Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

George Woodcock

Hello everyone. I have noticed that the entry for George Woodcock (trade unionist) looks somewhat neglected. Seeing as the chap is from the same village as me (Bamber Bridge), and went to the same school, I thought that I would have a go over the coming weeks and months to expand upon it. Any one who wishes to help out is most welcome - I am a bit of a newbie and any help is appreciated! Charlie odd 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

categories

Hi -- I'm going through the Category:Organizations and there really needs to be a cat for organized labour orgs. I propose Category:Labor organizations -- thoughts? Is it better to use the UK spelling "organisations" ? Or is there another cat name altogether? --lquilter 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Others with more knowledge of cat-sorting should chime in, but I think the better, more acceptable term would be "trade union". Although that term has its faults (it tends not to capture the sense of what a "union" is in the U.S. and some other countries, may not include or emphasize white-collar work), it avoids the spelling problem that gives everyone a wedgie over on the category-sorting project. - Tim1965 14:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I wanted to also mention there is the Category:Trade unions, with its many geographic and industry-related subcategories. - Tim1965 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry I wasn't clearer earlier. I'm trying to figure out how to categorize other orgs other than unions -- like for instance Labor Relations Boards, Labor arts orgs, labor-oriented archives, and so on. So there needs to be an overall orgs structure. I think Category:Trade unions is fine as it is, and should probably be left within Labor cat and also a subcat within Labor orgs. But we need some kind of orgs structure to pick up non-union labor-related orgs. --lquilter 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Just to muddy the water, I want to raise the issue, too, of union-related enterprises, like banks, credit card companies, or investment funds (like the kind pensions invest in to create union construction jobs). They're not trade unions, either, but may be controlled by them (or not). And by the way, I absolutely agree there needs to be a nonunion-but-labor-related category. In the United States, these are called "pre-union organizations"; but this is a misnomer, as many are actually post-union (in the sense of post-modern) organizations. Others—like sex worker assistance groups, day-laborer organizations and workers rights centers—have no intention of becoming unions but are pro-worker and pro-workers' rights. I will try to give this some thought, but I am not good at Wiki categories. - Tim1965 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• How about an initial category scheme:

top categories: Category:Labor and Category:Organizations

Labor organizations (whatever spelling)

Trade unions (which should also be in the Category:Labor and in Category:Organizations because it is so central)

Union enterprises (e.g., union credit unions, and so on) (alternatives, "Union businesses")

Labor arts and culture organizations (e.g., labor cultural & history groups) (alternatives, "arts and research", "arts and history", "arts and culture" ???)

Worker assistance programs (e.g., sex worker assistance groups, day labor orgs, worker rights law clinics, etc.)

Labor-relations organizations (e.g., state labor relations boards, arbitration fora, etc.)

Spelling, alternative categories, or additional category suggestions? --lquilter 06:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've learned from the battles Bookandcoffee has engaged in over at Wiki Category Sorting Proj. that we have to stay away from using the term "labor" (due to the Commonwealth's refusal to submit obediently to American spelling-and-grammar imperialism - ha ha). And we have to stay away from the term "union" all by itself (student union? political union? European Union? "union" has too many interpretations). :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• The point about both labor (spelling) & unions (meaning) is well-taken. Still some container cat would be helpful to collect these labor-related topics. Other proposals: Category:Organized labor organizations (which is meaningful but, obviously, bad); Category:Labor union organizations (but that seems a bit too specifically tied to unions); Union and labor organizations (a little bit lengthier than I like categories to be but by including both terms makes the meaning plain, I think). The last is my favorite. --lquilter 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• What about just Trade Union organizations?? I think it would help with the Category Sorting folks, because "Trade Union" is an established term already. An alternative would be Quasi-trade union organizations. - Tim1965 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with adding Category:Trade unions to the Category:Organizations hierarchy. Remember, though, that categories need not be branching trees, necessarily. It can stand on its own as a category without needing to "be under" Category:Organizations. :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's a Category:Unions in the top category Category:Organizations, and it contains trade unions, student unions, and "monetary unions" (I guess that's credit unions)? --lquilter 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think that's both a category sorting problem (things are going there which shouldn't go there) and also a terminology issue ("union" can mean anything, from African Union to trade union to student union). I don't want to get involved in sorting that out! (ha ha!) - Tim1965 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the wording of Category:Trade union enterprises. Should it be "business enterprises", though? I like "enterprises," but is that global enough in view? (I don't know, I'm just raising the issue.) :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• You should like the wording, I think it was yours! "Business enterprises" I believe is too global, and would run the risk of getting mixed up with various non-labor-related businesses, like Category:Business organizations and whatever category actual businesses are in. The Category:Trade union enterprises (or variant name) should be classed both in our labor-related orgs cat, and in the various non-labor business cats. --lquilter 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the wording of Category:Trade union arts and culture organizations. :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest an alternative for non-union worker organizations: Category:Workers' rights programs. We need to be careful, because left-wing political terminology utilizes the word "worker" as well, but is often not about workers as workers but as a socio-economic class (if that makes sense). "Workers' organization" is too broad and vague. "Workers assistance programs" is...well, patronizing, I think (as if the program assists the worker, and is not run by or controlled by workers). And the programs we are talking about do not merely assist workers (with getting work visas, for example) but are about protecting workers' rights to self-organization (for whatever purpose), rights to health and safety, rights to dignity and respect, etc. So I want to put in my vote for "workers' rights organization." It also has the added benefit of language used in an existing stub, which would help us pass muster with the Wiki gods. :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• That sounds good - I like your alternative. Unions will probably also get added to this cat even though it's elsewhere in the hierarchy. But that's okay; I think some useful redundancy is fine. --lquilter 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree: Redundancy is all right. Categories are not like trees, and one is not subordinate to another. I think it's fine if something gets placed more than one place; it makes it easier to find things. - Tim1965 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a category for labor-relations organizations. There are existing categories for this (such as Category:Labour relations, various Category:Independent governmental agencies of the Insert Country Here and so on). :- Tim1965 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, well, labour relations might be the right thing, although I think it's broader than organizations. But "independent govtal agencies" is too broad and not labor-specific. But I won't touch this category until I've looked around it more and gotten a better sense of it. --lquilter 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps the answer is to come up with a sub-category called Category:Trade union law of InsertCountryHere. I'd prefer to use the term "Labo(u)r Relations", but want to keep away from that due to spelling issues. The benefit here is that we could make it a sub-category of Category:National laws of InsertCountryHere as well as Category:Independent governmental agencies of the InsertCountryHere and Category:Labour relations. But it is also broad enough a category that we could put law as well as governmental agencies in the category. And national, regional, state and local law fits under there as well. Comments? - Tim1965 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that “nonunion-but-labor-related” is a very important area. In some ways it is unfortunate that we didn’t just call this project WikiProject Labour to reflect that the field is much larger than trade unions and their structures.

I’d like to toss out an alternative approach for you to think about. I think Tim is on the mark with noting that categories are very flexible here and don’t need to reflect a hierarchal tree – but to go one step farther, I’ve also run into difficulties (well, just realities really) when making category schemes. IMO, the problem shows up when there is a good category structure created, but not a lot of related articles to fill the structure. Others inevitably come along and consolidate or remove empty/small cats.

Perhaps consider rounding up all (or as many as you like) of the articles you think would benefit from these new categories (maybe in User:Lquilter/Sandbox? :) , and then see what you have, and which cats are worth making right now. There’s nothing to say that the cats can’t be expanded or renamed as more articles come along. Even if there is a larger restructuring down the road – it’s the decision making, not the actual renaming that consumes most of the energy.

I guess I’m just suggesting that you start with as few new cats as possible, and then after you’ve put everything into those cats have another look, and divide as needed.

The advantage is that when there is a conflict about the actual name you decide on (and there will be :) there won’t be much discussion about whether the cat is needed, just the name to be used. And both of you seem more interested about the content, and not overly invested in “getting your way” when it comes to the name… (which, incidentally, is another mistake I’ve made along the way :)

The disadvantage is that this takes more energy, and doesn’t work as quickly, but it also might show up new ideas or better directions. Just a thought.--Bookandcoffee 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, whatever we use for the "non-organized-labor" category, we already have three groups to put there: Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates, Workers' Awaaz and Chinese Staff and Workers' Association. It's not my doing, either; lots of work by lots of others. Let's populate the category! - Tim1965 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good ideas Tim1965 and Bookandcoffee -- I'll start working on it over the next week or so. (I'm a little backlogged.) If one of you is raring to go feel free to get started & I'll help out in your space, or wait for me -- whichever! --lquilter 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New Articles

I removed the "older" new articles from before September 2006 on the New Wikipedia articles related to Organized Labour section. Everyone is doing a great job of adding info (most notably Tim1965, Warofdreams and Dave Smith... wow.) Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Article for this project's inclusion - Joe Serna, Jr.

Mayor Joe Serna, Jr. was a key supporter of the UFW in Sacramento, CA for many years. He deserves to be a part of your project. Please place your project tag on his talkpage. Cheers, Ronbo76 04:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Editting Dilemma, Bill Haywood Article

I have made some corrections to the Bill Haywood article. Am finishing his autobiography, about to start another book about him, so hopefully will have some contributions soon.

However, i have an editting dilemma with one particular point. The article states, within a reference, that "The WFM initiated a series of strikes to combat the brutal working conditions and starvation wages."

I believe this brief treatment leaves an erroneous impression; the strikes were intended to extend the union to new areas (specifically, the mill workers.) The strikers who became the focal point of the repression had been unionized; they were elsewhere-- in the Cripple Creek area; and, they were paid comparatively well.

Almost invariably, any historical account focuses on these miners, because that's where all the shooting and killing occurred. Thus, while "starvation wages" may be accurate in describing the not-yet-organized mill workers, it is innacurate in describing the miners of Cripple Creek, where their very militant unionism had greatly improved living standards for most of the community.

This situation is discussed in two other works, in Suggs but also in Jameson, which is considered the definitive account of the strike.

Since the existing text occurs inside someone else's reference, i'm reluctant to simply make the change. I could use another source to replace this one, but i'm not sure that's the best approach. Anyone have suggestions how to handle situations such as this one?

Mentioned briefly in Talk:Bill Haywood Richard Myers 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that it's merely a matter of clarification. How about this for a solution? "The WFM initiated a series of strikes designed to extend the benefits of the union to other workers, who suffered from brutal working conditions and starvation wages." - Tim1965 16:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that. I'm uneasy about adding text to someone else's referenced sentence, but that wording is pretty non-controversial, in my view. I think it will work. Thanks! Richard Myers 23:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible editing dispute brewing

I've commented on the talk page of a labor article that i feel has some passages with a conservative bias. There's nothing outrageous there, but i would like to see some changes in the wording of a few passages. Because these issues are both subtle and potentially contentious, i have not made any edits to the article, and have only made some observations.

The author of (at least some of) those passages has dismissed my concerns, recommending that i read a book by a conservative historian before complaining. I find that unhelpful-- i've read fairly extensively on these issues, and i have also been published in the subject area (labor strikes by coal miners.)

I wonder if a few others could look at my observations on the talk page and weigh in?

Talk:Coal_Strike_of_1902#Problems_with_this_article

I don't want to make a big issue of this, but i would like to see if anyone shares my concerns about how some labor articles are presented. Perhaps some proposals for more neutral wording would be acceptable to all. Richard Myers 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I will take a look. (I already cleaned up the terrible references section.) But, I would suggest slapping the {{NPOV}} (Dispute Neutral Point of View) tag on the top of the page to alert people that there is a problem. This will help draw the attention of other editors and help resolve the conflict. I think you are also right to discuss the changes on the Talk page. But "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. ... Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community." And that you should "Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles..." (see Wikipedia:Five pillars)

I also want to point out Wikipedia's guideline on this at Tagging unsourced material. Not a dang thing in that article is sourced. And some of it is harmful or blatantly misleading. "If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense." Feel free to remove and place it on the Talk page, and make him provide a citation. :)

You have pointed out language you feel is inaccurate. You have cited sources on the Talk page. The other individual is non-responsive. Go ahead and make the edits you feel are justified. Include in-line citations so that your changes are cited (making it hard for someone to remove or revert them without getting a charge of vandalism slapped on them).

I know the other person's going to come back with "Prof. Weirbe says..." But you can shoot right back with "But other scholars challenged Wierbe..." and provide six or 10 or 30 citations to prove Wierbe wrong. This other person is relying almost solely on Wierbe, and occasionally on non-labor biographies of Roosevelt (which don't really cover the strike well). This other person is giving undue weight to Wierbe. Point out the rules about undue weight, and challenge him. He won't be able to respond; he's got one, wacky source. If need be, we can get an Editor involved and do dispute resolution. But I bet this guy will give up long before then. - Tim1965 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the guidance and the helpful suggestions. I have applied the NPOV tag. However, while i have quite a lot of sources on strikes in western coal fields of the U.S. sitting on my shelf, i don't have so many about strikes in the east. Therefore i'll have to acquire some additional books. If anyone else wishes to initiate the appropriate revisions to Coal Strike of 1902, they are quite welcome to do so.

But also, i believe that some of the objectionable statements could simply be deleted, thereby removing some disputed and distracting material, without affecting the historical account at all. Richard Myers 04:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that one editor is a self-proclaimed Wobblie and while the IWW played zero role in the 1902 strike (it did not exist yet), he wants to impose a Wobblie attack on the leaders of the coal miners (esp Mitchel), as well as a deep animus toward the AFL. That is nasty POV and simply ignores the scholarly literature. Wiebe (spelled thus) has not been attacked by 30 other scholars. In addition to Wiebe the article is supported by 13 other scholarly books and articles. The critics cite zero scholarship. The Wiki rules are that we reflect the reliable scholarship, not the personal Wobblie ideology of one editor who seems to have read none of the scholarship. Rjensen 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This "self-proclaimed Wobblie" spent 33 years as a member, officer, steward, and safety rep in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, an AFL-CIO union, for what its worth. Criticizing someone for the union they belong to is risky, especially if you do not know their history.

But none of this has anything to do with the merits of arguments concerning the POV status of the article under discussion. Richard Myers 04:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to Richard Myers if I misrepresented him as a Wobblie, but he says on his own user page " I have also spent fifteen years as an Industrial Workers of the World supporter/member." His coments reflect a Haywood/IWW hatred of UMW (dating from a later episode after 1902). Much worse is he refuses to read any of the scholarship. Rjensen 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the idea that the article(s) are developing a pro-industry bias. For example, I see little to no mention of the Coal and Iron Police who between 1866 and 1933 essentially represented the coal and iron industry's private army. This is, incidently, not hyperbole on my part. I can cite several sources, such as Katherine Mayo's 1917 work Justice to All, with a foreword by Theodore Roosevelt referring to the "lawless capitalists who used the law-defying Coal and Iron Police." (page x) As someone who is in the process of reading coroner's inquest reports from the 1900s I would say at the very least the dangerous nature of the work needs to be stressed. It is not possible to understand the growth of the labor movement without sufficient context. Whatever the talking points of both sides, it cannot be questioned that the work could be lethal and a worker's death could mean leaving a family to be thrown out in the cold.

