Talk:Labor unions in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

revision of text

I attempted to rewrite the grammar on this page, which was difficult to understand. Although the original text is eloquently written, it reads like it was originally written by a lawyer. Many of the original sentences were run on sentences, having too many commas and adjectives. The action that the sentence was trying to describe was often at the end of a very long sentence, making the sentence difficult and tedious to understand.

I hope my revision make the text easier to understand without sacrificing the encyclopedic tone of the text. Travb 18:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Notes section

This is the first page I have seen were the footnotes are above text in the article. I am fairly new to wikipedia, but I think this is incorrect.

Yes, found it according to: [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Layout Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Layout] References (including footnotes) should be last or second to last. [[Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources#Contradiction.3F I ask for a clarification on this].

Order:

Quotations
See also (Related topics)
External links or References (Notes)
References (Notes) or External links


Good edits thoughTravb 08:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Delete links?

The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article . ---From [[Wikipedia:Cite_sources#External_links.2FFurther_reading Cite_sources External links/Further reading]


Should these two ==External links==:

....be deleted since they are used in the article already? Your call, I actually prefer to keep them in.

Another option is they could also be merged into the footnotes (notes) by:

1st: deleting the external links [http://www.kissmy.com] and

2nd: adding footnotes {{ref|**}} in the actual text, so a description of the link could be added to the footnote.

Tell me what you think.--Travb 08:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If they've been used as sources, they belong in a==References==section and/or a==Notes==section. Yes, move them out of external links; if they are used once each, just use {{Ref}} / {{Note}} in the obvious way. If used more than once, you might want to put the in the==References==section and then you can use a more abbreviated description in the notes. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits

All sources are footnoted. Thanks for the edits. If you have any more questions, please let me know. All information is from the mid'80s except for the bureau of labor, which information is from 2004. If you have more recent information, please update it.

I plan to add more historical information on the history of unions, as compared to other industrial countries, for example more Americans have died in union disputes--700 than any other industrial country...I want to add more than just statistics... Travb 17:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I added clearer footnotes to the information you revised.Travb 03:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Violence

Do we want to link any of the following from the article?

And no doubt there are other related articles I'm not thinking of offhand. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

absolutly. I was thinking of covering history here, but instead what I think I will do is only add broad historical trends. I want to make Timeline of Labor unions in the United States page, adopted from this timeline on my live journal account The Violent History of American Unions. Maybe we can have a link to the Timeline of Labor unions in the United States here instead of all of the hundreds of battles... But it is up to you...BE BOLD! Travb 15:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead and add some of those links, I will add the timeline, you have listed events, some of which I have never heard of.... Travb 15:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

draft on Violence

whoever wrote the draft is mostly interested in violence--most of which did not involve unions directly. Put it elsewhere--this essay should talk about labor history generally, and specifically about the history of trade unions. In fact there is a very large and sophisticated literature on labor union history, which is covered in the main books I listed. I will try to fill in the chronological sections as time permits. Rjensen 11:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen wrote: "whoever wrote the draft is mostly interested in violence--most of which did not involve unions directly." Um, with all due repect, I have no idea what you are talking about. This POV is so seperated from the historical facts. I will stop here, and not insult you personally.
Rjensen wrote:"Put it elsewhere--this essay should talk about labor history generally, and specifically about the history of trade unions." As mentioned in my edit, if you want to avoid a revert war, please do not erase whole sections of text.
I find it very troubling that you deleted this whole section and never bothered to move it anywhere--you suggest "putting it elsewhere" and take the time to delete it entirely, but do not take the time to actually move it. This leads me to believe you simply dont want this information on wikipedia, and are willing to edit it into oblivian.
You happen to also be currently outnumbered in your opinion about this section--the two people who edited and created this section, myself and Jmabel both agree that this is very relevent. (see message above)
Rjensen wrote: "In fact there is a very large and sophisticated literature on labor union history, which is covered in the main books I listed." You are basically saying that my literature I posted here is not sophisticated. That is not only insulting personally, it is POV.
Rjensen your initial contribution to this article is a nice start, but it is overshadowed by your POV and your radical edits which destroy the hard work of others. I don't want a revert war. Travb 17:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Well let's not have a revert war. A separate article about labor violence is the place to move the stuff, but be careful in mixing up working class violence with labor unions. They are quite different. Labor history is a field with hundreds of scholars. I listed a few of the leading figures (Brody to Ziegler) and representative books. Their findings is what the encyclopedia should talk about. Rjensen 18:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

borderline vandilism

You just erased 15 footnotes and hours of work. Build, don't destroy. I don't want a revert war, but you seem intent on one. You can add back your information, but don't delete whole sections on a whim, otherwise I will revert back your borderline vandlism. Travb 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No nothing is destroyed, it's all saved in Wiki. It's just that the material doesn't fit the topic. Actually my very first published essay was a review of that Violence in America book (1970) that was listed. As for POV: the labor union movement has treied to portray itself as a positive force in terms of working conditiions, wages, political voice for workers. That gets overshadowed by stories of violence -- most of which does not involve mainstream unions at all. People come to an encyclopedia to learn about Gompers and Lewis, AFL, CIO. So let's put it in. Rjensen 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to "put it in." Taking things out is another matter.
I'm about as pro-union as anyone this side of John Sweeney, but denying history does no one a favor. Is violence disproportionately represented right now? Yes, because it's what someone chose to write about, and all Wikipedia articles are works in progress. By the way, most of that violence was against unions, not by unions, and if that isn't clear it calls for rewording.
Please do have a look at Wikipedia:Be bold#...but don't be reckless!. I've copied the most relevant passage here:
If you are unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to either:
  1. Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length)
  2. List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence)
Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.
-- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Rjensen wrote: "No nothing is destroyed, it's all saved in Wiki."

Let me temper my words: "Build, don't delete"

Rjensen wrote: "Actually my very first published essay was a review of that Violence in America book (1970) that was listed." I welcome your input into the article, I am sure you can contribute a different perpective in the rich history of unions.

Rjensen wrote: "As for POV: the labor union movement has tried to portray itself as a positive force in terms of working conditiions, wages, political voice for workers."

I agree. That is a image they are trying to portray today. This in no way makes the violent history of unions cease to exist. In fact, I would argue, it was only by the violent history of unions, that we have the rights that allow unions to exist today. You cannot seperate the story of union history from its violent history. See Timeline of Labor unions in the United States

Based on your edits, I don't think you have union's welfare in mind. Your POV about unions is irrelevant to editing as long as you post NPOV information, but it becomes relevant when you seem to speak for unions on the talk page when advocating your edits, when in reality you may not have union's welfare in mind.

Rjensen wrote: That gets overshadowed by stories of violence -- most of which does not involve mainstream unions at all."

I welcome you to add the other history, the less violent history. I cannot figure out how you can write a history of unions without including the pullman strikes, or the steel strikes, or the coalminer strikes--these strikes happened and they were very violent.

