Talk:Reesor Siding strike of 1963

Wiggy

the subject of a number of folks songs, plays, and a CBC radio documentary in Quebec. is probably the only statement left there that I'd ask be reworded, removed, sourced or otherwise. Just including the name of the non-highschool theatric play, or something would be great. Also, it doesn't need to be sourced in the article, but are you certain it was a preliminary hearing that dismissed the charges, and are you sure that the Strikers were released on bail while still facing Rioting charges? That's all, great work and edits so far, thanks :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 15:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.

I'm taking a Labour Relations course at one of the local colleges (currently on strike here in Ontario, ironically enough) and came across Reesor Siding as part of some general research. I spent some time Googling my way around the Internet and was able to find a number of different references in addition to the CBC Radio material already cited.

The best reference I've come across is at http://www.uswa2995.on.ca/reesor%20siding.htm. Even though it's on a union-sponsored site, it seems to be the most complete reference available and looks to be generally even-handed. You can do some fact checking there as a starting point. That's where the references as to the character and outcome of the hearing for the settler-farmers comes from. I'm going to keep rooting around to see what else there is. The general concensus seems to be that most of the available material is from media, union and police/court sources, as the folks from the community have been reticent to talk about the incident and don't have the same sort of interest in or duty to document the thing the way these organizations do, and it's still an open wound for many. It looks like local scholars and media folks, including the fellow whose book is cited, are just starting to bring forward material from that perspective.

The reference to "folks songs, plays, and a CBC radio documentary in Quebec" is a just a one-line summary of a bunch of incidental things I came across on French-language websites. There are a couple of citations (i.e. titles, authors and the like) that I can gather up for inclusion. There seems to be more interest in Quebec because of the fact that the incident involved a largely Francophone community. It also appears that some of that interest arises not so much out of the labour aspect of the the thing, but rather in that it crossed family lines and pitted brother against brother, and so makes good tragic drama in that sense.

I've tried to add a little background to the article and give it some depth and dimension that way, without overburdening it with detail. I've also tried to use language which is reasonably neutral to avoid provoking anyone on either side. It'll be interesting to see if it stands up, because even in this arena you can see some divergent opinion. Overall an interesting and complex bit I was not aware of. Wiggy! 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider restoring some of the stuff you took out because it removes significant amounts of the context and relevant background to the event. For instance, the statement that the union put its members on strike doesn't look to be factually correct. The members walked out without the support of the union initially in what was an illegal strike because they didn't allow the process as defined by the Province to play out by going out three days early – a detail even the union acknowledges. I think the edit dimishes the depth of understanding the previous revision offered. :( Wiggy! 16:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aye, the CBC Radio link isn't worth much for details, more for kitch-value I guess. I haven't bothered trying my high-school knowledge of French to interpret those sites, so I'll take your word for it - and yes, you seem to be following NPOV very well (unlike our little anonymous vandal who apparently hates unions...not that I can disagree, given the current Ontario College Teachers strike demanding they be paid in line with University...but that's a rant for a blog, not WP :) ). I think the only conflict you and I share, is that what you see as "depth" I see as "novelising", and I tend more towards detail. shrugs, something we'll pound through I guess with continuing compromises.

So, a question. I vehemently dislike calling them "woodchoppers" (I mean c'mon, woodchoppers vs. farmers? It's like some bad Canadian lumberjack joke wating to happen), but if it's true that it was an unauthorised strike, then it seems calling them "union members" constantly is also unfair when referring to the strike. "Strikers" used constantly would start to sound like Reavers or Marauders or something. Would millworkers be vaguely accurate? Any other suggestions? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we appear to disagree on the general approach, but what really is the harm in providing the additional info? It makes for a more readable, engaging page and lets one come away with something closer to a proper understanding. These labour things can complex things. Besides, I'm sure I don't have a novel in me.

