Talk:Right-to-work law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wouldn't Right-to-work law / Right-to-work laws be a better title? -- stewacide 02:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • The current policy is to use singular nouns unless the subject of the article is always plural, i.e. "economics". Deltabeignet 01:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which states have these laws at this time? - Bevo 23:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Economic Information

Could someone please clarify the economic information somewhat? As it stands now, the actual implications of the data are about as clear as mud. The following few sentences are in particular need of elucidation, cuz as they stand now their meanings are somewhat ambiguous:

"Also according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, while a larger "growth" was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall real personal income remained higher in the "union-shop" states."

"Also according to the U.S. Census Bureau, while a larger "growth" was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall the number of those privately insured remained higher in the "union-shop" states."

"Also according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, while a larger "growth" was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall production remained higher in the "union-shop" states."

As well, can someone add a note explaining defining terms like "real personal income", or a link to a page that already has them? I mean, I'm a physicist, I could tell you the orbital period of hydrogen's electron off of the top of my head, and I have no idea what the hell crap like that really implies. Is it adjusted for inflation? The price of consumer goods? What?

134.10.12.40 10:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Tel

I don't have a reference, but I strongly suspect that there is little difference in real wages between the two areas. Higher take home in union shop states, but higher costs of living offset that along with higher taxes. If I pay you $10 hour more and then figure out how to get my salary raised by the same amount, what has happened? Zero sum game. Economically, the only way to increase real wages is to either have the supposed poorer states give money to the union shop states or get it from abroad. The latter can't happen because the rust belt/union shop states export jobs. The supposed poorer states can't support the richer, they'd run out of money. I think that this is a shell and pea game. Ultimately, the union shop people retire to the right to work states which have a lower cost of living and trade down their very expensive small house for a much newer and larger and less expensive one in the right to work state. The reverse doesn't happen! Student7 16:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Household income in the U.S. by state
North Carolina $39,000
Rank: 40/50
+/- national average: (-$5,473)
Change 1999 - 2005 (inflation adjusted): (-11.3%)
South Carolina $39,326
Rank: 39/50
+/- national average: (-$5,147)
Change 1999 - 2005 (inflation adjusted): (-9.5%)
The cost of living in the southern states is climbing rapidly, particularly in coastal areas, but inflation adjusted income is falling. The idea that "right-to-work" laws are good for the American worker are ridiculous, especially with out-of-control illegal immigration interfering with free market forces that make wages for unskilled workers go up. MoodyGroove 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


I've added a section on income inequality in the south versus the northeast, which I think adds some useful information. But frankly, this whole section seems to me to suffer from the fallacy that correlation implies causation. Mrrhum 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it certainly flies in the face of the argument that "right-to-work" laws are good for the American worker. Where is the non-ideological evidence? MoodyGroove 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


Economic information Edits- First let me say that I agree with Mrrhum that this section does suffer from issues of correlation vs. causation. This "issue" or "disclaimer", "correlation does not equal causation" should be, in my opinion, stated in the article.
(1) Removed inaccurate and, not surprisingly, unsupported fact: “U.S. Department of Commerce, while a larger growth was experienced in the "right-to-work" states, overall real personal income remained higher in the "union-shop" states.[citation needed]”
(2) Removed paragraph relating to income inequality. Sorry Mrrhum. I don't mean to be rude, but as it is currently written I don't believe it works. Perhaps it can return if it is re-written to include ALL RTW states vs. ALL non-RTW states and it does not make the simplistic comparison between the Northeast and South. (Just comparing the Northeast to the South is a crude comparison because if you look at the right to work state map (on the main page) you'll see that Right to Work Laws also have a significant presence out West.) Moreover, given our country’s sad legacy with slavery and the civil war, there has always been (well before RTW laws existed) significant income inequality differences between the Northeast and Southern states (and I would speculate that this gap has, if anything, narrowed since states adopted RTW laws). To imply that Right to work laws are in some way responsible for this inequality is misleading. Now if one finds data showing that after states adopt RTW laws income inequality increases, that would be useful and relevant data.

