User talk:Tbg2

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Tbg2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! THF (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Burke Group article[edit]

Thank you for being forthcoming, and for taking care to understand Wikipedia policy. The conflict of interest policy welcomes Wikipedia-compliant edits, but the bad publicity that can result from editing Wikipedia pages related to your company may cause you to prefer to address your concerns on the talk page in the future. In answer to your question, according to the article history (accessed by the "history" tab on top of the page), it was created by User:Wikidea, a British lawyer whose edits on other articles (and interactions with editors like myself) have demonstrated a rather leftist sensibility. You'd have to ask him his motives for writing a one-sided article that clearly failed the neutral point of view policy. On the other hand, the article history also has a number of editors (apparently the work of a single person) who were clearly working to push the POV in the opposite direction, resulting in an ugly edit war. As with all Wikipedia articles with multiple editors, the current version reflects a compromise. THF (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. You have been fair and objective. I have now noted that Wikidea posted the article and it is supported by the Labor Portal members (UK) most of whom have a POV that seems contrary to Wikipedia policy for posting with an agenda. I am curious how this has passed the smell test. The CDN entry was annotated and taken out of context for posting in this article. Editors may analyze CDN but it should be its own article and not use TBG as a WP:COATRACK to advance a "civil" suit in San Francisco against a person's employer. The Logan paper was a British product not advanced within in the US except among union bloggers yet it attempts to analyze US activities with UK labor laws which are not compatible. The "Operations" cases (all UK except CDN) contain subjective non encyclopedic hearsay which should be removed and again, I don't know how those contents have passed the smell test except for the fact that a team with the Labor Portal seems to control the article. Vote outcomes constitute encyclopedic data and are available as a matter of public record at the CAC (UK) and the NLRB (US). Vote outcomes are fair game and should be returned to the article. One section says there were 20 consultants but maybe 2, another calls an outcome a "failure". These writers are merely throwing in anything and everything to see what sticks. If I edit I will be accused of vandalism or blocked. Editors have complained that the TBG website is used as advertising yet its the labor portal using it. Go figure. There is little else available short the Logan paper or TUC press releases. So I guess I am pointing out the many contradictions in this article and how it relates to being a good encyclopedic NPOV Wikipedia entry. TBG is not a law firm. It does no litigation nor does it present cases to the CAC or NLRB. Bloggers and editors have written differently. Falsely. I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding by editors unfamiliar with this industry regarding our role and purpose. The best most current analogy might be ACORN in the US which is an agency used by politicians "to get the vote out". Success is measured by voter turn out at elections, not necessarily the outcome. On the same token, US contributers to this article have little understanding of the UK election "ballot" and/or "recognition" process and read into voting against union recognition as some form of union busting. In the UK, most voters are already union members and UK employers negotiate employment contracts oft times with individuals which differs greatly from US. Unions in the UK seek to be recognized as the sole agent at a company for "collective bargaining" with no vote meaning no authority conferred by the employee. In support of employees, UK companies seek a "ballot" which allows employees to vote whether to authorize ONE union to represent them. When employees in the UK vote "against" union recognition it is does NOT mean they are voting to be union free (they often already belong to a union), but rather to stay with their original individual membership. I could write pages of details but only desire to give a glimpse of the distortions I see in this TBG article being conveyed by persons uneducated in international labor laws. The "union buster" tag and blue word applied to us in this article could not be farther from the truth. Calling us "union busters" in the UK was advanced by the TUC which promotes "automatic union recognition" contrary to the desires of open shop "unionized" UK workers. Workers with the SEIU and the CNA in the US are trying doing battle also. Should one be allowed to consume the other? Or should members have a vote to make their own determination? Activities in the UK and US can be compared but should not be characterized as union busting. I appreciate your advice and hope you continue to offer it. It needs an objective NPOV eye. Is there a Wiki policy that tags editors with admonishments from editorializing complex legal briefs with subjective comments as judge jury and executioner? Thank you.--Tbg2 (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

A user has stated concerns that you may be misusing multiple accounts (see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy). Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oppo212 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]