Talk:Canadian Union of Public Employees

Labourdude had a point though. I think it might make sense to move the bulk of the Israel boycott info to Canadian Union of Public Employees - Ontario, and leave only a brief note and the national union's response here. It wouldn't hurt to create Canadian Union of Public Employees - Manitoba,...Saskatchewan, etc. while we're at it. Any thoughts? --Bookandcoffee 20:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

 * My thoughts on this are not hugely positive. First of all, it feels like POV fork to me. Second, the articles you propose are so incredibly minor, they don't really merit their own space. I think the article is quite clear as it stands about Ontario versus the rest of CUPE.  IronDuke  21:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm not jumping up and down about it, just something to think about. I'm not sure that I would call the provincial counter parts "incredibly minor" though. It was, after all, the Ontario branch who initiated this action, and there are any number of union locals with their own articles, let alone a provincial branch. --Bookandcoffee 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Point well-taken. I would only add that this is one of those areas where a thing (the Ontario branch) is notable only because of the controversy. I kinda think those Union Local articles are a bit like those "high school" articles we have. Not harmful, but really not what the project is about.  IronDuke  21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit odd that almost half of the article on one of Canada's largest trade union's is about the union's attitute towards Israel. There's a lack of proportionality here. Homey 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be if CUPE were especially notable for other things. Is it? IronDuke  00:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the largest public sector trade union in Canada. They led a court fight that derailed the deregulation of the energy industry in Ontario. They've led a number of significant strikes. This past winter they were on the verge of a large illegal strike in Ontario over the issue of workers control over their pension fund.

The CUPE article should be mostly about their activities as a trade union. Mention should be made of the Israel boycott but most of the information should be in the Israeli boycott article with a link to there from this article. This is particularly the case as the boycott is a project of CUPE Ontario only and not CUPE National and CUPE Ontario doesn't even represent all the CUPE locals in that province. Homey 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wanted to put in more info on court fights and strikes, I doubt anyone would object. Don't see why we need to remove info, though. IronDuke  01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it has more to do with Israeli boycott than with CUPE. Homey 01:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I still don't see it. When CUPE takes any action, it has more to do with CUPE than with anything else. No point in burying CUPE's boycott elsewhere. And we can always dulpicate the info. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. IronDuke  01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The one that I think is really completely irrelevant, especially a section on its own, is the section on Durban, which is an out-of-context quote from one member, on something that happened over five years ago. As things that are footnotes to Canada's largest union go, that one I really think is completely irrelevant and disproportionate.  The issue of the Israel boycott -- while about a provincial wing of the union and not the union as a whole -- is at least a high-profile current issue, although I think in the long-term the article should certainly focus more on CUPE's issues as a trade union.  If I get the energy, I may try and add some information on CUPE's various fights against the privatization of public services, especially water privatization in BC and Nova Scotia, and electricity privatization in Ontario, as well as on the recent threat of general strike over OMERS.  (Full disclosure:  I work for CUPE, but my opinions on this are my own.) --209.29.182.225 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone who works for CUPE, I can tell you that there are plenty of people who see the Israel-Palestine conflict completely differently than what the discussion seems to be. At the last National Convention, the one held in Montreal, delegates had a lively debate, and the resolution that was critical of Israel was DEFEATED by the majority of the 3500 delegates who represented locals across the country. It was a lively debate, far more speakers critical of Israel than supportive, and yet the delegates voted this resolution down. So to believe that this large organization is in any way more radical than the Canadian population at large is false. The activists with more radical, louder and more aggressive views will of course form such views as are more readily noticed, and therefore reported and seen more visibly as we have evolved to pay more attention to things that might hurt us than things that won't. There are a handful of people I can think of with such radical opinions of Israel to brand it an apartheid state, and these are the same people who believe Islamophobia is racism, rather than the condemnation of particular strains of extremist religious practice that has as its victims millions of women, minorities, gays, and so on, and the same people who push the religion of intersectionality on everyone, who want to censor dissent, and who are unrepresentative of the vast majority of the Canadian population and CUPE. We represent all sort of voices, and have many Jews in leadership, in staff and as members. Attempts to brand any organization that democratically debates its policy as anything other than representative of what it is to be human - to disagree - are untrue of the reality of CUPE which tries hard to do good even where we fall short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:4682:2100:39CE:4E5:CA65:AD2A (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

editorial comment
I cut this out:
 * On July 7th, political commentator Lysiane Gagnon wrote in the Toronto Globe and Mail:

Of course, CUPE and the United Church’s anti-Israel activists will tell you their positions are just about Israel’s policies and have nothing to do with Jews. But the line between anti-Semitism and obsessive anti-Zionism is thin and blurry. It is certainly perfectly acceptable to criticize the state of Israel, but the practice can become anti-Semitic when only the Jewish state is singled out as a rogue state, in a world that contains so many horrible regimes. 

