Talk:International Trade Union Confederation

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for November 1.

Organizations Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with WFTU?[edit]

No prospect that another amalgamation/reunion with WFTU will happen anytime soon? – Kaihsu 18:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WCL was third largest?[edit]

If the

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions - 155 million in 148 countries (2006)
World Confederation of Labour 26 million in 116 countries
World Federation of Trade Unions 129 million in 130 countries (2004)

And there aren't any other global union federation at least of singnificant size, then how exactly was the WFTU the 3rd largest previously? WFTU was the 2nd and WCL the 3rd according to the above stats... BTW, the claim it is the third largest is from the reference but it is clearly inconsistent with the stats we have so either our stats are wrong or our reference is probably wrong so we need to find a better one Nil Einne 22:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well since no one has done anything, I just removed the bit that said it was the third largest here. It would be helpful if we could find a more accurate source. Nil Einne 10:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Researching this a while later I found All-China Federation of Trade Unions, however there seems to be dispute over whether it's a genuine trade union I don't believe the original source [1] was considering them per the wording 'Staying away from the ITUC however will be the the Communist-affiliated World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), which after the WCL and ICFTU is the third largest trade union group in the world.'. BTW I should add that my memory is I did search at the time and found repetion of the claim (it's AFP after all) but no sources saying the WFTU was the second largest. Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism or paid public relations campaign?[edit]

This section makes false assertions concerning ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow and her efforts to achieve paid parental leave during her time as a leader of the Australian trade union movement. Australia was one of only two OECD countries that did not provide comprehensive paid parental leave. The measure was welcomed as paid maternity leave is about addressing the inequality experienced by women workers relative to men as a result of childbirth.

This section and its sources are part of a paid public relations campaign to attack the ITUC, due to the ITUC’s criticism of modern slavery and exploitation of migrant workers in Qatar and other Gulf countries.

GeneralBrussels (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the disputed content.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE:My Point of View[edit]

The facts and truths used in the content are not only the blogs and opinions. The references used are from the renowned Indian and International Newspaper sites. Also if we talk about Paid Parental Leave policy, what we meant to say was, though it was made to benefit the workers; however there was a flaw behind the same that the program would lead to a reduction in long-run wages as more people would be hired to cover leave periods on low wages and casual contracts. Also, as per a renowned reference from Indian Media, Rajendra from INTUC (One of the Indian Affiliates of ITUC) revealed that “We pay huge amounts of money as annual fees to ITUC. Sometimes, we even pay half-yearly. We hope we get much more in turn, in terms of training programmes and skill development”. Most of the references used in the content were from the Indian ad International renowned newspaper sites and not the blogs and opinions. There are no personal issues with ITUC. The concern is with the humanity for the Migrant workers and labourers ONLY, who are innocent and also humans who should be treated as humans and not slaves or mode for someone’s own benefit. Though ITUC is representing the benefits of labourers, however their hidden agenda is to support their own Institution.

I am sorry but Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a space for propaganda and opinions. Saying that paid maternity leave is bad for workers is a very questionable opinion. What is your source to say that "In Australia Sharan was disliked by the workers as she made a maternity leave policy which was actually in favour of the businesses and not the workers. Her past records have always been negative."? The source you gave was an article uploaded on wikinews that was deleted. Using sources that are talking about allegations and not facts is also very questionable. Most of these sources are sites where you can upload your own news (CNN iReport, wikinews). What is the huge amount paid by INTUC? What are they not getting in return? What are the other affiliates that you mention ("Few affiliates of the ITUC")? All the media sites you are using as sources are using the same unverified allegations. This may have its place on news sites and blogs but definitely not on Wikipedia. You may have a personal issue with the ITUC but Wikipedia is not the right place for this.--GeneralBrussels (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and we are not promoting anything or anyone here. We are highlighting the truths of ITUC and Sharan Burrow. The references used in the comments are true and accurate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew191 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes review at 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[edit]

I reverted the edit of @JamesFranklin123 because it deleted a legitimate source. I then restored that portion of his edit having to do with "Allegations", because it was material and sourced. I personally do not know about the subject, and do not want to hear from other editors as to whether the "Allegations" section is or isn't appropriate—or what I should or shouldn't have done here. My job as pending changes reviewer is to make sure that edits are sourced and do not appear to be vandalism. That's all. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the History or add a controversy chapter[edit]

ITUC Started only in 2006? When the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) was established in Paris on 3 October 1945

I'm not specialist enough but this is not normal that there is no explanation on why on earth trade-unions would divide iso stay together. And then ITUC stating we are the biggest, we are the true trade union that will let your voice be heard at UN level? Can anybody add a paragraphon this. Maybe a good start is cf http://www.wftucentral.org/download/publications/en/Special-Documents_70th-Anniversary_Swadesh-Devroye_Print.pdf, Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]