Talk:Union busting/Archive 1

First topic

I will try to get around to working on this article myself, but I am not an expert in the field. My biggest complaint is how colloquial this article seems. Fsiler 11:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

What are the reasons for this article being disputed? - FrancisTyers 13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that whoever wrote this has little to no experience in labor law or in actual organizing campaigns. One part actually said that if an employer wrongfully discharged someone for union activity, the union would be automatically recognized as a penalty! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamouette (talk • contribs)

I'm glad you're able to properly correct the facts, especially if you know what you're doing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

"Occasionally, a misguided employer may even attempt to fire employees for their union sympathies".

I looked up this article to learn more about union busting for a paper. Something tells me this article isn't all neutral. Fair enough, union busting is not a good thing, but someone who know what they are talking about should clean it up. I can't, having little knowledge on the subject.

This article seems very one sided. The majority of the information seems to come from one source. Does anyone know of any other sources on this topic that could be used to round out the material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.41.201 (talk • contribs)

One source? I just counted eleven sources.

But feel free to add more sourced information, if you care to do so.

And please sign your comments here. Richard Myers 05:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

He probably meant it all SOUNDS like it comes from one source - and it does, you. You just go around the internet to a bunch of labour sites and handpick the information you need to reach your goals in biasing the article. Not much attention has been paid to this, because it's a pretty random subject to suspect one person to be obsessed and relentless over. Not many people really feel like bothering with it. 74.251.24.54 01:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the text seems to be written from four different sources, "Confessions of a Union Buster", "From Blackjack to Breifcase", "The corpse on Boomerang road", and "Colorado's fight against militiant unionism". It'd really be nice to get some more sources in there. The sources that are used, however, all seem to be from radical, opiniated sources. That's probably why this article sounds so much like a long winded union rant. I wish we could get some more talent on it, but I'm limited in my time 74.251.36.143 02:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

These were my thoughts precisely; the article reads very pro-Union and that any Union-busting activity is inherently bad. In the current environment neutral discussions about the value of unions and union-busting (i.e. the Big 3 Automobile Makers in the US vs. the UAW vs. the American People's best interests) is what is in the best interest of the reading public. The pro-Union slant is incorrect and needs to be reprised. I'll be adding my specific comments on what is NPOV in just a moment.

Here's a classic example: "The aim of the union buster is a "war of saturation bombing" in which half-truths and accusations put the union on the defensive." While this line is sourced from a (likely equally biased) article, it is no less biased for its being read in print somewhere. --137.52.53.156 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote is accurate and relevant to the topic of this article, which is union busting, not whether or not unions are fair, or good, or bad. You're advocating a re-working of this article to change it from its topical subject.

And what do you propose to do about this article:

Opposition_to_trade_unions ???

That article already covers some of the discussion that you seem to be advocating. Do you wish to "balance" that article as well? Or would you just prefer that no articles on Wikipedia deal honestly and frankly with controversial topics such as union busting? Richard Myers (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

major rework of article

I am doing have nearly finished a major re-work of this article.

Some of the new content that i am putting into this article may ultimately be moved to an article about strike-breaking, which may be best as a separate article from the current strike-breaking page, Strike action.

Strike action needs work also. So these articles, along with Labor spies, are all going to be in somewhat parallel development.

I recently started, and had worked on Labor spies until just a few days ago, and it is nearing satisfactory quality, i think.

So all of these can be developed/coordinated to form a good group of articles providing a more complete overview of the subject matter. I ask for a bit of patience with the changes over the next week or two. Richard Myers 10:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, i'd like to invite feedback on the possibility of making this article "Strike breaking and union busting" and redirecting "strike breaking" links from Strike action to this article. Richard Myers 13:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

updated Richard Myers 23:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text transferred from article to talk page

The following text was removed from the article. It is left over after a major re-work. some of this text may still be of value, and certainly could be worked back in.

Employees may be asked to attend one-on-one discussions, group meetings, or lectures about the union, during which they will be paid. Employers must be careful not to intimidate their employees, because employees can appeal to the NLRB, usually resulting in an election being rerun, and in some cases resulting in the employer being automatically required to recognize the union as the bargaining unit representing employees. At these meetings, employers discuss the negative aspects of a union and try to convince employees not to join.

To convince employees that they don't need a union to obtain improvements, a company may provide unexpected increases in wages or benefits, although they cannot condition said benefits or wages on union participation or threaten wage cuts.

In 30% of counter-organizing campaigns an employer fires somebody illegally (Undermining The Right To Organize: Employer Behavior During Union Representation Campaigns,Based on NLRB Region 13 Data). These terminations of employment are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act. Section 8(a)(3) protects employees from wrongful discharge for engaging in protected activity. Protected activity encompasses a wide variety of behavior which shows support for the union organizing campaign (e.g. wearing union paraphernalia, picketing, signing authorization cards).

Transferred by Richard Myers 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues remaining after major re-work

Going to take a break after a long editing session — here are some article status notes:

• The two appearances of the American Protective League should be consolidated. I think the last instance is the better one, in the history it doesn't have its own title. Done.
• Footnotes and references still need some attention
• I didn't put the "External links" link to IWW repression in the article — i think it should be checked for appropriateness. Repression of the IWW is briefly mentioned in the text of the article. seems ok
• I think i have three links in different parts of the article to Colorado Labor Wars — i don't know if that's a problem in such a lengthy article, since each seems appropriate to the context, but maybe it is overkill. pushing it a little, but maybe ok
• I'd like to do a comparison between the history sections of this article and Labor spies to see if consolidation or more cross linking might be appropriate. Seems ok, only a couple of paras of overlap...
• The final sections on current union busting activities need to be expanded.
• I'm thinking that Labor Spy Agencies, currently a section of Labor spies, may be more appropriate in, or connected with, the union busting topic. Maybe a separate article would be best, with links from Labor spies and Union busting. In any case the section needs much more input, especially with current data.
• A comparison with the strike breaking section of Strike action would be appropriate, with some thought about how these two articles should, or do, work together.

all for now, Richard Myers 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

updated Richard Myers 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Hi Richard. Wow, congrats on the monsterous article. I read through it a couple of times (well, 1-1/2 times) and have some notions for your consideration. My only quibbles at this point are structural -- I think in general, the size of the article makes it hard for the visitor to find specific information. So, if it were my baby, this is what I'd do:

• Split Methods of union busting off to its own article, provide a summary here.
• Split History into History of union busting in the United States with a redirect from History of strike breaking in the United States. Provide a summary here.
• Group these into subsections of one section:
  • Who are union busters?
  • Taxpayer-financed union busting
  • Law firms as union busters
  • Industrial psychologists as union busters
• Group "Notable anti-union employer organizations" and "Anti-union programs, services, and websites" into subsections of a single section, maybe "Anti-union activities." After grouping, this might be another chunk to spin off into another article and summarize here.
• Per WP:LEAD, I'd restructure the lead as 5 paragraphs:

1. Who are union busters?
2. Goals and methods
3. History
4. Notable anti-union activities
5. Impact of globalization

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), consider removing "union busting" out of section titles, for example: "Goals of union busting"->"Goals"
• If you want, you can shorten individual footnotes. See for example this recent FA: Domenico_Selvo. I'm almost sure that "Smith, 2003:68." is as good as " From Blackjacks To Briefcases — A History of Commercialized Strikebreaking and Unionbusting in the United States, Robert Michael Smith, 2003, page 68." as long as the full citation is in the references section.
• I get a feeling that the article is a little light on links.
• I added the pinkerton picture, and guess that adding others might help the exposition. There's some good stuff in and around commons:Category:Trade_Unions.

Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some good suggestions here.

I think there's one issue i'd like to have clarified before implementing any of these ideas, and that has to do with strike breaking. As you've no doubt noticed, this article deals with strike breaking in a way that is closely integrated with the concept of union busting. I found during my research for this article that the two are often inseparable.

When i ignored Wiki recommendations on section titles, it was because the article is titled union busting, but the content has to do with both union busting and strike breaking.

The questions, for which i've sought feedback but haven't received much commentary, are: should the article title be changed to Union busting and strke breaking; and, should links to strike breaking go to this article instead of to the Strike action article. We could be bold about this, but in my view there's no great hurry, and this is one of those isssues that i'd like to get some additional comment on before proceeding.

One note of caution, there are a few links to internal sections-- both out of this article, and into it. So these will need to be carefully adjusted during the process of splitting, etc. best wishes, Richard Myers 19:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Haus, if you get a chance, please read Labor spies as well. I want to (at the least) break out the section on union busting agencies from that article. Suggestions welcome. Richard Myers 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is horrifically long and biased and far too reliant on a scant few sources. Also, a number of broad claims here seem unreliable and are not properly cited. Can somebody please verify and correct the claims here, restructure the entire thing, and edit the hell out of it? It reads as a half-academic, half-polemic paper with an agenda. It is not at all encyclopedic and is rarely informative. Sam 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"...a number of broad claims here seem unreliable and are not properly cited..."

Which "broad claims" are you referring to? Such unfocused criticism doesn't help.

best wishes, Richard Myers 22:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This article is definitely not ready for GA status. Here are some issues:

• Lead is too long and does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:LEAD.
• NPOV concerns. Much of this article is written from a pro-union, anti-business bias. Perhaps a Peer review would help neutralize things.
• It's monstrously long. I suggest splitting out some of the sections into new articles, such as History of union busting, and linking to these as {{mainarticle}}s..
• Relies rather heavily on very few (and possibly biased) sources. Suggest diversifying source materials, as well as reformatting footnotes according to suggestions at WP:MOS.

I notice that many of the suggestions here are essentially the same as those offered above about a month ago.

Chubbles 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"considered by some to be unethical"

"considered by some to be unethical"?? Is this a joke? By some? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Towsonu2003 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 May 2007.

That expression has been in the article for a long time—since before recent major editing, at least. I won't miss it. Richard Myers 22:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I too was wondering about that. Talk about marginalizing the movement for workers' rights... I too vote that it should be removed until someone can replace it with something not so wishy-washy. 67.53.78.15 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

anti-democratic

Unions are also about democracy. Meaningful democratic participation in the events of one's life, in this case the work place. Like ending chattel slavery and women's equality, so too are unions about the struggle for rights. I realize not all unions are democratic and all too many mirror the corporate/top-down/totalitarian model, but unions have been many different things. Where is the stuff about union busting being anti-democratic? 67.53.78.15 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotes and NPOV

The anecdotes need to be almost wholly removed. For example, the "Declare innocence" section is just one big example from a specific case. Info like that is essentially cluttering up the article and should be deleted (I'll work on cleaning this up myself later). Also, sources on the other side of the issue (i.e. something that argues unions aren't good and justifies fighting them) needs to be added to the article in order for it to meet NPOV requirements. As is, all the sources of this article come from only one side of the issue, which is unencyclopedic. 67.186.34.123 10:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"...sources on the other side of the issue (i.e. something that argues unions aren't good and justifies fighting them) needs to be added..."

This is just flat wrong. The article is about a very specific practice, which is union busting. It isn't about whether unions are good or bad.

The article is about corporations busting unions because that's one of the things that corporations do. If you want balance on that issue, then find sources about unions guilty of corporation busting, if you can, and add that information to the article.

Anyone ever heard of a "non-sequitor"? That's what this is. 74.251.24.54 01:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The "other side" of the union busting issue is already included in the text which states,

When it comes to the financial balance sheet, an employer typically considers labor, i.e., human resources, to be a resource like energy, fuel, or raw material. That is, reducing the cost of the resource contributes to the corporation's net income.

Unionized employees secure better wages and superior benefits compared to their non-union counterparts.[3] Because unions concern themselves with issues such as wages, hours, and working conditions, the company not only must consider the possibility that unions will raise the cost of doing business, but unions may seek work rules which reduce the flexibility of management in running the business.

In nations without universal health care, such as the United States, negotiated health care plans may confer a significant cost on the corporation. Unions frequently seek to negotiate pension plans for represented employees as well, establishing an additional expense for the company.