I actually became interested in unions myself because of the violent history--the violent histroy that the "disney", classless, nationalistic version that Americans learn in school deletes entirely.

Rjensen wrote: "People come to an encyclopedia to learn about Gompers and Lewis, AFL, CIO. So let's put it in." I can't argue with you, because I will never pretend to speak for wikipideans or web users, I have never done a scientific survey of what internet users want when they look up "unions".

If you want to add this information, I welcome you too build it--this page still needs a lot of work.

Which is it?

Rjensen first wrote: "whoever wrote the draft is mostly interested in violence--most of which did not involve unions directly."

Rjensen then wrote: "stories of violence -- most of which does not involve mainstream unions at all."

First your words seem to say that the violence does not involve unions directly, then you state that there is violence, but it is only among non-mainstream unions. Please explain.

First of all, this article is not entitled Mainstream Labor unions in the United States. And I argue that many of the violence perpetrated by unions were by mainstream unions. Look at the Knights--who had the largest union membership of any organization at their height. i think what you are trying to say is that only marginal unions were involved with violence--in other words it was a small part of union history. Advocating this view is either terribly ignorant, or terrible narrow minded, because a person would have to ignore large portions of history, especially before the New Deal, to come to that conclusion Again, look at the article I recently built: Timeline of Labor unions in the United States.


Rjensen wrote: "A separate article about labor violence is the place to move the stuff, but be careful in mixing up working class violence with labor unions. They are quite different. Labor history is a field with hundreds of scholars."

I disagree, and I believe the other contributor to this article, Jmabel disagrees too, since he suggested adding a less of massacres. You can come up with more convincing arguments and convince us, or build around my section (I have no problem with my section being on the bottom) of a long history/explanation of unions.

Rjensen wrote: "I listed a few of the leading figures (Brody to Ziegler) and representative books. Their findings is what the encyclopedia should talk about. "

I am really concerned with the tone and feeling that I get from these two sentences. It sounds like you would like to build the wikipage the way you want it, not the way others want it. With no consensus. You said yourself that their are hundreds of labor historians, I think it is narrow to focus on just two.

I will add back much of your information, keeping my own. I disagree with the way you rewrite some of the sentences, but that can be addressed here as the page develops.

Welcome to Labor unions in the United States, lets start building! Travb 20:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Current format of article, TEMPORARILY moved comparison of America and foreign unions to top

As I wrote to Rjensen, encouraging him to contribute.

You wrote some really good section headers and mentioned that you would like to continue writing in the future. I was hoping that my section (comparing America and foreign unions) would be just a small minor part of a larger article. But thus far, no one has come forward. I hope you were not scared away by our heated argument. Your knowledge is needed on Labor unions in the United States! I hope to have my section comparing America and foreign unions to be either moved to another article or be a minor part at the end of a larger article detailing the history of unions. Anyway, any contributions would be welcome.

I TEMPORARILY moved the empty sections below the international unions compared section. As soon as I, or someone else, adds this information, it can be moved back to the bottom...I want to start on this and other labor disputes this next couple of weeks, as time, and my interest permits.

I hope those that commit to the article will put sources of there words.Travb 03:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV

It's hard in labor history to avoid POV, but that is essential for Wiki's credibility. One way to start is to junk disreputable sources like Ward Churchill. He's a fakir who has humiliated the U of Colorado and will hurt Wiki just be being cited as an authoritative source. Likewise glorification of violence is unwise. Rjensen 10:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange introduction

The introduction to this article strikes me as very odd. Most introductions, well, introduce the topic. They provide some background and history and set out the scope of the article. At the moment the introduction belongs somewhere in the text with the heading 'current state of labour unions in the US' (or something). Slinky Puppet 10:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, your right. Good point. Any improvements you think of, please add them. Travb 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The latest version is a good start.Rjensen 06:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Taft-Hartley Act

Maybe the Taft-Hartley Act info should be merged into the Taft-Hartley Act article, making this article smaller?

Rjensen when are you going to flesh out this article? I am excited to see your knowledge on the subject.Travb 04:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the encouragement! I hope others can help too. Rjensen 05:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Violence in US labor disputes compared

This section seems to comprise a separate article. It is historical yet not integrated into the history sections. It is comparactive, which the rest of the article is not. Any objection to making its own article? Rjensen

The section preceding it, on the comparative decline of US unions, shares the same characteristics.
I think that if we are going to start moving stuff out and summarizing here, it should be the large historical sections, not the sections that are already summaries. Normally, when we have a lot of material on a topic that has present-day relevance, the broad view is presented in the main article and "History of..." becomes a separate article, broken down further as useful. See featured article Seattle for a good example of this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
For the record, it would appear that Rjensen removed all of the following. As I said in my 22 February remark, I believe this belongs in the article, because it is summary overview information, and that if something needs to be moved, it should be the details of the history (or the extensive bibliography).
I really want to say: I am very uncomfortable with Rjensen removing well-cited material, apparently not moving it to another article or integrating it back into this one, nor even moving it to the talk page (I only found this by comparing versions). While Rjensen has done some excellent work here, this smacks of attempting to monopolize the article for his particular vision of what it should be. - Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Jmabel | Talk, thanks for your words of defense. I wrote those sections. I have no problem with these sections being moved. I agreed with Rjensen that once the article was large enough, he could move it. If you recall, he deleted the sections originally, which caused a bit of bad blood at the beginning, but I encouraged him to come back. I hope there is no prob with the move.Travb 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for any confusion. I moved the section on comparative violence to the article on Labor Unions: International comparisons since it has to do with international comparisons. Likewise the comparisons of international growth rates (and I added a bibliography to that article). Rjensen 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[Begin removed text]

International comparisons
Decline of US unions compared

In the mid-1950s, 36% of the United States labor force was unionized. Even at America's union peak in the 1950s, union membership was lower in the United States than in almost all comparable countries. By 1989 that figure had dropped to about 16%, the lowest percentage of any developed democracy except France.

For comparison, here are some percentages for other developed democracies, published in 1990:

In 1987 United States unionization was 37 points below the average of seventeen countries surveyed, down from 17 points below average in 1970.[2]

Between 1970 and 1987, union membership declined in only three other countries:

In the United States, union membership had declined by 14%.[3]

In 2004, 12.5% of U.S. wage and salary workers were union members. 36% of government workers were union members, but only 8% of workers in private-sector industries were.[4]

The most unionized sectors of the economy have had the greatest decline in union membership:

From 1953 to the late 1980s:

  • Construction from 84% to 22%
  • Manufacturing from 42% to 25%
  • Mining from 65% to 15%
  • Transportation from 80% to 37%[5]

From 1971 to the late 1980s, there was a 10% drop in union membership in the U.S. public sector and a 42% drop in union membership in the U.S. private sector.[6] For comparison, there was:

  • no drop in union membership in the private sector in Sweden,
  • 2% in Canada,
  • 3% in Norway,
  • 6% in West Germany,
  • 7% in Switzerland,
  • 9% in Austria,
  • 14% in the United Kingdom,
  • 15% in Italy.[7]
Violence in US labor disputes compared

Between 1877 and 1968, 700 people have been killed in American labor disputes.[8]

In the 1890s, roughly two American workers were killed and 140 injured for every 100,000 strikers.

