Talk:Center for Union Facts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Links that need fixing
These links need fixing:
- Steven Greenhouse, "Group Starts Anti-Union Campaign [6]", New York Times, February 14, 2006.
- Kim Chapman, "New group launches anti-union drive [7]", Seattle Post Intelligencer, February 14, 2006. (This is a syndicated Bloomberg story).
- Kris Maher, "Taking on the AFL-CIO [8]", "Incident Report", Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2006.
Also, many of the links to the Wall Street Journal require a subscription. --John Nagle 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright
I noticed that much of this info was imported from the SourceWatch wiki. That's OK, because they use a GFDL license, like Wikipedia, so there's no copyright problem. However, it works much better if you import the Wiki source text, not the page view; otherwise, you have to do all that manual work to clean up the imported stuff. --John Nagle 19:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV flag
I've read over this page and for the life of me don't see why it's flagged as POV. As there's been no discussion on the talk page about it being POV, I'm removing the flag. 71.77.5.234 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the history of "external links"...
[edit] Warning: Lobbyists Berman and Company at work
This article has been edited anonymously by Berman and Company, who are lobbyists for amongst others the American Beverage Institute, the Center for Consumer Freedom, the Center for Union Facts and the Employment Policies Institute.
IP address of 66.208.14.242 traces to Berman and Company, see the Whois report. I Spy With My Big Eye (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Update
For some reason Center of Union Facts has been running television ads in the Portland, Oregon area for the last week, with a pointer to their website unionfacts.com. I never heard of them before this. AFAIK, there is no major unionizing action here, no measure on the May ballot, no cause this group would want to fight -- it's simply bizarre. -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Same here in The Other Portland (Maine) area, and also for no apparent reason that I can think of either. A local chapter of the [self-edit: got wrong union--not important, anyway] got some bad press recently, but there's no statewide issue or initiative that I'm aware of right now. I just saw one of their ads this morning on the local NBC affiliate, and it just about knocked my socks off. (I was also offended by it as a union member myself, but that's a discussion for elsewhere.) I wonder if it's nationwide, and I wonder why the sudden reappearance. If someone could pull together some sources, this article might be due for an update. Ripogenus77 (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- My hypothesis is that they have been getting quiet funding from the corporatist right to do voter suppression. (The press doesn't monitor them as they do, say, donations to the Republican Party.) If union-member voters are discouraged enough and cynical enough about their unions, then any exhortations to vote against anti-worker candidates in the fall will have weaker impact, and the anti-worker forces can sneak in despite the weakness at the head of the ticket. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

