Talk:American Federation of Labor/Archive 1

Tear it down and start over
This page is not only inadequate, but full of inaccuracies.

"Until the 1950s, the AFL allowed only skilled workers to enter." False: UMW, ILGWU, ACWA, Brewery Workers, Teamsters.

"The AFL prohibited all nonwhite workers from entering." Many affiliates did; the AFL did not.

"This philosophy of craft unionism, or the division of unions by specialty, contradicted earlier unions' support of industrial unionism, which advocated grouping all workers in a company under one union to increase bargaining power." Contradicted? Earlier unions? Both vague and sloppy. There is much to be said on this subject. There is little of value on this page to be saved. 24.126.41.116 05:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) aka Italo Svevo


 * Agreed. And great job on Craft unionism. RadicalSubversiv E 06:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The AFL, the IWW and WWI
I spent 33 years in an AFL(-CIO) union, the IBEW. I was an officer, steward, and a delegate to the AFL-CIO. I joined the IWW more than fifteen years ago. I've written and edited a book about labor history. I have some issues with this article. In my opinion, the following para needs revision, elaboration, or some specific references to justify the claims:


 * The AFL vigorously opposed dual unionism and the Industrial Workers of the World, which was created in 1905 as an alternative to the AFL. Rather than accommodating capitalism, it sought to overthrow it. The IWW was never a significant threat to the AFL. While the AFL vigorously supported the national war effort in World War I, the IWW tried to impede the war effort and was broken by criminal prosecution.

Point One: It is easy for someone here to suggest that the IWW "was never a serious threat" to the AFL when one considers the collusion of business, government, and the AFL in an attempt to destroy that organization. However, the U.S. government believed the IWW was a serious threat, else why did they launch such widespread, concerted actions against the union? Hundreds of IWW members and officers were rounded up, some simply for possessing a union card. IWW halls across the continent were ransacked or destroyed, and their membership lists confiscated or burned. Those arrested faced up to 38 years in prison. Many were deported, and a few fled the country. Nonetheless, the organization reached its peak membership in 1923, some five years after the repression started, with well over a hundred thousand members. Granted, that's not as big as the AFL. But "never a serious threat" ??? How can this statement be substantiated, in light of what the IWW was becoming, and what it might have been absent the concerted attacks?

Point Two: My reading about the IWW's war years suggests that the word "impede" is inaccurate. The IWW did not take a formal position on the war. In fact, some key people in the organization, including Big Bill Haywood, believed that doing so would have brought down the wrath of the government (which happened anyway...)

The IWW certainly disliked the war, and editorialized against it. General Executive Board officer Frank Little was hanged from a railroad trestle, probably due in part to his outspoken criticism of the war. But (in a nation that should honor the first amendment) speaking out is not "impeding."

The IWW did decline to forego strikes while the war was on. If there was any impeding, it was the local government and mine operators who impeded the normal actions of the union (a strike for better wages) by kidnapping more than a thousand unionized workers and transporting them at gunpoint to the desert (Google for Bisbee Deportation.)

Granted, someone might believe that a major union organization declining to forego strikes during a war is an impediment of sorts. If that is the case, it deserves to be spelled out, rather than conjuring the false image of the IWW instructing its members to resist the war effort in any way possible.

