whether they could have accomplished their purposes by combined negotiations rather than by the deliberate destruction of the unions. The contest was not settled but only postponed; for the policy adopted created feelings of resentment and injustice which were strengthened by the deprivations of the period of economic depression that followed, and prepared the San Francisco trade-unionists for a determined renewal of the conflict in 1901.

THE REVIVAL OF THE SAN FRANCISCO LABOR MOVEMENT,

153

1897-1901.

Mindful of the many crises in which the stronger organizations of San Francisco had rendered them assistance, the Sacramento trade-unions now rallied to the aid of their discomforted colleagues. Two men were sent to San Francisco to assist in reorganizing the routed forces of the Federated Trades Council. It was still possible to gather representatives from thirty-four of the forty-four154 unions that had been members in 1891. As it was no longer possible for San Francisco to claim trade-union leadership for the whole Coast, it was felt that the former title was a misnomer, so the name of San Francisco Labor Council was adopted by this re-organized body in 1892. But during the hard times of 1893-1894 it was increasingly difficult to hold the unions together. The Labor Council steadily declined in numbers. In 1896 only eighteen unions were still faithful, and a year later the lowest point was reached, when but fifteen unions with a membership of 4,500 were represented in the Council. Sometimes not more than a dozen delegates gathered at the weekly meetings.

San Francisco now entered upon a period of unusual prosperity. Not only did the Spanish-American war, the annexation of Hawaii, and the opening of the Alaskan gold mines bring a great increase of prosperity and business, but there was also a general revival of the industries of the state and a great influx of capital seeking investment. The new prosperity was particularly noticeable in the increased activity in building. The

153 Labor Clarion, August 7, 1903; September 4, 1908.

154 My statistics of the Labor Council are taken from an unpublished manuscript by Ed. Rosenberg, who was secretary of the Labor Council and had access to the records at the time he wrote it.

hundreds of idle workers now found employment. The savings banks again showed a surplus of deposits over withdrawals. 155

The revival of prosperity brought new life to the trade-unions. At first the increase was gradual,156 but in 1899 to 1901 there was a period of unprecedented activity. The Labor Commissioner writes of this period: "We can but note the remarkable increase in organization of labor manifest since the commencement of the year 1899. While prior to said time not more than eight or ten organizations have come into existence in any one year, and while the rule has been not more than four or five, we find the record for 1899 to have suddenly increased to twenty-five, while ten new organizations appear during the first half of the present year, 1900.''157

Not only were many new groups of workers organized, but the unions were affiliated with central bodies to a greater extent than ever before. While less than one-half of the trade-unions of the state were represented in central bodies in 1900, practically all the unions had established such local affiliations by 1902. About one-fourth of this increase in the number of central bodies was due to the tendency to segregate kindred trades.158

The building trades were the most important of these groups of related crafts. They were now organized in separate councils for the first time. On February 6, 1896, five of the San Francisco building trades having a membership of about two hundred came together and formed the Building Trades Council. Several previous attempts had been made to federate this group of unions. We have seen that at the time when the Federated Trades Council was organized there was a general tendency to unite related trades in sub-federations. An organization of the building trades was formed, but does not seem to have been very active until 1890. At this time these trades, which were affiliated with the Federated Trades Council, were selected as the ones best qualified

155 During 1894, $97,496,712 were deposited and $104,155,474 withdrawn. In 1899 the amount deposited exceeded the amount withdrawn by $705,411. (Page, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, p. 665, December, 1902.)

156 The statistics of the San Francisco Labor Council are: July, 1897, 15 unions; 1898, 18; 1899, 21; 1900, 34; July, 1901, 90; October, 1901, 98. 157 Ninth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 114. 158 Ibid., pp. 117-8. Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

to demand the eight-hour day.159 This shorter work-day which went into effect on May 1, 1890, was obtained by the San Francisco unions with very little difficulty. At the time of its enforcement a joint executive committee representing all the building trades was formed. While this was not permanent, it may be regarded as a predecessor of the present Building Trades Council.

The great activity in building in San Francisco at this time brought increased numbers and prosperity to the new Council. By 1901 it was composed of one hundred and fifty delegates, who represented thirty-six unions with a membership of fifteen thousand.160 It was able to announce that it represented every building trade in the city,161 and aimed to control the building industry from the foundation to the roof. Similar Building Trades Councils were organized in other important cities of the state, largely through the efforts of the San Francisco Council. In 1902 these Councils were united in the State Building Trades Council.

