Full text of History of Labor Legislation for Women in Three States : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 66-I

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR·
BULLE~IN OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU, NO. 66-1

, ·HISTORY OF -LABOR LEGISLATION
FOR WOMEN. IN THREE STATES

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the
report t
ureau m11y
he dire t
welfare
ons in such
J'esul 9£ Hiese i
from tiroo
pre~cribe.
a 1nanncr and to SUG-h extent as tho Secretary oi
SEc. 3. That there shall he in sajd bureau an assistant clirE!ctor,
to bP appointed by he S cretar of Labor, who shall receive an
annual compensation of '$3z?00 and shall perform uch duties as
shall b prescribed by the director and approved by the Secretary
of Labor.
SEo. 4. That there is hereby authorized to be employed by said
bureau a due£ clHk and such ·pee· al agent.s, nssi tant-s, clerk and
other employe s at such rates oi compensation and in such numbers
as Congress may from time to time provid~ by appropriations .
8Eo. 5. That 'the Secretary of Labor is hereby clir cted to furnish
sufficient quarters, office furniture, and equipment, for the woL'k of
this bureau.
SEo. 6. That this act shall take effect and be in fo.rce from .and
after its passage.
Approved, June 6, 1920.
1

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

•

LIBRA

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. N. DOAK, SECRETARY

WOMEN'S BUREAU
MARY ANDERSON, Director

BULLETIN OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU, No. 66-1

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION
FOR WOMEN IN THREE STATES
By CLARA M. BEYER

Originally combined with Chronological Development
I
of Labor Legislation for Women in the
United States, by Florence P. Smith
(See No. 66- 11)

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1932

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
WOM EN'S BUREAU,

Washington, Nov ember 17, 1928.
Sm: I have the honor to transmit herewith a succeeding volume
to the report by this bureau of the effects of labor legislation on
the employment opportunities of women.
This study is in two parts. Part 1 is a history of labor legislation for women in three States and attempts to show how and with
whom each piece of legislation originated, the purpose it was to
serve, its supporters, its opponents, and finally its legislative history.
Part 2 is the chronological development of the labor legislation for
women in the United States.
Clara Mortenson Beyer has done the research and written the
report of Part 1. Part 2 has been prepared under the direction of
Florence P. Smith, research assistant of the Women's Bureau,
assisted by Ethel Erickson and Estelle S. Frankfurter.
Respectfully submitted.
MARY ANDERSON, Director.
Hon. JAMES J. DAVIS,
Se<Jl'etary of Labor.
OTE.- Originally combined as one bulletin.
as Bulletins 66- I and 66-II.-Editor.

Separated for r eprint in 1931
III

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONTENTS
Legislative origins and influences ________________________ _
Organized labor ______ ____________________ ________________ _
State labor officials _______________________________________ _
Bureaus of labor statistics ____________ ·_____________________ _
Special legislative committees or commissions ________________ _
Governors ___________________________ ______ ______________ _
Pioneering employers _____________________________________ _
Social, civic, philanthropic, and church groups _______________ _
Factual studies __________________________________________ _
The spirit of the tinie ____________________________________ _
CHAPTER IL History of labor legislation for women in Massachusetts ___ _
Hours legislation in manufacturing and mechanical establishments __
The 60-hour-week law of 1874 _____________________________ _
to the hours law to aid enforcement and to prevent_
Amendments
abuse _________________________________________________
CHAPrER.l.

Posting of notices ____________________________________ _
Time required for starting and stopping machinery _______ _
Stoppage of machinery ________________________________ _
Meal time ___________________________________________ _
Hour
limitations
applicable to work in two or more estab-_
li1-hments
_________________________________________
Apportionment
of hours to make one short workday in a_
week _____________________________________________
Creation of the State board of labor and industries _______ _
Movement for uniform hours of labor_ _____________________ _
The 58-hour-week law of 1892 _____________________________ _
The 56-hour-week law of 1908 _____________________________ _
The 54-hour-week law of 1911_ ____________________________ _
The 48-hour-week law of 1919 ___________________ ___ _______ _
Seasonal employments ____________________________________ _
Hours legislation affecting mercantile establishments and other establishments not included under manufacturing and mechanical_ ____ _
The extension of the 60-hour-week law to mercantile establishments, 1883 ___________________________________________ _
Repeal of the amendment of 1883 __________________________ _
The extension of the 58-hour.:.week law to mercantile establishmen ts, 1900 ___________________________________________ _
Amendments to aid enforcement and to extend application ___ _
The extension of the 54-hour-week law, 1913 ________________ _
The 54-hour-week law for elevator operators, 1918 ___________ _
The 48-hour-week law of 1919 and its extension in 192L ______ _
Night-work legislation ________________________________ ________ _
The night-work law of 1890 _____________ ____ ______________ _
The night-work law of 1907 _______________________________ _
War-time legislation ___________________ __________________ ____ _ _
Minimum-wage legislation _______________________________ -- __ - -Regulated employments _______________________________________ _
Work in core rooms ___________________________________ - __ Moving of weights _______________________________________ _
Seating legislation __________________________________ - - - - - - - - - - Prohibition of employment immediately before and after childbirth __
Ce.APTER III. History of labor legislation for women in New York _____ _
Hours legislation ______________________________________ - - - - __ -The 60-hour-week law for women under 21 and minors ______ - Extensions and improvements secured by factory inspectors __ - _
The mercantile act of 1896 ________________________________ _
Extension of the factory law to adult women, 1899 ___________ _
Hours legislation for women-in' factories, 1899-1910 __________ _
V

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Page

1
2
3

6
6
8
8
9
11

12
13
13
13
20
21
21
22
23
24
24
24
26
28
31
35
38
42
43
43
44
44
46
47
48
48
49
49
50
54
55
61
62
64
64
65
66
66
66
67
69
71
71

CONTENTS

CH APTER 111.-History of labor legislation, etc.-Continued

Hours legislation-Continued
Mercantile hours legislation, 1896-1912 _____________________ _
The New York State Factory Investigating Commission ______ _
The 54-hour-week law of 1912_ ---------------------------- Mercantile hours legislation, 1913-1927 _____________________ _
Canneries and hours legislation ____________________________ _
Reaction
labor laws and efforts to suspend them during_
the waragainst
_______________________________________________
Restaurant hours legislation ___ ________________ ____________ _
Legislation governing hours of women in war-time services ____ _
Messenger service ____________________________________ _
Women's Joint Legislative Conference __________________ _
Transportation service ________________________________ _
Elevator service _____________________________________ _
The 48-hour-week law of 1927 and the minimum-wage bill_ ___ _
Night-work legislation _____________________________ ___________ _
Law
of 1889
prohibiting night work for women under
21 in_
factories
____________________________________
__________
Extension to adult women urged by factory inspectors ________ _
Night-work provisions of mercantile act o( 1896 _____________ _
Extension of the prohibition of night work t o adult women in
factories, 1899 ______________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - Changes
the grouping of females to meet constitutional dif-_
ficultiesin
_______________________________________________
The night-work law of 1913 _______________ ·______________ __ _
Extension of the night-work provisions to women in mercantile
establishments, 1913 and 1914 ___________________________ _
Further extension of the night-work law _______________ ..: ____ _
Exemption from the night-work law of women in newspaper
offices and women printers ______________________________ _
Prohibitory legislation ______ ____ __ __ __________ ___ _____________ _
Cleaning machinery ___ ____ ______________________ __ ______ - _
Buffing and polishing _____________________________________ _
Employment immediately after childbirth _____ ______________ _
Messenger, transportation, and elevator service ______________ _
Regulation of certain occupations ______________________________ _
Work in mercantile basements ___ __________________________ _
Core making __________________ __ _____ ___________________ _
Seating legislation __________________________ ___ ____ ______ _____ _
C11 APTER IV. History of labor legislation for women in California ______ _
Hours legislation _____________________________________________ _
Efforts to regulate hours prior to 1910 ____ __________________ _
The 8-hour law of 1911_ _________________________ .., ___ _____ _
Extension of the 8-hour law in 1913 ______________________ __ _
Regulation of hours by the Industrial Welfare Commission ____ _
Amendments
exempting fish
canners and pharmacists from t he_
8-hourlaw ____________
________________________________
Night-work legislation _____ ___ ___ _________________ ___ _________ _
Minimum-wage legislation ______ __ _________________ __ _________ _
Seating and weight-lifting laws __ _______________________ _______ _
Seating ______ __________________________ _______ . .. . _____ __ _
Weight lifting __ ___ _____ ____ ___• ___ ___ ____ ___ ______ __ ____..

Page

75
78
80
83
84
88
91
93
94
94
94
96
97
103
103
103
104
104
104
105
106
106
107
109
110
110
111
11 3
113
113
114
117
120
120
120
122
124
125
126
127
128
131
132
132

•
~:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR
WOMEN IN THREE ST A TES
CHAPTER !.-LEGISLATIVE ORIGINS AND INFLUENCES

The history of labor legislation for women in three States is an
attempt to show how and with whom each piece of legislation
originated, the purpose it was to serve, its supporters, its opponents,
and finally its legislative history. It has been found in some
instances that the origins were not clear, that the factors that made
for passage were so interwoven that it was difficult to separate one
from the other, and that intangible forces whose influences can not
be measured or evaluated, such as the underlying urge toward social
democracy, sometimes have decided the trend of legislation. In the
preparation of this report the method pursued has been to give the
facts as they were found, recognizing at the same time that the forces
making for the passage of a particular law often are so complex that
the surface appearance as gained from the documentary evidence is
misleading. To check such possible errors, sections of the preliminary study have been submitted to individuals who were closely identified with the enactment of the law in question, and it is felt that
by this method a reasonable degree of accuracy has been attained.
Starting with a limited 60-hour-week law, a complete labor code
for women in industry was built up gradually in New York and
Massachusetts, while California, benefiting by the experience of other
States, covered in two laws practically the same field. This movement for legislation did not go along smoothly. It was opposed
at practically every step by groups of employers who believed that
it would doom them to failure; it was sometimes held back by the
courts as an interference with the freedom of contract; in New York
its final steps met with the opposition of several women's organizations, headed by the National Woman's Party, on the ground that
legislation for women alone interfered with their equality in the
industrial field; in California one of its principal features was opposed by labor as well as by the employers. While opposition undoubtedly has checked the speed of the movement for legal protection of women from some of the hazards of industry it has not been
able to stem the tide of popular approval of this method of preventing
industrial abuse.
The chief factors that have made for the passage of the various
laws in the three States . under consideration are these: Organized
labor; factory inspectors and other officials charged with the enforcement of labor laws; bureaus of labor statistics; special legisla.tiv~
committe~ or coJI1missions for the study- of labor condi ti<m~: govl

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

ernors; pioneering employers; social, civic, philanthropic, and church
groups; factual studies of conditions to be remedied by law; and,
finally, the spirit of the time.
The part played by these varying factors in securing labor legislation for women is markedly uneven in the different States. In one
State they may have had no appreciable influence, in another they
may have been the dominant factor. To bring out this difference
they will be considered briefly one by one, showing their influence as
a whole and their part in securing legislation in each of the States
under survey.
Organized labor.
Taken as a whole, probably the largest single factor making for
the passage of labor legislation for women has been organized labor.
Directly or indirectly it was the influence that made most of the legislation possible; it initiated most of the laws limiting the hours of
women in factories and mechanical establishments, as well as other
statutes; it represented the bulk of the political strength that made
legislators fear to run counter to measures designed to benefit the
-laboring classes; it paved the way for legislation by establishing
through trade-union activity conditions of work that later were made
standard by law.
Ostensibly, the organized workmen supported labor legislation for
women on grounds of humanitarianism, but in reality self-protection
was the dominant motive. In the first place, by securing shorter
hours for women through legislation they hoped to obtain the same
shorter hours for themselves; and, in the second place, they wanted
to prop up by legislation and make standard the shorter hours that
the more strongly organized trades had secured by bargaining. The
first motive is particularly evident in the whole struggle of the textile
workers in Massachusetts for legal r~duction in hours and is sharply
defined in the case of the California 8-hour law for women and in
some of the hours legislation of New York. The second accounts in
part for the support given by the organized-labor movement in Massachusetts to the efforts of the textile workers to secure a reduction in
working hours, and undoubtedly it was the strongest underlying
interest of the trade-unionists of New York and California in pushing for the shorter workday for women.
During the course of this study instances have been found where
the desire for self-protection led craft unions to attempt by restrictive legislation to keep women from working at the trade. The instances in which this motive determined legislation are three: The
New York law of 1899, secured by the metal polishers, prohibiting
women from operating or using machines for buffing and polishing;
aud the laws of Massachusetts and New York, of 1912 and 1913, respectively, regulating the work of women in core rooms. In the
second and third of these the molders did not secure the exclusion
of women from the core rooms, but the regulations pa$sed in lieu of
exclusion were designed, at least in New York, to have that effect.
The role played by organized labor in securing legislation for
women was more prominent in Massachusetts than in New York.
This was due to a number of factors. In the first place, the dominant
industry in Massachusett.s is the manufacture of textiles. The leade~s

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LEGISLATIVE ORIGINS AND INFLUENCES .

among the workers in this industry, particularly in the early days,
had an English background and naturally employed the method used
by the textile workers of England to better their conditions-namely,
legislation. Secondly, the concentration of the industr7 in certain
cities gave the textile workers a political strength out o proportion
to their numbers. In many cases, legislators from the textile centers
were officials of the textile unions. From such advantageous position
as chairmen of the labor committees of both houses, these union
leaders were powerful factors in the legislative fights for the hours
laws. Thirdly, the low standards obtaming in the textile industry
during the early years of the agitation for hours laws were a constant menace to the labor movement of the State as a whole, and the
organized workers hoped by legislation at least to approximate for
textiles the conditions existing in other industries.
To the constant agitation carried on by the labor movement of
Massachusetts, and in later years by its affiliated body, the Women's
Trade Union League, is to be ascribed the passage of pr~ctically all
the legislation shortening the hours of work of women in factories
and mechanical establishments in that State.
The night-work or overtime law of Massachusetts also wa,s passed
at the insistence of labor. Other laws of significance originating
with socially minded groups could not have been passed without the
support of the organized workers. The labor movement is written
large in the history of labor legislation for women in Massachusetts.
In New York the indirect influence of organized labor has been
more of a factor in securing legislation than has been its direct
legislative effort. While it has sponsored most of the hours laws for
women in factories and mechanical establishments, organized labor
u,sually has required the help of other agencies to get the laws
passed. The bulk of the legislative work for labor legislation for
women in general has been done by factory inspectors, labor-department officials, and legislative agents for various civic and social organizations. On the other hand, while it is recognized that persons
outside the labor movement frequently put the bills through the
legislature, it is doubtful if most of these measures would have become law without the political strength of labor behind them.
Organized labor of California was solely responsible for the enactment of the 8-hour law for women in that State.
State labor officials.
The State officials charged with the enforcement of factory laws
have played a more or less prominent part in securing labor legislation for women, the prominence varying with the State. In New
York a major part of the early labor legislation was put through
largely by the factory inspectors, with the nominal support of
orgamzed labor. Durmg the eighties and nineties the factory inspectors of Massachusetts, through their director, the chief of the
district police, were instrumental in securing amendments to the
existing labor laws, making evasion less easy. But they never took
the initiative in legislation as did the New York inspectors. California had no real factory inspection before 1913. With a comparatively complete labor code at the starting point there was little room

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

for suggested improvements by the inspectors, and they exercised no
influence on the trend of legislation.
Before considering the laws attributable to factory inspectors in
the various States it may be well to point out the part played by the
International Association of Factory Inspectors in helping to develop
and equalize standards and to spread knowledge of the new and
improved industrial legislation.
This association was formed in 1887 "to produce something like
unifornnty, both in the laws and in the practice of the inspectors." 1
The yearly getting together of the factory inspectors, the reading and
discussion of papers, the comparison of the laws of the various
States, and the exchange of experiences with enforcing officers, acted
as a definite spur to the more aggressive inspectors to make the labor
laws of their States compare favorably with those of other States. 2
Diffe-rences of opinion as to the part that factory inspectors should
play in promoting labor legislation were expressed early by the members of the Massachusetts and New York delegations. Chief Wade,
of the District Police of Massachusetts, the first president of the
association, touched upon the subject in his annual address at the
second convention, in 1888. He stated that, while factory inspectors
were charged only with the enforcement of certain laws, and were
not responsible for those laws," either in scope or in their effect upon
the gen°ra] welfare," there was no concealing the fact that legislators
dependt=-d upon inspectors "for such facts and suggestions as our
peculiar experience furnish to aid them in procuring proper statutes. 11
Prior to 1890 Chief Wade and his associates were responsible for
certain amendments to the labor law, but, after that time, to advise
with legislators when asked to do so seemed to be as far as the
Massad;usetts factory inspectors would go in promoting legislation.
At the convention of 1894, Henry Splaine, one of the Massachusetts inspectors, precipitated a spirited debate by declaring that a
factory inspector should confine his efforts ~' to an impartial discharge of his duties " and should not enter the field of politics nor
the "domain of agitation for or against ca.pita! or labor." 4 The
chief factory inspector of New York, John Franey, advocated the
promotion by inspectors of legislation of a remedial character. 11
The consensus of opinion seemed to be expressed by Florence Kelley,
chief factory inspector of Illinois. She held that the inspectors had
an "urgent and binding" duty to take the initiative in securing
labor legislation, for in some respects they were more competent than
the working people themselves to judge what legislation was
"promptly attainable." She amplified her argument as follows:
" Going into all the factories of all sorts, we see the whole field of
industry as no other eyes see it, and have an opportunity, enjoyed
by no other observer, of judging which grievances are general
enough to be legislated upon immediately * * *. Moreover, the
1 National Association of F a ctory Inspectors of North
annual convention, Boston, 1888, p. 5.
2 International Association of Factory Inspectors of
aixth annual convention, Hartford, 1892, p. 96.
• National Association of Factory Inspectors of North
annual conv·e ntion, Boston, 1888, p 8.
'International Association of Factory Inspectors of
~hth annual convention, Philadelphia, 1894, p. 11.
Ibid., p. Ci.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

America.

