Talk:Union busting

This article has acquired multiple redundancies, deletions required
Expansion of business and membership decline is a new section. It duplicates text that already existed in the article.

For example, under How organizations find union busters this already existed:

The larger U.S. consultancies are trained in international labor relations law and already experienced in Canada, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and the U.S.

And under EofBandMD the same point is now made again:

There are many Labor Relations consultancies in the United States ... Although many work only in the United States, others are established in international markets such as Canada, the Caribbean and Central America.

Under How organizations find union busters we also find:

Consultants may advise management to solve workforce issues before labor unrest occurs in order to stem the tide of organizing activity with the intention of "making unions or third party representation superfluous."

And under EofBandMD there is a nearly identical passage:

Some corporations spend considerable resources employing professional consultancies to audit their organizations in order to determine issues before their employees seek union representation. They train their supervisory staff about how not to commit infractions that would trigger unrest and card signing.

Also under How organizations find union busters, this sentence:

the legal community referrals constitutes the vast majority of the use of international counter organizing consultants

And under EofBandMD, the new section, another duplication:

In 1980, most union busters acquired clients through a network of labor lawyers

None of these puzzling redundancies existed in the article two months ago. I plan to fix these before the end of the weekend... Richard Myers (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The first and third of these are now fixed. The middle one remains... for now. It is a tricky one to fix, since other sentences respond to the same point in two different sections. Richard Myers (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a commercial promotion website
This text reads like a corporate promotional brochure:

These agencies advertise services related to their ability to navigate the labor laws of a country in order to defeat union organizing drives, to defeat strikes, or to decertify unions...

Some labor relations consultancies confine themselves to domestic work while others reach internationally. The size and scope of any given consultancy will determine how and why a client will hire them based on experience, knowledge of international labor relations law, successful outcomes, and language ability. Although there are many US websites advertising union avoidance or union busting services, the legal community referrals constitutes the vast majority of the use of international counter organizing consultants. The globalization of industry requires that companies are capable of applying labor relations laws that could affect their workers all over the world. The larger U.S. consultancies are trained in international labor relations law and already experienced in Canada, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and the U.S. The E.U has recently seen an influx of counter organizing activity largely due to U.S. companies having located satellite divisions to the European continent and Asia and have pre-established relationships with U.S. consultancies and comfort with similar language.

Some consultancies consist of  networks of consultants who can represent large multi national companies with multiple domestic satellite branches while other consultancies consist of smaller groups of individual contributors called  independent contractors who work within established local areas.

And why shouldn't it? It cites [| the website of] The Burke Group as a source.

This is a very bad practice.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the commercial purposes of corporations.

I have removed the bold on the word advertise. I will address the issue of commercial usage soon.

Please see NOTADVERTISING for details.

Richard Myers (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you must describe these companies that do union busting. It also seems to me that in describing them you must use NPOV language.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please scroll back up midway in talk page and review the section I inserted called "International Dimensions". The original text was copy/pasted into it for ease of discussion before I made changes. The text written used citations by Dr. John Logan (employed by TUC and would be considered biased) attempted to describe The Burke Group. He said, "Private sector unions in the United States have declined, partly as a result of union busting campaigns. (Note the operative word is "partly").  It went on to say, "Some union busting agencies are therefore seeking international markets. Since 2000, at least "one agency" has established an international division".  That "one agency"  Logan described was The Burke Group which is clearly defined in his writings. So whomever wrote the original text here had already used The Burke Group as the primary example (even though it was unnamed) and I'm sure did not intend it as corporate advertising.   Adding to that, Union busting is not a primary reason for union decline, in fact, it is an "illusion" promoted by writers such as Logan and not supported with economic or encyclopedic  research so I added the statistics. To then say that union decline is the reason that "one agency" has had to seek international markets" is false also. I added the data showing the reasons for union decline written by academics and unbiased economists (i.e loss of manufacturing jobs, globalization, and decline of union jobs overall) of which union busting is a small part and was much more prevalent in the 70s and 80s. The Burke Group has been international for decades and did not "seek" international markets starting in 2000. The Burke Group already known as "international consultants" were sought by UK firms as a result of the law change that occurred that year and not because of union decline in the US. Mega unions in the UK were seeking to be "automatically recognized" (means no ballot) as sole agent for "collective bargaining" at workplaces. Ballots in the UK are similar to "elections". Employers did not understand new procedures regarding "recognition" and "ballots" or how to protect workers so that they could exercise their right to choose between keeping their individual union memberships or  "recognition" of ONE union as their bargaining agent. History now shows (see The Burke Group most of the "unionized" employees voted against "recognition" (yet remained unionized which (as I explained above) is an entirely different concept from the U.S. and has nothing to do with union busting. I believe the original author started with a flawed premise and then tried to develop it with very little expertise in the area and used certain citations which essentially misrepresented realities of "international dimensions" which actually were not international at all but merely U.S to U.K

You say this is not a place for soapbox, battleground or propaganda? Are you kidding? This is full of union propaganda and soapboxing which is what makes it a battleground. Instead of focusing on sections that take the propaganda from POV to NPOV, why not focuse on the sections that many editors above including the Peer Review committee have addressed such as "Citizens Alliance"  and "Methods of Union Busting" which is filled   empty citation boxes? I haven't analyzed this article as thoroughly as you but where exactly are corporations using this for commercial purposes? Are you referring to the section called "Organizations as Union Busters? Aren't you the one who wrote that?  I agree it should be removedJbowersox (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I already know what is coming may I once again add I am not an agent of The Burke Group. I know what I know because I have attended several workshops, academic debates, white papers, seminars, and discussion groups regarding UK laws and models as the topic where UK firms, lawyers and at times TBG have been keynote speakers. They are opened to management and union personnel.Jbowersox (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives
Does anyone know how to set up an archive for this talk page...it's too long.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AATP, NB circumstances and context for archiving.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have any objections if I set a bot to archive any thread that hasn't gotten a reply in 14 days?LedRush (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I am against bot archiving at this moment, there are a lot of disputes here which are helpful to see in order to reference, I would prefer not to have to go through archives at this stage.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you against some normal archiving? The page is so long that new editors are greatly discouraged from editing.LedRush (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the resolution of sockpuppet issue and that things have been quiet here for more than a week, have begun a manual archive.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Continued insertion of US specific language and items into introduction
Unfortunately, I see no consensus for the changes that have been made to the introduction which was previously agreed. In response to the claim by the editor Collect: "the UDHR says unions are good, therefore "union busting" must be bad." There is nothing in the UDHR which states unions are "good". The initial two sentences were agreed to in a compromise to include the phrase "used by trade unions and others" to address the view that some editors regarded the phrase "union busting" as negative. This of course is debatable, but in order to stem debate this was the compromise. Now there is a bizarre turn of phrase doubly qualified. Use of the term "uncomplimentary" only makes matters worse. Given the difficulty that occurred in reaching the introduction as it was, the good faith action regarding the introduction would be to discuss changes here and wait for agreement before making the change (as was done in the case of and/or). This sentence: "The UDHR and its Covenants have not been ratified by the United States, although it has ratified the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." is utterly confusing and irrelevant. Why the continued insertion of US specific items?  With regard to the insertion of the right-to-work laws, this is incredibly US specific.  I can see use for its discussion within the article, but mentioned as it does, returns us back to the problem of the introduction using terms that are not global in understanding or use.  Also, it needs to be noted that the international understanding of "Right to work" is as a human right to employment guaranteed by the state.  So we once again have a problem about US specific language (the right to work page redirects to the right to work law page which should have a disambiguation page actually). I will remove non-agreed sentences and would ask editors who are intent on further inclusions to the introduction to discuss the matter first (as was done with the introduction, where no changes were made until agreement was reached). Proposed changes should to be discussed here and an agreement reached before being made.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The top of the Union Busting article states "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page." Does that not mean it is US specific?Jbowersox (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag is there to highlight the fact that the article suffers from problems outlined in WP:BIAS. The article is not called "union busting in the USA"--that is the crux of the problem.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Workers as union busters" section.
I've commented on the need to remove this section already. The peer review noted: No reliable sources are cited, and the idea that workers are union busters is not supported by any reliable sources that I could find. The section in question should be removed, along with the corresponding claim in the lead. The problem is not simply the lack of sources (let alone reliable sources), the problem is that the concept is not supported by any sources (NB union busting firms are not reliable sources). But here is a full analysis of why the section is completely wrong.

Paragraph 1 deals with an issue that is US-specific and simply describes actions which may occur as part of an organising drive by a union. The only mention of anti-union activities is not really an anti-union activity, it is just the mention that workers may not wish to be in a union. A worker freely expressing a view not to join a union cannot be construed as union busting.

Paragraph 2 is a case of deceptive editing and not using the source properly. Clicking on the cited link sends one to the WSJ page, but the full article is not available. Searching the net, one finds the full article here, which notes, "The lawsuit against Unite Here highlights the staunch antiunion position of Cintas, which has funded the suit and fought unionization at every turn."

Paragraph 3 is simply a citation of an article of a 20-person protest (so less than 0.2% of the workers at the worksite) expressing the view not to be in a union. The first paragraph of the cited article is here.

Paragraph 4 is basically a rant against wage labour from anarcho-syndicalists (or perhaps libertarian communists, I'm not sure). The source is marginal at best, contains only two unclear sentences on the issue and might be appropriate for issues dealing with corruption in unions or with a labour dispute, but it is not clear at all.

Paragraph 5 material used inappropriately, 40 years old but used to indicate contemporary phenomena, not clear what union is being cited (never heard of the Retail Clerks), seems to me to be an issue related to a demarcation dispute, which again is not union busting.

Paragraph 6 is another misrepresentation, the issue has nothing to do with union busting, but is a case of a labour dispute. In this case the employer happens to be a union and the workers, the union's employees. To repeat, this is a labour dispute, the workers are not seeking to destroy, subvert etc the union, they just want better pay and conditions and are using time-honoured means to achieve this.

Paragraph 7 is US specific and seems only to indicate the law in the USA when workers want to freely choose not to be in a union.

Given the entirety of problems with the material here and the fact that the concept has no basis, I again propose this material be removed.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree -- mostly.


 * Also, the section attributed some facts which are true, but which were not mentioned in the source link provided.


 * See what i've done with it, let me know what you think. Richard Myers (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've done another edit to refine the point and try to make it a little more global and then keep the US part clearer. The Cintas case could possibly be brough back as that is clearly a case of the company using workers to union bust. Let me know what you think of the edit and bringing the Cintas material back.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I made two edits, one to neutralize one phrase, the other to fix an edit that didn't reflect source. Otherwise, i think the changes are OK. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looks good.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Introduction Definition of Union Busters
About the above, how do you conclude Workers as Union Busters has no basis? It does. And workers have legal means to "bust" their union. And why does a template clearly state  the article is about the United States while you continue admonish editors for being US centric?