Shouldn't statistics comparing right-to-work states to union-shop states cover the entire time Taft-Hartley has been in effect (1948-present)? I think it is misleading using just a few years slice of time to justify any point. Anyway the statistics are misleading regardless, saying that one item has x% growth and another y% growth, but not giving any measure of comparison. This is the same technique which leads Welsh Nationalists to say that Welsh is the fastest growing European language because the number of people in Wales who speak Welsh has gone up 25% (from 1/5 to 1/4 of the population) even though the actual number of people who speak English or Spanish or German has far exceeded the new speakers of Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.98.22 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You've wounded me, sir, removing my addition. But, you have a point, I'll confess that I was just too lazy to work out the statistics more carefully, and the Old South and Northeast simply provided convenient blocks of states that were easy to compare. My motivation was to provide some balance to what seems to me to be the selective and tendentious use of statistics in this section. At this point, I'd like to see either:
(1) The entire section jettisoned, or
(2) the section integrated into the "arguments against" section (which seems inappropriate, as it would then be original research).
—Mrrhum 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Job Fatalities

Job fatalities average about 30% higher in these states than the rest of the country, and 15 of the 20 states with the highest rates for on the job fatalities were right-to-work.

Is there a source for this statement? If after seven days evidence to butress assertion is not introduced, portion will be removed as original research.

MSTCrow 03:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Paragraph removed due to lack of source.
MSTCrow 12:25, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this ultimatum=>deletion action follows the Wikipedia guidelines ("Be bold in contributions, but not in destructions"); a more appropriate action would be to add a {{Fact}} tag. Fortunately, most of the removed information has been replaced (with appropriate citations) -- I would still like to see the 30% number back in the article; I'll add it if/when I can find an appropriate citation. Calzero 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores disputed content to the article. The ultimatum appears to have been given as a courtesy. It's not a question of being bold. Such a statement should have been properly sourced in the first place, and no one is required to add a {{fact}} tag to anything. MoodyGroove 02:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I find it interesting that in the argument against right-to-work the list the statistics for fatalities the way they do. Using the numbers the author provides, 22 out of fifty are in right-to-work states leaving 28 out of fifty in non right-to-work states.DarthAlbin

[edit] Impartiality Question

For example, the departure of high-paying industrial work from union states to right-to-work states would decrease real wages, etc. in union states. Such disparities are not due to the ineffectiveness of unions, but due to ownership attempts to leave and generally avoid union states in favor of right-to-work states, in which they can pay lower wages.

Any way to re-word this paragraph a bit? It does convey a viewpoint but attempts to pass it off as a generally accepted fact. Maybe there is another way to word it a little more impartially? --Wootonius 09:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted to clean up this article to a better standard of quality, and have reviewed the comments above and have tried as best as I can to make portions of the article more NPOV where criticisms exists, but while allowing both sides to argue their positions. I also added the comment on Arkansas' right-to-work provision, which is actually in its Constitution and not a statute.

[edit] Original Research Question

Sansvoix:

