Talk:Costco/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Request for comments: Employment section dispute (resolved)
This is a dispute about the "Working at Costco" section of Costco, but also more generally about what NPOV means. Unfortunately, the debate has splattered all over this Talk page and is rather lengthy. Summary:
- I reverted some anon edits: [[1]] which were later claimed by ElPablo69
- We ended up in danger of Wikipedia:3RR, so I requested moderation
- Our debate, even with moderation, hasn't been very fruitful, we haven't heard from the moderator in a few days, and the discussion has turned to questions of Wikipedia:NPOV, so I thought it might be more appropriate to get more outside opinions.
- My position earlier was that merely refining wording on a section doesn't help if the facts were selected in a biased way
- ElPablo69 earlier argued that the facts were relevant and should be included, and that others could round out the article later
- Later he offered a selection of potentially negative facts from the employee agreement to balance the section
- I argued that that resulted only in a selection of both pro- and anti- biased facts
- There was some discussion of whether an internal company document is a valid source to cite.
- ElPablo69 argued that the source is easy to obtain
- I replied that while I wasn't very happy with the source, that it wasn't itself a show-stopper
- Later I argued that it should be made available if unbiased editors think the section is relevant and wanted to use it
- I argued that WP isn't like a news outlet, where the goal is to give the blow-by-blow of a controversy, and cited Abortion as an article which unbiased-ly describes a topic and essentially only mentions the huge debate in passing. (I consider the big-box store employment debate a big political issue that isn't central to our coverage of the stores themselves).
- ElPablo69 argued that employment at Costco comes up a lot in Yahoo Finance and is of keen interest to investors and other folks who keep a close eye on Costco
- He also pointed out that he has followed Costco for a long time and qualifies as an expert on the topic
- I don't dispute that point, and claim that the question is bias, not expertise
- I also did a google search and couldn't find much about the topic in the news, nor did I see anything on Yahoo Finance. (ElPablo69 may soon post explicit links to relevant news coverage, though)
- I also reiterated my claim that our goal is not to track journalistic coverage of topics, except as a notable aspect of a topic (rather than the bulk of it).
- The argument turned to whether it's possible for biased editors to write from an NPOV
- I argued that the original selection of facts was biased, and thus not a good starting point to end up with an unbiased section. I proposed that unbiased editors should start without it and add it if they thought the article needed it
- Elpablo69 argued that there are no unbiased editors
- ElPablo69 also points out that deleting the section in dispute is what I wanted all along
- ElPablo69 proposes creating a sub-article as a solution to the question of balance in the Costco article
- I argue that it doesn't solve the bias problem (which to me is now primarily about selection of facts and avoiding having our focus swayed by PR efforts rather than how phrases are worded).
Hopefully I've done both sides justice. Lunkwill 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You've done a wonderful job of summary. Let's add new stuff at the bottom to keep it easy for everyone to follow.
In terms of Yahoo! Finance, it does include press releases but I don't use those as justification, as any company can put anything in a press release (just look at some penny stock). I don't recall PR having much about employment other than financial stats like the new payrates will cost $XX. As far as me posting a bunch of articles, that really misses my point, which is for you to get an idea for yourself. I can go find a bunch of good articles for any organization. The idea is for you to see the overall picture in terms of every article that Yahoo! Finance (an independent third party) has selected for Costco; then YOU can see the results. Just as important is to do the same thing for a couple other publicly owned big box chains, to see that they DON'T "constantly" have articles about their wonderful employment practices. But again the only thing doing that would prove is relevance, which we can just as well move on from (thank God), and on to the much more important discussion of NPOV. So I'd say let's just forget about that.
In terms of compromise/bias, again, your top level logic is correct...that is, if it doesn't belong at all, then there really isn't room for "compromise" in how its written, selection of facts, etc. But that is assuming that you are correct to begin with, which of course I would disagree with. Kinda like people discussing religion. A hardcore Christian is telling a hardcore Muslim that Jesus is the only way to salvation, he will burn in hell, etc. No room for compromise on his part, if he is indeed correct. But his entire argument is based upon the assumption that he is right and the Muslim is wrong. Conversely, the hardcore Muslim says (whatever) is the only way, and there is no room for compromise. In order to settle the discussion, they must first determine who is right...no easy task.
In terms of the original selection was biased (and yes I have a viewpoint) I agree that the facts shed a positive light. But does that in itself make the selection biased? I understand that it may look that way, but I don't think so. Could it just be that their policies are superior to the mainstream?
