Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Digitization of PATCO (US air traffic union) archives

"The National Historic Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) has awarded a grant in the amount of $90,000.00 to Georgia State University Library to digitize portions of this controversial union’s records and make them available online. The PATCO records are already part of Georgia State’s Southern Labor Archives. Work on the project is expected to take approximately 20 months; at its completion, all scanned documentation (about 179,000 pages of text) will be searchable, for free. The project will begin in April 2011." --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotation issues with Samuel Gompers

The last quotation has some context and credibility issues. Please see talk:Samuel Gompers#Problem quotation. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think all of those were just solved. It took about 15 minutes on Google Books to locate proper sources, and correct quotations. (My feeling is that quotation sections are problematic as best. "Why this quote and not that one?" I don't want to get into that, unless a neutral, third-party source says, "This quote of his is so critical.") - Tim1965 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I dumped the quotes onto the associated wikiquote page and added a wikiquote box to the external links section. I agree the quote list should probably be excised. Also, FWIW, I think an interested editor could get the article to GA pretty lickety-split. Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ILO conventions

I have been working a bit on some of the ILO conventions. They are all 180 in wikipedia with a standard page featuring not much more than a dedicated infobox, a quote of the preambule (e.g. "Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals concerning the application of international labour standards in non-metropolitan territories,.") and a country table which generally contains no country info. I intend to do the following things:

• Add more specific info, wikilinks, external links (e.g. to the conf and state party pages at ILO)
• Change the names (removing the year, as there is no reason to keep the year)
• Categorize them in subcategories (e.g. not ILO treaty, but ILO treaties on maritime law) and am thinking of adding a cat which would contain the very relevant ones ("active ILO conventions with more than 100 member states"? ideas welcome!)
• Change the infobox to Infobox treaty. The reason is that the present convention enables browsing to the "next" convention (by ILO number), which is not really useful in view of the amount of treaties and the low relationship between conventions adopted close to eachother
• I am considering merging several of them which I think do not warrant their own page. This goes for revised treaties which got their own page (e.g. ), but also for a group of closely related conventions (e.g. 4 conventions (1,2,3,4) on treatment of non-metropolitan areas adopted in the same year and with the same 4 members).

Comments, suggestions (and help!) would be appreciated! L.tak (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Telegraphers' Unions

• Hello - I would like to add some entries relating to the various telegraphers' unions, specifically the Order of Railroad Telegraphers and the Commercial Telegraphers Union of America, both in the U.S., which do not appear to have any documentation at present. Would also like suggestions on telegraphers' unions in other countries.Tjepsen (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Have you tried a Google Books search? That can turn up some great sources. Given the relatively old age of the unions you are interested in, you may find a lot of sources which are in the public domain and thus viewable in their entirety online. You might also want to try Philip Foner's multi-volume history of the labor movement in America. It has excellent coverage of the early unions (going back to the colonial era). - Tim1965 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Tim1965, thanks for the excellent suggestions. Google Books in fact has copies of Railroad Telegrapher from 1907-1914 that are unavailable elsewhere. I have already posted a preliminary version of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers page; comments and suggestions are welcome.Tjepsen (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Maine Labor Mural

Hello Folks, been lurking on Wikipedia since the beginning-ish and some editing while logged in - more not. Wanted to know the best practice for starting a Maine Labor History Mural page. Thanks - MarkDilley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

• Here's a good guide to creating a page. I suggest you create a sandbox for yourself: go to your own user page, type "/Sandbox" after your user name in the URL, and then hit enter. Type something into the page, and then save it. The sandbox will be created, and you can use it to create your article here first, experiment, fool around, add stuff, etc. Make sure you make the article about the mural, and not necessarily about the current controversy. Get as many citations as you can, and follow Wikipedia's guidelines on citations and footnotes to make sure the article is a good one. Once you are ready, figure out the article name you want to use (there are some guidelines here), and do a search on that article. Make sure there are no existing articles first, or articles with similar names which cover the same topic. If there is no article, go and click on the red-linked name of the article you want to create. Now you can cut-and-paste and transfer the great, high-quality article you wrote in your sandbox and move it into the "real" Wikipedia space. Save your work, and you are done! Make sure you read the life cycle of an article guidelines, and be sure to categorize your page. You are all set! - Tim1965 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tim - I appreciate the help - cheers, MarkDilley (talk) Maine Labor History Mural

"Union violence"

The article has undergone dramatic change in just the few hours since i tagged it for deletion. Please don't let that deter you. Check out Union violence, and weigh in on what needs to be done. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep the union violence article.

