Talk:Columbia Forest Products
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Citations Needed
Please cite references for statement "senior management has the bulk of the stock and employees, while receiving stock, have no vote"
Please cite reference for "very few hourly workers participate"
Please cite reference for "...thus creating an Enron situation that most public companies are working hard to avoid". This statement is also controversial and does not represent a neutral point of view. User 'Woody23A' continuously adds this statement back into the article. Presumed to be a disgruntled employee.
"As a privately owned company efforts to ensure a diverse workforce are limited. This hampers their attempts to become a global competitor given the narrow exposure management has with different cultures and ideas. Relations with CFP’s Canadian mills and their Unions are one example of their struggle in this area" Not NPOV. Citation needed.
"Recent change makes Board of Directors primarily comprised of senior management. This is something that public companies have been moving away from in the interest of ensuring proper oversight." Citation needed.
"In recent years Columbia Forest Products (CFP) has had to borrow money to redeem stock owned by senior management as they prepare to retire." Citation needed.
(Jomtois 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC))
Have made some attempts at citations to support woody23a postings. Will look for a public write-up on the Labour issues from the last strike. It wasn’t very pretty. While CFP may not appreciate the topics, and the wording could be improved to be a bit more neutral woody23a is spot on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by woody23b (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 July 2006.
[edit] Sock Puppet?
Is suspected user 'woody23a' and user 'woody23b' are same person due to name similarity and interest in this particular article, so above comments must be viewed with that in mind. If so, this account may be an example of a "sock puppet" and is considered to be in poor taste, and in some cases, a violation of Wikipedia Policy. (See WP:Sock) --Jomtois 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Discussion" Section Neutrality
The "Discussion" section does not seem like an encyclopedic entry, rather a narrow-scope list of gripes, not supported by referenced facts, attempting to highlight apparently negative aspects of the company. Whether or not factually true, conclusions are implied. This section reads like a list of grievances, rather than an encyclopedia. The relevance of these statements to the rest of the article is minimal. I would nominate the section to be deleted or completely re-written with only verifiable, neutral facts. --Jomtois 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Got facts on Columbia Forest Products benfits, including research on 401(k) plan and ESOP. Still unknown whether or not this entire section is necessary to rest of article.--Jomtois 00:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] From the RFC
From the Economics RFC - the section on the 401k and ESOP are totally innapropriate content unless mentioned in a major media article. JBKramer 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advertisement
Removed article pending re-write so as not to appear as an advistisemnet
User:Woody23a
