Talk:IBM and unions/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 19:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TheGhostGum (talk · contribs) 14:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Lead

The lead section needs to be extended to fully encapsulate the comprehensive content of the article. offer the readers a succinct yet thorough introduction to IBM's global union relationships. Maybe even mention the major unions globally?

Overall

Add something around the relationship of the union and IBM in each country. Eg which part of the ACFTU covers IBM workers in china. Does the CPSU cover IBM in australia right now?. Think each section having a more general overview of the interests first will help the article fit the major aspects

Images and References

Existing images used correctly and free to use. No extra images readily available that can be found. From spot check everything is mostly fine, would be good to fix up the archive issue (check the rest for the same error). Also fix up Ref-2 so that the easily replaced claims are replaced by freely accessible sources.

Spot-check

Checking first 10 Refs

Ref-1: Backs up claim
Ref-2: Unable to access in any way, requires an account. Highlighted by previous spot checked, I think due to this being used for claims that mostly can be easily found in public articles and resources a difference source should replace it. Eg "BM was founded in 1911 in Armonk, New York." can be sourced from elsewhere.
Ref-3: Backs up claim
Ref-4: Backs up claim
Ref-5: Backs up claim, but not easily accessible without account. Also I think it would be nice if this source was used a bit more specifically instead of just listing several pages as the source.
Ref-6: Backs up claim
Ref-7: Backs up claim
Ref-8: Backs up claim, Source doesn't use short form so might be best to use long form in the note
Ref-9: Citation backs up claim, Archive link broken it seems?
Ref-10: Backs up claim

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused) It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comment: @Shushugah and TheGhostGum: where are we at with this review? It doesn't look like there's been much activity recently and I just wanted to check in. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, This is completely my bad and should of been completed over a week ago. Had some Power and Internet related issues. will upload the review today. TheGhostGum (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shushugah think the sources and intro are really the only major things. TheGhostGum (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGhostGum oh hey! I didn't see the update till now, will work on it ASAP, thank you for the ping! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGhostGum friendly ping and sorry for delay on my end as well ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting in for a second opinion on the Major aspect jus to check if enough is stated in the article as the merit a GA. And to check in on the sources again. TheGhostGum (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answering 2nd Opinion

Hi @TheGhostGum and Shushugah: I will read this through and evaluate broadness. Additionally, here are some comments:

Comments

I suggest including IBM's full name at the beginning.

Done

Trade unions have limited recognition in Australia, Japan, Germany and Italy: This makes it seem like these are the only countries that IBM recognises unions, but later in the article it is stated that IBM recognises unions in other European countries. I suggest adding "and some other European countries" to this sentence. IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Global union federations UNI Global Union and International Metalworkers' Federation[a] formed the "Global Union Alliance" in 2011 to coordinate among their national union affiliates: This is only relevant to the article if some of the "affiliates" include IBM unions. If that is the case, I suggest stating that explicitly. Otherwise, cut for lack of relevance. IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done it's exclusively IBM union affiliates. I also explicitly added another global union federation (European Metalworker's Federation). Which nowadays still corresponds with IndustriALL – European Trade Union.

Does the Global Union Alliance include the European Works Council? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. I have expanded and separated the paragraphs to make this separation more clear. The European Works Councils often sign agreements with Global Union Federations, and many elected members of EWCs hold prominent union positions, but it's also possible for a European Works Council would not vote/promote union activity. I looked at the IBM EWC Agreements, none of them mention union activities, unlike in other EWCs. As a small anecdote, I am a substitute-member of the European Works Council of Stellantis. I do not hold any formal/elected positions in IG Metall, but I am a union member, and our EWC explicitly mentions IndustriALL and national union affiliates. I am additionally a Central Works Council and local Works Council chair at the Stellantis subsidiary. A more famous example of this would be Daniela Cavallo who holds multiple elected and appointed roles. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for explaining! IAWW (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2014 research study conducted by the European Trade Union Institute on transnational companies in 23 EU states; IBM was among the 5 largest employers in 12 states in the ICT sector: This is an invalid use of the semi-colon, because a semi-colon should connect two independent clauses. I suggest replacing with a comma or making the first clause independent. Also, the word "states" is correct, but using it in this context feels closer to political science jargon. I suggest replacing with "countries" so it can be better understood by a broader audience. IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done

This placed IBM ahead of competitors HP, Accenture, and Microsoft ~~and~~[, but] behind Atos and SAP: More natural IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done

IBM's non-union status is due in part to its corporate culture: "non-union status" feels a bit imprecise. There is some union presence, not none. I suggest replacing with something "The lack of union presence at IBM is due in part to" unless this is some common phraseology that I am unfamiliar with. IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with limited-union presence

