Talk:Labor unions in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV text by LrdSothe and others

The following text, inserted into the article by LrdSothe, is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines on neutral point of view, in my opinion. Words such as "originally," "considered," "abusive," and imputations of motive violate NPOV. The text makes extensive claims without citation or attribution. The text contains opinion about the state of U.S. labor law, the extent of worker protection in the U.S., motive of workers joining unions, the nature of world trade, etc. It should be immediately removed from the article.

Labor unions were originally groups of workers who joined together in order to reach their common goals, such as better and safer working conditions, and what they considered to be fair pay. These unions were created as a means of defense against abusive companies in a time before the US Federal Government had any laws on the books to protect workers. Since then, various laws protecting employees have been enacted ensuring the protection of workers, forcing unions to adapt their role in order to survive and continue collecting dues. In response, unions specialized in a campaign of redefining the order of advancement for workers. Rather than working hard, going to school, and gaining a skill that was marketable and in demand, all one needed to do was enter a union and survive the probation period to make far above market wage for their position. To continue collecting dues, unions then went on to fight for yet higher wages and benefits, while bargaining for lower productivity. This is often cited as the major reason manufacturing no longer exists in the United States. Companies can afford to manufacture something across the globe, ship it back around the world to a US port, then distribute it throughout the US at a much lower cost than if they were to pay what many see as exorbitant union wages. In response to this trend, unions have aggressively targeted politicians and elections in order to seat sympathetic officials.

LrdSothe has also inserted the following. Note that this statement has the article arguing with itself, rather than attempting to remove the uncited text LrdSothe finds to be "misinformation". It also violates NPOV by using words like "thugs," "violent force," and "extreme socialist agenda" and lacks citations to any neutral, third-party source which might substantiate such claims.

[There is absolutely nothing cited here to prove this misinformation. A recent Gallop Poll shows a sharp decline in public approval of unions as a whole.(http://www.gallup.com/poll/122744/labor-unions-sharp-slide-public-support.aspx) Further, unions are perceived to be run and staffed by thugs who use violent force in support of extreme socialist agendas. Unions are perceived by some to be the "soldiers" of the socialist movement in the United States]

I agree that this article needs substantial work to remove NPOV of all kinds, and that citations are lacking. LrdSothe's text, while well-intentioned is equally NPOV and lacks citation as well. I have reverted this text. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• LrdSothe, I strongly encourage you to not merely revert changes. You may be seen as engaging in edit warring and could come in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule. There are ways to contribute to Wikipedia and make an article balanced and fair without engaging in polemics. For example, your initial sentence in the first paragraph cited above reads: "Labor unions were originally groups of workers who joined together in order to reach their common goals, such as better and safer working conditions, and what they considered to be fair pay." The word "originally" implies that unions are no longer performing the function outlined. Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability notes: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." (emphasis in original) In order for this claim to remain in the article and not run afoul of neutral point of view, original research, or verifiability guidelines, a citation to a neutral third-party source must be supplied that directly supports the contention of "originally". I suggest that sources also be found to support the claim that these were only workers (and not foremen, low- or mid-level managers, or individuals-acting-as-employers), that their reasons for banding together were better and safer working conditions and fair pay. This evidence is out there; I've read some of it.

I also suggest LrdSothe that you be bold in editing. Under the NPOV, verifiability, and "no original research" guidelines, you (like any editor) have the right and duty to remove text which is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest that you do so first, and then begin rebuilding the article with verifiable, NPOV statements backed up with citations. I ask that you respect the opinions of others rather than accuse them of propagandizing. As the guidelines on "what Wikipedia is not" say: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." Articles may discuss differing viewpoints, but they must do so from a neutral point of view with verifiable content. Currently, at least three other editors agree that your changes do not currently meet these Wikipedia standards. Your changes can meet them, but you must adhere to the guidelines from writing and citing content. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrative action taken:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LrdSothe_reported_by_Richard_Myers_.28Result:_48_hours.29

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, his version was completely inappropriate as was repeatedly reverting to it. The current article does need some work NPOV-wise, though. I have modified the EFCA piece (I don't see why that's in the introduction - if it's even in the article, it should be in the body somewhere). It was an extremely pro-EFCA argument that didn't tell the other side of it at all. (The other side, of course, is that if there is no secret ballot, then workers could be peer pressured or even illegally coerced into signing the card check.) Outside of NPOV, there are some other issues in the article. The "Possible causes of drop in union density" is way too long and you might consider reorganizing into more of a sequential history events that have affected union membership. As it is, it jumps around and is very hard to follow. "Labor unions today" doesn't make sense as a section header when the whole article is about unions today. --B (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to other editors:

User talk:LrdSothe

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Union Density in 1930s to 1970s?