Lower pay, fewer benefits, and more managerial control over working conditions, scheduling, and hours for the workforce may translate directly into greater profitability. Therefore, many employers seek to prevent unions from conducting successful organizing campaigns, and some may pursue options to undermine or eliminate unions which are already in existence.

This more than adequately expresses the goals and rationale of those who seek to bust unions.

If you want an article that expresses the view that unions aren't good, then create it, and put into it whatever you wish. But stop attacking the specific focus of this article, you're just trying to introduce an anti-union bias under a topic where it doesn't belong. Richard Myers 10:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unions aren't good" wouldn't be an encyclopediac article. Neither would "There's a massive conspiracy against Unions everywhere and I have to show you!" - which is basically what this article is, under a different name. This article is just a hodgepodge of random facts, from one point of view. That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Also, you're attack on him was Ad-hominem - that's against wikipedia guidelines. May I ask you a question? Have you even bothered to read the wikipedia guidelines? 74.251.24.54 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

After more than a month, there hasn't been any additional commentary about this article being POV. I'd like to invite folks to weigh in, with the ultimate goal of determining whether any steps need to be taken in order to remove the NPOV tag. thanks, Richard Myers 01:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's probably because not many people read this article. It's clearly NPOV. The tag ain't gonna be removed. 74.251.24.54 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As a more concrete example of the many POV issues in the article, allow me to highlight two representative areas which might bring the article closer to NPOV standards.

1) Under the heading "Who are union busters," the author italicizes the word "resources" in the first sentence reference to "human resources." The formatting change provides no additional information about the term, but seems to indicate (on my reading) the author's derision of corporate practice. It seems that the italics are meant to indicate the author's point of view that workers ought not to be viewed by the employers as comparable to other resources in making management decisions. Removal of the italics would remove the derision and the implied reference to the author's POV. See the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines re: insinuation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.

2) The subsection "Dirty tricks" seems to refer primarily to illegal behavior on the part of union busters. What is 'dirty' is a matter of opinion; what is illegal is not. Dirty implies moral turpitude (which is dependent on the moral code used to analyze it, i.e. their POV); illegal merely makes reference to violation of a statute. A change of the section title to "Illegal activity" would remove some of the POV issues. See the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines re: neutral language - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.

I hope that these changes help to highlight the POV problems in the article, and serve as a basis for substantive cleanup going forward. One other concern I had upon reading is that the article relies very heavily on the Levitt book. The article would be improved by diversifying its sources, or citing to other works more often in conjunction with Levitt's analysis. 24.155.246.8 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Item 1 sounds reasonable. Item 2 has one problem-- some of the "tricks" are not specifically illegal, but they are unethical. Maybe some language that is inclusive of both the unethical and the illegal would work. As far as additional sources, it would be great if someone located same. best wishes, Richard Myers 08:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm... the entire point of NPOV is that the article ISN'T supposed to label things as "unethical." It can quote people who say x is or is not ethical... but it cannot itself label it as such. And trust me there are disputes about it, whatever it is :D. Darkmusashi (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Darkmusashi. I think that you responded without evaluating the issue under discussion. The word "unethical" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. One instance of its use in the article was removed a long time ago, and happily so. But Levitt clearly believed that many practices of union busters are unethical, he stated as much in his book, and the article reflects that fact.

For example, the article notes that "Levitt describes ... tapping into managers' racial, class, and gender prejudices and fears." Levitt is then quoted, declaring that:

Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on truth. As such, it is a war without honor. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack...

That quotation is clearly indicative of the author's belief that some practices of union busters are unethical. Levitt further describes "[awakening] within the mostly white supervisor corps a hatred of blacks, fear of violence, contempt for women, mistrust of the poor, and, of course, a loathing for the union..." His view comes through clearly, both from the context in the source, which the article describes, and from his quoted text, which confirms the description.

As a matter of interest, there has been pressure to remove some of these quotations, because (it has been argued) there are too many quotations. That's a reasonable complaint. If someone can justify removing a particular quotation and give good reason, i'd be happy to consider it. But i believe this is a complex topic with a lot of different aspects that the article seeks to address in the most authoritative fashion. Removing the more incisive quotations would undermine or destroy the most relevant information in the article.

Levitt was probably the foremost expert on union busting ever to record his views. Having worked as a union buster for many years, he was uniquely qualified to provide a complete and accurate account. Nonetheless, i believe that some of the edits on this article have indicated an intent to remove its best accounts of union busting history, and i anticipate that such attacks will continue. Levitt clearly believed that union busting was unethical, and some apparently don't appreciate having such conclusions expressed. If some don't like Levitt's explanations of union busting because they are "too powerful" or "too one-sided", then i simply disagree. The article is, after all, about union busting, and that's what Levitt addresses so effectively. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Falsification of a direct quotation

Offering the explanation "I changed a few words around", user 74.251.36.143 has changed a direct quotation in this article.

It is unethical to change a direct quotation. It sabotages the diligent work of other editors, not to mention falsifies the true quotation from the source.

Please be careful with any edits that modify quoted material. Richard Myers 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't soley change the direct quotation. I modified the style of the main page to try to make it into a less rant-like format. It was late and I must've made a mistake. I believed that was in the main body of article. If it's a quotation, it's different. Should the quotation be there? I'm not sure. It seems a rather jarring transistion to go immediately from union busting to that. The biggest problem I have with this article is merely the way it's written. I don't believe anyone is here to say that Union Busting is a terriffic practice, but the article is just written like a rant. Watermark0n 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are uncareful and ill-considered. Your most recent edits left the nonsense text, "...who well knows know...".

Plus, you changed the meaning of text that appeared to be referenced. Did you check the source book out of the library and find that the text improperly reflected the original material? I doubt it, since your stated motivation reflects your personal disagreement with the article, rather than the article's accuracy in reflecting the reference. Please learn more about editing Wikipedia before you tackle articles that are fully referenced. You think you are disagreeing with the previous editor, but you may be trying to change the words or meaning of a published source. Once again, that is dishonest.

Perhaps the wording of the article could be improved-- that is not a problem. But as it is written, this article represents actual research. Look at all the references at the bottom. Those signify taking the time, and putting forth the effort, to find sources on the subject, and convey the content/meaning of those sources to this Wikipedia article.

You wish to change that robust work to be more in alignment with your personal beliefs. Well, that is not the Wikipedia way. Find new sources that say what you want to be added to the article about union busting, read them, and use them to improve the article. Check for accuracy in reflecting the sources that have already been used. Or look for parts of the article that have not been referenced, for they may not be sourced. But please do not believe that you can jump in and botch a carefully referenced article in any way that suits you. Richard Myers 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do is make this article more from a neutral POV, Richard. I'm a liberal. I have nothing against unions. This article is just written in a rantlike fashion. All I'm trying to do is introduce my alternative point of view to this article, and maybe by working together we can get that NPOV tag removed. Watermark0n 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I really believe we should move the part in the main text that I had disagreements with to an sub-category on "modern union busting". Also, the parts about "anti-union" organization, and "The impact of globalization on Unions", really need to be in another article. What are your thoughts on this? Watermark0n 19:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it, we could probably make an article out of "The history of Union Busting", also. Which would streamline the article a lot. I don't believe the average person, looking at this, and seeing it's length, would even take the time to read it once they've seen the massive TOC. If we could just concern ourselves with how Union busting takes place, it would really improve the quality of the article. Watermark0n 19:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Mr. Richard, I'm sorry for my earlier confrontive attitude. I've seriously developed an interest in this article and this subject and have an interest in improving it and getting it to good article status. Watermark0n 19:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad you want to improve the article! The big thing at this point is diversity. We need more sources. That's why the article failed GA last time it was nominated. If you have some books or articles about it that we've not yet cited, then let's cite something from them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have browsed through the recent edits. This is not the way to edit a Wikipedia article, and have the changes withstand scrutiny. Anytime that someone removes nine thousand bytes from an article because it is information with which the editor disagrees, or of which the editor does not approve, expect the edits to be overturned.

I'm going to offer some of the changes here, to give the flavor of how the article has been hacked. Under Who Are Union Busters?, John Logan had been quoted:

Over the past three decades, US employers have waged what Business Week has called ‘one of the most successful anti-union wars ever’ with spectacular results — private-sector union membership now stands at just 7.9 per cent, its lowest level since the 1920s. But they have not conducted this campaign alone. They have been assisted by an extensive and sophisticated ‘union avoidance’ industry...

The recent edits hacked that information-laden paragraph to a mere statistic:

Private-sector union membership now stands at just 7.9 per cent, its lowest level since the 1920s.

Under How union busting agencies find clients, recent edits removed this quote entirely:

Several union avoidance firms operate internationally, but only in the US has this industry developed into a multimillion-dollar concern that operates throughout the country and in every sector of the economy. And only in the US do employers, policy makers and (to a lesser extent) the general public consider the activities of union avoidance experts a legitimate part of mainstream industrial relations.

This is a direct quote by an expert on the subject that provides relevant information. Someone (with an anonymous IP address) doesn't want such relevant information included in the article, so they deleted it entirely. Ditto with nine thousand bytes of text from the article. The overall edits constitute an attack on this article, under the guise of making it more balanced. Richard Myers 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Aritcles like this are honestly the worst thing about wikipedia. One guy, this Richard guy, basically owns this article. He apparently sits at his computer all day and comes up with stuff to put in it, and deletes anything any more sensible person comes along to post. This article should put on moderation lockdown while it's cleaned up. For one thing, it's far too large for such a simple issue. It's unreadable. 74.251.24.54 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All "sources" cited come from already biased radical readings with little in the way. I don't even know where to start about this whiny, low-quality propaganda article with little in the way of fact, knowledge, or citation of credible labor law sources. "Union busting" is a colloquialism for something that intelligent people would call "Anti-Union Activity." 208.125.232.185 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic of the article isn't "labor law" it is "union busting". Probably nine out of ten folks who are looking for information about union busting will search for the term union busting, and not for "anti-union activity". Therefore, your observation doesn't appear to be as "intelligent" as you claim. Maybe redirecting from union busting to an article called anti-union activity would be a reasonable compromise. As for your criticism of sources, what is keeping you from editing to improve the article??? Drive-by bashing may be a favorite activity on Wikipedia, but it isn't a very honorable tradition. 4.227.252.160 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean that a redirect to anti-union activity should be made to point to union busting? Since if "Union busting" is the common term, that should be the title of the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the most biased Wikipedia articles I ever read. It might as well have come off of the UNITE website verbatim. Ndriley97 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing your past contributions, Ndriley97, i don't think you have any room to fling about accusations of bias. Your recent history includes smearing, red-baiting, editing to make articles more biased from your own point of view, and erasing from your own talk page complaints by others about personal attacks you've made. The comment above was originally a fine example of red-baiting before someone challenged you on it.

If you're new here, please understand that all of us who bring viewpoints to Wikipedia go through a process of understanding and working through our differences. There are many different points of view on Wikipedia, and we all need to work together rather than employ personal attacks (red-baiting, or other) to tear down articles we may not agree with.

