Talk:Union busting

message: Expansion of business and membership decline is a new section. It duplicates text that already existed in the article.
For example, under How organizations find union busters this already existed:
The larger U.S. consultancies are trained in international labor relations law and already experienced in Canada, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and the U.S.
And under EofBandMD the same point is now made again:
There are many Labor Relations consultancies in the United States ... Although many work only in the United States, others are established in international markets such as Canada, the Caribbean and Central America.
Under How organizations find union busters we also find:
Consultants may advise management to solve workforce issues before labor unrest occurs in order to stem the tide of organizing activity with the intention of "making unions or third party representation superfluous."
And under EofBandMD there is a nearly identical passage:
Some corporations spend considerable resources employing professional consultancies to audit their organizations in order to determine issues before their employees seek union representation. They train their supervisory staff about how not to commit infractions that would trigger unrest and card signing.
Also under How organizations find union busters, this sentence:
the legal community referrals constitutes the vast majority of the use of international counter organizing consultants
And under EofBandMD, the new section, another duplication:
In 1980, most union busters acquired clients through a network of labor lawyers
None of these puzzling redundancies existed in the article two months ago. I plan to fix these before the end of the weekend... Richard Myers (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first and third of these are now fixed. The middle one remains... for now. It is a tricky one to fix, since other sentences respond to the same point in two different sections. Richard Myers (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has acquired multiple redundancies, deletions required 

message: This text reads like a corporate promotional brochure:
These agencies advertise services related to their ability to navigate the labor laws of a country[The Burke Group Website], http://www.tbglabor.com in order to defeat union organizing drives, to defeat strikes, or to decertify unions...
 
Some  labor relations consultancies confine themselves to domestic work while others reach internationally.  The size and scope of any given consultancy will determine how and  why a client will hire them based on experience, knowledge of international labor relations law, successful outcomes, and language ability.  Although there are many US websites advertising union avoidance or union busting services, the legal community referrals constitutes the vast majority of the use of international counter organizing consultants.  The globalization of industry requires that companies are capable of applying  labor relations laws that could affect their workers all over the world.  The larger U.S. consultancies are trained in international labor relations law and already experienced in Canada, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and the U.S.  The E.U has recently seen an influx of counter organizing activity largely due to U.S. companies having located satellite divisions to the European continent and Asia and have pre-established relationships with U.S. consultancies and comfort with similar language.
 
Some  consultancies consist of  networks of consultants who can represent large multi national companies with multiple domestic satellite branches while other consultancies consist of smaller groups of individual contributors called  independent contractors who work within established local areas.   
And why shouldn't it? It cites [the website of] The Burke Group as a source.
This is a very bad practice. 
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the commercial purposes of corporations.
I have removed the bold on the word advertise. I will address the issue of commercial usage soon.
Please see Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING for details.
Richard Myers (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that you must describe these companies that do union busting.  It also seems to me that in describing them you must use NPOV language.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a commercial promotion website 

