Talk:Industrial Workers of the World/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Style

While the article is obviously written by a member or sympathizer, and accordingly tends to overstate the present importance of the organization, that doesn't offend me, even if it is not a NPOV. Later additions will flesh out the earlier history, which matters more.

I agree that bringing in more material will bring article closer to NPOV. It's problematic that current preamble is quoted. Either the 1905 or 1908 preambles oughta be here. (Using both would require much better treatment of the 1908 split). The stuff about Green Mother Earth was not there during IWW's organizational heyday! Tribune 03:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that CURRENTLY, it seems pretty balanced, and doesn't seem to overstate the importance of the organization, such as it is. Davert 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One point puzzles me: the statement that "After the passage of the Landrum-Griffin Act in 1959 by the US Government (which essentially legalized purges of leftist union leadership) . . ." I can understand making this comment about the Taft-Hartley Amendments of 1948, although even that is reductionist, but I don't see what the author is getting at in saying this about Landrum-Griffin. Is it the trusteeship provisions? If so, he's barking up the wrong tree, since Landrum-Griffin did not introduce trusteeships, but only put some limits on them. This is the sort of language that should be edited out or clarified. Italo Svevo

This article says the IWW has much in common with anarcho-syndicalist unions, but also many differences, but it doesn't say what those differences are. Also the anarcho-syndicalism page says The Industrial Workers of the World, a once-powerful labor movement, is considered a leading organ of the anarcho-syndicalist philosophy in the United States. Saul Taylor 17:04, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The IWW used to call themselves anarcho-syndicalists in their literature. FWIW. Davert 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem lies in disputed definitions of anarcho-syndicalism. The IWW differs in its organizational practices from the International Workers Association (IWA), and some would regard the practices of the IWA as definitive of anarcho-syndicalism. Furthermore the IWW is in principle open to (for example) Trotskyists and others who would be most offended to be described as anarcho-syndicalists. However there are people calling themselves anrcho-syndicalists in the IWW who regard their IWW activities as thier syndicalist practice. I'm a current member of the IWW and an ex-member of the one-time Australian section of the IWA.Jeremytrewindixon 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Industrial Workers of the World Internationally

should there be a article separate from the main article on the IWWs involvement around the world? There is no mention on this page of wobblies Canada, Mexico, or Germany, past or present. There should be a place about current campaigns in Canada (Like the Ottawa Panhandlers union) and the creation of the GLAMROC somewhere.Transcona Slim 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

International Workers of the World

I created a redirect International Workers of the World and pointed it here. It seems to be another name for this organization, though it's not mentioned in the article yet... If I'm in error, please don't hesitate to fix it... —Mulad 14:21, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

International Workers of the World is an incorrect name for the organization. The redirect should probably stand, though, because it's a frequent mistake. See http://www.iww.org/en/culture/myths/international.shtml

Voyager640 19:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've just gone through and changed all the links to "International Workers of the World". We should probably continue monitoring Special:Whatlinkshere/International Workers of the World to prevent the mistake from cropping up again. RadicalSubversiv E 12:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Searching for "Industrial Workers of the World" returns no results, I had to search for "IWW" to find this page. Perhaps there should be a redirect? I'm kinda new here and I don't know how to do that myself.

IWW links here (but might not have at the time this comment was written). But the remark above is unclear about what search tool the person is talking about. - Jmabel | Talk 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wobbly source

The article says "The origin of the nickname "Wobbly" is unclear. Some believe it refers to a tool known as a "wobble saw", while others believe it is derived from an immigrant's mispronunciation of "IWW" as "eye-wobble-you-wobble-you"." The previous story on those lines that I heard attributed it to a Chinese being unable to pronounce W which is nonsense, Cantonese lacks the R sound, but W is no problem for any Chinese I have met. If the Chinese was learning to read and had not yet mastered the names for all the letters, he might well have seen W as the wobbly letter. "Are you eye wobbly wobbly" Is then IWW.

I had always heard that the Wobblies were 'wobbly' because their anti-conscription politics made them unreliable World War 1. An An 05:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is another theory, there are many. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.101.22 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if the article made clear that the IWW was really knocked down by having over six hundred of its organisers imprisoned for ten year terms for Criminal Syndicalism. Direct Capitalist Action!

The IWW actually reached its peak membership in the years after WW1, while these wobs were in prison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.101.22 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mexican-American role?

Wasn't this organization founded for, or at least largely by, the Mexican-American miners of Arizona in the early 1900s (who, among other things, faced segregation, poor housing, and a dual-wage system, often in towns owned/ran entirely by mining companies) ? If it wasn't founded for that, it was at least a pretty significant part of IWW history--I heard all this in my Chicano History class, so I may be blowing it out of proportion, but I don't see a single mention of Mexican-Americans in this article. I don't know enough about it yet to add anything in, though. disbomber 18:42 Pacific DST, 24 Apr 2005

It's possible Mexican-American miners were a significant chunk of the membership at some point -- I don't know anything about it. I'm pretty certain it wasn't instrumental in the founding, though -- so far as I know, the founding section of the article is pretty accurate. RadicalSubversiv E 02:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having reviewed the IWW's website, I find no mention of silver mining. Apparently it was not as instrumental in this organization's history as I thought it was! I would like to leave these comments up for a little while so those keeping score can figure it out--then I'll come back (or someone else can) and delete the Mexican-American role section. Although it's a very significant part of American history, there have been many, many, many causes supported in the American Southwest and elsewhere by the IWW, and not all of them deserve to feature prominently in the discussion page here--otherwise it would be thousands of pages long! disbomber 19:53 PM Pacific DST, 24 Apr 2005

Not being mentioned on the web site doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that the site writers didn't know about it or left it out for some reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davert (talk • contribs) 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

The Mexican-American and/or silver miners may well have been members of the Western Federation of Miners, a predecessor organization, which left the IWW around 1912 [?] and later formed the core of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union (links to WFM page) in the Congress of Industrial Organizations. I think the references should stay. The IWW was highly egalitarian and its organizing drives reflected this. But the discussion could be better contextualized. DJ Silverfish 18:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:disbomber is correct about the Mexican-American history, although I think the connection is stronger during 'later' years of the IWW. From its start, IWW included many immigrants: discussion in 1905 Chicago founding conference about calling each other Citizen (in spirit of French Revolution) was rejected precisely because so many initial members were not citizens -- hence, "Fellow Worker," instead. IWW remained a militant defender of immigrants (and black workers, too). _Internationalist_ No. 2 (April-May 1997) had an article, Bisbee, Arizona Deportation of 1917: "Reds" and Immigrants, but it is not transcribed to their website: http://www.internationalist.org/int2toc.html - Tribune 23:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Bisbee Deportations 1917

Internationalist is spotty in publication but good on scholarship. 1997 article cites Philip S. Foner US Labor Movement and Latin America Vol I: 1846-1919 [1988]; James W. Byrkit, Forging the Copper Collar: Arizona's Labor-Management War, 1901-1921 [1982]; and Juan Go'mez-Quin~ones & David Maciel, La clase obrera en la Historia de Me'xico, Vol 16: Al norte del Ri'o Bravo, pasando lejando 1600-1930 [1981].

p.44: ".. (IWW) were particularly active in organizing foreign-born workers in the factories of the Norteast and among Mexican and Japanese workers in the mines and fields of the Southwest.. Early in the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1917, the IWW actively mobilized against threats by .. Taft to send in the Marines. When .. Wilson ordered a US invasion of Mexico in 1914, he was supported by .. [AFL] Gompers. 'Big Bill' Haywood responded for the IWW, announcing at a Carnegie Hall meeting .. that if Congress declared war on Mexico, the IWW would 'automatically start the greatest general strike this country has ever known.'

When US involvement in WW1 began, IWW copper strikes [Butte, MT; Globe, AZ; and Bisbee, AZ] were branded acts of "German agents" by the likes of NY Times [Bisbee strike 27 June 1917]. Around 2,000 vigilantes (Bisbee Loyalty League; Businessmen's Protective League) herded 1,386 strikers onto 23 railroad boxcars, shipped them to the Mexican border to die (but they lived). Only 426 strikers were IWW, but the largest percentage of any IWW nationality was Mexican. According to Felix Frankfurter (who 'mediated') half of the workers were foreign-born.