Proceedings of second

North America.
America.

Proceedings of

Proceedings of second

North America.

Proceedings of

LEGISLATIVE ORIGINS AND INFLUENCES

legislators regard us, in a manner, experts, and attach weight to our
opinions. If we have done our duty faithfully, and enforced the
law, the working people stand ready to indorse our recommendations and urge the passage of our bills." 6
•
The difference in attitude of the factory inspectors of Massachusetts and of New York toward initiating labor legislation accounts~
at least in fart, for the marked difference in the origin and history
of much o the legislation in the two States. During the first 12
years of his administration, 1878-1890, Chief Wade, of the District
Police of Massachusetts, prodded in most cases by the textile workers
and their labor friends, recommended to the legislature certain
amendments to the hours law of 1874, to widen its scope and to
make it more readily enforceable. After 1890 there is no record of
attempt on the part of the factory inspectors to initiate labor legislation in Massachusetts, but occasionally they did go so far as to
call the attention of the legislature to certain imperfections in the
existing law.
The State Board of Labor and Industries of Massachusetts, created by law in 1912, took over the functions of inspection formerly
exercised by the district police. Reorganizations and changes in
personnel have prevented the board from being a noteworthy factor
in the promotion of labor legislation. It has recommended minor
statutes but its general policy has been to keep out of legislative
controversies.
In New York practically all the legislation that, prior to 1900,
clarified and extended the 60-hour-week law of 1886 was initiated by
the factory inspectors.
The creation in 1901 of a department of labor with a commissioner
at the head, and later changes in the form of organization, took away
from factory inspectors the direct contact with the legislators that
they had enjoyed up to that time. While they still were privileged
to make recommendations, these must have been acted upon favorably by the commissioner :for them to carry much weight with the
legislature.
Most of the commissioners of labor and members of the various
industrial boards created in New York from time to time through
the reorganization acts have taken an active interest in securing labor
legislation :for women workers. Many of the laws passed have been
suggested by labor-department offic'ials and later taken up and
pushed by organized labor or by one or more of the social and civic
organizations intere~ed in securing improvements in the working
conditions of women.
Since the first law regulating hours was passed in 1886, it may be
said that only two laws affecting the working conditions of women
have been put on the statute books of New York without the active
support of enforcing officials. One of these laws was the prohibition
of tlu work of women in the operation and use of buffing and polishing wheels (1899) and the other was the limitation of the hours of
work of women in mercantile establishments in cities of the second
class to 54 a week and elsewhere to 60 a week (1913). The first law
was put through by the metal polishers' union and the other slipped
through
a .legislature so crowded. with labor bills recommended by
..
'

· • Ibid., . p. 26.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

the factory investigating commission that it was difficult for the ordinary legislator to distinguish one bill from another.
In California there was practically no legal regulation of women's
work prior to the enactment of the 8-hour law in 1911, and there was
nothing worthy of the title of factory inspection before 1913. By
that time the labor code of the State as it affected women was comparatively complete and there was not the same urge for the factory
inspectors to suggest improvement as there was in New York and
Massachusetts. The bureau of labor statistics, to which the inspec•
tors are responsible, has had little to do officially with the building
up of a labor code for the State. The industrial welfare commission,
on the other hand, has taken an active part in securing amendments
strengthening its law.
Bureaus of labo:r statistics.
California is the only one of the three States under study in which
the bureau of labor statistics is charged with the enforcement of laws
as well as with research. In the other States the bureaus serve primarily as fact-finding agencies. They were established to satisfy
the demand of organized labor, which in its efforts to secure legislation had 'f ound itself handicapped by lack of authoritative informa6on as to the conditions that it sought to remedy. Labor was
hopeful that the bureaus of labor statistics would furnish the
nocessary facts and thus aid in the passage of measures of benefit
to labor.
For the most part labor has been disappointed in the support that
it has obtained from this source. While a few commissioners have
been friendly and have made timely studies of the questions in which
labor was legislatively interested, and even have recommended the
passage of laws of a remedial character, others have carefully
avoided taking sides on controversial questions.
The information furnished by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor was as often used against the legislative proposals of
labor as for them. The tendency of the bureau was to hold back
legislation rather than to promote it.
The New York Bureau of Labor Statistics in the main kept more
closely in touch with the labor movement. But even so, only one of
its studies had a real influence in promoting legislation for women.
Others were either untimely or of insufficient consequence to make
them helpful. The California Bureau of Labor Statistics gathered
the material upon which the minimum-wage law was based, but th6
bureau itself was not a party to the use to which the data were put.
Special legislative committees or commissions.
Special legislative committees or commissions have played no part
in the history of labor legislation for women in California, have had
a minor influence in Massachusetts, and have been one of the largest
determining factors in the labor legislative history of New York.
In only three instances have special labor legislative committees or
commissions in Massachusetts recommended improvements in the
labor laws affecting women that were accepted by the legislature.
One of these was a recommendation that the exemption from the
58-hour law, by which women in stores could be employed for unliI{llted hours during December, be repealed; another was that the

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LEGISLATIVE ORIGINS AND lNFLUENCES

enforcement of labor laws ne coordinated in a new department of
industrial inspection; the third and most important was the recommendation of the special commission appointed to study the wages
of women and minors that the State enact a law establishing a
permanent minimum-wage commission.
·
In contrast, much of the most important legislation affecting working conditions of women in New York was put on the statute books
as a result of investigations of special committees or commissions
· appointed to report on working conditions, sometimes specific, sometimes general, for which remedies had been sought through legislation, and to recommend legislation that they deemed necessary.
Laws passed at the recommendation of the Reinhard committee, the
factory investigating commission, and the industrial commission are
of particular importance to this study.
The Reinhard committee was appointed in 1895 because of pressure
brought by the Working Women's Society, the Consumers' League
of the City of New York, and the factory inspectors. All these
groups were in favor of the extension of the factory law to mercantile establishments and of other improvements in wor.king conditions
in stores. The committee made a thoroughgoing survey of " the condition of female labor in the city of New York." Its ,i nvestigations
led to the recommendation and passage of the first law in the State
regulating hours .in mercantile establishments, and in addition Jaws
regulating the employment of women and children in mercantile
basements and improving the seating law as it affected mercantile
establishments.
The factory investigating commission (1911-1915) grew out of a
shirtwaist-factory fire in which 145 working people lost their lives.
This needless loss of life crysta.llized public opinion in favor of
comprehensive legal regulation of factory conditions. It came at a
time when the progressive state of mind was dominant and made it
poss.ible for the commission to carry on more than three years of
j~vestigation, covering all the most mooted questions of working conditions, and to secure the passage of laws dealing with them. Many,
if not most, of the laws that were recommended and pushed through
the legislature by the commission were not original with ,i t but had
been advocated m some form or other by interested groups. The
factory investigating commission gave these biUs the support necessary to secure their passage. Chief among the laws affecting work,i ng women that the commission was instrumental in putting on the
etatute books were the provision of the 9-hour day for women in
factories and mercantile establishments, the extension of the hours
law to canneries, the prohibition of the work of women between
the hours of 10 p. m. and 6 a. m., the requirement of seats with backs
for women employees, the prohibition of the employment of women
for four weeks ~fter childbirth, and the regulation of the employment of women m core rooms.
Following the work of the factory investigating commission speC;ial legislative committees were appointed by successive legislatures
to review and revise the existing labor laws, but their recommendations for changes in the laws affecting women's work were opposed
by most of the groups interested in securing adequate safeguards
for womei: workers and in consequence did not become law.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

The New York State Industrial Survey Commission, appointed
in 1926, after a lengthy survey reported in favor of 8-hour-day and
48-hour-week Jegislation, with certain modifications. The changes
being accepted, or at least unopposed, by the supporters of the 8-hourday Iegislation, the legislature passed the 8-hour bUl as recommended
by the commission.
Probably most of the laws put on the statute books of New York
as a result of the recommendations of an investigating committee
had sufficient public support to insure their passage at the hands .
of some future leg,islature. But, aside from overcoming the delay
in putting them into effect, the fact that they were sponsored by
special legislative bodies of the sort had an extensive educational
effect, resulting from the hearings on industrial conditions, from
having such condit,ions aired in the press, from informing interested
witnesses and the public on the larger problems of women's work,
and finally in educating the legislators themselves who participated
as members of the committee. Furthermore, acceptance by the
employing interests of laws passed after thorough discussion was
much more immediate and friendly and the enforcement of such
laws was fac,i litated.
Governors.
Governors, as leaders of their political parties in the States, frequently have aided in the passage of labor legislation for women. A
governor's active support has been ,i n many cases the decisive factor
in the enactment of such laws. No instance has been found in which
a law of this sort originated with the chief executive of the State.
His role usually has been to give administrative approval to bills
introduced by organizations interested in industrial conditions and
to help to push them through the legislature.
Gubernatorial aid was a factor in the passage of both the 60-hour
and the 58-hour laws and of the minimum-wage law of Massachusetts. New York governors helped to pass the 60 and the 48 hour
week laws, as well as minor measures. A California governor played
the leading role in the enactment of a minimum-wage law.
The use of the veto power of the governor in checking attempts to
repeal old legislation or to pass new laws that generally were considered adverse to the interest of women workers probably has been
a more important factor in the development of the labor code of
New York as it affects women than has been the governor's support
of legislation. During periods of reaction New York governors
have more than once used the veto to prevent a breakdown of the
labor law. Similar situations have not arisen in Massachusetts and
California. The only use of the veto in Massachusetts in connection
with labor laws for women was to kill the overtime or night-work
bill for textile mills ( 1904). 7
Pioneering employers.
To the employers who have shown a readiness to accept newer
methods of carrying on their business must be given credit for having
made possible the passage of certain industrial legislation. Their
influence has been strongest in the fields of safety and sanitation, but
'The su cceeding goveruor signed the same measure wheu it came before hlm.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LEGISLATIVE ORIGINS AND INFLUENCES

•

it also has been a factor in hours and wage legislation. By putting
into effect an hour's schedule lower than that allowed by law, these
progressive employers have demonstrated that with proper management shorter hours are helpful rather than ruinous to industry.
When an appreciable number of employers accept voluntarily the
shorter week and continue to make profits, a strong argument is set
up for the extension of the shorter week by law to employers who
are not so concerned as to the welfare of their workers. For instance,
a strong argument for the passage of the 8-hour law for women in
New York was that approximately one-half the women of the State
who would be covered by the measure already were working the
8-hour day.
The fact that some employers were able to pay a living wage to
their employees and yet prosper as much as, if not more than,
their competitors with a much lower wage scale was one of the leading
arguments in support of the minimum-wage law of Massachusetts.
Other instances could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that
pioneering employers have led the way to much of the legislation
affect.i ng women workers by voluntarily adopting the sfa.nrlard later
embodied in the law.
Social, civic, philanthropic, and church groups.
It is increasingly dear that many factors have combined to build
up the industrial code of a State. Education of the legislators and
the public to the need for relief from existing conditions and the
practicability of the method proposed as remedy has been carried on
in greater or less degree by all the groups or agencies under consideration-organized labor, factory inspectors, bureaus of labor
statistics, special legislative committees or commissions, pioneering
employers, and governors.
But without the educational work of still another group much
of the effort expended by these agencies would not have resulted
in legislation. Social, civic, philanthropic, and church organizations
have popularized official reports and recommendations, have given
them publicity, have created a favorable public opinion, and have
aided in putting suggested bills through the legislature. With comparatively flexible forms of organization, some of these societies
have been able to concentrate on a given bill, to carry on propaganda,
and to work much more effectively in an emergency than could
State officials or representatives of more ponderous organizations.
Most frequently these organizations have taken up and helped
to carry through some recommendation for legislation made by
factory inspectors or other labor-department officials or by organized
labor or groups of working women. In a few instances they have
initiated legislation without there having been a demand from enforcement officials or labor. Where industrial conditions were considered bad and official aid in studying them was not forthcoming,
some of these agencies have made ori~inal investigations to determine the facts, have drafted bills to improve the conditions, have
gained the necessary support for them, and finally have lobbied
them through the legislature.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

At times more than 20 organizations have been pushing jointly
a given piece of legislation affecting women's work. Most of these
societies have been interested primarily in questions other than
industrial, such as suffrage, politics, prohibition, civic reform.
Of the three organizations whose chief function has been the
improvement of workin~ conditions, one-the American Association
for Labor Legislation-has devoted itself lareiely to the promotion
of workmen's compensation laws, but in addition it has played a
real part in familiarizing the public with the need for safeguarding
the work of women and the progress being made in that direction.
The other two organizations-the Consumers' League and the
Women's Trade Union League-National, State, and local-have
confined their activities to the improvement of the working conditions of women and children. Local leagues have done most of the
active legislative work for their organizations, but their policy is
affected by that of the national organizations and the officers of the
nationals often give aid to the legislative causes of the locals.
The National Consumers' League was founded in 1899 " to educate
public opinion to the need for better working conditions and to
protect the consumers against the dangers arismg from the use of
goods produced under unwholesome conditions." 8 It soon decided
that legislation was necessary to effect its purposes and it began
to promote laws for the shorter workday, the abolition of night
work, and a minimum wage for women. Through investigations,
pamphlets, lectures, and general propaganda, it has kept the need for
these laws constantly before the public. The economic data that it
collected to support legislation before the courts helped to usher
in a new technique and to bring about a more liberal interpretation
of social laws by the judiciary. For example, the ·opinion of the
United States Supreme Court upholding the 10-hour law of Oregon 9
was based on the brief submitted by the National Consumers' League.
This decision gave new life and impetus to the whole movement
-!or industrial legislation.
The National Women's Trade Union League, organized in 1903 to
bring working women into the trade-union movement, became a
,:;trong exponent of labor legislation for women. Among its early
legislative proposals were the 8-hour day, the elimination of night
work, seats for women, prohibition of employment two months before
and t wo months after childbirth, and the minimum wage. It has
done much to popularize these proposals, but the national league
probably has played its most important role in educating the American Federation of Labor and its constituent bodies to a better understanding of what labor legislation would do for organized women
workers as well as for the unorganized. At a time when some union
leaders were questioning the value to organized labor of labor legislation the National Women's Trade Union League expressed its
belief that such legislation might become " a powerful constructive
force for social righteousness" if it were "reinforced by trade-union
organization" to see to the enforcement of the laws. It was recog~

Na tional Cornm mer~• League. SE> coud anuual report, year ending Mar. 6, 1901, p. 8.
.Tliluller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LEGISLATIVE ORIGINS AND INFLUENCES

nized as "another weapon in the hands of the trade-union women
to protect not only themselves and their children but the great mass
of unorganized women to whom has not yet come the social vision
which will redeem the world." 10
With the passage of years and with more knowledge as to the
effects of the legislation it has promoted, the league still continues
to urge labor legislation for women as a supplement to trade-union
organization.
The consumers' league, local, State, or national, as a proponent of
labor legislation for women has not played the same conspicuous part
in each of the States under survey. In California the influence of the
league has been indirect only; in Massachusetts it has interested itself
mainly in securing the protection of hours laws for women in mercantile establishments; but in New York it has been instrumental
in securing the introduction or the passage, or both, of practically
every important labor law affecting women's work since the formation of the Consumers' League of the City of New York in 1892.
Frequent!~ other organizations have taken the initiative and the
consumers league has given public and legislative support. But in
other instances bills have originated with the consumers' league and
have gained the support of other groups to make them law.
Local women's trade union leagues have not been active in the
support of labor legislation for women o,ver so long a period as have
the consumers' leagues. In both New York and Massachusetts they
made their first important legislative appearance in 1911. Since that
time they have played an important role as the epokesman of the
working women. Both leagues have taken the lead in securing the
8-hour day for women, both have given substantial aid in the extension of shorter-hours legislation to women in industries not touched
by existing statutes, and both have supported local movements for
minimum-wage legislation.
California has never had an active Women's Trade Union League,
but the organized women workers through their local unions have
expressed themselves on the question of labor legislation for their
sex. These women initiated the movement for 8-hour legislation in
California, but in contrast to the action of organized women workers
in the other two States they actively opposed the enactment of a
minimum-wage law.
Factual studies.
The extent to which legislation has been based upoµ the facts of
the conditions to be remedied is one of the outstand.i ng features of
this study. Legislators have been slow to act, particularly to make
new departures, unless they had before them official or unofficial
factual material bearing on the question. Time after time, as the
details of legislative history of labor laws for women are studied, it
is found that the evidence was so incontrovertible that the legislature was forced ultimately to act. Particularly is this true of New
York, but California and Massachusetts both offer examples in point.
1• National Women's Trade Union League of America.
convention, New York, 1924, p. 3.

