Talk:Opposition to trade unions

Organized Labour Redirect‑class High‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This redirect 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
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Card / Kreuger Work?

I'm not sure if its me, or if that section isn't entirely coherent. It does seem to be a rebuttal of much of the rest of the article, which also doesn't seem to belong there. The article is on opposition to trade unions, and while we should encourage both sides of the controversy to be heard, a pro-labor section attempting to rebut the "theories... above" probably shouldn't be there. 72.225.230.77 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR and citation tags

Please, if you tag the article, create an entry on the talk page about it and make your objections clear. It will aid in improving the article. 72.200.136.66 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (TaintedMustard)[reply]

I don't see what clarification is possible. The objection is that large sections of the article are original research. They are not attributed to any notable or recognised authority but are apparently simply the musings of some wikipedian somewhere. Mattley ^(Chattley) 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the Original Research tag that was placed under "Common Objections to Unions" that most certainly requires an explanation because everything stated in that section is common knowledge. As a result the tag has been removed. -- Stereoisomer 17:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is common knowledge, you won't have any trouble finding citations, will you? Mattley ^(Chattley) 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sky is blue and the grass is green. That's common knowledge. Does it need a citiation? No. Does every sentence in the Wikipedia need a citation? No. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Stop abusing Wikipedia. -- Stereoisomer 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And apples are not oranges. The section you are referring to consists of objections and criticisms of the subject of the article, that is to say, of points of view. They might be points of view with which you agree and come into contact with often, but however self-evident they might appear to be to you they are, nonetheless, points of view, not the universal and objective truth. One thing you don't seem to have considered is that your "common knowledge" might not be everybody's common knowledge. It is a big planet, after all. These objections need to be attributed to some person or organisation, otherwise the encyclopedia is simply endorsing a particular position. Once again, this is original research, POV material. Mattley ^(Chattley) 17:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section I am referring to describes reality and you really need to just deal with it. It's inclusion is essential to making the article NPOV because it shows that labor unions are good *and* bad things. That's a fact. It is a fact that anyone who has ever come in contact with a labor union -- directly or indirectly -- is well aware of. And this reality is "old news" which is why it cannot be "original research". If anything is POV it is your one-sided, biased attitude. For example, "musings of some wikipedian somewhere"? The only person that describes here is you. -- Stereoisomer 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you need to read up on civility and no personal attacks as well. No one has suggested that this material should be removed. However, it is perfectly legitimate and in line with policy to insist that it be sourced and cited - cite your sources, verifiable material only, no original research, neutral point of view.... Why do you object to that perfectly reasonable proviso? Here, by the way, is where a wikipedian somewhere started to add his musings, back when this article was part of the main trade union article. [1]. What makes these "musings" is that without attribution they are just somebody's opinions. Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the policy on personal attacks. Clearly you aren't because nothing I said could be considered a personal attack. And it is also clear that you have no interest in creating a factual article so this discussion is over.

Please read this e-mail from Jimbo Wales: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. Jimbo writes:

"here seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Thus, I am removing all unsourced claims from this article. -- WGee 21:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the "Common Objections to Unions" section could even remotely be classified as "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information". It is true that "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", but that is completely irrelevant in this situation becaue we're dealing with facts. Not only are they facts, but they are fundamental issues of trade unions that unionized industries and workers deal with on a *daily basis*. No offense, but if you don't know this then you clearly know next to nothing about unions and have no business editing or commenting on this article. I will concede the fact that it would be best to have sources cited for the items in this section in order to satisfy all parties at hand. (Even though thousands of articles with infinitely more questionable information have gone uncited for years.) However, flat out *deleting* these items was wholly inappropriate and bordering on vandalism.

Please sign your comments!

