Talk:Unison (trade union)

	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.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for November 7.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Campaigning Section

Notice the addition of the 'Campaigning' section discussing ID cards - not sure if this is the appropriate place for this - this is an article about UNISON as an organisation, not about decisions that it has made (which are likely to date very quickly). This was one of many, many decisions made at conferences each year - why should it be given such a priority? I would suggest removal of this section. Anyone any thoughts on this? --Seajay 14:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Unison agreed to accept the farce called Agenda for Change despite widespread ground floor opposition from most staff. The legality of the vote on this should have been challenged. As a result of their recommendations so many frontline clinical staff seriously lost out in terms of their pay, benefits, and career. Many hope Unison pays for its cock up mistakes. Unison will be remembered for sleeping with New Labour and the NHS management on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengtisa (talk • contribs) 12:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second largest

Header says it's 'second largest trade union in the United Kingdom'. Well, what is the largest? I read whole article and didn't find it. Normally it would be 'second ... after (INSERT NAME HERE)' 85.217.14.88 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the source for that statement confirms, the largest trade union in the UK is Unite the Union. Robofish (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on UNISON. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 January 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 00:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UNISON → Unison (trade union) – WP:CAPS. Stylism not used by BBC "The leader of the trade union Unison, Dave Prentis, also called for the government to "compensate those who have lost out substantially", and other 3rd party WP:RS news sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Against: UNISON is the official name used by the union and its regulator,[1] and I see no overwhelming use of Unison in google searches. If you put "Unison" into google all the first page results use "UNISON". A google news search of "unison site:uk" shows a mixture of Unison and UNISON with Unison more popular but not dominant. I don't think "UNISON" is obscure, and I don't think "Unison" is a sufficiently dominant common name to warrant renaming the article. Rwendland (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:TMRULES. This does not appear to be an acronym or initialism, so we prefer not to use the stylization. Dekimasuよ! 13:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support this move 2601:541:4500:1760:7D06:B746:D072:7A92 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Not an acronym. Merely a stylisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Upcoming leadership election and forming new article

There's going to be a general secretary election in January. In terms of adding it to Wikipedia- either we can copy the Unite the Union page and have a section for general secretary elections, or we can create an article like List of internal elections for Unison (trade union) (for example) and add significant national internal elections to it. What to people think would be better? Sources for the election: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of excessive information about 2020 General Secretary election

The impressively comprehensive 2020 General Secretary election information is exceptionally excessive compared to other sections in the article (only one other election is mentioned, with a brief one-line summary) and to other articles about major UK unions' internal elections (for example Unite and GMB). About half the article is devoted to this election - placing undo prominence on one internal election, without the content containing the significance to warrant this prominence.

Much as it disheartens me to delete accurate information, I have reduced it to a sensible size commensurate with similar Wikipedia articles. Many, many apologies to Jonjonjohny for all their excellent effort building this impressive content. Future expansion could focus on tracking down historical election results to build a broad general picture rather than a lopsided spotlight on one short period.

DarylKayes (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would challenge what you said about it being "exceptionally excessive". It was detailed information and far more detailed than the rest of the article, I give you that, but wouldn't look out of place if the whole article was in a better place. I am the primary writer of the content so I am bias to my work, however as it is accurate, well sourced and relevant I fail to see why it needs to be cropped down. I don't know if there is a precedent for it, but we could create a separate article just for elections, but that entails a lot of work. Alternatively, more work should be put into the Unison article to justify the presence of the depth of content. Jonjonjohny (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this paragraph on UNISON entry under 'Political Work'

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please delete this paragraph under 'Political Work' as it is conspiracy theory and not factual:

“UNISON is a secret government organization, that confirms a few conspiracy theories. The following are currently confirmed by a now (deceased) leaker: Governments are descendants of an ancient invasive reptilian species, The pyramids were built by the E12936, Reality is a simulation, the higher ups made a deal with the developer of the simulation, Oxygen (O2) is modified to fill people with false memories of belief. Do not believe.”

2A02:6B6F:FE70:D300:2892:DF6E:EDD8:5100 (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Done ⸺(Random)staplers 19:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]