Does anyone Know of any studies which show union membership/density as a percentage of the workforce from the 1930s to 1970s? I know some studies reported on it and there where numerous charts, but I can't find any specific studies. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Organized Crime and Labor Unions

Possibly one of the most important factors in Organized Crime in the US was the infiltration of Labor Unions. Perhaps a collaboration would be beneficial? Alexbonaro 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Bump. Besides inferring that more than 50% of Americans "don't approve of" unions, there's nothing negative or balanced about unions in this whole article!--Mrcolj (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

How does one dispute a line from the article? I have a problem with the line "Their big strikes failed and they collapsed in the wake of the Haymarket Riot) of 1886, when their message was compromised by bomb-throwing anarchists." There were not multiple throwers, it is not known who threw the bomb, and the anarchists weren't "compromising" anything. The thrower is believed (even though the thrower's identity is unknown) to have been an agent provocateur.Pckeffer 03:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, most historians agree the anarchists made the bomb and the anarchist message ruined the Kof L movement. Were the anarchists paid by big business to destroy the K of L -- maybe but the article does not say that. Rjensen 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a dispute, just an idea for clarification. Inside the article it is stated "Today most labor unions in the United States are members of one of two larger umbrella organizations: the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) or the Change to Win Federation, which split from the AFL-CIO in 2005-2006." This statement is true, but should there be a mention (either here or later in the article) that the US' largest union, the NEA, is not a part of either organization? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.213.205 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Economic Effects of Labor Unions

I think this article is incomplete without a section on the economic effects of labor unions. There is a vast and rich literature on this topic. In general, economists agree that labor unions drive up wages for union members above equilibrium, while suppressing the wages of non-Union workers in the same industry.

Take for example the Big 3 automakers in the United States, which pay their workers average compensation of $70-76 per hour, $29 per hour more that other automakers who also produce in the U.S. (but do not have unionized labor). Without these elevated wages, in fact, Ford would have positive profits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphling89 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why in five worlds is there no mention of the negatives of unions, besides a veiled reference to more than 50% of people "not approving" of their existence?! I've never had an econ class that was vaguely neutral or positive about unions; they were simply taught (in my liberal san francisco grad school) as a corrupt political movement that was suicide to the american financial construct. Oh, but I won't start there. I am a teacher, and I have never taught at a high school where more than 70% of the teachers were union members. And I've been threatened with some pretty serious things over time for not having joined, so I suspect those 30% of teachers have too, and therefore must be pretty passionate--enough at least not to be wholly disregarded in a wikipedia article.--Mrcolj (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are Wikipedia articles that are entirely, or nearly entirely, anti-union. For example, Opposition to trade unions. You are quite welcome to check that out, perhaps doing so will decrease the hyperventilating. Richard Myers (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't hyperventilate. I was just a little shocked to see such a one-sided article, especially on such a controversial topic. Normally that's the one thing the wikipedia safely does right--take wedge issues and pass them through both sides. There's no emotion in my saying that, just... shock. Anyway, you diagnosed it quickly: while the entire article needs to reflect the pros and cons of the issue in a balanced fashion, a good place to start is to link to Opposition to trade unions.--Mrcolj (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an economist, and I really do not recognize your lecturers' views on organized labour... You say you've never had an economics class that was vaguely neutral or positive about unions - I don't think I've ever had one that was vaguely negative about them.85.226.159.50 (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I second the final comment - this article is far too positive about unions in the current - I think one way to correct it could be to highlight working condition changes since early industrialization and show how the decline of unions parallels the safety and other protections put in place - essentially the unions have put themselves out of a job. The efforts to reinvigorate unionization is weird - other than for political purposes, I don't see a real use case for unions any longer. Especially counter-productive to unionize civil servants. ¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krigsmakten (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(trying hard to assume you're not Scott Walker) The neutrality of the article doesn't hinge on its hewing either to your view of the usefulness of unions in the world today or to anyone else's recollections of economics class. Regarding your linking of union decline with safety protections and so on, you'd need to find reliable sources that make that argument and be very careful to avoid synthesis. Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Additions to "Labor Unions Today"

