Talk:The Burke Group

Dubious and disputed tags and $2.5 million award to CDN

I just double-checked both cites, and it seems to me that the TBG edit was correct. One cite does not mention any $2.5 million award. The other mentions the award, but makes no claim that it was related to anything The Burke Group did; and its assertion of a ruling of a "Court of Appeals" has no supporting documentation. There's no such US body as "the Court of Appeals" that has the authority to award damages. THF (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are correct, THF, the cite was outdated, and should have been more carefully researched. It should have been updated to report the full amount, a $5.19 million award to the employees of The Chinese Daily News, which included penalties for violating labor laws as well as 10 percent interest on the original award of $2.5 million. [1] I'll see that the correct information gets into the article as soon as i can find the time.

By the way, the practice of hiding all content prior to one's own response is unfriendly, please don't do it again. Richard Myers (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that this award is about overtime pay and has nothing to do with The Burke Group, and that Logan was being dishonest. It's being deleted as a violation of WP:SYN.

The page is completely cluttered with discussion by and about a banned editor, in violation of WP:TALK. It's perfectly appropriate to have a clean page to enable legitimate discussion. THF (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged no such thing. The cite was outdated because there has been subsequent court action, and the amount of the award needs to be increased. Your extrapolation of my acknowledgment serves your own interest in helping to sanitize the Burke Group article, and it is likewise unfriendly.

I further do not agree that removing the content is warranted; rather, more content must be included to make the information current and up to date. Richard Myers (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a cite that said the $2.5M (or whatever the number is) was because of something the Burke Group did. Your only cite has been to a webpage that said the CDN was fined for overtime violations. That has nothing to do with The Burke Group. You have essentially acknowledged that the cite doesn't belong. You need to construct a rationale why this doesn't violate WP:SYN and why Logan has not been discredited by falsely implying that CDN was fined because of TBG. THF (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

refactoring

Again, i ask you to desist in this practice of giving greater weight to your own comments by hiding all previous content. You cite WP:TALK. That page states clearly, Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views (with bold in the original). The action that you have now taken is refactoring the talk page. I object to refactoring this talk page at this time. I ask a second time, please do not do it again. I also do not wish to see this talk page archived at this time. Richard Myers (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

THF is not refactoring the talk page. He is adding a minimizing template which is perfectly acceptable behavior here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The alternative is to archive the page. It is untenably long without either option. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The refactoring page states, in part, "Refactoring ... can include ... any other means that alter the presentation of information." By that definition, adding a minimizing template can (and in my opinion, does) constitute refactoring. The refactoring page further states, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I have made such an objection; what remains to be seen is whether my objection will be honored. Richard Myers (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose a compromise. There is a specific reason this particular use of the minimizing template is inappropriate. It is being used to hide initial comments relevant to this discussion in this section, notably a comment on the initial restoration of a deletion edit by a now-banned sock puppet. As instituted by THF, the minimizing template places his response to that comment first, and hides what he is responding to. This does not appear to be for the purpose of hiding extraneous information, but rather, for the purpose of adding undue weight to one side of the discussion, at the expense of the other side. It is unfriendly, at best. I have moved the minimizing template termination tag to unhide that initial part of the discussion. Richard Myers (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

unbalanced tag

TUC and John Logan are not a neutral unbalanced source for information about The Burke Group, yet this article is essentially a summary of Logan's partisan attack on the organization. While any Burke Group article should include Logan's criticism of the group, it is inappropriate for the entire article to be based on it. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. THF (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To get to the cite about Chinese Daily News' 2.5 million, Logan's "U.S. Anti-Union Consultants...", page 11, I will quote and emphasize:

In response, CDN hired TBG consultant Larry Wong, who immediately started an

aggressive anti-union campaign. In March 2001, CDN employees voted for union

representation, but the anti-union campaign did not end there, as management

told employees that it was prepared to spend $1 million on defeating the union.

True to its word, CDN management paid TBG $221,737 in 2001, $108,389 in

2002, and $480,462 in 2004. On the second anniversary of the workers’ election

“victory” – when the company was still contesting the outcome of the election

and refusing to bargain with the union – US Congressman Sherrod Brown praised

the immigrant workers’ “tireless efforts as they continue to wrestle with the

overwhelming resources of a foreign employer committed to silencing their voices

and thwarting their right to organize.” In September 2005, after an intense antiunion

campaign that had lasted almost five years, the union lost a rerun election

at the CDN. The head of the Newspapers Guild subsequently described the events

at the CDN as “fiercest anti-union campaign I have ever been involved in.” In

2007, the Court of Appeals awarded CDN employees $2.5 million for numerous

labor law violations committed by the company, but they will probably never

gain union representation. The CDN campaign demonstrates that, for workers

facing aggressive and determined consultant campaigns, winning recognition and

collective bargaining rights often looks pretty much the same as losing.

It has not failed verification. Undue weight doesn't mean removing criticism because we can't locate anything good to say about them to match the length. If 95% of the press coverage out there is negative, it would be unrealistic of us to write an article that matches each criticism 50-50. I'd suggest looking for other, kinder sources if you want to change the weight, but the facts surrounding these cases are validly cited. I still haven't seen anything wrong with Logan other than he's saying bad things about TBG. We're citing the facts here, not Logan's opinions. Is there anyhing to suggest that Logan is in any way a pro-union writer, anti-union-buster, etc., oher than what is in these two cites? Unless there is reason to suggest that Logan invents statistics, I fail to see the problems with these cites. I sugges a straw poll for removing the improper synthesis, unreliable source, failed verification, and dubious tags from he CDN section, and the factual accuracy tag from the top (unless something else is in question). Also, I've yet to see a rationale for the recentism tag. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, I read that when I put the tags in. Which is why I said it failed verification. The facts of these cases are not validly cited.

1. There is a synthesis violation. Even under the quoted material, there is no evidence that the $2.5 million has anything to do with The Burke Group, as opposed to, say, a fine against the CDN for not properly accounting for overtime hours.

2. It is factually inaccurate.

a. There is no such thing as the "Court of Appeals." Logan must mean either the "California Court of Appeals" or the "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," probably the latter as most labor law in the United States is federal.

b. It is impossible under U.S. law for either "Court of Appeals" to award any money. Since Logan gives no footnote to support his claim, he is either misinformed, imprecise, or making something up. Court of Appeals decisions are public records, readily searchable on the Internet. Find me a Court of Appeals decision fining the Chinese Daily News for Burke Group activities (as opposed to overtime violations). I looked, and didn't find any.

If Logan is misrepresenting something like this that is easily falsifiable from on-line sources, what else is he misrepresenting? I question whether Logan is a reliable source at all.

