CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS 1 THE GIFT OF U. S. Dept. of Labor Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924000581359 S8th Congress, I HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, j Document , 3 d Session. ] ' ( No. 413. EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. REPORT BY THE HON. VICTOR ft. METCALF, SECRETARY ^DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR^ ON H. R. 4064 (EIGHT-HOUR BILL), SUBMITTED BY RESOLUTION BY THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRE- SENTATIVES, APRIL 13, 1904. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1905. MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE ON LABOR, FIFTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. JOHN J. GAKDNER, N. J., Chairman. Richard Babtholdt, Mo. Samuel W. McCall, Mass. .Edwabd B. Vkbblamd, N. Y. David J. Fosteb, Vt. Jambs F. Comnob, loTra. B. F. Sfaldins, N. Dak. Hebman p. Goebbl, Ohio. Ben F. Caldwell, III. Oeobge G. Gilbebt, Ey. John W. Maddox, Ga., WILLIAM RAND(Hi?S~HEARST, N. Y, William Hb&hes, N. J. JOHK G. Shbeve, Cleik, LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Department op Commekoe and Labob, Office of the Seoretart, Washington, January 27, 1905. Sib: In compliance with the request contained in your letter of April 13, 1904, transmitting a copy of H. R. 4064, entitled "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States, or for any Territory, or for the District of Columbia^ and for other purposes," and also a resolution of your Committee on Labor passed April 7, 1904, requesting the Sec- retary of Commerce and Labor to investigate and report upon the bill, and to state his conclusions with regard to the questions embodied in the resolution, I beg to submit herewith the results of the investiga- tion which has been conducted under the direct supervision of the Commissioner of Labor. The report consists of seven chapters, as follows: I. Introduction. II. Replies of Government contractors to questions of the resolution, in. Results under eight-hour work day at Brooklyn Navy- Yard com- pared with results under ten-hour day at Newport News, Va., m battle-ship construction. IV. Actual results of production under reduced Hours of work in various manufacturing establishments. V. Attitude of labor organizations. VI. Laws relating to hours of labor in the United States. Vn. , Changes in hours of labor in the United States. In pursuing this investigation the Department has been guided by the advice of its Solicitor as to the scope of the bill, a copy of whose opinion is incorporated in the report. From this it will be seen that there were very few industries embraced within the limitations of the bill to which inquiries could be directed. The resolution requests me to state my conclusions in regard to the questions therein presented. The diflSiculty of securing specific data for full and satisfactory anwers to the questions is clearly shown in the report. Most of the inqtunes arg in xKeii^'^^Siliure practically NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL s INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS CORNELL UNIVERSITY 4 LETTER OF TEANSMTTTAL. unanswerable in the manner called for by the resolution. Many of the responses which have been made are in the form of personal opinions from parties interested, and the facts which have been secured are not sufficiently concl usive to warrant definite expression on my part. I believe, however, your committee will obtain from the report valuable information which will be of material assistance in determining the probable effect of the proposed bill upon the industries referi'ed to and upon industries not comprehended in the resolution. A brief reference is here made to each question. 1. "What would be the additional cost to the United States of the various materials and articles which it customarily procures by con- tract, which would be governed by the limitations set out in the said bill ?" It is clearly impossible to give a definite answer to this question. Manufacturers having contracts with the Government have, in answer- ing this question, been practically unanimous in expressing the opinion that there would be an increased cost to the United States should the bill become a law, but just what the increased expense would be has not been definitely shown. On the other hand it has not been clearly proven whether or not there would be any additional cost in the manu facture of those commodities not affected by the bill. Other influences than that of the hours of daily labor so greatly affect the cost of pro- duction that it is impossible at present to ascribe any definite portion of an additional cost to the operation of such a law. No comparative figures are obtainable to show the cost of production and quantity of product per man in establishments engaged in part on Government contracts under an eight-hour day and in part under a longer day upon commercial work, as no such condition now exists. Where definite results have been given by manufacturing establishments such results are presented in tables in the report. 2. ' ' What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing inter- ests affected by the provisionsof the bill, if enacted?" This inquiry can not be ansvuered definitely for the same reasons as are stated in connection with the first inquiry. Although several manufacturers who would not be affected by the bill, should it be enacted, have given testimony that there has been no decrease in product resulting from a decrease in hours of labor, the majority giving testimony upon this point state the reverse. 3. " Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and articles to the Government under contract would continue to con- tract with the Government if such contracts were within the per emptory eight-hour limitation provided by the said bill?" This question can only be answered by the contractors themselves, and it is doubtful whether a definite reply could be given by them unless the bill were actually in operation and they were confronted by the con LETTEE OF TRANSMITTAL. 6 ditions resulting therefrom. The majority of those who have expressed opinions, which are tabulated in the report, are confident that they could not continue to contract with the Government if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation provided by the bill. 4. " What would be the effect of the enactment of said bill upon the shipbuilding industry ?" This inquiry offers the same difficulties when a reply is sought. According to the opinion of the Solicitor this indus- try would probably be the principal one affected by the bill, and it is impossible to forecast the effects of its enactment upon such establish- ments in this industry as are under contract with the United States Government or upon those establishments which are not under contract. 6. " What would be the effect of the enactment of said bill, if any, upon the export trade of the country?" This inquiry is likewise not susceptible of definite reply. The influences which affect the export trade are so far-reaching and so numerous that it would be impossible even after the most extended investigation to determine the weight which could be assigned to any one of these influences. The condition of foreign markets, as well as variations in cost of production, affects the export trade to a greater or less extent from time to time, and there are very many other influences which could be cited to show how the export trade is affected without reference to the hours of labor in this country. All of these things are too problematical to admit of any definite data applicable to an answer. 6. "Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the right to labor more than eight hours per day, if they desire to do so?" This question has already been answered by the representatives of organized labor who have appeared before the committee from time to time. As regards the desire of unorganized labor in the matter, it is doubtful whether the individual wage-workers of the country would be able to make reply to the inquiry unless they could be more definitely informed as to the respects in which they would be affected by the proposed legislation. Attempts were made to secure definite information as to the attitude of working people on the sixth question of your resolution. The results are contained in Chapter V. 7. " What efl'ect will the proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricultural interests of the country?" The same difficulties are met with in this question as with the preceding questions when a definite reply is attempted. It is apparent that the effect would be indirect in nature, but the extent to which these interests would be improved or damaged, or whether they would be affected at all, can not be stated. The agricultural interests of the country depend upon so many condi- tions — foreign nuu'kets, short crops in foreign countries, funine, 6 LETTEE OF TRANSMITTAL. weather, etc., etc., that the peculiarities involved preclude answering this question. I assure you that every effort has been made to secure definite and conclusive data, but the very nature of the questions has prevented such results. Respectfully, V. H. Metcalp, Secretom/. Hon. J. J. Gardxeb, Ohmrmcm Committee on Labor ^ House of Represeniaimea. CONTEN"TS. PBge. Chapter I.— Introduction 1 9-22 Besolution of the committee 11,12 H. E. 4064 (Eight-hour bill) 12,13 Opinion of the Solicitor of the Department aa to the scope of the bill 16-19 Schedule of inquiries 21,22 CJhapter II. — Beplies of Government contractors to questions of resolution... 23-48 Chapter III. — Results under eight-hour workday at Brooklyn Navy- Yard com- pared with results under ten-hour workday at Newport News, Ya., in battle- ship construction . . .. ........ 49-58 Labor cost 57,58 Chapter IV. — Actual repnlta of production under reduced hours of work in various manufacturing establishments 59-109 Results of reduction of hours in 47 establishments reducing hours of labor to 48 per week 69-78 Result of reduction from 53 to 48 hours per week in an English foundry and machine shop 78-81 Result of reduction from 60 to 54 hours per week by J. H. Williams & Co., Brooklyn, N. Y 82-84 Statements of manufacturers in regard to proposed legislation 84-90 Table showing results of reduction of hours of labor in establishments which have reduced hours, by establishments 92-109 Chapter V. — Attitode of labor organizations 111-113 Chapter VI -Laws relating to hours of labor in the United States 115-133 United States compiled statutes 117 Hours of labor in general employments 118-121 Hours of labor on public roads 121-124 Hours of labor on public works 124-133 Summary of laws relating to hours of labor 133 Chapter VU. — Chauges in hours of labor in the United States 135-144 7 CHAPTER L INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER 1. INTRODTJCTIOir. The investigation, the results of which appear in the present report, was undertaken by the Bureau of Labor shortly after the close of the second session of the Fifty-eighth Congress, to enable the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to comply with the request contained in the following letter of the chairman of the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives and the resolution transmitted therewith: Committee on Labob, House of Representatives, United States, Washvrvgton, D. C, April IS, 190^. Hon. George B. Cobtbltou, Secretwry of Commerce and Loibor. Sir: 1 have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of H. R. 4064, entitled "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States, or for any Territory, or for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes," together with a resolution passed by the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives, which committee has the bill under consid- eration, on April 7, 1904. The resolution, which is the immediate authority for the reference of the bill, is the best evidence of its purpose. Very truly, J. J. Gardner, Chmrmam, BESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE. Be it resolved hy the Com/mittee on Labor of the House of Represent- atives. That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor be, and he hereby is, requested to investigate and report upon the bill, now pending in said House (H. R. 4064), entitled "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States, or for any Terjitory, or for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes," hi^ said report to state his conclusions with regard to the following questions: 1. What would be the additional cost to the United States of the various materials and articles which it customarily procures by contract, which would be governed by the limitations set out in the said bill? 2. What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing interests affected by the provisions of the bill, if enacted) U 12 EIGHT HOUBS FOB LABOEEBS ON QOVEBNMENT WOBK. 3. Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and articles to the Government under contract would continue to con- tract with the Government if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation provided by the said bill? 4. What would be ttie effect of the enactment of the said bill upon the shipbuilding industry ? 5. What would be the effect of the enactment of the said bill, if any, upon the export trade of the country ? 6. Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the right to labor more than eight hours per day, if they desire to do so? 1. What effect will this proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricultural interests of the country? A report upon this bill along the lines indicated is respectfully requested at the commencement of the next session of Congress. Passed at a meeting of the Committee on Labor held Thursday, 1 April 7, 1904. ' ' J. J. Gakdneb, Chairmem. Attest: Jno. G. Shkevb, Clerk. The bill referred to in the resolution is as follows: H. R. 4064, FIB.ST SESSION, FIFTY-EIGHTH COlTaRESS. A BILL Limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States, or for any Territory, or for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. £6 it enacted iy the Senate aridHovse of Hepresentati/oes of the Uniied States of Amefrica i/n Congress assembled., That every contract here- after made to which the United States, any Territory, or the Dis- trict of Columbia is a party, and every such contract made for or on behalf of the United States, or any Territorv, or said District, which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechan- ics shall contain a provision that no laborer or mechanic doing any part of the work contemplated by the contract in the employ of the contractor or any subcontractor contracting for any part of said work contemplated shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day upon such work; and every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for each violation of such provision in such contract of five dollars for each laborer or mechanic for every calendar day in which he shall be required or permitted to labor more than eight hours upon such work; and any officer or per- son designated as inspector of the work to be performed under any such contract, or to aid in enforcing the fulfillment thereof, shall, upon observation or investigation, forthwith report to the proper officer of the United States, or of any Territory, or of the District of Columbia all violations of the provisions in this act directed to be made in every such contract, together with the names of each laborer or mechanic violating such stipulation and the day of such violation; and the amount of the penalties imposed according to the stipulation in any such contract shall be directed to be withheld by the officer or person whose duty it shall be to approve the payment of the moneys due under such contract, whether the violation of the pro- visions of such contract ia by the contractor or any subcoDtr«ct.or. EIGHT H0UR8 KOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 13 Any contractor or subcontractor aggrieved by tbe withholding of any Eenalty as liereinbefore provided shall have the right to appeal to tbe ead of the Department making the contract, or in the case of a con- tract made by the District of Columbia to the Commissioners thereof, who shall have power to review the action imposing the penalty; and from such final order whereby a contractor or subcontractor may be aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty hereinbefore provided such contractor or subcontractor may appeal to the Court of Claims, which shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter in like manner as Jn other cases before said court. ' Nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or water, or for the transmission of intelligence, or for such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to particular specifications or not, or for the purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not. The proper officer on behalf of the United States, any Territory, or the District of Columbia may waive the provisions and stipulations in this act during time of war or a time when war is imminent, or in any other case- when in the opinion of the inspector or other officer in charge any great emergency exists. No penalties shall be imposed for any violation of such provision in such contract due to any emergency caused by fire, famine, or flood, by danger to life or to property, or by other extraordinary event or condition. Nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or modify chapter three hundred and fifty-two of the laws of the Fifty -second Congress, approved August first, eighteen hundred and ninety-two. After a careful consideration of the inquiries contained in the reso- lution, it appeared clear that most of the inquiries could not be answered either wholly or in part by the statistical method, but that the information desired must be in the nature of testimony to be secured from establishments and firms from which the United States customarily procures materials and articles by contract, and which would come within the scope of the proposed bill. The heads of the various Government Departments were accordingly requested to fur- nish, at as early a date as possible, the names and addresses of all firms which were under contract to furnish materials and articles for use in their Departments during the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1903, together with the quantity and value of each kind of material or article furnished by each of said firms during that year. In the effort to comply with this request, it very soon became appar- ent that it would be necessary as a preliminary step to determine as definitely as possible the scope of the bill, and the following letter was accordingly addressed to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and by him referred to the solicitor of the Department: K Department op Commerce and Labor, Bureau op Labor, Washrngton., Jwne 9, 1904'. The honorable the Secretary op Commerce and Labor. Sir: 1 have the honorto state that I have recently had verbal inquiries from a number of the Departments which were requested in your letter 14 BIGHT HOUES FOB LABOBEBS ON GOVBENMENT WOEK. of May 24 to furnish certain data necessary to enable you to comply with a resolution of the Committee on Labor of the House of Repre- sentatives. A careful reading of the bill and of the hearings before the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Education and Labor of the United States Senate con-j vinces me that the interpretation of the scope of the bill, so far as thej materials and articles covered by the same is concerned, should be^had before these inquiries are answered. 1 have to request therefore that! 1 be furnished, at as early a date as practicable, with an interpretation; of the bill with special reference to the character of the articles andj materials covered by the same. j In order to place the matter clearly before you, it seems necessary to mention the various steps that have been taken in the matter and! the character of the inquiries which have come to me from the several Departments. The inquiry was undertaken by the Department for the purpose of complying with a resolution of the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives, transmitted to you under date of April 13, 1904, by Hon. J. J. Gardner, chairman of the committee. Copies of the letter and resolution are transmitted herewith, together with a copy of the bill. In order to secure a basis for replies to the inquiries con- tained in the resolution, a letter was mailed on May 24 to the following officers of the Government, together with a copy of the bill and of the resolution: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, Attorney-General, Postmaster-General, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Librarian of Con- gress, Interstate Commerce Commission, Civil Service Commission, and Public Printer. It was expected that there would be secured from each of the officers addressed a list of the contractors which had furnished materials and articles during the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1903, whose con- tracts would fall under the limitations of the bill. After the receipt of this information, together with data as to each kind of material or article furnished by each of said firms during the specified time, it was intended to make such inquiries of these firms as would enable the Department to reply, as far as possible, to the inquiries contained in the resolution of the Committee on Labor of the House of Representa- tives. Since the date of the letter and as a result of the inquiries made therein, a number of officers in the Departments addressed have called upon me for an interpretation of the scope of the bill. I have read the bill as well as the testimony carefully, but feel that the matter is one of such importance that it should be referred to you for such action as you may deem necessary. I have requested such officials as have made inquiry to allow the matter to rest until further notice. Inasmuch as the inquiries contained in the resolution, so far as they can be answered by an investigation into conditions in the establish- ments having contracts with the Government, apply only to those contractors who would fall under the limitations of the bill, it would seem unnecessary to have the various Departments of the Government furnish this Department with data relating to establishments which do not fall within such limitations. The biU itself specifically exempts contractors furnishing certain materials and articles. It would appear that the great bulk of the small contractors of the Government, those furnishing supplies and such materials and articles as may usually be EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 15 purchased in the open market, are not covered by the bill. It would greatly shorten the labor not only of furnishing a reply to the letter of request addressed by me to the heads of the various Departments of the Government, but also the labor of investigation by this Bureau, if it were possible to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the character of the contracts concerning which information should be sought. A study of the bill itself and of the hearings before the two committees leads to certain conclusions, which I beg to submit, simply for the pur- pose of placing the matter in a somewhat more definite form. These conclusions are as follows: The bill does not apply to contracts for — 1. Transportation by land or water. 2. The transmission of intelligence. 3. Such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to particular specifications or not. 4. The purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufac- tured to conform to particular specifications or not. The supporters and the opponents of the bill, in the hearings before the committees of Congress, appear to be in accord in the conclusion that the bill applies to — 1. Public works: (a) BuUdingSj including structural steel, stone, and other contract work entering mto the buildings. (b) Fortifications, with similar inclusions. (c) River and harbor contract work, with similar inclusions. 2. Shipbuilding, including contract and subcontract work for en- gines, machinery, and other fittings or equipment. 3. Guns and gun parts. 4. Armor plate. The exact significance of the terms "in open market" and "sup- plies" in the third and fourth excepted classes is not clear. For example, what would be comprehended under "such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market?" What would be comprehended under "supplies" in the expression "the purchase of supplies by the Government?" Would the bill, as now drawn, apply to contracts for (for example) — Powder, smokeless or other; Food for the Army or Navy; Rifles for the Army or Navy; Clothing for the Army or Navy; Mail bags; Postal cards and stamped envelopes for the Post-Office Department; Paper for money; Paper for the Government Printing Office; Packing boxes and file cases, etc., made to order? The bill does not seem to cover the subcontractor who supplies the raw material in a form usually found in the open market. But would the bill apply to the production of the iron ore, for example, which enters into the armor plate and which must be secured by the manufacturer under contract in order to get ore of the right quality for the exacting demands of the work? It would seem necessary, also, to consider the effect of the last sen- tence in the bill so far as it concerns the law of August 1, 1892. Should 16 BIGHT HOUBS FOE LABORERS ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. this sentence add nothing to that law, it would probably remove from the "artides and materials" to be covered the items of public works (a), (b), and (o) referred to above. I am not able to hnd, however, that this conclusion was reached by anyone testifying '^.^t^J'® J-^®, ^°™" mittees. On the other hand, it was suggested that it might axld to the act of August 1, 1892, the penal clause contained in the present act. The words " repeal or modify," however, contained in the last sentence of the bill, must be carefully considered in this connection. A copy of the law of August 1, 1892, is transmitted herewith. Awaiting your directions in the matter, I am, very respectfully, G. W. W. HangeE; Acting CommlssniOTher. The law of August 1, 1892, the present eight-hour law referred to in the letter above, is as follows: Section 1. The service and employment of all laborers and me- chanics who are now or may hereafter be employed by the Govern- ment of the United States, by the District of Columbia, or by any con- tractor or subcontractor upon any of the public works of the United States or of the said District of Columbia, is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlaw- ful for any officer of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia, or any such contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control the services of such laborers or mechanics to require or permit any such laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar day except in case of extra- ordinary emergency. Sec. 2. Any officer or agent of the Government of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or any contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control any laborer or mechanic employed upon any of the public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia who shall intentionally violate any pro- vision of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each and every such oflfense shall upon conviction be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction thereof. In accordance with the directions of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, the solicitor of the Department made a careful study of the bill and submitted his report in the following letter: opinion of the solicitok of the depabtisient as to the scope of the bill. Department of Commerce and Labor Office of the Solicitor, Washmgton, Jwne 22, 190^. The honorable the Secretart op Commerce and Labor: Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a letter of Act- ing Secretary Murray, under date of the lith instant, requesting my BIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 17 opinion on the scope of House bill No. 4064, entitled "A bill limiting tne hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States, or for any Territory, or for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." A careful study of the terms of this bill and of the statements and arguments made upon the several hearings before the committees to which it was referred, shows that it aflecte only those contracts which contemplate labor to be performed after the execution of the contract and in fulfillment of it. Labor performed upon, or in connection with, the subject-matter of the contract, prior to the execution of the contract, is not affected by the provisions of this bill; hence contracts made by the Government for the purchase of articles in existence do not come within the scope of the bill. But all contracts which contem- plate the performance of labor after their execution, except in so far as the bill expressly excludes them, are affected by the provisions of the bill, whether the labor be expressly required by the terms of the contract or be necessarily involved; hence, subject to the express exceptions made in the bill, the following two general classes of con- tracts ?all within the scope of the bill: First, contracts solely for the performance of labor; secondly, con- ti'acts for the sale and delivery of materials or articles, where, from the terms of the contract, or the nature of the article, or the situation of the parties, or the circumstances of the case, it is contemplated, at the time of the execution of the contract, that labor will be per- formed upon, or in connection with, the material or article, in the fulfillment of the contract. Although contracts for transportation and contracts for the transmission of intelligence are contracts for labor, they are expressly excepted from the eiglit-hour provisions. In addition to these, certain contracts which belong to the second class above mentioned, are excepted from the operation of the bill. They are "contracts for such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform to particular speci- fications or not, and contracts for the purchase of supplies by the Gov- ernment, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not." Both of these exceptions, in my opinion, are expressed in language which is vague. In case this bill becomes a law there will necessarily be a variety of interpretations made by executive officers, by contract- ors, by laborers, and by the courts until a clear and final determination has been made by the highest court of the land. My own opinion is that "such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market" embrace all articles and materials, a stock or quantity of which is usually kept on hand for sale to the public, by some person making it his business to sell such articles. By virtue of the words "whether made to conform to particular specifications or not," it seems reasonably clear that if an article or material may usually be bought in the open market a contract for such article or material is not governed by the provisions of the bill limiting work to eight hours a day, even althou^ the article or material, by the provisions of the contract, is to be made according to particular specifications. Articles and mate- rials, therefore, even although not of standard sizes, qualities, patterns, or types, would probably be within the exception and be excluded from the eight houi' provision if the same general kind of article in other H. Doc. 413, 58-3 2 18 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. sizes, qualities, patterns, or types was purchasable in the open market. There may be a point where variation from standard sizes, qualities, patterns, or types is so great as to make an article separate and distinct from any class usually found in the open market. Whether this is so must be determined in each case as it arises. It is impossible in ad- vance to make a classification of the innumerable articles purchased by the Government and say which are excepted and which are not excepted by this bill. Purchasing officers of the various departments not only have the best means of knowing what are the articles purchased by their respective departments, but also whether such articles are usually purchasable in open market, and whether or not they depart to so great an extent from articles usually kept in stock for sale that the articles contracted for may be said not to be purchasable in open market. The chairmen and members of the committees of the Senate and of the House to which the bill was referred, the advocates and the opponents of its passage, upon the various hearings, expressed conflicting views as to the proper construction of the language embodying this exception in its application to numerous articles which were mentioned. It may be proper here to say that the chairman of the Senate committee, to which the bill was referred, Senator McComas, who was the author of the language of the exceptions under consideration, declared that in his opinion 95 per cent of the articles purchased by the Government were excepted from the eight hour provision of the bill. Personally I can lay down no more specific rule than that heretofore stated by me, leaving its application to those having to do with the cases as they arise. The fourth exception in the bill is "contracts for the purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufactured according to par- ticular specifications or not." The word "supplies" is one which is used with a great deal of