Suppose your job is to make a website showing the local department stores. In each store the store manager happens to be a good photographer, and they are to take pictures of the parking lot, main entrance, mall entrance, cosmetics counter, escalators, jewelry counter, shoe department and restrooms. They are to use the same camera with the same settings and the same angle of view. Each store manager of course will take the pics so they look best of their store. You post the pics of Neiman-Marcus and Sears. Who do you think is going to look better? Probably Neiman's. Can someone now claim that you are biased and your selection of pics are biased and these pics should be deleted? Of course not! The pics speak for themselves, and they make Neimen's look better because they are better. The fact that the pics shed a nice light on Neiman-Marcus and a poor light on Sears doesn't prove anything. Now substitute pics for facts and this applies the same to our discussion.
Now suppose you are doing research on employment conditions at major big-box retailers. Your job is to compare the important stuff. Before even being given a list of companies, how would you select what points to investigate for comparison? List those criteria and then get the details for each store. When you put them side by side, Costco will look better than most others. That doesn't prove bias in any regard--overall, selection of facts, etc. The facts simply show what is true.
My listing of details (i.e. selection of facts) covers what I consider to be important points of comparison. They all cover objective criteria which is black and white. There is no wishy-washy subjective crap like employee survery results which can be influenced and varied from company to company, which companies have "jackass" managers, who has the best employee lunchrooms, etc. The fact that the results shed Costco in a positive light prove nothing.
If you went and got the same details for, let's say, Macy's, I think it would show nothing special (good or bad), just that they are an average big-box retailer. That in itself would then beg the question of whether the details belong in the article at all (probably not).
I do think that the three of us can make a 99% perfect employment section (whether in the main article or separate). We just need to agree on what should be included, how is is phrased/presented, etc. Why don't we start on that while waiting for more ideas from others?
Elpablo69 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Elpablo69, please see official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Please pay particular attention to sections 1.3 (WP is not a publisher of original thought); 1.4 (WP is not a soapbox); 1.5 (WP is not a repository of links); 1.7 (WP is not a directory) and 1.8 (WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information). I believe Lunkwill is correctly enforcing Wikipedia policy with regard to Costco. --Coolcaesar 07:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message and participation. I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion for the following reasons.
1.3: There is nothing original about the facts, they are all black and white and have all been citied numerous times in various mainstream media. If you doubt this, see my instructions above for researching it yourself. 1.4: Due to the long, long discussions it may seem like a soapbox (at least in regards to the talk page), but the article itself isn't. Regardless of my personal viewpoint, the facts selected are appropriate and correct. I am not drawing conclusions here. It is up to the reader to decide how they compare to other big-box retailers. 1.5: I haven't posted any links, so I'm not sure what you mean. Wal-Mart's article has a ton of links, and that is a large enough article with a large editor base that we can't simply dismiss it as "sucking too." 1.7 Doesn't seem to apply. 1.8: Out of 90 pages of employment policies, I've narrowed it down to these few points which have widespread implications. If Costco's article is too long, then Wal-Mart's must be outrageous. However, if we start deleting employment info on that article it will be quickly reverted by countless editors. And we all know what's good for the goose is good for the gander! :-) Elpablo69 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have time to give a proper response right now. One quick thing though: while I appreciate your sentiment that news as a whole should be considered, I simply couldn't find any of the articles you refer to when I've looked. Could you post some links to specific ones here so that I can at least get a feel for the kind of articles you're talking about? Lunkwill 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I've discovered why you may be having trouble. The titles of many articles on Yahoo! don't reflect that you'll find this sort of info inside. Since I read most of them entirely, I remember seeing "tons" of such info, but if you only browse the headlines, it doesn't appear that way. Here is an example:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/03/07/foolish-forecast-courteous-costco.aspx
It will be much easier if you use a custom search service such as Gale company (available from your local library). Here's some of their results:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070123/costco_union_agreement.html?.v=1
According to a recent article in Fortune magazine, Costco has repeatedly foiled Sam's Club's attempt to control the warehouse club market. Sam's Club, owned by Wal-Mart, has 71 percent more stores than Costco. But, according to Fortune, Costco had 5 percent more sales and the average Costco store generates nearly double the revenue of a Sam's Club. Costco is the United States' biggest seller of fine wines ($600 million a year) and baster of poultry (55,000 rotisserie chickens a day). Last year it sold 45 million hot dogs at $1.50 each and 60,000 carats of diamonds at up to $100,000.
Assistant managers receive about $65,000, and managers get more than $100,000 plus bonuses, Seligman said. He said the suit was about "changing the way Costco does business."