Detailed complaints on the talk page over a period of four years did not seem to improve the article in any way. The threat of deletion did accomplish considerable improvement, including the creation of a balancing article Anti-union violence.

The scope of the anti-union violence article, suggested in the first paragraph, was limited to workplace violence. As we all know, violence against workers and union organizers can happen anywhere. Of course this article can also be improved. Richard Myers (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As i type this, there are about 17 normal pages which link to Union violence, and only one normal page links to the new page Anti-union violence, which i think (now) is the much better article. If you know of a page that could or should link to anti-union violence, please link away. (I know of a couple) Richard Myers (talk)

• My concern with the "Union Violence" page is many-fold. 1) It's not about unions. There are cases where unions have acted, formally as an organization, to commit violence. The article in question does not mention those. 2) The article is essentially a list masquerading as an article. It lists 12 incidents (it may list more, over time). The article contains no citations to broad studies of union-sponsored violence, no citations to analyses of why union-sponsored violence occurs, and no opposing points of view justifying union violence. (Not even a citation to Jefferson's pithy comment about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.) 3) The article is U.S.-centric. Union-sponsored and union-related violence is far more common overseas than in the U.S. 4) The article appears to violate the "Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts" guideline. It has cherry-picked 12 very recent incidents, but refuses to discuss the great historic cases of union-related violence which are well-documented (for example, the Los Angeles Times bombing, the gunfight at the Homestead plant, the Pullman Strike violence, the Little Steel Strike violence, the Battle of Toledo, etc.) I could suggest that this is because such incidents are not clear-cut cases amenable to union-bashing, but I am going to assume good faith on the part of the contributors. I have many other concerns with the piece, but these are the primary ones. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

International Labor Standards

A colleague and I are planning to expand the stub article on International labour standards and add it to WikiProject Organized Labour. One of WikiProject Organized Labour's stated goals is to establish fair and consistent representation of labor in business, government, and organizational articles. In order to provide even coverage of labor in such areas, it stands to reason that there should be a discussion on the possible implementation of a set of labor standards on the international stage. Major organizations like the ILO, which WikiProject Organized Labour lists as one of its key articles, have already adopted a stance on labor standards. We simply wish to present the alternatives available to international actors so that Wikipedia can produce a fair representation of labor related topics. By associating with this WikiProject we hope to add to the organized efforts of WikiProject Organized Labour contributors in expanding articles related to labor. We would appreciate any feedback and look forward to contributing to this project.

• -- Leejohnson898 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• -- Krisinaz (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm interested in this topic, but I'm concerned about a possible misunderstanding. What the ILO Conventions represent are internationally agreed rights guaranteed under treaty obligations, so they are *standards* in as much as any law may be called a standard. The enforcement of these standards is something completely different. Moreoever, these rights ('standards') should not in any way be confused with or compared to voluntary corporate mechanisms such as SA8000 etc. It would be highly misleading to do so. For example, there are various different opinions on whether or not SA8000 is an attempt to whitewash corporate practices, but it uses as a baseline the ILO conventions in regard to labour conditions. It seems to me what is being suggested above is more about the application and enforcement of international labour standards.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

question about redirect pages

I tried something just to see if it would work — i put a {{Portal|Organized labour}} tag on a redirect page, specifically, Labour dispute. It doesn't show up on the page. I'm curious, is there a way to include redirect pages in a project or category, so that it becomes a part of all the articles that concern us? Obviously, we can each "watch" any redirect page that we individually come across, but how do we routinely let others know a labor-related redirect page exists, in case they might want to be aware of it too? Is this even possible, using existing methods? Richard Myers (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My sense is that redirect pages are not capable of being marked with tags like the "Portal" tag. If you want to watch a redirect page, use the "Watch" feature. Then, if something happens to the page which you feel might concern the Project, post to the Project Talk page about it. That's the only solution I can think of. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-union editors are trying to have it both ways

Union violence was an awful article, listing attacks allegedly made by union people against others. It listed 12 such "attacks", and only one was sourced. I complained on the talk page for four years, but the article only got worse.

I filed an AFD, but during the AFD period the article was improved substantially. Part of the justification for its continuing to exist was the creation of a balancing article, Anti-union violence. While i still don't like having these two articles very much, we're stuck with it, because the AFD for Union violence failed.