It is a general editorial, which may be valid, but adds like more than opinion to the article.--Bookandcoffee 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any policy-based reason to cut this out. She is notable and noted. Here is a link to her on an other WP: and here is a link to an award she won .  IronDuke  18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not policy related - but the quote says very little about CUPE. The first portion casts the union as "anti-Israel", and by extension, as "obsessive anti-Zionis(t)". The thrust is to imply that CUPE members who support this action are in fact anti-Semitic, and that is a very problematic statement. The last sentence is primarily generic filler, and has very little directly related content. To quote her simply because she is notable and mentioned CUPE is a thin argument. You could dig up comments from dozens of known Canadian political commentators on the subject. The question is, does the quote add to the readers understanding of the incident? I don't think it does, I think it only tells you about Lysiane Gagnon's opinion, which may be interesting, but should be in the Lysiane Gagnon article. If she had a claim to being directly involved, such as the other quotes and comments in the article do, then her comments would be more relevant. --Bookandcoffee 19:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * She need not have a claim to being "directly involved" for us to quote her. As a policy prescription for WP, there isn't even a grain of truth to that contention. I don't know that she is implying that CUPE members who support the boycott are antisemitic, but it matters not at all if she is. “To quote her simply because she is notable and mentioned CUPE is a thin argument”? Um… it’s the only possible argument. The quote is from a notable person, a reliable source, and on point. The strongest reason I see for leaving it out is that it may offend some people; that is not a good enough reason. IronDuke  19:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Um… it’s the only possible argument." No it isn't. Is the comment relevant to the article? Does the comment provide the reader with additional insight into the incident? Does the person making the statement have a legitimate claim to be involved and recognized as an authority on the subject? I would say those are more appropriate criteria for including a comment. Your comment that it is "on point" is an interesting observation. I won't remove the quote again, as there are only two opinions at work here, but I do believe that it is not a particularly useful contribution.--Bookandcoffee 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel that way. I hope you'll eventually change your mind. IronDuke  19:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there are probably better quotes out there critiquing CUPE. I don't object to the quote's presence, just its usefulness.  As it stands, it's just kind of boring and unillustrative.


 * No matter whether one feels this is justified or not, it's simply a fact that many critics of Israel are characterized as antisemitic in some fashion. That Gagnon is doing this to CUPE and the United Church here is, well, more of the same.  What would be more useful is a quote by someone critiquing CUPE but using details specifically from CUPE's actions on the matter (e.g. the text of Resolution 50). --Saforrest 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Section about Israeli apartheid resolution
The section could use some tidying up. As it stands it seems pretty obvious that the different sets of quotes were inserted by different people: the pro-resolution quotes are all within the paragraph body, while the quotes condemning the resolution are all indented in block format. It could use a sweep by someone editing without an agenda.

As well, the whole coverage is about CUPE Ontario's adoption of this resolution, while it is only tangentially mentioned that CUPE BC adopted a similar resolution in the past. Wouldn't the BC resolution have been just as controversial, and deserving of coverage in the article? --Saforrest 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Durban Conference on Racism
I edited out the block quote. Such a large quote critical of CUPE on a tangental issue taints the article's objectivity without a corresponding quote defending CUPE's position.

Consequently, I decided to redact the block quote, but leave the sentence noting ADL's criticism of CUPE on the issue along with the source. If the block quote is returned to the article, I strongly suggest including a block quote defending CUPE, so the issue is not presented in such a one-sided manner.

