Talk:Right-to-work law

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

Scare quotes in first sentence[edit]

I have repeatedly removed quotation marks around the article's title. I would ask any who support adding quotation marks to provide a reference to wiki style guides that suggest putting quotation marks around article titles in regard to legislation. --DrCruse (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The question is why **you** busy yourself with repeatedly removing them. They are there to highlight the fact (clearly stated as well in the article) that such statutes have nothing whatever to do with a right to work. If the title referred to a specific piece of legislation, you would be correct in removing the quotes. But this article refers to a general class of deliberately misnamed legislation, so the quotes are appropriate and essential. AldaronT/C 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Your claim that these laws are "deliberately misnamed" is your opinion. It's fine if that's in the article under criticisms, but it is not a matter of fact that these laws are "deliberately misnamed". Until you demonstrate why as a matter of fact or wiki policy this needs to be done, I am going to keep the quotes off. --DrCruse (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Aldaron put bold tags around the word "repeatedly" in my post above. I'm not sure why s/he would do this. Also has continued to revert the article without engaging here on the talk page. --DrCruse (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean about the tags ("repeatedly" is your word). And the engagement here has been sufficient: your assertion that the deliberate misnaming of these statutes is merely an opinion was dismissed without comment. AldaronT/C 12:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
As you can see in this edit you put bold around a word I used. Not sure why. You are in no position to dismiss what I'm asking for "without comment". Please act in good faith and provide an actual reason beyond just "I don't like how this legislation is named". --DrCruse (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
If you see a need to describe it as deliberately misnamed, you must cite a source that shows it is misnamed. Simply "knowing" that it's misnamed makes your edit constitute original research, which is against guidelines. Even if one assumes the name is intentionally misleading, the quotes would still be inappropriate, as "Right-to-Work" is the common name for the type of legislation. Misleading or exaggerated names are a common tactic, but injecting quotation marks is a form of commentary, not appropriate address. Look at the Ministries of Nineteen Eighty-Four for comparison, where the ministries are all intentionally, clearly and stated by their author to be named dishonestly, but the names are the names, so no quotation marks are added. Merennulli (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wisconsin needs to be included in the graphic[edit]

As of today a federal court has reinstated the law in this state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder (talkcontribs) 17:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I didn't flag the article for NPOV violations, because I don't want to wade into such thorny territory being a newcomer to this article... but am I crazy in thinking that the first sentence is completely biased? I don't think supporters of the law would describe its motivations as such. Instead, they typically reference freedom of speech and freedom from coercion for employees.

Then, oddly enough, the next paragraph was apparently written by supporters of the law, because it cites the Legal Defense Foundation, which explicitly supports the laws. Let's get some more neutral sources? Lrieber (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia. As it currently stands, this article is a shameful indictment of the liberal bias in numerous Wikipedia articles. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Specifics, please, so they can be corrected. --Ebyabe (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's what the cited source actually says on the subject: 27 states have banned union-security agreements by passing so-called "right to work" laws. In these states, it is up to each employee at a workplace to decide whether or not to join the union and pay dues, even though all workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union. I'm not sure the lede sentence that cites this source accurately reflects the content of the source, though I admit I'm at a loss on exactly how to rephrase it to better reflect the source. Particularly the statement "...all members who benefit..." is arguably not NPOV, but I don't think changing it to "...all members who potentially benefit..." more accurately reflects the source either. Basically, it looks to me like that entire sentence needs to be rewritten to more closely match what the source actually says... --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't think the sentence needs to be rewritten at all. We're discussing the difference between "benefit from" and "protected by." That's splitting hairs. Toby Higbie (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It's really not – "protected by" is better in NPOV terms. "Benefit from" is in the eye of the beholder. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Unemployment Insurance?[edit]

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have some familiarity with RTW laws. This section of the introductory paragraph seems irrelevant, dense, and incorrect:

"These statutes are not listed under US labor and employment laws as of May 2016, but have been operational with local employment hearing judges for over a half decade. Right-to-work laws were reported in all US states in regard to unemployment insurance hearings in which the employer was seeking to bar the employee from receiving these legal benefits after termination. Public policy exceptions have been devised by attorneys to seek to overturn the broad and unannounced sweep of these laws in the US. Local appellate judges have not indicated that they will allow public policy to be used on behalf of the former employees - most of whom were employees under their health insurance when injured (e.g., mental health parity laws)."

I'm thinking that it should be deleted, but if someone can explain it to me, I'm happy to leave it. MKil (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)MKil

I agree with "irrelevant and dense", so probably unnecessary - especially in the lead. The opening of this article in general is unclear and unreadable. I realize the topic is a contentious one in political terms, but surely these laws can be described clearly in one paragraph? Huw Powell (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

similar laws in other countries?[edit]

There should be a section about similar "right-to-work" laws in other countries (though they might not be called that). I think Germany has them. 143.167.71.128 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)