Talk:Public Interest Research Group/Archives/2020/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funding model and allegations of unfair labor practices

PIRGs on college campuses have historically been funded with a portion of student activity fees in the form of a labor checkoff. Students may elect to have the fees refunded to them, although many students are unaware that this is the case. This system of PIRG funding has been met with controversy and with a number of legal challenges.[1] In 2014, students at Macalester College in Minnesota voted to end their relationship with MPIRG due to the group's revenue structure, which relied on MPIRG automatically receiving a cut of student activity fees.[2]

In 1982, the PIRGs established the Fund for the Public Interest (commonly referred to as "the Fund") as its fundraising and canvassing arm.[1] The Fund has been subject to lawsuits and accusations of unfair and exploitative labor practices,[3][4][5] and it has resisted unionization efforts by its canvassers to unionize.[6] In 2016, U.S. PIRG joined conservative groups in opposing the Obama Administration's rules that expanded worker overtime pay, which resulted in criticism against the organization in the popular press.[7] |

Funding model

PIRGs on college campuses have historically been funded with a portion of student activity fees in the form of a labor checkoff. Students may elect to have the fees refunded to them, although many students are unaware that this is the case. In 1982, the PIRGs established the Fund for the Public Interest (commonly referred to as "the Fund") as its fundraising and canvassing arm.[1]

COI editor requests section title revisions

Hello fellow editors! This is Dan Cook, and I am being paid by PIRG to update this article. I appreciate all the assistance to date from the terrific volunteers out there! This request will focus on section titles and related content. The reason for the request is that PIRG thinks the section entitled Funding model and allegations of unfair labor practices should be split into two separate sections to more closely follow the style of other good articles. One section would become something like Funding Model or Funding Sources, and include the information on PIRG’s sources of revenue.

The other section would be entitled Controversies, which is a frequently used section header to aggregate contentious activities of organizations. The information about litigation, criticisms of fundraising tactics, union activity, and overtime pay would then move under this heading.

My formal edit request follows:

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Current text Replace with

Controversies

The student fee system of PIRG funding has been met with controversy and with a number of legal challenges.[1] In 2014, students at Macalester College in Minnesota voted to end their relationship with MPIRG due to the group's revenue structure, which relied on MPIRG automatically receiving a cut of student activity fees.[2]

The Fund For the Public Interest has been subject to lawsuits and accusations of unfair and exploitative labor practices,[8][9][10] and it has resisted unionization efforts by its canvassers to unionize.[11]

In 2016, U.S. PIRG joined conservative groups in opposing the Obama Administration's rules that expanded worker overtime pay, which resulted in criticism against the organization in the popular press.[12]

Thanks in advance for considering this request. DanDavidCook (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Reviewed the proposed changes and agree splitting the section into Funding Model and Controversies follows the format of other good articles  Done Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d Mayer, Robert N. (2015). Watchdogs and Whistleblowers: A Reference Guide to Consumer Activism. ABC-CLIO. p. 389. ISBN 9781440830006.
  2. ^ a b Verges, Josh (November 19, 2014). "Macalester College students reject MPIRG on campus". Pioneer Press. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
  3. ^ Stonesifer, Sandy (1 July 2009). "I avoid street canvassers for do-gooding organizations. Does that make me a jerk?". Slate Magazine. Slate. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  4. ^ "Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives". The People's View. The People's View. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  5. ^ Bloom, Greg (18 August 2006). "Do You Have a Minute for ?". In These Times. In These Times. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  6. ^ Rosiak, Luke (15 July 2009). "The Liberal Sweatshop". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  7. ^ Timm, Jonathan (24 August 2016). "The Plight of the Overworked Nonprofit Employee". The Atlantic. The Atlantic. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  8. ^ Stonesifer, Sandy (1 July 2009). "I avoid street canvassers for do-gooding organizations. Does that make me a jerk?". Slate Magazine. Slate. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  9. ^ "Before Bernie: How Ralph Nader Created a System to Exploit Young, Idealistic Progressives". The People's View. The People's View. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  10. ^ Bloom, Greg (18 August 2006). "Do You Have a Minute for ?". In These Times. In These Times. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  11. ^ Rosiak, Luke (15 July 2009). "The Liberal Sweatshop". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
  12. ^ Timm, Jonathan (24 August 2016). "The Plight of the Overworked Nonprofit Employee". The Atlantic. The Atlantic. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_Interest_Research_Group/Archives/2020/October&oldid=1164977459"