In the 1890s in France, three French workers were injured for every 100,000 strikers.

In the 1890s only 70 French strikers were arrested per 100,000. For the United States, national arrest rates are simply impossible to compile. In Illinois, the arrest rate for the latter half of the 1890's decade was at least 700 per 100,000 strikers, or ten times that of France; in New York for that decade it was at least 400.

Between 1902 and 1904 in America (the three years between 1880 and 1920 for which there are the most detailed and reliable figures), at least 198 people were killed, 1966 workers were injured. One worker was killed and 1009 were injured for every 100,000 strikers. [9]

Between 1877 and 1968, American state and federal troops intervened in labor disputes more than 160 times, almost invariably on behalf of employeers.[10] Business was disrupted, usually by strikes, on 22,793 occasions between 1875 and 1900.[11]

For some examples of the violence both by and against U.S. union members in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, see:

Notes

  1. ^ Blanchflower, David and Richard B. Freeman (April 1990). "Going Different Ways: Unionism in the U.S. and Other Advanced O.E.C.D. Countries". National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper number 3342: 6, 42.
  2. ^ ibid.
  3. ^ Sexton, Patricia Cayo (1992). The War on Labor and the Left: Understanding America's Unique Conservatism. Westview Press. ISBN 0813310636., p. 13
  4. ^ Bureau of Labor Statistics. Union Members Summary January 27, 2005
  5. ^ Troy, Leo S.M. Lipset Editor (1986). "The Rise and Fall of American Trade Unions: The Labor Movement from FDR to RR". Unions in Transition: Entering the Second Century, Institute of Contemprary Studies: 87. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Troy, Leo (May 1987). "New Data on Workers Belonging to Unions, 1986". Monthly Labor Review: 36.
  6. ^ Troy, Leo (Spring 1990). "Is the U.S. Unique in the Decline of Private Sector Unionism". Journal of Labor Research. 11:2: 135.
  7. ^ Sexton, p. 14
  8. ^ Sexton, p. 55; Taft, Philip and Philip Ross, "American Labor Violence: Its Causes, Character, and Outcome", in Hugh D. Graham and Ted R. Gurr, editors, The History of Violence in America: Historical and Comparitive Perspectives; Frederick A. Praeger publisher, 1969, ASIN: B00005W22X, p. 380 The paper begins with the assertion that "the United States has experienced more frequent and bloody labor violence than any other industrialized nation." Gitelman argues that this may be true, but that it is not supported by the evidence presented, which focuses only on America labor violence exclusively. Gitelman, H.M. (Spring 1973). "Perspectives on American Industrial Violence". The Business History Review. Vol. 47 No. 1: p 2. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
  9. ^ Forbath, William E. (April, 1989). "Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement". 102 Harvard Law Review 1111: 1186. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); An introduction to the study of organized labor in America. Macmillan. 1916. ASIN: B0008B9BBK. p. 189; G. Friedman, The State and the Making of a Working Class: The United States and France 20 (paper prepared for Social Science History Conference, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 1986) (on file at Harvard Law School Library); United States Commissioner of Labor, Report on Strikes and Lockouts. H.R. DOC. No. 882, 59th Cong., 2d Sess. (1906) (reporting results of investigation of strikes and lockouts 1901-1905, with summaries from 1881 to 1905)
  10. ^ Sexton, p. 55
  11. ^ Churchill, Ward (Spring 2004). "From the Pinkertons to the PATRIOT Act The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870 to the Present". The New Centennial Review. Volume 4, Number 1: 15. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Quoting U.S. Department of Labor, Sixteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1901 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1901), 803-806.

[End removed text]

Warning about editor User:Rjensen

Fellow editors, be wary of User:Rjensen. He commonly uses POV (albeit innocently), and when you correct him he accuses you of vandalism. See his user contributions here. Don't be angry with him, just be careful to edit his contributions. —Mark Adler (markles) 05:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between me and Markles is that I add new information to articles--lots of information. I add bibliographies for example--the best available books for the users--like the bibliog for this article, as well as most of the history text. I tell users things like "this is 20 volumes long" and "this is 8 volumes" and he erases that to protect the user. For example he just removed all the refernces to hide them. He seems to distruct books. Wiki REQUIRES refernces for major articles -- it is not optional. These are in fact the sources I am using the write the article section by section (yes it takes a while--it's a hige topic over 150 years)Rjensen 06:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Markles has now removed the references from this article. He did not discuss it with anyone. Of course Wiki REQUIRES references be cited. Why he did such a thing is a mystery: he is not articulate about his motives, except he is annoyed when people call his erasures vandalism. Rjensen 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

References moved

I have moved the lengthy (and useful) references section to a new subpage (Labor unions in the United States/References) where readers can still read it, but it doesn't overwhelm the article (see, among other things, Wikipedia:Article size). —Mark Adler (markles) 11:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigh--Markles seems to want to help us out. Let's start by asking him what his knowledge is about labor history and how he plans to contribute. If he has ideas for the article that several editors have worked on for months, he certainly can share them before actibg. Rjensen 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? You can't actually be serious. Who cares what my knowledge is or how much I plan to contribute. If you want to build your own website, that's fine: I'll obey your rules there or stay away from it. Until then, you must learn that Wikipedia is not your website, and you must follow the rules. My contributions are well-intentioned and intelligent. My edits are legitimate. That's what's important on Wikipedia, not if I have a college degree. —Mark Adler (markles) 13:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Markles now admits he doesn't know much about labor history. Well, it's nice to have novices to help out. We have a group here that has been working hard on a major topic for some time, and if there are suggestions for improvement we will take them. Meanwhile I suggest that he is not Wikipedia, Markles does not follow the Wiki rules but makes them up out of the blue. For example, he removes references that have to be there because, he says, the text of the article is too long (it is not). There is NO WIKI RULE that allows references to be moved away from the article. As for his contributions being "intelligent" even though he has not read any books on labor history, well some people who are not intelligent enough to get through college probably will make excellent encyclopedia scholars, and perhaps he fits that category. Even so he should discuss things with the other folks who have the sweat equity. Rjensen 13:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Mark, how does a references list at the bottom of the page "overwhelm" an article? It's not like it is interspersed heavily with the other material. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Writing the history sections

My plan is first to outline the history of unions. that is done. Second, to assemble a good collection of reference books that covers the field. That is done and they are listed under references.--please do not move them for they are required by Wiki. The third step it to take it section by section writing text using the references. That is underway, and will take a while. In some topics I have used other Wiki articles but I plan to replace that with original text. I encourage others to critique my material and do add to it. Please don't blank it before discussing the issue here. Thanks Rjensen 07:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but consider that you may really be writing more of an article series: be prepared periodically to spin out an article covering a particular time period and to summarize it in a paragraph or two here. - Jmabel | Talk 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

this is a orphaned footnote

I hid this footnote, which is not attached to any portion of the text. Jmabel OR Rjensen Please add this back in, using ref tags

<!--# {{note|juris}} [http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/EconomicaeJ.htm Economics Interactive]-->

Signed:Travb 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing commentary & commentary on the ongoing edit war

    • Removed POV on the Coalition to Win in the first part of the article - 05/14/06.