As to what to call the strikers, I don't see a problem with woodcutters. Never did use choppers. That's what they are – and the cliche had to come from somewhere ;). They're not millworkers, they're the guys out in the bush doing the work of felling trees. Tree fellers? Almost sounds French in a Quebecois sort of way. Not lumberjacks. Just brings forth images of Monty Python for me. I think I ended up using the terms union members, strikers and woodcutters interchangably just so one word wouldn't show up over and over again. Too dry, bad storytelling technique (!). That approach carries the sense of the thing and they're all straight forward, unvarnished, essentially neutral words compared to stuff like unionists, brothers, worker activists, blah, blah. I don't see the need for any dodge or verbal camoflauge.

But its too thin right now and the cutting has led to some factual errors. Wiggy! 03:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cutting, hah, the day for puns is nigh! Anyways, I'd argue that we don't want to appear more in line with a newspaper article, being a series of encyclopaedic articles. Also, merely a technical note, I agree on most of the brackets you removed, but I think Monteith should stay. Red wikilinks encourage people to go create the new articles for WP :) I'm re-adding the cost of the monument, links to Cdn Parliament and Ontario Legislature and such, the reference to Brent St Denis, removing McRuer's middle name from the link, qualifying which Cochrane, etc.

On another "easily negotiable point" or whatever, what's the reasoning for removing the TOC? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry man, but you are gutting the thing for some ideal I don't understand. It's more important to create understanding of the event than get hung up on some arcane style issue.

• The New York times held a minority interest in the company which could more properly be called Kimberly Clark's in the sense you've written it. The key point of the Times involvement is that the printers strike there created conditions that prolonged the Reesor Siding strike. The Times was not directly involved in the labour negotiation, KC was.

Alright fair enough, can we work this in so it doesn't sound like a copyvio of that other website though?

It was not at any point written in a style that would suggest a copyright violation.

• The type and number of firearms seized, the actual number of cops originally on the scene, the cost of monument, and who actually said what on what day in what legislature doesn't add any depth of understanding to the event itself. Focusing on trivia like that in the name of some "encyclopedic ideal" in place of fostering a genuine understanding of the nature of the event is a meaningless exercise.

Here I disagree vehemently, if people want to read a book, they'll go pick up a novel. We're here to give facts that will otherwise be lost. Think of what the article The Holocaust would be like if people insisted that exact numbers, which politician reacted how, and how many people were involved "didn't matter" and instead just focused on writing a really good story?

They're not pertinent facts. The article could stand without knowing exactly what guns, how many cops and what politicians were involved years later. Those particular facts are peripheral. The opening paragraph of the article identifies this incident as "one of the defining labour conflicts in Canadian history". That's because of the lessons learned from the incident by labour, management, and government that were applied to future labour disputes, not because there were five .22's and a couple dozen cops at the scene. My issue is not so much about the inclusion of that sort of material, but rather in ensuring that the reader gathers a proper understanding of what the event was about, why it unfolded the way it did, what the outcomes were (without colouring the thing with a POV). The "bare facts" approach doesn't do that and is a disservice to users of the site.

Except this is not an essay, we can't add a section "Why Wiggy thinks this incident helped shape the Canadian economic landscape". I'm sorry, that's just what an encyclopaedia is, we provide facts, not interpretation. the lessons learned from the incident by labour, management, and government that were applied to future labour disputes could be worked into a nice opening of an essay, but it can't be used to shape an encyclopedia article. Imagine if you picked up an Encyclopaedia Brittanica - it will tell you how tall Mount Everest is, not that it has inspired generations of mountain climbers to rethink their strategies, and been adopted into a popular culture mythos". Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if you go back and look, you'll see I didn't introduce anything that wasn't factual. And I sure didn't write an opinionated personal essay. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Think_of_the_reader and Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Which_style_to_use.3F. The news style approach I took was entirely legitimate and richer in facts than the current revision (which is addressed in Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_facts). Wiggy! 00:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comparision to the Holocaust is not called for. That's not what this is about and I'm not too keen on being baited like that. There's an old adage about how intelligent debate ends as soon as Nazi's, the Holocaust, et al. make their way into a discussion that they have nothing to do with, so don't bother. If you have a cogent argument put it on the table without that tactic. That's all I have to say about that. Ref. Godwin's Law.