Finally (speaking as metallurgical non-expert, not citing from article anymore), the story about silver mining is not disproven by this sort of thing. The deportation train was paid for by Phelps-Dodge, but I think different metal deposits are often co-located. Also, labor relationships were very, uh, fluid in those days. [Ludlow Massacre same time as Wilson's invasion of Mexico]. - Tribune 02:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

FWIW the Wobbly explanatiuon of that incident was that they were striking to protest the copper mines' owners profiteering - they were sitting on huge hoards of copper to drive prices up. Hardly unlikely in those days. Davert 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Government repression"

Of course an organization that calls strikes as "direct action" for its stated aim of abolishing capitalism is going to be "repressed" by the government. The intro should mention, aside from an "internal split" and "government repression," that the IWW was always marginal compared to the AFL and the CIO. Radicalism was certainly appealing to sectors of the destitute during the Great Depression but not after the wartime recovery and post-war boom. J. Parker Stone 10:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

That misses the significance of the IWW completely, as their influence goes well beyond their numbers in the period before the 1930s. Moreover, the CIO didn't exist until 1935, long after the wobs went into decline, and many joined the communists, who in turn inject some energy and applied organizational skills learned from those radical groups. In any case, I suggest you add in a sentence to the intro so we can move towards taking the NPOV tag off. It'd be more productive to agree to disagree and collaborate on a neutral final product than ideological sparring. In the meantime, what was that Malcolm X said, something about if it weren't for us radicals, you moderates would get nowhere.Bobanny 01:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And when the IWW called for abolishing communism, how is that really different from right-wing groups calling for abolishing socialism (as in Social Security)? Wobs argued for nonviolent, legal change most of the time. Arguing that they should have expected repression is like saying that the Quakers should expect it for opposing the war in Iraq. Davert 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition a quick look at membership statistics for the AF of L shows a sharp decline following the the war. They fell from 5 million members in 1920 to 3.4 million by the end of the decade. This severe membership decline during the "post war boom" is evidence of a general assualt on organized labor, whether radical or no. I don't think any rational labor historian would argue that the IWW's loss of membership was a result of "destitute" sectors coming to their senses and joining "real" labor unions. (Labor Statistics: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034-6535(196502)47%3A1%3C93%3ATUM1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W) Joseph_Lapp 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Joseph Lapp II

This section of the IWW article has apparently been tagged POV for a year and a half. I will take a look at this section in the coming weeks, and see if there are POV issues that can be resolved. I hope to eventually reach a point where we can remove the POV tag. One of the obvious improvements will be much greater usage of references. But i must say, the discussion on this topic so far doesn't provide any specific complaints about the article as it exists, just generalizations.

So if anyone has specific complaints about POV in the Government Repression section of the IWW article as it now stands, please bring them forward now. Thanks all, Richard Myers 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The only line that I can see as being even arguably 'non-factual' would be the first for containing the clause "The effectiveness of the IWW's non-violent tactics..." This implies that the IWW as a labor organization, and their tactics at the time were effective, which from my study I find to be really inarguable, but barring specific citation it could be taken as a POV. In addition, their tactics were not 100% non-violent even though their acts of violence were almost always in response to violent actions taken against them. Beyond that this section matches well with every book of IWW history that I've ever read. Perhaps simply changing the first line to "The IWW's efforts were met with violent reactions from the all levels of the government as well as company management and groups of citizens functioning as vigilantes" would be sufficient. Toeboy83 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Joseph Lapp II

I've adopted that suggestion in slightly modified form, thanks. I believe it is better.

First sentence now reads: "The IWW's efforts were met with violent reactions from all levels of government, from company management and their agents, and groups of citizens functioning as vigilantes."

Other suggestions welcome. Richard Myers 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading and re-reading the section and I see no problem with it as it currently stands. Since no objections have been raised since 2005 would it be appropriate to remove the NPOV tag? Joseph_Lapp 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Murrow

I removed Edward R. Murrow from the list of notable members, pending citation; see Talk:Edward_R._Murrow#Wobblie_connection.3F. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was a notable member but she didn't make the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.152.16 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2006

Added. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hop Riot

Recently added "The Hop Riot of August 3, 1913 was the second major labor dispute in the U.S.A. and supposedly initiated by the I.W.W. [1]". The citation is just a roadside historical marker. Our article Hop Riot is just a stub with this same information. [2] and [3] both have more substantive information, and would be useful in fleshing out that stub. But what, if, anything, can "second major labor dispute in the U.S.A." mean? There had by this time been dozens of violent labor disputes in the US, many of them on a larger scale than this one. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

References

If someone decides to improve the citation apparatus, you may want Philip Dawdy, A Union Shop on Every Block: As baristas seek to organize, the feds cite Starbucks Seattle Weekly December 7 - 13, 2005. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The following sentences, located in the Organizing section, are not sourced: "The IWW lumber strike of 1917 led to the eight-hour day and vastly improved working conditions in the Pacific Northwest. Even though mid-century historians would give credit to the US Government and "forward thinking lumber magnates" for agreeing to such reforms, an IWW strike forced these concessions." This seems very POV to me. It takes a very aggressive tone, in fact not only making a claim about the IWW but specifically invalidating another claim, and there's no source. I think that it needs to be both toned down in general (for neutral POV) and there needs to be a source cited. I therefore put in a cite tag to call attention to it.--Kadin2048 01:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't find cites but when I was in labor history, it was pretty much taken for granted. Davert 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a decent reference on the timber strike from a reliable online source, HistoryLink, probably the best online reference for Washington history: [4]. - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wobblies

I don't know where to put this to keep it organized, but does anyone know why they were called wobblies? It would be a significant contribution to the article to include why they were called wobblies instead of just the I.W.W.

-Trenidor 18 Jan 2006

Near the bottom of the secion Founding it remarks, accurately, "The origin of the nickname "Wobbly" is unclear" and goes on to mention a few hypotheses; I've heard others as well, including one about a Chinese member's inability to pronounce "double-U". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Another theory is that it was a term coined in San Francisco or Seattle (I forgot where) by an owner of a Chinese resturant where Wobs used to gather. The owner could not pronounce his W's correctly so he called the group wobbley's. And so the name just stuck.Piercetp 17:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism template

It would be inappropriate to place any political group of ideology on this page. The IWW is an a-political organization, as per Article 4 of the IWW Constitution.

ARTICLE IV (as per 2010)
Political Alliances Prohibited
To the end of promoting industrial unity and of securing necessary discipline within the organization, the IWW refuses all alliances, direct or indirect, with any political parties or anti-political sects, and disclaims responsibility for any individual opinion or act which may be at variance with the purposes herein expressed.

I removed the {{Anarchism sidebar}} tag from the top of the page. It seemed out of place to have a large political template so prominently placed. The article is about the IWW, not Anarchism. Perhaps a link in ==See also==? --Bookandcoffee 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

They are typically regarded as an anarchist organization, so the template might belong. I won't re-insert it though without support from someone else, because it is questionable. I did add anarcho-syndicalism to the see also section though. The Ungovernable Force 05:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I had already added anarcho-syndicalism, who took the liberty to remove it without informing the other authours of this page? -Konulu

I don't know, but anon User: 82.35.70.213 removed it with no comment as to why and I reinserted it. The Ungovernable Force 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do know who did it, the same person. The Ungovernable Force 19:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

