Talk:Collective bargaining/Archive 1

.
Is there such a thing in Canada? Nastajus 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

curious emphasis
It seems to me odd (indeed, inapproriately so) that the entry on collective bargaining in the US is exclusively about negotiations in professional sports. There is a long and storied history of workers in this country associating for the purposes of winning improvements in their wages and working conditions, but this entry doesn't really even hint at any of that. It's a pretty spectacular omission to effectively reduce the history of the US labor movement to an account of a few small organizations representing celebrity atheletes. If there's a point to focusing on only a couple of unions, wouldn't it make more sense to highlight organizations such as the UAW and IBT, whose pioneering of pattern bargaining had a significant impact on the way labor relations are conducted in this country?

I admit that I personally have neither the time nor the expertise to do justice to the topic, but I hope that someone with knowledge of labor history can flesh out this entry so as make clear that collective bargaining in the US has economic and societal ramifications that extend well beyond the arena of professional sports.

-(This part is written by someone else) I agree, although it seems likely professional sports was put in there because thats what the average person can relate to.


 * Yes, I agree that the US section needs work. I'll see what I can do. -- Scartol  02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Global perspective
This page needs sections on Asia, Africa, and South America. this page will be of use in the Africa section, and GURN may have resources for the other continents. — Scartol  ·  Talk  14:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Economic theories
The part in Theories about economic models could really use some rewording. Could we get someone familiar with this technical info to rewrite it in a way that's more understandable to the layperson? (More technical info can go in the currently-redlinked expansion pages.) — Scartol  ·  Talk  15:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on current Wisconsin situation are far from objective
At the end of the last paragraph, someone has tacked on some very incomplete an non-objective comments on the ongoing Wisconsin/Gov. Walker situation. There is no mention of the context (the state budget situation); it's falsely stated that the desired changes would "effectively end collective bargaining for nearly all (Wisconsin) public employees". Worst of all, the text says that in response to critics, Walker stated that he will ready the national guard - as if that was his only response, and inaccurately implying that he is only being belligerent about the situation.

This section should be removed or completely redone in a more thorough and objective fashion.

Matthew Turk (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting Voluntary Term and Non-objective View
The article starts off by stating "Collective bargaining is a process of voluntary negotiations between employers and trade unions". Yet later in the US section, it states that the National Labor Relations Act (1935) makes it illegal to ... "refuse to engage in collective bargaining with the union that represents their employees". The initial statement that collective bargaining is voluntary cannot be supported as US law compels (by government threat of force) the employer to speak with the union. That is not voluntary. An objective statement would leave out voluntary, or notably state "voluntary in right to work states" and "involuntary with regard to many state laws". Or as the opening statement is broad and not focused on the US, it should completely leave out the word voluntary.

I see many other non-objective statements in this article on collective bargaining and will try to comment on others as my time allows.

--Iowaliberty (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree with your comments. Fatrb38 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Concerning whether this article should be merged with "collective agreement"..."collective bargaining" must necessarily come before any "collective agreement"...so if any merging is to take place, the "collective agreement" article should be incorporated into "collective bargaining". It is logical the two should be merged under "collective bargaining", with "collective agreement" being a result of the bargaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgs10 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Collective bargaining is an important concept precisely when collective agreement does not exist. So no, it should definitely NOT be merged. There is a wide literature on the term. Definitely deserves its own page. drkull (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with drkull; articles should be kept separate as are about different things (a process and a right versus a binding contract).--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * if Collective Bargaining is only the process by which we come to a Collective Agreement, then shouldn't the Agreement page absorb the bargaining page instead? I can't imagine there's anything special about the bargaining itself, sounds like it's just a discussion (like this one). so why not have Collective Agreement be the main page with a small section referring to Collective Bargaining as the process by which we reach a Collective Agreement? ChaoticSounds (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, I also agree with drkull; that the articles should be kept seperate because they deal with different things one is a process and one may be the result of such a process but not the process itself. Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging Collective Bargaining with Collective Agreement doesn't make sense
It does not make sense to merge the two articles, because collective bargaining is what leads to collective agreement. While the two are closely related, they are by no means the same. Collective bargaining involves negotiating, and collective agreement is what happens after negotiations have finished.Yes these two terms are very different in nature. Collective bargaining can be said as the father of collective agreement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.199.107 (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Collective bargaining is a topic in itself. They are related, but different. There are plenty of reliable sources that specifically focus on collective bargaining. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Section on collective bargaining rights of public employees is severely non-NPOV
The article at present has four paragraphs criticizing collective bargaining by public employees, without fairly characterizing the debate by citing opposing viewpoints. This section should be cleaned up, either through balanced sourcing or through deletion of this section of the article (which seems to have been added in a single series of edits by one person).Zagarna (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Agreed, this section is very biased; needs to be balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhusom77 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Right to work
The problem with collective bargaining and most employee unions in general is they interfere with the constitution that gives a person the right to pursuit of Happiness. Only Union employees are allowed to bid on posted union jobs unless no union employee takes them. This does not allow a person who is more qualified or maybe a management employee working with the same company to take that job. This stops that more qualified person from pursuit of that job(happiness) and discriminates against any non-union people. This is taken to extremes by labor unions who mark out a huge territory where only there members are allowed to do certain types of work like carpentry or brick laying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.204.208 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

US Section neutrality?
Is the US Section neutral? It lists facts without citations that slant pro-union as opposed to an objective view. Example: "Dues usually vary, but are generally 1-2% of pay; however, this is usually offset by the fact that workers who are represented by unions make, on average, 30% more than their non-union counterparts."