message: Does anyone know how to set up an archive for this talk page...it's too long.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AATP, NB circumstances and context for archiving.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have any objections if I set a bot to archive any thread that hasn't gotten a reply in 14 days?LedRush (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I am against bot archiving at this moment, there are a lot of disputes here which are helpful to see in order to reference, I would prefer not to have to go through archives at this stage.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you against some normal archiving?  The page is so long that new editors are greatly discouraged from editing.LedRush (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the resolution of sockpuppet issue and that things have been quiet here for more than a week, have begun a manual archive.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Unfortunately, I see no consensus for the changes that have been made to the introduction which was previously agreed.   In response to the claim by the editor Collect: "the UDHR says unions are good, therefore "union busting" must be bad."  There is nothing in the UDHR which states unions are "good".  The initial two sentences were agreed to in a compromise to include the phrase "used by trade unions and others" to address the view that some editors regarded the phrase "union busting" as negative.  This of course is debatable, but in order to stem debate this was the compromise.  Now there is a bizarre turn of phrase doubly qualified.  Use of the term "uncomplimentary" only makes matters worse.  Given the difficulty that occurred in reaching the introduction as it was, the good faith action regarding the introduction would be to discuss changes here and wait for agreement before making the change (as was done in the case of and/or). This sentence: "The UDHR and its Covenants have not been ratified by the United States, although it has ratified the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." is utterly confusing and irrelevant.  Why the continued insertion of US specific items?  With regard to the insertion of the right-to-work laws, this is incredibly US specific.  I can see use for its discussion within the article, but mentioned as it does, returns us back to the problem of the introduction using terms that are not global in understanding or use.  Also, it needs to be noted that the international understanding of "Right to work" is as a human right to employment guaranteed by the state.  So we once again have a problem about US specific language (the right to work page redirects to the right to work law page which should have a disambiguation page actually). I will remove non-agreed sentences and would ask editors who are intent on further inclusions to the introduction to discuss the matter first (as was done with the introduction, where no changes were made until agreement was reached). Proposed changes should to be discussed here and an agreement reached before being made.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is there to highlight the fact that the article suffers from problems outlined in WP:BIAS. The article is not called "union busting in the USA"--that is the crux of the problem.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued insertion of US specific language and items into introduction 

