Talk:Featherbedding

message: This article still needs work.  I am at the limit of my expertise now.  I hope others can help make the following contributions:
#A better definition of featherbedding. If the term is vague, then perhaps a source can be found to say so. But the limited academic literature I found never defines it except in narrow economic terms. Yet, the term is clearly used in other ways which are non-economic.
#Add a section on the economic costs of featherbedding.  How widespread is the practice?  What is the estimated cost of the practice?
#Add more countries to the "International Perspective" section.  Each addition should discuss alternative terms for featherbedding in that nation, national or local laws covering the practice, and estimates of how widespread the practice is and how it impacts each nation.
#A section or subsection on the grey area between legitimate practices (such as minimal staffing practices for health and safety reasons, or for professional licensure in health care) and featherbedding, to illustrate more clearly the dispute over the practice.
#Perhaps a subsection which defends featherbedding. Most literature assumes that it is inefficient and corrupt. Yet, this seems to ignore larger social issues. (For example, in the Great Depression, many American policy makers, businessmen and others asked for drastically shorter work weeks in order to avoid layoffs and keep employment high. That is a classic example of featherbedding. Yet, it was never called that, and was widely adopted in the U.S. for a time.)
I am sure others will have more ideas for improving this article. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is never called featherbedding then we can't call it featherbedding. I know next to nothing about featherbedding or labour theory but are you sure it was featherbedding? Presuming the pay was reduced proportionally to the amount of time worked, then I don't see how it's really featherbedding. Featherbedding seems to imply the people are being employed when you could do the same job by employing fewer people and paying for less people hours, in other words, some or all of the workers aren't really doing anything truly productive with their time. If you are simply employing more workers but for less time for the same total person-hours and everyone is still being as productive as possible then it doesn't really seem to be featherbedding. Of course there is always going to be some waste when you employ too many people but I'm not sure if it's accurate to call it featherbedding at least as defined on this page. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is used extensively in academic journals about labor, but it is not clearly defined.  The term is used extensively in academic journals about economics, where it is clearly defined.  Hence, the problem I pointed out in #1, above.  As for the remainder of your comment:  I agree.  The question is not the number of employees employed.  The question is whether a union contract requires workers to be employed when there is not enough work to keep each employee working all the time.  It is not about productivity, it is about paying workers to be on the job when there is nothing for them to do, simply so the union can make its members happy and get more dues income. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: The economics section sources one guy multiple times from the 1960s, saying featherbedding is great for everyone and "efficient."  A source from the 60s is barely admissible as it is--most of what we call Economics barely if at all existed then--but a source arguing that inefficiency is by definition efficiency needs some explanation.  I actually came her during the course of a master's level econ class and was horrified to see such a pro-union section attributed to Economists.  It would be rare to find an economist who would say that employing so many people that you start to uncontrollably bleed money outside of the company is "efficiency," and I want to say it would be rare to find a union who says that's their goal.  I would quicker remove the econ section than imply it would be endorsed by an economist.--Mrcolj (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you can find those cites, please do so and add them to the article.  Cited content should not be removed simply because you claim it is old. Perhaps no work has been done in the area since the 1960s? (Although of the four cites provided, one is from 1976 and another from 1990 -- so at least half the cites are recent, by your criteria.) Everyone is free to contribute to this article.  I strongly encourage you to do so. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Interestingly, no additional cites were added since the 2009 discussion. I can't help but note that the article says featherbedding is more efficient than other kinds of bargaining, but does not say union collective bargaining is more efficient than the marketplace or other types of contracts. The interpretation imposed on the article by those with an anti-union axe to grind is theirs to make, but does not change the neutral wording of the article. Subsequently, given that no further discussion has occurred, no additional cites disputing the text were added, and no discussion of possible disputed claims was made on the Talk page, I removed the two tags in the "Economics" section. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * tags restored.  No other content altered.  No offense, but this section (and the non-economic section, for that matter) is not even remotely close to neutral.  This is a sleepy little page that doesn't get a lot of traffic.  Just because no one has been motivated to fix it yet doesn't mean that it doesn't need help.Kjj31337 (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yup, I'm the "mrcolj" who posted that original post.  I've gotta' reset my password.  But as you all know the wikipedia doesn't do a very good job of updating you when there's Talk traffic, so I haven't thought of this topic in years.  That's not to say I don't still agree (with myself above!)  This article does a good job, but someone's gotta take the time to be bold and rewrite things.  It doesn't even have to be someone who knows the topic--at this point it mostly needs edits for flow, but it also still needs edits for NPOV.  If you ask me, the citations are secondary--I think that's what's shackling people, is not being willing to take the inordinate amount of time to find a scholarly paper in a journal to defend each noun--but again I argue that we're not at that stage--we need a base article that is well written and NPOV first, then we pepper the controversial parts with citations.  (Yes, Econ is often one of those majors whose style guides recommend twice as many citations as neighboring majors, so it's understandable that such would affect this topic.)--173.219.163.211 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Econ section too positive

message: User Kjj31337 makes the claim that the Economics section is both NPOV and contains factual inaccuracies.  1) Since all claims are cited by neutral, reliable published articles, the claim of factuall inaccuracy itself constitutes original research. 2) Merely claiming the article is not neutral is not enough:  What rationales are offered for that claim?  Are the authors all pro-featherbedding?  All anti-featherbedding?  Pro-labor or anti-labor?  Are the journals in which the articles appear biased in some way?  3) The Economics section is clearly neutral:  It offers both supportive and critical discussions of featherbedding.  4) Despite User Kjj31337's claims about non-neutrality and lack of factual accuracy, User Kjj31337 has offered no new cited claims, corrections, or even unsourced claims to the section.  If it is so clear that the section is biased, it should be quite easy to correct the bias.  Why hasn't it been? There isn't even a claim that "I'm working on it"; after years, no edits have been made by User Kjj31337 or anyone else to correct these supposed glaring problems.
Absent any of the foregoing, it makes no sense to just make an assertion and tag the article. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Econ section too positive II