The original constitution had provided for thirteen international industrial departments, which could be organized in any industry so soon as it contained ten locals with a membership of not less than 3,000 members.[279] The reaction against the departmental idea at the second convention was sufficiently strong to carry an amendment to the constitution making the prerequisite to departmental organization in any industry "ten locals with a membership of not less than 10,000 members." This change was partly the result of a general feeling that the departmental system was not as practicable as had been at first believed. Moreover, it was believed that, so long as departments could be organized on the basis of a membership of only 3,000, departmental autonomy would be an absolute farce, and simply resolve itself into local union or locality domination. The defenders of the departmental idea rightly insisted that that idea be given a fair chance to work itself out. Another group--industrial unionists who laid great stress on the local industrial union as _the_ division which should first of all be possessed of complete autonomy--felt that this change was a change in their favor in so far as it made the attainment of the departmental status more difficult and the existing number of departments actually less. The departments, thought DeLeon, must be in the nature of the states of the United States and ... there should be no less and no more autonomy, and for the same reason that this government of the United States is not a government of the states but a government of the people, for the same reason the government of this I. W. W. is not a government of departments, it is a government of the rank and file.[280] The Universal Label, provided for in Article IV., Section 10, of the original constitution, had not given entire satisfaction. In fact, a number of the delegates wished to abolish the label altogether. This demand grew out of the misuse of the label itself. Many locals suffered it to get into the hands of employers, others coöperated with their employers in its use. Now coöperation with employers in any way whatever is in absolute violation of the spirit and letter of the I. W. W. law. Hence the label was looked upon by many as something of a very compromising nature. It came near being entirely abolished, but finally it was decided that the label be retained, but used only in strict accord with the provisions of "Resolution A," which reveals the rôle of the red (revolutionary) label as opposed to that of the orthodox ("pure and simple") trade-union label. The resolution reads: