Talk:Labor history of the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

This is a skeleton that will be filled in part by part, regarding organized labor. A different article will be needed to cover the broader theme of working class history in the US Rjensen 06:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What happened?

What happened to the development of this article? I'd really like to see it continue to improve, whoever started it! Wikidea 15:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

These should be sourced

I removed these unsourced statements:

From 1890 to 1917 the unionized wages rose from 17 dollars and 57 cents to 23 dollars and 98 cents and the average work week fell from 54.4 to 48.9 hours a week. The problem was that skilled workers were only 30% of the work force and that wasn’t enough to keep the AFL going.

It appears to be a mix of un-sourced data, and un-sourced opinion. Richard Myers (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Bias?

The section about Reagan seems pretty heavily biased against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaporozhian (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

recent edits by rjensen

This new edit by rjensen:

"...the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen ... have always remain independent of the AFL..."

... is contradicted by other histories. However, i don't have the source used for this edit, so cannot determine where the precise error exists.

Consider, Debs went to Gompers for help to rescue the ARU when the government stepped in with militia and federal marshals in order to destroy it. Gompers (as head of the AFL) saw his role as helping the government to sabotage the ARU — an "upstart" industrial union — in order to rebuild the railway brotherhoods. So as of 1894, the above edit fails. Some change or clarification seems necessary.

I am also opposed to the removal of the Haymarket section. Richard Myers (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of links with some relevance to this discussion:
Labor_federation_competition_in_the_United_States#Industrial_unionism_in_the_Pullman_Strike
Industrial_unionism#Industrial_unionism_as_rejection_of_craft_unionism
Richard Myers (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
On the RR Brotherhoods--they were outside/independent/not members of the AFL (they did sometimes cooperate informally on some issues.) Haymarket is there bjut is now closely tied to its impact on the Knights of Labor--the old version had elaborate details with names of victims and details on anarchists and so on that is not suitable for a wide-ranging article on all of labor history. (They details are fully covered in the main Wiki Haymarket articles)Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, i've continued to explore this issue. I found this helpful: American_Federation_of_Labor#Non-affiliated_railroad_brotherhoods
I think the cooperation may have been beyond "informal", particularly in the case of the ARU. I think it may be more informative to state that the "big four" railway brotherhoods remained unaffiliated with, rather than independent of, the AFL. I note that some railway unions did affiliate. I'd be interested to know which "railway brotherhoods" Gompers was most interested in helping, in declining to support the ARU -- those that were affiliates, or those he hoped would affiliate. Thanks for the response. Richard Myers (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh, thanks for the clarification in the article. Much better, i think. Richard Myers (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thanks. Rjensen (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

highly visible Senate hearings led by Robert Kennedy in the late 1950s

The implication is that Robert Kennedy was a Senator in the late 1950's, he was "chief counsel of the 1957–59 Senate Labor Rackets Committee under chairman John L. McClellan."

Also, the paragraph seems to gloss over the subject of it's title, "Teamsters and corruption" and focus on political maneuvering exploiting Teamster corruption. The entire paragraph leaves me with the confused sense that the Republicans/conservatives were entirely self-serving in "opposing" labor corruption, leaving by implication, that Union corruption isn't such a bad thing and Democrats/liberals were not opposed to it. PLUS I didn't learn much of anything about the Teamsters and corruption. Gloryroad (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WTF!!! The economic prosperity of the 1920s???

Economic growth from 1920-1932 (the period of greatest Republican control in the last century) totaled under 10% for 12 years. Economic growth from 1933-1945 (an equivalent period of democratic control) was 10% per year. Even if it is repeated a lot, isn't it possible to strike this nonsense simply on the basis that 5 minutes spent at the Bureau of Labor Statistics will show that it is simply not true?