US English

About these changes and their reversion [5] - this is a (primarily) US topic, so shouldn't we prefer US English on those grounds? Whichever way, the union change is to bypass a redirect, so ought to be reinstated. Mattley ^(Chattley) 12:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

anarchosyndicalism

The IWW had nearly 700 of their organisers convicted in US Courts of 'Criminal Syndicalism' and they were locked up for ten years. That was what broke the back of the Union for so long. Sam Mainwaring who coined the phrase 'Anarcho-Syndicalism', according to a trouble making American woman,(Emma G.?) who married a Welshman so she could have a British passport, (Ken John's PhD thesis Greenwich University). Sam's IWW nephew of the same name considered Syndicalism was when the Workers took over and ran the factories, and anarcho indicated a leaning rather than a tight dogmatic Marxist type authority. Plebs' College 13:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop mentioning that the IWW is an example of "anarchosyndicalism in practice" or things like that, the IWW is NOT an anarchosyndicalist organization, in fact all of the first General Executive Board members were also in the Socialist Party!! I am a libertarian socialist, and while the IWW is close to anarchosyndicalism, and in my view very uncorruptable with its present constiution etc., I repeat, it is NOT an anarchosyndicalist organization, and it is misleading (and damaging to the organization!!!) to write it is an example of "anarchosyndicalism in practice" or stuff like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.70.213 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2006

source please. The Ungovernable Force 22:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't claim to know much about the IWW, I just want to see a source before you take out info that has been in for a while. I know that there is at least some relation between the IWW and anarcho-syndicalism, so please give a source to back this up. Thanks. I am leaving the page on your version for now. The Ungovernable Force 23:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the 1905-1924 or so Wobbly literature, you will see that they were as anti-socialist as they were anti-Salvation-Army. Some members and leaders may have been socialists but officially they didn't see replacing capitalist bosses with government bosses as being any real solution. Many may have felt socialism was a "second best" to the total workplace-and-political democracy they demanded, and that working towards socialism was better than the unrestrained capitalism present then. Davert 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do i have to give a source for a fact very well known to those familiar with the IWW? See http://www.iww.org/culture/myths/myths3.shtml#9 for instance.

Good point. Also remember Eugene Debs participated in the foundation of the IWW. He was a Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. Daniel De Leon, a devoted Marxist, also participated in the IWW's foundation. Bill Haywood was a lifelong member of the Socialist party as well and in the 1920s emigrated to the USSR and actively worked with Lenin there. If you were to ask any Wob today what their political beliefs are you would probibly get a wide range of answers from "liberal-Democrat" to "anarcho-syndicalist" to "socialist". As for political orientation, the IWW rules and regulations state that the IWW is strictly non-political. The IWW is forbidden to endorse any political candidate or any political point of view.Piercetp 08:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

While one may argue that the IWW is an "anarcho-syndicalist" union, it is not explicitly so and never will be. The reason for this is that the IWW aligns itself with neither political ideologies nor political parties. There are anti-capitalists of all stripes in the IWW; aligning itself with any particular political movement would be exclusionary. It is a union for ALL workers - all that is needed is the constitution. The IWW's stance is in the preamble for anyone to see. --Kelt65 18:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarchosyndicalist unions also admit workers of all ideologies or none. In practice, the IWW is an anarchosyndicalist group, even if it isn't in theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.244.251 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Need we remember that every one of those Socialist founders had quit the organization within three years? Or that Haywood was thrown out of the SP for his "promotion of sabotage," which is shorthand for "membership in the IWW," and his cooperation with Lenin in the USSR is suspect at best. The IWW may not have called themselves anarcho-syndicalists, but many of their ideas can be traced directly to the Black International's Pittsburgh Manifesto, and many important members like Thomas Haggerty and William Trautmann were anarchists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.21.150 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2006

As a former member of the IWW and the last secretary of the Allentown, Pennsylvania branch of the IWW before its closure, I can tell you this: the IWW certainly espouses anarcho-syndicalism, and such is the identity of the overwhelming majority of Wobblies that it certainly justifies the description. Anarcho-syndicalism is what I was taught when I entered the organization in 1995, and it is what almost every member I encountered proclaimed themselves to me to be during my entire tenure with the IWW. The symbology of the IWW is most often unmistakably anarchistic: the Black Cat of Sabotage (the 'Sabocat', an enduring IWW symbol) as well as the persistent red and black star of anarchosyndicalism are mainstays of Wobbly art and visual identification. Occasionally one will meet individuals in the IWW who may identify themselves as 'Trots', or socialists; this is true. The Wobbly who recruited me into the organization referred to himself as a 'council communist', but always immediately went on to explain that this philosophy is essentially identical to anarcho-syndicalism. Jhfurnish 03:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is not "wrong" to observe that the IWW has similarities to anarcho-syndicalist organizations, that term is by far not the most accurate description of the IWW's political philosophy.

That is not to say that we don't have members who are anarcho-syndicalist. The same is true of anarchist, and council communist, and anarcho-whatever. One of the main goals of the IWW is to be inclusive. That is the reason the IWW rejected alliances with political parties in 1908.

Browse the pamphlets that the union produced in its early decades:

[[6]]

Industrial unionism, industrial unionism. Yes, you'll find one reference to anarcho-syndicalism, and a few more references to syndicalism.

That one reference to anarcho-syndicalism clearly implies that there are differences between anarcho-syndicalism and the philosophy of the IWW, yet holds out the hope that these can be overcome:

...while the I. W. W. has no logical place in a purely syndicalist and anarcho-syndicalist International, the entrance of a larger number of industrial unions into it would alter its character of "purity", and would transform it into something like the I. W. W., where anarchists, socialists and other ists can work together in harmony, for a common program.

[[7]]

In fact if you wish to make comparisons about use of terminology in the organization's pamphlets, i'll do the heavy typing for you, here are all of the instances that Google can locate:

[[8]]

There are sixteen instances of "syndicalism" or "anarcho-syndicalism."

Key in "industrial unionism" and you'll get thirty-six instances.

[[9]]

The IWW does, indisputably, adhere to the principle of industrial unionism. The ideas behind industrial unionism can be traced through Bill Haywood, who put an indelible stamp upon the organization, back through earlier industrial unionists, such as Ed Boyce and Eugene Debs.

In fact, Bill Haywood briefly discussed the differences between the IWW's revolutionary industrial unionism, and syndicalism in his autobiography.

The 1923 pamphlet Historical Catechism of American Unionism states bluntly,

The I. W. W. is not a by-product of the syndicalist movement; it is a purely revolutionary industrial unionism.

[[10]]

In the 1928 pamphlet, THE I.W.W. — WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT IS NOT, syndicalism isn't mentioned once. Yet there are repeated references to precisely what the IWW espouses, which is organizing industrially:

[[11]]

In Joseph Ettor's 1913 pamphlet, Industrial Unionism — THE ROAD TO FREEDOM, syndicalism isn't mentioned. Yet Industrial unionism is in the title. Ettor declares flatly, "we [are] industrial unionists."

[[12]]

The same year W.E. Trautmann, the union's first general secretary, wrote the pamphlet, Industrial Unionism — THE HOPE OF THE WORKERS.

Trautmann states in the very first sentence that the pamphlet is about "revolutionary industrial unionism."

[[13]]

The revolutionary industrial unionism of the IWW went through the cauldron of anti-political factionalism, when the politicos such as Daniel DeLeon (and even Debs) were encouraged by a series of dramatic amendments to the IWW's constitution that were championed by the overalls brigade, to either give up their aggravating political infighting, or leave the union... (they left...)

The point is, we have our own economic philosophy and political views, formed in the crucible of our own experience, and delineated by the constitutional prohibition against alliances with political parties. The ideas that animate the organization have been described by advocates with only one consistent description, and that is industrial unionism. If we add "revolutionary" to distinguish our philosophy from the structural principles adopted in adulterated form by the CIO, we are still in accord with an expression used by early exponents of IWW'ism.

The early ideas about the IWW's philosophy are quite clear. To those who suggest that this main IWW article ought to purport that the organization is in some sense syndicalist or anarcho-syndicalist, i am not aware of even one modification of the IWW constitution that has embraced such a change of direction over the years. In my view anarcho-syndicalists are welcome in the organization, and their ideas are also respected; attempts to change or re-interpret the organization's historical underpinnings are not. Richard Myers 09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

members in good standing

I added that there are only 908 members in good standing, thats what it says in my general organizational bulletin.

--67.161.93.159 21:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This should be read as current since, according to IWW Bilaws a "member in good standing" is any member who has paid his or her dues for the last two month. This number changes constantly. But the number of card holders is much higher. Piercetp 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Pierce: that's not accurate. The IWW calls members who are within 3 months of being paid up in full as "in good standing." After this, members recieve a letter from GHQ reminding them to pay up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.13.224 (talk • contribs) 3 November 2006.

