The Eight-Hour Movement

All three of the major Chicago labor coalitions—the Central Labor Union, the Trades and Labor Assembly, and the Knights of Labor—soon were able to mobilize a powerful movement around one of the most important labor demands of the nineteenth century: the eight-hour day. Demands for shorter hours were heard in the United States as early as 1825, when the issue was the ten-hour day. The movement alternated between periods of great strength and weakness in the decades that followed. In Chicago, there was agitation for the eight-hour day in both the sixties and the seventies; the early trades assembly successfully lobbied for a state law mandating the eight-hour day that was never enforced, and the eight-hour demand was heard frequently during the July 1877 strikes.

The Trades Council of 1879 demanded the reduction of working hours from ten to eight, holding a three-day demonstration with Ira Steward, the most prominent eight-hour theorist, as a speaker. The workers founded a short-lived Eight Hour League in 1879, and the furniture workers national union made it a key demand; forty-nine furniture factories in the city instituted the eight-hour day for a brief period in that year (Chicago Tribune July 6, 1879).

Labor had several goals in mind in demanding the eight-hour day; in fact, the idea of shortening the hours of labor eventually became a panacea for all the ills suffered by the working class. Ira Steward suggested that the increased leisure resulting from the shortening of the workday would create a better social order. Workers could not be intelligent citizens unless they had the leisure time to attend night school, to read, to discuss political questions, and to attend political meetings (Cahill 1932, 14). The eight-hour day would also ease the physical and mental strain caused by hard

physical labor and by the tedious mechanized production process. Healthy workers would be more productive workers.

The argument for increased leisure time was also supported through reference to suburbanization. Workers needed to participate in the more healthful and more natural suburban family life; the longer journey to work from the suburbs necessitated a shorter workday as well. Steward argued that decreased hours would give the workers the time to observe the life-style of the largely native-born middle class. Their wish for that more affluent way of life would lead to successful demands for higher wages on the part of the working class, which would in turn create buying power that would stimulate the economy.

These arguments appealed to many workers, especially to the Anglo-American labor aristocrats who could realistically aspire to middle-class status. But the broader appeal of the eight-hour movement—to those of all economic statuses within the working class—came from the argument that a reduction in hours would solve the unemployment problem by spreading the available work among a larger number of workers (Cahill 1932, 18).

The precursor of the American Federation of Labor, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, took the lead in the eight-hour movement in 1884 when it resolved that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labor from and after May 1, 1886." They included no provision for attaining this objective, but they eventually chose the general strike.

Chicago unions began active agitation for the demand on November 11, 1885, when the Bricklayers and Stonemasons Union resolved that they would work only eight hours a day after May 1, 1886 (Chicago Tribune November 12, 1885). On November 17, George Schilling of the Trades and Labor Assembly spoke on the issue at a meeting of the Carpenters and Joiners Union, suggesting the need for an organization to agitate for the demand; on Sunday, November 22, a number of trade unionists in the Trades and Labor Assembly heeded the call and organized the Eight Hour Association .

The association issued a manifesto calling on all workers to help establish the eight-hour day. The Eight Hour Association did not see shorter hours as a means of restructuring the capitalist system;

they were viewed as a reform that would reduce unemployment and provide workers with more leisure time. The association was initially organized by the native born, as is clear in this statement from the manifesto: "Has machinery in your trade abolished the demand for skilled artisans and craftsmen? Have the native American skilled workers in your trade been supplanted by cheap labor from Europe and Canada? Are wages sufficient for the support of native American families?" (Chicago Tribune November 23, 1885, 35).

Because of the power of the issue and the tremendous organizing momentum created by the movement, all the major labor organizations in the city—including the Trades and Labor Assembly, the Knights of Labor, the Central Labor Union, and the Social Revolutionary clubs—were soon involved in agitating for the eight-hour day (David 1958, 182). But the issues that had split the labor movement did not disappear under the impact of this movement, and factionalism between the reformers and revolutionaries continued.