I would like to add some information to your page under Labor Unions Today. Can you please take a look at my edit and give me some feedback. Your response will be greatly appreciated. Thank you

Click here for my edit Please respond on my talk page. M.Caban (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your query here earlier. Thank you for improving the article. I modified your addition. You can see the overall changes here and can see the individual changes and read my edit summaries by consulting the page history. Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting review of my edit

I am doing a class project and I would like to add some information to your page. Can you please take a look at my edit and give me some feedback. Thank you

Click here for my edit Please respond on my talk page. Mspsychology (talk) 18:42, 08 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll also leave a note on your talk page, but the link you provided doesn't seem to work (with or without the period in the user name). Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Labor Unions - The Grievance Process

One aspect of union activity that affects employee attitudes and behaviors is the grievance process. Specified in union contracts, the grievance process establishes a formal mechanism for airing and resolving worker complaints. The number and focus of worker grievances serve as indications of job dissatisfaction and can pinpoint the causes of problems in the workplace.

Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 164. ISBN 0-205-68358-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsPsychology (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Union Density in 1700s to 1930s?

This article is very incomplete. There have been so many studies showing the robustness of the labor movement in the U.S in the 19th century. The first labor strikes in America, for example, were in the 1600s. The first unions formed in the 1830s. The movement was well underway by the time that Lincoln took note of it. In the late 1800s, there were thousands of strikes and hundreds of unions formed including those by blacks, women, farmers, immigrants, Mexicans, etc. (much like China today). Most of the work for an 8-hour day, 40-hour week, child labor laws, etc. came out of those early, often violent struggles. There is no mention of the National Labor Union of that period or the work of the Populist Party or the Socialist Party. Help, please! We have a LOT of work to do on this page to make it even half-way creditable. The big story is missing. Bdubay (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion between editors

Montanabw is misinformed about labor union history and indeed about Ronald Reagan. Everyone knows that Reagan was a liberal union president in his younger days. The number of strikes sharply declined in the 1980s and one editor said we should explain why. So I included an explanation cited to a standard reference book on strikes that explains that unions discovered that strikes helped companies more than unions (that is, the unions figured out that usually more was lost by going out on strike, for owners threatened to close or move the plant see cite.) As for Reagan, Wilentz calls him "a leftist liberal Democratic union leader" Age of Reagan p 129 Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks and remember WP:AGF. Please also cease your apparent assumption that everyone else other than yourself is stupid and misinformed. There is no need for editorializing adjectives in an encyclopedia article, particularly when they are imprecise. It is a fact that Reagan led a union. It is an opinion that he was "liberal" and leads to debate over the definition of what a "liberal" might be vis a vis the 50s versus the 2000s - particularly when the reality is that he was simultaneously a union leader AND a rabid anti-communist. So to avoid drama, it's best to avoid unneeded qualifiers. As for "one editor said we should explain why," the way to handle such things is to "teach the controversy," which means a thorough section devoting to the views of the decline from right, left and center, not a right-wing view only, and presented as fact when it is merely the opinion of one side. You are supposedly the great scholar with the PhD, you should know this. I've seen you do more balanced work elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 03:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not report "facts" or "opinions" (whatever those things are) -- instead it reports what the reliable secondary sources say, but Montanabw refuses at accept that policy. WP:RS The RS all say Reagan had been a liberal Democrat (and he often said that too). As for the views of the decline in strikes, if Montanabw has fresh material to add she should add it, not erase text that in fact is not right-or-left (and in this case comes from a pro-union RS that explained why unions sharply cut back on strikes--because companies threatened to move or close.). Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You may address other editors directly, Rjensen. We needn't engage in the third person on a talk page. The core pillar of wikipedia is WP:NPOV, thus the choice is to either state both (or all) sides evenly or to express information neutrally, neutrally is usually easier. In particular, we must avoid WP:SYNTH, making statements that go beyond sourced material. What you fail to understand is that while Reagan defined himself as a Democrat in his younger days, "liberal" is not inherently attached to "Democrat", particularly during his time as SAG president when he testified before the HUAC and supported the blacklisting of Hollywood actors, scarcely a liberal position. He was already clearly moving to the right in the 50s, even if he did not change his party affiliation immediately. As far as the reason unions cut back on strikes, there were many reasons, companies threatening to move abroad or close being only a part of the picture. As the earlier part of the paragraph already states, legitimate foreign competition, and companies moving south were factors. So were changing union tactics from confrontation to collaboration, etc. You are fighting over a conclusory statement that you took out of context from the source.

