Talk:Labor unions in the United States/archive

This is an archive of the talk page of Labor union in the United States.

revision of text

I attempted to rewrite the grammar on this page, which was difficult to understand. Although the original text is eloquently written, it reads like it was originally written by a lawyer. Many of the original sentences were run on sentences, having too many commas and adjectives. The action that the sentence was trying to describe was often at the end of a very long sentence, making the sentence difficult and tedious to understand.

I hope my revision make the text easier to understand without sacrificing the encyclopedic tone of the text. Travb 18:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Notes section

This is the first page I have seen were the footnotes are above text in the article. I am fairly new to wikipedia, but I think this is incorrect.

Yes, found it according to: [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Layout Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Layout] References (including footnotes) should be last or second to last. [[Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources#Contradiction.3F I ask for a clarification on this].

Order:

Quotations

See also (Related topics)

External links or References (Notes)

References (Notes) or External links

Good edits thoughTravb 08:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete links?

The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article . ---From [[Wikipedia:Cite_sources#External_links.2FFurther_reading Cite_sources External links/Further reading]

Should these two ==External links==:

• Weingarten from Tate & Renner Attorneys at Law

• National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) rights www.workplacefairness.org

....be deleted since they are used in the article already? Your call, I actually prefer to keep them in.

Another option is they could also be merged into the footnotes (notes) by:

1st: deleting the external links [http://www.kissmy.com] and

2nd: adding footnotes {{ref|**}} in the actual text, so a description of the link could be added to the footnote.

Tell me what you think.--Travb 08:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If they've been used as sources, they belong in a==References==section and/or a==Notes==section. Yes, move them out of external links; if they are used once each, just use {{Ref}} / {{Note}} in the obvious way. If used more than once, you might want to put the in the==References==section and then you can use a more abbreviated description in the notes. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits

All sources are footnoted. Thanks for the edits. If you have any more questions, please let me know. All information is from the mid'80s except for the bureau of labor, which information is from 2004. If you have more recent information, please update it.

I plan to add more historical information on the history of unions, as compared to other industrial countries, for example more Americans have died in union disputes--700 than any other industrial country...I want to add more than just statistics... Travb 17:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I added clearer footnotes to the information you revised.Travb 03:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Violence

Do we want to link any of the following from the article?

• Centralia massacre
• Everett massacre
• Great Railroad Strike of 1922 (an article which could use a lot more work)
• Haymarket Riot
• Homestead Strike
• Lawrence textile strike
• Ludlow massacre
• Molly Maguires
• Pinkerton National Detective Agency
• Pullman Strike
• Sacco and Vanzetti

And no doubt there are other related articles I'm not thinking of offhand. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

absolutly. I was thinking of covering history here, but instead what I think I will do is only add broad historical trends. I want to make Timeline of Labor unions in the United States page, adopted from this timeline on my live journal account The Violent History of American Unions. Maybe we can have a link to the Timeline of Labor unions in the United States here instead of all of the hundreds of battles... But it is up to you...BE BOLD! Travb 15:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and add some of those links, I will add the timeline, you have listed events, some of which I have never heard of.... Travb 15:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

draft on Violence

whoever wrote the draft is mostly interested in violence--most of which did not involve unions directly. Put it elsewhere--this essay should talk about labor history generally, and specifically about the history of trade unions. In fact there is a very large and sophisticated literature on labor union history, which is covered in the main books I listed. I will try to fill in the chronological sections as time permits. Rjensen 11:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen wrote: "whoever wrote the draft is mostly interested in violence--most of which did not involve unions directly." Um, with all due repect, I have no idea what you are talking about. This POV is so seperated from the historical facts. I will stop here, and not insult you personally.

Rjensen wrote:"Put it elsewhere--this essay should talk about labor history generally, and specifically about the history of trade unions." As mentioned in my edit, if you want to avoid a revert war, please do not erase whole sections of text.

I find it very troubling that you deleted this whole section and never bothered to move it anywhere--you suggest "putting it elsewhere" and take the time to delete it entirely, but do not take the time to actually move it. This leads me to believe you simply dont want this information on wikipedia, and are willing to edit it into oblivian.