With all due respect, the intro has been hard fought and many have put volumes of dialogue into it. I stepped away but am now revisiting not to hinder but to help. I agree with Goldsztajn that dialogue should continue towards agreements rather than an editor making unilateral changes. That being said, the current intro continues to present serious problems. One small way to work towards a solution is a decision regarding an international vs United States focus. Perhaps my comparison Uk to US will assist in that decision.

Heres one problem clause: "union busting actions subvert the organization and continuation of unions by sowing discord amongst union members, challenging unions via law courts, strike breaking, lockouts, violent suppression, the sponsorship of anti-union organizations, or the creation of employer-controlled trade unions.

"Sowing discord among union members is illegal and violates the NLRA, but sowing discord among NON members is NOT. But what is the definition of "sowing discord"? It is legal for employers to voice their position on unions and provide details such as dues, strike actions etc.

"Challenging unions via law courts" is legal for both Unions and Employers. A labor law court is the NLRB (in the U.S) and the CAC (in the UK) and takes the form of an employer or union appealing decisions such as ULP's (NLRB & CAC), makeup of bargaining unit (NLRB & CAC), supervisory  taint (NLRB), or automatic recognition vs a ballot (CAC).

"Strikes, Work Stoppages, lockouts and strike breaking" can occur only AFTER a contract has expire. A work stoppage may be initiated by the union, in the form of a strike, or by the employer, in the form of a lockout. A strike need not be a complete stoppage of work and may include labour withdrawals in the form of overtime bans, work slowdowns or rotating strikes. The purpose of a strike is to compel an employer to agree to terms and conditions of employment, whereas a lockout is intended to exert similar pressure on the employees and the union. The practical result of each, in terms of the impact on the employer's business, is virtually identical. The NLRA prohibits employees bound by a collective agreement from striking during the term of that agreement, and the union must not declare or authorize a strike of those employees during that term either. Similarly, an employer bound by a collective agreement must NOT (during the term of the collective agreement) lock out employees bound by the collective agreement. Where the collective agreement has expired, a legal strike or lockout still cannot occur until several preconditions are met!

"Employer-controlled "trade" unions" do not exist in the United States! The NLRA (Wagner Act and Taft Harley)  were enacted to prohibit  managers and supervisors as union members. Employers in the past were once able to create "controlled" unions by virtue of their supervisory staff maintaining union leadership positions. Prohibition of supervisors in unions prevented "employer controlled unions". In the United Kingdom, supervisory personnel ARE allowed as members of a union but I am unaware of "employer controlled unions". Please provide examples.

To "Hinder" workers from freely organizing" is illegal in the United States. Again, the NLRA strictly prohibits interference with organizing once "organizing activity" commences or is evidenced at a workplace. It is unlawful for any employer to inhibit or prohibit activities and organizing MUST be allowed freely.  However, prior to organizing, it is legal for an employer to practice union avoidance or and communicate company policy as it regards unions and to voice opinions and it continues to be legal after organizing.  Although opinions may be voiced,  it is against the law to forbid any worker  to join or to prevent anyone from joining.   It is NOT against the law for a worker to make inquiry to an employer or seek answers about what unionization means or how it may affect the workplace.

I agree with Goldsztajn that the addition of RTWS is problematic. RTWS do not force anyone to join a union or pay dues to a union. In the UK by law no one is forced to either join or pay dues as well. The UK is considered progressive and no one would call this union busting in the U.K.

Further comparison between the UK and US. In the UK, by law, closed shop, union shop, and agency shop are illegal; no one can be forced to join a union or be forced to pay dues. However, in the US, agency shop exists in NRTWS (non right to work states) where workers cannot be forced to join a union but can be forced (30-90 days from employment in a union workplace) to pay a "representation" fee to a union. Note it is called "representation" rather than "dues" because technically the worker is not union member. In NRTWS both non union and union members may exercise what are called BECK rights and pay only the amount of dues or "representation" fee the union uses towards collective bargaining activities (minus political contributions etc.). In RTWS (right to work states) a worker is not forced to join or pay union dues which is the same as is practiced all over the UK.

In summary, the existing union busting definition gives an impression that strike breaking, lockouts, and hindering organizing happen willy nilly with no regard to law as though the union is powerless and has no recourse. It misrepresents the "real" world application of terms and law.

It is not so easy to write a definition for "union busting" without defining what is legal to provide a reader unfamiliar to labor a true understanding. It is particularly difficult to do this on an international level.Jbowersox (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "And why does a template clearly state the article is about the United States while you continue admonish editors for being US centric?" Read WP:BIAS. The tag is there to WARN people that the article lacks a global understanding and presents material specific to the USA as if this constituted a global understanding. There is nothing in the present introduction which cannot be found in cases from the ILO's Freedom of Association Committee, material from which is amply referenced and quoted already on this talk page.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added the fact that the Wagner Act outlawed company unions in the United States. It is, of course, in the United States section. Richard Myers (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Union busting and human rights in USA
Given the preponderant contributions of late focusing on the USA, most of which attempt to justify union busting practices, this recent report from Human Rights Watch is of note: Congress should pass the Employee Free Choice Act to help remedy glaring deficiencies in current US labor law that significantly impair the right of workers to freely choose whether to form a union. Workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively is well established under international human rights law. As a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and party to several important international legal instruments, the United States is legally bound to protect this fundamental right. In practice, it falls far short, and failure by US employers to respect workers’ right to freedom of association is rampant. The report contains evidence of the denial of the right to freedom of association and how US firms work to dertail the exercise of those rights, and the role of the US government in undermining freedom of assocation rights. This is a good resource and it will be helpful to include material from this as we move to improve the article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

None of the contributions attempt to "justify" union busting practices. You seem to simply have an aversion to contributions offering balance. The contributions to the article are truthful, NPOV, and encyclopedic. The report you cite from Human Rights Watch is an organization that reports torture and slavery and yet supports EFCA which at present is a contentious anti business bill in the United States awaiting presentation in the House of Representatives. For the HRW organization to equate EFCA in the same sentence with Somolia, India, and Uzbekistan is a joke. EFCA barely passed the House over a year ago and never made it to the Senate because it was known it would fail. Nancy Pelosi decided to wait a Democrat President. Obama has indicated he will not consider the bill at this time because it would send a negative message to business which is currently in recession and undergoing considerable layoffs and he needs business support for his stimulus plan. The bill calls for "card check" which means 50% plus 1 workers need only sign a card "yes or no" in the presence of a union organizer as a way to vote in a union. It eliminates secret ballot elections and ignores the other 49% of workers who may have no opportunity to vote at all. Unions back it saying it will increase memberships currently stunted by business yet data shows that unions win over 54% of their elections unfettered by business. Saturation in the media with "union busting" reports is part of the AFLCIO/TUC plan to get the bill passed. The bill was sponsored by the AFlCIO which together with several other unions donated over $441,000,000 in political contributions to the Democratic party to reelection campaigns as their investment in this bill. It not only calls for abolishment of secret ballot election, a fundamental democratic right in the United States, but binding arbitration meaning that if after 90 days from union certification from card check, the union or government will dictate the contract terms. The problem is that there is no incentive for a union to bargain in good faith knowing it can dictate terms after just 90 days. U.S. polls show that over 70% of workers (including unionized) do not support this bill and prefer "secret ballot union elections". The bill is very unpopular except among unions and Democrat candidates who need their money for reelection. The TUC (equiv to AFLCIO) in the UK has joined the AFLCIO in their efforts to get this bill passed in hopes of the same bill passing in the UK to support "automatic recognition" and end laws against closed shop in the UK. That is why EFCA and Human Rights have no part in this article which appears to be quickly becoming even more biased than it already is.Jbowersox (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed this from the United States section, since it seems more generalized. I could see it being returned there, if discussion was added about what in this para is unique to the United States. Otherwise i think it might go elesewhere.


 * Union Busting is a term used by labor organizations, trade unions and others to describe anti-union activities that may be undertaken by employers, their proxies, state and local governments, and in some cases workers, often in response to activities such as picketing, card check, organizing, and/or strike actions.


 * Richard Myers (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, i like the idea of not mentioning specific countries in the intro. Thanks, Goldsztajn, i'm happy to see such references removed. Exceptions or special cases can be dealt with in the sections for those countries.


 * I also like neither "pejorative" nor "non-complimentary" in the introduction describing the term union busting. It is a descriptive term that is probably disliked by some union busters, so i wouldn't object to some discussion of that fact somewhere within the article, if someone can document it. But it is appropriate as article title for several reasons unrelated to its descriptive nature that have been discussed above, i won't re-hash.


 * To respond to the claim that pro-union buster propaganda adds balance, this is an article about union busting, not an article about all aspects of labor relations. Those who would like to see an article about labor relations that contains information about all aspects of labor relations consulting are certainly welcome to start such an article. Richard Myers (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No one said that pro-union buster propoganda adds balance. Please don't make strawmen: it is insulting and does not assume good faith on the part of others.  People have said that much of the article has quotes, language, and analysis that is anti-union busters.  Adding balance to the article is not only good for an article, it is mandated by Wikipedia policy.LedRush (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that adding balance to the article is good for the article, and that it is Wikipedia policy. The expression "pro-union buster propaganda" is my own, based upon my evaluation of some edits. Maybe i should call it "pro-union buster publicity."


 * Speaking of such publicity -- a current item that could use attention -- i used the expression "targeted for publicity" in the current section, Workers assisting union busters. I'd like that phrase to be more neutral, the word 'targeted' is a bit strong, but i didn't come up with anything. Suggestions? best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"workers may be targeted for publicity by such employer-supported organizations" to "employer-supported organizations may direct their publicity towards workers". The entire sentence would read: Because decertification elections depend upon a show of support from the workers, such as submitting dated signatures from 30 percent of a union's membership in support of an election, employer-supported organizations may direct their publicity towards workers.LedRush (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The notion that unions have a "human right" to deny the use of secret ballot elections is beyond laughable, as is the "entry" itself. An other laughable implication contained within the first post in this section:  the notion that Human Rights Watch is a non-partisan organization not pushing a left wing agenda.  This entry is biased enough as it is, but the use of Human Rights Watch as a definitive source is like quoting a white paper from the AFL CIO and then acting as if it is the final word on whether "freedom of association" being denied in the US.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Need to remove repetitious text from article
Note this paragraph here in Expansion of Business section: Private sector union membership in the United States has declined from 24.5% in 1973 to 7.4% in 2006 due to a significant decline in the industrialized sector and manufacturing industry.[11] Union job decline due to globalization along with increased numbers of union busting consultancies have both contributed to the decline in union membership. Manufacturing to private wage and salary employment has fallen from 32.5% in 1973 to 14.6% in 2006 with union jobs falling from 7.8 million in 1973 to 1.8 million in 2006.[12]

then note almost identical text here in Impact of globalization on unions: Private sector union membership in the United States alone has declined from 24.5% in 1973 to 7.4% in 2006 due to the significant decline in the industrialized sector and manufacturing industry.[103]Manufacturing compared to private sector wage and salary employment has fallen from 32.5% in 1973 to 14.6% in 2006 with union jobs falling from 7.8 million in 1973 to 1.8 million in 2006[104] Union job decline due to globalization along with increased numbers of union busting consultancies have both contributed to the decline in union membership.

