shorter work-day soon became the chief object of their endeavors. The first move was for the eight-hour day on Saturday. This was achieved without opposition on September 1, 1882. On February 9, 1883, a resolution was passed to the effect that after May 1 they would abolish piece-work and adopt the ninehour day. On March 30 they held a mass meeting in the interest of their movement." The new time-schedule went into effect on May 1 with very little opposition.68 The Los Angeles carpenters obtained the nine-hour day a year later. At about this time a number of the other building trades succeeded in obtaining this reduction in their working hours.70 69 The Knights of Labor were quite active at this time in the formation of organizations among the working people of the State. Their platform adopted in 1884 contained a declaration in favor of the eight-hour work-day," and no doubt it was a subject of frequent discussion in their educational meetings. The eight-hour day was also one of the earliest objects of the American Federation of Labor. The next important eighthour campaign in California was a part of the national movement planned in the 1888 meeting of the Federation.72 At this meeting it was recommended that eight-hour leagues be organized in all parts of the country for the purpose of carrying on an educational campaign in preparation for the general adoption of the shorter work-day. May first, 1890, was set as the date for the change. In accordance with this plan, a systematic agitation in favor of the shorter work-day was undertaken in California. A vigorous campaign was started in Los Angeles a few months prior to the organization of the San Francisco Eight-hour League.73 The latter grew out of a mass meeting called by the 67 Call, March 31, 1883, 3-6; April 28, 1883, 3-5. 68 Organized Labor, February 24, 1900. 69 Examiner, April 7, 1889. 70 I have been unable to find just when they made the change. Some may have nad it sooner. The Third Biennial Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 134, reports the nine-hour day in a number of these trades when others were working ten hours. For the painters, see Call, May 10, 1883, 3-6. 71 Second Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 17-18. 72 Report of St. Louis Meeting, American Federation of Labor, pp. 9, 30. 73 Examiner, March 31, April 7, 1889. 74 76 Federated Trades Council on June 2, 1889. The league, of May 1, 1890, was set apart for labor demonstrations in both Europe and America. Its approach was dreaded as a probable day of riot and bloodshed in the Old World, but in the great cities of the United States the efforts of the workingmen to better their condition met with less opposition, and were not the occasion for an apprehensive mustering of extra police and military protection. In California this May-day celebration created little excitement and no apprehension. In most instances the trades that had decided to adopt the shorter day at this time had already come to agreements with their employers, so there were no large strikes to mark the day. In San Francisco only a few of the building trades" and the brewery workmen were prepared to demand a reduction in their hours at this time, though the president and some of the 74 Coast Seamen's Journal, Minutes of Federated Trades Council, May 22, 27, June 5, 1889. 75 Ibid., July 2, 1889, February 26, 1890. 76 Article by Valentine, Examiner, May 4, 1890, p. 6. 77 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners were selected by the American Federation of Labor as the organization best prepared to make the change. most active members of the Eight-hour League were metal trade workers. It was reported soon after the inauguration of the eight-hour campaign in Los Angeles that a large number of the contractors were willing to grant the reduction in hours,78 so it is evident that the change was made there without friction. Such was also the case in San Francisco and Oakland.79 Over ninety per cent. of the San Francisco contractors agreed to the reduction in hours without decrease of pay. It was reported that not more than fifty carpenters, both union and non-union, were obliged to resort to a strike to obtain their demands.80 The plumbers and gasfitters were also granted the shorter day on May 1. The brewery workmen had an organization with branches in California, Oregon, and Washington. Their hours had been very long-from ten to thirteen per day. They succeeded in enforcing a demand for a nine-hour day at this time.81 The Eight-hour League was not continued as a separate organization after the closing of the special campaign for the shorter working-day. The constitution of the Federated Trades Council was amended so that there would be a standing eighthour committee, and the work of the League was transferred to this committee.82 RENEWED EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE EIGHT-HOUR LAW ON PUBLIC WORKS. The interest in the eight-hour movement, and the strength and influence of the labor organizations, led to a renewal of the efforts to enforce the state constitution and laws which required the eight-hour day for those employed on public works. The State Labor Commissioner reported frequent violation of these laws. The contractors either boldly proclaimed that the laws did not apply to them, or hired men by the hour and by this legal fiction evaded the law.83 78 Examiner, April 7, 1889. 