Talk:Mohawk Valley formula

Disputed ??

I dont see any discussions here; so how can the article be disputed? --ArazZeynili 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm trying to look up this document. As there is no link to a 'primary source,' and since I can't find one, I shall edit it to make it less strong. The references to the document seem to be secondary sources at best, most from labor unions or other organizations with agendas. That being said, the concept of the Mohawk Valley formula appears to be an important one even if the facts about the case are unsubstantiated. 130.39.188.130 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well it should say "attributed to" the NAM rather than "published by" as there is no primary evidence of the NAM publishing it or the supposed author authoring it! Hugo999 (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see this link. It is leads to the US Department of Labor's glossary. In it you will find a quote explaining the "Mohawk valley formula". My position is that even if a copy of the original is not extant there is enough correspondence from the time which refers to the Formula that this indicates that it was a REAL document that had been circulated. This is not untoward in terms of scholarship. We know, for instance that there were many works from Aristotle that were lost in the fire at the library at Alexandria because contemporaries mention the work in their writing. The passage regarding the original should be removed from the article, or it should be justified with a statement that "the editor's have not found an original copy of the document, but there is ample evidence that it was in fact real because of contemporaneous mention in industrialists correspondence" I can hunt down the quotes if you would like. I would point you to a book by David Montgomery called "The fall of the House of Labor" if you wish to find that material on your own. Xtopher1 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)xtopher1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtopher1 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also I would like to know why the first section is uneditable? <xtopher1> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtopher1 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems similar to 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', albeit from the other end of the political spectrum. This needs more concrete sources, or needs to be more accurately labeled as propaganda. 69.40.42.47 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's quite obviously a fake written by a TU activist, and not even a very good one. "Causing the community... to forget that employees have equal rights with others in the community"?! --81.152.112.81 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohawk Valley formula. 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/20090720035040/http://newdeal.feri.org/nation/na37145p166.htm to http://newdeal.feri.org/nation/na37145p166.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

National Labor Relations Board, actual authors of the Mohawk Valley Formula

This is an article written about a series of events that broke the Mohawk Valley Rand strike, which James Rand called "the Mohawk Valley Formula". These events were reported on by the National Association of Manufacturers. The National Labor Relations Board then took this reporting, and wrote down and enumerated the "formula" to suit itself. Later writers took the NLRB's written formula and attributed the whole thing to James Rand. The proof is here, in the official government record, "In the Matter Of REMINGTON RAND, INC. and REMINGTON RAND, JOINT PROTECTIVE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OFFICE EQUIPMENT WORKERS 1937", found here: https://casetext.com/admin-law/remington-rand-inc-5

In this document, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) writes: "The Labor Relations Bulletin of the [National Association of Manufacturers], which contained the description of the events at Ilion, while avoiding interpretation, was careful in effect to outline the steps so that the "Formula" can be more easily followed. We repeat this technique of strike breaking, interpolating our interpretations:" Then what follows is all 9 steps, word for word, of the "formula" purported by many (including Wikipedia) to have been written by James Rand. I love the phrase the NLRB uses: "interpolating our interpretations". They are saying it quite plainly: "here is what we think the steps of the formula are".

It always struck me as odd that James Rand would use the word "warlike" in step 8: "If necessary turn the locality into a warlike camp and barricade it from the outside world." It's like the sentence is written to make strike breaking seem as evil as possible. And that was exactly what was intended by its author, the NLRB. James Rand did not write these words. There is not a shred of evidence that James Rand wrote any of the Mohawk Valley Formula, other than to name it as such. And there is written evidence that it came from the creative people at the National Labor Relations Board.

50.48.141.40 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)