Even if Logan did somehow meet WP:RS, it is unquestionably the case that his report was written for a partisan source opposed to TBG. There is absolutely no indication in the article that this most of this article a reprint of a POV source. NPOV requires such sources to be identified for their bias in the main text, rather than as neutral arbiters merely parroted and footnoted. THF (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Logan's reports are are from the London School; the partisan website just hosted digitized versions. I don't see any indication that these were written for any POV source- like most PhD professors, he published research. I see nothing in NPOV dealing with excluding sources for facts because the tone of the piece is not sufficiently neutral- NPOV (which UNDUE is a subsection of) deals exclusively with handling the insertion of opinions in articles. It doesn't say anywhere to omit facts because there aren't enough good things to say, or to exclude factual sources because we don't like the opinion or thesis those facts are supporting. NPOV does not requires "such sources to be identified: when dealing with facts; it states that assert facts about opinios, not the opinions themselves. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an affirmative misrepresentation of the facts. The report was commissioned and paid for by the Trade Union Congress. THF (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that it's not a factual source. He consistently gets facts wrong, or slants facts to imply wrongdoing where none existed. That's fine for a polemic, but then it should be attributed to the author or his TUC backers rather than falsely represented as a neutral source in the article. THF (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The court of appeals thing is simply bad wording. CDN was awarded the money in federal district court (amount later increased); that case has. He put the wrong court name. That cite can be used instead. The article here does not say the fine resulted from consulting Burke, so that's not a requirement for including a source. This section lists cases with Burke involvement and their outcomes; nothing is implying that these companies were fined for consulting Burke. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article here does not say the fine resulted from consulting Burke, so that's not a requirement for including a source. Yes, it is. See WP:SYN and WP:NOR. You don't get to hang on the coatrack random facts that have nothing to do with the subject of the article. And the article most certainly implies that the fine was because of what TBG did--and so does Logan's dishonest report. THF (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, there has not been acknowledgment of anything so far; please don't assert that. This is still under discussion. There is also no need to tag the same reference in multiple places. And, again, I've yet to see any rationale for the recentism tag. I believe Richard and I are in agreement over these sources and the inclusion of the section you blanked; file an RfC if you want more people, but right now majority seems to support both inclusion of the information and the use of the Logan sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The same questionable source is used in multiple places, and needs a tag in each place. I'd like to have neutral eyes review this at WP:RS/N. THF (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, we are in agreement. And i apologize for being a little flippant in my comment about the need to update the citation with recent info. THF, your misunderstanding my comment was at least partly my own fault, i could have explained it more carefully. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try rewording the CDN section so that the reason for the award isn't a concern. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone here appears to agree that the award is irrelevant to anything The Burke Group did. No one is claiming TBG advised CDN on overtime pay. So why is it in the Burke Group article? TBG isn't responsible for any of its clients' actions unrelated to what it was advising them on. The only way it gets in the article is if one ignores the synthesis violation. Editors don't get to glom on facts unrelated to the subject of the article, no matter how good their original research. Put it in the Chinese Daily News article, and keep it out of this one. THF (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

convenience break 1

OUTDENT I believe it warrants inclusion because it documents the end outcome of a case in which Burke advised one side. Specifically, Burke was employed to stop unionization, and it was a class action suit from the employees that brought the award. It wasn't unrelated; it shows a failure of Burke's efforts. If that's not good enough, use an RfC for outside opinions. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That is your original research. It's also factually incorrect, as any US labor lawyer could tell you. The lawsuit would've taken place whether or not there was a union. Nothing TBG could have done could have stopped the lawsuit; TBG wasn't advising about how to avoid technical violations of overtime pay law, which is a completely different law than union-recognition law. The way Wikipedia avoids disputes over whose original research is correct is by omitting any original research from the article. Nothing in your cite mentions the Burke Group. THF (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"The lawsuit would've taken place whether or not there was a union."

I'd be interested to know, what is the source for this statement? It sounds like conjecture. Richard Myers (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to "any individual employed by an employer," whether or not they are in a union. See 29 USC § 203(e). The presence or absence of a union does not affect the incentive of plaintiffs' attorneys to bring these lawsuits. THF (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But that obviously doesn't prove anything. You are engaging in speculation based upon a possibility, and passing that off as fact. If your research had demonstrated that (1) the lawsuit was initiated before the first union organizer was contacted, or (2) the union was opposed to the lawsuit, or (3) the employees stated on the record that their lawsuit occurred without union suggestion, participation, or advocacy, then you might have an argument. What you've offered here is merely circumstantial, and not in any way support for a statement of fact.

Simply based upon my decades of experience with other unions and lawsuits in a different locale, i contend that the contrary is more probable. Employees feel emboldened, not to mention their increased awareness of possibilities, when they have access to union knowledge and expertise. And i have as much proof that the union was responsible for this lawsuit as you have offered that it wasn't. Richard Myers (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourself? You are speculating that the lawsuit had anything to do with The Burke Group. "Based upon my decades of experience" is the very definition of impermissible original research. You need a reliable source that says this lawsuit was related to The Burke Group. You have none. THF (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice try. The evidence that i have of direct union responsibility for the lawsuit is zero. The evidence that you've presented here that the union had no responsibility for the lawsuit is likewise zero. That's the point of my decades of experience statement, i'm comparing speculation to fact. And, i am observing that in claiming the lawsuit would have happened even if there was no organizing drive, you have presented speculation as a certainty.

You are arguing that the article presents speculation as fact as well. Fine, let us examine that.

The lawsuit involved labor relations issues. The Burke Group advised the company on labor relations issues during the period of the lawsuit's origination. Do you disagree?

The union organizing effort is a documented fact, and the lawsuit is a documented fact.

The result of the union organizing effort is a documented fact, the result of the lawsuit is a documented fact.

All of these facts are related in some ways, and certainly they are related in their simultaneity, they occurred with the same workers, the same management, essentially in the same time-frame. They are related in that they all encompass labor relations, i.e., the relationship between labor and management. They all involve a struggle between workers and their company.

There may be other relationships, or not. So we must be careful that the article doesn't synthesize, and doesn't draw conclusions for which we have no evidence. Probably none of us know what words were spoken behind closed doors.

But stating facts relevant to the struggle between the company and the workers, in which the Burke Group advised one side, and the union advised the other side, is simply the function of a good Wikipedia article.

Now let us consider what is happening with the edits surrounding this section of the article. One side believes that John Logan's use of the term Court of Appeals is mere shorthand, that a court did issue a ruling, and the full name of that court can easily be discovered and added to the article. The other side has argued that the use of a shorthand term impeaches John Logan's entire analysis, and simply because he used a shorthand term, his very credibility as a source can be impeached:

There's no such US body as "the Court of Appeals" that has the authority to award damages... Since Logan gives no footnote to support his claim, he is either misinformed, imprecise, or making something up.

We're not in a court of law where legal technicalities may cause an entire case to be dismissed. We're trying to present information, and make it the best that it can be. If we relied upon such over-lawyering of any source's details, we could throw out nearly every article on Wikipedia.

So it is not surprising that someone who has deleted other passages reflecting poorly on the Burke Group would choose to slice and dice this particular labor relations struggle as well, and use that to argue: report one part of it, but not another.

I have no problem whatsoever with making the information both complete and correct. But as Jeremy has observed, NPOV "doesn't say anywhere to omit facts because there aren't enough good things to say, or to exclude factual sources because we don't like the opinion or thesis those facts are supporting." Richard Myers (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The price of bananas increased in 2007. Shall we include that in the article, too? I can find a source for it, and then you can only speculate that The Burke Group isn't responsible for it. This isn't overlawyering: this synthesis is a blatant violation of Wikipedia rules.

