Talk:Grunwick dispute/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Grunwick dispute. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Untitled
Good entry, thanks. PhilipPage 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nice entry but makes no mention of the action taken by a bunch of Freedom Association people in Shropshire who for a brief period handled the mail the Post Office staff would not collect. I don't know enough of the facts regarding this important contribution to the battle - but hurrah! Shropshire. [email protected]
- "the largely female, Asian workforce" "The Anglo-Indian employer", what is the purpose of these racial descriptors? The incident was nothing to do with racial or sex descrimination, what relevance does it have? BriKaBraK 13:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I only mentioned it because the sources I used mentioned it as well. You're right it doesn't have anything to do with racial or sex discrimination. It was just something I added because the sources thought it noticeable to mention. I didn't mean anything by it.--Johnbull (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unless there's a good factual reference to state that the workforce really was largely female and asian, this point might land Wikipedia in hot water, judging by this apology from the Socialist Worker. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is mainly pro-strike sources who constantly like to mention that workforce was largely Asian women, and George Ward's Anglo-Indian heritage. I think they do this to try and create the impression that Mr Ward was running some sort of third world sweat shop in North London which was far from the case. Grunwick was a perfectly reputable company.(86.159.238.226 (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
- There are many "good factual references" regarding the ethnic make up of the work force. And as expanded on in the article, the ethnic make up of the work force is relevant. Keristrasza (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is mainly pro-strike sources who constantly like to mention that workforce was largely Asian women, and George Ward's Anglo-Indian heritage. I think they do this to try and create the impression that Mr Ward was running some sort of third world sweat shop in North London which was far from the case. Grunwick was a perfectly reputable company.(86.159.238.226 (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
- Unless there's a good factual reference to state that the workforce really was largely female and asian, this point might land Wikipedia in hot water, judging by this apology from the Socialist Worker. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Outcome
What happened in the end? The article implies that Ward and Grunwick "won", but neither seem to be in business today. What happened to them both? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Grunwick's main trading name was/is Bonusprint ( www.bonusprint.com ) which continues in business to this day. George Ward was still the chairman of the company a couple of years ago. I think Mr Ward has an interest in horse racing as Bonusprint have been a significant UK horse race sponsor over the past 30 years (81.129.2.104 (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
"The Right of the party"?
Helpful and interesting article --- thank you! But I was slightly baffled/intrigued by "Three Labour Government Ministers on the Right of the party, Shirley Williams, Denis Howell and Fred Mulley, went onto the picket line at Grunwick": why was it people from the right of the Labour party who joined the pickets? A little more explanation would be welcome. Thanks. 79.70.83.228 (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The Year of the Beaver
Just come from watching 'The Year of the Beaver' Seventies film and discussion with the filmmaker Steve Sprung from Sheffield at Raven Row Gallery. London. It is mainly about Grunwick. Szczels (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)