Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweetheart deal


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are enough sources presented to demonstrate that this is a concept, not merely a definition. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sweetheart deal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:EUPHEMISM. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, cliche or euphemistic terms. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. sixty nine   • speak up •  22:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The point of WP:DICDEF is not that we should delete short articles; it says exactly the opposite.  Its point is that we should cover topics under a single heading; not have separate pages for each name.  But what is this also known as?  What is it a euphemism for?  Let's try some links to see where they lead.  The worst case is that we'll merge into one of these.  Cronyism; Favouritism; Favoritism; Nepotism; Revolving door; Regulatory capture;  Preferential treatment.   Hmm... it's amusing to find that Favouritism and Favoritism lead to different pages.  Now which title do we prefer...? Andrew D. (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The book notes: "Sweetheart contract is a sarcastic term for bargaining agreements worked out secretly between a few union officers and management without the input or even knowledge of rank-and-file unionists. Historically, such arrangements have been associated with corrupt practices by either party and usually involve a kickback to a labor official. The American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations condemned this method as a violation of trade union ethics. Although the practice was never widespread, except in a handful of local and national unions with ties to organized crime, most corrupt vestiges had been eliminated by the start of the twenty-first century. The term itself, however, lingers on in the lexicon of the rank and file as a simile for an unpopular contract, even if it was negotiated legally. Some union leaders simply find it easier to work out an agreement in private and then sell the contract to a skeptical membership, or purposefully avoid grassroots involvement fearing that the rank and file will not understand the larger issues..."  The book notes: "For twenty-six years, Poletown stood as a textbook example of a sweetheart deal between a private business and a municipality. The term 'sweetheart contract' was coined in the 1940s to describe a deal between labor and management that is favorable to the employer and is entered into without the approval of the workers. Today people talk about sweetheart contracts or agreements in other contexts, often to describe deals that benefit outfits doing business with municipalties."  The book notes: "Sweetheart contract a sweetheart contract. A privately arranged 'contract' between an employer and a union official. MWCD: 1942. Source: SWEET. MWCD: O.E. A sweetheart (MWCD: 14th cent.) is someone who is both loved and loving, such as a spouse, a lover, or a child. The word is used as both a term of endearment and a term of address ('Sweetheart, would you bring me a glass of water?') and is equivalent to 'Darling.' The implication is that the heart is a sea of love, and that a person so addressed has an abundance of it. A sweetheart contract, however, involves a pair of rather odd 'lovers': the boss of the company and the boss of the workers, who are carrying on a secret 'affair' for their mutual benefit. The unwritten 'contract' allows management to get away with actions that are forbidden by law or by the written contract without the shareholders or the rest of the employees knowing anything about it. Sweetheart contracts are also made at the government level, between public officials and executives of private companies, often involving favoritism by the former and kickbacks for the latter. A sweetheart deal (EWPO: ca. 1900) between two friends is expected to profit both of them, provided that the law and their relatives don't get wind of it. If it works, however, it is regarded as a sweetheart of a deal. DAP; DAS; DEOD; MS. See also Sweet Deal."  The book notes: "The consequences of union racketeering for workers were not only a lack of democracy within the union and the threat of violence associated with mobster rule, but lost pay because of 'sweetheart contracts.' According to Lester Velie, 'the most heartless racket in labor is the sale to crooked employers of 'sweetheart contracts' that depress the wages of the captive union members.' Likewise, Life magazine listed as one of the many crimes that the McClellan Committee brought to light the 'betrayal of the union members through substandard contracts with employers.' To protect workers, the editors of Life urged Congress to pass a law that would prohibit 'sweetheart contracts.'"  The book notes: "There was also a public perception fostered by employers and media accounts that much of organized labor was corrupt and subject to control by socialists and communists even though many AFL leaders were consistently anti-communist. Racketeering had become a feature of some local union-employer relationships. For example, in one incident a union official signed a two-paragraph agreement with three major employers guaranteeing no wage increase for three years and requiring all employees to join the union or be discharged. None of the employees had ever contacted the union about joining, nor did they ever see a union official during the life of the contract. This type of sweetheart contract was often coupled with financial kickbacks from the employer to the union official, meaning the employer paid the union official a portion of the labor cost savings achieved by the employer."