The entire section Common objections to unions is a list of distortions and biased assertions, some with no basis in fact. The original research tag is a too-gentle notice of a serious problem with the article. Glancing through the history, it appears that the unsourced biases have existed in the article for a very long time. I think that {{POV-section}} is justified if the section remains as is. Richard Myers 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donations from Democrat Party

I was surprised to see the entry "Because most unions in the United States support and even receive funds from the Democratic Party, Republican and conservative union members may feel their interests are not represented by the union." While many unions donate money to the Democrats as their avenue of politial expression, I have never heard of the Democratic Party giving money to unions - and this statement goes as far as saying this is true of "most unions"! Is there any evidence for this? Dave Smith 16:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated that objection with specific clarifications about which unions (AFL-CIO, UFCW) endorse the Democratic party (they always endorse everyone with a "D" next to their name and bash everyone with an "R" next to their name, regardless of their actual voting records, so you do the math). If you don't believe me, go to their websites and read their newsletters. I happen to be a UFCW member myself, so I know what I'm talking about.

I'm not from the US so I don't have a direct knowledge here. However, what I was reacting to was the statement that the Democratic Party donated money to the Unions. In 40 years in the labour movement I have never heard of this before. Unions donating to the Demoractic Party, yes - but the other way around? I've just done a quick Google search (it was very quick I will admit) but found nothing suggesting monies moveing in the direction being suggested by this artile. This isn't a question of politics but of accuracy. Dave Smith 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[ This comment refers to the unsigned comment by the self-proclaimed UFCW member, above. ] I have made some of the same criticisms about unions supporting the Democrats, but you have made them too categorically, and without nuance. You have introduced additional, inappropriate POV into a section that was already quite POV. Language such as "will virtually always" and "regardless of the actual voting records" clearly demonstrate a bias behind the statements you've contributed. These claims cannot be supported, for they are simply sweeping allegations. Richard Myers 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the point needs to be emphasised again ... Is there any evidence that the Domocratic Party donates money to any Unions? This is not a question of opinion but of fact. Does it happen? I have never heard nor seen any suggestion that this is so. Dave Smith 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of routine funding of a union of workers by a political party, and i don't limit that to mainstream unions and the Democratic Party.

In my experience, political parties have always considered themselves dominant over unions, because political parties naturally consider the government to be the primary seat of power. And when there is a relationship, money always flows from the union to the party.

On the other hand, i do know of one counter-example. But i need to qualify it by observing that startup funding is not routine funding.

From 1905-1908, Daniel De León's Socialist Labor Party participated in the founding of the [[Industrial Workers of the World. I expect that the SLP covered some of the costs that were incurred at the founding of that organization. The Socialist Party of Eugene Debs participated, as well. But the SLP immediately began to introduce schemes that would milk the union for its members, and divert some of the union's funds to the party. For example, they wanted the initiation fee for new union members to be turned over to the party, and to be used in part for a subscription to the party's newsletter. Thus, the SLP viewed the founding of a working class union as an investment, as well as a continuing source of new party members. The IWW showed De León the door in 1908, and constitutionally precluded any sort of alliance with any political party, a prohibition that still exists 99 years later.

I think it would be reasonable to explore whether Labor Parties have ever funded unions in other countries — Britain and Australia, for example; and i have no experience to offer an opinion. But when it comes to the Democratic Party in the United States, i find such a suggestion close to absurd, and a probable attack on the party from its detractors.

When it comes to what happens routinely, they should complain about real faults, IMO. Like the fact that the Democrats routinely accept both money, and phone banking/hanging door knockers, etc., from organized labor, and then fail to deliver on their promises because it is the politically expedient thing to do. — Richard Myers 04:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised paragraph

The vast majority of unions in the United States (such as the AFL-CIO and UFCW) openly endorse the Democratic Party and will virtually always endorse the Democratic candidate, regardless of the actual voting records of the candidates. Thus union members that are politically conservative and/or Republican believe that their interests are not recognized by these unions. Another related criticism of unions in the United States is that they focus too much on politics (and even Wal-Mart bashing) and not enough focus on negotiating good collective bargaining agreements for its members.

I have revised the above paragraph. As written, it was awful. It provided no sources, it is inaccurate, it is poorly written, it is biased, it makes sweeping assertions that are unsupported, and makes categorical statements which allow for no exceptions.

