Talk:Right-to-work law

Support

I'm currently researching what the major support arms of the "Right to Work" movement are. So far I've come up to their major legal support, the Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Still working on it, though any other major supporters would be appreciated. The Mad World (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Which part of the mission does this article fall under?

Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement? Documenting the full range of crank ideas? Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism? Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media? I guess the answer would be 2 or 3, but I'm not sure that this really falls into those categories. Just because one opposes a political idea, that doesn't make it crankery or fundamentalism; after all, a R2W advocate would probably cast mandatory union membership and dues paying as fundie woo,as well. And they would both be wrong. I really fear our working definition of those terms is becoming so broad as to be meaningless. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 01:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Dunno. I just made it because it was highly voted on the to-do list. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 16:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Off-Mission

Keep I feel this falls under the psudeo(political)science category. Zero (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What is "pseudo(political)science"? If we have to make up terms with excessive punctuation to get an article to seem relevant, we maught as well just turn this into Wkikpedia Mark II. As it is, I get the sense that the term means "stuff I don't agree with." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me try it a different way. I think it falls under the same sort of category as Austrian economics. Zero (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Do RTW supporters employ praxeology? During my state's RTW campaign, I saw a lot of modelling from the other side. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with PowderSmokeAndLeather in that right-to-work laws are evil, but we shouldn't have an article on it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep. "Explorations of authoritarianism". PSAL, what's your problem? ħuman 04:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I submit that right-to-work laws are not any more authoritarian than laws requiring companies to adopt a closed-shop model on demand.

But, in any event, the article's connection to the mission is much more tenuous, I suspect, than its connection to the writers' political sympathies. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

the writer might be a red ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.49.46.54 / talk / contribs 18:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)}

Keep, for God's sake I'm sick of editors deleting articles at the drop of the hat because it might be slightly off mission. This article and others like it are educational, so it's worth keeping, especially if we want to become more noteworthy and useful on the interwebs. If we kept SO strictly to the four listed mission goals I could probably delete a third of the articles on this site, and hence make this site next to useless. Editors need to learn how to lighten up and treat the 4 listed goals more as "guidelines" as opposed to law set in stone.

Also, deleting articles like this doesn't exactly encourage people to contribute, even if they have useful things to say. ClothCoat (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We could do with deleting a third of our articles, I think, so long as they were the bottom third in terms of quality. And I, for one, am not in favor of pandering to editors who put random garbage in mainspace in the hope that they will contribute more. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The only connection I see to "the Mission" is that the term is somewhat Orwellian.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should probably wait until the mission brouhaha settles down. If the mission doesn't change, I as the originator would actually lean towards deletion. As I said above I only started it because I saw it on the to-do list; I'm by no means attached to it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ad Hominem?

The article currently includes the following:

> Other stuff Vance Muse did: fought against women's suffrage, a child labor amendment, the 8-hour work day and Felix Frankfurter (a Jew) as a Supreme Court justice, while launching the very first steps towards the Southern Strategy.[4][5] His "Christian American Association" was also anti-semitic as well as anti-Catholic.[4][5]

While all of these things contribute to a conclusion that the person in question had a specific agenda, which this fit into, none of these things support the argument in the article. We should be cautious about descending into ad hominem, even when it's satisfying to do so and the result leads towards a conclusion we favor.