You have the burden of proof that text you wish to insert into an article meets Wikipedia rules. You've spammed the page with a lengthy rant, but nowhere in there have you cited a single reliable source that attributes the award to anything The Burke Group did or didn't do. It's irrelevant to this article. THF (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And this isn't a technicality: Logan, commissioned by a union to write a hit-piece favorable to the union's interests, wrote something that wasn't true. Logan is not a reliable source, except as evidence for Logan's and TUC's opinions. THF (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bananas are a faulty analogy. I like this- omitting the award would be like removing mention of the O.J. Simpson case from the Johnny Cochran page- after all, the jury didn't reach a finding simply because Cochran was involved. The fact is, CDN hired Burke to stop worker organization, and the workers won a class-action suit. They organized. Unions deal with worker grievances; this suit was a worker grievance. As for the TUC thing above, I didn't catch that before (maybe try AGF rather than accusing someone of misrepresentation), but that doesn't disqualify the other Logan source. I'd be okay with removing that Burke source based upon that- the information all has other sources anyway. I'm just not sure why we're challenging sources where other sources verify the same information. Overall, however, I need to point out that there haven't been any other users with complaints about these sources or the CDN award. Give the RSN thread some time, but if it yields nothing, I see no reason to keep this article tagged. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy supports me. Johnny Cochran represented OJ Simpson in the OJ Simpson criminal litigation. TBG did not represent CDN in the CDN civil litigation. THF (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Both were still working to further the goal of one side. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Cochran represented Marriott, too (I was his co-counsel in that case), but we don't include every bit of unrelated wrongdoing Marriott did in the Johnny Cochran article, and we don't include OJ Simpson's robbery conviction in the Cochran article. THF (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

logan break

(outdent by THF)
There's no problem at all with noting in a Wikipedia article footnote who commissioned the report that the citation refers to. As we hear all the time from corporations that sponsor research, the facts are still relevant.

Even reporting a dispute in the article is acceptable. The latest addition by THF looks like a step toward possible resolution. However, only the first 18 or so words are relevant, i.e.,

"The Burke Group called the report 'unreliable and misleading because it is based on subjective and biased research'"

The rest,

"The Burke Group ... responded that it was 'committed to building a positive climate through direct communication with employees. We encourage managers and employees to become fully engaged in resolving workplace problems together. We help clients identify issues and implement best people practices. We also advocate for the right to make individual and informed decisions about union-based collective bargaining.'"

is pure sales brochure language, and is prohibited. Richard Myers (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a direct rebuttal to the claims of Logan. Either they both stay, or they both go. Anything else is unbalanced. I agree it could be tightened, and will do so. THF (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose adding that section. We're using the other Logan cite for the factual information; we don't need to add a section about Logan's opinion. No one was trying to cite Logan's opinion to start with. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Logan is not a reliable source except as a source for Logan's and the TUC's opinion. The section was a compromise because you want Logan in. If you want Logan out, we can take the section out, but that would seem silly: it's the one section of the article that is reliably and accurately sourced. THF (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I said I'm fine with removing that cite; there is a second Logan cite that I believe is reliable and want to keep. Also, I've located and added another Logan cite, which was a journal publication and contained a great deal of what was in the TUC report, so we now have a decent replacement cite for that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tags

The tags (in the articleissues template at the top, synth/unreliable/relevance in "Operations) have been up for some time now. THF placed them, but is there anyone else that thinks anything needs done? Is there also anyone thinking the maintenance tags at the top of "Operations" should stay? Without a consensus that there is a problem here, I propose the tags be removed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We still haven't had any outside opinions, and you still haven't demonstrated relevance or compliance with WP:SYN for a cite that has nothing to do with The Burke Group. The tags remain or the sentence goes. THF (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The tag is at the wrong spot wrt the Chinese Daily News. The first sentence is not relevant to TBG unless the claim is made that they were involved in the first election. In addition it uses primary sources, and makes inferences from the primary sources which are SYN and OR. The second sentence uses primary source, and makes SYN by connecting the "coercion" to the selection of TBG. The third sentence appears to be OR and irrelevant (amounts paid to consultants do not really mean much). The fifth sentence should be split -- and the election should have its own sentence to avoid SYN. The sixth sentence uses a cite which does not refer to TBG, and uses an apparent SYN to associate TBG with the suit. If one wants to directly associate TBG with the actions of CDN, a cite making that association is needed, as otherwise connecting dots as is done here is WP:SYN for sure. This is about only one small piece -- there is a host of such violations in the "Operations" section, and a section synthesis tag would not be amiss in my opinion. Collect (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

recentism tag

The company is 25 years old, but the bulk of the article is turned over to a WP:QS published in 2007 about a British labor dispute, and labor disputes in 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2007, nearly all of which are inappropriately sourced to biased sources. THF (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a case from 1995. I saw some g-news mentions of a union dispute involving catholic hospitals around 1998-2000; I don't have electronic archive access to those pieces, but if anyone does, it may also help to expand this section. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Largest anti-union management consultancy?

The lede has this statement:

It is the largest management consultancy for "union avoidance and preventative industrial labor relations."

with a link to the company's website. Yet I could find nowhere on the website to indicate this. The actual text on the website (my emphasis added) is the claim that:

The Burke Group [TBG], established in 1982, is the international leader in guiding management during union organizing (recognition) and union card signing campaigns.

Perhaps a better lede would be, with a reference to the website:

The Burke Group claims to be the "international leader" in "union avoidance" and "preventative labor relations".

--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The word "claim" has a bit of POV. I'd suggest TBG "describes itself as" or somesuch. Richard Myers (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's partially on their "About Us" page here: [2]; it says largest, but not international specifically (though the writer of that probably implied it since they do function internationally). I think their site design prevented direct linking before. It should still say "claimed", of course- every company says that about themselves, but I doubt they have any statistics to back it up. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Corporate law and consulting firms describe themselves in terms commonly employed by public relations and web writing firms. Cruz & Associates is described as the nation's leading labor relations firm,[3] Established in 1976, Industrial Relations Consultants, Inc. is described as the oldest professional labor relations consulting company of its type in the United States [4] This firm boasts John Sheridan as a founding partner. (He started with Nate Shefferman and Martin Levitt back in the 60’s and is the patriarch of union busting). [5] This firm says it was founded in 1973 (which would be older than the one describing itself as the oldest) describes itself as having 30 years of experience as a corporation specializing in all aspects of labor and employee relations. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.158.207 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2009

Not quite sure about the unsigned text above, but suggests The Burke Group might be contested in the claim as is stated in the lede at present. Will change to the text I suggested above. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Archived

I just archived a bunch of the older stuff, including the collapsed section. The section links in the TOC that didn't work because they were in the hidden box were making it hard to navigate. I'm thinking a disclaimer about the socks might be a good idea; any thoughts? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What does "disclaimer about the socks" mean? There are no sock edits on the page currently: the page entirely reflects the edits of the four active editors. THF (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been a recurring problem. For example- I found and reported the first round of socks when the article was AfD, because I was participating more regularly at AfD then. I hadn't been here since, until Richard sent me a message about some new users that looked to be the socks returning. There have been ten sock accounts dating back to April 2008; I highly doubt it's going to stop now. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, i don't know exactly what you have in mind for a disclaimer, but i trust your judgment on this. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I was afraid of a sock returning and a newer user not knowing the history of sock involvement here already (e.g., not linking socks they find to the accounts that have already been caught). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome received, welcome notice removed by its author. Richard Myers (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I incorrectly IDed you as a Burke Group sock; I self-reverted, my apologies. I thought you'd blanked some of it, but I was incorrect. Do be sure to includes cites for some of those vote numbers. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good day. Thank you for your notice. I will not be editing long so no need to join. This page had a major inaccuracy (utility industry) regarding confused footnotes between PEPCO and PECO. Utility industry is prideful like football teams. You used PECO (Philadelphia Electric Company) footnote for vote result to describe BGE/PEPCO which required footnote split applied proper company added to list. This page appears to explore UK issues so I read the Logan report. My colleague can supply CAC url domain for site reference. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.186.149 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Expanded "operations" section

The vast majority of cited sources don't mention The Burke Group at all. I speculate that the anon IP who added them has inside or other information of some sort not included in those sources, but that's what WP:NOR is all about. THF (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is a link established between Burke and every item in the list. I also disagree with the new tags: 1) A list of cases in which the article subject is involved isn't indiscriminate; 2) I don't see how this could be easily converted to prose. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A UK colleague pointed out this article to me so i added to it what I knew. I am not a Wiki. I notice a warning at the end of the article but have no idea why it was generated. I hope I didn't damage it. It was not my intention. Perhaps those of you who are experienced can retrieve the citations. I don't understand how my "edit" interfered. My edit is valid and comes from experience and knowledge in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.58.221 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it is not acceptable to edit from "experience and knowledge". You must edit Wikipedia articles using information that you can cite from secondary sources. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.