91970°-32--2

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Proceedings of ninth biennial

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

The spirit of the time.
The rise and development of labor legislation for women are traced
in three representative States. Attempt is made to show how the
legislation originated, with whom, and the factors that made for its
passage. Leaders and organizations have left their stamp upon
specific pieces of legislation, but behind these leaders and organizations are discernible always the social forces pushing on toward a
better economic order. The overpowering urge toward social justice
accounted for the flood of industrial legislation during the years
1911 to 1914. More important legislation affecting women's work
was put on the statute books of each of the three States in that
3-year period than in any other period of corresponding length.
Massachusetts shortened hours for almost all groups of women workers and passed the first minimum-wage law in the United States;
New York shortened hours for women workers, prohibited night
work, and passed a number of other statutes safeguarding the work
of women; California enacted a comprehensive 8-hour law and then
set up a commission to secure for women workers a living wage and
proper working conditions.
In some cases legislative action has been followed by .reaction, but
the work accomplished seldom has been undone, and the laws passed
may be considered representative of the spirit of the time that played
its part ,i n making their enactment possible.
One of the clearest reflections of the influence of public opinion
and the spirit of the time may be found in the decisions and interpretations of the labor laws made by the courts. While note has been
made in certain outstanding instances of the influence of court decisions-sometimes deterring, sometimes stimulating-upon the trend
of labor legislation for women, it has not been attempted in this study
to give the subject the space that its importance warrants, because
an adequate treatment would be a study ,i n itself, which, with the
t·esoufces available, could not be undertaken.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CHAPTER II.-HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR
WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS
HOURS LEGISLATION IN MANUFACTURING AND MECHANICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS

The 60-hour-week law of 187 4.
Massachusetts was the pioneer State in enacting effective hours
legislation for women. More than 40 years of almost continuous
agitation by the working men and women of the State for the regulation of the hours of labor of all persons finally was rewarded in
1874 by the passage of a 60-hour-week law for women and minors in
manufacturing establishments.
Agitation for a 10-hour day by legislative enactment began in the
early thirties. It became a political issue in 1842. In that year
various petitions were addressed to the general court urging that
10-hour legislation be enacted. With one notable exception these
petitions were for the passage of a law providing that " ten hours'
labor shall constitute a day's labor, in all cases wherein a different
provision is not made by the agreement of the parties."
The one. exception was in the case of the petitioners from Lowell,
who realized that such a law would be nothing more than an expression of opinion and asked for a law that would prevent all
" manufacturing corporations " from employing persons " more than
10 hours a day." Furthermore, they gave as the reasons why they
thought such a law should be passed thatIt would, in the first place, serve to lengthen the lives of those employed, by
giving them a greater oppor t>unity to breathe the pure air of h eaven, r ather
than the heated air of t he mills. In the second place, they would have more
time for men t al and mor al (;Ultivation * * *. In the third place, they will
have more t ime to attend to their own personal affairs, ther eby sa ving consider able in th eir expenditures.

It is significant to this study that this early plea recognized the two
f actors upon which hours legislation :for women fi nally was based,
the protection of health and the provision of time for " mental and
moral cultivation." 1
The petitions o:f 1842 were followed by other·s of 1843 and 1&44.
In 1 S44 one petition was ref erred to a special committee, which report~d that" In order to understand the nature and the extent of the
evil represent~d in the petition, as also the best remedy, it will be necessary to thoroughly examine the manufacturing systems * * *
throughout the Commonwealth." The committee felt that if legislative action was needed "it should be based upon accurate and
extensive knowledge." Having neither the knowledge nor the time
1 Ki ngsbury, Susan M ., ed.
Labor Laws and Their Enforcement, with Specia l Reference
to Massachusetts. Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1911. (Women's Educational and
In d1,s t r ia l Union, Boston . Department of research. Studies in Economic Rela tions of
Women, v. 2.) pp. 25-26.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

to secure it, the committee recommended that action be referred to
the, next session. 2
·.rhe unwillingness of the legislature to consider the needs of the
workers was one of the leading factors in determining the M,~chanics'
.A,ssociation of Fall River to call a convention of working men for the
purpose of forming a more effective organization. The New England
orkingmen's Association was the result. At its first convention it indorsed the 10-hour movement and appointed a -committee on ways and means for carrying the 10-hour :,ystem into
effect. 3 This organization, together with the Lowell Female Labor
Reform Association formed by women textile wqrkers early in 1845,4
was instrumental in securing signatures to monster petitions submitted to the legislature in 1845. The petitioners, a large number
of whom were women, declared that they were confined "from 13 to
14 hours per day in unhealthy apartments" and were thereby
"hastening through pain, disease, and privation, down to a premature grave." They asked the legislature" to pass a law providing
that 10 hours shall constitute a day's work." 6
The effective propaganda carried on in connection with these petitions resulted in the first governmental investigation of labor conditions jn the United States.6 A special legislative committee was
appointed to con,sider the petitions. It heard testimony from members of the Lowell Female Labor Re.f orm Association, other textile
operatives, manufacturers, and citizens, and made a personal inspection of some of the leading textile mills. Data submitted by the
Lowell textile manufacturers showed that the average d~ily hours
of work in the mills were 12: 10, varying from 13: 31 in April to
11: 24 in December and J anuary. 7
With these and other facts before it, the committee unanimously
recommended that legislation wa,s not necessary at that time; that
the health of the operatives was not being impaired by work in the
mills; that the St ate could not reduce hours and compete with other
States; and that legislation as to hours was bound to affect wages.
Better conditions should come by improvements in the arts and
sciences, and "in a higher appreciation of man's destiny, in a le,ss
love for money, and a more ardent love for social happiness and
intellectual superiority." The members agreed that the remedy "is
not with us." 8
The report of the committee was bitterly assailed by the Lowell
Female Labor Reform Association. It claimed that all the most
important testimony given by its :members at the hearing had been
withheld from the legislature and it charged the members of the
committee with being "mere corporate machines." As an object lesson for future committeemen the chairman, a representative fron\

,:v

2
Massachusetts. Legislative documents . House No. 48, 1844, pp. 1·· 2.
3
Commons, J. R. Documentary History of American Industrial Society, Arthur H.
Clark Co., Cleveland , 1910, v. 8, pp. 81-84.
'Kingsbur y, p. 36. (See footnote 1, p. 13.)
1 Massachus~tts.
Legislative documents. Hou se No. 50, 1845, p. 1.
11 Vox Popull, Lowell, Mar. 28, 1845, quoted in Report on Condition c,! Woman and
Child Wage Earners in the United States, U. S. Bureau of Labor, 1910, v. LO, p. 73.
M~ssachusetts. Legislative documents. House No. 50, 1845,, p. 9.

! Ibid.,

p. 16,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

Lowell, was defeated for reelection largely through the efforts of
these indignant women. 9
In 1846 a senate committee came to practically the same conclusions
that had been reached by the house committee the previous year It
emphasized even more strongly the laissez faire theory so commonly
accepted at the time. One sentence will indicate the reasoning followed in. the report as 'a whole: "Let business be flourishing, and
the competjtion consequent is the best guarantee the laborjng man
can have that he will be properly dealt by." 10 These economic
views proved for years a stumblingblock in the way of the 10hour-day movement.
Agitation for hours legislation continued intermittently up to
1850, when it received renewed impetus by a favorable minority
report of the labor committee accompanied by a bill providing for
the gradual adoption of the 10-hour day. By the terms of this bill
no person was to be employed more tha1.1 11 hours a day after September 1, 1850, and the following July the 10-hour day was to go
into effect. 11 The bill was defeated.
Though labor was organized and had considerable influence during
the agitation of the forties, it was not until the early fifties that jt
became a factor to be reckoned with by the politicians. During these
years legislators were elected or' defeated upon their position on
the 10-hour bill. The laboring men carried on a vigorous educational
campaign through 10-hour conventions, ,speeches, and pamphlets.
This educational work had a profound effect upon legislative action
for the years preceding the outbreak of the Civil War. The 10-hour
bill actually passed the house in 1853 and was defeated in the senate
only by a substitute bill embodying the contract provisions of the
unenforceable 10-hour laws of New Hampshire, Ohio, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. The advocates of 10-hour legislation in Massachusetts were not to be put off with such an ineffectual statute, and promptly rejected the substitute measure. 12
The evident strength of the movement for legislation alarmed the
textile manufacturers. In an effort to stave it off, by agreement they
granted the 11-hour day to their operatives in September, 1853. 13
The 10-hour movement lost some of its force in 1854 but was taken
up with renewed energy in 1855. A legislative battle between opposing factions gave the house an excuse to refer action to the next
se.ssion. A senate committee in 1856 reported a bill applying only to
minors employed in certain manufacturing industries in the State.
0 U. S. Bureau of Labor.
Report on Condition of Woman and Child Wage Earners in
the United States, 1910, v. 10, p. 74.
10 Massachusetts.
Legislative do cumf' nts. Senate No. 81. 1846, p. 4.
u Ten-h our Jaws werP enacted by New Hampshire in J 847, Maine and Pennsylvania in
1848, New .Jersey in 1851, Rhode Island in 1853
In general they provided that 10 hours
should constitute a day's work for all persons employed by corporations unless otherwise
ag reed by the partles. Hailed at first as great victories for la bor, it was soon found that
these laws were futile. It was freely admitted in the case of New Hampshire that "the
laborers have the contracts presented for their signature, under peril of ejection from
employment if they Se(' fit to refuse, while a secret agreement among the employers of
the entire State, and with others out of the State, binds each not to employ any who
refm;e to sign a contract to work as many hours per day as the employers see fit to
exact • • •."- - U. S. Bureau of Labor. R eport on Conditions of Woman and Child
Wage Earners in the United States, 1910, v. 9, pp. 69- 70: and Commons . .T. R. . Documentary History of American Industrial Society. .A.rthµ- H. Clark Co .. ClevP.land. 1910.
V

12
18

D-

195.

Kingsbury, p. 81.
Kingsbury, p. 88.

(8e(' footnote 1. p. 13. )
( See foot uote l, p. 13.)

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

No action was taken on this measure. The approach of the Civil
War brought other problems to the legislative leaders friendly to
the cause of labor and the 10-hour movement was disregarded for the
next nine years. u
When the war was over, the movement for shorter hours was in
keeping with the general humanitarian spirit of the times aud had
the whole-hearted support of prominent anti.slavery leaders such as
Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison. A general 8-hour
day was demanded for the working classes. Legislative action in
1865 and 1866 was confined to such a proposal.
A house committee in 1865 unanimously reported in favor of a
decrease in hours, stating that in its opinion the 11-hour system was
'' a disgrace * * * to Ma,ssachusetts and an outrage on
humanity." 115 As a result of this report a commission of five was
appointed to investigate the 8-hour question. This commission
recommended child-labor legislation and in addition suggested "that
provision be made for the annual collection of reliable statistics in
regard to the condition, prospects, and want.s of the industrial
classes." 10 As far as shorter hours were concerned, its opinion was
that" the change desired can be better brought about by workingmen
outside the statehouse, than by legislators inside." 11
Again the following year a commission of three was appointed to
mvestigate further the feasibility of 8-hour legislation. After reviewing the evidence available and stating that existing hours of work
were too long, it recommended the 10-hour day and 60-hour week
for minors under 18, the a pp ointment of inspectors to enforce the
law, and the establishment of a bureau of labor statistics. 18 A minority report was submitted, recommending "the enactment of 10 hours,
as a legal standard for a day's labor-in the absence of contractsfor factory and farm work, and a similar enactment of 8 hours as a
legal standard-in the absence of contracts-for mechanical labor." 1 9
Nothing came of this report. In the following years the 10-hour
day was again the chief legislative proposal of the workers.
The process by which a demand for the 10-hour day for all "per
sons" employed by incorporated companies resolved itself into a
bill for the protection of the health of minor and female textile
operatives is not entirely clear. In tracing the development of this
change from such data as are available it is noteworthy that during
the agitation of the forties and fifties no mention is made of such a
possible limitation, particularly since, during the latter period, the
. English 10-hour legislation of 1847, applying only to women and
·minors, was constantly being cited as an example of the efficacy of
hours legislation. 2 ° Furthermore, during this period the passage of
the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution must have
influenced public opinion as to the feasibility of thus controlling
conditions of employment for men.
Kingsbury, pp. 8 7- 8 R ( See foo tn ot e 1, p. 13.)
Massachusetts. Legislative docum ents. House No. 259, 1865, p. 3.
Ibid. House No. 9 8, 1866, p. 49.
u Ibid., p . 44.
11 Ibid.
House No . 44 , 1867, p. 21.
1° Tbid .. p. 141 .
10 Kingsbury , pp. 8 4-85.
(See footnote 1, p. 13.)
14

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN M ASSACHUSETTS

A legislative committee appointed to investigate the need for
shorter hours had recommended in 1867 the 10-hour day for minors
under 18, but such a measure had not proved acceptable to the advocates of the more comprehensive legislation. That same year some
of the amalgamated short-time committees, the recognized sponsors of
the 10-hour legislation, 21 petitioned for a bill applying to women
and children employed by woolen, cotton, linen, and all other incorporated comfanies. 22 The State convention of the amalgamated
committees o 1870 issued an "appeal for a 10-hour law" addressed
to the "workingmen of Massachusetts." This appeal carried a draft
of a proposed law that applied only to women and minors under 18
engaged in textile manufacturing. 23
In view of the economic situation, the limitation of the bill to the
textile industry was logical. Textiles made up the vast bulk of the
manufacturing industry . . Particularly did it include almost all the
incorporated companies where the evils of long hours were the most
pronounced. Organization among the textile workers was weak.
Certain branches of the industry in the predominantly English communities of New Bedford and FaJl River were fairly well organized,
but the unions were not strong enough to determine working conditions. The preponderance of women and children in the industry
as a whole made the work of organization seem hopeless. Eleven
hours was the prevailing workday m the textile industry, while in the
mechanical trades and most of the smaller industries in which the
workers had fairly good bargaining power the 10-hour day was the
rule. So it was to compensate the workers for their weak bargaining position and to bring the textile industry up to the standard
already established in other trades that the 10-hour movement was
limited to textiles.
·
When once this limitation was determined there was no effective
reason why the law should not apply to women and minors only.
They made up such a large proportion of the working force that if
a 10-hour day were established for them it would apply automatically
to the men.
Another practical consideration was that the bill would stand
a much better chance o:f passage ,i:f it applied only to women and
minors. In the first place, the legislature doubted its right to regulate the labor of men, and in the second place, the argument as to the
injurious effects of long hours of work did not apply with equal
force to men. 24 These practical considerations outweighed the theoretical, and in 1871 a petition from "James Lee and 10,755 others,"
asking for a 10-hour law for women and minors under 18 employed
in the textile industry, received particular attention. The joint committee on labor to which this petition was referred recommended
legislation as follows : " No n;iinor under the age of 18 years, and
21 The first amalgamated short-time committee was formed in Lawrence in 1865.
It
was soon followed by committees In Fall River and Lowell. These local committees were
bound together by the so-ca_lled Short-Time Amalgamat ed Association. The purpose of
the organization was to secure the 10-hour day, either by ba rgaining or by legisla tion.
'l'hey held aloof from the movement for 8 hours.-Kingsbury, pp. 106---110. (See footnote

13.)

21 Kingsbury, p. 108.
(See footnote 1, p. 13.)
• Kingsbury, p. 107. (See footnote 1, p . 13. )
.. Kin&sbury, pp. 122-123 <See footnote 1, p. 13.)