Now an anti-union editor wants to AFD Anti-union violence, so they'll only be left with an article that lists attacks by union members, and no article listing attacks on union members.

Please weigh in. And help to improve both articles, while you're at it.

thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't an AFD, it is a different deletion procedure. Anyone can remove the deletion notice, if they simply object to it for any reason. Please see discussion on the talk page, Talk:Anti-union violence. thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Try AGF - my cousin was a major union president. My grandfather was a union carpenter. That does not mean I feel Wikipedia should be used for essays which masquerade as articles. Nor does it mean I support WP:POINT as a means of editing. By the way, the "attack" I edited out was an email sent to Governor Walker from which absolutely no action resulted against any union. It does help to be accurate when making scurrilous charges against anyone at all. Collect (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:CANVASS. Your request is blatantly biased while only neutral requests for attention are allowed. Zakhalesh (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is an opinion offered by Jonathanwallace, an "an uninvolved editor", on the article Anti-union violence: [1] No BLP concerns. No coatrack concerns. No jurisdiction pleaded for WP:POINT, but a comment suggesting that it doesn't apply either. I accept the point about WP:CANVASS, i was demonstrating a little irritation. Apologies on that. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged the anti-union and union violence articles with a merger proposal to industrial violence. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think with minimal input so far we have a slight consensus against the actual merge, and some alternate suggestions. I would like to see additional comments.

Meanwhile, i notice we have a category called union violence, but no category called anti-union violence. How about changing the category name union violence to industrial violence? I'm not experienced with categories, but this seems like a fairly simple step to take to deal with some of the issues surrounding the two conflicting concepts. Richard Myers (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Try adding "Inter-union violence" as well. And since not all unions are "industrial" it is silly to add a non-utile adjective. In the US, I think a majority of union members are not actually "industrial." Collect (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll suggest a category: "Violence in labor-management relations." (I think "industrial" gets confusing as to white collar vs. blue collar, industrial vs. craft unionism, etc.) - Tim1965 (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure you need more than "Violence in labor relations" as the AF of L - CIO fights were legendary, and did not even need "management" for the fights. Collect (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Then create a separate category for those kinds of fights: "Union on Union violence." If this is truly an issue for which many articles will be created (documenting each incident?) then subcategories are going to be needed. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the colorful history of the CIO vis-a-vis the AFL in the US. Inter-union violence in the UK and other nations (including the former USSR and many other nations). I am only suggesting that the category should be worded broadly to accomodate such cases - not that lots of small categories should be created. Is there a reason why the name I suggested would be aproblem for you? Collect (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Given existing realities, the suggestion "Violence in labor relations" seems a reasonable option to me. That entirely leaves aside circumstances that we cannot easily change here on Wikipedia; i.e., the very perception in society that the term "labor relations" itself is fair. There is an inherent bias, in that it implies that labor is to be managed, and is therefore inferior to capital, rather than (as Abraham Lincoln stated) having priority. This imbues us with the psychological impression that violence can be more properly associated with "labor" than with "management" when, historically speaking, the reverse has been true. (Well, nearly the reverse. "Management" doesn't correlate precisely with "ownership".) Here's a way to appreciate how structured our thinking is by the language we have adopted: would it make sense to anyone to call this category "Violence in capital relations"?

If we took the social impact of linguistics into account, we'd call the category something like "Violence in socio-economic relations". But that isn't going to happen. :-( Richard Myers (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(Some food for thought...) Whatever category title we decide upon, it should be broad enough to include examples that obviously belong within the sphere of our discussion, but which might be excluded if our language is narrow. For example, when it comes to so-called "union violence", consider the example of Alexander Berkman's attentat, which was aimed at a manager, and was clearly intended to start a worker uprising, but could not have been conceived by any reasonable person to have been a "pro-union" action. Berkman was astonished that common workers interfered with the attack, which he believed he was doing in their interest. The workers obviously saw it differently, and may have even perceived the attack as a deadly blow against their concept of union.

Historically, the backlash against such violence has frequently "reversed" its immediate, apparent impact. How, then, can our category title accurately encompass such outlier incidents, if we restrict ourselves to the "labor-management" or "union anti-union" terminology? Richard Myers (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone tagged Industrial violence with a deletion tag. I removed it, within the rules provided. But i think we need to come to a decision soon about what to do with the three articles.