If you have a specific example of bias to challenge, then let us please hear about it. Consider that most of the article is carefully resourced, so balancing with other sources could be a most helpful contribution. Richard Myers (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Goals of union busting

I agree that this entire article is one sided. Some of it can be corrected however (to appear neutral) by simply changing specific words. This article is very informative, but appears to lean in one direction. I agree that this entire article is one sided. This article states "Unionized employees secure better wages and superior benefits compared to their non-union counterparts." OK, that is an opinion! --Kentucky1333 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No thats a fact I concede to that, but they only do it at a coast to consumers, futer investment, non union workers, and the unemployed. --J intela (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive quotes

It's fine to use a quote when the quote contains information, but there are entirely too many here. It borders on violating the copyright of the author. Stick to the facts and don't use the quotes as a vehicle to insert extraneous prose - it really does not improve the article. If you need to establish context, put it in your own words and use the book as a ref. An encyclopedia article is a summary of what secondary sources say - it should not contain lots of quotes. I've already removed several that didn't contribute to the article (i.e. the text that remained stood well on its own). Buspar (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of quotations, and maybe removing some of them would improve the article. However, i think the quotes are particularly informative, and i'd like to see a specific rationale for removing each of them, rather than a general rationale. I have left the quote farm tag in place. Richard Myers (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes a) constitute a possible copyright infringement (Fair Use only allows a sample, not extensive quotes) and b) summaries, not quotations, should be the main focus of the article. Quotes giving opinions without listing hard facts (which are several that I removed) should just be summarized. And the quotations with facts should also be summarized. I suggest that if you want to keep the content, please start putting them in your own words. Also, be sure to read WP:OWN, I noticed some of your edit summaries were a tad on the possessive side. Buspar (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice suggestion. I think that too many quotes look lazy and cutting down quotes and summarizing is a good way of trimming the fat. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over CNA's actions in Ohio

So I figured I'd open this discussion so that the protection can be lifted. Why is it believed that this incident of union busting is not relevant to the article? Or is it that the people who wish to remove it do not trust the Chicago Tribune as a source? Lets resolve this through a dialog and come to a consensus on how these actions should be incorporated into the Union Busting article. Do you feel it should be put in a different part of the article? If so which? Checkmate000 (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I supported the inclusion because the source was reliable, and it appeared to fit the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing organizing conflict between the CNA/NNOC and the SEIU. This sort of thing, while unfortunate, has happened many times in the history of organized labor. It does not, however, constitute "union busting", and should not be labelled as such by inclusion in this article. User:Checkmate000 is clearly an SEIU partisan, and has made a whole series of POV, anti-CNA/NNOC edits, including this one. The CNA/NNOC-SEIU conflict should be addressed in the directly relevant article(s) -- i.e. National Nurses Organizing Committee -- not here. Period. Cgingold (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the reference from the National Nurses Organizing Committee article of these actions as well as those from the California Nurses Association article? see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Nurses_Organizing_Committee&diff=199201701&oldid=198113868 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Nurses_Association&diff=199195957&oldid=198695882 Checkmate000 (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, that first diff you gave is bogus -- it completely misrepresents my actual edit. As I've stated repeatedly, the problem with your edits is that you've been pushing a particular agenda: pro-SEIU, anti-CNA/NNOC. I therefore reverted them in their entirety. If you're paying attention, then you know that I've also taken steps to deal with some pro-CNA edits. Lastly, I don't know why you're raising this issue here, rather than responding to my comments on the subject of union busting. I can only guess that's because you realize that you don't have a leg to stand on. Cgingold (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've solicited input from other disinterested editors who are also (as I am) members of the Organized Labour WikiProject. Here is a response on this issue, copied verbatim:

Unions can bust other unions, but the only situation I can think of is during strikes. (It was quite common in the period 1860-1930 for unions to scab strikes against one another.) But I would argue competition during organizing campaigns is hardly union-busting (if that's the case, SEIU itself is a most egregious perpetrator; see its fights with AFSCME over home care and home child care workers). I also would be amazed to find a mainstream or even labor press article which calls CNA's intervention in Ohio "union-busting"; merely holding a contributor with an agenda to the standards of citation should help eliminate interpretation problems (because this is a matter of interpretation, possible: Is CNA's intervention competition, or union-busting?). Tim1965 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I really cannot believe that Checkmate000 is citing that Chicago Tribune article as his supposed authority for labeling this inter-union conflict as "union busting" on the part of the CNA/NNOC. The person quoted as saying that was an SEIU official, ferkrisake. Puh-lease... give me a break! Cgingold (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that nobody else has decided to actually put their input on this page. Instead you rely on pasted relies which are taken out of context. Also you fail to realize that the Chicago Tribune article was not the only article cited.

• Your edits were not taken out of context, although you did do other edits, the end result was that you deleted any reference to the CNA/NNOC actions.
• I do believe that Tim1965 makes a good point that perhaps we should edit the way it is constructed. What distinguishes this from the 19th century is that the end goal of the actions of the nineteenth century was to gain jobs for their own members (or in the AFSCME/SEIU dispute, to gain members). In the current CNA/SEIU dispute, the CNA did not nor have they taken actions in order to gain members or organize any workers at the locations where they urged workers to vote no.
• I feel that this is the major distinction. Also in comparison to the 19th century they have not attempted to replace current nurses with CNA nurses. Simply put the CNA has not taken a position which is has the effect of advancing their own union but instead has simply attempted to damage another union.

It is for the end goal which I feel raises the actions of the CNA to union busting and not simply an inter-union dispute. Whether or not it has been labeled as such by a newspaper should not exclude it if the end goals fit with the rest of the article and the events which occured are not in dispute. Also the methods used seem to be lifted straight out of the methods used by union busters described in this page: "Consultants may direct management to establish "Vote No" committees of pro-company employees charged with the responsibility of rewarding loyal workers." The only difference it appears is that management was left out of these actions.

(In order to respect the ideals of wikipedia, I am not going to edit the article immediately to allow for discussion prior to editing)Checkmate000 (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear this, and the most sensible thing you've said thus far. It's worth noting that this is a particularly defamatory accusation when leveled at a labor union, tantamount to the sort of libelous material that good editors remove on sight from articles about living people -- so leaving it out of the article while we sort things out is definitely a wise decision. And I also support your RFC request, which is in essence what I did when I solicited input from the Organized Labour WikiProject. Again, please bear in mind that I am not a partisan of either side in this inter-union dispute -- I've removed or toned down material that characterized both unions in a POV fashion.

For now, let me briefly explain what the real problem appears to be here. I see from your contributions that you are relatively inexperienced as a Wiki editor. Nothing wrong with that, but it suggests that you need to better familiarize yourself with the core principles that are the foundation of all editing on Wikipedia. If you devote some time to a thorough reading of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR, you'll be in a much better position to understand why such a partisan approach to editing is not allowed.

In a nutshell, the assertion that CNA/NNOC's actions in their dispute with SEIU constitute "union busting" is, simply put, your personal POV. No matter how strongly or sincerely believed, and regardless of the cogency (or lack thereof) of the argument that you articulate, the bottom line is that you're attempting to advance a novel thesis that isn't supported by reliable sources. As such, this constitutes "Original Research", which is strictly prohibited. Unless and until there are multiple credible, independent sources that substantiate the notion that CNA/NNOC's actions do, in fact, constitute "union busting", there is no basis for you to label it as such. I'm afraid the only thing that either of your sources actually substantiate is a bit of name-calling on the part of an SEIU official.

At this point I'm going to retire from this discussion and await the input of other disinterested editors. Cgingold (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Big Article

If it gets 5kb bigger, Wikipedia:Article size says it should almost defo. be split into serveral smaller articles Larklight (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cost-push Inflation and Efficiency

The new sections provide some balance to the article. But they rely upon a narrow point of view about economic theory.

The sections Cost-push Inflation and Efficiency have some problems. For example, Hayek is a political thinker, and has a notable anti-union bias. The quotation should either be explained in that light, or be removed.

I think the reference to a disagreement between political economists and Austrian economists is extraneous and distracts from the article's main point, which is union busting.

Meanwhile, there are important political reasons that governments may curtail unions-- the economic argument isn't the only reason, nor is it necessarily a valid explanation in all cases.

But the article also is about union busting in general, not government-sponsored union busting, so let's not focus too narrowly.

I plan to make some changes in these two sections, but thought i'd allow some time for others to edit these sections first, in case someone would like to improve them in light of these issues.

The section on social costs of unions (which i removed) made an unsupported assertion. If it can be supported adequately and briefly, i'd have no problem with its return. Richard Myers (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this text:

Cost-push inflation

“ There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation. ”

F. A. Hayek, the Constitution of Liberty

By causing wage increases above the market rate, unions increase the cost to businesses, causing them to raise their prices, leading to a general increase in the price level. However, Austrian economists dispute this, arguing that the increase in the cost of labour simply means that less of other goods can be bought. Milton Friedman wrote that, regardless of the other effects of unions, they do not cause inflation

However, Austrians are a minority force in economics, and Governments may seek to reduce the powers of unions to restrain inflation.

Efficiency

The effect of union activities to influence pricing is potentially very harmful, making the market system ineffective. By raising the price of labour above the market rate, deadweight loss is created. Additional non-monetary benefits exacerbate the problem. This reduces output and long-term growth, encouraging governments to hinder the activities of unions.

This article isn't about Austrian economists, nor about why unions are bad. It is about the practice of avoiding or busting unions. The above material could find a nice home in Opposition to trade unions, but it does not belong here. Richard Myers (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The sections are relivant- the article not only has to show how unions are busted, but why. Hayek hasn't an anti-union bias, he recognises the role that it is necessory for them to play in society and protecting their members. I'd remove the reference to Friedman and the Austrians but that would make it seem like everyone agreed with Hayek- which is far from true. Personally I think he was mistaken.

If there are more reasons why Governments bust unions, say them. Really, all the reasons are economics- I think you mistunderstood how wide-reaching economics is. But that's a linguistic point.

What is the unsupported assertion on social costs?

Finally, the article doesn't focus too much on Government- half that section is on private justifications, and it's only a small part of the article. Larklight (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Larklight, you included your material in Opposition to trade unions (which i suggested would be a more appropriate place for it). Now you wish to re-insert it here. Please understand, duplicate entries of text in related articles are unnecessary and are generally frowned upon. But also, your material fits in Opposition, but is extraneous in Union Busting. I feel we have already compromised with you, to include your point of view about some reasons that unions are attacked. You are seeking to eliminate balance on this issue, and re-insert your own opinion in its place. That won't fly. Richard Myers (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not reinserting, I'm revetring your blanking, which is a slightly different thing. An artyicle on union busting needs to include motives, and if duplicate sections are frowned on, they can be re-worded: not blanked. If you wish to remove information from wikipedia, please discuss it on the talk page first, and respond to my points. Larklight (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Larklight, i think that you think this editing back and forth is a game. Consider, you did exactly what you are asking others not to do-- removing content. The references were to works by Barbara Ehrenreich, Naomi Klein, and Michael D. Yates. You removed these references. The article is better with balance, but you keep deleting the balancing points of view.

I have responded to the other material. I consider it extraneous to the practice of union busting, and you've duplicated it elsewhere, in a more appropriate article. At least i preserved it here on the talk page, so that others could examine it and come to their own conclusions. Your editing practices are less friendly, and you're unwilling to consider other viewpoints about the text that you keep re-inserting.

Please put the references to Austrian economists and inflation in articles about Austrian economics and inflation. Please allow folks who are interested in the topic of union busting to have some input to the topic of union busting. And finally, please consider that repeatedly adding extraneous material to an already lengthy article is counter-productive. Richard Myers (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

This article has not been argued about on it's POV for four months, and I'm taking the tag down. I would recommend that it does not get put up, especially if those arguing about it (as was the case above) are not even registered users. What they must do is put tags in specific sections, to point out what exactly is wrong.

I think a bit more uniformity could be brought to the structure though: the use of cquote for those blue marks I would only use for extended quotes. Otherwise I think <blockquote is the best practice.

Recently I created The Burke Group article which drew some sharp attention. I think it's a topic where people working in the union busting industry won't be happy with any information, of any point of view or no point of view to get out. Wikidea 19:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Article neutrality

Being a Brit, and for my sins a lawyer (!), I take the neutrality policy on Wikipedia policy to be getting at what we do with our media here in the UK: under the Communications Act 2003 all public broadcasters must follow a policy of (1) accuracy (2) impartiality in all news and political views that they cover. Accuracy is an obvious concept. Impartiality means that a balance has to be given to both sides of the argument. I can see from the posts above that this article has made a strong effort to put in what (some neoclassical) economists' arguments for union busting are. I would suggest that this is exactly the right approach - giving substantially equal weight to both sides. Where this article might encounter challenges in the future is with some of the quotes at the lead of subsections from Confessions of a Union Buster. I would recommend that anyone who thinks this could make the article endorse a point of view (which clearly it does not - it simply presents a point of view in some places) should find quotes specific to that topic which say the contrary, as the lead to the substance of that subsection. I hope that is clear enough. This article is packed with information and with some further improvements could defintely go to GA or FA. Wikidea 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

I'll admit this article has improved from previous versions I saw, but I think it still relies too heavily on quotes from a single source (Confessions of a Union Buster). As a result, this article is less a proper entry and more an essay based on that book, which leads to possible WP:COPYVIO problems. Suggestions for improvement:

• Examples given in quotes should be put into original words.
• Anything in quotes that is stated in the text of a section (for example, some of the intro quotes) should have the quote removed.
• It should be evaluated if all the long quotes are really needed or are redundant.

