The Labor Movement's Internal Conflict
An AFL organizer condemns 'direct action' agitators, arguing that evolutionary methods are the only path to lasting worker success.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A. P. of L. organizer C. O. Young takes sharp issue with the followers of 'direct action' agitators, declaring the movement tends to hinder rather than help the cause of labor. Young argues that any attempt to bring about sudden change in a system replete with ancient customs will only bring disaster. He labels the methods of syndicalism and anarchy as destructive to the progress made by traditional trade unionism. The article warns that those who advocate for 'reign of terror' tactics or sabotage are a criminal element that provides employers with the fuel to scorn the labor movement. The American Federation of Labor, in contrast, is presented as an organization that seeks justice through constitutional and evolutionary means, striking only when necessary.
“It takes a man of courage to face a mob. Especially if the mob is carrying a banner inscribed with the words 'freedom,' 'liberty,' etc.”
This piece captures the fierce ideological rift between the mainstream AFL unions and the radical IWW (Wobblies) that defined Everett's labor history. The friction between 'evolutionary' institutional bargaining and 'direct action' remains a central tension in contemporary labor organizing.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.