message: About the above, how do you conclude Workers as Union Busters has no basis?  It does.  And workers have legal means to "bust" their union.  And why does a  template clearly state  the article is about the United States while you continue admonish editors for being US centric?
With all due respect, the intro has been hard fought and many have put volumes of dialogue into it.  I stepped away but am now revisiting not to hinder but to help.  I agree with Goldsztajn that dialogue should continue towards agreements rather than an editor making unilateral changes.  That being said, the current intro continues to present serious problems.  One small way to work towards a solution is a decision regarding an international vs United States focus.  Perhaps my comparison Uk to US will assist in that decision.
Heres one problem clause:  "union busting actions subvert the organization and continuation of unions by sowing discord amongst union members, challenging unions via law courts, strike breaking, lockouts, violent suppression, the sponsorship of anti-union organizations, or the creation of employer-controlled trade unions. 
"Sowing discord among union members is illegal and violates the NLRA, but sowing discord among NON members is NOT. But what is the definition of "sowing discord"?  It is legal for employers to voice their position on unions and provide details such as dues, strike actions etc. 
"Challenging unions via law courts" is legal for both Unions and Employers.   A labor law court is the NLRB (in the U.S) and the CAC (in the UK)  and takes the form of an employer or union appealing decisions such as ULP's (NLRB & CAC), makeup of bargaining unit (NLRB & CAC), supervisory  taint (NLRB), or automatic recognition vs a ballot (CAC).
"Strikes, Work Stoppages, lockouts and strike breaking" can occur only AFTER a contract has expire.   A work stoppage may be initiated by the union, in the form of a strike, or by the employer, in the form of a lockout. A strike need not be a complete stoppage of work and may include labour withdrawals in the form of overtime bans, work slowdowns or rotating strikes.  The purpose of a strike is to compel an employer to agree to terms and conditions of employment, whereas a lockout is intended to exert similar pressure on the employees and the union. The practical result of each, in terms of the impact on the employer's business, is virtually identical.    The NLRA prohibits employees bound by a collective agreement from striking during the term of that agreement, and the union must not declare or authorize a strike of those employees during that term either.   Similarly, an employer bound by a collective agreement must NOT (during the term of the collective agreement) lock out employees bound by the collective agreement.   Where the collective agreement has expired, a legal strike or lockout still cannot occur until several preconditions are met! 
"Employer-controlled "trade" unions" do not exist in the United States!   The NLRA (Wagner Act  and Taft Harley)  were enacted to prohibit  managers and supervisors as union members. Employers in the past were once able to create "controlled" unions by virtue of their supervisory staff maintaining union leadership positions.  Prohibition of supervisors in unions prevented "employer controlled unions".  In the United Kingdom, supervisory personnel ARE allowed as members of a union but I am unaware of "employer controlled unions".  Please provide examples.
To "Hinder" workers from freely organizing" is illegal in the United States.  Again, the NLRA strictly prohibits interference with organizing once "organizing activity" commences or is evidenced at a workplace. It is unlawful for any employer to inhibit or prohibit activities and organizing MUST be allowed freely.  However, prior to organizing, it is legal for an employer to practice union avoidance or and communicate company policy as it regards unions and to voice opinions and it continues to be legal after organizing.  Although opinions may be voiced,  it is against the law to forbid any worker  to join or to prevent anyone from joining.   It is NOT against the law for a worker to make inquiry to an employer or seek answers about what unionization means or how it may affect the workplace.
I agree with Goldsztajn that the addition of RTWS is problematic.  RTWS do not force anyone to join a union or pay dues to a union.  In the UK by law no one is forced to either join or pay dues as well.   The UK is considered progressive and  no one would call this union busting in the U.K.   
Further comparison between the UK and US. In the UK, by law, closed shop, union shop, and agency shop are illegal; no one can be forced to join a union or be forced to pay dues .  However, in the US, agency shop exists in NRTWS (non right to work states) where workers cannot be forced to join a union but  can be forced (30-90 days from employment in a union workplace) to pay a "representation" fee to a union.  Note it is called "representation" rather than "dues" because technically the worker is not union member.  In  NRTWS both non union and union members may exercise what are called BECK rights and pay only the amount of dues or "representation" fee the union uses towards collective bargaining activities (minus political contributions etc.).   In RTWS (right to work states)  a worker is not forced to join or pay union dues which is the same as is practiced all over the UK.  
In summary, the existing union busting definition gives an impression that strike breaking, lockouts, and hindering organizing happen willy nilly  with no regard to law as though the union is powerless and has no recourse.  It misrepresents the "real" world application of terms and law.
It is not so easy to write a definition for "union busting" without defining what is legal to provide a reader unfamiliar to labor a true understanding.  It is particularly difficult to do this on an international level.Jbowersox (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "And why does a template clearly state the article is about the United States while you continue admonish editors for being US centric?" Read WP:BIAS.  The tag is there to WARN people that the article lacks a global understanding and presents material specific to the USA as if this constituted a global understanding. There is nothing in the present introduction which cannot be found in cases from the ILO's Freedom of Association Committee, material from which is amply referenced and quoted already on this talk page.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the fact that the Wagner Act outlawed company unions in the United States. It is, of course, in the United States section. Richard Myers (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Introduction Definition of Union Busters

message: I do not see how this section is relevant at all to the article.  The material is possibly useful for an article on the impact of globalisation on trade unions, but there is a single sentence in this entire section which mentions union busting, and then it is merely an assertion with no reference or verifiability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Globalization does have an impact on the demise of unions, including the willful and the incidental destruction of unions. The section could be made relevant and useful. But while the info there may be interesting and informative, it doesn't make the connection. i don't have any material at hand right now to rescue the section. I wouldn't miss it if it went away for now. A good way to do that would be to move the whole text of the section to the talk page, so others could see what had been there. But if someone wanted to make it relevant, that might be better. Richard Myers (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Deleting the material, and removing it to talk page.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevancy of this section: Impact of globalization on unions?? 