You happen to also be currently outnumbered in your opinion about this section--the two people who edited and created this section, myself and Jmabel both agree that this is very relevent. (see message above)

Rjensen wrote: "In fact there is a very large and sophisticated literature on labor union history, which is covered in the main books I listed." You are basically saying that my literature I posted here is not sophisticated. That is not only insulting personally, it is POV.

Rjensen your initial contribution to this article is a nice start, but it is overshadowed by your POV and your radical edits which destroy the hard work of others. I don't want a revert war. Travb 17:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well let's not have a revert war. A separate article about labor violence is the place to move the stuff, but be careful in mixing up working class violence with labor unions. They are quite different. Labor history is a field with hundreds of scholars. I listed a few of the leading figures (Brody to Ziegler) and representative books. Their findings is what the encyclopedia should talk about. Rjensen 18:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

borderline vandilism

You just erased 15 footnotes and hours of work. Build, don't destroy. I don't want a revert war, but you seem intent on one. You can add back your information, but don't delete whole sections on a whim, otherwise I will revert back your borderline vandlism. Travb 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No nothing is destroyed, it's all saved in Wiki. It's just that the material doesn't fit the topic. Actually my very first published essay was a review of that Violence in America book (1970) that was listed. As for POV: the labor union movement has treied to portray itself as a positive force in terms of working conditiions, wages, political voice for workers. That gets overshadowed by stories of violence -- most of which does not involve mainstream unions at all. People come to an encyclopedia to learn about Gompers and Lewis, AFL, CIO. So let's put it in. Rjensen 18:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to "put it in." Taking things out is another matter.

I'm about as pro-union as anyone this side of John Sweeney, but denying history does no one a favor. Is violence disproportionately represented right now? Yes, because it's what someone chose to write about, and all Wikipedia articles are works in progress. By the way, most of that violence was against unions, not by unions, and if that isn't clear it calls for rewording.

Please do have a look at Wikipedia:Be bold#...but don't be reckless!. I've copied the most relevant passage here:

If you are unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to either:

1. Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length)
2. List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence)

Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.

-- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen wrote: "No nothing is destroyed, it's all saved in Wiki."

Let me temper my words: "Build, don't delete"

Rjensen wrote: "Actually my very first published essay was a review of that Violence in America book (1970) that was listed." I welcome your input into the article, I am sure you can contribute a different perpective in the rich history of unions.

Rjensen wrote: "As for POV: the labor union movement has tried to portray itself as a positive force in terms of working conditiions, wages, political voice for workers."

I agree. That is a image they are trying to portray today. This in no way makes the violent history of unions cease to exist. In fact, I would argue, it was only by the violent history of unions, that we have the rights that allow unions to exist today. You cannot seperate the story of union history from its violent history. See Timeline of Labor unions in the United States

Based on your edits, I don't think you have union's welfare in mind. Your POV about unions is irrelevant to editing as long as you post NPOV information, but it becomes relevant when you seem to speak for unions on the talk page when advocating your edits, when in reality you may not have union's welfare in mind.

Rjensen wrote: That gets overshadowed by stories of violence -- most of which does not involve mainstream unions at all."

I welcome you to add the other history, the less violent history. I cannot figure out how you can write a history of unions without including the pullman strikes, or the steel strikes, or the coalminer strikes--these strikes happened and they were very violent.

I actually became interested in unions myself because of the violent history--the violent histroy that the "disney", classless, nationalistic version that Americans learn in school deletes entirely.

Rjensen wrote: "People come to an encyclopedia to learn about Gompers and Lewis, AFL, CIO. So let's put it in." I can't argue with you, because I will never pretend to speak for wikipideans or web users, I have never done a scientific survey of what internet users want when they look up "unions".

If you want to add this information, I welcome you too build it--this page still needs a lot of work.

Which is it?

Rjensen first wrote: "whoever wrote the draft is mostly interested in violence--most of which did not involve unions directly."

Rjensen then wrote: "stories of violence -- most of which does not involve mainstream unions at all."