Note that the unlinked references are exactly the same. This once again indicates the dumping of text into the article solely to prove a point, rather than contributions to constructive editing.

I suggest removal of the text from both sections.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To Goldsztajn: It was repeated but not intentionally. Remove one. The data provides academic well cited material important to the article which inserts "facts" between "propaganda". I did not delete the original theme. The statistical text regarding loss of union jobs due to loss of manufacturing jobs due to globalization is quoted in the halls of Parliament as well as the US Congress if not by virutally every economist across the globe. It also adds other economists and authors to the reference list otherwise dominated by the same authors which do exactly as you say "prove a point". The article needs additional NPOV citations and proper context to understand current economic conditions.

To Ledrush and RMeyers: Interesting new approach. The article reads better. But the introduction still contains troubling words that misrepresent the law, and the overall labor relations community in the 21st Century both sides. To be encyclopedic it should "try" to represent accepted universal law and current best practices. It currently does not. As you've noticed, I am contributing to the talk page and not making changes to the article. If an editor insists to maintain the current introduction, I believe you must insist that each item be put into proper context and listed i.e. employer controlled unions, lockouts etc beneath in subtitles with corresponding citations and a sentence indicating how or when those practices could occur (under what circumstances). Otherwise a reader has no idea what you are talking about, especially since so much is outdated or unlawful. Additionally, it would be NPOV to include within (Workers assisting Union Busters) that all decerts, election petition withdrawals, and/or NO votes are not due to "union busting" by employers and that workers  think  freely and exercise 1st amendment freedom of speech rights regarding their destiny and union  memberships "without" the presence of union busters at every election or card signing event. Ask yourselves, "Do workers only become unionized in the presence of professional organizers?" No. Workers organize themselves and decertify themselves all the time without assistance from professionals on either side. There is a tone in this article that reads demeaning to workers as though they are lemmings led to the slaughter unless somehow "told" what to do by either side. Good luck with the article.Jbowersox (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Text removed from expansion of business section, title shortened to reflect section content.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The universal laws in regard to union busting are the UDHR and the ILO Convention on Freedom of Association. I tried to have this included from the beginning in the introduction and this was disputed.  I see no reason to go back to this.  There is ample evidence already in this talk page of the circumstances outlined in the introduction.  There are ample references.  Our task is now to refine those references into the article.  The introduction is a reflection of GLOBAL phenomena because as an encyclopaedic entry entitled "Union Busting" it must be that.  With regard to the insertion of this material, the question is not whether it is true or not (although in reality global union membership decline/growth is quite a complex issue over the last 20-30 years), it is whether it is relevant to this article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You claim examples from your "global" intro are already in the article? Where? If you want a discussion about relevence, explain the relevance of union busting "Methods" using only examples cited from Martin Levitt's book describing the USA? You insist on "global" which is fine but continue to describe only US centric examples. I see no examples describing "violent suppression" outside the USA or "employer controlled unions" outside the USA, lockouts or work stoppages outside USA. Rewrite "Methods" to represent a "global" perspective by removal of Levitt's which only describe (1970-1984)in the USA if you want to prove relevence. And don't bother arguing he was global. Levitt was unable to leave the US thru most of his professional career because he was on probation (mid '70's to his death) with restricted movement (when not in prison). Confessions of a Union Buster (operative word is "A" union buster) represents nothing "global". He was remanded back to prison in 1995, completed his debt to society, never wrote another book, never left the US, nor represented his 1994 book as global.Jbowersox (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jbowersox has me confused with someone else. It appears my contributions on this page are not being read correctly.  I have never edited or inserted a single item from Confesions of a Union Buster.  The examples I referred to are on this page (ie the Talk page).--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jbowersox, when you wrote,


 * it would be NPOV to include within (Workers assisting Union Busters) that all decerts, election petition withdrawals, and/or NO votes are not due to "union busting" by employers and that workers think freely and exercise 1st amendment freedom of speech rights regarding their destiny and union memberships "without" the presence of union busters at every election or card signing event.


 * I didn't understand the point you were making. Could you rephrase that please? thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

R. Meyers: Sorry, it was a hodge podge. I guess I want to ask if you consider a worker's NO vote during card check a form of union busting? I'm trying to hone in on something here. I want to say that all decisions by workers whether card signing Yes or NO, decertifying, or voting Yes or No in an NLRB election are not always the result of union busters or union organizers exerting influence or mind control. Workers can operate independently and that is why I tried to establish their own category. It was not intended as a hit piece. The new title links them to union "busters" rather than allowing that workers make their own independent decisions about unions. It just seems like it needs to be conveyed that workers own their minds and can "initiate" their own fate absent any employer or organizer intervention especially during decertifying. Let's agree that there are some bad unions and some bad employers. Workers must be able to extricate themselves from bad unions same as bad employers and their only power is their own initiation? You were right that workers decertify to move to another better union. They also vote no at card check. Look at SEIU vs CNA? It is not just a choice about unionizing, it is a choice about WHICH union. Why did Obama make it unlawful to post that workers have a right to decertify? It's an important right for workers to know. I guess I want this article to convey respect for workers as a strong independent body of souls capable of controlling their own fate rather than lemmings lead to the slaughter by whomever can exert the most influence one side or the other. By the executive order, is Obama trying to prevent decertifying? This is a concern to me regarding worker rights and I would appreciate your insights. Jbowersox (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazing how the text being pointed out as an example of repitition lists every possible reason for a decline in union membership except for the most obvious: the fact that workers choose of their own free will that they want nothing to do with unions. As the above poster points out, it seems the author of the entry believes that anything short of calling unions the greatest things ever to exist on Earth somehow qualifies as "union busting".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Methods of Union Busting
This section needs serious attention. I know you don't want it to be me! So don't worry, I won't.  I went ahead and added to Strikes, Workstoppages, and Lockouts and deleted one small section above that read like pure gibberish. I will leave it to you and come in and out and make suggestions as it progresses. You have to agree that this article is really improving, but "Methods" is too much of one person's "opinion" and poorly cited. There are union buster sites that lay out the whole plan like http://www.anh.com/Content/Services.asp or http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/static/about/ Can Citizen's Alliance be shortened? Jbowersox (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the one small section that read like gibberish was awful. That is because someone summarized the original section to the point that it was meaningless. On the other hand, the original section was not balanced, and had non-neutral language. I have fixed the non-neutral language in restoring the section. But it still needs some balance. Richard Myers (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My reaction to Strikes, Workstoppages, and Lockouts --


 * "Strikes, Work Stoppages, lockouts and strike breaking" can occur only AFTER a contract has expired.


 * Not only is there no source cited for this statement, it is false. Strikes can occur during contracts, or without a contract entirely. Ditto for work stoppages. What is the point of adding these statements, that would appear to be purely wishful thinking from an employer's point of view?


 * What is the source for these additions?


 * And where exactly does this come from: "United States labor law (NLRA) prohibits employees bound by a collective agreement from striking during the term of that agreement, and the union must not declare or authorize a strike of those employees during that term either."


 * It is misleading, at the least. Why else would "no strike" clauses exist in contracts? If there is not an explicit or implied no strike clause, or if there is a clause that permits a work stoppage (such as for safety violations), then the above statement is not just misleading, it is false.


 * And what is the point of adding capitalization where it doesn't belong, and even an exclamation point (generally inappropriate in an encyclopedic article, and certainly not justified here)? Richard Myers (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit was even worse than what i had appreciated. It intentionally changed a summary from The Pinkerton Story into a quotation from the same source. This is a dishonest edit:


 * 


 * Very disturbing, that an edit would falsify someone else's contributions, just for the purpose of making it appear to be "one person's opinion" rather than a general statement based upon a source. Richard Myers (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant material from "Goals of Union Busting"
This is quite possibly the most turgid and tangential material yet to appear in this article. It is an extraordinarily long-winded and dull description of the obvious and the irrelevant. Once again, like so much added here recently, most of it could go into different articles, it does not belong here and remains US-centric. For example this entire section: Labor views the goals of labor relations consultants (union busters) differently than non union companies that want to remain union free.

Labor views organizations as seeing human labor to be an economic factor of production, alongside capital, land (including raw materials) and entrepreneurship so reducing the cost of the resource contributes to the corporation's net income.

Conversely, Dr. Barry Hirsch of Trinity University writes, "Unions in effect tax company returns via wage increases that are not offset by productivity gains. Union wage premiums are shown to be sizable, with only modest declines as union density has fallen. The combination of a union tax and sluggish governance is proving debilitating in economic environments that are highly competitive and dynamic" and has thus contributed to union decline and an organizations desire to remain non union.[19]

Unions state that unionized employees secure better wages and superior benefits compared to their non-union counterparts[9] at the cost of those outside the unions.[20] Because unions concern themselves with issues such as wages, hours, and working conditions, the company not only must consider the possibility that unions will raise the cost of doing business, but unions may seek work rules which reduce the flexibility of management in running the business.

Conversely surveys show that "workers want not only greater participation in workplace decision making, but also a cooperative rather than adversarial workplace environments." [21]

Unions state that nations without universal health care, such as the United States, have negotiated health care plans which may confer a significant cost on the corporation and frequently seek to negotiate pension plans for represented employees as well, establishing an additional expense for the company.

