by J. D. Crutchfield
 |
At the time, industrial unionism was a new idea that was still being worked out. Industrial unions had been formed in some industries, most notably the Western Federation of Miners, and the W. F. M. had established the A. L. U. as a radical alternative to the A. F. of L., but by 1905 the A. L. U. existed largely on paper. As far as we know, no labor organization had ever put a comprehensive scheme of industrial unionism or industrial classification into practice.
In his chart of a proposed new labor organization, Hagerty assigned the various industrial sectors to departments with their subsidiary industries, and attempted to list all occupations involved in each industry. Thus, in his Department of Agriculture, Hagerty listed
Floriculture:Gardeners; Landscape gardeners; Steam-fitters; Engineers; Firemen; Teamsters; Laborers
Stock Farming:Veterinary surgeons; Cow-boys; Sheep-herders; Sheep-shearers; Fence-builders; Blacksmiths; Well-diggers; Cooks; Waiters
General Farming:Harvest-hands; Engineers; Firemen; Carpenters; Blacksmiths; Teamsters; Cooks; Waiters
Although the chart itself does not refer to industrial unions by that name, the accompanying text provides, “All workers of one industry in one union; all unions of workers in one big labor alliance the world over.”
Hagerty’s system classified industry as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: Floriculture; Stock Farming; General Farming.
DEPARTMENT OF MINING: Salt Mining; Coal Mining; Metal Mining.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Steam Railroads; Electric Railroads; Marine Shipping; Teaming.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING
DEPARTMENT OF MANUFACTURES: Textile Industry; Leather Industry; Wood Working; Metals & Machineries; Glass and Pottery; Paper Mills; Chemicals; Rubber; Brooms, etc.; Jewelry.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE: Parks & Highways; Postal; Schools; Amusements; Sanitary [i.e., medical]; Printing; Hotels, Restaurants, etc.; Laundry.
DISTRIBUTION
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD STUFFS: Tobacco; Packing Houses; Flour Mills; Sugar Refineries; Dairies; Bakery etc.; Brewery, Wine & Distillery Works.
It is interesting to note that Hagerty considered distribution to be a sector in and of itself, a view later rejected by the I.W.W.
The Industrial Workers of the World at first made little attempt to follow Hagerty’s plan, as far as classification was concerned. The organization comprised a number of unions that already existed, and it probably was politically impossible to try to reorganize their members right from the start. Industrial unionism in its infancy had to accommodate and compromise with these older organizations. In those days there was even talk of craft autonomy at the local level.
The first Constitution of the I.W.W. listed thirteen industrial departments:
Department of MINING INDUSTRY.
Department of the TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY.
Department of the METAL AND MACHINERY INDUSTRY.
Department of GLASS AND POTTERY INDUSTRY.
Department of the FOOD STUFFS INDUSTRY.
Department of BREWERY, WINE AND DISTILLERY INDUSTRY.
Department of FLORICULTURAL, STOCK AND GENERAL FARMING INDUSTRIES.
Department of the BUILDING INDUSTRY.
Department of the TEXTILE INDUSTRIES.
Department of the LEATHER INDUSTRIES.
Department of the WOOD WORKING INDUSTRIES.
Department of PUBLIC SERVICE INDUSTRIES.
Department of MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING.
This corresponds to Hagerty’s plan to some extent, but gives separate departments to several industries which Hagerty groups under Manufactures or Foodstuffs.
 |
In 1911, Trautmann produced a booklet entitled “One Big Union”, published originally by Charles H. Kerr & Company. There, Trautmann laid out a comprehensive scheme of industrial classification, based on his study of government statistics from France, Germany, Denmark, and the United States. Trautmann began his pamphlet with a summary of the principles of Marxian historical materialism, placing industrial unionism into the context of the development of Western society from feudalism to capitalism, and setting forth the argument for that society’s movement, through the struggle of the industrial working class, into a new and better age of industrial democracy.
Trautmann emphasized the necessity of basing any new industrial system on careful study of the processes of production:
To build and to arrange correctly, and for lasting purposes, the constructors of a further developed industrial structure must possess a thorough knowledge of the economic facts, and of organizations destined to accomplish the task. The architects must know the proper grouping of each component part and cell in the composition of industrial combinations . . . .
He continued,
The industries as they are grouped today, dovetailing into each other, furnish to the workers the basis upon which they must construct their organization for the struggles of today for better living conditions; and for the supervision, the management and operation of industries in a future industrial commonwealth of workers and producers.
Trautmann then offered his plan of industrial classification in the form of a chart similar to Hagerty’s, accompanied by an extensive analysis and explanation. He divided world-wide industry into just six departments:
1.The Department of Agriculture, Land, Fisheries and Water Products.