First your words seem to say that the violence does not involve unions directly, then you state that there is violence, but it is only among non-mainstream unions. Please explain.

First of all, this article is not entitled Mainstream Labor unions in the United States. And I argue that many of the violence perpetrated by unions were by mainstream unions. Look at the Knights--who had the largest union membership of any organization at their height. i think what you are trying to say is that only marginal unions were involved with violence--in other words it was a small part of union history. Advocating this view is either terribly ignorant, or terrible narrow minded, because a person would have to ignore large portions of history, especially before the New Deal, to come to that conclusion Again, look at the article I recently built: Timeline of Labor unions in the United States.

Rjensen wrote: "A separate article about labor violence is the place to move the stuff, but be careful in mixing up working class violence with labor unions. They are quite different. Labor history is a field with hundreds of scholars."

I disagree, and I believe the other contributor to this article, Jmabel disagrees too, since he suggested adding a less of massacres. You can come up with more convincing arguments and convince us, or build around my section (I have no problem with my section being on the bottom) of a long history/explanation of unions.

Rjensen wrote: "I listed a few of the leading figures (Brody to Ziegler) and representative books. Their findings is what the encyclopedia should talk about. "

I am really concerned with the tone and feeling that I get from these two sentences. It sounds like you would like to build the wikipage the way you want it, not the way others want it. With no consensus. You said yourself that their are hundreds of labor historians, I think it is narrow to focus on just two.

I will add back much of your information, keeping my own. I disagree with the way you rewrite some of the sentences, but that can be addressed here as the page develops.

Welcome to Labor unions in the United States, lets start building! Travb 20:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Current format of article, TEMPORARILY moved comparison of America and foreign unions to top

As I wrote to Rjensen, encouraging him to contribute.

You wrote some really good section headers and mentioned that you would like to continue writing in the future. I was hoping that my section (comparing America and foreign unions) would be just a small minor part of a larger article. But thus far, no one has come forward. I hope you were not scared away by our heated argument. Your knowledge is needed on Labor unions in the United States! I hope to have my section comparing America and foreign unions to be either moved to another article or be a minor part at the end of a larger article detailing the history of unions. Anyway, any contributions would be welcome.

I TEMPORARILY moved the empty sections below the international unions compared section. As soon as I, or someone else, adds this information, it can be moved back to the bottom...I want to start on this and other labor disputes this next couple of weeks, as time, and my interest permits.

I hope those that commit to the article will put sources of there words.Travb 03:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV

It's hard in labor history to avoid POV, but that is essential for Wiki's credibility. One way to start is to junk disreputable sources like Ward Churchill. He's a fakir who has humiliated the U of Colorado and will hurt Wiki just be being cited as an authoritative source. Likewise glorification of violence is unwise. Rjensen 10:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange introduction

The introduction to this article strikes me as very odd. Most introductions, well, introduce the topic. They provide some background and history and set out the scope of the article. At the moment the introduction belongs somewhere in the text with the heading 'current state of labour unions in the US' (or something). Slinky Puppet 10:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, your right. Good point. Any improvements you think of, please add them. Travb 10:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The latest version is a good start.Rjensen 06:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Taft-Hartley Act

Maybe the Taft-Hartley Act info should be merged into the Taft-Hartley Act article, making this article smaller?

Rjensen when are you going to flesh out this article? I am excited to see your knowledge on the subject.Travb 04:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the encouragement! I hope others can help too. Rjensen 05:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Violence in US labor disputes compared

This section seems to comprise a separate article. It is historical yet not integrated into the history sections. It is comparactive, which the rest of the article is not. Any objection to making its own article? Rjensen

The section preceding it, on the comparative decline of US unions, shares the same characteristics.

I think that if we are going to start moving stuff out and summarizing here, it should be the large historical sections, not the sections that are already summaries. Normally, when we have a lot of material on a topic that has present-day relevance, the broad view is presented in the main article and "History of..." becomes a separate article, broken down further as useful. See featured article Seattle for a good example of this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it would appear that Rjensen removed all of the following. As I said in my 22 February remark, I believe this belongs in the article, because it is summary overview information, and that if something needs to be moved, it should be the details of the history (or the extensive bibliography).