The question is which membership number to use in the article, the total ~2000 or the ~900 in good standing. The article has gone back and forth between the two for the past few months. I'm going to put in both, with a note about the requirements for good standing, and would appreciate a note here if anyone disagrees and wants to change that. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 06:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get the problem. You don't have to be in good standing to be a member. Members that aren't in good standing are still members. So the article should read that there are about 2000 members, 900 of which are in good standing. Redflagflying 02:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way at all. 60 days after dues are due for a month, if one has not paid, one has no right to vote in union elections per the Constitution. But yes, there are many members who pay a few months at a time, sometimes ahead, and sometimes behind. So looking at one month, which is what I think was done methodologically for that GOB reference earlier, is probably not the best measurement. It also contradicts the members stated on the union's LM-3 form for the 2005 fiscal year. Also, that 908 figure is lower that it should be because General Headquarters moved in January, and it slowed down dues processing during that same period, while records were transferred from Philadelphia to Cinci. Also, I do not believe the membership reports were recorded from the ROCs in the UK and Australia, which only report quarterly. Add another few hundred right there. I would go with the LM-3 figures, and just note that membership is difficult to definitively ascertain because the IWW doesn't do dues check-off. A more accurate method would be to count members in any 3-6 month period. 205.201.4.12 11:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect there are a LOT of members who pay when they meet their delegates, and if they don't meet the delegates often, they're only in good standing now and then. Indeed, most of them probably fit that description. Davert 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please supply the cited source for this figure? I cannot rightfully edit this page as I have recently become a member of the IWW and it would be in violation of the spirit of WP:NPOV if I were to make any further changes. Thank you. LeilaniLad (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, aren't Wobs allowed to edit this page? A lot of us would have to recuse ourselves, then. There are more up-to-date figures in the GOB, but that's not easy for people outside the IWW to verify. The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious why it is even important that the members are or are not in good standing within the organization? Most organizations mentioned in Wikipedia are not required to list the number of members who have not paid their dues current to the present moment. It seems absurd and trivial. It is also imprecise and quickly becomes inaccurate for an undated article to include a relative reference to the recent past rather than a specific reference to dates. When is the last two months in an undated article?

This organization takes note of which members are in good standing, most do not. Also, it is saying that a member is not in good standing if they have not been active for a period of two months, there is no reference to 'the recent past', it's like saying that a magazine subscription will run out after twelve months. Zazaban (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section that refers to the number of members in good standing. This information is not relevant to the article, and will never be accurate - atleast till BlackCat and RedCard are up and working - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.39.81 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

logo

I uploaded a slightly different logo. I thought the old one was just a little low-res. There are a few different ones out there, so I took this one from http://www.iww.org.au/ simply because it was very similar. Bookandcoffee 21:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

notorious?

(Starbucks) a company notorious for its refusal to allow workers to form unions

The term "notorious" seems sort of POV and the sentence itself is somewhat misleading. I think if the article is going to imply Starbucks refuses to allow its employees the ability to join a union a citation is in order. Especially since there are numerous Starbucks employees that are in fact members of a union. And I'd wager Starbucks is not a fan of unions but that is pretty typical. I don't know of any publicly held companies that roll out a red carpet for unions. Mr Christopher 17:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed this "notorious" POV once again. Mr Christopher 16:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the previous language, this Mr Christopher is scissorbilling for Starbucks on all Wikipedia pages. Probably a low-level manager with the self-appointed mission of stamping out class awareness wherever coffee is poured. Richard Myers 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably! However he is correct - polemical language like that has no place in an encyclopedia article.--Kelt65 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

salvation army

Can anyone provide a source to back up the claim about "management sending in the Salvation Army band to cover up the Wobbly speakers"? There doesn't seem to be any consensus on this in the online sources I can find on the subject, and the most detailed account I did find of relations between the IWW, the Salvation Army and the Spokane political establishment gives a slightly different picture: "In 1908, in response to growing protests by the Wobblies against employment agencies, Spokane passed an ordinance forbidding street meetings in business districts. The Salvation Army complained that once again it was being forced off the streets, the avenue central to its work. The city then amended the ordinance in the summer of 1909 to allow the Salvation Army to preach and hold street meetings. The Wobblies howled in protest and started a band of their own. They took the lyrics of a few of the Salvation Army's most popular songs and changed them to fit their own perspective." http://washingtonhistory.org/wshs/columbia/articles/0304-a2.htm Duke Aldhein 15:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I could probably dig out a source if I still have my old folder o' stuff, but it was definitely part of Wobbly folklore that this happened. As for finding another source, I suspect you could dig something up out of Google's new academic services. Davert 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't someone come up with good articles for many of the famous songs, Salvation Army-related or not? Songs like "Union Maid" and "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night", especially? I'm not a Wobbly, but these songs had an indisputible impact on American history, and are much more deserving of articles IMO than many recent rock and rap songs which almost no one will remember 40-50 years from now but have good articles in Wikipedia now. Rlquall 17:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be a great project for someone. I'm too backed up with other things to do. Does someone want to carry this ball? - Jmabel | Talk 03:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

They put out a record of Wobbly songs around 1990. I'd bet the home office still has some. An ebay search could probably find it. There was also the "little red songbook." Probably still available for a few bucks. Davert 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I tweaked the intro a bit. I removed the statement that the IWW is a famous union. Seems a bit like saying General Motors is a famous car manufacturer. Also, it is not currently headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio - it simply is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The last change I made was just to move the statement of the IWW philosophy out of the middle of the more general description to the start of the next paragraph. --Bookandcoffee 03:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe "currently" (or something like that) is probably appropriate, because for a century or so it was headquartered in Chicago. - Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It just sounds so temporary. It's true that they were in Chicago for 85 years, but wouldn't that and the stays in San Francisco and Ypsilanti, Michigan be the kind of thing you would adress in the history section?--Bookandcoffee 18:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds temporary because it is temporary; it's likely to change again when somebody gets elected GST who doesn't want to move to Cincinnati. 67.168.216.176 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Well, I don't really object to changing it back if currently is more apro. (I'm from a small town myself, so I won't make any Cincinnati jabs...)--Bookandcoffee 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more about describing the IWW as "famous" - I found the word immediately distracting. If the IWW didn't have some kind of fame, it wouldn't deserve an article. Seems to me that the job of an article is to explain why a subject is significant, rather than just saying that it is.--Qball6 04:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the IWW being 'currently' headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, that is somewhat accurate since the location of the headquarters DOES change with the election of each new Secretary-General. For example, for many years, through the 1980's and 1990's, the HQ was located in Ypsilanti, Michigan where Fred Chase, then-Secretary-General, lived. Then Alexis Bus became SG and the HQ was moved to Philadelphia. Now it is in Cincinnati with the new SG. It is more than likely that when the next SG is elected, they won't be in Cincinnati. It could well be in Boston or San Francisco. Jhfurnish 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of "Wobblies"

I removed the theory that Harrison Grey Otis invented the term "Wobblies", since I only found it in a footnote in that book, and the other theories all seem much more credible.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed that the SF socialists arguement was the most believable, because it aint. Mark Leier describes his extensive search for a verifiable answer, and sticks with the Chinese restauranteur theory, but admits that it is unverifiable. The other source cited here gives the various explainations, but obviously relied on Leier for its source and agrees with his conclusion. Personally, this article is very American-centric, so I think the Vancouver reference adds some balance, especially since the wobs were extremely active in the Pacific North West. Plus I live in Vancouver, and this is my way of resisting American Imperialism (but don't tell that to the NPOV wiki-police).Bobanny 06:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wheatland Hop Riot

I have removed the statement about Wheatland Hop Riot being "the second major labor dispute in the U.S.A.". yes, there is a historical marker that say something to this effect, but it's still nonsense: there had been dozens of major labor disputes before that time. - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But, Jmabel, that's not really what the marker says – it says that it was the second major labor dispute initiated by the IWW labor movement'. Some of the biggest ones, like the "Haymarket Riot", were well before the IWW. Would you argue that there had been "dozens" of prior IWW-institgated disputes? Rlquall 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to say that it was the second major labor dispute intitiated by the IWW. That is not what the statement I removed said. - Jmabel | Talk 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Connolly is dead

im busy with other online projects, but just to point out, connoly is well dead so the below rings far less than true!