latitude. Its definitions vary from the com- prehensive ones given in Webster's Dictionary and in the Standard Dictionary, viz, "that which supplies a want," "that which is or can be supplied; available aggregate of things needed or demanded," down through various limitations to the extremely narrow meanings given to it as used in appropriation bills where legislative provision for one class of articles nas caused a general provision for "supplies" to be held not to include articles mentioned in other places in the bill which would, however, ordinarily fall within the tei'm. This uncertainty in the use of the word "supplies," like the vagueness of the expression "such materials as may usually be bought in open market," in my opinion, makes it vitally necessary that the bill should be amended and more specific language used. Uncertainty as to the scope of these exceptions will doubtless result in contractors increasing tne amounts of their bids or refraining from bidding. If they bid under the impres- sion that the contract which is sought by them is within the exception, it may thereafter be determined that it is not within the exception, and, in such event, great loss would result to them. The definitions of the word " supplies," given in the dictionaries which I have just cited, should not be adopted in the construction of this bill. To do so would be to nullify its provisions in toto. Further- more, those definitions, in my opinion, give the primary rather than the ordinary or even the le^al meaning of the word. On the other hand, I think there is no justification for giving the word the narrow meaning frequently given to it in the various appropriation bills. It EIGHT H0UE8 FOE LABOREBS ON QOVEBNMENT WOEK. 19 should be given that meaning which it has long enjoyed in the general statutes of the Government relating to supplies. The word " supplies," as used in section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, has been construed by Second Comptroller Maynard and by Comptroller Trace- well (o Comp. Dec. 65), as having reference to " those things which the well-known needs of the public service will from time to time require in its different branches for its successful and efficient admin- istration." Without considering how accurate that definition was as the word is used in section 3709, 1 am of the opinion that the word "supplies," as used in the bill under consideration, relates to articles which are provided to meet well known, customary and usual needs of the public service, as distinguished from exceptional or special needs. To a very large extent the idea of consumption or of destruction by use as distinguished from permanency of duration, and the consequent necessity of frequent renewal and of annual provision, is involved. Supplies ordinarily are incidentals. Furthermore, the woi'd includes personalty but not realty. Public buildings, public works, public vessels, and all unusual purchases would not be within the meaning of the word "supplies." This last statement is not to be construed as implying that all other articles not mentioned in it constitute supplies. Doubtless many other articles than those mentioned would not be sup- plies, but it would be impossible to enumerate them in advance. I return the papers submitted to me inclosed in the letter of the Acting Secretary of the 14th instant. fiespectfully, W. M. Collibb, Solicitor. it should be stated in this connection that the Solicitor of the Department supplemented the report made in the above letter by a verbal statement to the effect that, according to his interpretation of the last sentence in the bill, the contracts falling within the scope of the law of August 1, 1892, would not be affected in any way by the proposed bill, but would continue to be governed by the provisions of that law. It appears clear from the opinion of the Solicitor as given above, that the proposed bill H. R. 4064 covers a comparatively limited field, the most important industries affected being those of shipbuilding and iron and steel. A copy of the Solicitor's opinion was transmitted to the heads of the various Departments of the Government, and lists were furnished the Bureau of Labor by each, containing the names of such contractors as would fall within the scope of the bill, together with the quantity and value of the various articles and materials fur- nished by each during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903. After eliminating from these lists a number of establishments whose con- tracts amounted to but a small sum, inquiry was made both by the special agents of the Bureau and by letter, each contractor being requested to furnish the Bureau with a statement which would in effect be a reply to the inquiries contained in the resolution of the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives. Replies were received 20 EIGHT HOURS FOK LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. from a considerable number of important firms, and these will be found, together with a summary of their contents, in Chapter II of the report. Very early in the investigation, however, it became apparent that the replies to the inquiries contained in the resolution would be entirely in the naiture of testimony, and would add but little to the expressions of opinion which have been made before the committee for several years and which are contained in their reports. It was, therefore, deemed necessary to secure, if possible, some more definite statements based upon actual experience. In order to secure data of this char- acter, it was decided first to make an effort to ascertain the results secured under the eight-hour day and under the ten-hour day in the construction of the twin battle ships Louisicma and Connecbicwb. The Cormectwut is being constructed in the Brooklyn Navy- Yard by the United States Government under the eight-hour day, while the Louisi- ana is being constructed by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Newport News, Va., under the ten-hour day. The results of this investigation appear in Chapter III of this report. It was further determined to ascertain, if possible, the results as regards cost of manufacture and quantity of product per employee, before and after the reduction of hours, in establishments in various industries in which a reduction of hours had taken place within the past two or three years. It was at first determined to limit this inquiry to establishments which at the present time were operating under the eight-hour day, but these were found to be so small in number, com- paratively, and confined to so few industries, that it was thought best to extend the investigation to such establishments as had reduced their hours of labor to nine during recent years, as indicated above. While it was clear this inquiry would not furnish information strictly in line ^vith the resolution of the House committee, inasmuch as the establish- ments covered were not such as would come under the limitations of the proposed bill, it was thought that facts based upon actual experi- ence and upon a careful keeping of cost figures or upon a general familiarity with the business, from establishments in various industries, ^vbile not conclusive as regards the effects of the adoption of an eight- hour day, would, perhaps, add to the value of the report. The follow- ing schedule of inquiries was submitted to such establishments of the character mentioned above as could be reached by the Bureau, and the results of the inquiry will be found in Chapter IV of this report: EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOBEEB ON GOVEENMENT WOEK. 21 SCHEDULE OF XNaXTIBIES. 1. Name of establishment? . 2. Locality? ;-. 3. Name and official title of person furnishing this information? 4. Articles manufactured or work done? . 5. Average number of employees? 6. Working hours per day ? . Per week? . 7. When did above working hours first go into effect in this estab- lishment? , 8. Working hours immediately previous to the adoption of the above schedule — per day? . Per week? . 9. In reducing the working hours as above, what reduction or change, if any, was made in me dcdly wages? . 10. What change, if any, in the cost of manufacture resulted from the reduction of hours (state increase or decrease in the form of a percentage) ? . 11. Is this statement in regard to cost of manufacture based upon a careful keeping of cost figures, both before and after the change in hours, or upon a general familiarity with the business? 12. What are the periods covered by the above comparison — before change? . After change? . 13. How does the quality of product since the reduction of hours compare with that before the reduction? . 14. How does the quantity of product per employee since the reduc- tion of hours compare with that before the reduction (state increase or decrease in the form of a percentage) ? . 15. If less, has it been necessary to increase the days of running time during the year? . Or the number of employees? 16. Were the changes in cost of manufacture, or quality or quantity of product, since the reduction of hours, due wholly or in any Eart to any changes other than the above-mentioned changes in ours and daily wages ? . 17. If so, give full particulars? . 18. Does this establishment do any work or manufacture any articles for the United States or any Territory or the District of Colum- bia under contract or subcontract? . 19. Specify what? . 20. If so, what per cent was such work of the total work or product of the establishment during the last year? ; what per cent of all the work or product of that particular kind? . 21. What per cent of the product of this establishment, if any, waa exported during the past year? . In order to secure information with reference to question 6 of the resolution, inquiry was made, very early in the investigation, of the heads of the principal national labor organizations of the United States whose membership would be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed bill. The results of this inquiry will be found in Chap- ter V of the report. 22 BIGHT HOUBS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. It was thought desirable, also, to include in the report a compila- tion of the laws relating to hours of labor in the various States and in the United States. This compilation, followed by a summary of these laws, will be found in Chapter VI of the report. Further information contained in the report relates to the hours of labor for a long' series of years in a number of important industries of the country, and the results of strikes for a reduction of hours each year from 1881 to 1900, inclusive, as shown in the Sixteenth Annual Report of this Bureau. These data appear in Chapter VII of the report. CHAPTER IL REPLIES OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS TO QUESTIONS OF RESOLUTIOIT. 23 CHAPTEK II. REPLIES OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS TO aUESTIONS OF RESOLUTION. Aa has already been explained, those contractors holding contracts with the Government of such a nature as to seem to come within the scope of the pending bill were requested to make replies, as definite as possible, to the inquiries contained in the resolution of the com- mittee. These replies are in the form of letters, which were brought forth in most cases as the result of personal visits to the establishments concerned "by special agents of the Bureau. The opinions are pre- sented in tabular form in the table on the following page. The letters are also printed in full. It seems proper to state in this connection that the written answers to the questions of the House committee resolution and the answers to the schedule questions in the form of figures do not convey an adequate idea of the earnestness and unanimity of the opposition of all classes of manufacturers to the proposed compulsory eight-hour law, as expressed during personal interviews. Discussing the effect on the shipbuilding industry, which would be affected by the bill more than any other, a New York shipbuilder stated that " the eight-hour day in the Brooklyn Navy -Yard has done more to destroy the ship- building and repairing industry in New York than anything that ever happened." The president of a New Jersey shipbuilding company said that "the industry was in a most depressed condition and the compulsory shortening of the hours would finish it." The fact that a very large proportion of shipbuilding establishments (not including those of the industrial combination) had failed this year was quoted as a proof of this. Not a few manufacturers, while opposed to legislative enactments reducing hours of labor, welcomed the general tendency toward a shorter workday in a gradual way by mutual agreement, but thought that it should follow and not attempt to precede improvements in machinery and methods of production; that successful managers of men and machinery, who can combine high rates of wages with low labor cost, without strikes and without restriction of output, were rare, and that wherever restriction of output existed it was a bar to success- ful management and postponed the coming of the shorter workday. 26 26 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. OPINIONS OP GOVERNMENT CONTEACTOBS, EXPRESSED IN ANSWER TO INQUIRIES CONTAINED IN RESOLUTION H. R. 40M, OP THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. [The letters from which this statement Is made are given on pages 28 to 48.] Es- Industry. Would there be addi- tional cost to the United States for con- tracts? Would the manufactur- ing interests of the coun- try be— Would the , agricultural interests of the country be— Would Gov- ern- ment con- tractors con- tinue to con- tract for Gov- ern- ment work? Would the eightrhour day- Are labors era of the coun- wifl- Ing to bere- Btrlct- edt» the eighth hour day? In tab- llsh- ment num- ber. Dam- aged? Bene- fited? Dam- aged? Bene- fited? Be det- rimen. talto the ship- build- ing in- dustry? De. crease the ex- port trade of the United States? fa- vor of the bill. Locomotives Lithographing and printing. Lithographing and printing. Lithographing and printing. Lithographing and printing. Lithographing and printing. Ordnance supplies. . Ordnance supplies. . Ordnance supplies. . Ordnance supplies . . Ordnance supplies. . Ordnance supplies. . Ordnance supplies. . Ordnance supplies. . Position finders Shipbuilding Shipbuilding Shipbuilding Shipbuilding....:.. Shipbuilding Shipbuilding Shipbuilding Shirts, collars, and cuSs. Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yea... Yea... Yes... Yes Yes.. No.... No.... No.... (6) No.... (•) No.... e) No.... No.... No.... (i a e ,k J No.... IS (<■) Yea... C) («) {' a (o a (" (" Yes... i- Yes... J"' - Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... («) Yes... Yes... C) Yes... C) (<■) C) Yes... (■" (a (a No.... J") Yes... Yes... Yes... Yes... ySL. Fi CO No... No... No... («) («) C) No... 41. No... No... No... ilo!.. No... No... No 2 Yes.. Yes.. (a) No. Yes.. No 4 Yea C) («) («) Yes.. (a) (a) No 6 Yes.. No 6 Yes.. No 7 Yes Nn g Yes.. Yea.. a a a a No 9 No... ^l 10 Yes.. 11 Yes.. No 12 Yes.. No. 13 Yes . No. 14 Yes.. m Yes.. S No 16 Yes.. No. 16 Yes . No. 17 Yea.. (a) Yes.. (<-) No, 18 Yes.. No 19 Yes 1 e a a No 20 Yes.. No 21 Yea.. No 22 Yea.. No 23 Yes.. {«) No 24 Yes.. No a Not answered. A Could not contract for Government work except at greatly increaaed rate. "Probably could not continue to contract for Government work. dDo not know, but see no reason why it would not be detrimental. « Not clearly answered. /Manufacturers whose output is less than 60 per cent Government work would abandon Govern- ment contracts. V In many cases laborers would object. A Best class of manufacturers would not. < Would give up Government contracts or else do Government work eiclnalvely. J Only to a limited extent. As will be seen from an examination of the table, statements were made by 7 establishments engaged in shipbuilding for the Government, 8 furnishing ordnance supplies, 5 lithographing and printing establish- ments, 1 locomotive establishment, 1 establishment furnishing stone, 1 establishment making position finders, and 1 shirt, collar, and cuff factory, or 24 establishments in all. With regard to cost to the United States of materials and articles customarily procured by contract, which would be governed by the EIGHT HOTJES FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 27 limitations set out in the bill limiting working hours to 8 per day, the 24 contractors were unanimous in the opinion that the cost would be greater under the bill than at present. With one exception, the contractors were united in the opinion that the manufacturing interests of the country would be damaged by the bill, if enacted. One contracting company, the Ellicott Machine Com- pany, expressed the opinion that no damage would be done to manu- facturers as a whole. Only seven of the contractors ventured to express an opinion in regard to the effect of the enactment of the bill upon the agricultural interests of the country. The opinion of Mr. Alba B. Johnson, of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, is an example of the view of this aspect of the question which seems to be held by a considerable number of manufacturers. He says: "We are of the opinion that the effect of the proposed bill would be unfavorable to the agricultural interests because it would make it difficult for those interests to secure labor. Were we to compel laborers on Government work to limit their hours as proposed, it would constitute an important step toward a similar general reduction of hours. The prevalence of such hours would mean a reduction of 20 per cent in the effective labor of the country." As to whether Government contractors would continue to contract for Government work, if the contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation of the bill, the opinions of the contractors may be summarized substantially as follows, the contractors in some cases confining their replies to their own work, in other cases making the replies general: OPINIONS OF CONTRACTORS AS TO ACTION OF CONTRACTORS [TNDER BILL. Number express- ing opin- ion. Would not continue to conlract with Government Would give up Government worJc, or do that exclusively If Government work less than 50 per cent of output, would give up Government contracts. Would contract only at greatly increased rates Would contract only to limited extent Best of manufacturers would not contract Reply not clear No reply Total 13 i. 1 2 1 2 2 2 24 To the question as to whether the eight-hour day, as set forth in the bill, would be detrimental to the shipbuilding industry, the six con- tracting companies in that industry answering the question believed that it would be detrimental. As to the effect upon the export trade of the country, all contractors making reply were of the opinion that a decrease in trade would result. 28 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOEBKS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. No one of the 24 contractors was found to be in favor of the pro- posed bill. Copies of the letters referred to, giving the statements of the 24 contractors having contracts with the Government of the character apparently intended to be covered by the provisions of th& pending bill, are set forth in the following pages— the originals have been retained for the files of the Department. Alba B. Johnson, member of firm of BambBm, Williami * Co. (Baldwin liocomotive WotIib), Philadelphia, Fa. The firm of Burnham, Williams & Co. operates the Baldwin Loco- motive Works, situated in the city of Philadelphia and is engaged in the manufacture of steam, electric, and compressed air locomotives and electric trucks. The average number of men employed in these works during the year 1903 was 14,711. This amount was divided into two shifts, a day force and a night force, each working sixty hours per week. The day force works six days of ten hours each, and the night force five days of twelve hours each. These hours of labor have been employed for at least twenty -five years; therefore, we are unable to furnish any statistics as to difference in cost of manufacture following changes in hours of labor. This establishment does a considerable amount of work for the United States Government in the construction of locomotives required for the various departments of its public work. The number of locomotives exported during the past ten years has varied from 10 to 55 per cent of the entire production. We reply to the specific inquiries submitted to us as follows: 1. What would be the additional cost to the United States of the vari- ous materials and articles which it customarily procures by contract, which would be governed by the limitations set out in the said bill? We are of the opinion that it would advance the cost of locomotives from 25 to 30 per cent. 2. What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing inter- ests affected by me provisions of the bill if enacted? Were work to be taken in conjunction with ordinary work in an establishment conducted like ours it would cause confusion and addi- tional cost. • 3. Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and articles to the Government under contract would continue to con- tract with the Government if such contracts were within the peremp- tory eight-hour limitation provided by the said bill ? The practical effect of these difficulties would be that it would be undesirable for us to tender for Government contracts. 5. What would be the effect of the enactment of the said bill, if any, upon the export trade of the country? The effect of the proposed bill would be to destroy the export trade of the country by rendering the conditions of labor and cost of same more onerous than in competitive countries. 6; Are the laborers of tne country, organized and unorganized, who would be affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the right to labor more than eight hours per day if they desire to do so? EIGHT HOURS FOB LAB0EEE8 ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. 29 In OUT opinion the laborers of the country, and especially the great mass of unorganized laborers, consisting of about 80 per cent of the effective labor of the country, do not desire the passage of this bill, but desire to retain the full rights and privileges guaranteed to them under the free government and for which their ancestors fought in 1776. 7. What effect will this proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricultural interests of the country? We are of the opinion that the effect of the proposed bill would be unfavorable to the agricultural interests, because it would make it difficult for those interests to secure labor. Were we to compel laborers on Government work to limit their hours as proposed it would constitute an important step toward a similar general reduction of hours. The prevalence of such hours would mean a reduction of 20 per cent in the effective labor of the country. From every point of view we can not regard the effects of such a bill as being other than injurious to Capital and labor alike. Bobert M. Donaldson, vice-piesident American lithograpliic Company, New Tork, N. T. We will endeavor to put before you our opinion of the bill intro- duced in the House of Representatives (H. R. 4064) by answering your queries in so far as the work we are engaged in has any bearing: 1. What would be the additional cost to the United States of the various materials and articles which it customarily procures by con- tract, which would be governed by the limitations set out in the said bill? Our industry works fifty-three hours per week; if the forty-eight hour week obtained that would mean an increase in wages of 9.06 per cent. The wages paid in manufacture on a business of 2i million dol- lars amounted to $825,000; therefore the decrease in hours would work an increase in cost of $75,000. There could not possibly be the same amount of work turned out in a forty-eight hour week as in a fifty-three hour week, for the reason that machinery is now speeded to its utmost limit and could not be run faster. You will note that we have not made any computation on what the additional cost would be upon the materials which entered into our manufacture, but it would be very safe to say that this would work an additional cost to the Government of at least 9 per cent. 2. What damage, if anjf, would be done to the manufacturing inter- ests affected by the provisions of the bill, if enacted? As the margin of profit in the industry does not recompense capital for its investment, the reduction in hours would wipe out all margin of profit that the industrj' has. 3. Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and articles to the Government under contract would continue to con- tract with the Government if such contracts were within the peremp- tory eight-hour limitation provided by the said bill? We certainly would never bid for, ask, or accept any Government work if, as we understand the bill, the fact of our doing Government work would compel us to work our establishment only eight hours per day. It would be impracticable to have two sets of men, one working on Government work and one on our own work, for this would surely 30 EIGHT HOUBS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. incite bad feeling and trouble among those who were working fifty- three hours per week. 6. Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the right to labor more than eight hours per day, if they desire to do so ? Unorganized labor would certainly never consent to have their earn- ing capacity curtailed by saying that they should not work more than eight hours per day when they had an opportunity to do so and when in the performance of that work there would be no injury to health. In our opinion among organized labor there would be very few who would be willing to subscribe to a law which would deprive them of the right to work overtime and thereby earn more money. The marvelous growth in wealth of the country has been made by free labor — that is, every laboring man has had the opportunity to the free use of his abilities, either mental or physical, or both, and the continued prosperity of the country and the ability to export manu- factures, and the further development of the great resources of the country are still dependent upon tne right of the laboring man to work as many hours as his health will permit. Bill H. E. 4064 says that no man shall work more than eight hours per day on Government work and no overtime should be permitted. This is most inadvisable, and will cost the Government very much more for such products as they use. The bill should be defeated, for this is the entering wedge, and if it were once conceded by the Gov- ernment then there would be a constant agitation to establish the same state of affairs throughout the entire industries of the country, which would certainly result in our not being able to compete with foreign industries. 0. D. Gray, president Oray Lithographic Company, New York, N. T. 1. The additional cost to the United States on any work that we might do for them on the basis of the hours of labor being reduced to eight hours would be from 16 to 18 per cent. One hour per day taken out of our present nine-hour day (two hours of which are consumed in getting ready to perform the labor) would mean one hour's time lost out of what remained of the day for producing results and returns to the house. 2. The damage that would be done to our»particular trade would be that a large part of it, through costing 16 to 18 per cent additional, would be replaced by cheaper substitutes for our product, the amount of our annual business would in consequence be reduced, and the number of persons we could regularly employ would be greatly reduced. 3. We would not continue to contract for the Government if the Gov- ernment contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation. 5. The lower rates of wages paid in foriegn countries would make our product, owing to the increased cost, so much higher that all of our export trade would be immediately stopped. 6. The best class of workmen would not willingly give up their right to labor more than eight hours per day. Our contact with labor shows that the laboring man with additional hours of leisure would look upon any such additional hours' time as a means of increas- EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 31 ing outgo and reducing income. Leisure time, the men say, suggests means of whiling away that time in doing which their daily expenses are added to. 7. In our opinion, the proposed legislation will have a most unfor- tunate effect upon the agricultural interests of the country, for it will bring before the farmer and the farm hand in stronger contrast than now the very great difference between the number of hours worked in the country — in the agricultural districts — and the much shorter hours worked by the general laborer in the manufacturing districts. E. 0. Cockayne, president The Eeliotype Fiinting Company, Boston, Mass. Should the bill regulating the hours of labor become law we hardly see how we could continue to contract for Government work exce'pt at an enormously increased rate, as not only should we have to cover the actual difference in cost of production of work executed for the Gov- ernment, but should be compelled to add the additional difference of cost on all of the other work that we might produce for other parties, as it would be impossible for us to otherwise compete for business in an open market. It seems to us that the damage to the manufacturing interests would be incalculable, and would open the door to innumerable opportunities to fraud. (") Jnlins Bien ft Company, lithograplieTS, engravers, and publishers, New Tork, N. T. The printing department is that on which our results are principally dependent, and we therefore have taken it as an illustration of the effect on our operations of an eight-hour law as before the Committee on Labor of the House of Kepresentatives. Our printing machines are gauged to run at a fixed speed per hour, according to the character of work in process of printing, and the pressman operating such a machine is no factor in the item of speed. The wages paid vary according to the size of a machine, but for pur- poses of illustration we will take as a unit the wages paid to a press- man and assistants at $10 per day. The speed is also variable, accord- ing to the particular mechanical construction of various printing presses, but we take for purposes of illustration the speea of TOO impressions per hour. Our hours of labor being fifty-three per week, or approximately nine hours per day, the result of a day's labor on a machine with cor- responding wages paid for operating the same under the two systems would be as follows: Speed per hour. Product per day. Wages per day. 9-hour day. , 8-hour day. . 700 700 6,300 B,600 $10 10 A comparison of these figures shows that under an eight-hour day the cost in wages of printing would be increased by about 11 per cent. This percentage of increase could not be reduced, as the various items of expense in the conduct of the business would remain the same under either sj^stem. <• Thirty-three per cent of product of this eBtablishment during the last year was Government work. 32 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. It is obvious, therefore, that we would be compelled to increase our bids to the Government in all cases by the increase in cost of produc- tion to us. Our business with the Government, however, being but a portion of our manufacture, not only would this branch be affected by a change of system, but all our other work would be increased in cost in the same proportion. As our work for the Goverment or for private establishments is printed by the same force of men and interchanged from one machine to another, it would be impossible to have two scales of hours of labor for the two lines. The general work in our business being undertaken by manufactur- ers on an average net margin of profit of less than the percentage of increase in cost as pointed out above, we would be placed in a position of being unable to produce at a price at which other manufacturers in our line not engaged in Government contracts, could accept work at a profit. As a consequence of these conditions, we would either be compelled to abandon all Government contracts, or to continue our genei'al work under a system that would entail a constant loss. Sackett & Wilhelma Lithographing and Printing Company, New Tork, N. T. If H. K. 4064 entitled "A bill limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the Uuited States or for any Territory, or for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes," should pass and become a law it wUl seriously affect the lithographic industry and especially our establishment. We are largely engaged in executing work for various departments of the United States Government and at present have contracts for the Gov- ernment Printing Oflice and for the United States Patent Office, amounting to several hundred thousand dollars. The work week of the men engaged in Executing the work connected with these Government contracts is fifty-three hours, and if we were obliged, in consequence of the passage of this resolution, to reduce the work week to forty-eight hours, the cost would correspondingly be increased on all Government contracts; but, apart from this work it would naturally affect our entire output in the same manner, as we could not separate the Government work from that of the private cus- tomers of our company. This same condition would apply to all litho- graphic establishmente engaged in Government work, and the passage of this resolution would necessitate a complete change in all of these establishments and consequent higher prices to the United States Gov- ernment as well as to the private customers. It would probably make a difference of about 10 per cent in actual cost, owing to the fact that very expensive machinery would, instead of being operated nine hours per day , only be in operation eight hours, and therefore largely increase the fixed charges of the estabfishment, apart from the increased cost of production, owing to the reduction of nours. We believe it is fair to assume that the additional cost to the United States for the work performed in our line would amount to not less than 10 and possibly 16 per cent. It would injure our industry very seriously, because we can not afford, in view of foreign competition, to reduce hours. It would become a matter of doubt as to whether we would continue to contract with the Government if we were BIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 33 obliged to secure such contracts on the peremptory eight-hour limi- tation. It is no answer to our contention to say that we might run two shifts of men and so make up for lost time on expensive machinery. The trade is organized on a basis of one shift of men. The woris requires a high degree of skill and training, and the supply of skilled men is not sufficient to supply the present demand. It would take years to train enough apprentices to supply an extra shift of men. EnildeTB' Iron Fotrndry, founders and machiniBta, Providence, B. I. («) 1. We believe it would greatly increase the cost; how much we can not estimate. It would certainly limit competition. (See 3.) 