For example, we don't need 2 examples of a union busting tactic, just 1 with a couple sources. Freelandd (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Firms

A list of firms that do anti-union consulting work was recently deleted. The reason given was that to call the firms "union busters" somehow was "way too bold." Without attempting to quantify the boldness threshold for Wikipedia entries, I reverted the deletion because inclusion of the list of firms is consistent with the descriptions of union busting in the article, particularly contemporary forms of union busting. Moreover, these firms, their staff, and freelance associates are commonly referred to as union busters in the parlance of union organizers.Tony Clothes (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rgcroc removed the list, with a note suggesting that to list the firms is tantamount to advertising. I think this is an interesting point and am curious what others think.Tony Clothes (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is advertising, and violates WP:NPOV to go out and call these organizations "union busters", whether the term could fairly accurately be applied to them or not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more constructive if you would provide some arguments as to why you think it's advertising and why you think accurate information could be construed to violate WP:NPOV, rather than a simple declaration that "this is so because I said so." Tony Clothes (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to being persuaded either way. But i have considered that it would be useful to have such a list available. We have lists of unions, i'm not sure why lists of union busters would be a problem.

I do see one important consideration that perhaps ought to be discussed before such a list is created. What criteria are appropriate for inclusion? Some companies are easy (they advertise on their websites), but inclusion of some others might be debatable.

Finally, a question: does such a list exist elsewhere on the web? I searched for one without success a couple of years ago, but haven't checked recently. Richard Myers (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider naming off a list of companies considered to be union busters as crossing the NPOV line. Most companies that engage in union-busting activity likely don't call themselves that, and use another term for the same idea. Additionally, there comes the idea of inadvertently accusing a company of being a union-buster and getting in trouble for that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok...may I add? It would be nice to have a dialogue without Wikipedia operatives exercising rapid delete power. There are things to be learned here. I recently posted a rant that ya'll should have read but instead deleted. But oh well...it's gone. The list I provided was real. the problem here is that people who add to this site are not all American. There is a different experience in the UK vs the US. There needs to be a cross cultural agreement. Labor laws differ UK to US to Canada etc. So stop with the delete button and get on the same page. The union buster s I listed are well known among attorneys and US unions. Someone (tony clothes)addes a firm that has never been heard of by any of the heretofore well known union busters. You all as if they are, in fact, union busters? You are clearly not from the US!!! Is this strictly a UK managed site? --Rgcroc (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)rgcroc--Rgcroc (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And if I may add once again.....I am in the legal world. Can you please explain to me your veneration for MartinLevitt? In the US he is well known. I knew him personally. Are you going to rapid delete me now? He was a ridiculous human being. It saddens me that this site and certain union operatives have adopted him as the icon. C'mon. Get some self respect. Somehow this man's book has become the bible. Yet in actual fact among higher level operative within the real world, he is hardy the spokesperson for either side. Surely we can find a more venerable icon? If you want this post to be respected....there are other much more notable people to quote.

And why would you list the Burke group as union busters and be OK with that and then question the others I provided? If you google they have more press than the burke group!!! But that's in the US.....you folks must be outside the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgcroc (talk • contribs) 05:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're drunk. Tony Clothes (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Very, Very POV

'Only after a union organizing drive is defeated, might company executives be allowed to return to their "tyrannical" ways.'

'The workers won't find the time to discuss their own issues if they're sufficiently bombarded with the "twisted disinformation" sown by the union buster.'

Wow, this is the single most POV article I've ever read on Wikipedia, and that's saying something. And yet it doesn't have a NPOV banner?

Putting snippets from a source in the middle of your sentence and then claiming that it's NPOV because it's from the source not from you... well that doesn't work. 24.224.203.60 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The footnote clarifies the use of the word "tyrannical". The article's text accurately summarizes the content and tone of the source. I expect that the problem here is, 24.224.203.60 doesn't like the content of the source. But there's a simple fact that supports this inclusion: Martin Jay Levitt was somewhat unique in that he (1) possessed intimate knowledge about the practices of union busters, and he (2) wrote a book about those practices. Therefore Martin Jay Levitt is not just a source for this article, he is one of the best possible sources. The article accurately reflects not only his knowledge, but also his overall perceptions of union busting. Martin Jay Levitt's contributions to our knowledge of union busting are important, and need to be preserved and accurately characterized.

There is another consideration: when folks don't like the content of an article as reflected in quotations, they may attack the article as having too many quotations. When the content is summarized rather than quoted, folks who don't like the content may complain that the summary is unfair or inaccurate, i.e., "[p]utting snippets from a source in the middle of your sentence and then claiming that it's NPOV because it's from the source not from you... well that doesn't work." Why not find some sources that reflect the POV that you're bringing to this article, and contribute? Richard Myers (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So, it's up to me to find a POV source to quote to counteract your POV source? Isn't the whole point to take sources, POV and NPOV, and combine them into an article that is NPOV? I mean, you must realize that the word "tyrannical" has no place in a NPOV article (aside from Tyranny of course).

As for preserving the source's perceptions and opinions, we have no obligation at all to do that. All we have an obligation to do is create a neutral article on the topic, and the cite the sources of our information. We're not writing an article to reflect Martin Jay Levitt's knowledge and perceptions, we're writing an article about Union Busting.

And, my opinion on this matter has nothing to do with my like or dislike of the source's content. I happen to be quite pro-union, and even so I find the article extremely biased, to the point where I would be embarrassed of my views if someone were to use this article as a primary source of information on the topic.24.224.203.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who suggests using an encyclopedia article as a primary source simply doesn't understand the concept of primary and secondary sources, let alone what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. Richard Myers (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please....Martin J. Levitt was a pathological liar, felon, and two faced maniac who worked for whomever would pay him. He was an addict and did time in prison. His book is quite clear about that. Did he say nasty things about union busters? YES!! But was he paid by the AFL-CIO? YES!! If he'd been paid by Jackson Lewis to write a book he'd have said nasty things about unions too!!! Did anyone notice that he said nothing about The Burke Group in his book? He knew them well and they were totally famous when he wrote his book but he never mentioned them. Have any of you considered he actually respected them because they were not like the union busters he described and he refused to mention them alongside the union busters he disdained? This article on union busting has so many references to his book it is ridiculous. Have any of you actually read it? He was blackballed by the labor relations industry as an embarrassment which he admits in his book so he switched sides yet the union industry is proud of him and there is something very wrong with that picture. You really need to find another hero to have any credibility. --Rgcroc (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)rgcroc--Rgcroc (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i've read his book several times. But the book that i read is not the book that you describe. In fact i believe you are conjuring "facts" that simply don't exist anywhere in the book.

So let me get this straight — there's something wrong with working for, and getting paid by the AFL-CIO, but its OK to take money from union busting corporations? Is that not a double standard? Richard Myers (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not say there was something "wrong" with being paid by the AFLCIO...its a statement of fact that he took money from both sides, and would say whatever he needed to say or do whatever he needed to do to feed both his and his wife's addictions. It is clearly written in his book and well known among the labor community, former clients and former colleagues, no double standard. He merely followed the money. Go back and read the book one more time...--Rgcroc (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)rgcroc--Rgcroc (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported add of a template

User talk:206.169.197.221 added the weasel template. 206.169.197.221 did not enter anything on this talk page defending that action. This article is on a topic that generates strong passions in some quarters. Without any explanation, it is difficult to know whether this is legitimate, or is just another anonymous attack.

It is possible that there are words in the article that can be improved. But i'm not going to try to guess what was in 206.169.197.221's mind. If there is no discussion here to explain or defend the template within a reasonable period of time, or if there are no attempts to improve the article in order to solve the alleged problem, i will remove it. Richard Myers (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Even as we have no input on the weasel template within a week after its introduction, someone has added a neutrality template without any new justification or explanation on the talk page.

Folks, these are drive-by ambushes. If someone wishes to improve the article, they can at least live up to the responsibility of mentioning the problems that they perceive in the article.

Removing weasel template, starting countdown on neutrality template. Richard Myers (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Without discussion on the neutral template, let's remove it NOW. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking it off. It doesn't belong on there if you're not going to explain yourself. There are rules around here... Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a very biased article. Im putting up the neutrality template. This article is biased towards unions, talking about how "anti-union firms" "misguide" employees and how union organizers are "harassed."It is wikipedia policy that all viewpoints on a subject has to represented. We need someone to write a counter perspective on this article. Teeninvester--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you would read before posting, you would be aware of this article: Opposition to trade unions. You might also ponder that you are insisting on injecting an off-topic minority viewpoint, this article is not in any sense about free market investing. Richard Myers (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Balance?

I appreciate the good work you did representing one viewpoint and providing information, but an article must be balanced. It is acceptable to provide a minority viewpoint on this article. Before I edited, there was not one good thing said about "union busting". I just said it was legal, so thats not providing an anti-union viewpoint. If you would read, please refer to WP:NPOV. This article is written like something that goes on a pro-Union website. Articles has to have both a pro and anti viewpoint, you can't just have one viewpoint. The article on capitalism doesnt just describe all its merits. Unions arent all good, look at what happened with the UAW. The page "Opposition to trade unions" is supposed to be a list page; people know the facts in it will be biased. The union busting page is a general page, theres a difference there. Its expected to be balanced. Also, I think another expert besides Richard should edit this article, as it seems that his bias may affect the POV of this article. And no, I'm not a big anti-Union guy, I happen to be pretty neutral on the subject. Teeninvestor```

If you're going to add material, especially about a controversial topic, you need to source it. If you keep adding material without providing reliable sources, your contributions will be reverted. Remember, no original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've provided a source at the bottom at the end of the page relating to a free market perspective on unions, so please add citations for it. I've tried to add citations but it didn't work; It ended up deleting half the article. Can you please add my source to your reflist and add it to my edits? If you require a better source, contact me and ill happily provide one.Teeninvestor--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There we go I added citations for my edits. I guess you learn something everyday. Teeninvestor-----

Teeninvestor, please practice editing in the sandbox before editing articles. And please try to learn about common practices on Wikipedia, such as signing your edits on talk pages. Richard Myers (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely POV when you reverse SOURCED edits which are backed up. I suggest you stop reversing every edit that does not confirm to your POV. rememeber, WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting this up as an active dispute. It is a blatant violation of wikipedia policy when sourced, neutral edits intended to represent another side on an extremely POV article is reversed constantly by a user who has a very obvious self interest in maintaining the bias of this article. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The added paragraph itself expresses a non-neutral point of view, so characterizing the edit as "neutral" is a bit dishonest. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that but my main point is that i added things like defense of union busting and other paragraphs to balance out the view because this article, as you can see, is definitely not NPOV. 70.26.149.208 (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should not defend union busting, and nor should it attack it. The article should not present any polemic at all. Instead, if there is to be a point-counterpoint style, then claims one way or the other should be specifically attributed (see WP:ASF) rather than attributed as factual. Overall, I think the article does a fair job of presenting a neutral point of view. Some cleanup is certainly welcome, but additions like this recent one are a step in the wrong direction. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As you can see there are tons of complaints above about this article; I am not the first one to complain. Although I think this article is generally well written. phrases like "supervisors returning to their "tyrannical" ways, and this paragraph:

"The union is not allowed access to the work force during their eight hours of work each day, but the union buster can occupy as much of that time as is considered necessary. The aim of the union buster is a "war of saturation bombing" in which half-truths and accusations put the union on the defensive. Forcing the union to spend hours defending itself during meetings means there's no time left for the union's planning efforts, or for campaign strategy. The workers won't find the time to discuss their own issues if they're sufficiently bombarded with the "twisted disinformation" sown by the union buster.[21]".

