Talk:SEIU Healthcare

message: There's no need to delete this article. It relates to SEIU and its locals. I'm worried about the writing as well, as it does read like it comes from somewhere, so I'm looking into copyvio. In the meantime, I'm going to add some standard WP:UNION stuff around the text.--Bookandcoffee 18:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion request

message: There are some pretty strong charges in this article that aren't backed by any sources, and some writing that seems like WP:OR. I'm going to cut a number of them out in the next few days unless they can be <ref>ed.--Bookandcoffee 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Started.--Bookandcoffee 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's my run at it. I took a large amount of material out. It was clearly personal opinions, original research, and frankly, an angry rant against the union. I'm all for including unflattering material if it's true and sourced, but I saw none of that here.--Bookandcoffee 16:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material that I removed () continues to be re-inserted into this article. It contains a considerable amount of polarized language, original research, and unsourced material. Simply re-adding the content is not enough - if it is to be used it must be improved a great deal and, most importantly, accompanied by sources.--Bookandcoffee 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: I removed significant portions of the original article. Many parts were incorrect. Here’s why. 
If you review the Local 1 Canada Servicing section, nothing here is true.  Where is the evidence supporting the author’s controversial charges? Where is the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) documents supporting the accusation that an average of 13 charges a year were laid against SEIU? If these charges were true, which it isn’t, how does it compare to other unions in the health care field? If the same number of charges were laid against other unions, SEIU cannot be accused of poor servicing. There is no documentation proving this accusation from a respectable source. 
Most of the information on the Strike of 2007 is incorrect. The field staff at SEIU went on strike for a variety of reasons. Can the editor provide Wikipedia with documentation proving that the use of scab labour and job relocation is the primary reason why staff went on strike? Is there any evidence supporting the charge that management “capitulated” to the striker’s demands? The facts are that staff and management worked out an agreement and a new staff contract was ratified. But there is no evidence to support any of the charges they are making. 
Another reason why I believe the strike should be moved because it’s a small incident that doesn’t deserve to be covered in Wikipedia. Yes the strike did occur, it was not a key turning point or critical event in SEIU’s history. Strikes happen all the time to other unions. The Canadian Auto Workers staff went on strike twice over the past 10 years but it’s not in their Wikipedia page. It’s almost the same level as “Company XYZ lays off two staff members”. These are not good things but they have a negligible impact on who the organization really is and what it stands for. 
In conclusion, the article I provided is accurate and much better written and balanced. It provides a much more accurate and balanced view of who SEIU is and their history. Please contact me if you have any questions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.91.137 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Comments

message: When I came across this article, its referencing was abysmal - it had a lot of citations, but nearly all were bare URLs.  If you edit this article and add citations, please read WP:BAREURLS and WP:CITEWEB, and use the Cite templates available at the top of the editing section.  Use titles, dates, and something to indicate where the information came from - publications, author names, etc.  I have started improving and merging citations in the article, and there's a lot to clean up.  PKT(alk) 14:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: About Referencing

message: I am probably even sympathetic to business unionism critiques by Kim Moody, but unless they're specific to SEIU Healthcare Canada, they shouldn't be included. Nor should primary sources, including SEIU's home page be used to draw WP:Original research. The notable aspects of this topic in general is that SEIU Healthcare is the largest health union, the SEIU/CAW raid and the aftermath of that. Other general critiques of SEIU would appropriate make sense for the SEIU article itself. Thoughts? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing instances of generic business union critiques.