79 Ibid., May 2, 1890. so Ibid., May 4, 1890, p. 6. 81 Ibid., May 2, 1890, p. 2. 82 Coast Seamen's Journal, Minutes Federated Trades Council, September 17, October 1, 1890. 83 Second Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, pp. 325, 327, 339, 340. Compare with the Seventh Biennial Report of 1895-6, p. 92. An eight-hour ordinance was passed in Los Angeles which declared, "It shall be unlawful for any contractor, by himself or through another, when having labor performed under any contract with the city, to demand, receive, or contract for more than eight hours' labor in one day from any person in his employ or under his control, with the promise or understanding that such person so laboring over eight hours shall receive a sum for said day's work more than that paid for a legal day's work." But the courts refused to permit this encroachment on the freedom of contract; the law was held to be unconstitutional in the State Supreme Court. The judge quoted from Cooley the general rule that any person is at liberty to pursue any lawful calling not encroaching on the rights of others. He declared, "We cannot conceive of any theory upon which a city could be justified in making it a misdemeanor for one of its citizens to contract with another for services to be rendered, because the contract is that he shall work more than a limited number of hours per day. "'84 The San Francisco labor organizations also made a vigorous effort to secure the enforcement of the eight-hour rule in the city work. The committee from the Federated Trades Council promptly investigated the complaint that men were working nine hours per day on the City Hall, and its chairman finally reported that the City Hall Commissioners had decided that in the future all work must be on a strictly eight-hour basis.85 In his inaugural address of January, 1891, Governor Markham spoke of the complaints of the evasion of the eight-hour statute which he had received from the labor organizations. He urged upon the state legislature the need of remedying the matter, if this failure was due to any inherent defect in the law.86 In 1895-1896 there was constant complaint of the violation of the law in municipal and county work. The State Labor Commissioner followed up these charges persistently, and was 84 Ex parte Kubach, 85 Cal. 274. 85 Minutes of Federated Trades Council in Coast Seamen's Journal, March 5, July 23, 1890; October 30, August 9, 1891. 86 Inaugural Address, Appendix, Journal Senate and Assembly, 29th Sess., 1st Vol., p. 5. able in some instances to secure an observance of the law. He reports, "I have used my utmost endeavor to enforce the law, and in every instance where I have found a violation of the same I have insisted upon its being respected. In many instances contractors have immediately desisted, in other cases they have continued its violation, and disregarded my instructions, while I have been powerless to remedy the difficulty, owing to the indefinite construction of the law. "When the contracts on the public work are drawn in accordance with the law, and the stipulation that eight hours shall constitute a day's works is incorporated, the enforcement of the law is made easy, as the contractor would rather obey its provisions than take chances of having to sue for his payment upon a contract the provisions of which he has violated. . I regret exceedingly to record the fact that in some instances those who are sworn officers of the law, and entrusted with the administration of public affairs, as well as making laws, have been violators of this section."'88 AMENDMENTS TO THE EIGHT-HOUR LAW, 1899-1901. When in 1899 to 1900 the trade-unions regained their strength and influence, they hastened to make use of their new power to secure further legislation for the enforcement of the eight-hour work-day on all public improvements. In 1899 a new law was passed in the state legislature, which was an exact copy of the bill that the American Federation of Labor was then urging upon Congress. This made it unlawful for persons or corporations to require or permit any one in their employ engaged upon public work to labor more than eight hours in one day, except in case of emergency, where life or property was endangered, or in the construction of military defenses in time of war. The terms of the law were applicable to labor on any part of the public work, whether performed on the ground or elsewhere. Every contract must stipulate a penalty of ten dollars for each person for each and every day 87 They could omit this stipulation without invalidating the contract. See Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488. 88 Seventh Biennial Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, p. 92 ff. |