Talk:International Typographical Union
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Disambiguation page move
editSee Talk:ITU (disambiguation). --Usgnus 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
New York Typographical # 6
edit"Printers had the ability to shutter the employers' mouthpiece, giving the union more power than the employer could muster. This influence led the ITU, in 1897, to win the best working conditions in the American publishing industry — a 48-hour work week and a standard wage scale for all printers in the city."
Exist or not?
editOpening paragraph (my bolding):
The International Typographical Union (ITU) was a labor union founded on May 3, 1852, in the United States as the National Typographical Union. In its 1869 convention in Albany, New York, the union—having organized members in Canada—changed its name to the International Typographical Union. A 1986 merger vote, series of local mergers, and a 1988 jurisdictional agreement led to most of the ITU's mailers joining the Teamsters while the remaining printers of the ITU merged with the Communications Workers of America. As of 2006, the ITU is the oldest surviving trade union in the United States.
If the Union no longer exists because it merged into 2 separate unions, how could it be the oldest surviving trade union? If it does still exist in some form, that needs to be explicitly stated somewhere within the article. -- not logged in, Exodio is user 12/20/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.80.34 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting point... If currency (being current) is best, then I would name the article "Printing, Publishing, and Media Workers Sector, CWA" since the union is now a part or sector of the Communications Workers of America (CWA). However, I think it's even more important to leave the entries separate. Right now, the name is "Printing, Publishing, and Media Workers" but with ITU still all over the InfoBox. I would leave previous incarnations with their own separate entries and cross-refer the lot. IMO - Aboudaqn (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)