Template:Did you know nominations/CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting

(

)

... that the first judgement of the High Court of Australia in 2022 found that a British backpacker was an employee of a labour hire agency rather than a contractor? Source: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2022/hca-1-2022-02-09.pdf
- Reviewed:
- Comment: Very happy for suggestions on re-wording

Created by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 03:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC).

General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A QPQ isn't needed. ~~I think that the hook should have "an independent contractor" rather than just "a contractor". I also don't see where it says in the article that it's the "first judgement".~~ SL93 (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: Thanks so much for the review. I agree. Let's go with independent contractor. BTW, the citation is [2022] HCA 1. 202 is the year, HCA means High Court of Australia, and 1 is the case number for the year. EG: if you and I went to that court over this DYK it would be **MaxnaCarta v SL93 [2022] HCA 56** if it was the 56th decision they heard this year. Probably not a necessary step 🤭. I know that this is actually a primary source and that usually we would need a second source, however because it is not a controversial fact I'm hoping we can let it slide. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that it's fine. I will add ALT0a here for promotion - ... that the first judgement of the High Court of Australia in 2022 found that a British backpacker was an employee of a labour hire agency rather than an independent contractor? SL93 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@SL93 and MaxnaCarta: I'm not sure I'm super on board with this hook, unless I'm missing something; but I have an interesting idea for a contradiction hook. How about: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that even though the labour hire organization lost the High Court of Australia's first judgement of 2022, the decision was considered a win for companies with the same practices?

@Theleekycauldron: thanks! That reads much better. I'm not that great at writing hooks yet. I like yours! MaxnaCarta (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Approving ALT1. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm finding this hook very confusing. Perhaps it's just Australian vs American usage? What is a "labor-hire agency"? Is that the same as a trade union? Also, ALT0 says "a labor hire agency" (implying there's many of them), but ALT1 says "the labor hire agency" (implying that there's only one). I also don't understand why in one place the hook refers to an "organization" and in the other place "a company". I think of a labor organization as something that a lot of companies belong to (or maybe more accurately, the workers of a lot of companies belong to). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging theleekycauldron. SL93 (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  - @RoySmith: Both the "a" and the "the" refer to Personnel Contracting – it's a "labour hire" organization that basically hires people to work for other companies on their behalf. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    - Thanks, that clarifies things. How would you feel about:
      ALT2: ... that although a labour hire organization lost the High Court of Australia's first judgement of 2022, the decision was considered a win for similar companies?
      
      -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
      @RoySmith: maybe a little punchier? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
      
      ALT2a: ... that the the High Court of Australia's first judgement of 2022 was considered a loss for a labour hire organization, but a win for labour hire organizations?
      theleekycauldron I like it. How about with a little less WP:SEAOFBLUE-ness (and one less "the"):
      
      ALT2b: ... that the first judgement of 2022 from the High Court of Australia was considered a loss for a labour hire organization, but a win for labour hire organizations?
      
      -- RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
      sold :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, just seeing if you can promote ALT2b since the three of us above can't. SL93 (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron Any idea for who would promote this? SL93 (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Kavyansh.Singh, maybe? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)