I have a proposal to suggest. How about if we create this article, with appropriate links to Union violence and Anti-union violence, with general information that characterizes the nature and history of industrial violence? Any incident that falls clearly into the scope of the other two articles may be located where it is most appropriate, but industrial violence can provide an overview, and also a place for special cases that don't fit one or the other of those two articles? Then we will have something more substantial to evaluate. Richard Myers (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia thumbnail image server currently unreliable

A heads up to anyone working with images, the full size images can be viewed, but (at least for some of us) any thumbnail resizing that wasn't already scaled may fail. I spent an hour fighting this earlier, and finally found a rather vague reference to the problem here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Image_question best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• They've been having this problem since late Thursday, March 31, I understand. The whole site crashed, and the thumbnail problem is an outgrowth of that, it seems. (WikiCommons had a big problem with thumnails on Friday, April 1.) - Tim1965 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be working now. Richard Myers (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• They're still having problems on WikiCommons today, I see. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

favor to ask -- assess article

I'd be pleased to have someone assess Anti-union violence. It is no longer "start" class. thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Open tasks

A reminder to fellow Wikipedians, there is a list of requested articles here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/open_tasks#Requested_articles

If you're looking for a project, please pick one. If you've encountered a notable strike or labor organization that doesn't yet have an article, and you just don't have the time to start it now, add it to the list as a reminder to yourself and others. thanks! Richard Myers (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

I have nominated Hamlet chicken processing plant fire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn

You may be interested in the new biography of Tom Kahn, whose was a social-democrat and AFL-CIO leader. In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

new Mine Mill Auxiliary article needs linking help

A new editor has written a nice article, here:

The Ladies Auxiliary of the International Union of Mine Mill and Smelter Workers

Unfortunately, there aren't many articles linking to this new article. Can you help?

Thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

New article: Llanelli railway strike

Following an excellent BBC article published today, I have started the Llanelli railway strike article. Please improve if you can, especially additional quality / academic refs. Ta. (By the way, I have redirected "the great unrest" to this article, but now doubt the wisdom of this, as the strike seems to be only a part of wider unrest. Maybe another, wider, article is needed?) --Mais oui! (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable notability of Mariano Laya Armington

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mariano Laya Armington#Notability. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

or at this point to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Laya Armington. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn nominated as a WP:Good article

Tom Kahn was a democracy activist, first with the Socialist Party of America, then in the civil rights movement (with Bayard Rustin and Rachelle Horowitz), and the AFL–CIO International Affairs Department (where he worked to support Solidarity (Polish trade union).

The article Tom Kahn has been nominated as a WP:Good article. Writing a review is a chance to earn good karma!

:)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Burke Group (redux)

Seems someone signed up as an editor in early January late December, made a whole lot of edits to The Burke Group page and then promptly disappeared [2]. This has happened before, usually editors with WP:COI issues. I'm trying to clean it up, but encourage other editors to take a look.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NFLPA

Hey guys, I haven't worked on any other articles in this WikiProject, but the one I'm currently working on falls under this category. The current NFLPA article exists as a "B" class article, and my goal is to get it up to a "Good Article." I'm working on a series of revisions, and the draft can be found here. I currently work in the entertainment industry, and one of my clients is the NFLPA. Because of this conflict of interest, I would appreciate any and all feedback. I am also seeking feedback from the folks at WP:NFL, but any additional feedback would be great. Thanks in advance for the help. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Your input is sought at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Article requests

I was wondering if anyone would be willing to take on the task of writing up an article about Larry Itliong? Like Vera Cruz, he is often overlooked in labor history. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have been fixing/expanding on United Voice and the FMWU and I think that there needs to be a Ray Gietzelt page created. He died recently and was (apparently) a major figure of the trade union movement for over 20 years. Anyone want to write an article about him? AlexinaDuel (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Need new article on strike on Florida East Coast Railway, which began in 1963

There was a strike on the Florida East Coast Railway that began in 1963. It's important in history. I really don't know much about the strike, besides its duration, bitterness, violence, and effect on US-wide work rules in a major industry (railroads). Therefore, I can't comment on the accuracy of the existing article on the FEC. But I can say that the level of detail that's in the current article is probably about right for a general article on the FEC.

I would like Wikipedia to have a new article specifically on the strike: what happened, why, and consequences.