message: Are you asking whether the text was about Canada, US, New Zealand?  It differs.  I've provided some definitions as follows:
" Although the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) grants employees the right to strike, not all strikes are protected. If a collective bargaining agreement contains a no-strike clause (the union agrees not to go on strike while the contract is in effect), a strike during the life of the contract would not be protected. The strikers could be fired. The NLRA requires health-care workers to give ten days notice before they go on strike. If these workers strike without giving notice, then they are not protected and can be fired.  Sit-down strikes and intermittent strikes are also unprotected. An example of an intermittent strike is when employees engage in a five-hour work stoppage one day, then two days later engage in another five-hour work stoppage, and then two days later do it again."http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-12-4h-19.html
"The purpose of a strike is to compel an employer to agree to terms and conditions of employment, whereas a lockout is intended to exert similar pressure on the employees and the union. The practical result of each, in terms of the impact on the employer's business, is virtually identical."http://www.go2hr.ca/ForbrEmployers/Legal/LabourRelationsCode/StrikesLockoutsPicketingReplacementWorkers/tabid/651/Default.aspx
1) http://srv130.services.gc.ca/indexjurisprudence/summaryissue-eng.aspx?issuesn=1159&level=3&desc=strike%20or%20lockout
2) http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Strikes_and_lock-outs
3)http://srv130.services.gc.ca/indexjurisprudence/summaryissue-eng.aspx?issuesn=1159&level=3&desc=strike%20or%20lockout  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbowersox (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is again the repetition of utterly limited and irrelevant material, it reads like a third-rate management manual.  (Leave aside the material is just wrong, strikes are not only about 'economic' issues...eg, in the last year alone workers took strike action in the United States of America against the war in Iraq , in Korea against the importation of unsafe beef , in Thailand against a corrupt government  etc etc).  What is important here is not whether there are strikes or not, what is important is this material remains irrelevant to the article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Strikes and Stoppages

message: I suggest moving this: 
Citizens' Alliance
to Citizens' Alliance (Trinidad and Tobago)
then moving some of the Citizen's Alliance section in this article to a new article called Citizen's Alliance, leaving a paragraph or two and a link to this new main article. There is a tremendous amount of history relating to the Citizen's Alliance in the United States, since there were such organizations across the nation, some lasting more than a decade. Some of them had different names, but acted as part of a national anti-union network that has been referred to by the common name. Some books have been published about these organizations, although i don't have any handy. 
An alternative is to name the new article Citizen's Alliance (United States). I think it is probable, however, that the U.S. Citizen's Alliance historically is of significant enough significance (to coin a redundancy) to justify holding the main title. I'm open to persuasion either way.
Note that i haven't explored where the apostrophe is most appropriately placed. Richard Myers (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a dab page here, moved the T&T page here and moved the material from the union busting page here.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizens Alliance suggestion 

message: Several editors who have edited this article, and The Burke Group, have just been blocked for sock puppetry. I initiated the inquiry some weeks ago, but did not file for a formal investigation. Someone who had previously banned sock puppets from the Burke Group article marshaled evidence that these were likely a continuation of the same abuses, and filed for a formal investigation. The formal investigation by an administrator took only a few minutes to conclude that there was just cause for a new set of blocks. Summary here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oppo212 
regards, Richard Myers (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sockpuppets blocked 

message: This is a botched edit, which lost the original context, and assigned the wrong source:
:
This statement:
During the 1970s and 1980s, labor relations consultants would exploiting managers' racial, class, and gender prejudices and fears.
comes from Levitt, and Levitt was originally sourced. Because of editing errors, it is now attributed to Logan.
Fixing source with original content, and repairing wording... Richard Myers (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirty tricks section 

message: for reference the removed section on globalisation and trade unions.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed globalisation section 

message: Removed another one of the severely problematic sections with too much extremely tangential material (and utterly US-specific). There are a few (small) parts which may be salvageable.  Text below for reference.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed goals section 

message: Both of these sections contain now mostly confused material.  They did originally have some relevant parts, but subsequent editing has made them rather meaningless and suffer from the problem outlined in the peer review, that they are written as if alternating arguments. My suggestion is that it should be removed, but a small section on the internationalisation of the US union busting firms be mentioned.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Union busters" and "changing focus of union busters" sections 