Initially, the anarchists had been skeptical of the movement, feeling that a reduction in hours would not solve the problems of the working class because it would not transform the existing system of wage labor or the oppressive state. As Albert Parsons and August Spies argued in the Alarm of November 21, 1885 (cited in Flinn 1973, 260):

The private possession or ownership of the means of production and exchange places the propertyless class in the power and control of the propertied class, since they can refuse bread, or the chance to earn it, to all the wage classes that obey their dictation. Eight hours, or less hours, is, therefore, under existing conditions, a lost battle . The private property system employs only to exploit (rob) it, and while the system is in vogue, the victims—those whom it disinherits—have only the choice of submission or starvation.

We do not antagonize the eight hour movement, ... we simply predict that it is a lost battle, and we prove that even if the eight hour system should be established at this late day, the wage-workers would gain nothing. They would still remain the slaves of their master.

In fact, the Social Revolutionaries never accepted the idea that the eight-hour day could be the answer to all the ills of the working class. But the Chicago revolutionaries could not be content to remain aloof from the most widespread and well-organized worker

movement in the city's history. They determined to use it as a tool to agitate for their own more revolutionary beliefs; the organizational tool for such agitation was the Central Labor Union.

While the CLU was attempting to convince Chicago workers of the necessity of social revolution, the Trades and Labor Assembly counseled moderation. The assembly issued a circular to all manufacturing firms and employers in mid January 1886. It suggested that the presence in the city of large numbers of unemployed was a constant source of evil in the community and that Congress had supported the movement by making eight hours a legal day's work for government employees. It stated that the adoption of the eight-hour day would give employment to one-fifth more workers, many of whom had been displaced by machines. The circular ended as follows: "The workingmen of Chicago are ready to make sacrifices in wages in order that more people may find employment and for the general good of the whole community. Surely such a self-sacrificing spirit should meet with a cordial response from the employing class" (Chicago Tribune January 19, 1886, 5).

This moderate stand, suggesting that workers would be willing to sacrifice wages in order to gain the eight-hour day, was to become the basis of a political split between the Trades and Labor Assembly's Eight Hour Association and the Central Labor Union. By the movement's peak in April and May 1886, most of the city's German and Bohemian unions were demanding ten hours' pay for eight hours' work; the elite Anglo-American unions were declaring their willingness to settle for a proportionate wage cut along with the reduction in hours.

By March 1886, the eight-hour movement was mobilizing an unprecedented proportion of the Chicago working class for meetings and demonstrations. The Trades and Labor Assembly sponsored a demonstration at a West Side Turner hall. By eight o'clock on March 15, four thousand crowded into a hall meant for two thousand; three thousand more gathered outside, necessitating the erection of several speakers' platforms. The Tribune reported the presence of at least twelve hundred from the Bricklayers Union, five hundred from the Shoemakers Union, five hundred from the Cigarmakers no. 14, and three hundred from the boxmakers—all carrying banners and transparencies with moderate reform mes-

sages such as "Oppose Child Labor!" "Equality to All!" "Look How You Vote Next Fall!" "Down With Convict Labor!" (Chicago Tribune March 16, 1886, 10).

The meeting adopted the following resolutions:

Whereas—The reduction in the hours of daily labor to eight would ... afford steady employment to all industrious men and women, create steady markets for the manufacturer, the farmer, and the merchant and dissipate the portentious clouds of discontent that too frequently of late obscure the social and political horizon, and

Whereas—While we fully recognize the oft-repeated assertion that under any and all circumstances the wages of labor are likely to fluctuate, we hold as a fact established beyond dispute by history that every step gained by the toiling masses in reducing the hours of labor is never lost but is permanent and enduring be it

Resolved—That we are heartily and determinedly in favor of the eight hour work day from and after May x, 1886 and now pledge ourselves to use all fair and honorable means to secure its general adoption by every trade and occupation and,