Finally, the IWW was seriously injured by criminal prosecution. But i believe the phrase "was broken" is hyperbole. The IWW mounted very successful strikes as late as 1927-28, when 12,000 Colorado coal miners put down their tools under the banner of the IWW. The IWW underwent a split during the 1920s, and lost about half of its membership around 1925, years after the criminal prosecution had ended. Richard Myers 06:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The IWW was not quite so quiet. Foner says: "The only position which the Board could agree on was that Ralph Chaplin should be given the authority to print a statement over his own signature. Appearing in the July 20, 1917 issue of Solidarity, Chaplin's statement said that members who joined military forces had always been expelled from the IWW and that "the principle of the International solidarity of labor to which we have always adhered makes it impossible for us to participate in any and all of the plunder-squabbles of the Parasite class." It urged that members register for the draft, but that they also claim exemption from military service by writing on the registration form, "IWW, opposed to war." Labor and World War I, 1914-1918. Volume: 7. by Philip S. Foner 1987. Page Number: 302. Rjensen 07:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the most outspoken advocates of war resistance, the (communist) ICC, has written on this question:
 * In an irony of history, it was the IWW, which consciously chose not to actively fight against the war once the US had entered the conflict, and not the socialist parties that opposed the war, that was targeted for repression. While individual socialists, like Eugene Debs who had spoken openly against conscription, were arrested and imprisoned, only the IWW, as an organization, faced indictment for conspiracy to sabotage the war effort. In this sense the war provided a pretext for the bourgeoisie to take revenge on the IWW for its past activities and for the fear it inspired. Indeed, we can perhaps say that the American bourgeoisie was more aware than the IWW’s leaders themselves of the danger that the organization represented. One hundred and sixty-five IWW leaders were indicted on September 28, 1917 on charges of obstructing the war effort and conscription, and conspiring to sabotage and interfere with the normal contractual economic functioning in society. The government was so intent on exploiting this opportunity to decapitate the IWW, that it even indicted people who were already dead or had left the organization long before the US entered the war. For example, among the indicted Wobblies were:


 * Frank Little, who had been murdered in August 1917;
 * Gurley Flynn and Joseph Ettor who had been expelled from the organization in 1916, long before the US entered the war;
 * Vincent St. John, who had resigned from the organization, left politics, and gone off to prospect in the New Mexico desert in 1914.


 * At the Great Trial, the Wobbly defendants argued that they had not tried to interfere with the war effort. They pointed out that of the 521 wartime labor strikes, only three were organized by the IWW, the rest by the AFL. In his testimony, Haywood disowned the views of Frank Little, and pointed out that anti-war literature such as Deadly Parallel and the Sabotage pamphlet had been withdrawn from circulation once the US entered the war.


 * Despite the fact they were innocent of the charges, the Wobblies were convicted after less than an hour of jury deliberation, and the bulk of the IWW’s leadership were sent off to Leavenworth in chains.


 * more details at: []


 * - myers -


 * I hope to see some changes in the paragraph relating to the IWW. If necessary, i will happily make the changes myself. However, i was hoping for some additional feedback and commentary on the concerns i've expressed, as preliminary guidance. Anyone? Thanks... Richard Myers 09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some general cleanup
I did some general clean-up today. While the writing style was generally good, there were a large number of run-on sentences, some factual errors (ex., the AFL pulled the charters of the CIO unions in 1936, not 1937 or 1935), some unclear sentences, and so on. I also changed some of the hyperbolic language (such language makes for exciting historical writing, but not good Wiki articles generally).

As for the IWW references, I would support removing any refernces to the IWW "impeding" the war effort in WWI absent any support. The IWW clearly did not support, sanction or conduct strikes during the war. Opposing the war is not the same as "impeding", unless evidence can be offered otherwise. Such evidence might be: propagandizing workers to avoid war-plant work, supporting mass resignations in war-plants, picketing or demonstrating against the war or war production, etc. The word "impeding" should be avoided; specific acts the IWW undertook should be listed instead so that the reader may draw his or her own conclusions. If there are statements from politicians, labor leaders, civic leaders, etc., which characterize the IWW's actions during the war, by all means include them. (Even if the IWW did not "impede" the war effort, others may have perceived it to be doing so. In politics, perception—whether sincere or cynical—is 90 percent of the game.)

I would argue the same for the "IWW wasn't a threat" as well. Wikipedia writers cannot make arguments one way or the other. We can only find scholarly works or primary-source documents which make the statements, and then cite these sources. The IWW is well-studied. Certainly, some historian has made a statement about whether the IWW was perceived as a threat (or not) by labor, government, the public, etc. Find that statement. Insert it and a citation into the article. (Remember, Wikipedia encourages others to "mercilessly edit" the work of others, to "be bold".)