2. We believe this can be best answered also by 3. 3. We do not believe manufacturers can afford to work eight hours on Government work, because it would be impossible to prevent the damaging effect which would result to other parts of their works. It would not be possible to run any one department at eight hours and not very soon have all other departments running the same length of time. Having once established these hours it would be exceedingly difficult to return to former schedules, even if a concern should give up Government work. For this reason we believe very few first-class manufacturers would bid on Government work if required to do it absolutely within eight hours. This would certainly be the stand that we ourselves should take. We regard the probable result of the eight-hour requirement as extremely damaging to manufacturing in general. 4. We have no means of judging this, but see no reason why such a change would not affect the shipbuilding industry much as we believe it would affect our own. 5. A change such as suggested would tend to shorten the hours in all trades, with consequent increase in cost. This would undoubtedly injuriously affect the export trade. 6. We believe that no good workman interested in his work is will- ing to be deprived of his right to work as he pleases. In places where very short hours prevail it is quite customary for men to seek outside employment for that part of the day not spent in their shops. 7. It seems to us the indirect effect would be bad. In general, we believe no arbitrary fixing of hours in manufacturing establishments should be made, since the old days when hours were unduly long have undoubtedly passed for good, and in these times the general tendency is toward a shortening of the hours of labor, made possible by improvements in machines" and methods of production. We believe that the hours of labor will undoubtedly become less, but that the change should be gradual and that it should properly follow these improvements, rather than take place as the result of an arbitrary decision by Congress. Al&ed I. Dn Font, vice-president E. I. Dn Pont Company, powder, etc., Wilmington, Del. The passage and enforcement of this bill would increase the cost of manufacturing powder, and necessarily the selling price. To peremp- torily establish the eight-hour limitation, denying the right to labor "This establishment has a contract with the Government for making gun carriages. H. Doc. 413, 58-3—3 34 EIGHT HOTTES FOR LABOREBS ON GOVERNMENI WORK. more than eight hours a day, would necessitate reorganizing a system in operation for more than one hundred years. In thus disorganizing our working forces it would create dissatisfaction among employees, prove a great and unnecessary expense, requiring the use of two or three shifts of men where one is now required, increasing beyond estimation the extreme hazard to human life and property. As a rule, powder employees are not organized. The limited number employed precludes the possibility of either a strong or successful union. Dis- sensions do not exist, harmony prevails. As applying to this com- pany, to invite a condition that could bring only trouble, with seemingly no element of profit thereby, would indeed be an unfortunate and, in my opinion, an ill-advised move. I also present a letter from Mr. H. M. Barksdale, who is in charge of the manufacture of high explosives, giving an expression of his opinion as to the effect of such a law upon that branch of manufacture. I have been unable to get a written opinion from Mr. Baldwin, in charge of the smokeless powder department operations, owing to his rather unexpected departure for the West. However, during a short conversation with him, I was informed that in his opinion such restric- tions as proposed would result in considerable disorganization, and on the whole his general views seemed to be identical with those expressed by Mr. Barksdale and myself. In closing I beg to solicit the careful consideration of your Depart- ment of our views, as herein expressed, and aside from a manufacturing standpoint would call attention to the wisdom of a social policy favor- ing the utmost freedom of the employee as well as the employer to operate his trade or calling, and if the purpose of the law can be con- strued to hamper or restrict that freedom this spirit must clearly mili- tate against the laborer in the exercise of his labor, which is his property and the privilege of contracting or marketing his property < rights. ^ We are stronjrly opposed to this measure and sincerely hope that the committee now having the bill under consideration will refuse to report it. H. VL. Barksdale, in charge of mannfactnre of high explosives, E. I. Sn Font Company, Wilmington, Del. Referring to our conversation of yesterday relative to effect upon the manufacture of high explosives if the proposed national legisla- tion relative to the eight-hour day goes into effect, I beg to say fliat I have given this matter consideration, not only at the present time but upon former occasions and am very clearly of the opinion that there would be serious objections to this adoption. The complications such a law would introduce are many because we could not confine the eight- hour day to the manufacture of goods intended for the Government, since such discrimination would be totally impracticable, and we there- fore have to consider from the standpoint of its general application. You understand, of course, the necessities by which all careful explosive manufacturers must govern themselves in the direction of minimizing to the utmost the particular risks incident to the business, wliich. necessitates the subdivision of operations and their isolation one from the other. You also appreciate that during the many years we have been engaged in this business our experience has led us to EIGHT HOUKS FOE LAB0EEB8 ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 35 the adoption of certain units of capacity or volume of operation in each department and in each building of the several departments. Knowing this, you can readily understand the many complications which would arise if we had to change the scope of operations in the different buildings, but I would like particularly to call attention to three important features which, in my opinion, are entitled to most careful consideration. 1. If we have to lessen the number of working hours, it is self- evident that we must increase the number of men, and we all know that one of the greatest difficulties that a careful manufacturer of explosives has to contend with is the observance of due care on the part of each individual operative, and we also all know how difficult it is to secure careful, competent, and conscientious men, and, therefore, the more we have to employ the more difficult it is to get the necessary number of pi'oper men. Again it is an indisputable fact that every employee in an explosive factory introduces an individual risk, and therefore just to the extent that the number of operatives are increased are the risks due to individual error, oversight, or carelessness increased, and it is to this feature, which not only affects the manufacturer but also directly affects the employees, I would like to call particular attention. 2. It requires no argument to make clear that an increase in the number of men woula inevitably lead to an increase in the cost of production, as well as an increase in the risks of explosions. 3. The men are entirely satisfied with the present working hours, and, therefore, to lessen these hours would mean making a change for which neither the necessity nor the desire is apparent, but which, on the other hand, would inevitably subject the employees themselves to greater risks, and the manufacturer to greater losses and heavier costs. Why, therefore, should a step be forced upon us which would upset existing methods for conducting manufacturing operations alread3' sufficiently difficult of careful and successful direction and control, which step is neither desired nor asked for by either employer or employee, and which will impose upon both an increase in the risks and difficulties which are inherent to this particular industry? C. E. Ellicott, Ellicott KacUne Company, Baltimore, Md. {") Referring to H. R. 4064 and to the resolution of the Committee on Labor, April 7, 1904: Question 1. I think the average increase in cost would be 10 per cent or more. i* Question 2. None to manufacturers as a whole. ' Question 3. Such manufacturers as now furnish about 60 per cent of their output to the Government would abandon commercial business and confine their whole product to the Government. Other manufac- turers who are now doing business with the Government to the extent of about 50 per cent of their product or less would abandon Govern- ment work. Question 4. I do not know. Question 5. I do not know. Question 6. I think most of them are. Question 7. I do not know. "This establiahmeut has a contract with the Government for making ammunition hoists. 36 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. AnBtiB A. Wheelock, vice-president Firth-Sterliiig Steel Company, crncible tool steel and armor-piercing projectiles, Fittsbnrg, Fa. We manufacture crucible tool steel and armor-piercing projectiles for the Departments of the Government of the United States and for general merchandise trade. The general operations, from melting in crucible furnaces, through forging under steam hammers and in rolls, to finishing in lathes, etc., are maintained by complete piecework system, and the earlier operations can not be made to come within eight hours' working time. The operations are continuous through twenty-four hours and have been established for years on a tonnage basis which covers roughly a double turn, night and day for each cal- endar day except Saturday night and Sunday day and night. Since Government work is done by the same man, and practically at the same time as is merchant work, and since the merchant work per se is greatly in excess of the Government work, it follows that a law to limit the hours of daily service to eight hours under penalties would entail said penalties being estimated and being added to the sell- ing price of material sold to the Government. This proceeding might | be recognized by the Departments of the Government as a constant factor, and could be expressly stated in bidding as a separate item like a royalty or rebate, but would not be very acceptable to a Gov- ernment Department, since its result would be to decrease the avail- able appropriation by Congress to that Department and deflect certain portions of said fund.s to purposes and funds not contemplated in said appropriations. We answer to the seven questions seriatim as follows: 1. The additional cost to the Government would be the difference between our estimate of possible penalties to cover possible contin- ' gencies and the actual penalties we would have to pay. 2. The damage to our manufacturing interests would certainly be marked and might amount to our having to give up Government work | on account of the complexities introduced by such a bill. I 3. Yes, provisionally as indicated in answer two. 6. We have always given our men, where possible, the option of working three shifts of eight hours instead of two shifts of twelve hours, and the decision in every case is in favor of the longer hours | and higher pay. If the same pay were offered for eight hours as for ten or twelve hours no doubt it would be gladly accepted by the workman, but this additional expense would have to be borne by the consumers. In conclusion, we would urge the extreme inconvenience, delays, uncertainties, and expense as serious objections to the passage of such a bill. M. L. Sperry, secretary Scoville Manufacturing Company, Waterbnry, Conn, (<>) In accordance with your request, we reply to the list of questions pertaining to House bill No. 4064: 1. We are unable to.estimate the additional cost to the United States. 2. We are unable to estimate the amount of damage which the pro- posed law would do to manufacturing interests. "This establiahment has a contract with the Government for making steel shrapnel shells. EIGHT HOUES FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 37 3. Many manufacturers would probably refuse to furnish material under contract with the Government, if such material came within the scope of the proposed law. 5. We do not see that the bill, drawn to affect only contracts for furnishing material to the Government of the United States, could have any effect upon the export trade of the country. 6. The bill proposes to prevent a laborer from working more than eight hours per day, when employed upon work for the Government of the United States. It does not attempt to regulate the wages which shall be paid to the employee aforesaid, and the employer would nat- urally pay the same price per hour for eight hours that he would per hour for ten hours. The wages of the employee would therefore be curtailed, and in our opinion he would object ,to the curtailment. Many workmen would undoubtedly question the constitutional right of the United States to interfere with their freedom of cotitract, and would certainly object to having that freedom interfered with. F, T. Glasgow, anpermtendent Tredegar Iron Works, Biclimoiid, Va, («) The enactment of the bill in question would increase the cost of such articles as the United States is accustomed to purchase by contract and would damage the manufacturing interests to what extent, in either case, we have no means of estimating. Many of the manufacturers would not bid if contracts were subject to provisions of this bill. In many cases laborers would object to such restrictions. We inclose such answer as we can make in Schedule B. L. 33, which seems to apply to shops in which there has been a reduction in the hours of labor. D, Hunt, jr., general sales manager The Warner & Swasey Company, Cleveland, Ohio. (&) We have for some time past been contractors to the War Depart- ment for some of their highest class of work, namely, the manufacture of gun sights, etc. We have also contracted to the United States Government on machine tools. Now, in our own shops we have very little trouble with labor. For several months we have been buying electric current with which to run certain of our machines at night, as the Government has been in urgent need of our goods. We find that everything has been very satisfactory, not only to the Government and ourselves but also to our workmen. The men who were doing this work on a ten-hour basis being very reliable we offered them their choice of working regu- lar ten hours per day or twelve hours per night, and they chose the latter, much to our satisfaction, for they have been so reliable as to work faithfully without supervision, and the amount of work they have accomplished each night was such that they were proud of the result next morning. Our regular hours of work are ten hours per day, except Saturday, which we take as a hstli holiday the year round. Our men are all paid by the hour, as this is absolutely necessary in a manufacturing establishment like ours, manufacturing such a variety "Thia establishment has a contract with the Government for making cast-iron Bhot. ^ This establishment has a contract with the Government for maMng gun sights and range finders. 38 EIGHT HOUBS FOR LABORERS ON aOVERNMENT WORK. of goods. We do not consider there is any such thing as the so oft- quoted statement of " ten hours' pay for eight hours' work," for every manufacturer must necessarily pay for the work performed, and m many kinds of labor this must be paid for on an hour basis. A"f act that is very frequently forgotten by some manufacturers and a great many fair-minded men is that all of the large manufacturing establishments of the United States have based their investments in plant, building, and machinery on the basis of output of a given num- ber of men at ten hours per day. Thus their plant and equipment would have to be greatly increased in order to obtain the same ratio at eight hours per day to their investment as they did at ten hours. In our particular line of gun sights, range finders, and astronomical instruments, which call for very high-priced equipment, this would greatly increase the' cost to the United States Government for the reason that we would have to have an increased equipment which would stand idle at such times when not manufacturing Government contracts. Of course, when all these tools are idle and not producing it has to be charged up at a loss to ourselves. The expense of main- taining our plant, equipment — in fact, all administrator and running expenses would reniain the same whether we manufactured on a ten or eight-hour basis, yet at the same pay per hour (to say nothing of ten hours' pay for eight hours' work) our production would decrease 20 per cent. If the bill is enacted we believe that it would greatly damage the manufacturing interests, and the highest class of manufacturers would be unable or unwilling to bid upon materials and articles for the Gov- ernment under any such condition. Their price would be excessive over that which they would sell regular customers, and to accept Gov- ernment contracts would mean that they would have to lose their regular business, as the additional cost on eight hours would prevent them from competing with such firms as did not bid to the Government. We believe that the enactment of this bill would ruin the shipbuild- ing industry as well as the export trade of our country. We believe that the majority of the laborers in this country are a very intelligent and high-class part of our citizens, and they do not desire, either organized or unorganized, if not coerced, to have any such bill passed. It takes away their personal liberty and prevents them from selling their labor, which is their capital, at the best price they can obtain. The eflPect of this proposed legislation if carried out would work great hardship in the agricultural interests, as they are large consumers of the mechanic's production. 7. H. Stillmau, The Watsou-Stillmaii Company, Aldene, If. J-i") Concerning the continuance of contracts direct with the Government in case the eight-hour peremptory laws become law, we would say that in our own case we believe we should have to decline to make bids direct to the Government and rely upon furnishing any work required by the Government through the supply trade, making it prerequisite to placing the order on our books that we should not be officially informed that the work was required for the Government. This would oThia establishment has a contract with the Government for making apparatus for loading heavy eheUa. EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 39 be exceedingly unsatisfactory and would increase risks, which would have to be aaded into the prices given, and, I believe, would result in an increase cost of not less than 20 per cent. It would be impossible for us, where Government work which was not of standard character would not exceed 5 per cent, to attempt to have a part of our force working on an eight-hour day and the balance on a fifty-four hour per week hasis. In our shops our working day on four days in the week is a ten -hour day, so that even though we were doing the work, it would reduce the working week to a forty-five hour week instead of a fifty -four, thereby increasing the wage not less than 25 per cent, and as the overhead expense and machine shop running, at least approximates from 50 to 60 per cent of the wage bill, even in case of the fifty -four hour week. In case of a forty-three-hour week it would increase fully 100 per cent, and would therefore bring the cost of work done on Government con- tracts about 50 per cent. In machine shops properly run where thtj machinist is more a machine attendant than physical laborer it is out of the question to consider increased production per hour by reason of working a shorter day, and there is absolutely no reason why the ten- hour day should be exhausting to the average machinist. Anything which tends to increase the cost of the labor on material used in manufacturing machinery which can be exported will aflfect the export trade, as costs in this country must be reduced to hold the trade in the metal lines which we now have. This can only be done by the introduction of new machinery of improved type or by the reduc- tion of the rate of wages paid upon it, providing the older types of machinery are retained. Concerning question 6, I would say that in my experience we have found that our men were very glad to get the opportunity of increas- ing their income by overtime work. W. L. £. Eenffel, snperintendent Keaffel & Usser Company, mathematical inBtrnments, etc., Hoboken, H. X(a) Regarding the eight-hour day, we would say that, in our opinion, if it should become a law, the enormous additional cost to the Govern- ment of the various articles which it customarily procures by contract would be nothing as compared to the damage it would do to the manu- facturing interests of the country. Various establishments in our line of business now manufacturing articles for the Government, as well as for the domestic and export trade, are running their planfs at no less than fifty -four hours per week. None of tliem are dependent upon orders from the Govern- ment alone. Should the forty -eight-hour bill be passed it would be necessary for them either to run their plants forty-eight hours per week, which would debar them from competing with other concerns for the domestic and export trade, or they would have to have such hands working on Government jobs on the forty-eight hour and the other hands on the fifty -four or more hour basis, and this would be a practical impos- sibility. Should all establishments in this line agree to work on the forty- "This establishment lias a contract with the Guveniment for making position finders. 40 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOBERS ON GOVERKMEKT WORK. eight-hour basis they would open a field for foreign competition which no amount of special machinery, American ingenuity, or protective tariff could prevent. The only alternative would be to discontinue taking contracts from the Government and depend on the local and export trade alone._ That would certainly be the course which would be pursuedby this com- pany, as we would rather lose the, say, 20 per cent (which is the approx- imate per cent of our output on Government contracts), lay off the men employed on such work, and depend on our domestic and export trade exclusively. C. F. Cowdrey, of C. H. Oowdrey Machine Works, machinists, Fitchbnrg, Mass. (a) We inclose answers to the inquiries in regard to eight-hour bill for Government contractors, and we beg to state we are greatly opposed to same, for the following reasons: If there would be a Federal law enacted, limiting the hours of work on Government contracts, it can readily be seen that we would have to operate a part of our plant on a different schedule of hours from the remainder of the plant, which would raise complications with our employees at once. If there could be enacted a law that eight hours would constitute a working day for all employees, we would heartily consent to same. John S. Hyde, vice-president and general manager, Bath Iron Works, shipbuilders, Bath, Me. (6) I herewith hand you my views on the questions. on which you desire an answer. 1 have numbered the questions in accordance with the numbers of the paragraphs of H. R. 4060, resolution of the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives. 1. What would be the additional cost to the United States of the various materials and articles which it customarily procures by con- tract which would be governed by the limitation set out in said bill? These works operate ten hours per day. If the bill in question should pass and become effective, we would be compelled to work eight hours per day. Either one of two things would happen. The employees would have to be content with the same pay per nour they are now getting, which on a change from ten to eight hours would reduce their weekly wage 20 per cent; and the same conditions would obtain as if the Government should pass a bill that on and after a cer- tain date a dollar would be worth 80 cents. Besides losing 20 per cent in wage their producing power would be lessened in the same amount, with the inevitable result of a correspond- ing increase of some of the necessities of life which the laboring man would be obliged to purchase. That the laboring man would tamely submit without an increase of pay is not to be supposable, hence the other alternative. Therefore the result must of necessity be an added cost of production and an added price of product. In our business it may be stated roughly that 50 per cent of the cost of our product is labor. Therefore, even supposing that we could procure material at "It was reported that one-third of the product of this establishment durine the last year was Government work. 6 It was reported that 95 per cent of the product of this establishment durine the last year was Government work. EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 41 the same rates, which is not believable, the increased cost of our product would be 10 per cent should the men's wages remain the same per week as now. This increased cost would, of course, come out of the purchaser, and that purchaser is the United States Government. Even supposing for one moment that employees, in consideration of the Government's beneficent action in limiting their hours of work under penalty would submit to the same wage per hour they are now receiving, the cost of the product would still be considerably increased by the fact that the entire manufacturers' overhead or indirect charges must be apportioned or charged to 80 per cent of the present product. It is a fact, which can be verified at the Navy Department, that the cruisers Cinoinnati and Haldgh^ built at the New York and Norfolk navy-yards, cost (without overhead charges) 50 per cent more than the proposals received from private contractors at the time bids were opened by the Navy Department for these vessels. This is largely due to the fact that the Navy Department works eight hours, while contractors work ten. During the winter months it is necessary for this company to shorten the hours of outdoor workers during the shorter days of winter. The following facts show the results: During short days, or from October 1, 1903, to March 1, 1904, from the official Government reports, the battle ship Georgia, building by this company, advanced 11.6 per cent, or 2.32 per cent per month. During the seven months from March 1, 1904, to October 1, 1904, when the length of the day permitted working full time of ten hours, from the official Government reports, the Georgia advanced 17.7 per cent, or 2.53 per cent per month. This difference obtained through the shorter working hours, in spite of the fact that less than 50 per cent of the workmen were outdoor workers, and therefore came under the shorter time rule. This, to my mind, effectually disproves the fallacy often advanced by labor leaders that a man will do as much in nine hours as he will in ten. In my opinion, this broad statement is absolutely untrue, particularly in our business, where the most of the work is done by machinery; and it is, of course, absurd that any machine will do as much in nine hours as it will in ten, and of course in eight hours it will do even less. 2. What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing inter- ests affected by the provisions of the bill, if enacted? The passage of the measure would force the contractor to one of two alternatives. He would either have to give up Government work alto- gether or devote himself entirely to Government work and take no other, for the reason that it is obviously impossible to run any manu- facturing plant eight hours per day on one class of work and ten hours per day on another. I am not sure whether or not the bill would be mandatory on contracts already placed, which, of course, were esti- mated upon at ten hours per day. If the bill should so act, a large loss would fall upon any contractor who has already secured contract work for the Government. 3. Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and articles to the Government under contract would continue to con- tract with the Government if such contracts were within the peremptory eight- hour limit provided by the said bill. As stated in answer to the preceding question, the contractor would have to decide whether he should devote himself entirely to Govern- 42 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOBERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. ment work or entirely to merchant work. The effect of the bill would be, therefore, to lessen the number of plants available for Government work, as some would undoubtedly refuse further to do Government work. 4. What would be the effect of the enactment of said bill upon the shipbuilding industry ? As you are aware, the shipbuilding industry is one of the very few in this country which is not protected. It will occur to you, on first thought, that this is not a true statement, as the United States laws are such that no one can sail a vessel under the American flag unless she has ,been built in this country. These laws, however, provide no market for the shipbuilders' products except the coastwise lines, as no man can afford to sail a vessel under the American flag which must of necessitj' cost more through higher cost of material used in shipbuild- ing and of higher wages and higher standard of living of the workmen than obtains in any other country, and as the high seas are open to the commerce of the world, such commerce must of necessity be carried on the cheapest bottoms which are most cheaply operated, and those are certainly not American ones. 6. What would be the effect of the enactment of said bill, if any, upon the export trade of the country ? As I understand it, in order to export any article it is necessary for the manufacturer thereof to equal or beat the foreigner's price deliv- ered at the buyer's destination, and any legislation which would directly or indirectly increase the cost of the manufactured product must of necessity increase the difficulty of meeting foreign competition in for- eign markets. 6. Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the right to labor more than eight hours per day if they desire to do so? To the above question I answer an emphatic negative. It is a fact that employees are constantly asking the foreman for a chance to work overtime in order to increase their cash receipts. During the winter months it is necessary for this company to shorten the hours of out- door workers where artificial light is not procurable. It is also true that outdoor workers lose a good deal of time through stormy weather. Outdoor workei'S are constantly applying to me and other officials of the company to be transferred to indoor work, where they will not lose so much time and will be able to get more wages through working moi'e hours. These are facts which must be the experience of everyone in like business. When work is short here I am continually asked by the employees to sign an application to enable them to secure a position in one of the United States navy-yards where work obtains eight hours per day. These conditions only obtain when work is short here, and when we are again in need of men, these same people leave their navy-yard job and come back to us. It hardly seems from this as if among our employees, at least, there is any widespread desire for paternal action on the Government's part. In fact, I know it to be a fact that a very large majority of them are opposed to the proposed legislation, and particularly that which expressly forbids working overtime which every man feels is his constitutional right if he feels so to do. ' EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORE. 43 I have further to say that I have never, in my experience, known a woi'kman to refuse to work overtime, and have known numberless instances wl\,ere the workmen have requested the right to work overtime. 