Teeninvestor (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The quotes that are identified here do accurately reflect the source. The source is somewhat unique; the account by an individual who had worked for years as a union buster, and who regretted his own, and others' actions in the course of union busting. His apparent "agenda" was telling the truth about what he did, and what he witnessed while engaging in union busting. As such, he may be the best possible source for an article on this subject, and his words therefore ought to be given appropriate weight. Richard Myers (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that a possible positive contribution related to the above passages may be identifying any section of the article where there isn't a clear identification of the author to whom the passage is being attributed. Often this is accomplished through footnotes, but it seems possible that the footnote may not be enough in some places. In other words, pernaps simply adding "according to Martin Jay Levitt..." to some passages would clarify the article for some readers.

I do note, however, that the article does frequently include such attribution phrases. I'm just interested in whether other editors believe they are present in all the places they should be. Richard Myers (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, some changes

This article came to my attention after a Wikiquette alert was filed concerning one of the editors here (this wikiquette alert was filed erroneously, imho). I would like to come in and try to make the language a little more neutral; I think this very good article has been constructed off the hard work of a couple of people who have done an excellent job. However, it does provide a more pro-union bias than an encyclopedia should.

I am posting here to let you long time editors know that I am not coming here with an agenda, as part of a coalition to accomplish any goal (either pro or anti-union) or at anyone's request. As I said above, I was only made aware of this article recently and thought I could help make it better.

If anyone has a problem with my approach, I hope we can talk about it and we can work to make this article better together. Thanks in advance...LedRush (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion.

We have this recent contribution, which i have challenged once, but which has now been introduced four times into this article, including simultaneous insertions into different sections.

==Defense of Union busting==

From a free-market perspective, union busting is a service that employers can hire to accomplish a certain task, and is completely legal as long as it does not break any laws. Law firms maintain they are simply providing counsel to their clients to make decisions on the effects of a union on their business. In addition, they maintain allegations of illegal harassment during union busting is untrue, and that the services they provide to their clients are completely legitimate.

In my view, language such as "completely legal as long as it does not break any laws" from a source sans page number makes for a very questionable contribution. The Forward of the sourced text states that the author's prose is "crystal clear and simple." But the passage Teeninvestor continually attributes to this author is redundant, like saying "the sky is completely blue as long as it is blue..." But it is worse than that; Teeninvestor pretends that certain practices already documented in the article with faithful attributions, already identified as illegal, can be swept away by asserting such vague generalities.

As longtime editors, we are encouraged to work with new editors who wish to make positive contributions. Most of us are quite willing to do so. However, when new editors join the discussion with an attitude of entitlement, conveying the impression that they know better than anyone else, meanwhile making signatory, editing, and attribution errors which confirm their inexperience, such cooperation becomes a challenge.

If i had a page number so that i could check the attribution, i might let such a contribution stand, and simply improve the language. As is, i question the faithfulness of the reference, as well as the redundancy of the rhetoric, and the emptiness of the content.

Finally, to very briefly reprise earlier discussion, the topic of this article is union busting, and not whether unions or union busters are good or bad. Union busting happens. Trying to absolve union busters from any possible ramifications of their actions may have a place somewhere in Wikipedia, but this article deals with what union busters do, and not with how innocent they may be. Richard Myers (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Generally, book sources are considered just as good as others even though they may be hard to verify. However, the passage doesn't seem particularly useful (everything is legal when legally done). However, a different perspective on union busting and sourced content about the benefits from the perspective of might be useful if integrated well into the article. (For example, if someone accuses the law firms of doing something illegal, a sourced reply would be warranted).

I also agree that the article should focus on what union busters do, but we should try to keep language that doesn't attribute either positive or negative judgments about them unless as part of a sourced critique or observation.

My first plan of action is to just do some tinkering with language and see where we stand.

Thank you for your constructive response.LedRush (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dismantle" in place of "destroy" is an example of a good edit that helps create a more neutral article. Thanks for helping in this way. :-) Richard Myers (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that this article should be about what union busters do, but some of the language does imply that union busting is bad, which is not a neutral objection. As Richard pointed out above, this article should focus on the actions of the union busters rather than judgements on them. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what is a troll??? Teeninvestor (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In this usage, see Troll (Internet). SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite change of language, this article is still bias. It pretty much "implies" that unions are better through its language. That might just be bias on my part, but it seems that way. more edits are appreciated. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the article is long and I am only devoting small passages of time to go through it. After I go through it once, we should probably look at structure, subarticles, and other options. I don't want to go into specifics because I haven't formed any opinions on how best to make this article better. Hopefully, we can get this up to GA standards and get the tags from the top removed.LedRush (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Union Busting and Union Buster Definitions

Adding to the discussion about bias, the title "Union Busting" should be cross referenced with other terms such as "anti-union", "counter-organizing", "counter recognition" (used in the EU and UK) and "union avoidance". Those are the search terms used in google searches and probably used by students and practitioners researching the subject within Wikipedia. There is a category called "Opposition to Trade Unions" that, in my opinion, should be changed to "Union Opposition"....again....so that people can find it using the term "union" which then lists all the union articles in that search field. The term "union buster" is not in the vernacular of labor lawyers or consultants (both Martin Levitt and John Logan's writings have stated this as well) who call themselves "union avoidance or labor relations consultants" and I believe it is an important point of differentiation for reader and neutral point of view. The term "union buster" has to be included with the term "labor relations consultant" so that a person can understand exactly who they are. There is no job description advertised in any professional recruiting publication (see Wall Street Journal) called "union buster". Just like the word "scab", there has to be parity with the term "strikebreaker" to be fully understood by people outside the labour field. These words are familiar to those already initiated into the labor environment but necessarily outside of it. This Union Buster article takes too much for granted and reads as if written by a union person strictly for other union people. it must be recognized that Wikipedia is read by people across the globe in several languages including outside the language of labor. They need thorough explanations. There is a pro management counter organizing community and and a pro labor organizing community and both have assertions about these definitions. "Union buster" is regarded as a derogatory term created by labor unions and organizers to describe management consultants and the employers who seek their services. Therefore, if management consultants are "union busters" would the equivalent term for union organizers be "management busters"? I'm just trying to make a point....not trying to be difficult. The section titled "Goals of Union Busters" offered no real incites at all, very broad comments from economists taken out of context with very broad references to some books without names, dates or pages cited. I'm amazed they have been allowed to remain. There is no discussion that Labor organizers are often career individuals with tools and an agenda that most employers are ill equipped to understand or handle. Big corporations are different. But smaller ones have an entirely different reaction and hire consultants not to hurt there workers but because they don't know labor law, often they have no human resource dept, nor do they want to be charged with ULP's as they rev up to an election....and unlike most organizers who have run elections as a career, employers have little if no experience and therefore seek outside help to navigate the mine field. The goal of some employers is to stay union free, the goal of others is to stay out of legal hot water while the goal of others might be to save money. There is a plethora of topics to explore in that sub section but nothing is there except how evil union busters are. THat will explain nothing to the reader about the disagreements between organizers and management consultants. There is a union organizing university run by TUC and AFL-CIO (http://blog.aflcio.org/?s=training+for+organizers&submit.x=10&submit.y=2&submit=submit) "Organizing Institute" in Maryland (http://aflcio.org/aboutus/oi/main.cfm) Is there an equivalent for union busters? Where is the discussion about how most union busters are former union organizers? Martin Levitt's opening Forward (page 2) describes how he learned everything he knew from Jack Sheridan, a former union organizer, and Sheridan learned from Nate Sheffleman who used to work with The Teamsters! Where is that discussion about the organizers that become union busting firms? Martin Levitt was both.....John Logan of The London School of Economics named several in one of his papers too. I agree with several contributors that this article is good and informative in the history section but too biased and unacademic in other sections for a reader to get meaning from it. --Jbowersox (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)jbowersox--Jbowersox (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm back after some editing. I actually tried to edit some POV entries to NPOV but wow it is hard....this is really a biased article with so much "opinion" in place of hard fact that I became overwhelmed quickly. The best I could do tonight was provide an encyclopedic definition for Union Busting in the introduction.

I noted that the 2nd citation in the list is John Logan but if you check it, the quote is actually plucked from "Confessions of a Union Buster" so we may as well go directly to THAT source rather than using Logan. In fact, most of the other authors cite Levitt as well meaning all that is done here is to use a secondary source for your primary citation. Also, use of Levitt quotes to introduce section topics eliminates any hope of the descriptive ideas that follow being encyclopedic because it is only "his" opinion, he is not a scholar or considered an authority nor did he ever teach it. You must remember that what he wrote was what HE practiced and not necessarily what others practiced in the same industry. He's long gone yet there are contemporary firms alive and well. Why stay mired in the past? And the tactics and times he describes were the 60's and 70's. Times have changed. Sheridan, Shefflelman and Modern Management (the companies he worked for or describes) existed back in the old Jackie Presser and Hoffa days which are long gone and most contemporary firms never employed those methods or rhetoric. This article would be just as compelling without so much of Levitt. For example, The New York Times fired Jayson Blair for plagiarism and then Blair wrote a book about his experiences and opinions. Should everyone who reads Blair's book now believe that all Newspapers employ plagiarists? Just because Levitt described one type of union busting doesn't mean all labor relations consultants and lawyers are the same. This Union Busting article is really not much more than an annotated version of Levitt's book!

As for editing.....as an academic and 30 year veteran of the labor relations field (both union and non union) I would like to take a stab at continuing to refine bit by bit starting with the definition of union busting geared towards people who have no previous understanding of the concept. Those of us coming in after the fact have seen many reversions and deletions of editing effort but please let us add to it. It's on the way to being a good article, but has a long way to go......someone needs to go at it with a hatchet and a neutral POVJbowersox (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)jbowersox--Jbowersox (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Goals of Union Busters

I just spent a enormous amount of time researching and editing. Please note the existing statements were not deleted. Everything is still there. I merely edited, refined, punctuated and inserted sections to each previous statement adding parity again offering balance and NPOV with academic citations. Gotta go now. --Jbowersox (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Jbowersox--Jbowersox (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jbowersox, i don't have a problem with your editing these articles, you are quite welcome to do so. I do have a very significant problem with your claim to be doing so in a neutral fashion. Your edit history indicates otherwise. You need to explain yourself, and your connection to The Burke Group, the self-described "international leader in guiding management during union organizing..."

You started your Wikipedia editing by sanitizing the Burke Group article, but you didn't stop there. You burnished the CEO's reputation by declaring "The CEO and President of TBG ... David J. Burke [is] a donor to the best political candidates regardless of party affiliation."

The best political candidates according to whose point of view? This is an example of clear and obvious bias.

You have claimed that you can be neutral; if that is so, then why are you placing links on Wikipedia to a Youtube video that attacks the Employee Free Choice Act?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7_VPwq3NGs

You have placed links to videos that offer the point of view of the National Right To Work Foundation, a video which you identify as exposing "UAW Intimidation".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVQJNMOSFMI&feature=related/ [1]

Nothing could be more partisan.

Some of the edits on this (union busting) article have added a touch of balance, but other of your edits -- possibly the overwhelming majority -- attack unions in subtle and not so subtle ways. The weight of your "academic" contributions has made the first part of the article incredibly tedious and uninteresting, which in my view entirely destroys its usefulness to anyone truly interested in its subject matter.

Some of your assertions may at first sound plausible (as in declaring that it is (only) Labor and Trade Unions who use the term union busting.[2] ) By doing so, you portray unions as a narrow segment of the community, a special interest. But this ignores the fact that labor historians and academics, as well as countless working people who have been thwarted in their organizing efforts, use the term union busting as well.

In fact, a number of your assertions appear to be biased and false.

The fact that you have used The Burke Group article as your starting point, editing or removing links from related articles, and fanning out from there to other articles, suggests that you may have some undisclosed connection. Do you work for the Burke Group company or one of its consulting agencies or subsidiaries? Have you ever worked for the company, or know someone who works for the company? Are you in any way paid or otherwise reimbursed for your efforts to put The Burke Group's point of view into Wikipedia articles about The Burke Group?