Conversely, non union organizations believe they offer competitive health benefits and pension plans without risk of mismanagement and fraud by unions citing reports such as one dated June 15, 2000, where federal authorities arrested 120 defendants across the country in a securities racket involving three unions and five La Cosa Nostra families.[22]

Unions state that lower pay and fewer benefits provide more scope for management to agree to differing standards of health and safety and may translate directly into greater corporate profitability. Additionally, they believe without unions workers can be employed for longer hours, increasing profits and believe, therefore, that many employers seek to prevent unions from conducting successful organizing campaigns, and some may pursue options to undermine or eliminate unions which are already in existence. During the 1960s and early 1970s, there was a general reluctance on the part of employers to engage in union busting.[9]

Conversely, economist Dr. Edward Lazear states, "Costly transacting in union workplaces stems in part from the adversarial nature of traditional unionism and limited opportunity for worker voice directly with management. Embedded in the National Labor Relations Act NLRA is a view that workplaces rely on top-down control from managers and supervisors (who cannot be unionized under the NLRA) to workers with jobs with minimal decision making discretion. Technology is increasingly eliminating production and service jobs. Worker decision making, cooperation, and a worker's identification with one's employer rather than a union agent are now essential elements of performance in most workplaces.[23] Why employers and governments seek to suppress, destroy or subvert unions is not the key issue in this article, that would be opposition to trade unions, the key issues for this article are union busting, what it is, where it happens and what occurs when it happens. While employer or government justifications may be useful to cite in some cases, this material is not that, it is simply a meandering discourse on organised labour irrelevant to this article. The material may belong elsewhere, but not here. It should be removed.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree fully. This is some of what i complained about, above, when i observed,


 * "The weight of (the) 'academic' contributions has made the first part of the article incredibly tedious and uninteresting, which in my view entirely destroys its usefulness to anyone truly interested in its subject matter."


 * Talk:Union_busting


 * Granted, we're advised to focus on edits, not editors. Well, then. If edits have the agenda of making an article irrelevant, they can do so simply by filling it with irrelevant content, so long as no one challenges. Thanks for noting the problem.


 * I will restore some of the original content from this section, which had much greater relevance, i think. I'm sure it will still need improvement, but i expect it will be better than what has replaced it. Richard Myers (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Edits don't have an agenda. Anyway, the section wasn't great, but I think it is essential to talk about the goals of union busting in an article about union busting.LedRush (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is woeful. The goals of union busting are self-referential by definition: to get rid of unions.  As I stated, the justifications for union busting need to be discussed, but they should not be the central point of this article or occupy the kind of space this material does.  Moreover, none of the material above provides any information or insight into the issue the article is tasked to explain.  This is one of the fundamental problems identified in the peer review of why the article is too long and contains too much material which is utterly tangental.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, peer review comments on this section for reference: Private stands out as a poorly-written section: it's too long, the title makes no sense, and the paragraphs look like they were written by alternating sides of a debate team, which is a terrible way to write an encyclopedia. If I see another "Conversely," I'll scream. --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

relevancy of this section: Impact of globalization on unions??
I do not see how this section is relevant at all to the article. The material is possibly useful for an article on the impact of globalisation on trade unions, but there is a single sentence in this entire section which mentions union busting, and then it is merely an assertion with no reference or verifiability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Globalization does have an impact on the demise of unions, including the willful and the incidental destruction of unions. The section could be made relevant and useful. But while the info there may be interesting and informative, it doesn't make the connection. i don't have any material at hand right now to rescue the section. I wouldn't miss it if it went away for now. A good way to do that would be to move the whole text of the section to the talk page, so others could see what had been there. But if someone wanted to make it relevant, that might be better. Richard Myers (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There were originally two different paragraphs that I can't find now but one was titled "globalization" and the other was "international dimensions" neither of which I originated. Both indicated union busting as the cause for the decrease in union membership, the citation was John Logan i believe. I didn't delete either section but respected the original text and added to it. It is convenient to find a quote or opinion that you agree with to insert to this article but unfortunately the quote, although it existed, was not verifiable with supporting encyclopedic or economic scholarship. It misrepresents the larger global phenomena regarding the loss of manufacturing jobs as the major cause for decreased union jobs thus memberships. You've argued for this article to be global. I agree the "globalization of jobs) may not belong in the article but neigthter DOES a false claim that union busting is the cause of decreased union membership.  It is only a small part.  Now that the global picture is provided  you prefer to delete the entire section.  So be it.  But you must also remove reference to union busting being the cause for the decline of unions worldwide. It is no so.Jbowersox (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleting the material, and removing it to talk page.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Strikes and Stoppages
Are you asking whether the text was about Canada, US, New Zealand? It differs. I've provided some definitions as follows: " Although the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) grants employees the right to strike, not all strikes are protected. If a collective bargaining agreement contains a no-strike clause (the union agrees not to go on strike while the contract is in effect), a strike during the life of the contract would not be protected. The strikers could be fired. The NLRA requires health-care workers to give ten days notice before they go on strike. If these workers strike without giving notice, then they are not protected and can be fired. Sit-down strikes and intermittent strikes are also unprotected. An example of an intermittent strike is when employees engage in a five-hour work stoppage one day, then two days later engage in another five-hour work stoppage, and then two days later do it again."

"The purpose of a strike is to compel an employer to agree to terms and conditions of employment, whereas a lockout is intended to exert similar pressure on the employees and the union. The practical result of each, in terms of the impact on the employer's business, is virtually identical."

1) http://srv130.services.gc.ca/indexjurisprudence/summaryissue-eng.aspx?issuesn=1159&level=3&desc=strike%20or%20lockout 2) http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Strikes_and_lock-outs 3)http://srv130.services.gc.ca/indexjurisprudence/summaryissue-eng.aspx?issuesn=1159&level=3&desc=strike%20or%20lockout —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbowersox (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is again the repetition of utterly limited and irrelevant material, it reads like a third-rate management manual. (Leave aside the material is just wrong, strikes are not only about 'economic' issues...eg, in the last year alone workers took strike action in the United States of America against the war in Iraq, in Korea against the importation of unsafe beef , in Thailand against a corrupt government  etc etc).  What is important here is not whether there are strikes or not, what is important is this material remains irrelevant to the article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Citizens Alliance suggestion
I suggest moving this:

Citizens' Alliance

to Citizens' Alliance (Trinidad and Tobago)

then moving some of the Citizen's Alliance section in this article to a new article called Citizen's Alliance, leaving a paragraph or two and a link to this new main article. There is a tremendous amount of history relating to the Citizen's Alliance in the United States, since there were such organizations across the nation, some lasting more than a decade. Some of them had different names, but acted as part of a national anti-union network that has been referred to by the common name. Some books have been published about these organizations, although i don't have any handy.

An alternative is to name the new article Citizen's Alliance (United States). I think it is probable, however, that the U.S. Citizen's Alliance historically is of significant enough significance (to coin a redundancy) to justify holding the main title. I'm open to persuasion either way.

Note that i haven't explored where the apostrophe is most appropriately placed. Richard Myers (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created a dab page here, moved the T&T page here and moved the material from the union busting page here.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving Citizens' Alliance is a good idea. But I think based on the previous comments from G (can't see the name for proper spelling) regarding strikes I now understand why different editors have had such difficulty settling on definitions in the intro. Its apples and oranges. This article is about union busting. In its present (or should I say past) form it described the United States/Canada, its territories and other western countries such as UK, Australia and New Zealand. The citations describe the same written 100% by western authors. There's a push from one editor for a non US centric article. It just isn't. The intro about governments, human rights violations, employer controlled unions (not really applicable to western countries) and now equating  "labor union strikes"  to political demonstrations against war, tainted meat, and totalitarian governments is going far afield. The current intro paragraph does not describe what follows in the article. If the article cannot modify and expand the intro, then the intro needs to change. I'm not in the inner circle so I'll leave it to your peers and perhaps return when its decided what this article is about. Thank you.Jbowersox (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Citizens' Alliance (Trinidad and Tobago) has got nothing to do with union busting and is not in any way connected with organisations of a similar name in the US. Dave Smith (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppets blocked
Several editors who have edited this article, and The Burke Group, have just been blocked for sock puppetry. I initiated the inquiry some weeks ago, but did not file for a formal investigation. Someone who had previously banned sock puppets from the Burke Group article marshaled evidence that these were likely a continuation of the same abuses, and filed for a formal investigation. The formal investigation by an administrator took only a few minutes to conclude that there was just cause for a new set of blocks. Summary here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Oppo212

regards, Richard Myers (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dirty tricks section
This is a botched edit, which lost the original context, and assigned the wrong source:


 * 

This statement:

During the 1970s and 1980s, labor relations consultants would exploiting managers' racial, class, and gender prejudices and fears.

comes from Levitt, and Levitt was originally sourced. Because of editing errors, it is now attributed to Logan.

Fixing source with original content, and repairing wording... Richard Myers (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

removed globalisation section
for reference the removed section on globalisation and trade unions.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Impact of globalization on unions

World globalization has had a considerable impact on unions, resulting in the offshoring of factories and jobs; devastation of the manufacturing base in many industrialized nations, sometimes referred to as deindustrialization; an acceleration in corporate mergers and acquisitions; and changing immigration patterns have reduced union jobs and thus the numbers of members in the Unites States. Manufacturing compared to private sector wage and salary employment has fallen from 32.5% in 1973 to 14.6% in 2006 with union jobs falling from 7.8 million in 1973 to 1.8 million in 2006 Globalization has impacted union decline worldwide to a larger extent than union busting consultancies which  have had more impact in the United States than Europe.

Over the last few decades trade union membership throughout both western Europe and many eastern European states has collapsed at dramatic rates. In contrast to the Soviet-controlled era before the collapse of the iron curtain, almost all eastern European workplaces were unionised. Poland is now only 14% unionized. Most of those who remain trade union members in Poland work for former state-owned companies.

In 8 out of the 27 member states of the European Union (EU), more than half of the employed population are members of a trade union while the EU's 4 most populated states all have modest levels of unionisation:   Italy at 30%, the UK  at 29%, Germany at 27% and France at only 9%. As a consequence, 3 out of every 4 people employed in the EU are now not members of a trade union. Furthermore, in every EU country outside Scandinavia (except Belgium), trade union membership is either static or continues to decline. In the UK where a clear formal procedure for trade union recognition was introduced through the 1999 Employment Relations Act, the unionisation of employees has remained somewhat static. Private sector union membership in the United States alone has declined from 24.5% in 1973 to 7.4% in 2006 due to the significant decline in the industrialized sector and manufacturing industry.

removed goals section
Removed another one of the severely problematic sections with too much extremely tangential material (and utterly US-specific). There are a few (small) parts which may be salvageable. Text below for reference.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Goals of union busting

When it comes to the financial balance sheet, an employer typically considers labor, i.e., human resources, to be a resource like energy, fuel, or raw material. That is, reducing the cost of the resource contributes to the corporation's net income.

Unionized employees generally secure better wages and superior benefits compared to their non-union counterparts. Because unions concern themselves with issues such as wages, hours, and working conditions, the company not only must consider the possibility that unions will raise the cost of doing business, but unions may seek work rules which reduce the flexibility of management in running the business.

In nations without universal health care, such as the United States, negotiated health care plans may confer a significant cost on the corporation. Unions frequently seek to negotiate pension plans for represented employees as well, establishing an additional expense for the company.