I really want to say: I am very uncomfortable with Rjensen removing well-cited material, apparently not moving it to another article or integrating it back into this one, nor even moving it to the talk page (I only found this by comparing versions). While Rjensen has done some excellent work here, this smacks of attempting to monopolize the article for his particular vision of what it should be. - Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel | Talk, thanks for your words of defense. I wrote those sections. I have no problem with these sections being moved. I agreed with Rjensen that once the article was large enough, he could move it. If you recall, he deleted the sections originally, which caused a bit of bad blood at the beginning, but I encouraged him to come back. I hope there is no prob with the move.Travb 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion. I moved the section on comparative violence to the article on Labor Unions: International comparisons since it has to do with international comparisons. Likewise the comparisons of international growth rates (and I added a bibliography to that article). Rjensen 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[Begin removed text]

International comparisons

Decline of US unions compared

In the mid-1950s, 36% of the United States labor force was unionized. Even at America's union peak in the 1950s, union membership was lower in the United States than in almost all comparable countries. By 1989 that figure had dropped to about 16%, the lowest percentage of any developed democracy except France.

For comparison, here are some percentages for other developed democracies, published in 1990:

• 95% in Sweden and Denmark.
• 85% in Finland
• Over 60% in Norway and Austria
• Over 50% in Australia, Ireland and the United Kingdom.
• Over 40% in West Germany and Italy.^[1]

In 1987 United States unionization was 37 points below the average of seventeen countries surveyed, down from 17 points below average in 1970.^[2]

Between 1970 and 1987, union membership declined in only three other countries:

• Austria, by 3%,
• Japan, by 7%, and the
• Netherlands, by 4%.

In the United States, union membership had declined by 14%.^[3]

In 2004, 12.5% of U.S. wage and salary workers were union members. 36% of government workers were union members, but only 8% of workers in private-sector industries were.^[4]

The most unionized sectors of the economy have had the greatest decline in union membership:

From 1953 to the late 1980s:

• Construction from 84% to 22%
• Manufacturing from 42% to 25%
• Mining from 65% to 15%
• Transportation from 80% to 37%^[5]

From 1971 to the late 1980s, there was a 10% drop in union membership in the U.S. public sector and a 42% drop in union membership in the U.S. private sector.^[6] For comparison, there was:

• no drop in union membership in the private sector in Sweden,
• 2% in Canada,
• 3% in Norway,
• 6% in West Germany,
• 7% in Switzerland,
• 9% in Austria,
• 14% in the United Kingdom,
• 15% in Italy.^[7]

Violence in US labor disputes compared

Between 1877 and 1968, 700 people have been killed in American labor disputes.^[8]

In the 1890s, roughly two American workers were killed and 140 injured for every 100,000 strikers.

In the 1890s in France, three French workers were injured for every 100,000 strikers.

In the 1890s only 70 French strikers were arrested per 100,000. For the United States, national arrest rates are simply impossible to compile. In Illinois, the arrest rate for the latter half of the 1890's decade was at least 700 per 100,000 strikers, or ten times that of France; in New York for that decade it was at least 400.

Between 1902 and 1904 in America (the three years between 1880 and 1920 for which there are the most detailed and reliable figures), at least 198 people were killed, 1966 workers were injured. One worker was killed and 1009 were injured for every 100,000 strikers. ^[9]

Between 1877 and 1968, American state and federal troops intervened in labor disputes more than 160 times, almost invariably on behalf of employeers.^[10] Business was disrupted, usually by strikes, on 22,793 occasions between 1875 and 1900.^[11]

For some examples of the violence both by and against U.S. union members in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, see:

• Centralia massacre
• Everett massacre
• Great Railroad Strike of 1922 (an article which could use a lot more work)
• Haymarket Riot
• Homestead Strike
• Lawrence textile strike
• Ludlow massacre
• Molly Maguires
• Pinkerton National Detective Agency
• Pullman Strike
• Sacco and Vanzetti
• Timeline of Labor unions in the United States

