Talk:Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association

Nov 2005 - Apr 2007

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)

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)

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)

Industrial approach

This section is written like an advertisement for the SDA, with phrases like "the union is moderate and responsible in its approach to Industrial Relations", and no references. This is in stark contrast with the more professional tone of the "criticisms" section. miracleworker5263 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Penalty rates source

I disagree with the edit summary yesterday by Benlr who wrote, "The text does not accurately reflect the relevant content from the source".

My text was:

"Penalty rates, for working at night or on weekend, were scrapped in some agreements".

The source read, in part:

"The Fairfax probe points to underpayment of more than 250,000 workers through dozens of enterprise agreements - many excluding penalty rate payments ... An analysis of four weeks of rosters at one inner Melbourne Woolies store shows 63 per cent of workers were paid less than the award, about $1070 for each affected worker. The shortfall is largely a result of low, or non-existent, night and weekend penalty rates. ... The Hungry Jack's agreement excludes penalties, and pays lower casual loadings. ... KFC payslips and rosters tell a similar story; no penalties paid, and casual loadings below the award. ... An analysis of dozens of SDA agreements from the last decade shows a clear pattern of hourly rates paid from a few cents to a few dollars an hour above the award while penalty rates are slashed or non-existent."

So I think my text is a reasonably faithful paraphrase of that aspect of the source. If you think otherwise, please discuss on this talk page before reverting again. Thanks. Meticulo (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Clean-up Feb 2019

Having gone done the path of ‘Australia-related topics’, within the Australia portal, there are a lot of articles that have been rated below good article (GA) status.

This article has been designated b-class.

The B-Class article indicates the following issues as cause for this categorisation: significant gaps or references, requires substantial editing for usage and/or clarity, undue weighting of content, copyright concerns, neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) or no original research (WP:NOR).

WikiProject Australia has a list of articles needing attention. The current article is captured within the category of Politics in Australia. While the article is not rated a priority, the category and sub-categories are topical. There also seems to be a lack of consistency across articles that relate to political organisations in Australia. These articles can certainly have an influence on public discourse. Ideally, articles within this category would be GA or higher. As stated in the quality scale, to reach GA status an article is: well-written, verifiable with NOR, broad, neutral and stable.

I suspect breadth and NPOV need addressing. There may be areas of the article that may be interpreted as endorsements (or partisan commentaries). For example, ‘The SDA has become the nation's leading voice for protecting and expanding public holiday rights and entitlements across all Australian states and territories.’ At the least, such a statement should be supported by citations. Equally, reviewers may have judged the article as giving undue weight to criticisms outside the primary scope of the organisation’s activities. The section on social positions is only 30 words fewer than the section on industrial approach. There are also several citations that do not support in-text claims. For example, citation 39 does not report on polling that confirms a difference of opinion between the SDA leadership and the rank-and-file of the union. While demographic segmentation in national polling is suggestive, the external validity of the poll and the characteristics of the rank-and-file cohort were not reported – beyond “Much of the SDA membership is young people”.

From a review of previous versions, the article has certainly improved. I also suspect that it is not a high-priority given the number of lower rated articles. If editors do have the time to perform a clean-up, perhaps it would be worthwhile discussing a structure that can be applied across similar articles to improve readability and maintenance. Pjr92 (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion to review articles in this sub-category is, in my opinion, well-founded. Ideally, similar articles within a category/sub-category would follow a standardised structure. However, this is a difficult task to coordinate and may lead to dispute wherein particular sub-topics are not relevant (or more relevant) per article.

Compared to articles on similar organisations, there appears to be several instances of NPOV, undue weight issues, impartial tone, contentious labelling and biased sourcing (see below). The National Education Association provides an example of an article in this field that is neutral in both tone and content. Importantly, neutral characterisation of the organisation and its activities will ensure that the article is neither endorsing nor rejecting an editor’s point of view. Unison_(trade_union) provides another example of a structure and tone that presents a balanced account of the organisation’s history, activity and place within the broader environment. In Australia, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation seems to avoid many of the issues being raised. The Australian Education Union provides a longer example given the aim of GA classification. CezarWd7 (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a field that's basically impossible to review without some understanding of the subject: for instance, you've flagged reference to the 1950s Labor split as being "possibly true", despite being a colossal event both in the union's history and in the union's outsized political impact going back over half a century. There are entire books written about this, and an article that didn't mention it would immediately need to be tagged for having fundamental deficiencies. Equally, it is impossible to provide a remotely complete or neutral treatment of the SDA without mentioning its social position and historic and ongoing role as the backbone of the Catholic right-wing of the Labor Party - something again documented in thousands of sources and entire books.