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

•

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

no female over that age, shall be employed in laboring by any person,
firm , or corporation in this Commonwealth in the manufacture of
cotton, woolen, linen, jute or silk fabrics more than 10 hours in any
one day or 60 hours in any one week; except when it is necessary to
make repairs to prevent the stoppage or interruption of the ordinary
running of the mill or machinery." 25 This bill passed the house in
1871, 1872, and 1873, but was defeated each time in the senate. 26
Throughout the period 1865 to 1874 the arguments used for and
against hours legislation varied little. The opposition argued as
follows: Such legislation was not within the province of the legislaturA; if passed it would drive cap.ital out of the State, it would
drive the best operatives into some other State where they could
work as many hours as they pleased, it would encourage foreign
competition, it would reduce the wages of operatives; more leisure
would mean more dissipation; it would be .an interference between
capital and labor and would destroy personal freedom in the matter
of contract; the experience of England with the 10-hour law showed
it to be a failure; paternalism in France had meant no improvement
in the lot of the workers in 100 years. The advice of the manufacturers to the proponents was " keep clear of governmental care, keep
clear of strikes, shun trades-unions, keep out of combinations, stick
to individual effort, make your services so necessary to the public
that they can not be dispensed with, and you will have no need of
strikes or Government aid." 27
That the workers disagreed with the employers on each and every
·one of these counts is amply demonstrated by their testimony before
legislative committees. They said that the same dire predict10ns had
been made by the English manufacturers before the enactment of the
10-hour-day legislat10n, but shorter hours in England actually
brought " ,i ncreased wag~s, increased invention, increased pr~duction,
and mcreased consumpt10n "; 28 that the 10-hour day was m effect
in the textile mills of Fall River for 21 months and the industry
did not suffer; that the Atlantic Mills at Lawrence had voluntarily
granted the 10-hour day in 1867 and the labor cost had decreased
mstead of increasing; that apart from the practicabiUty of shorter
hours labor-saving machinery was bringing larger benefits to society
and the workers should share in the better things of life through
more leisure; 29 and that factory work inevitably meant a breakdown
in health, particularly of females-three years being the average
length of time that females were able to stand the work. 80
Support for the movement outside the workers' group came from
doctors, ministers, and notably from one employer, William Gray,
agent of the Atlantic Mills at Lawrence. After his success with
the 10-hour day voluntarily granted in 1867 Mr. Gray became an
215

Massachusetts. Legislative documents. House No. 314, 1871, p. 2.
Kingsbury, p. 123. (See footnote 1, p. 13.)
Dickinson, M. F., jr. Shall We Legislate Upon the Hours of Labor? Argument of
M. F. Dickinson, jr., before the joint special committee of the Massachusetts Legislature
upon the hours of labor, in behalf of the r emonstrants, held Mar. 15, 1871, phonographically [stenographically] reported by J. Read Pember, with an appendix containing abstract
of t estimony.-J. B. Batchelder, Boston, 1871, pp. 3-27.
28 McNeill, George E.
Argument on the hours of labor, delivered before the labor committee of th e Massn chusetts Legislature. Labor Standard Publishing Association, New
York, undated [1E79 ?], p. 7.
llllldem.
80 Kingsbury, p. 117.
(See footnote 1, p. 13.)
26
27

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

•

enthusiastic supporter of legislation, and his writings and addresses
in favor of it were a real factor in molding public opinion. 81
The Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, which had been
created in 1869 probably more to hold the labor vote than to carry
out the recommendations of the commissions of 1866 and 1867,82 began
at once to recommend 10-hour legislation. In its first annual report,
in 1870, the testimony of operatives and others regarding the effects
of long hours of labor was published. From this material the comm,issioner deduced " that factory life is detrimental to health, morals,
and the general well-being of young persons and females, disqualifying the latter for household duties, thus corroborating testimony
given to the parliamentary commission." 8 8 He stated further "that
the hours ·are too long, and that the preliminary step to remedy
the evil is the enactment of a law restricting labor in all manufacturing and mechanical establishments in the State to 10 hours per
day, or to 60 hours per week." s•
In the report of the bureau for the following year the whole
question of shorter-hours legislation was considered; the arguments
for and against were given and the English experience was cited as
proving that production increased with shorter hours. Again the
commissioner recommended that 10 hours be made the limit of a
day's work, but he widened the application suggested in his previous
recommendation to all establishments in the State "wherein men
or women, or both" were employed. 85 Undoubtedly these early reports and the repetition of the recommendations during the next
two years were effective in giving the cause of' labor legislation a
standing in the :public mind that otherwise it would have lacked.
The long-contmued agitation of the workers for shorter hours,
strengthened by legisJative reports and limited legislative action,
approved by public-spirited citizens, indorsed by both political parties, and officially sponsored by the State bureau of statistics of labor,
met with success in 1874, when a law was passed limiting women's
hours in manufactur,i ng to 10 daily and 60 weekly. The immediate
cause of legislative approval was the strong indorsement by Gov.
William B. Washburn of the demands of the operatives and the
favorabJe report of the senate committee on such legislation. The
governor in his annual address to the legislature said in part: "That
the strength of the operatives in many of our mills is being exhausted, that they are growing prematurely old, and that they are
losing the vitality requisite to the healthy enjoyment of social opportunity, are facts that no careful and candid observer will deny."
He pointed out the particular need of leisure for foreigners in order
that they might learn the language, ways, and institutions of their
adopted land. He argued further: " The limit of a day's work to
three-fourths of the laboring class in this Commonwealth being 10
hours, I am not able to see that any great detriment would result
if the same limit should be extended to the other fourth. I have
no hesitancy in recommending that the experiment be tried * * *
Kingsbury, pp. 117-122. (See footnote 1, p. 13.)
Massachusetts. Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Seventh annual report, 1876, p. 279,
Ibid. First annual report, 1870, p. 314.
·
3' Ibid., pp. 196-197.
• Ibid. Second annual report, 1871, p. 501,
31
81
113

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

I know of no reason why it should not apply as well to male as to
female operatives." ss
The committees of the senate to which this address and the petitions from workers were referred reported that they were "of the
opinion that the legislation contemplated is for the protection of the
health of a large class of the women of the Commonwealth," and for
the advancement of the children," which objects have ever been recogn,ized as proper subjects for legislative action"; and that Massachusetts should not be heJd back by the failure of other States to
provide adequate protection for their workers, particularly since the
law would not prevent the manufacturers of the State from obtaining " a fair and honorable return " on their investments. 81 Encouraged by these two official pronouncements, the house passed the bill
by a vote of 111 to 19. A legislative battle followed, which more
than once threatened to kill the b,iJl. Final approval by the senate
was by a vote of 21 to 11.88
The bill as passed had been amended in the senate to allow the
adjustment of daily hours to make one short day a week, provided
the 60-hour week was not exceeded, and to prevent the prosecution
of an employer except for "wilfully" violating the law. As was
intended, these two amendments made the law practically unenforceabJe.39 Weak as it was, an attempt was made to have it declared
unconstitutional. This failing, efforts were made to repeal it in
1879, but public opinion was so strongly behind it that they failed.
Instead of repealing the law the legislature made it partially effective
by striking out the word "w,i lfully," which had proved an insurmountable obstacJe in securing conviction for violation. 40

Amendments to the hours law to aid enforcement and to prevent
abuse.
After their unsuccessful attempt to repeal the 10-hour law in
1879 the employers realized that further att€mpts in this direction
would be equally futile and began to accept the law as a permanent
:factor in industry. By 1881 the chief of the district police reported
much less antagonism to it than formerly. He said, "Happily it is
now· conceded by those who were arrayed in opposition upon this
subject that the policy of the State in regard to the employment of
labor is established, and that results have shown the wisdom of such
legislation." 41
Acceptance of the law on the part of the employers did not prevent
abuses of various sorts from cropping up. When they became serious
enough legislative action usually was resorted to in an effort to end
them. The initiative for legislation came in almost every instance
from the textile workers. They were aided in many of their claims
by ·the findings of the bureau of statistics of labor and the chief of
the district police, who had been made the enforcing agency of the
law of 1879. Both of these official sources of publicity and support
ae Massachusetts. Legislative documents. Senate No. 1, 1874, pp. 33-35.
Ibid. Senat e No. 33, 1874, pp. 1-2.
Massachusetts. Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Seventh annual report, 1876, p. 294.
30 Kingsbury, p. 125.
(See footnote 1, p. 13.)
'° Massachusetts. Session laws, 1879, ch. 207.
u Massa ..!husetts. District Police, Inspection ot F actoriea.. Thir~ annq~l report qt
,htef, 1881, p. 1(),
a7

111

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

•

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

•

gave the demands of the workers a public standing that was of
material aid in securing remedial legislation.
Posting of notices.-The amendment of 1880 required the posting
of printed notices giving the number of hours of labor for each day
of the week. While it grew out of complaints from the workers of
violations that could not be proved by the enforcement officers, probably it was passed largely at the request of the chief of the district
police. He hoped by this measure to reduce· the possibilities of
evasion that arose from the provision that more than 10 hours a day
could be worked in order to make a shorter workday on any one day
of the week. Without the posting of the daily hours inspectors had
no way of determining a violation of the law, except to watch an
establishment each day of the week to find out if the 60-hour limit
were exceeded. Under the new provision, if plants were operating at
hours other than those posted, it was considered by the inspectors as
prima facie evidence of violation.
The courts, however, did not consider such evidence sufficient. In
one case the inspectors proved that the women had been at the looms
for 20 minutes in excess of the printed time-table for the day and that
the looms were at working speed throughout that period. The court
held that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the women
actually were doing something the whole time, and dismissed the
case. As a result of this decision the chief of police recommended
legislation providing that "If a person is in a factory while the
machinery is in mot10n it is prima facie evidence of employment." u
Although recommended again and again this suggested amendment
w-as never enacted by the legislature.
.
Time required for st(lff'ting and stopping machinery.-Early starting and late stopping of machinery proved to be a favorite method
adopted by some employers to increase working hours. The bureau
of statistics of labor, in a study of the textile industry, reported that
the operatives claimed that the time so gained by the employers
varied from 6 to 16 minutes a day, and that it was the custom in certain parts of the State to start the machinery as much as 10 to 17
minutes before the scheduled time to begin work. The employers
claimed that this was necessary in order to get up the proper speed
for production and that the operatives need not be at their places
before the scheduled time. The operatives, on the other hand, held
that 2 minutes was sufficient time to get up the necessary speed and
that they were required to be in their places ready to begin work
when the wheels started. 43 The difference in the amount of time
required by manufacturers in different parts of the State to start
machinery led to a demand by some of the employees in 1881 that
a uniform time be set for this purpose. The chief of the district
police tried to get the manufacturers to agree to a certain schedule,
but those who claimed that 17 minutes was required would not
concede that 5 minutes was ample." Voluntary agreement~ therefore,
was impossible.
u Ibid.

Sixth annual report ot chief, 1884, p. 18.
"Massachusetts. Bureau ot Statistics ot Labor.

p. 302; and District Pollce, Inspection of Factories.
pp. 1~16.
M

Massachusetts.

Fourteenth annual report, 1888,
Sixth annual report of chief, 1884,

District Police, Inspection of Fact ories.

chief, 1882, pp. 9-10.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Fourth annual report et

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

The so-called practice of " stealing on time " spread; complaints
were frequent. Cases were taken to the courts but were thrown out
on the plea of insufficient evidence. An amending act therefore was
urged by the chief of the district police to secure uniformity as to
the time for starting and stopping the machinery in manufacturing
establishments. 45
Legislative action was secured in 1886 by the passage of a law
requiring that the time of starting and stopping machinery and
the noon-time hours should be posted, a.s well as the hours of labor
for each day. 4 6 The wording of this amendment was not all that
was desired. It was considered "worse than useless" by an inspector charged with its enforcement. He claimed that since the notice
required that the time for starting and stopping the machinery be
posted, the employer.s inferred that some time was allowed for that
purpose. In his opinion the change did not "make the law any
clearer, or in any way aid an inspector in enforcing it." 47
This legislative error was rectified the following session by an
amendment providing that the time of starting and stopping " work '~
should be posted. 48 This amendment effectively disposed of the
controver.sy. ·
Stoppage of machinery.-Another provision of the law that gave
rise to much abuse was that which allowed overtime when necessary
to make repairs to prevent stoppage of machinery. This provision
made the detection of violations well-nigh impossible, because if an
employer was found to be running a plant at other than scheduled
hours he could say that there had been a breakdown of machinery,
and that he was making up for the lo.st time. . Employees did not
dare to testify otherwise for fear of losing their jobs. In 1880 the
requirement was made that a stoppage of machinery on a previous
day of the same week might be made up by overtime! 9 In an attempt to remedy abuses of this, the chief of the district police was
instrumental in having a law passed in 1887 that permitted overtime
only when a stoppage had been for 30 minutes or more and the
report of the .stoppage had been made to the chief of the district
police or to the inspector of factories. 50
The textile operatives were not satisfied with this amendment, it
did not go far enough. The next year, 1888, the spinners of Fall
River protested against the practice of " some of the mills running
during a portion of the meal hour and after 6 o'clock in the evening
to recover time lost for temporary . stoppages." They objected "to
having their meal hour encroached on," and thought that when
6 o'clock in the evening arrived the hour was "late enough to leave
off work." 51 They sought and continued to seek a repeal of the
provision of the law permitting overtime to make up for time lo.st
for stoppage of machinery. Opposed by the textile manufacturers
and unsupported by public opinion they made little progress. 52 In
,& Ibid.

Fifth a nnu al r eport of chief, 1883, p. 18.
Massa chusetts. Session laws, 1886, ch. 90.
Ma ssachusetts. District Police, Inspection of Factories.
~hief. 1886, pp. 55-56.
48 Massachusetts.
Session laws, 1887, ch. 280.
49 Ibid., 1880, ch. 194.
'° Ibid., 1887, ch. 280.
n Wade's Fibre and Fabric, Boston, Apr. 14, 1888, p. 53.
12 Boston Journal, Mar. 2, 1898.
46

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Eighth am 1Ual report of

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

1898 they secured a partial victory by the passage of an amendment
requiring that if women and minors were not permitted to leave the
mill while the machinery was stopped for repair they must be paid
full wages for the day, and that if they were compelled to make up
the time lost they must be paid for the overtime at their regular
rates of pay. 58
The next year they gained some legislative support as a result of a
court decision that held that it was " not illegal to run mills overtime
to make up for reasonable volwntw-y stoppage." 54 But even this
broad interpretation, that largely nullified the benefits of the hours
law as a whole, was not enough to secure the repeal of the provision
allowing time lost from stoppages of machinery to be made up.
In subsequent years, when the hours of labor were reduced, efforts
were made to eliminate this provision, but all were without effect.
In 1915 an addition was " nor shall such overtime employment be
authorized because of the stopping o:f machinery for the celebration
of any holiday." 511 That such an amendment was necessary shows
the length to which the original purpose of the act was stretched by
court decision and otherwise. This amendment marks the end of
legislation on this particular question.
Meal time.-Under the law as originally enacted there was no
specified time for meals. The irregularity and insufficiency of the
time allowed for meals " was necessarily more or less detrimental
to health " of the employees. 116 Furthermore, some employers
adopted the expedient of having the women workers do double duty
at certain periods. Each employee was required to leave her
machine for a half hour twice a day and during this time her
neighbor tended two sets of machinery. By this process it was
possible to run the wheels for 11 hours a day instead of 10. The
employers claimed that their employees must take the six hours
off each week but there was no way of checking up on their statements.57 Violations crept in. An attempt to remedy this situation
was the amendment of 1887. 58 It provided for at least a half hour
for lunch, to be granted at the same time for all women and minors
who began work at the same h,mr, it prohibited the t ending o:f
machines of any other employee in addition to their own, 59 and
it limited the length of time that could be worked without a noon
period. This law applied only to manufacturing establishments
where five or more women or young persons were employed.
In 1917 the required lunch period was lengthened to 45 minutes
upon recommendation of the State board of labor and industries,
supported by the Consumers' League of Massachusetts, the State
Massachusetts. Session laws, 18!)8, ch. 505.
Massachusetts. Bureau of Stati s tics of Labor. Thirtieth annual report, 1899, p. 83.
Massa chusetts. Session laws, 1915, ch. 57.
86 Massachusetts.
District Police (including the inspect ion and detective departments) •
.An n ual report of chief for year ended Dec. 31, 1903, p. 17.
a7 Massachusetts. District Police, Inspection of Factories.
Fourth annual report of
chief 1882, pp. 26-27.
118 Massachusetts.
Session laws, 1887, chs. 215 and 330.
m The courts later interpreted this legislation to apply only to employees who began
work at the same hour, and held that five minutes or less in time of beginning work
might mean a different hour. The State board of labor and industries deplored this
decision as nullifying the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, and in its annual r eport for
1916 suggested an amendment making such an interpretation of the law impossible. This
amendment was not a ccepted by the legisla ture. See Mt1ssachusetts. State Board ~
f..abor and Industri es. Fourth annual report, 1917, p. 19.
68

114

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

Branch of the American Federation of Labor, the Women's Trade
Union Leagne, and other organizations. 60
Hour limitations applicable to work in two or more estabUshments.-The early hours laws were construed by the enforcing officials
as prohibiting the employment of women in two or more establishments for a period longer than they were allowed to work in one. 61
When a case involving this point was brought before the courts the
inspection division was not upheld. 62
This decision led to a more active campaign by organized labor
for the night-work or overtime bill for the prevention of the employment of women and minors in textile mills after 6 p. m. It was
thought that this limitation would remove most of the opportunities
for work for two or more employers for more hours than could be
worked for one. This night-work bill became law in 1907. It
amended for textile workers the prohibition of work after 10 p. m.
for all women in manufacturing. But the next year, 1908, hours
of labor were reduced from 58 to 56, and again in 1911 to 54. The
shorter week gave increased scope for working more than the legal
hours allowed one employer. The State Branch of the American
Federation of Labor and the representatives of the textile workers
therefore petitioned the legislature of 1912 to amend the hours law
so as to regulate such double duty. 68 They were supported by the
chief of the district police. 64 At the hearing no opposition developed
and the bill was passed.
The amendment provided that if a woman or child was employed
in more than one manufacturing or mechanical establishment the
total hours worked should not exceed 54 in any one week. 66 When the
54-hour week was extended to mercantile establishments and various
other industries in 1913, this particular provision was changed to
apply to work in more than one of all the places coming under the
law. 66
Apportionment of hours to 'ITW,ke one short workday in a week.It will be remembered that the 60-hour-week law as passed in 1874
had two amendments affixed that made it practically unenforceable.
One of these-holding an employer liable for prosecution only when
he had "wilfully" v10lated the law-was struck out in 1879. The
other, allowing the adjustment of aaily hours to make one short day
a week, although assailed again and again by enforcing officials, remained on the statute books until 1912. It was repealed then at t1ie
request of the labor group in their effort to close up the opportunities
for evasion of the hours law. 67
Creation of the State board of labor and indlustries.-When the
first hours law was passed, in 1874, no provision was made for
its enforcement. It was turned over to the State constable and in
1877 transferred to the State detective force. Two years later the
60
Massachusetts. Session laws, 1917, ch. 110; Consumers' League of Massachm:etts,
Bul. 13, 1917; and American Federation o! Labor, Massachusetts Branch. Proceedings
of thirty-second annual convention, 1917, p. 52.
11 Massachusetts.
Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Thirtieth annual report, 1899, p. 8G
02 Ibid.
Thirty-second annual report, 1901, p. 12.
18 Boston Globe, Feb. 1, 1912.
" Massachusetts. District Police. Report of chief, 1911, p. 11.
• Massachusetts. Session laws, 1912, ch. 477.
• Ibid., 1913, ch. 758 .
., Ibid, 1912, cb. 477.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

governor was authorized to appoint two inspectors from the district police. For nine years there was no special division within
the police department for the inspection of factories, and regular
police duties were combined with this entirely different type of
work. To make better enforcement possible an inspection division
was established in 1888. While this was an improvement, it was
not ideal. Enforcement was lax. The following editorial, reprinted from the Daily Herald of Fall River, gives a fairly accurate
picture of the situation and of the .c urrent opinion :
Chief Wade of the State police told the labor committee Thursday that
in only one instance since 1879 had he been able to procure evidence enough
to convict a corporation of any infraction of the 10-hour law. He failed to
give the reason why, and so the Herald supplies the omission-he has not
tried. Repeatedly since the year named have complaints been forwarded to
him from this city abou t the loose way in which ]j""all River manufacturers
were obeying the law. Only a pretense of enforcing it has been made,
the idea prevailing that public opinion did not demand it. As a consequence
the utmost license has existed here, and from a quarter of an hour overtime to a half is run nearly every day. We do not say that all the mills
are violators, but it is safe to say that a large number are. The method is
to take from 5 to 10 minutes for starting and stopping the machinery. 68