ALl the info I added was expressed neutrally, However your deletions were based on a pro-union POV. Reagan certainly did change a lot over time. However it remains indisputable that at one point was a liberal Democrat, & a union leader (he campaigned for Helen Douglas & Harry Truman). The point of including it was to underscore Reagan's dramatic change in his role in PATCO. Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I must call bullshit; You're a known admin on conservapedia. Reagan's "dramatic change" had been ongoing since the 1950s. But to the point, some other source material to expand the multitude of reasons unionism declined (should you actually sincerely care about neutrality and teaching the controversy, which I shall AGF and hope...) is discussed http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/02/labor-unions-decline-can-turnaround here ] (The Guardian UK having an interesting perspective outside the US and thus a more objective analysis) and here (Bloomberg a moderate source) and it's well worth mentioning the growth of right to work, the steady hostility of corporations to unionism, etc... it's a vast topic. Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In history, what the PhD & graduate school is all about is learning historiography. Of learning how to track down primary & secondary sources, and how to evaluate them by grouping them into "schools" of interpretations so the topic no longer seems so "vast" and confusing as it does to Montanabw. That historiography gives the PhD self confidence in being able to tell "bullshit" from scholarship. If you don't know the historiography then you will be confused a lot and look for 2013 political signals to see who you ought to believe. Now anyone can understand the historiography--it's not rocket science and the history professors have largely escaped the jargon that affects some fields. But you have to look at the scholarly books and journals. (Google, JSTOR etc make finding and reading those materials vastly easier than when I was in grad school!! It's now much faster to do research from my home office in Billings than it was at the big libraries I used at Yale and in Chicago) In terms of labor historiography I have followed (and contributed) to the scholarship for 40 years. The PhD also learns where there is no controversy at all: for example (this is the topic at issue today) why big strikes declined 95% after 1970 there is general consensus, which I summarized by citing a pro-union source. (unions could rarely win, because if they won the company would shut down the plant or move to another state; the Guardian agrees with me and it pays no attention to Montanabw's vague reference to many reasons", all unspecified and of ne help to Wiki users) I suspect that because the Guardian is on the far left of the UK newspaper scene, that is why why Montanabw thinks it's "objective" for her needs. The Guardian story she bemoans is that in the 1940s the conservatives broke the close link between unions and the Communists, typified by Henry Wallace. That link was broken by liberals like Walter Reuther; the liberals purged the Reds from the CIO. Reagan played a role in 1948 when he campaigned for Truman against Wallace. (Reagan was in the AFL with a much smaller far left element than the CIO.) In any case that purge happened about 1948, and labor unions grew steadily AFTER the purge (15 million members in 1947, then grew 50% to peak at about 23 million in 1974). The decline thus came much later. In a word the Guardian essay is poor history (the author is not a historian & is much more interested forming a future coalition on the left.) [The Bloomberg item is an op-ed that has a historical graph but no American history--its argument is focused on Canada). Rjensen (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you admit that Reagan wasn't a screaming liberal! As for the rest, spare me your condescension, bucko, I have completed advanced degrees as well, I just have other interests on wiki and am not a retired wannabee who spends all my time trying to put right wing revisionist history up, masquerading as "neutral." It's a RS and simply here at talk as an example that other material is out there. You are clearly such a genius, you obviously can find better sources yourself should you actually care about balancing an article instead of pushing your known right-wing agenda by cherry-picking things that promote your own theory. Really, here you are engaging in WP:SYNTH in its classic form. Also, don't puff yourself up; you're careless in your work; you rarely format citations completely or correctly, your prose leaves much top be desired because you overuse unencyclopedic adjectives, particularly your desire to insert the word "liberal" every three sentences, and I am aware that you have almost derailed at least two FACs due to your personal ineptitude and POV pushing (remember Nixon?). Remember: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Montanabw^(talk) 16:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is not on the "far left of the UK newspaper scene". It is a centre-left paper that supports the Liberal Democrats as much as Labour. I don't see how you can argue that the article is "poor history". It is a brief survey by a professor emeritus of economics. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I read the Guardian article and the history portion is brief, is thin and of poor quality. The author is not much interested in history, and the article is about hypothetical proposals for the future, such as workers taking ownership of closed factories. Rjensen (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