DeciusAemilius 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anna Lo Pezza article deletion

User:Richard_Myers/Anna_Lo_Pezza Someone deleted this brand new article relating to the Bread and Roses strike in Lawrence because the individual wasn't notable. Currently under deletion review. Please see what YOU think — and let me know... Richard Myers 11:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• After reading the article, I think I would support the deletion. As your research points out, it was not the person who was important (I know how sick that sounds, but bear with me) but her death. The article contains no personal information about her, about her role in the strike (except for her death, which was not by her choice; her importance came after her death, so to speak), or her role in worker organization prior to the strike. It's an article about the Lawrence textile strike. You provided good research, and I would instead integrate that into the Lawrence textile strike article (as appropriate; the article is already quite long). - Tim1965 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Result of Deletion Review process — article returned to previous status, moved to corrected name: Anna LoPizzo. Thanks to everyone who supported preserving this labor history. Richard Myers 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please vote in the Anti-globalization and antisemitism article deletion debate

The deletion debate can be found here J.R. Hercules 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Article: Violence in industrial disputes

Violence in industrial disputes offers examples of unions committing violence, yet without any citations or links. The article attempts to offer a balance on the question of violence in industrial disputes, yet fails to provide the rigorous documentation that is necessary for such a topic.

The article hasn't been edited very much recently, so these problems are probably long-standing. It would be great if someone could find the time to adopt this article and do it justice.

I think that a section on the history of violence in industrial disputes would also be a valuable addition. Richard Myers 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories -- labor leaders, union members

I will readily admit that i don't know everything there is to know about categories. But a fellow editor, User:CalJW seems to be changing the categorization of massive numbers of labor articles, some of them in a way that makes no sense to me.

I'll offer two examples:

Steve Adams (Western Federation of Miners) was a member of the WFM who happened to be tried on murder charges. Presumably because he's "notable" in that sense, User:CalJW has reclassified him into the category American labor leaders. But his description in the article as "a thirty-nine-year-old former Kansas City butcher and Cripple Creek miner" doesn't suggest leadership in any sense that i can fathom.

IWW member Eric Chester is described in the article about him as "an active member in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)" (emphasis added). User:CalJW has reclassified him into the category Industrial Workers of the World leaders.

User:CalJW has visited a lot of union related pages, always leaving the word (recategorised) in the description of his actions. Probably the majority of these changes are valid and helpful. But i'm wondering throughout all of the labor related articles on Wikipedia, how many notable union members are being turned into leaders, and why. These two examples may, of course, have been accidental — i haven't yet received an explanation. But fellow editors may wish to check their own articles for similar "recategorization" errors. Richard Myers 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup: check other categories as well. User:CalJW assigned the living persons category tag to William Trautmann, which would make the fellow more than 130 years old. User:CalJW's contributions may be found here, if you'd like to skim through for articles of possible concern: Special:Contributions/CalJW — Richard Myers 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard, have you asked CalJW to discuss this, perhaps inviting that user here? — coelacan — 20:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting for a response, which i now see at: User_talk:CalJW#Incorrect_categorizations

I'm a little confused — i don't see how the proposed solution will solve the problem(s), in fact i don't understand the problem as explained; but then i don't know the precise nature of the category structure. I'll explore this further, try to gain an understanding, then return here later. Richard Myers 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric Chester was already in the IWW leaders category, actually, and has been there since 11 July.[1] On Steve Adams, it looks like CalJW is trying to get people into "labor by nationality" categories, and there was only a "labor leaders by nationality" for some of them. CalJW is now proposing renaming of "labor leader" categories to "trade unionist" categories, which would catch both leaders and members. Seems like that would be okay, although I'm not 100% sure. Other opinions? — coelacan — 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

related CFR

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:Labor leaders, a proposed renaming. — coelacan — 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

centralized discussion of category naming

Hi CalJW. Richard Myers has suggested merging both Category:Labor leaders and Category:Trade unionists to Category:Labor unionists (rationale here). Is that something you could support? — coelacan — 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because its just as much American English as the existing version, and more confusing. It sounds like it is something to do with the Labour Party to my British ears rather than a trade union category at all. The furthest I could accept moving toward American English would be category:Trade unionists and labor unionists. CalJW 14:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh. Well, of course, we Americans don't have a functional labor labour party.

For me, the most inclusive category with a compound name would be category:Trade unionists and industrial unionists.

That would translate, in the American concept, to the equivalent of category:Craft unionists and industrial unionists. I don't know what it would sound like to British ears, but hopefully something similar.

One possible down side to that is, someone from France or Spain or Italy will then say, if we're accepting compound names, that it should be category:Trade unionists and industrial unionists and syndicalist unionists. But i suppose we need to draw the line somewhere.

This international union terminology is a sticky situation. Richard Myers 15:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Another issue is, assuming we find a suitable general category title, how do we best get there?

I'm not that familiar with the category structure, so please correct me if i'm wrong — we could do this as a two step process, leaving the current proposal as is, which would merge two categories under one name. The name "Trade unionists" is flawed from the American point of view, in that it would be acceptable to most American craft unionists, but it would seem to exclude American industrial unionists. However, after the categories are merged, we could explore a name change to a more inclusive category title under a separate, follow-up proposal?

Or would it be better to do it all at once? Richard Myers 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Between them Category:Labor leaders and category:Trade unionists are in Category:Labor, Category:Trade unions, Category:Activists and Category:People by occupation. If the merged category is in all those, I should think that will provide sufficient access routes. It is also possible to create all the category redirects you might think necessary by adding {{categoryredirect|Name of actual category}} to categories at the alternative names. CalJW 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(the above was copied from user talk:CalJW)

I think that "labor unionists" or "labour unionists" works fine. It's used in the USA, it's used in the UK, in Canada, and in Australia. It includes trade/craft unionists and industrial unionists. And if we want to get away from subdividing leaders and members (something I think is a good idea as the boundaries are not always clean-cut), it catches both leaders and members. Everyone's a labor unionist (or labour unionist). I've made this centralized discussion area and I'm inviting everyone who's commented in the CFDs so far, because I don't think that these CFDs are giving enough room and time to discuss what amount to fairly large changes. What's everyone's take on this? — coelacan — 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think 'labor union', 'labor unionists', etc is the more general term while the other names are subsets of this term. This does not appear to be unique to American English, but even it were and other Foo English did not have such a general term, it would still be useful (nothing in WP says do not use American English). Compound names of these subsets would be incomplete and just have to get longer later as labor organizations evolve. Not good. Hmains 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the categories are not huge, do you think it's a good idea to have merged categories like "Canadian trade unionists" that would include both members and leaders, without subdividing those groups? I'm partial to this because it reduces work deciding about borderline cases. — coelacan — 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a single category name, not compounded, for the reason that someone mentioned above. However, as i understand it right now, the single substantial objection to what we have so far is possible confusion in some nations between "labor unionist" and the electoral politician category, i.e., "labour party." Can anyone think of a term that would be more satisfactory, and is not a compound name?