7. What effect will this proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricultural interests of the country? It seems to me that the agricultural interests are considerably affected by the purchasing power of their customers, and the large majority of their customers are working people; and if the purchas- ing power of the working people is lessened, through lessened income, the agriculturalists must suffer in some degree. I have written at some length on this matter, as we feel strongly on the subject. This bill is uncalled for, and adds to the already neavy burdens of the shipbuilder who is trying to do business under the diffi- culties of a limited demand for his product, high prices of his highly protected raw materials and the higher wages of his employees over wages abroad in like trades. I firmly believe that this proposed bill is unconstitutional, that its passage will increase the cost to the Government, and greatly delay the delivery of all its supplies, that it will act to the injury of the very people it is designed to help, i. e. , the working people, that no reason- able interest is subserved by its passage, and that such a measure is entirely outside the province and proper limitation of legislative action. John J. Amory, president Oai Euginei and Power Company, and Charles Ii. Seabnry & Co., Consolidated, shipbuilders, Morris Heights, New York City. 1. Cost to the United States would be very materially increased; first, because of the extra cost of the labor, 25 per cent where con- tractors are working ten hours at present; second, because of the large eliminating of competitors. 2. Damage beyond any estimating, unless one can reckon the result of a temporary but complete demoralization of labor, or until a read- justment of long-existing scale be effected. 3. It is extremely doubtful, at least until eight hours' work would become general, or unless manufacturers be satisfied to do Govern- ment work solely. It would be quite impossible to have harmony in a manufacturing establishment where one gang of men worked eight hours, and another nine or ten hours, even if compensation be equal- ized, which, in itself, would be of doubtful feasibility. 4. A very serious injury, if it is possible to injure an industry already crippled almost beyond repair by competition and labor- union troubles. 5. A serious handicap for all manufactured products not protected by patents. 6. This question touches the keynote of the whole situation. Any interference with personal rights of American citizens will not be long tolerated without breeding trouble. In prosperous times, when the demand for labor exceeds the supply, and the average laborer can sat- isfy his wants by the compensation for eight hours or less of labor, no one would be likely to object, but when times are hard and work scarce, no law will long stand which prohibits a man from earning more by working more hours. Custom in this country has made ten hours the rate, and custom can no doubt make it eight, but the serious question is, what will happen meanwhile. 44 EIGHT H0TJE8 FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 7, Agricultural interests are already in difficulty with the obtainingr of labor to plant and harvest crops. It is impossible to conceive that a change of this kind will not be added trouble. Do Conrcy May, president Hew York Shipbuilding Company, Camden, H. J. 1. The additional cost to the United States would be directly in the proportion of 10 to 8, or the cost would be increased just one and one- fourth times, owing to shortening the hours of labor. 2. The damage to the manufacturing interests would be very great. It would be a direct loss, due to the shortening of the hours— i.e., less output and more money paid for it, and, in addition, all the fixed charges would remain the same with the smaller output; insurance, deterioration, interest on plant, all being unchanged there is no doubt the cost would be increased in a greater proportion than that actually caused by the decrease in the number of working hours, and the smaller output in consequence of it. 3. It is impossible to state, of course, what manuf actui'ers would do. Some of them doubtless would furnish articles to the Govern- ment and hope to evade the law, but if any honest manufacturer makes a contract with the Government and obeys the law to the letter, every article which is made for him by the subcontractor has to be done under the eight-hour law, and this, of course, would be impossible, and the better class of contractors would not contract with the Government. 4. The effect of the enactment of this bill on the shipbuilding indus- try would be most disastrous. This industry is in a most depressed condition, and the conapulsory shortening of the hours of labor would practically finish it. 1 do not think there is much desire to shorten the hours of labor among the employees of the shipbuilding concerns. The difficulty is going to be that the hours will be shortened, from the lack of work, whether they like it or not. It is very evident that, in a shipbuilding establishment, work could not be carried on for the Government on an eight-hour basis and the merchant work on a ten- hour basis. If this was insisted upon, it would result in the abandon- ment of Government work in the better class of shipyards, unless the price was sufficiently high to compensate the shipbuilder for the loss on account of shortening the hours of labor. 6. The enactment of this bill would, of course, affect the export trade of the country to a certain extent. The articles that are manu- factured would cost more money, and it would be more difficult for us to compete in other countries with foreign manufacturers. 6. We can not answer this question. We do not know whether labor is willing to have a law passed which prevents them from work- ing any number of hours they choose to work. I should think the ordinary American mechanic would most decidedly like to reserve to himself the right to work just as many hours per day as he sees fit. 7. We dp not know that this proposed legislation will have any effect on the agricultural interests of the country. WaUace Downey, president Townsend-Downey Shipbuilding Company, Hew York, H. Y. 1. What would be the additional cost to the United States of the various materials and articles which it customarily procures by con- tract which would be governed by the liiuifcations set out in the said bill? BIGHT HOgRS FOR LABOBBBS ON GOVERNMENT WOBK. 45 Answer. Approximately 20 per cent, made up by additional labor cost and overhead charges. Delay in progress approximately 10 per cent. 2. What damage, if any, would be done to manufacturing interests affected by the provisions of the bill if enacted ? Answer. Damage to manufacturing interests would accrue to what- ever extent proposed eight-hour legislation would promote the enforce- ment prematurely by workmen of a general eight-hour workday, and to the extent that it would debar manufacturers from participating in Government work. 3. Whether manufacturers who have heretofore furnished materials and articles to the Government under contract would continue the con- tract with the Government if such contracts were within the peremp- tory eight-hour limitation provided by said bill? Answer. A legal eight-hour limitation on Government contracts would, to a considerable extent, debar manufacturers from submitting tenders. i. What would the effect of the enactment of the said bill be upon the shipbuilding industry ? Answer. Where shipbuilders were performing Government con- tracts, if wages remain the same, it would add approximately 20 per cent to costs and delay progress considerably. 5. What would be the effect of the bill, if any, upon the export trade of the country 1 Answer. Assuming that such legislation would entail ultimately a general eight-hour work day, it would affect exports to whatever extent our manufacturers come in real and close competition with goods manufactured in other countries having longer work days and lower wages. 6. Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the right to labor more than eight nours per day if they desire to do so? Answer. I believe that all honest, intelligent, and industrious me- chanics would prefer to work under conditions^ established by neces- sity and circumstances of trade. In general, I believe it better policy that Government manufacturing should follow and conform to custom developed and established by necessity and circumstances of general industry. Legislation establish- ing arbitrary limits will necessarily cause and foster strife in attempts to conform to conditions which may be for economic reasons practically impossible in many industries. V. H. Fletcher, of W. ft A. Fletoher Company, shipbuilderB, Hoboken, N. J. We are opposed to the passage of this bill, first, because we believe it is wrong and unconstitutional, in that it limits the amount of pro- duction of both the employee and employer. In other words, it limits the earning capacity of the individual. We further protest against its enactment on the ground that it would be a serious disturbance to business in our particular line in that it would produce disorganization in any plant where Government work is being produced, owing to the impossibility of working a por- tion of the employees on Government work one set of hours and another portion of the employees on general commercial work another i6 EIGHT HOTJBS FOE LAB0BEB8 ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. set of hours, which we believe is an impossibility and likely to call for an abandonment of one class of work or the other. We object to the law in that it discriminates against one class of citizens in favor of another wherein it provides "that nothing in this act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or water, or for the transmission of intelligence or for such materials or articles as may be usually bought in the open market, whether made to conform to particular specifications or not, or for the purchase of supplies by the Government, whether manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not." If it is right that the Government should prohibit those of its citi- zens who make a contract with it, and those of its citizens who are employees of the party making such contract, from earning or pro- ducing more than can be accomplished within a limited number of hours per day, it is certainly unjust to accord to other of its citizens the privilege of earning a larger amount in an unlimited time whether the goods produced can be obtained in the open market or not, or whether made to conform to particular specifications or not. We object to the bill not because it directly affects us at the present time, but should we so desire, if the bill became a law, it would pro- hibit our contracting for Government work unless we abandoned com- mercial work, for the reasons above stated. If it is right for the Government to limit the earning capacity and the output of the workman who works on a Government vessel, it is only right and proper that a limit should be put upon the tailor who cuts the cloth or the woman who sews the uniforms used by the Army or Navy, and so the argument may be carried on to the smallest article purchased or used by the Government. We object to the law because it is an interference on the part of the Government in the private establishments of its citizens, which, if enacted, would cause great injury to the shipbuilding interests. The above letter is accompanied by statistical statements relative to the construction department of the establishment in which the hours of labor were reduced from fifty-nine to fifty -three per week, and to the outside repair department in which the hours of labor were reduced from fifty-four to forty-eight per week. Each of these state- ments shows that the same wages were paid for the shorter day as were formerly paid for the longer day; that the cost of manufacture was increased 12 per cent by the reduction, and that the quantity of product per man per day was reduced " exactly in the proportion that the reduced hours bear to the hours previously worked." The quality of the product remained the same. The increase in cost of manufacture of 12 per cent is in part accounted for in the statement that "the output of the plant was proportionately reduced; therefore the percentage of operating expenses for amount of work produced was increased, and while such conditions may have been met by employing more men, the size of the plant would not admit of increased number of tools; also the difficulty of obtaining an increased number of skilled men must be considered." EIGHT HOURS FOB LAB0EEE8 ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 47 H. T. Scott, chairman, TTnion Iron Works, ehipbuilders, San Francisco, Cal. At the present time we are not engaged in any work that comes within the provisions of the eight-hour bill now pending in Congress, but should we take new contracts we would come under the provisions of same provided the contracts were awarded after said bill had passed. A year and a half ago we reduced the time from ten hours per day to nine hours per day, paying the same wages as for the ten-hour day. To the questions of H. R. 4064 I beg to answer as follows: 1. "What would be the additional cost to the United States of the various materials and articles which it customarily procures by con- tract which would be governed by the limitations set out in the said bill?" Increase of 12i per cent. 2. "What damage, if any, would be done to the manufacturing interests affected by the provisions of the bill, if enacted?" Would increase the cost of production, so that any establishment performing work for the Government would be prevented from taking outside contracts on account of the increased cost. 3. " Whether manuf acturei's who have heretofore furnished materials and articles to the Government under contract , would continue to contract with the Government if such contracts were within the peremptory eight-hour limitation provided by the said bill?" The manufacturers would have to decide whether they would do Government work alone or do no Government work whatever and look to other customers. Both Government and outside work could not be carried on together under said bill. 4. "What would be the effect of the enactment of the said bill upon the shipbuilding industry?" It would retard the shipbuilding industry very seriously. 6. "Are the laborers of the country, organized and unorganized, who would be affected by the proposed legislation, willing to have taken away from them the right to labor more than eight hours per day, if they desire to do so ?" If put to public vote I hardly think the laborers would desire to have their right to labor more than eight hours per day taken away. If left to the walking delegates, they would. 7. "What effect will this proposed legislation have, if any, upon the agricultural interests of the country?" If put into effect, it would increase the cost of all machinery used in the agricultural industry all over the country, and thereby decrease the profits, which even now are none too large. Robert Clnett, president CInett, Feabody & Company, shirts, collars, and cuffs, Troy, If. T. The enactment of such a measure would in all probability result in a similar law being passed by each of the different States, so that the eight-hour rule would not only be made to apply to Government work, but State work also. The next step would be an attempt to make eight hours a legal day's work for those not employed by the Government or State. The result of this would be disastrous, for it would not be possible for employees to earn as much in eight hours as they are now earning in ten, and a general reduction in wages would naturally follow. This reduction of 48 EIGHT HO0ES FOR LAJJORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. the earning power would mean in a multitude of cases actual privation, while in others comforts now Enjoyed would necessarily be denied. Such a law would be an injustice to the industries of this country, and would no doubt seriously embarrass many who are large employ- ers of labor. In many lines of manufacturing it is not only diflBcult, but practically impossible, to secure a sufficient number of skilled workers to meet the demands of production even on a basis of ten hours' work a day. Such a condition of things would also necessitate larger plants for producing the same amount of work now produced. This would increase the cost of production and necessitate reducing wages or advancing prices, either of which would be a hardship to a large mass of consumers. In nearly every branch of industry there are those who work on the piece system, as well as those who work by the day. While those who work without the aid of machinery might in a shorter day, by extra effort, accomplish as much as in a longer day, those who work after machines or by the aid of machinery can only produce a given amount within an hour, the machines not being capable of a higher rate of speed. Hence, the earnings for eight hours could not possibly be equivalent to those of ten hours. To make eight hours the legal limit of a day's work would be a great injustice to a great number of employees who are not only able and willing to work ten hours, but must do so in order to bring their earn- ings up to their actual necessities. OBcar F. Barrett, Barrett Line, stone, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1. That the cost of material that we have been furnishing the Gov- ernment, such as stone for bank protection and levee work, would be increased fully 50 per cent for the reason that all the labor working on this work being limited to eight hours per day would necessarily mean that the labor on other work would have to be paid the same, and as we could not increase the cost to other consumers in competi- tion with ten-hour labor, the additional cost on all material furnished the Government would have to be paid the additional cost to all the work supplied. The same conditions apply to our shipyard at Levanna, Ohio, where we do fully 50 per cent of the work there for the Government engineers on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. 2. It is our impression that if this bill is passed it will be the f greatest hardship to the manufacturing industry that has ever been egislated. 3. As manufacturers and Government contractors we would either have to have double amount of money that we now get for work for supplying the Government or not bid at all for the above reasons. 4. The enactment of the bill, I believe, would be a bad enactment, and that would kill the shipbuilding industry in this country, as with the increased expense, we could not compete with foreign works. 6. Our workmen, both skilled and unskilled, object seriously to passage of an eight-hour bill, as they are satisfied as it now stands. We trust that the bill will be defeated. CHAPTER IIL RESULTS UNDER EIGHT-HOUR WORKDAY AT BROOKLYN NAVY-YARD COMPARED WITH RESULTS UNDER TEN- HOUR WORKDAY AT NEWPORT NEWS, VA., IN BATTLE-SHIP CONSTRUCTION. H. Doc. 413, 58-3- CHAPTER III. RESULTS UNDER EIGHT-HOUR WORKDAY AT BROOKLYN NAVY- YARD COMPARED WITH RESULTS UNDER TEN-HOUR WORKDAY AT NEWPORT NEWS, VA., IN BATTLE-SHIP CONSTRUCTION. Under the act of Congress approved July 1, 1902, two first-class battle ships were authorized to be constructed. The following extract from the act will explain their character: That for the purpose of further increasing the naval establishment of the United States, the President is hereby authorized to have con- structed * * * two first-class battle ships carrying the heaviest armor and most powerful ordnance for vessels of their class upon a trial displacement of not more than sixteen thousand tons, and to have the highest practicable speed and great radius of action, and to cost, exclusive of armor and armament, not exceeding four million two hun- dred and twelve thousand dollars each. * * * Provided^ That the Secretary of the Navy shall build one of the battle ships authorized by this act in such navy-yard as he may designate. The Secretary of the Navy is hereby instructed to keep an accurate account of the cost of inspection and construction of vessels provided for in this act, whether built in Government yards or by contract, and report thereon to Congress, at each session, the progress of work and cost thereof, including the inspection of all the material going into the construction of said vessels, and, upon the completion thereof, to report a full and detailed statement showing the relative cost of inspection and construction in Government yards and by contract. The Secretary of the Navy directed that of these two ships the battle ship Connecticut should be built at the United States navy-yard, Brooklyn, N. Y. The Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, of Newport News, Va., had been awarded the contract for the building of the sister battle ship, the Louidoma. The dimensions and specifications for both battle ships are identical in all their parts. The purpose of the act of Congress in having one ship built in a pri- vate yard where a ten-hour workday prevailed, and one in a Govern- ment navy-yard where an eight-hour workday was in force, was to enable comparisons to be made of time and cost. Through the courtesy of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, and the naval constructors at the navy-yard, Brook- lyn, N. Y. , acting under the authority of the Secretary of the Navy (such authorization having been obtained through the Commissioner of 51 52 EIGHT HOUBS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. Labor and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor), it is possible to compare ( he results of the eight-hour and ten-hour workdays at the respective yards. The Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company expressed its willingness to comply with the wishes of the Department. The naval constructors at Brooklyn gave assurances that they would aflFord every facility for the compilation of the comparative data. The woik of a contract-built battle ship consists of the building of the hull, the machinery, certain equipment work, such as electric plant, interior means of communication, etc. , fitting in place heavy armor plate fur- nished by the Government and the installation of the ordnance, together with furnishing and installing certain parts of the outfit, etc. It was determined by the Newport News officials that the building of the hull afforded the best and most available basis of comparison, and they courteously agreed to compile the weights of the structural material worked into the hull and the aggregate hours of all labor employed on the items of hull construction specified by them. That the navy -yard officials might be enabled to prepare a similar compilation of weights of structural material used and the aggregate hours of all labor employed, the Newport News officials furnished from their printed classification record the following detailed specifications of all work done and charged in their classification No. Ill to the battle ship Louisiana. U. S. S. LOUISIANA. CLASSIFICATION NO. Ill, INCLUDING THE FOL- LOWING ITEMS OF LABOR AND MATERIAL. STKUCTUKAL HULL, BTEEL AND IBON. All transverse and longitudinal framing, including stem, stern post and stuffing box, stern frame, horizontal ram plate, breast hooks and panting stringers. All bulkheads, transverse and longitudinal, water-tight and non- water-tight, including splinter bulkheads, but no sheet steel or joiner bulkheads. Cutting holes in bulkheads for doors is chaTgeable to this number. All shell plating, liners, doublings, straps, moldings, fenders. All deck plating, beams and carlings, including protective deck, and beam stanchions. Cutting holes in decks for hatches is chargeable to this number. All inner bottom plating, margin plates, doublings, straps and liners. All deck houses, hammock berthmgs, bridges, metal chart houses, pilot houses, light towers, skid beams, and platforms around conning towers. All bilge and docking keels, including wood filling, creosoting, manhole and cover plates. Internal hatch coamings, ventilator and ash-hoist trunks with coam- ings. All boiler foundations, engine foundations and bearii^ seatings, shaft tubes and struts, shaft alley, foundations for condensers, blow- ers, pumps, etc., brackets for piping joints, passages and tunnels for EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOBERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 53 piping and wiring, fire and engine room passages and air locks, pump pockets, etc. Foundation for steering engine, hull ventilation fans, boat cranes, winches, ice machine, and other hull auxiliaries. Coaling trunks, isolated bunkers, such as hanging bunkers, air cas- ing wherever built of heavy plating, etc. Framing, backing, and support for interior armor, including trans- verse or diagonal armor, barbette backing, conning tower support, support for turret tracks, etc. Gun foundations and wood filling, gun sponsons, ammunition hoist trunks, with heavy plating, and sponsons and trunks. Chain locker, windlass house, communication room. Cofferdams (but not cellulose). All pickling for the foregoing. On July 15, 1902, fourteen days after the act of Congress was approved providing for these battle ships, the Bureau of Construction and Repair of the Navy Department issued speciiScand detailed instructions to the navy-yard at Brooklyn, providing for the material and labor accounts of the battle ship Connecticut, and subdividing the execution of the work into a number of specific job orders, in which the work to be done under each was clearly defined. This detailed record and a card system enabled the naval constructor and accounting department at the navy- yard to classify readily and accurately the items specified in the New- port News classification. No. Ill, for the Louisiana, with the same 'items for the Connecticut. In this report no other factor is considered than the productive ability of two bodies of men, directed by their respective superintendents, doing exactly the same kind 6t work, using exactly the same kind of material and the same kind of tools. It is practically all hand work, as the output of automatic machines with their speed limitations in production per hour does not enter into this work. Special attention is called to this latter condition. The following table shows the occu- pations and percentages of work done on the hull of the Louisiana: PKE CENT OF TOTAL HOURS OF WOKK DONE BY EACH OCCUPATION. Occupation. Per cent of total hours worked. Occupation. Per cent of total hours worked. lUvetersand helpers ■ 47. C3 20.93 10.64 6.93 6.45 6.39 1,15 ,49 .13 Machinists and helpers 0.09 Fitters and helpers Plumbers and helpers . 09 ,06 ,02 .01 Angleamitha and helpers Outfitters (») Total 100,00 ilnlinitesimal. The aggregate hours of all persons employed in working into the battle ship the structural material of the hull, with the weights of such material, make up the complete record. 54 EIGHT HOURS FOR LAB0EEE8 ON GOVERNMENT WORK. The keel of the Louisiama was laid February 7, 1903. She was launched August 27, 1 904. On the day of the launching the percentage of hull work completed was 54.5. The keel of the Oonnectieut was laid March 10, 1903. She was launched September 29, 1904. On the day of the launching the per- centage of hull work completed was 53.59. The rapidity with which the work has been carried on can probably best be noted by the following comparison between the elapsed time from laying of keel to launching of all our existing first-class battle ships and that of the Louisiana and the Oormecticut. The table indi- cates that in elapsed time the work of the Newport News Company on the Lamsiana, with far greater tonnage displacement, surpasses that of all others, with the Gormectioui two days behind. DAYS OF ELAPSED TIME PROM LAYING OF KEEL TO LAUNCHING IN BUILDING OP riRST-CLASS BATTLE SHIPS. First-class battle ships. Date of laying of keel. Date of launching. Elapsed time, days. Displace- ment tons. Oiegou Indiana Massachusetts . Iowa Wisconsin Eearsarge Kentucky Alabama Illinois Missouri Maine Ohio Rhode Island . New Jersey Georgia Virginia Louisiana Connecticut . . Nov. May June Aug. Feb. June June Dee. Feb. Feb. Feb. Apr. May Apr. Aug. May Feb. Mar. 19,1891 7,1891 25, 1891 5,1893 9,1897 30, 1896 30, 1896 1,1896 10,1897 7,1900 15,1899 22,1899 1, 1902 2,1902 31,1901 21,1902 7,1903 10, 1903 Oct. Feb. June Mai. Nov. Mar. Mar. May Oct. Dec. July May May Nov. Oct. Apr. Aug. Sept. 26,1893 28,1893 10,1893 28,1896 26,1898 24,1898 24,1898 18,1898 4,1898 28,1901 27,1901 18,1901 17,1904 10,1904 11,1904 6,1904 27,1904 29,1904 706 662 716 966 664 632 632 >533 60O 755 746 951 1,135 684 668 670 10,242 10,288 10,288 n,m 11, 5M n,m 11,540 U,565 11,5% 12,240 12,300 12,608 14,932 14,948 14,948 14,948 16,000 16,000 a The Alabama was launched in 533 days, but her tonnage was 11,565 as against the 16,000 tons of the Louisiana and Connecticut. The total weight of the hull complete and the weight of the various parts of each ship finished ready for commission are shown in the following table: WEIGHT OF COMPLETED BATTLE SHIPS CONNECTICUT LOUISIANA. Hull complete, Bteel and wood Hull fittings Protection , Steam engineering Reserve feed water Ordnance Equipment Outfit and stores , '. Coal Maigin AND Tons. 6,352.09 755.45 3,991.95 1,500.00 50.00 1,338.91 350.80 447.31 900.00 313.49 Total displacement, tons 16,000.00 EIGHT HOUES FOB LAB0REB8 ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 55 The structural material worked into the hull of the Louisiana at Newport News from the laying of the keel to September 1, 1904 (five days after launching), is included. The total gross weight of the structural material worked upon was 14,295,965 pounds. The weight of the net or finished material worked into the hull was 12,216,154 pounds. The aggregate hours of all employees engaged upon this work was 2,413,888. The structural material worked into the hull of the ConnecUout at the Brooklyn Navy- Yard from the laying of the keel to September 30, 1904 (one day after the launching), is also included. The total gross weight of the structural material worked upon was 14,173,894 pounds. The weight of the net or finished material worked into the hull was 11,391,040 pounds. The aggregate hours of all. employees engaged upon this work was 1,808,240. From the foregoing data compiled and verified by the officials at both shipyards, with independent verification of navy-yard hours and weights from totals of pay rolls and from Bureau of Construction records, the following comparisons are made: Gross weight of structural material used: Louisiana pounds.. 14,295,965 Connecticut do 14,173,894 Weight of net or finished structural material worked into hull: Louisiana pounds.. 12,216, 154 Connecticut , do 11, 391, 040 Aggregate hours of all employees engaged upon the work: Louisiana 2,413,888 Connecticut :.. 1,808,240 Number of days, including Sundays and holidays, from February 7, 1903, to August 31, 1904, inclusive — Louisiana 572 Number of, days, including Sundays and holidays, from March 10, 1903, to September 30, 1904, inclusive — Connecticut 67) Number of working days from February 7, 1903, to August 31, 1904 — Lou- isiana 482 Number of working days from March 10, 1903, to September 30, 1904— Connecticut 480 By dividing net pounds of material finished into ships by the actual aggregate hours of all employees who worked it in, the following comparison is obtained: Average number of pounds worked in in one hour — Louisiana 5.0608 Connecticut 6.2995 Average number of pounds worked in in 10 hours: Louisiana 50. 608 Average number of pounds worked in in 8 hours: Connecticut 50. 396 By dividing the aggregate hours worked by the actual working hours in the period, a daily average number of men working ten and eight hour full-time days each for the total number of days is obtained. 56 EIGHT HOtfES FOE LABOltERS 6W GOVEENMfeNt WoBK. Daily average of men working full-time days of 10 hours: Louisiana 600. 8 Daily average number of men working full-time days of 8 hours: Con- necticut 470.9 Resulting average number of net pounds per day, all employees: Lou- isiana 25, 344. 72 Kesulting average number of net pounds per day, all employees: Con- necticut 23,731.33 Resulting average number of pounds per man per 10-hour day: Lou- isiana 50. 608 Kesulting average number of pounds per man per 8-hnur day: Con- necticut — - 60.396 Resulting average number of pounds per man per hour: Louisiana 5.0608 Connecticut 6.2995 This shows that the average production per man per hour on the Connecticut exceeded by 24.48 per cent the average production per man per hour on the Louisicma, which explains why the progress on the CorwiectiGut, as shown in the reports of percentage of work com- pleted to the Bureau of Construction and Repair, has kept pace with the percentage reports of work completed on the Louisiana. Any increase of the number of working days on account of work done on a Sunday or holiday will not increase the number of pounds per man per hour. Part of the gross weight of material worked upon for the Connecticut was in the shops in process of completion, but not worked into the ship and not included in net weight or hours reported, nor was it part of classification No. 111. The work on the Louisiana has been performed in the regular way and under normal conditions, while that of the Comnectiout indicates the putting forth of unusual and ejstraordinary effort and energy. The reasons why this should be so called for further inquiry into prevailing conditions, and elicited the following: 1. Higher rates of wages are paid at the navy -yard than by private companies in Greater New York and vicinity, and the rates of the lat- ter average higher than private companies elsewhere. 2. Employment the year round is steadier and more secure than in private yards. 