The reports of the State Labor Bureau show that during this period there was a great increase in trade-union membership in all the industrial centers of the state. Two hundred and seventeen unions with an estimated membership of 37,500 were reported in 1900. They were distributed as follows: 90, or 41 per cent. in San Francisco; 23, or 10 per cent. in Oakland; 26, or 12 per cent. in Los Angeles; 20, or 9 per cent. in Sacramento. In 1902 the number of unions had doubled. Of the 495 organizations with an estimated membership of 67,500, 162 were found in San Francisco, 36 in Oakland, 68 in Los Angeles, 45 in Sacramento. About 66 per cent. of the trade-union membership was in San Francisco,163

The great increase in San Francisco was due to the fact that among the newly organized unions were many trades employing

159 This eight-hour movement was national in scope. Everywhere the building trades were selected as the ones to make the demand.

100 Organized Labor, August 31, 1901.

161 Several unions maintained membership in both the Building Trades and the Labor Council until 1902.

162 Alameda County Building Trades Council organized in 1899; Sacramento, San Jose, Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield, in 1900. (Organized Labor, August 31, 1901; Ibid., September 3, 1904.)

163 Ninth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 92; Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 77-79.

large groups of workers. The most important of these new unions were those of the butchers, cooks and waiters, stablemen, streetrailway employees, retail clerks, laundry workers, teamsters, barbers, hodcarriers, tanners, and laborers.164

The representatives of the less democratic building trades were inclined to doubt the wisdom of this rapid organization of unskilled trades. Their official paper sounded a note of warning to the energetic leaders of the rival central body.165 Three months later the editor complained that this warning had not been heeded. On the contrary, he says, "The professional organizer doubled his efforts and the Labor Council increased its organizing committee. Unions were formed that is, very few of them were trade-unions, but there were many, many unions of divers occupations and callings. Charters were sent for and hung in the meeting halls until they covered the four walls. The Labor Council gathered under its wings a most varied collection of eggs and hatched some curious ducklings and labeled them. trade-unions. The one motto of all seemed to be: 'Organize, demand, strike!' The old staunch trade-unions tried to stem the current by passing a law to the effect that no new union should go on strike before it had been organized and a member of the Council for at least six months. This sensible provision, however, failed to pass.

77166

This organization of new groups of workers was crowned and completed by the formation of the State Federation of Labor in January, 1901. Delegates from eight cities were present at the first meeting.167 It has continued to hold annual sessions for the discussion of questions of general interest to the working people of the state, and has been particularly useful as a means of securing concerted efforts for the promotion of labor legislation.

To sum up the conditions reviewed, we find that between 1897 and 1901 there was not only a complete revival of the labor organizations, but that this wave of unionism rose higher than ever before; new trades were organized, the central councils

164 Tenth Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 78. 165 Organized Labor, March 2, 1901.

166 Ibid., June 22, 1901.

167 Ibid., January 12, 1901.

gained a completer control over the labor conditions of the chief industrial centers of the state, and these in turn were provided with the means for greater coöperation by the formation of permanent State Federations. We will now turn our attention to the use made of this new strength gained by perfected organization.

THE SECOND GREAT STRUGGLE OF ORGANIZED CAPITAL AND

LABOR, 1901.

The object of this great revival of trade-unionism soon became apparent. The working people were determined to gain what they considered a fair share of the great prosperity which characterized this period. It is interesting to find that at first both the San Francisco central bodies used their new strength to obtain better conditions of work rather than increase of wages. The Building Trades Council undertook to win the eight-hour day for the mill men. This was a vigorously contested fight lasting almost seven months. Finally the trade-unions established a planing-mill of their own and at once proved their ability to run it in a business-like way. The mill owners then decided that it would be more profitable to come to terms with the Council. The new mill, which was the second largest in the city, was admitted to their Association, and the Council agreed that the members of its affiliated unions should refuse to handle lumber prepared in a mill requiring more than eight hours for a day's work. As the mills outside of San Francisco had the nine and ten-hour day, this meant a monopoly of the mill work for the members of the Association. Other groups of workers in the Building Trades Council also obtained the eight-hour day or substantial increases of wages.168

Early in 1901 the unions in the Labor Council also began demanding better conditions of work. The editor of the Coast Seamen's Journal, who was a prominent member of the Council, states clearly its policy at this time. He says: "In the early part of the present year [1901] the growth of organization among the workers of the city had proceeded sufficiently to justify a movement for the establishment of better conditions in

168 Organized Labor, August 31, 1901.