Quickly read my list of contributions, the majority of articles I write are related to the German participation in the Second World War, read my userpage, I'm really not in danger of crossing Godwin's Law tyvm. This is an area with which I have a fair deal of familiarity, so it is the easiest to draw parallels to. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Did that already. It just suggests to me that you should know better. Wiggy! 00:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• If we accept the information in the image of the memorial plaque included in the article as fact instead of relying on contradictory early media reports or some other unidentified source then there is no question as to the number of casualties – three dead, eight wounded.

The Ontario Memorial Plaques (or whatever their official name is) are frequently 'wrong', simply because they have to compress things into 2 or 3 sentences. The copywriters don't say "Let's say between 7-12 people were injured", they just say "Well what does that one source say? Okay, let's just use it". Their goal is brevity to capture a very brief sense of the incident, our goal is to provide more facts about the incident.

The plaque is a clear citation. Calling it wrong because it doesn't suit you is weak, unless the claim can be supported. The list of names given matches that count - probably not coincidently. If there is another definitive source put it on the table.

The Industrial, Wood & Allied Workers of Canada Union says that 9 were wounded, the Ontario Heritage Foundation says 8 were wounded, is one of these a more definitive source suggesting the other should be ignored? The CBC radio address from 1963 I believe gave yet another number of wounded. The fact is, there are different reported numbers, and that should be mentioned. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that the photo of the plaque, the union history page, and the list of names that are included in the Wikipedia article all say eight, it seems kind of silly to contradict those sources without citations of a similar quality. The support for any other number looks to be thin to non-existant. Wiggy! 00:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• The deleted link to the union history page represents the most complete summary of the incident available anywhere on the Internet and deserves cited along with the CBC material.

Hrm, didn't think I'd removed any external links - I apologise. By all means, re-add this, I agree it's a good summary.

• The link to the mayor's quote is exactly the same link that appears at the bottom of the page and is redundant. Nor does it lead directly to an obvious citation for the quote.

Well you can change it to REF/NOTE citation, I think the quote is important enough to stay.

The quote is good. Quite good in that it captures the tension of the event, supports the use of the term settlers, etc. A duplicate link is poor style. A link that sends you to a place that doesn't actually show the quote until/unless you root around for it is not effective.

• Justice McRuer's correct title is Chief Justice, not simply Justice.

Again, my apologies - not sure why I had changed that.

Trivial copy edit. Done and done.

• Donald MacDonald's claim is cited twice in the "encyclopedic" version of the article. One or the other is redundant.

Yeah, I noticed that - I feel the one in its own paragraph feels more redundant, suggest we remove that one? Your thoughts?

It should be in context somehow. Tying it to the description of the incident and the actions of the police seems most effective.

Just checking I understand, we're both happy with it where it is now then, right? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.

• I've not seen any citation anywhere that indicates the farmers stepped up production of pulp wood. It's not in the CBC material and not even the union history makes that claim against them.

I'll look today for a source for that claim, you can remove the wording for now, but please copy/paste what you remove onto the talk page just for easy reference later on.

The settler-farmers were simply carrying on business as usual from all I can gather. Their actions simply had a greater impact than usual because the effects of the Times printers strike which significantly reduced the motivation to the company to negotiate. The poor beggars were in a tough spot no matter what.

• The seven day work week was only one of many issues. The wage freeze, working conditions, and the negotiation taking place in the context of a broader set of related negotiations are all relevant and avoid oversimplifying a complex labour issue.

Wage freeze I agree on, I'm not sure I understand your last point. But "working conditions" is a standard comment in any strike, whether the current college teachers strike, or chickencatchersRus. I just felt it tended to weigh a little POV in the strikers' favour if we included what is most likely rhetoric as an actual issue. Perhaps you could just reword it to something along the lines of "The strikers claimed..."?

It is common practice for unions to negotiate a "model agreement" that gets applied across an entire industry. The most obvious example is what happens in the auto industry. Ford employees goes out on strike and negotiate a deal. GM and Chrysler then agree to deals based on the settlement at Ford. It avoids strikes at their companies and is just easier on everybody. A cooperation thing.

