Talk:1998 Puerto Rican general strike

older entries

This page could really use a picture, but the only ones I could find were all © some news organization or another. If you have access to a free image, please post it! — Scartol · Talk 00:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I did the GA review for the article. Findings:

1. Well written?: No problems here.

2. Factually accurate?: No errors as far as I can say.

3. Broad in coverage?: Main shortcoming here. The actual strike is very briefly described. Its consequences are almost totally ignored. What effects did it actually have, if any? What happened to its leaders?

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral it is.

5. Article stability? Stable.

6. Images?: Some general images, nothing about the strike itself.

Failing the GA for now. --Drieakko 07:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Failing or placing on hold to let time to the editors to work with it? its hard to tell since no concrete action has taken place. The strike was more of show than anything else in reality, when the leaders sided with the goverment it was pretty much over, no particular lasting effect besides the loss of money during the general strike and the PRTC being sold. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the review, Drieakko, but I'm at a loss as to how we could expand the strike itself. As the sources indicate, I found a variety of articles from a variety of sources, and I included pretty much every piece of information I could find about the strike itself. If there's not much, it's because not much is available. I suppose if it fails, it means the article can never be a GA, until someone writes a book about it. I'd say the review is a bit harsh, but I'm not a neutral party. – Scartol · Talk 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I don't know if there is a Puerto Rican labor press, or if the contributors to the article had access to Spanish-language publications (either press, labor press, or union publications). I notice that almost all of the sources are American and in English. This may be one case where non-English language sources are appropriate.

But I agree: The article is light on the strike itself, and needs images from the strike itself (if there are any). Here are some suggestions for research and additions, however:

• What strategies or actions did the Independent Telephone Workers Union (ITWU) take prior to the strike? Was there legislative activity, regulatory filings, electoral work, rallies, petitions, etc.? If there were none, that needs to be said as well. The same can go for the Independent Brotherhood of Telephone Workers (IBTW).
• The section "PRTC workers strike" starts out by saying that 1,400 managers reported for work. I would expect them to (they are the boss). I would try to add something to that opening paragraph about the expectations. For example: "All 1,400 managerial employees reported to work, although many were expected not to." Or, for example: "Despite concerns that many union members might cross the picket line, nearly all 6,400 workers stayed out. A small number of union members, which the union estimated at 20 and the employer at 250, crossed the picket lines carrying food and pillows for an extended stay inside." Whatever the expectation was, get it in there and then say whether it was met or not.
• In the "Violence and sabotage" subsection, I would add a line or two about why the police beat the protestors. Were the police overwhelmed (15 cops to 6,400 workers)? Did protestors push or bump the police? Even if the police rationale for the beatings is nonsense, it should be included. Did the beatings get widespread press? What was the public reaction to the beatings? What was the union's response to the beatings (press release, no response, massive candlelight rally, daytime rally, etc.)? And how do we know the bombers and saboteurs were protestors? Could they be non-union members?
• Also in the "Violence and sabotage" subsection, a "wave" of property damage implies widespread acts, but only two are mentioned. I would alter the article to give a better sense of what a "wave" was. For example: "In the days after this incident, militant protesters carried out a wave of property destruction and sabotage—cutting power lines, blowing up transformers, pelting repair workers with debris, vandalizing power stations, and spraying graffiti on walls."
• Also in the "Violence and sabotage" subsection, is there a reason why the property damage continued? These things usually die out after a couple of days. Was there no government response, or a refusal of the government to ackowledge its actions? Or did something else happen when kept tensions high?
• Also in the "Violence and sabotage" subsection, that final sentence about the strike "dragging on" seems a little hyperbolic. If the Greater Committee of Labor Organizations formed on June 30, that was a mere 11 days after the strike began. Personally, I don't call 11 days "dragging on." I would also add a citation to that sentence, and flesh out this aspect of the strike: Who was on the committee? Did it include allies not normally willing to help out the two unions? What actions did the committee take, if any? And, if you can, tell the reader whether the committee was planned ahead of time or whether it was formed spontaneously to the worsening violence of the strike.
• In the section "General strike," it seems the general strike was spontaneous. I doubt that. But could that be cleared up? When did the call for a general strike go out? Were there negotiations to try to avoid a general strike? Did the government poo-poo the general strike or was it worried by the call for a general strike? And 500,000 people seems like a lot, but what percentage of the island's workforce is that? There were 50 unions; how many members total did they represent? (For example: If the 50 unions had membership totalling 1 million, then 500,000 turnout is very good. If the 50 unions had membership totalling 5 million, then 500,000 turnout is not so good.) Did the two telephone unions belong to the AFL-CIO or some other labor federation, and if so did the 50 unions turning out for the general strike also belong? (In other words, give us some sense about whether the solidarity was expected or not, unusual or not, etc.) What was the press' reaction to the general strike? Why did it last only two days?
• Also in the section "General strike," one assumes there was intense pressure on commonwealth legislators in addition to the governor. Was the pressure heavy or not? Did any of legislators speak out against the sale now that the strike was spreading? What about company executives, GTE executives, or other businessmen? Was there pressure on them or not?
• In the subsection "Travel disruptions," what day did the blockade occur on?
• In the section "End of strike," I need a better sense of how the strike ended. Was the strike going full-bore (mass rallies, heavy attendance on the picket lines, continuing press coverage, etc.) or not? I need the context to determine how shocking (or not) the sudden (or not) capitulation was. What was the press' reaction? Did other unions react to the announcement, or did they close ranks behind the two unions?
• Also in the section "End of strike," there must have been more reaction than just the statement in one American non-labor publication. That's desperately needed. (I realize that this, in particular, is where Spanish-language publications might be necessary.)
• In the "Sale and aftermath" section, what happened to the leaders of the two unions. Did they survive re-election or not? Were they challenged for re-election? Did layoffs actually occur (they are predicted, but I don't know if they really happened). It's been nine years: Are the unions still strong there, or weak, or losing membership? Did GTE agree to new contracts despite the strike? Did the strike leave the island's labor movement stronger or weaker? (Even a loss can mean a win; see the St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 and how it led to widespread union organizing despite failing at St. John's.)

The article, as currently written, is pretty good. It's well-cited, and the cited works are professional and solid (not fly-by-night rag sheets). There are no NPOV problems, and little hyperbole or "undue weight" issues. For a GA, however, it seems thin. Like too little butter spread over too much bread (as the saying goes). - Tim1965 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Some great feedback. Thanks, Tim. It's been a while, but I doubt any of the sources I used could serve to expand the points you make. I'll have to keep my eyes open for new sources to use in the future. Thanks again for your meticulous review. – Scartol · Talk 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.ncpa.org/pd/state/sljuly98a.html
  • In 1998 Puerto Rican general strike on 2011-05-25 06:35:15, 404 Not Found
  • In 1998 Puerto Rican general strike on 2011-06-25 11:42:26, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)