3. The higher wages, shorter hours, and steady employment attract the best grade of workmen to the navy -yard, where a tacit recognition of an asserted economic theory prevails that the best workmen can not be induced to work extra hard without larger pay than the average. 4. Prompt recognition of goo^ work by advances in wages and promotion in grade. 6, A large waiting list of mechanics and others from private shops to select from. fitGHt HOtJRS FOR LA.B0RER8 ON GOVERNMENt WORK. 57 6. The expectation or belief that if the Connecticut were built in record time the building of another battle ship would be given to the Brooklyn Navy- Yard. 7. A zeal generated by the general challenge of the country to the navy-yard workmen to make good their claims in this test. 8. Prompt discharge for inefficiency. 9. Dismissal of workmen who could not or would not come up to a required standard of output in quantity and quality. 10. No restriction of output individually or collectively. 11. Loafing, soldiering, or "marking time" not tolerated. 12. Workmen required to begin work the moment the whistle blows, and to continue working until the moment the whistle blows at quit- ting time. 13. Strict technical and exacting supervision of a high order of skill and experience. 14. A desire on the part of naval constructors and workmen to remove an impression of inefficiency growing out of former navy -yard construction of war vessels before civil-service regulations controlled employment there. L.ABOB COST. In the course of the work of securing the figures showing the time cost of the two battle ships, Connecticut and Jxmisiana, for the con- struction of the hull, it was found possible to obtain the labor cost in detail of the work upon the engines and machinery at the Brooklyn Navy-Yard. This work, like that upon the hull, is being performed under the eight-hour day, and while no figures can be presented show- ing the comparative cost in a ten-hour establishment, it seems best to submit here such of these figures as can be presented without too much labor in the way of preparation, for use in case figures for such com- parison should become available. No comparison can be made of the labor cost at the navy-yard and that at Newport News, as it could not be sought with due regard for private business interests. Independent of the compilation of net weight and hours the pay rolls of the Brooklyn Navy-Yard show that the total amount of wages paid to all employees for working into the Connecticut the 11,391,040 pounds of structural material was $555,-. 707.80. This shows that the average wage per hour per employee was $0.3073. As the average number of pounds of structural material worked into the Cormecticut per man per hour was 6.2995, the labor cost per pound was $0.0488, and the labor cost per ton was $109.31. The average rate of $0.3073 includes boys, laborers, mechanics, etc. The combined labor and material cost per pound and per ton follows: 58 EIGHT HOURS ^ FOB LABOREBS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. HULL CONSTRUCTION. Labor cost per pound, Connecticut - $0.0488 Material cost per pound, Connecticut 0287 Total labor and material cost per pound 0775 Labor cost per ton, Connecticut ■ 109.31 Material cost per ton, Connecticut 64.28 Total labor and material cost per ton 173.59 STEAM ENGINEERING. The data secured from the steam engineering department at the Brooklyn Navy- Yard is complete in all its details. The building of the great engines and other machinery for the CorvnecUcut has been carried on in what probably will prove record time. The mechanics employed upon the work are of a higher grade of skill as a whole than those that have been employed at hull construction, the average rate per hour in the building of the machinery being $0.4323 for all the items reported. Nine completed units are included in this report. Item No. 5 includes the building of the cylinders complete. LABOR COST IN BUILDING CYUNDEBfi. Kind of work done. Hours worked. Total labor cost. Labor cost per hour. Labor cost per pound of product. 14,255 25,062 17,706 769 87,229.87 10,405.92 7,623.40 293.03 to. 5072 .4152 .4249 .3811 to. 0297 .0428 Machine work .OSIO .0012 Total 57,792 26,452.22 .4404 .1047 Average rate of wages per hour $0.4404 Labor cost per pound $0.1047 Labor cost per ton $234. 53 Material cost per pound $0.0253 Material cost per ton $56.67 Total labor and material cost per pound $0. 13 Total labor and material cost per ton $291.20 The total weight of cylinders complete (pounds) 243, Oil The details of the other units are not included in this report. No comparative data of the building of the engines and other machinery were secuJed for the Lomsicma. Comparative progress may be noted from the following report of the bureau of steam engineering: BUILDING OF ENGINES AND MACHINERY. Percentage of completion, November 1, 1904, Loumana, 60.7 per cent. Percentage of completion, November 1, 1904, Conmcticut, 63.9 per cent CHAPTEE lY, ACTUAL RESULTS OF PRODUCTION UNDER REDUCED HOURS OF WORK IN VARIOUS MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS. 69 CHAPTER IV. ACTUAL RESULTS OF PRODUCTION UNDER REDUCED HOURS OF WORK. The portion of the investigation which was especially directed to an examination of the results of the operation of manufacturing estab- lishments which had within recent years made a reduction in hours of work and could make a definite comparison of results after the reduc- tion with results in the same establishments before reduction cov- ered in all 396 establishments. The schedule of inquiries use^ in securing data for this comparison has already been given and need not be repeated here. The main points of the comparison, it may be said, related to cost of manufacture and to quantity of prod- uct per employee, and whether, where the quantity of product fell off, a greater number of work people was employed or an increase was made in the number of days in the year on which the work was car- ried on. It was the purpose in the investigation to seek manufacturing estab- lishments operating on the eight-hour basis in whatever industry they might be found and to ascertain the effect in actual practice of the decrease in working hours upon such matters as wages, cost of manu- facture, quantity of product, number of employees, and days of run- ning time. Such establishments were known to be numerous in cigar making, stone and granite cutting, and the building (and allied) trades. But the number of establishments, outside of the industries named, which had adopted the eight-hour day was known to be small. Man- ufacturers generally do not accept the result in these industries as fairly representative of manufacturing. Conditions, they claim, are quite different in the factory, the machine shop, the blast furnace, the ship- yard, and in manufacturing generally. Competition in both home and foreign markets is more severe, the margin of profit in most indus- tries is small. The number of eight-hour establishments being so small, data for comparison were also sought where a reduction from ten to nine hours per day or any other substantial reduction had been made and a defi- nite statement could be given of the results under the shorter day and under the previous longer workday. A reduction, such as from ten to nine hours per day (or sixty to fifty -four hours per week), could not, it was realized, be looked upon as indicating accurately the results to be 61 62 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. expected from a further reduction to eight hours per day. At the same time, in the absence of a considerable number of establishments which had tried the eight-hour day, such instances were considered as worthy of study. In following out the investigation as above indicated 396 establish- ments were found in which a reduction in hours had been made and a statement of the results as compared with the results under the longer workday previously in force could be given. These were engaged in 83 different industries. The reduction in hours affected 129,102 employees, while 17,039 persons employed in the same establishments had no reduction in hours. The number of establishments covered, with their employees affected by the reductions, as well as the num- ber of establishments manufacturing for the United States Govern- ment and for export, may be seen for each industry in the following table: NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS EEPORTING AS TO THE EFFECT OF BEDUCTION IN HOURS OF LABOR, NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AFFECTED, AND NUMBER OF ESTABLISH- MENTS MANUFACTURING FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND FOR EXPORT, By INDUSTRIES. IndUBtiy. Nnmber of em- ployeea. Number ol estab- lish- ments. Estab- lish- ments manu- factur- ing for the United States Govern- ment. Estab- lish- ments erport- mg a part of product. Agrlculturallmplements Assay balances and surveying Instrumen ts Automobiles : Bakery products Bicycles Bituminous coal mining Boiler making Boilers and engines Boots and shoes Brass goods Bronze castings Building trades Carriages and wagons Chemicals Chinaware Cigars Clocks and watches Clothing Confectionery Cooperage Cooperage and iron-tank making Coppersmithing and sheet-iron working Cutlery and edge tools Cyclometers, counters, etc Designing and engraving Electrical apparatus and supplies Electrical construction Electric light and power Elevator construction Flour and grist mill products Foundry end machine shop products Furniture Gas and electric light fixtures Glass Hardware Hats and caps "Not reported. bOne establishment not reporting. 650 18 760 20O 287 3,496 1,560 110 8,944 650 350 6,175 235 291 160 2,626 7,160 1,280 160 380 1,400 no 100 110 67 9,201 900 378 200 690 36,698 860 216 875 160 4 1 2 1 1 4 6 1 11 2 2 26 2 S 1 14 3 10 1 S 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 3 119 3 3 2 1 4 1 3 1 1 C) («) 2 2 8 1 1 1 3 3 ^% (^) , 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 i 1 1 1 tf44 62 1 1 3 c59 1 1 o Two establishments not reporting. EIGHT H0UK8 FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 63 NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS REPORTING AS TO THE EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN HOURS OF LABOR, NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AFFECTED, ETC.— Concluded. Indnstrj. Nmnber of em- ployees. Number of estab- llsh- mentB. Estab- liah- ments manu- factuT- Ing for the United States Govern- ment. Estab- llah- ments export- ing a part of product. Hoisting blocks and trucks Hosiery and knit goods Interior decorations and woodwork Interior woodwork Iron and steel, bolts, nuts, wasbers, and rivets Iron and steel, nails and spikes Iron and steel, architectural and ornamental Ironwork Jewelry Leather Liquors, malt Machine tools Marble and stone work Novelties Oilcloths Oil and gas well products Optical goods Paper and pulp Patent medicines and compounds Phonographs and graphophones Photography Photographic apparatus and supplies Pianos and organs Picture frames and molding Pipe organs Planing-mlU products, including sash, doors, and blinds Plumbers' supplies Printing and publishing Refrigerators and meat blocks Saddlery hardware Sewing machines Shipbuilding Shirts, tablecloths, etc Shoe lasts and cutting dies Showcases, etc >. .. Silverware Soap (office force) Steel springs Stone cutting Stone quarrying and cutting Tlnsmithlng, coppersmlthlng, and sheet-iron working . . . Tools Trunks and traveling bags Typewriters Upholstering material Wood finishings, art glass, and paints Worsted goods Total 428 1,260 246 920 125 2,330 150 1,083 165 2,177 660 12 800 100 60 1,200 2,450 156 1,200 30 900 100 79 150 2,163 70 2,416 60 100 2,950 9,425 650 66 146 580 354 165 1,825 2,220 968 400 60 410 500 176 360 («) 1 5 3 1 ^">1 1 2 as 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 w 1 C) 1 4 1 1 ? 1 9 a6 ol 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 a One establishment not reporting. In the following table is given the number of establishments report- ing a reduction in hours per week, so as to show each specified number of hours before and after the reduction and the amount of the reduc- tion made: 64 EIGHT H0UK8 FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS REPORTING A REDUCTION IN HOURS PER WEEK FOE EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK. Hours per week re- duced from — Number of hours per week of the reduc- tion. Number of establish- ments mak- ing the re- duction. Hours per week re- duced from— Number of hours per week of the reduc- tion. Number of establish- ments mak- ing the re- duction. 84.0 to 66.0 . 72.0 to 53.0 . 72.0 to 48.0; 70.0 to SB.O . 66.0 to 65.0 . 66.0 to 49.0 . 65.0 to 61.0 . 60.0 to 67.0 . 60.0 to 66.3 . 60.0 to 66.0 . 60.0 to 56.5 . 60.0 to 55.0. 60.0 to 64.0 . 60.0 to 53.5 . 60 to 53.0 . 60.0 to 62.0 . 60.0 to 61.0. 60.0 to 50.0 . 60.0 to 49.5 . 60.0 to 48.0 . 60.0 to 44.0 . 69.5 to 64.0 . 69.6 to 49.5 . 59.0 to 65.0 . 59.0 to 54.0. 69.0 to 53.8 . 59.0 to 53.5 . 59.0 to 58.0. 59.0 to 60.0. 28.0 19.0 24.0 14.0 11.0 17.0 14.0 8.0 8.7 4.0 4.6 6.0 6.0 6.6 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 10.5 12.0 16.0 6.6 10.0 4.0 5.0 6.2 6.5 6.0 9.0 S 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 175 1 4 1 2 4 1 12 3 3 1 7 30 1 3 7 7 59.0 69.0 68.5 58.1 58.0 58.0 58.0 57.5 57.6 57.6 67.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 57.0 66.4 66.0 65.0 55.0 64.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 64.0 63.5 53.0 51.0 60.0 60.0 to 48. to 44. to 64. to 51. to 54. to to 60. to 66. to 64. to 51. to 54. to 53. to 62. to 52. to 60. to 48. to 46 to 63. to 50. to 61. to 60.1 to 48. to 47. to 44.1 to 48.1 to 44. to 48. to46.i to 44 U.0 15.0 4.6 7.1 4.0 6.0 8.0 2.5 3.6 6.0 S.0 4.0 4.3 6.0 7.0 8.4 10.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 10.0 6.6 9.0 S.0 3.6 6.6 An examination of this table shows that of the 396 establishments, 47, or 11.9 per cent, made a reduction to the eight-hour day (48 hours per week), 57, or 14.4 per cent, made a reduction to less than 48 hours, and 292, or 73.7 per cent, made a substantial reduction, but still had a work- day longer than 8 hours. The greater part of those working less than 48 hours per week were in the building and allied trades, and the very shor-t day is due to the Saturday half holiday which is so common in the larger cities. Thus, the forty -four-hour week is the eight-hour day with a Saturday half holiday. The fifty-four-hour week (nine-hour day) was reported in 216 establishments, or 54.5 per cent of the whole number, a shorter week in 154 establishments, or 39 per cent, and a longer week in but 26, or 6.5 per cent. The number of establishments reporting a reduction to the nine-hour day (54 or 53 hours per week) are practically all in two classes, from 60 to 54 per week, 175 establishments, and from 59 to 54 per week, 30 establishments. The 216 establishments represent a great variety of industries. The following table permits a study to be made of daily wages as affected by the reduction in hours of labor. It shows for the estab- lishments classified according to the amount of the reduction in hours of labor per week, the number of establishments reporting no change in daily wages, the number reporting a decrease in daily wages, and the number reporting a decrease in daily wages of the same per cent as the reduction in hours, the number a smaller per cent, apd tbe RUmber a larger per centf BIGHT HOUBS FOB LAB0BEB8 ON GOVEBNMENT WORK. 65 CHANGES IN DAILY WAGES ACCOMPANYING THE REDUCTION IN HOUES, ACCOEDING TO THE AMOUNT OP THE REDUCTION IN HOUEa Estab- lish- ments reporting no change in daUy wages. Establishments reporting a decrease in daily wages. Estab- lish ments reporting an in- crease in daily wages. Reduction in hours per week of— Same per cent as reduction in hours. Smaller per cent than re- duction in hours. Larger per cent than re- duction in hours. Total establish- ments. 2 8 18 48 188 8 2 40 17 2 8 or under 4 hours. 1 1 2 7 1 1 3 24 2 1 7 3 10 4 or under 5 hours 1 1 5 16 8 1 62 220 7 or under 8 hours IP 8 or under 9 hours 3 9 or under 10 hours 47 1 14 1 36 Total 816 8 25 6 42 396 It will be seen from the above table that of the 396 establishments investigated 316, or 79.8 per cent, reported no reduction in daily wages resulting from the reduction in hours of labor. In 25 other establish- ments the reduction in the daily wages was a smaller per cent than the accompanying reduction in hours, while in only 18 cases was the wage reduction proportional to or greater than the reduction in hours. Id 42 establishments, or 10.6 per cent, an increase in daily wages was made at the time of the reduction in hours of labor. In the table above these facts are given arranged according to the amount of the reduction in hours. The effect of the reduction in hours per week upon the cost of manufacture is shown in the following table, the establishments being presented by the hours of reduction classified. Under each group are also shown the number of establishments in which no increased cost resulted and the number in which there was an increased cost, with the per cent of the increase. In this table are included only those estab- lishments in which the result was said to be due entirely to the changes in hours and wages, and not in any respect to such modifying causes as higher speeded or improved machinery, changes in methods of work, etc. According to the statements which were made by manufacturers, in connection with the reports relating to the effect of the reduction of hours of labor in their establishments upon cost of manufacture and the quantity of product per employee, it appeared that about 40 per cent of the manufacturers based their statements upon careful keeping of cost figures both before and after the change, while the remainder of the manufacturers spoke from a general familiarity with their business. H. Doc. 413, 58-3 5 66 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN HOURS PER WEEK UPON COST OF MANUFACTURE. [In all oases here given, It was reported that the result was due entirely to changes in hours or labor or daily wages.] Reduction In hours per week of— Number of estab- lishments. Under S hours: With no increase in cost of manu- 1 With an increase in cost oi manu- facture of— , 1 S or under 4 hours: With no increase in cost of manu- facture With an increase in cost of manu- facture of— Under Spercent 1 3 or under 4 per cent 1 1 2 10 or under 11 per cent 3 12 or under 16 per cent.... 1 4 or under 6 hours: With no increase in cost of manu- 4 With an increase in cost of manu- facture of— Under 3 per cent 1 S or under 4 per cent s 2 7 or under 8 per cent 2 1 fi or under 6 hours: With no increase in cost of manu- a6 With an Increase in cost of manu- facture of — 3 3 or under 4 per cent 4 4 or under 6 per cent ..... 4 7 1 7 nr nnilfir R pp(' c.prtf. , 2 1 1 10 or under 11 per cent. 9 r 12 or under 15 per cent 1 20 per cent or over 1 < or under 7 hours: With no Increase in cost of manu- facture 16 With an increase In cost of manu- facture of— Under 3 per cent 7 4 4or under 6 per cent 7 B or under 6 per cent 11 6 (}T under 7 per cent 9 11 8 or under 9 per cent 5 9 or under 10 per cent 4 10 or under 11 per cent 58 IS 18 15 or under 20 per cent 15 20 per cent or over 6 Reduction in hours per week of- 7 or under 8 hours: With no increase in cost of manu- facture With an Increase In cost of manu- facture of— 7 or under 8 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent , 11 or under 12 per cent 16 or under 20 per cent 8 or under 9 hours: With no increase in cost of manu- facture With an Increase in cost of manu- facture of— 12 or under 15 per cent 9 or under 10 hours: With no Increiase in coat of manu- facture With an Increase in cost of manu- facture of— 5 or under 6 per cent 9 or under 10 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent 11 or under 12 per cent 16 or under 20 per cent 20 per cent or over 10 hours or over: With no Increase in coat of manu- facture With-an increase in cost of manu- facture of — Under 3 per cent 3 or under 4 per cent 4 or under 5 per cent 5 or under 6 per cent 7 or under 8 per cent 8 or under 9 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent 12 or under 15 per cent 15 or under 20 per cent 20 per cent or over Total estaolishments reporting reduc- tion In hours : With no increase In cost of manu- facture With an increase in cost of manu- facture of — Under 3 per cent 3 or under 4 per cent 4 or under 6 per cent 5 or under 6 per cent 6 or under 7 per cent 7 or under 8 per cent 8 or under 9 per cent 9 or under 10 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent 11 or under 12 per cent 12 or under IB per cent 15 or under 20 per cent 20 per cent or over Total with an increase in coat of manufacture Total establishments. . Number of estab- lishments. a Including 1 establishment in which there was a decrease of 1 per cent In coat of manufacture. It will be seen from the above that, out of 334 establishments cov- ered, 37, or 11.1 per cent, found no increase in cost of manufacture resulting from the reduction in hours and such changes in wages as in a few cases were made at that time, while 297, or 88.9 per cent, found that cost of manufacture was increased. An examination of the largest group, establishments reporting a reduction in hours per week of 6 or under 7 hours, shows that the whole BIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 67 number so reporting was 184, and that 16 of these had found no increase in cost resulting from the reduction, while 168 had found an increase. In 7 establishments the increase in cost was under 3 per cent. In 58 establishments the increase was under 10 per cent, and in 110, 10 per cent or over. Of those reporting an increase of 10 per cent or over, in 68 establishments the increase amounted to 10 or under 11 per cent, in 13 to 11 or under 12 per cent, in 18 to 12 or under 15 per cent, and in 15 establishments to 15 or under 20 per cent. The other portions of the table may be read in like manner. In similar form is the following table, showing the effect of the reduction in hours per week upon quantity of product per employee. As in the preceding table, only those establishments are included in which the result was said to be due entirely to the changes in hours and wages, and not in any respect to such modifying causes as higher speeded or improved machinery or changes in methods of work, etc. : EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN HOUES PER WEEK UPON QUANTITY OF PRODUCT. [In all the cases here given it was reported that the result was due entirely to changes In hours of labor or daily wages.] Reduction in hours per week of- Under 3 hours: With no decrease in quantity oJ product With a decrease in quantity of product of— 3 or under 4 per cent 5 or under 4 hours: With no~ decrease in quantity of product With a decrease in quantity of product of— 6 or under 6 per cent 6 or under 7 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent 1 or under 6 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product With a decrease in quantity of product of— 6 or under 7 per cent 7 or under 8 per cent 5 or under 9 per cent 9 or under 10 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent 6 or under 6 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product With a decrease in quantity of product of— 6 or under 6 per cent 8 or under 9 per cent 9 or under 10 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent 11 or under 12 per cent 6 or under 7 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product With a decrease in quantity of product of— Under 3 per cent '. . 4 or under 5 percent B or under 6 percent 6 or under 7 percent 7 or under 8 per cent Number of estab- lish- ments. «5 Reduction in hours per week of— 6 or under 7 hours — Concluded. With a decrease in quantity of product of— Concluded. 8 or under 9 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent 11 or under 12 per cent 12 or under 15 per cent 15 or under 20 percent 20 per cent or over 7 or under 8 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product With a decrease in quantity of product of— 10 or under 11 per cent 11 or under 12 per cent 12 or under 15 per cent 8 or under 9 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product With a decrease In quantity of product of— 10 or under 11 per cent 9 or under 10 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product With a decrease in quantity of product of — 6 or under 6 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent 11 or under 12 per cent 15 or under 20 per cent 10 hours or over; With no decrease in quantity of W product ith a decrease in quantity of product of— 5 or under 6 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent . — 11 or under 12 per cent 12 or under 16 per cent 15 or under 20 per cent 20 per cent or over Number of estab- lish- ments. 5 122 12 3 6 2 1 6 SI 2 8 2 1 2 10 'Including 1 establishment in .which there was an Increase of 2.5 per cent tn the quantity of prodnct. 68 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVEBKMENT WORK. EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN HOURS PER WEEK UPON QUANTITY OF PRODUCT— Concludefl. Reduction In hours per week of— Number of estab- liBh- mentg. Reduction in hours per week of— Ntunber of estab- lish- ments. Total establishments reporting reduc- tion of hours: With no decrease in quantity of of product a 31 2 1 1 19 8 9 IB 5 159 Tot»l establishments reporting reduc- tion of hours— Concluded. With a decrease in quantity of product of— Concluded. 11 or under 12 per cent 12 or under 15 percent 15 or under 20 per cent 20 per cent or over With a decrease in quantity of product of— 47 5 16 12 Rate per cent not reported Total with a decrease in quantity of product 6 or under 7 per cent 7 or under 8 per cent 303 334 10 or under 11 per cent "Including 1 establishment in which there was an increase of 2.6 percent in the quantity of product. This table does not include 3 establishments in which the change in the quantity of product was not reported. In 1 of these establish- ments the reduction of hours was 5 or under 6, and in 2 other estab- lishments the reduction of hours was 6 or under 7. It appears from the above table that, out of 334 establishments cov- ered, 31, or 9.3 per cent, reported no decrease in quantity of product as a result of the reduction in hours and the accompanying changes in wages found in a few instances. On the other hand, in 303 establishments, or 90.7 per cent, a decrease in product did result. If, for example, the largest group, the establishments making a reduction of 6 or under 7 hours per week, is considered, it is seen that 182 reported such a reduction and made a statement as to the effect upon quantity of prod- uct. Of these establishments, 14 reported no decreased production in consequence, while 168 reported a decrease. The decrease in 23 . instances was under 10 per cent, while in 145 other cases it was 10 per cent or more. Of those reporting 10 per cent or over, 122 establish- ments were at 10 or under 11 per cent, 12 at 11 or under 12 per cent, 3 at 12 or under 15 per cent, 6 at 15 or under 20 per cent, and 2 at 20 per cent or over. The remaining groups of the table may be read in like manner. Reduction in quantity of product per employee means, of course, a smaller output for the establishment and a smaller business, unless offset by an increased number of employees, a larger number of days of running time at the reduced hours, or improved machinery or methods. Those establishments in which, as a result of the reduction in hours, it was necessary to increase employees or days of running time or both in order to keep up the output,.are shown in the follow- ing table, classihed according to the amount of reduction in hours: EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 69 ESTABLISHMENTS REPORTING IT NECESSARY TO INCREASE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OR DAYS OF RUNNING TIME TO OFFSET DECREASE IN QUANTITY OF PRODUCT. Per cent o{ decrease In qunntltyof product caused by rcdiiotiou of hours. EBtablish- ments in- creasing number of employees, also days of running time. Establish- ments in- creasing number of employees but not increasing days of running time. Establish- ments in- creasing days of run- ning time but not in- creasing number of employees. Total estab- lishments reporting. 4 or under 5 per cent 6 or under 6 per cen t — 6 or under 7 per cent. . . . 7 or under 8 per cent. . . . 8 or under 9 per cent — 9 ot under 10 per cent - . 10 or under 11 per cent. 11 or under 12 per cen t . 12 or under 15 per cen t . 15 or under 20 per cent. 20 per cent or over 108 87 5 1 18 4 7 14 8 120 89 6 9 16 Total., The above table does not include 24 establishments, 14 of which made no report as to whether or not it was necessary to increase the number of employees or the running time after the reduction of hours; 6 others reported an increase in the number of employees, but failed to give the rate of decrease in the quantity of product; and 4 estab- lishments, in which there was no change in the quantity of product after the reduction of hours, also reported an increase in the number of employees. Of the 14 establishments making no report as to whether or not it was necessary to increase the number of employees or running time after the reduction of hours, 1 showed a decrease of 7 or under 8 per cent in the quantity of product; 3 a decrease of 8 or under 9 per cent; 1 a decrease of 9 or under 10 per cent; 4 a decrease of 10 or under 11 per cent; 1 a decrease of 12 or under 15 per cent; and 4 establishments reported that there was no change in the quantity of product after the reduction of hours. It will thus be seen that out of the 396 establishments investigated in regard to the reduction in hours of labor which they had made, 226, or 57.1 per cent, reported that in consequence of a decrease in output under the shorter workday it had been necessary to increase the number of employees. This includes 16 establishments in which it was necessary to increase not only the number of employees, but the number of workdays in the year as well. In 6 other establishments it was necessary to increase the number of workdays, but not the run- ning time. In the table above these facts are shown, arranged accord- ing to the per cent of decrease in the quantity of product. RESULTS OF BEDXTCTIOII OF HOURS IN 47 ESTABLISHMENTS REDUCING HOURS OF LABOR TO 48 PER WEEK. The preceding pages have dealt with all of those establishments which had made a reduction in hours of labor and could furnish a 70 EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. definite statement of the results of operation as compared with the results under the previous longer workday. As this investigation was directed especially to ascertaining the effect of a reduction to the 8-hour day, it will be of interest to examine separately the results in the estab- lishments working 8 hours per day, or 48 hours per week. Out of 396 establishments covered by this investigation, 47 were found in which within recent years the hours of labor had been reduced to 48 per week, and some definite statement could be made in regard to the results as compared with the results under the longer working time previously in force. In this number are not included those in which a reduction was made to 8 hours per day from Monday to Fri- day with a shorter work day on Saturday, but only those in which full 48 hours were worked. In the brief table following are shown for each industry the number of establishments and employees, with the number of establishments manufacturing for the United States Gov- ernment and the number exporting a part of their product: ESTABLISHIIENTS HAVING REDUCED HOURS OF LABOR TO 48 PER WEEK. IndUBtTT. Number of employ- Number of estab- lishments. Establisb- ments manufac- turing for United States GoT- ernment. EstablSsh- ments.ex- porting a part of product. Bituminous coal mining . Boots and shoes Building trades Cigars. Clothing Cooperage : Designing and engraving Plour and grist mill products Foundry and machine shop products Iron and steel, architectural and ornamental Liquors, malt Floning-miU products, including sash, doors, and blinds Printingand publishing Soap (office force) Stone quarrying and cutting rinsmithing, coppersmithing, and sheet-iron work- ing Worsted goods 3,496 2,800 226 800 a 860 80 57 6 690 325 Clio 274 155 60 864 d2,220 463 350 {«) Total. / 12, 819 47 a Not including 7,310 employees whose hours were not changed, b Not including 1,410 employees whose hours were not changed. c Not including 240 employees whose hours were not changed, d Not including 90 employees whose hours were not changed. e One establishment not reporting. / Not including 9,080 employees whose hours were not changed. These 47 establishments, it will be seen, represented 17 industries and employed 21,899 workers; but in 18 of the establishments the hours of labor of 9,080 employees were not changed. Thus, the actual num- ber of employees affected by the reduction was 12,819. Only 10 of these establishments were engaged in manufacturing for the United States Government, and only 7 exported a part of their product. The establishments engaged on Government work were 1 in the building trades, 6 in stone quarrying and cutting, 1 in foundry and machine shop products, 1 in iron and steel (architectural and orna- mental), and 1 in flour and grist mill products. EIGHT HOURS FOE LAB0EER8 ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 71 The establishments exporting a part of their product were 1 in the boot and shoe industry, 3 in flour and grist mill products, 1 in iron and steel (architectural and ornamental), 1 in stone quarrying and cutting, and 1 in tinsmithing, coppersmithing, and sheet-iron working. The amount of the reduction in these cases varied all the way from 3 hours to 24 hours per week, since the reduction was made from a 51-hour week or a 72-hour week to a 48-hour week. The number of establish- ments from which reports were obtained making the reduction of each specified amount was as follows: NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS REDUCING HOURS OF LABOR TO 48 PER WEEK MAKINfl A REDUCTION OF EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HOURS. Reduction in hours per week. Number of establish- ments. Reduction in hours per week. Number of establish- ments. 