Notes

1. ^ Blanchflower, David and Richard B. Freeman (April 1990). "Going Different Ways: Unionism in the U.S. and Other Advanced O.E.C.D. Countries". National Bureau of Economic Research. Working paper number 3342: 6, 42.
2. ^ ibid.
3. ^ Sexton, Patricia Cayo (1992). The War on Labor and the Left: Understanding America's Unique Conservatism. Westview Press. ISBN 0813310636., p. 13
4. ^ Bureau of Labor Statistics. Union Members Summary January 27, 2005
5. ^ Troy, Leo S.M. Lipset Editor (1986). "The Rise and Fall of American Trade Unions: The Labor Movement from FDR to RR". Unions in Transition: Entering the Second Century, Institute of Contemprary Studies: 87. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Troy, Leo (May 1987). "New Data on Workers Belonging to Unions, 1986". Monthly Labor Review: 36.
6. ^ Troy, Leo (Spring 1990). "Is the U.S. Unique in the Decline of Private Sector Unionism". Journal of Labor Research. 11:2: 135.
7. ^ Sexton, p. 14
8. ^ Sexton, p. 55; Taft, Philip and Philip Ross, "American Labor Violence: Its Causes, Character, and Outcome", in Hugh D. Graham and Ted R. Gurr, editors, The History of Violence in America: Historical and Comparitive Perspectives; Frederick A. Praeger publisher, 1969, ASIN: B00005W22X, p. 380 The paper begins with the assertion that "the United States has experienced more frequent and bloody labor violence than any other industrialized nation." Gitelman argues that this may be true, but that it is not supported by the evidence presented, which focuses only on America labor violence exclusively. Gitelman, H.M. (Spring 1973). "Perspectives on American Industrial Violence". The Business History Review. Vol. 47 No. 1: p 2. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
9. ^ Forbath, William E. (April, 1989). "Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement". 102 Harvard Law Review 1111: 1186. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); An introduction to the study of organized labor in America. Macmillan. 1916. ASIN: B0008B9BBK. p. 189; G. Friedman, The State and the Making of a Working Class: The United States and France 20 (paper prepared for Social Science History Conference, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 1986) (on file at Harvard Law School Library); United States Commissioner of Labor, Report on Strikes and Lockouts. H.R. DOC. No. 882, 59th Cong., 2d Sess. (1906) (reporting results of investigation of strikes and lockouts 1901-1905, with summaries from 1881 to 1905)
10. ^ Sexton, p. 55
11. ^ Churchill, Ward (Spring 2004). "From the Pinkertons to the PATRIOT Act The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870 to the Present". The New Centennial Review. Volume 4, Number 1: 15. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Quoting U.S. Department of Labor, Sixteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1901 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1901), 803-806.

[End removed text]

Warning about editor User:Rjensen

Fellow editors, be wary of User:Rjensen. He commonly uses POV (albeit innocently), and when you correct him he accuses you of vandalism. See his user contributions here. Don't be angry with him, just be careful to edit his contributions. —Mark Adler (markles) 05:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between me and Markles is that I add new information to articles--lots of information. I add bibliographies for example--the best available books for the users--like the bibliog for this article, as well as most of the history text. I tell users things like "this is 20 volumes long" and "this is 8 volumes" and he erases that to protect the user. For example he just removed all the refernces to hide them. He seems to distruct books. Wiki REQUIRES refernces for major articles -- it is not optional. These are in fact the sources I am using the write the article section by section (yes it takes a while--it's a hige topic over 150 years)Rjensen 06:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Markles has now removed the references from this article. He did not discuss it with anyone. Of course Wiki REQUIRES references be cited. Why he did such a thing is a mystery: he is not articulate about his motives, except he is annoyed when people call his erasures vandalism. Rjensen 06:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