Assessment
I have assessed this as B Class, although it needs much more referencing, and of low importance, as it is a highly specific and specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 04:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Logos
I left a comment on the talk pages for each of the logo files as well, but figured it might be more likely to be seen here. CUPE has new logos in both English and French - they're available at http://cupe.ca/logo/Download_CUPE_Logos. If someone with upload privileges could replace them, that would be great. Iclysdale (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

POV and reworking of the Israel section
The section on the Israel-related resolutions is focused excessively on criticizing the resolutions. In fact, I don't read one positive response when in fact there was significant positive responses from various activist groups and other supporters worldwide in realible sources. I get it that there are people who really don't like this resolution, but to so excessively weight this section isn't the solution. I have just removed two quotes from the CJC in a section where there was three large quotes from the CJC -- largely repetitive accusations too (I can't understand why all three were included verbatum?) Summary style should be used instead of large and repetitive quotes. The most important people should be quoted and give prominence, such as the Canada leaders rather than their subordinates. This section requires significant work and until the excessive and repetitive criticism is reduced to something that benefits readers rather than trying to overwhelm them, please leave the POV tag on. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add more info. IronDuke  22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The criticisms of the resolution in this article are accurate, properly sourced and relevant to this article. The Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) is the largest Jewish organization in Canada and its views on this are important. Perhaps most interesting is the claim that there is too much criticism which it is claimed "leaves out the significant support there was" for the resolution. However, the resolution was widely condemned which is why there is so much material regarding this (taken mostly from large newspapers, which qualify as notable third party sources). Instead of removing material that criticizes the resolution, I suggest that editors, including John Bahrain, add citations (compliant with wiki policy) that support the claim that this resolution has considerable support. I will review the material deleted and then decide if and how much I will restore.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I realize this is a sensitive topic and that both sides deserve to be heard. That's why I encourage editors to add citations from sources that support the boycott. I've already added one (from a Jewish associate professor in Halifax).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Guys this is ridiculous, CUPE is a labour union, yet half of this article talks about anti-semitism. this is ridiculous. i think the article should focus on issues that most reflect CUPE's works in the past and future. i m pretty sure when most Candians hear the word CUPE, Judaism isnt the first thing that come to their mind! I propose limiting the Israel section to not more than one paragraph. 65.95.114.76 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some trimming is in order, but down to one paragraph is not a useful suggestion. IronDuke  01:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What's really absurd about this is everything regarding Israel has only to do with CUPE Ontario and not the national union as a whole. Undue Weight in extremis. Dodge rambler (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've spun this off to a subsidiary article as per Presbyterian Church (USA) disinvestment from Israel controversy. CUPE is a national trade union with a 40 year history - to make more than half of the article about the relationship of one of CUPE's provincial sections with Israel is ridiculous. Dodge rambler (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dodge rambler, your actions were highly improper. Indeed, though your edit fails to meet the techincal definition of vandalism, it just barely does. We're having a discussion here about how much of the material (much of which has been here for years) to include. I'm not opposed to finding a way to trim things, but a POV fork (and a poorly done POV fork, at that), is not the answer. Please leave the article alone for now, and discuss the (reasonable) changes you would like to see. Thanks. IronDuke  19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If Presbyterian Church (USA) disinvestment from Israel controversy isn't a POV fork than neither is this new article. The Israeli debate is a minor sideshow when it comes to CUPE - regardless of the fact that some editors on both sides are obsessed with Israel-Palestinian issues and see the entire encyclopedia throug that prism. If you wish to attempt an AFD of the new article then go ahead and make your argument on the AFD page. Dodge rambler (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no immediate opinion on the other article you cite. But the POV fork of the article that matters for the purposes of this talk page, that you most definitely created, has gone from clumsy to disruptive, see WP:POINT, among other vios. You cannot simply erase long-standing content and then suggest someone start an AfD to return it; that defies both policy and common sense. The onus is on you to discuss things first, gather consensus, and proceed from there. IronDuke  20:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are only two editors here who are pushing the concept that the majority of an article on a Canadian union should be dedicated to the views of one of its provincial sections on Israel - and that second editor hasn't been on this page since March so it's just you. Again, if the Presbyterian Church (USA) disinvestment from Israel controversy isn't a POV fork than neither is an article on CUPE Ontario and disinvestment from Israel. If you have no immediate opinion on the Presbyterian article then you should acquire one before dismissing a similarly structured article about CUPE and Israel. If Israel was directly relevant to CUPE then you might have a point but the issue is a tangent and having a tangent dominate this article is Undue Weight. Dodge rambler (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I need an opinion on some other article to have one here? Doesn't make sense. And I never said the majority of this article should be about Israel, but expressed a desire to discuss that very subject, with an eye to reducing what we have, in a sensible way. Reducing it to zero is not sensible, and contrary to policy. Will you please stop reverting material that's been here for years and discuss it? IronDuke  20:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment means there is a consensus that the section on Israel should be reduced - so why don't you begin by reducing the material? There's nothing stopping you. Please show us what reductions you think are acceptable and then we can discuss it but at the moment you are reverting to a situation where about 2/3 of the article is about Israel and not cutting anything out at all. So start cutting. 20:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this: I'll userfy the section in question, take the first whack, and then you can take a pass over it and reduce it more. We can hash it out on the userfied talk (linking to here, of course, or maybe even just copying and pasting our remarks.) I don't know if 3rr applies to userfied stuff like that, but I'd be inclined to give us both a pass on the userfied section, in the interest of not nit-picking or rules-lawyering so we can arrive at a mutually acceptable result. Fair? IronDuke  21:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try but keep in mind that this should not take up more than about 1/4 to 1/3 of the article at most - and even that may be excessive. Dodge rambler (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's both try for that number, if we can, and see how things look. I'm running out of time today, but there's a good 95% chance I can take a shot at it tomorrow. I'll ping you when I have something. Glad we're working together on this. IronDuke  21:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a few minutes so I've taken a shot at truncating the section - mostly by dealing with quotations, many of which were needlessly long or could be easily paraphrased. Other material was stale dated (eg references to an "upcoming" conference that occured last month) I've also removed comments from letters to the editor and removed other redundent comments. Having an idea of what both sides thought is one thing but there's no need for an exhaustive collection of what everyone and their dog thinks. It's still too long so further summarization and removal of unneeded material is necessary. Looking at it again, I think there's still altogether too much focus on reactions by this and that person or group - the emphasis should be on what occured, not on what people thought about it. Right now there is still more response than substance.Dodge rambler (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I still think it would have been better to hash this out in a draft in userspace, but I went ahead and took a couple whacks at it myself. IronDuke  21:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I chopped it hard. Detail belongs in the subarticle, where it already exists.  WP:DUE is not optional.  That is all.  --j⚛e deckertalk 05:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