3 hours . - . - 1 1 28 1 1 12 g Total 44 houxs 47 In the following table is shown the effect of reduction in hours upon cost of manufacture, in establishments having reduced their hours of work to 48 per week, for the establishments making each reduction. Where an increase in cost resulted, the per cent of increase is also given. In certain establishments changes in method of operation, increased speeding of machinery, or improved machinery, or other changes modi- fying the effect of the shorter hours were made, along with the reduc- tion of hours and the change in the wages which in some cases occurred. Such establishments are not included in this table. EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN HOURS PER WEEK UPON COST OF MANUFACTURE, IN ESTAB- LISHMENTS HAVING REDUCED THEIR HOURS OF LABOR TO 48 PER WEEK. [In all cases here given It was reported that the result was due entirely to changes in hours ol labor or dally wages.] Reduction in hours per week of— Number of estab- lish- ments. Reduction in hours per week of— Number of estab- lish- ments. 3 hours: With no increase in cost of manu- facture 11 hours: With no -increase in cost of manu- facture With an increase in cost of manu- facture of— 1 With an increase in cost of manu- facture of— 1 5.6 hours: With no increase in cost of manu- facture ' . 12 hours; With no increase in cost of manu- facture 2 With an Increase in cost of manu- facture of — 1 8 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 8 With an increase in cost of manu- facture of— 1 6 hours: 5 or under 6 per cent 2 With no increase in cost of manu- 8 or under 9 per cent 1 15 or under 20 per cent 2 With an increase In cost of manu- facture of — 4 or under 6 per cent 24 hours: With no increase in cost of manu- facture 6 or under 7 per cent . . . . With an increase in cost of manu- facture of— Under 3 per cent 2 1 12 or under 15 per cent 15 or under 20 per cent 72 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMEWT WORK. This table shows that 20 establishments reported a reduction of 6 hours per week (from 54 to 48) and could make a comparison of results, unaffected by any other causes than the reduction in hours and the change in wages which followed in a few cases. In 3 of these estab- lishments, for example, no increase in cost of manufacture resulted, while in 17 establishments an increase in cost occurred, in 4 cases under 10 per cent and in 13 cases of 10 per cent or more. In 8 out of the 17 of the establishments there was an increase in cost of 10 per cent or under 15 per cent. It would appear, then, from these reports that in the restriction from 9 to 8 hours per day the increase in cost closely followed the decrease in the working time. In like measure the results of a greater or less reduction in hours upon cost of manufacture can be seen in this table. The effect of the reduction in hours upon quantity of product in the same establishment is shown in a table, in the same form as the preceding. The table follows: EFFECT OF EEDUCTION IN HOURS PER WEEK UPON QUANTITY OF PRODUCT IN ESTAB- LISHMENTS HAVING REDUCED THEIR HOURS OF LABOR TO 48 PER WEEK. [In all cases here given it was reported that the result was due entirely to changes in hours of labor or daily wages.] Reduction in hours per week of— 3 hours: With no decrease in quantity of W product ith a decrease in quantity of product of— C or under 7 per cent 6.6 hours; With no decrease in quantity of t>roduct , ^th a decrease in quantity of product of — 8 or under 9 per cent 6 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product With a decrease in quantity of product of — 4 or under 5 per cent 5 or under 6 per cent 7 or under 8 per cent 10 or under 11 per cent 11 or under 12 percent 12 or under 15 per cent 15 or under 20 per cent Number of estab-^ lish- ments. Reduction in hours per week of — 11 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product With a decrease in quantity of product of - 20 per cent or over 12 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product With a decrease in quantity of prodnct of— 5 or under 6 percent 10 or under 11 per cent 16 or under 20 per cent 20 per cent or over 24 hours: With no decrease in quantity of product mth a decrease in quantity of product of— 10 or under 11 percent 11 or under 13 per cent Number of estab- lish- ments. An examination of the group represented by the largest number of examples, namely, the establishments reporting a reduction in hours of 6 per week (from 54 to 48), shows that 20 establishments made this reduction and could give the result uninfluenced by any cause other than the reduction in hours and the accompanying changes in wages. In only 2 establishments was there no decrease in product, while in 18 EIGHT H0UK8 FOR LABOBEBB ON GOVBBNMENT WOBK. 73 a decrease was reported. In 15 instances this decrease amounted to 10 per cent or under 20, and out of these 16 in 8 the decrease was 11 or under 12 per cent. The establishments in which the reduction was a greater or less number of hours may be studied in like manner. The following table enables a comparison to be made of the changes in wages accompanying the reduction in hours, for each specified number of hours taken from the working week: CHANGES IN DAILY WAGES ACCOMPANYING THE SEDUCTION IN HOURS, ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF THE REDUCTION IN HOURS. Estab- lishments reporting no change in daily wages. Establishments reporting a decrease in daily wages. Estab- lishments Reduction in hours per week of— Same per cent as reduction in hours. Smaller per cent than re- duction in hours. Larger per cent than re- duction in hours. reporting an in- crease in daily wages. Total e»- tablish- meuts. 1 1 18 1 6.6 hours 1 6.0 hours 10 1 28 8.4 hours 1 110 hours 1 8 1 12 hours 4 3 12 3 Total 29 7 11 47 Out of the 47 establishments reporting a reduction to the dS-hour week, 29 made no changes in daily wages, 11 made an increase, and 7 made a decrease, but this decrease was in all cases of a smaller per cent than the reduction in hours. As will be seen in the table the cut in daily wages occurred only in the establishments where the hours were reduced 12 or more per week. And of the establishments making the 12-hour reduction 8 made no change in wages. It may be of interest to examine more in detail the results in the 47 establishments making the reduction to 48 hours per week and making report for this investigation. This will enable a comparison to be made of the causes of the results that were reported as they appeared to the manufacturer. In the following pages this examination has been made, the establishments classified according to the amount of the reduction in working hours per week. ONE ESTABLISHMENT REDUCING HOURS OP LABOR 3 PER WEEK (fROM 51 TO 48). This establishment, engaged in the manufacture of soap, reduced the hours of the office force of 354 employees from 51 to 48 per week, without change in wages per day. The result was an increase in cost of 11 per cent and a decrease in quantity of 11 per cent, which was met by the employment of more people. 74 EIGHT H0UB8 FOR LAB0KEE8 ON QOVEEJSTMENT WOEK. ONE ESTABLISHMENT REDUCING HOURS OP LABOR 5.6 PER WEEE (fKCM 53.5 TO 48). This establishment, the Thomas G. Plant Company, of Boston, Mass., employing 2,800 people and engaged in the manufacture of women's shoes, has had an interesting experience with the 8 and 9 hour day. Up to July 1, 1898, their working hours were 69 per week. A change to 53^ hours without change in daily wages resulted in reducing the labor cost of manufacture 1 per cent, at the same time increasing the product per employee 2^ per cent. In July, 1901, the 48-hour week was put in effect, with no change in the daily wage. This resulted in an increase of 3 per cent in cost, due to a reduction in the volume of product, the product per employee having decreased 8 per cent. As the factory ran 51 weeks during the year and was not adapted to an increased number of employees, a return to the 53i- hour week was considered necessary and was put in effect April 1, 1903. The result of this change, with no change in wages, was a decreased cost of manufacture of 2 per cent and a 4 per cent increase in product. It is stated that a return to the 9-hour day (63.5-hour week) was desired by a majority of employees, who worked by the piece. ^ "The fitting and stitching room is the point of greatest disturbance, when pieceworkers take their time in summer, and leave our factory for sev eral weeks, with a loss of one-sixth of our product, or 1,500 pairs per day less than our running capacity." A statement at length in regard to the experience of this company, made by Mr. W. L. Ratcliffe, its treasurer, will be of interest. It is as follows: Prior to 1898 we worked 10 hours per day, or 59 hours a week; in 1898 we voluntarily, and without a request from anyone, placed our factory on a 9-hour basis, and continued on that basis for a matter of two or three years, with very satisfactory results. We reasoned that if we could have an active 9-hour day it was supe- rior in all respects to a more or less inactive 10-hour day. We actually turned out a larger volume, and our people averaged to make more money in 9 hours than they did in 10; tnere were not so many of them , late, and they worked more continuously during the 9 hours, kept more steadily at it. During 1901, after giving the matter considerable thought, we vol- untarily placed our factory on an 8-hour basis, figuring that if we could have an active 8-hour day, everybody prompt in attendance, and work- ing steadily, that we could accomplish, practically speaking, the same results &s in 9 hours. We ran along on this basis for a matter of twenty-one months, and proved to ourselves conclusively the utter fallacy of such a proposi- tion. In the first place, our employees averaged to be just as late in fetting to work in the morning when we started at 8 as formerly at .30, and we could not see, as a rule, that they were inspired to work EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK, 75 any more steadily because they were not expected to be here but eight hours than they were when they were to be here nine. The result was a decreased product and increased manufacturing expenses. If we were to keep up our product it meant increased factory space and an additional working force, or to go back to the nine-hour basis. As we figured it, it seemed to us at the time that, all things considered, an eight-hour working basis practically meant from seven to seven and one -half hours actual working time for a large percentage of our employees, which, experience demonstrated to us, was not sufficient to run our business profitably. In the cutting room, where the goods started, the eight-hour basis was a success, but there are so many other things come up during the process of manufacture from the starting point to the finishing point on account of occasional delays, breakages of belts and machinery, or absence of certain help at important times, sickness, etc. Everything that tended to interfere with the continual smooth moving of the product meant that we were losing just that many pairs a day through causes which seemed unavoidable and impossible to overcome, consequently a good many of our people (pieceworkers) were in turn losing something in wage because of the absence of employees who handled the work before it reached them; in other words, the factory could not finish on an eight-hour basis the same number of pairs of shoes which we started on an eight-hour basis. We therefore went back to the nine-hour day. In the first change from ten to nine, and then from nine to eight, we had made absolutely no change in the rate of wage paid, consequently when we went back from eight to nine we did not make any change in wages either, as a good many of our people were with us originally on a ten-hour basis. TWENTY-EIGHT ESTABLISHMENTS REDUCING HOURS OF LABOR 6 PER WEEK (from 54 TO 4:8). Of these establishments, in 3 it was reported that there was no change in cost of manufacture as the result of the reduction in hours, the employees being paid by the piece and no changes in piece rates being made. One of these establishments was engaged in cigar making in Illinois, 1 in cooperage in Michigan, and 1 in clothing manufacture in Pennsylvania. In the cigar making and the clothing establishments there was no decrease in production as the result of the shortening of the work day. In the case of the clothing establishment it was explained that the einployees in question (cutters) made up the ditfei'ence after the reduction "by increased energy and closer application to their work." In 8 establishments of those reducing hours from 56 to 48 per week changes in cost and quantity of product were reported as due in part to causes other than reduction in hours and the accompanying change in wages. In 3 stone quarrying and cutting establishments in Maine and 2 in New Hampshire, employing 1,670 men, hours were reduced from 56 to 48 and daily wages of all except a few men were, increased 1.8 per cent. In all of these cases, however, improved machinery was 76 BIGHT H0UB8 FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. ' introduced and the result was that the quantity of product was the same, although cost was increased in 1 establishment 25 per cent, in 1, 15 per cent, in 1, 10 per cent, in 1, 7 per cent, and in 1 there was no change. In none of these cases was it necessary to increase the number of employees or the number of days of running time. In 17 establishments making a reduction in working time from 56 to 48 per week comparison of cost and quantity of product ''could be made uninfluenced by any cause other than the changes in hours and wages. In the following table a comparison of the results under the 8-hour day and the 9-hour day previously in force can easily be made: RESULT OF REDUCTION OF HOURS OF LABOR FROM 54 TO 48 PER WEEK IN 17 ESTABLISHMENTS. Num- Changes accompanying reduction of hours. Decrease ber of Decrease Increase in prod- Industry. State. em- in daily in cost of uct per Employees or days of ploy- wages manufac- employee running time in- ees. (per cent). ture (per cent). per day (per cent). creased. Bnllding trades .......... Maine 75 Restriction on the part of the union. "Not reported. (•Improved machinery prevented any Increase in cost of manufacture or decrease in quantity ol product. 'Increased cost of material. /Employ extra crew for night work. vNo change in wages of time workers nor in piece rates of pieceworker!, k Increase; rate per cent not reported. EIGHT HOURS FOH LABOBEE8 ON GOV^ERNMENT WORK. 93 IN ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH HAVE REDUCED HOURS. CAIilFORNIA. Changes aooompanying leductlon of houis. Per cent of product. Estab- liah- ment In daily wages (percent). In cost of manufac- ture (per cent). In quantity of product (per cent) . Due wholly to changes m hours and daily wages. Necejisary to In- crease. Manufac- tured for United States Govern- ment. ' Ex- ported. Number of em- ployees. Days of running time. ber. Inc. 10.0 Inc. 15.0 Inc. 10.0 Deo. 16.0 Deo. 10.0 Not Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Ye^^.'.... Yei!'..... No No 0.1 12.0 1 2 Yes No No .5 (") 3 Nod Noe Yes 4 Dec. 3.0 Inc. 6.0 Inc. 5. Inc. 10.0 Ino. 10.0 Inc. 12.6 Inc. 10.0 C) Dec. 10.0 Deo. 10.0 Deo. 10.0 Deo. 12.5 No No N^ <%.o 9.0 26.0 1.0 5.0 6 c Dec. 10.0 Yea.. 7 Yes 8 Yes.<:l No'°' C) 9 10 COliOttAUO. (») Inc. V. 5 Inc. 6, Dec. 5.0 (<■) ■ Yes. (") No.. Yes. No. No. CONNECTICUT. r^! Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No N* No No No ] Yes No 2 Inc. 2.0 Yes No 5.0 12.0 25.0 6.0 21.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 3 (") Yes No 4 Inc. Inc. Inc. *Inc. Inc. Inc. liie. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. 10.0 4.0 11.2 10.0 12.6 5.0 3.0 10.0 8.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 Deo. 10.0 Dec. 10.0 Deo. 10.0 C) Dec. 10. Dec. 10.0 Dec. 5.0 Yes Ji.. No No No No No No No 5 (*) Yes 4.9 .1 10.0 10.0 2.0 is.o' 7.5 6 Yes 7 Yes 8 Yes Yes 9 10 Yes 11 Yes''' 12 Dec. 10.0 Dee. 10.0 Deo. 10.0 Dec. 10.0 13 Yes 14 Yes No 15 Yes No 16 Nom Yes No 26.0 17 Inc. 6.0 Dec. 11.0 nDeo. 10.0 No 18 "Inc. 10.0 Yes No 60.0 19 DBLAW^ARE. Dee. 6. 6 Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Ino. Inc. 7.6 1.0 12.6 7.8 15.0 4.4 8.7 15.0 10.0 Deo. 10. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Deo. 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 XT ("' Noo ... Yes..-. Yes Yes.... Yes.... Yes.... Yee.... Yes.... No No'^' 15.0 4.0 No No No No 0.5 Yes No Yes No No 5.0 20.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 No No Yes No'.^.>.... No 5.0 5.0 10.0 < Pieceworkers; no change in piece rates. i Work overtime when necessary. * First year; second year, 5 per cent. i Improved methods prevented decrease in quantity of produot m Introduced improved machinery. II For time workers only; pieceworkers, no chancre, olncreafle in cost of raw materiali 94 EIGHT HOTJKS FOE LABOBERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. RESULTS OF THE REDUCTION OF HOURS OF LABOR IN ILiliINOIS. Industry. number of em- ployees. Year bours were re- duced. Hours worked per week. Before re- duction. Bakery products Bituminous coal mining Bituminous coal mining Bituminous coal mining Boiler making Boots and shoes Brass goods Cigars Cigars Electrical apparatus and supplies Elevator constructiou Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Oas and electric light fixtures Jewelry Flaning-mill products, including saah, doors, and blinds. Flaning-mill products, including sash, doors, and blinds. Flaning-mill products, including sa£h, doors, and blinds. Shoe lasts and cutting dies , Steel springs , Tinsmithing, coppersmithing, and sheet^iron working. . .Upholstering materials Watches 200 2,500 SOO 238 760 600 150 90 55 600 200 1,000 600 SOO 400 220 200 160 60 60 60 76 60 120 50 18 65 166 100 600 2,800 1903 1898 1898 1898 1902 1903 1903 1896 1901 1903 1901 1903 1902 1903 1902 1903 1902 1903 1903 1902 1900 1900 1901 1899 1900 1903 1903 1890 1902 1901 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 69.0 60.0 59.0 69.0 64.0 60.0 60.0 59.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 59.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 59.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 INDIANA. Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Patent medicines and compounds 1,200 260 166 1901 1900 1904 68.0 r>60.0 60.0 IOWA. Bituminous coal mining. Marble and stonework . . 268 12 1899 1898 60.0 60.0 KENTUCKY. 1 Printing and publishing. 180 1900 1.0 °54.0 a Restriction on the part of the union. iTlme workers only; no change in piece rates of pieceworkers. Duo to less efficient labor. ne to change in demand for coal. « No change in wages of time workers nor in piece rates of piece workers. /In machine shop; no change in foundry. ' ff Improved machinery and methods prevented any increase in cost of manufacture or decrease in quantity of product, ft inability to e^^tefld plant on account of location. BIGHT HOUB8 FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 95 ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH HAVE REDUCED HOURS— Continued. IJLIilNOIS. CliangeB accompanying reduction of hours. Per cent of product. Estab- lish- ment In daily wages (per cent). In cost of manufac- ture (percent). In quantity of product (percent). Due wholly to changes in hours and daily wages. Necessary to in- crease. Manufac- tured for United States Govern- ment. Ex- ported. Number of em- ployees. Days of running time. ber. Inc. 7.1 6 Dec. 12.0 6 Dec. 12.0 bDec. 12.6 Inc. 22.0 Inc. 8.0 Inc. 18.0 Inc. 23.1 Inc. 6.0 Inc. 11.0 Inc. 12.6 Inc. 15.0 Dec. Dec. Deo. Dec. Deo. Dec. Deo. Dec. 17.0 16.0 18.0 21.6 6.0 8.3 10.0 20.0 Noo Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No!fL.. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No 1 Yes... 2 Noc Nod Yes No 8 No 4 No No 10.0 6 Noa No a Yes 16.0 6 No 7 Dec. 10.0 /Inc. 6.0 No ... 8 No 9 Inc. 3.0 Deo. 15.0 Noa %\ Noft Yes No No No 1.0 2.0 10.0 1.5 26.0 3.0 10.0 10 11 12 Dec. 10.0 Inc. 10.0, Dec. 20.0 Inc. 2.0 Inc. 10.0 Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. 10.0 10.0 20.0 6.0 6.0 9,0 7.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 7.6 10.0 8.0 10.0 R..6 13.0 10.0 No Y'es 2.0 13 14 No" Yes No 16 Inc. 8.5 Inc. 6.0 Inc. 9.0 Inc. 7.6 Inc. 16.0 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 12.0 Inc. 6.0 Inc. 12.0 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 11. 1 Inc. 4.0 Inc. 14.0 No 16 Noi N0.<(1 Yes No No'^' 2.6 17 W 18 19 No 20 Yes No 21 Yes No 22 Yes No 23 Yes Yes 24 Noa Yes . . No 25 Yes 26 Yes Yes 27 Dec. 5. Dec. 26.7 Yes 28 Yes No No 2.0 29 Yes 6.0 9.8 30 No 31 INDIAIVA. ^ !Inc. 20.0 Dec. 13.6 No a (n) Yes Yes Yes No 6.0 10.0 1 No No 10.0 2 Inc. 6.0 Dec. 10.0 3 IOWA. 6Deo. 6.0 Dec. 5. Inc. 37.0 Dec. 28.0 Nod Yes .. .' No No No . 1 No 2 KENTUCKY. Inc. 22.0 Dec. 10.0 Yea Yes (P) 2.0 1 'Improved machinery tended to decrease and restriction of union to increase changes. JNot reported. %Due in part to the influence back of change in hours. ' Increase in labor cost. "•Some employees 80. "Improyea machinery prevented any increase In cost of nifti(utacture or decrease in quantity of iPWdnct. • ■ 1 ■ • f "Except artists' department, 48. PWorli overtime when necessary. 96 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOBICRS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. RESULTS OF THE BEDUOTION OF HOURS OF LABOR IN AlAINX:. Industry. Average number of em- ployees. year hoijrs were re- duced. Before re- duction. Hours worked per week. Building trades Iron and steel, architectural and ornamental Paper and pulp Paper and pulp Paper and pulp Stone quarrying and cutting Stone quarrying and cutting ..: Stone quarrying and cutting Stone quarrying and cutting Stone quarrying and cutting 75 60 1,000 800 660 82S 600 275 225 190 1903 1895 1900 1902 1901 /1900 ''1900 J 1909 11900 1900 54.0 69.0 a 72.0 "i84.0 d72.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 mARYIiAND. Boilers and engines Clothing - Clothing Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Shipbuilding Show cases, etc Tlnsmithing, coppersmithing, and sheet-iron working. no 1902 60.0 54.0 300 1901 60.0 54.0 80 1897 60.0 49.5 9750 1901 reo.o »60.0 200 1901 60.0 64.0 56 1901 60.0 64.0 52 1903 60.0 54.0 50 1904 69.0 64.0 60 1901 60.0 64.0 30 1901 60.0 64.0 25 1901 60.0 64,0 400 1898 60.0 54.0 145 1901 60.0 64.0 38 1904 64.0 48.0 mASSACHUSEXTS. Bicycles Boiler making Boots and shoes Boots and shoes Boots and shoes Boots and shoes Clothing Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Hoisting blocks and trucks Iron and steel, architectural and ornamental Pipe organs Shipbuilding , 287 1902 59.0 40 1902 60.0 2,800 1898 59,0 2,800 1901 63.5 2,800 1903 Z48.0 300 1902 58.0 150 1901 60.0 126 1902 60.0 75 1899 60.0 1,500 1902 60.0 600 1899 50.0 86 1901 60.0 80 1901 60.0 70 1902 59.0 160 ^p) 59.0 260 1892 60.0 aTour hands; day hands, male, 60, female, 54. ("Tour hands; day hands, 54. Tour hands only. dTour hands; day hands, 60. e Introduction oJ Improved machinery prevented any decrease in quantity of product. / For 600 employees; for 225, 1902. Fnr 600 employees only. h For 300 employees; for 800, 1903. < For 300 employees only. .* For 200 employees; for 75, 1903. * For 200 employees only. 1 For 160 employees; for 75, 1902. m For 150 employees only. nNot Including 99 wl^os? lipurs were not reduced. EIGHT HOTJKS FOR LAB0BER8 ON GOVERNMENT WORK, 97 ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH HAVE REDUCED HOURS— Continued. Changes accompanying reduction of hours. Per cent of product. Estab- lish- ment In dally wages (percent). In cost of manufac- ture (percent). In quantity of product (per cent). Due wholly to changes in hours and dally wages. Necessary to In- crease. Manufac- tured for United States Govern- ment. Ex- ported. Number of em- ployees. Days of running time. ber. Inc. 7.0 Dec. 5.0 oDec. 10.0 Dec. 7.5 oDec.SS.S fflnc. 1.8 4.0 i.6 20.0 6 Yea 6 Yes No No No 10.0 80.0 7 Yes.'.!^. 8 Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. 6.3 15.0 7.2 11.0 5.0 20.0 Dee. Dec. Dec. Deo. Dec. Dec. 7.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 9 Yes No ... 10 Yes . . No 11 Yea No No No 60.0 2.0 12 Yes 13 Inc. 10.0 Yes 14 mASSACHirSBXTS. Inc. 8.0 Inc. 10.0 Dec. 1.0 Inc. 3. "Dec. 2.0 Inc. 9.4 Inc. 12.0 Inc. 10.0 Dec. Dec. Inc. Dec. sclnc. Dee. Dec. Dec. 8.0 10.0 2.6 8.0 4.0 10.0 12.0 10.0 Yes "" Yes No No Hox Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yea Yes No Yes No (P) n.o 3.0 3.0 3.0 20.0 1 2 Yes No V Inc. 9. 4 Yes No 8 Yesa: No» Yes No 4 No 5 Yes No 6 (") No 7 inc. io.o Inc. 10.0 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 7.5 Dec. Dec. Deo. Dec. Dec. 15.0 10.0 12,0 10.0 10.0 No «a Yea Yes No No 5.0 15.0 8 9 Vea No .7 3.0 10 Yes 11 iP) X, (''> 6.0 6.0 12 Dec. 10.0 13 inc. io.o Dec. 10.0 Yes No 5.0 14 olmprovedmachinery prevented any incx'ease in cost ol manufacture or decrease in quantity of product. pNot reported. 9 In shops; 450 outside. rln shops; 54 outside. 'In shops; 44 outside. (In shops; 11.5 outside. " Work OTertime when necessary. ''Introduction of "premium plan" prevented any decrease in quantity of product and Increase to cost of manufacture. " No change in wages of time workers nor in piece rates of pieceworkers. ^ Hours Increased. f Time workers only; no change in piece rates of pieceworkers. X Increase in cost of raw material, etc. m Demoralizing effect of labor unions, H. Doc. 413, 58-3 7 98 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. RESULTS OF THE REDUCTION OF HOURS OF LABOR IN imCHIGAN. Industry. Average number of em- ployees. Year hours were re- duced. Before re- duction. Hours worked per week. Boots and shoes Chemicals Cigars Cooperage Electrical apparatus and supplies Electric light and power Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Hosiery and knit goods Planing-mill products, including sash, doors, and blinds. Printing and publishing Tinsmithing, coppersmithing, and sheet-iron work- ing. Tinsmlthing, coppersmithing, and sheet-iron work- ing. 857 675 S26 325 275 225 150 60 428 45 236 225 10 1890 1894 1899 1903 1901 1904 1901 1901 1903 1901 1894 1891 1904 1902 60.0 84.0 60.0 54.0 60.0 liBO.O 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 70.0 60.0 59.0 mUVNESOXA. Boiler making Designing and engraving Flouring and grist mill products Flouring and grist mill products Flouring and grist mill products Foundry and machine shop products Iron and steel, architectural and ornamental Iron and steel, architectural and ornamental Liquors, malt Liquors, malt Liquors, malt Pnnting and publishing 120 1903 60.0 64.0 67 1902 54.0 48.0 /240 1902 72.0 48.0 17 220 1902 72.0 48.0 '1230 1902 72.0 48.0 600 1902 60.0 66.0 200 1900 60.0 54.0 ^60 1903 60.0 48.0 fc260 1904 (■) (") 103 1903 (») V) 94 1902 60.0 4o 290 1899 67.0 (<•) JMISSOURI. Cigars Electrical apparatus and supplies Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products , Iron and steel, architectural and ornamental Liquors, malt Tinsmithing, coppersmitlung, and sheet-iron working. 35 1892 59.0 44.0 175 1901 60.0 64.0 360 1901 60.0 54.0 260 1900 54.0 60.0 200 1901 60.0 64.0 60 1902 60.0 64.0 100 1902 64.0 48.0 60 1902 60.0 60.0 JiEW HAJUPSHIRIi;. Stone quarrying and cutting Stone quarrying and cutting Stone quarrying and cutting icl900 aal900 00 1900 54.0 54.0 IM64.0 oNo change in wages of time workers nor in piece rates of pieceworkers. *Not including 200 whose hours were not reduced. "Pieceworkers; no change In piece rates. d Except engineers, 84, and oilers, 54. •Except engineers, 66. / Not including 560 whose hours were not reduced. B Not Including 380 whose hours were not reduced. * Not including 470 whose hours were not reduced. < Work overtime when necessary. J Not including 240 whose hours were not reduced. * Not including 49 whose hours were not reduced. I Eighty-one employees worked 54, and 179 worked 60 honni. m One hundred and thirty employees worked 48, and ISO worked 54 homa, n Increase of tl.OO per week each to 81 employees. * Forty-two employees worked 54, and 61 worked 60 hours, r Forty-two employees worked 48, and 61 worked M hours, f Forty-two employee! only. EIGHT HOUBS FOB LAB0BER8 ON GOVEBNMENT WORK. 99 ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH HAVE REDUCED HOURS— Continued. iniCHIGAlV. Changes accompanying reduction of houis. Per cent of product. Estab- lish- ment In dally , wages (per cent) . In cost of manufac- ture (percent). In quantity of product (per cent). Due wholly to changes In hours and dally wages. Necessary to In- crease. Manufac- tured for United States Govern- ment. Ex- ported. Number of em- ployees. Days of running time. ber. Dec. 10.0 Dec. 8.0 Inc. 1.0 Inc. 3.0 Inc. 17.0 Dec. 10.0 Deo. 26.7 Dec. 10.0 Dec. 11. 1 Deo. 10.0 Deo. 20.0 Dec. 10. Deo. 10. Dec. 10. Deo. 2. Dec. 8. 3 Deo. 10.0 Deo. 10.0 Deo. 10. Deo. 9.0 Yes....' No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No. . 5.0 6.0 1 Yes Yes. 2 Yes No Yes No Inc. 3. 6 Inc. 5.0 Inc. 9.5 Inc. 6.0 'incVi'o' Inc. 1.0 Inc. 5.0 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 2.0 Inc. 9.0 Yes Yes 7.6 Yes No Yes ... 1.4 Dec. 4.6 Yes 1.0 7 Yes No No No No 2.6 1.0 1.0 g Dec. 10.0 Yes 1.0 5.0 g Yes 10 11 Dec. 8.3 Yes Yes No No. 1.0 Deo. 10.0 Dec. 5.0 Yes 13 Yes No 14 Yea No 16 miNNESOTA. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. 11.1 6.6 2.3 8.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 7.5 Deo. Deo. Deo. Deo. Deo. Dec. Dec. Deo. Deo. Dec. Deo. Deo. 10.0 11.0 10.0 11.7 11.0 8.7 1.0 5.0 10,0 6.0 10.0 7.6 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.0 1 Yes No 2 Deo. 9.0 Deo. 6.8 Dec. 7.0 Yes No No 0.1 16.0 18.0 25.0 8 Yes 4 Yes No 6 Yes no'.!'.... No No 1.0 1.0 5.0 Yes 7 Yes (n) . 9lnc. 14.0 Yes .2 9 Yes No 10 Yes No 11 Yes No .6 12 jmssouiei. C) NofrL... Yes JL Yes Yes No'-' 1 Inc. 5. Inc. 10.0 Inc. 4. Dec. Dec. Deo. 5.0 10.0 8.0 Yes 10.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2 Inc. 10.0 Yes No No t Nou Yes J-' 1.6 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 26.0 Dec. Deo. 10.0 10.0 P) Yes No (') No NEW HAmFSHIRE. J Inc. 1.8 » Inc. 1.8 "Inc. 1.8 Inc. Inc. Inc. 10.0 7.0 7.0 Jl No No No No 1 No No 20.0 2 Deo. 3.0 3 r Sixty-three employees worked 48, and 227 worked 64 hours. • Not reported. * Restriction on part of union. » Improved machinery and methods prevented any increase in cost of manufacture or decrease in ' quantity of products. » Wages mcreased 81.00 per week. 1" Decrease; rate per cent not reported. ":For 45 employees; for 35, 1903. . V For 45 employ ees only . 'Improved machinery prevented any decrease in quantity of product, "Tor 60 employees; for 26, 1902. &6For 60 employees only. •"For 30 employees; for 20, 1903. "•"For 30 employees; for 20, 60 horns. « For 30 employees only. //Improved machinery prevented greater decrease in quantity of pradost. 100 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOBERS ON GOVERNMENT WOEK. RESULTS OF THE REDUCTION OF HOURS OF LABOR IN NEW JKRSHY. Industry, ATerage number otem- ployeea. Year hours were re- duced. Before re- duction. Hours worked per week. Agricultural implements Boiler making Boots and shoes Boots and shoes Boots and shoes Carriages and wagons Clothing Cutlery and edge tools Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Gas and electric light fixtures Glass Glass Hats and caps Hats and caps Hats and caps Iron work , Jewelry Jewelry Jewelry Jewelry Jewelry ■. Jewelry Jewelry Jewelry Leather Novelties ." Oilcloth Flaning-mill products, including sash, doors, and blinds. Planing-mlU products, including sash, doors, and blinds. Plumbers' supplies Printing and publishing Printing and publishing Refrigerators and meat blocks Saddlery, hardware Silverware Silverware Silverware Worsted goods 75 150 4£0 160 112 175 425 100 360 300 260 200 150 140 130 120 115 100 90 66 60 50 36 700 176 350 160 60 150 225 200 120 90 88 76 66 60 165 800 100 200 70 100 96 50 100 366 160 75 350 1901 1899 1900 1904 1903 1904 1903 1903 1903 1902 1901 1901 »190l 1901 1901 1903 1901 1901 1901 1901 1903 1899 1903 1899 1902 1902 1903 1903 1899 1903 1903 1902 1903 1902 1903 1902 1900 1902 1902 1902 1897 1901 1903 1901 1904 1903 1903 1903 1902 1902 1902 60.0 59.0 69.0 69.0 60.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 69.0 60.0 59.0 59.0 60.0 60.0 69.0 60.0 60.0 69.0 60.0 59.0 59.0 60.0 64.0 60.0 55.0 65.0 69.0 69.0 59.0 69.0 59.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 59.0 60.0 67.0 60.0 610 64.0 59.5 59.0 59.0 60.0 59.0 69.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 <• No change in wages of time workers nor In piece rates of pieceworkers. b No change in wages of time workers. Rates of pieceworkers increased on certain Jota. < Work overtime when necessary. din product of time workers only; no change In product of pieceworkers. • Pieceworkers; no change In piece rates. BIGHT HOTJBS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 101 ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH HAVE REDUCED HOURS— Continued. JiE'W XERSBiY. Changes accompanying reduction of hours. Per cent of product. Estab- lish- ment num- ber. In daUy wages (per cent). In cost of manufac- ture (percent). In quantity of product (per cent). Due wholly to changes in hours and daily wages. Necessary to in- crease. Manufac- tured for United States Govern- ment. Ex- ported. Number of em- ployees. Days of running time. Inc. 7.0 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 2.6 Inc. 3.6 Inc. 3.2 Inc. 7.0 Inc. 6.8 Deo. 10.0 Deo. If.O Deo. 6.8 Dec. 8.0 Dec. 8.3 Deo. 10.0 Decrease; rate per cent not reported. 