I have overturned the edits, not just for possible original research, but also due to damage to the reference section.

Also, please put four of these ~ like this: ~~~~ at the end of your comments on the TALK page. That automatically includes signature information. Richard Myers (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Burke Group operations associated with unfair labor practice, NLRB rulings

Two recent rulings of the NLRB in Feb 2009 and Oct 2008, in regard to Naples Community Hospital in Florida and Citrus Valley Medical Center in California, respectively, reference Burke Group employees involved in practices which the NLRB rulings deemed unfair labor practice and ordered both companies to cease and desist from those practices. The rulings are here:

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. Case 12-CA-25689
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CITRUS VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. Cases 21-CA-37852...

These could be useful for the operations section. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is original research. See WP:PSTS. Moreover, neither of those sources support the contention that The Burke Group (as opposed to their client) did anything wrong; neither order is directed at TBG, neither criticizes TBG, and the second one only mentions TBG once, in a footnote. THF (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They could be used for more additions to the "Operations" section, though I don't think we need any more at this time. However, the first link has some interesting information about the methods Burke uses. It's specific enough that direct quotes could be pulled to create an entire section on their methods. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we're apparently keeping score on mentions, the first mentions the Burke Group 33 times. And discussion on the TALK page certainly isn't original research, it is exploration of possible content and sources. As for "neither order is directed at TBG, neither criticizes TBG, etc.," all of that is beside the point, Burke is the adviser, not the client, and Burke is very clearly an essential actor in these events. I do think, however, that THF has one valid point, it would be a challenge to use this source by itself and contribute something worthwhile, yet stay within the guidelines of WP:PSTS. Best to locate good secondary sources, or wait for something to appear, i think. With such a rich primary source on the Burke Group role, i'm sure someone will write about the more recent case. Richard Myers (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that these judgements necessarily would be classified as primary sources. Evidence given in a court by a witness would most certainly be a primary source, but a court's ruling/judgement/opinion is made on the basis of primary (and secondary and tertiary) evidence; given that WP:SECONDARY specifically notes: "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Here the NLRB ruled (ie expressed an opinion with legal sanction) that an employer engaged in unfair labor practice, based on primary evidence before the NLRB, and the evidence presented included details, which the NLRB accepted, of the operations of a company whose practices were ruled to be part of that unfair labour practice judgement (viz Burke Group employees conducted anti-union activities in the workplace, whereas worker activists or union organisers were forbidden). Nor is this anything to do with guilt by association. Perhaps little bit of WP:COMMON is required here.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think it is a little complicated. A source can be primary for some purposes, and secondary for others. Nor is there anything that prohibits the use of primary sources on Wikipedia, so long as they are used carefully, for example, avoiding any interpretation or analysis. But for most purposes, secondary sources are greatly preferred.

I think that a court decision can be either a primary or a secondary source, depending upon how it is used. For example, if the subject is one specific incident, and that incident is discussed within a court decision, then the court record is a secondary source with respect to that incident. But a court typically rules not just on the basis of evaluating one incident; it must take into consideration issues such as jurisdiction; statutory law; case law; prior record; even demeanor of those who come before the court. Thus, the court decision synthesizes something new, and therefore (i think) a court decision is a primary source relative to the totality of the situation on which a ruling was made.

Consider also, secondary sources serve the purpose of interpreting primary sources. A judge issues a ruling based upon application of the law, and not upon any concern that the layman will understand what has been written in a decision. I expect that legal jargon could present a barrier to interpretation of a legal opinion overall, whereas referring to a specific circumstance described in the same legal document may be fairly straightforward. Primary_sources#Using_primary_sources states,

"Primary sources, in fact, are usually fragmentary, ambiguous and very difficult to analyse and interpret." Obsolete meanings of familiar words and social context are among the traps that await the newcomer to historical studies. For this reason, The interpretation of primary texts is typically taught as part of an advanced college or postgraduate history course, however advanced self-study or informal training is also possible. (quoted passage is in quotation in the original)

Thus, it could also depend upon one's training and experience, whether a source can be used as primary or secondary.

So i think that someone could, with care and knowledge, use a court decision as a source for some specific issues and information discussed within that document-- the decision, specific details, etc. But if one is referring to the more general analysis of a court case, and how it relates to other legal opinions, how it will affect the parties, or what the implications of such a decision may be, i think any such contribution to Wikipedia could be challenged. At least, that's my opinion, for what it is worth. Richard Myers (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to edit some points in the article. But I'm unsure of the goal. Is it biographical? Why so many poor citations? Are editors to this page experienced and knowledgeable of the labor relations industry or is it a lack of understanding of meanings? Am I reading here that one editor read two 93 page decisions and found "mention" of the subject of this article? If I installed an alarm system in Bagel Nosh and a grease fire sounds the fire alarm am I an arsonist? You stretch truth and credibility in this discussion. With a 30 year history and 1,000 of clients, "mentioned" is all you have? To labor relations industry that would equate to excellent record. That is why I ask about experience from editors. It is common practice for a union to file dozens of ULP's to overturn election results. Management of company does the same. Be cautious. It is not about ULP's filed, it is only ULP's found that merit. Guilt by association does not merit. For the inexperienced, companies legal counsel and consultants after they try to represent themselves and not always before they commit infraction and suffer ULP charge, not necessarily before. Two ULP decisions that only mention the subject makes this article look like a false illustration.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.252.62 (talk) 2009-03-02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.90.61 (talk) 2009-03-03

I've added two unsigned IP addresses above as the talk page history [7] and contributions from those IPs (see [8] and [9]) indicates it is the same editor, utilising different IP addresses.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

LIS

LIS is a chartered corporation. What citation shows it is a subsidiary? LIS provides services to client companies and law firms. DOL docs show CDN paid LIS not TBG. The article requires corrections. --BoardAgnt (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

NO ULP's

Through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) online Electronic Case Information System the following describes our findings relevant to Unfair Labor Practice (ComplaintCase) Advanced Search Results, sub- query, Charged Party like search text “BURKE”.

Search results found 28 records where the name involved search text “BURKE”. However, only 1 of these cases specifically identified the Charged Party as “The Burke Group”. Said case (04-CA-30632-001) was originally filed August 23, 2001. Case was closed, per the NLRB, November 30, 2001 by Withdrawal; Regional Board Actions included (Nov 30, 2001) “Approval Unsolicited Withdrawal from filing party”, and (Nov 30, 2001) “Withdrawal Request Approved by NLRB”

No other cases were found relative to the specific search “The Burke Group” or “TBG”.

