Talk:1998 Australian waterfront dispute

Australia: Maritime / Politics Mid‑importance

	Australia portal 1998 Australian waterfront dispute 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Untitled

This article needs a lot more detail and jumps from one unrelated point to the next. Unfortunately it is not really something I know much about. I will start adding material sooner or later. I hope others can help. Dankru 07:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am an industrial relations practitioner and was working as the IR Manager of another Stevedoring company at this time. This article is shockingly bias and I would suggest in need of significant rework if it is to be taken seriously!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.109.42 (talk)

You may never read this, but traditionally when people accuse an article of bias they give examples, or at least which side it is biased towards. Also, please put for ~'s in a row after you type a message on the discussion page, so it will automatically sign the message. Cheers, Rothery 05:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

damage to Australian's exports due to the strikes, length of the strikes, and the wages which were well in excess above the national average 165.228.166.23 (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article does jump around alot, which does not allow for a clear account of the events in any sort of timeline. It also focuses almost entirely on the judicial progress & eventual resolution of the dispute, thus ignoring the primary source material available from those of us on the picket line. The docks behind the wire were patrolled by balaclava clad security guards, there were ferocious guard dogs & scabs were bused in in vans with painted out windows. Some first-hand accounts would improve the scope of the article. BirgitMunro (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC) and the reason the guards had dogs was to protect them and the equipment from the union thugs, and the reason for the balaclavas was simply to protect the identity of the guards so the union thugs did not go around to their homes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.53.206 (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research, including personal accounts of events. If you have your information verified in a reliable resource then by all means add it, otherwise please adhere to our guidelines. I do agree that the article concentrates too much on the judicial process and not enough on the earlier clashes. 60.229.35.28 (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I was there, but I do work in the area now, the article does seem to forget the mentioning of the security guards with the dogs and Corrigan's locking of the gates and also forgets Kennet's support of Patrick. 2 Liberal governments siding with the big guy. Who would have thought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.72.78 (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the dispute either but the article does come across as being written form the MUA perspective. Some information on Australian stevedore productivity compared to the rest of the world, before and after the event would be very useful.130.102.137.84 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

I have read the section in question and did not see any signs of one POV being pushed over the other. Furthermore, the dispute has grown stagnant. If the dispute arises again, contact me before re'adding the NPOV tag.Drew Smith W hat I've done 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first para claims work place restructuring is illegal. Can anyone point out the relevant section of State or Fed law. Cathlo-Stalinist infallibility is not an acceptable replacement for formal refs.203.213.114.48 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.nma.gov.au/about_us/corporate_documents/annual_report/annual_report_2006_2007_html_version/part_five_appendices/appendix_3_nhc_material_acq_app_council/
- In 1998 Australian waterfront dispute on 2011-05-25 06:32:13, 404 Not Found
- In 1998 Australian waterfront dispute on 2011-06-08 21:30:23, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and unreferenced

This article is absurd. It reads like it was pulled from the MUA's website, and has 6 references for a litany of contentious statements. It needs a rewrite, preferably by a group, of which at least one person should be unaffiliated with the ACTU. The article reads like this was a strategy dreamed up by corporate fatcats in opulent offices to screw the little guy and his union, while the union and its members are presented as completely without fault, besides vague references to diminishing productivity. Anyone who can fix this article pleeease do so, it's an embarrassment. Dallas (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

{{Substituted comment|length=1332|lastedit=20080124130939|comment=I think the article needs some balance and that both sides of the story should be put forward. The non union employees were never engaged to be a strike breaker force, they were under contract to work in all ports as assigned in the Asia- Pacific area. They never expeccted what would eventuate with the Maritime dispute. Fynwest (Private Military Company) were later joined by a group called PCS (Producer Consumer Stevadores) which was finacially back by the NFF (National Farmers Federation). I know from the Fynwest employess that they were very well paid and recieved bonuses and commissions during the dispute. We may all have different political opinons to that of the MUA, However it was a the MUA that returned to work even though they no longer held a strangle hold on Australian waterside employment. I have been able to trace documents, contracts and agreements, there is also a book produced by Helen Trinca and Anne Davies, titled the Waterside that give a more detailed insight of the the dispute. Search for

Chris Corrigan - Merchant banker - Patrick's
Greg Combet - MUA, Union
Mike Wells - Australian Defence - Fynwest - Intelligence Officer
Peter Kilfoyle - Australian Defence - SAS - Special Air Service - Fynwest

Substituted at 05:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1998 Australian waterfront dispute. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]