You removed the section that stated, proponents of right-to-work laws argue union leaders are more likely to abuse their power in the absence of right-to-work-laws. You said it “sounds like original research” and asked for facts to back this up. I want to make sure I understand… You’re not asking for facts to back up that their argument is a good one. You’re asking for facts to back up the idea that “proponents of right-to-work laws argue thusly”, correct? Lawyer2b 06:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but there naturally would need to be a short explanation on how they developed that conclusion. Just stating "X aruges" does not really inform the reader of much, and is kind of weasley. In that particular section I removed, it looked to me as if it was an uninformed editors opinion. But I could be wrong, as you noted. --sansvoix 07:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The evidence that right-to-work law proponents use that argument can be found at the National Right to Work Committee website. They state, “Compulsory unionism breeds corruption. In each issue of "Exposed,” the National Right to Work Committee will highlight yet another example of union-boss abuse spawned and perpetuated by Big Labor’s government-granted privilege to force workers to pay union dues, or be fired." How does the following seem for a good summary of the argument and short explanation? "They argue further that union leaders are more likely to abuse their power, both for union matters and for external political purposes, if they are permitted to forcibly procure membership dues from all employees whether they want union membership or not. As evidence of this, they cite the thousands of complaints the National Labor Relations Board receives from workers who perceive they were abused by unions." Lawyer2b 14:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that is the same as before, perhaps a bit longer (:
All the vague concepts would need to be quantified and defined. What do they mean by "abuse"? "Forcibly procure membership dues" --is that with a gun, ..extortion? How do employees decide if they want union membership..?
What is needed is facts, maybe some opinion on facts, not commentary.--sansvoix 09:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what part of what I suggested be included in the article you felt was commentary and what you meant by that. I’ve established the argument is not original research and while I definitely think it would be nice to quantify and define the things you mentioned, I don't see why that should be a necessary condition before mentioning the argument in the article. Unless you have another objection I'd like us to agree I can go ahead and add the description of the argument as I have now. Lawyer2b 13:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Not only would it be nice, it would be neccesary. Wikipedia isn't a mouthpeice, these kind of statments need to be backed up. I suggest you paraphrase it, and add in some of the missing facts/info.--sansvoix 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken. I don't believe stating the fact that "proponents of right-to-work laws argue thusly" requires their arguments to "be backed up" any more than being able to cite that they are indeed made by right-to-work law proponents; and that much I have done. If I am mistaken, can you please direct me to the Content Guidelines I would be violating by adding what I proposed? Lawyer2b 22:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View

Ok, Lawyer2b asked me to come over here, so I figured i'd add my two cents from briefly looking at the situation. Here's what I can tell you i've found can save some trouble

  • Plagiarism or Advocacy = Bad. Don't sound like you're trying to speak for or from anywhere. I know it's tough since we've all got points of view, but the best thing to do is to sound like you don't care one way or another and you're just presenting what's there. Pretend you're Sargeant Friday -- "Just the facts, ma'am." thumb|left|Be like us!
  • Info from both sides is welcomed, and required for a good article regarding a political issue such as this one.
  • Respect the other guy, try to find a middle ground when in doubt about wording.
  • Notability is a fine line, so be careful including links or references to just anything when you're in doubt.

I can start an rfc if you'd like. karmafist 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proponents general argument

They argue further that union leaders are more likely to abuse their power, both for union matters and for external political purposes, if they are permitted to require membership dues from all employees whether they want union membership or not.

I believe this sentance should be either removed, or modified to somehow remove implication that the statements-within-statements are facts. While this is clearly (suprising to me!) something that they argue, it is not a quote from the proponent side. I don't think it does the proponent side justice either, as it just reads like a pretty bogus argument. Some specific issues:

  • What does "abuse" mean?
I would read it as any union activity outside of weekend coctail parties, because it is coming from the mouth of the anti-union crowd. But others may read it differently.... Either way, it doesn't tell you much.
  • Seperating "Union matters" and "external political purposes" ..Huh?
What is the difference between the two? Is putting pressure on employers, government, society, "external" or "union" or...?
  • "forcibly procure membership..whether they want union membership or not." ...Baseless propaganda argument!
Workers vote to join/create unions, vote to leave unions. I am positive the United States has strict rules governing that.
  • "forcibly procure"
Might as well just change it to extort! (: Unions require membership.

