Talk:New-collar worker

Differentiation
The following article first uses the term new collar in 2005, to describe gold collar workers. The name of the article is New-Collar Worker, in reference to gold being the new collar color. The use of the term "new" here is the same, in that it describes the newer qualities needed, newer than those offered by the blue and white collars. This would seem to dispute the assertion that it was first coined in 2016.


 * - This publication uses the term in 2005 to describe a new collar, gold. "Companies are finding it difficult to understand and motivate younger workers, found a recent study by Novations/J. Howard & Associates. Values and goals of these less-experienced employees are different than those in previous generations. A new category of working class youth is emerging, called the "gold collar" workers. Distinctions between blue-collar working youth and gold-collar working youth include: 1. Blue-collar youth reject consumption for status while gold-collar youth put independent living on the backburner to avoid sacrificing consumerism. 2. Blue-collar youth resist social change while gold-collar youth aspire to middle class or celebrity occupations. A short interview with Ian Pierpoint, head of Synovate youth consultancy, is presented."

Furthermore, many of the details of the New Collar designation appear similar to those ascribed in 1985 to gold collar, as shown in this source:


 * - This source mentions the same qualities as new collar, but calls them gold collar.

These two sources call into question the origin story purported by the new collar article. The purpose of the misleading template is in the dual definitions at work here. One is the term new collar meaning a newer color collar, and the term new collar, meaning new itself, with no color. The article does not distinguish between the two terms.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   11:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Spintendo! It may be my reading but it really sounds like in the 2005 piece "new-collar" is being used to say "here's a new collar color that has emerged" vs. actually coining the term "new-collar worker" to apply to a specific type of worker. With that said, if you think there's enough of a case here to note this, it seems reasonable to include something in the Etymology section and likewise it seems worthy of note that there are some similar collar-types. Calling the article as a whole misleading seems like a stretch, more that there's potentially some additional information that could be added. Curious what others think about this, too. Disclosure: I wrote this article on behalf of IBM via Vianovo as part of my work with Beutler Ink. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not just your reading of it — cause I completely agree with you. The author is referring to the new color collar in the sense that there is a newer color being made clear. This is the problem with the term new collar, because there is confusion over what sense of the word "new" is being used. When Game of Thrones was made into an HBO production, the characters called The Others were changed to be called white walkers, because it was felt that using the term others would be confusing to people watching the show, who would hear them mentioned in dialogue and might wonder "What others? Do they mean other people?" In this way, there are words which resist trademarking simply because they are used to describe something which is never permanent, but rather, transitory. "New" denotes something that has just arrived. Once it has been around for awhile, it is no longer "new". But with IBM asserting a hold on the term "New" in this case, they are suggesting that a term which denotes something transitory now be used as something permanent. And that is where the usage is misleading. The article absolutely should specify the difference, as you said, in an etymology section.   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   01:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Got it! I totally see what you're saying now -- I'm afraid I didn't follow your initial notes about this over at Talk:Designation of workers by collar color so I apologize if any of my replies came off a bit brusque or dismissive there. I do think there is a difference between "a new collar" and specifically the concept of "new-collar worker"; "new-collar worker" is like "The New School" in that it refers to a specific thing, whereas "new collar" is like "new school", which could refer to "a new school" or "new school [hip-hop / dance / art]". With that said, I also think you have a point that there's a certain transitory aspect to it, at some point "new-collar worker" won't actually be "new".
 * Your questions here also led me back into research, and—big mea culpa here—I found some references I'd just entirely missed in Google Books to uses of the term "new-collar worker" to denote a specific type of worker (I spotted two other distinct definitions). Since I'd been focused around the current usage and definition, my searches had not brought these older definitions up previously, but really they should be included.
 * On the basis of both, your note re: transitory nature of the term, relation to other similar collar types, and that there are previous uses of that specific term, I'm working on putting together some suggestions to update the introduction and etymology section, and will circle back here with those soon. I hope you and other editors will be interested to look. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Another way of describing it is the Use–mention distinction which shows the differences between the two. Also relevant would be WP:NOTNEO as I believe the phrase may still fall into that category. Much of the guidance suggests that sources should feature more than everyday usage, they also need to show sources talking specifically about the term. But with this article it is the opposite — there are plenty of sources talking about the term's creation, but non featurning its actual usage as explained in the Use–mention distinction.      Spintendo       22:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed edits
Hi there! Following from the above conversation with Spintendo, I went back to the books and looked into sourcing to pull together some suggested updates that incorporate previous definitions to the introduction and Etymology sections, as well as noting the transitional sense of "new".