Rather than waiting for problems to arise, anonymous feedback from employees allows management to address grievances early on. When management becomes aware of unionization efforts, investigative teams are formed to discourage unions and explore alternatives: I'm not sure the source can really support these statements in the present tense, since the title indicates it documents IBM's processes only up to 1993. Just putting it in the past tense would be weird though, so maybe say something like "In his historical account of IBM, James Cortada wrote that... " IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weighted both because of timing and also his role (as former IBM executive)

80 employees accepted collectively negotiated contracts concerning severance packages and sick leave in case of future layoffs: Were these employees that were originally going to be laid off, or employees that were still at the company after the mass lay offs? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified, it would be for future mass layoffs if they happened

severance packages and sick leave in case of future layoffs: I assume the sick leave part of the contract was unrelated to possible future layoffs? If so, I think the sentence should be rearranged to "sick leave and severance packages in case of future layoffs" for clarity. IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Most of the participating strikers accepted the initial offer by management: Any idea what this included? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified

They compete for seats in works council elections: What are "works council election", who hosts them and what do they decide? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn more about them in Works council § Germany. As the article does not delve deeply into works council elections, it would be undue to delve deeply into them in this article, whereas in Tesla and unions it is necessary for background context I think. Let me know if you disagree.

In December 2001, ver.di and IG Metall agreed to form a joint bargaining committee to resolve their internal union competition: Did this not work out? Because if it did, how come they "been competing since the early 1990s"? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are still competing to get members, works council seats even if they agree to negotiate together on collective bargaining committees. I could not find more recent information, but I'll ask one of the union secretaries perhaps for clues in the right direction of sources. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 1996, the union density at IBM Germany was less than 10% of the workforce, including membership of both trade unions IG Metall and German Salaried Employees' Union (DAG): I don't think this is quite clear enough, did employees with the double membership count the same as two employees with one membership each? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. I meant to say that 90% of workers are not a member of any-union.

none of which joined Gesamtmetall: Earlier you referred to this as the "Metal Employer Association", I think pick a name and use it consistently. IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I'm very impressed at the research you have done into the German unions! It seems to be a complex subject which you somehow managed to research without being able to speak German? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was elected a works council member myself 3-years ago, and learned a lot of German labor law. As a result, I decided to create Central works council, works agreement and other highly niche pages, because most English speakers wouldn't be aware/deep in these topics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Italian trade union RSU IBM Vimercate: Did you mean to add an "in" to make "the Italian trade union RSU in IBM Vimercate"? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RSU itself is a legal structure, for a particular union body in Italy. I've added background context here, and only relying on primary sources, noted which Italian unions different RSU members are affiliated to which national Italian unions.

"coordinated a 'virtual strike' inside Second Life"... We truly live in a tech dystopia... IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🤖🤖🤖

It was the first high-tech movement: The movement itself wasn't "high-tech", but this wording makes it seem like that was the intended meaning. IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Donaldson filed a complaint with the NLRB and the EEOC alleging unfair labor practices and retaliation against Black employees joining the BWA chapter in Cincinnati: Did anything come of this? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear, will look/see if I can find more

Did anything come of the sale of computers to apartheid protests? IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear, will look/see if I can find more.

Thank you User:It is a wonderful world for such extensive and thorough feedback! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shushugah, I am very happy with your improvements. All my concerns have been adequately addressed. Thank you also for explaining your rationale for many of the points. IAWW (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

There was a lot of comments in the end. Some regard broadness, and there are some prose comments – probably covering the lack of prose comments from Ghost. I also made a few copyedits I thought were minor enough not to mention myself. Overall I was very impressed with the depth of research and think this already meets broadness requirements.

To improve its broadness further though, and reach toward comprehensiveness, I think this article currently has a skew toward the historical aspects of the topic (I note this is mostly unavoidable due to the reliable sources also having this skew), but it should definitely include what unions are currently active in their respective countries.

Also, answering the above comments/questions in the article where possible would also improve broadness.

Note that I barely even knew what unions were through before researching for this, so I may have missed some other things.

Thanks Shushugah for writing and TheGhostGum for reviewing! IAWW (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall seems to be done. Thanks IAWW for the second opinion, still new to trying these our.

Thanks for writing/greatly improving the article User:Shushugah!

Will move it to a passing review. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @It is a wonderful world and @DirectorDirectorDirector and @TheGhostGum. This article was created 4 years ago and has undergone over 100 edits of improvements and helpful feedback. It will continue to evolve and I am particularly interested in learning more about Italian labor history and finding quality sourcing to supplement it. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all involved. Happy to see the article get there. TheGhostGum (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]