Talk:Industrial unionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

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)

[edit] 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)