Template talk:AFL-CIO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sub-Grouping of Affiliated Unions[edit]

The submgroup with the 4As makes perfect sense since that's like a sub-federation and those unions don't directly belong to federation. The Federationo of Professional Athletes was meant to be just that type of umbrella organization but it never worked out so I think we should list it as NFLPA/FPA just like we do for CNA/NNOC. Is PASS legally any different than say the Flight Attendants under the CWA? Why does the PASS division of MEBA warrant a reference? Any other ideas are always appreciated.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with your assessments. Do you know how to change the box? I don't (I can edit, but I'm rotten, rotten I tell ya, at programming boxes). - Tim1965 (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The AFL-CIO Website Makes no Sense at All[edit]

This template has sections based on how the federation presents itself on it's website. Unfortunately, I'm going to take an educated guess that their websiteis updated once a year during the summer by some hungover college student has low work morale because they didn't get a better paying coop assignment with a for-profit company. Here are the issues:

  • Constituency Groups: Working America and the Alliance for Retired Americans are both Constituency Groups and used to be listed as such but now they appear under Allied Organizations. The Jewish Labor Committee was always a Constituency Group but has always been listed as an Allied Group. So, should we put these three Constituency Groups under Constituency Groups or under whichever category their boozin' webmaster lists them on most recently?
  • Allied Organizations vs. Allied Groups: I totally get why they distinguish their internal departments from affiliated non-profits that are separately incorporated. But what is the difference between an Allied Organization and an Allied Group? The difference seems to be as vague to me as the AFL-CIO. The International Labor Communications Association used to be an Allied Organization then it became an Allied Group but now it's an Allied Organization again. Do you think the ILCA really changed and changed back? The International Rescue Committed was an Allied Group then it was dropped from the website but now it's back as an Allied Group. I see no eviddence that it's relation to the AFL-CIO changed though. Do we merge these two groupings on our template, blindly follow the lasted update on the official website or just drop these sections because "allied" is too loose to include on the template?RevelationDirect (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The differences have to do with how tightly the organizaton is linked to the AFL-CIO. For example: When they were founded, Working America and the Alliance for Retired Americans were both funded, staffed, and controlled by the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO has loosened these ties (particularly in the means funding is provided, the amount of funding, and staffing) so that these organizations can engage in more lobbying. Other changes have come because the nature of the organization allied with the AFL-CIO has changed. For example: The JLC was a Constituency Group because it gave a voice to large numbers of Jewish labor union members and leaders. But the JLC has gotten pretty moribund over the years, and recent efforts to revive its activities have changed its role. Instead of trying to assess what Jewish union members want and push for that at the national level, the JLC is doing other things.
Similarly, "Allied Organizations" are those with a more rather than less official link to the AFL-CIO. This link changes over time as well. For example: The ILCA's official policy for years was that it would "support" the communications efforts of the AFL-CIO. For a short while, that policy lapsed because ILCA leadership wanted to be more of a professional organization than a shill for the AFL-CIO. But the leadership changed again, the old policy was restored, and back the ILCA went to "Allied Organization." Another example: LAWCHA is utterly independent of the AFL-CIO. Yet, LAWCHA's official policy is to help the AFL-CIO with labor history and labor studies. The AFL-CIO and LAWCHA have designated liaisons, LAWCHA is notified of AFL-CIO and affiliate activities which might interest LAWCHA, LAWCHA does the same in return, LAWCHA (under certain circumstances) can post notices in AFL-CIO and affiliate publications, etc. There's no funding or staff or control, but there is a very close relationship which makes LAWCHA an "Allied Group" (but not to the level of "Allied Organization").
There is almost no media reporting on these relationships, but people who work with the AFL-CIO know what's going on. (A person can also figure it out by reading the AFL-CIO Executive Committee and Council minutes, reading the AFL-CIO budget, etc.) The AFL-CIO has no real set rules for what goes where, and practically there shouldn't really be. These are guidelines, not rules. Judgment calls about where organizations go, not scientific laws. There's No Original Research here, so we have to report it the way the AFL-CIO wants to report it. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

State Level Federations[edit]

Only 7 of the 50 state feds have an article. And all of those are pretty stubby. I'm working on getting articles for all the minor unions but it's not clear to me that we'll shortly have articles for the state organizations. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove the red links from this section.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Fine with me. The real issue is that there's no histories of these state bodies, and what histories exist are published by the state feds themselves (which is hardly unbiased). It's tough writing about them (I know, I wrote some of these stubby things). - Tim1965 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)