Talk:Dublin Lockout
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for August 26. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale. | |
[edit] Potential additions
Ok first of all I agree that the article should in fact be entitled 1913 Strike and Lockout, as this would be less biased. Added to that though I think there should be more background information; living and working conditions of the working class and impoverished in 1913 Dublin, a brief explanation of Connolly and Larkin's socio-economic beliefs, and a brief passage about William Martin Murphy (including a mention of the fact that, relative to many employers at the time, Murphy was a good employer). There should also be a more detailed account of the events, including the involvement of the Church, relations with and reactions of the British Unions, the Kiddies' Scheme (please try especially hard to treat of the Kiddies' scheme in an unbiased manner, this can be difficult) and probably myriad other details that this article has excluded. Furthermore the box at the side should be changed, it makes the lockout sound like an armed uprising, and this was not the case. Reactions of other social and political groups of historical importance should also be included, including (but not necessarily limited to) the Home Rule Party, the Republican movement (Sinn Fein, IRB etc), Socialist and workers' movements abroad and the middle- and upper-classes. Finally, some more details of the results, both long- and short-term would be nice. As well as the aforementioned reactions to the events perhaps some information on the long-lasting effects of the lockout on the working class movement in Ireland, the future activity of the ICA etc.
All in all, I feel this article needs some heavy editing. I'm currently studying for the Leaving Cert so I don't have the time at the moment, but if the article is still unchanged by the end of examinations I'll try update it a tad.--Redstar1916 23:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok this is biased. I must ask, was this written by the Labour Party of Ireland? (Just another note: The only source used for this article is no longer working)The first thing you read, the title, is biased. "Dublin Lockout", for purposes of neutrality the Irish education system specifically states both Strike and Lockout, for one. Socialists are vehement in calling it a lockout, while few refer to it as only a strike, the majority of this country do say both, as above, "Strike and Lockout" (Usually called "1913 Strike and Lockout", more so than "The Dublin Strike and Lockout"). The name comes from the fact that what transpired from the 26th of August to the 3rd of September includes Larkin's strike (, aswell as the employers' lockout.
It doesn't mention Larkin's Kiddies Scheme at all, which was the most unpopular move he made in the entire course of this dispute, if not his career. It destroyed his public support, and met with instant dissaproval from Archbishop Walsh of Dublin.
It fails to mention Larikin and Connolly's views of Syndicalism - a very powerful, and Socialist concept ("... which would end the capitalist system by way of general strikes"), whereby every trade union goes on strike at once - something which is illegal in Ireland today.
Another, minor, unpopular move was Larkin was successful in moving where people were paid - it used to be in pubs, and straight away male workers would spend their money on alcohol. Being a teetotaller himself, he saw this as simply unacceptable - not what the workers thought. This isn't a large point, but again, another blow to his support in the earlier points in this career in Dublin.
Newspapers: It mentions only W.M.M.'s newspapers, seemingly daemonising him further. To this list one can add the Irish Catholic newspaper (Catholicism, obviously the largest influence in Irish society, as can be seen from the reaction to the Kiddies Scheme), and the Irish Times. The latter was anti-strike, but did publish open letters from pro-strikers, and most notibly W.B. Yeats. Note: The Evening and Saturday Herald should be mentioned, rather than just "Evening Herald". The only newspapers in favour of the strike were Socialist newspapers, such as The Irish Worker, edited by James Connolly. (The most vehemently anti-strike was The Ancient Order of Hibernian, though was mostly active around the time of the Kiddies Scheme - naming and shaming all mothers who sent their children to England with this scheme)
It doesn't mention that W.M.Murphy isn't anti-Trade Union (But doesn't say he is either, but from reading the article, one could guess he was). W.M.M. supported internal trade unions, he disliked syndicalism and large external, and interfering trade unions such as Larkin's ITGWU.
A quote from W.M.M. in an interview with the Evening Herald, 27th of August 1913:
"My fight is not against Trade Unionism, but against Larkinism... This is the most pestilential 'ism' that any community could be affected with. The so-called Transport Union is not a union at all. It is merely a rabble commanded by Larkin, who is the greatest enemy of trade unionism..."
This article doesn't mention the Askwith Enquiry (24th of September 1913): W.M.M. made it a requirement to sign a declaration that a worker was not part of the ITGWU. If they did not sign this, they would be fired. (Thus leading to internal trade unions over large syndicalist trade unions). The enquiry recommended this be dropped. This was refused by the employers.
It recommended also that trade unions should drop 'sympathetic strike' action, and enter negotiations before striking.
The first Bloody Sunday seems exaggurated here. Larkin surprised the crowd by appearing on the balcony of a hotel in Sackville street - owned by William Martin Murphy (The Imperial Hotel). He had to sneak in, in disguise - this protest was banned by the police, yet they pressed ahead (And again, this important fact is not mentioned at all). He began to address the crowd, he was arrested, and thus began an uproar from the crowd, the police panicked and made terrible decisions, resulting in many injuries and two deaths. The "figures" of hundreds injured is exaggurated (Were the number in the hundreds, I do believe it would be a significant enough event to be 1) Easily available to find and 2) Available in books for Irish Education - as it is covered by the Leaving Certificate, it would be important to list "hundreds injured", as that would be a hugely important figure), and without proper citation. Larkin was jailed for 7 months for his role in the riot that transpired on Bloody Sunday. (Released after two weeks). Upon release he fell out with the Trade Union Congress. He criticised them for failing to organise sympathetic strikes (Syndicalism) across the UK. The TUC condemned him, and saw him as an obsticle to a settlement.
Now, I mentioned this many times above, time for an explination: The Kiddies Scheme. Late into the dispute (October/November 1913) public opinion began to sway in favour of the strikers. In England pro-Union supporters, seeing the dreadful hardship caused by the events that had transpired over the months passed, offered to temporarily foster Irish children until the entire dispute ended. The Catholic Church vehemently opposed this, and in Catholic Ireland, this meant it would fail. Archbishop Walsh was sympathetic towards the strikers, but found this unacceptable. He feared they would be send to Protestand families, and would lose their faith. Children were grabbed off boats bound for England, after the public campaign which was organised by the Catholic Church. When the scheme ended, the damage done was devastating.
I believe I haven't covered it entirely, but for now this will do. And I hope that this bias will be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.40.129.241 (talk)
- So... start editing. You could work at the NPOV and provide some working references. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 02:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting how two Leaving Cert students can find such fault with a simple wikipedia page. Good luck tomorrow, by the way. If I find time afterwards, I will lend a hand to bringing this page up to scratch.
[edit] Infobox
Why has the infobox been removed? Exiledone 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove it, but I would imagine it was removed because it was misleading. As I stated earlier, it made the incident out to be an armed conflict, such as a war or uprising. This was not the case.--Redstar1916 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Because the lockout was not a military conflict, so should not have a military conflict box. Because it was not 'part of the movement for Irish independence', as the box stated. Because the IRB was not in fact involved one way or the other. In short, because it was misleading. Jdorney 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
