Talk:Anti-union organizations in the United States

I just created this page from Union busting to make that article more international based, more succint, and more on point. Please edit this article as necessary to make it more relevant as a Wikipedia entry.LedRush (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

employee/worker, employer/boss
The use of employee/employer instead of worker/boss is not more "NPOV," it's just more commonly used -- as a direct result of the efforts of some of the very organizations mentioned in this article. There's nothing neutral about deciding that a worker is an "employee"; it's direct support of the language promulgated by the capitalists and bosses as a means of dehumanizing workers and their labour, while subtlely shifting the focus to the bosses. It creates the artificial -- and wholly incorrect -- subtext that "employment" is what labour is about. It's not. The entire idea of "employment" is a capitalist construct, one which large segments of the labour movement rejects.

Furthermore, I don't believe "points out" is NPOV at all. It's a tacit claim of the correctness of the assertion. You have also reverted several style changes. Why did you add "It should be noted..." back to the article? Passive-voice padding like this is horrible style, and completely unnecessary. I am also curious why you removed linking to several names and terms (natural law, free enterprise, David M. Parry). -- SmashTheState (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My reverts were over-inclusive, and for that I apologize. But the amounts of problems you introduced into the article with your edits would have taken more time to correct than merely reverting and then going through the process of changing the style points.
 * The simple fact is that the language of worker/boss is not only POV and unencyclopedic, it is inaccurate. The term boss is generally used in an informal setting, and general means the person from whom you take orders.  I don't consider the CEO of Walmart as my boss, I see him as my employer.  My boss would be my manager, who would also still probably be both an employee and a worker.LedRush (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your choice of language is interesting. "The simple fact is..." for example.  You've made several assertions without any citations at all, and I am apparently to take these as axiomatic.  The problem is, I don't think this is a simple fact at all.  The use of "boss" for example is extremely common in literature about the labour movement. And this is an article about the labour movement.  Whether or not one agrees with this, certainly the use of "employee" rather than "worker" is grossly POV, given that this has been the subject of much heated argument for decades.  I'm concerned that you may be unaware of the existence of considerable acrimony over some of these words, and that it's not as simple a matter to decide as you might believe it to be. -- SmashTheState (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's set aside the POV argument as you've fallen into the same trap you've criticized and these conversations are inherently subjective. Can you address my point about accuracy?LedRush (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who states it or in what forum but the simple fact is warmed over Marxism always sounds hilarious and those who spout it always come off as humorless gasbags trying too hard to show everyone just how brilliant they think they are. SmashtheState's entire argument reads like something written by an over-eager college freshmen trying to impress a left-wing political science professor.   Even more hilarious?  SmashtheState's claims that another is treating something as axiomatic as he turns around and claims that it is a given fact that the term employee is used only to dehumanize workers and their labor.  If it is not such a simple matter to decide, SmashtheState, why are you then acting as if it is by declaring that your way is the only right way?  I couldn't care less how large of a segment of the "labour movement" rejects the use of the word "employer" the notion that the term "boss" is acceptable for an encyclopedia is pure nonsense.  It is obvious from SmashtheState's "argument" (if it can be called such) that the term "boss" is meant to be a perjorative one.  That alone would disqualify its use in an entry that is supposed to be encyclopedic in nature.   Also, despite what SmashtheState claims, an encyclopedia's objectivity is not contigent upon the subject of the entry.  The assertion that since this entry is on "anti-union organizations"(a title that in and of itself is grossly biased)the language used by the more Marxist elements of the "labour movement" should thus be adopted is farcical.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

POV
This article appears to be substantially representative of a single POV and does not meet the policy requirements of WP:NPOV. Collect (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A discussion thread has been started at WP:NPOVN. What strikes me about this article is that it identifies a number of "anti-union organizations."  Yet most of these organizations, while anti-union, that is not their primary or even one of their primary activities.  It should be possible to re-phrase in a neutral tone, such as calling them organizations that have engaged in anti-union activity.  TFD (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is an essay, and not a well written one. On what basis were these organizations chosen? Why these and not others? One could easily add the United States Army, the American Legion, and hundreds of think tanks and other organizations. 97.45.83.182 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree - but why re-name it - just move items to the existing Union Busting article that already exists. For example, under the logic in this article - the US Federal Government is an "anti-union" organization, as well as school boards battling public-sector unions, FDR, many past Presidents, etc. Patriot1010 (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think consolidating this with union busting is a good idea, particularly since the subsection union busting is far more informative than this article is. Ashleyleia (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)