Please be aware that it is possible for any other editor to quickly restore this page (and any other article) to its content before any of your edits. It would be a shame to lose all of the work that you've put in, because of some undisclosed conflict of interest.

I've been participating for the past several years in the community that edits this article. I'm not in any hurry, i'll await your response before i take any action. But you need to come clean and explain why you puff The Burke Group, why you remove references to union concerns about the Burke Group, why you remove links to the Burke Group, why you introduce external links that attack unions, all the while maintaining that you are a neutral contributor to articles about The Burke Group and about organized labor. Richard Myers (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I would warn you about making unfounded personal attacks. Generally, the rule here is to criticize the edits, not the editor. To my knowledge (and I could be wrong) anyone is allowed to edit any article, regardless of their connection to it. Of course, if they edit in a way that contravenes Wikipedia Policy, than we will address it appropriately. Also, your talk about it being a shame to lose all of his edits looks like a threat to me. Again, I just warn you to make this about the edits and not the editor.LedRush (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard responds: What may have seemed personal upon first reading is really an attempt to discover what seems apparent if you examine the edit history, and that is the possibility of a conflict of interest, according to Wikipedia's definition of a conflict of interest. From Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, this is the verbatim text:

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.

and,

Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest.

The Burke Group article has a controversial editing history, with some apparently suspecting it to have previously been edited by someone from the company. See the history here, specifically edits around April 22, 2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Burke_Group&limit=500&action=history

...referenced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Burke_Group

and here, including indications of five sock puppets, all sympathetic to, and possibly from The Burke Group (mentioned near the end):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Burke_Group

as well as brief mention or allusion to company self-interest/editing in this archive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Archive_5#The_Burke_Group

Note that this information includes perceptions or conclusions reached by others; i am simply conveying links to their discussions.

None of this is yet demonstrated in the current circumstance. That is why i did not bring up these histories, but rather, asked the editor to explain whether there is a conflict of interest, including providing my justification for asking.

There are similar circumstances which are suggestive of a continuing pattern:

A new ID with no user page;
Unusually flattering edits, as in the example;
All edits relate to this topic, and no other;
An apparent ideology that matches the self-described goals of the company in question.

The COI policy is secondary to the requirement not to post personal information, i.e.,

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. (emphasis added)

That is why i have asked the editor to provide any relevant information himself or herself, rather than providing any personal information that i have discovered. Note that there is also a general history of companies or other entities editing their own Wikipedia articles and being discovered, i recommend the article here:

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker

I have questioned neutrality due to a perceived COI, but i have not engaged in a personal attack. Note from the (italicized) language in the Wikipedia policy just above, Wikipedia envisions "investigating possible cases of COI editing", and that is precisely what i am attempting to do.

Jbowersox may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. And recall that i introduced my request for information with the statement, "Jbowersox, i don't have a problem with your editing these articles, you are quite welcome to do so." Jbowersox may clear up any COI concerns, or not. But precluding someone from "investigating possible cases of COI editing," including offering the appropriate justifications for such an investigation, would in itself, i believe, complicate our efforts to obtain neutrality in these articles. Richard Myers (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is also relevant to the history of The Burke Group article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Oppo212

Click on the contribs links of all of those (very obvious) sock puppets, i think the pattern is pretty clear.

Once again, this in itself isn't proof of anything that is currently happening, but it suggests the possibility of a continuing pattern.

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To Ledrush and SchumenWeb, thank you for your support. To Richard Myers, I am not The Burke Group. As for COI and wiki rules, I respect them as I respect Wiki editors and all your years on this article. I have no idea what a "sock puppet is" but can only tell you I work alone. I am relatively inexperienced at Wiki skill and still find it daunting, but am doing my best to navigate. I have added no YouTube videos and wouldn't have a clue at how to do such a thing. You clearly don't like other editors and for reasons I can't fathom you haven't grasped that editors could be from anywhere in the world. I know none of them. Am I to presume that you are neutral and unbiased as it regards this article and the article titled The Burke Group? That is precisely why I entered the fray. The tone of this article seems hostile and biased and I am apparently not the first to make that observation based on previous entries and editing attempts.

Yes, you are correct that I have edited The Burke Group, because it read hostile and biased and contained inaccuracies. It is a living organization which employs persons practicing lawful occupations highly regarded in the international legal and corporate communities. Of course there are pro and cons depending your perspective but it does not make one right and the other wrong. I have only added parity and levity. I agree that using the words "best candidate" was an unfortunate choice in that particular edit. I have been trying to delete that political sentence but you continue to keep it. I was trying to convey that most CEO's (in my experience) tend to donate to candidates regardless of party affiliation and look at credentials and qualifications for the "best" candidate rather than a "party" candidate. It is (in my opinion) inappropriate to include "alleged" politics based on the Huffington website which shows 3 small donations and yet s used to summarize someone's entire political history. It is a distortion and biased depiction. IF TBG has been in business for 30 years it is safe to assume that Burke is safely in his 60's with a 40 year history of political donations yet only 3 are cited as Republican? NPOV would be to leave "politics" out of article describing a corporation. The sentence should be deleted. By the way...if you are a Democratic are you then biased and disqualified from writing about a politician? If you are a union member are you then biased and disqualified to write about union free company or ideology or The Burke Group? I'm not trying to be difficult....just making a point. If I am Israeli am I disqualified to write about Mid East conflict? Who determines neutrality and bias? I don't believe it is an editors affiliation or occupation, it is the "words".

Some organizations are unionized, some are not. Some are both. Labor Relations Directors work in both organized and unorganized environments and some both at the same time. Attorneys from any given firm can sit at a bargaining table and mediate for either side depending on which side employs them. Consultancies represent both union and non union organizations and negotiate contracts as well. So how is one to approach an article about union busting from only one side? There are two sides to that equation. The Union Busting article has an appearance of non neutral hostile bias yet Union busting has to describe two sides of a burgeoning industry both union and non union participants in order to be understood.

As for my credentials, If it makes you more comfortable I recently attended the L.E.R.A. (http://www.lera.uiuc.edu/meetings/Annual/2009/program.asp) and John Logan was in attendance. I will attend another conference at UCSB tomorrow (http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/labor/index.html) regarding Labor, Work, and Democracy as well as the AALLR Employment Law Conference in March. I am approaching these articles as I would a research paper or legal brief to be clear, objective, researched, truthful and to represent the parties. That is as far as I will "out" myself.

In my opinion (and my students) the Union busting article explored too many topics with several vague and broad descriptions and dubious citations. History was their favorite.

Please note that I did not perform any wholesale deletions in my edits. Instead I kept what was there and expanded, refined, defined and added parity. And I brought my edits to the talk page here in each circumstance. It's taken me months but I believe I've finally learned proper editing.

We can work together. --Jbowersox (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)jbowersox--Jbowersox (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I expect that we can work together. I'm not questioning your expertise, nor your right to edit.

My concern has come from the appearance that you've created, in which you declared your ability to be neutral, and yet some, or perhaps many, of your edits are not neutral.

As far as the tone of this discussion is concerned, you actually fired the first shots across the bow three days ago when you made this personal comment about previous authors (which would include me) of this (union busting) article: "Either the author is 80 and doesn't know any better or the author is very young and inexperienced and has no basis of reference."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SchuminWeb#Union_Busting

Granted, that is on an individual's personal page. But all edits on Wikipedia pages are public, even those on personal pages.

There is an idea (which LedRush has pointed out) that we should deal with content, and not focus on who makes what contribution. In truth, however, this ideal is a challenge to meet. I'm happy to leave any animosity behind, and try to make the union busting article the best that it can be.

I'll try to answer some of your questions.

If you sign into an account, then you have an ID. If you participate without signing in, you are assigned the IP address of your Internet connection. In either case, your edits are connected to your identity.

Because some editing questions are resolved by consensus or majority, some participants try to cheat by creating second or third or more identities which they control. These other identities are referred to as sock puppets. The practice is strongly discouraged, and is cause for banishment if it is abused. There is currently no indication that we have a sock puppet issue. But i (and possibly others) am more sensitive to the possibility because the article The Burke Group has a history of sock puppet involvement.

As far as the Wikipedia inexperience factor, we often ask new editors to practice on a web page that is called the Sand Box. But in my judgment your Wikipedia skills are more than sufficient for live editing, and we will be happy to assist with any editing problems that you have.

Concerning right to edit, so long as certain rules and guidelines are not violated, anyone has a right to edit. But sometimes an individual can completely and dramatically change the tone as well as the content of an article that already has an active community of editors, which naturally tends to ruffle feathers. That doesn't mean an article shouldn't incorporate content from editors with different points of view. So long as we all have some sense of where each other is coming from as editors, i think it will be much easier to work together.

There are certain practices which are helpful. For example, my personal Wikipedia page identifies me as a union member. Therefore, other editors should not be surprised that i take a particular interest in labor articles. It appears that you have not yet created a personal page. There is no requirement that you do so; however, you may occasionally find it helpful to put some background information on your personal page in order to preclude other editors jumping to conclusions.

Now, it appears to me that you have some confusion about the mechanics of Wikipedia editing. Every edit that anyone ever makes is preserved, up to the point of articles being deleted. Therefore, an editor's entire editing history can be examined, for any number of reasons. The edit in which you puffed the CEO of The Burke Group comes from an old edit record from the TBG article. Someone else has overwritten this text. Yet it is preserved in the Wikipedia editing history, for anyone to retrieve. I am not keeping it there, Wikipedia is.

The history mechanism is a mostly reliable record of who did what with any given article. People who read the article in the normal manner will not see the reference to "best candidates"; only editors are likely to see it as a normal function of editing.

And finally, there is the question of the Youtube video links to videos attacking the Employee Free Choice Act, and supporting National Right To Work. The history mechanism appears to indicate that you (Jbowersox) added these Youtube video links to the Burke Group article, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Burke_Group&diff=prev&oldid=262711972

If you say that you didn't make this edit that appears to be attributed to you, i will accept that. They were, in fact, improperly formed links, and in any case they have been removed from the TBG article. I've seen a couple of cases where an edit record was either wrongly attributed, or didn't really show what it appeared to show. Fortunately, i am not aware of this happening very often.

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Union Avoidance vs. Union Busting and "Methods of Union Busting"

The term Union busting, in my opinion, is an inappropriate term to encompass the subject at hand. Let me explain. Yes, it is a term still used by labor, unions, and journalists. But within the legal, consulting, economic, and management industries it is rarely used and instead replaced by "union avoidance". You'll note that the esteemed Dr. John Logan rarely uses it. This union busting article has relied far too heavily on Marty Levitt styled books which speak largely to events of the 70's when labor/management hostilities had an entirely different M.O. The quotes use a parlance that harkens back to Pinkerton days. Contemporary consultancies, law firms and industrial psychologists often don't encounter unions at all, so you could hardly refer to them as "busters" if there is no union to start with. They are "avoiders". Busting a union generally requires a union to be present or involved. Yes, the consultancies participate in counter organizing campaigns but most earn their keep PRE union even before card signing or any union presence at all. Preventive Labor Relations is all about this practice. Corporations spend their resources employing professional consultancies to audit their organizations to determine issues BEFORE their employees seek union representation ergo UNION AVOIDANCE. They train their supervisory staff about how to NOT commit infractions that would trigger unrest and card signing. This Union busting article needs to separate out PRE UNION as Union Avoidance and POST UNION as Union Busting (i.e Strike breaking and Decerts). Union Busting is not a good descriptor of contemporary labor/management practices.

The admonition at the top of the article cites too many quotations and questions neutrality due to the Martin Levit book. The section "Dirty Tricks" about tapping phones describes old outdated instances that were exceptions and not the rule. In 30 years of labor law I have never once known any organization to employ wire taps or any of the methods defined in that section described by Levitt anymore than I've seen an organizer stand over someone with a stick threatening them to vote union or they'd break their legs. Was it reported? Yes. Does it happen. NO. What is a new organizer or employee wanting a union to learn from that section?