There was continuous talk among interested groups of transferring
enforcement to the health department. A bill for that purpose
was introduced in 1907. At the hearing the following organizations
appeared in support: Massachusetts Medical Societl, Women's Educational and Industrial Union, State Federation o Women's Clubs,
Massachusetts Civic League, Massachusetts Consumers' League,
Women's Trade Union League, Women's Labor League, Associated
Charities of Boston, and various settlement houses. Opposing such
transfer was the Arkwright Club. 69 Enforcement of the labor laws
dealing with lighting, sanitation, and ventilation was turned over
to the State board of health in that year. Probably the protest of
this representative group of organizations was responsible, at least
in part, for this transfer.
This was only a minor accomplishment, for the great bulk of the
labor laws still remained with the district police. Furthermore, it
was soon :found that the State board of health was not organized
to carry on the work of factory inspection effectively. A demand
was then made by the Women's Educational and Industrial Union,
supported by other organizations interested in industrial conditions,
for some sort of department of labor charged solely with the administration of labor laws.
The legislature in 1910 appointed " a comm,ission to investigate
the general subject of the inspection of factories, workshops, mercantile establishments and other buildings." 70 After a thorough
~tudy of the field of factory inspection the commission reported that
the present system of inspection was unsatisfactory in that it lacked
unity and coordination; the work should, from all standpoints, be
carried on by one body. The commission did not consider either
the State board of health or the district police in a position to give
the special subject of inspection the amount of attention that it
18
11'

Wade's Fibre and Fabric, Boston, Feb. 1, 1890, p. 389,
Snringfleld R epublican, Nov. 29, 1907.
Session laws, 1910, ch. 50.

Massachusetts.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

should receive. It therefore recommended the creation of a new
department of industrial inspection. 71
With this offic.i al report to support their case, the long list of labor,
social, and civic organizations that had before petitioned for proper
enforcement, again urged legislative action. A law creating the
State board of labor and industries finally was passed in 1912. 72
Largely for polit.ical reasons the appointment of the board was delayed until July 30, 1913. It was appointed then only at the urgent
request of a special committee of the house " to investigate the conditions under which women and children labor." 73 This committee
found that, owing to the delay in naming the new board, the labor
laws assigned to the State board of health were not being enforced.
There was much feeling on the subject that they thought should be
allayed by a speedy appointment of the board. a
Movement for uniform hours of labor.
The passage of 10-hour legislation for manufacturing in Massachusetts did not put a stop to the agitation for shorter hours. No
sooner was the law on the statute books than ' sporadic efforts were
made to bring about a reduction to 9 hours. The most persistent
and telling argument against a further shortening of hours was that
of competition with ne.1 ghboring States allowing longer hours. In
fact, even when the 10-hour law was enforced in 1879, the manufacturers in the textile industries complained so bitterly that the
legislature in 1880 requested the bureau of statistics of labor to obtain testimony from employers and employees in the leading textile
States" relative to a uniform system of laws to regulate the hours of
labor " in these States. 75
An extensive survey covering hours, wages, and costs in six States
led to the conclusion that" Massachusetts with 10 hours produces as
much per man or per loom or per spindle, equal grades being considered, as other States with 11 and more hours; and also that wages
here rule as high if not higher than in the States where the mills
run longer time." From the figures available, the report stated, there
was no reason why the mills jn the other textile States " should not
be run on the 10-hour basis in harmony with the system in successful
operation in Massachusetts"; 76 the only real obstacle to the universal
10-hour day was the " inertia of men "; and if someone would take
the lead the 10-hour day in the textile industry could be accomplished
in the States of New England and New York without legislation. 77
This report had considerable effect on the movement for shorter
hours in other States. It was used by the textile workers of Massachusetts in their attempts to bring other States up to the Massachusetts standard in order that they might advance still further in
hours reduction. The organized spinners in 1882 met to consider ways
and means of bringing about shorter hours in the textile States other
than Massachusetts. They sent their secretary to Rhode Isfand
n Massachusetts. Commission to Investigate the Inspection of Factories, Workshops,
Mercantile Establishments and Other Buildings. Report. Boston, January, 1911, pp.
16--70.

Massachusetts. Session laws, 1912, ch. 727, sec. 5.
Massachusetts. I.€gislative documents. House No. 2126, 1914.
Ibid., p. 8.
w Massachusetts. Bureau of Statistics Qf l,abor. Twelfth anp.ual report, :1-881, p.
71 Ibid., p. 457.
"lbfd., pp. 47~71,.
72

11.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

sis.

HISTOR1! OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

and Maine to agitate for 10-hour laws. Efforts were successful in
Rhode Island and the 10-hour law for women and minors was put on
the statute books in 1885. 78
Meanwhile, other New England States, spurred on by organized
labor, began to :fall in line. But by this time competition was developing in the South. Agreement among the textile manu:factur~rs
of New England could not reach this situation. The demand for
congressional action that had been voiced earlier now gained momentum. Bills to amend the constitution so as to ehable the Congress to regulate the hours of labor were put forward year after
year by M~ssachusetts representatives and were supported by the
textile interests and organized labor. 79
The further shortening of hours in Massachusetts to 58 a week
in 1892 gave additional incentive to the promoters of national hours
legislation. The leading organs of the textile industry in Massachusetts published long editorials on the injustice of confining
shorter-hours .legislation to Massachusetts alone. The following
excerpt from an editorial in the Textile World of August, 1892, is
typical of the arguments advanced:
The recent law in Massachusetts, by which 58 hours is to constitute a
week's work, is• not in any way premature as f ar a s reduction of hours is concerned. It is, however, a special hardship and grievance for the large and
small manufacturers alike, that while they are to conform to this law in
Massachusetts their competitors in other States have longer hours of labor,
and in most of the southern and western States the manufacturers can run
as they please, practically without restraint as to hours per week or per day.
Should the entire country have a uniform r egulat ion in this r espect there
would be no need of any hardship or labor troubles if the time were r educed
1 hour per week each year until 8 hours per da y be reached, taking effect
12 months from time of enactment of the law, so as to give ample time for
readjustment of contracts and positive grounds upon which to base all estimates
of cost of selling prices.80

In 1895 the secretary of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers in a long article on factory legislation in the United
States deplored the tendency to try out all sorts of social legislative
~xperiments on Massachusetts. "Every new restrictive law," he
said, "becomes a direct discrimination against the capital employed
in manufactµring, against the labor employed in manufacturing, and
against the material development of the State." 81 He held that
there was only one way out that was " just to all parties con•
cerned "-" the intervention of the National Government, and the
establishment of a uniform labor day.
"Releasing this whole question from the uncertainties and inequalities of State legislation, it would be defensible on the highest
grounds of public expediency, and would readily command the sup.port of both political parties." 82
•
The unprecedented slump in the cotton-manufacturing industry
in 1897 and 1898, followed by cuts in wages and a demand for the
18

McNeill, George E .

pp. 236-237.

The Labor Movement.

A. M. Bridgma n & Co., Boston, 1887,

Labor, Its Rights and Wrongs. Labor Publishing Co., Washington , D. C., 1886, p.
150; Massachusetts. Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Twenty-ninth annual r eport, 1898,
p. 494; and United Textile Workers of America. Proceedings of. second annual convention, 1902, p. 36.
80 Textile World, Boston, August, 1892, p. 2.
81 National Association of Wool Manufacturers.
Bulletin, September, 1895, v. 25, p. 26i,
82 Ibid., pp. 269-270.
79

{)1970°-82---8

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

repeal of the 58-ho~r-week law, led to an investi~ation o:f the
industry by a committee of the Massachusetts Legislature. The
committee reported that it found agreement " on all sides that the
National Congress should fix the hours of labor in general, control
labor legislation, so that there may be uniformity in all the Stat.es.''
It did not consider it necessary to memorialize the Congress on the
question, for the Repre::;entatives from Massachusetts already were
working to obtain the necessary amendment. 83
No amount of enthusiasm on the part of Massachusetts for the
national control of hours legislation seems to have had much weight
with the Congress. For years hardly a session passed _without an
amendment being proposed to give that body the right to fix the
hours of labor. Even in the Sixty-ninth Congress a Representative
from Massachusetts considered introducing a bill for this purpose.
But with the lapse of t ime and the change in industrial conditions~
together with the investment of Massachusetts capital in the cotton
mills of the South, a change h as taken place in the attitude of at
least some of the textile manufacturers of Massachusetts toward
uniform-hours legislation by the Congress. There is not tlie same
enthusiasm for Federal control of labor questions that there was
20 to 30 years ago. The changed point of view is expre5i!Sed by the
American Wool and Cotton Reporter in an attack on the legislative
proposal of Representative Rogers:
All of this effort for a 48-hour law through Congress is simply playing into
the hands of McMahon and the other labor leaders who are talking a 40-hour
week. • • • The plan for national legislation, 48 hours, is just one further
step for the 40-hour week-and it ought to be stopped now. 8 •

The 58-hour-week law of 1892.
It has been pointed out that the passage of the 10-hour law of
1874 for women and minors in manufacturing establishments did
not satisfy the demands of organized labor in Massachusetts for
shorter hours. The 8-hour day was the goal that they hoped to
achieve. The leaders among the textile workers realized, however,
that they could not progress much further in hours reduction by
legislation until other New England States brought their working
hours more into keeping with those of Massachusetts. Qonsequently,
during the eighties most of the legislative activities for shorter hours
were confined to neighboring States and to the Congress, in the hope
of securing uniform legislation. BY. 1890 the 60-hour week had been
so generally established in the textile industry in New England that
there was little need for enforcement of the law in Massachusetts
and all opposition to it had died down. 8 5 In fact, on account of the
depressed market, many of the mills were not working the full hours
allowed by the law. As frequently happens in periods of depression,
labor oecam~ more active politi~ally and its agitation for further
hours reduction finally resulted rn the 58-hour law of 1892. 86
This second law reducing the hours of women employed in manufacturing and mechanical establishments, like the first one, was intended primarily for the benefit of the textile workers. It was
• Massachusetts. Legislative documents. Senate No. 276, 1898, p. 11.
N American Wool and Cotton Reporter, Jan. 6, 1927, p. 42.
111 Whittelsey, Sarah S.
Massachusetts Labor Legislation. A.nnals Qt t}le 4meric'-Q
Academy, Jan~ary, 1901, p. 27.
• Wass~chuseits. Se~siop i,.w-. l89~, c4. ~1.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

pushed largely by representatives and senators from the textile
centers of Fall River and New Bedford and was opposed by the
textile manufacturers' association and individual textile manufacturers from all parts of the State. The discussions assumed that the
law would affect men as well as women, and it was evidently the
intention of the proponents that it should. 87
Both parties to the controversy were fairly well organized by
1890. The textile manufacturers had formed the Arkwright Club
and had a paid legislative agent to plead their cause and to organize
their defense. Labor, on the other hand, could marshal the State
Branch of the American Federation of Labor, the city central bodies,
the Amalgamated Building Trades Union, the State Alliance of the
Knights of Labor, and nearly every international and State organization, besides the local craft unions. 88 The textile unions and central labor bodies had a joint legislative committee with an agent
at the capitol. The State Branch of the American Federati.o n of
Labor also had a legislative agent to look after its interests. 89
These were the prominent groups at the hearings on the bill. The
labor representatives in arguing for their bill held that work in the
mills was so tedious and unhealthful that long hours were disastrous
to the health of women, and that the legislation of other States,
following the lead of Massachusetts, showed that it was becoming a
generally accepted doctrine that the State should interfere to protect
the health of working women in the interests of public welfare.
Moreover, shorter hours at this time would relieve the prevailing
unemployment. They pointed to the fact that the textile industry
had prospered in spite of the predictions of disaster the owners had
made at the time the first laws were passed. Since the industry had
been adjusted to the 60-hour week, even the owners had stopped
opposing the legislation. They stated that hours reduction both here
and abroad had invariably been followed by economic prosperity. 90
The prevailing opinion was such that it was incumbent upon the
operators to show that they could not afford to reduce hours. They
came to the legislature with much the same pleas that had been made
against the earlier legislation: If the law were passed, Massachusetts could not compete with other States; she was just recovering
from the disadvantages of having to compete with neighboring
States that had labor standards lower than hers, and the textile
industry could not afford the setback of another reduction of hours
that would not affect competitors; since 1885 southern competition
was becoming a serious menace to Massachusetts industry; the State
had so many natural disadvantages in the way of high freight rates
on cotton in the bale and lack of water power that the textile industry
could not survive if it was taxed with the additional burden of increased overhead due to shorter hours; there was no room for further technical improvement in the industry to compensate for other
disadvantages; physical conditions in the mills were better than those
in schools and homes of the operatives; there was plenty of work for
those willing to work. They pleaded for the widows and orphans
rr Hours of Labor : Massachusetts and Her Industrial Rivals. (Anonymous pamphlet.
undated [1891 ?].)
88 Bo t on J ournal. Ma r . 9, J 892.
88 Ibid., Mar. 21, 1891, and Mar . 18, 1892.
00 Ibid .. Mar. 9, 1892; and Textile Manufacturing World, April, 1891, p. 9.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

of New England left destitute because of the inability of the mills
to pay dividends, and stated that these helpless individuals suffered
on account of legislation that brought benefit to none; for the very
workers that it was intended to help would suffer from reduced
wages as a result of it.91
A bill providing for a 56-hour week passed the house in 1890 and
was defeated by a small minority in the senate. Again in 1891 the
senate prevented :favorable action.
The support given the movement for shorter hours by Governor
Russell in his message of 1891,9 2 and again in 1892,93 was a deciding
factor in breaking down the senate opposition. The governor
pointed out that " In England, where it is often claimed that the
condition of labor is deplorable, the hours of such labor have long
been limited by law to 56 a week." . While other States had not proceeded so rapidly as Massachusetts in the matter of hours legislation,
he held, nevertheless, that "it is not desirable to stand still because
there are obstacles in the way of progress. Our very dependence
upon manufactures requiring skilled labor ,should lead us to adopt a
liberal policy in respect to the hours and conditions of toil-one
which will promote the welfare and increase the utility of our working population." 11
,Hearings before the legislature of 1892 were on three bills-one for
a 54-hour week, one for a 56-hour week, and a third, that was considered an administrative measure, for a 58-hour week. Either the
54 or the 56 hour week would have been satisfactory to the workers,
for it would have assured them the Saturday half holiday for which
they were striving. After the hearings it became apparent to the
chairman of the ,senate committee on labor, a prominent textile leader
and the introducer of the 56-hour bill, that neither his measure nor
the 54-hour bill had a chance of passage, so he recommended the
58-hour bill with the understanding that, if it passed, further reduction would be sought immediately. Even this compromise bill had
difficulty in passing the senate. The committee on bills, in the third
reading, recommended a substitute measure J?roviding for a 58-hour
week for women and minors under 18 but with no provision for enforcement.95 In spite ·of these obstructionist tactics, the bill for &
58-hour week for women and minors in manufacturing and mechanical establishments reported by the senate committee on labor passed
both houses and became law.
·
In all probability at least the 56-hour-week bill could have been
passed if the Lowell operatives had stood by those of New Bedford
and Fall River. But 3: majority of them, frightened ·by the threat
of the manufacturers that they would " cut down the wages " 10 per
cent on the day the 54-hour-week law became operative, let it be
known that they preferred to work the longer hours rather than to
accept a wage reduction. 96 With this in mind the legislative rep4,