message: I'm going to start adding to the talk pages some references which I think would be helpful in making the article more international. This is quite a useful one to begin with: Indonesian company manager imprisoned for union-busting. A longer story in Bahasa Indonesia from a December 2008 Jawa Pos (Java Post) article covers the court case against the manager: Lurug Kejari, PN dan Temui Bupati. My Indonesian is not strong, but if I understand correctly this is the very first time someone has been charged and now convicted under Indonesia's anti-union-busting laws.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material to make article international (Indonesia) 

message: There is an important case of union busting with the denial of trade union rights at the GCHQ in the UK. Important because it is a good example of the union busting undertaken by a government/state, it was within the intelligence services and also because it led to a very long campaign to reclaim those rights.  Some references here:
GCHQ - 25 years on
Ex-GCHQ staff win compensation
Union crusade rewarded as Cook lifts GCHQ ban
Also, there is a small wiki article here.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some further information useful for the UK:Man behind illegal blacklist snooped on workers for 30 years --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material for making international (UK) 

message: Kate Brofenbrenner, a longstanding US labour studies academic from Cornell University, has just released the following: No Holds Barred—The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing.  Some useful recent data on union-busting tactics for the article, based on analysis of 1999-2003 NLRB election campaigns:
*63% of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union; 
*54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings; 
*57% of employers threaten to close the worksite; 
*47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and 
*34% of employers fire workers. 
--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New research on union-busting in the USA 

message: "Mexico's Calderón Shuts Out the Lights: Modernizing or Union-Busting?" Time Magazine Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2009 --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  material for making international (Mexico) 

message: Workers have formed unions for a variety of reasons, but primarily, to improve wages, hours, and working conditions. Many employers may prefer to prevent unions from organizing because unionization can cause higher labor costs, reduce profits, and interfere with the operations of the organization. Employers have historically sought help to counter union activity. Agencies assisting such efforts have included security and quasi-police groups such as Pinkertons and Baldwin-Felts, government resources such as military or national guard forces and, more recently, labor relations firms experienced in labor law.
Above is the text which was previously in place in the introduction to the history section. Give the addition of the cite tag, I moved the text here as it is mostly US-specific, which is a problem for something so high up on this page, and is almost entirely superfluous. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History text 

message: A recent edit to the lede removed half of it for unclear reasons, although it might have been regarding RS issues.  I've left a note on the editor's talk page asking them to comment here, in the meantime I've reverted to the original consensus text and will add some references to the second part of the lede.--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The information in question was always disputed.  We had 2 people bullying 1 in the last "consensus".  I personally find the new version less POV and more encyclopedic.  It would be nice if people could allow the normal editing process to continue without exerting too much ownership of the article. LedRush (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For what its worth, i would also revert such a deletion of important information. The deleted material summarizes the article in the lead section, why should that necessary info be deleted, or even disputed? (I think Goldsztajn handled the edit very responsibly.) Richard Myers (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to lede 

message: Spies infiltrated Victorian desalination plant - THE builders of the Brumby government's $5 billion-plus desalination plant have funded Australia's most notorious strike-breaker and so-called "scab".--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  material for making international (australia) 

message: If there are two ways to describe an activity, one used by unions, "union busting", the other by management, "union avoidance", how can an article almost exclusively use the language favored by unions in the conflict and avoid an NPOV issue? Here's something that might be a bit better. "Union busting is a pejorative term used by labor advocates. Their opponents use the term union avoidance. In both cases it describes..."TMLutas (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Based on the stated lead definition,  the resulting article provides little by way of defining what is described in the intro.  The intro Template says: "this article deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject."  Yet the lead definition of Union Busting is not U.S.  It describes illegal activities protected by NLRA which don't occur in the US.  It is misleading.  Also, much is written as though present tense yet many citations describe occurrences from early labor history or from the Industrial Revolution era! Put that stuff into the History page.  And far too many citations are from the same book which makes the article read like an annotated copy.  "Writing basics" teaches us to introduce a chapter (idea) with an intro summary then follow it with the detail in subsequent chapters or paragraphs.  This intro lists several union busting tactics but provides very little to describe or support each assertion with citations in subsequent sections or chapters.  Each tactic listed should be developed in subsequent sub headings titled the same for a more comprehensive study of the main topic.  Keep the "Union Busting" (methodology and activities)  as this one article,  remove "Union Busters" (organizations) to its own page.  Consolidate the History of Union Busting to its corresponding page.   EcFitzsimmons (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Union Busting tactics need citations