Econonomic prosperity (as measured by GDP growth) for 1920-1929 was only slightly above average despite massive liquidity bubbles caused by migrating savings from the poor to the rich and increasing financial asset industries to an unsustainable (without printing money) 40% of the economy. Ignoring the Great Depression when talking about the 1920s, though, is like ignoring the subsequent landing while talking about your fun fall off the empire state building.70.90.210.146 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

that's a heavy-handed POV note based on bad non-data. The goal here is to be nonpartisan. GNP growth 1921-29 was a very strong 6.0% that is double the long-term average of about 3% (HistStats 1976 series F31) Lebergott gives real earnings (in 1914 dollars, for all employees (deducting for unemployment) as 1921 = $566 and 1929 = $793, a real gain of 40% [Hist Stats series D 725]. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

PATCO

Much of the information under the "Reagan and Unions" section is misleading.

It makes it sounds as if Reagan came out and asked them if they wanted a raise. In fact, PATCO fought hard for the offer they received (they called for a strike to get it--even though they called it off when the administration's bargaining unit finally caved and offered them something). The other point is that this itself was historic. PATCO got the federal government to bargain over wages for the first time!

Additionally the claim that PATCO brought about the decline of labor is very controversial. Something should be added to balance it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.217.107 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

controversial?? what reliable sources are you using? Craig (2008) says "it appears that this event marked the beginning of a long period of decline for unions"; Taylor (2011) says, "The 1981 PATCO strike stigmatized just about everyone who came into contact with and for better or worse, it changed the course of American labor. From 1980 to 1984, organized labor lost 2.7 million members"; Davin (2009) says "The destruction of PATCO was a fundamental shift"; Levin-Waldman (2001) says "There are perhaps several reasons for why unions have declined, but the Reagan administration's handling of the PATCO Air Traffic Controllers' strike stands out as among the more important."; Cooper (2012) says "Both Thatcher and Reagan stood up to major unions and oversaw a decline in union membership."; Crosby (2005) says " PATCO is the strike from which many American unionists date their decline."; Cloud (2011) says " the emblematic moment of the period from 1955 through the 1980s in American labor was the tragic PATCO strike in 1981." Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of the literature has taken to seeing PATCO as a major determinant of today's labor strength. This is really not based on rigorous analysis of the data available, but is based on anecdotal account. PATCO was indeed a sign of the times, but little supports it actually caused lasting harm to labor. Lots of people have published on this. See Farber and Western (2002); Moody (2007); and Grimes (1995). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.231.188 (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Tool and Die Strike of 1939

Can someone try link to this orphaned article please? Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Labor History or the history of organised labor?

There is a field of study called "Labor History" which is solely concerned with an institutional approach of labor relations and the development of organised labor. In that respect, this page fits exactly with the expectations someone well-versed in academic lingo could have. BUT a more profane reader may expect something else from this page. In particular, it would seem normal to find information about the demographics of the labour-force, tables reflecting the evolution of wages, etc. on such a page. One could also expect at least one mention of the word "slavery" in a page devoted to the history of labour in the USA.

So, for the sake of clarity, it is probable that this page should be copy-pasted into another called "The History of Organized Labour in the USA" and the "Labor history of the US" should be devoted to a broader approach of the history of labour in the country.

Any thought?

Maharbbal (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

a very different article would indeed be useful but no one has written it. Until it is available this article works well. The opening makes its role clear: he labor history of the United States describes the history of organized labor, as well as more general history of working people Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If it was to be written, how would one do it? I could contribute but can't do it alone, could we summon the dark lords or something?Maharbbal (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Communism?

in the "Strikes of 1919" section, is a citation from a 1951 red-scare-era document a legitimate source to claim a strike was in fact run by "communists intent on destroying capitalism"? 50.189.38.64 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

red scare era?? hardly-- it's based on leading scholars at major universities all of whom published many books and articles over 30+ year careers: (David Brody, Labor in crisis: The steel strike of 1919 (University of Illinois Press, 1965); Robert K. Murray, "Communism and the great steel strike of 1919." Mississippi Valley Historical Review (1951): 445-466; Philip Taft, The A.F.L. in the time of Gompers (1957); Stanley Coben (1972). A. Mitchell Palmer: politician. Robert K. Murray, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1921. (1955). Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Labor history of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labor history of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishful thinking section: Red state revolt and union revival 2016–present

The section "Red state revolt and union revival 2016–present" is an attempt to make a big deal out of very little. The lead paragraph asserts: "... union membership in the United States saw an increase in the mid-to-late-2010s." But this was an increase in total membership only from one year to the next, but the percentage of union members in the workforce remained unchanged at 10.7%. Not much of a revival so far. In fact, the cited source itself explicitly cautions against seeing this as a trend:

"It is difficult to use one year changes in union membership trends to assess underlying dynamics. For one, the small samples involved for particular subgroups produce year-to-year volatility that should not be mistaken for a trend."

Really, Wiki editors should read their own cited sources to make sure they support the edit.

The paragraph on the recent brief wave of teacher strikes attempts to elevate this into an event of historic importance, but that seems to be premature at best. It is currently newsworthy, but highly doubtful that a year or two from now it will be seen to merit inclusion as a major event in the labor history of the United States. In addition, the section describes strikes as "... several of them in right to work states where striking was illegal." This strongly implies that right-to-work laws make strikes by public employees illegal, when in fact they are two separate issues.

I see nothing in this section but wishful thinking, and nothing to merit inclusion in this article. Thoughts? Plazak (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No comments, so I changed the wording to reflect the sources. I still think that the recent teachers' strikes will be deleted later on as not important enough for this history, but I will leave that for someone else. Plazak (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

United Farm Works

I want to expand the section on farm workers to include more information than what is already there. The work that the UFWOC has done concerning government intervention in chemical exposure for farm workers is important to be noted, at the very least among the successes of the group. I also seek to introduce a sentence about the role of women in activism in the UFW. Lastly, I want to introduce a couple more sources for the information already in the paragraph that are more specific to farm workers in the United States vs hispanics in the labor force. I'm hoping by the end of my edits I will have lengthen this section on the page and made it more even with the other sections which offer more information. Bibliography for Labor History of the United States:

Traditional and Nontraditional Patterns of Female Activism in the United Farm Workers of America, 1962 to 1980:[1] Poisons in the Fields: The United Farm Workers, Pesticides, and Environmental Politics: [2]


OSHA 1971: Bringing Government to Protect the Lives of Industrial and Farm: [Workers:https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304417%7Clink]

WaltzingwithWeasleys (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

--in response to WaltzingwithWeasleys--this article covers millions of workers over several centuries. The Farm Workers are a very small group with a modest impact in one state, and they are covered at length in their own specialized articles. Teachers on the other hand are one of the biggest factors in the union movement in recent decades and are of national importance. In any case please make SMALL changes one at a time--lots of editors have worked on this and someone who is brand new to Wikipedia needs to watch and learn how editing is done here . Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


--in response to Rjensen-- The information I plan to add will only make the section on the United Farm Workers more complete and equal in length to it's surrounding sections. I understand that the Farm Workers seem to be a small group with a modest impact in only one state, but this is untrue. The UFW were involved with major labor victories for farmworkers across the United States. I'm not seeking to overstate their importance, I just want to update the section so that it's accurate and containing the most recent and relevant information. I am new to wikipedia, but I assure you that what I contribute will go through rigorous copyediting before it's published in the article. I welcome to constructive criticism when it is live. All I want is for the Farm Working section to reflect the place it held in the larger movement. WaltzingwithWeasleys (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"major labor victories for farmworkers across the United State" this seems dubious to me. Can you provide major RS that provide info on major cases (outside California) where they won big contracts for farm workers?? The Journal of American History (Sept 2015 p 624 ) states " the United Farm Workers (UFW) declined. It devolved from a powerful labor union for farmworkers to a fragile organization that today draws most of its support from mailed donations and represents fewer than five thousand workers in an industry that employs tens of thousands." I think the Chavez legacy is inspiring people who are not farm workers to work for social justice causes. On the historiography be sure to read the essay "Californian Borderhoods, Bordered Lands, and Labor in the U.S. West." by Oliver Rosales in Journal of the West (2015) v 54#1 p51-63. Rjensen (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