Anyhow, thanks for hearing me out, I think doing something about this will be more fair to both sides on the table, and make wikipedia a better reference site.--sansvoix 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to discuss. I think we can reach an agreement that leaves us both quite satsified. It sounds like your have two issues with how I described the argument: 1) it's unclear 2) it's propgandish/slanted. I think we can definitely make it clearer and, while it may have to be inherently slanted because it is an argument used by one side or another, let's see if it can be improved more to your liking. I'll start by acting on your suggestion to replace the phrase "forcibly procure" as it is unecessarily controversial. :-) Lawyer2b 13:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Lawyer2b-- There's a further problem with the "external political purposes" argument. Even if you accept a bifurcation of "union matters" and "external political purposes", I'm sure you're aware that any member of a bargaining unit, even in non-right-to-work states, has the right under Federal Law to make a Beck objection, refuse union membership even if a union security provision exists in the collective bargaining agreement, and will only be required to pay dues specifically relating to collective bargaining and union administration, not "external political purposes". Furthermore, only a small portion of union dues go to "external political purposes", mostly through union staff time spent on political activity, since, again, according to Federal Law, all union campaign contributions must come from a separate PAC and union dues (except for voluntary assesments specifically for that purpose) cannot be funneled to that PAC.

Removed this little tidbit that used to be here because it was so mind numbindly retarded it made me wish I lacked the ability to read.

___Are you kidding? You actually published something with this sentence in a public forum??? "so mind numbindly retarded it made me wish I lacked the ability to read." I don't think I can adequately explain how offended and disgusted I am by this sentence. Let's just go ahead and use some racial or gender slurs next. There is a whole civil rights lesson here but let's just agree to leave those citizens who are not able to defend themselves out of your sick vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve4067 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove discussion items just because of your particular political bias. And apparently the anti-unionists continue to "poison the well" on the "Arguments Against" section of the article. I have deleted the following portion--

(Note that the author of this study does concede that his adjustments for cost of living were at best questionable[citation needed]: “Estimates from this… regression model [controlling for cost of living] are suspect given the lack of an established series for controlling for regional, interstate, or intra-state costs of living.” For a critique of this study please see external link "Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses" below.)

This should be in the "Arguments For" section. Lay out the arguments, studies and sources and let them speak for themselves. There is no reason to have a seemingly bilateral debate in an "Arguments Against" section. The only reason I can see for such a schizophrenic approach to editing an encyclopedia article is for the author to inject his or her biases even in a section of the article devoted to laying out arguments the author specifically disputes.

[edit] Source?

Can somebody please source this comment? It seems to violate NPOV. In RTW States: "There is less money for public services and the quality of life is lower for the majority. When you drive through right to work states you notice the roads, buildings and housing for the lowest earning part of the population is of lower quality." --206.21.166.95 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guam's "right to work law"

I included information on Guam's "right to work" law under the Criticism Section because of its provision that's been especially criticized by people on both sides of the political spectrum. You'll see how Guam's law differs from what's presented as the norm for right to work laws in this article. Guam's law does appear very different and one-sided. This law serves as an example of how unfair right to work laws can be if not properly and objectively constructed and worded.Jlujan69 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Response to Guam's "right to work law"

I removed the text discussed above from the "criticism section" because the information is inaccurate and one sided. In MOST RIGHT TO WORK STATES: "unions must represent all "eligible" employees regardless of membership status." This is not unique to Guam. Hence the "free-rider problem".... Moreover, in right to work states in general, unions cannot exact any fee on non-union members. Moreover, there is no citation for this statement: "This section of the law has been criticized even by those who normally support right-to-work laws." The link provided is only to the Guam law, and does not support this statement. The section below does not belong on this page.

What was in the section: In the U.S. Territory of Guam, a right-to-work law not only stipulates that it's unlawful to require union membership as a condition of employment or to retain employment, but goes further by saying that unions must represent all "eligible" employees regardless of membership status. Furthermore, the unions are not allowed to exact any fee from those who don't want to pay. Effectively, a union is compelled by law to represent a non-member equally with a member, but cannot impose any fee upon them. This section of the law has been criticized even by those who normally support right-to-work laws. http://www.nrtw.org/c/guamrtwlaw.htm (in particular, refer to sections 4101, 4103, 4106, and 4107)