References moved

I have moved the lengthy (and useful) references section to a new subpage (Labor unions in the United States/References) where readers can still read it, but it doesn't overwhelm the article (see, among other things, Wikipedia:Article size). —Mark Adler (markles) 11:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh--Markles seems to want to help us out. Let's start by asking him what his knowledge is about labor history and how he plans to contribute. If he has ideas for the article that several editors have worked on for months, he certainly can share them before actibg. Rjensen 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? You can't actually be serious. Who cares what my knowledge is or how much I plan to contribute. If you want to build your own website, that's fine: I'll obey your rules there or stay away from it. Until then, you must learn that Wikipedia is not your website, and you must follow the rules. My contributions are well-intentioned and intelligent. My edits are legitimate. That's what's important on Wikipedia, not if I have a college degree. —Mark Adler (markles) 13:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Markles now admits he doesn't know much about labor history. Well, it's nice to have novices to help out. We have a group here that has been working hard on a major topic for some time, and if there are suggestions for improvement we will take them. Meanwhile I suggest that he is not Wikipedia, Markles does not follow the Wiki rules but makes them up out of the blue. For example, he removes references that have to be there because, he says, the text of the article is too long (it is not). There is NO WIKI RULE that allows references to be moved away from the article. As for his contributions being "intelligent" even though he has not read any books on labor history, well some people who are not intelligent enough to get through college probably will make excellent encyclopedia scholars, and perhaps he fits that category. Even so he should discuss things with the other folks who have the sweat equity. Rjensen 13:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mark, how does a references list at the bottom of the page "overwhelm" an article? It's not like it is interspersed heavily with the other material. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Writing the history sections

My plan is first to outline the history of unions. that is done. Second, to assemble a good collection of reference books that covers the field. That is done and they are listed under references.--please do not move them for they are required by Wiki. The third step it to take it section by section writing text using the references. That is underway, and will take a while. In some topics I have used other Wiki articles but I plan to replace that with original text. I encourage others to critique my material and do add to it. Please don't blank it before discussing the issue here. Thanks Rjensen 07:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but consider that you may really be writing more of an article series: be prepared periodically to spin out an article covering a particular time period and to summarize it in a paragraph or two here. - Jmabel | Talk 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

this is a orphaned footnote

I hid this footnote, which is not attached to any portion of the text. Jmabel OR Rjensen Please add this back in, using ref tags

<!--# {{note|juris}} [http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/EconomicaeJ.htm Economics Interactive]-->

Signed:Travb 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing commentary & commentary on the ongoing edit war

• • Removed POV on the Coalition to Win in the first part of the article - 05/14/06.

Formerly it stated that the AFL-CIO and the Coalition to Win are actively involved in Democratic Party politics. I deleted the "Democratic Party" and left it as politics only since the former was blatently untrue although the predominance of support by unions goes to Democrats. The Coalition to Win includes the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, which actually was the first to split off from the AFL-CIO & start the new labor coalition. The UBC&J has recently issued a membership poll and finds it's members are split roughly 60/40 in voting for Republicans over Democrats. International President McCarron has been seen as coordinating with and supporting George W. Bush's administration to the dismay of many Democrats within the organization - {see cartoon at http://www.carpentersunionbc.com/Media/politicos/strangelove_in.jpg } - but to the general approval by members who think it more closely reflects their own political views. Some Unions in America have begun to remove partisan affiliation and made a determination that ANY candidate who supports labor is deserving of support regardless of party affiliation and made donations to Republican candidates more frequently in recent years. The point of Wikipedia is to provide a NEUTRAL source of information, inclusion of the phrase "Democratic Party" did not promote that neutrality.

• • Side note on the ongoing discussion about violence:

As a long time student of Unions, I am fairly knowledgeable about their history. In my credits I produced and did much of the research for a 15 minute video paid for by Local 314 of the UBC&J on their 100th anniversary.

At the insistance of Local 314, much of the reference to violence was ommitted from the video as it was a celebratory film about their local and not Unions in general. I found that to be a compelling argument to honor their wishes.

I am, however, a firm believer that violence and the history of Unions is inseperable. I am also a firm believer that without that violence, the Union movement in America would have failed completely.