--in response to Rjensen-- I believe I have done a good job of mentioning examples of the victories that the UFW scored in states other than California. I also addressed the significant decline in power that the UFW has experienced since it's most powerful days in the 1960s and 1970s. I think the location of the section within the article under the 1960s section does the reader the service of offering context. If the UFW were still active and largely impactful today I move the section to the part of the article that talks about labor efforts in modern society, however, it isn't. It's place in the article is appropriate to the time that the group was most active and I don't think the section I added overstates the importance of the group. WaltzingwithWeasleys (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No--we need reliable secondary sources on Labor History that says these very small operations that were tangential to labor history are especially important. As for "powerful" -- it operated in a major way briefly in one state. I think UFW was more important outside on non-labor issues than on those dealing with labor history. Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

--I know that you think the UFW was more important outside of labor issues, but the work they did specifically surrounded the risks of farm laborers. They were a union created for farmworkers and their successes, which are documented in my contribution, all relate to labor issues. I talked about their contributions outside of the state of California which were objectively influential for the later labor unions that were formed in the areas. These assertions are not without foundation or citation. The following sources all talk about these things. I am not drawing any original conclusions. I haven't just decided that the history of the organization of farmworkers is relevant to the topic of labor history in the US, it is objectively relevant because it has historically been left out of the conversation surrounding labor laws in the US despite being an industry that employs millions of laborers.

National Center for Farmworker Health, Inc. (2012) "Farm Worker Health Factsheet". National Center for Farmworker Health, Inc. Gordon, Robert (1999). "Poisons in the Fields: The United Farm Workers, Pesticides, and Environmental Politics". Pacific Historical Review. 68 (1): 51–77. doi:10.2307/3641869. Weber, Devra (1998). Dark Sweat, White Gold: California Farm Workers, Cotton, and the New Deal. New York: Houghton Mifflin Courtyard. ISBN 0-15-600598-0. Shabecoff, Philip. "Life Improves for Florida's Orange Harvesters". Retrieved 2018-10-02. 

Tompkins, Adam (2011). Ghostworkers and Greens: Collaborative Engagements in Pesticide Reform, 1962-2011. Arizona: ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY. pp. 154–158.

I don't mind providing more if needed and encourage you to let me know where specific improvements can be made in my additions. WaltzingwithWeasleys (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources make your point that for NATIONAL labor history these were important events. The details should be in the UFQ articlke not here. The UGW comprises well under 1% of union membership at all times. As for the cites you need to read them more carefully--eg Dark Sweat ends decades before UFW began. UFW is focused on environmentalism issue--indeed an example of impact of UFW outside the labor mainstream. "Life Improves for Florida's Orange Harvesters". deals anecdotally with 1000 workers on one state--and suggests that the corporation made most of the improvements. Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Should include Battle of Blair Mountain

Hi all, I just had a suggestion that maybe somewhere in this article it should talk about the Battle of Blair Mountain. It only seems fitting since it is still the largest labor uprising in United States history, and it would fit would the theme of the other labor uprisings being included. Just thought I’d make the suggestion. 2600:387:F:4115:0:0:0:9 (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WaltzingwithWeasleys.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

% unionized chart needed

A chart showing the percentage of U.S. workers who have been union members over time would be an excellent addition to this article. -- Beland (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Just added one from 1960 to 2020. Cyali (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing Fall 2022 E1

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NameOtherThanReal (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jcwhrda, Rosewater238, The Claire Bear.

— Assignment last updated by Tjw111 (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Problem with source 171 in the United Farm Workers section

The section falsely claims that farm workers were excluded from the National Labor Relations Act which they weren't. The source says farm workers were excluded from the SSA. NotVeryGoodAtThis2 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labor_history_of_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1181933856"