As far as the division between "leaders" and "members" of unions, i really don't care too much whether there are separate categories or not. In one sense, the hypertext interlinking indicates notability. Someone who has a lot of links to their article is presumably more notable, and that seems to work pretty well for Google, so it would be nice to have such a status on Wikipedia become more transparent. (Not something we'll solve with a category designation, obviously.)

But assuming there are separate categories, i wish to note that "leader" connotes a particular functionality. A leader may be a member, but they also may not be a member, adding an additional complication.

Generally speaking i would prefer having (something like) "labor unionist" and "prominent labor unionist," or perhaps "labor unionist" and "notable labor unionist." Then, sure, there is still the question of which category is most appropriate. But the scheme is more useful, it seems to me, because some leaders seem a lot less notable than others. And particularly in organized labor, many are very notable who never really had a role that can be described as "leader." Joe Hill, for example, was very notable for several reasons, not one of which was "leading" a union organization. Richard Myers 00:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Prominent" and "notable" in the title of an article is always removed, per WP:PEACOCK. Having either term in the title of a category actually can lead to the category being deleted. Everyone on Wikipedia is notable, per WP:N, or their article gets deleted anyway. So it's best to leave these terms out, especially in titles. I'm liking "unionist" even better now instead of "leader" and "member", because as you point out leaders aren't always members, so a "leaders" category can't be a subcategory of a "members" category. Yet another reason to combine the two and just note their actual status in each article. I'll try to think of something besides "labor unionist" that captures meaning right, however, if we don't come up with anything else I'm not sure it's a huge deal. The UK and Australia both have Labour parties and yet those links I gave earlier show people using the term "labour union" without any fear of confusion. The categories for Labour parties make the "party" explicit, such as Category:UK Labour Party and Category:Labour parties. — coelacan — 06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I still think 'labor unionist' is best for the US with a subcategory of 'labor union leader'. I think this matches the reality of the US. Just 'unionist' should not be used--this term is used in history to denote people fought for or otherwise supported the 'Union'--the North in the American Civil War; other similar usage probably exists also. Various country's categories could be named 'F00 trade unionists' as they are now, if that is the predominant usage in the country. WP does not require consistency over clarity. As far as the overall supercategory for all countries, that could also be left as 'trade unionists by country' as there are more F00 articles of that name. Of more importance than these names is getting all the articles that are directly in the 'Trade Unionist' category into their correct country 'Foo trade unionist' or 'F00 labor unionist' categories. Hmains 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Hmains, I shouldn't have said "unionist"; I wasn't proposing that, as I'm aware of the "North" association. It was shorthand; I meant just "labor unionist" (or "labour unionist"). I think the problem that Richard Myers mentions above is that "trade unionist" is being applied to people who are "industrial unionists" because a narrowly-named category is being applied to a wider range of people. — coelacan — 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be able to find isolated examples of non-U.S. usage, but it is simply a fact that it is mainly a U.S. term and it is most certainly U.S. centric. Americans are not in a position to comment on this unless they have lived in other countries. Anyway, the spelling is also U.S. centric. Craig.Scott 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Craig.Scott, thanks for your comment. Let's put the spelling aside for the moment, as that can go either way arbitrarily. Do you have any suggestion for language that is inclusive of both trade unionists and industrial unionists? And please let's not make judgments on who is qualified to comment on what; we're all Wikipedians and we can all use WP:Verifiable and WP:Reliable sources to support an argument rather than assumptions of geography. — coelacan — 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Labour Portal

For anyone who missed the notice at 'New labour articles', Haus42 has started building the Labour Portal. It's at User:Haus42/Organized Labour right now and it looks great, but Haus42 is looking for input and ideas as well. Have a look. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I moved the portal to Portal:Organized Labour last night. There's also a doodad for "See also" sections {{organized labour portal}} which can be used like this. Cheeers. Haus42 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Disaster Management" of labor struggles?

An article that i've just re-worked has been tagged as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management.

Are there any organized labor editors involved with this project? Anyone have a sense of the likely impact of this project on articles in our project? And are they really concerned with "managing," resolving, or evaluating labor/management battles that occurred more than a century ago? ;-)

I know, i know, it probably has to do with managing the articles about such "disasters"... but i'm still just a little curious about what the impact will be, since i don't find anything about labor struggles on the linked page...

Oh... Could they have tagged this article because of the sentence,

The response to that violence, disastrous for the local miners' union, became the primary motivation for the formation of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) the following year.

??? Hmmmm.... Richard Myers 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I suspect it was a categorisation issue. Follow the category tree up and you find your article under Category:Violent incidents in the United States - and it probably gets into the Category:Disasters tree that way. I agree, it shouldn't be in the scope of the WP-Disasters - sorry about that. Carcharoth 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

specific labour related infobox?

My mom and dad are both active in the teacher's union so I'm going to try and make some edits to some unions and union leaders. My question is -- do we have a specific info box for leaders or should i just use a basic box? It's also the first time i've tried to add a infobox anywhere. If anyone can please look at Albert Shanker and tell me if i did the right thing. MrMacMan 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi MrMac. It's {{Infobox Union}}. It's in use a million places, off the top of my head: Sailor's Union of the Pacific is an example. Good luck. Haus42 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My bust -- the fact that you were doing a bio didn't sink in. The one you used looks dandy. Haus42 00:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Um... any advice about the edits i'm going to make about teacher union leaders and their unions specifically... for example the New York State United Teachers is horrible. No sources... tons and tons of broken wiki-links... United Federation of Teachers has 1 reference... about criticisms against the organization... and somehow the AFT article got a B rating... even tho it looks like a huge block of text and has tons of broken wiki links. BTW, thanks for getting back to me so fast. MrMacMan 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Broken Wiki links aren't bad. They just show that an organization, date, event or person is important. I find them to be a useful guide in fleshing out Wikipedia (especially when it comes to labor union history and organizations). - Tim1965 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I just shot myself in the foot... you commented on AFT article i just mentioned about over Talk:American_Federation_of_Teachers/Comments... sorry for questioning your judgement. MrMacMan 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I took a quick look at AFT and left some comments on the AFT discussion /comment page. Haus42 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

seems like i commented at the same time as you.. thanks for the input. MrMacMan 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

MrMacMan, you should have seen the terrible AFT and NYSUT pages before! the AFT page didn't mention UFT, and it read as if Albert Shanker were still alive. I fleshed out the history and added references, but didn't have time to footnote everything. NYSUT's page was just a paragraph or two. (If I'd had time and resoruces, I would have done articles on all those predecessor organizations, but I don't have either.) The UFT page was in a similar horrible state (just three or four sentences), and don't ask about the Sandra Feldman article (terrible) or the Edward J. McElroy article (nonexistent). I've added a few AFT sites along the way, as well as created a category for AFT articles. But I've only added items (such as Ohio Federation of Teachers or Tom Mooney) when someone dies or there is a big news event. More power to you if you can flesh this union's history and organizations out!! - Tim1965 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

hehe, yeah I saw your great work in the history section of the articles. Your doing great work. Hopefully my contacts to some of these organizations can provide some useful resources to review and mention. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If I had the cash or a good library nearby, I'd check out these books which are good AFT resources: William Eaton's "American Federation of Teachers, 1916-1961"; Philip Taft's "United They Teach: The Story of the UFT"; Robert Braun's "Teachers and Power" (fairly anti-union, but lots of good factual stuff); Dave Selden's "The Teacher Rebellion" (awfully self-serving, but really detailed); and Steve Golin's "The Newark Teacher Strikes." Jerald Podair's "The Strike That Changed New York" and Jane Anna Gordon's "Why They Couldn't Wait" are excellent on the Ocean Hill-Brownsville strike. Sadly, I don't think there's anything on the AFT post-1970. When I tried writing articles on the United Teachers of New Orleans, the Florida Education Association and the Florida statewide teachers' strike of 1968, I couldn't find anything! I had to scrape around for stuff in the D.C. public library for weeks. There's almost nothing on the AFT affiliates, outside of the UFT. (Not even about the Chicago local. Go figure.) - Tim1965 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Union busting and Labor spies articles

I have been developing two related articles — Labor spies, and a re-worked Union busting. These two articles have much in common. Both are quite large, so there's no prospect of combining them.