</li> <li>Sweetheart deals discussed in non-union contexts:<ol> <li> The book notes: "Sweetheart Settlements Opponents of the class action lawsuit warn about a 'sell-out' of the class by the class representative (lead plaintiff). The defendant and a the group lawyer, it is feared, have a joint incentive to reach a settlement that promises the group lawyer a generous fee and at the same time allocates the class members less than they are entitled to, based on the value of their claims. Sweetheart settlements result from a conflict of interest between the group lawyer and the group he represents. The danger of such a sweetheart agreement is aggravated by the fact that the courts are often ill-equipped to uncover them. The judge has limited information and therefore finds it difficult to estimate the value of the claims and to verify whether the amount of compensation is adequate."</li> <li> The book notes: "... As a result, 'sweetheart' deals do occur and the auditors should be constantly thinking of that potential. There are really two levels of sweetheart deal. A simple sweetheart arrangement involves only two banks. A complex sweetheart arrangement exists when three or more banks are involved. What is a sweetheart deal? It is when one dealer makes an accommodation deal with another dealer to reduce or to cover a loss the first dealer has incurred in another transaction(s). That creates a situation where the first dealer owes the second dealer a favor, which I.O.U. may be called for payment at any time, creating another sweetheart deal. It may be days, weeks, or months, or potentially never that the second dealer calls upon the first dealer for repayment of the favor. In effect, the dealer making the sweetheart deal takes a deliberate loss for his company to help out a friend at another company. 2. There is a second type of sweetheart deal, which I prefer to call a 'booking' or 'accomodation' deal. That is, when two banks have different closing dates and they use each other to match deals at their regular FX revaluation dates. Let us assume that Bank 1 uses the 23rd and Bank 2 uses the 26th as their regular monthly FX revaluation dates. ..."</li> <li> The book notes: "sweetheart contract A slang expression to describe a situation where a developer hires a thinly disguised subsidiary company to manage the developer's project. Most state condominium laws regulate the use of sweetheart contracts and make them subject to cancelation by the homeowner's association."</li> </ol></li> <li>Dictionary definitions<ol> <li> The book notes: "sweetheart deal n. A deal arranged by collusion between union officers and an employer, the terms of which are disadvantageous to union members."</li> <li> The book notes: "sweetheart agreement, sweetheart contract and sweetheart deal ▷ noun an agreement between an employer and trade union officials, especially those of a local union branch, which is excessively favourable to the employer and usually to the advantage of the union officials but which is detrimental to the interests of the workers concerned."</li> <li> The book notes: "sweetheart contract n. (also sweetheart deal) [1950s+] (origin. US) a union-employer contract that favours the company over its employees; a union-employer contract that favours all those negotiating, but not the workers the union supposedly represents."</li> <li> The book notes: "Sweetheart contract A collective bargaining agreement in which the firm pays the union negotiator to develop a substandard agreement and sell it to the membership. The Landrum-Griffen Act attempted to eliminate this type of bargaining."</li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow sweetheart deal to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * I believe the term falls under Wikipedia is not a dictionary because there is substantial coverage about sweetheart deals in the context of unions. Cunard (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Can the article be expanded? Right now its just a simple definition.  Are there any examples of sweetheart deals which were notable enough to get their own Wikipedia articles?   D r e a m Focus  12:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  05:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that this article is really just a definition that might not be able to be expanded any more. The sources posted above look like definitions (although some are encyclopedic definitions). I haven't seen this written about, as the subject of articles in academic journals. -  t u coxn \talk 06:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * although some are encyclopedic definitions – that there are encyclopedic definitions of "sweetheart deal" in encyclopedias like Historical Encyclopedia of American Labor indicates that it is a concept, not merely a dictionary definition. This has been the subject of articles in academic journals. Examples: <ol><li></li><li></li><li>"UAW-Hm Saturn Contract: Sweetheart Deal or Novel Labor-Management Agreement" by Jeffrey L. Hall at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/umem17&div=18&id=&page=</li></ol> Cunard (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards delete, unless somebody can come up with better sources that go into the subject more in depth. Bearian (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