Please note, charges of unfair labor practices formally filed with the NLRB are allegations only until investigated and proven on merit of evidence. For the last fiscal year (ending Sept 2007) the NLRB reported receiving approximately 23,000 unfair labor practice charges. --BoardAgnt (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

TUC Report vs. TUC/AFL-CIO Agreement

There is an appearance of great haste in writing about this subject and the citations used do not describe quotes and provide gross errors. Correction made: The TUC commissioned a report and not the AFL-CIO. The TUC used the report to issue press releases to generate press attention regarding their interest in union recognition at several companies in the UK focused against TBG which was the only known consultant in the country at that time. Separate from that the TUC and AFL CIO signed agreements to combat union free fever in the UK and the US. The word "scare tactics" was not used properly in either citation and was not attributed to The Burke Group but rather as a generic description employed by consultants, labor attorneys and anti union employers. --BoardAgnt (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC

In my opinion, material which does not relate to the subject of the article is unlikely to be relevant to the subject of the article. Collect (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the subject of the article? Is it The Burke Group? Is it David Burke? Is it union busting in general? Is it a disguised argument for EFCA? Is it a hit piece delivered by labor against union busters? Or is this article a WP:COATRACK to hang every issue in the ideological discourse between pro-union vs. management as constructed by the Labor Portal using The Burke Group as a surrogate? THe subject of this article has little if any negative press short of what was generated by the TUC press releases which are repeated in virtually every citation and blog. This article is virtually a recap of The Logan Report. I find little in the US press absent US union propaganda. It is difficult to discern encyclopedic content here.--BoardAgnt (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I see we have another Burke Group sockpuppet. All the usual technical characteristics, and the shrill style to boot. Richard Myers (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, please keep discussion about other users off of article talk pages. THF (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Socks reported. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Remove tags; leave content and citations. As already stated, I fail to see the issue here. Content is relevant and citations are valid. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 6 March 2009

(UTC)

• Remove synthesis. Content is irrelevant, and citations have nothing to do with TBG other than attempt to poison the well with guilt by association. Advice on unionization has nothing to do with technical compliance with overtime law. THF (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Content is relevant. Agree that watchfulness concerning synthesis is essential. However, numerous edits on an ongoing basis have seemed to have the goal of sanitizing this article, and puffing this company. There, that's my contribution toward balancing emotion-laden expressions such as "poison the well" and "guilt by association". I think if there really is any problem with issues related to this article, what we need is comment by new folks willing to dig into the details. Richard Myers (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from RFC: two major problems are (a) list format, (b) lack of structure. As it stands, it's a bit of a laundry list, with some relevant material, and lots of extraneous detail. I suggest rewriting in prose form to focus on the elements relevant to TBG, eg strategies employed, worldwide expansion, etc. Details of disputes belong in client articles unless they're clearly related to TBG's activities, ideally through a demonstrated impact of those activities on the outcome rather than just an end result. Rd232 ^talk 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How can one determine content relevance without understanding the encyclopedic meaning of this article?--BoardAgnt (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Added Research

CDN civil lawsuit: Upon reviewing previous dialogue I am adding to the discussion about the lawsuit inclusion. It does not belong. It is unrelated to TBG. This is explained by fact that Union recognition and labor consultants work under jurisdiction of the NLRB and not the Dept of Labor. This is an important distinction. TBG is not a law firm and does not advise in matters of law violation or Wage and Hour which falls under the jurisdiction of The Department of Labor. The word labor is the only thing these agencies have in common. Example: A doctor is an MD. He may work in a hospital. Hospital may be sued for malpractice. But each MD is not blames because they all work at the same hospital. The OB/GYN would not be responsible for malpractices of the Pediatrician or the Neurologist etc etc. CDN may have many illnesses. But TBG was their doctor for union advisory speciality and not wage and hour. Their website does not list compensation studies as a service either. Also, the NLRB agency is 100% independent of The Department of Labor. The Dept of Labor does not oversee the NLRB or vice versa. Also, upon review of articles and citations, the wage and hour infraction appears to predate TBG. TBG was hired for the second election due to first being overturned by NLRB. Wage and hour infraction appear ongoing throughout history of CDN. Examination of CDN belongs in a separate article. The lawsuit does not belong in this one. This discussion is being waged above by lay people unfamiliar with US laws and agencies.--166.128.212.194 (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, it is your analogy, let's go with it. Consider an article on a patient's health, including medical treatment for blood clots and migraine headaches. The anti-clotting drugs could interfere with headache prescriptions, or vice-versa. Should not the article on the patient examine all relevant aspects of treatment, especially in light of possible treatment interaction? Is a doctor forbidden to know about complicating, or possibly related illnesses? On the contrary; doctors are hired not just for their specialist knowledge, but for their awareness of treatment interactions and possible complications. Otherwise, how could they possibly do a responsible job? Doctors certainly need to be aware that their treatment doesn't take place in a vacuum; consultants ought to likewise be aware of interaction among the different aspects of labor relations on which they advise.

Such an article MUST consider any illnesses (or labor relations issues) and report on them, otherwise it is artificially restricted from reporting essential truth. The article should not synthesize (that is, declare a drug interaction where there's no evidence). But excluding info related to headaches, just because one editor is interested only in blood clots, would be malpractice.

What does it matter if the wage and hour infraction "appears to predate TBG"? Nothing in the article alleges that TBG initiated, caused, or recommended that the client commit the wage and hour infraction. Richard Myers (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the article alleges that TBG initiated, caused, or recommended that the client commit the wage and hour infraction. As clear a violation of WP:SYN as you can get then, no? "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." THF (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. We're talking about the infraction, not about court action or board action related to or resulting from the infraction. You're synthesizing in your response. Richard Myers (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. No mention of TBG relationship to infraction in the source, it is synthesis to attribute the verdict to TBG or to publish it in the TBG article. THF (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't attribute the verdict to TBG. The verdict is in the TBG article because it is relevant. It occurred essentially in the same time-frame. It occurred within the labor relations relationship between employer and employees. We don't necessarily know what discussions occurred, or what advise may have been good or bad. We know the result.

Consider the patient being treated for clotting. She was given Warfarin, and she was also being treated with Advil. She died. An article cannot say that she died from an interaction of these drugs, unless a reliable source declares that to be the case, even if these drugs are known to interact. But the article should certainly say that she was given Warfarin, and that she was given Advil, and that she died. Each of these is relevant, and each of these is documented.

To continue the analogy that 166.128.212.194 started, this article had mentioned that the patient took advil while under doctor's care, and that the patient took warfarin while under doctor's care. Your edit just removed info about one of the two drugs, and the little detail that the patient died. Richard Myers (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't get to mention the death in the warfarin article unless it is mentioned in a reliably sourced article about warfarin. No matter how true you think the connection is--and in this case, multiple people do not think there is a connection between TBG's advice about union representation and an overtime violation, and quite frankly, anyone who understands US labor law understands the two are not connected. THF (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You have tried to eliminate the text about the court award by arguing that it was synthesis. And now, using an original research explanation, you've actually deleted the info about the court award. Does this mean you've settled on OR, and have discarded SYN, as justification for this deletion? Richard Myers (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. SYN is part of the NOR rule. THF (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted that deletion. There's obviously no consensus to delete that text. RfCs delist after a set period of time; these sections and tags should not be removed until the RfC ends. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(Hopefully this is visible here) THF, you're not understanding how RfCs work. They are open for thirty days and delist, at which time a bot will remove the RfC header from this page. Until then, this RfC is open. Consensus has been on inclusion, though the fourth editor you asked to comment makes it 2-2. Please do not remove that text again prior to the close of the RfC, or it will be edit warring against consensus, which I will report. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I count four editors who have spoken out against inclusion: THF, Collect, BrdAgnt, and Rd232. Not sure where you're getting "2-2" or "consensus" for the policy violation, which you still have not defended. But if you tag-team edit-war, there's little I can do about your violations. THF (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BrdAgnt is a blatant sock; I don't believe for a second that you don't see that. Rd didn't mention that sentence specifically; I took his comment as a suggestion to clean the section up, not remove a particular sentence. Regardless, the RfC is still open. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I wasn't aware of the specific sentence (and I'm still not sure which one is being discussed, I'm guessing this), I wasn't commenting on it. However (if this is the sentence in question) it's a good example of what's wrong with the section. The paragraph preceding the sentence is bad enough; it basically says TBG was brought in with much extraneous detail; eg the relevance of the first election to TBG isn't made clear. Now if specific TBG activities were identified, then the results of the first election might be considered an interesting comparison to the second one TBG was involved in, especially if any WP:RS attributed to the change of result to TBG. The overtime lawsuit however has nothing to do with TBG or its activities as far as I can see, and nor can I see any relevance as context. It belongs in the World Journal article, not here. Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