For many purposes, the two concepts are closely related. The same consulting agencies that bust unions are likely to employ labor spies.

The issues at hand:

• Labor spies has a tag calling for more of a worldwide view. I do not disagree. But the solution to this problem is a bit tricky. Professor Robert Michael Smith has stated:

In no other country has the struggle between management and its employees engendered a contingent of mercenaries who specialized in breaking strikes. [From Blackjacks To Briefcases — A History of Commercialized Strikebreaking and Unionbusting in the United States, 2003, page xiv]

John Logan, a labor expert at the London School of Economics, observes:

...large union avoidance firms [in the U.S.] are increasingly seeking export markets for their expertise...

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.

[One union avoidance firm] has established an international division... which operates in Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Germany. It tells clients that [the international division] enjoys an international reputation for ‘eliminating union incursions.’ In recent years, [the firm] has conducted several campaigns in the UK, including those at T-Mobile, Amazon.co.uk, Virgin Atlantic, Honeywell, GE Caledonian, Eaton Corporation, Calor Gas and Silberline Ltd. In all of its campaigns, [the firm] prefers to operate ‘beneath the radar’... [The Union Avoidance Industry in the United States, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, December 2006, pages 651–675.]

Now, someone has proposed either internationalizing the article with additional content, or changing it to (something like) Labor spies in the U.S.

I'm seeking comment on which is the more appropriate option. Certainly with globalization, the international dimension is likely to provide new source material. But everything seems to point to these still being U.S. corporations operating in other countries.

If someone can make an argument either for a U.S. specific article, or for leaving Labor spies open to internationalization, please weigh in. I'd like to get that tag removed (one reader has actually sent email to me complaining about it) but for right now, it still does apply.

Some other issues relating to these articles:

• The final section on current union busting activities needs to be expanded. Anyone with current info to contribute, please do so.

• I'm thinking that Labor Spy Agencies may be more appropriate in, or connected with, the union busting topic. Or 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 also be appropriate, with some thought about how Strike action and Union busting work together.

Comments/feedback invited on any/all of the above.

best wishes, Richard Myers 07:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack on all union pages

As you may be aware, the Center for Union Facts is an anti-union website operated by major corporations.

Someone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.122.95.100

...has been adding this anti-union website as a link to a significant number of organized labor pages on Wikipedia.

Richard Myers 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I put a {{Subst:spam|Change to Win Federation}} tag on the anon talk page. Hopefully it's just someone who is unfamiliar with WP. --Bookandcoffee 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Facelift

So I was Bold. I started an update on the project page. Mostly I was trying to make the participant and "New article" lists a little more manageable. There's more work to be done - such as rewording the intro, but I thought I'd chuck this up so people could have a look and tinker if they like. (BTW the change is a direct mirror of the nice work Haus did over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maritime Trades :)--Bookandcoffee 21:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks nicer! If my impression is correct, this change could also establish a separate talk page for each section? That could be useful, if a link was provided. I think i would like the idea of a separate talk page for new articles. There's also a disadvantage, of course — it would lose the concept of one central discussion page (here). So i suppose some thought should go into whether a separate talk page is, on balance, a gain.

The right hand menu links haven't yet been updated.

best wishes, Richard Myers 22:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I updated the two links in the navigation menu. There's certainly no barrier to using the separate talk page for new articles. I think you're right that it bears thinking about, but seems pretty reasonable to me.--Bookandcoffee 08:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Idea -- develop a polling capability

I think it would be interesting, and for some purposes useful, to have a polling capability for organized labor issues. I personally think it wouldn't be too "gimmicky" for Wikipedia as long as it isn't used too much for fluff type purposes.

I have some ideas for specific uses. For example, which article is a better destination for links referring to strike breaking — Strike action, or Union busting? This would be a useful, rather than a fun, question, and i'd like to see what people think about it, to help determine where such links could best be directed. But educational or fun questions would be good too.

Certainly, asking for comments is a mature way to ascertain the community's sense on such questions. However, in my experience we're limited in where we can ask such questions, and we often don't get much feedback.

If we had a simple polling interface, we could include more popular, trivia type questions — on the same level as DYK; and, put the interface in appropriate places — like on the web pages where it might be relevant.

And if polling was possible through a sleek interface, there could be a selection process for polling questions, invitation for additional questions...

I don't know if the framework for this exists on Wikipedia, but it seems like something similar is pretty common on a lot of sites.

Just an idea... — Richard Myers 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. An interesting idea. I wonder what the reaction would be, as there are strong opinions about polls here on things like {{AfD}} and {{RfA}}. You would certainly get a response if you brought this up at the WP:Village pump, but I don't know if it would be a positive response, or a not so positive response. :)--Bookandcoffee 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason I imagine that people who be against the use of 'polling'. I believe that for something like you mentioned - a short and specific question -- i believe its perfectly fine, but I don't believe wiki uses polling much. MrMacMan ^Talk 09:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiPortal same as WikiProject?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the wikiportal and wikiproject are effectively the same thing, right? I mean it seems like some stuff is just... broken tasks seems very broken... the top part of the page is broken/nonfunctioning... and I believe the bottom is the entire wikiproject page. And at somepoint I'm going to get around to making the articles i want better than they are. MrMacMan ^Talk 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Kind of, but not exactly. A copy of the project page is transcluded into the "Tasks" tab of the portal. The recent redesign of the project page threw a monkey-wrench into the transclusion, but I think I've sorted it all out. If there are remaining concerns, please advise. Cheers. Haus^Talk 12:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity union

This page (Solidarity union) was started today as "a new union in Aotearoa / New Zealand, founded in August 2006". But it looks a lot like a blog to me. Does anyone know anything about it? I'm afraid I don't know enough to say. I don't have a problem if it's small, but the contact names are Joe and Grant (first names only) and all the info links are to other blog pages... Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, I thought it was bogus. But it's registered. It looks like there's an IWW connection, but I'm not sure. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks.--Bookandcoffee 16:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming from another employer-funded anti-union website?

Special:Contributions/151.200.188.147 has added this to a few websites, including some labor/union related sites:

• National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights: opposition group to Davis Bacon Law

I've removed the link from Trade union.

Some of the others are questionable.

Need to watch this for spamming, seems activity has stopped after five or so edits.

I need to leave for a few hours, haven't issued any sort of warning.