<ul><li>Here are more sources:<ol> <li> The book notes: "The re-emergence of single union and sweetheart deals Single union and 'sweetheart' deals are now back in vogue, after a period of absence since the late 1980s (see Gall 1993). Some employers have recognized the question they face is not one of granting or not granting recognition but to which union should recognition be granted and with what type of deal. This results from 'irrestible' requests by virtue of the strength of union membership and organization, possible disruption to industrial relations, and likely poor company image resulting from an industrial dispute, or pre-emptive moves to ward against unwelcome unions campaigning for recognition. In this situation, the key questions become which union and deal best suit the empoyer's interests. ... ... With 'sweetheart agreements,' employers are attempting to set the terms by which recognition is granted whether this be with an 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate' union in order to lessen the influence of the union and maintain managerial prerogative. This may take the form of a weakened union presence where the union is unable to deliver membership benefits, the membership is passive, and the union lacks independence and has to continually struggle to assert its legitimacy. Ultimately, this could pave the way for derecognition and non-unionism. The most obvious means by which employers seek this are the explicit 'no disruption' clauses or those which impose arbitration and, thus, lengthen the time by which it may be procedurally correct to ballot for industrial action. However, an array of other means is also being imposed by employers. These include pay freezes, representation for non-union workers in consultative forums, 'partnership' provisions, and the absence of the normal bi-lateral channels for conducting collective bargaining in. ..."</li> <li> The book notes: "The exclusiveness of a single local union could create serious problems for the labor movement. A small management-favored union, commonly known as sweetheart union, could exclude a competing union, even one with a large membership, in collective bargaining (Kim, 1994). A case in point was the labor dispute at the Hyundai shipyard in 1987. A small labor union at the shipyard was organized in July 21, 1987 upon the successful completion of its registration. A week later, a large group of workers at the plant, claiming that the union was a sweetheart union, demanded that Hyundai to expel the small union. The employer, under the pressure, agreed to do so, but the union resisted by charging management with interfering in the normal activities of a legally-constituted union. Because the employer was unable to expel the existing union, thousands of workers from eleven Hyundai membership companies engaged in violent demonstrations for several days. These discords eventually led to a long and violent strikes in 1988. To avoid such pitfalls, the law was revised in 1996 to allow multiple unions at a plant or select one on a majority vote." The protests were discussed in UPI here and in The New York Times here. Are there any examples of sweetheart deals which were notable enough to get their own Wikipedia articles? –, this is currently a subsection of an article at June Struggle. Based on the numerous sources about the protests stemming from this "sweetheart union", it would be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. </li> <li> The article notes: "Several unions have agreed to “sweetheart deals” with employers to win neutrality, and in exchange, “pre-agree” to employer sought contract concessions that cap wages before even organizing a single member. A 2008 Wall Street Journal report uncovered how Unite Here and the Service Employees International Union clandestinely negotiated contracts with Sodexo and Aramark without any traditional labor organizing. Under this arrangement, members were unaware that labor contracts were negotiated prior to joining the union. In Chattanooga, antiunion workers successfully persuaded Volkswagen workers, who had previously signed union cards indicating support for the U.A.W., that such a deal undercutting them was already in the works."</li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)</li></ul>

<ul><li>Wikipedia is not a dictionary says (in part):

The sources here demonstrate that sweetheart deal is not merely a "definition" (Wiktionary); it is instead a "concept" (Wikipedia). It is a concept about how unions make "sweetheart deals" with employers. The encyclopedia article would discuss how in South Korea, a sweetheart union was used to hurt employees by giving them a sweetheart deal of subpar benefits and wages and preventing them from joining other unions because of the single union agreement. And the Wikipedia article could further discuss that in South Korea "To avoid such pitfalls, the law was revised in 1996 to allow multiple unions at a plant or select one on a majority vote" (quoting from the book Korean Management: Global Strategy and Cultural Transformation). Information like this demonstrates that "sweetheart deal" goes beyond a dictionary definition and is a concept. Wikipedia is not a dictionary further says: "One test is that an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms, whereas a dictionary as a linguistic work is about the words in the title, and cannot usually be easily translated." This article's name can take "many different equivalent forms" like "sweetheart agreement", "sweetheart contract" and "sweetheart deal". Cunard (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Keep A big sweetheart deal political controversy has just broken in the UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38908462 --Penbat (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the sources presented show that this is a concept, not merely a definition. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – This is a concept and term, rather than a dictionary definition. North America1000 00:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.