Talk:University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike

message: All newspaper articles identify STAND (Students Towards A New Democracy) as the student organization who organized student with workers, and it was the same group who organized the student side of the hunger strike. I'm adding those in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.105.6 (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of student org name

message: "Supporters of an NLRB-supervised election have expressed concern that card check is open to possible coercion of employees by union representatives. Supporters of card check point out that union representatives cannot 'coerce' employees to sign a card, save through physical coercion; and that NLRB-supervised elections have proven to be susceptible to possible coercion of employees by their managers, including firing pro-union employees on the eve of an election."
Does this belong in wikipedia? Can anyone actually document what supporters of this or that have claimed about the other side? Or is this editorializing (on both sides)? I left in the article what seemed to be factual, rather than editorial, and moved this here so we can discuss whether/how to reinsert the above material. Thanks again, in advance, for reasoned discussion (esp. lawyer2b, miamidolphins3). 69.180.103.161 13:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was edited since I last saw it.  As it was before, that there was no documentation supporting that those opinions were actually expressed didn't bother me too much.  Now what is of concern to me are the word choices "point out" and "proven".  Verbs like "point out", "report", or "remind" (and obviously, proven) make it sound that the idea being expressed is a known fact rather than a matter of opinion.  I feel very strongly that "point out" should be changed to something like "allege" or "claim" and that "proven to be" should be changed to simply "are". Lawyer2b 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm what you'd call an "inclusionist" so I think it should be in there, assuming it will be NPOV. Lawyer2b 18:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentation needed for opinions expressed

message: A colleague will be forwarding the missing links to me soon; should have them posted in a few days. 69.180.103.161 02:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ULP charges and NLRB complaints

message: Questions about this:
An April 27, 2006 Miami Herald editorial supported UNICCO's position, arguing that "the best way to get an accurate and fair determination of what the workers want is through a secret ballot administered by the National Labor Relations Board."
Does a newspaper's opinion count as a credible source to be listed in wikipedia? Why is the newspaper's opinion (which BTW is made without argumentation, and without sources) counting as relevant here? If we open a new section on op ed pieces, then of course I think this could fit. Along with many other links I'll be glad to add. But otherwise, this piece is a POV, not an objective reportage. If we have a section that is clearly about POVs, then it would fit. But should this article have such a section? 69.180.103.161 03:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not responding until now.  I just saw this discussion.  Opinions, in general, can be included in wikipedia when they are deemed important enough and so long as when they are included it is clear that what is stated is an opinion and not an objective fact.  I think a newspaper's opinion should be treated like any other and since there was already a section devoted to the Herald 's coverage of the event I thought the newspaper's opinion was appropriate for inclusion in that section.  My edit mentioned the statement was an "editorial" but if you feel there is a better way to make it clear that it merely expressed an opinion and was not a "report" I am certainly open to suggestions.  Lawyer2b 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have any problem with including a UM professor's opinion in the article but can you clarify your above comment?  What thing I said did you disagree with?  What are you willing to pull?  What do you mean by "otherwise"? Lawyer2b 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriateness of op ed pieces

message: I moved this sentence here so we can discuss it:
"Despite the severity of the allegations, however, the vast majority of UM's custodial workers--an estimated 80 percent--have refused to honor the strike and have continued working."
First, who has done this estimation? 
Second, who is to decide that these workers have "refused to" honor the strike, as opposed to "are afraid to" honor the strike. Both claims strike me as POV.
Third, was the percentage different before and after the wage increase? That seems relevant. 69.180.103.161 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question on the source of the estimation; at the very least it should be identified.  I can see your point regarding the POV of either "refused to" or "are afraid to".  I think a good compromise would be to simply say "are not striking and continue to work".  I don't know about any percentage changes until I see the sources of the information. Lawyer2b 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the time of the strike both the SEIU and UNICCO released statistics showing that over 75% of the workers did not strike.  They could not afford to, and this was used by both sides as evidence for their respective positions. 71.194.228.61 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-striking workers

message: I think this article captures the views of the striking workers, though some documentation is needed for the material I have removed.  It could use maybe one section better describing the UM and UNICCO views on this.  I read the Shalala editorial in the Miami Herald, and that seemed to capture some of those sentiments.  I'm sure others have been made too.  UM's position, as I understand it, is that they are not in much of a position to do much to end the strike, or even immediately address the wage/insurance issues since these are UNICCO employees and these employees affiliated with UNICCO knowing full well what pay and benefits were being given them.  MiamiDolphins3 01:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw your suggestion regarding sections/links for press releases.  I think that's an excellent idea, but I still think important claims/arguments made in Op-ed pieces should be documented as well. Lawyer2b 16:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UM and UNICCO views

message: Why is the hunger strike still discussed in present tense, it is not over? I am not sure of the specific details but they should be added to the article. LOuest 04:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunger Strike 