Formerly it stated that the AFL-CIO and the Coalition to Win are actively involved in Democratic Party politics. I deleted the "Democratic Party" and left it as politics only since the former was blatently untrue although the predominance of support by unions goes to Democrats. The Coalition to Win includes the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, which actually was the first to split off from the AFL-CIO & start the new labor coalition. The UBC&J has recently issued a membership poll and finds it's members are split roughly 60/40 in voting for Republicans over Democrats. International President McCarron has been seen as coordinating with and supporting George W. Bush's administration to the dismay of many Democrats within the organization - {see cartoon at http://www.carpentersunionbc.com/Media/politicos/strangelove_in.jpg } - but to the general approval by members who think it more closely reflects their own political views. Some Unions in America have begun to remove partisan affiliation and made a determination that ANY candidate who supports labor is deserving of support regardless of party affiliation and made donations to Republican candidates more frequently in recent years. The point of Wikipedia is to provide a NEUTRAL source of information, inclusion of the phrase "Democratic Party" did not promote that neutrality.

    • Side note on the ongoing discussion about violence:

As a long time student of Unions, I am fairly knowledgeable about their history. In my credits I produced and did much of the research for a 15 minute video paid for by Local 314 of the UBC&J on their 100th anniversary.

At the insistance of Local 314, much of the reference to violence was ommitted from the video as it was a celebratory film about their local and not Unions in general. I found that to be a compelling argument to honor their wishes.

I am, however, a firm believer that violence and the history of Unions is inseperable. I am also a firm believer that without that violence, the Union movement in America would have failed completely.

I cannot see how a Wikipedia article that attempts to be both complete and impartial can avoid a lengthy discussion of it but would recommend a restructuring of violence commentary to it's own subsection so that it remains visibly available but doesn't taint the other parts of the history with rhetoric.

Perhaps in this way, both the advocates who feel it is important and those who feel it adds POV to the article can allow each other to edit and add/subtract from their seperate sections while maintaining an appearance of integrity for the entire article. In this way the FACTUAL basis for each event is discussed and proven/disproven without disrupting the entire article too much. i4 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) IdioT.SavanT.i4 05/14/06

user:IdioT.SavanT.i4 I have found again and again that asking people do something on the talk page rarely works...like the old saying goes "if you want something done do it yourself"
That said, user:IdioT.SavanT.i4 I strongly disagree with your suggestion:
I cannot see how a Wikipedia article that attempts to be both complete and impartial can avoid a lengthy discussion of it but would recommend a restructuring of violence commentary to it's own subsection so that it remains visibly available but doesn't taint the other parts of the history with rhetoric.
Because I predict that you would want this section to be moved to the bottom of the page, or to another article altogether--in otherwords, despite the statment I cannot see how a Wikipedia article that attempts to be both complete and impartial can avoid a lengthy discussion of it my first reaction is that you appear to want to deemphasize the history of labor violence in America. Under the guise of impartiality. (I have found in my year here on wikipedia, that ironically, the people who use the word "POV" the most are usually the biggest POV warriors themselves).
Thanks for asking the suggestions of other wikieditors before majorily changing the content of this page. Smart move.
Also, please source all contributions, using <ref> tags, and please add page numbers, if available so that other wikipedians can easily check your sources--this also avoids edit wars.
Thanks for your contributions, I look forward to your future edits. You mentioned a very unique thesis on the Taft Harley Act which I never considered. Nice job.Travb 04:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing commentary & commentary on the ongoing edit war What edit war? This page has been quiet for months.Travb 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Travb, I believe you have completely misunderstood my position on Union violence.

I am of the belief that WITHOUT violence the Union movement in America would have been stillborn - as such it is both a prominent and necessary centerpiece for ANY article about Unions in America. You are incorrect that I would wish discussion about violence moved to the bottom of the article, in fact, I would prefer it to be the opening part of any such discussion. It is not, however, totally my decision on where it should end up. It is through my effort as a video producer that I came to realize that Unions themselves do not like that part of their history to be prominently displayed. I personally think they are wrong and should showcase it rather than attempt to hide it. NOTHING worth having comes without struggle, the struggle should be a demonstration of it's worthiness, not something to be ashamed of.

    • RE: POV - Thank you for your commentary on my own but let's leave the amature psychology to the professionals. Neither of us is proficient enough in the field to begin assigning motive to the other.
    • RE: Wars - wars do not end just because they have been quiet, even for months, as evidenced by the ongoing conflicts in the M.E. and the Korean Peninsula. LOL

i4 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC) IdioT.SavanT.i4

GA failed

  • Too long of a LEAD.
  • This sentence, Since the 1940s unions have admitted Blacks, Hispanics and women. should be added to the appropriate section or included in the lead, not as a stand-alone line.
  • This section has links pointing outside WP, it is rather discouraged to have some though they can be placed in a External Link section if clearly necessary.
  • The subsection Violence, 1886-1894 is still incomplete though there is a throughout explanation on the linked page
  • The subsection Coal Strikes 1900-1902 has see Coal Strike of 1902 under it, it is necessary to have a brief paragraph summarizing the linked article ... if not possible then simply blend it in another subsection.
  • Too many one-line sections or subsections.
  • This article is magnificent but doesn't meet #3, re-nominate once the article meets it. broad in its coverage. Lincher 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I've started putting together an infobox for this page (and all the "Trade union in X" articles). It is at User:Bookandcoffee/Labour for now, and any comment on what should or shouldn't be included would be great. If there is no objection to the idea I'd like to put an initial non-template version on the page sometime in the next week or so, to get a look at how it works. --Bookandcoffee 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's what I came up with. There are three sections - the top is general reference, the stats are from the US dept. of Labor, and the ILO section would be the ratification dates for the two labor conventions (not as relevant for the US, but nice to have world-wide). There are a million ways to display stats, but I tried to keep it short. I like the red highlights, but there is always a bit of contention as to who uses what color in infoboxes (WP:INFOCOLOR) so I'm not too worried if that changes :) Comments? Changes? --Bookandcoffee 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

How about merging the long section on the Taft Harley Act into Taft-Hartley Act? What do you all think? Please vote here: Talk:Taft-Hartley_Act#Merge.3F_vote_here Travb (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


expansion

various sections are empty and need content. Thanks Hmains 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but I took the {{expansion}} tag off the top. The page is 41k long - it needs more work, but it also could use spliting into {{main}} sections.--Bookandcoffee 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I just discovered there already exists a Labor history of the United States article, which is also largely a skeleton. I think that it should be linked as the main article for labor history, stuff in this article and not there should be merged into it, and future expansion should take place there. This would help with the length issue. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea to me.--Bookandcoffee 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


false claims in this article

The article states:

To join a union, workers must either:
  • be given voluntary recognition from their employer or
  • have a majority of workers in a "bargaining unit" vote for union representation.
In either case, the government must then certify the newly formed union.