I also very strongly encourage everyone to use in-line references extensively in this article from here on out. ANY statement of fact or opinion which might be challenged should be supported with a general citation (Smith, "Unions Are Cool," Journal of Truth, Sept. 2007 or Jones, Unions Are the best, 2006) or a specific one (citing page number) when statistics or quotations are used.

Finally, if there is a question about a statement, use the tag. Insert it immediately after the questionable number, quote or statement if the number, quote or statement is one of several in a sentence. Insert it at the end of the sentence if the number, quote or statement is the only one in the sentence or stands alone (as a quote might). - Tim1965 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good advice.


 * I'm going to do some revision relating to what has been discussed here. Storing this paragraph here temporarily.


 * The AFL vigorously opposed dual unionism and the Industrial Workers of the World, which was created in 1905 as an alternative to the AFL. Rather than accommodating capitalism, the IWW sought to overthrow it. The IWW was never a significant threat to the AFL.  While the AFL vigorously supported the national war effort in World War I, the IWW tried to impede the war effort and was broken by criminal prosecution.


 * Richard Myers 11:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit finished for now. Above AFL/IWW/World War I text expanded, improved under the heading, "Expansion and competition." Also added an active references section. Richard Myers 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * the IWW has its own article and should be discussed there, not in AFL article. pro-iww pov is not allowed. Rjensen 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This was not just IWW, it was WFM, CTW, ALU, WLU. You reverted a lot of work. Others should look to see how much you've deleted. Richard Myers 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I invite suggestions about the possibility of moving some text to a new article called "Labor federation competition in the U.S." or some such. If someone wishes to delete major sections of someone else's fresh work, they could at least provide the courtesy of transferring that text to the talk page, and inviting discussion about it. Richard Myers 16:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Labor federation competition in the U.S. now exists. I have copied some text there, and added a little more. Same text can be briefly summarized and removed from this article, and a link established. 4.227.248.218 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gompers as socialist?
Under the section "Political activities" it is stated that Gompers was socialist. (The exact formulation is "[T]he organization was founded by socialists such as Gompers"). This conflicts with the page about Gompers himself, in which it is stated that "he fought against both socialism and the Socialist Party". This is of course a quite big conflict, and should be resolved. Jonathan Holst 12:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most scholars (Philip Foner, for example) note that early in his life Gompers was an avowed and strong socialist. Although his ardor for and advocacy of socialism had waned by the time the AFL was founded, he was still nominally a socialist. However, over the next 5-10 years, Gompers abandoned socialism in favor of political neutrality and business unionism.  That's the point this (admittedly poorly written) article fails to make, I think. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"AFL" or "AF of L"?
It was my understanding that the shorter initialism dates from the merger with the CIO, and that before that it was called the A. F. of L.. It was a bit of a surprise to see in the Samuel Gompers article that he founded the AFL rather than the A. F. of L. Should this be changed? --Trovatore (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The article isn't trying to write in 1920s vernacular. It writes using modern terminology, for modern readers. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that isn't really the point. If the official abbreviation was A. F. of L., then we should use it, even if that isn't the way an organization with that name would abbreviate itself today. --Trovatore (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did they have an official abbreviation? I don't believe so; rather adding the "of" was simply an idiom. It was common in American English to write out "of" in most abbreviations at the time. By the founding of the CIO, however, that usage was already falling away, and by the 1940s not even scholars referred to the AFL as "A.F. of L." If we were to quibble, the "New York Times" still puncutates the acronym ("A.F.L."), which is technically correct.  Yet, I can't think offhand of any other news organization or scholar which does so, and no other newspaper or media outlet. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really know; I'm not an expert on the subject. (That's why I asked :-) But when I recall it being called A. F. of L. when I was in high school, in the seventies. In any case it works nicely to distinguish it from the American Football League.
 * But if contemporary scholarship uses AFL, then I suppose that's fine. --Trovatore (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary usage was AF of L. It sounds weird to our ears today, but that's what they called it. After the merger the "of" went away and it sounds to us now like that's the way it should be and always was — but that's a historical anachronism... I've tired to change it throughout. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

AFL support for National Union of Women’s Suffrage
From the article,

"Even from the 1890s, the AFL declared itself vigorously in favor of women’s suffrage. It often printed pro-suffrage articles in its periodical, and in 1918, it supported the National Union of Women’s Suffrage."