Lower pay, fewer benefits, and more managerial control over working conditions, scheduling, and hours for the workforce may translate directly into greater profitability. Therefore, many employers seek to prevent unions from conducting successful organizing campaigns, and some may pursue options to undermine or eliminate unions which are already in existence.

During the 1960s and early 1970s, there was a general reluctance on the part of employers to engage in union busting. Most employers were cautious about hiring consultants and attending union avoidance seminars.

Labor advocate Dr. John Logan writes, "Consultants began actively promoting the "morality of a union-free environment." More recently, "consultants have become ever more brazen about encouraging employers to fight unionization to the bitter end. Logan has observed that there is a "deep anti-union culture that historically and currently pervades US management."

In addition Logan says, "Employers that have been unionized may be hostile, neutral, or friendly to the union. Occasionally an employer will pretend to be neutral or friendly, while concealing hostile intent. In all cases, however, the goal of the union buster is to reduce the power, significance, and appeal of the union, or to curtail the union's ability to win gains for its members."

Because union activities affect economic relationships, some economists and political writers observe that the social impact justifies anti-union activities. Some economists argue that when the price of labor (the wage rate) is increased above the equilibrium price, unemployment will rise. According to this theory, it is no longer worthwhile for businesses to employ those laborers whose work is worth less than the minimum wage rate set by the unions. Such economists assert that when governments seek to reduce union powers, one of their goals is reducing unemployment. Other writers note that economic systems (including capitalism) may have an adverse social impact on working people, which unions seek to soften.

Economists Bryson and Freeman of Cambridge have concluded that "the demand for increased decision participation is similar for union and nonunion workers suggesting that many unions and non union organizations are not providing the voice that workers want. Labor relations consultants (union busters) promote the benefits of maintaining direct communication between workers and management, no strike actions or corresponding loss of wages, and no threat of being permanently replaced.  Currently workers vote for representation via secret ballot NLRB election procedures.  Reforms mandate union recognition via card check from a majority of signatures in support of a union in legislation currently under consideration called the Employee Free Choice Act.  Whether pro labor or pro management, organizers and executives need to note that workers' voices are not being met through the current system and although worker preferences are similar in the U.S. and U.K, outcomes differ in the U.K because it provides a greater range of institutional options."

"Union busters" and "changing focus of union busters" sections
Both of these sections contain now mostly confused material. They did originally have some relevant parts, but subsequent editing has made them rather meaningless and suffer from the problem outlined in the peer review, that they are written as if alternating arguments. My suggestion is that it should be removed, but a small section on the internationalisation of the US union busting firms be mentioned.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Material to make article international (Indonesia)
I'm going to start adding to the talk pages some references which I think would be helpful in making the article more international. This is quite a useful one to begin with: Indonesian company manager imprisoned for union-busting. A longer story in Bahasa Indonesia from a December 2008 Jawa Pos (Java Post) article covers the court case against the manager: Lurug Kejari, PN dan Temui Bupati. My Indonesian is not strong, but if I understand correctly this is the very first time someone has been charged and now convicted under Indonesia's anti-union-busting laws.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Material for making international (UK)
There is an important case of union busting with the denial of trade union rights at the GCHQ in the UK. Important because it is a good example of the union busting undertaken by a government/state, it was within the intelligence services and also because it led to a very long campaign to reclaim those rights. Some references here:

GCHQ - 25 years on

Ex-GCHQ staff win compensation

Union crusade rewarded as Cook lifts GCHQ ban

Also, there is a small wiki article here.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some further information useful for the UK: Man behind illegal blacklist snooped on workers for 30 years --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-union employers' organizations in the United States
I am not sure if this section (or the paragraph that follows it) belong in the article at all. It is merely a list of pro-business, anti-union companies and what they do. At worst, it opens Wikipedia to liability for those who take offense to the characterizations. At best, it is merely a list of companies. I don't see much that informs the viewer. I suggest that we condense the entire section into a briefer one that describes the activities of companies that would make the list, citing examples from the list when necessary.LedRush (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your reasoning. It is not a list of companies, rather it is a list of organisations/associations sponsored by employers and companies to restrict, hinder etc trade unions or workers joining trade unions.  None of the "characterisations" are unreferenced or unsourced, plenty of WP:RS there, so it does not open Wikipaedia to anything.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Goldsztajn. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I had two points. Firstly, the reliably sourced material is biased.  Secondly, the reliably sourced material doesn't add to the article.  It could be integrated more seemlessly in a section which briefly describes the activities that these companies engage in as a source of information about union busting, and not specifically about these companies.  Of course we should name the companies when making a point which illuminates union busting as a practice, but as it stands now it is basically just a list, albeit one that I've cleaned up a little bit to meet wikipedia's standards on bias.LedRush (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But generally speaking, they are not companies. They are associations and organizations, and some of them have been established for one specific purpose: countering or destroying unions.


 * If you can identify a specific example of bias, let us consider it. But also please consider, they are union busting organizations, and the article is about union busting. Where's the bias in accurately describing what they are? best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As stated above, I have already removed much of the obvious bias. Also, just replace the word "company" with "organization" and my second point has gone unaddressed.  The section is quite week and doesn't really add much to the article.  The organizations and the activities in which they engage should be integrated into the article or deleted.LedRush (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I note you changed "diatribe" to "critical speech" with this edit. Is that an example of the "bias" you mean in the section?  If someone says trade unions lead to "despotism, tyranny, and slavery" and the "ruin of civilization" you feel diatribe is incorrect?  If this is the "bias" to which you refer, then I think your case is very weak.  I disagree that the section does not add to the article, it shows the various forms over the last century in which employers have organised themselves to defeat unions and labour movements in the USA, which is a central issue to union-busting.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have brought up two points. One is about a change of word.  I changed the word because the article almost exclusively cites sources which are almost hysterical in their hatred for union busting.  Merely parroting this language is not helpful and goes against Wikipedia policy.  For several months I've spent some time making the language more neutral and encyclopedic, and almost none of these types of changes have been challenged, much lesss altered.  If you'd like to challenge that specific change, feel free.  I think the new language is better (because it makes the article sound more neutral in its presentation of opinions), but it doesn't make a huge difference.  Most of the changes make differences as they accumulate, making an encyclopedia look less like a biased labor cite that is incapable of intelligent research or critical thinking and more like a scholarly article.


 * Your second "point" doesn't really address my point at all. I have clearly stated that I would like to see the activities listed in the section discussed.  I have merely stated that the form in which they are currently in the article doesn't do the article justice.  The examples should be integrated into the article and not just listed by organization.  The listing format throws the focus of the article to the organizations themselves and not the actions of union busters, which should be the focus of this article.


 * In responding to me I hope that you take the time to actually read and analyze my points before you respond. Your baseless hostility towards me which manifests itself in your creation of strawmen and use of sarcastic language doesn't help the article, and is a poor reflection on you.  I hope you try to work on the article in a collaborative and non-hostile manner.LedRush (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked through your article edits since you returned, which you claim have removed bias. There are 11 edits.  Since returning you have already got into revert conflict with one editor here (given that you would be well aware there are active editors involved with this page, to come here and start deleting sections unannounced was not a good faith return). And now you throw around ad hominem attacks. Some of your recent edits are fine, they are quite unremarkable, but I would argue some of your edits have injected more POV. Aside from the removal of diatribe, this edit changes what was, to say the least, an extremely contestable viewpoint to something presented as fact, whereas before it was conveyed as a belief of some employers.  This edit removes a blockquote, supposedly for the purposes of paraphrasing, but changes the meaning of the quote and thus makes the attached reference misleading (Levitt is saying the ABC's "merit shop" was designed as to be "disengenous", "a ruse"; your edit misuses the Levitt reference to selectively state something about the "merit shop").  You did two edits  to the CUE section, but left the most serious problem in that section: the unreferenced, incorrectly-punctuated promo material lifted verbatim from the organisation's website.  You started this section posing a question, which was written as if you were open to replies which disagreed with you, however, now, after two editors politely disagree, it seems you are adamant that all that is acceptable is your viewpoint. For the record, none of the above (or this) is intended as sarcasm.  If you read it otherwise, you were and are mistaken. I am neither hostile nor frivolous. You may need to take some time away from the article if you are this wiki-stressed and sensitive after being back for just a few days.  Otherwise, if you want to collaborate, draft up an alternative and propose it here. --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't been in any "revert conflict". Please retract this lie.  I have addressed your points, while you make ad hominem attacks.  It seems that you are still incapable on intelligent discourse without resorting to childish rants.  When you grow up, I will be happy to work with you to make the article better.LedRush (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than getting into a pissing contest with Goldstazjn (he will always get the last word) I've created a subarticle Anti-union organizations in the United States which preserves the list-like language of this section. This has three distinct advantages to the current set up. 1. It makes this article more concise. People get a summary here and can go to the sub article for more info. 2. It makes a section that dealt only with the US shorter, thus giving us more room to make the article more international (can we delete the banner yet?). 3. It serves this article better by integrating the info from the list into actual points. This can be done better as I've just made a quick pass at it. I would suggest shortening the beginning of the section significantly and then enumerating three or four categories of activities that the organizations participate in and use the organizations' activities as examples. This really should be a non-controversial change, but we'll see...LedRush (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Time out..not down the same road please....
LedRush posted the following on my talk page under the title "Your inflammatory posts": You have accused me of getting into a "revert conflict". This is incorrect. I would appreciate it if you retract this statement. Thank you in advance.LedRush (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I have moved the dicussion here as it refers to a statement I made above and involves edits to the article. The exact statement I made was: Since returning you have already got into revert conflict with one editor here (given that you would be well aware there are active editors involved with this page, to come here and start deleting sections unannounced was not a good faith return). It is basically a simple statement of fact in relation to the following edits:

-LedRush deletes entire section with no discussion on the talk page -Richard Meyers then reverted the text with this edit

-LedRush returns and deletes two of the section's three paragraphs with this edit without discussing what was obviously an action which was contested.

I would contrast that to my behaviour in January, when I made an edit  and after LedRush reverted that edit, I left the reversion, did not return to the text at all and waited until there was agreement on the discussion page. Or for that matter, all the material that can be seen above, where first I made proposals about removing material, waited for discussion, and then following discussion edited or removed the material to the talk page for reference.

Some people believe in a one-revert rule, I try to practice it in spirit and in letter, I have so far. I see it as conflict when an editor comes to the page and unannounced deletes sections and then asks questions and refuses to accept two polite disagreements. Did the conflict involve a revert? Yes. If LedRush thinks I made an accusation of edit warring, I did not. If LedRush thinks I made an accusation of breaking the 3RR, I did not. I simply noted that LedRush's return to the page had generated revert conflict, that is a conflict around reversion. I do not wish to address this issue again. I have asked LedRush not to edit my talk page, I hope this request can be respected. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened was a the proper usage of Wikipedia. I made an edit.  Rich reverted.  I made a new edit which tried to address both his points and mine.  Rich hasn't objected.  This isn't a revert conflict.  Gold's inflammatory posts and ad hominem attacks belie his apparent lack of good faith.