This is absolutely false information. I'm a member of a union in the U.S. in which none of these "musts" apply. In fact, a book by "a renowned labor law scholar and preeminent authority on the National Labor Relations Act" quashes these claims:

The Blue Eagle At Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights In The American Workplace
http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Eagle-Work-Reclaiming-Democratic/dp/0801443172

best wishes, Richard Myers 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

After a week or so and no changes, i'm making changes myself. I'm linking to a stub article Solidarity unionism which has some serious shortcomings, but at least is a beginning article on an alternative.
I notice that Lincher, above, states that,
  • This sentence, Since the 1940s unions have admitted Blacks, Hispanics and women. should be added to the appropriate section or included in the lead, not as a stand-alone line.

I find that sentence flawed, rather than just out of place. While the topic is important, this brief reference doesn't do it justice. There were all black unions in the previous century. There were womens' proto-unions in the previous century. The IWW organized all workers beginning in 1905. I'm removing the sentence entirely; if someone wishes to add it in again, please do so with regard to the historical record. Richard Myers 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplication

This article has been substantially duplicated in the page Labor history of the United States. What's needed is a short dick on the page there. I'm deleting it from this page, and doing that. The problem is, the pages differ slightly. On the whole the other is longer, and more detailed, but where there is more detail here, I'm copying that to make sure that nothing is lost.

This is a really good start for an interesting topic. Those who were writing it, why not keep going!! Wikidea 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Employee Free Choice Act

Hi, Travb, IdioT.SavanT.i4 back again, after a long hiatus from this project. I read the addition on the Employee Free Choice Act and while it is the current topic of discussion about Union legislation underway, it seems the article is a bit lopsided about the possibility of Union organizers coercing workers to sign cards or face repercussions. I am under the impression the bill makes no such requirement that a worker sign their card openly, that it can be signed without a Union organizer present and just handed in to one. - but that is only my OPINION, and my initial reaction to it as it now stands - but I have read the complete bill a fair number of times. This work is largely someone else's brain child & I have little wish to interrupt or rearrange the careful work that has undoubtedly been poured into it, so I only bring this matter to the attention of the main editor and suggest that person(s) actually read the Act in it's entirety a couple times through. H.R. 800 It's very short, as legislation goes, and not at all the "effort to take away workers' right to a secret ballot" that some seem to love criticizing it as. It actually preserves that option in the bill, but adds the convenience of not being required to use secret ballot voting as the ONLY way to gain recognition. The Wikipedia article on the Employee Free Choice Act itself seems more balanced, so perhaps that is a start to review and redesign the entry here. Take care and happy Wiki-ing LMAO IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

US Labor Unions

should redirect here.--189.33.9.33 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

List of States that have/allow Unions

This article needs a list and/or table summarizing state law of unions. For example I understand there are no teacher's unions in North Carolina, but that information isn't in this article. -Nsteinme (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV text by LrdSothe and others

The following text, inserted into the article by LrdSothe, is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines on neutral point of view, in my opinion. Words such as "originally," "considered," "abusive," and imputations of motive violate NPOV. The text makes extensive claims without citation or attribution. The text contains opinion about the state of U.S. labor law, the extent of worker protection in the U.S., motive of workers joining unions, the nature of world trade, etc. It should be immediately removed from the article.

Labor unions were originally groups of workers who joined together in order to reach their common goals, such as better and safer working conditions, and what they considered to be fair pay. These unions were created as a means of defense against abusive companies in a time before the US Federal Government had any laws on the books to protect workers. Since then, various laws protecting employees have been enacted ensuring the protection of workers, forcing unions to adapt their role in order to survive and continue collecting dues. In response, unions specialized in a campaign of redefining the order of advancement for workers. Rather than working hard, going to school, and gaining a skill that was marketable and in demand, all one needed to do was enter a union and survive the probation period to make far above market wage for their position. To continue collecting dues, unions then went on to fight for yet higher wages and benefits, while bargaining for lower productivity. This is often cited as the major reason manufacturing no longer exists in the United States. Companies can afford to manufacture something across the globe, ship it back around the world to a US port, then distribute it throughout the US at a much lower cost than if they were to pay what many see as exorbitant union wages. In response to this trend, unions have aggressively targeted politicians and elections in order to seat sympathetic officials.

LrdSothe has also inserted the following. Note that this statement has the article arguing with itself, rather than attempting to remove the uncited text LrdSothe finds to be "misinformation". It also violates NPOV by using words like "thugs," "violent force," and "extreme socialist agenda" and lacks citations to any neutral, third-party source which might substantiate such claims.

[There is absolutely nothing cited here to prove this misinformation. A recent Gallop Poll shows a sharp decline in public approval of unions as a whole.(http://www.gallup.com/poll/122744/labor-unions-sharp-slide-public-support.aspx) Further, unions are perceived to be run and staffed by thugs who use violent force in support of extreme socialist agendas. Unions are perceived by some to be the "soldiers" of the socialist movement in the United States]

I agree that this article needs substantial work to remove NPOV of all kinds, and that citations are lacking. LrdSothe's text, while well-intentioned is equally NPOV and lacks citation as well. I have reverted this text. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • LrdSothe, I strongly encourage you to not merely revert changes. You may be seen as engaging in edit warring and could come in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule. There are ways to contribute to Wikipedia and make an article balanced and fair without engaging in polemics. For example, your initial sentence in the first paragraph cited above reads: "Labor unions were originally groups of workers who joined together in order to reach their common goals, such as better and safer working conditions, and what they considered to be fair pay." The word "originally" implies that unions are no longer performing the function outlined. Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability notes: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." (emphasis in original) In order for this claim to remain in the article and not run afoul of neutral point of view, original research, or verifiability guidelines, a citation to a neutral third-party source must be supplied that directly supports the contention of "originally". I suggest that sources also be found to support the claim that these were only workers (and not foremen, low- or mid-level managers, or individuals-acting-as-employers), that their reasons for banding together were better and safer working conditions and fair pay. This evidence is out there; I've read some of it.
I also suggest LrdSothe that you be bold in editing. Under the NPOV, verifiability, and "no original research" guidelines, you (like any editor) have the right and duty to remove text which is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest that you do so first, and then begin rebuilding the article with verifiable, NPOV statements backed up with citations. I ask that you respect the opinions of others rather than accuse them of propagandizing. As the guidelines on "what Wikipedia is not" say: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." Articles may discuss differing viewpoints, but they must do so from a neutral point of view with verifiable content. Currently, at least three other editors agree that your changes do not currently meet these Wikipedia standards. Your changes can meet them, but you must adhere to the guidelines from writing and citing content. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Administrative action taken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LrdSothe_reported_by_Richard_Myers_.28Result:_48_hours.29
best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, his version was completely inappropriate as was repeatedly reverting to it. The current article does need some work NPOV-wise, though. I have modified the EFCA piece (I don't see why that's in the introduction - if it's even in the article, it should be in the body somewhere). It was an extremely pro-EFCA argument that didn't tell the other side of it at all. (The other side, of course, is that if there is no secret ballot, then workers could be peer pressured or even illegally coerced into signing the card check.) Outside of NPOV, there are some other issues in the article. The "Possible causes of drop in union density" is way too long and you might consider reorganizing into more of a sequential history events that have affected union membership. As it is, it jumps around and is very hard to follow. "Labor unions today" doesn't make sense as a section header when the whole article is about unions today. --B (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to other editors:
User talk:LrdSothe
best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Union Density in 1930s to 1970s?