The article has longstanding major quality issues - for a topic with so much in the way of good sources written about it, very few of these have ever made it into the article. It has also been the subject of a long-term astroturfing campaign by the union, which is how things like the sentence "The SDA has become the nation's leading voice for protecting and expanding public holiday rights and entitlements across all Australian states and territories" noted below got into the article. The article has seen piecemeal improvements in some areas due to addressing the astroturfing issues, but I hadn't realised how much had slipped through - the "campaigns" section is pure astroturfing and the "brief history" is thinly-sourced and close to being a work of fiction in many parts. I would, however, strongly advise that people with absolutely no knowledge of the subject don't attempt to determine what is neutral or undue weight unless genuinely obvious, as some of the comments below indicate that the end result of that might well be a bit of a car crash. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, the primary changes being suggested below relate more to the article's structure and tone. For example, reference to the 1950s Labor split did not mean to imply that this an inaccurate statement but rather that the citation being used to support said statement does not contain information describing the cause of the Labor split or the involvement of the organisation. Similarly, I am not questioning the validity of the statement "The SDA has become the nation's leading voice..." but rather pointing to the lack of citations supporting this statement. While I agree that some understanding of the subject should be a pre-requisite to ensure areas of dispute are not unknowingly introduced into the article, it is equally the case that revision by editors involved in, or critics of the organisation may introduce bias. Your suggestion that "There are entire books written about this" is largely my point. Statements that may be disputed should, at the least, be supported. I'm happy to review the article and list the statements that are missing citations. If you have books that support and/or disagree with these statements, we could then add them. If you prefer to work through them offline please indicate.

Regarding neutrality, the suggestions below are not advising a fundamental change of content. Revisions to the wording and structure would move the article towards a more neutral tone without removal of content. For example, the current wording in the social position section presents views of the organisation without citations to support them as official. Whether or not this is true, WP:V is a core principle of Wikipedia. Moreover, it creates an environment for the astroturfing you referred to. If there are no official statements by the organisation but it is widely understood by the public to be held by officials in the organisation, then the statements should explicitly say this - for example, "Individuals within the SDA leadership...". To be clear, the suggestion is not to remove content but to ensure it is not being interpreted incorrectly by readers seeking information from Wikipedia as a neutral platform.

Lastly, the reference to undue weight refers to the potential for a reader without local knowledge interpreting the organisation's goals as social reform. While people familiar with the organisation could rightly argue that they have had a considerable impact on Australian social policy through the Australian Labor Party, it should be clear from the article that their principal aims relate to representation of workers to employers. Given your statement that the organisation has a historic and ongoing role in the Australian Labor Party, the article could benefit from separating the organisation's activities into political and industrial. CezarWd7 (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll have no objection from me to tightening up the referencing, which is one of many long-standing problems with this article. I don't think there's anything in the article (at least, that should be in the article) that shouldn't be reasonably verifiable with online sources. My problem is that this is a pretty bad article on a huge and complex topic that I don't have the time or energy to rectify myself, so a lot of my efforts (apart from more casually fixable things, such as the couple of sections I've taken an axe to) tend to have to be focused on making sure the article doesn't get worse.

The need for people without knowledge of the subject to tread carefully comes up again here though: "it should be clear from the article that their principal aims relate to representation of workers to employers" is an unwitting statement of opinion, because it is absolutely not an uncontroversial statement that their principal aims relate to that (most of their opponents, of which there are many, would disagree to varying extents). Equally, the various ideological positions are usually not those of union officials (although they share them), but positions of the union itself. I don't think it's a good idea to split the industrial and political activities any further than they already are: although it might be necessary to some extent just to clearly explain the two, the industrial and political approaches of the SDA (and the now-dead unions that were allied with it once upon a time) were extremely closely linked. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Having reviewed the pages suggested by cezarW7, I agree that these articles are well structured and relatively neutral, however, as Drover’s Wife suggests this may be a function of the organisation’s influence. I don’t see an issue with having an “industrial approach” section but I appreciate that the current text could be adjusted so that campaign content falls under the “campaign section”. Alternatively, these two sections could also be consolidated into an “Industrial activity” section. This would isolate the organisation’s primary area of activity from its political activity which could be detailed in a subsequent section.

I would like to think that people not directly involved in the topic area have a lot to contribute in terms of keeping the article well sourced and as neutral as the topic allows - acknowledging that this is a difficult task. I suspect that too many people with vested interest has led to some of the issues raised by cezarW7 and Drover’s Wife – especially as it relates to ensuring appropriate sourcing of references. Given the concerns raised by Drover’s Wife about the role within the Labor Party, a section on political activity would encompass the social positions.

