Talk:Lawrence textile strike

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.	Organized Labour Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for January 11.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2006) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Uh, do you mean that the article is unreferenced, or just the talk page? (I'm kidding, sorta.)  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics needed!!

One place to go is http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5202/rebelgirl.html. Many other sites likewise available.

____________________

Articles in the Washington Post from 1912 indicate that the trial of Ettor and Giovannitti was presided over by Judge Joseph F. Quinn of Salem.Tom Cod 07:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change in article's conclusion planned

I'm planning to change this statement:

A depression in the industry, followed by another speedup, led to further layoffs. The IWW had, by that time, turned its attention to supporting the silk industry workers in Paterson, New Jersey.

It is subjective, but is also somewhat contradicted, in mode of operation if not in specific detail, by one authority:

A persistent myth about the IWW is that it plunged into strikes without previous organization, bringing out contented workers with spell-binding oratory, won great victories, then deserted the workers to repeat the process elsewhere. The myth is groundless... Prior to its fame at Lawrence the IWW had been organizing textile workers for seven years, and these constituted roughly half of its membership.

The I.W.W.: Its First Seventy Years, Fred W. Thompson & Patrick Murfin, 1976, page 56.

The text gives significant detail about membership numbers, local identifications, etc. in support of the above statement.

Posting here first in case there is discussion. Richard Myers 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author [as 24.126.41.116] of the original paragraph, which gives me no special rights, but does give me an interest in discussing the change. I think that Thompson's comment is attacking a straw man--no one (on this page at least) is accusing the IWW of either "plung[ing] into strikes without previous organization" or "bringing out contented workers." The version of the article I wrote gave the IWW credit for five years of organizing effort in Lawrence before the strike and certainly did not portray the strikers as contented workers bewitched by rhetoric.

On the other hand, while I would not use the word "deserting," the fact remains (1) that the IWW did move its big guns to Paterson in the hope of achieving another victory there and (2) that the union withered and then disappeared in the years after 1912. I don't think that either of those facts or the economic downturn mentioned in that sentence is subjective. While the last sentence may sound unduly critical of the IWW, I think it is fair to say that the union did not mount any effective resistance to the employer's counterattack.

The part of the paragraph that you would leave in gives some of the reasons for the disappearance of the union--the IWW's dislike of bureaucratic structures and the employers' deep-seated hostility to all forms of union organization. The part you want to cut takes out one of the other reasons--the pressure of an economic downturn. I would vote to keep these two sentences.

On the other hand, the topic deserves more attention. I don't know of any histories of the aftermath of the strike or of Lawrence after 1913, but maybe there is something out there that we could use. But I would propose expanding, rather than shrinking this part of the article. Italo Svevo 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The change that i envision for these two sentences is more one of tone than substance. And i want to get agreement before such a change, so that's why i brought up the idea here. (No proposals yet, i'm working on some other articles...)

I would also like to see this section expanded, and i think i have at least one good source for the aftermath.

(Plus, i heard today that another book on the subject is just being published.)

In the meantime, if you have an opportunity, check out this article: User:Richard Myers/Anna Lo Pezza

It was deleted (and moved to my userspace) because the dead striker is considered "not notable."  :-( However, one administrator wants this text folded into the Lawrence article. The review process hasn't yet been completed, so i don't know what the admin group will recommend. Unfortunately, i think there is too much material for all of it to be merged, i would prefer using it as the basis for creating a broader companion article to go along with this one. best wishes, Richard Myers 08:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)