2.The Department of Mining.
3.The Department of Transportation and Communication.
4.The Department of Manufacture and General Production.
5.The Department of Construction.
6.The Department of Public service.
Like Hagerty, he subdivided these departments into Industrial Unions, one for each industry, but he identified forty-three industries to Hagerty’s thirty-nine. Although Trautmann listed typical occupations under each industrial heading, he focused chiefly on the enterprises by which each industry was carried on. A comprehensive list of occupations was of course unnecessary, as all workers in each enterprise were to be included in the same industrial union, regardless of their occupations.
Trautmann’s classification system differed from Hagerty’s in more fundamental ways as well. The most important difference he declared in bold-face, capital letters, and emphasized repeatedly:
He went on,
Still another point to be made clear: The process of production does not cease until the finished product reaches the consumer. All workers engaged in the process of distribution are members of the same industrial union, or Department organization in which the makers of the commodity are organized.
Trautmann also refined his system more thoroughly than Hagerty had done, providing for sections within several industrial unions in the Department of Manufacture & General Production, to accommodate the particular interests and concerns of workers in specific branches of manufacture, such as papermaking within the chemical industry, baking within the foodstuffs industry, and fine metalwork such as jewelry and cutlery within the metal and machinery industry.
 |
“One Big Union” immediately became official literature of the I.W.W., and the 1911 edition of the Constitution adopts Trautmann’s six Industrial Departments, in place of the original thirteen. The organization did not, however, adopt Trautmann’s plan of scientifically classified industrial unions at that time.
The I.W.W.’s Industrial Unions had originated in different ways, some as independent unions that had affiliated with the I.W.W., some as “Local Industrial Unions” created prior to the 1916 amendment abolishing locals, and some newly created by the General Administration. Some, of course, existed only on paper, for industries in which the organization had not gained a foothold. Further, although the organization had adopted Trautmann’s plan for six Industrial Departments, these, too, existed only on paper, the original thirteen “departments” having been renamed “National Industrial Unions” and later simply “Industrial Unions”.
By 1919, the first year in which a list of Industrial Unions was printed with the Constitution, the I.W.W.’s constituent unions were
Marine Transport Workers’ Industrial Union No. 8.
Bakery Workers’ Industrial Union No. 46.
Metal and Machinery Workers’ Industrial Union No. 300.
Shipbuilders’ Industrial Union No. 325.
Agricultural Workers’ Industrial Union No. 400.
Fishermen’s Industrial Union No. 448.
Furniture Workers’ Industrial Union No. 480.
Oil Workers’ Industrial Union No. 450.
Rubber Workers’ Industrial Union No. 470.
Lumber Workers’ Industrial Union No. 500.
Construction Workers’ Industrial Union No. 573.
Shoe Workers’ Industrial Union No. 620.
Metal Mine Workers’ Industrial Union No. 800.
Coal Miners’ Industrial Union No. 900.
Textile Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1000.
Hotel, Restaurant and Domestic Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1100.
Printing and Publishing Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1200.
General Distribution Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1300.
Food Product Workers’ Industrial Union No. 1500.
While there appears to be some system in the higher numbers, the order of unions was completely arbitrary, and there was no attempt to make the numbers correspond to Industrial Departments–or to anything else. Numbers in the 400s were given to agricultural workers, fishermen, furniture workers, oil workers, and rubber workers. The story is told that the Agricultural Workers’ Industrial Union No. 400 got its number on a whim of Big Bill Haywood’s, as a parody of the “New York 400", a list of plutocrats similar to today’s “Forbes 400".
For several years, a sense had been growing within the I.W.W. that an organization that aspired to manage all the world’s production ought to have, and to promote among its members, a scientific understanding of modern industry. As early as 1917, the I.W.W. prisoners in the Cook County Jail had discussed the need for an “Encyclopedia of Industry” that would collect essential information about every industry. They planned the formation of a Bureau of Industrial Research which would sponsor the production of that encyclopedia and place the I.W.W.’s organization and planning on a truly scientific basis.
At about the same time, a number of Wobblies came under the influence of Howard Scott, an engineer and admirer of Thorstein Veblen, who advocated the administration of industry by expert technicians, based on scientific analysis of the needs of humanity and society’s technological capacities, rather than the maximization of profits.
