 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:New College of Florida/Work Organization and Its Alternatives (Spring)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Untitled
editI am going to be editing this page as a class assignment. I hope to make some good improvements and make the article even better quality than it already is. There is definitely some more useful information that can be added and some changes to the existing layout that will improve the quality of the article. If anyone knows how the current information is being cited, I would appreciate that info. I want to make sure I carefully document my own sources, but I want to integrate my citations with the current ones (for the existing info). Thanks.Kelley.thompson12 (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
History in Australia
editIt seems to me that the second and third paragraphs in this section are a little off topic. They seem to discuss the general history of Australian Labour rather than the history of the Organising model. It is all related, of course, but could perhaps be focused a little better. --Bookandcoffee 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
US vs. uk/aust. terminology
editperhaps in the united states vs. uk/other anglo nations, i think the "service model" in opposition to the "organizing model" has a different meaning. here in the US, the image of the "service model" is that of a "business agent" mainly returning phone calls to members about grievances and what not, hence "servicing" the collective bargaining agreement; i think it seems in the UK the "servicing" might mean something different, like a host of legal benefits for members or something. thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.204.205 (talk • contribs)
- No, the meanings are similar on both sides of the Atlantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.146.180 (talk • contribs)
- I agree, the "service model" involves both of the aspects described, where the members are seen as passive recipients of the union's services, both locally and at a national level; rather than as the active participants of the organizing-model union. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Needs fix
edit"Carter and Cooper believe that the organizing model is rather limited in terms of its scale, and it cannot start a "...wider working class movement."[8]"
This is misleading. In Carter and Cooper's cited piece, they write: "Some critics have suggested that the organizing model has its limitations: for instance it has been suggested that the model’s focus upon mobilization makes it insufficient for building a wider working class movement (Fletcher and Hurd 2000)"
The Fletcher and Hurd piece cited can be found here, called "Is Organizing Enough? Race, Gender, and Union Culture": http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/316/
In other words, it is not Carter and Cooper's opinion. It is Fletcher and Hurd's opinion which Carter and Cooper refer to in their article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.25.169 (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)