Talk:Public-sector trade union

POV issues

This article is largely an attack on, rather than an explanation of public-sector unions. It is also (separate issue) focused almost entirely on the U.S.

As far as I can tell, exactly one paragraph focuses on the positive aspects of public-sector unions. The bulk of the article is an attack on them; even that attack draws heavily on U.S. citations opposing public-sector unions in the abstract before the time when they were legal.

In short, the article stops just short of being a one-sided screed. - Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many faulty sources, original paragraphs, and unreferenced statements. Having seen no objects for three months, I'll start cleaning it up. Mvblair (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Rjensen, thanks for your efforts in cleaning up the loaded language. Great job!! It looks much better, but I think you may have left in some of the "original research" and possibly removed some "citation needed" tags that were needed. An example might be the POV Brookings Institute citation and some of the language in the 1919 section. I love the "Little Great Depression" section, but I think there is still some OR there and the FDR quote needs to be cut down to improve the article. Thanks for working to improve the article! Mvblair (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I placed the POV tag and am now removing it.The much-reduced article is now reasonably neutral. Now for someone to expand it? - Jmabel | Talk 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Some comments responding to Myblair....Thanks for the friendly comments. I'm not sure I see the POV issues you mention. The Brookings cite is a noncontroversial quote from Terry M. Moe, a famous scholar who holds the endowed chair in political science at Stanford University. Keep in mind that "POV" issues are 100% about minority scholarly views not being represented, and I don't see an examples here. The FDR quote is long but it is quite important and has been cited many times in the scholarly literature, so here's the place for readers to read not just a sentence or two but to understand his argument. "OR" in Wikipedia is defined as unsourced statements, and I am not sure what you have in mind--there are multiple RS cited in every paragraph. Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen, good points. I take back my comment about the Brookings Institute citation, although Moe's book is essentially a long editorial. Regarding OR, I think there are too many primary sources here. We've got statistics culled from the census bureau and original quotes that are not desirable. If those could be replaced with some more encyclopedic sources, that would be better. Regarding the FDR quote, I'm not sure why one person's take should be given such prominence. One way to counter his prominence in the article might be to add quotes from other people, but I'm not sure I like that either. So, help me there! Also, be sure to check out the section below on the local/global nature of this article. Mvblair (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Globalize

As it stands, it is almost entirely about the U.S. - Jmabel | Talk 03:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How would you feel about creating a separate article for "Public sector unions in the US?" Then, we could add one of those ((main article)) tags. Mvblair (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

good idea Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jmabel, Rjensen, and others: another option might be to build some of this information into the article "Labor unions in the United States." Rjensen, I see that you have edited that particular article. Any opinions about moving this US information to that page rather than creating a new article for "Public sector unions in the US?" Generally, I think it's a good idea to put this information into the current "Labor unions in the United States" article, but there are more people watching that, so it could generate more discussion and make moving the US-specific information listed in this internationally-scoped article a little difficult. Mvblair (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a good idea. Rjensen (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to remedy in whatever direction. It just seems wrong to have an article that is almost entirely about the U.S. but has a title suggesting a worldwide overview. - Jmabel | Talk 21:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

we now have a separate article on USA, of which this article gives a summary. People who really care about globalizing are encouraged to do something about it themselves. write. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)