Does anyone Know of any studies which show union membership/density as a percentage of the workforce from the 1930s to 1970s? I know some studies reported on it and there where numerous charts, but I can't find any specific studies. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Organized Crime and Labor Unions

Possibly one of the most important factors in Organized Crime in the US was the infiltration of Labor Unions. Perhaps a collaboration would be beneficial? Alexbonaro 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Bump. Besides inferring that more than 50% of Americans "don't approve of" unions, there's nothing negative or balanced about unions in this whole article!--Mrcolj (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

How does one dispute a line from the article? I have a problem with the line "Their big strikes failed and they collapsed in the wake of the Haymarket Riot) of 1886, when their message was compromised by bomb-throwing anarchists." There were not multiple throwers, it is not known who threw the bomb, and the anarchists weren't "compromising" anything. The thrower is believed (even though the thrower's identity is unknown) to have been an agent provocateur.Pckeffer 03:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, most historians agree the anarchists made the bomb and the anarchist message ruined the Kof L movement. Were the anarchists paid by big business to destroy the K of L -- maybe but the article does not say that. Rjensen 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a dispute, just an idea for clarification. Inside the article it is stated "Today most labor unions in the United States are members of one of two larger umbrella organizations: the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) or the Change to Win Federation, which split from the AFL-CIO in 2005-2006." This statement is true, but should there be a mention (either here or later in the article) that the US' largest union, the NEA, is not a part of either organization? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.213.205 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Economic Effects of Labor Unions

I think this article is incomplete without a section on the economic effects of labor unions. There is a vast and rich literature on this topic. In general, economists agree that labor unions drive up wages for union members above equilibrium, while suppressing the wages of non-Union workers in the same industry.

Take for example the Big 3 automakers in the United States, which pay their workers average compensation of $70-76 per hour, $29 per hour more that other automakers who also produce in the U.S. (but do not have unionized labor). Without these elevated wages, in fact, Ford would have positive profits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphling89 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why in five worlds is there no mention of the negatives of unions, besides a veiled reference to more than 50% of people "not approving" of their existence?! I've never had an econ class that was vaguely neutral or positive about unions; they were simply taught (in my liberal san francisco grad school) as a corrupt political movement that was suicide to the american financial construct. Oh, but I won't start there. I am a teacher, and I have never taught at a high school where more than 70% of the teachers were union members. And I've been threatened with some pretty serious things over time for not having joined, so I suspect those 30% of teachers have too, and therefore must be pretty passionate--enough at least not to be wholly disregarded in a wikipedia article.--Mrcolj (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There are Wikipedia articles that are entirely, or nearly entirely, anti-union. For example, Opposition to trade unions. You are quite welcome to check that out, perhaps doing so will decrease the hyperventilating. Richard Myers (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't hyperventilate. I was just a little shocked to see such a one-sided article, especially on such a controversial topic. Normally that's the one thing the wikipedia safely does right--take wedge issues and pass them through both sides. There's no emotion in my saying that, just... shock. Anyway, you diagnosed it quickly: while the entire article needs to reflect the pros and cons of the issue in a balanced fashion, a good place to start is to link to Opposition to trade unions.--Mrcolj (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair point. Best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm an economist, and I really do not recognize your lecturers' views on organized labour... You say you've never had an economics class that was vaguely neutral or positive about unions - I don't think I've ever had one that was vaguely negative about them.85.226.159.50 (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I second the final comment - this article is far too positive about unions in the current - I think one way to correct it could be to highlight working condition changes since early industrialization and show how the decline of unions parallels the safety and other protections put in place - essentially the unions have put themselves out of a job. The efforts to reinvigorate unionization is weird - other than for political purposes, I don't see a real use case for unions any longer. Especially counter-productive to unionize civil servants. ¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krigsmakten (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(trying hard to assume you're not Scott Walker) The neutrality of the article doesn't hinge on its hewing either to your view of the usefulness of unions in the world today or to anyone else's recollections of economics class. Regarding your linking of union decline with safety protections and so on, you'd need to find reliable sources that make that argument and be very careful to avoid synthesis. Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


Additions to "Labor Unions Today"

I would like to add some information to your page under Labor Unions Today. Can you please take a look at my edit and give me some feedback. Your response will be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Click here for my edit Please respond on my talk page. M.Caban (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your query here earlier. Thank you for improving the article. I modified your addition. You can see the overall changes here and can see the individual changes and read my edit summaries by consulting the page history. Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting review of my edit

I am doing a class project and I would like to add some information to your page. Can you please take a look at my edit and give me some feedback. Thank you

Click here for my edit Please respond on my talk page. Mspsychology (talk) 18:42, 08 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll also leave a note on your talk page, but the link you provided doesn't seem to work (with or without the period in the user name). Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Labor Unions - The Grievance Process

One aspect of union activity that affects employee attitudes and behaviors is the grievance process. Specified in union contracts, the grievance process establishes a formal mechanism for airing and resolving worker complaints. The number and focus of worker grievances serve as indications of job dissatisfaction and can pinpoint the causes of problems in the workplace.

Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 164. ISBN 0-205-68358-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsPsychology (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Union Density in 1700s to 1930s?

