Talk:Designation of workers by collar color

2012

collar workers: White Collar: Official Job Blue Collar: Hard Working Job--58.97.168.40 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

2015-16

For anyone who cares about this article, I am going to delete the content that is uncited in the next few days. Because the information has been contributed by several users, I will attempt to notify as many of them as possible. -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't delay! This is a dreadful article. Davidships (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we made a mistake there

It seems that one of the sources actually sources back to wikipedia. Whatever you do, I'm probably not interested. (talk)

I agree that we made a mistake by allowing this bad article to exist. -- Allen, New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.5.48 (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Designation of workers by collar color. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150922065217/http://bluecollarbranding.com/2012/06/11/blue-collar-pink-collar-green-collar-gold-collar-no-collar-marketers-know-your-audience-and-their-origin/ to http://bluecollarbranding.com/2012/06/11/blue-collar-pink-collar-green-collar-gold-collar-no-collar-marketers-know-your-audience-and-their-origin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Addition of "new collar"?

Hi there! There's a small addition I'd like to request for this page to add in mention of "new collar workers". This term has emerged recently and gained coverage in secondary sourcing, so I'm wondering if it's appropriate to add into this article. As a quick note of disclosure, I have a financial COI as I am here on behalf of IBM via Vianovo, as part of my work at Beutler Ink, so I prefer not to edit articles directly and am looking for editors to review my suggestion and add it if it seems reasonable.

The following is my proposed addition, to include within the Other classifications section, :

• New collar – A person who develops the skills to work in the modern, rapidly changing technology industry through non-traditional education paths.

Markup

New collar – A person who develops the skills to work in the modern, rapidly changing [[Technology company|technology industry]] through [[Alternative education|non-traditional education]] paths.<ref name=Weller>{{cite news |title=IBM's concept of 'new collar jobs' could be vital in an automated future |author=Chris Weller |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-automated-future-new-collar-jobs-2017-1 |work=[[Business Insider]] |date=6 January 2017 |accessdate=20 September 2017}}</ref><ref name=Monegain>{{cite news |title=IBM launches $70 million 'New Collar Jobs' digital initiative in Africa |author=Bernie Monegain |url=http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/ibm-launches-70-million-new-collar-jobs-digital-initiative-africa |work=Healthcare IT News |date=8 February 2017 |accessdate=20 September 2017}}</ref><ref name=Spector>{{cite news |title=Companies and Colleges Unite to Train ‘New Collar’ Students |author1=Nicole Spector |author2=Michael Cappetta |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/companies-colleges-unite-train-new-collar-students-n802251 |work=[[NBC News]] |date=19 September 2017 |accessdate=20 September 2017}}</ref>

If this seems like a reasonable addition, I hope an editor will add it into the article. Please do let me know if you have any questions. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

References

 Declined This seems like a variation on the already existing grey collar, which is a combination of blue and white collar worker traits in one person. If anything, it certainly warrants additional discussion in order to reach consensus for inclusion.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  09:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Following up here, after looking into grey collar. While there is some overlap in the two in terms of education (though not skills), grey collar is quite different from new-collar in terms of the overall description and the types of roles it covers. Job examples are different from new-collar except for "technician" in the broad sense (vs. cloud computing technicians for new-collar). Furthermore, the grey-collar definition (occupations that incorporate some of the elements of both blue- and white-collar) is completely different than new-collar, which focuses on new technology jobs and skills in the changing economy. Given that there is a decent amount of sourcing for new-collar, perhaps more than grey-collar, I'd like to re-open this request for addition to the article so that editors can discuss further.

What do other editors think, is there sufficient difference between grey-collar and new-collar to allow the latter to be included separately? If it is considered by editors to be very close to grey-collar, could it be added as an alternative to grey collar? (e.g. "A similar collar type is "new-collar"...") @Beyond My Ken: Since you've been active on this article in the past, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on this? Noting again: I have a COI here as I'm here on behalf of IBM, via Vianovo as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

My only comment at this moment is that "new collar" is a completely unknown term to me, so I'd have to do some research on it, which I probably wouldn't get to immediately because of RL concerns. Still, if it that's new, shouldn't we hold off on that basis, of its being a neologism, and wait to see if it catches on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken that the term might be too new to warrant a proper inclusion in the article, without causing some of the same confusion in readers that we've just had about it. As the term arose not too long ago, reported on NBC's site and others, perhaps it's WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. In any event, as Beyond My Ken noted, if we did include the term it would likely warrant a tag.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  20:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken and Spintendo for the reasons they've iterated. Chetsford (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Beyond My Ken, Spintendo and Chetsford for your thoughts! Appreciate that since this is a newer term it might not yet be appropriate to include here. Would you also feel that the same applies to including it in other Wikipedia articles discussing education and technology? And likewise within articles like the "Grey-collar worker" article? Ie. that it is too new to mention there yet?