Resolved—That we invite the cooperation of the press and the pulpit and earnestly urge upon all thinking people the necessity of a dispassionate and candid discussion of this momentous question. (Chicago Tribune March 16, 1886, 12)

This moderate statement indicates that, despite their presence in the same movement, the political split between the reformers and the revolutionaries remained. The Eight Hour Association wanted moderate reform, not revolution, considering the capitalist system perfectly acceptable. Their position lacks class consciousness, suggesting as it does that all classes have an interest in reducing hours of labor and enlisting the aid of such "working class enemies" as the middle and upper classes, the press, and the pulpit.

The Eight Hour Association held an even larger rally on April 10. More than seven thousand attended, and again thousands more blocked the doors. The meeting was attended by more than a thousand of the Bricklayers and Stonemasons Union, six hundred from the upholsterers, five hundred clothing cutters, and numerous other unions and Knights assembly members. The platform was occupied by over a hundred union, Trades and Labor Assembly, and Knights officers. As Nelson (1986a, 1) reports, 48 percent of those

on the platform had Irish surnames, 32 percent had British names, and only 14 percent were immigrants from continental Europe.

Speakers repeated the same moderate themes from the earlier rally, and the assembly got its wish concerning the clergy's support. There were a number of clergy on the platform, and three Protestant ministers spoke to the crowd. All speeches were in English. One minister stressed the importance of temperance and self-improvement:

It's hard to work fourteen hours and then go home and read a book. My heart goes out to you workingmen who love your books and are denied the time to gratify it. But we must get the leisure first. I don't believe in drinking myself, but for all that I don't believe that all of you are tee-totallars, nor do I believe that if you had the leisure you would spend your time in the saloon. (Chicago Tribune April 11, 1886, 32)

An Irish-born Knights of Labor leader also stressed the temperance theme and reiterated the importance of gaining the support of the clergy and press: "I tell ye fellows what to boycott, whisky! Quit crookin' your elbows and buildin' brick houses for saloonkeepers an' ye'all eat porterhouse steak instead of liver. We don't have to make this fight alone. We've got friends—people, and preachers, and papers" (Chicago Tribune April 11, 1886, 32). Both of these statements were greeted with wild cheers, cheers that would not have been forthcoming at a rally of antitemperance German or Bohemian workers.

The Central Labor Union and the Social Revolutionaries did not support the Trades and Labor Assembly effort. They wanted to use the movement as a stepping stone to revolution. They did not accept the reformers' call for a pay reduction and for temperance, and they did not support the attempt to recruit the clergy, the middle and upper classes, and the bourgeois press into the movement. So the CLU held a counterdemonstration on Sunday, April 25, 1886. About five thousand formed a procession six to eight abreast on Randolph Street. Red banners were flying as twenty-five mounted marshalls rode up and down the line giving instructions to the workers; bands played, and thousands watched as the parade marched through the city center to the lakefront.

The Tribune reported that none of the members of the Trades and Labor Assembly attended this gathering. Nearly all the marchers

were German, Bohemian, and Polish; "there was scarcely an American, Irishman, Scandinavian, or Scotchman among them" (Chicago Tribune April 26, 1886, 19). The workers carried banners reading "The Brewer Works All Day and Night and Hardly Gets His Rest!" "Our Civilization—The Bully and the Policeman's Club!" "The Fountain of Right is Might!" "Workingmen Arm!" "Right is Might, We're the Strongest!" The sentiments were clearly more militant than those at the Trades and Labor Assembly rally.

Twenty-three unions were represented, showing the great strength of the CLU at this point. The following list indicates the number attending from each union:

The CLU managed to mobilize over eight thousand workers for a march in support of its principles. The dominance of Germans and Bohemians is obvious, with five unions being clearly identifiable as German and seven as Bohemian. The unions not clearly

identifiable—the Hand Labor Union, Lumberyard Workers, Cabinetmakers, Metal Workers, Brewery Workers, Beerkeg Coopers, Saddlers, and Butchers—are all known to have had a high proportion of Germans and Bohemians in their trades (Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics Report, 1884). The strength of anarchism was due largely to the anarchists' ability to mobilize unskilled and skilled workers within the German and Bohemian trade union movement.