See above. It's a simple example, feel free to use your own genius to find better sources that will say the same thing, they are out there. Unless, of course, you don't care to write a balanced article; I seriously doubt you are capable of doing so... Montanabw^(talk) 16:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Reagan was a liberal until the early 50s when, under the influence of his father-in-law and GE he converted to conservatism. While he became anti-Communist about 1940, that was not untypical of liberals at the time. The Truman administration was anti-Communist, as was Bobby Kennedy, and liberalism and trade unionism would continue to include a strong anti-Communist element until Pat Moynihan and Scoop Jackson. A small element of liberals, or "progressives", would oppose anti-Communism.

Strikes declined primarily because they were seen as counter-productive. As the Guardian article says, "Unions have mostly compromised on concessions to retain employers." That is a separate issue from why union membership and power has declined. Strikes in Canada declined by 90-95% over the same period[1] despite, as the Bloomberg article mentions, the same decline in membership did not occur.

There are many possible reasons for the decline of unions in the U.S. and we should not just take the opinions of one or two writers, whose views may or may not reflect majority opinion.

TFD (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you say "democrat" and "republican" I would support that wording as uncontroversial and completely verifiable; "liberal" and "conservative" are problematic words that have meanings that shift over time, plus, as your example of Truman notes, Truman wasn't particularly "liberal" in some respects, and definitions change. (Laissez-faire capitalism was once a "liberal" idea; today's "liberal" is tomorrow's "conservative" and vice-versa - after all, Reagan got the debt ceiling raised something like 18 times, and Nixon went to China...). As for the union decline issue, that is precisely why I moved out a single statement as a sole "cause," so no argument there from me, that supports my edit. I have other fish to fry than fight about this article, it only came to my attention because someone else raised that there was a problem here. Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the terms has not changed, but the policies have. Incidentally the terms were adopted into U.S. politics in the 1930s to refer to supporters of FDR and his opponents. The terms were needed because he had Republican supporters and Democratic opponents and vice versa. To say Reagan was a Democrat is unhelpful. So was Al Smith, while LaGuardia was a liberal and a Republican. Reagan's position was clearly in support of the New Deal and he probably was on the left of New Deal Supporters. After all he chose to campaign for the "Pink Lady". Then he decided, as he said, to find his own facts and use his own reasoning. TFD (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"liberal" and "conservative" from 1930s to 1980s meant "support/opponent" on the New Deal, and support/opposition for labor unions was a major element in that. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely, you are leaving out the Great Society, the environmental movement, the women's movement, and the anti-Vietnam War movement. Unions and the New Deal, yes, were linked, but you are making an overbroad statement. All of which is kind of beside the point; the point is that all of this is inapplicable to a discussion of Reagan as SAG president. The point here is that Reagan was SAG president, and in that role, it is not appropriate to label him as a "liberal," given his anti-communist views and his support of the Hollywood blacklist. Anything before or after is a bit off topic on this article. I'm really asking one word be omitted about Reagan. Makes no difference in the overall article, and keeps the tone neutral. Montanabw^(talk) 03:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Great Society, the environmental movement, the women's movement, ant the anti-Vietnam War movement did not exist in the 1930s. Anti-Communism was not the same issue either, and the U.S. allied with the Soviet Union from 1941-45. Vietnam and anti-Communism would come to divide liberals, although after Reagan ceased to be one. Reagan's position in the late 1940s on the blacklist and Communism was no different from leading liberals or the unions. Only a small segment of liberals opposed that position. Hence the Progressive Party. TFD (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you read Rjensen's comment, he said "from 1930s to 1980s" (my emphasis). As you note, there are a LOT of other issues, I was pointing out his thinking error that a "liberal" in the 1980s was linked primarily to the New Deal. Your comments also don't really describe the progressive party, which was more of an active force prior to WWII (note Robert LaFollette, who ran for President on a Progressive Party ticket in 1924 for details there, as well as articles on Progressivism in the United States generally, especially as circa 1900-1912 or so it was once a faction within the Republican party - one of history's great ironies). THE POINT is that we don't need to bludgeon people over the head about the word "liberal" in this article as linked to Reagan as SAG president; all that needs to be noted is that Reagan was SAG president and later, as POTUS, broke the Air Traffic Controller's union. I suspect that his position on the issues he promoted as SAG president would not have changed when he was older, and even in the 50s, though it is of course speculative, he may well have agreed that the Controllers' strike was illegal. As he often commented, "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me." Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, all this hue and cry is over putting the phrase "liberal younger days" with the bit on Reagan as SAG president, which is really unnecessary drama. It's unencyclopedic in tone and not required to enhance understanding of this topic. End of story. So let's just drop the stick and leave it be. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that a former top liberal union boss became the number one union-buster. I am sure that if Margaret Thatcher had begun her political career as head of the miners' union, we might put that in an article about unions in the UK. TFD (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We need a much more robust discussion of how the CIA has used labor unions for its own purposes under the auspices of anti-communism. This perspective actually reveals some important continuity about Ronald Reagan's career, from his role as a Crusade for Freedom spokesguy to his express support for the labor movement in Poland. The AFSCME–Guyana connection is one of the best known of these, but I'm sure historian Rjensen can provide numerous other examples. groupuscule (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Limitations and powers of Unions

