Talk:Financial core

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Needs evaluation by legal expert on labor law in U.S.

I tagged this article as in need of expert attention since it deals with matters of U.S. labor law. Also the creator and main editor of the article appears to be the author of one of the primary sources cited (a book which is being offered for sale at the referrence link). Thus, there may be POV and original research concerns. --Benanhalt 08:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• response

This article summarizes the findings of the Supreme Court. Although the author was involved with the Beck case and supported Beck, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Beck/McIntire. And, although it was a controversial case, the ruling of the court was hardly controversial. Moreover, the court echoed sentiments McIntire expressed in both court documents and in the public media. Thus, it would seem that the Supreme Court and McIntire see eye to eye on this issue. (If anyone doubts this conclusion, I invite you to do the research and see for yourself.)

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is against the law to attempt to influence anyone's financial core decissions. Any misinformation would clearly be considered an attempt to influence financial core decissions. (And this is a warning to anyone who would like to contribute to this article.) Because this is a hotly contested topic (and because McIntire is a controversial and widely hated figure), if McIntire provided any misinformation he would clearly be open to prosecution. This suggests that the information provided is in strict accordance with the law.

• response

Indeed, the language of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Beck case is clear, unequivocal and entirely consistent with McIntire’s article here. Here's the actual language of the Court (found by the way by clicking on the link to the full text provided by McIntire).

“Taken as a whole, 8(a)(3) permits an employer and a union 2 to enter into an agreement requiring all employees to become union members as a condition of continued employment, but the "membership" that may be so required has been "whittled down to its financial core." NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734, 742 (1963). The statutory question presented in this case, then, is whether this "financial core" includes the obligation to support union activities beyond those germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment. We think it does not.”

And again later in the decision written by Justice William Brennan, the High Court refutes the compulsory unionists assertion that labor unions can take whatever monies they please and use it however they please over the objections of its members:

“It simply does not follow from this that Congress left unions free to exact dues equivalents from nonmembers in any amount they please, no matter how unrelated those fees may be to collective-bargaining activities. On the contrary, the complete lack of congressional concern for the rights of nonmembers in the debate surrounding the House "bill of rights" is perfectly consistent with the view that Congress understood 8(a)(3) to afford nonmembers adequate protection by authorizing the collection of only those fees necessary to finance collective-bargaining activities: because the amount of such fees would be fixed by their underlying purpose - defraying the costs of collective bargaining - Congress would have every reason to believe that the lack of any limitations on union dues was entirely irrelevant so far as the rights of nonmembers were concerned. In short, we think it far safer and far more appropriate to construe 8(a)(3) in light of its legislative justification, i. e., ensuring that nonmembers who obtain the benefits of union representation can be made to pay for them, than by drawing inferences from Congress' rejection of a proposal that did not address the rights of nonmembers at all.”

User:Benanhalt has tagged McIntire’s article out of concern that McIntire, as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) party to the Beck case, might have some POV (point of view) axe to grind in posting this article, it is interesting that user Benanhalt. In doing so, Benanhalt places a big WARNING sign at the beginning of McIntire’s completely factual article making it appear that the article is questionable or otherwise erroneous. Benanhalt thus has initiated a ‘chilling effect’ on McIntire’s financial core exposition. Benanhalt would be well advised to read the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, as amended. There he would discover that it is legally actionable to for anyone to interfere with an employees right to engage in or refrain from union membership.

Note the above two responses are from the same anonymous editor posting from 68.227.81.41. Now, it may or may not be the case that the article in question is factually correct. Not being a legal expert, I do not feel qualified to make that assessment, which is why I am requesting that someone who is an expert review the article. However, as a person capable of critical thought, I do feel qualified to raise POV concerns in a situation where the only editor contributing to an article bears the name Mmcintire and the second of only two references supporting the article is to the personal website of Mark McIntire, where the author offers for sale a book entitled Financial Core Handbook: Guide to the Liberation of Compulsory Union Workers. My primary concern was that this article's main purpose was to provide a platform for the author to plug his work. Now that I have learned that Mr. McIntire is considered "a controversial and widely hated figure" and that the article concerns "a hotly contested topic," I am even more concerned that there may be POV problems. If the article is correct and there are other knowledgable editors willing to edit the article and attest to its factual validity and NPOV status, that would be great. And, even though I know better than to feed trolls: 'chilling effect'? That is the funniest thing I've heard all day! --Benanhalt 21:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• hmmm

The "big WARNING sign" at the top of the page says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The Wikipedia definition of disputed says that someone thinks an article does not adhere to NPOV. But all I find here is someone who thinks this article may not adhere to the NPOV. The definition of disputed says that someone thinks that the article is biased, not that it may be biased. You can say that the NPOV is in question or that it leaves you with "concern" -- I totally agree -- but I haven't seen any evidence that it is actually being "disputed", despite the big warning sign to the contrary. Srnelson 04:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The involvement of the principle author of this article in the case itself is clear evidence of a Conflict of Interest in reporting on it, and automatically calls NPOV into question. The specious argument that, because providing false information would be unwise, this proves that the author did not do so, is another red flag. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Again: NPOV = "Neutral point of view. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand." There is a difference between being able or in a position to show a stand and actually showing that stand. Arguing that a Conflict of Interest necessarily implies a NPOV without any additional evidence of actually applying the NPOV is specious. You may "call the NPOV in question", but without answering the very question you call, citing specific evidence, you cannot "dispute" it in the "big WARNING sign." Srnelson 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Never mind the issue of NPOV; the article fails the most fundamental requirement of an encyclopedia: to explain what the subject is in the opening paragraph. It says that the Supremes defined it... then fails to give a definition. OK, maybe it's in that inscrutible "Origins" section somewhere, but I can't find it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)