In the Ressor Siding case the company refused to follow this practise and tried to cut an entirely different sort of deal. That essentially means that the parties involved were starting from scratch and everything would be back on the table. The company was asking the strikers to accept less than what they're counterparts doing the same type of work were getting.

Okay, but I don't see that that addresses what I said - compromise was to include the wage freeze and 7-day week, but to leave out the generic (often rhetorical) "working conditions" unless specific conditions are found to have been the source of complaints, fair? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The union history link describes a mittful of issues that are simply summarized as "working conditions": better food, showers, better sleeping quarters. That source also identifies this group of things as one of the principle reason's why the company's contract offer was refused. Wiggy! 00:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problems with you adding in text about better sleeping quarters, etc as specific complaints - I just didn't want the generic rhetoric, that's all. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• The union did not "put its members on strike". The members wildcatted over the objections of the union leadership.

Yup, you mentioned that before - no objections to changing that, please do.

K.

• The reference to the cost of the memorial is placed out of context.

You can insert it wherever, but it's a fact that should stay imho.

Not a big issue, just needs a proper home.

• The additional image which was deleted gives a clear view of just what exactly is sitting on top of the monument, and it's not like it's taking up too much space or something.

Shit...that'll teach me to pay more attention, my fault, again I apologise, didn't mean to delete any images.

K.

• Yeah, I basically agree on the red wiki-links as inspiration (I like to leave them out there, too), but sometimes it's just way too clear that some will never be cleaned up. Ironically I suppose, removing the reference to the present day United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (for which there is an existing wiki) had the effect of red-ifying the reference to the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union. And so understanding and clarity is further diminished.

What about making a [[X|Y]] link for the UBCJA/other union?

Using UBCJA in place of the union name is a no-no according to the Wikipedia manual of style. The same should be applied to the acronyms for the NDP and the OPP.

Yes, personally I disagree with the MoS on this issue, so I tend to use my own judgment on the matter when doing an article - but if it's an issue for you, and you want it with the full names, obviously you have the upper hand, so I can't complain :P

Brevity is pointless if it defeats understanding. The longer version of the article is in a readable style and is not particularly onerous to digest. I think it better serves someone trying to learn about the incident. Wiggy! 07:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On other issues, things like "an hour north" aren't really great indicators, are you driving a motorcycle? car? horse? plane? It'd be better if you happened to know approximate kilometres, or else to just say "north of".

Oh, c'mon now. That's being silly and distracts from meaningful debate. Hairsplitting not allowed. Tch! :)

Actually I think it was valid, if you're talking to a chum "an hour north" works fine, but in an encyclopaedia, that's really not a good reference. Different countries have different standard driving speeds, is this an hour at Autobahn driving or an hour at New York City driving? An encyclopedia isn't going to say "The CN Tower is a large structure in Toronto that takes 32 minutes to climb the stairs of", it's going to measure distance in units of distance, time in units of time, etc. And hey, maybe I enjoy being anal :P Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually A BFD to me and it can be cut without belabouring it. Wiggy! 00:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, wanted your opinion (since it's your writing) about "weakening the bargaining power of the union" making it sound like it was an official strike? Yes? No? Your call, just that stood out to me. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It became official within days when the union leadership got behind it. Walking out early just ends up as another thing on the negotiating table as a technical violation and ends up as something for a arbitrator to sort out, or it gets fixed by a judge and the appropriate penalties get doled out. One of those things that takes on it own bit of life. Pretty dumb onthe union membership's part I think. Regardless of the legal character of the strike "weakening the bargaining power ..." is a legitimate phrase in that it quickly and simply sums up the circumstances.

Fine by me, then. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And as per the accidently deleted image, I like it...do you agree it should actually be moved to the top as the main image, and we'll move the full view of the monument down to its mention at the bottom of the article? (btw, if it's your image, can I nag for a {{GFDL}} tag?

Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not critical but, I'd be more inclined to do a "This is the monument, this is what the monumnet is about (the plaque), this is what's on top of the monument" sort of sequence as a simple logical progression. Wiggy! 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, not critical down here either, so feel free to reverse the images if you want again. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

                   Does anybody know what the Stompin Tom Connors song is called?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.31.176 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 

"Reesor Crossing Tragedy", you can find it on STC torrents if you look. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The other guy complains

Just make sure this article doesn't become a morass of union sympathy. It's a simple fact that if you refuse to work you have no right to complain when someone else takes your job. What the union members did was criminal. Of course in the long run the union has ruined the underlying buisiness, and so jepordised the very job security they claim to protect. Delivered wood cost in Ontario is about $55CAD/cubic metre. The world average is about $35CAD/cubic metre. Naturally the canadian taxpayer steps in to fill the difference. Ontario tax payers are now spending over $240M to try and keep the uneconomic paper mills open [1]. 132.236.176.165 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

...so? Whether or not actions were moral or "right" is not for us to judge, you're entitled to your opinion, just like anybody else reading the article. But you are not entitled to put that opinion in the article itself. On a strictly personal note, I'm curious how you claim that the Union has ruined business for itself, then point out that they seem to be paid nearly double the global average...isn't that good for the Union? Anyways, since this strike happened in 1963, I don't think current prices of lumber are really relevent, and since the Strikers returned to work, I doubt they can be blamed for raising the price of the porch you're trying to build. This was pulp wood, you're talking about prices for lumber that you buy at the hardware store, apples and oranges. Anyways, yeah...I'm now rambling as much as you are :P Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well for the record, I'm not a union guy, never have been, and have no such sympathies. And no, I'm not a communist or socialist or any of those other things that might be tagged on. On the other hand I respect what unions have done for our society and for working people, just as I respect that capitalism has enabled the comfortable lifestyles that you and I and many other people enjoy.

The whole point about being in a union is about receiving fair treatment. Yes, I am aware that there are union extremists, but on the whole the union movement has served our society well. And on the other side the are extreme capitalists, the robber barons of the rail age, the junk bond and tech thieves of our lifetimes, folks whose focus is just bling that don't give a rats behind for anyone but themselves. If all a worker has is his labour, what else can he do but withhold his labour to challenge people like that? The right to refuse to work is an important part of having a job. Treating people like disposable parts and threatening to take away their jobs simply because they expect to be treated fairly is fundamentally wrong. Sure what the union did at Reesor was criminal in a number of ways. But they were being threatened at a very basic level that affected their ability to live day-to-day. What would your response be? What the company did - by refusing to deal in good faith – is criminal today under labour law that governs both companies and workers. What the farmers did was also clearly criminal judging by the dead people laying on the ground. There were not a lot of good guys in the whole messy business.

I don't think the article is a union diatribe in any sense. It's about the evolution of the protections we enjoy today that helps prevent this this from happening again. But they're a bit like seatbelts, I suppose - not every likes to wear them even though they're clearly good for you. Unions don't dominate our country, the economy is booming, we're all mostly happy and well-fed. I'm more worried now about living in a Walmart-world than I am scared about having to deal with a knuckleheaded union. But that's another story ... Wiggy! 00:34, 10 March 2006(UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but there's no way to justify POV in a Wiki article. You can reword the problem any way you want to, but it's better to reword the article. Black-Velvet 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

We've been aware of that from the word go and have been trying to use neutral language and characterizations throughout. Wiggy! 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC reply

Hi,

I am replying to the RfC applied to this article. I am reading the version of the article as of Mar. 9, 18:38. I don't have any prior knowledge of this event, or of Candian history in general, so my perspective represents that of a casual reader.

I think the article goes into just enough depth as is. It seems as though the real issue is that there is a lot of point-of-view conflict in the talk page. A good method for eliminating this kind of tension is including separate subsections of "Background" devoted to each point of view. This allows some breathing space for proponents of each side to elaborate their points of view in a nonconfrontational manner.

If you have any further comments, feel free to post on my talk page.  Cdcon  20:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the only real POV conflict was with the anonymous IP-address person who is stridently anti-LabourUnion I would assume. But since his complaints are regarding current-day working conditions, global sale of patios and similar, I really don't think they can be incorporated into the article. That's my 2 cents. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)