Talk:Public Interest Research Group

This is article seems very much against PIRGS, with little written about their accomplishments but a lot written about the negative aspects.

FYI More complete Canadian lists at opirg.org and http://www.lpirg.org/Links-002.htm Thanks. Turq 21:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the criticisms section due to factual error (about wages) and lack of neutrality. Moved the LA criticism to main body, though I'm still not sure it belongs there. Also editing that section for NPOV.

Also deleted section about Minnesota PIRG. MPIRG is not a member of the Fund for Public Interest Research, and thus I don't think the unionization of its staff is really important to the conflict in the PIRGs as a whole, which relates only to the Fund.

I've taken a crack at building on the improvements started by anonymous editor above. I've expanded the explanation of how the Fund works and clarifying the relationships between the Fund, U.S. PIRG, and the state PIRGs. I also created a whole FFPIR section (which maybe could be a stub for an FFPIR article at some point) that I hope more accurately describes the Fund as a whole. A few other minor edits as well, moving things around, listing Canadian PIRGs after U.S. ones, clarifying header on the section re: the state PIRGs to make it clear that the PIRGs are independent, etc. Not perfect by any means, but I am hoping it's an improvement. I struggled some with wording at times, and I'm not sure my information about how canvassers paid is verifiable online. --Inonit 15:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted some edits that removed anything that could possibly be construed negatively. I'm open to removing the stuff about the LA office (I don't think it's important enough to include here), but I'm suspicious about removing something like "canvassers are paid largely on commission." I mean, they are, and that's a pretty basic aspect of the canvass model. Seems POV to want to not mention it, as if it's embarrassing.--Inonit 22:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added in mention of the street canvass and the fact that directors make commission, Also made a first attempt at including the state environment campaigns. -- kirstkat 12 March 2006

I haven't noticed much mention of the controversy regarding the PIRG's efforts to develop mandatory student fees to fund its programs. I may return later to develop this, but for now, here are links regarding the fee's mechanics as well as a lawsuit that happened in 1981 at Rutgers University.

• http://www.atlanticlegal.org/newsitem.php?nid=100
• www.thefire.org/pdfs/student-fees-2.pdf (substitute the 2 for more documents)

Additionally while on the topic, this past year, members of Rutgers_Centurion have been active in helping students "recover" the PIRG fee charged on their term bills. I believe that this phenomena should be examined and if widespread, it should be mentioned as well. -- MJKazin 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue is dated, to be honest. When I was following the PIRGs more closely (in the 1990s) this controversy was already discussed (within the PIRGs) more with the tone of history than with the tone of existing threat. I haven't heard much else about it since then, though I easily could have missed it. But my guess is that there are different things for people to argue about nowadays (the plaintiff in the case you cite probably would have sued today to protest his student activities fee supporting a gay/lesbian group on campus, for example). Or maybe it's more routine for political groups to get student activities fee funding these days? That guy mentioned that his College Republicans didn't get campus funding, but our partisan political groups at my school did, let alone the innumerable other quasi-political groups. The PIRGs go out of their way to get the consent of the student body by having these elections to approve the fee, which no other student group typically does. (These "elections" are just recruitment drives in disguise, but that's another matter.)--Inonit 13:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I did add a note about student fee controversy to the introduction while I was copyediting it. I also made a number of changes in an effort to make some of the language more NPOV and clarify a number of points. Feedback welcome.--Inonit 12:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Is it just me, or is the first paragraph of this section very POV? Also, there's no sources cited for anything else in the section. -- LGagnon 13:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's not just you. Based on my personal knowledge (which is a bit dated), I'd say it's not without some basis in fact, but it belongs on the talk page, I'd say. I'm not sure how to clean it up; I suspect it should be removed. The unionization stuff is all that could be objective (assuming it's true), and I'd say it's not significant enough to warrant inclusion in an article like this. --Inonit 16:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The criticism has beeen changed. If there are concerns about facts call The Fund and ask for their policies, it's there in black and white. Clearly this is significant, as people should undertstand the whole picture.