111 Boston Journa l, Mar . 21. 1891; Hours of La bor: Massachusetts and Her Industrial
l.:tivals. (Anonymous pamphlet, undat ed [1891 ?] ) ; and National Association of Wool
Manufacturers, Bulletin, 1891, v. 21, p. 206.
92 Massa chusetts.
L egisla tive documents. Senate No. 1, 1891, pp. 39-40.
18 Ibid.
Senate No. 1, 1892, p. 43.
94 I bid.
Senate No. 1, 1891, p. 40.
96 Ibid.
Senate No. 188, 1892, p. 2.
06 Wade's Fibre and F abric, Boston, Apr. 4, 1891, p. 45 ; and American Wool and Cottou
Reporter, July 21, 1892, p. 1124.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

:.EtISTORY OF LABOR LEG1SLATtON Fon WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

resentatives of the State Branch of the American Federation of
Labor attributed the failure to secure an appreciable reduction in
hours to lack of that " unanimity of sentiment among the representatives of the factory centers which is the prime essential to the further
advance of this shorter-hours movement." 97
The 56-hour-week law of 1908.
The passage of the 58-hour law in 1892 was followed immediately
by an attempt to reduce hours further, to 54 or 56 a week. In
1893 a 56-hour bill passed the house and was defeated in the senate
by only two votes. 98 This defeat, together with the .general industrial depression, put a damper on the shorter-hours movement for a
few years. The State Alliance of the Knights of Labor, the State
Branch of the American Federation of Labor, and various textile
unions indorsed the 56 or 54 hour law for women and minors employed in manufacturing, mechanical, and mercantile establishments
at their conventions; bills often were introduced, but no real campaign
was made for their enactment. At least some of the leaders of the
textile workers felt that it was distinctly unwise to push for further
reduction in hours in Massachusetts until hours in neighboring States
were brought more nearly in line. 99
The cotton-manufacturing industry ·was suffering from overproduction; goods could be disposed of only at a loss, and even then it
was difficult to sell. The employers represented by the Arkwright
Club claimed that this situation in Massachusetts was due to southern
competition. They proposed as the only way out for Massachusetts
industry the lowering of wages and the lengthening of hours. 1
A widespread reduction of wages, running from 7 to 15 per cent,
was put into effect in January, 1898. 2 This was followed by a petition from members of the Arkwright Club to the legislature to repeal
the 58-hour law. They claimed that the textile industry was rapidly
losing out in the State. Recent labor laws "have had the natural
effect of checking investments in machinery, restricting the opportunities for employment, diverting capital to other States, and helping to build up so sharp a competition outside of Massachusetts that
the unfortunate consequences are now too obvious to be any longer
ignored; they are keenly felt by all concerned." 3 It was urged that
the legislature save the industry by "raising the hours of labor at
least to the point where they are in every other New England State "
and by reducing the taxes on manufacturing plants. 4 The operatives
countered with strikes against the wage reduction and with a vigorous campaign for a 54-hour law.
Out of all this agitation came a legislative investigation of the
cotton-manufacturing industry. The operatives had asked that the
legislature look into the causes of the wage reduction in the industry.
When a special committee was appointed it was given a wide field for
study. The Dingley tariff, southern competition, comparative wage
81 Massachusetts.
Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Twenty-fourth annual report, 1893,
p. 297.
98 American Federation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch.
Proceedings of twenty-sixth
annual convention, 1911, p. 46 .
. 89 •.rextile America, New York, Dec. 4, 1897, p. 29.
1 National Association of Wool Manufacturers.
Bulletin, March, 1898, v. 28, pp. 63--67 .
2
Ibid. , p. 61.
• Massachusetts. Legislative documents. House No. 1194, 1898, p. 3.
' Ibid., p. 4.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

scales, profits, and markets were among the questions to be considered.
The committee was to find out " How do the hours of labor and,
generally, the laws regulating labor in manufacturing establishments
in Massachusetts compare with the hours and laws in other localities 1
What labor legislation, now in force in the Commonwealth, works
hardships to the cotton-manufacturing industry1" It was to suggest
specific legislation, if such were required, " to improve the present
condition of the cotton-manufacturing industries of Massachusetts
or to increase the rates of wages, or the profits of the business." 5
The committee held hearings in the large mill cities throughout
February and March. 6 During this same period there were legislative hearings on the 54-hour bill of the textile workers. These
latter hearings were colored by the investigation the labor committee
was making into the whole cotton-manufacturing situation, including the proposed repeal of the 58-hour law. Witnesses who appeared
for the 54-hour bill were questioned concerning cotton manufacture,
and witnesses summoned for the investigation were questioned about
the 54-hour bill. The testimony of the mill owners and their representatives was to the effect that the cotton industry of Massachusetts had been suffering from a decline for six years due to the
58-hour standard fixed by law in 1892; that a fur!her reduction in
hours would force the mills to close, leaving the whole mill population without any work whatsoever; that the conception that hours
reduction meant wage increase was economically false, for, although
wages had not been reduced at the time the 58-hour law went into
effect, the industry had suffered so much in consequence that the
present 25 per cent reduction was inevitable. 7
The operatives, on the other hand, contended that the legislation
had not hampered the industry because reduce-cl hours had almost
invariably been followed by speeding up ; the mills that were losing
money-were those with obsolete machinery; up-to-date Massachusetts
mills were making good profits; competition between North and
South was not so serious as the textile interests reported, for the skill
of the northern worker would always compensate for the wage differential between the two sections; furthermore, competition did not
apply to the better grades of manufactured cotton goods. 8
The committee was aided in its investigations by a timely report
of the State bureau of statistics of labor on cotton manufacturing
in Massachusetts. 9 In this report the competition between Massachusetts and the South was considered, and also the status of the
industry in Massachusetts, its progress and decline. The conclusions
reached were that southern competition was not a real menace to the
Massachusetts cotton industry; certain conditions prevailed in the
North that tended to offset the advantages of the South; Massarhusetts could keep ahead if "skill and attention" were devoted to
the development of new methods; 10 the existing depression in Massachusetts was due to overexpansion and overproduction, not to a
Ibid. Senate No. 270, 1898, pp. 3-4.
• Fibre and Fabric, Boston, Feb. 26, 1898, p. 17.
7 Boston Journal, Mar. 26 and Apr. 2, 1898.
8 Ibid. , Feb. 16, 1898.
,
1
Masinchusetts. llureau of Statistics of Labor.
pp. 1-42.
11 Ibid ,, p. 38.
11

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Labor Bulletin No. 5, January, 1898,

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

permanent decadence of the industry; progress depended in the long
run " upon upholding and extending to the utmost the social conditions that support a constantly expanding market, namely, the best
possible wages and the highest possible standard of living." 11
With the results of the extensive investigation of the bureau of
statistics of labor already before the legislature, the committee did
not feel called upon to consider the questions covered in the report.
It merely summed up the situation in much the same language used
by the bureau, added some material on the percentages of foreigners
in some of the mill cities, and concluded as follows:
It is agreed on all sides that the National Congress should fix the hours of
labor in general, control labor legislation, so that there may be uniformity in
all the States. In this matter, however, we can only make recommendation,
and as the subject is now under consideration by Congress, we conclude not
to advise any formal memorial, but leave the matter with our congressmen,
who are fully advised of the questions at issue and the rights involved.
It is urged, on the part of the manufacturers, that the law limiting the hours
of labor of women and children .to 58 hours per week, be repealed. We have
heard the parties very fully on both sides of this question and, after careful
consideration, recommend that the law remain as it is.
We do this because we think that all the goods the markets require can be
produced in shorter hours than at present prevail, and that the other States
8hould reduce the labor hours to the Massachusetts standard. We are informed
that the mills in the other New England States a re in no better condition
than those here, and so conclude that they derive no benefit from the longer
hours they run. Then, too, we are informed that the employees much prefer,
if necessary, to forfeit their wages for the extra two hours than have the law
repealed."

This report of the committee on labor was accepted by the legislature and no change was made in the legal weekly hours of work at
that session nor in many other sessions to come.
After 1900 the textile representatives and their labor friends decided to postpone the campai?n for the 54-hour week and to concentrate their efforts on the ' overtime" or night-work bill that
prohibited the employment of women and minors in textile mills
between 6 p. m. and 6 a. m. The fight was long and bitter. In two
election campaigns it figured prominently-the campaign against
Governor Bates for vetoing the bill in 1904 14 and the campaign
against conservative senate leaders in 1906 for defeating the bill of
that year. These election efforts were not in vain, for the new senate
elected in the fall of 1906 passed the night-work or so-called overtime
bill the following spring. 111 Furthermore, when the agitation for
the 54-hour bill was renewed in 1908 it came before a legislature more
disposed to respect the demands of organized labor.
During the nineties capital had been combining at a rapid rate to
protect the interests of the employing classes. In the textile industry the Arkwright Club had been formed and various other associations of the manufacturers had been created or strengthened.
It had long been apparent to leaders of t he textile workers that if
they were to combat effectively this concentration of capital they
must consolidate their union strength. The loose craft unions exist13

Ibid., p. 41.
Massachusetts. Legislative documents. Senate No. 270, 1898, p. 11.
.American Federation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch. Proceedings of seventee:,tb
an11.ual convention 1902, p. 22.
u Ibid. Proceedings of nineteenth annual convention, 1904, I>P, 31-37.
U Jbld.
Proceedings ot twenty-first annual convention, 1906, pp. 19-20 and 28-29.
11
11
1a

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

ing in the industry must give way to industrial unions on a national
Ecale. Various attempts in this direction had been failures. In
1900 there were two so-called national unions in the industry-the
National Federation of Textile Operatives and the International
Union of Textile Workers, the latter of which held the American
Federation of Labor charter. Neither of these organizations was
inclusive or powerful enough in Massachusetts to command the rei-pect of the employers. After repeated attempts at amalgamation
and the inclusion of craft unions outside both organizations, the
union finally was consummated in 1901 with the formation of the
United Textile Workers of America. Headquarters were established
in Fall River, and from this close range the national organization
as well as its local branches was able to influence the trend of
Massachusetts labor legislation. 16 17
The twentieth century opened with business on the upgrade.
Labor was in demand, wages were increased and hours were
shortened by trade-union activity. Some of the more highlyorganized trades had secured the 8-hour day, and few important
industries outside the textile were operating more than 54 hours a
week. So again, in order to keep up with other industries in hours
reduction, the movement for shorter hours by legislation centered
· around the textile· industry.
The textile unions had been busy trying to educate other branches
of the labor movement to an appreciation of the need of hours legislation for the textile industry. In a circular letter sent by the New
Bedford Textile Council to labor unions throughout the State, it was
pointed out that since about 75 per cent of the textile workers were
·women and children the unions had found it impossible to keep :pace
with other organized groups in hours reduction. The reasons given
i.n support of a 54-hour week by law were as follows:
The men and women who work in the other crafts work only in the neighhorhood of 46 to 50 hours per week, and in most instances theirs is a very
healthful occupation.
The toiling thousands of factory operatives, on the other hand, have to work
in an atmosphere of 80 degrees of temperature, and 70 to 80 degrees of humidity, in the midst of noxious gases and loose, floating fibers. It is no wonder
that consumption, rheumatism, and other kindred ailments are the portion of
the mill operatives * * *.

The factory operative was spoken of as beginning to think himself
discriminated against. 18
The textile unions were successful in 1908 in having their 54-hour
bill introduced as a measure of the State branch of the American
Federation of Labor. This may have been more a hindrance than a
help, for it widened the split in the ranks of the officials of the State
branch that lasted for several years. The executive committee
favored bills of general interest to labor, such as the direct primary
and anti-injunction bills, and considered the 54-hour bill, although it
applied to · women in all manufacturing and mechanical establishments, a special measure of the textile workers that should be intro16
McMahon, Thomas F . URited Textile Workers of America. Workers' Educational
Bureau of .A.merica, New York . 1926, pp. 20-22.
17 Textile America, New York, May 13, 1899, p. 3.
18
Ma s sa chm~tts. Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Labor Bulletin No. 55, December,
1907, p. 209.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN I N MASSACHUSETTS

duced and fostered by them. The legislative committee, however,
considered the textile workers' bill of major importance to the State
branch and supported it whole-heartedly.
With this division in the ranks of its supporters, the 54-hour bill
came before the legislature. At the hearing the representative of the
textile workers of New Bedford said that the manufacturers had
already agreed " to curtail the hours of running by 168 ho-µrs, and
as the bill shortened the hours of women and minors only 200 hours
in a year, it disposed absolutely of the argument that the bill would
ruin the business." He quoted the dividends paid by the leading
New Bedford mllls for the preceding year and stated that, on the
basis of actual capital invested, these dividends ranged from 15 to
66 per cent. 19 Other labor leaders spoke in favor of the bill. There
was little dissent. The Jabor committee of the house reported the
bill favorably and it passed by an overwhelming vote. 20
The opposition concentrated upon the senate. It succeeded in substituting for the 54-hour bill of the textile workers a 56-hour bill, to
·
"
take effect in 1910. 21
_O rganized labor again and again tried to have this measure
amended to 54 or 55 hours a week, to take effect in 1909, but all such
efforts were without avail. The substituted biU for 56 hours, effective
in 1910, finally was accepted by the representatives of the textile
unions, but not by the officials of the State branch. It passed the senate by a vote of 36 to 1, was agreed to by the house, and was signed by
the governor. 2 2 So, after a struggle covering 16 years, two more
hours were lopped off the working week of the women and minors
employed in the factories and mechanical establishments of Massachusetts.
The 54-hour-week law of 1911.
When the 54-hour bill was introduced again in 1909 it was no
longer sponsored by the State Branch of the American Federation
of Labor. The 56-hour compromise had been accepted by the representatives of the textile unions without the consent of the officers of
the State branch, and the officers now refused to assume responsibility for the 54-hour biJl. This position was consistent with their
policy, as opposed to that of the legislative committee, that the
State branch should sponsor only bills of general interest to all
labor. Consequently, the bill was introduced by the textile workers
wit~out the support of the State branch. But, as a matter of fact,
the Jegislative committee of the State branch , which was at odds with
the executive officers, worked as actively as ever for the bill.
The hearing before the labor ~ommittee, on March 10, 1909, wa~
well attended by the textile workers. Their representatives argued
that the State had found it advisable to limit the hours of certain
groups of men employed in the fresh air to 8 and 9 a day; if it
were justified in this action it certainly would be justified in limiting
the hours of women and children employed in cotton miJls to 54 a
week; competition was not a real factor, for practically as much
Boston Herald, Feb. 14, 1908.
Springfield Republican, May 7 and 21, 1908.
Ibid., June 4, 1908.
22 Ibid. , June 9, 1908 ; and American Federation of Labor, Massachusetts
Branch.
Proceedings of twenty-third convention, 1908, p. 18.
19

111

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

work could be turned out in 54 hours as in 56; shortening of hours
of labor in cotton mills throughout the country was in progress, and
Massachusetts had led to date and should continue to lead; textile
schools had been established to give the young men entering the industry a better equipment for their work, and ~ong hours of work
did not give them suffic,i ent leisure to take advantage of these
.
schools. 2 ~
The opposition was voiced by the treasurer of a Lowell mill who
said he believed in such legislation "when the millennium arrived,
not before." 24 The disastrous effects of southern competition was the
burden of his argument. He said that while Massachusetts was increasing her spindles by 4,000,000 the Carolinas increased theirs by
6,000,000 ; the South was using more bales of cotton than were the
New England States; the difference in the value of the business of
the two sections represented $100,000,000 annually; Massachusetts
mills could not stand the additional burden of shortened hours. He
estimated that in a mill having a pay roll of $15,000 a week it meant
that $75,000 extra annually would have to be paid to allow the
operative to earn as much under the 54-hour week as he had been
earning. 28
The labor committee reported the bill favorably; it passed the
house but was defeated in the senate. 25
In 1910 the 54-hour bill was again introduced, this time as a State
branch measure, and once more there was a division among the ranks
of its supporters that in this instance prevented the passage of a compromise bill. The textile workers' reP.resentatives agreed with the
legislative leaders that if the 54-hour bill were passed they would not
oppose a provision that it take effect January 1, 1912, instead of
January 1, 1911. The president of the State branch refused to accept
this compromise and the bill failed to pass. For his action the president was publicly denounced as having caused the defeat of the
54-hour law. 26 The rupture was somewhat healed at the next annual
convention and in the following campaign for the 54-hour week
harmony seems to have prevailed.
· The general wave of progressivism reached Massachusetts in 1911.
From the standpoint of labor the legislature of that y-ear was the best
in many years. The demands of labor were met with respect and in
]arge measure were acceded to. 21 The 54-hour bill had an unusually
:favorable setting.
At the legislative hearing the bill was strongly opposed by the
counsel for the Arkwright Club and other representatives of the
manufacturing interests. It had the united support o:f the labor
groups 28 as well as the Women's Trade Union League, 29 the Women's
Educational and Industrial Union, and the Consumers' League o:f
Massachusetts.
s Boston Globe, Mar. 11, 1909.
ldem.
American F ederation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch. Proceedings of twent y-fourth
anm:al convention, 1909, p. 31.
26 Ibid.
P roceedings of twenty-fifth annual convention, 1910, pp. 12 and 37.
27 United Textile Worl.ers of America.
Proceedings of eleventh annual convention, 1911,
p. 16.
28 Boston Globe, Apr. 15, 1911.
29
Life a nd Labor, National Women's Trade Unlon League of America, Chicago. April,
UH1, p. 123.
2
24