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T004&prodId=SPN.SP00&docId=CJ115479990&source=gale&srcprod=SP00&userGroupName=txshrpub100416&version=1.0 Elpablo69 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_15/b3878084_mz021.htm
- Thanks for posting those. None of the galegroup.com links work, since I don't have an account at that institution, but the others work. Press references are going to be less trouble than the internal employee doc. I note that you've reintroduced the claim that Sam Walton wanted to merge Sam's Club with Costco, citing this article as a reference:
- I see nothing in that article to support that claim, though. Above, you make more arguments about bias and claim in effect that the Employment section only looks biased because Costco's employment practices are so awesome. I don't buy that since it was clear in the original edits you made that you were pushing a viewpoint at that time. You need to stop excusing bias; essentially, you've been trying to pull us toward the viewpoint that Costco is so awesome, rather than convincing us that you're looking at the article from a NPOV and being extra careful to keep your own viewpoint out of the way. Lunkwill 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I concur. The burden is on the editor trying to add or reinsert information to show compliance with Wikipedia official policies. --Coolcaesar 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Guilty until proven innocent? Besides, I've more than justified everything ten times over.
OMG! I didn't realize those citations wouldn't work without a library card...arrgh! I wonder how students are supposed to cite stuff for research papers if the teacher/professor can't verify it without a library card at that institution???
Anyway, as far as the Price/Sam's merger, that isn't really important to me. Just kinda a "what could have been" type thing for folks to ponder. I'll be darned because I also don't see it in that citation, yet it was certainly there the other night.
In terms of their employment, it SHOULDN'T be awesome, that should be about the standard. If you take the minimum wage in 1969 and adjust for all the increases in productivity since then it would be around $11/hr today. Alas, there has been a race to the bottom as our good jobs moved overseas, blah, blah, blah. I won't get into that discussion, but you can bet I have an opinion on the matter and that is a form of bias.
My bottom line is that my motives aren't relevant as long as the finished product is okay. Why did I become a heart surgeon? Why did you become a police officer? Doesn't really matter as long as we do the job right. Everyone here has motives, some are upfront about them, others aren't, but they all have them. We can find blame in any article and any editor using that logic. Lets start looking at the finished product.
I've found that I can scan documents to a third party web hosting service and use those as citations, thus avoiding any copyright issues on this site. Just like a union contract which is not a "public document," it is easily enough available to use as a source (regardless of what it's being cited for). Elpablo69 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I suppose in a sense it is "guilty until proven innocent", in the sense that avoiding bias is more important to us than making sure we get as much information as possible out there for people to see. There are other venues for that kind of information; here we just want "boring", established facts, and don't even want to change people's opinions. As we've said before, it's okay if you *have* bias, as long as you do everything possible to keep it out of your writing. That's why, when I tried my hand at mentioning employment in the article, that I put more than I was really happy with; I figured, "maybe I have an unconscious bias against Costco, since Elpablo69 keeps talking about how it's so important." Unfortunately, my edit also came out newsy and biased, so I threw it away. So, if you want to try again at editing the article, remove the biased stuff, and then you can look at it as if you were from another country or something, just trying to learn about what this Costco thing is. If you find yourself thinking "gee, I really can't fully understand the notion of /Costco/ without knowing about the big-box employment controversy", then you might want to describe it -- like an Encyclopedia would (being extra careful to avoid anything that would let people know whose side of the controversy you're on). Page scans are still going to be tough -- essentially, you're selecting facts from a primary source, and that's cautioned against in Wikipedia:No_original_research. You're right that the press (especially the more opinionated columns) will often be more slanted and less detailed than the internal document; but that's probably another hint that this is more of a /controversy/ than an essential part of what Costco is. That often means that instead of airing all the pundits or doing an investigative piece to set them all straight, we might simply want to mention that pundits sometimes discuss the topic of employment at Costco. (But don't let me stop you from doing a big investigative piece and sending it to the press! Maybe they need a good dose of facts. Unfortunately, this isn't the place to put that piece). Lunkwill 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Since we're all biased to some degree, I don't think that should stop any of us. The end result is what really matters.
I think we could summarize Costco with one paragraph and it would be complete, factual & neutral...but especailly in a digital format, isn't more better? How do we define what's fluff? I don't know.
Costco can certainly be described without any mention of employment, however that still seems incomplete due to the unusual nature of this company. Wal-Mart's article could be just as complete and "boring," but I don't think there's a chance in hell that the community would agree to leave out all employment info. If something stands out, and the company is big enough, I'd say its worth mentioning.
Anyway, by this point I'm fully convinced that IF employment info stays, the only workable way is to sub-article it. I'd like to see what your post would look like, even if you think it "sucks." Elpablo69 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
PS I'm still looking for the Price/Sam's merger.
