Talk:National Tertiary Education Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-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.

Portal	National Tertiary Education Union is maintained by 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I'm not happy about the phrase "loose links with the Greens". The only link I know is that one of the Industrial Officers stood for the Green's. The Assistant General Sectratary once stood for the ALP as No 3 Senate candidate in Victoria. Is that a loose link with the ALP? There are also links with the Trots. Should it go? --Bduke 21:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It should go. TU Affiliation is about affiliation not about member or leader's membership of political parties. The Greens don't allow affiliates or donations from organised bodies (at the moment). Its as stupid as saying that the WWF or Seamen were Communist unions, just because some of their leaders were members of the CPA. Fifelfoo 08:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Greens accepted a $20,000 donation from the ETU. So you're not quite right in what you're saying there.Dankru 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

The following text was removed.

These provisions were designed by the Howard Government to draw unions into fighting amongst themselves and engaging in protracted legal proceedings. The intent of the “competitive union provisions” of the Act effectively defines unions as merely service providers, opening up competition between unions and other forms of representation at workplace level.

Traditionally industrial legislation offered protection to unions from other unions "poaching" members. The Australian Council of Trade Unions opposes competitive unionism as demarcation disputes usually result in total union membership falling as members get caught in the crossfire and become demoralised. The ACTU National Council has resolved that 'competitive unionism wastes resources, is destructive of unity and solidarity, results in lesser outcomes and is a barrier to recruitment and retention of members.'

It was removed because it is not about the NTEU but rather a particular argument about demarcation. Put it into a separate article, or create a new one. Please do not use the NTEU article as some sort of thesis on the cons of demarcation. And obviously you will need a NPOV if you want to put it in. Dankru 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Competitive unionism

I have to apologise at the outset I am new to this. Dankru can you enlighten me re NPOV??

Anyway competitive unionism is relevant on the NTEU page as it has used this as an integral part of its growth strategy. This is a very real issue the ACTU takes seriously as a threat to the ongoing viability of union renewal in Australia. This cannot be censored. Solidarity4ever

NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View. You have not explained the link between the NTEU and this growth strategy particularly well. Also you have taken a one sided view on competitive unionism and basically implied that it is wrong.

Irrespective of the motivations of the Howard Government in allowing it, the NTEU would counterclaim it was actually approached by disgruntled members of other unions, hence the reason for covering general staff. Having been an NTEU recruiter a while ago I know full well that general staff actually make up more membership than academic and join largely because they are not happy with other unions.Dankru 04:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The first General Staff were from General Staff Unions, in the ACT and I think in some states, that were part of the amalgamation that formed NTEU. I agree however that many General Staff later fled in droves from the CPSU and gave the NTEU covereage of General Staff in States and Territories where it did not exist before. --Bduke 08:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

(as like Solidarity4ever, I am also new to this..)Purhaps a new artical called NTEU CPSU Demarcation Dispute to detail the last 7 years of a demaracation war that could be historic in its length and tactics. As for the CPSU being the General Staff Union, this is a logo/branding issue. See http://www.psa.labor.net.au/campaigns/files/Debitfactsheet0406.pdf for a recent leaflet as evidence of this. Both NTEU and CPSU have similar levels of membership from General Staff with both sides able to detail disgruntled members from the competitor union. Over the years, as would be expected, membership levels rise and fall, for both union. Thus, both unions can claim to be " A Dominant General Staff Union". (Note the "A" is not "The") This is due to the number of Unions covering General Staff with generally the CPSU and NTEU being the dominant unions and the unions most active in the demarcation dispute. For historic evidence of both unions development and formations, a great resouces is http://www.atua.org.au/atua.htm . So how about a new page/artical?? NTEU/CPSU Demarcation Dispute Pup2006 10:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)