The state of unions in the US is incredibly unclear from reading this article. At its root, a labor union is simply a bunch of workers who decide to act together to pressure their employer to give them a better deal in some way (wages, working conditions, benefits, etc). Things have obviously gotten much more complicated as there are laws that restrict unions, as well as laws that give unions special legal powers, as well as laws that couldn't be called union "powers" but do make certain contingent requirements on employers, employees, and unions.

Its incredibly unclear to me what those are from this article, and I'd like to propose a set of sections to clarify them:

1. Legal limitations of unions
2. Legal powers of unions
3. Legal requirements of unions
4. Legal requirements of employers in relation to unions
5. Legal requirements of employees in relation to unions

That would give this article a lot more teaching power. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a list of references on this talk page?

Any references should be in the article itself, unless they are proposals. I don't see any reason that giant list of references should remain on the talk page. If no one disagrees, I'd like to move it to the archive. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that list is reproduced in full in the article, and is also out of date, so I just removed it. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Bad phrasing

"In general they have shown robust growth rates, for wages and working conditions are set through negotiations with elected local and state officials."

What does this mean? Unless this sentence was written in Shakespearean (where "for" means "because"), the second part is nonsensicle. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

for = because here. And no it is not nonsensical, it is standard English-language usage since the days of Shakespeare. see http://www.grammarly.com/answers/questions/7163-for-vs-because-of/ Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Labor unions in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811071727/http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb10-132.html to http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb10-132.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628204545/http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1994/b337360.arc.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1994/b337360.arc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050215185744/http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0340.shtml to http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0340.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope

As far as it goes, this article is informative. But it can go farther. All major league sports in the United States are unionized. All of them have been involved in either strikes or lockouts in the past twenty years. Why does this article not make mention of the fact? By population, the sports leagues are small, true, but by dollar amount--especially when looking at pre- and post- unionizations, the sums are vast. The article does not fully capture the scope of unionization in the United States if it does not include all the unionized major league sports. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Corruption

This article doesn't really address union corruption in the US. Corruption (or the appearance of corruption) was a factor in unions' decline. Whether you abhor the idea of trade unions (like I do) or love them, you should want this covered thoroughly, I would think. Readers deserve it. 2600:1012:B026:A316:BC49:97EF:5287:D18B (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)