The I. W. W.: A Study of American SyndicalismBrissenden, Paul F. (Paul Frederick)
History
The I. W. W.: A Study of American Syndicalism
Brissenden, Paul F. (Paul Frederick)
Industrial Workers of the World; Syndicalism
There was some agitation in New York City in the summer of 1906 to
organize that section on a basis of one local union to each industry,
with each local divided into sub-branches as the needs and extent
of its constituency might require. These latter sub-branches were,
moreover, to have no direct connection with the General Organization.
This plan was opposed at the convention. It was in conflict with the
policy of centralization which characterized the earlier stages of I.
W. W. development. It was emphatically condemned by President Sherman
as a violation of the constitution. He asserted that it centered the
"power of the whole industry in the hands of the members of one local
union."[273]
Centralization was wanted--but it was _national_ (or international)
centralization, not district centralization. A provision had been made
the year before for what were called "mixed locals" which were to
include workers in various industries, but only so to include them
temporarily; it being understood that so soon as a sufficient number
of the workers in any particular industry came into the locality to
warrant their organization into a union that all members of the mixed
local who belonged to that industry should immediately withdraw from
the "mixed" and join the "pure" industrial union. It was, of course,
assumed that no one should join a mixed local or remain in a mixed
local when a union of his industry existed in that locality. The
privilege of membership in the mixed locals had already been very much
abused. In numerous instances it was found that members continued as
members of the mixed local, even after their particular industrial
union had been organized, or even maintained membership in both the
mixed and the industrial body at the same time. This double membership
was not only of no value--it was usually positively disastrous. It
made confusion and brought on factional fights between "mixed" and
industrial bodies,[274] and resulted in a double, and consequently
inflated, membership representation at the annual conventions. After an
extended discussion of the seemingly unmixed evils of mixed "locals,"
the convention passed a resolution defining their functions. "The mixed
local," runs the resolution, "is not to be a permanent institution
in the I. W. W. It is merely the propaganda [body] that will build
up an industrial union for the future. It is a recruiting station
[only]."[275]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account