211

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSAOHUSETTS

The chief fight on the provisions of the bill came in the labor committee. At first five members favored a 55-hour bill, five a 54-hour
bill, and one opposed any change in the existing standards. Finally
the 54-hour biH was reported out of committee. 80
It passed the senate without a roll call. In the house a roll call
showed 173 in favor to 30 opposed. Before the bill left the house it
was learned that Governor Foss intended to veto it. Friends of the
bill succeeded in holding it back so that it would not get to the
governor before the textile workers had had a chance to lay their case
before him. The governor at first took the ground that he would sign
a 55-hour-week bill only. Later he changed his mind and signed the
54-hour bill. 81
In a statement issued at the time he signed the measure Governor
Foss said that there was no question that shorter hours for women
and children were desirable but that " such reduction of hours must
not proceed faster than is compatible with the prosperity of the
industries upon which the welfare alike of the employer and employed depends." Although he felt that a reduction from 56 to 55
hours would have been better, he sanctioned the reduction to 54
hours because the" representatives of the employees have agreed that
such action would be accepted as a satisfactory adjustment, for a
period of Y.ears, of the question of the length of the working day.
Since stability of the laws is more important than a difference of a
single hour in the length of a week's work, I have signed this bill,
relying upon the assurance given me that it will remove occasion of
controversy and create stable business conditions in some of the most
important industries of this State." 82
The passage of the 54-hour-week law was heralded by the textile
workers as a great victory. 88 But the textile manufacturers were
determined to prove to the workers once and for all that shorter
hours meant less pay. At hearings on all the earlier bills for shorter
hours they had threatened, in the event of passage of the bill, to reduce wages in proportion to the decrease in the number of hours.
But in each instance when the bill became law they found in general
that it was advisable to lift up their wage scale "so that their
employees had earned as much in the shorter as in the longer week." ai
There were manufacturers who felt that they were making a mistake in not carrying out their threat to reduce wages; there were
some who tried to do so but found strikes on their hands. At one
time a committee of the Arkwright Club · called attention of the
membership -to the methods 'used by southern manufacturers to discourage and oppose protective legislation. They cited the following
incident as worthy of special notice:
When South Carolina passed its 11-hour law t he manufacturers in the Piedmont section decided that something must be done to make the new law
unpopular with their employees. Accordingly, a reduction in their pay was
made by charging rent for their houses, which up to that time b ad been furnished without charge. The result was that this year, when a bill was introso American Federation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch. Proceedings of twenty-sixth
annual convention, 1911, p. 44.
31 Ibid., pp. 44--46.
32 Boston Globe, May 28, 1911. ·
33 United Tex tile Workers of America.
Proceedings of eleventh a nnual convention , 1911,
p. 15.
"National Association of Wool Manufacturers. Bulletin, June, 1912, v. ~2, p. 139. ,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

duced in the legislature proposing to further reduce the hours of labor,
remonstrances were sent in by the operatives themselves, objecting to such
legislation, })ecause they had found by experience that it reduced their pay. 35

The Massachusetts manufacturers, on the whole, did not profit by
this example when the decrease in hours took effect in January of
1910. When, however, the 54-hour week-a :further decrease of two
hours-was to become effective, two years later, they agreed to stand
firm against the payment of the same wage for the shorter week
as had been paid for the longer. Governor Foss characterized this
refusal to pay the same wage for 54 hours as for 56 as an attempt to
show "the unwisdom of legislative interfer·e nce." 86 On the other
hand, the manufacturers claimed that business conditions did not
warrant what amounted to a wage increase.
When the agreement to decrease wages in proportion to the decrease in hours was carried out, strikes broke out in various places,
the longest and bitterest struggle being in Lawrence. The first pay
day after the 54-hour law took effect the textile workers of Lawrence found their pay envelope short by two hours' pay. No announcement had been made that such a reduction would take place,
and the workers-largely foreigners and unorganized-were entirely
unprepared for it. Enraged, they gathered together and gradually
drove everyone out of the mills. Within a :few hours 20,000 workers
were on the streets. So began one of the most serious strikes in the
history of the textile industry. 31
After three months of warfare, marked by violence, bloodshed,
and great hardship, the strike finally was settled by granting a 10
per cent wage increase. Although the strike was settled in their
favor, the episode made the rank and file of the textile workers of
Massachusetts a little chary of further hours reduction. Moreover,
their leaders were bound by the agreement made with the governor
not to agitate for shorter hours :for years to come. But the movement
for shorter hours by law continued under the leadership of the working women and their allies.

The 48-hour-week law of 1919.
The 48-hour-week law was the first general hours legislation in
Massachusetts put through largely by the working women. Women
and women's organizations had been helpful in other campaigns,
but, with the exception of some of the early efforts for 10-hour
legislation, the movement for shorter hours was led by men in the
textile industry, ably assisted by the State Branch of the American
F ederation of Labor, the various central labor bodies, and other
organized labor groups.
As has been seen, working women had been active in the forties
in efforts to secure shorter hours by legislation and had done much
to lay the foundation upon which legislation was based. The places
oi these early leaders among the textile women never were filled,
largely because of the marked change that took place in the make-up
of the textile population. Beginning with the fifties, the old English
85 Ibid. , March, 1898, v. 28, pp. 63-66.
36 McPherson, J.
B. The Lawrence Strike of 1912. National Association of Wool
Manufacturers. Bulletin, September 1912, v. 43, p. 225.
31 United Textile Workers of America.
Proceedings of twelfth annual convention, 1912,
pp. 2{}-21, 27, and 6{}-69.
·

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

•

and early American stock gave way to one European group after
another. The difficulties of language and the differences in standards and political ideals served to keep the women in the background.
The leaders in legislative activity were men, and it was these men
who pleaded the cause of the women workers, and incidentally of
the men, :for shorter hours. Although hours legislation, according
to the statutes, applied only to women and minors employed in manufacturing, mechanical, and mercantile 38 establishments, practically
it set a standard of hours for most of the commerce and industry of
the State. 39
•
Most establishments found it unprofitable to employ men longer
hours than they were permitted to employ women. So if the women
secured the 60, 54, or 48 hour week by legislation their fellow workmen secured it automatically. Undoubtedly th.is fact weighed
heavily with the textile workers in their advocacy of hours legislation :for women. With men in other industries it was not so much
of a consideration, for they were better able to organize and secure
shorter hours in that way. But they were always ready to help other
groups to shorten their hours and so to bolster up th~ir own standards secured by bargaining.
The 54-hour week for women and minors employed in manufacturing and mechanical establishments had been gained in 1912. The
price paid by the textile workers for this shorter work week was an
agreement not to agitate :for still shorter hours in Massachusetts until
other States came in l,ine. This agreement prevented the textile
workers from taking advantage of the general wave of progressivism
to press :for the 48-hour-week law. Their · place as leaders in the
movement for hours legislation was taken by the Women's Trade
Union League, when in 1916 it introduced a bill for a 9-hour day and
a 48-hour week. A similar measure was proposed by the Massachusetts Branch of the American Federation of Labor. Considerable
interest was aroused, but the legislature referred the bills to the next
general court.
In 1917 six petitions for a 48-hour law came before the legislature.
A bill passed the house but was defeated in the senate.
In 1918 the committee on social welfare, to which the petitions
for a 48-hour week were referred, recommended passage of a 50-hourweek law. This compromise measure was opposed by both the women
and the employers and failed in both houses.
The 48-hour-week law was passed by overwhelming majorities in
1919. The vote cast does not mdicate the degree of ease with which
t_h e victory was obtained. The labor group, led by Lois Rantoul,
legislative agent of the Women's Trade Union League, had done
most effective lobbying extending over a 4-year period. Before
each election they had canvassed all the candidates for the legislature
to determine their stand on the measure. Candidates who expressed
themselves as unfriendly had in some cases been forced to withdraw; others were defeated at the polls. All the labor forces
· throughout the State were marshaled in support o:£ the measure.
Civic and social organizations were lined up in its favor. Chief
of these were the Consumers' League of Massachusett~, the Women's
38 For a discussion of mercantile legislation see p. 43.
• Boston Transcript, Apr. 4, 1919 (editorial).

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

Educational and Industrial Union, the Women's Suffrage Association, the Federation of Women's Clubs, and the Massachusetts
Association of vVomen Workers. 40
At the various hearings on the 48-hour bills, leading physicians
appeared to testify as to the effects of long hours on the health of
working women. Among them were Dr. Richard Cabot and Dr.
Harry Linnenthal.41 Dr. Alice Hamilton also supported the measure. Economists testified that Massachusetts .i ndustry would not be
handicapped by such legislation. Two leading shoe manufacturers
and a well-known merchant spoke for the measure as "good business." A representative group of working women urged the legislature to give them relief from long hours of toil.
The unhappy experience of England in attempting to increase
production dur,i ng the war by lengthening hours was made familiar
to the legislators. The rapid extension of 8 hours as a day's work
and the establishment of this principle for war industries by the
\Var Labor Board, created in 1918, were important as recognition of
the efficacy of shorter hours. The participation of women in war
work of all kinds also was a determining factor in securing the enactment of shorter-hours legislation. Furthermore, at the very end
of the campaign the textile workers again appeared among the supporters of hours legislation. They had not been opposed to the
earlier attempts but had had their hands tied. Now by action of
their national union they were again in a position to support shorter
hours. 42
At their annual convention in 1918 the United Textile Workers of
America decided that the time had come to put the 48-hour week
into effect in their industry. February 3, 1919, was voted as the
date when it should become operative.43 In coming to this decision
they agreed with the Massachusetts employers that it was "unfair
and unjust" to put any one State on an 8-hour day and allow other
States to work. up to 60 hours a week. They now proposed to help
the employers to carry out their scheme for putting all States on an
equal basis. 4 4
During F ebruary and March the 48-hour week was put into effect
in one mill after another untU it was claimed by the union that it
"had succeeded in putting nine-tenths of the textile industry of
Massachusetts on a 48-hour work-week basis" prior to the enactment
of the 48-hour law in April. 45 "\Vhether or not the union was responsible for this situation, the adoption of the 48-hour week for the
textile industry as a whole freed the textile workers of Massachusetts from their pledge not to agitate for further legislation. They
therefore had introduced a 48-hour bill of their own in 1919 and
appeared in fuU force at the hearing. 46
Adoption of the 48-hour week in the textile industry by agreement
with the unions was important in that it gave the textile workers an
'° Various

interviews; and New Bedford Evening Sta ndard, F eb. 27, 1919.
Boston Morning Globe, F eb. 29 , 1916.
Representatives of some t extile gr oups in New Bedford and F all River that bad
seceded from the United Textile Workers of Am erica appeared at the h earing to oppose
the sh0rter work week .
..a 'Iextile Worker, New York, December, 1918, p. 319.
"Thid ...fanuary , 1919, p. 370.
~

411

IIJ1 d ., .-\1 1 r i1. Hll!), p . 11 .

.. New Bedford Standard, Feb. 27, 1919.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

opportunity to throw their support behind a 48-hour bill, but it
was still more important in that it rendered ineffective the opposition of the textile manufacturers. The following statement of the
employers' position, made by their spokesman before the committee
on labor and industry of the Massachusetts Legislature in February,
1927, tells the story:
At that time (1919) the demand for cotton products was good; the spread
between the cost of manufacture and the price obtainable in the market was
sufficient to make it possible for even the higher cost mills to operate at a
profit. The labor leaders chose this favorable moment to bring pressure on
the eastern manufacturers to reduce the normal running hours per week below
the legal limit.
Public opinion, accustomed to the policy .of the War Labor Board, was in
sympathy with this attitude of labor, and many mills, rather than risk a
strike with a consequent interruption of their business, acceded to this pressure
and reduced their running time below the legal limit to a 48-hour week.
Thus when in the spring of 1919 it was proposed that the general court
should again reduce the legal limit of hours women might work each week
fzom 54 to 48, it was difficult for the manufacturers to make any effective protest, as most of them were actually running on 48, which was within the
Umit the proposed law allowed. Besides a 48-bour week had for the moment
become customary in most of the eastern mills, those in Maine excepted, regard•
less of any longer legal allowance. 47

The Arkwright Club and the Associated Industries carried on a.
vigorous campaign to defeat the 48-hour bills. At the hearings they
relied upon the arguments that the industries of the State could not
stand a further reduction in hours and compete with other States and
that a decrease in hours would mean a decrease in wages and work
hardship upon the very ones it w~s designed to protect. They de•
clared that the textile workers were opposed to this legislation. To
prove their point some of the manufacturers carried on a campaign
among the women textile workers of Worcester to determine their
stand on the proposed bill. Every woman worker was supplied with
a postcard and a folder giving the purport of the bill. It was explained that under the proposed law a woman "can work 48 hours
whether she wants to or not; whether work is hard and nerve-wearing
or light and easy; whether she is old or young, strong or weak,
anxious to work and earn or does not care." 48 So instructed, the
women were to vote " yes " or " no " on the postcard and send it to
their senators. The employers claimed that in one senatorial district
the vote was 78 to O against the bill and in other districts stood 6 to
1 and 3 to 1 against. 49
The opposit10n also at tempted to put through a measure for a special investigation of the hours of labor. The legislature was assured
that the employers would abide by the recommendations of such an
investigating committee. This proposal was vigorously opposed by
the labor groups and made little headway. 50
When the bill for the 48-hour week passed the legislature and came
before Governor Coolidge for his signature, the manufacturjng interests made one last effort to defeat it. A delegation waited upon
,., American Wool and Cotton Reporter, Feb. 24, 1927, p. 69.
.a Worcester Telegram, Mar. 26, 1919.
• Boston Transcript, Apr. 17, 1919.
111 Springfield Republican, Mar. 27, 1919.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

the governor and asked for his veto, 51 but public sentiment was
so strongly behind the measure that the governor felt justified in
signing it. 52
The new law fixed a 48-hour week and a 9-hour day for women
"employed in laboring in any factory or workshop, or m any manufacturing, mercantile, or mechanical establishment, telegraph office or
telephone exchange, or by an express or transportation company."
It was later extended to women employed in hotels, laundries, and
other miscellaneous establishments.
The 48-hour-week law has been generally accepted by the employers
of Massachusetts with the exception of the cotton manufacturers
represented by the Arkwright Club. Apparently they do not consider it as an irrevocable labor•policy of the State. Beginning with
1920 they have come to the legislature each year asking that the law
be repealed or amended to 54 hours a week and 10 hours a day, or
suspended, or at least modified in favor of cotton manufacturers.
They claim, as they have claimed for years, that cotton manufacturing is losing out in Massachusetts; that the mills are moving to
States allowmg longer hours, particularly to the South. They hold
that if hours legislation in Massachusetts were made comparable
with that of surrounding States the industry could survive-otherwise it must go. 53
The Arkwright Club's proposals for the repeal of the 48-hour
law or the substitution of the 54-hour week and 10-hour dav for
the present law have always been strongly opposed by organized
labor. They maintain that labor legislation has not been the cause
of the decline of cotton manufacturing in Massachusetts; that the
same conditions exist in the cotton-manufacturing industry in New
England, the South, England, and France; that to allow a 54-hour
week in cotton mills in Massachusetts would make the situation
worse rather than better; that the manufacturers merely are trying
to secure a longer work week in order to reduce wages by paying
the same for 54 hours as is now paid for 48. H
The legislature has repeatedly voted down these proposals of the
Arkwright Club for modificat10n of the hours law. At the last
session its bill to classify cotton manufacturing as a seasonal industry, and to allow cotton mills to operate 50 hours a week and 10
hours a day during rush periods as long as they did not exceed the
weekly average of 48 hours a week, was defeated in the house of representatives by a vote of 159 to 5 and an adverse report of the committee on labor and industries was accepted by the senate without a
dissenting voice. 55
.
•
Seasonal employments.
Most of the legislation limiting the hours of work of women in
manufacturing and mechanical establishments was put on the statute
books primarily to secure for the textile workers somewhere near
Boston Transcript, Apr. 17, 1919.
Massachusetts. Session laws, 1919, ch. 113.
Massachusetts. General Court, 1924. Committee on labor and industry. Statement
by Ward Thoron on Senate 93 and 94 in re Hours of Labor and Senate 95, The Two-Shift
Bill. Feb. 13, 1924.
114 Boston Morning Globe, Feb. 24, 1927.
65
Daily News Record. Fairchild Publlcationa, New York. Mar. 19, 1927; and New
York Journal of Commerce, Mar. 26, 1927.
11

118

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

I
HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

the same hours that workers in other large industries had gained by
virtue of their bargaining power. Opposition to the legislation was
confined almost entirely to the textile industry. But when the
54-hour week was being vigorously pushed in 1908, the straw-hat
manufacturers became alarmed about the effect of special legislation
on their industry. They appealed informally to the members of the
committee on labor for an exemption. To meet their objections it
was agreed with the sponsors of the legislation that these manufacturers should be taken care of. Accordingly, the hours legislation
of 1908 contained a new princi:(>le. Hours in manufacturing and
mechanical establishments were limited to 56 a week " except that in
any establishment where the employment is by seasons, the number of
such hours in any week may exceed 56, but not 58, provided that the
total number of such hours in any year shall not exceed an average of
56 hours a week for the whole year, excluding Sundays and
holidays." 56
This same provision, substituting 54 for 56 but not changing the
maximum number of hours allowable, also was included in the 54hour-week legislation of 1911.
It is evident that the application· of this principle led to constant
discussion between the employers and the enforcing officials. Which
were seasonal employments~ The law gave no clue. No one was
empowered to decide the question. Dispute continued until 1916,
when the department of labor and industries was authorized by the
legislature to determine which lines of manufacture were seasonal. 111
The 48-hour-week law passed in 1919 allowed a 52-hour week in
manufacturing establishments· " where the employment is determined
by the department to be by seasons," provided the average number
of hours worked during the year, exclusive of Sundays and holidays,
did not exceed 48.
HOURS LEGISLATION AFFECTING MERCANTILE ESTABLISHMENTS
AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS NOT INCLUDED UNDER MANUFACTURING AND MECHANICAL

The extension of the 60-hour-week law to mercantile establishments, 1883.
The 60-hour-week law for women in factories was extended in
1883 to women employed in mechanical and mercantile establishments. The prime mover in this extension was Chief Wade, of the
district police. He had recommended it on the ground that there
was no logical reason for discrimination between the women employed in one class of establishment and .t hose in another. He had
drafted the measure and had " worked quite hard with the (legislative) committee" to have it enacted. 68 His efforts were successful
and the law was put into effect. 59 Its enforcement brou~ht some
opposition, but, according to the officials, this antagonism 'was not
as general nor as persistent as that encountered in relation to some
16 Massachusetts.
Session laws, 1908, ch. 645.
17 Ibid., 1916, ch. 222.
In only two insta n ces-the ma nufa cture of straw hats and
tobacco-sorting shops-has the dep~rtment given approva l to ma nufacturing industries
doing a seasonal business to operate the longer hours allowed by the law.
58 U. S. Industrial Commission.
Report on the relation s and conditions of ca pital and
labor. 1900, v. 7, pp. 77-78.
• Massachusetts. Session laws, 1883, ch. 157.