message: Anyone want to take a stab at improving this article?  Suggestion for lede:
Union busting is a pejorative term used worldwide to describe a wide range of activities undertaken by many employers, their proxies, and governments which attempt to prevent the formation or expansion of trade unions.  Tactics range from legal to illegal and subtle to violent.  International labour laws exist country to country differing greatly in governance (and protection) of unions and organization regarding such things as posting notices/communications, organizing inside or outside employer property, solicitations, card signing, picketing, work stoppages, striking, strikebreaking, lockouts, dismissals, permanent replacements,  employer controlled trade unions, automatic recognition, ballot elections and more.  Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has a right to form and/or join a trade union.
Note:  I did not include physical confrontation because its already implied in the word "violence", sowing discord, or sponsorship of organizations because an edit war would ensue due to the fact that these activities occur from both union and non-union organizations.  There are already corresponding articles addressing the list regarding union violence and anti-union violence  and an article on salting.  There is also an article called History of Union Busting as well as Anti-union organizations in the United States.  There is too much repetition.  A student trying to learn the definition of union busting with valid examples has far too much to slog thru in this article in its current condition.  Many sub topics can be moved and/or cleaned up so there can be more focus on actual discussion about union busting in the 21st Century.  Thoughts? EcFitzsimmons (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Sounds good to me.LedRush (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

text: You are right to delete anything which violates our rules on plagirism.LedRush (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cbislingtion has been blocked as a sock puppet, and checkuser concluded that Cbislingtion was the same person as EcFitzsimmons, to whom Cbislingtion appears to be responding here. This is why sock puppetry is forbidden on Wikipedia, it is an attempt to create a false consensus that may not exist otherwise. Both have also been demonstrated to be the same as Jbowersox, above, and Rcodella, who has also edited here. The sock puppets also appear to have used a wide range of IP addresses for editing, possibly including the one here. For more information, please see  Richard Myers (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Improve Article

message: I removed the entire section.  Its a poorly written section taken from an old book describing the 60's and 70's.  We should address more meaningful topics.  Why would "incrimination and falsification" be mentioned without description, definition or example?  Is a student of labor supposed to read the entire citationed book to understand this?  And the part about addresses withheld from organizers reads as though the internet was not invented....but whoops.....it wasn't when the cited book was written!!  So why use it as a tactic in todays vernacular 40 years later when addresses are a cinch?  Please dispense with meaningless page fillers. Thank youEcFitzsimmons (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dirty tricks"

message: I've been looking at this subject for a very very long time with great consternation at the lack of encyclopedic citations and lack of high standards of Wikipedia rules.  I am gratified to see a few new editors have made some recent objective substantive additions and deletions that better describe the subject which must be viewed from several angles other than just Martin J. Levitt. It gave me the confidence to add the decertification sections. One cannot discuss these topics from one vantage point.  I hope it is acceptable that I deleted a few sections that were nearly 100%  from Martin J. Levitt who wrote an unresearched autobiographical diary crafted to detail his alcoholic demise as viewed thru his alleged experiences.  There were several sections copied 100% from Confessions of a Union Buster which I removed for not being to Wikipedia standards.  There are other sections that could be deleted or moved as well that already exist in "History".Cbislingtion (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right to delete anything which violates our rules on plagirism.LedRush (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cbislingtion has been blocked as a sock puppet, and checkuser concluded that Cbislingtion was the same person as EcFitzsimmons, to whom Cbislingtion appears to be responding here. This is why sock puppetry is forbidden on Wikipedia, it is an attempt to create a false consensus that may not exist otherwise. Both have also been demonstrated to be the same as Jbowersox, above, and Rcodella, who has also edited here. The sock puppets also appear to have used a wide range of IP addresses for editing, possibly including the one here. For more information, please see  Richard Myers (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Non encyclopedic citations