This article is very incomplete. There have been so many studies showing the robustness of the labor movement in the U.S in the 19th century. The first labor strikes in America, for example, were in the 1600s. The first unions formed in the 1830s. The movement was well underway by the time that Lincoln took note of it. In the late 1800s, there were thousands of strikes and hundreds of unions formed including those by blacks, women, farmers, immigrants, Mexicans, etc. (much like China today). Most of the work for an 8-hour day, 40-hour week, child labor laws, etc. came out of those early, often violent struggles. There is no mention of the National Labor Union of that period or the work of the Populist Party or the Socialist Party. Help, please! We have a LOT of work to do on this page to make it even half-way creditable. The big story is missing. Bdubay (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion between editors

Montanabw is misinformed about labor union history and indeed about Ronald Reagan. Everyone knows that Reagan was a liberal union president in his younger days. The number of strikes sharply declined in the 1980s and one editor said we should explain why. So I included an explanation cited to a standard reference book on strikes that explains that unions discovered that strikes helped companies more than unions (that is, the unions figured out that usually more was lost by going out on strike, for owners threatened to close or move the plant see cite.) As for Reagan, Wilentz calls him "a leftist liberal Democratic union leader" Age of Reagan p 129 Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks and remember WP:AGF. Please also cease your apparent assumption that everyone else other than yourself is stupid and misinformed. There is no need for editorializing adjectives in an encyclopedia article, particularly when they are imprecise. It is a fact that Reagan led a union. It is an opinion that he was "liberal" and leads to debate over the definition of what a "liberal" might be vis a vis the 50s versus the 2000s - particularly when the reality is that he was simultaneously a union leader AND a rabid anti-communist. So to avoid drama, it's best to avoid unneeded qualifiers. As for "one editor said we should explain why," the way to handle such things is to "teach the controversy," which means a thorough section devoting to the views of the decline from right, left and center, not a right-wing view only, and presented as fact when it is merely the opinion of one side. You are supposedly the great scholar with the PhD, you should know this. I've seen you do more balanced work elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not report "facts" or "opinions" (whatever those things are) -- instead it reports what the reliable secondary sources say, but Montanabw refuses at accept that policy. WP:RS The RS all say Reagan had been a liberal Democrat (and he often said that too). As for the views of the decline in strikes, if Montanabw has fresh material to add she should add it, not erase text that in fact is not right-or-left (and in this case comes from a pro-union RS that explained why unions sharply cut back on strikes--because companies threatened to move or close.). Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
You may address other editors directly, Rjensen. We needn't engage in the third person on a talk page. The core pillar of wikipedia is WP:NPOV, thus the choice is to either state both (or all) sides evenly or to express information neutrally, neutrally is usually easier. In particular, we must avoid WP:SYNTH, making statements that go beyond sourced material. What you fail to understand is that while Reagan defined himself as a Democrat in his younger days, "liberal" is not inherently attached to "Democrat", particularly during his time as SAG president when he testified before the HUAC and supported the blacklisting of Hollywood actors, scarcely a liberal position. He was already clearly moving to the right in the 50s, even if he did not change his party affiliation immediately. As far as the reason unions cut back on strikes, there were many reasons, companies threatening to move abroad or close being only a part of the picture. As the earlier part of the paragraph already states, legitimate foreign competition, and companies moving south were factors. So were changing union tactics from confrontation to collaboration, etc. You are fighting over a conclusory statement that you took out of context from the source.
ALl the info I added was expressed neutrally, However your deletions were based on a pro-union POV. Reagan certainly did change a lot over time. However it remains indisputable that at one point was a liberal Democrat, & a union leader (he campaigned for Helen Douglas & Harry Truman). The point of including it was to underscore Reagan's dramatic change in his role in PATCO. Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I must call bullshit; You're a known admin on conservapedia. Reagan's "dramatic change" had been ongoing since the 1950s. But to the point, some other source material to expand the multitude of reasons unionism declined (should you actually sincerely care about neutrality and teaching the controversy, which I shall AGF and hope...) is discussed http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/02/labor-unions-decline-can-turnaround here ] (The Guardian UK having an interesting perspective outside the US and thus a more objective analysis) and here (Bloomberg a moderate source) and it's well worth mentioning the growth of right to work, the steady hostility of corporations to unionism, etc... it's a vast topic. Montanabw(talk) 00:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
In history, what the PhD & graduate school is all about is learning historiography. Of learning how to track down primary & secondary sources, and how to evaluate them by grouping them into "schools" of interpretations so the topic no longer seems so "vast" and confusing as it does to Montanabw. That historiography gives the PhD self confidence in being able to tell "bullshit" from scholarship. If you don't know the historiography then you will be confused a lot and look for 2013 political signals to see who you ought to believe. Now anyone can understand the historiography--it's not rocket science and the history professors have largely escaped the jargon that affects some fields. But you have to look at the scholarly books and journals. (Google, JSTOR etc make finding and reading those materials vastly easier than when I was in grad school!! It's now much faster to do research from my home office in Billings than it was at the big libraries I used at Yale and in Chicago) In terms of labor historiography I have followed (and contributed) to the scholarship for 40 years. The PhD also learns where there is no controversy at all: for example (this is the topic at issue today) why big strikes declined 95% after 1970 there is general consensus, which I summarized by citing a pro-union source. (unions could rarely win, because if they won the company would shut down the plant or move to another state; the Guardian agrees with me and it pays no attention to Montanabw's vague reference to many reasons", all unspecified and of ne help to Wiki users) I suspect that because the Guardian is on the far left of the UK newspaper scene, that is why why Montanabw thinks it's "objective" for her needs. The Guardian story she bemoans is that in the 1940s the conservatives broke the close link between unions and the Communists, typified by Henry Wallace. That link was broken by liberals like Walter Reuther; the liberals purged the Reds from the CIO. Reagan played a role in 1948 when he campaigned for Truman against Wallace. (Reagan was in the AFL with a much smaller far left element than the CIO.) In any case that purge happened about 1948, and labor unions grew steadily AFTER the purge (15 million members in 1947, then grew 50% to peak at about 23 million in 1974). The decline thus came much later. In a word the Guardian essay is poor history (the author is not a historian & is much more interested forming a future coalition on the left.) [The Bloomberg item is an op-ed that has a historical graph but no American history--its argument is focused on Canada). Rjensen (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so you admit that Reagan wasn't a screaming liberal! As for the rest, spare me your condescension, bucko, I have completed advanced degrees as well, I just have other interests on wiki and am not a retired wannabee who spends all my time trying to put right wing revisionist history up, masquerading as "neutral." It's a RS and simply here at talk as an example that other material is out there. You are clearly such a genius, you obviously can find better sources yourself should you actually care about balancing an article instead of pushing your known right-wing agenda by cherry-picking things that promote your own theory. Really, here you are engaging in WP:SYNTH in its classic form. Also, don't puff yourself up; you're careless in your work; you rarely format citations completely or correctly, your prose leaves much top be desired because you overuse unencyclopedic adjectives, particularly your desire to insert the word "liberal" every three sentences, and I am aware that you have almost derailed at least two FACs due to your personal ineptitude and POV pushing (remember Nixon?). Remember: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Montanabw(talk) 16:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian is not on the "far left of the UK newspaper scene". It is a centre-left paper that supports the Liberal Democrats as much as Labour. I don't see how you can argue that the article is "poor history". It is a brief survey by a professor emeritus of economics. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I read the Guardian article and the history portion is brief, is thin and of poor quality. The author is not much interested in history, and the article is about hypothetical proposals for the future, such as workers taking ownership of closed factories. Rjensen (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
See above. It's a simple example, feel free to use your own genius to find better sources that will say the same thing, they are out there. Unless, of course, you don't care to write a balanced article; I seriously doubt you are capable of doing so... Montanabw(talk) 16:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Reagan was a liberal until the early 50s when, under the influence of his father-in-law and GE he converted to conservatism. While he became anti-Communist about 1940, that was not untypical of liberals at the time. The Truman administration was anti-Communist, as was Bobby Kennedy, and liberalism and trade unionism would continue to include a strong anti-Communist element until Pat Moynihan and Scoop Jackson. A small element of liberals, or "progressives", would oppose anti-Communism.
Strikes declined primarily because they were seen as counter-productive. As the Guardian article says, "Unions have mostly compromised on concessions to retain employers." That is a separate issue from why union membership and power has declined. Strikes in Canada declined by 90-95% over the same period[12] despite, as the Bloomberg article mentions, the same decline in membership did not occur.
There are many possible reasons for the decline of unions in the U.S. and we should not just take the opinions of one or two writers, whose views may or may not reflect majority opinion.
TFD (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If you say "democrat" and "republican" I would support that wording as uncontroversial and completely verifiable; "liberal" and "conservative" are problematic words that have meanings that shift over time, plus, as your example of Truman notes, Truman wasn't particularly "liberal" in some respects, and definitions change. (Laissez-faire capitalism was once a "liberal" idea; today's "liberal" is tomorrow's "conservative" and vice-versa - after all, Reagan got the debt ceiling raised something like 18 times, and Nixon went to China...). As for the union decline issue, that is precisely why I moved out a single statement as a sole "cause," so no argument there from me, that supports my edit. I have other fish to fry than fight about this article, it only came to my attention because someone else raised that there was a problem here. Montanabw(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of the terms has not changed, but the policies have. Incidentally the terms were adopted into U.S. politics in the 1930s to refer to supporters of FDR and his opponents. The terms were needed because he had Republican supporters and Democratic opponents and vice versa. To say Reagan was a Democrat is unhelpful. So was Al Smith, while LaGuardia was a liberal and a Republican. Reagan's position was clearly in support of the New Deal and he probably was on the left of New Deal Supporters. After all he chose to campaign for the "Pink Lady". Then he decided, as he said, to find his own facts and use his own reasoning. TFD (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
"liberal" and "conservative" from 1930s to 1980s meant "support/opponent" on the New Deal, and support/opposition for labor unions was a major element in that. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Not entirely, you are leaving out the Great Society, the environmental movement, the women's movement, and the anti-Vietnam War movement. Unions and the New Deal, yes, were linked, but you are making an overbroad statement. All of which is kind of beside the point; the point is that all of this is inapplicable to a discussion of Reagan as SAG president. The point here is that Reagan was SAG president, and in that role, it is not appropriate to label him as a "liberal," given his anti-communist views and his support of the Hollywood blacklist. Anything before or after is a bit off topic on this article. I'm really asking one word be omitted about Reagan. Makes no difference in the overall article, and keeps the tone neutral. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The Great Society, the environmental movement, the women's movement, ant the anti-Vietnam War movement did not exist in the 1930s. Anti-Communism was not the same issue either, and the U.S. allied with the Soviet Union from 1941-45. Vietnam and anti-Communism would come to divide liberals, although after Reagan ceased to be one. Reagan's position in the late 1940s on the blacklist and Communism was no different from leading liberals or the unions. Only a small segment of liberals opposed that position. Hence the Progressive Party. TFD (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If you read Rjensen's comment, he said "from 1930s to 1980s" (my emphasis). As you note, there are a LOT of other issues, I was pointing out his thinking error that a "liberal" in the 1980s was linked primarily to the New Deal. Your comments also don't really describe the progressive party, which was more of an active force prior to WWII (note Robert LaFollette, who ran for President on a Progressive Party ticket in 1924 for details there, as well as articles on Progressivism in the United States generally, especially as circa 1900-1912 or so it was once a faction within the Republican party - one of history's great ironies). THE POINT is that we don't need to bludgeon people over the head about the word "liberal" in this article as linked to Reagan as SAG president; all that needs to be noted is that Reagan was SAG president and later, as POTUS, broke the Air Traffic Controller's union. I suspect that his position on the issues he promoted as SAG president would not have changed when he was older, and even in the 50s, though it is of course speculative, he may well have agreed that the Controllers' strike was illegal. As he often commented, "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me." Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, all this hue and cry is over putting the phrase "liberal younger days" with the bit on Reagan as SAG president, which is really unnecessary drama. It's unencyclopedic in tone and not required to enhance understanding of this topic. End of story. So let's just drop the stick and leave it be. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that a former top liberal union boss became the number one union-buster. I am sure that if Margaret Thatcher had begun her political career as head of the miners' union, we might put that in an article about unions in the UK. TFD (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. We need a much more robust discussion of how the CIA has used labor unions for its own purposes under the auspices of anti-communism. This perspective actually reveals some important continuity about Ronald Reagan's career, from his role as a Crusade for Freedom spokesguy to his express support for the labor movement in Poland. The AFSCME–Guyana connection is one of the best known of these, but I'm sure historian Rjensen can provide numerous other examples. groupuscule (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Limitations and powers of Unions