I think its interesting how they declare themselves for employers and for workers, but they are purely anti-union. It is purely propaganda. Richard Myers 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They've been warned on some topics, such as Right-to-work laws; they've violated the 3RR, but done some of them under IP addresses and some under account names, to cover it up. --Orange Mike 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC) NWU, IWW, AFSCME

NRTW added criticisms to the article on "Kate Bronfenbrenner" some time ago, but the criticisms were borderline legitimate and so could not be removed. (Although the criticism is so ludicrous that it really make NRTW seem like a bunch of high school freshmen who've taken one stats class.) - Tim1965 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Outreach

Last October there was a start on the idea of proactively contacting trade unions to encourage their participation at Wikipedia (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Outreach#Previous discussion), and not coincidentally, to draw attention to NPOV editing etiquette. The idea has just been standing since, but I was thinking of starting the process, and sending out a few letters. I wrote the letter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Outreach/letters and I would welcome opinions about both wording and usefulness of the project. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An interesting initiative. I don't think I would start by writing to an Albanian union though! Perhaps a start should be made with those unions that are: (1) bigger and might have the resources to do a reasonable job; (2) that are more likely to be able to read/write adequately in English. Why not try a few and see what sort of response you get and take it form there. - Dave Smith 22:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - maybe not Albania first. :) They were just the first on the list (Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Outreach/lists), although I do like the idea of including countries with very under-represented articles...--Bookandcoffee 09:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are probably right about the under representation approach. I think my suggestions would not necessarily produce that result. But there's no rigid way of tackling this. There would have to be some monitoring, I suspect, to avoid POV entries or articles which are not encyclopedic in nature. Have a go and see what results you get. - Dave Smith 12:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your concern about NPOV is a valid point. I see this partly as an attempt to head off POV editing by pointing potential editors with vested interests toward some of the WP policies, and hopefully if they also interact with this project there will be a moderating effect. I don't expect a large response from this effort, but I'll take a bit of a swing at it. If nothing else, it generates a little awareness of WP.

My other concern is the POV appearance of simply soliciting trade unions, and not "the other side" as well. I think a similar awareness letter to related academic writers might be useful - both because we could really use their help, and because it would help avoid even the appearance... (as it were). --Bookandcoffee 20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2007

anyone from the organised labour project going? Goldsztajn 00:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Union by Country}}

I added a new infobox - it's for the list of Trade unions in country articles. It is currently on the Trade unions in Afghanistan, Trade unions in Burkina Faso and Trade unions in Germany articles. Have a look, and tinker at will. Originally it was going to be larger (See Labor unions in the United States) but I think there are too many different forms of stats and lists to find an easy way to stadardize. --Bookandcoffee 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you have been busy again. It's an interesting idea. Personally I like those info boxes. Just some comments on this one ...

1. I think the question of trade union density is important - it's a much better measure than just membership numbers (although they are clearly interesting);

2. You are probably right about the US example being too complicated. In many countries that information would just not be available and, as you say, there is no guarantee that the information would collated in a similar way;

3. it is confusing to pose the question 'Member of the ILO' because trade unions cannot be members of the ILO (which is sort of implied) - it is, of course, the country that is an ILO member and that is a Government decision. It might just be a question of wording to make this clear;

4. I know the ILO Conventions have long names, but to just quote the Covention number (whilst convenient) does not necessarily help the uninitiated;

5. there are 8 core Conventions. You have obviously picked on the two most important ones, have you thought about trying to include the others?

- Dave Smith 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Dave,

1. How would you like to see density defined? As a percentage in government/non-government? Those kind of numbers? Or by industry? If you can give me an idea I’ll try to match it in the box. There are percentage and demographics fields already included, maybe we can refine the description of what should be included in those fields?

2. Yeah, not to mention the reliability (on both sides) of the numbers...

3. That’s a really good point - it’s not clear is it. Does it work to change the wording to “Canada is a member of the ILO”? I think it's worth including, but I’m all ears for a better way to describe it.

4. Yeah, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 is a lot of words to shoehorn into a small space. :) You can mouse over it to expand the text, but that isn't obvious is it.

5. I’ll expand it to include the entire core. That may help address the problem above too, as a sub-heading like “Core Conventions” might give a clue to the ratification list that follows.--Bookandcoffee 02:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So I started to add the rest of the core conventions into the box (see Trade unions in Germany) - but they seem a little out of place. Does Minimum Age Convention, 1973 relate directly to "Trade unions in..." Just thinking out loud here, but it seems to be reaching to include the convention within the perview of trade unions, when I would think it is of course larger than just a trade union issue.--Bookandcoffee 03:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeees, I can see that. I was also wondering about the Primary Trade Union Legislation. We only really have one, but in the UK it might be difficult with the myriad of laws that Thatcher passed. I'm wondering whether a slightly different info-box might serve a different purpose. You could think about having a box just on the ILO bits. That is country membership plus what has been ratified and keeping that separate from the other information. I'm thinking out load here too - and it's nearly midnight here so this is probably going to be my last posting for this evening. I'll check you on this tomorrow. - Dave Smith 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

1. In many countries, labour statistics are simply not available or are not very sophisticated. I would think in terms of density within the country. Or maybe national, public sector, private sector (ah definitions, I know ...). I was really thinking of my country just as an example. I could probably get TU density for the country, but a public/private sector break down would be very difficult. I wouldn't want to lose the actual figures though. It can give the reader an idea of the size of the movement. In Trinidad, for instance, our total TU membership is about 90,000 which about 18% TU density. Compared to the US our numbers are small but our density is higher - so you get a slightly better picture of the strength of the movement. I think the important point is to give the reader some grasp of what the movement looks like in that country. On the demographics question, I didn't instinctively know what you meant here until I went to the info-box page and saw your definitions. I wonder how many people would do that.;

2. You could think about a half way measure. I get the impression that if a field is left black it simply does not show up. So you could put in some additional bits of information so that if it can be obtained at least there is room for it;

3. I agree that it's an important piece of information - and easily available from the ILO too (which is nice). The ILO talks about being 'a member state'. Maybe something like 'Country is a member (or member state) of the ILO'

4. I see you've been playing with the Afghan info-box as we speak :-) You could drop the word 'Convention" in the name because you have a heading which makes it clear this it is a list of Conventions. Maybe if you changed the heading to 'Core Conventions ratified' you could then simply have a 'Yes' or 'No' against each one. Is it possible to develop a table which would help to keep the name of the Convention and the Yes/No in columns? Most Conventions have a recognisable shortened name which I see you've started to use. There would still be nothing to stop you doing a 'mouse over' for the full title, year etc. for those who discover it. I can tell you like the techie bits so go play ...;

5. I think you should try and include all the core Conventions even if they have not been ratified. A failure to ratify is as important piece of information as ratifying. Maybe you could have think about a standard URL at the bottom of the info-box making a link to the ILO Conventions site - it's here or the page giving details of which country has ratified what. This can be found here.

Dave Smith 03:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's set up to show "has not ratified" where appliciable. The ILO link comes through the convention article page as well. Have a look at Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 and you'll see ratification dates, as well as a direct link to the ILO page. I'm going to let this sit tonight as well. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 04:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the changes you made and your comments below. I think it's moving in the right direction. It's a question of getting a balance and I think we are probably there unless any of the other activists on this portal come up with any new suggestions. - Dave Smith 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Core conventions and the ILO

I took the expanded list of conventions back out. It seemed to be straying from "Trade unions in...". They might be better fitted to an ILO in Canada article, with a general discussion, including the core conventions.

