Former good article nomineeIBM and unions was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
April 28, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 20, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that IBM worker organizations compared the company's business deals with apartheid South Africa in the 1970s to those with Nazi Germany?
Current status: Former good article nominee

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Kingsif (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Shushugah (talk). Self-nominated at 20:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Hi @Shushugah:, this is my first DYK review, so I hope this review will go according to the rules and common sense. Here are my comments on the text: I can't find any information on the underground newsletter "The Resistor" to which you refer. The only source I could download is a leaflet with the content you mention. If this is the case, you would probably better write: "...distributed a leaflet to IBM shareholders that...". Also, I think, you could replace "protested" (which needs the preposition "against") their employer's business deals with "compared"? In the text, I would add "Since its foundation in 1924,...and you could add a short article description. But most of all, there is no bolded name of the article in the lead. And, finally, was it really IBM Europe who formed a European Works Council, or rather the union? (or IBM Europe accepted a...) Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. The lead needs a bolded expression of the article name. And the hook needs to be slightly changed. Munfarid1 (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Shushugah:, now both the article and the hook look fine to me. The only thing I am not sure about is the fact that you don't have a pagename in bold at the beginning of the article. I couldn't find on the Help pages, if this is really obligatory. So just to be sure, that everything is according to the rules for review and article formatting, I am asking @Gerda Arendt:, a seasoned and very helpful DYK reviewer to give us her opinion. As soon as this is clear, I will finish the review with a yes. (One more question to Gerda: I have to prove my first QPQ, before another of my own articles can be ready for DYK. - How will that reviewer know that I actually reviewed this article on IBM worker organization?) - Thanks in advance, Munfarid1 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, thanks for helping me to finish my first review. After adding a sentence and the bold pagename, everything is fine, and I have just added the green tick for the next stage. Munfarid1 (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Shushugah:, as another reviewer mentioned that there are too many repetitions of IBM in the hook, I have just changed your hook, and hope this is okay by you.Munfarid1 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Came to promote, but I'm not finding the hook information in the article. The article says there was a newsletter, doesn't seem to mention a flier or distributing it at shareholder meetings? (Also Munfarid1, when you suggest a new hook, it's generally best to strike the hook you're rejecting and give the new hook a new number -- check other nominations to see how we number additional/new hooks -- and you can't approve a hook you suggest, so if you write the new hook yourself you need to ask for another reviewer to approve.) —valereee (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Valereee:! I have updated the article, to be explicit that fliers were distributed at a shareholder meeting (sources don't make it clear if Resistor or not, I won't speculate, but they all do mention role Resistor had in sharing/spreading this news), since the existing sources already mentioned that, but it wasn't formally in the article itself. Thank you for catching that! Shushugah (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism with Dates

[edit]

There has been some vandalism in the dates, all of them are wrong, the first sentence is also contradictory and I think it was not in an earlier draft. Just wanted to give a heads up to any editor who might want to clean this up, don't have time to work on it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.230.109 (talk • contribs)

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Vacant0 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:IBM and unions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·

Initial comments

[edit]

General comments

[edit]

Final comments

[edit]

@Shushugah: There is a lot of stuff to fix and you're already reviewing a long article of mine so I'll put the article on hold for a week. If you want, I can quick-fail this and when you fix the issues that I've pointed out in the future, you can ask me on my talk page to review it again. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment: the Medium ref is to OneZero, a news site hosted on Medium, which does have editorial control. There are a couple of these, so it's important to double-check where something with a Medium url is coming from. No comment on the rest of the review (which seems good on the merits), just that this is something that comes up pretty often. Vaticidalprophet 21:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for pointing that out! Vacant0 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed so I'll look at where the article currently stands:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA nomination

[edit]

Hi @Shushugah - I came acroess this in the GA nomination list and was thinking to review it. However, looking at the first review and current state, I'm concerned that it might not be up to GA status. There's a lot of information which seems a little dated and there's sourcing available not included. My main concern is that there's too much to be completed in a review. My suggestion is we work on it together and do a joint renomination? Here's some more sourcing that could be added:

 Partly done added source, probably more stuff to search/find
 Done Used a more updated version available here
 Partly done added source, probably more stuff to search/find
 Done The reference to IBM Works Agreement goes here and is included already
 Not done Very interesting data, but also very difficult to use. It suggests which countries where unions may exist, but nothing about specific bargaining coverage, union density, let alone names of worker organisations. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Shushugah - this document has very useful data: delcining employment (shedding 15% of employment in 2014-16) (p.97), comparative labour management relationships with other ICT companies and MNEs in general (p.133) (sits around the average for ICT, but below the average for MNEs in general). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done I have included pages 133, 201 and 215-216. I could remove the mention about Electronics/Manufacturing since IBM is the top 5 largest employer only in Ireland, but for ICT sector...they're the top largest in 12 states so that qualifies this nicely. Their industrial relations in ranked in 11 states (Italy is not included for whatever reason). In general, the paper argues that CEE states have lower industrial relations specifically in private sector, so not surprising that IBM's lowest ranked states were in CEE as well. Added to IBM and unions § Transnational ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Found primary source claiming they existed since 1959. And added reference here.[1]
 Done added
 Done added
 Partly done see longer thoughts/comments below about Hungary sources ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know your thoughts. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an honor to collaborate and thank you for digging these sources! I should have access to all of these. Given the huge overflow of GAN it won’t affect status of a hypothetical review until the GA drive starts in February, but I can also delete it/rephrase it as a joint-nomination. I'll make this article a personal priority in January. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China

[edit]

I have added what I could about the 10 day-wildcat strike. This is the most detailed info I found, it's a machine-translation from a Chinese language article, but unclear what/where. It doesn't lead to a conclusive result of what happened. In general, as far as I can find, IBM opened/expanded in China in 2002 with sale of the hard-disk drive business, with a partial stake in Chinese firm Lenovo. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary

[edit]

In short, I could not find confirmation which trade union(s) have a collective agreement (if any) with IBM and am unsure how to go forward without committing WP:SYNTH or at best, a very vague/roundabout statement.

Most likely the union is Vasas [hu] (they also founded Vasas Sports Club) and are affiliated to MSzOSz and IndustriALL. Their internal website makes loose references to IBM but nothing more.[2]

This paper mentions IBM in the context of industry/wages, but does not mention them when discussing union VASAS successes or challenges.[3].

This report (overlapping author as previous) qualifies VASAS as most important union in electronics sector and contextualises local trade union/works council structures.[4] The second union (fewer sources mention them) is VDSZ [hu] but no specific mention of IBM.[5] This article mentions cases of Works Councils in Hungary, without union representation e.g Samsung, but again nothing about IBM.[6]

The unnamed union is criticized as being corporate lapdog for IBM, and quickly agreeing/not fighting the relocation of jobs from Székesfehérvár to China.[7]

@Shushugah: Give me till the weekend and will come back to you. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dubal, Veena (2023). "On Algorithmic Wage Discrimination" (PDF). Columbia Law Review. 123 (7): 1929–1992. ISSN 0010-1958.
  2. ^ Anikó, Kovács. "VASAS SZAKSZERVEZETI SZÖVETSÉG". vasasok.hu (in Hungarian). Retrieved 2024-01-23.
  3. ^ Bormann, Sarah; Plank, Leonhard (2010). Under pressure: working conditions and economic development in ICT production in Central and Eastern Europe (PDF). Berlin: WEED. pp. 21–23. ISBN 978-3-937383-68-2.
  4. ^ Plank, Leonhard; Staritz, Cornelia (2013). "Precarious upgrading" in electronics global production networks in Central and Eastern Europe: The cases of Hungary and Romania (Report). ÖFSE Working Paper.
  5. ^ The Electronics Industry in Hungary (PDF). Electronics Watch. November 2022.
  6. ^ Schipper, Irene. "Chapter 6 Electronic assembly in Hungary: how labour law fails to protect workers" (PDF). In Drahokoupil, Jan; Andrijasevic, Rutvica; Sacchetto, Davi (eds.). Flexible workforces and low profit margins: electronics assembly between Europe and China. European Trade Union Institute.
  7. ^ Horvath, John (2002-11-13). "Globalisation and the Nature of Networks". Telepolis (in German). Retrieved 2024-01-23.

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Mokadoshi (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:IBM and unions/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mokadoshi (talk · contribs) 05:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Close, see comments below. Issues addressed.
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Close, only have concerns with the lead, see below. Issues addressed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources): See below. Note: the Medium reference is a reliable source because the publication (OneZero) just happens to publish its content on Medium. See the talk page for more info.
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism): Earwig gives 1.0%.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused): See below.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): N/A - there aren't any images.
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail: On hold to address feedback.

· · ·

Comments

[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

References

[edit]

Focused

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories