I don't have the time or inclination at the moment to do the research necessary to fix it, but as it stands, much of this article is a POV attack on the AFL-CIO. Arguments that are hotly contested within organized labor are presented as fact ("One advantage of craft unionism is acceptability to the employer"), characteristics are attributed to craft unionism which often apply equally to industrial unions ("Craft unions typically negotiate contracts which include the dues checkoff and the no strike clause"), etc. Fixing it will probably requiring rewriting and/or removing entirely much of the article as it presently exists. RadicalSubversiv E 12:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RadicalSubversiv E has removed the following passage from the article as POV editorializing:
I would agree. The first sentence strikes me as pure IWW gospel, which is appealing to some but not all workers. While I think that the second sentence is true, it is so general as to be nothing more than editorializing. The body of the article says as much, at least as far as U.S. unions are concerned (the experience of unions elsewhere does not necessarily fit this pattern). And suggesting that the CIO was a step along the way to "one big union" is simply wrong: that was never the ideology of any of those who organized it.
But I would go further and knock out the preceding paragraph, which is drawn from a work written before the founding of the CIO:
The first sentence is, I believe false. While this confusion between "craft" and "trade" unions might have been common in 1935, I do not believe it is now. In addition, this distinction between "craft unions" and "trade unions" is somewhat creaky. While craft unions may have been localized organizations, they went national more than 125 years ago. And our British readers use "trade unions" in a different way, to refer to labor unions generally.
As for the quotation, I don't think it adds much. It is written in the vague ahistorical language of economic determinism—"the workers" did this or that—that assumes that economic development, concentration, etc. drives historical events. While I don't quarrel with the broad outline suggested by this passage, it is so sketchy as to be useless. I say leave the link, which is an interesting artifact, but take out the quotation.
Yours in struggle -- Italo Svevo 17:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
great need to talk about craft unionism outside America Johncmullen1960 ( talk) 06:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Particularly with respect to film, theatre and television in North America is significant and notable. Armadillo01 ( talk) 00:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"The distinction between craft and industrial unions persists today, but no longer has the political significance it once had." Dear Dear. How so?
Amd tp Radicalsubversive E: If you think this is anti AFL-CIO then you should get the "facts" and read this: http://www.mltranslations.org/Us/ROL/ROLaflcio.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.133 ( talk) 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't have the time or inclination at the moment to do the research necessary to fix it, but as it stands, much of this article is a POV attack on the AFL-CIO. Arguments that are hotly contested within organized labor are presented as fact ("One advantage of craft unionism is acceptability to the employer"), characteristics are attributed to craft unionism which often apply equally to industrial unions ("Craft unions typically negotiate contracts which include the dues checkoff and the no strike clause"), etc. Fixing it will probably requiring rewriting and/or removing entirely much of the article as it presently exists. RadicalSubversiv E 12:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RadicalSubversiv E has removed the following passage from the article as POV editorializing:
I would agree. The first sentence strikes me as pure IWW gospel, which is appealing to some but not all workers. While I think that the second sentence is true, it is so general as to be nothing more than editorializing. The body of the article says as much, at least as far as U.S. unions are concerned (the experience of unions elsewhere does not necessarily fit this pattern). And suggesting that the CIO was a step along the way to "one big union" is simply wrong: that was never the ideology of any of those who organized it.
But I would go further and knock out the preceding paragraph, which is drawn from a work written before the founding of the CIO:
The first sentence is, I believe false. While this confusion between "craft" and "trade" unions might have been common in 1935, I do not believe it is now. In addition, this distinction between "craft unions" and "trade unions" is somewhat creaky. While craft unions may have been localized organizations, they went national more than 125 years ago. And our British readers use "trade unions" in a different way, to refer to labor unions generally.
As for the quotation, I don't think it adds much. It is written in the vague ahistorical language of economic determinism—"the workers" did this or that—that assumes that economic development, concentration, etc. drives historical events. While I don't quarrel with the broad outline suggested by this passage, it is so sketchy as to be useless. I say leave the link, which is an interesting artifact, but take out the quotation.
Yours in struggle -- Italo Svevo 17:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
great need to talk about craft unionism outside America Johncmullen1960 ( talk) 06:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Particularly with respect to film, theatre and television in North America is significant and notable. Armadillo01 ( talk) 00:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"The distinction between craft and industrial unions persists today, but no longer has the political significance it once had." Dear Dear. How so?
Amd tp Radicalsubversive E: If you think this is anti AFL-CIO then you should get the "facts" and read this: http://www.mltranslations.org/Us/ROL/ROLaflcio.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.133 ( talk) 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)