Also, I had made a request to link to the new article for New-collar worker in the See also section of the IBM article, and see that Spintendo has declined this for the same reason as not including in on this page. To me, it's a separate issue whether to include at IBM: this is a topic closely related to IBM and there's a Wikipedia article for it, so it seems natural to link on that page. What do others think? Figured might be best to confirm with you all here, rather than waste folks' time reviewing individual requests! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll defer to the other two on this question. MOS:SEEALSO says links in see also should be "relevant [and] ... limited to a reasonable number". Does a term coined by an IBM executive last year, even though it may merit a WP entry, rise to this level of importance in the vast history of a 106 year-old company? Particularly when the other See Also links are things like "Top 100 US Federal Contractors"? I don't know. Maybe it does. But I would be keen to hear what Spintendo and Beyond My Ken think first before taking any action myself. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Chetsford that the origin story for this term seems to be too ephemeral, in that its coming from a singular source does not lend it the necessary gravitas to stand on its own in one article, let alone three. I would also add that it's too undifferentiated from the stronger, slightly older term "grey collar". That designation includes the combination of skill sets which have evolved from the blue collars (apprenticeships, their bread and butter) and incorporates them into those of the white collars (the need for degrees, their bread and butter). This grey collar also includes the need of workers to attain degrees in multiple areas (i.e., business & computer science). With all due respect, I believe that by raising the issue in these subsequent articles 16912_Rhiannon is attempting to bring through the back door what won't fit through the front. @Beyond My Ken: if we may summon your wisdom once again it would be much appreciated.  Thanks --Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wisdom? If I'm lucky I can manage wisdom once or twice a year. Opinions, I always have!

I see arguments on both sides at this point. "New collar" appears to have caught on somewhat, as I just got 403,000 Ghits for it, including from CNN, NBC News, The New York Times, USA Today and other mainstream sites. I would ascribe that to "new collar" being a less boring image than "gray collar", and from "new" rhyming with "blue", indicating some connection between them. If the term hasn't crossed over the neologism line yet, it's very close to doing so. Also, as we do have the New-collar worker article, and it hasn't been AfD, and seems pretty well-referenced, to ignore it in this article seems wrong.

One of the arguments against including it in this article is that it actually doesn't fit the subject title, since it's not a color. I don't see that as insurmountable, since it can be cited as a related term, or, if necessary, the article can be moved, perhaps to "Designation of workers by collar description".

I guess that as I look at what I just wrote ("I write because I don't know what I think until I read what I say." - Flannery O'Connor), I'm more in favor of inclusion now than I was before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Works for me The inevitable follow up is my assumption that the lifeblood of our modern world, big business — which usually plays its own part in co-opting trends from other sectors after they have caught on — will inevitably aim to include itself in the provenance of this term. And rightfully so, as it is a work-related term. But to whom should that title of originator go to? 16912_Rhiannon has argued, in essence, that this new designation ought to resemble something akin to The New Collar™ brought to you by IBM®. Now I may be exaggerating, but I don't believe I'm that off the mark. The standard for provenance is the failure to confirm the term's existence before a certain date of mention, making whomever made that mention on that date, the designee. Any thoughts? Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for your thoughtful replies here. On Spintendo's note (if I'm following correctly), my inclination is to go with what the majority of sources say, if it is important to note the originator. (FWIW as proposed above, I'd not suggested including mention of IBM / Ginni Rometty at all.) Re: Beyond My Ken's point about this article's name, a good point that it doesn't fit as a "color", so it would be a related term, similar to the current inclusion of "No collar" and "Virtual collar". 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Im not sure that I would agree that "gray is not a color", as its the combination of black, which contains no colors and white, which is all the colors. We can say that these aren't actual colors but we can also say they aren't actual collars either. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No argument here on "gray" being a color! I meant (per Beyond My Ken's note above) that "new collar" is not a color, likewise neither is "no collar" or "virtual color". 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Self-trout I read that wrong. "The new collar is not a color" I thought meant the new collar grey was not a color. LoL my bad. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Recap of request

Hi again, since there has been no further input here, I wanted to ping this discussion one last time to see what the final decision is on inclusion of "new collar" in this article. In their last notes, Beyond My Ken had said "I'm more in favor of inclusion now than I was before." and Spintendo had followed up to say "works for me" and asked a couple of questions about how to include the term's originator, and I had responded to note that going with majority of sourcing seemed reasonable if the originator needs to be mentioned at all.

As a reminder, here's what I was proposing for the addition to be made under Other classifications:

• New collar – A person who develops the skills to work in the modern, rapidly changing technology industry through non-traditional education paths.

What do editors think? Can this be added here? Thanks again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

References

I've responded on the New-collar worker talk page. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here, Spintendo -- it seems like you're making a totally different point over at New-collar worker, so I'm still interested to hear editors' perspectives here on whether "New-collar worker" can be included. For anyone following along here but who hasn't seen Spintendo's note at New-collar worker, they are suggesting that the term's origin is in dispute and have shared a couple of links relating to discussion of "gold-collar workers". 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's always been my assertion that any application of new collar would be problematic. Some of these include:

1. IBM's claim to have single handedly coined the term is likely disingenuous, in that its more probable that others have mentioned that title earlier
2. The term's definition borrows from bits and pieces of concepts going back to 1985, most notably the gold, pink and grey collars
3. There is linguistic confusion over the term "new" and whether it applies here as an adverb or as an adjective, since the term "new collar" has been used before as an adverb, in 2005

The new article doesnt address any of these. Additionally what's concerning, is that the impetus for this request isn't coming from the linguistics department at Harvard backed by professors eager to expand our knowledge through new terminology — but rather — it's coming from the IBM payroll, where it just so happens that IBM is the main recipient of this spurious claim. I'm afraid that makes this whole exercise out to be a glorification project for IBM, though I hope it isn't. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Section vs. "other classifications"

Is there a reason why only blue, white, and pink have their own sections, while green and grey are included in "other classifications" (despite being notable enough to have their own articles)? Also, shouldn't "new collar" go under "see also," since it's not technically a color? Remainsuncertain (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)