Probably needs a look at

Dbk1441 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems neutral enough. Seems fairly fact based. Seems that your insistance that it be removed is unneccesary. Milzo1986 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on neutrality
I removed the following addition by user:68.43.90.124 and placed it here for discussion. It is an argument about the article as opposed to an encyclopedic addition.


 * [The neutrality of this article is disputed due to the omission of the paragraphs immediately preceding and following the one cited in the same letter. They read:
 * "The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
 * All Government employees should realize that ...."
 * The former president goes on to explain that "collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service" as a result of the possibility of STRIKES shutting down the government, not that it should not exist at all. The paragraph following the one originally cited in this article reads:
 * "Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied."
 * The fact that this author begins the article by taking a carefully selected paragraph of FDR's writing out of context to support the argument discredits the remainder of this piece.]
 * The former president goes on to explain that "collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service" as a result of the possibility of STRIKES shutting down the government, not that it should not exist at all. The paragraph following the one originally cited in this article reads:
 * "Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied."
 * The fact that this author begins the article by taking a carefully selected paragraph of FDR's writing out of context to support the argument discredits the remainder of this piece.]
 * The fact that this author begins the article by taking a carefully selected paragraph of FDR's writing out of context to support the argument discredits the remainder of this piece.]
 * The fact that this author begins the article by taking a carefully selected paragraph of FDR's writing out of context to support the argument discredits the remainder of this piece.]

--Bookandcoffee (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

US section revised
The section of this page about US sports teams' negotations has good information, but it seems to me that it belongs on a separate page? I'm including the original text here (much of it cut out of my revision) in case someone wants to make such a page. — Scartol  ·  Talk  14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Several notable collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in the United States have involved major professional sports leagues. Because of a history of poor relations between the players' unions and owners of all the various major leagues, as well as because of the tremendous amounts of money involved, it has become difficult in recent years to work out agreements. A total breakdown in talks between the sides wiped out the entire 2004-05 NHL season, making the NHL the first major North American sports league to lose an entire season to labor issues (the relevant parties reached an agreement in time to play the 2005-06 season). The NHL has historically had poor labor relations, resulting in numerous lockouts of players and the shortening of many seasons.

The National Football League (NFL) had fears that disagreements over revenue allocation might force teams in 2006 to cut numerous star players in order to stay under the agreed-upon salary cap. Beyond this year, without an agreement for 2007, the salary cap provisions would have sunset. This could have caused players and owners both to seek substantially disparate compensation guidelines in their next CBA (e.g., sizes of pay increases year-to-year, the effect of signing bonuses on a team's cap, etc), raising the spectre of a strike in 2008. However, on March 8, 2006 the owners agreed in a 30-2 vote (the Buffalo Bills and Cincinnati Bengals voting against it) to accept the NFLPA's proposal, and also settled the revenue-sharing controversy, forestalling the above scenario.

The National Basketball Association's CBA also expired in summer 2005, though the two sides ultimately reached an agreement, its last expiration caused the cancellation of one-half of the 1998-99 NBA season due to lockout.

Major League Baseball has had numerous disagreements between team owners and the MLBPA. There have been 3 strikes led by players in the 1972, 1981, and 1994 seasons. The 1994 World Series was canceled because of a strike. This was the first time that a major professional team sport had its championship canceled due to a labor dispute.

I agree this should be its own page, or at the very least its own section. At the moment collective bargaining agreement is a mess, NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement is okay but NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement is kind of a stub. It would be better to combine these subjects into a single article. Arttechlaw (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline in the extent and coverage of collective bargaining
A sub topic that discusses the decline in collective bargaining coverage and extent should be added to the main topic. Suggestions and assistance in this area would be gratefully appreciated.

Some areas of interest are: 1) Government intervention by governments hostile to unionization 2) Setting minimum pay erodes some of the bargaining power of unions 3) Increased use by management of performance related pay 4) Increased use by management of other forms of bargaining, such as with individuals directly, using new tools such as HR management. 5) Change in composition of workforce (more private sector employees, less public sector employees). Possibly a side effect of privatization and the global economy. 6) Reduction in the number of employers who recognize unions. 7) Decentralization of collective bargaining from multi-employer bargaining to single-employer bargaining — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.126.118 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Schnabel's comment on this article
Dr. Schnabel has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"As already noticed, the examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. For instance, Europe has a long history of collective bargaining, and bargaining coverage is much higher than in the US. I suggest to make use of the book by Susan Hayter on "The Role of Collective Bargaining in the Global Economy" (ILO 2011) and of publications by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

I suggest to add some figures on collective bargaining coverage across countries which can be found in publications by Jelle Visser and the OECD."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Schnabel has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Blien, Uwe & Dauth, Wolfgang & Schank, Thorsten & Schnabel, Claus, 2009. "The Institutional Context of an "Empirical Law": The Wage Curve under Different Regimes of Collective Bargaining," IZA Discussion Papers 4488, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Collective bargaining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712233951/http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca:80/en/2007/2007scc27/2007scc27.html to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc27/2007scc27.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Collective bargaining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514152020/http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/curricul.htm to http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/curricul.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203339/http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/ to http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/
 * Added tag to http://portal.research.lu.se/ws/files/23904978/Kjellberg_FSNumhauserHenning_Self_Regulation_State_Regulation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

History section date issue
The History section of the article has this sentence: “The term "collective bargaining" was first used in 1861 by Beatrice Webb, a founder of the field of industrial relations in Britain.” However, this can’t be accurate—as it would be not only very thoughtful and wise, but astonishingly articulate for a girl of three years. The article on Beatrice Webb states she was born in 1858. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrice_Webb

I hope that someone who has the knowledge of Webb’s life and/or U.S. labor history will correct this.Joel Russ (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)