The rally itself drew approximately twenty-five thousand Germans, Bohemians, and Poles (Nelson 1986b, 2). The most militant speeches of the day were in German; there had been no German speeches at the Trades and Labor Assembly events, clearly indicating the lack of German support for their reformist politics. Speakers at the CLU rally refused to accept the eight-hour day as the only goal of the Chicago labor movement. As August Spies suggested: "If you by your combination tear down the existing state of things, if you have obtained this little bit—the eight hour day—then on, on along the road of victory until the last stone of this bastille of order of the present lies in ruins" (Chicago Tribune April 26, 1886, 22). All the speakers argued that the movement had to be continued until the social order was overthrown.

Employers all over the city were becoming concerned. Facing an increasingly powerful and militant labor movement, they began to organize themselves into manufacturers associations. The pattern was for employers to organize and pass a resolution stating that they would lock out their workers if they demanded the more radical CLU-supported demand (the eight-hour day with no change in pay). But many workers defied their employers and refused to withdraw their militant demands; included in this group were the boot and shoemakers, three thousand German and twenty-five hundred Bohemian lumber shovers, the largely German furniture workers, German cigar makers, brick makers, bakers, lathers, and thousands of mainly Irish freight handlers. The result was strikes and/or lockouts in each of these trades.

Some workers, including the largely Irish stockyard workers and the mainly native-born machinists, agreed to accept the eight-hour day at reduced wages, with future wage rates to be negotiated. The unions of boxmakers, clothing cutters, carpenters and joiners, picture frame workers, and patternmakers achieved the eight-hour day with a 20 percent pay reduction. Some workers, including

those at the Armour packinghouse (other packinghouse workers remained on strike), some of the brick makers, and the cigar makers, were granted ten hours' pay for eight hours' work. Finally, some workers—most of the clothing workers, many of the iron and steel workers, and the cloak makers—were on piece rates; the eight-hour movement was not seen as applicable to them at all (Chicago Tribune April 28-May 3, 1886).

As the movement gained strength, the split between the CLU and the Trades and Labor Assembly intensified. On April 28, George Schilling discussed the eight-hour question at a meeting of stockyard workers that included coopers, butchers, and laborers. On behalf of the Trades Assembly and the Knights of Labor, he advised those present not to press for ten hours' pay and not to strike unless absolutely necessary (Chicago Tribune April 29, 1886). The Arbeiter Zeitung was not as moderate, advising workers in late April:

In this hour we call upon the workers to arm themselves. We have but one life to lose. Defend it with every means at your disposal. In this connection we should like to caution those workingmen who have armed themselves to hide their arms for the present so that they cannot be stolen from them by a minion of order as has happened repeatedly. (Chicago Tribune May 2, 1886, 22)

A few days later one of the members of the Social Revolutionary clubs stated what had become obvious concerning the ethnic political splits that persisted despite the movement's growing power.

The German and Bohemian workers are thoroughly organized and armed and will fight to achieve their end. The brewers, maltsters, butchers, and bakers have already achieved the eight hour day. The employers won't shut down for more than a day or two, they can't risk losing their trade to the eastern cities.

The Knights of Labor are principally American and Irish; they don't train with the Germans and the Bohemians, and we can't get them to do aggressive work in the movement. They hang back and take what they can get, while the Germans and the Bohemians go out and get what they want. (Chicago Tribune May l, 1886, 5)

Both the Trades Assembly and the Central Labor Union held meetings on Sunday, May 2. The assembly's meeting opened with a resolution to form an executive committee of representatives of all trades. But this attempt to unify the assembly and the CLU failed.