Methods of Union Busting" should be updated to todays parlance and broken into PRE UNION and POST UNION. PRE UNION should be called UNION AVOIDANCE and include sub titles such as "AUDITS and SUPERVISORY TRAINING", "CARD SIGNING PREVENTION", "COUNTER ORGANIZING", "COUNTER RECOGNITION", "CORPORATE CAMPAIGNS" and then POST UNION should include STRIKE BREAKING and DECERTIFICATIONS. Then describe the different methodologies that organizers encounter and need to look for......both sides of the equation.

We can work together.

For your consideration--Jbowersox (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)jbowersox==

Union busting is a term widely understood and used in English worldwide by people who have nothing to do with trade unions (or breaking them). Union avoidance is not. In places where English is a second language, "union avoidance" will have little if no meaning whatsoever, whereas "union busting" will.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any proof to back those claims up? I don't have the same experience personally. I had never heard of either term before seeing them in this article, and immediately understood what both meant. (Of course, this is not to be treated as proof either, just my personal experience.)LedRush (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Try doing a google news search with "union busting" and "union avoidance" 10:1 ratio of busting to avoidance in story headlines as of 2300GMT. BTW don't forget WP:COS.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing to remove the term Union Busting......I am arguing to ADD the term Union Avoidance. Big difference. It illustrates there is emphasis on two separate types of anti union activities. Union busting can't really take place without a union, correct? Employers adopt certain programs as "company policy" well before any union is on the scene. The policy can only be termed "union avoidance" or "preventive labor relations". "Union busting" is what follows a failed "union avoidance" policy. They are different. Jbowersox (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

International Dimensions:

Another section that needs serious work is titled "International Dimension". It says: "Union busters have recently begun to diversify their personnel, and to seek markets in other countries." False statement. In fact, dozens of consultanices have been diversified for decades in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. It also says: "Private sector unions in the United States have declined, partly as a result of union busting campaigns. Some union busting agencies are therefore seeking international markets. Since 2000, at least one agency has established an international division". Partially true. Union decline is true but it has nothing to do with consultancies expanding to international markets. In fact, the more unions decline in the U.S., the more UNION AVOIDANCE work exists in keeping consultancies plenty busy within these borders. Union Avoidance requires constant vigilance within organizations which desire to remain union free with audits and training. Consultancies didn't seek international markets due to union decline, the international markets sought THEM! Why? The EU/UK Employee Relations Act law (similar to U.S. NLRA) changed in 2000 allowing U.S. style elections and therefore the U.S. parent companies chose to employ their union avoidance consultancies and law firms from the U.S operations at their European subsidiaries.

We can work together.

For your consideration--Jbowersox (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)jbowersox--Jbowersox (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Interborough Rapid Transit strike material

I removed the material on the IRT strike from the history section as it was a complete copy and paste from the cited text. See WP:Plagiarism and WP:Free_content. The incident itself is possibly worth including in the article (although given current length probably not necessary), however more NPOV material would need to be used which examines how and who organised the busting of the IBT strike and why college students participated in breaking a strike of workers.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I did just one additional check, and found another example of copy and paste. Perhaps all recent contributions should be checked for this. (I'm taking a break, not in the mood to edit right now.) best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition of WP:Plagiarism is the use of another's ideas or authorship and claiming it as one's own. It was not claimed as my own. It was CITED. Your own reason for reverting says "it was a copy and paste from the CITED text. Text that is copied and pasted and properly cited either within quotes or footnotes is not plagiarism. If copy/paste with citations were plagiarism, then half of Wikipedia's entries would have to be deleted! Certainly within this Union Busting article all you need do is look at the use of Confessions of a Union Buster and the admonition at the top of the page saying "Too many quotes". Why didn't you delete all of those? If the history section is to demonstrate different moments in time, the IRT strike is important. It is taught in university Economics of Labor Relations classes. I reverted it....but first I annotated the text into my own words so as not to require quotation marks, and maintained the original citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbowersox (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the section, but generally we should avoid long quotes, and long quotes must have quotation marks and should be block quotes.LedRush (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism has a number of definitions, simply citing a work does not absolve one of plagiarism. Note also that I made reference to two issues: WP:Plagiarism and WP:Free_content. I note that the material was reinserted, although slightly edited. Unfortunately it was inserted inappropriately (again) into a section dealing specifically with state violence against trade unions, the IRT material had nothing to do with that. I have created a new section and also incorporated the major points of the text that was cited, which is the phenomenon of college students as strike breakers, something which is noteworthy.--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This was just added to the article, note the sections in bold:

[Union busting]] in America dates back to the Industrial revolution In the 19th century which produced a rapid expansion in factories and manufacturing capabilities. As workers moved away from farm work to factories, mines and other hard labor, they faced harsh working conditions such as long hours, low pay and health risks. Children and women worked in factories and generally received lower pay than men. The government did little to limit these injustices. Labor movements in the industrialized world developed that lobbied for better rights and safer conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_busting&curid=2793123&diff=265743009&oldid=265628767

It appears to have been lifted, with just a couple of word changes, from this web page attributed to Jacob Silverman:

In the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution produced a rapid expansion in factories and manufacturing capabilities. As workers moved away from agricultural work to factories, mines and other hard labor, many faced terrible working conditions: long hours, low pay and health risks. Many children worked in factories, and women and children generally received lower pay than men. The government did little to limit these injustices, and in the United States, along with much of the industrialized world, labor movements developed that lobbied for better rights and safer conditions.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/labor-union.htm

It seems to me the language is too close to a copy/paste. The slight editing doesn't obscure the obvious similarity in content, sentence after sentence. Note that even the strange wording (developed that lobbied) was copied verbatim.

There are other, similar examples. In my view, this sort of lazy re-writing of someone else's work is unacceptable.

Anyone? Richard Myers (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We should change it sufficiently and give the correct citation. Do you want or do you want me to take a stab?LedRush (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free. But as often as this seems to be happening lately, at some point in time the whole article should be checked for such similarities to other content. It would be much easier if such contributions were not made in the first place. I'm outta here for a while... best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, I gave it a working over. Tell me what you think. I agree that it is a pain in the rump to have to discover and change plagarism. Alas, my job is picking up speed meaning I anticipate having far less time for Wikipedia in the near future (I always find a way somehow, though.)LedRush (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction rewritten

I have rewritten the introduction as follows:

"Union busting is a term used to describe the activity of hindering workers from exercising the universal human right to freedom of association in the workplace. Such activity is generally undertaken by employers, or their proxies, although states and governments may also engage in union busting. This may take the form of violent suppression, the sponsorship of organizations to subvert trade unions, legal limitations to freedom of association and the creation of employer-controlled trade unions."

The introduction which was in place was too much of a mish-mash and somewhat North American centric (a slight problem with this article). See lead section, the intro seemed to have veered very far from that ideal.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This section is totally unacceptable from a NPOV standpoint. I intend to revert it, and I hope that you will not revert it again until we can hash out something acceptable to everyone here. The short list of reasons is basically:

1. hindering is a negative word and not NPOV in regard to what these people do 2. I don't know of any source to claim that forming a union is a universal human right. It is clearly not universal as it doesn't universally exist. 3. "Violent suppression" is the first example? Really? 4. "legal limitations to freedom of expression association"...if they are legal, why are we phrasing them in the most negative light possible?

Again, I know you have aggressively moved in to editing this article, but I hope you will not get into an edit war and that the old language can remain until a consensus is reached for fair knew language. This article has been around for a while so I hope we can have some patience in improving it.LedRush (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't know of any source that forming or joining a trade union is a universal human right? It was linked in the introduction...it's something mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would suggest reading it. Violent suppression of unions is a very common phenomenon throughout the world (the article is not just about North America). Also you don't put your case very well, when you do not even quote correctly what was written. We are talking about freedom of association.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected my mistake. Hopefully you can try and intelligently counter what I've argued rather than criticizing my word processing skills. While you are right that this is listed in the declaration, my base argument remains: it is obviously not universal if not universally allowed. And quite honestly, I should have brought it up as it is not central to my arguments against your POV language. The point of union busting is not the denial of basic human rights as stated in your language.LedRush (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not criticise your word processing skills. As for "hopefully you can try and intelligently" "I know you have aggressively moved in" see WP:weasel. The criticisms were valid and factual. Further to the matter of universality see below.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I was beaten to the punch.LedRush (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was writing at exactly the same time as you. I agree that "human right" needs to be left out. Employees who want to remain union free have rights too. The intro of this article is the most important as in any piece of literature the forward or opening chapter introduces the whole book so you are right it will take patience. However, out of respect for the editors I rewrote and kept the section about Freedome of Association although I don't believe it belongs and returned Richard Myers contributions about strikebreakers ( I presume they were his). I added back in the "triggers" to union busting because it does not happen in a vacuum or because (as Freedom of Assoc implied) people aren't permitted to congregate. Also, I added back the cross reference words because, as I've stated, "union busting" has many cross references and meanings to others outside of the "language of labor". Thank you. --Jbowersox (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)jbowersox--Jbowersox (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that the issue of human rights should be left out. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very clear, as is the Freedom of Association Convention. Also the re-written introduction now contains numerous errors of grammar and includes matters which are not introductory and are utterly specific to the USA (the NLRB, PATCO strike).--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. This is an argument that needs to be explored. Please be patient and hear me out. This is why I have been arguing about the words Union Busting vs Union Avoidance. The concepts and activities are different. Union membership between EU, Canada and the U.S. is different as well and I suggest that to try and be everything to everyone is too difficult. This article, to use your words, is a monumental effort but has ended in a "mish mash" of language and concepts. It must give space to both employee and employer activities to be NPOV. There is a lack of differentiation between legal and/or illegal. There is little differentiation to "historical" union busting and its evolution to "contemporary" union avoidance. Union Busting has changed dramatically over the years and the history section shows that to an extent starting with violence in the early 1900's but there is an appearance in this article that you want to claim these activities still occur. But they don't. Laws have been passed. Times have changed. That evolution is not readily apparent to a reader to understand that Union Avoidance was born and remains a legal expression of an employer's right to remain union free as much as "organizing" is an expression of an employee's right to join a union. The old history is no longer part of contemporary norm activity. However, I grant you, some countries haven't progressed and have few laws protecting workers "human rights". The "Declaration" you reference is written to address slavery for the most part. That is not the case in the U.S. in most workplaces with the exception of some Asian sweat shops and slave rings that continue to be uncovered. And perhaps this article needs to be broken down into two separate ones addressing European vs U.S. labor standards or perhaps Asian? But that would require major rework. To argue this is too North American may be true but then that can be fixed by simply adding the words U.S. Union Busting to the title.

Most European's are unaware that supervisors cannot be part of U.S. bargaining units as they can in the EU and therefore don't understand the makeup of bargaining units or use of supervisors as communicators during organizing drives. Most Americans don't understand that many EU workers join unions even though their union is not "recognized" at their workplace. EU/UK workers are not required to pay dues. All union members in the U.S. pay dues. The US conducts "representation elections" whereas the UK/EU conducts "recognition elections" at workplaces even though workers are already members. In the US if a worker terminates employment at a workplace it generally terminates his/her membership in that particular union, no so in the UK/EU. So yes, there are some major differences. But if an editor is merely trying to provide a reader with an example of "government" sponsored union busting as I did with PATCO, I would ask our European or Canadian contributors provide a requisite example in a side by side footnote or, separate this article as I suggested above between countries or continents.