I also tinkered with the "member of the ILO" line. It now reads "Country is a member of the ILO", with an optional field to add the country name so that it reads "Germany is a member of the ILO" (Trade unions in Germany)

Union density

I reworded the names of the data fields. They are now more generic, as union_percentage1 and union_percentage2 and have a short commented out note in the code so later editors have an idea what is needed.

Primary trade union legislation

I left this alone. There are stacks of different legislation, true, but it seems to me that many countries can point to one or two pieces that are understood as "primary". However, I'm talking from a pretty small base of knowledge, so I could just be full of it. :)--Bookandcoffee 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC) ..

Labour law category?

Looking at Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees got me thinking. There is a Category:Labor disputes structure that links up to Category:Trade unions and down to Category:Labor disputes by country - should there be a similar setup for law? Say Category:Labour law linking up to Category:Trade unions and down to Category:Labour law by country. We would want to run it by the WP:LAW people, but would this be useful?--Bookandcoffee 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think so, absolutely. I've written a few articles that would fall into the intersection of Category:Labour law and Category:Law of the sea. Cheers. Haus^Talk 23:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted a small note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Labour law category for comments.--Bookandcoffee 14:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is a terrific idea! Would this category also cover laws, in addition to court cases? In the United States, there are a number of federal laws (most of which have Wiki articles now). But there are also state laws (which govern state and local public workers), most of which are not mentioned at all. I'm also thinking about NLRB rulings, many of which guide federally-regulated labor law and relations but none of which have Wiki articles. Many of these, like the "Reading formula," are key turning points in U.S. labor relations. I'm throwing these ideas out here first, before going over to WP:Law with them. I assume that in countries with well-developed or maturing labor law, there would be similar laws, judicial decisions and key rulings from bureacratic agencies to add. - Tim1965 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• I would think law/case law/court cases/rulings/etc. would all fit. My thoughts would be that the cat structure would just evolve as we go, with divisions into court cases/laws/states as the need arises. So, for example:

• Category:Labour law
  • Category:Labour law by country
    • Category:Labour law in Azerbaijan
      • Category:Labour case law in Azerbaijan
    • Category:Labor law in the United States
      • Category:Labor law in the United States by state
        • Category:Labor law in the California

I'm not suggesting we rush out and make all these cats - but I think they would work out as there is a need. There was, incidentally, some discussion/argument about the category naming protocal when we standardized the Category:Trade unions by country (see Category talk:Trade unions by country for the details), so if we want to go ahead with this we'll need to run it through Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) to avoid the whole (surprisingly feisty) "in country" vs. "of country" debate. --Bookandcoffee 02:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I started the Category:Labour law, and left a note at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Labour law of country about the best name for "by country". It would be worth chiming in with your opinion if you're interested. Personally, I don't have a very good track record of keeping a cool head when naming issues come up (cough), so I'm just going to let the conversation run its course. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

New cats to herd!

• Category:Labour law by country
  • Category:Labour law of Canada
  • Category:Labor law of Mexico
  • Category:Labor law of the United States
  • Category:Labour law of the United Kingdom

etc.

--Bookandcoffee 09:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Article rating script

Outriggr has been kind enough to add this project to his article rating script. It's a tool that facilitates rating articles on the assessment scale. If you're interested you can find details at User talk:Outriggr/metadatatest.js.--Bookandcoffee 05:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hanapepe massacre

User:Tim1965 just tagged Hanapepe massacre. If WikiProject Organized Labour has any interest in collaborating on Hanapepe massacre (or Pablo Manlapit) with WikiProject Hawaii, drop us a line, here. —Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Towards a featured portal...

(x-posted from Portal_talk:Organized_Labour) I think we've tweaked and prodded and poked until we've put together a pretty nice portal. I'm getting an itch to submit the portal to the peer review process, but there are a few things we should probably fix up first. Here are the items that come to my mind:

1. Topics is weak
2. I'm still not thrilled with the header.
3. I think the featured pictures should be formatted more like the pictures in the featured quote. It'd be useful if we could figure out a way to standardize their sizes, too.
4. On just a brief glance, the "categories" and "tasks and projects" look ok, but there might be some lurking problems.
5. A couple of good reads through the portal guidelines would probably be useful.

What do you think needs to be done before we go to peer review? Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Membership of Trade Unions/Numbers

I added this question to Talk:List of federations of trade unions:

Seems that the membership figures should be qualified in some sense. That is, these figures are all self-reported. Some unions it is possible to verify figures, with other unions it would simply be impossible. I suggest some note to this effect, eg "These are self-reported membership totals".

My view is that this applies more generally across the spectrum of articles in the organised labour project...has this been discussed already? Solution reached?Goldsztajn 05:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not purely self-reported. For example, in the United States, membership figures are reported to the U.S. Deparment of Labor, and are required to be filed by federal law. I suppose a union could cheat on those numbers, much as a citizen could cheat on their taxes. But there are so many checks on the figures... (Just one example: Local, state and regional union bodies also much files the forms, and the dues income sent to the national must match, as must the aggregate membership numbers.) Plus, American labor unions of any size or activity are routinely sued by right-to-work organizations, and must (by court order) present audited accounts (which include membership numbers, dues income, etc.). If anything, American unions have an incentive to hide membership numbers, so as to hide income and thus protect the true level of resources they have available for organizing, salaries, expenses, etc. Now, this may not be true in other nations. I can only speak to the American experience. But those American figures tend to be very accurate. Mass media and labor media reports of American union figures, however, are notoriously inaccurate. (See the flap in early 2006 over SEIU's membership numbers reported to the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO sued SEIU to recover back dues from SEIU, and SEIU had to admit they had inflated the numbers. SEIU then got caught underpaying to the AFL-CIO anyway, and got stuck with a multi-million bill.) - Tim1965 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just left a reply to Dave Smith here Talk:List of federations of trade unions. On Tim1965's point: what you say is fine if you only look at the USA. The problem is that the vast majority of the world's trade unions do not face (thankfully) these kind of regulations. At the same time, for example, it is impossible to verify in any independent manner the membership of the world's supposed largest trade union, the ACFTU, which effectively claims 50% of all trade union members worldwide. This is around 10 times the size of the USA's AFL-CIO, before its split. Russia's FNPR is referenced as 31 million members. The problems come thick and fast in terms of these membership figures: are we counting dues paying members, are we counting people who freely joined trade unions etc? My point is that all these questions complicate the matter of membership, but without getting into intense tangents, my suggestion was that where we have pages listing membership etc. we simply indicate something to the effect "self-reported". Goldsztajn 23:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There's another issue as well. In cases where a labor union has a signed collective bargaining agreement, the union may represent all workers in the workplace—but only a handful may actually belong to the union (for example, right-to-work states in the U.S.) And not every country or every union engages in collective bargaining. Then there are cases such as China, where it is argued that the "union" is nothing of the sort (certain unions in Mexico, some countries in North Africa, and Indonesia seem to also be problematical). Even in the U.S., many unions have varying levels of membership (from "represent" to "agency fee payer" to "associate member" to various dues levels based on salary or part/full-time status). It seems to me that all labor union membership statistics have legitimate issues of definition and intepretation. I think it's more than an issue of "self-reporting." - Tim1965