Here are my suggestions for the introduction and Etymology section, shown in green:

{{hidden|header=Proposed updates to introduction and Etymolody |content=New-collar worker is {{xt|a term that has been applied to individuals who may not fit within the traditional split of blue-collar or white collar. Since 2016, the term has primarily been used to describe}} an individual who develops technical and soft skills needed to work in the contemporary technology industry through nontraditional education paths. {{xt|The term’s current use was introduced}} by IBM CEO Ginni Rometty in late 2016 to refer to "middle-skill" occupations in technology, such as cybersecurity analysts, application developers and cloud computing specialists. {{xt|Previous definitions have included an individual (often working in a white-collar job) who is wealthier and more highly educated than the previous generation; or an individual from the baby boomer generation working in the service sector. }}

Etymology
The term "new-collar job" is a play on “blue-collar job”. There have been various definitions of "new-collar", encompassing specific types of workers as well as defining the idea of a "newer collar" versus blue-collar and white-collar. The term initially emerged in the mid-1980s, credited to Ralph Whitehead, professor at the University of Massachusetts.

The definition of the term as an individual gaining skills and knowledge through nontraditional education to work in technology roles originated with IBM's CEO Ginni Rometty, relating to the company's efforts to increase the number of people qualified for technology jobs. In November 2016, Rometty wrote an open letter to then-President-elect Donald Trump, which introduced the idea of "new-collar jobs" and urged his support for the creation of these types of roles. Rometty adopted the term in response to new employment designations as industries are moving into a new technology era, and jobs are created that require new skills in data science, cloud computing and artificial intelligence. |headerstyle=background:#ccfddc}}

As well as the above, in the Occupations and education requirements section, I suggest adding into the following sentence, the wording in green: "According to Rometty, "relevant skills, sometimes obtained through vocational training", are the qualifying characteristics of the 2016 definition of new-collar work."

How do these updates sound? Do these go some way towards resolving the issues you raised, Spintendo?

Once again, noting that I have a conflict of interest here due to having written this article for IBM via Vianovo, as part of my work with Beutler Ink. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 22:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wondering if you've had a moment to look over this yet and if you have any thoughts? While I'm not under contract on this project any more, I'd love to stay involved make this page the best resource it can be. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in my response, but my account settings do not provide pinged notifications. I think the proposed updates to the introduction and etymology section are excellent, and we are definately on the right track. The only part I have issue with is the mention in the lead of IBM as the originator of the term. As this article expands and allows for the other non traditional designations which have floated to the surface in the past, I don't believe that one person should be assigned a place in the lead over the others, and if this is a true exposition of these newer terms -all of them- then they should have equal billing in the main section, perhaps with a timeline. What are your ideas on this?      Spintendo       22:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, no worries Spintendo and thanks for your feedback! Regarding the introduction, I'd included Rometty since there was so much coverage related to her use of the term starting in 2016, by comparison, I'd had to dig through various books and archived news sources to try and untangle the originator of the term in the 1980s. Also, the present use of the term seems to have caught on the most in common usage compared to previous definitions. With that said, ultimately it's your / other editors call on whether it works to call her out and not others, and not something that I'd battle over :-)
 * Regarding timeline here's how I understand it, based on the sourcing I've seen:


 * What do you think? Is this something that's helpful to include now, or better to hold and develop further?
 * By the way, the one difference I would point out based on my observation of the sourcing: much of the sourcing for the 1980s term focuses specifically on the US, specifically referring to a section of the American population, by comparison the latest use of the term referring to middle-skill tech workers seems to have a more global reach (for instance, I see coverage in South Africa and New Zealand). There's no source that notes this difference, sadly, since as it's an interesting point. Perhaps in time we'll see sources looking back on this usage that provide that type of insight. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 15:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I like the timeline as presented above. My only issue remains the highlighting of IBM's adaptation of the term being given top billing in the article. If anything, custom has the first person's usage of the term listed first, with subsequent usage being listed afterwards. The more identifiable resources which mention the IBM connection should not offer any undue connotations on the significance of that connection over the others, since the only reason why there is more coverage is because it is the most recent iteration of the term.      Spintendo       10:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this slipped off my radar entirely the past week. It's fine by me to shuffle the mention of IBM later in the introduction. per my reply above it's ultimately your/other editor's call and I won't make a big deal out of it. The simplest thing might just be to re-order what I'd proposed above for the introduction so that the two sentences starting "Since 2016..." are moved after the other definitions. Sound good? Re: more coverage being because it is the most recent, that might be so but isn't necessarily the case, it could also be that the other uses didn't gain as wide usage and recognition. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk COI) 17:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 17-MAR-2018
Here is my counter-proposal for how the article should look: New-collar worker is a term that has been applied to individuals who may not fit within the traditional split of blue-collar or white collar. Since 2016, the term has primarily been used to describe an individual who develops technical and soft skills needed to work in the contemporary technology industry through nontraditional education paths.

Etymology

There have been various definitions of "new-collar", encompassing specific types of workers as well as defining the idea of a "newer collar" versus blue-collar and white-collar.


 * In the mid-1980s Ralph Whitehead, professor at the University of Massachusetts coined the term to refer to those in the baby boomer generation who work in the service sector.
 * In 1985 the term was used in the U.S. News & World Report volume 99 and entered mainstream use.
 * In the 1990s, a variation on the term emerged to refer to members of a younger generation who are wealthier and have more education than their parents.
 * In 2016, Ginni Rometty offered a new definition for the term, focusing on middle-skill employment, especially within the rapidly growing technology sector.

     Spintendo       03:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)