 * Furthermore, I do not believe that these discussions are best made in public, but in private. For that reason, I will not respect Gold's request not to post on his wall.  Additionally, I will delete posts that are intended to be only used on his wall if they are repeated elsewhere.LedRush (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have previously requested you refer to me correctly with my full username, please do so. For the second time, do not edit my talk page.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

New research on union-busting in the USA
Kate Brofenbrenner, a longstanding US labour studies academic from Cornell University, has just released the following: No Holds Barred—The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing. Some useful recent data on union-busting tactics for the article, based on analysis of 1999-2003 NLRB election campaigns: --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 63% of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union;
 * 54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings;
 * 57% of employers threaten to close the worksite;
 * 47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and
 * 34% of employers fire workers.

removed text
The following text had a citation tag added:

Some corporations enforce a policy prohibiting use of employees' last names. While this may be justified for privacy reasons, one of the aims of such privacy may be inhibiting unionization.

I've removed it to here for further discussion if needed.--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a possible source:


 * To prevent associates from hearing any alternative view, Wal-Mart goes to extraordinary lengths to keep union organizers from contacting employees. Union organizers are forbidden to solicit employees on the job, and company policy makes it hard for pro-union workers to help union organizers contact co-workers off the job. On name tags, on the schedule, in meetings, company policy requires that Wal-Mart associates be referred to only by their first names (or first names and an initial for very common names.) Employee schedules are posted behind glass so no one can remove them. Anyone taking notes or photographing the schedule would be caught on closed-circuit camera, one of as many as 40 cameras that may be placed around a Wal-Mart store. The parking lot is also monitored.


 * An employee who shows an interest in other employees' last names is marked by management as a "person who bears watching."


 * In Urbana, Ohio, a Wal-Mart worker was given a written warning for trying to get her co-workers' addresses to invite them to a baby shower.


 * I worked as an organizer at Wal-Mart within the past year, and this extreme paranoia about names is absolutely true.


 * best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that the source is a reliable one, and even if it is, it only supports the proposition that one company engages in the activity. If you want the statement as it stands (rather than just applying to Wal-Mart), it's probably better to get another source, preferably one that is more mainstream.


 * Honestly, though, the statement seems generic enough that it shouldn't be too hard to prove. I wouldn't object to keeping it in the article pending a better source.LedRush (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, Wal-Mart is not the only company that does this; i know of a hotel chain that forbids use of workers' last names as well. But i don't have an encyclopedia-acceptable secondary source for that information. I'll keep my eyes open, but if anyone else locates another source in the meantime, please contribute the info. Richard Myers (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it. And as I said above, I don't mind the statement going in pending a better cite.  If we don't find one, we could slightly alter the statement to say something like, "A company may inhibit unionization by enforcing a policy prohibiting use of employees' last names.  Wal-mart is known to do this, though the practice may be justified for privacy reasons."  Just a thought...LedRush (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

material for making international (Mexico)
"Mexico's Calderón Shuts Out the Lights: Modernizing or Union-Busting?" Time Magazine Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2009 --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

History text
Workers have formed unions for a variety of reasons, but primarily, to improve wages, hours, and working conditions. Many employers may prefer to prevent unions from organizing because unionization can cause higher labor costs, reduce profits, and interfere with the operations of the organization. Employers have historically sought help to counter union activity. Agencies assisting such efforts have included security and quasi-police groups such as Pinkertons and Baldwin-Felts, government resources such as military or national guard forces and, more recently, labor relations firms experienced in labor law. Above is the text which was previously in place in the introduction to the history section. Give the addition of the cite tag, I moved the text here as it is mostly US-specific, which is a problem for something so high up on this page, and is almost entirely superfluous. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits to lede
A recent edit to the lede removed half of it for unclear reasons, although it might have been regarding RS issues. I've left a note on the editor's talk page asking them to comment here, in the meantime I've reverted to the original consensus text and will add some references to the second part of the lede.--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The information in question was always disputed. We had 2 people bullying 1 in the last "consensus".  I personally find the new version less POV and more encyclopedic.  It would be nice if people could allow the normal editing process to continue without exerting too much ownership of the article. LedRush (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, i would also revert such a deletion of important information. The deleted material summarizes the article in the lead section, why should that necessary info be deleted, or even disputed? (I think Goldsztajn handled the edit very responsibly.) Richard Myers (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

material for making international (australia)
Spies infiltrated Victorian desalination plant - THE builders of the Brumby government's $5 billion-plus desalination plant have funded Australia's most notorious strike-breaker and so-called "scab".--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"anti-union violence" as see also article
Virtually none of the article relates to "violence" and the article "Anti-union violence" is your own freshly created coatrack article/essay. Including the Gov. Walker coatrack. I suggest, in fact, that the article might wll be deleted at an AfD for such reasons. Kindly remove it from this article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, you haven't explored the history of the anti-union violence article. It was created for balance, as a companion article, to the article union violence. You may believe that anti-union violence is my own "freshly created coatrack article/essay". Less than ten days ago i filed an AFD on union violence, and some folks made the same argument that you've just made about that article. The AFD failed.


 * Anti-union violence exists precisely because union violence exists. Please consider the implications, before you continue to follow my edits, undoing them one by one. I strongly advise against another edit war.


 * If union violence is allowed to exist, then do you believe anti-union violence should not exist? I don't believe you will get much sympathy for such an argument. Richard Myers (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So all of this is WP:POINT. Thanks.   Collect (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, i don't exactly follow that, err, point. I am simply trying to make the best of the situation as it exists, on the basis of the closed AFD. Didn't mean to sound harsh, its just a little irritating when three edits are undone on three different articles in quick succession, since i believe they are appropriate edits under the circumstances. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV?
If there are two ways to describe an activity, one used by unions, "union busting", the other by management, "union avoidance", how can an article almost exclusively use the language favored by unions in the conflict and avoid an NPOV issue? Here's something that might be a bit better. "Union busting is a pejorative term used by labor advocates. Their opponents use the term union avoidance. In both cases it describes..."TMLutas (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree to a point. It is a pejorative term and it should be included in the definition. However, Union Avoidance describes a management mission and philosophy usually incorporated into ongoing supervisory training at work places also termed "preventive labor relations". Union Busting in this article does not describe what most would understand to be the meaning of Union Avoidance. The term Union Bust(er)ing has become a derogatory "brand" in present day to tag all non union organizations which could be anywhere from a passive non union ma/pa enterprise to an aggressively anti-union one as the same. But to your point, I noted the issue about the definition in this article of "union busting" has been brought up before in the section titled "Problems with Introduction Definition of Union Busters" higher up on the page. Perhaps you'll find an answer there.

Definition of Union Busting tactics need citations
Based on the stated lead definition, the resulting article provides little by way of defining what is described in the intro. The intro Template says: "this article deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Yet the lead definition of Union Busting is not U.S. It describes illegal activities protected by NLRA which don't occur in the US. It is misleading. Also, much is written as though present tense yet many citations describe occurrences from early labor history or from the Industrial Revolution era! Put that stuff into the History page. And far too many citations are from the same book which makes the article read like an annotated copy. "Writing basics" teaches us to introduce a chapter (idea) with an intro summary then follow it with the detail in subsequent chapters or paragraphs. This intro lists several union busting tactics but provides very little to describe or support each assertion with citations in subsequent sections or chapters. Each tactic listed should be developed in subsequent sub headings titled the same for a more comprehensive study of the main topic. Keep the "Union Busting" (methodology and activities) as this one article,  remove "Union Busters" (organizations) to its own page. Consolidate the History of Union Busting to its corresponding page. EcFitzsimmons (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Improve Article
Anyone want to take a stab at improving this article? Suggestion for lede:

Union busting is a pejorative term used worldwide to describe a wide range of activities undertaken by many employers, their proxies, and governments which attempt to prevent the formation or expansion of trade unions. Tactics range from legal to illegal and subtle to violent. International labour laws exist country to country differing greatly in governance (and protection) of unions and organization regarding such things as posting notices/communications, organizing inside or outside employer property, solicitations, card signing, picketing, work stoppages, striking, strikebreaking, lockouts, dismissals, permanent replacements, employer controlled trade unions, automatic recognition, ballot elections and more. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has a right to form and/or join a trade union.

Note: I did not include physical confrontation because its already implied in the word "violence", sowing discord, or sponsorship of organizations because an edit war would ensue due to the fact that these activities occur from both union and non-union organizations. There are already corresponding articles addressing the list regarding union violence and anti-union violence and an article on salting. There is also an article called History of Union Busting as well as Anti-union organizations in the United States. There is too much repetition. A student trying to learn the definition of union busting with valid examples has far too much to slog thru in this article in its current condition. Many sub topics can be moved and/or cleaned up so there can be more focus on actual discussion about union busting in the 21st Century. Thoughts? EcFitzsimmons (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Sounds good to me.LedRush (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on a few sections (Intro, History, and Union Busters) so far. I'll keep going as time permits. My goal is clarity and consensus and to stay on point focused on each sub topic without detouring or repetition. I've noticed vacant links probably because they are years old. I edited out the dead corresponding uncited text and replaced it with related that could be cited. I put examples into History (UK & US) as well as within Union Busters without going into lists. "Changing Focus of Union Busters" is an odd one. More to that later. "How organizations find them" really only needs the word GOOGLE but its written as though computers don't exist...very 70's and outdated. The section is poorly cited needing major change or deletion. It doesn't add to the article. "Methods", the longest and most important section of sub topics are taken almost entirely from 1 autobiographical source book describing events from 40 yrs ago! There must be more than one source for all those topics. The labor relations industry has greatly expanded since 1969 and has a much broader story to tell than to be limited by 1 book. No wonder it is tagged biased. Hopefully information will emerge that is objective, factual, cited and satisfactory to previous contributors.EcFitzsimmons (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Dirty tricks"
I removed the entire section. Its a poorly written section taken from an old book describing the 60's and 70's. We should address more meaningful topics. Why would "incrimination and falsification" be mentioned without description, definition or example? Is a student of labor supposed to read the entire citationed book to understand this? And the part about addresses withheld from organizers reads as though the internet was not invented....but whoops.....it wasn't when the cited book was written!! So why use it as a tactic in todays vernacular 40 years later when addresses are a cinch? Please dispense with meaningless page fillers. Thank youEcFitzsimmons (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Non encyclopedic citations
I've been looking at this subject for a very very long time with great consternation at the lack of encyclopedic citations and lack of high standards of Wikipedia rules. I am gratified to see a few new editors have made some recent objective substantive additions and deletions that better describe the subject which must be viewed from several angles other than just Martin J. Levitt. It gave me the confidence to add the decertification sections. One cannot discuss these topics from one vantage point. I hope it is acceptable that I deleted a few sections that were nearly 100% from Martin J. Levitt who wrote an unresearched autobiographical diary crafted to detail his alcoholic demise as viewed thru his alleged experiences. There were several sections copied 100% from Confessions of a Union Buster which I removed for not being to Wikipedia standards. There are other sections that could be deleted or moved as well that already exist in "History".Cbislingtion (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right to delete anything which violates our rules on plagirism.LedRush (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to delete the bias, let alone plagiarism. Somehow unions have come to own the idea that the only organization worth supporting is a union organization. How did this happen?195.29.155.244 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Cbislingtion has been blocked as a sock puppet, and checkuser concluded that Cbislingtion was the same person as EcFitzsimmons, to whom Cbislingtion appears to be responding here. This is why sock puppetry is forbidden on Wikipedia, it is an attempt to create a false consensus that may not exist otherwise. Both have also been demonstrated to be the same as Jbowersox, above, and Rcodella, who has also edited here. The sock puppets also appear to have used a wide range of IP addresses for editing, possibly including the one here. For more information, please see Richard Myers (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

sock puppet is back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rcodella is a sock puppet who is a top level lawyer from The Burke Group.