The state of unions in the US is incredibly unclear from reading this article. At its root, a labor union is simply a bunch of workers who decide to act together to pressure their employer to give them a better deal in some way (wages, working conditions, benefits, etc). Things have obviously gotten much more complicated as there are laws that restrict unions, as well as laws that give unions special legal powers, as well as laws that couldn't be called union "powers" but do make certain contingent requirements on employers, employees, and unions.

Its incredibly unclear to me what those are from this article, and I'd like to propose a set of sections to clarify them:

  1. Legal limitations of unions
  2. Legal powers of unions
  3. Legal requirements of unions
  4. Legal requirements of employers in relation to unions
  5. Legal requirements of employees in relation to unions

That would give this article a lot more teaching power. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a list of references on this talk page?

Any references should be in the article itself, unless they are proposals. I don't see any reason that giant list of references should remain on the talk page. If no one disagrees, I'd like to move it to the archive. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that list is reproduced in full in the article, and is also out of date, so I just removed it. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad phrasing

"In general they have shown robust growth rates, for wages and working conditions are set through negotiations with elected local and state officials."

What does this mean? Unless this sentence was written in Shakespearean (where "for" means "because"), the second part is nonsensicle. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

for = because here. And no it is not nonsensical, it is standard English-language usage since the days of Shakespeare. see http://www.grammarly.com/answers/questions/7163-for-vs-because-of/ Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Labor unions in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope

As far as it goes, this article is informative. But it can go farther. All major league sports in the United States are unionized. All of them have been involved in either strikes or lockouts in the past twenty years. Why does this article not make mention of the fact? By population, the sports leagues are small, true, but by dollar amount--especially when looking at pre- and post- unionizations, the sums are vast. The article does not fully capture the scope of unionization in the United States if it does not include all the unionized major league sports. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Corruption

This article doesn't really address union corruption in the US. Corruption (or the appearance of corruption) was a factor in unions' decline. Whether you abhor the idea of trade unions (like I do) or love them, you should want this covered thoroughly, I would think. Readers deserve it. 2600:1012:B026:A316:BC49:97EF:5287:D18B (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labor_unions_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1227008612"