As for the issue of Human Rights....yes there is an passage (essentially anti slavery) in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as follows:

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

However, there is also the following:

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

All of the above are rights protected under laws in the United States. Not so much in other countries. Workers according to Article 23 have a right to form a union and, conversely in Article 20 have a right to remain union free. This is the big argument. You cannot cite one without the other. Workers have a right to disseminate information about joining a union but cannot force or compel membership. Workers and employers have a right to disseminate information about remaining union free but cannot prevent membership. Both of those rights are protected (In the United States) by NLRB sanctioned secret ballot representation elections which offers protection of ALL workers rights pro or con. Its a thorny issue. I contend "human right", as you want to use it in the introduction, is far too broad and too POV and requires reference to both Articles 20 and 23. Or just leave it out. --Jbowersox (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)jbowersox--Jbowersox (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please get your facts correct. Article 23 of the UDHR is about labour rights and working conditions, it has nothing do with slavery. Provisions against slavery are outlined in Article 4. Article 20, clause 2 is not a right not to join a trade union, rather the clause acts to reinforce the right to association and assembly free from coercion or compulsion. Unfortunately, you confuse the right to freedom of speech with the right to freedom of association. A person has the right to tell someone not to join a trade union (speech), but does not have the right to hinder that person from joining a trade union (association), hence the term union-busting....what this article is meant to be about. However, given that the wage-labour workplace is inherently unequal in terms of power relations between an employer and a worker, and a place where workers' freedom of speech is heavily curtailed under law, employers' speech against joining or forming trade unions is by simple fact of the employment relationship more than speech alone; such speech carries with it the explicit power to terminate employment, thus an employer's speech against joining a trade union cannot be equated with a worker's speech in support of joining a trade union.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the US an employer is prohibited by law from telling an employee(s) NOT to join a union. However an employer is NOT prohibited from communicating its position on unionization. Two very different things. Unions are free to communicate their positions as well. Union organizing, freedom of association and speech are protected by law. Employers may communicate the company position, what they know about a particular union, restrictive work rules, strike record, dues etc. such that an employee can make an informed decision without hearing just the union position. This legal activity is what you call "union busting". If organizers observe aggressive unlawful behavior they can file an Unfair Labor Practice charge or ULP. If an employer observes "aggressive" behavior from an employee that appears threatening to others or interferes with company productivity, they may terminate that person. Most employers do not terminate an "employee" organizer and if they do there must be just cause. Lawfully communicating a company position regarding unions does not translate to "hindering" joining a trade union and or constitute an unfair labor practice (ULP) or violation of human rights. Union busting is not targeted at free association but rather negative communications from organizers and interference with productivity.Jbowersox (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Universal Human Right to Join Trade Unions

There is a universal human right to form and join trade unions. It is clearly stated in the UDHR and recognised in international law. As part of the UDHR it is a universal right which applies in all jurisdictions whether or not a nation has laws supporting or negating that right. It is a positive right. The right to freedom of association is not a right not to join a trade union, per se, rather it is the right to freely associate (which is not about "gathering"), that is, the right to form organisations free from compulsion or coercion. This has nothing to do with slavery (which is covered under conventions dealing with forced labour). There is a great deal of literature and sources on this, it is utterly NPOV. It needs to form part of the article as union busting is clearly about stopping or hindering workers from exercising the right to form or join a trade union.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it isn't clear at all. Union busters, to my knowledge, don't want to abridge the right to form trade unions...they want to stop a union from forming or existing at a specific company. There is a subtle, but incredibly important difference.LedRush (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about union busting. Which means all forms of union busting (not just something happening in contemporary North America). The primary goal of union busting is to stop trade unions forming, to stop workers joining trade unions or to subvert trade unions for the interests of employers. There is a universal human right to join and form trade unions free from intimidation, coercion or compulsion. It is simple. Whether it is a shot-gun, a legal court, a government or a company, the tool and (physical) impact may be different, but the principle of union-busting is the same: hindering workers from exercising the human right to join and form trade unions.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but not only do I disagree with that assessment, I disagree with your presentation of it.LedRush (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try and be specific. Are you denying that there is a universal human right to join and form trade unions? If so, by what basis do you deny this when it is part of the UDHR? Given this is an article about stopping people from joining or forming trade unions and the methods used to achieve that, the universal human right to join a trade union is of central importance in explaining the legitimacy and legality of union busting.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been specific. Please try reading my response above, quoted here: Union busters, to my knowledge, don't want to abridge the right to form trade unions...they want to stop a union from forming or existing at a specific company. There is a subtle, but incredibly important difference.LedRush (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Union-busting is a global phenomenon. It includes a huge range of activities, from the ones you and Jbowersox exclusively focus on, to actions like the Iranian government imprisioning and threatening to execute trade unionists [3], threats against organisers in Bangladesh[4], or a multinational company's anti-union actions in the Philippines[5]. Even if I was to accept your argument, which I do not, union busting cannot be limited to the narrow range of activities you focus on, hence it stands that the overall objective (in global contemporary and historic terms) of union busting is to deny workers their right to join or form trade unions.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer has already been explained Article 20 vs Article 23 of UDHR? There is no "unilateral" right defined in UDHR but rather "equal" and "bilateral rights". No one in this discussion has intimated that people do not have a right to join a union. They do (Article 23)! But they also have a right NOT to join a union (Article 20). There are books and websites speaking to this written by WORKERS. All workers do not desire unions. As for your premise that the primary goal of union busting is to stop or subvert trade unions for the "interest of employers", you ignore "the interests of workers" who do NOT want to join a union. You've got to develop a biopic vision here. Your premise would require that 100% of workers want to be in a union!! You ignore that anti union activity starts with the "WORKERS"! There are 1,000's of elections (in the US) that resulted in a NO vote where NO "union busters" were present. Most companies can't afford professional outside help. In the U.S. organizing starts with card signing which means organizers (either professional organizers or workers) distribute cards to determine workers' interest in a union. Most employers are fully unaware of card signing. Workers who do not want join either refuse cards or check "NO". It is a form of WORKER union busting! Organizing isn't pursued without sufficient evidence of future success via "cards". Why? They do not want to invest organizing expense for no return (union dues) and they don't want a "defeat" permanently recorded at the NLRB. WORKERS often seek their employer's protection by REPORTING card signing, again, "worker" union busting. If, according to your premise, workers felt their "human rights" were being violated by not being unionized, why do they vote NO? Voting is voluntary and not coerced. Don't misunderstand me. The reverse is true too. Organizing drives are started by workers for union protection too. But UDHR protects "human rights" both to join and not to join and you cannot express one without the other and "union busting" is expressed by workers AND employers. --Jbowersox (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)jbowersox--Jbowersox (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So, on one thing we have consensus: there is a universal human right to join a trade union as codified in the UDHR Article 20, clause 4. I will reinsert that back into the introduction. However, as I have stated repeatedly above (which no one has responded to), there is no right not to join a trade union in the UDHR. The right to freedom of association protects individuals from coerced or compelled actions by others, which in this case means you cannot be forced or compelled to join an association or organisation (be it a trade union, a political party or an employer's federation) against your will. You have the right to join a trade union (free from coercion and compulsion), but not joining a trade union is choosing not to exercise that right, that is, it is not a right per se. You don't have a right not to join a trade, you chose whether to exercise the right to join a trade union. Therefore it stands that union-busting is hindering the exercise of the universal human right to join a trade union.--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We are still in disagreement. The "human right" argument you promote is taken directly out of the Teaching Guide from the AFL CIO Organizers Handbook and not objective in the least. If you reinsert it then Article 20 must be included as well . You cannot insist that union busting is strictly "employer" against "employees" and refuse to recognize that employees resist and stop union organizing as well at the front lines during card signing. There seems to be a whole part of the rights of employees during organizing you are in denial about. To talk about employers violating human rights is right out of the AFLCIO handbook but I'm too tired to find the exact words and ref it here. I'll do it tomorrow. If this is the way you want to take this article then WORKERS must be included in the list of union busters according to your definitions. Good night...Jbowersox (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the AFL-CIO handbook you are talking about, can you provide a reference? It should probably be linked in the article. You still have failed to explain in the UDHR how there is a right not to join a trade union. Simply mentioning an uncited source agrees with my argument hardly refutes it. You need to explain how the UDHR provides a right not to join a trade union. Unfortunately for your arguement it doesn't.

I'd also note that all the anecdotal examples you provide are USA centric. This article should be about the well-documented historical and contemporary global phenomenon of union busting, so I find this continual reference to anti-union actions in the USA rather limiting for an encyclopedia which is meant to be global. As for "You've got to develop a biopic vision" I would remind you of WP:weasel, WP:NPA. Good morning....--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok...sorry....don't want to be a weasel. it's really late and I need sleep and I'm not familiar with Wiki notations but I'll take your word for it. While you were writing I was editing so I'll just paste it in and get to you tomorrow for discussion. By the way....i agree this article is USA centric but I'm not sure it is realistic to try to make it global when laws vary country to country as do organizing and recognition techniques and activities. I'm certainly willing to help in that regard. Good nightJbowersox (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm coming back tonight...just want to get some sleep and get this little task off my mind. The "human right" thing is a campaign tool ...and not taken the same here as perhaps another continent with less progressive labor laws, at least in the US (where are you from?) we associate human rights with torture or gross violations of child labor laws and slave styled sweat shops, its simply not something we hear associated with union organizing. I only just found this handbook and all the reference to human rights surprised me. I have not encountered this used in union campaigns here (or in Europe for that matter). I believe it is a stretch, overly dramatic and used in this context merely as a tool to stir up anti employer emotions. LedRush had a similar reaction. You can see by this handbook its a campaign tool. Jbowersox (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean the "human right thing is a campaign tool"? It is simply a statement of fact: there is a universal human right to join and form trade unions as expressed in the UDHR. The United Nations promotes the UDHR worldwide and in multiple languages [6]. The International Labour Organisation does exactly the same with regard to Convention 87 and promotion of the right to freedom of association, among other things [7]. Because another editor may agree with you is irrelevant. You repeatedly revert to anecodal evidence which fails the WP:Verifiability policy. Where I am from is irrelevant.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

International Dimension

OK friends....I shouldn't be doing this because I'm tired but I'm really interested in helping to clean up this article because it is just too long and too full of sections that have confusing meanings and a tad too much editorializing where the citation becomes meaningless. I believe one of the issues is the blending of strike breaking with counter organizing which is confusing. They are two exceedingly different activities one being universally used BEFORE unions and the other AFTER. The first sentence of this section says "Only in the United States has the struggle between management and labor resulted in such a "contingent of mercenaries" who specialize in breaking strikes." Then the second sentence discusses how "union busters" are seeking markets in other countries. Well each sentence may be true taken separately but they are NOT true placed together with the second sentence modifying and further describing the first. The citation used is a passage from John Logan's paper which simply does not say that. Check it. It does not say that. Strike Breakers have not sought markets in other countries except maybe Canada but then they've been doing that for decades. There are no reports that support Europe which is what this citation is referring to. The most notable EU strike break incident was Gate Gourmet at Heathrow where they fired 100's of unionized employees and brought in replacements. It was carried out by Gate Gourmet and its UK based HR Director named Andrew Cook of Marshall James HR in 2005 a UK based company. As you've described them union busters such as consultants, lawyers, psychologists, etc do not engage in "strikebreaking". They are two different types of agencies. :Putting both under the moniker of union buster is very confusing. I'm going to adjust the "international" section to make more sense. By the way....Logan was specifically speaking of The Burke Group in the citation used. Every law firm in America knows they've been international for decades! The year 2000 is wrong. Its the year their ERA law changed in UK. Perhaps an editor took too much liberty in annotating and inadvertently caused the text to no longer reflect the citation. I'll fix it.Jbowersox (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of exorbitant expenditures=

Not to pile on but this section has big problems too. No objective encyclopedic article should start with the word "Allegations". That word on its face reveals bias because including those particular "allegations" attempt to create an illustration that has no proof or citation......more simply it means "unproven" so why bother include unproven statements? IBEW circulated the allegations during their organizing campaign and Marty Levitt expanded in a youtube video to an IBEW audience. BGE challenged the IBEW on the allegations and no proof or any source was ever brought forward except that they "guessed' that was what was spent. IBEW petitioned essentially every utility company east of the Mississippi to RC elections and it is true that both the IBEW and Utility companies (not just BGE) spent fortune on organizing drives. Those allegations are urban legend and do not belong in an objective encyclopedic article. AFLCIO may have testified to Congress using the allegations...but they provided no proof of them. Unless you include testimony and briefs, "allegations" like this are a distortion of facts and far too complicated to describe in 3 sentences the efforts of IBEW vs Utility industry. The law in this section is already cited and footnoted in the section above titled Tax Payer Funded Union Busting. The rest of this section is best deleted in its entirety unless citations can be provided. It can be reverted if the content can be rewritten with citations. At the very least provide balance by disclosing what IBEW spentJbowersox (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)