"Syndicalists and radical unionists, such as James Connolly in the UK and Ireland have remained close to the IWW in the USA. Although much smaller than their North American counterparts, the BIROC (British Isles Regional Organising Committee) reported in 2006 that there were nearly 200 members in the UK and Ireland. Numbers have been steadily increasing since the 1990s, and in the year 2005-2006 numbers leapt up by around 25%."

also, connolly was active in ireland and would likely not have appreciated that place referred to as the "uk". Blockader 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

according to Connelly's Marxism (1980) he was very active in the UK as well (outside of Ireland) —Preceding unsigned comment added by P89trd (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance of IWW

I'm not part of the labour union project, but IWW is "high" in importance IMO, far more so for its past than any current influence, which seems to be quite minimal. It is high not only for its early 20th century size and influence, but also how it created in many American minds a perception for good or bad (mostly the latter) of socialism and anarcho-syndicalism, especially the former. "Wobbly" was often used as an epithet when I was younger for someone who seemed to be a little too ardent, in the opinion of others, in his unionism. Rlquall 17:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

agree, and I've never been to the Logan Square SBUX. Changed rating to "high" Billbrock 04:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Current membership

Approximate number of current members was dropped from 2000 to 900 without citation. Does someone have something citable? - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As is we have the number of members @ 2000 and "members in good standing" @ 900. I am not sure about the wisdom of identifying how many members are in good standing. That seems like an internal IWW issue that doesn't belong here. If they have 2000 members the article should reflect this and not identify how many of those 2000 are current or behind in their membership dues. If they were ALL behind in their membership dues they are still members and I don't think the avergage reader is going to be interested in how many pay their dues on time versus those members that are tardy in paying up. This is like saying Visa has 2000 card holders, but only 900 pay make their payments on time. Does anyone have an objection to removing the "members in good standing" bit? Again, I do not see the relevance and it appears to me to be a source of confusion. Mr Christopher 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll talk about the membership issue, but first i want to offer some background.

The Industrial Workers of the World is a very different sort of union from the mainstream unions that so many folks are familiar with. A couple of examples. The IWW doesn't believe in signing contracts with no-strike clauses. Not that it is unheard of, there is at least one IWW job branch that has signed such a contract. However, in general, mainstream unions routinely sign no-strike clauses, and IWW branches almost never do. What does this mean in practice? That the IWW "resists the standard business union practice of selling labor peace to the bosses." All IWW members try their level best to maintain the freedom to walk off the job in support of fellow workers who may depend upon such an action. In short, the IWW is as much an attitude about the relationship between labor and capital, as it is a union.

What difference does that make? When i was at IBEW, we worked in the same building with CWA, and the CWA contract expired first. IBEW members were forced to cross CWA picket lines, and do some of the work that the strikers had stopped doing. That is generally referred to as union scabbing, and such a situation results in two things — contracts are easier to get with the companies, but the unions signing those contracts are unable to stand together to support each other. Imagine being a union member on strike, and seeing other union members crossing your picket line to do your job. Sorry to say, that's somewhat standard practice among the craft unions of the AFL-CIO.

I first became aware of a very different sort of union after having spent twenty-five years in the IBEW, an AFL-CIO union. I attended an IWW general membership branch meeting, and the workers there were talking about how the union could best make use of someone's life savings, that they had bequeathed to the union when they died. I was astonished... why would anyone bequeath sixty thousand dollars or so, probably all the money they had saved up in their life, to a union? That was around 1985, and i was just beginning to learn about this organization called the Industrial Workers of the World.

The IWW has a Preamble that acknowledges the stark differences between the workers and corporate owners. As a matter of interest, the old AFL started out with a similar Preamble. Back in the middle of the industrial revolution, it was quite obvious to most working people what the exploitation of their labor was all about. The predecessor to the AFL, the FOTLU, had declared:

'A struggle is going on in the nations of the civilized world between the oppressors and the oppressed...'

The AFL retained that militance when it inerited the mantle from the FOTLU:

'A struggle is going on in the nations of the civilized world between the oppressors and the oppressed of all countries, a struggle between capital and labor, which must grow in intensity from year to year and work disastrous results to the toiling millions of all nations if not combined for mutual protection and benefit. This history of the wage-workers of all countries is but the history of constant struggle and misery engendered by ignorance and disunion; whereas the history of the non-producers of all ages proves that a minority, thoroughly organized, may work wonders for good or evil. Conforming to the old adage, 'In union there is strength,' the formation of a Federation embracing every trade and labor organization in North America, a union founded upon a basis as broad as the land we live in, is our only hope.'

But it didn't last. Companies refused to recognize militant unions. Companies declared, if you're going to organize OUR workers, you need to understand — we only deal with organizations that respect the prerogatives of capital.

All of the AFL unions over the years softened the rhetoric of their Preambles, with their most immediate goal of signing contracts, to the extent that they became almost cheerleaders for corporate control. They found signing contracts and locking up a dues base to be preferable to waging a tireless struggle for workers' rights.

This has been a devil's bargain. Unions that sign such contracts with the corporations are put into the position of becoming enforcers for the company. If workers find their wages, hours and conditions so unsatisfactory that they're willing to risk a walkout during the life of the contract, it is the UNION that is obligated (by contract) to get those workers back on the job, even to inflict appropriate punishment on the very workers they're supposed to represent, to accomplish the task.

But not the IWW. The Preamble of the IWW Constitution retains all of its class analysis and fire-breathing rhetoric from the very first convention in 1905. The IWW will never find itself in the role of enforcing company rules against the workers, for the IWW is a worker's union. It is controlled by the rank and file, and it operates according to the premise that the workers and the bosses do not have anything in common.

In short, unlike so many other unions currently in existence, the IWW is not a business union. It isn't operated like a business, and its members believe that it is one of the few unions in existence that operates according to "true" union principles.

There is an important practical aspect of this philosophy. Since the IWW believes that the corporations are conducting what amounts to a class war against working people, it stands to reason that IWW members won't stand for what has become the routine practice of virtually all business unions, which is called dues checkoff. The checkoff means that the company automatically collects dues from union members by deducting it from their paychecks, and then hands the dues money over to the unoin. IWW members are so strongly opposed to dues checkoff, that it is actually prohibited in the IWW constitution.

What system does the IWW employ in place of dues checkoff? It is called the job delegate system, and it was developed in 1915-1917 by the AWO, or the Agricultural Worker's Organization of the IWW. It involves an individual IWW member going around to visit each other IWW member, and asking them to pay their dues. The job delegate then issues the member stamps which are pasted in a membership book, the famous Wobbly "red card," to demonstrate paid up dues.

The job delegate system is old-fashioned, awkward, clunky and slow. But it has one significant benefit beyond keeping union money out of the boss's hands. Every member who pays dues has the ability to talk to the delegate about wages, working conditions, hours of work, and other concerns, every time they pay up.

Now i want to talk briefly about the red card. To every IWW member, the red membership card is sort of sacred, almost like a religious icon that denotes not just membership, but common cause with all other working people. Yet the IWW is to a great extent a union of the working poor, the folks who have difficulty paying their dues on time. Many IWW members are frequently in arrears, paying dues when they can, but never able to get completely caught up. The union tends to be very understanding about such circumstances. That doesn't mean these members are any less dedicated. I think i could call any number of IWW members and tell them about a job action where workers need support, and they'd all be there in a minute, paid up dues or no.

Alright, to bring this full circle. The membership of a business union is precise, tracked week by week, computerized. The current membership of the IWW depends upon the many job delegates out there who may have difficulty filing their own reports on time, because they're not paid by the union. They're workers who take on that extra responsibility in addition to their every day jobs, because they believe in the union.

The membership measuring stick that is typically used for business unions doesn't work for the IWW. That's plain to see.

I am not the one who decided to report two numbers, one showing currently paid up membership, the other showing those who hold red cards. But i understand why it is a better reflection of the actual numbers of individuals committed to this organization. Richard Myers 09:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who originally decided to report two numbers. I did so in order to end edit-warring last spring and summer over which number to use in the article -- the 2000 that was originally there (at least when I started watching it) or the 900 that was reported in the general organizational bulletin. I didn't consider any deeper meanings or implications; I just tried to reach a compromise in the simplest way I saw possible (relatively successfully, I think). -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I find the first number alone to be acceptable and standard. ANON 5am 2 Apr. 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.229.203.46 (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Can someone clarify?

