Talk:Financial core

Neutrality
I tagged this article as in need of expert attention since it deals with matters of U.S. labor law. Also the creator and main editor of the article appears to be the author of one of the primary sources cited (a book which is being offered for sale at the referrence link). Thus, there may be POV and original research concerns. --Benanhalt 08:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * response

This article summarizes the findings of the Supreme Court. Although the author was involved with the Beck case and supported Beck, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Beck/McIntire. And, although it was a controversial case, the ruling of the court was hardly controversial. Moreover, the court echoed sentiments McIntire expressed in both court documents and in the public media. Thus, it would seem that the Supreme Court and McIntire see eye to eye on this issue. (If anyone doubts this conclusion, I invite you to do the research and see for yourself.)

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is against the law to attempt to influence anyone's financial core decissions. Any misinformation would clearly be considered an attempt to influence financial core decissions. (And this is a warning to anyone who would like to contribute to this article.) Because this is a hotly contested topic (and because McIntire is a controversial and widely hated figure), if McIntire provided any misinformation he would clearly be open to prosecution. This suggests that the information provided is in strict accordance with the law.


 * response

Indeed, the language of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Beck case is clear, unequivocal and entirely consistent with McIntire’s article here. Here's the actual language of the Court (found by the way by clicking on the link to the full text provided by McIntire).

“Taken as a whole, 8(a)(3) permits an employer and a union 2 to enter into an agreement requiring all employees to become union members as a condition of continued employment, but the "membership" that may be so required has been "whittled down to its financial core." NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734, 742 (1963). The statutory question presented in this case, then, is whether this "financial core" includes the obligation to support union activities beyond those germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment. We think it does not.”

And again later in the decision written by Justice William Brennan, the High Court refutes the compulsory unionists assertion that labor unions can take whatever monies they please and use it however they please over the objections of its members:

“It simply does not follow from this that Congress left unions free to exact dues equivalents from nonmembers in any amount they please, no matter how unrelated those fees may be to collective-bargaining activities. On the contrary, the complete lack of congressional concern for the rights of nonmembers in the debate surrounding the House "bill of rights" is perfectly consistent with the view that Congress understood 8(a)(3) to afford nonmembers adequate protection by authorizing the collection of only those fees necessary to finance collective-bargaining activities: because the amount of such fees would be fixed by their underlying purpose - defraying the costs of collective bargaining - Congress would have every reason to believe that the lack of any limitations on union dues was entirely irrelevant so far as the rights of nonmembers were concerned. In short, we think it far safer and far more appropriate to construe 8(a)(3) in light of its legislative justification, i. e., ensuring that nonmembers who obtain the benefits of union representation can be made to pay for them, than by drawing inferences from Congress' rejection of a proposal that did not address the rights of nonmembers at all.”

User:Benanhalt has tagged McIntire’s article out of concern that McIntire, as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) party to the Beck case, might have some POV (point of view) axe to grind in posting this article, it is interesting that user Benanhalt. In doing so, Benanhalt places a big WARNING sign at the beginning of McIntire’s completely factual article making it appear that the article is questionable or otherwise erroneous. Benanhalt thus has initiated a ‘chilling effect’ on McIntire’s financial core exposition. Benanhalt would be well advised to read the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, as amended. There he would discover that it is legally actionable to for anyone to interfere with an employees right to engage in or refrain from union membership.


 * Note the above two responses are from the same anonymous editor posting from 68.227.81.41. Now, it may or may not be the case that the article in question is factually correct. Not being a legal expert, I do not feel qualified to make that assessment, which is why I am requesting that someone who is an expert review the article.  However, as a person capable of critical thought, I do feel qualified to raise POV concerns in a situation where the only editor contributing to an article bears the name Mmcintire and the second of only two references supporting the article is to the personal website of Mark McIntire, where the author offers for sale a book entitled Financial Core Handbook:  Guide to the Liberation of Compulsory Union Workers.  My primary concern was that this article's main purpose was to provide a platform for the author to plug his work.  Now that I have learned that Mr. McIntire is considered "a controversial and widely hated figure" and that the article concerns "a hotly contested topic," I am even more concerned that there may be POV problems.  If the article is correct and there are other knowledgable editors willing to edit the article and attest to its factual validity and NPOV status, that would be great. And, even though I know better than to feed trolls: 'chilling effect'?  That is the funniest thing I've heard all day!  --Benanhalt 21:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The "big WARNING sign" at the top of the page says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The Wikipedia definition of disputed says that someone thinks an article does not adhere to NPOV. But all I find here is someone who thinks this article may not adhere to the NPOV. The definition of disputed says that someone thinks that the article is biased, not that it may be biased. You can say that the NPOV is in question or that it leaves you with "concern" -- I totally agree -- but I haven't seen any evidence that it is actually being "disputed", despite the big warning sign to the contrary. Srnelson 04:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * hmmm

The involvement of the principle author of this article in the case itself is clear evidence of a Conflict of Interest in reporting on it, and automatically calls NPOV into question. The specious argument that, because providing false information would be unwise, this proves that the author did not do so, is another red flag. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Again: NPOV = "Neutral point of view. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand." There is a difference between being able or in a position to show a stand and actually showing that stand. Arguing that a Conflict of Interest necessarily implies a NPOV without any additional evidence of actually applying the NPOV is specious. You may "call the NPOV in question", but without answering the very question you call, citing specific evidence, you cannot "dispute" it in the "big WARNING sign." Srnelson 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is wrong to say that Mark McIntire is "is a widely hated figure" and to delete a link to his site merely because he has written a book telling other SAG members how they can assert their right to work on non-union projects. He has the support of the many SAG members who have asserted this right and also had the support of Charlton Heston, who was president of SAG from 1961 to 1965.