TBG as largest firm

TBG as largest? There is a dialogue above regarding whether TBG is the largest firm and how to write the lede description and the discussion seemed unable to determine the answer. It is found in their website. It appears they are a bonified employer different from other firms (largely shells) http://www.tbglabor.com/faq.aspx#faq3 Q: 2. Why is The Burke Group known as the “largest” full service labor relations consulting firm in the world? A: The Burke Group has the largest compliment of full time professional consultants trained in labor relations who work “exclusively” for TBG which makes for a more professional experience for our clients and a more predictable result. Many consulting firms rely primarily on outside independent contractors or temporarily unemployed executives who come and go “as needed” depending on volume of work.--65.19.62.193 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Operations" section

I have remove this section in the hopes that it will be majorly rewritten. It seriously read like an advertizement for the company (as in: see how successful we have been... hire us). I would suggest that the entire section could be replaced with something as simple as "The Burke Group has been hired to consult on labor issues by companies, such as... (list of companies )" The details of why they were hired and what they achieved for these companies are not really important to explaining what Burke is and what it does. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I put it back for now, as the RfC above is dealing with it. It does sound like a prose rewrite would be good, but let's keep the section as-is until the RfC closes. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. There is a policy violation here, and you need a consensus that the material is appropriate before adding it. It is now the case that every outside editor to look at this says you're wrong, and you are flouting WP:CONSENSUS here, and being WP:TEDIOUS about it to boot, since you haven't even pretended to justify this under WP:SYN. THF (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it again. You're bent on blanking this and have cited half of the policies on WP in trying to justify it. Judging by your supposed ignorance of the socks from Burke, I suspect you're editing on their behalf, but I can't prove it, so I'm not looking for admin intervention. I see you've requested protection; it can sit until the RfC closes. I'm fine with leaving it out if the RfC consensus is to; if it closes the other way I suspect you'll remove it yet again citing "policy violation"; I'll be watching and ANIing if that occurs. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am trying hard to WP:AGF, but I see no consensus for the deletion of the operations section.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes it hard to WP:AGF is when you deliberately ignore the argument that was made. No one said there was consensus for deletion. What was said is that there is no consensus for addition. THF (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, my deletion of the section was not based on any consensus... I made it under WP:BOLD for the reasons stated. I simply find it to be unnecessary puffery and think it detracted from the article. If the consensus is to revert my deletion, I have no problem with that... I will, however, note that there does seem to be a consensus that something is wrong with that section. I suggest you consider a significant rewrite if you do keep the section in. Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the double-edged sword of that section. While it somewhat reads as puffery, at the same time, Burke seems to consider it negatively portraying them. I couldn't think of a way to prose it before, but I think I have now (Burke successfully prevented unionization at firm[cite], firm[cite], etc.) One thing about the CDN item, it's the one failure in this list, as a collective victory was later achieved. The balance issue might be an all-the-better reason to keep it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, you continue to misrepresent the facts. It's like saying Gary Condit won his libel suit because he got an insurance settlement from an auto accident. CDN successfully persuaded their workers to vote against unionization with the assistance of TBG; that there was an independent and unrelated lawsuit that had nothing to do with TBG is entirely irrelevant to that union vote. Your personal opinion that there was a causal relationship unnoticed by the courts is both factually incorrect and original research inappropriate for Wikipedia. THF (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

THF, what evidence do you have that these events are independent and unrelated? They happened in the same workplace, with the same management, and with the same workforce, in essentially the same timeframe, in the same field/relationship of labor relations. Claiming that they are independent and unrelated is itself original research, unless you can cite a source that states what you are asserting. Richard Myers (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the fact that the court opinion doesn't even mention the union elections or TBG? And the fact that the union elections are under the NLRA, while the lawsuit was under the FLSA? And the fact that unionized employees are eligible for FLSA damages, so a different result under the election would not have changed the course of the lawsuit? And I don't know why you keep shifting the burden here: you are the one committing synthesis to insert original research. I'm just pointing out that your original research not only violates Wikipedia rules, but it is factually incorrect: I'm not suggesting even mentioning the lawsuit in the article, not least because it's irrelevant. But feel free to ask an another lawyer who has published articles about American labor law. THF (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a class-action suit; class action == organized group. Trying to say it wasn't technically a union is semantics. The misrepresentation is your constant claim that it was one or two individuals that were awarded these millions; it was all of the employees. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's again a fundamental misunderstanding of American law. A class action is not an organized group: unrepresented plaintiffs in a class are involuntarily dragooned into the suit at the behest of a single plaintiff and his or her attorneys unless they opt out. The other members of the class can be entirely ignorant or indifferent about their involuntary participation in the suit. Indeed, I got my photo in the New York Times when I successfully objected to a particularly bad abuse of this aspect of the American justice system. THF (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, you ask: "what evidence do you have that these events are independent and unrelated?" You ask THF to "prove a negative"... that isn't how Wikipedia works. If you want to include discussion of this lawsuit, and say that Burke Group's activities are related to it, you (as the editor wishing to add/keep the informaion) must provide a reliable source for it (See WP:V#Burden of evidence). Furthermore, in order to discuss it in an article you need to cite a reliable source that has made the connection and says they are related. To say so without such a source consititues Original Research.

I know it is frustrating to be told you can not mention something when you feel that it is important to mention it... but those are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We all have to abide by them if we want to edit. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, you may be attributing to Jeremy something that should be attributed to me. Richard Myers (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Message from the UK

I found this article due to my son's class assignment to discuss his father's work. He googled my company and this site appeared with my company's recognition ballot mentioned and asked me to explain. It was accurate but the subtext of evil is not. I have followed discussions here since. I am glad the section is gone (for all it's worth) As a union member we voted against recognition of the CWU. We did not want to be consumed by the bigger powerful CWU and become a statistic. The CWU has pushed many for automatic recognition as you can see in the Operations section. The Burke Group got us a ballot. Without a ballot we may have been forced by the CAC to accept recognition. The news and editors here have used words like "vicious", "shadowy", "secretive", "scare tactics" and "union buster". In fact I would describe how we were pursued by the CWU in that way. TBG never wrote mean things or called our homes or met us wherever we could be found or sent emails like CWU. The TBG reps we met were not club wielding neanderthals as the word "union buster" conjures. Mine was a 5'10" blue eyed brunette who I can tell you we all looked forward to. They held no "captive audience" meetings although they did hold meetings that were voluntary which we appreciated learning our rights. The other was a Brit gentlemen. I forgot to register and just learned I should. I will next time.--86.47.141.250 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, 86.47.141.250, and welcome to Wikipedia. You are not required to register, Wikipedia allows contributions from users who have not registered. However, i believe there are benefits to registering.