I cannot see how a Wikipedia article that attempts to be both complete and impartial can avoid a lengthy discussion of it but would recommend a restructuring of violence commentary to it's own subsection so that it remains visibly available but doesn't taint the other parts of the history with rhetoric.

Perhaps in this way, both the advocates who feel it is important and those who feel it adds POV to the article can allow each other to edit and add/subtract from their seperate sections while maintaining an appearance of integrity for the entire article. In this way the FACTUAL basis for each event is discussed and proven/disproven without disrupting the entire article too much. i4 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) IdioT.SavanT.i4 05/14/06

user:IdioT.SavanT.i4 I have found again and again that asking people do something on the talk page rarely works...like the old saying goes "if you want something done do it yourself"

That said, user:IdioT.SavanT.i4 I strongly disagree with your suggestion:

I cannot see how a Wikipedia article that attempts to be both complete and impartial can avoid a lengthy discussion of it but would recommend a restructuring of violence commentary to it's own subsection so that it remains visibly available but doesn't taint the other parts of the history with rhetoric.

Because I predict that you would want this section to be moved to the bottom of the page, or to another article altogether--in otherwords, despite the statment I cannot see how a Wikipedia article that attempts to be both complete and impartial can avoid a lengthy discussion of it my first reaction is that you appear to want to deemphasize the history of labor violence in America. Under the guise of impartiality. (I have found in my year here on wikipedia, that ironically, the people who use the word "POV" the most are usually the biggest POV warriors themselves).

Thanks for asking the suggestions of other wikieditors before majorily changing the content of this page. Smart move.

Also, please source all contributions, using <ref> tags, and please add page numbers, if available so that other wikipedians can easily check your sources--this also avoids edit wars.

Thanks for your contributions, I look forward to your future edits. You mentioned a very unique thesis on the Taft Harley Act which I never considered. Nice job.Travb 04:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing commentary & commentary on the ongoing edit war What edit war? This page has been quiet for months.Travb 05:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Travb, I believe you have completely misunderstood my position on Union violence.

I am of the belief that WITHOUT violence the Union movement in America would have been stillborn - as such it is both a prominent and necessary centerpiece for ANY article about Unions in America. You are incorrect that I would wish discussion about violence moved to the bottom of the article, in fact, I would prefer it to be the opening part of any such discussion. It is not, however, totally my decision on where it should end up. It is through my effort as a video producer that I came to realize that Unions themselves do not like that part of their history to be prominently displayed. I personally think they are wrong and should showcase it rather than attempt to hide it. NOTHING worth having comes without struggle, the struggle should be a demonstration of it's worthiness, not something to be ashamed of.

• • RE: POV - Thank you for your commentary on my own but let's leave the amature psychology to the professionals. Neither of us is proficient enough in the field to begin assigning motive to the other.
  • RE: Wars - wars do not end just because they have been quiet, even for months, as evidenced by the ongoing conflicts in the M.E. and the Korean Peninsula. LOL

i4 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC) IdioT.SavanT.i4

GA failed

• Too long of a LEAD.
• This sentence, Since the 1940s unions have admitted Blacks, Hispanics and women. should be added to the appropriate section or included in the lead, not as a stand-alone line.
• This section has links pointing outside WP, it is rather discouraged to have some though they can be placed in a External Link section if clearly necessary.
• The subsection Violence, 1886-1894 is still incomplete though there is a throughout explanation on the linked page
• The subsection Coal Strikes 1900-1902 has see Coal Strike of 1902 under it, it is necessary to have a brief paragraph summarizing the linked article ... if not possible then simply blend it in another subsection.
• Too many one-line sections or subsections.
• This article is magnificent but doesn't meet #3, re-nominate once the article meets it. broad in its coverage. Lincher 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I've started putting together an infobox for this page (and all the "Trade union in X" articles). It is at User:Bookandcoffee/Labour for now, and any comment on what should or shouldn't be included would be great. If there is no objection to the idea I'd like to put an initial non-template version on the page sometime in the next week or so, to get a look at how it works. --Bookandcoffee 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's what I came up with. There are three sections - the top is general reference, the stats are from the US dept. of Labor, and the ILO section would be the ratification dates for the two labor conventions (not as relevant for the US, but nice to have world-wide). There are a million ways to display stats, but I tried to keep it short. I like the red highlights, but there is always a bit of contention as to who uses what color in infoboxes (WP:INFOCOLOR) so I'm not too worried if that changes :) Comments? Changes? --Bookandcoffee 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