message: "While the strike has generated extensive protests and media attention, it has had minimal impact on custodial services at the university, since, according to UM President Donna Shalala, 75% of the custodians are continuing to report to work.  In an April 12, 2006 open letter to the university community, Shalala suggested that a large number of the protesters were organized by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and unaffiliated with the university." 
I think both sentences are fine, but wonder what section they really belong in. The section they're now in is called "Vote to strike." What does either sentence have to do with a vote to strike? Please reinsert them as you see fit, but in an appropriate section. Universitytruth 10:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) While I think it's probably true the strike has had minimal impact on custodial services at the university, it's not common knowledge what percentage capacity a custodial workforce can lose before it significantly impacts its performance.  Since Shalala's letter only mentions a statistic and doesn't say anything regarding its impact on custodial services, I don't think that inference should be mentioned without further support. 2) I think the rest of the sentence that quotes UM's estimate of the percentage of strikers should go in the "Vote to strike" section because I think it's a good place to put general references about the strike; for example, it currently contains a reference to the date the strike began (different from the vote date) and that it is ongoing. 3) In my opinion, the sentence regarding Shalala's suggestion of the make up of the protesters should go in the  "Demonstration and sit-ins" section. Lawyer2b 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming you're talking about juxtaposing the estimation of percentage of cards signed with the estimation of non-striking workers, I'd ask why and in what section would you put both those statistics? Lawyer2b 13:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding text under appropriate subheadings

message: I think this page is now in decent shape.  Would be good if we could agree on its current state of it, or make any further minor edits, and then basically leave it alone pending future developments.  Don't want to see constant bickering over small issues/wording, and the article has attracted some active anon editors.  I think the three primary editors have done a decent job reporting the facts objectively, though the article does still read like a good guy (labor) vs. bad guy (UNICCO/UM) story, which it might be in part but isn't entirely, especially given that: 1.) Most workers are not striking.  If SEIU is paying strikers, that says a lot about the fact that the working conditions can't be too bad; 2.) All these custodians took this job knowing full well what the pay and benefit structure was.  I agree it looks like it's below industry standards, but this shouldn't read like some giant exploitation has been taking place.  These were workers who freely affiliated with UNICCO under these terms, and I'm sure some find the job ok; and 3.) There is a union here with its own agenda, and surely they have inflamed the situation.  Anyway, good job.  This might now be in good shape, though surely there will be more developments and ultimately--shock!--this will actually probably end.  MiamiDolphins3 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting version current and agreeable

message: I posted this lunch invitation on User:69.180.103.161's talk page but I don't know if they read it.  I'd like to extend it to anybody who works down at UM and helped with the article. Lawyer2b 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunch? 

message: The possible benefits of a vote and harm of the card check have been excised from the article — apparently by general agreement, but it's still wrong.  (I think the accusation of possible harassment of employees by other employees who are union members supporters to sign the cards should have been included.  Harassment of employees by union staff who are not employees, although (apparently) alleged, is pretty much impossible.)  The article is otherwise fairly close to being balanced, but leaning toward the Union/card check/"living wage" position.
Ah, yes, in regard the ads taken out by the University in favor of a vote — the neutrality pledge claimed above seems to refer to the union, rather than to methods of choosing whether to have a union.  One or the other sections needs to be edited (the section describing the neutrality pledge, or the section alleging violation.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to address the pov issues you raise, though there does not appear to be any significant POV slant to the article, in my view.  In any case, I did add a sentence on the perceived value of secret balloting, as advocated by UNICCO, and some other revisions that bring the article up to date.  MiamiDolphins3 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems better.  No objection from here to removal of the POV tag, now. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential bias 

message: This article is quite biased in favor of the strike.  Recommend NPOV workover. Also, my edits as to the status of the student protesters were deleted not as false but as irrelevant, by a censor, Steven, who has very biased opinions here.  I cannot possibly fight this trolling, so if you can help, and you know anything about the strike, please edit this article. 71.194.228.61 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, polling as to the support for the strike by UM students dropping from around 60% to less than 15% done by students in political analysis classes in the business school should be found and added. 71.194.228.61 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS. What you know is largely irrelevant. What you can source with verifiable, reliable sources is relevant. Please also read censorship and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this edit violates WP:BLP, the Wikipedia policy about information on living persons. This is one of the strictest rules on Wikipedia. In particular, note the sections about reliable sources and the presumption of privacy, especially for people who are not public figures. --Stephan Schulz 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   In order to conform with this, I am placing "citation needed" markers on unsourced information and removing irrelvant information, rather than adding any new quality to the article.  I am simply not online enough to fight this in any way other than calling on you and others to do the same.  My additions were of no WORSE sourcing quality than what was in the article to begin with:  in fact, the "citation needed" tag seems to indicate that my edits should have been tagged requesting appropriate citations rather than censored.  71.194.228.61 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the policies I named, and also read WP:POINT, which you are violating now. A request for citation is one possibility, but it is never acceptable for a WP:BLP case. Your wild deletion and blind  tagging serves no useful purpose. --Stephan Schulz 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship

message: I would prefer to reinstate the original, fairly long-lived version as a starting point. Apart from the restoration of a previously deleted section and some clean-up, it has been stable for at least 3 months.  Some requests for citation may be justified, but on the whole this version seems to be reasonably well sourced.
In my opinion, the additions by User:71.194.228.61 violate WP:V, WP:RS, and in the last incarnation even WP:BLP, and as such are completely inacceptable. I also feel that the deletions and the tag-bombing were not done in good faith, but rather to make a WP:POINT, especially since the edit summary for this edit seems to threaten just such an action.
Disclosure: I'm not particularly involved or knowledgable on this topic. I spend a few months in 2002 as a visiting assistant professor in Miami, so my interest was piqued when I saw the article. It ended up on my watchlist after I restored a paragraph that was deleted in what I assume was vandalism. 
--Stephan Schulz 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Involved editors