In my view, the term "union buster" does not necessarily conjure some of the descriptive terminology with which you have linked the expression. Indeed, one of the terms that i might find an appropriate appellation for practices of The Burke Group and similar consultancies is "professional." But since you've broached the topic in a more personal manner, may i add as one working person to another (assuming good faith), having something done to us "professionally" doesn't ease the pain nor lessen the friction. Richard Myers (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To Mr. Myers: I must admit a bit of confusion about union busting as our experience with this firm was not what I could describe as painful or frictional in any way. They were helpful. Most of us are all union, some not, and they never talked against unions. They basically showed us the way to a ballot so we could express our desires which according to their website they do in America as well. It seems they are teachers showing information up to a ballot but not preventing a ballot. It was the CWU trying to prevent the ballot. The Americans knew more than our supervisors about legal rights and I presume that is why they are hired. They were very pleasant, not tough sorts at all. Teachers is how I would describe them. I presume you may be CWU? All the angst about the TBG group was by the CWU because they seek wider memberships with out ballots. They want to take over and it presents problems for many. Most of the actions (writings) by the TUC, the CAC, and the AFLCIO as well as news journalists were all triggered by CWU. I note also that John Logan represents them and so he wrote about the Chinese Daily News also being organized by CWU. It's a bit one sided don't you think? What did you mean by assuming good faith? And what are benefits of registering? D. Carrick--86.47.141.250 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You may in fact be D. Carrick, but you are not who say you are. "As a union member we..." Ahhh, the magic of whois, and the RIPE database: [10]

I won't comment about who you are, we don't do that on Wikipedia. But information is available via whois and Google, and your comments here are fraudulent, particularly concerning the statement that creates a strong impression of union membership. Richard Myers (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of Fraud?

Perhaps it is you who are a fraud sir. Perhaps Americans have the income for highspeed cables. We do not. In the UK we access free Wi-Fi at the cafe or pub whilst having a pint (only patrons may use the wi-fi). Now would you like to tell me the benefits of registering? I suppose it is to protect a new I.P address from vacant insults such as yours. Whether I register or not you would have searched my IP address? You are the one who uses power like a club wielding neanderthal. I am CWU. Your comment to me only confirms you are writing on a subject and a country for which you know nothing whatsoever. It is you who are a fraud. Do you even understand the term "union recognition"? Have you ever met, experienced and spoken with the TBG group? For if you had experience with recognition ballots and/or collective bargaining contracts in the UK you would know the difference between the TBG group and what you've all created from sack cloth and ashes. All are not the same. If I describe my union I would not use the Teamster's as the example. It is you who are the fraud sir.--86.47.141.250 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"As a union member we voted against recognition of the CWU. We did not want to be consumed by the bigger powerful CWU . . . The Burke Group got us a ballot. Without a ballot we may have been forced by the CAC to accept recognition." — 86.47.141.250 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC) [11]

and,

"I am CWU." — 86.47.141.250 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC) [12]

Can't even keep your stories straight. You are also editing the article, as a different sock puppet. Richard Myers (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, you need to educate yourself and you do not know your subject. This article is largely about UK union recognition and the TBG groups participation in getting ballots. As union members we retain our membership from job to job. We enjoy our individual membership benefits, not recognition for collective bargaining. It makes no sense to you because you are uneducated. Like I said, you are a fraud writing like an impetuous prankster and very much against the spirit of Wikipedia. Schedule A-1 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act should be your next project.--Carrick44 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

TBG tells employers...

Preserving this, which was deleted from the article. Needs citation.

TBG tells employers to meet workers individually to explain why a union would not be to their advantage. .

Richard Myers (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It was marked as needing a cite for a very long time. Long enough for anyone to have furneished a valid cite if they could find one. Absent a RS source for the statement, it does not belong in any article. Collect (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Relationship: The Burke Group, and Labor Information Services

The issue, apparently, is: should a corporation be able to hide its relationships and activities from the public simply by virtue of farming off certain of its activities to a subsidiary? One editor appears to believe so.

Both The Burke Group AND Labor Information Services were founded by David J. Burke.

http://labrt.org/cde.cfm?event=274602

The United States Senate has issued documents describing these two entities as the same company:

• The Burke Group conducts its direct persuader activity under the name Labor Information Services, Inc. (LIS). This allows the firm to avoid reporting all other nonpersuader activity conducted under the name the Burke Group. [footnote 38, page 47]

• Note.—These amoiunts [sic] are taken from LM20 and LM21 forms (Receipts and Disbursement Reports) filed by Burke Group (under the name, Labor Information Services, Inc.) with the Department of Labor, required under the 1959 LMRDA. [note 1, page 50]

• Labor Information Services (a.k.a., the Burke Group) [footnote 7, page 42]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg596/pdf/CHRG-108shrg596.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg596/pdf/CHRG-108shrg596.pdf For the record, it is a gross misrepresentation to say (above) that "the U.S. Senate issued documents describing these two entities as the same" as asserted by Richard Myers. The US government issued no such documents. At the Special Hearing on EFCA July 16, 2004, Ms. Eileen Connelly, an agent for the SEIU and Executive Director of the PA State Council (see p. 15 & 18) asked that a report written by "John Logan" be entered into the minutes. That does not equate to "the government" issuing documents. The Logan report has been disputed for years and does not provide properly cited facts and has been discussed in great detail in earlier posts to this discussion page.Btween (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A reference to Labor Information Services has been deleted twice from this article. I am reverting this inappropriate deletion for the second time. Richard Myers (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact they were both started by one man does not make them the same company. Indeed, they appear to take pains not to be financially one company. The second cite does not make a factual claim about the linkage of the two. "The company responded by hiring a notorious anti-worker firm, the Burke Group, and immediately began an organized campaign to intimidate, harass and coerce workers who had already indicated their desire to form a union on cards." is on its face not a NPOV source, nor a proper source for "facts" about the financial connection of two companies. The existence of a footnote which says "aka" does not meet WP requirements for making the claim that the two companies are the same company. The linked web site does not claim that the two are connected either. Sorry about that. Collect (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

LIS is clearly a vehicle for the Burke Group's anti-union activities so as to comply with the regulations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, OLMS at DOL: [13]. Suzanne Burke on Linked-In: [14] David Burke, CEO and Chairman of the Board, LIS; OLMS 2009 filing: [15].--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Gore is on the Apple board. That makes his worlk all the same as Apple's? The claim of "sunsidiary" has specific legal meanings which we can not ignore. Collect (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant comparison. We have documentation that LIS works with The Burke Group to accomplish specific goals. You're choosing to ignore whatever documentation we've offered. Al Gore is just a red herring. Richard Myers (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Proof that Labor Information Services was created not by David J. Burke, but by The Burke Group:

Labor Information Services once had the website, http://Labor-Information.com

Click on that, you'll be redirected to: http://www.laborinformationservices.com/

That's the website for the current Labor Information Services.

Here is who registered and paid for their domain (the one that gets redirected):

Registrant:

The Burke Group, Inc.

27407 Pacific Coast Highway

Malibu, CA 90265

US

Domain Name: LABOR-INFORMATION.COM

http://whois.domaintools.com/labor-information.com

That was in 2000.