[edit] NPOV Dispute

The reason that I have the link up on this site is to show another site that is against unions. I feel that it should be up on the site so that people can see their point of view. If you have it removed you should have all the pro union articles removed also since this is a right to work site. John R G 09:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Unlike the other pro-right-to-work sites which continue to be listed, the site you keep adding back is merely polemical, contributing no information whatsoever to the discussion. --Orange Mike 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The article that I am talking about is * Union Free America and I feel that it is very important to have if you remove it you will have to remove all the pro union sites also. The site I have put up tells about having a union free america and it is one of the subjects that I feel needs to be put here. John R G 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This issue is at the heart of the whole idea about Wikipedia, and actually all encyclopedias. The public media, newspapers, etc. try to make people "mad enough to.." do whatever the media wants you to do at the time. The idea of Wikipedia/encyclopedias is to get people to think - to use our forebrains rather than our hindbrains. A real easy criteria for whether something belongs here or not is "does the article make me mad (and not think because I am being busy being mad) or whether it makes me stop and think. Most popular media tries to make people mad and is almost eliminated from usability on controversial issues here for that very reason. Student7 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To John R G, i respond — personally, i'd prefer to have a union-free — free America. But i'm not trying to spam Wikipedia with ideological links over it. Please start following the rules, and try to make Wikipedia better, not a link farm for opposing ideological arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with an encyclopedia. Richard Myers 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And by contrast I personally would like to see every working person on this planet represented by a democratic union, the only even remotely reliable guarantor of workers' freedoms. But I agree with Richard that the link in question has no place in an encyclopedic environment. That's the joy of working in genuine cooperation: agreeing across the divides!--Orange Mike 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Mike, i was being too clever. I think we're probably in complete agreement on this issue. best wishes, Richard Myers 22:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about RtW laws, union shops, etc.

I have been reading the entries about union shop, right-to-work law, etc. and I still have a doubt:

If, in a state without a right-to-work law, the workers in a workplace vote for joining an union, these means that these workplace automatically becomes an union-shop or only means that the union-shop can be negotiated (or not)between the union and the employer?

In other words - in states without right-to-work laws, all unionized workplaces are union-shops, or they can be union-shops or open-shops, dependig of the agreement established between the company and the union?

I think that the articles (at least, one of them) should explain these point (specially to foregneirs - like me - who have curiosity in knowing the american laboiur law).--81.84.199.100 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


The answer to your question is complex and requires an extended article. Simply stated; If the majority of a class of employees votes to be represented by the union, then the union is certified as the bargaining agent for all persons in jobs in that class. Non-union employees are covered by the collective bargaining agreement, but are not required to join the union. Only Union members have voice or vote on the terms of the agreement. Unions protect themselves with either "primacy" (first hire) agreement clauses, or "exclusivity" (hiring hall) clauses. The first case requires the employer to hire qualified union members first. In the second case, the employer agrees to hire all employees through a union hiring hall. In right to work states, the union hiring hall must list both union and non-union workers who are qualified for the job.

«Unions protect themselves with either "primacy" (first hire) agreement clauses, or "exclusivity" (hiring hall) clauses»

Basically, what I am asking is if (in states without Right-to-work laws) the employer can refuse to accept these clauses in the agreement.--81.84.199.100 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In U.S. law, it is a subject of bargaining, and like all such one side or the other may win; an employer may attempt to refuse anything. (The third method of protection, incidentally, is mandatory membership. The employer is not restricted as to whom they can hire; but new hires must either join the union or pay the per-capita costs of representation ("agency fee" roughly equal to union dues) to the union. --Orange Mike 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to "Question about RtW laws, union shops, etc."

Short answer: the "union security" clause needs to be negotiated between the employer & the union, and is part of the union contract. Simply achieving representation does not automatically establish the union-membership or fee-payment requirement.