How about merging the long section on the Taft Harley Act into Taft-Hartley Act? What do you all think? Please vote here: Talk:Taft-Hartley_Act#Merge.3F_vote_here Travb (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

expansion

various sections are empty and need content. Thanks Hmains 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but I took the {{expansion}} tag off the top. The page is 41k long - it needs more work, but it also could use spliting into {{main}} sections.--Bookandcoffee 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered there already exists a Labor history of the United States article, which is also largely a skeleton. I think that it should be linked as the main article for labor history, stuff in this article and not there should be merged into it, and future expansion should take place there. This would help with the length issue. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me.--Bookandcoffee 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

false claims in this article

The article states:

To join a union, workers must either:

• be given voluntary recognition from their employer or
• have a majority of workers in a "bargaining unit" vote for union representation.

In either case, the government must then certify the newly formed union.

This is absolutely false information. I'm a member of a union in the U.S. in which none of these "musts" apply. In fact, a book by "a renowned labor law scholar and preeminent authority on the National Labor Relations Act" quashes these claims:

The Blue Eagle At Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights In The American Workplace

http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Eagle-Work-Reclaiming-Democratic/dp/0801443172

best wishes, Richard Myers 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

After a week or so and no changes, i'm making changes myself. I'm linking to a stub article Solidarity unionism which has some serious shortcomings, but at least is a beginning article on an alternative.

I notice that Lincher, above, states that,

• This sentence, Since the 1940s unions have admitted Blacks, Hispanics and women. should be added to the appropriate section or included in the lead, not as a stand-alone line.

I find that sentence flawed, rather than just out of place. While the topic is important, this brief reference doesn't do it justice. There were all black unions in the previous century. There were womens' proto-unions in the previous century. The IWW organized all workers beginning in 1905. I'm removing the sentence entirely; if someone wishes to add it in again, please do so with regard to the historical record. Richard Myers 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplication

This article has been substantially duplicated in the page Labor history of the United States. What's needed is a short dick on the page there. I'm deleting it from this page, and doing that. The problem is, the pages differ slightly. On the whole the other is longer, and more detailed, but where there is more detail here, I'm copying that to make sure that nothing is lost.

This is a really good start for an interesting topic. Those who were writing it, why not keep going!! Wikidea 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Employee Free Choice Act

Hi, Travb, IdioT.SavanT.i4 back again, after a long hiatus from this project. I read the addition on the Employee Free Choice Act and while it is the current topic of discussion about Union legislation underway, it seems the article is a bit lopsided about the possibility of Union organizers coercing workers to sign cards or face repercussions. I am under the impression the bill makes no such requirement that a worker sign their card openly, that it can be signed without a Union organizer present and just handed in to one. - but that is only my OPINION, and my initial reaction to it as it now stands - but I have read the complete bill a fair number of times. This work is largely someone else's brain child & I have little wish to interrupt or rearrange the careful work that has undoubtedly been poured into it, so I only bring this matter to the attention of the main editor and suggest that person(s) actually read the Act in it's entirety a couple times through. H.R. 800 It's very short, as legislation goes, and not at all the "effort to take away workers' right to a secret ballot" that some seem to love criticizing it as. It actually preserves that option in the bill, but adds the convenience of not being required to use secret ballot voting as the ONLY way to gain recognition. The Wikipedia article on the Employee Free Choice Act itself seems more balanced, so perhaps that is a start to review and redesign the entry here. Take care and happy Wiki-ing LMAO IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

US Labor Unions

should redirect here.--189.33.9.33 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

List of States that have/allow Unions

This article needs a list and/or table summarizing state law of unions. For example I understand there are no teacher's unions in North Carolina, but that information isn't in this article. -Nsteinme (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)