He has previously used the ID jbowersox, and numerous other sockpuppet accounts. He has been banned, but is obviously back.

His edits are entirely focused on just a couple of articles which are of interest to his company.

All edits associated with this ID are suspect. For example, this edit is false:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_busting&diff=476544193&oldid=476539661

It uses a source to make a statement that simply is not reflected in the source.

Unfortunately, a lot of edits in this article are associated with this ID. Richard Myers (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is relevant information: Richard Myers (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw and agreed with all of his edits on this page (didn't look at other pages) and as such I have reverted your turning back of the clock as I have put much thought into those changes. If you disagree, I suggest, per WP:BRD, that you bring specific discussion points here so we can hash them out.LedRush (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies, i didn't see this request until just now. OK, will try to list changes. Richard Myers (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Three sock puppets editing this article have been confirmed matches via CheckUser, in violation of WP:SOC. See . The case is now awaiting administrative action. Richard Myers (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If one union acts in a manner to prevent another union from organizing, what would you call it?
That is the issue - and I suggest that such acts are as much "union busting" as most of the acts listed in the article are. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Competition between unions is normal. It gives employees choice. I leave it for others to decide whether such choices between unions are always a good thing, but certainly they sometimes are.


 * When i first joined a union 40 years ago, workers at our workplace had the option of joining the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or the Communications Workers of America. The two unions came to us and explained their programs and their focus. Neither of these two unions were trying to "bust" the other.


 * Granted, there are sometimes nasty jurisdictional disputes between unions. It does happen. But the normal situation, in my experience (40 years as member/steward/organizer/officer/deputy secretary/safety rep), is that unions do not "bust" each other, it is companies (and sometimes governments) that do that. Richard Myers (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually it does -- though (in a rare case on WP where I cite personal knowledge) the person who gave me examples was a union president of one of the larger locals in the US with quite a few thousand members. Collect (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)  Also note AFL v. CIO cases where the unions had bitter fights. Collect (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

changes to article
Here's the thing. I've been editing the same small group of articles as Oppo212 for more than four years. During that time, Oppo212 has operated sock puppets in an apparent effort to build false consensus, has tried to use sock puppets to throw AfD votes his way, and has edited from an ideological point of view. This isn't just my observation, Oppo212 was first investigated by JeremyMcCracken, who noted Oppo212's use of "whitewashing" and "promotional-sounding language" (his words).

My own experiences with Oppo212 include numerous false edits, in which a citation is given, but the edit either doesn't accurately reflect the source, or (in some cases) actually contradicts the source.

How pervasive is the cheating? Oppo212 has used each of these logins as sock puppets: Jbowersox; Rcodello; Oppo212; Cbislingtion; EcFitzsimmons; Unionfree; Laborfriend; Ilikewiki11; Mdelosrios; Rgcroc; Arabianrider; Imdbwatcher; BoardAgnt; Tbg2; Mnbqwe123456; Mymomishot; RydeWitM3; various IP addresses; and, possibly others.

Nearly all of these have been verified as sock puppets of Oppo212, most have been blocked, and further action is pending.

Now, if you go back in the history, you will see that i, too, have invested a lot of time in this article, including numerous trips to the library to obtain proper sources. I am also (understandably, i think) irritated that Oppo212 has been able to falsify such a significant number of passages in this and other articles, and to conduct so many mass deletions of other passages, that it has greatly increased the effort to maintain this a decent article over the past five years. Consider, it was nominated for Good Article in 2007, and Oppo212 (and puppets) began editing in 2008.

Finally, i acknowledge that i am not AGF. That went out the window several years ago where Oppo212 is concerned, but i try my very best to retain that important principle with editors (such as Oppo212 and puppets) who have not been blocked repeatedly, yet continue to violate the rules.
 * I don't know or care if he's a sock. I've been reviewing the article and the changes myself.  The article started off as a POV piece which was basically a book report of one book, if not specifically plagiarized.  It is better now, and most of the changes in the article brought about in the last several months made it better.  Much has been done to undo this changes.  I'd like to discuss these recent changes, one at a time, due to the history of how the article changed and how the content was orginally added.  We need to get back to discussing the edits and not the editors.LedRush (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From Great Britain


 * This statement is confusing and therefore misleading.


 * Note: Unlike the US, workers in the UK working for the same employer may have different union memberships that they retain job to job.


 * It implies that union workers in the United States do not retain the same union membership job to job. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and other trades unionists retain their union membership while working for different companies. Same is true for members of the Industrial Workers of the World. Richard Myers (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am minuderstanding the issue, as I don't see the implication that you do. Would you suggest language to fix this?LedRush (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would simply delete it, since it seems to be making a false comparison between countries.
 * How about we delete "Unlike the US,"?LedRush (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That would fix it. Richard Myers (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

From Great Britain


 * This quotation is inaccurate -- it carelessly combines different sections of the source, and adds words that aren't in the source. The extra period should also be deleted.


 * "Gate Gourmet sacked more than 600 staff last week in a working practices row, prompting a walkout by British Airways ground staff that paralyzed flights and stranded thousands of travelers in the UK. Andy Cook, Gate Gourmet's director of human resources at that time, said "The company had not been looking to cut the size of the protests, only stop the minority engaged in harassment.".


 * Richard Myers (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch. How about this: "Gate Gourmet sacked more than 600 staff last week in a working practices row, prompting a walkout by British Airways ground staff that paralysed flights and stranded thousands of travellers" in the UK. The BBC reported that Andy Cook, Gate Gourmet's director of human resources at that time, said "the company had not been looking to cut the size of the protests, only stop the minority engaged in harassment"
 * LedRush (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's better.

From Great Britain


 * This misrepresents the source, which does NOT say that "Derecognition of a trade union ... is ... acceptable." Rather, it says (paraphrase) that the derecognition process MAY BE accepted. This is an example of the bias that i have seen repeatedly from this group of sock puppets. It is subtle, but changes the meaning in a propagandistic manner.


 * Derecognition of a trade union may be referred to as union busting by trade unions although it is legal and acceptable.


 * Richard Myers (talk)


 * I disagree a little and agree a little. Derecognition is obviously legal, and I don't see this to be misrepresentating the source.  I would delete the term "and acceptable" as it does not have the same meaning as in the source and is irrelevant to the point.  Also, do we have a source that says that derecognition of a trade union is considered union busting?  The process is obviously legal in the UK, so it seems fine to say that derecognition is perfectly legal, regardless of whether it is considered "union busting".LedRush (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I advocate deleting "and acceptable". But also, it is inaccurate to imply that only trade unions refer to this as union busting. Millions of progressives, most Democrats, much of the media, and many union members who happen to be Republicans also use the term "union busting." The sock puppets were known to be connected to The Burke Group, an known union buster. Every sock puppet edit tried to put unions into a bad light, with little support, and companies/consultancies into a good light. Thus, the article may have gone from one extreme to the opposite extreme, and needs to find a balance closer to the middle.


 * Do you have a source for who considers this "union busting"?LedRush (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See my list of newspapers that use the term, below. Richard Myers (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My question is if we have sources that this specific action is a form of union busting.LedRush (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I once had a library book that says so, and i've ordered a copy of it. May take two weeks to be delivered. Richard Myers (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

From Great Britain


 * This misrepresents the source, which never states that "Generally an application for derecognition is accepted..." Another example of subtle bias.


 * Generally an application for derecognition is accepted by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC)


 * I see this as a statement of who handles the process, not saying that the process is generally always successful. How about "If the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) accepts an application and the union in question has either lost support or the membership level falls below 50% of the workers, the CAC can declare that a derecognition ballot be held."
 * LedRush (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That solves the problem.


 * Richard Myers (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From United States


 * Typo. It is Executive Order #10988.


 * went on strike illegally in violation of EO #1098.


 * Richard Myers (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OKLedRush (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the source says

From United States


 * The phrase "went on strike illegally" misrepresents the source. The source states that President Reagan asserted that the strike was illegal. That is different from the article declaring that the strike is illegal.


 * went on strike illegally in violation of EO #1098.


 * Richard Myers (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The source says "As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971."  To me, that means that the strike was illegal and the language in the article is fine.LedRush (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strikes occur when the contract has expired; in other words, when the contract is not in force. Otherwise, it is a wildcat strike.


 * This source states, "Enter Ronald Reagan. Six months into his first term, PATCO's contract expired."


 * This suggests to me that the other source is wrong.


 * Here is a better source, i think:


 * Aug. 3, 1981: About 13,000 PATCO members go on strike after unsuccessful contract negotiations. In doing so, the union technically violates a 1955 law that bans strikes by government unions. (Several government unions had previously declared strikes without penalties.) President Ronald Reagan declares the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and orders the controllers back to work. Richard Myers (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source confirms that the strike was illegal. Good find.LedRush (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

From United States


 * The statement "they cannot be fired" is false.


 * NLRA provides a legally protected right for private sector employees to strike to gain better wages, benefits, or working conditions and they cannot be fired.


