Talk:Industrial unionism/Archive 1

Government response
I plan to add a new section relating to government response. It will deal not only with the use of national guard, syndicalism laws, etc., but also with legislation that outlawed sympathy strikes. Making this note here basically to remind myself, but also to invite comment, or even initiative in this effort. Richard Myers 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

split?
Unless I'm missing something, the new section Fifelfoo added on "revolutionary industrial unionism" is about a fundamentally different concept -- is there a reason it shouldn't be its own article? RadicalSubversiv E 01:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. They seem related though. The IWW slips through Industrial Unionism in the reformist wings (DeLeonist etc) through to revolutionary Industrial Unionism. And the IWW seems to be the engine pushing Industrial unionism up hill in many ways. I guess they're as related as Syndicalism and Revolutionary Syndicalism. Either Revolutionary Industrial Unionism gets its own article, or we keep them together as allied topics, and put in a redirect from Revolutionary Industrial Unionism. I'm happy either way, but the topic of RIU seemed to clarify the difference between the IWW and Anarcho-Syndicalism on that page. yours Fifelfoo 02:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't follow you. Anarcho-syndicalism is pretty peripheral to the industrial unionism vs. craft unionism divide, which is really characterized by the old split between the AFL and the CIO (by which point the IWW had pretty much collapsed). I've never heard the phrase "revolutionary industrial unionism" before, and your presentation makes it sound like an ideological issue, which would be unrelated to the question of organizing by industry vs. by craft (which may be specific to the U.S. -- I'm not sure). RadicalSubversiv E 03:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Its certainly an issue in Australian Unionism. Australia has had a dominant tradition of right-wing and left-wing trades unions, and right-wing "industrial" unions like Australia's Worst Union (Australian Workers Union).  In comparision both the IWW, the CPA (with its Red Trades Unions), and various trade union movements (Amalgamation & Federations in the 70s) pushed for more revolutionary industrial unions.  Organising by craft, trade or industry is part of the issue.  The other part is if the industrial unionism necessary implies revolution.  Similar to the Syndicalist debates about revolutionism in France.  In many ways in Australia, organisation by industry implies organisation to control those industries.  The early days of the CIO probably give another example (sit-ins) where the demand for industrial organisation of workers necessarily implied the demand of organisation of industry by workers. Fifelfoo 04:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something in the Australian context, the AWU is a union that retains significant membership in Australia whereas the IWW appears to have been something of a shortlived phenomenon that for all intents and purposes disappeared in the 1930s. I have noticed that there are various entries creeping in that are purely opinion (while not unexpected on such an emotive issue) - perhaps these more appropriate to a discussion paper than a reference work. In my submission the concept of whether a union is organised according to its industry or according to occupation are seperate issues to the political ideology of various individual participants in the labour movement. In Australia in the present day and in the past we have had examples of both craft based and industry based unions in both the left and the right wings of the union movement. This will continue to be a feature in the future. On the subject of the distinction between craft based unionism and Industry based unionism, I think this has been a distinction that is common to many countries. I would also suggest that another common trend has been the decline in craft unionism. In Australia this has been a deliberate strategy of the ACTU steming from the late 80s through the early 90s where there was a push to ammalgamate unions and organise on industry lines. This also appears to have been a feature in other countries such as Germany. I propose that "revolutionary industrial unionism" should be moved to a seperate article. Hmette 15:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've slightly re-arranged, and added some to the article. I think it is better, and now has a more coherent treatment of the revolutionary unionism concept. Please take another look. user:Richard Myers


 * I appreciate the contribution about Australian experiences with industrial unionism. However, i don't feel qualified to edit that section of the article. And i'm concerned that it may confuse the average reader. Couple of questions:


 * What definition are we using for Laborism in the un-created link to same? I may be at a disadvantage here, we don't have a Labor party in the United States. I'd create the article, but don't have the knowledge/expertise/access to sources.


 * I don't really understand "...focused much more strongly on the centralised, industrial, nature of unionism..."


 * These may be great contributions from Burgmann (and my experiences agree with the conclusion in the last sentence,) but a little additional context might help.


 * However, i'm also under the impression that this contribution to the article responds to questions raised on this talk page, but the article doesn't give a rationale for these questions being answered. Therefore, the average reader of the article may not appreciate where this is coming from.


 * So i suggest/hope that someone familiar with Burgmann could grab the last sentence of the previous paragraph, ( "also see anarcho-syndicalism which has some similarities..." ) and smooth out the transition.


 * We also need to link Industrial Commonwealth to something. The closest thing in existence that i can find is the second meaning of Co-operative Commonwealth, which is a stub, and only vaguely what the IWW advocates. Does Burgmann have a specific definition for Industrial Commonwealth?


 * I plan to continue working on the rest of this article, including adding a few more references. In the meantime, any new feedback on the rest of the (now significantly revised) article would be helpful. Richard Myers 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a passage which relates and links to the industrial unionism advocated by Daniel De Leon and the SLP. I feel it is necessary as many who reach this page will have done so via the wikipedia articles on the SLP, De Leonism etc. and will see it as a part. August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashmcbean (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the original post. This article is primarily not about industrial unionism as such, but about the IWW and related groups.  The IWW has a place in the history of industrial unionism in America, but it should not dominate an article like this.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

too much focus on Anglo-American world
This article is too much focused on the US and other Anglo-American countries. There is very little information about industrial unionism in Europe, for instance. In many European countries unions are organised along industrial lines (Germany and Sweden, for instance). Thomas --83.103.40.149 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A valid criticism, but how do we globalize the article if editors with appropriate expertise haven't stepped forward?


 * It is possible to add a globalize tag, but i've seen articles with such a tag get no globalizing attention for two or three years running, so i'm not sure there's any benefit. Richard Myers (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

At least it will signpost the concern, and warn readers to avoid generalising from the article. Not only is the article too American, it gives undue weight to the IWW, a radical organisation that lost influence in the 1920s.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

removed this text about no strike clause
I have removed this text:

"But one characteristic that is quite typical of craft unions and the less radical of the industrial unions is agreeing to sign a no-strike clause, which seriously restricts the ability of the members of these unions to directly support each others' struggles by walking off the job, so long as the contract is in force. On the other hand, management may insist upon a no-strike clause as a deal-breaker, forcing a strike over this issue alone."

It didn't fit well where it was. Not sure if it should go back in the article, i'm inclined to leave it out. Richard Myers (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is really about revolutionary unionism, not industrial unionism.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Industrial unionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212031314/http://www.cosatu.org.za/aboutcos.htm to http://www.cosatu.org.za/aboutcos.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)