Talk:Microsoft and unions

Future topics

• The 996.icu movement, which was hosted on GitHub with lot of support from MSFT employees.
• Works council in Germany. (non primary source would be better)
• Expand coverage of anti government contract protests/actions ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Proseline

I recommend recasting the proseline text into a cohesive narrative before nominating for peer review as it almost certainly will come up there. czar 13:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 22:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheGhostGum (talk · contribs) 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this and IBM and unions. In case you want similar formats, Tesla and unions is a WP:Featured articles and Apple and unions is GA. Always happy for general feedback of these article structures, and rest of your feedback. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Finished my review thus far. Seems to be a few little things to fix up here and there.

I'll see if I can find some photos to upload that can be used in this article. TheGhostGum (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sections

Lead

Well written lead, however I think it needs to be expanded to two or three paragraphs, adding more detail like Microsoft's unionization milestones, including its historical opposition (in the companies it's acquired EG Activision) and recent changes in policy. For example, I think in the lead you could reference and bring up how Microsoft is not a super union buster and seems to be on nominally neutral terms with the unions that represent their workers in each country.

 Done particularly expanded lede for summary of US and Korea, also expanded Korea section. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Germany, Canada, & South Korean Sections

These sections for the most part are adequate. I think that they could all benefit from images later if they can be found.

Also including key information such as When the unions formed, what they've asked for in strikes more expansively (south korea), and how strikes resolved (south korea). However from a quick look it does seem like this information is hard to come by so I'm hard pressed to deny the GA based on that.

United States Section

The "United States" section of the "Microsoft and unions" article provides a comprehensive overview of Microsoft's evolving relationship with labor unions in the U.S., particularly within its video game subsidiaries. Overall I think it nearly meets the GA Criteria.

Citations: Sections such as the 'Microsoft signed a labor neutrality agreement with CWA' don't have citation.

Readability: Some sentences are lengthy and could be broken down for better readability. For instance, the sentence discussing Microsoft's labor neutrality agreement could be simplified to enhance understanding.

Explain Context of terms: Some terms are kinda just dropped on the reader, for example I know they did a "labor neutrality agreement" but what does it mean, are these common, etc.

Lead connection: The lead of the article should maybe briefly summarize the key points from the U.S. section, providing readers with an overview of Microsoft's union relations in the country.

Depth of Coverage: While major events are discussed, providing more context on the outcomes of these unionization efforts would offer a fuller picture. For instance, elaborating on the impact of the labour neutrality agreement on employee relations could be beneficial.

Repetition: Some information appears repetitive, such as details about the Activision Blizzard acquisition. Consolidating these details can improve the section's conciseness.

Balanced Perspectives In the Article: Where applicable, include viewpoints from both Microsoft management and employees to provide a balanced narrative. For example, when discussing employee protests, presenting Microsoft's response would offer a more comprehensive view. Again, from a quick look It's hard to find the Union ask then Company response on these issues.

Conclusion: The "United States" section of the "Microsoft and unions" article meets several GA criteria, including neutrality, verifiability, and broad coverage. However, improvements in prose clarity and depth of coverage are necessary to fully align with all GA standards. Please note the suggestions above are not all required to be fixed, The Readability, Explaining Context, and lead connections are the one I think make it not reach the GA Criteria.

Images and References

No images, none readily available that can be found.

Spot-check

(Edit by Shushugah using version found here

Checking every 3rd ref. Spot-check failed, Articles claims need a deeper check of sources.

• Ref-1: The certification was granted Aug. 13, nearly 7 weeks after the union filed with a strong majority of workers signing union cards with CWA Canada.
• Ref-4: Does not seem to directly back up the claims of 2000 workers or the list of named unions. It seems to claim 1750, Microsoft's "recognition" seems to be "If they get a majority support" and not that they have recognised them

Ref-4 references 1750 workers from previous 7 union drives, while the 8th union drive added ~450, so I did a routine WP:CALC and called it 2,000 union members combined. I will add a hat-note clarifying this. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref-5: Does not seem to directly back up the claim

Related to above ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref-7: In April 1999, support for collective representation surfaced at TaxSaver, a working group within Microsoft, in response to a refusal by their temporary employment agencies to improve their benefits... This group of 18 Microsoft agency contractors...
• Ref-10: Can't find the "voted to unionize (19–2)" claim backed up in the article

You are right, the numbers of union results are in sources 11 and 12. Updated accordingly. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

After above changes I spot checked a few more and couldn't find further issues.

Overall

Overall a good article. I think that it could have some improvement in the ways of content but it doesn't seem like there is a lot of readily available stuff out there to grow it. The lead section does seem to need some extending based on the amount of content in the article and the variety of it. Some terms need explaining in the body as well

For images I think having some images of the CEOs or unions could help. There are none in the commons at the moment but I think some of the ones out there in the news or uploaded by the unions could be used, extra effort if you reach out to the unions to get them to upload them to the commons.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Article does not appear to take sides or present a bias to any group It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Few edits over time, little to no major disagreement on article It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): No readily available images found b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Nothing to caption
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·