This article includes the following paragraph, "In the early 2000's the IWW organized Stonemountain and Daughter Fabrics, a fabric/seamstress shop in Berkeley. The shop has remained IWW and contracted through today." I am unclear as to the meaning of the second half of the second sentance. It sounds wrong/unclear/meaningless to me, but perhaps I am missing something. Or perhaps this is too nit-picky? Forgive me if so, I'm new to updating pages.

Iggy river 08:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Iggy_River

I'll fix it. It means that the shop has remained under contract with the IWW workers. That there is a labor contract. 205.201.4.33 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

follow your leaders?

There is a line in the IWW Australia section that quotes the cartoon as exhorting "workers follow your leaders". I checked around and I wonder if 'leaders' should actually be 'masters'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Librarimin (talk • contribs) 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Improving the IWW article

The article is too long and lacks focus.

How many readers want to know which delegates, from which organizations, attended the founding convention, and how the power was distributed among them? This stuff is great for buffs, but it will cause the average reader to quit reading.

I don't want to throw any of the content away. But i plan to move parts of a few sections to new pages, and will provide links. Richard Myers 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As long as it's all easy to find, and the new articles are Prominently linked. Maybe a template would help if it's more than 2 new articles. Vert et Noir^talk 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, as long as it is properly linked so those buffs can get to it easily.ANON 2 Apr.2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.229.203.46 (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Woody Guthrie membership

On the Woody Guthrie page, it says Woody was a member of the IWW. Have just spent a while trying to track down the Phil Ochs situation, am now wondering if anyone can confirm Woody's membership. Richard Myers 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

IWW: Anarchosyndicalist or revolutionary union?

Note: i have deleted this entire section that was just added to the article by an unidentified individual. Reasons: it is speculative. If offers no sources. It is unnecessary. It doesn't deal with the real organizational differences (not that adding these would save it...) Richard Myers 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Although it's hard to find differences between the IWW's goals (e.g. abolition of bosses and the wage system, worker's self-management etc) and those of anarchosyndicalism, wobblies do not call the IWW an "anarchosyndicalist" organization; rather, they prefer the label "revolutionary union"

There might be several reasons for this:

1- The Taft-Hartley act prohibits "communist" union leadership, and the term "communist" in the US is used broadly and can encompass a variety of leftist ideologies, including anarchosyndicalism.

2- There's a history of anarchist persecution in the US.

3- Wobblies believe that what's really important is not what a union calls itself, but what it does.

4- The IWW doesn't want to alienate members or potential members who do not at the moment share the long term goals of the organization but are interested in struggling against bosses.

5- Some IWW members prefer not to call themselves anarchists.

6- Capitalist and statist propaganda describes anarchism as an ideology of chaos and bombs.

end deleted section

Regardless of what their website may say, the Wobblies are a Revolutionary Anarchosyndicalist union. They advocate anarchosyndicalism. Vert et Noir^talk 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Richard was correct to remove the previous section, only because it was not sourced and therefore comes off like original research. Vert et Noir, do you have any sources/cites to support the notion that the Wobblies advocate anarchosyndicalism? Mr Christopher 04:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you don't want personal experience. Lemme see if I can dig something up online. Vert et Noir^talk 03:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page is a perfect place for personal experience, original research, opinion and/or anything else that can help those seeking an understanding beyond what is provided in the article. Go for it. This all seems like semantics (to me) in any case. Carptrash 06:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack London and the IWW

I've removed this paragraph from the IWW article for lack of relevance and unnecessary duplication. It is copied from the Jack London page, where (unlike here) it is properly foot-noted:

Clarice Stasz, Jack London's biographer notes that he "regarded the Wobblies as a welcome addition to the Socialist cause, although he never joined them in going so far as to recommend sabotage." She mentions a personal meeting between London and Big Bill Haywood in 1912.

The practice of dropping references to "sabotage" in articles about the IWW creates a hot-button situation; the IWW defined sabotage somewhat differently than does mainstream society, and that should be addressed when passages like this one are inserted. In any case, there were probably thousands of notable individuals who had opinions about the IWW, and Jack London's opinion has no greater relevance than the rest of them. Richard Myers 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Members

I suggest turning this section into a list instead of a paragraph. Jacob Haller 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a significant improvement, in my view. I also wouldn't mind if the section was made into a separate page. Richard Myers 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision of the "Government repression" section

I have edited to clarify some of the history relating to the IWW's anti-war stance, and added citations. I would like to see the POV template removed from this section, but i don't think it is quite ready.

Specifically, i have concerns about the information in the article about Wesley Everest. I'd like to see a source for that information, if it can be verified.

I have removed this sentence:

Communist Party promises to reimburse those who had staked Haywood's bond went unfulfilled.

My reason-- it conflicts with other (admittedly vague) sources that i have read recently. I wouldn't mind seeing it added in again, if a source can be cited. Richard Myers 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Australia

I've just added a little extra on the IWW's role in Australia during World War One, it was of major historical significance for this country. Ian Turner (1922-1978), my source, was an important labour histroian. He should have an article of his own. Here is his Dictioanry of National biography entry: http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A160513b.htm

Some significant Australian IWW members include Monty Miller, and in more recent times the leader of the great Mt Isa strike of the 1960s Pat Mackie. Mackie's IWW memebership is not mentioned in his article, oddly, although it is not in doubt; he was for years a regular contributor to the Industrial Worker reporting on Australian labour affairs. The poet Harry Hooton was also close to the IWW although he may not have actually signed on. There are others. Jeremytrewindixon 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's Ian Alexander Hamilton Turner, Australian political activist and scholar, not the footballer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.64.23 (talk) 06:48, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

That was my unsigned comment! I want to improve the Australian IWW coverage it is worth a main article. There were significant differences between the Aus and US IWWs and the effect on Australian history was great. Harry Hooton's letter published in Industrial Worker 1945 fills in some gaps about the period of marginal survival...http://www.takver.com/history/hooton_iww.htm Mrk MacGuire's article first publishe din Red & Black (aus anarchist journal): http://www.takver.com/history/iwwinoz.htm Both archived on Takver's helpful page 203.87.64.23 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All the above comments were mine, not all are signed due to some glitch or another. I've just substabtially rewritten the Australian section, based on Ian Turner's (histroian not footballer) account as referenced. There needs to be a separate article on Tom Barker too. His dictionary of biuography entry:http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A070179b.htm I will return to this.Jeremytrewindixon 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the IWW in Australia is approaching the need for its own article, with just a summary on this page. Most of the content would focus on 1907-1920. There is some evidence there was a resurgence in IWW activity in the early 1930s. Yes, Ian Turner (historian) is notable enough to have their own wikipedia page. Another highly relevant reference for the IWW in Australia is The Wobblies at War. A history of the IWW and the Great War in Australia by Frank Cain, Melbourne (1993) ISBN 0867863390 --Takver 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

IWW Shop

I may be way off base, but the wobb site is asking for 15 dollars American for an IWW hat on the website (as an example). It seemed a bit hypocritical to charge well over production cost for an item that advertises for an organization whose stated goal is to overthrow capitalism. I understand that that feat hasn't been accomplished yet, and that a semi-large organization is expensive to run, therefore they are still forced to work within the current system, but that sure is a nice little profit. The reason I bring this up, is if it caught my attention I would think that it has been addressed before, and was wondering if anyone had any verifiable info of previous criticisms. I haven't found any yet. Or maybe I just don't get it. BURNyA 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that you have essentially stated the answer. The IWW exists within a system that values profits, and enshrines the wage system as an essential mechanism to insure that profits may be distributed upward. The IWW values things differently, but for the near-term must still operate within that system. The differences are reflected in what the IWW offers, taking into account what is essential to membership, and what is not.

For example, the best bargain offered by the IWW is the cost of membership, which ranges from three dollars per month (sub-minimum) to, currently, eighteen dollars per month. (There are current proposals to increase the higher rates, but the overall structure is not likely to change). The minimum rate is extended not only to working people with jobs, but also to those who have been laid off, those who are unable to find jobs, and those who are still in school (workers in training). For the three dollars a month membership fee, a member receives monthly issues of the union newspaper, copies of the General Organizing Bulletin, ballots, and special notices, not to mention all rights of membership. The cost of postage and printing alone are probably not fully covered by three dollars per month.

