Talk:Dublin lock-out

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for August 26.

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Potential additions

Ok first of all I agree that the article should in fact be entitled 1913 Strike and Lockout, as this would be less biased. Added to that though I think there should be more background information; living and working conditions of the working class and impoverished in 1913 Dublin, a brief explanation of Connolly and Larkin's socio-economic beliefs, and a brief passage about William Martin Murphy (including a mention of the fact that, relative to many employers at the time, Murphy was a good employer). There should also be a more detailed account of the events, including the involvement of the Church, relations with and reactions of the British Unions, the Kiddies' Scheme (please try especially hard to treat of the Kiddies' scheme in an unbiased manner, this can be difficult) and probably myriad other details that this article has excluded. Furthermore the box at the side should be changed, it makes the lockout sound like an armed uprising, and this was not the case. Reactions of other social and political groups of historical importance should also be included, including (but not necessarily limited to) the Home Rule Party, the Republican movement (Sinn Fein, IRB etc), Socialist and workers' movements abroad and the middle- and upper-classes. Finally, some more details of the results, both long- and short-term would be nice. As well as the aforementioned reactions to the events perhaps some information on the long-lasting effects of the lockout on the working class movement in Ireland, the future activity of the ICA etc.

All in all, I feel this article needs some heavy editing. I'm currently studying for the Leaving Cert so I don't have the time at the moment, but if the article is still unchanged by the end of examinations I'll try update it a tad.--Redstar1916 23:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is biased. I must ask, was this written by the Labour Party of Ireland? (Just another note: The only source used for this article is no longer working)The first thing you read, the title, is biased. "Dublin Lockout", for purposes of neutrality the Irish education system specifically states both Strike and Lockout, for one. Socialists are vehement in calling it a lockout, while few refer to it as only a strike, the majority of this country do say both, as above, "Strike and Lockout" (Usually called "1913 Strike and Lockout", more so than "The Dublin Strike and Lockout"). The name comes from the fact that what transpired from the 26th of August to the 3rd of September includes Larkin's strike (, aswell as the employers' lockout.

It doesn't mention Larkin's Kiddies Scheme at all, which was the most unpopular move he made in the entire course of this dispute, if not his career. It destroyed his public support, and met with instant dissaproval from Archbishop Walsh of Dublin.

It fails to mention Larikin and Connolly's views of Syndicalism - a very powerful, and Socialist concept ("... which would end the capitalist system by way of general strikes"), whereby every trade union goes on strike at once - something which is illegal in Ireland today.

Another, minor, unpopular move was Larkin was successful in moving where people were paid - it used to be in pubs, and straight away male workers would spend their money on alcohol. Being a teetotaller himself, he saw this as simply unacceptable - not what the workers thought. This isn't a large point, but again, another blow to his support in the earlier points in this career in Dublin.

Newspapers: It mentions only W.M.M.'s newspapers, seemingly daemonising him further. To this list one can add the Irish Catholic newspaper (Catholicism, obviously the largest influence in Irish society, as can be seen from the reaction to the Kiddies Scheme), and the Irish Times. The latter was anti-strike, but did publish open letters from pro-strikers, and most notibly W.B. Yeats. Note: The Evening and Saturday Herald should be mentioned, rather than just "Evening Herald". The only newspapers in favour of the strike were Socialist newspapers, such as The Irish Worker, edited by James Connolly. (The most vehemently anti-strike was The Ancient Order of Hibernian, though was mostly active around the time of the Kiddies Scheme - naming and shaming all mothers who sent their children to England with this scheme)

It doesn't mention that W.M.Murphy isn't anti-Trade Union (But doesn't say he is either, but from reading the article, one could guess he was). W.M.M. supported internal trade unions, he disliked syndicalism and large external, and interfering trade unions such as Larkin's ITGWU.

A quote from W.M.M. in an interview with the Evening Herald, 27th of August 1913:

"My fight is not against Trade Unionism, but against Larkinism... This is the most pestilential 'ism' that any community could be affected with. The so-called Transport Union is not a union at all. It is merely a rabble commanded by Larkin, who is the greatest enemy of trade unionism..."

This article doesn't mention the Askwith Enquiry (24th of September 1913): W.M.M. made it a requirement to sign a declaration that a worker was not part of the ITGWU. If they did not sign this, they would be fired. (Thus leading to internal trade unions over large syndicalist trade unions). The enquiry recommended this be dropped. This was refused by the employers.

It recommended also that trade unions should drop 'sympathetic strike' action, and enter negotiations before striking.