- Comment - I would like to propose a change to the section altogether. Frankly, I do not see any NPOV issues with the section as it stands. However, I do see a lot of information uneeded to make this a quality article. If I can propose a change to:
With the notable exception of former Price Club locations in California and in the northeastern US that are operated by Teamsters, the majority of Costco locations are not unionized. Despite this, non-union shops have revisions to their Costco Employee Agreement every three years concurrent with union contract ratifications in locations with collective bargaining agreements. Similar to a union contract, the Employee Agreements sets forth such things such as benefits, compensations, wages, disciplinary procedures, operating hours and holidays (Costco is closed on Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day), bonuses, and seniority.
Costco contracts employees of Club Demonstration Services (CDS) to sample its products, one of the major draws to the warehouse. CDS employees do not work for Costco.
It is notable to say that non-union shops are managed in much the same way as union shops. It is notable that Teamsters operate some locations. It is notable that those who provide sampling services, because it is a major draw for customers, do not work for Costco. Operating hours and days are slightly notable. The rest, such as specific salaries of every type of employee or which hoops must be jumped through to fire someone , is just fluff, IMHO. It is disorganized and simply clutters the article. I vote on the side of being concise. All of the relevant information is in the above proposal, and it simply reads better. Normally, I would simply change the section, but because of the ongoing dispute (which I frankly do not want to become party to) I will post it here for consideration. -- ![\sqrt[\tfrac{_{32^\circ\mathrm {F}}} {^{0^\circ\mathrm {C}\;\;}}]{_{\infty}}\approx\tfrac{\sin('d) ^{\underline {\flat y}}}{\mathbb {Z} y+\Re_{\varnothing}\!{n!}} \otimes](../../../../math/3/a/0/3a016d8d0cf70a5d2cf625fde5eeda1c.png)
user|TALK 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how that link works. Lunkwill or Matt were you able to see it?
Since most retailers are open holidays (except maybe Christmas Day) I'd say that is notable, e.g. some foreigner would be helped by that info. The fact it is a paid holiday is an added bonus. The holiday closures could be in another section as it addresses operating info, and the paid holiday info in the employment section, if it is.
I'd change "operated by Teamsters" to something like "staffed by Teamsters," as the company "operates" the store.
Staying out of the big-box debate, what is too much info? Where do we draw the line? I don't have an exact answer for that.
The paragraph style writing is similar to WJBscribe's revision, I'm not sure that tackles the root issue though. Thanks for the posting. Elpablo69 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- ElPablo69: yes, I still agree that the end result (the writing) is what needs to be NPOV. No, more is not necessarily better, as I've described wrt the Abortion article (articles shouldn't get carried away with controversy). Fluff isn't the problem, "newsiness" (research journalism, etc.) and bias are the problems. I'm still not opposed to mentioning employment, as long as it's done appropriately, and I still think that a sub-article doesn't solve the problem. I have no idea what you mean by "I don't understand how that link works". Thanks, Zytron, for your take on the section. It's NPOV and isn't trying to compare itself to Costco's competitors, and fits with the rest of the article. It's also terse, which is something several commentators asked for and feels like a concensus to me. I've put it into the article, taking ElPablo69's suggestions into account and moving the holiday info to the "Costco Today" section. It doesn't get into the big-box employment controversy, and I don't think anybody is opposed to mentioning that it exists (as I tried and failed to do with my earlier edits), but perhaps we can discuss the text here before it goes into the article. Lunkwill 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Zytron's link consisting of the math symbols...what does that mean/do??? It sounded like there was a "mock up" behind that link, but I can't click on it.
It ain't perfect (IMHO), but it is good enough. I think we're done my friends!!!!! :-) Elpablo69 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Has this problem been settled? Because it is still listed as Open here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-24 Costco Employment Practices. If it is closed and everyone is all set with this, that is great and it just needs to be marked as closed. If it is still open, then I would like to try to help with it. Fanra 16:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is complete. Perhaps more of it needs to be "archived," I don't know how to do that.
- Someone at an anonymous IP just added some stuff to Working at Costco that looks like it was written by the Costco PR staff. I put in tags for both "It reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry" and also a tag for lack of citations, since there are no references. It looks like this is just being silly. I don't care how much you love Costco, this is not the place for such writing, you are welcome to create your own, "I love Costco site" elsewhere. Either that or someone in their PR department has way too much time on their hands. :) Fanra 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In previous debate, I was branded as being "pro-Costco." Keeping that in mind, a bunch of this stuff isn't neutral and probably lacks relevance. However I don't think the PR dept did that, as surely they would be able to use better spelling and grammar (no offense to those editors). I'm going to change a few things. Elpablo69 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