Example of inaccuracy: The AFL-CIO is not a union, it is a federation
Example of a sweeping assertion: "will virtually always endorse the Democratic candidate"
Example of an allegation that is uncited, and may be false: virtually always endorse ... regardless of the actual voting records of the candidates
Example of a categorical statement allowing no exceptions: "...union members that are politically conservative and/or Republican believe that their interests are not recognized by these unions."
Example of poor writing: "Another related criticism of unions in the United States is that they focus too much on politics (and even Wal-Mart bashing) and not enough focus on negotiating good collective bargaining agreements for its members."

Here is the revised paragraph:

A significant number of unions in the United States, including the UFCW — which is afiliated with the Change to Win Federation — and many unions in the AFL-CIO, openly endorse the Democratic Party, and have often endorsed the Democratic candidate. Thus union members that are politically conservative and/or Republican may believe that their interests are not recognized by these unions. Some individuals believe that unions focus too much on politics (and even Wal-Mart bashing) and do not focus adequately on negotiating good collective bargaining agreements for their members. Others observe that Wal-Mart, as a major food provider, provides lower-paying, non-union jobs, competes directly with supermarkets with better-paying union jobs, and is therefore an appropriate candidate for union attention.

These statements still lack citations, but i believe they are more fair, more balanced, and less POV. Richard Myers 10:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the revised wording is definitely an improvement. But the more I read and re-read this article as a whole the more I think it is just not what is needed in an encyclopedia. Some of the information on theoretical opposition from the left is of interest, but so much of this article simply reproduces "views" that would could find in any capitalist owned newspaper or in a rum shop or palour. It's far too shallow. I've had a look at the trade unions entry and whilst that is more comprehensive there are some similar tendencies towards expressing opinions rather than facts or researched or sourced positions. I don't like being critical without accepting a responsibility for making some improvements but at the moment I am too pushed for time. I have added this article to my list of things to look at ... Dave Smith 11:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the content in the Common objections to unions section is still awful, even after i've tried to balance it by adding other views, in that it makes sweeping generalities utterly without sourcing them, and in some specific cases the sweeping statements allege things that are demonstrably illegal or wrong. It seems to me that many who read the section will wonder why it is tolerated. I'd still like for the entire section to be re-written, but it is very easy for someone to complain that their pet allegation was removed, or to make such allegations again. The unverified claims tag will have to stay until someone decides to spend more thought and effort on honest ways to present common objections to unions. Richard Myers 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are of one mind on this. I have it on my "to do" list but I don't kow when that might be. Dave Smith 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - don't edit wiki very much, but came across this article when doing some research, and it stands out as quite skewed. Don't you think the "Common objections..." section should just be scrapped? It looks like a bunch of straw man arguments with pat dismissals. Not very encyclopedic. Matt Yoder 01:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section definitely needs a solution. I'm opposed to mass deletion because i believe these arguments will come back. There's no reason a diligent and fair-minded person couldn't make something worthwhile out of what's here. But it will take some effort, in my view. And, sources, please.

Businesses oppose unions for a very understandable reason — union workers are, on average, better paid, and therefore unions raise the cost of doing business. Why is there such a shopping list of scattered allegations against unions, and not this one simple observation? Perhaps some of those opposed to unions don't want the question of profits examined too closely. But exactly that reason for opposition motivates the broadest anti-union coaltions of business associations, chambers of commerce, economic think tanks, investors' groups, etc., throughout the capitalist world. Richard Myers 10:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this section does need a rewrite, there's a flaw in your logic here. Specifically you seem to be saying that the only people who are critical of unions are business owners. Many laborers do not like unions either and would find a lot to agree with in this section. That's why this article is important: it dismisses the myth that unions are a 100% good thing for laborers. -- Stereoisomer 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of sources and better order and clarity would help, but the essential problem is one of rather biased (dare I say inherently pro-union) hermeneutics. The opposition isn't speaking for itself. Its points are simply being articulated and dismissed within a pro-union framework. Is this an informative article or propaganda? I think I'll just go back to the library instead. Matt Yoder 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insider workers are productive?

I do not think it is fair to assume all insider workers are productive. 168.103.82.44 (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]