Now, this WHOIS information may not be a typical source for a fact in a Wikipedia article. But it should be sufficent proof to the typical editor that all the other documented examples identifying The Burke Group and Labor Information Services as different parts of the same company are valid and relevant, and not frivolous. Richard Myers (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Collect has a point around the use of the word subsidiary. It is clear the LIS and Burke Group are related. It is clear that David Burke is CEO of LIS and hence the person in charge. And it is clear that LIS serves a particular set of functions in conjunction with the Burke Group's commercial anti-union activities. The question here however is whether LIS is a "subsidiary" of the Burke Group, that is whether Burke Group is an incorporated entity which owns and controls LIS through shareholding. I don't know if this is the case or not. But it's actually not important to be fixed on using the word subsidiary, the article should just express the fact that LIS is clearly connected to the Burke Group and the functions it serves.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

PROOF is Disputed

WHOIS it is NOT a good source nor does it provide proof of The Burke Group and Labor Information Services as different parts of the same company. If you click the link provided, it does NOT say what was typed above in the "proof" section. WHOIS provides the following regarding ownership of the Labor Information Services domain name:

Registrant: Labor Information Services, Inc.

  PO Box 6063
  Malibu, CA 90264
  US

  Domain Name: LABOR-INFORMATION.COM

  Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
     Host, DNS
     Oaks Data Systems, Inc,
     860 Hampshire Road
     Suite D
     Westlake Village, CA 91361
     US
     (805) 777-8877 fax: (805) 777-8870

  Record expires on 29-Mar-2013.
  Record created on 29-Mar-2000.

As for domain names, it is common practice for companies to buy up dozens of domain names that could be related to their business and park them so competitors can't use them or redirect web traffic to another site. A term like "labor-information" is generic and could be a 'search term" as easily as a domain name. None of the WHOIS links provided above for the purpose of asserting a thesis linking TBG and LIS as the same company appear valid and certainly provide no supportive information. Please revisit them. Wikipedia requires accuracy. By all appearances the services of both companies are available to all who seek them. A link was provided above regarding a SHRM conference whereby the services of LIS were described and offered to ALL attendees. The evidence shows that both companies provide services to the public at large. So the question remains...if this article is about The Burke Group, why is it combined with Labor Information Services? And why pick out a random year to show earnings from a random client? There is a long discussion between two editors further up on this discussion page as it relates to the client in question and all references to it were deleted long ago due to inaccurate data and bias. Much of the discussion above has the appearance of a contrived and biased agenda constructed to bypass what was already decided by previous editors. Btween (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)01:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Btween (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet alert. Richard Myers (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Corrections hopefully from POV to objective and neutral:

Regarding use of word "claims" in the lead sentence. Taken from Wiki "Help":

---

Words to watch See also: Wikipedia:Words to watch There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim can imply that a statement is incorrect. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to favor one position over another.

---

Article clean up regarding veracity of statements, bias, and POV.

There is no such thing as “worker acceptance of collective representation” either in the EU, UK or US. Workers do not “accept” collective representation. In the UK the employers (not the workers) may “accept” automatic recognition. The other choice is for either the employer or the union to petition the CAC (Central Arbitration Committee) for a ballot election. US employers generally also do not “accept” collective representation either. In the US a union first notifies the NLRB which notifies the employer that a petition has been filed for a representation election. US employees vote either for or against union representation but do not merely accept. The differences between the US and UK are significant. Workers in the UK can be union members outside of their workplace acquired from a previous job. UK workers continue to pay dues if they so choose whether employed or not. UK unions offer certain benefits and discounts and services that members choose to enjoy whether employed or not. They are not members of a union for purposes of collective bargaining at their current workplace, but some are. UK workers can maintain their union memberships from one employer to another without "collective" representation. This is demonstrated in an article by Richard Tyler of The Telegraph <refhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2794237/Union-recognition-dispute-ruling-altered-after-consultants-complain.html name=""/> where he writes, “The union was attempting to secure collective bargaining recognition for 350 field services engineers and support staff without a secret ballot but the panel (CAC) insisted on a ballot. The union lost the subsequent vote, even though 56pc of the staff were union members.” This quote would not make sense to a US reader. The article showed that although employees were union members they did not choose the union that petitioned their employer for automatic recognition for collective bargaining. The employer hired TBG/UK to navigate the legal issues so the workers woud have the choice via a ballot election in order to express their preference. The workers are still union members. There was no "anti-union" campaign, but rather a campaign to bring about a ballot election.Rcodella (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rcodella determined to be sockpuppet previously blocked multiple times

Undid all edits by Rcodella, see: [16]

Richard Myers (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser and other investigations have determined that Jbowersox; Rcodello; Oppo212; Cbislingtion; EcFitzsimmons; Unionfree; Laborfriend; Ilikewiki11; Mdelosrios; Rgcroc; Arabianrider; Imdbwatcher; BoardAgnt; Tbg2; RydeWitM3; and possibly Mnbqwe123456 and Mymomishot and Freelandd are sock puppets in violation of WP:SOC. Several of these sock puppets have extensively edited this and other articles. Richard Myers (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the editors listed above by Mr. Myers and its been so long since I wrote something in a Wikipedia talk page I couldn't remember my password so I did not sign in. I am not a sockpuppet and have never consulted with another person about any posts. He apparently links IP addresse from similar geographic areas and tags editores as sockpuppets to support his zeal for deleting posts that don't subscribe to his ideology. He is an experienced editor but not an administrator and clearly knows the ropes that most of us do not and he exercises that power without check by administrators. I'll bet that many of those listed are not sockpuppets either, maybe some are. Upon checking most merely wrote once or twice in the talk page here only and contributed no editing. After researching Mr. Meyers on the internet he has revealed himself to be a very biased if not militant member of the IWW and other unions including the Communication Workers and describes himself as somewhat of a professional Wikipedia editor and admits he has an ideology to push. He has revealed himself as a [[salt] which means he sprinkles himself inside organizations to foment discord. He is anti management and with a biased viewpoint. He exercises the delete button on posts by editors who do not subscribe to his ideology. I am reverting back to the old article which was much more informative than it is now. Wikipedia articles are not private opinion pages nor intended as union blogs. Editors other than Richard Meyers should be allowed to edit this or any article without being blocked because of personal biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.110.38 (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

Wikipedia's goal is to insure balance and honesty and not promote POV bias. The paragraph titled "Criticism" was inserted by an editor without benefit of talk page dialogue with other editors. The info was old and outdated (2007) when it was added in 2012 which must have been well known by the editor who added it even though newer information was available from 2008 and 2009. The section highlights an article that appeared in The Guardian written by a journalist who is a member of the NUJ which is a sister union to the CWU both members of the TUC (Trade Union Congress) in support of the CWU organizing campaign. At the time the article was quoted within this article it was well know that the CWU lost their bid for automatic recognition in a legal ballot election and it was well know to UK personnel that the CWU violated many tenants of the CAC recognition and/or election process yet the editor who inserted the info to this article purposely omitted it in support of his POV bias towards the CWU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.39.163 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Further to the above editor's note, the Guardian author's article was a cleverly crafted piece without proper citations. He claimed to quote a "spokes person" from C & W and it is generally accepted that a spokesperson from an international corporation would be a management representative. The author failed to identify the spokesperson. He also cobbled a sentence that gave an appearance that the spokesperson said Burke "styled" themselves as labor consultants. No PR or management spokesperson would state to a newspaper they hired persons from a well established company "pretending" to be labor consultants. It is ridiculous on its face. I removed it. The term "styled" as used was a loaded word revealing the author's POV. In turn, the wikipedia editor who originally added the piece to this article did not apply NPOV and should have known the statements constituted WP:NOR "original research" and WP:source "lack of verifiability" even if extracted from a published article. Btween (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)