106 BIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GO VERNMENT WORK . RESULTS OF THE REDUCTION OP HOURS OF LABOR IS PENNSYIiVANIA. Industry. Agricultural implements Agricultural implements Boiler making Boiler tnakiiig Bronze castings Bronze castings Cliinaware Clothing Clothing •. Clothing Clothing Clothing Cooperage and iron tank making Electrical apparatus and supplies Electrical construction Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-ahop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products , Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products , Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-stiop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and'machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Foundry and machine-shop products Furniture Iron and steel, architectural and ornamental Iron and steel, bolts, nuts, washers, and rivets Iron and steel, bolts, nuts, washers, and rivets Oil and gas well rig irons, etc Pianos and organs Planing-mlll products, including sash, doors, and blinds. Flaning-mlll products, including sash, doors, and blinds. Shipbuilding Stonecntting Stoneouttin g Stonecntting Tinsmithing, coppersmithing, and sheet-iron working. Tinsmithing, coppersmithing, and sheet-iron working. Average number of em- ployees. 200 125 400 100 300 60 150 olOO dlOO elOO 30 *30 1,400 8,000 900 2,000 2,000 900 keOO 600 600 550 500 600 450 400 300 250 250 250 200 180 150 150 120 115 100 100 90 88 80 75 60 60 60 60 ,60 50 175 130 450 60 50 60 50 25 1,500 360 - 50 25 800 100 Year hours were re- duced. 1901 1901 1£92 1901 1902 1903 1902 1903 1903 1903 1900 1892 1897 1891 1894 1897 {') 1897 1901 1900 1892 1901 1901 1890 >il896 1901 1901 1903 1898 1902 1892 1900 1903 1900 1902 1902 1903 1890 1896 1902 1903 1901 1901 1897 1901 1901 1904 1902 1901 1898 1902 1904 1902 1901 1902 1901 1901 1901 1903 1901 Hours worked per week. Before re- duction. 67.5 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 54.0 54.0 64.0 54.0 54.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 57.6 60.0 60.0 59.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 57.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 58.6 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 67.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 64.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 a Except machinists, no change. I> Pieceworkers; no change in piece rates. oNot including 2,900 whose hours were not reduced, dNot including 2,400 whose bomrs were not reduced. eNot including 1,000 whose hours were not reduced. /Restriction on part of union. fNot including 570 whose hours were not reduced. »Not Includlnja; 470 whose hours were not reduced. < Piece rates of pieceworkers only; no change in wages of time workers. ^Improved machinery and methods prevented any increase in cost of manufacture or decrease In quantity of product. EIGHT HOUBS FOB LABOEEES ON QOVEENMENT \V) No Yes Yes Yes Yes ■. No No No No 30.0 25.0 1 Yes No 2 Yes No S Yea No 4 Yes No 6 Yes No . . 6 Yes No 7 Yes No 8 Inc. 16.0 No 9 Inc. 40.0 Inc. 20.0 Inc. 50.0 Inc. 10.0 Dec. 20. Dec. 20.0 Dec. 60.0 Deo. 10. Nor No/ No/ Yes ... No 10 No 11 No 12 • Inc. 10.0 No 90.0 13 No 14 Yes.■) No (m) 64 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 6. Inc. 2.5 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 25.0 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 11.0 Inc. 20.0 Dec. 10.0 (») Dec. 6.2 Dec. 10.0 Dec. 25.0 Dec. 10.0 Dec. 11.0 Dec. 11.1 Yes 65 Not Yes 56 No No 66.0 57 Yes 58 No/ No No 33.3 59 60 Yea (r) No (») 61 Yes 8.0 62 fcNot including 7,400 whose hours were not reduced. J Hours of part of employees reduced in 1890; others in 1900. m Not reported. nMaohine shop; foundry, 1901. o Fifty-four in summer (6 months), 57 in winter (6 months) . j> Outside hands; mechanics 49.5, laborers, etc., 66.0. a No change in wages of time workers nor in piece rates of pieoeworkerB. r Work overtime when necessary. ■ Decrease: rate per cent not reported. (Increased cost of material. 108 BIGHT HOURS FOE LAB0REE8 ON GOVERNMENT WORK. RESULTS OF THE REDUCTION OF HOURS OF LABOR IN RHODK I8I.AND. Estab- lish- ment num- ber. Industry. Average number of em- ployees. Year hours were re- duced. Before re- duction. Hours worked per week. Aiter re- duction. Foundry and machine-shop products . Foundry and machine-shop products . Foundry and machine-shop broducts . Iron and steel, nails and spikes Liquors, malt 400 260 120 125 1891 1901 1903 1903 1901 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 67.0 M.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 TEXAS. 1 Foundry and machine-shop products . 120 61901 60.0 54.0 VERMONT. Foundry and machine-shop products. 125 1903 60.0 64.0 VIRGINIA. 1 Foundry and machine-shop products. 60.0 540 WEST VIRGINIA. Foundry and machine-shop products Planing mill products, including sash, doors, and blinds. 250 50 60.0 64.0 64.0 47.0 WISCONSIN. Furniture . 1902 60.0 64.0 a Work overtime when necessary. I> Machine shop; foundry, 1902. allachiue shop; foundry not reported, but less. BIGHT H0T3RS FOB LAB0BER8 ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 109 ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH HAVE REDUCED HOURS— Concluded. RHODE ISIiAND. Changes accompanying reduction of hours. Per cent of product. Estab- lish- ment In daily wages (per cent). In cost of manufac- ture (per cent). In quantity of product (percent). Due wholly to changes in hours and daily wages. Necessary to in- crease. Manufac- tured for United States Govern- ment. Ex- ported. Number of em- ployees. Days of running time. ber. Inc. 6. 5 Inc. U.O I>ec. 5.0 Dec. 10.0 Yes No No No Yes No No No 8.0 1.0 6.0 1 Dec. 10.0 Yes 3 No 3 Inc. 10.0 Inc. 6.0 Dec. 10. Dec. 10.0 Yes No 2.1 4 Yea Noo 6 TEXAS. "Inc. 10.0 Deo. 10.0 Yes Yes VERMONT. Inc. 10.0 Deo. 10.0 Yes Yes No. VIRGimA. Inc. 10.0 Dec. 10.0 Yes Yes No.. IVEST VIRCINIA. Inc. 10.0 Inc. 18.0 Deo. Dec. 10.0 13.5 Yes No: Yea No No n.o 1 Yes 2 WISCONSIN. Inc. 17.5 Inc. 16.0 Dec. 10.0 No« Yes No.. 20.0 d Not reported. * Increase in cost ot raw materiaL CHAPTER V. ATTITUDE OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. Ill CHAPTER V. ATTITUDE OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. In order to present a statement in behalf of labor, request was made of the officials of organized labor very early in the investigation, to assist in ascertaining whether the laborers of the country were willing to have taken away from them the right to labor more than eight hours per day, if they desired to do so, and also in the securing of data bearing upon the effects upon industry of an eight-hour day as contemplated in the pending bill. This request, however, was courteously declined by Mr. Samuel Gompers, in behalf of the American Federation of Labor, representing 143 national and international organizations of labor, on the ground that organized labor had already fully presented its side of the case as regards the eight-hour day at the hearings before the Com- mittees on Labor, of Congress, and that they had nothing further to add at this time. Mr. James Mahedy, general president of the Operative Plasterers' International Association of the United States and Canada, made a statement that the members of that organization almost without excep- tion were satisfied with eight hours' work and pay and believed in the proposed eight-hour law. Mr. Mahedy further stated that he came in contact with unorganized labor to a great extent, and that it appeared as anxious as organized labor for the eight-hour movement. H. Doc. 413, 58-3 8 113 CHAPTER YI. LAWS RELATING TO HOURS OF LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES. 115 CHAPTER VI. LAWS RELATING TO HOURS OF LABOR. Probably the first official act of the United States Government con- cerning a limitation of the hours of labor on public works was the Executive order of President Van Buren, issued in 1840, providing for a ten-hour day. In 1868 Congress passed an act providing for an eight-hour day for all laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States. As this law did not make the observance of the eight-hour day compulsory, advan- tage was taken of the discretion which the law permitted and the ten- hour day was continued in some branches of the public service. The act of 1892 makes provisions similar to the act of 1868, but pro- vides a penalty for its violation. Following are the provisions of these two acts: UNITED STATES COMPILED STATUTES. Section 3738. Eight hours shall constitute a clay's work for all laborers, workmen, and mechanics who may be employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States. Enacted 1868. Page 2521.— (Chapter S5S, Acta of 1891-1892.) Section 1. The service and employment of all laborers and mechanics who are now or may hereafter be employed by the Government of the United States, by the Dis- trict of Columbia, or by any contractor or subcontractor upon any of the public works of the United States or of the said District of Columbia, is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia or any such contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control the services of such laborers or mechanics to require or permit any such laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar day except in case of extraordinary emergency. Sec. 2. Any officer or agent of the Government of the United States or of the Dis- trict of Columbia, or any contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control any laborer or mechanic employed upon any of the public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia who shall intentionally violate any provision of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each and every such offense shall upon conviction be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or bjr both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court having juris- diction thereof. No other laws concerning an eight-hour day have been enacted by the Federal Congress except such as pertain to specified occupations. Many of the individual States have enacted general laws concerning 117 118 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABOKERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. the length of a day's work. These laws are mostly of a comparatively recent date and nearly all provide for an eight-hour day. The following compilation presents the laws in existence in the vari- ous States regulating the length of a day's work. These laws are pre- sented under three heads, the first showing the number of hours that constitute a day's labor in the absence of contract, the second the num- ber of hours per day to be worked on the public roads in lieu of the payment of a fixed sum for road tax, and the third the limit set by the State for labor in its behalf or in behalf of its subdivisions. Laws of general application only are considered in the first class, laws relat- ing to specific occupations being omitted. In general no penalty is incurred for failure to comply with any of these laws, except those in the third class. The date of the enactment of the existing lasv or of the adoption of the constitutional provision is given in each instance, together with the changes that have taken place in the length of the work day fixed by law and the dates of such changes. HOURS OF LABOR IN GENEBAL EBCPLOTMENTS. CALIFORNIA. Political Code — 1885. Section 3244 (as amended by chapter 85, Acts of 1887). Eight hours of labor consti- tute a day's work, unless it is otherwise expressly stipulated by the parties to a con- tract, except those contracts within the provisions of sections three thousand two hundred and forty-six, three thousand two hundred and forty-seven, and three thousand two hundred and forty-eight of this code. Original section enacted 1868. Sections 3246 and 3247 relate to labor on street railways. CONNECTICUT. Oeneral Statutes — 190S. Section 4692. Eight hours of labor, performed in any one day, by any one person, shall be a lawful day's work, unless otherwise agreed. Enacted 1867. FLORIDA. Revised Statutes — 1891. Section 2117. Ten hours of labor shall be a legal day's work, and whenever any person employed to perform manual labor of any kind by the day, week, month or year renders so many hours of labor, he shall be considered as having performed a legal day's work, unless a written contract has been signed by the person so employed and the employer, requiring a less or greater number of hours of labor to be performed daily. Sec. 2118. Unless such written contract has been made, the person employed shall be entitled to extra pay for all work performed by the requirement of bis employer in excess of ten hours' labor daily. Enacted 1874. EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOEERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 119 ILLINOIS. Annotated Staivies — 1896, Chapter 4S. Section 1. * * * eight hours of labor between the rising and the setting of ttie sun, in all mechanical trades, arts and employments, and other cases of labor and service by the day, except in farm employments, shall constitute and be a legal day's work, where there is no special contract or agreement to the contrary. Sec. 2. This act shall not apply to or in any way affect labor or service by the year, month or week; nor shall any person be prevented by anything herein con- tained from working as many hours over time or extra hours as he or ma may agree, and shall not, in any sense, be held to apply to farm labor. Enacted 1867. INDIANA. See Hours of Labor on Public Works, below. MAINE. Itemed Statutes — 190S, Chapter 84. Section 57. In all contracts for labor, ten hours of actual labor are a legal day's work, unless the contract stipulates for a longer time; but this" rule does not apply to monthly labor or to agricultural employments. Appears without reference as section 36, chapter 82, R. S. 1871. MICHIGAN. Compiled Laws — 18ff7. Section 5453. In all factories, workshops, salt "blocks, saw-mills logging or lumber camps, booms or drives, mines or other places used for mechanical, manufacturing, or other purposes within the State of Michigan, where men or women are employed, ten hours per day shall constitute a legal day's work, and any proprietor, stock- holder, manager, clerk, foreman, or other employers of labor who shall require any person or persons in their employ to perform more than ten hours per day, shall be compelled to pay such employees for all overtime or extra, hours at the ri^ular per diem rate, unless there be an agreement to the contrary. Sec. 5454. In all contracts, engagements, or agreements to labor in any mechanical, manufacturing, or other labor calling, where such contracts or agreements are silent, or no express condition specified, ten hours shall constitute a day's work, and the contract or agreement sTiall be so construed. * Sec. 5455. Any individual, firm, agent of any corporation, or other employers of labor who shall take any unlawful advantage of any person or persons in their em- ploy, or seeking employment, because of their poverty or misfortune, to invalidate any of the provisions of the preceding section, shall be deemed guilty of a misde- meanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five dollars, nor more than fifty dollars for each offense, and it shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney of the county in which such offense was committed, upon receiving com- Elaint, to prosecute all such cases in the name of the people of the State of Michigan, efore any justice of the peace or other competent court of jurisdiction. Sec. 5457. Nothing in this act [sees. 5453-5457] shall be construed to apply to domestic or farm laborers, or other laborers who agree to work more than ten houra per day. Enacted 1885. MINNESOTA. General Statutes — 1894. Section 2240 (as amended by chapter 49, Acts of 1895). In all trades, professions, callings and departments of labor and in all manufactories, workshops, mills and other places wherein persons are employed to perform labor for hire or reward, in 120 EIGHT HOURS FOE LAB0BBR8 ON GOVERNMENT WORK. this State, the time of labor for the persons so employed and performing labor, shall not exceed ten hours for each day, and any owner, stockholder or overseer, em- ployer, clerk br foreman who shall compel any person or shall permit any child under the age of fourteen years, so employed, to labor for any more than ten hours in any one day, where such owner, stockholder or overseer, clerk or foreman has control, such person so oHending shall be liable to a prosecution in the name of the State of Minnesota, before any justice of the peace, of [or] court of competent juris- diction of the county wherein the same occurs, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to agricultural laborers and domes- tics employed by the month and to persons engaged in the care of live stock: And jpraMed farther, That extra labor may be performed for extra compensation, except m the case of children under fourteen years. Sec. 2241. In all engagements to labor in any mechanical or manufacturing busi- ness, a day's work, when the contract of labor is silent upon the' subject, or when there is no express contract, shall consist of ten hours, and all agreements, contracts, or engagements, in reference to such labor, shall be so construed. Original sections appeared in ch. 24, G. S. 1866. MISSOURI. Bemed Statutes — 1899. Section 8136. * » » The period of eight hours shall be and constitute a l^al day's work; but nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent parties to any contract for work, services or labor from ajrreeing upon a longer or shorter time. This section shall not apply to persons hired or employed by the month, nor to laborers or farm hands in the service of farmers or others engaged in agriculture. Enacted 1867. MONTANA. CivU Code — 1895. Sbction 2724. The entire time of a domestic servant belongs to the master; and the time of other servants to such extent as is usual in the business in which they serve, not exceeding in any case ten hours in the day. Enacted 1895. NEBRASKA. Compiled Statutes — 1901. Sect'ion 5329. Ten hours shall constitute one day's labor, so far as it concerns laborers and mechanics, throughout the State. Appears as sec. 379, R. S., 1866. NEW HAMPSHIRE. Public Statutes — 1891, Cliapter 180. Section 20. In all contracts relating to labor ten hours' actual labor shall be taken to be a day's work unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Enacted 1847. NEW YORK. See Hours of Labor on Public Works, below. OHIO. Bates's Annotated Statutes — 1900. Section 4364-62. In all engagements to labor in any mechanical, manufacturing or mining business, a day's work, when the contract is silent upon the subject, or where there is no express contract, shall consist of eight hours; and all agreements, con- tracts or engagements in reference to such labor shall be so construed. Enacted 1886. Ten hours were declared a legal day's work by an act of 1852. EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOEEES OK QOVEENMENT WOEK. 121 PENNSYLVANIA. Brightly'a Purdon'a Digest — 1895, page 1168. Section 1. Eight hours of labor between the rising and setting of the sun, shall be deemed and held to be a legal day's work, in all cases of labor and service by the day, where there is no contract or agreement to the contrary. Sec. 2. This act shall not apply to or in any way affect farm or agricultural labor or service by the year, month or week; nor shall any person be prevented, by anx- thing herein contained, from working as many hours overtime or extra work, as he or she may see fit; the compensation to be agreed upon between the employer and the employee. Enacted 1868. RHODE ISLAND. General Laws — 1896, Chapter 198. Section 24. Labor performed in any manufacturing establishment, and all mechan- ical labor, during the period of ten hours in any one day, shall be considered a legal day's work, unless otherwise agreed by the parties to the contract for the same, or unless for the purposes, and subject to all restrictions, mentioned in section twenty- two of this chapter. Appears in chapter 155, G. S., 1872. . WISCONSIN. Annotoded Statutes — 1898. Section 1729. In all engagements to labor in any manufacturing or mechanical busi- ness, where there is no express contract to the contrary, a day's work shall consist of eight hours and all engagements or contracts for labor in such cases shall be so construed; but this shall not apply to any contract for labor by the week, month or year. Enacted 1867. HOTTSS OF LABOR ON FTTBI.IO BOADS. ARKANSAS. Acts of 1897 — Extraordinary Session. [Act No. 6.] Sbction 21. A day's work shall be eight hours [on the public roads]; • • * ILLINOIS. Annotated Statutes — 1896, Chapter ISl. Section 99. Every person assessed to work on the highways, and named to work, may appear in person, or by an able-bodied man as a substitute, and the person or substitute shall actually work eight hours in each day, * * * Enacted 1883. A similar provision appears in the road law of 1873. IOWA. Code— 1897. Section 1535. Eight hours' service for a man, or man and team, shall be required for a day's work; * * * An act of 1884 made nine hours a day's work. This act is given as the basis of the present law, the change from nine hours to eight hav- ing been made apparently by the codifiers. Section 693, Code of 1851, declares eight hours to be a day's work. l22 BIGHT HOUES FOE LAB0EEE8 ON GOVEKNMEMT WOEK. MISSOURI. Eevised^ Statutes — 1899. Sbotion 9696v (added by act approved March 26, 1901; page 237, Acts of 1901). It shall be the duty of the road overseer to * * * require of each laborer a, faithful performance of duty and to require him to do eight hours' actual service each day, » • * MONTANA. Ads of 1903— Chapter U- Section 11. * * * For the purpose of carrying the provisions of this section into effect the road supervisors of the various counties are made the agents of the county treasurers to collect said road tax in cash, in lieu of one day's work of eight hours, in all cases where said tax is not worked out by labor on the roads as in this act provided. * * * A similar provision appears in an act of 1896. NEBRASKA. Compiled Statutes — 1901. Section 4581. The overseer shall allow all persons who may appear in pursuance to such notice and offering to pay their labor tax in labor under his direction, the sum of f 1.50 for every day he shall actually work eight hours on such road, * * * Enacted 1879. A similar provision appears in the road law of 1862. NEVADA. Compiled Laws — 1899. Section 474. A day's work on the public roads shall consist of at least eight hours' actual labor, exclusive of the time spent in going to and returning from the work, and in no case shall pay be given for more than one day's time between sunrise and sunset of the same day to or for the same person. Enacted 1897. NEW MEXICO. Acts of 1901. Section 1. All able-bodied male persona in the Territory of New Mexico between the ages of twenty-one and sixty year.s, shall be required to perform labor upon the public roads and highways as herein provided, for any number of days required by the road supervisor of their respective precincts, not less than two days nor to exceed five days of eight hours each in any one year. The hours are the same as fixed by an act of 1891. NEW YORK. Revised Statutes — 1901, page 1609. Section 60. Every overseer of highways shall give at least twenty-four hours' notice to all residents of his district, and corporations assessed to work upon the highways therein, of the time and place at which they are to appear for that purpose, and with what teams and implements, and that they will be allowed at the rate of one day for every eight hours of work on the highways, between seven o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon. * * * » Enacted 1890. The hours are the same as fixed by 1 R. S., p. 508 (1863). EIGHT H0UB8 FOE LAB0BEE8 ON GOVERNMENT WOKK. 123 OKLAHOMA. Statutes of 189S. Paragraph 5726 (as amended by act of 1899). All male persons between twenty- one and fifty years of age, who have resided thirty days in this Territory, who are capable of performing labor on public highways, and who are not a township or county charge, shall be liable each year to perform four days' work of eight hours each on the public roads. « * » The provision as to hours occurs in the law of 1890. OREGON. Annotated Codes and Statutes — 190S. Section 4836. Every person notified to labor on the public roads under the pro- visions of this chapter shall be required to appear at the place appointed by the supervisors at the hour of 8 o'clock in the forenoon, with such necessary tools and implements as said supervisor may direct, and work industriously and diligently, domg at least eight hours' faithful labor in each day, * * * Enacted 1860. SOUTH CAROLINA. Code—190£. Section 1355. » » » Ten hours' labor shall be held to be a day's work. Enacted 1888. SOUTH DAKOTA. Political Code— 1903. Section 1692. Every person assessed to work on the highways and warned to work may appear in person, or by an able-bodied man as a substitute, and the person or substitute so appearing shall actually work eight hours in each day, * » * Enacted 1885; the law of 1883 on this subject prescribes ten hours as a day's work. TENNESSEE. Acts of 1901— Chapter 8. .Sections. » * • It is hereby declared that eight hours shall constitute a day's work. * * • TEXAS. Revised Statutes — 1895. Article 4735. * * • A day's work within .the meaning of this [road] law shall be eight hours' efficient service, * * * Enacted 1889. The law succeeded hereby required a " reasonable amount " of labor each day. 124 EIGHT H0UE8 FOE LAB0EEK8 ON GOVEBNMENT WOEK. WISCONSIN. Annotated Statutes — 1898. Section 1248. * • • Every such person who shall bo appear and work agree- ably to the direction of such auperintendetit upon the highways of his district shall be credited on his highway tax one dollar and fifty cents for every day he shall actually work eight hours, * * * Enacted 1869. WYOMING. Revised Statutes — 1899. Section 1943. ■ * * Any person liable to pay such poll or road tax, may work out the said tax under the direction of the supervisor of the district or other proper officer, in an incorporated town or city where such person resides, and he shall be allowed for such work the sum of two dollars for each day's work of eight hours. » * # Enacted 1895. A law of 1886 contained a similar provision as to hours. HOURS OF liABOR ON PUBLIC WORKS. CALIFORNIA. Gonstitution — Article SO. Section 17 (as amended, 1902). The time of service of all laborert^ or workmen or mechanics employed upon any public works of the State of California, or of any county, city and county, city, town, district, township, or any other political subdi- vision thereof, whether said work is done by contract or otherwise, shall be limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary . emergency caused by fire, flood, or danger to life and property, or except to work upon public, military, or naval works or defenses in time of war, and the legislature shall provide by law that a stipulation to this effect shall be incorporated in all con- tracts for public works and prescribe proper penalties for the speedy and efficient enforcement of said law. Prior to amendment the section read: " Eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work on all public work." Adopted 1879. Pmcd Code— 1885. Section 653/ (added by chapter 158, Acts of 1901) . Every officer of this State or of any political division thereof, or any person acting for or on behalf thereof, and any contractor or subcontractor for any part of any public work or works done for such State or political division, and every person, corporation, or association which employs, directs, or controls the services of any laborer, workman, or mechanic in any suqh work, who requires them, or any of them, to labor more than eight hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood, or danger to life or property, and except work upon public military or naval defenses in time of war, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Ads of 190S.— Chapter 107. Section 1. The time of service of any laborer, workman, or mechanic employed \ipon any of the public works of the State of California, or of any political subdivi- sion thereof, or upon work done for said State, or any political subdivision thereof, is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day; and it shall be unlawful for any officer or agent of said State, or of any political subdivision thereof^ or for any contractor or subcontractor doing work under contract upon any public works aforesaid, who employs, or who directs or controls, the work of any EIGHT HOURS FOR LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 125 laborer, workman, or mechanic, employed as herein aforesaid, to require or permit Buch laborer, workman, or mechanic, to labor more than eight hours during any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency, caused by fire, flood, or danger to life or property, or except to work upon public military or naval defenses or works in time of war. Sec. 2. Any officer or agent of the State of California, or of any political subdivision thereof, making or awarding, as such officer or agent, any contract, the execution of which involves or may involve the employment of any laborer, workman, or mechanic upon any of the public works, or uyon any work, hereinbefore mentioned, shall cause to be inserted therein a stipulation which shall provide that the contractor to whom said contract is awarded snail forfeit, as a penalty, to the State or political sub- division in whose behalf the contract is made and awarded, ten (10) dollars for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed, in the execution of said contract, by him, or by any subcontractor under him, upon any of the public works, or upon any work, hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which such laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight hours in violation of the provisions of this act; and it shall be the duty of such officer or agent to take cognizance of all violations of the provisions of said act committed in the course of the execution of said contract, and to report the same to the representative of the State or political subdivision, party to the contract, authorized to pay to said con- tractor moneys becoming due to him under the said contract, and said representative, when making payments of moneys thus due, shall withhold and retain therefrom all sums and amounts which shall have been forfeited pursuant to the herein said stipulation. Sec. 3. Any officer, agent, or representative of the State of California, or of any political subdivision thereof, who shall violate any of the provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and shall upon conviction be punished by fine not exceeding five hundred (500) dollars, or by imprisonment, not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. This chapter repeals and supersedes section 3245, Codes and Statutes of 1885 (political code), which fixed a similar limit to a day's work. COLORADO. Act$ of 189S—Chapter US. Section 1 (as amended by chapter 9, Acts of 1894). In all work hereafter under- taken in behalf of the State or any county, township, school district, municipality or incorporated town, it shall be unlawful for any board, officer, agent, or any con- tractor or subcontractor thereof to employ any mechanic, workingman or laborer in the prosecution of any such work for more than eight hours a day. Sec. 2 (as amended by chapter 9, Acts of 1894). Nothing in section one of this act shall be construed so as to prevent work in excess of eight hours a day in emergency cases: Provided, That hours in excess of eight a day shall be treated as constituting part of a subsequent day's work: And provided, That in no one week of seven days shall there be permitted more than forty-eight hours of labor. Any violation hereof shall be unlawfiil. Sec. 4 [3] (as amended by chapter 9, Acta of 1894). Any employer, board, officer or contractor who shall violate the provisions of sections 1 or 2 of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one hundred (100) days or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. The hours of labor were the same, previous to the amendment. DELAWARE. Acts of 1903— Chapter 410. Section 1. Eight hours shall constitute alegal day's work for all classes of employees employed by the municipal corporation of the city of Wilmington. Sec 2. Each contract to which the municipal corporation of the city of Wilming- ton is a party which may involve the employment of laborers, workmen or mechanics shall contain a stipulation that no laborer, workmen or mechanic in the employ of the municipal corporation of the city of Wilmington, contractor, subcontractor, or 126 EIGHT HOUBS FOB LABOEEBS ON GOVEBNMENT WOBK, other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood or danger to life or property. Sec. 3. The wages to be paid for a legal day's work aa hereinbefore defined to all classes of such laborers, workmen or mechanics upon all such public work or upon any material to be used upon or in connection therewith shall not be less than the prevailing rate for a day's work in the same trade or occupation in the locaUty in the State where such public work, on, about or in connection with which such labor is performed in its final or completed form is to be situated, erected or used. Each such contract hereafter made shall contain a stipulation that each such laborer, workman or mechanic employed by such contractor, subcontractor or other person on, about or upon such public work shall receive such wages as hereinbefore provided. Each contract for such public work hereafter made shall contain a provision that the same shall be void and of no effect unless the person or corporation making or performing the same shall comply with the provisions of this act; and no such person or corpora- tion shall be entitled to receive any sum nor shall any officer, agent or employee of the municipal corporation of the city of Wilmington pay the same or authonze its payment from the funds under his charge or control to any such person or corpora- tion for work done upon any contract which in its form or manner of performance violates the provisions of this act. Sbc. 4. Any officer, agent or employee of the municipal corporation, of the city of Wilmington, having a duty to act in the premises, who violates, evades, or know- ingly permits the violation of [or] evasion of any of the provisions of this act, shall be guilty of malfeasance in office and shall be suspended or removed by the authority having the power to appointor remove such officer, agent or employee, otherwise by the governor. Any citizen of this State may maintain proceedings for the suspension or removal of such officer, agent or employee, or may maintain ah action for the purpose of securing the cancellation or avoidance of any' public contract which by ite terms or manner of performance violates this act or for the purpose of preventing any officer, agent or employee of such municipal corporation from paying or authorizing the payment of any public money for work done thereupon. Sec. 5. This act shall not apply to the policemen, park guards, watchmen, or special officers of any kind. DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA. Code of 1901. Section 892. The service and employment of all laborers and mechanics who are now or may hereafter be employed by the Government of the United States, by the District of Columbia, or by any contractor or subcontractor upon any of the pubUc works of the United States or of the said District of Columbia, is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day; and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia, or any such contractor or subcontractor, whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control the serviceof such laborers or mechanics, to require or permit any such laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any calendar clay except in case of extraordinary emergency. Sec. 893. Any officer or agent of the Government of the United States or of the Dis- trict of Columbia, or any contractor or subcontractor, whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control any laborer or mechanic employed upon any of the public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia who shall intentionally violate any provision of the last preceding section for each and every such offense shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Enacted 1901. See also act of 1892 under "United States," above. HAWAII. Ads ofl90S. [Act No. 87.] Section 2. Eight hours of actual service shall constitute a day's labor for all mechan- ics, clerks, laborers and other employees employed upon any public work or in any public office of this Territory, or any political subdivision thereof, whether the work EIGHT HO0BS FOB LABOREBS ON QOVEENMENT AVOEK. 