Comment on The trouble with unions? by Brian Hanley

That article is one of a number recently that have argued while unions might have been ok in 1913, there’s really no need for them now.
It’s pretty bog-standard stuff, especially the idea that everybody really accepts now that the workers were right in 1913. The point is that in 1913 itself, very few people, and certainly not the contemporary press, supported the strikers. The authors of these articles usually allege that unions only organise the well-off these days anyway, and not the poorly-paid marginal workers who really need them. Be interesting what their reaction would be if a union used Larkinite tactics to demand a pay-raise for hotel workers- do you think the likes of Backroom would support them?
Be interesting to see who the author is because I’d take issue with the idea that the memory of Pearse was in any way muted for the first 50 years of this state’s existence. Until 1966 at least he was a central figure. Secondly that the workers cause in 1913 was naturally linked to the ‘wider issue of national subjugation’ is open to contention- what is certainly true is that without aid from British trade unionists the workers would not have held out as long as they did.