever tried to argue any possible case for such editing in Talk, including the plethora of attempts by some to insert unsourced content outright denying the status of RAFFWU as a union, which certainly comes under the heading of vandalism, and IIRC, covers almost all of the edits reverted. It appears Hjmkomgbd is actually seriously seeking to accuse me of edit-warring in large part because I've reverted those edits. Again, reverting content that can be considered to be vandalism, or could otherwise come under the heading of negative unsourced content, most certainly is not edit-warring. WP policy is specific and clear about this.

I would also point out to this user that Bold, revert, discuss is a long-standing principle on WP, it's generally not considered appropriate for anyone to seek to impose any given edit through repetition without any attempt to argue a reasonable basis for it.

Also, having checked as thoroughly as I could and double-checked again tonight, as far as I'm aware, despite Hjmkomgbd claiming that every other union without government registration in Australia has that displayed prominently on their WP page, the truth is virtually the exact opposite. In fact, of the numerous currently existing unions I'm aware of around the world which don't have government registration, none of them, none, have any such content prominently displayed on their WP page about that - including, as already pointed out by Catiline52 at the top of this page, many such currently existing unions here in Australia, and I've checked those WP pages too.

Despite this, Hjmkomgbd is still very vociferously insisting that RAFFWU somehow should be treated differently on WP to all of the many other currently operating unions that don't have government registration. To which I would ask, why?

And whereas I, as a fully registered WP user, have been actively editing dozens of different pages across various subjects in the years I've been an active user, I note the RAFFWU page is one of only two pages edited by Hjmkomgbd since being active on WP as a red-linked user.

Since the only other page edited by this user is about the Labor Right, a Labor Party faction of which the SDA is a major part, and since the SDA is the only other Australian union operating in the same industry as RAFFWU, that again certainly leads me to question why this user appears particularly motivated to want such different/inconsistent editing treatment for the RAFFWU page. JayBee00 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)