127 is done by contract or otherwise: Provided, however, That the full eight hours shall not apply to Saturdays or any holiday. Sbc. 3. A stipulation that no mechanics, clerks, laborers and other employees employed upon any public work in the employ of the contractor or subcontractor stiall be required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency, and that no mechanic or laborer, other than a citizen of the United States, or eligible to become a citizen, shall be employed, shall be contained in every contract to which the Territory or any political subdivision thereof is a party. Sbc. 4. Any contractor, person, firm or corporation, or any oflScer of the Territory, or of any political subdivision thereof, violating any of the provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars for each offense. Any and each and every such violation shall be deemed a separate offense for each day thereof, and for each mechanic, clerk, laborer and other employee employed upon any public work, employed in violation of the provisions of this act. Any contract or subcontract for any public work in this' Territory that does not comply with the provisions of section 3 of this act shall be absolutely void. IDAHO. Qmstituiion — Article IS. Section 2. Not more than eight (8) hours actual work shall constitute a lawful day's work on all State and municipal work. Adopted 1889. Political Code— 1901. Section 622. Not more than eight hours actual work shall constitute a lawful day's work on all State, county, and municipal works: Provided, That this shall not be construed as meaning any labor except manual labor, employed by the day, and nothing herein contained shall apply to State, county, or municipal officials, or to any employees of the State, or any county or municipality, who are paid monthly or yearly salaries. Sec. 623. Any and all bids for work on public buildings or other public works of the State, or of any county or municipality of the State, shall expressly state and declare that all laborers and mechanics emjployed by the day on such buildings or pubUc works, or in the preparation of materials to be directly used for or in the con- struction of such buildings or public works, shall be employed on the basis of eight hours as a lawful day's work. Enacted 1891. INDIANA. Annotated Statutes — 1901. Section 7052. On and after the passage of this act eight hours shall constitute a legal day's work for all classes of mechanics, workingmen and laborers, excepting those engaged in agricultural or domestic labor, but overwork for an extra compen- sation by agreement between employer and employee is hereby permitted. Sec. 7053. This act shall apply to all persons, firms, corporations, companies or asso- ciations employing labor in this State, and to all mechanics workingmen, and labor- ers now, or heresmer employed by this State or any municipal corporation herein, through its agents, or officers, or in the employ of persons contracting with the State, or any municipal corporations thereof for performance of labor on the public works of this State, or such corporation. Sec 7054. Any person, firm, company, corporation or association doing business in this State, or any officer or agent of this State or municijjal corporation thereof, who shall violate or otherwise evade the provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not greater than five hundred dollars, and if the person or persons violating the same be an officer or agent of this State, or of any municipal corporation thereof, he shall, in addition to such fine, be removed from his position. 128 BIGHT HOURS FOE LABOBEBS ON GOVERNMENT WOBK. Sbc. 7055. Any party or parties contracting with this State, or any municipal cor- poration thereof, who shall fail to comply with, or secretly evade, the provisions hereof, by exacting and receiving more hours of labor than is herein fixed, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and uppn conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not greater than five hundred dollars, and in addition thereto, in the option of the State or municipal corporation, forfeit such contract Enacted 1889. KANSAS. Oeneral statutes of 1901. Section 3827. Eight hours shall constitute a day's work for all laborers, workmen, mechanics or other persons now employed or who may hereafter be employed by or on behalf of the State of Kansas, or by or on behalf of any county, city, township or other municipality of said State, except in cases of extraordinary emergency which may arise in time of war, or in cases where it may be necessary to work more than eight hours per calendar day for the protection of property or human life: Pro- vided, That in all such cases the laborers, workmen, mechanics or other persons so employed and working to exceed eight hours per calendar day shall be paid on the basis of eight hours constituting a day's work: Provid''.d further. That not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed shall be paid to laborers, workmen, mechanics and other persons so employed by or on behalf of the State of Kansas, or any county, city, township or other municipality of said State; and laborers, workmen, mechanics and other persons employed by contractors or subcontractors in the execution of any contract or contracts within the State of Kansas, or within any county, city, township or other municipality thereof, shall be deemed to be employed by or on behalf of the State of Kansas, or of such county, city, township, or other municipality thereof. Sec. 3828. AH contracts hereafter made by or on behalf of the State of Kansas, or by or on behalf of any county, city, township or other municipality of said State, with any corporation, person or persons for the performance of any work or the furnishing of any material manufactured within the State of Kansas, shall be deemed and considered as made upon the basis of eight hours constituting a day's work; and it shall be unlawful for any such corporation, person or persons to require or per- mit any laborer, workman, mechanic or other person to work more than eight hours per calendar day in doing such work or in furnishing or manufacturing such material, except in the cases and upon the conditions provided in section 1 of this act [sec. 3827J. Sec. 3829. Any ofllcer of the State of Kansas, or of £Riy county, city, township or municipality of said State, or any person acting under or for such officer, or any contractor with the State of Kansas, or any county, city, township or other munici- pality thereof, or other person violating any of the provisions of this act, shall for each offense be punished by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000, or by imprisonment not more than six months, or both fine and imprisonment, in the dis- cretion of the court. Enacted 1891. MARYLAND. Public Local Laws — 1888, Article 4. Section 31a (aa amended by chapter 458, Acts of 1898). No mechanic or laborer employed by the mayor and city council of Baltimore, or by any officer, agent, con- tractor or subcontractor under them, shall be required to work more than eight hours per day as a day's labor: Provided, further. That this section shall not apply to the employees of the fire department. Bay View Asylum or the Baltimore City Jail. Any such officer, agent, contractor or subcontractor who shall require any mechanic or laborer to work more than eight hours per day, contrary to the provisions of this sec- tion, shall be fined not less than ten dollars nor more than fifty dollars for each and every offense, one-half of such fine to go to the informer; said fines to be collected as other fines are collected by law. [This act was approved April 9, 1898. See sec. 516, below.] EIGHT HOURS FOB LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 129 Article 4- Section 516 (Revision of 1898: Chapter 123, Acts of 1898). No mechanic or laborer employed by the mayor and city council of Baltimore, or by any officer, agent or contractor under it, shall be required to work more than nine hours per day as a day's labor: Provided, however, That this section shall not apply to mechanics and laborers whose hours of labor are already fixed at less than nine hours per day: And provided, fnHher, That the provisions of this subdivision of this article shall not apply to the employees of the ffre department, Bay View Asylum, or the Baltimore City Jail. Any such officer, agent or contractor who shall require any mechanic or laborer to work more than nine hours per day, contrary to the provisions of this section, shall be fined not less than ten dollars nor more than fifty dollars for each offense; one-half of such fine to go to the informer; said fines to be collected as other fines are collected by law. [This act was approved March 24, 1898. See sec. 31a, above.] The provision of nine hours appears in the earlier act of 1892, of which chapter 123, Acts of 1898, is a revision. MASSACHUSETTS. Revised Laws— 190^, Chapter 108. Section 19. Nine hours shall constitute a day's work for all laborers, workmen and mechanics who are employed by or on behalf of the Commonwealth or of any county, city or town therein, except as provided in the following section. Sec. 20. In a city or town which by a vote taken by ballot at an annual election accepts the provisions of this section or has accepted the corresponding provision, of earlier laws, eight hours shall constitute a day's work for all laborers, workmen and mechanics who are employed by such city or town. If a petition for such vote, signed by one hundred or more registered voters of a city, or twenty'-five or more registered voters of a town, is filed with the city or town clerk, respectively, thirty days or more before an annual election, such vote shall be taken at such election. Sec. 21. Contracts by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, requiring the employment of manual labor, shall provide that persons employed in manual labor thereunder shall not be required to work more than nine hours in each day and that said nine hours shall constitute a day's work. . Section 19 was enacted in 1890; sections 20 and 21 in 1899. MINNESOTA. Acts of 1901— Chapter SIO. Section 1. The service of all laborers, workmen and mechanics employed upon any public works of, or work done for the State of Minnesota, whether said work is done hj contract or otherwise, shall be, and is hereby limited, and restricted to eight hours m any one calendar day; and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the State, of any person acting for or on behalf thereof, or any contractor or subcontractor for any part of any public works of, or work done for such State, or any persons, corpo- ration, or association whose duty it shall be to employ or to direct and control the services of such laborers, workmen or mechanics, or who has in fact the direction or control of the services of such laborers, workmen or mechanics to require or permit them or any of them to labor more than eight hours in any one calendar day and except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood or danger to life and property, and except to work upon public, military or naval works or defenses in time of war, except in cases of employment of labor in agricultural pursuits: Pro- vided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to the employment of labor on work now in progress, whether contracted for or not. Sec. 2. Each and every contract to which the State of Minnesota is hereinafter a partyj and every contract made for, or on behalf of the said State, which contract may involve the employment of laborers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no laborer, workman or mechanics in the employ of the contractor or any subcontractor doing or contracting to do any part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, except in cases of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood H. Doc. 413, 58-3 9 130 EIGHT HOIJBS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. or danger to life or jjroperty, and except to work upon public, military or naval work, or defenses in time of war, and except in cases of employment of labor in agri- cultural pursuits, and each and every such contract shall stipulate a penalty for such violation of the stipulation directed by this act, of ten (10) dollars for each laborer, workman or mechanic, for each and every calendar day in which he shall labor more than eight hours, and the inspector or officer, or person whose duty it shall be to see that the provisions of any such contract are complied with, shall report to the proper officer of such State, all violations of the stipulation in this act, provided for m each and every such contract, and the amount of the penalities [penalties] stipu- lated in any such contract shall be withheld by the officer or person whose duty it shall be to pay the moneys due under such contract, whether the violations for which such penalties were imposed by contractor, his agents or employees, or any subcon- tractor, his agents or employees, no person, on behalf of the State of Minnesota shall rebate or permit [remit] any penalty imposed under any stipulation herein provided for, unless upon a finding which he shall make up and certify that such penalty was imposed by reason of an error of fact. Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize the collection of said penalty from the State. This act shall not apply to any contract work done for any town or county in this State. Sbo. 3. Any officer of the State of Minnesota, or any person acting for, or on behalf thereof, who shall violate the provisions of this act shall be deemed ^Ity of a mis- demeanor, and be subject to a fine or imprisonment, or both, at the discretion of the court, the fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500), nor the imprisonment more than one year. Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to work or labor in constructing or repairing roads or highways. NEBRASKA. Acts of 1903— Chapter 17. Section 123. In all cities governed by this act [cities having less than forty thon- sand and moEe than twenty-five thousand inhabitants], where work is performed upon the streets, sewers, boulevards or in parks, etc., or by virtue of any contract with any person, company, or companies, or corporations, for such city, shall be done by union labor and be paid for at the rate of two dollars ($2) per day. Provided, That when skilled labor is employed by the city, said labor shall be paid the current scale of union wages: Provided, That eight hours shall constitute a day's labor. An act of 1901, repealed by the above, contained the same provision as to hours. NEVADA. Acts of 190S — Chapter S7. Section 1. On public works, all works or undertakings carried on or aided by the State, county or municipal governments, eight hours shall constitute a day's labor. Sec. 2. Any violation of the provisions of this act shall cause a forfeiture to the contractor or contractors of any contract on such public. State, county or municipal government work and a further penalty of a fine of fifty ($50) dollars for each and every man so employed: Provided, Nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent the preservation or protection of public property in case of emergency. NEW YORK. Adance with the public policy of this State as herein declared. WEST VIRGINIA. Acts of 1899— Chapter 17. Section 1. Eight hours shall constitute a day's work for all laborers, workmen, and mechanics, who may be employed by or on behalf of the State of West Virginia. Sec. 2. The service and employment of all laborers and mechanics who are now or may hereafter be employed by or on behalf of the State of West Virginia or by any contractor or subcontractor upon any of the public works of the State of West Vir- ginia is hereby limited and restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day, and it shall be unlawful for any officer of the West Virginia State government or any such contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct or control the service of such laborers or mechanics to require or permit any such laborers or mechanics to work more than eight hours in any calendar day, except in case of extraordinary emergency. Sec. 3. Any officer or agent of the State of West Virginia or any contractor or subcontractor whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control any laborer or EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 133 mechanic employed upon any of the public works of the State of West Virginia who shall intentionally violate any provision of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each and every such offense shall, upon conviction, be pun- ished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court having jurisdiction thereof. WYOMING. Const'Uution — Article 19. Section 1. Eight (8) hours actual work shall constitute a lawful day's work in all mines and on all State and municipal works. Adopted 1889. SUMMARY OF THE LAWS RELATING TO HOURS OF LABOR QUOTED ABOVE. Laws relating to— Hours of labor in gen- eral employment. Hours of labor on pub- lic roads. Hours of labor on pub- lic works. Btatea. Hours con- stituting a day's work In absence of contrast. Year of enactment of present law. Houra of work re- quired per day in lieu of payment of road tax. Year of enactment of present Limit set for a day's work (hours). Year of enactment of present law. Arkansas , 8 1897 8 01887 8 8 (') 01894 Colorado Connecticut 8 1867 Delaware o8 8 1903 District of Columbia a 1901 10 1874 S 8 1903 Idaho W Illinois 8 S 1867 1889 8 01883 8 1889 Iowa 8 («) Kansas 8 1891 10 {«) e8 /9 1898 /1890 10 10 8 10 10 1885 01895 1867 1895 8 1901 Missouri ... 8 8 8 8 1901 O190S 01879 1897 Nebraska 8 O1903 1903 10 1847 8 8 O1901 01890 New York 8 8 1899,1900 01886 8 01899,1900 Ohio Oklahoma 8 a 1899 1860 Oregon PfinnHvivRTilfl. 8 1868 8 8 1897 1902 Rhode Island 10 w 10 8 8 8 1888 01885 1901 01889 South Dakota . Texas Utah i 8 8 8 (*) 1903 West Virginia 1899 ' 8 1867 8 8 1869 01895 8 8 il889 United States 1868,1892 "See note in text statement. i Constitutional provision adopted 1902; statutes enacted 1901 and 1903. See notes in text statement. statute applies only to the city of Wilmington. , <) Constitutional provision adopted 1889; statute enacted 1891. Statute applies only to the citv of Baltimore. /An act of 1899 permits reduction to 8 hours by a vote of the people in cities and towns. eStatute applies only to cities having less than 40,000 and more than 26,000 inhabitants. A Constitutional provision adopted in 1895; statute enacted in 1903. See note in text statement 'Constitutional provision; no statute enacted. CHAPTER VIL CHANGES m HOURS OF LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES. 135 CHAPTER VII. CHANGES in HOURS OF LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES. The forthcoming Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Labor will present the results of an extended investigation into the rates of wages and hours of labor in the principal industries of the United States, covering the years from 1890 to 1903, inclusive. The rates of wages and the hours of labor are shown for each of the occupations covered by the report. To assist the reader in studying the changes that have taken place within the period covered, certain percentages, or, as they are technically called, relative or index numbers, have been computed. These relative numbers show the per cent that the actual number for each year is of the number adopted as the base or standard of measurement. A few of the industries covered by the above-named report would be affected to some extent at least by the enactment of the pending bill, hence some of the figures relating thereto may very properly be produced here. The following table shows the relative hours of labor in the foundry and machine shop, iron and steel, and shipbuilding industries from 1890 to 1903: RELATIVE HOUES OF LABOR IN THE FOUNDRY AND MACHINE SHOP, IRON Am) STEEL, AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1890 TO 1903. [Average for 1890 to 1899=100.0.] 1>'- Iron and steel. Foundry and machine shop (340 es- tabljBh- menta) Ship- build- ing (37 estab- lish- ments).* Year. Bar iron (16 estab- lish- ments) .a Besse- mer con- verting (9estab- lish- men1a).l> Blast furnace (19 es- tablish-, ment3).o Bloom- ing mill (8 estab- lish- ments) .<« Muck bar (15 estab- lish- ments). e Open- hearth steel (10 es- tablish- ments)./ Ralls (5 estab- lish- ment8).ff Aver- age. 1890 100.5 102.7 98.3 100.0 96.2 100.2 100.3 90.2 98.8 100.8 1891 100.4 101.6 98.1 100.0 95.3 100.2 100.0 90.2 97.9 100.3 1892 100.2 101.8 101.8 100.0 98.2 99.9 100.0 103.3 100.7 100.3 1893 100.0 101.4 99.2 100.0 98.2 100.0 100.0 103.3 100.3 lUO.l 1894 99.9 101.3 100.1 100.0 103.6 100.9 99.9 103.3 101.3 99.7 1895 100.1 100.7 100.2 100.0 103.5 100.7 99.9 103.5 101.2 100.0 1896 99.8 101.0 101.1 100.0 103.4 97.6 100.0 103.8 100.9 99.9 1897 99.7 97.1 100.2 100.0 103.3 99.8 100.0 103.3 100.6 99.3 1898 99.9 96.6 101.0 100.0 103.4 100.7 100.0 103.3 100.7 99.7 1899 99.4 95.9 100.2 100.0, 94.7 100.1 99.8 96.6 98.2 99.8 1900 99.2 97.3 91.3 100.0 97.0 104.4 99.9 96.5 98.1 99.9 1901 98.1 98.4 94.6 100.0 93.7 102.5 99.8 96.5 97.9 98.8 1902 96.6 98.8 94.6 100.0 93.5 102.3 99.8 96.5 97.9 98. 2 1903 95.4 98.4 96.0 100.0 93. 1 102. S 100.8 96.5 98.1 97.4 oData from IS establishments, 1890; 14 establishments, 1891-1898; 15 establishments, 1899. 6 Data from 6 establishments, 1890; 7 establishments, 1891 and 1894-1896; 8 establishments, 1892 and 1893 and 1897-1900. oData from 18 establishments, 1894 and 1895. ■iData from 6 establishments, 1890 and 1894r-1896; 7 establishments, 1891-1893 and 1897-1899. e Data from 12 establishments, 1890-1898; 13 establishments, 1899; 14 estabhshments, 1900. /Data from 9 establishments, 1890-1899. ,,.,.,, . ,o„, ,ono .,,<,„» ,n„™ »Data from 3 establishments, 1890 and 1894-1896; 4 establishments, 1891-1893 and 1897-1902. kData from 85 eatablishments, 1890; 36 establishments, 1891-1898. 137 138 EIGHT HOURS FOB LABOREKS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. No one year in the entire period was considered sufficiently normal to be taken as the base in computing the relative numbers for all industries in the report, hence the average for the ten years from 1890 to 1899 was adopted as the base. The relative number for each year in the above table indicates the per cent that the average hours of labor in that year were of the average hours of labor from 1890 to 1899. For example, the relative number for 1890 in the foundry and machine shop industry is 100.5, which indicates that the average hours of labor in that industry in that year were 100.5 per cent of the aver- age hours of labor in that industry from 1890 to 1899; or expressed differently, the average hours in 1890 were 0.5 per cent more than the average hours from 1890 to 1899. The relative number for 1903 in the same industry is 96.4, indicating that the hours of labor were 95.4 per cent of, or 4.6 per cent less than, the average hours of labor during the ten-year base period. The figures given in this table for the ship- building industry include not only some of the largest shipbuilding establishments in the United States, but also several boat-building and ship-rigging establishments. Another table that will appear in the Nineteenth Annual Report shows for each year the per cent of all of the establishments investi- gated working certain stated hours per day. This table was designed to bring out not only the hours most commonly worked each year, but also to show the extent to which shorter hours were worked on Satur- day. The table, so far as it relates to the foundry and machine shop and iron and steel industries, is here produced as it will appear in the report. The figures here shown for shipbuilding, however, have been especially compiled for this report. All boat-building, ship- rigging, and small repairing establishments have been excluded, so that the figures represent conditions only as found in large shipbuilding establishments. PER CENT OF ESTABLISHMENTS WORKING EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HOURS PER DAY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1890-1903. FOUMDEY AND MACHINE SHOP INDUSTRY. Hours per day. Es- tab- llsh- ra'ta. 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. Monday to Friday. Satur- day. 12 12 11 10} 10} lOJ lOJ lit 10| 12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 .2 .1 0.2 ..... 0.2 .2 .1 0.2 0.2 11 6i P .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .2 .9 .8 .1 ...... .3 .3 .8 .9 .8 .9 .S .9 .8 .9 .8 .9 .8 .9 .8 .9 .8 .9 .S 1.0 .3 1.0 .8 1.0 .3 1.0 .3 1.0 .8 .9 .9 .6 .6 .8 .6 .3 .6 .3 .6 .3 .6 .8 .6 .8 .6 .8 .6 .3 .6 .6 .3 .9 EIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON GOVERNMENT WORK. 139 PER CENT OF ESTABLISHMENTS WORKING EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HOURS PER DAY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1890-1903-Continued. FOUNDRY AND MACHINE SHOP INDUSTEY-Conoluded. Hoare per day. tab- Ush- m'ta. 1890. 1891. 1892. 189S. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1889. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. Monday to Friday. Satur- day. lOA lOft 10* 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9f 9 9 9 9i 9i 9i 9^ 9 9i 9 9i 1* 9 9 9 9 9 81 81 1* 8 71 7 Total. 81 r 9 ■i olO 91 9 1* 7 6 i* 4 0.1 0.3 2.6 •-••- 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.5 1.9 1.8 2.2 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 "0.7' .3 1.2 .6 .3 1.0 .3 .7 .8 .9 1.2 .9 1.5 .9 .1 2.6 1.5 .7 .1 2.3 1.2 .6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .7 1.0 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 1.9 .3 .1 .9 .1 ■;3 47.1 .3 17.4 "i.'e .3 .6 .3 2.7 .3 6S.6 .3 20.8 .3 1.9 .3 .3 62.8 .3 20.8 .8 2.1 .3 .3 61.6 .3 20.5 .8 2.1 .3 .3 69.3 .8 20.6 .3 2.1 .3 .3 57.4 .3 20.6 .3 .2.1 .3 .3 67.8 .6 20.4 .3 2.6 .3 .3 .1 .4 66.3 .6 20.6 .3 2.7 .3 .3 .1 .4 55.9 .6 21.2 .3 2.6 .6 .3 57.3 .6 21.0 .3 .3 65.6 .3 22.0 .3 2.8 .3 .3 54.0 .3 19.3 .3 2.4 .3 .3 .1 .6 .3 40.5 .3 13.6 .3 1.0 .6 1.6 .1 3.0 .3 32.2 .3 11.9 .3 1.0 .5 1.8 .1 3.6 .3 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .5 .3 .5 .3 .6 .3 .3 .4 .3 .4 .3 .3 .3 8 91 9 81 r 8 91 8^ 81 9 8 6 i* .1 .4 .9 .6 .1 . ., : k .5 .4 .9 .4 .1 .1 ..... ..... .3 .1 .3 .1 .6 .1 .6 .1 .7 .1 .7 .1 .5 .1 .1 .6 .1 .1 .6 .1 .1 .7 .1 .1 .3 .3 .1 .6 .1 .1 .3 .1 .6 ...... .3 32.2 3.8 .3 .1 .8 .1 .6 ..... .1 .3 .3 .1 .1 .3 .1 .1 .1 .3 .1 .1 .1 .5 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .4 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .3 .1 .1 .1 .1 2.9 3.2 4.6 6.9 6.8 6.4 .3 6.5 .3 6.7 .3 6.0 .3 7.0 .9 8.9 3.0 .3 14.8 3.4 .3 23.2 3.6 .3 .4 .3 .3 .3 ..... .3 1 .3 ..... 1.6 .2 .2 .3 .2 .2 .2 .4 .3 1.1 .2 .3 .6 .7 .1 .1 .1 .1 .4 .7 ?* .3 .3 3-10 100.0 100. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 BAR IKON AND STEEL INDUSTRY. n 12 42.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 39.3 32.2 32.2 30.0 34.4 , P < u ii 222=2SSSSS|Sg5§SSaSSS s 2 s s lO 1 sst ss > oo 09 il CO in i ''" d f / / f / 1 / > X J r t^ ^ / f <** II / / ii 222 = 2ggS§g|8g5|S8SSS2 144 BIGHT HOURS FOE LABORERS ON OOVERNteNT WORK. No attempt has been made here to consider the causes for the changes that have taken place in the hours of labor in any one industry oral! industries as a whole. The facts only are presented. To ascertain all of the causes that have produced the changes in hours of labor in the United States, or even in a sufficient number of, establishments to make the data representative, vroiild require a special investigation. ; Another table that will be of interest in connection with the present subject is one drawn from the Sixteenth' Annual Report of the Bureau of Labor, showing the number of establishrtieflt^ in which strikes foi reduction of hours in the United States succeeded, suceeeded partly, and failed during the years 1881 to 1900. The table is here given. ' ■ NUMBER OF BSTABLISHMBNTS IN WHICH STRIKES, FOR ALL dAUSES AND FOR REDUC- TION OF HOURS SUCCEEDED, SUGOEBDED PARTLY, AND FAILED, 1881-1900, AS ^HO\j»N IN THE SIXTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIOJiiiE et ' LABOR. • [This table does not. include results for 37 establishments In which strikes were still pending, etc.] ; Strikes from all causes. Strikes for reduction of hours. Strikes for reduction of houB combined with other oansea. Year. ; Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. Total estab- lish- ments. Suc- ceed- ed. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. Total estabr lish- ments. Suc- ceeded. Suc- ceeded partly. Failed. Total estab- lish- ments. 1881.. 1,797 205 926 2,928 59 48 107 -318 39 433 '^ 790 1882.. 1,128 172 805 2,105 i 39 43 2 11 IS 1883.. 1,605 444 710 2,759 3 ....... 2 5 270 7 277 1884.. 1,219 92 1,066 2,367 242 „ 15. 257 310 217 527 18H5.. 1,206 217 861 2,284 57 105 162 76 16 92 1886- 3, 463 1,892 4,683 10,038 690 966 2,139 3,796 366 475 590 1,431 1S87.. 3,007 474 3,108 6,689 636 26 455 1,117 636 86 97 819 1888.. 1,831 192 1,483 3,506 104 2 178 284 414 49 228 691 1S89.. 1,760 716 1,810 3,786 248 3 131 382 93 303 86 482 1890.. 4, 901 943 3,519 9,423 1,483 23 495 2,001 707. 249 288. 4,244 1891.. 3,074 673 4,369 8,116 224 17 794 1^035 630 318 ' 57.8' ' 1,526,, 1892.. 2,178 482 2,880 6,510 267 16 314 687 386 162 ?*% 6Sl 1893.. 2,315 470 1,767 4,652 390 4 174 568 89 77 216 1891.. 3,122 1,106 3,968 8,196 202 9 11 222 1,198 164 ftfj 8 . 1,370 1895.. 8,852 693 2,428 6,973 96 29 5 180 1,292 266 fC^ 1,768 1896.. 3,233 408 1,821 5,462 247 122 369 601 106 •■ 736 1897.. 4,867 2,388 1,237 8,492 539 47 586 1,295 608 '65 , 1,968 1898.. 2,446 243 1,121 3,809 46 136 182 498 31 123 • 652 1899.. 8,289 1,612 1,416 11,317 219 16 58 293 4,737 399 166 5,302 1900.. 4,286 1,903 3,041 9,230 737 26 229 991 1,894 706 839 • .3,439 Total 59,638 15,325 42,509 117,472 6,483 1,136 5,497 13,116 15,542 4,308 4,14'J 23,997 Strikes for reduction of hours occurred in 13,116 establishments, or 11.2 per cent of all of the 117,472 establishments involved. Including strikes for reduction of hours combined with other causes, the num- ber of establishments was 37,113, or 31.6 per cenTNrf all esta.blish- ments involved. Of the strikes for reduction of hours alone the strikers succeeded in 49.4 per cent_of the establishments, succeeded partly in 8.7 per cent, and failed in 41.9 per cent. Of the §7,113 estab- lishments in which reduction of hours constituted the whole or a part of the cause, the strikers were successful in 59.3 per cent of the estab- lishments, partly successful in 14.7 per cent, and failed in 26 per cent, o Date Due i . ^ PRINTED IN U. S. A.