History section
I removed the following text at the end of the history section because it seemed moderately tendentious, it was not cited, and it did not fit with the rest of the content in the history section:

"CUPE's involvement in legal issues came to the forefront after 2001. In 2012 and 2013, one western-Canada CUPE Representative was involved in 2 defamation cases, one of which CUPE National paid for 50% of the legal fees (estimated at over $400,000)."

Regards,

Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth.Gramsci (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019
Can someone change 650,000 (as of September 2017) to 700,000 (as of October 2019) for the membership numbers in the short box on the right-hand side and in the introductory paragraph - see https://cupe.ca/cupe-now-700000-strong for the announcement from October 7. Thanks! Iclysdale (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Interstellarity (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected change request to revert changes November 26-29 2020
StealthyCricket's series of changes between November 26 and 29 are clearly not neutral PoV, and are overwhelmingly of questionable relevance to the organization as a whole, like the financials (which are all public in any case, but not exactly the first thing people are looking for when looking for information on Canada's largest union), or specific hand-picked examples of literally thousands of legal cases involving the union and its members. Please revert to the prior version from 23 November, 2020. Iclysdale (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed this request into a COI edit request, since you work for the union. For content disputes you should follow the guidance at WP:DR. RudolfRed (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd missed the change for edit request policies with COI, way back when it used to just be identifying yourself in your user talk, which I've always done. For whoever ends up reviewing this, I'll point out that the user that made the changes has already been blocked, presumably for vandalism to other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iclysdale (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Thjarkur (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to the Archivists
As a historian, though not of labour history, my thanks to the wonderful Canadian library and archives professionals for linking the archives information to this page. The topic of worker empowerment and proletarian struggle will be of particular interest to the future generations and Canadian society is one we can all learn from. Historiaantiqua (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Updating National Secretary-Treasurer to Candace Rennick
Iclysdale (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the key people and internal organizations sections, Charles Fleury is listed as National Secretary-Treasurer.
 * He has retired, and Candace Rennick was elected November 24, 2021
 * See https://cupe.ca/mark-hancock-and-candace-rennick-elected-national-officers
 * (COI note: I work for CUPE, which is why I'm just requesting an edit on the talk page.)
 * Thanks to all the editors for your work.


 * ✅ Courtesy ping Happy editing-- IAm  Chaos  02:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)