message: 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 banned, but is obviously back.
His edits are entirely focused on just a couple of articles which are of interest to his company.
All edits associated with this ID are suspect. For example, this edit is false:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_busting&diff=476544193&oldid=476539661
It uses a source to make a statement that simply is not reflected in the source.
Unfortunately, a lot of edits in this article are associated with this ID. Richard Myers (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is relevant information:  Richard Myers (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw and agreed with all of his edits on this page (didn't look at other pages) and as such I have reverted your turning back of the clock as I have put much thought into those changes.  If you disagree, I suggest, per WP:BRD, that you bring specific discussion points here so we can hash them out.LedRush (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, i didn't see this request until just now. OK, will try to list changes. Richard Myers (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Three sock puppets editing this article have been confirmed matches via CheckUser, in violation of WP:SOC. See . The case is now awaiting administrative action. Richard Myers (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sock puppet is back 

message: The term "union buster" has been used a lot in the media due to events in Wisconsin.  I consulted this article to learn more.  The older version  was very tedious and not really encyclopedic but recent edits by LedRush and EcFitzsimmons improved it greatly.  Then Richard Myers deleted it all claiming sockpuppets with no consensus.   Question: How is a singular editor allowed to take such hostile unilateral authority to delete other editor’s contributions as Richard Meyers did?  Is this his tactic to control the voices in this article?  If there is a policy of blocking an editor because he shares an IP with others then it should be wise to consider why I.P addresses are shared at internet cafes, university labs, office pools, or airport lounges.  I share computers in my lab with hundreds of fellow students.  I’m sure we have interest in the same articles, unknown to one another.   Are we then subject to being blocked as sockpuppets just because our school uses a certain IP address?  Myers is union affiliated and edits  union topics sometimes with a POV ideology in tandem with others who agree with him.  Does that make him a sock puppet too?  Is every wiki editor qualified to assert sockpuppet claims to block contributors and/or delete articles?   Wikipedia invites all who have the intellectual capacity to contribute encyclopedic balance and value.  It disturbs me that one editor’s hostilities is allowed to bully others off pages.  Myers fully ignored that Fitzsimmons properly used the talk page to ask the Wikipedia community for help to improve this article (see higher up on talk page) and also sought consensus before posting his edits.   That’s exactly what editors are supposed to do.  LedRush responded appropriately.  Myers did not.  Myers is now seeking evidence to justify his deletions to LedRush but finding only minor typo’s or semantics claiming they represent deception.   I don’t believe shared I.P. addresses should be viewed as rising to a level of “disruption, abuse and deception” enough to justify deleting entire sections of articles and blocking contributors so cavalierly.  The person exercising abuse does not appear to be Fitzsimmons?   How is this brought to the attention of Wiki administrators? Murphlaw152 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Abusive Editors and Sockpuppets

message: An editor with the IP address 50.26.136.217 recently made changes to the lead paragraph with no WP:CONS.  The term "pejorative" was removed plus a statement added saying "all union busting is illegal".  The term is pejorative and does not define specific activities.  The  NLRA defines what is legal and illegal.   Union busting is worthy of great debate but the term "Union busting" is not synonymous with illegal activity and has been ascribed to many legal activities.   Being non union is not illegal although non union organizations are sometimes branded as union busters.  Decertifying a union is not illegal but often branded as union busting.  Workers who do not desire union membership are often branded as union busters but voting no is not illegal.  Activities branded as union busting may be disagreeable to unions and their supporters but not illegal.  A union may brand an organization with union busting if they replace strikers under NLRA guidelines but it is not illegal.   A union may also brand an  organizations with union busting when they hire consultants, lawyers or trainers to conduct supervisory training so managers can stay atop legislative  changes.  Supervisory training is not illegal.  In summary, all activities labeled “union busting” are not illegal.Udaipur12 (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal vs Illegal

