Talk:NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co.

POV

I essentially agree with the criticism levied against the decision, but WP:NPOV is fundamental to Wikipedia. This article is thoroughly one-sided. Shoplifter (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• It would be great if you could be specific about that. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should've been more precise. To be honest, I thought it was clear enough so as not to require further elaboration. Approximately one half of the article is devoted to criticism of the opinion. The scant supporting views are mainly used as starting points for further recriminations. Also, extensive blanket criticisms ("worst decision ever", "so poorly decided", "last Lochner decision") are noted without clarifying who the speaker is making the (no doubt contestable) claim. Moreover, weasel words are frequently employed throughout ("some scholars conclude", "many scholars see").

Again, I do think the opinion is deserving of the vociferous criticism it has received. But we have a responsibility to frame that criticism in neutral terms, which includes giving due weight to the opposing view. Surely there must be those who are in favor of it since it has been on the books for more than 70 years. Shoplifter (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since citations say it is universally derided, I don't see how your point is valid. If we follow Wikipedia's undue weight guidelines, then there shouldn't be much discussion of the minority view here. (Frankly, I never found any law review articles praising the decision. If you can find them, that would be terrific - a miracle, even - and I will gladly do the editing to add them.) The phrase "worst decision ever" is not used in the article. The sentence which begins "The ruling is so poorly decided, some scholars conclude, that only the doctrine of..." is not weasel words, if the citation says some scholars (and does not go further in elaborating who) and the citation says it is poorly decided. The article does not use the phrase "last Lochner decision", but rather says "one of the last" as part of an introductory sentence to a long paragraph which discusses this in fuller detail, with citations. That's not being weaselly, that's using a clear clarifier (because it was not the very last of the Court's decisions to rely on Lochner). In each case where you conclude that the words "some" and "many" are used to qualify the number of scholars believing a claim, the scholars making the claim are either clearly cited in the accompanying footnote or the citation itself says "some" or "many." I'm not willing to go against Wikipedia policy by claiming the cited source is blatantly wrong just because I, you, or someone else says so. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV requirement is "to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." (emphasis in original) In other words, from surveying the source material, the space afforded to criticism should be representative of the material taken as a whole. This is as opposed to piling up critical voices from a multitude of different sources. You are obviously well versed in the subject, and if it is your contention that the article as it stands is an accurate reflection of the source material in toto, I won't quarrel further. I would note, however, the decision in TWA v. Flight Attendants, where Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, said:

"On various occasions, we have reaffirmed the holding of Mackay Radio. See NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221, 373 U. S. 232 (1963) ("We have no intention of questioning the continuing vitality of the Mackay rule . . ."); NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U. S. 375, 389 U. S. 379 (1967) (Employers have "legitimate and substantial business justifications' for refusing to reinstate employees who engaged in an economic strike . . . when the jobs claimed by the strikers are occupied by workers hired as permanent replacements during the strike in order to continue operations"); Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U. S. 491, 463 U. S. 504, n. 8 (1983) ("The refusal to fire permanent replacements because of commitments made to them in the course of an economic strike satisfies the requirement . . . that the employer have a `legitimate and substantial justification' for its refusal to reinstate strikers")." [1]

This seems to me to cut against the notion of unequivocal opposition, but I leave it to you (and any other concerned editors, obviously) to make the final judgement. Shoplifter (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• There issue of the Court's continuing reliance on Mackay Radio is briefly addressed in the article ("...only the doctrine of stare decisis can account for its continuing use by the Court.") One supposes that Dred Scott was also routinely reaffirmed and supported by numerous Court decisions, yet it, too, was widely derided by the legal community. Lochner and San Antonio Indep. School Dist. are other instances. This is not to say that the Court could not have arrived at the holding in Mackay Radio by another means; I've seen at least one law article speculate that it could have, and on firmer legal grounds. (One reads law review articles criticizing Roe v. Wade for its poor legal reasoning, while nevertheless strongly upholding the conclusion of Roe.) I tried very hard to find law review articles discussing Mackay Radio in a positive way, but found none. Where Mackay is mentioned positively, the comments are perfunctory. Mackay Radio is praised in bland, general terms in some publications, but I avoided those because of a) their nonneutrality, b) the brief nature of the comments, and because c) they were not legal publications (e.g., general interest works). I similarly avoided publications supportive of Mackay which also violated these criteria. I would love to include in this article neutral, third-party articles (legal or not) which provide arguments in favor of Mackay. I would love to add the in-depth substance of these supportive rationales to the article. I never found them. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've made my point, and unless anyone else is concerned, I yield to your assessment. Feel free to remove the template. Shoplifter (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The rise of strikebreakers after Mackay

A contributor added an NPOV tag to the sentence "Consequently, 'the most remarkable phenomenon in the representation process in the past quarter-century has been an astronomical increase in unfair labor practices by employers'." The problem is it is a factual statement about the rise in ULPs after Mackay. If there were another development in the American federal labor relations mechanism that has seen an "astronomical" increase post-Mackay, then we'd have an NPOV issue which could be dealt with in the text and in footnotes. Until then... - Tim1965 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)