I'm confused...so you are agreeing with me? The question is do we identify the fact that membership figures in many cases are problematic (for all the reasons above) and if so, can it be done in such a way which does not require the level of discussion occurring here? Which is why "self-reported" or "self-declared" seems to cover this...if you can think of a better phrase, please suggest one. Goldsztajn 15:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best approach, the one that covers all eventualities as well as conforming to wikipedia usage standards, is to actually cite the reference from which each individual figure comes. This would give the interested reader the ability to consider the date as well as the veracity of the figure. If an editor thinks more qualifying info is required for a particular reference, that can be added as well. I'd give a concrete example, but my primary sources haven't been cooperating lately. The US LM-2 form database is resisting all attempts at direct linking, and the Canadian one seems to still be down after several months. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Goldsztajn, but my solution would be different because I don't think "self-reported" gets to the real heart of the issue. I like Haus' solution, because it at least provides verifiability rather than someone just throwing up a number. But I still think it doesn't get to the heart of the issue. For example, does SEIU have 2.1 million members? That number can be verified by pointing to a newspaper article. But the newspaper article often relies on SEIU's statements of its own members. The LM-2 (the U.S. government labor membership reporting form) says SEIU has about 1.5 million members. What the form does not indicate is whether that's FTEs or warm bodies. AFT reports FTEs on its LM-2, but SEIU reports warm bodies. So which number is "correct"? FTEs or warm bodies? (And we're not even talking about how loose "member" is defined in each union's constitution.) I'm not trying to play semantics; these things really do matter. - Tim1965 13:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed: please watch Labor Spies

The labor spies article represents a significant amount of work. I took about four days off from Wikipedia, returning to discover that it was about to be deleted based upon the five day deletion template added by User:Tommythegun, an individual who also edits white supremacist articles, gun articles, Marine Corps articles and Special Operations Forces articles.

Fortunately, fellow editor User:DGG deleted the template (followed guidelines in doing so), suggesting that any POV in the article could be dealt with via editing.

But Tommythegun violated the terms of the template which state:

You may remove this [deletion] message if you... object to deletion of the article for any reason... If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. (emphasis added)

Tommythegun re-installed the template.

I took it out again, but i won't be surprised if it is added in again.

If you agree with me that this article is a significant contribution, then i'm asking you to please put labor spies on your watch list, and help insure that it is not deleted.

(As far as editing for POV: well, i've combed twenty or so sources looking for examples of unions spying on companies, and have found only two or three examples. But new information that helps to balance the article would be welcomed. I'm just not certain that much of it exists.)

Side note: Tommythegun suggested an alternative to deletion, which was merging the Labor Spies article with union busting. However, these two articles are already 94K and 93K respectively. The merge idea is not a good idea either.

Thanks everyone, Richard Myers 07:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo deletion by BetacommandBot

You may have recently noticed BetacommandBot taging trade union logos and images with deletion warnings. Apparently there is an effort being made to ensure that "non-free" images such as logos include a Fair use rationale in the description text. There is a bit of a conversation about the usefulness of this activity over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. If you are wondering what text to put in the description, Dave Smith has written an excellent blurb that you might find helpful using the {{Non-free media rationale}}. You can see a copy of it on Image:CCL logo.png. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Truth is, I've stopped trying to meet Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines. First, they change every few months, which means I have to keep going back to alter the image tags. Second, the rules are so onerous now (e.g., citing an article about the important of a logo in the rationale tags) that it's not worth the trouble. Most images or historic photographs (and labor images are often nothing but historic photographs) are like pornography: "I know it when I see it." It's not like authors go around saying "XYZ photo is historic". Third, the value added to an article by the images (whether a logo or photograph) is often so minor that it is outweighed the hoops I'm forced to jump through in order to add the image. Personally, I can't see how the vast majority of images on Wikipedia are going to survive this, unless taken by a Wikipedian for the express purpose of illustrating an article. (And from a labor perspective, I don't want photographers donating their time, energy, talent and resources to a corporation for free.) It's too bad, too. - Tim1965 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"On This Day"

Wow! The Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894 made the "On This Day" feature on the front page of Wikipedia for June 6. Pretty cool! - Tim1965 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Centralia Massacre (Washington)

This isn't a page that i've contributed much to: Centralia Massacre (Washington) However, it is an article in which i'm interested.

What is the actual history of the Centralia Massacre?

Please read this excerpt from an account at the Washington State Historical Society website:

In May of the year that would see the end of World War I, members of the Centralia Home Guard and Elks marched in a parade to raise money for the Red Cross. The marchers broke ranks in front of the IWW hall and raided it, throwing furniture, records and Wobbly literature into the street and setting it on fire. A desk and phonograph from the hall were auctioned off and the money donated to the Red Cross. The men inside the hall were "lifted by their ears" into a truck, driven out of town where they were forced to run the gauntlet while being beaten with sticks and ax handles.

At a meeting of the Centralia Protective Association in October 1919, a vigilante threat had been made "to handle the Wobblies [the] way they did in Aberdeen. Clean 'em up; burn 'em out." By the first week of November rumors about an intended raid during the Armistice Day parade were an open secret. The Wobblies were very aware of what they could expect based on past experience. This time the IWW members sought legal advice from their attorney, Elmer Smith, and were told that they had the right to defend themselves and the hall. It was the legionnaires who were surprised when the Wobblies did just that. The hostility that had been seething for years between the businessmen, the American Legion and the IWW came to its flash point during the parade. Years of smoldering anger on both sides now became a class war.

All of the marchers had passed the IWW hall except for the Centralia contingent; as they moved ahead to close the gap, the command of "Halt!" was given in front of the hall. The sounds of a door being kicked in were mixed with glass breaking and shots being fired. The hall was raided; the Wobblies defended their hall, and two legionnaires were killed. When Wesley Everest who was was armed and inside the IWW hall tried to make his escape, he shot two of the men who were pursuing him. Now there were four legionnaires dead. The need to exact instant retribution overcame the survivors; Everest was captured and almost hanged before he was taken to jail. That night the power was cut off in Centralia and Everest was taken from the jail there to a bridge over the Chehalis River and hanged.

http://www.wshs.org/wshs/columbia/articles/0399-a2.htm

Now please read what an anonymous poster keeps putting into this article:

The clash was initiated when IWW snipers, perched on rooftops, fired into American Legion troops who had paused to reform ranks while on parade. This attack resulted the shooting deaths of four Legionnaires, the wounded of at least a dozen more, and the subsequent storming of the Wobblie Hall by the remaining Legionnaires. The Legionnaires, though initially unarmed, were able capture a number of IWW members and turn them over to local authorities. These IWW members were formally arrested and jailed.

The article could use a rewrite, and desperately needs sourcing. But this anonymous poster is determined to make his version of events (with premeditated murders rather than self-defense, and total innocence on the part of the real attackers, central to his account) the one that sticks.

Assistance in improving and protecting this article would be greatly appreciated. Please, at the very least, put it on your watch list, and consider how far this individual's bogus history diverges from the account offered by the state historical society. Richard Myers 09:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another (new) editor has reworked the article, in an attempt to incorporate different points of view. It is not too bad. Don't yet know if the edit war is over with. Richard Myers 09:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting development in the editing war over the Centralia Massacre article. Discussion on the talk page for Warren Grimm, here, reveals what i had strongly suspected, the edit war was by parties very close to those involved in the history. Perhaps cooler heads have prevailed, at least for now. Still some fixes necessary to these articles, but things look better today than they did yesterday. best wishes, Richard Myers 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)