It is quite common for Actors Equity members to work in non-union shows under assumed names. It is dangerous for a film actor to do so because of the increased exposure. With the advent of digital cinematography and editing moviemaking has become much less expensive than formerly. Where movie theaters used to show only one feature, or perhaps two at a time, new theaters now show as many as eight. Where viewers near large cities formerly had a few television channels to watch, now viewers across the country have a choice of hundreds, so the market for productions has greatly expanded and there are new production companies trying to get started on low budgets. Opportunities for film actors are growing if only they are permitted to accept salaries comparable to those earned by the film crew.

Education as to financial core rights no doubt has been a factor in SAG's creation of special agreements for low-budget producers allowing them to hire both union and non-union actors and pay union actors as little as $100 a day. See http://www.sagindie.org/resources/contracts. Such contracts provide more work for union actors without their having to declare financial core. Shamanman (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the NPOV template, please use for sections or  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 00:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition
Never mind the issue of NPOV; the article fails the most fundamental requirement of an encyclopedia: to explain what the subject is in the opening paragraph. It says that the Supremes defined it... then fails to give a definition. OK, maybe it's in that inscrutible "Origins" section somewhere, but I can't find it. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - RoyBoy 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Financial core. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060208092144/http://www.bizparentz.com:80/coreTruth.html to http://www.bizparentz.com/coreTruth.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Entertainment Industry Unions and Financial Core
This section of the article is written from the subjective viewpoint of the entertainment unions. It does not equally represent the viewpoint of a working artist who may benefit from fi-core status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.30.169 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This section is titled, "Entertainment Industry Unions and Financial Core." By design, this section explores the actual impact of Financial Core on the Entertainment Unions. The article is not designed to council artists (or any worker) on what possible advantages Financial Core offers to an individual. The discussion you're suggesting, while a worthy topic, is outside the scope of this article and is covered by many websites and discussions boards. The facts of what Financial Core offers an artist in the entertainment business is covered in this section. As discussed in the article, resigning from an entertainment union relieves a worker of all membership rules. The data relating to what actual benefits come with that relief-- in terms of financial gain or work opportunities-- hasn't been documented. On the other hand, unions file data which is publicly available, including but not limited to U.S. Department of Labor filings. While there are many online websites in favor of Financial Core, they contain largely anecdotal and unsubstantiated claims. The original problem with this article referred to it's lack of a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as it was written by a for-profit website that provides alleged advantages of Financial Core for performers. But again, Wikipedia is not designed to council individuals on get-rich-quick schemes based on no verifiable information. If you have a data source that prove your claim that artist benefit from claiming Financial Core please do share them. 76.94.48.175 (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Going to submit an edit to trim this section down, its tone just doesn't align with what you typically expect on wikipedia. For example, this sentence: "The FiCore, or "scab" as loyal union members refer to them, makes a choice to no longer honor the pledge they made when they became a union member." Taken literally, this implies a union member who doesn't refer to FiCores as "scabs" is disloyal! And though my research is unclear whether you need to be eligible or an actual member to declare as Ficore, surely actors who join and immediately declare aren't accurately described here.
 * I agree that this section doesn't need to reiterate the benefits of going FiCore, it's obvious and is already stated: it allows actors to work both union and non-union jobs. Similarly, it doesn't need to keep reiterating the harm to union actors, FiCore actors lower collective bargaining power & lessen the need for productions to go union. I believe I've kept the content, such as Ficore being seen as scabs (adding a source), weakening bargaining power, and the heavy union-busting push (could use a source but I don't doubt this happens!)
 * I get this is a controversial topic, I hope others look at the edits and agree or improve them, I don't want to act alone. This section should still describe the effects of FiCore on unions, imo it's self-evident they would have some negative effect (I won't ask anyone to actually cite these "publicly available U.S. Department of Labor filings" the person above referred to, though perhaps it would improve the article!). I think that's all there, but more succinct, and in a neutral tone by not rephrasing the same points differing only in what charged language is chosen. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire article needs a rewrite. It's still far too NPOV.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The unsigned comment and edits above addressed a number of issues that were considered to by NPOV. In fact years of specific areas that needed attention have been cited and carefully addressed by a number of contributors. A broad brush stroke such as "the entire article needs a rewrite" does not seem a valid critique as there are no specific or actual points that are selected. LegalEagleManhattan (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)