Compare the subminimum cost, three dollars per month, to the hundred or two hundred dollar dues payments assessed by many other unions. You can see that the IWW is intent upon lowering all barriers to membership among the most exploited workers.

The IWW hats are generally very high quality, i've owned several. But the hat is not in any way essential to membership; it is like a trinket, and happens to be in some demand because of the IWW's colorful history. The sales of such unnecessary accoutrements helps to subsidize real, low-paid workers, who join at subminimum dues because they cannot afford to pay more. In short, the IWW doesn't want anyone to be unable to join because they cannot afford dues, and if a union that focuses upon the exploitation of real workers can utilize the habits of folks in the existing society (valuing and having discretionary income to spend upon unnecessary hats, buttons, yo-yos, t-shirts, whatever) can be put to use to subsidize such memberships, then what could make more sense?

No one forces you to buy a Wobbly hat, or a button. But your boss may force you to feel the need for union membership, whether you can afford it or not.

Also consider, the IWW attempts to insure that all such goods are union-made. Since unions generally gain higher wages for their members, that tends to make the hats just a little more expensive. It is a good bargain for all of us, because it not only helps those who create the hats, it helps to build the union.

best wishes, Richard Myers 4.227.252.140 10:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea that the membership was so low for those who couldn't pay (and those that can for that matter)... I have been looking to join the IWW, I believe very much in their values and goals, and the online shop was the one question left. You have not only answered that question, but increased my respect for the organization tenfold and I will be joining this week. Admittedly, I should have done a bit more research. Or used a bit more common sense. It probably wouldn't hurt for the site to have a version of what you said on the store section nonetheless. I'm not the only one who can be judgemental and paranoid, but essentially mean well. Thanks! BURNyA 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You will be quite welcome, thanks for considering membership. The online dues page is here:

http://www.iww.org/en/join/dues.shtml

There is a small initiation fee, i think it is ten dollars.

One more thing to be aware of, if you pay through a local organization, then the local organization gets to keep half of the dues for local usage. Local branches can be found here:

http://www.iww.org/en/branches

If you are able to contact a local organization, ask who the job delegate is. That is the person responsible for collecting dues, and issuing dues stamps as a record of your payments.

If there is no local organization, paying online is just fine.

best wishes, Richard Myers 12:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Officers

What about a listing of officers? What about an explanatiion of why the headquarters keeps moving with the General Secretary? --evrik ^(talk) 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OBU/Canada

The section on the IWW in Canada makes it sound like the One Big Union was the Canadian part of the IWW. As far as I know, this wasn't the case; they were totally different organizations, despite some points of similarity and possibly some overlap in terms of membership. I'll check this out and make some changes later. -Father Inire (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw that, I knew something was wrong, but I couldn't find any resources to change it. as far is I know, they where two Different organizations, but they recognized each other cards as interchangeable. Transcona Slim (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The IWW was actually hostile to the OBU and the OBU had a sizable organization in the US for 5-10 years in the 1920s.Tsiatko (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Between the World Wars

Can more please be added for times between the World Wars? As the time when the organisation reached its greatest heights, it would seem appropriate to have significant coverage of the period, but there's almost nothing. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

there is not much about the iww in between the worldwars as the iww was broken up by the state at with the first world war. union members where inprisoned and/or killed ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.60.91 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much on Consription

I know that the IWW is against conscription, but is there any chance that someone would expand on why they are against conscription? 122.106.146.69 (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lexington Avenue bomb

Is it actually relevant to include a whole paragraph about the Lexington Avenue bomb? Out of, what, four conspirators, one of them was an IWW member, and nobody's claiming it was officially ordered or sanctioned by the IWW as a whole. The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think so, and have removed it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merger proposal

I'm proposing a merger between An injury to one is an injury to all and this article. The injury article is unsourced and contains little more than 1-2 lines of information noting the use of the slogan by the IWW. Rather than subject this article to the deletion process, I would prefer it be discussed here by the community. A similar merger has been attempted unilaterally and was reverted.

• Support I support this merger. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This motto is a hundred years old and very well known in the activist and workers union communities. I think it warrants its own page.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Then I presume you've got some sources to back that claim up, right? Protonk (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has been stalking me. He routinely makes changes to the articles I've just made. I believe that his vote to merge this was in bad faith.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a bold accusation. I contest it. I submit that a merger proposal to merge a slogan associated with the IWW to the IWW is perfectly reasonable. Further, it is interesting that a request for sources has drawn an accusation of 'stalking'. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're following me and trying to undo anything I add to any articles. The history speaks for itself. Re: the 'injury to one' article. Other mottos like "No War but the Class War" have their own page. This is further proof that you're voting based upon your political bias.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "proof of political bias" at all. Somehow you've invented this vague charge that I'm inserting bias into wikipedia by not editing pages. I find that curious. Also, you have chosen to repeat the stalking accusation. A cursory look at my contributions will show that your pages, edits, etc do not figure in significantly. Would you care, at any point, to offer a reason why An injury to one is an injury to all should not be merged into Industrial Workers of the World that does not involve vague accusations against me or appeals to WP:OSE? Protonk (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, User:MiltonP Ottawa said on Talk:An injury to one is an injury to all I should give my opinion there, so I did, and now I came here and people are discussing it here. Which should it be? Marnanel (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be either. I just put it here because that is where the template link goes. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll move it here. This is what it said:

Okay. I just created this and someone has already deemed it necessary to redirect this link to the IWW. Odd, isn't it how support our troops isn't redirected to nationalism or Invasion of Iraq or some other article. If you want to move this article discuss it here.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My three cents: 1) I think the article Support our troops is a complete waste of time and should be a redirect, and someone (but not me) should be having this same discussion over there. 2) This article at present is a sub-stub and should be merged on principle. 3) BUT: The IWW article already discusses the slogan in a reasonably detailed section. So, I think this should be a redirect to that section and the contents merged, and then we'd have something more interesting than either of them. If not, the content should be removed from the IWW article and added here, and the IWW article should link to this one, and then this would be more than a stub. By the way, neither version has mentioned that Bill Haywood said that David C. Coates originally came up with the slogan (see that article). (If everyone who works on an article is a Wob, do we add a union bug in the corner? ;) ) Marnanel (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - or at the Ramones once said, I'm Against It. Carptrash (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE -- The motto, while coined by the Wobs, has been used extensively by other labour organizations over the years and is no longer exclusive to the Wobs. If support our troops isn't redirected to the American Republican Party, then it makes no sense to redirect "an injury..." here. SmashTheState (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE -- At times in the past, it has been necessary to split out information from the IWW article because the organization has been around for more than a century, has been involved in a lot of world history, and there is way too much information for one Wikipedia article. The proposal to add more to an already comprehensive article would simply aggravate that situation. Meanwhile, i agree with what has been stated above. The slogan appears to have originated with the IWW, but it is true that many organizations have either adopted it as their own, or have made use of it in their literature and signage. Richard Myers (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent commentary

The recent commentary from an IP address shows that at least one person read "they contend that the wage system should be abolished" as "they contend that all workers should be paid the same amount", which isn't the same thing at all. Perhaps we need to un-jargon that a bit (do most people even understand what "the wage system" means?). The Wednesday Island (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, I don't think most know what that means. Whenever I've brought up the subject with anyone they seem to think it's synonymous with difference in income. In fact, when I try to explain people generally don't understand the concept of not having wages, they simply can't get their head around it. Anyhow, I'm rambling, I think that there should be a short elaboration on what 'abolishment of wage labour' signifies, as the average person coming across this won't know what it is referring to. Zazaban (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To members of the IWW, the wage is not equivalent to pay. The wage connotes that portion of the monies generated by an enterprise that is handed over to working people to purchase their hours on the job. The wage is significant to Wobblies in particular for what it fails to include, and that is the surplus value (what Bill Haywood referred to as "unpaid labor") that is diverted (via the "system") to owners and investors. The wage system acts as an upper limit on the wealth that working families are able to acquire.

Abolishing the wage system does not mean abolishing pay. Rather, it means ending the employer/employee relationship as it currently exists, and which allows employers to routinely appropriate all generated wealth over and above labor costs (and other expenses) for themselves. This includes confiscation of productivity increases over many decades, which is one of the reasons working people may perpetually have difficulty paying the rent or the mortgage, and owners/investors may become wealthy or ultra-wealthy.

