Talk:Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Different accounts of the history
I would like to see clarification of the relationship between the ACWA and the IWW. Specifically, one cannot determine for certain just who is getting blamed for what in this paragraph from the article:

''The amalgamated solidified its gains and extended its power in Chicago through a series of strikes in the last half of the 1910s. The Amalgamated found it harder, on the other hand, to make gains in Baltimore, where it was able to sign an agreement with one of the largest manufacturers that, like HSM in Chicago, sought labor peace, it found itself at odds with an unusual alliance of UGW locals, the corrupt head of the Baltimore Federation of Labor, and the Industrial Workers of the World, who undermined the Amalgamated's strikes and attacked strikers.'' [FROM THE ACWA ARTICLE]

The language is imprecise. Does this mean the IWW attacked strikers? Or does it mean the "alliance" (or, members of the alliance) attacked strikers?

Perhaps the feeling results mostly from my own experiences, but with its strong focus on rank and file solidarity, i find it difficult to believe that the IWW "attacked strikers", as the above passage may be implying.

In fact, an account of what may be the same incident by an IWW writer, Fred W. Thompson, paints a very different picture, one of IWW members engaged in a battle (he calls it a free-for-all) initiated by ACWA pickets. Thompson's account states that,

During the early part of this split [between the UGW and the ACWA] the IWW was the largest union in the industry in Baltimore... The IWW was the majority in some shops, the minority in others; in either case, though it competed with both ACWA and UGW for members, it took action to defend either union.

Grief & Company had five plants one of which in the Coca Cola Building was three quarters IWW, the rest UGW with a few members of the Amalgamated. In 1916 the UGW and ACWA began demanding closed shop and wanted the IWW to pull this plant in support of their respective demands. The IWW issued a circular stating,


 * The IWW always has and always will work in conjunction and strike with any group of workers anywhere, whether organized or unorganized when they have a grievance against any boss, but will not permit itself to be used as a club by any organization to fight another union.

The Amalgamated sent pickets with clubs and knives to bring out the Coca Cola Building; other members rallied to the free-for-all to even up the odds with the result that ACWA left them alone there.

So i'm wondering&mdash;is this the incident that is referred to when the current text of the article appears to state that "...the Industrial Workers of the World... undermined the Amalgamated's strikes and attacked strikers..." ??

Now the current article makes another accusation against the IWW that is certainly possible, but that i find unlikely. It is:

Complicating the picture further were the ethnic bonds between the many Lithuanian members of the IWW and the subcontractors whom the Amalgamated was trying to put out of business and the anarcho-syndicalist politics of many Lithuanian workers, who had developed their politics in opposition to czarist oppression in their homeland... the [IWW had an] alliance with small contractors... [FROM THE ACWA ARTICLE]

Well, consider for a moment the very first words of the Preamble of the IWW Constitution:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common...

It has been the same since 1905, and no union has sought to live up to this philosophical touchstone moreso that the IWW. In two decades of reading about the IWW, i have yet to come across a clear example in which the IWW has allied itself with employers against any other union. Not saying its never happened, just seems improbable.

But let us continue with the Thompson account:

The pocket makers at Strouse&mdash;20 of them IWW and ACWA&mdash;decided to strike for the abolition of the sub-contract system and a straight price of 15 cents a pocket. The ACWA tried to settle for less, proposing to replace any who struck against its settlement. The cutters in the plant were UGW and decided to strike in support of the original pocket makers whether IWW or not. A long strike of 700 AFL and IWW followed with 300 ACWA recruits inside working. The clothing industry in Baltimore went to the unions that bid against each other for collective bargaining agreements and the IWW faded out of the picture.

Ehhh? The IWW and the ACWA were ALSO trying to abolish the sub-contract system.

Even if there were,

"ethnic bonds between the many Lithuanian members of the IWW and the subcontractors" [FROM THE ACWA ARTICLE],

...these did not muddle the picture as far as any of the unions were concerned, it appears. All three must have considered the sub-contract system a negative, if they wanted to abolish it, and were willing to strike in order to accomplish that. The article declares an "alliance" between the IWW and small contractors that in all probability did not exist. Why slam the IWW with something that appears not to be true?

And lets return again for a moment to that first quoted paragraph, which mentions that,

...UGW locals, the corrupt head of the Baltimore Federation of Labor, and the Industrial Workers of the World, who undermined the Amalgamated's strikes... [FROM THE ACWA ARTICLE]

Seems we're not getting both sides in this article, for Thompson has clearly stated that the ACWA undermined a strike of the UGW and IWW.

I think we need to improve the balance of this account, rather than transcribing the history entirely from the point of view of the ACWA.

Are there specific sources for the text in the article? Fred Thompson's account is in: The I.W.W.: Its First Seventy Years, 1976, pages 98-99.

I prefer to allow others an opportunity to respond before i do any editing to balance these accounts.

Appreciate the chance to air some differences here. Best wishes, Richard Myers 01:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please make your changes. I felt the same way and elected to bring it up in talk, only to see you have done the legwork. Thank you for doing this 2600:8803:7888:2800:FCB2:8929:FCCB:6EA1 (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)