Talk:Canadian Union of Public Employees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

/Archive 1 03:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Labourdude had a point though. I think it might make sense to move the bulk of the Israel boycott info to Canadian Union of Public Employees - Ontario, and leave only a brief note and the national union's response here. It wouldn't hurt to create Canadian Union of Public Employees - Manitoba,...Saskatchewan, etc. while we're at it. Any thoughts? --Bookandcoffee 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on this are not hugely positive. First of all, it feels like POV fork to me. Second, the articles you propose are so incredibly minor, they don't really merit their own space. I think the article is quite clear as it stands about Ontario versus the rest of CUPE. IronDuke 21:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not jumping up and down about it, just something to think about. I'm not sure that I would call the provincial counter parts "incredibly minor" though. It was, after all, the Ontario branch who initiated this action, and there are any number of union locals with their own articles, let alone a provincial branch. --Bookandcoffee 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Point well-taken. I would only add that this is one of those areas where a thing (the Ontario branch) is notable only because of the controversy. I kinda think those Union Local articles are a bit like those "high school" articles we have. Not harmful, but really not what the project is about. IronDuke 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit odd that almost half of the article on one of Canada's largest trade union's is about the union's attitute towards Israel. There's a lack of proportionality here. Homey 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be if CUPE were especially notable for other things. Is it? IronDuke 00:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the largest public sector trade union in Canada. They led a court fight that derailed the deregulation of the energy industry in Ontario. They've led a number of significant strikes. This past winter they were on the verge of a large illegal strike in Ontario over the issue of workers control over their pension fund[1].

The CUPE article should be mostly about their activities as a trade union. Mention should be made of the Israel boycott but most of the information should be in the Israeli boycott article with a link to there from this article. This is particularly the case as the boycott is a project of CUPE Ontario only and not CUPE National and CUPE Ontario doesn't even represent all the CUPE locals in that province. Homey 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to put in more info on court fights and strikes, I doubt anyone would object. Don't see why we need to remove info, though. IronDuke 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it has more to do with Israeli boycott than with CUPE. Homey 01:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I still don't see it. When CUPE takes any action, it has more to do with CUPE than with anything else. No point in burying CUPE's boycott elsewhere. And we can always dulpicate the info. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. IronDuke 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The one that I think is really completely irrelevant, especially a section on its own, is the section on Durban, which is an out-of-context quote from one member, on something that happened over five years ago. As things that are footnotes to Canada's largest union go, that one I really think is completely irrelevant and disproportionate. The issue of the Israel boycott -- while about a provincial wing of the union and not the union as a whole -- is at least a high-profile current issue, although I think in the long-term the article should certainly focus more on CUPE's issues as a trade union. If I get the energy, I may try and add some information on CUPE's various fights against the privatization of public services, especially water privatization in BC and Nova Scotia, and electricity privatization in Ontario, as well as on the recent threat of general strike over OMERS. (Full disclosure: I work for CUPE, but my opinions on this are my own.) --209.29.182.225 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editorial comment

I cut this out:

On July 7th, political commentator Lysiane Gagnon wrote in the Toronto Globe and Mail:

“

Of course, CUPE and the United Church’s anti-Israel activists will tell you their positions are just about Israel’s policies and have nothing to do with Jews. But the line between anti-Semitism and obsessive anti-Zionism is thin and blurry. It is certainly perfectly acceptable to criticize the state of Israel, but the practice can become anti-Semitic when only the Jewish state is singled out as a rogue state, in a world that contains so many horrible regimes.

”

[2]

It is a general editorial, which may be valid, but adds like more than opinion to the article.--Bookandcoffee 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any policy-based reason to cut this out. She is notable and noted. Here is a link to her on an other WP: [3] and here is a link to an award she won [4]. IronDuke 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not policy related - but the quote says very little about CUPE. The first portion casts the union as "anti-Israel", and by extension, as "obsessive anti-Zionis(t)". The thrust is to imply that CUPE members who support this action are in fact anti-Semitic, and that is a very problematic statement. The last sentence is primarily generic filler, and has very little directly related content. To quote her simply because she is notable and mentioned CUPE is a thin argument. You could dig up comments from dozens of known Canadian political commentators on the subject. The question is, does the quote add to the readers understanding of the incident? I don't think it does, I think it only tells you about Lysiane Gagnon's opinion, which may be interesting, but should be in the Lysiane Gagnon article. If she had a claim to being directly involved, such as the other quotes and comments in the article do, then her comments would be more relevant. --Bookandcoffee 19:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

She need not have a claim to being "directly involved" for us to quote her. As a policy prescription for WP, there isn't even a grain of truth to that contention. I don't know that she is implying that CUPE members who support the boycott are antisemitic, but it matters not at all if she is. “To quote her simply because she is notable and mentioned CUPE is a thin argument”? Um… it’s the only possible argument. The quote is from a notable person, a reliable source, and on point. The strongest reason I see for leaving it out is that it may offend some people; that is not a good enough reason. IronDuke 19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Um… it’s the only possible argument." No it isn't. Is the comment relevant to the article? Does the comment provide the reader with additional insight into the incident? Does the person making the statement have a legitimate claim to be involved and recognized as an authority on the subject? I would say those are more appropriate criteria for including a comment. Your comment that it is "on point" is an interesting observation. I won't remove the quote again, as there are only two opinions at work here, but I do believe that it is not a particularly useful contribution.--Bookandcoffee 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I hope you'll eventually change your mind. IronDuke 19:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are probably better quotes out there critiquing CUPE. I don't object to the quote's presence, just its usefulness. As it stands, it's just kind of boring and unillustrative.

No matter whether one feels this is justified or not, it's simply a fact that many critics of Israel are characterized as antisemitic in some fashion. That Gagnon is doing this to CUPE and the United Church here is, well, more of the same. What would be more useful is a quote by someone critiquing CUPE but using details specifically from CUPE's actions on the matter (e.g. the text of Resolution 50). --Saforrest 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section about Israeli apartheid resolution

The section could use some tidying up. As it stands it seems pretty obvious that the different sets of quotes were inserted by different people: the pro-resolution quotes are all within the paragraph body, while the quotes condemning the resolution are all indented in block format. It could use a sweep by someone editing without an agenda.

As well, the whole coverage is about CUPE Ontario's adoption of this resolution, while it is only tangentially mentioned that CUPE BC adopted a similar resolution in the past. Wouldn't the BC resolution have been just as controversial, and deserving of coverage in the article? --Saforrest 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durban Conference on Racism

I edited out the block quote. Such a large quote critical of CUPE on a tangental issue taints the article's objectivity without a corresponding quote defending CUPE's position.

Consequently, I decided to redact the block quote, but leave the sentence noting ADL's criticism of CUPE on the issue along with the source. If the block quote is returned to the article, I strongly suggest including a block quote defending CUPE, so the issue is not presented in such a one-sided manner.