Talk:National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nonprofit status[edit]

The Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation is currently showing up in Gmail targeted ads with a push poll. Link: http://www.righttoworkfoundation.org/survey.aspx?sid=11&gclid=CMzx_un385UCFQykagodRzKYiw

I'd have to say that this creates legal problems for the Foundation's non-profit status and should be addressed within this article.

Content of that link, in case it ceases to work:

"The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is conducting a survey of American citizens. In particular, the Foundation cares about your opinion on Big Labor`s political power in the upcoming 2008 elections.

Big Labor will spend over one billion dollars in forced union dues this year attempting to buy control of Congress and the White House. But your opinion matters. And the news media, Congress and the White House need to hear from the mainstream of public opinion that you represent.

This national survey of voters from every state and Congressional District will send a strong message that a majority of Americans are outraged over the abuse of power by union bosses.

And after completing the survey, would you please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation by clicking here.

 Do you agree with Big Labor's practice of using the mandatory dues of workers to fund political campaigns?

 Do you think that union political activity funded by forced dues has made the left-wing movement in America stronger?

Would you support a National Right to Work Act, which would eliminate federally imposed forced unionism?

Do you think union violence should continue to enjoy legal immunity under federal law and the laws of more than 15 states?"

Voting, incidentally, requires adding your email address.

I've also changed it so that the "funding... from Adolph Coors" reads, more correctly, "from the Adolph Coors Foundation," complete with a link.

Please, people, this article is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.172.157 (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find a valid source that echoes your concerns about their legal status, this falls under WP:OR and does not belong in the article.

Could you elaborate on what you consider "a joke" about this article? It is sparse, but that may simply be due to the limited notability of the organization. —BozoTheScary (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything that backs up the disputed-neutrality claim made by user (IP 75.70). Please further elaborate. If no further information is forthcoming, I think the dispute should be removed in three days. -- Mingr1 (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. It's been long enough without a response. —BozoTheScary (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I replaced "compulsory unionism" with "closed shops". The first lacks conventional usage in NPOV settings. —BozoTheScary (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also added reference tags. All but one of the refs are from the foundation website. —BozoTheScary (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes indeed. However, "closed shops" are illegal in the U.S. according to Wikipedia. Professor George C. Leef's "Free Choice for Workers -- A history of the Right to Work movement" states that the NRTWLDF's "business is solely to assist workers who ask for help when union bosses have taken actions that force membership in, or payment to, an unwanted union" (p. 149). Perhaps the sentence should read "...employees who claim that their civil rights have been violated by being forced to join or pay dues to an unwanted union" or "...forced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment." Mingr1 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "closed shop" is definitely the wrong term. I will revert myself to "compulsory unionism", though I still am uncomfortable with that phrasing. "Union shop" looks like it would be accurate, but not naively obviously accurate. I still worry that "unionism" smacks of POV, perhaps not denotatively, but conotatively so. Would "compulsory union fees" or "compulsory union membership" be more accurate, yet still NPOV? The distinction between "closed shop" and "union shop" seems largely cosmetic to me, so I may be too ignorant of the details. There also seems to be an unnamed category of legacy closed shops that have special restrictions over and above union shops in general. —BozoTheScary (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

BTS, what in the article do you think needs additional citations? Mingr1 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph under funding should have a reference that is from other than the official website. The "Right-to-Work Principle" should have a third-party reference that defines it. There need to be references that tie the FindLaw cases to the NRWLDF, again from other than NRWLDF's home site. —BozoTheScary (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Right-to-Work Principle" and Supreme Court cases list has some additional citations. Thoughts? Mingr1 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some amazing work. I've removed the source tags, since it just seems to be you and me. I put a "name" on your book source and changed all of the latter refs to use that name instead of the full book info. I also changed the external links to ref tags. I (or somebody, probably a robot) will need to put some titles in my link refs. —BozoTheScary (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic social teaching[edit]

I noticed that some activists in the organization had been citing Catholic social doctrine on the right to work. There should maybe be more information about the Church's position on the issue. [1] ADM (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression is that unless it constituted a notable fraction of this organization's rhetoric, it doesn't belong here. Pope Benedict XVI's speech suggests that a "right to work" interpretation of Catholic social doctrine is not necessarily dominant from that side either. However, if the Roesser case were discussed on this article page, it may merit a brief mention of a connection to this interpretation of Catholic social doctrine, if it can be shown that Roesser's objections to union dues were for more than just his objections to lobbying for abortion rights. —BozoTheScary (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]