These influences led to a resolution in the 1919 General Convention for a complete revision of the “One Big Union” pamphlet, including the union’s industrial classification chart. In the fall of 1920, the General Executive Board accordingly adopted a completely new system of industrial classification, based on Trautmann’s plan, but incorporating a decimal system derived from Dewey’s famous system. The One Big Union Monthly, October 1920, reported,
An efficient organization requires efficient order and arrangement in its industrial groupings as well as in its fundamental plan. The last convention decided to rectify the old system and the present General Executive Board carried out these instructions. The changes will go into effect as soon as the General Office can issue formal instructions to the various Industrial Unions.
Numbers that have been issued to the various Unions run from 8 to 1500. These numbers, while they have served their purpose in the past, are at present arbitrary and meaningless. First of all it is easy to misconstrue the I.W.W. One Big Union Chart unless a scientific system of numbering is used. For instance: No. 620, Boot and Shoe Workers Industrial Union is a misnomer. There should be a Leather Workers Industrial Union charter for a branch organization. The same thing applies to 470, Rubber Workers Industrial Union, which should by right be a branch of the Chemical Workers Industrial Union.
Numbers, in these days, are used to convey the idea of relationship. All big business concerns have their departments keyed with certain numbers to help simplify the intricacies of business management and control. In the I. W. W., however, the number "400" has been spread over three separate and distinct Departments—not to mention industries: 400, Agriculture. 450, Mining and 470 and 480 in Manufacture. This is hopelessly misleading and confusing.
The Decimal system, by Melvil Dewey, is used largely by big corporations in organizing the various units of their business. It is also used in every library in the land. It is so simple that a child can understand it at a glance. This system permits of ten classes, ten sections and ten divisions. But since there are only six logical divisions for the Departments of modern industry we need only six of the decimals for our Industrial Departments. The industrial Unions follow in their natural order–each one being branched off from its Department. The number will show the exact relationship at a glance.
The New Chart of 1920.
Click for another 1920 version.In due time it is possible to number the branches in the same manner. In this way each number MEANS SOMETHING–it shows the Department the Industrial Union, and, if necessary the Branch. The confusion of the old system of numbering is done away with and Delegates are no longer in doubt as to just how to make out cards for new members. We are indebted to Fellow Worker Robert Russel of Minneapolis for this adaptation of the Decimal System to fit the needs of the I. W. W.
Note that, in the article just quoted, a “branch” seems to mean an industrial sub-sector of an Industrial Union, not a local organization–the boot & shoe workers should be a chartered branch of the Leather Workers’ Industrial Union, while the rubber workers should be a branch of the Chemical Workers’ Industrial Union. It is apparently these “Branches” which the author foresees as being numbered according to the decimal system “in due time”. For some reason, this part of the plan was never carried out: the revised “One Big Union” pamphlet referred to such industrial sub-sectors as “sections” (presumably to avoid confusion with Job Branches) and designated them with letters, rather than numbers.
The industrial classification system adopted in 1920, with occasional modifications, has remained in place ever since. In the 1930s, paper mill workers got their own Industrial Union in the Department of Manufacture & General Production, and the Department of Public Service was extensively reorganized. IUs 310 and 330 merged their administrations in 1937. The 1946 List of Industrial Unions added the Communication Workers’ Industrial Union No. 560. In 1949, the Metal Mine Workers’ Industrial Union No. 220 merged its administration with that of the Construction Workers’ Industrial Union No. 310-330, “as an emergency measure.” Not many years later, the last of the functioning IU administrations was dissolved. From then on, Industrial Unions–and industrial classification–in the I.W.W. have existed only on paper.
The year 1976 saw the addition of the Data Storage and Retrieval Workers’ Industrial Union No. 570 and the Household Service Workers’ Industrial Union No. 680, described as, “All workers engaged in performing services in the home.” The latter classification was apparently created, not for wage workers in domestic service, but for unwaged homemakers, a questionable innovation, given that the I.W.W. had traditionally regarded the industrial union as an economic tool for struggle against the employing class. A later article will discuss this issue in some detail.
In 1995, a referendum added the Sex Trade Workers’ Industrial Union No. 690, described as
All workers employed as dancers and models, telephone sex workers, actors and other workers who use sexuality as the primary tool of their trade (excluding all agents of the boss class able to hire or fire, or possessing equivalent coercive or punitive power).
The addition of this union to the list indicates that a voting majority of the I.W.W. at this point had lost sight of some of the basic principles of industrial unionism. First, classification of workers by the tools they use is a hallmark of craft unionism. Workers in several industries use sexuality as their primary tool, including entertainment, personal services, and hospitality. Organizing all sex-workers into a single union would separate them from fellow workers in those industries, isolating and weakening them.