What the IWW Preamble refers to as the wage system, therefore, is the collection of laws, management practices, enforcement agencies, courts, and government oversight that perpetuate the existing unequal employer/employee relationship. Abolishing the wage system, in essence, means abolishing the existing employer/employee compact.

If the wage system was abolished, it would have to be replaced with something else. While i don't think there is any consensus within the IWW on issues such as competition, "free enterprise", or the existence of corporate type entities, Wobblies view the leverage of existing capitalism as a negative. Instead of money and ownership controlling everything, i believe Wobblies would generally agree that enterprises should be locally controlled in democratic fashion by the workers themselves, and that the workers should be free to decide how much to invest in their cooperative enterprise, how much to pay themselves, and what rules (other than payment of wages) would govern inclusion and participation by other workers. Richard Myers (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting (to me) side note here is that the only mention of "wages" in the index of my Preamble and Constitution is page 11 where I found, "The General Executive Board (of the IWW) shall set the wages of all general organization employees and organizers." The "abolish the wage system" of the Preamble, it turns out, is not indexed. Carptrash (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

'PREAMBLE...Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."' IWW Membership Card (5 year), 2009 issue, page 3. FrFintonStack (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wobbly shop category

What do folks think about creation of a sub-category from the Industrial Workers of the World category for "Shops of the Industrial Workers of the World"? Currently, to my knowledge, there are just two notable Wobbly shops on Wikipedia, Starbucks Workers Union and Ottawa Panhandlers' Union, but this is largely a result of lack of interested people to make entries rather than a dearth of material. Many past shops of the IWW have been notable in their own right apart from the larger organization and deserve an entry. Plus, with organizing activity set to explode dramatically in every direction (This IS why dues were substantially increased, right? Right?) there will no doubt be piles more notable Wobbly shops in the offing. -- SmashTheState (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

it might be fun to try and write up a Peoples' Wherehouse article, at one time rumored to be the largest IWW shop at the time. Carptrash (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of 'Repression' Section

In his 1918 novel The Land That Time Forgot, Edgar Rice Burroughs presented an IWW member as a particularly despicable villain and traitor. A wave of such incitement led to vigilante mobs attacking the IWW in many places, and after the war the repression continued.

-The latter sentence here reads like an effect of the cause of the former ie. the novel caused the wave of incitement (unverifiable and opinion, POV) More importantly, characterization in a novel does not amount to repression. If the implication is that the novel led to actual repression, that may be unjustifiable.

In Centralia, Washington on November 11, 1919, IWW member and army veteran Wesley Everest was turned over to the lynch mob by jail guards, had his teeth smashed with a rifle butt, was castrated, lynched three times in three separate locations, and then his corpse was riddled with bullets before it was disposed of in an unmarked grave. The official coroner's report listed the victim's cause of death as "suicide."

-POV issue. The given source relates to the gravesite. There is no explanation of the cause of the murder, nor a source relating to motive. Motive being connection to IWW would require citation. Passage at present reads like hearsay.

Also last sentence is extraneous. also POV.

Move to delete both passages, as they are unsubstantiated and conjectural.StevIstKrieg (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)StevIstKrieg

IWW union shop list nominated for deletion

Someone has nominated the list of notable IWW union shops for deletion, and I'm concerned that the decision of whether or not to keep the list will be made by people who are not familiar with the 105 year history of the IWW. I'd appreciate it if some folks with knowledge of the subject could weigh in on one side or the other over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmashTheState (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and the Mexican revolution

This article makes no mention of IWWs involvement in the Mexican Revolution. Several members fought under the direction of Ricardo Flores Magon's socialist army in Baja California. (see Second Battle of Tijuana, and related battles artticles.)--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Membership numbers

There's been a slow-boiling edit war for a period of years over the IWW's membership numbers, and I'm trying to understand why this number is there at all, at least in the form it is. Whether or not you are currently paying dues, you remain a member of the IWW until such time as you relinquish your red card. If you fall behind in your dues, you become "a member in bad standing" according to the constitution. You can't vote at meetings, you can't run for GST, you can't get funding from the GDC, but you're still a member. So why does the membership here reflect the list of members who are currently caught up with their dues? I can give at least two objections I have to this. First, it falsely implies that the relationship of the IWW to its membership is similar to that of the trade unions, based on money and economics, and that simply isn't the case. And second, it's really no one's business but that of the Wobs themselves how many of our members are currently paying dues; that's private information and I don't think it should be publically displayed on Wikipedia. The number should reflect the ACTUAL membership numbers of the IWW, regardless of dues status. SmashTheState (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Editorializing by cranks?

Perhaps the wikipedia entry on the Industrial Workers of the World should be divided into two articles. One, a dispassionate examination of the IWW as an actual social phenomenon of the early 20th century. And then, the version currently displayed on wikipedia. This version is credible only to a microscopically tiny number of contemporary sentimental cranks. Nobody in the early 21st century outside of a tiny, tiny number of active members of the current-day version of the IWW actually believes that the contemporary version of the IWW is even remotely the same social phenomena as the early 20th century IWW. As it stands now, you might as well categorize this version of the history of the IWW alongside entries from true believers in Bigfoot, Flying Saucers and the Loch Ness monster.

Miasnikov (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC) miasnikov Miasnikov (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This rant does nothing whatsoever to improve the article. Would you care to be more specific in your criticism? Richard Myers (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IWW in the UK

As someone who has been heavily involved in the UK labour movement for the past 30 years, I have to take issue with the tone of the "In the UK" section, which seriously exaggerates the importance of this organisation within the UKs modern political landscape.

Until I read this section, I had no idea that the IWW still existed in the UK, nor did any of my colleagues and friends within the trades union movement that I have asked since then. Whilst it is, of course, important to record that the organisation does still exisit, I feel that this section needs to put it into context. With a membership of around 400 people UK-wide, a low profile, and no TUC (Trades Union Council) membership, it does not wield the influence nor have the recognition in the UK that the language used in this section implies.

For example this sentence: "More recently, IWW members were involved in the Liverpool dockers' strike that took place between 1995 and 1998, and numerous other events and struggles throughout the 1990s and 2000s, including the successful unionising of several workplaces, such as support workers for the Scottish Socialist Party.". It lacks any citation, and the reference to support workers for the Scottish Socialist Party makes no sense. There has never been a struggle to unionise these workers.

In addition, I do not understand the sentence "Between 2001 and 2003, there was a marked increase in UK membership, with the creation of the Hull GMB". Hull GMB is a part of of the Midlands and East Coast Region of the GMB union - one of the UK's leading trades unions and nothing to do with the IWW.

Finally, the sentence "2006 saw the IWW formally registered by the UK government as a recognised trade union" is misleading. Registration is self-nominating and implies nothing other than statutory legislation compliance.

In general, the section would benefit from a less self-aggrandising approach, and far more citation.Amcharles (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Industrial Workers of the World philosophy and tactics

I am proposing a change in the article title for Industrial Workers of the World tactics. Instead of Industrial Workers of the World tactics, i propose Industrial Workers of the World philosophy and tactics. This is because the article does include a fairly detailed discussion of some aspects of the IWW's philosophy.

The article also:

• has a number of unfinished sections, and so needs attention
• has very few incoming links, but could easily have a lot more, as written

Renaming the article (as proposed) might increase the opportunity for incoming links.

Discussion at Talk:Industrial_Workers_of_the_World_tactics

Thanks! best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Socialist Party?

I'm wondering why the SEE ALSO section has Socialist Party USA included?

Seems to single out one political party with no justification that i can see. The Socialist Labor Party was at least as involved in the founding as was the Socialist Party, and i'm not aware of any more recent justification for a SEE ALSO link to any political party. Richard Myers (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to support (or do some direct action, and just do it) to removing that link. It goes to a party founded in 1973 in one place, 1962 in another and I see no connection to the IWW. Carptrash (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a case to be made for inclusion of Socialist Party of America, but not its 1973 successor. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Members?

Is there a source for the 12,000 current members in the IWW? Previous edits claimed there were 2,000 members with about 900 in good standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.44.169 (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

iww.org Contact General Headquarters (now in Chicago). User:soco_79 —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)