Talk:California Agricultural Labor Relations Board

Merger Proposal
See further discussion here.

The Agricultural Labor Relations Board does not need its own page separate from the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA), which is the law this agency enforces. The ALRA article is more robust and already has info about the operation of the board under its Implementation section. The only thing this article adds to the mix is a discussion about a few specific controversies that the ALRB has faced, which could be added in a "Controversies" section on the ALRA page after someone has straightened out the POV issues (see below). Otherwise, this page should merge with the ALRA page redirect "California Agricultural Labor Relations Board," ALRB, etc., to the ALRA page. --Güe(rill)a (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Issues
I believe this section violates NPOV because it only presents the employer's side of this contract fight. See here for an example of another view, which contends that the decertification was an example of illegal employer meddling. I also find the sourcing biased. Also, the section gives undue weight to a single contract fight, which ignores the 40+ year history of the ALRA. If this article doesn't get merged (see above), someone should go through and make it more balanced as to the legal controversies the ALRB has faced. --Güe(rill)a (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"En masse segregation" claim
This section misstates the ruling of the federal court. The purpose of a motion to dismiss in U.S. federal court is to determine whether "a claim, even if true as stated, is one for which the law offers a legal remedy." The purpose is not to determine whether the allegations are true. Also, the decision actually dismisses these charges (see pp. 16-17), giving the plaintiff "leave to amend" (i.e. a chance to try again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Güe(rill)a (talk • contribs) 03:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)