The National Union of Women’s Suffrage appears to be a British group. It isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article, History of women's suffrage in the United States, but it is mentioned here: Women's suffrage.

I note that there is a source referenced in the article for the above statement:

Alice Kessler-Harris, Out to Work: A History of Wage Earning Women in the United States. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1982), 200-202

Can someone please check it? Google book search provides pages 200 and 202 of the source, but not page 201. Richard Myers (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

case problems
found and fixed all of the lower case problems i could find, it seems someone who contributed a great deal to the article used afl as opposed to AFL, and cio as opposed to CIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.5.187 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Double Chin
It seems like someone was working on creating this article before realizing that there was already one in existence. It seems like the just pasted their work under or over the old work. If you don't agree with me, just read the introduction. The Onion 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You got it, bruddah. It was like the unholy marriage of two complete tellings. I wielded a mean machete and apologies if I delivered a flesh wound. Time for people to get really serious about little tiny sections of time and not to issue any more analytical manifestos interpreting philosophy. There's not really a whole lot there about, y'know, organizing unions and strikes and stuff... Go to town, y'all!!! Carrite (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

When was the CIO formed?
There seems to be confusion about when the Committee on Industrial Organization was expelled from the AFL. First, the CIO did not leave of its own accord. The CIO repeatedly said it wanted to be part of the AFL. The CIO was expelled. Second, the timeline for expulsion is clear. Walter Galenson points out (p. 11) that revocation of an AFL union's charter required a two-thirds vote of the Convention. (See Walter Galenson. The CIO Challenge to the AFL: A History of the American Labor Movement. Harvard University Press, 1981.) But first the AFL Executive Council needed to build its case for expulsion. The Executive Council held a trial of the CIO unions in August 1936 and voted to recommend revocation (Galenson, p. 18). The Executive Council then suspended the unions from involvement in AFL activities on September 5, 1936. (See Craig Phelan. William Green: Biography of a Labor Leader. SUNY Press, 1989, p. 141-142.) At the AFL Convention (which began November 16, 1936), the Convention voted by that two-thirds majority to give AFL President William Green authority to revoke the CIO members' charters (Phelan, p. 147). Some CIO unions (like the Hatters) requested time to appeal to the AFL. Negotiations occurred through November and December, but did not end successfully. Clearly, many CIO unions still held out hope for rejoining the AFL. Indeed, Green, John L. Lewis, and Philip Murray held "peace talks" with the AFL in late 1936 (and late 1937), but these talks failed. The AFL Executive Council voted to expel the CIO unions at its meeting on March 7, 1937. (See Robert Zieger, The CIO, 1935-1955, University of North Carolina Press, 1995.) The CIO held its founding convention in November 1937, and changed its name.

I realize this article is in poor shape, lacks inline citations, and has a number of inaccuracies. I'm working on a William Green expansion, and don't have the knowledge or expertise yet to help with this one. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Was: A Mess. Is Now: Inadequate.
I've blown up the gargantuan lead and tried to set up the framework for a real periodization of the history. There is still way too much BLAH BLAH BLAH in there, especially at the bottom, but hopefully now people can start sticking some muscle and sinew to the bones... Carrite (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I woke up this morning still thinking about the mess at the bottom and cleaned up a little more. This thing still needs to be tightened tightened tightened at the bottom and expanded very substantially at the top. Other "historical problems" that come to mind if anyone wants to chase a topic: 1. Militarism; 2. Intolerance of Dissent. The sourcing of this article remains very poor. Carrite (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)