One speaker suggested that he "hoped the Assembly would not destroy the hope of achieving the eight hour system by joining with anybody for whom the American flag was not good enough" and that the "Trades and Labor Assembly ought to recommend that unions drop their unreasonable demands" (Chicago Tribune May 3, 1886, 16). Although most workers were advocating the more radical ten hours' pay demand, another speaker suggested that those advocating no pay reduction were actually against the eight-hour movement and that if the unions had followed the assembly's advice in asking for eight hours' pay for eight hours' work, there would have been no trouble. The movement's ethnic split was becoming more severe and rhetoric more strident as each faction strove to lead the movement down its chosen path.

Through its Eight Hour Association, the assembly distributed this circular:

If ever there was a time in the history of the labor movement when prudence should control your counsels, the present is that time. A false or ill-advised move at this juncture may defeat the very object you have in view. Under these circumstances we deem it our duty to request you to keep this important fact in mind and shape your demands accordingly.

Our advice is that where a disagreement as to terms exists, interview the employer or employers through a committee composed of your most trusted, most discreet and reliable representatives. Base your demands on justice. Present a united front. Determine to secure the adoption of the eight hour system even if concessions to attain it be made. Act like rational men, as law-abiding citizens should.

Discountenance all resort to violence, remembering you cannot afford to offend that public sympathy which is essential to your success. Remember also, if you refuse to act upon these suggestions you will have yourselves to blame if the present golden opportunity passes unimproved. (Chicago Tribune May 4, 1886, 28)

The assembly was now advocating polite bargaining with employers to win the eight-hour reform, even if the workers had to give up previously won gains to achieve the reduction in hours.

This was not the position of the Central Labor Union. They also held a meeting on Sunday, May 2, at which a major topic was the ethnic split bedeviling the movement. The German branch of the Carpenters and Joiners Union reported it had attempted to work with its English-speaking counterparts; the attempt had been un-

successful because the English-speaking union had considered the German demand for ten hours' pay too radical. The German carpenters had decided to work for their own interests as a result. A similar report was made by the German Typographical Union no. 9, which charged the American Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 with working in the interests of the bosses (Chicago Tribune May 3, 1886). In fact after January 1885, the Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 had refused to honor German union members' cards, claiming the International no longer recognized the German union (Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 minutes, January 25, 1885). The CLU decided to appoint a committee to exchange information with the Trades and Labor Assembly but to give up all attempts to work with the assembly politically.

The Central Labor Union then sent a message to the city's workers that had little in common with the Trades and Labor Assembly circular. The CLU called on all to support the eight-hour movement and suggested that piecework must be instantly abolished because it was "slavish" and "abominable." It went on, "the laboring class will not be free from misery and want until the right to hold capital is abolished and society is merged into one class." It ended by suggesting that ministers and priests uphold the present social system, so workers ought therefore to keep away from churches (Chicago Tribune May 3, 1886, 17).

Chicago's eight-hour movement was strong despite these political differences. Bradstreet's reported that well over sixty thousand workers in the city were involved, including twenty and a half thousand clothing workers, seventeen thousand of whom were women, ten thousand lumber shovers and laborers, ten thousand metalworkers, seven thousand furniture and upholstery workers, twenty-five hundred Pullman car workers, six hundred steamfitters, and twelve thousand in miscellaneous trades. From forty to forty-five thousand had gained some sort of hours reduction by the end of the first week of May. Chicago was the center of the national movement, having nearly one-third of all those demanding the eight-hour day and over one-fifth of all those receiving the reduction in hours (Bradstreet's May 15, 1886, 1).

The depth of the movement in the city's working class made it likely to succeed. The strike was close to a general one among workers who had not yet achieved eight hours, and less street ac-

tion was necessary than during the 1877 strikes because the well-planned strike included many workers with scarce skills. But an event soon occurred that temporarily stalled the movement for a reduction in hours and destroyed the anarchist movement in the city—the Haymarket affair.