Talk:Union organizer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggested issues with this article

Having written or greatly elaborated several related articles, i.e., Labor spies and Union busting, i am pleased to see this article. It represents a major contribution.

However, i have some significant concerns. Although there is a nice list of reference works at the bottom, that list will provide zero defense against many passages in this article which appear to be original research. Each section of the article that isn't scrupulously foot-noted (and there are currently no footnotes in the article whatsoever) is open to question and possible attack on the basis of appearing to violate NOR, from the many Wikipedia editors who are ideologically opposed to union information, period.

Having successfully defended — but at great sacrifice of time and effort — a significant number of Wikipedia articles from such attacks, i can offer that any little factual error in this article provides ammunition for deletion of material. If the article is footnoted, facts are easy to check. If it is not footnoted, then the entire article can be questioned.

And a quick glance at this article provides a glaring factual error: in the movie Matewan, the character Joe Kenehan (played by Chris Cooper) was NOT a communist, as this article states. When he presents himself as an organizer for the United Mine workers, he's quizzed and correctly answers four questions, three of which relate to the IWW. He explains his knowledge by declaring, "I was with the Wobblies."

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-35,GGLD:en&q=%22I+was+with+the+Wobblies%22

I've watched the movie dozens of times, written about it, transcribed sections of dialog to text, and as far as i'm aware there's no hint anywhere in the movie that the character played by Cooper is a communist.

Indeed, the entire treatment of communism in this article is suspect, in my opinion. For example, i'm certain that i could provide references that state flatly that the Communist slogan "Workers of the World Unite" is a reference to organizing into the Communist Party, and NOT into labor organizations. If the contributing editor cannot cite a specific source for the included text, then i would feel compelled to challenge it, even as someone who looks on this article favorably.

Another probable error, this one of omission: the Pinkerton Detective Agency IS NOT active today in the same capacity that they were historically. They discontinued their labor espionage activities decades ago, and they are now a part of Securitas. One gets the wrong impression from the reference in the article.

And please tell me who has written this:

Because the odds are in management's favor to influence votes, organizers must make up for it in personality.

??? That sounds like an assertion of opinion.

I'd also be very curious to know who has published the opinion that,

...unions have reinvented themselves as streamlined, professional machines.

Footnotes, please! If a footnote cannot be provided, then this passage (and so many others) must be considered open to challenge.

Are there clues that these statements might represent original research? Use of expressions such as "It should be noted that..." is often a hint that the writer is injecting an opinion. (Who says it should be noted?)

Likewise, "An argument can be made that..."

And language such as "the bad old days of the Red Scare" simply is not encyclopedic. Neither is "union cartels, for lack of a better word..."

I have attempted to eliminate all such expressions from my own Wikipedia editing, for they attract detractors, which often results in deletion wars.

Sure, i am entirely capable of fixing, eliminating, or clarifying some of these issues myself, and perhaps i'll consider that in time. But i write here in order to STRONGLY encourage those who've already edited and listed references, PLEASE add footnotes to the content already contributed. That makes it easier for all of us. Richard Myers 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is much, much better with footnotes, thanks. This is a minor point, but worth noting for the future — there is a fairly straightforward way of creating footnotes that makes them "live," in the sense that clicking on the footnote indicator takes you to the footnote, and vice-versa. Also, the Wikipedia software creates an automatic numbering system with the new version of footnotes, so that makes editing the article easier.

After the footnotes have been added, it is a fairly easy process for someone to do a conversion, so the article is much improved in its current form.

The guide to Wikipedia footnotes is here.

The content of the article is better. In the very broadest sense, i suppose that Joe Kenahan was a socialist; however, i think it would be less controversial to describe him as a former Wobbly, since that's how he described himself in the movie. Socialists generally rely upon the electoral process, while members of the IWW do not, and are constitutionally prohibited from doing so through the union. There was no indication that the character of Joe Kenahan in the movie put any credence whatsoever in electoral politics; on the other hand, his advice and actions were very much in line with the principles of the IWW, and the narrator at the end states that the "One Big Union" of the IWW became his religion after the events depicted.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with "Modern U.S. unions work much within the system, rather than against it, with political action programs." I would argue that describing these unions as "mainstream" rather than "modern" is more accurate. The IWW still exists, and its ultimate goal remains the overthrow of the wage system, so that isn't quite so accurately described as working "within the system, rather than against it..." Members of the IWW certainly would not consider mainstream unions to be any more "modern" than their own.

I'm not entirely convinced that "American unions of today" are "still left-leaning." For several decades the AFL-CIO embraced policies that were in accord with the CIA's foreign policy objectives, and although these tendencies are lessened under Sweeney, they still exist. Also, mainstream unions tend to become enforcers of company policies and rules during the life of the contract. Real "left-wing" unions such as the P-9 local in Austin, Minnesota are altogether too radical for the union bureaucracy of most mainstream unions; the UFCW crushed P-9 in the 1980s, and there are numerous similar examples. Certainly mainstream unions tend to profess some "liberal" principles; in practice, however, many are quite reactionary.

Again, thanks for creating this article, and for joining Wikipedia. best wishes, Richard Myers 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See-Also's

Many of the "See Also" items were referenced in the article, and did not need to be there. Some of the See Also items were articles which didn't mention union organizing (such as Organizational Communication). In other words, I removed a bunch of these. - Tim1965 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide template

Hi there. Great article, especially since it is so new! It mainly deals with the issue from a US perspective, though this has been reduced slightly by the merge from the older but far smaller Union organiser, which is now a redirect page. Any perspectives from around the world are most welcome here. Thanks. Tree Kittens 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag I added - the point still stands but I no longer see the utility of this tag. It's a good article and I wish there was a more subtle thing than these tags for good articles. Thanks ~ TreeKittens 04:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)