[edit] Removed from article

This appears to be original research:

"Right to work laws can also be argued against on the basis of free market principles. If a union, without benefit of government power or influence backing it up, is able to negotiate an agreement that requires union membership of employees, this would be a private matter, not legitimately subject to interference from the government in a fully free market. It would be a matter of a "seller" (union) making union membership of labor part of the "market price" for its "goods" (the labor of its membership). The "buyer" (business) can accept the deal, attempt a different negotiation, or would be free to seek labor elsewhere. So long as neither union nor business has government weighing in on its side, this would be a fully free market transaction. A right to work law would limit the free market forces operating on negotiating the price of labor, effectively putting some portion of the coercive power of government at the disposal of the business in a manner not available to the union. Proponents of right to work laws might counter that unions, like all cartels, are not viable without the support of the state, and thus are not free market actors. While right to work laws interfere with private contracts, they do so by limiting existing government interference."

If you wish to salvage this content, please provide a reliable source. Best, MoodyGroove 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


      • Because the first and last sentence of the paragraph are flawed the entire paragraph had to be removed: “If a union, without benefit of government power or influence backing it up, is able to negotiate an agreement that requires union membership of employees, this would be a private matter, not legitimately subject to interference from the government in a fully free market… proponents would claim that while right to work laws interfere with private contracts, they do so by limiting existing government interference implicit in the very existence of the union itself. However, since labor unions were created and are maintained without government guidance or subsidy, these claims are dubious.” The fundamental problem with this argument is that UNIONS ARE GIVEN SPECIAL POWER TO REPRESENT ALL WORKERS IF MORE THAN 50% OF THE CURRENT WORKERS VOTE FOR THE UNION. THIS IS NOT A FREE MARKET CONCEPT. This means if the store currently has 10 workers, and 6 vote for the union and 4 vote against, the workplace becomes unionionzed and the employer MUST negotiate with the union period. In a free market, the 6 employees could threaten to quit (and perhaps would) but the four remaining employees could continue to work there, and the employer would be free to hire any new employees willing to work to replace the six that quit. The concept of a union is inherently NOT free market. And yes there is a citation to a "libertarian" page which is not relevant and does not support this assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.250.227 (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

This article has an NPOV tag, but I haven't seen any action on it since April. It looks fairly NPOV to me... is there any reason why the NPOV tag needs to still be here? — PyTom (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from article

With regard to:
The poorest county in the United States, Buffalo County, South Dakota, is in a right to work state.
The wealthiest community in the United States, Rancho Santa Fe, California, is in a state that does not have a right to work law.

This appears to be original research and the implied argument is a synthesis. It's also a logical fallacy. It's equivalent to saying, "John has cancer and he drinks milk. Jane does not have cancer and she does not drink milk."

It's not enough to provide the reference for the fact. You have to provide a reference that ties the fact to arguments against right to work legislation. Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Cause and effect

One of the reasons that it would be "nice" to have scholarly references in this article instead of political ones is that separation of cause and effect might become more evident.

Rich states can afford more socialism, union shops, etc. Poor states cnnnot afford these luxuries. There is nobody to fund them. If industry is threatened in poorer states, they move elsewhere. Yes, industry moves in rich states, too, but they are moving away from a skilled labor force which may give them pause. Poorer states may not have that abundance of skilled labor. Poorer states also tend to be rural. Farmers rarely exhude prosperity in dollar terms. You really can kill the golden goose in a poorer state. It may stay alive awhile in a richer state.

But right-to-work doesn't "cause" poverty, and union shop doesn't "cause" luxury.

Pretty much what MoodyGroove was saying above. Student7 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grass roots

An editor keeps trying to insert the claim that a RTW organization has been criticized for calling itself grass roots when it was not. But 1) There is no indication that anyone other than the editor trying to insert it has called them that. 2) The organization harps on "grass-roots lobbying," quite different from claiming that it is financed from the grass roots. a quote is given which was an offhand remark. Even if it did support the claim, it would simply be an offhand remark and not something deliberately claimed by the organization. Why stretch the truth? Can't we just present the facts here? Why aren't the real facts good enough to support whatever POV the editor has? Why invent?