The above suggestions would look like this:

1. History

2. Coverage (although I would recommend Membership as this is used in similar articles)

3. Branches

4. Affiliations

5. Industrial activity

6. Political activity

7. See also

8. References

9. External links

Pjr92 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The article should also definitely feature a 'criticism' section that should outline its links with right-wing and social conservative Labor factions, as well as cover its differing approach in comparison to RAFFWU as a left-wing union. LeoC12 (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't - criticism sections are generally discouraged across the project as an NPOV violation. There is plenty of room in Pjr92's structure for the many negatives to be addressed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed all the citations to make the author, title, etc show up. One thing I've noticed is the number of sources coming from the organisation itself, especially within the history section. I'll try to find some more sources about Australian labour history in the next few months to help try and make the information more independently sourced. Catiline52 (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

As per the suggestions made by Pjr92, I have adjusted the page structure to follow the suggested subheadings. I have also removed a few sentences that were repeated across the article. I noted that the neutrality link was posted in February. Given the changes made to the article since then to correct the issues raised, and the tightening up of references by Catiline52, I have removed it. 150.101.89.150 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Clean-up issues

POV check added to article

History section: Information should pertain to the organisation’s establishment and development in so far as it provides an overview of key dates and events. Much of the information achieves this. Reference to the Four Corner’s report and subsequent response should be shifted, in my opinion, to the campaigns sub-topic.

NPOV issue – opinions as facts:

“These unions had a key role in the Labor split of the 1950s”.

While possibly true, this statement is derived from an editorial that does not provide information on the cause of the Labor split or the organisation’s involvement in said split. As a result, this statement may be interpreted as impartial against the organisation or the opinion of the editor.

Coverage section: In general, similar articles tend to include membership size, composition, trends (for example, growth estimates and turnover) and membership structure (for example, fees and eligibility). Campaigns section This section should outline the campaign issue, the organisation’s involvement and key dates. While it seems fair that the organisation’s point of view is expressed, this should be used to give context for their involvement and not to endorse or validate their position.

NPOV issue – opinions as facts:

For example, “The SDA has become the nation's leading voice for protecting and expanding public holiday rights and entitlements across all Australian states and territories.” While possibly true, this statement is unsupported and worded in a way that may be interpreted as an endorsement if not directly quoted.

Industrial approach section: Articles for similar organisations have structured this sub-topic as policy positions and/or political activities. If retained, this section should present a description of the general approach followed by the organisation. It would be appropriate to include specific examples in this section in so far as a specific case is used to provide evidence (support) of the general approach. The current presentation includes content that relates to a specific campaign Hart v Coles. In its current form, the inclusion of this case does not seem to provide direct support for a generalised approach taken by the organisation.

NPOV issue – impartial tone:

This section includes statements that may be interpreted as impartial when unsupported or not directly quoted: '“As a result of the SDA's coverage, the union claims” – does this refer to an official position of the organisation or the editor’s viewpoint? In contrast, a specific viewpoint is attributed to individuals by a direct quotation in subsequent sentences.

NPOV issue – words to watch:

“The union has also been criticised” – this choice of words is addressed by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions. Criticism of the general approach taken by the organisation should follow from a clear statement outlining the general approach. This is not made clear in the current version.

NPOV issue – balance:

The inclusion of the rival organisation “because of these perceived shortcomings” infers that said perceived shortcomings are either widely understood or previously explained. Moreover, this sentence does not fit within a sub-topic that should be describing the industrial approach of the organisation and would be better suited in the history section or a newly created criticism section.

Social position section: While the social position of the SDA may be a valid concern to readers, as indicated by Pjr92 it is considerably weighted in terms of detail and prominence of placement without a counterpoint. According to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance, neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.

For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.”

NPOV issue – undue weight:

Review of the reference lists reveals that at least 12/42 refer directly to same-sex marriage. On review of the edit history, it appears that this section weighted considerably higher when first added. Taken together, this may be interpreted as biased sourcing. This may cause problems when assessed against the NPOV criterion – does not indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

The guidance for reviewers says that reviewers should "at a minimum" compare the article's claims against its openly accessible citations. The GA criteria require that the claims in an article comply with WP:V, the sourcing policy. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable ... and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says)”. CezarWd7 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• BobHawkeSDA.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutral? Criticism?

Have had discussions with organisers and could use a "criticism" section SDA no longer appears to be representing members, and acts on behalf of organisations "in interest" of their membersWhile this article may be bias https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/gold-standard-porter-praises-union-that-stripped-workers-of-1-billion-20190919-p52sxj.html this is reflective of the SDA and it's operations

I'm looking at things like this also "The SDA has become the nation's leading voice for protecting and expanding public holiday rights and entitlements across all Australian states and territories." what is going on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecam (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"industrial approach" reads as if its practising self defence

also "Australian Labor Party" is littered throughout the article while neglecting to mention anything relating to the liberals and other conservative subjects

in all honesty this article reads like a resume for employees trying to research the association, it doesn't give a clear picture of what the SDA is and is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecam (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised that there is no mention of the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, or the SDA policies that led to RAFFWU's creation. --James (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sda logo0 400x400.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

See also

Hi, JamesHenstridge, the part of MOS:NOTSEEALSO which I was referring to in my edit summary is, 'As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body'. The link you added already appears at the end of the 'Industrial approach' section in the sentence, 'In 2016, the rival Retail and Fast Food Workers Union was formed because of these perceived shortcomings.' Meticulo (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Three out of the four remaining links in that section fail that test. Do you think they should also be removed? --James (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Yes, I do. Meticulo (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)