The Committee on Industrial Classification

Supplementary Report to the 2005 General Assembly

Appendix on the 2004 Amendments

The Committee on Industrial Classification was appointed by the 2001 General Assembly with the task of considering a complete revision of the union's industrial classification system.

The Industrial Workers of the World was first organized because its founders realized that organized labor as it then stood was a relic of a former time and an obsolete organization of industry. They wrote, "We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class." The first Wobblies were committed to the principle of scientific organization, in which workers would oppose the capitalist class by organizing as the bosses organized, mirroring capital's organization and matching it at every level.

Our union's founders foresaw that capitalist industry must continually change, knowing that

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.[1]

Their plan was that the IWW should keep step with capitalism's changes, confronting industry at every turn with matching changes in labor's organization. FW Vincent St. John wrote,

Basing its conclusions upon the experience of the past the I. W. W. holds that it is essential to have the form and structure of the organization conform to the development of the machinery of production and the process of concentration going on in industry in order to facilitate the growth of solidarity on class lines among the workers. Unless the structure of the organization keeps step with the development of industry it will be impossible to secure the solidarity so necessary to success in the struggles with the employing class.

Out of date forms of organization with their corresponding obsolete methods and rules will have to be broken down. To do this in time of a struggle means confusion and chaos that result in defeat.

The I. W. W. holds, that, regardless of the bravery and spirit the workers may show, if they are compelled to fight with old methods and an out of date form of organization against the modern organization of the employing class, there can be but one outcome to any struggle waged under these conditions--defeat.

* * *

The constant development and concentration of the ownership and control of industry will be met by a like concentration of the number of Industrial Unions and Industrial Departments. It is meant that the organization at all times shall conform to the needs of the hour and eventually furnish the medium through which and by which the organized workers will be able to determine the amount of food, clothing, shelter, education and amusement necessary to satisfy the wants of the workers.[2]

Another writer in 1916 recognized the need to keep step with the development of industry in our own organization: "The I. W. W. proposes to follow the bosses' plan and scope of organization for the benefit of the worker."[3] And the 1924 edition of the "One Big Union" pamphlet admonishes,

Organization of the working class must necessarily reflect the capitalist arrangement in industry. It must not lag behind, nor should it anticipate. In doing either it would forfeit its claim to being scientific.[4]

Since Father Hagerty's Wheel was designed in 1905, capitalist industry has undergone revolutionary changes. Agriculture is no longer the largest employer of workers in the capitalist world. Manufacturing industries have diminished in importance in most developed countries. Service industries have come to dominate the economies of what once were called "industrial nations". Information technology, bio-technology, and other emerging industries are rapidly changing the face of labor in ways Father Hagerty could never have imagined.[5]

Unfortunately, in the intervening years we have done little to conform our union's industrial structure to the needs of the hour.[6] This is understandable. State oppression and internal problems diminished our numbers and our presence in industry to a such a degree that industrial classification would have been little more than an academic exercise. Revisions to the list of industrial unions after about 1920 have done little to keep our union's structure in step with the development of modern industry.[7]

As a result, our system currently would organize workers who assemble plastic baby dolls with those who make dynamite (Chemical Workers' IU 430); graphic designers in computer game studios with telephone solicitors (Communications, Telecommunications, and Computer Workers' IU 560); and AIDS helpline counselors with insurance clerks (General, Legal, Public Interest and Financial Office Workers' IU 650). And it has no clear place for workers, for example, in gene-splicing laboratories (health service workers? agricultural workers? chemical workers?), on-line research services like the Electric Library or Lexis/Nexis (education workers? communications workers? printing and publishing workers? general and legal office workers?), or computer software publishing houses (printing and publishing workers? communications workers?).

Now, as the union enters into a new period of growth, it is essential that we remember our founders' intentions and bring the union's industrial structure up to date. We need to do it now, because now we are small and have the time. As FW St. John pointed out, reorganization in time of struggle means confusion, chaos, and defeat. Waiting to reorganize until we have thousands of members instead of hundreds will greatly complicate whatever changes may be found necessary. Splitting or combining Industrial Unions will be much easier when they exist only on paper, than when they have hundreds of members, officers, General Organization Committees, contracts, stationery, union halls, etc.

The mission of the Committee on Industrial Classification is to study modern industry, and, in light of that study, to propose recommendations for bringing our union's industrial structure up to date.

1. Marx & Engels, "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (1884). [Return to text.]

2. St. John, "The I.W.W.--Its History, Structure and Methods" (1919). [Return to text.]

3. Grover H. Perry, "The Revolutionary I.W.W."(1916). [Return to text.]

4. "One Big Union of the I. W. W." (ca. 1924). [Return to text.]

5. Indeed, globalization, diversification, and other radical changes in corporate organization have so altered the industrial landscape that there is a legitimate question whether industrial unionism, as it was conceived of in 1905, may not itself be obsolete as a program for effective class struggle. While the union needs to give serious thought to this issue, such fundamental issues would seem to be outside the scope of this committee's assignment. [Return to text.]

6. See J. D. Crutchfield, "A Brief History of Industrial Classification in the I. W. W." (2005) [Return to text.]

7. The main exception is the introduction of the Data Storage & Retrieval Workers' I. U. No. 570, about 1976, which was subsequently merged with the Communications Workers I.U. No. 560 to form the Communications, Telecommunications, and Computer Workers IU 560. [Return to text.]