More significantly, the Sex Trade Workers’ Industrial Union was created chiefly for the purpose of making a political statement. Although the change was inspired by the efforts of exotic dancers in San Francisco to organize, the I.W.W. never attracted enough sex workers–however that term might be defined–to justify the creation of a sex workers’ IU, and in fact no such union was ever organized. There was no need for such a union to exist, either on paper or in reality. The IU seems to have been created, not to facilitate the organization of workers, but to make a statement about the dignity or validity of sex work. Arguably it failed to achieve even that goal, for by segregating all sex-workers into a special IU, the organization reinforced the notion that sex work is fundamentally different from other types of work. In fact, from an economic standpoint, sex work plays exactly the same role–generating surplus value for the bosses–as all other wage work. By creating a separate union for sex workers, the I. W. W. contributed (if only symbolically) to the "ghettoization" of sex work.
The name of No. 230 was changed to “Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Workers’ Industrial Union” in 1999, a symbolic gesture, since there is no geothermal industry, except as an insignificant part of the electric power industry. This reflects the environmentalist utopianism that prevailed in the organization at that time, which also led to the unprecedented introduction of a religious sentiment ("live in harmony with the Earth") into the Preamble.
These latter-day changes to the Chart illustrate the importance of practical engagement in the work of organizing wage-workers into real, active Industrial Unions. As long as the Industrial Unions exist only on paper, the Chart will be a place for making utopian, symbolic, and political gestures, rather than a practical tool for organizing our economic struggle.
Not all recent changes have been politically motivated, however. The Data Storage and Retrieval Workers’ Industrial Union No. 570, already mentioned, might have been an appropriate addition to the Chart, if it had been based on a scientific analysis of industry. Unfortunately, the new IU was defined as “all workers engaged in electronic communication”, making it a craft union, defined by the occupations of its members rather than the industry in which they operated. Under this definition, No. 570 also duplicated the jurisdiction of the Communication Workers’ Industrial Union No. 560. This might have posed serious difficulties if the IUs had actually been organized.
In 1999 those two IUs were replaced by the Telecommunications and Computer Workers’ Industrial Union No. 560, which made sense, since they duplicated each other, but the new IU remains a craft union.
The Department of Public Services, No. 600, deserves special mention, as it has been extensively and repeatedly revised since the Reorganization of 1920, perhaps because a purely productionist analysis is not suitable to the service industries, resulting in misconceptions and errors in classification.
The department was thoroughly reorganized in 1936, including the addition of the Hotel, Restaurant and Building Service Workers’ Industrial Union No. 640, the elimination of the Public Utility Workers’ I. U. No. 650 (“All workers engaged in municipal water and electric supply service; water-works, public service works, etc.”) and the addition of the Public Service Workers’ Industrial Union No. 670 (“All workers engaged in public supply services and other institutional services”), and changes in the names and numbers of several other IUs.
The addition of Nos. 680 and 690 in 1976 has already been mentioned.
Finally, in 2001, Nos. 650 and 670 were combined to form the Municipal and Utility Service Workers’ Industrial Union No. 670, and the General, Legal, Public Interest and Financial Office Workers’ Industrial Union No. 650 was created. These changes were in fact made in response to organizing efforts in the humane services industry, but the catch-all description of the new No. 650 reflects a lack of scientific analysis, since there is no “general office” industry, and there is little economic connection between workers in the legal, public-interest, and financial industries. Nor do municipal highway and park maintenance workers generally have much economic connection with utility workers.
A plan to rectify the flaws in Dept. 600 was put forward at the 2001 General Assembly by the Boston General Membership Branch. The Assembly referred it to a new Committee on Industrial Classification, which it charged with considering a complete revision of the union’s industrial classification system. That committee has submitted a report and recommendations for revising the Chart, which will be before the 2005 General Assembly following a period of study and discussion by the membership.
The committee’s recommendations include not only a thoroughly updated List of Industrial Unions and a new Chart, based on three years of research and investigation, but also an amendment procedure that limits the possibilities for revising the Chart without the consent of the workers affected. Further, the committee recommends the establishment of the CIC as a standing committee dedicated to industrial research and education, so that future revisions to the Chart will be based firmly on principles of industrial unionism and on scientific analysis of the industries involved.
The I.W.W. was established to bring a modern form of organization to a working class dominated by the outdated craft unions. Its founders emphasized the need for scientific analysis of industry and constant updating of the organization’s structure to meet the needs of the hour. Ironically, in the years since the Reconstruction of 1920, the union seems to have lost sight of those founding principles. As the I.W.W. enters its second century, it is appropriate that it reaffirm its commitment to scientific, practical organization. The members of the Committee on Industrial Classification hope that their work will be received as an important step in that direction.
|
CIC Home