I'd say that's a problem right there -- the policies you're talking about are FFPIR policies, not PIRG policies. Yes, FFPIR and the PIRGs (or most of them) are intertwined. And, just to choose an example of a factual error, FFPIR does not have a nationwide "quota." But I think the larger issue is that the author's own criticism of PIRGs, much of it apparently based on his/her personal experience, does not belong in an encyclopedia, any more than me adding a section entitled "Criticism of United States Postal Service" to the United States Postal Service page, with: "The Postal Service often suffers from inefficiency. Recently, at one post office in the Midwest, a customer was forced to wait for hours in line while several postal workers dithered, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he was in a hurry." Even the controversy over the LA office, in my view, doesn't rise to the level of an encyclopedia entry (though the link to the source is a welcome addition -- thanks for that). Right now 50% of the prose is about "criticism" of one very narrow aspect of PIRG (or FFPIR), which is, in my view, undue weight -- and there's no presentation of opposing points of view. But I think (to continue with examples) a "Praise of PIRG" section would be inappropriate as well ("PIRG provides perhaps the most accessible entry-level opportunities for would-be activists who wish to pursue activism as a career, rather than hobby, and has provided education and training to a disproportionate number of activist-minded individuals, often leading to a lifetime of civic engagement"). And my reading of the first section doesn't seem very NPOV either, now that I look at it ("innovative" and "robust" seem particularly over-the-top).--Inonit 16:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Aside from being kind of "newsy" in content and tone, the Criticisms section essentially Americanizes the PIRGs, as there is no such funding body in Canada. Also, Canadian PIRGs are very different from American PIRGs, which in my understanding are essentially membership-driven lobbying organizations. Canadian PIRGs, to my knowledge, are attached to universities.

Canadian university-based PIRGs are typically supported by a student levy. Canadian PIRGs have been critiqued on this basis, for example, by members of Student Unions who hold ideological positions either against Dedicated Fee Units (basically, any service student must 'opt out' of, rather than 'opt-in') or against the general direction of work in PIRGs themselves. There is some talk about the anti-DFU people at our university being motivated by a certain legal decision in Australia that Student Unions restricting the use of opt-out-organized services.

But all the same, this has consisted largely of speculation and verbal grumbling rather than substantial, organized campaigns that have web pages, foundations, high-profile and visible opponents, etc. and thus wouldn't really merit a mention in a Wikipedia article.

I used to be (very) temporarily employed at a PIRG in the US and ran into the same difficulties as the writer of the criticisms section. I am not against mention of PIRGs being contested, tensions within PIRGs or obstacles that PIRGs or their employees face, but this is essentially a labour dispute that doesn't yet amount to "historical information."

Oxygen Smith (APIRG) 216.123.231.152 02:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• American PIRGs operate on both models - the student sections are funded by student fees at each institution, and the state sections are funded from membership contributions. the iBook of the Revolution 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Putting an end to "speculation" and "verbal grumbling," let me direct you to the current state of affairs in the LA door and phone offices. These two offices unionized with Teamsters Local 848 on June 9, 2005, and September 22, 2005, respectively. Since then, the Fund's reactions have been completely irrational, self-destructive, and hypocritical in the worst way. I know this, because I am the union steward in the door canvassing office. Our union rep, Emilio Arias, who is used to negotiating with the likes of Coca-Cola, and major grocery chains, has never seen an employer go to such extreme measures to prevent employees from exercising their rights to unionize. After firing five out of eleven employees in the phone office in one day in November (including the three union stewards) FFPIR broke the National Labor Relations Board Region 31 (most of LA) office's record for most charges filed against a single employer. This nonprofit, which is supposed to be the champion of fairness, and is supposed to be training the next generation of social change leaders, is demonstrably and indisputably anti-union. As stated on the main page, more information is available at http://www.ffpir.us, where you can email me at info@ffpir.us. Thank you, Christian Miller