message: I removed the last addition to the opening paragraph because Right to Work laws are not global.  The lead was crafted years ago to be international, and not US centric.  Also, there is no mandatory requirement to join a union in a unionized workplace in any state whether Non Right to Work or Right to Work. Union dues are another discussion.http://www.nlrb.gov/faq/nlrb#t1n160http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/unions-union-dues.  I suggest adding Right to Work as a sub paragraph under "United States" via a redirect to the Right to Work page.Btween (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Right to Work

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Union busting. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130402034825/http://www.itfglobal.org/press-area/index.cfm/pressdetail/566 to http://www.itfglobal.org/press-area/index.cfm/pressdetail/566
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111202163659/http://www.mjgsl.com:80/profile-andy-cook.php to http://www.mjgsl.com/profile-andy-cook.php
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120605071409/http://nlrb.gov/faq/questions/what-can-i-do-if-im-unhappy-my-union to http://www.nlrb.gov/faq/questions/what-can-i-do-if-im-unhappy-my-union
*Added  tag to https://www.pslabor.com/TempContent.aspx?id=History
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090127053531/http://cueinc.com:80/aboutcue.html to http://www.cueinc.com/aboutcue.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110828024010/http://www.sfsu.edu:80/~news/experts/BSS/Logan_John.html to http://www.sfsu.edu/~news/experts/BSS/Logan_John.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120223233809/http://blog.aflcio.org:80/2007/04/23/the-ugly-face-of-union-busting/ to http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/04/23/the-ugly-face-of-union-busting/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120622045538/http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/15130.pdf to http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/15130.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120313123227/http://www.nlrb.gov/75th/1974healthcare.html to https://www.nlrb.gov/75th/1974healthcare.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070809204159/http://www.progressivestates.org:80/content/622/labor-union-majority-signup-approved-in-or-nh-and-states-demand-the-us-senate-follows-suit to http://www.progressivestates.org/content/622/labor-union-majority-signup-approved-in-or-nh-and-states-demand-the-us-senate-follows-suit#1
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081205075315/http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2007/070620efca.htm to http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2007/070620efca.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080914120109/http://www.nlpc.org:80/olap.asp to http://www.nlpc.org/olap.asp
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090124224255/http://laborresearch.org:80/union_busting_watch.php to http://www.laborresearch.org/union_busting_watch.php/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070523193305/http://www.iww.org/en/culture/articles/zinn13.shtml to http://www.iww.org/en/culture/articles/zinn13.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Union busting. 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/20120103063655/http://lrionline.com:80/union-avoidance/consulting/campaign-manager to http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/consulting/campaign-manager
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120412142803/http://lrionline.com:80/union-avoidance/videos/interview-with-union-organizer to http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/videos/interview-with-union-organizer
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102080033/http://lrionline.com:80/union-avoidance/videos/guaranteed-winner to http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/videos/guaranteed-winner
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Union busting. 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/20141208080853/http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html to http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/consulting/campaign-manager
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/videos/interview-with-union-organizer
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/videos/guaranteed-winner
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Union busting. 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://archive.is/20120707074308/http://courtlistener.com/cadc/2pcT/retail-clerks-international-association-afl-cio-an/ to http://courtlistener.com/cadc/2pcT/retail-clerks-international-association-afl-cio-an/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Union busting. 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/20130819141428/http://https/ to http://www.https/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Captive audience meetings. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  BDD (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captive audience meetings listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: this was written by anti-union consultants 74.75.43.62 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia is cancer