 * Richard Myers (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That whole paragraph is unsourced? Should we delete the entire section?LedRush (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I rewrote it this way:


 * In the U.S., unlike the UK and several other countries, the National Labor Relations Act or NLRA provides a legally protected right for private sector employees to strike to gain better wages, benefits, or working conditions, and if a contract is in force, the contract governs whether workers can be fired. However, some companies have been known to hire permanent replacements when the union has been on strike for economic reasons (i.e., protesting workplace conditions or supporting a union's bargaining demands). The replacement worker can continue in the job and then the striking worker must wait for a vacancy. But if the strike is due to unfair labor practices, the replaced strikers are entitled to immediate reinstatement when the strike ends. If a collective bargaining agreement is in effect and it contains a "no-strike clause", a strike during the life of the contract could result in the firing of all striking employees which could result in dissolution of that union. Although legal, such a practice is viewed by labor organizations as union busting.


 * Richard Myers (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This all may be correct, but without sources it should be deleted.LedRush (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

changes to article 2
From Derecognition and/or Decertification of Trade Unions


 * The word "often" is opinion, and i strongly disagree with it:


 * Derecognition (UK) or Decertification (US) of a trade union may be referred to as union busting by trade unions although it is legal and often initiated by members of the trade union.


 * "Sometimes" would be more accurate. The link as a source goes to a non-existent page. Richard Myers (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing the space from the link makes it work. The source does not support "often". Richard Myers (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.LedRush (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From Derecognition and/or Decertification of Trade Unions


 * This may be true or false; i expect it is false. In any case, it is not supported by the link that is cited. (And that source applies only to this sentence, which makes me believe it may be another false edit.)


 * However a company may decide to unilaterally derecognise - as long as it has a non CAC recognition agreement in force.


 * Richard Myers (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Should we delete it or look for a source?LedRush (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think deleting it would be reasonable; if "a company may decide to unilaterally derecognise", then what's stopping all of them from doing that? Richard Myers (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

From Derecognition and/or Decertification of Trade Unions


 * This clearly, falsely misrepresents the source. It says "most", yet the source cites only one province (Ontario):


 * In Canada all provinces have laws setting out provisions for employees to decertify unions. In most cases the governments have made it mandatory that employers post information for its employees on how to decertify the union.


 * Richard Myers (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From Union busting


 * This is unsupported opinion, and my opinion is different. What's more, i can prove it is false.


 * The term “union buster” is a pejorative term used primarily by trade unions, media, and political organizations supportive of the labor movement


 * Yes, it is a pejorative term. Who uses it? The New York Times, 4,670 times. Washington Post, 823 times. Washington Times, 448 times. Los Angeles Times, 915 times. Denver Post, 1580 times. Wall Street Journal, 191 times. Business Insider, 5,280 times. The Economist, 2,200 times. The New Republic, 1,580 times. Fox Business, 10 times. Fox News, 175 times. It is very clear that the business media and major newspapers recognize, and use the term. The sentence is yet another example of biased ideological editing. Richard Myers (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't your evidence prove that the sentence is right? Are those not members of the "media".LedRush (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is one reason i consider many of these edits to be deceptive. The sentence can be interpreted as,


 * The term “union buster” is a pejorative term used primarily by trade unions, media that is supportive of the labor movement, and political organizations supportive of the labor movement


 * In other words, indicating that use/recognition of the term is narrow. It is tricky language. I would find it less open to misunderstanding if it said something like,


 * The term “union buster” is considered pejorative by some, but is used widely by labor unions, the media, and others.


 * I think it is worth mentioning that some like the term and others don't, but i personally don't see any reason to specify any sort of list. Richard Myers (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note also that the next section continues with the same argument. Our sock editor was intent on creating an image of very narrow support for unions. At the same time, he included info about consultants that has nothing to do with the general topic of union busting. For example:
 * Your language seems fine to me.LedRush (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

From Great Britain


 * This sentence seems entirely unnecessary:


 * Cooke continues to direct labor relations activities from his U.K. labor relations consultancy.


 * I mean, does the article state that the union is still there, too? If the consultant was fired, or if the union was busted, that is noteworthy in the article. (I expect that our sock editor may be acquainted with Cooke, since the Burke Group has business in the U.K. But that's just a guess.) Richard Myers (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Delete it.LedRush (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Abusive Editors and Sockpuppets
The term "union buster" has been used a lot in the media due to events in Wisconsin. I consulted this article to learn more. The older version was very tedious and not really encyclopedic but recent edits by LedRush and EcFitzsimmons improved it greatly. Then Richard Myers deleted it all claiming sockpuppets with no consensus. Question: How is a singular editor allowed to take such hostile unilateral authority to delete other editor’s contributions as Richard Meyers did? Is this his tactic to control the voices in this article? If there is a policy of blocking an editor because he shares an IP with others then it should be wise to consider why I.P addresses are shared at internet cafes, university labs, office pools, or airport lounges. I share computers in my lab with hundreds of fellow students. I’m sure we have interest in the same articles, unknown to one another. Are we then subject to being blocked as sockpuppets just because our school uses a certain IP address? Myers is union affiliated and edits union topics sometimes with a POV ideology in tandem with others who agree with him. Does that make him a sock puppet too? Is every wiki editor qualified to assert sockpuppet claims to block contributors and/or delete articles? Wikipedia invites all who have the intellectual capacity to contribute encyclopedic balance and value. It disturbs me that one editor’s hostilities is allowed to bully others off pages. Myers fully ignored that Fitzsimmons properly used the talk page to ask the Wikipedia community for help to improve this article (see higher up on talk page) and also sought consensus before posting his edits. That’s exactly what editors are supposed to do. LedRush responded appropriately. Myers did not. Myers is now seeking evidence to justify his deletions to LedRush but finding only minor typo’s or semantics claiming they represent deception. I don’t believe shared I.P. addresses should be viewed as rising to a level of “disruption, abuse and deception” enough to justify deleting entire sections of articles and blocking contributors so cavalierly. The person exercising abuse does not appear to be Fitzsimmons? How is this brought to the attention of Wiki administrators? Murphlaw152 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal vs Illegal
An editor with the IP address 50.26.136.217 recently made changes to the lead paragraph with no WP:CONS. The term "pejorative" was removed plus a statement added saying "all union busting is illegal". The term is pejorative and does not define specific activities. The NLRA defines what is legal and illegal. Union busting is worthy of great debate but the term "Union busting" is not synonymous with illegal activity and has been ascribed to many legal activities. Being non union is not illegal although non union organizations are sometimes branded as union busters. Decertifying a union is not illegal but often branded as union busting. Workers who do not desire union membership are often branded as union busters but voting no is not illegal. Activities branded as union busting may be disagreeable to unions and their supporters but not illegal. A union may brand an organization with union busting if they replace strikers under NLRA guidelines but it is not illegal. A union may also brand an organizations with union busting when they hire consultants, lawyers or trainers to conduct supervisory training so managers can stay atop legislative  changes. Supervisory training is not illegal. In summary, all activities labeled “union busting” are not illegal.Udaipur12 (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your response. The unnamed editor said "in theory" union busting is illegal. No idea what "in theory" means. This is the problem with Wikipedia. Anyone can write anything. Thank you for being alert. 94.175.197.30 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Right to Work
I removed the last addition to the opening paragraph because Right to Work laws are not global. The lead was crafted years ago to be international, and not US centric. Also, there is no mandatory requirement to join a union in a unionized workplace in any state whether Non Right to Work or Right to Work. Union dues are another discussion. . I suggest adding Right to Work as a sub paragraph under "United States" via a redirect to the Right to Work page.Btween (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Guide to modern union busting" - is this for real?
The last section, "Guide to modern union busting", lists a number of nefarious "union-busting" practices, including: It would appear from this section that anything an employer does to treat employees fairly and decently is "union busting." Does someone really believe this, or is this just over-the-top satire? If this is really union busting, then we should certainly have more union busting.
 * "opinion surveys,"
 * "employee roundtables,"
 * "incentive pay procedures,"
 * "wage surveys,"
 * "employee complaint procedures,"

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 one external links on Union busting. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130402034825/http://www.itfglobal.org/press-area/index.cfm/pressdetail/566 to http://www.itfglobal.org/press-area/index.cfm/pressdetail/566
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111202163659/http://www.mjgsl.com:80/profile-andy-cook.php to http://www.mjgsl.com/profile-andy-cook.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120605071409/http://nlrb.gov/faq/questions/what-can-i-do-if-im-unhappy-my-union to http://www.nlrb.gov/faq/questions/what-can-i-do-if-im-unhappy-my-union
 * Added tag to https://www.pslabor.com/TempContent.aspx?id=History
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090127053531/http://cueinc.com:80/aboutcue.html to http://www.cueinc.com/aboutcue.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110828024010/http://www.sfsu.edu:80/~news/experts/BSS/Logan_John.html to http://www.sfsu.edu/~news/experts/BSS/Logan_John.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120223233809/http://blog.aflcio.org:80/2007/04/23/the-ugly-face-of-union-busting/ to http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/04/23/the-ugly-face-of-union-busting/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120622045538/http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/15130.pdf to http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/15130.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120313123227/http://www.nlrb.gov/75th/1974healthcare.html to https://www.nlrb.gov/75th/1974healthcare.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070809204159/http://www.progressivestates.org:80/content/622/labor-union-majority-signup-approved-in-or-nh-and-states-demand-the-us-senate-follows-suit to http://www.progressivestates.org/content/622/labor-union-majority-signup-approved-in-or-nh-and-states-demand-the-us-senate-follows-suit#1
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081205075315/http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2007/070620efca.htm to http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2007/070620efca.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080914120109/http://www.nlpc.org:80/olap.asp to http://www.nlpc.org/olap.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090124224255/http://laborresearch.org:80/union_busting_watch.php to http://www.laborresearch.org/union_busting_watch.php/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070523193305/http://www.iww.org/en/culture/articles/zinn13.shtml to http://www.iww.org/en/culture/articles/zinn13.shtml

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) 18:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Union busting. 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/20120103063655/http://lrionline.com:80/union-avoidance/consulting/campaign-manager to http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/consulting/campaign-manager
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120412142803/http://lrionline.com:80/union-avoidance/videos/interview-with-union-organizer to http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/videos/interview-with-union-organizer
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102080033/http://lrionline.com:80/union-avoidance/videos/guaranteed-winner to http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/videos/guaranteed-winner

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) 21:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Union busting. 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/20141208080853/http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html to http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/consulting/campaign-manager
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/videos/interview-with-union-organizer
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lrionline.com/union-avoidance/videos/guaranteed-winner

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) 03:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union busting. 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://archive.is/20120707074308/http://courtlistener.com/cadc/2pcT/retail-clerks-international-association-afl-cio-an/ to http://courtlistener.com/cadc/2pcT/retail-clerks-international-association-afl-cio-an/

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) 06:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union busting. 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/20130819141428/http://https/ to http://www.https/

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) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Captive audience meetings listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Captive audience meetings. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia is cancer
this was written by anti-union consultants 74.75.43.62 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)