I think the article should use Seth Bramson's book, Speedway to Sunshine, even though I haven't read it, because it is reputed to be the standard reference on the FEC. Similarly, I would expect the article to use historians who have published in the Florida Historical Quarterly. But I'm not sure such sources will have sufficient sympathy for the workers who went on strike. So, for completeness and NPOV, I encourage authors to search out such sources, in addition to sources that are sympathetic to FEC management.

I'm not expert enough on Wikipedia to know the best way to invite such an article to be written, but I'm cross-posting this to the Talk pages of WikiProject_Florida and here (with minor edits) - original post is on Talk page of FEC. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Haymarket affair Good Article reassessment

Haymarket affair, which is listed as part of this WikiProject, has been nominated for a community reassessment to determine if it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the article reassessment page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just a side note: This was undoubtedly an outcome of the attack on the article's reputation and Wikipedia's editing guidelines by Dr. Timothy Messer-Kruse in a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Messer-Kruse, an authority on the subject, took issue with some of the claims in the article. (He believes his research has shown conclusively that the claims made are incorrect. Some of his research conclusions are hotly debated.) There is a very serious debate on this article's talk page about various claims by scholars. Some of the works cited are older; some of the scholars cited are dead and cannot defend themselves. My sense of things is that historians themselves have reached no consensus on the issues, and Wikipedia is going to have to reflect that. (I have no opinion on the quality of the article, as I have barely scanned it in the past six months.) - Tim1965 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Labor

A single individual is making changes to Template:Labor. While I, personally, don't have an opinion yet about the changes, unilateral changes are probably not a good idea. In part, this individual is making style changes to the template based on the individual's own personal color choices, and not a WikiProject consensus nor a historical use of the crimson red color. What do others think about the template changes? I refuse to get into an edit war about the changes. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

anti-union sock puppet is back

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rcodella is a sock puppet who is a top level lawyer from The Burke Group.

He has previously used the ID jbowersox, and numerous other sockpuppet accounts. He has been repeatedly banned, but is obviously back. I have initiated an investigation by admin. Richard Myers (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The anti-union (The Burke Group related) sock puppetry has been confirmed, once again -- here: [3]. The case is currently awaiting administrative action. Richard Myers (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing Asturian miners' strike

I'm writing a first draft of an article to cover the ongoing dispute in Asturias, but I'd like make 100% sure that there isn't already an article first. I can't find one, and so far no one's responded to my query at the Spain Wikiproject, but I find it a little hard to believe that no one's written one yet. Any thoughts? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No one responded to either thread, so I went ahead and created 2012 Asturian miners' strike. Input appreciated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

'Progressive Mine Workers of America' article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Progressive Miners of America#Why the name change?. -- Trevj (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to Oct. 27 Editathon, Teamsters Labor History Research Center

You're invited to participate, remotely or in person, in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Labor History Research Center Editathon, Oct. 27, at George Washington University. Join us online the day of the event, or sign up and meet your fellow labor article editors in person! Djembayz (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting someone to write more about SAG-AFTRA.

This article, SAG-AFTRA, really needs to be expanded. Please help out if you can. RGloucester (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hart Schaffner & Marx?

Now known as Hartmarx, apparently there was a major labor arbitration agreement established here in 1912. I was reading about it in Wigmore § 4g (3d ed. 1940), and noted there wasn't anything about the labor relations history of this company in the article. I dropped a note on the talk page, but thought I'd leave a message here as well. I'm really not familiar enough with the subject matter to do anything myself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• A shot in the dark: I'm guessing that the union involved was the Cloakmakers, but there's so little known about them. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

See here. The union was the United Garment Workers. Apparently Clarence Darrow was involved too. Interesting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism to Union security agreement

An unregistered user associated with the hotel industry keeps trying to delete a single section of the article Union security agreement. This individual's bias is clear (to my mind; they don't want union security agreements to have an economic justification). This user keeps changing their justification for deleting this section, and does not delete anything else in the article (even though their justification for deleting the "Rationale" section would apply elsewhere). I cannot engage in an edit war with this individual. I have tried to engage the individual on the article Talk page to no avail. Since I helped expand this article, I cannot continue to banter with this person. It might be useful is someone else brought a new perspective to the discussion on the article Talk page, and (if appropriate) reported the user as a vandal. As a major contributor to the article, I cannot do that without being accused of bias myself. - Tim1965 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)