The first Bloody Sunday seems exaggurated here. Larkin surprised the crowd by appearing on the balcony of a hotel in Sackville street - owned by William Martin Murphy (The Imperial Hotel). He had to sneak in, in disguise - this protest was banned by the police, yet they pressed ahead (And again, this important fact is not mentioned at all). He began to address the crowd, he was arrested, and thus began an uproar from the crowd, the police panicked and made terrible decisions, resulting in many injuries and two deaths. The "figures" of hundreds injured is exaggurated (Were the number in the hundreds, I do believe it would be a significant enough event to be 1) Easily available to find and 2) Available in books for Irish Education - as it is covered by the Leaving Certificate, it would be important to list "hundreds injured", as that would be a hugely important figure), and without proper citation. Larkin was jailed for 7 months for his role in the riot that transpired on Bloody Sunday. (Released after two weeks). Upon release he fell out with the Trade Union Congress. He criticised them for failing to organise sympathetic strikes (Syndicalism) across the UK. The TUC condemned him, and saw him as an obsticle to a settlement.

Now, I mentioned this many times above, time for an explination: The Kiddies Scheme. Late into the dispute (October/November 1913) public opinion began to sway in favour of the strikers. In England pro-Union supporters, seeing the dreadful hardship caused by the events that had transpired over the months passed, offered to temporarily foster Irish children until the entire dispute ended. The Catholic Church vehemently opposed this, and in Catholic Ireland, this meant it would fail. Archbishop Walsh was sympathetic towards the strikers, but found this unacceptable. He feared they would be send to Protestand families, and would lose their faith. Children were grabbed off boats bound for England, after the public campaign which was organised by the Catholic Church. When the scheme ended, the damage done was devastating.

I believe I haven't covered it entirely, but for now this will do. And I hope that this bias will be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.40.129.241 (talk)

So... start editing. You could work at the NPOV and provide some working references. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 02:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting how two Leaving Cert students can find such fault with a simple wikipedia page. Good luck tomorrow, by the way. If I find time afterwards, I will lend a hand to bringing this page up to scratch.

Infobox

Why has the infobox been removed? Exiledone 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove it, but I would imagine it was removed because it was misleading. As I stated earlier, it made the incident out to be an armed conflict, such as a war or uprising. This was not the case.--Redstar1916 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the lockout was not a military conflict, so should not have a military conflict box. Because it was not 'part of the movement for Irish independence', as the box stated. Because the IRB was not in fact involved one way or the other. In short, because it was misleading. Jdorney 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ascendancy"?

I'm removing the Protestant Ascendancy bit as most Dublin employers were Catholic. This was Dublin, not Belfast. In fact Bewleys and Guinness's, that were run by Proestants, did not lock out their workers. Also adding the 1911 strike in England as that was the model to follow at the time.Red Hurley (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dublinlockout.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Dublinlockout.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kiddies Scheme"

Nothing on this? Too hard to understand maybe?PatrickGuinness (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dublin lock-out. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split up "Dublin slum"

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

The topic "Dublin slum" needs its own page. Geysirhead (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If some of the content from the "Dublin slums" section is moved to a separate/newly-created article, then that article should be titled Dublin tenements or similar. As that is the common name. Any overlaps with Tenement#Dublin, History of Dublin#Tackling the tenements, Tenement Museum Dublin, will also need to be addressed. Personally I don't see that the section is particularly long or otherwise especially ripe for splitting. A cross-link to other related articles or topics is likely in order, to signpost the reader to more background, but a 100% split seems a bit much.... Guliolopez (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. It has been nearly 3 months since the above thread was opened (significantly longer than the "one week or more" proposed by WP:MERGECLOSE). As it stands, there doesn't appear to be consensus for a split (or how/where to undertake a split). Absent further input, I'm not sure the split tag is serving much purpose... Guliolopez (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. It's now been over 3 months since the tag was added. If the nominator feels that a standalone "Dublin slum" article needs to be created (separate from this article, the History of Dublin article, the Tenement#Dublin article/section, the Tenement Museum Dublin article, the Dublin Housing Action Committee and others besides), then that's cool. But there has been no argument made (and hence no consensus arising) that this Dublin lock-out article should be the "source" or "target" of such an article about 250 years of housing problems. (Frankly I'm not sure why it would be. Housing was an issue in the city at the time. Absolutely. But so were 1000 other social issues. The lockout wasn't, at its core, about housing....) Guliolopez (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unskilled workers

The lede and tone of the article is that the dispute was about the right of all Irish workers to unionise. It wasn't. There were craft unions that indeed Larkin had worked with. The point of the strike was to allow unions to negotiate on behalf of unskilled workers. Before the strike, (typically) dock workers would turn up on the day and either be picked for work, or sent home. This was the case all over the world, and it was harsh, but workers had plenty of other career choices open to them. From the employers' viewpoint, casual labour should be the lowest paid, as the worker in question might not turn up tomorrow. It was day-labour, a.k.a. being a "journeyman", whose boss might need 20 men one day and 100 the next.84.203.56.39 (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]