Welcome to Wikipedia, Christian. I've reverted your edits as well as those of a later editor who attempted to remove any critical mention of FFPIR (they come through here every once in a while as well, always anonymous so far). Wikipedia is governed by three main content policies: "no original research," "verifiability," and "neutral point of view." I removed your contributions because of the No original research policy, which essentially states that we can't publish things that we know just because we know them -- they need to be verifiable; the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ffpir.us is not a credible source (see the "Dubious sources" section of the verifiability page) by Wikipedia standards. I certainly am inclined to believe much of the material on there (having done my own "original research" regarding FFPIR), but we need better sourcing. The site mentions an article that will be published soon; when it is (and presumably it will have FFPIR's answers to the charges, which will make it easier to write from a Neutral point of view), we should add some material on the subject, I think. If you have material that can be sourced better than that on ffpir.us, we may have something we can add now.--Inonit 13:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any documented criticism of the term "public interest" in "PIRG"? I find it a little misleading, as there is no guarantee that the ends pursued by a particular PIRG will be in the interest of all potential publics. QuinnHK 06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cited claims should not be changed

When we have a citation for something, it shouldn't be changed to something completely different. Even if you find a contradicting source, add the info from it without deleting or altering the other sourced info. If you change cited info without any reasonable explaination, it will be reverted. -- LGagnon 04:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes by 66.51.219.147

Some of these changes might have merit, but as a whole, I think it's POV. Systematically removing the word "liberal" (or references to Ralph Nader) from an article about a liberal organization inspired by Nader seems to be an attempt to stifle the kind of categorization that an encyclopedia must do. Or if the editor wants to debate whether the PIRGs are "liberal" we can do that. The New Voters Project did not, shall we say, randomly sign up young voters (regardless of ideology) in random states, just to pick one example. And PIRG street canvassers don't randomly target events (see any at a right-wing church festival?). And PIRG canvass offices don't randomly target neighborhoods regardless of ideology or affluence. And the "oversight" provided by the Oberlin students for the PIRG in my state (Ohio) ... well, it's an interesting thing to call it. Readers can go to the U.S. PIRG website if they want material about the PIRGs that is scrubbed of all labeling or classification. Let's be realistic, is my view.--Inonit 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. The Christian Coalition is also non-partisan, and also runs voter registration drives.--Inonit 22:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited: "dismissed all of the claims against the Fund"

Tjfacts provided the following [1]:

However, it appears these allegations were totally unfounded. The NLRB summarily dismissed all
of the claims against the Fund.

Does anyone have a citable source for this? I can't seem to locate one. MJKazin 15:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You will never locate one, because the above is false. Here is the notice to employees the LA FFPIR office was forced to post, following an NLRB finding that FFPIR unilaterally changed their quota policy following the June 9, 2005 union election. The notice is dated January 23, 2006, and is signed by director Jason Tipton. http://www.ffpir.info/notice2employees.pdf

More FFPIR issues

The section on the Fund for Public Interest Research asserts that the PIRGs primarily (exclusively?) canvass neighborhoods that are liberal and affluent. This is simply false. Canvass offices cover a wide variety of communities, from working class to upper middle class and everything in-between. They knock on doors in largely Republican towns and neighborhoods on a regular basis. This is necessary for both political and logistical reasons. Politically, the Fund only works with nonpartisan, issue-based organizations. Logistically, there simply aren't that many well-to-do, overwhelmingly liberal neighborhoods in the U.S., certainly not enough to keep a canvass office running for an entire summer, much less an entire year.

--Iketurner666 16:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

PIRG funding as a "Spanish-American War teleophone tax"

For those who don't get the reference, just recently (after over 100 years in existance) a Federal telephone tax was eliminated that funded....the Spanish-American War of 1898. Like that tax, long forgotten by the public but still pouring in cash to the Fed, PIRG's funding (via a "buried", almost hidden fee onto MANDATORY student fees) was set up with that in mind, so that long after the fight on campus (if any) was over, students would continually and UNAWAREDLY be paying to fund PIRG...regardless of their own personal political views, even if in opposition to PIRG's.

It was clever and quite dishonest, but necessary I'm sure from the PIRG organizers' standpoint, as little student activism was occuring in the late 70s, early 80s...almost none liberal and they knew that if they ASKED for DONATIONS from the students they'd get maybe 1/10 the cash they get now via the "waivable" (if you find it or even know about it) fee.

That sneaky way to fund PIRG says more about their LACK of appeal, than anything.