Talk:List of Starbucks union petitions in the United States
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
perfectunion.us
editHi @Y2hyaXM:, thanks for your recent additions! I noticed that you added a couple sourced only to the list at perfectunion.us. I want to suggest not to add shops without a better reference -- their list is pretty good but definitely somewhat sloppy (e.g., I've caught several duplications on it, and they've added at least one (Butte, MT) where the store organizing committee sent a letter to the corporate office but where they definitely hadn't filed with NLRB yet). Since for a few days I was the only one adding stores, I made a list for myself of locations that perfectunion.us has on their list that we don't have on ours (or for which I wasn't certain); I'll post it below in the hope that it's useful for you (or anyone else), too. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I saw that the WBAL-TV article I added for the N. Charles Street union vote mentioned the shops I added and tried to find a secondary source for when they filed their petitions, but couldn't find any outside of the Olney shop. If I add any more to the list, I'll be sure to keep this in mind. Y2hyaXM (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Long list |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Brookline Ave Boston, Massachusetts
Watertown - Mt. Auburn Watertown, Massachusetts
New York Reserve Roastery Manufacturing Store New York, New York
West Roseville Roseville, California
I-85 & Pelham Pkwy Greenville, South Carolina
2003 S. Main Street Farmville, Virginia
|
NLRB as a source
editSo the NLRB has a wonderful site [2] with outcomes of recent union elections. What do we think about using this as a source? Points in favor: the page contains all the key information for entries in the table for each election (filing date, count date, location, outcome). It's presumably more accurate than media accounts (which often seem to garble details). It should be comprehensive. Points against: It's not clear to me how to link to an individual entry. The list goes back to 1995, but it's dynamic, and it's not clear whether things added to it should be expected to be there forever. I am inclined to use it, but I'm curious if others have opinions before I start adding it. --JBL (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think the bigger issue is that NLRB dockets are a primary source, and therefore should be avoided per WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY. Nonetheless, if there's no secondary source available for basic information (such as filing date, election date, and election outcome) where a specific store is known to have petitioned to unionize, it should be okay to use. As for citing to the NLRB docket, you could just reference the specific case number in the cite and link to the NLRB's "Case Search" page. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Musashi1600: Thanks for your response. This would obviously and easily fall within the bounds set by WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY,
to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts
. I am not proposing to replace secondary sources -- certainly those are still desirable. I had tried earlier to use the case search, but when I visit a case (like [3], just to take the most recent from the Recent Elections page) it doesn't show any of the information that I want to cite it for! Is it hidden somewhere there? --JBL (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)- Generally, if an election date has been set for a particular store, there will be a downloadable document titled "Notice of Election" that will mention details such as the store location and the election date. (See e.g., [4].) However, in the case that you've linked, there's instead a document titled "Stipulated Election Agreement", which suggests that Starbucks management came to a negotiated agreement with the union organizers for that specific store on when/how to hold an election, rather than the NLRB setting the procedural rules and date for an election. I'm also not sure if there might be some kind of data error on the NLRB's end, since the case docket should mention a "Tally of Ballots" such as this docket [5] if an election was actually held.
- I also haven't seen a case yet where the NLRB has made the results of an election freely available without someone having made an FOIA request (see e.g. [6]). So, you might have to go through the FOIA process if you want to use the the NLRB docket as a cite for a particular election. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Update: I happened to be looking at some Starbucks-related NLRB dockets just now, and the NLRB is now including election outcome information in cases where an election has been held and votes counted. Don't know what changed in the past two weeks, but it seems that you can now cite straight to a case docket for election results, no messing around with FOIA necessary. Musashi1600 (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well that information was already on the page I linked 3 weeks ago; but the fact that it's now included on the case pages resolves my concerns entirely about using this as a (primary) source. --JBL (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with JBL on this. I would prefer we keep it to secondary sources, I don't think it's necessary that our list is exhaustive. I am also somewhat concerned that newer updates have been really low quality in terms of being malformed, unsourced, poorly sourced, or only using bare urls. The more we introduce content that is sloppy, the harder it is for the everyone involved to maintain. I spent hours fixing issues a month ago, and already there's an hour or more of work to do to fix it again. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well that information was already on the page I linked 3 weeks ago; but the fact that it's now included on the case pages resolves my concerns entirely about using this as a (primary) source. --JBL (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Musashi1600: Thanks for your response. This would obviously and easily fall within the bounds set by WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY,
Remove petition date?
editWhen I started this list, it was unclear how large it would get, so I included petition date, vote count date, and status because there was plenty of room. Now that there are 226 references and 180 rows, I'm thinking that it might be time to pare it down to keep it maintainable? One easy way to do that would be to remove the petition date and for vote count date, just keep the month and year, considering that some sources do not post the day (or that we often have to dig for local news sources to do that). Open to options but it seems hard to maintain accurately as is. czar 21:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree about the petition date (and in fact I think there's genuine ambiguity about that -- the date at the NLRB doesn't always agree with the news reports, which tend to be based on press releases). I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about the vote count date.
- (Separately, the list is significantly out of date at this point -- no one has been updating it recently and there have been at least 200 elections actually held by now.) JBL (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)