I'm not engaging in bad faith editing, and I didn't invent anything. It may have been an off-hand comment, but it was from the president of the NRTWC. Furthermore, I'm not inventing controversy. Here is a FAQ from the UAW that proves the NRTWC and NRTWLDF are criticized for portraying themselves as fighting for the little guy when in fact they are financed by big business. Here are some additional G-hits. Incidentally, it's well known that the John M. Olin Foundation financed right wing think-tanks, but we could just as easily call them conservative if you don't like right wing. MoodyGroove (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
While I didn't change it, a reference is given supporting calling the Olin Foundatin "right-wing." For starters, I would distrust any source that calls anybody right or left wing. That is not scholarly nor informative. It is merely provocative, which it is intended to be. They are "playing to a base" and not trying for scholarly achievement at all. I don't think that source should be allowed in Wikipedia. I'm not so confident about this that I would ask for it to be blacklisted at this point, but certainly not cited generally in highly charged political articles, which this is. Student7 (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The words "right-wing" is only levied against positions that the speaker does not hold, usually reflecting media bias when you see it in the press. The words "left-wing" (while we are on the subject) pretty much the same. Maybe Fox uses it though I have never heard the media use that term. Usually in email or on webpages. In any case, a label reflecting bias on the speakers part. While information from those sources may be usable in some form, I wouldn't trust them to quote in an article. And why does someone have to be labeled anyway? To what purpose would I call you "a supporter of left-wing causes." What good would that serve other than to reflect my bias, and having nothing to do with you in fact. Why is it important that Olin be labeled? There is nothing wrong with divulging the sources of money for an organization, but why can't the reader make up his own mind? Why must we make it up for them? To my way of thinking that is POV and maybe OR. It is also contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia which desires to present the facts, and only the known facts, to the reader who is conducting the research. Student7 (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, Student7. It seems to me that it's important to identify the political leanings of advocacy groups, especially when they manipulate politics. I don't think it has anything to do with my political bias. If you check the talk page of the Project for the New American Century article, you'll see that I did my best to fight off left wing bias there. I also worked hard to fight off right wing bias at the 1993 Clinton health care plan article. I'm not into labeling for the sake of labeling, but it's a fact that the PNAC and the American Enterprise Institute are neoconservative think-tanks, for example. It's not POV pushing to call a spade a spade, at least not in my mind. At any rate, I've shown that the criticisms of the NRTWC are not the original research of this editor, so I would appreciate it if you'd strike that comment from the embedded text. MoodyGroove (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
These labels change with the times but if the article were classic, it wouldn't need to change at all. I think that Carter was a left-winger. I help maintain his article (usually against crazies of all stripes) but would vigorously protest the label of "left-wing" in there. Having said that, if you can't label Carter a left-winger, who can you? These labels are pejoratives. Let the gentle reader select the pejorative! Our job, IMO, is to report. If the person (or institution) has labeled itself left- or right-, fine. That's unlikely. Sometimes unions have been used by the Mafia (gangsters). While I would be amused by someone calling a union "gangster-ridden" in an otherwise logical article, I would hardly support that label in wikipeida use (with maybe one exception that does not apply to this article). That is not a label the union wants. If it were appropriate (I don't think it is here. I'm not threatening!), I could document a unions association with people of a certain type and report prosecutions if germane. But I don't need to label. The same with Olin. Their other support can be revealed in their article or in a footnote if they have no article. "Conservative" may be okay if they report themselves that way. But it's not an insult, per se.
In a similiar vein, we call legitimate organizations what they name themselves such as "Women's Right to Choose," and not "Pro-Abortion."Student7 (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but keep in mind this was tied to the statement "critics point out" so it's not like the Wikipedia was doing the labeling. Regardless, it could be perceived as a weasel phrase, and a reference was requested, so how about "critics from organized labor like the UAW argue that..." MoodyGroove (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I amended the section with specific references for specific criticisms. MoodyGroove (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Haven't looked at your changes. I guess just "a critic" with a footnote should do it. Maybe more than one footnote for "critics." I agree that the UAW has standing to be doing the name-calling (identified by the footnote). Student7 (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)