Talk:Catalist

Correcting inaccurate summary of The Hill citation re: unionization

Going back and forth with @Avatar317 on the following quote from The Hill. It is not accurate to say "They did not unionize to improve working conditions..." The quoted union member does not say that in any quoted material and actually addresses working conditions in their second quote. Asserting something that is not in the quoted material is inaccurate.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/558812-workers-at-progressive-data-firm-catalist-unionize/

Davinia Camellia, an account executive at the firm, told The Hill that the organizing workers’ “overall philosophy” was that if they were going to be doing work with the labor movement then they should be represented by a union as well.

“We want to make sure that everyone has a voice and we want to have a seat at the table for any decisions that affect workers at Catalist,” she added. SpinalCranial (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

See the quote you must have missed in the source that I added now, "Catalist workers say they pursued unionization not because of any specific perceived mistreatment, but because of a broader belief in the benefits of organizing." ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's focus on the proposed edit and whether it is directly sourced by the Hill article, not what you think someone "must have missed." :) Thanks.

In the edit section you wrote:

Restored better summary of source article; "working conditions" are things like pay, healthcare, pensions, etc. Added quote to support that: "Catalist workers say they pursued unionization not because of any specific perceived mistreatment, but because of a broader belief in the benefits of organizing."

First of all, "perceived mistreatment" is not the same as "working conditions" which should be obvious, so the quote does not back up your summary. Further, the term "working conditions" is quite broad and certainly includes pay, healthcare and pensions. It ALSO includes things like "hav[ing] a seat at the table for any decisions that affect workers at Catalist." Here are some helpful categories of working conditions from the Department of Labor for reference: https://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/browse/4.C/ which include how workers relate to one another and management in various decision-making contexts. Finally, and most importantly, the term "working conditions" does not appear in the original article in this context so its use is overly broad to the point of confusion or editorializing.

To try to come to agreement:

1) Do you agree that the term "working conditions" is broader than the examples you identified?

2) Do you agree that the term "working conditions" does not appear in The Hill article?

3) If the term "working conditions" does not appear in The Hill article do you agree that it should not be included in a summary given how broad the term is and your overly narrow use of it in this context?

You last proposed edit is: "They did not unionize to improve working conditions, but because workers felt that since the company does work for the labor movement, its employees should be unionized."

This edit is inaccurate because it misuses the term "working conditions." It also fails to adequately summarize the reasons workers DID say they unionized, which are all sourced directly from them in the article.

My proposed edit, which draws ONLY from the source article is as follows: "Workers told The Hill they unionized to 'have a seat at the table' for workplace decisions and because they believe in the benefits of organizing, including in the work they do with the labor movement. They said they did not organize in response to any perceived mistreatment."

Again to come to agreement:

4) Do you agree that all the claims in my proposed edit can be directly traced to the article?

5) Do you have any proposed changes to the edit and can you directly source them to the article?

Thanks! SpinalCranial (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Avatar317 Please stop deleting the sourced quote about having a seat at the table; thank you for refraining from reinserting the unsourced point about working conditions. SpinalCranial (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of quotes in that article; we don't pick an arbitrary one just because someone likes it, we summarize the overall source, per policy, and avoid WP:UNDUE statements like the long quote from the CEO of catalist, for example. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither of us have cited that quote, to my knowledge, these sentences are about the reasons workers stated they unionized. I'm proposing to list all the reasons you've included as well as having a seat at the table, which relates to directly to their work at an organization, as opposed to your previous edits which suggested that their unionization effort was *only* about aligning with the labor movement.

This is my proposal. Do you have an alternative?

Workers said they did not organize in response to any perceived mistreatment, but rather their belief in the benefits of organizing, to "have a seat at the table" for workplace decisions, and to be in a union as part of their work with labor organizations. SpinalCranial (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)