91970°--32---4

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

other so-called labor laws." 60 On the whole, the law was working
"effectively and satisfactorily." The only difficulty in enforcement
came from the smaller stores.
Repeal of the amendment of 1883.
The repeal of the law as applied to mercantile establishments a
year after it was put into operation can only be accounted for by lack
of interest in such a measure on the part of the public. The repeal
was based on a petition from Springfield signed, for the most :part,
by the women the law was designed to protect. This one :petition
from one city gave the legislature sufficient excuse for wipmg out
a law that apparently was working to advantage in the State as a
whol~.u
The extension of the 58-hour-week law to mercantile establishments, 1900.
This action sf the legislature, t ogether with a report of the bureau
of statistic~- of labor on The Working Girls of Boston,62 aroused
sufficient public interest to keep almost constantly before the legislature, until its final passage in 1900, a bill again extending hours
legislation to mercantile establishments.
The source of the support for mercantile legislation in the earlier
days is indicated by the persons appearing at the hearing in 1888.
Among the s:peakers in favor were two doctors, a college professor,
a representative of the Knights of Labor, and Harriet Robinson, a
former mill worker who had become a writer of some prominence.
Most of the speakers pointed out the arduous nature of the work
of store girls and spoke of the rough and inconsiderate treatment
they constantly received from customers. They thought that the
long hours worked in this occupation undermined the health of the
girls and made them unfit to be mothers of the race. 68
Later an organization known as the Federal Labor Union, made
up largely of women friendly to the labor movement and a few
labor leaders, became the active supporter of hours legislation for
the- mercantile industry. Year after :year its members appeared
before the legislature to no effect. Their claims as to the need for
legislation were reenforced by the reports of the women factory inspectors, who called attention to the long hours--12 to 14 a day
during some seasons-worked by women in stores. Not only were
hours long but" in many respects the women employed in mercantile houses are under a more wearisome strain than those employed
in factories or workshops. There is double exaction from employer
and customer, more cramped and confined positions, and less freedom of movement. Add to this evening work in bad air and under
the heat of numerous gas jets-especially in July and Augustr-and
the strain on strength and health is excessive." 5 •
00 Massachusetts.
District Police, Inspection of Factories. Sirth annual report of
chief, 1884. p. 24.
91 U. S. Industrial Commission.
Report on the relations and conditions of capital and
labor. 1900, v. 7, pp. 77-78.
a Massachusetts. Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Fifteenth annual report, 1884, pp.
8-134.
as Boston Journal, Feb. 5, 1888.
8 ' Massachusetts.
District Police, Inspection of Factories. Thirteenth annual report
ot clliet. 1891, pp. 434-436. (See also reports for 1892, p. 377. and 1896, pp. 215-218.)

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

It was reported further that many of the merchants desired shorter
hours but a few would not agree to earlier closing, which meant
the continuance of long hours. 65
In the nineties the State Branch of the American Federation of
Labor began to include among its preferred legislative measures the
extension to mercantile establishments of the hours law in factories. 66
When it began agitating for a 54-hour law for women in 1897 it
specifically provided that this law " apply to all mercantile as well
as mechanical establishments." 67
Thus the way had been blazed for the work of the consumers'
league, . which, by gathering the necessary facts upon which to base
legislation and by crystallizing public sentiment in favor of it, secured the passage of the law of 1900. Almost immediately upon its
organization in 1898, the Consumers' League of Massachusetts took
the lead in the campaign for legislation governing the work of women
jn stores. It made an investigation of the conditions in the mercantile industry, particularly in the small shops. In 84 establishments,
that covered over 500 women, it " found the average hours per week
62½ in retail dry-goods stores, 65½ in confectionery, 73¼ in bake
shops." Ninety-one per cent of the employees were workin<Y more
than 60 hours a week, " and practically all in bake shops and many
in confectionary sho:ps worked on Sundays." 68 The investigator con-eluded, from interviews with employers and from the facts as he
found them, that a 60-hour-week .law would be a benefit to both
parties concerned. By lifting the plane of competition it would protect those merchants who were willing to look after the welfare of
their employees from the unfair dealings of other employers. The
well-being of the workers would be promoted," for a maximum limit
of 60 hours of continual work of a particular kind in any week is as
great as can reasonably be undertaken , if due regard be had to the
physical, mental, and moral welfare of those who are so engaged." 69
The report included considerable information on the attitude of
owners and managers who had been interviewed in the course of the
investigation. As would be expected, the larger dry-goods stores
where the 8-hour day already prevailed and other stores that were
operating on a basis of 60 hours a week or less were in favor of such
a law, and some of the long-hour establishments were not opposed
to it if it affected all stores alike. Usually the small dealers with
only two or three employees were very much opposed. They contended that the employment of extra part-time help was a cost that
the small margin of profit in the business did not permit, and furthermore that part-time workers would only make ·confusion in the
store. 70
Feeling that the facts of extremely long hours justified legislation,
the consumers' league began to secure the necessary public support.
Women's clubs were enlisted in the ranks of supporters, among them
• Jbid. Twentieth a nnual r eport of chief, 1898, p. 224.
• Massachusetts. Bureau of Stat istics of Labor. Twenty-sixt h annu al report, 1895,
p. 734.
87 Ibid.
•.rwenty-eighth annual report, 1897, p. 341. ·
ee Consumers' _LP-11-gue o; Mas~,i,.chusetts. Bulletin No. 31, 1926.
e9 Ibicl.
Investit,,•,t iotrs' bf ho'u'rs a nd other conditions in the mercantile es ta blis hments
of Bost on . with a rep . f _wof . f the league from March to November, 1808. November 1898.
·
'9 lon

7'1dem.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

the civic department of the Twentieth Century Club, the Massachusetts Association of Working Women's Clubs, and the Women's
Educational and Industrial Union. These organizations all backed
the 58-hour bill for women in mercantile establishments introduced
by the Federal Labor Union' in 1899. The measure failed to pass. 71
The following year the consumers' league, in cooperation with the
civic division of the Twentieth Century Club and the Union for
Industrial Progress-formerly the Federal Labor Union-had a bill
for the extension of the 58-hour week to the mercantile industry
drawn up and introduced in the legislature. The hearing was well
planned and widely attended. The legislature was duly impressed
and the bill, amended to allow an exemption for the month of
December, was passed and signed by the governor. 72
Amendments to aid enforcement and to extend application.
The law as passed had two outstanding imperfections-the December exemption and no requirement for the posting of hours. The
inspectors charged with the enforcement .of the law recommended
that these defects be remedied. The consumers' league had a bill
drafted to comply with the suggestions of the inspectors and it was
introduced in the 1901 session. The proponents of the bill did not
have knowledge of the hearing when it occurred, there was no one
present to support the measure, and the committee reported against
the repeal of the December exemption. 73 The amendment for the
posting of notices became law. 74 At the same time the term "mercantile establishment " was defined so as to include restaurants. 75
Evidently there had been considerable complaint of conditions existing in restaurants, for when the amendment was passed the chief
of the district police expressed the pious hope that " it will lessen
if it does not wholly remove the hardships and exactions of which
so much complaint has been made." 76
In the years following, bills were introduced to extend the application of the 58-hour-week law to the month of December, but nothing came of them. In 1903 tlie bill was referred with many others
to a committee appointed by the governor "to examine and consider
the laws of the Commonwealth and any proposed laws or amendments concerning the legal relations of employer and employee." 77
This committee of five heard a committee of the consumers' league
and others on the question of repealing the December exemption.
It reported as follows :
It has been represented that much hardship results from the exceptions made
in the 58-hour law, by which women and minors in mercantile establishments
may be compelled to work long hours during the month of December. We
understand that, as a rule, many of the larger stores do not take advantage
of this exception, but obey the spirit of the 58-hour law throughout the year.
,ve see no reason why all establishments should not conform to the more considerate practice of the majority. If stores find it necessary to keep open
Consumers' Leagu e of Massachusetts. Second annual report, 1900.
Ibid. Third annual report, 1901.
Fourth annual report, 1902.
Massachusetts. Session laws, 1~01, ch. 113.
76 Idem.
70 Massachusetts.
District Police, In~ection of Factor\e~.-: )· Twe:i;ity-third annual report
of chief, 1901, p. 7.
·~ ', 1 ' 1 ;
77 Massach11setts.
Committee on Relations Between ·E~ pl 1yer'
arid Empluyee. Report,
. Boston, Sta1e Printers, Jan. 13, 1904, p. 3.
71

,a Ibid.
74

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

evenings in order to satisfy the requirements of customers at the holiday season, arrangements should be made for adjusting the hours of employees throughout the day so that the total number of hours does not exceed 58 per week. 71

,..

The committee therefore recommended the amendment that had
been introduced by the consumers' league. This favorable report,
together with the widespread public interest, led to the passage of
the bill repealing the December exemption by the legislature of
1904. 79
The following year a formidable attempt was made to repeal the
amendment of 1904. The Springfield Board of Trade, supported by
other commercial interests in the smaller cities and towns, claimed
that there was no general demand for the law of the previous year
and that it had been passed with little discussion. Store employees
from Worcester, Springfield, and other cities testified that they
wanted to work longer hours. They were opposed by organized
labor, the consumers' league, and all the other groups that had supported the repeal of the exemption. The bill finally was defeated. 80
The extension of the 54-hour-week law, 1913.
Although there had been a slight effort made to include mercantile
with manufacturing and mechanical establishments when the hours
of work in these industries were reduced first to 56 in 1908 and again
to 54 in 1911, nothing came of it, and women in stores could legally
be employed 58 hours a week up to 1913. The only exception was
women employed in workrooms of stores. At the insistence primarily of the Women's Trade Union League and the consumers'
league that these women were industrial workers and s4ould have
the same number of hours as had other women engaged in the same
type o;f employment, their working week was limited to 56 hours in
1911. 81
Other groups of employed women, particularly most of the hotel
workers, did not come under any hours regulation. 82 At the convention of the State Branch of the American Federation of Labor in
1912 it was stated that "a very large number of women are employed
in hotels and other kindred establishments, and are working under
conditions that are a disgrace to our Christian civilization, hours
extending from 10 to 18 per day and supplied with food not fit for
human beings." 83 It was voted that the legislative committee draw up
an amendment to the 54-58 hour law that would bring these women
under its protection. 84
Ibid., p. 33.
Massachusetts. Session laws, 1904, ch. 397.
Springfield Republican, Feb. 17, HJ05; and American Federation ot Labor, Massachusetts Branch. Proceedings of twentieth annual convention, 1905, p. 33.
81 Massachusetts.
Session laws, 1911, ch. 313.
82 The definition of "mercantile establishment" as given in the labor law is "any
premises used for the purposes of trade in the purchase or sale of any goods or merchandise, and any premises used for a restaurant or for publicly providing and serving meals."
A ruling of the attorney general, Sept. 27, 1912, construed "premises" so as to include
"the entire building occupied as a hotel and is not to be limited to such rooms as are
actually used for the purpose of publicly providing and serving meals therein." Legally,
then, women who worked in hotels were protected by hours legislation, but practically
they were not. For it is apparent from the findings of the special investigation of the
hours of hotel workers, made in 1916 by the State board of labor and industries, that
this broad interpretation of the attorney general had not been applied. Longer hours
than those allowed by the mercantile act were the rule in all branches of hotel work.
83 American Federation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch.
l'rocee<lings of twenty-seventl!
-1.nnual convention, 1912, p. 92.
78
70
80

"Idem.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

At the next session of the legisla:ure, in 1913, a bill was passed
limiting the hours of women employed in mercantile establishments,
telegraph offices, telephone exchanges, and by express and transportation companies to 10 a day and 54 a week, 85 but hotels as such (see
footnote 82) were left unregulated.
Besides the State Branch of the American Federation of Labor
and other organized labor groups the supporters of the extension of
the 54-hour law to women in other occupations were the Women's
Trade Union League, the consumers' league, the Women's Educational and Industrial Union, the Massachusetts Child Labor Committee, and other civic and social organizations.
Earlier in the same session the Massachusetts Child Labor Committee, with the support of these other organizations, had secured
the 54-hour week, 10-hour day, and 6-day week for girls under
21 and boys under 18 employed in the establishments mentjoned
9. bove, together with barber shops, bootblack stands, public stables,
garages, brickyards, and messenger service. 86
The 54-hour-week law for elevator operators, 1918.
With the war came the entrance of women into various kinds of
employment not covered by the. hours law. The most conspicuous
of these was elevator operating. A bill to bring elevator operators
under the 54-hour-week law was introduced in 1918 by the chairman
of the War Committee on Women in Industry. It passed with little
opposition and wide support. 87
The 48-hour-week law of 1919 and its extension in 1921.
The 48-hour-week law passed in 1919 applled to women employed
in manufacturing, mechanical, and mercantile establishments, telegraph offices, telephone exchanges, and express and transportation
companies. Hotel employees (see footnote 82), laundry workers, 8 8
and other smaller groups .still did not come under arty hours regu.lation. Because of the agitation started by the State Branch of the
American Federation of Labor in 1912 an investigation of the hours
of hotel workers had been made by the State board of labor and
industries in 1916 at the request of the legislature. It was found
that excessively long hours were the rule in the industry. Only a
small proportion of the workers enjoyed a 54-hour week, an appreciable number worked over 70 hours a week, and one woman was
found who worked over 100 hours a week. 89 An analysis of the
data obtained convinced the board of labor and industries " that
some change must be made in the hours of labor of those employed
in hotels." 90
In spite of this evidence of long hours of work of women employed
in hotels. no action was taken by the h~gislature to reduce their hours
until 1921, when the Women's Trade Union League brought the mat ..
ter forcibly to attention. The legislature then passed the bill exMassachusetts. Session laws, 1913, ch. 758.
Ibid., ch. 831, sec. 9.
Ibid., 1918, ch. 147.
.
118 Power laundries were considered mechanical establishments and the hours of women
employees were regulated by earlier legislation. Smaller laundries and hotel and institutional laundrieR were not covered before 1921.
·
-.i Massa~bu sdts .
State Board of Labor .~nd l:Udustries. Fourth annt1al r eport, 1917,
pp. 32-36.
.. Ibid., p. 36.
86

1111
87

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

tend,ing the 48-hour-week law to women employed in laundries,
hotels, manicuring or hairdressing establishments, motion-picture
theaters, and as elevator and switchboard operators. 91 There was
practically no opposition and very little discussion of the measure. 92
The only change made in the bill as introduced was an amendment
by the senate providing that" hotel employees who are not employed
in a manufacturing, mercantile, or mechanical establishment connected with a hotel may be emr,loyed more than 9 hours but not more
than 10 hours in any one day.' 98
•
NIGHT-WORK LEGISLATION

The campaign for the legislative prohibition of night work of
women employed in manufacturing establishments of Massachusetts
extended over a period of more than 17 years.e• It was part,i ally
successful in 1890, but the demands of the textile workers were not
fully met until 1907.
The movement for night-work legislation, like that for hours
legislation in general, centered around the textile industry. It was
aimed particularly at the prevention of the overtime work that at
times seriously threatened the effective enforcement ~f the weekly
hours law. The bills for the ~revention of night worK were known
. commonly as "overtime bills.' At legislative hearings discussions
were almost entirely on this phase of the question. It was the evil
of long hours of work that was at issue, rather than the evil of night
work ,itself.
The night-work law of 1890.
Six ~'clock closing was the general rule in the textile industry.
There were few exceptions made prior to the late eighties. A case
of night work was of sufficient novelty to bring mention in the textile
journals. In 1886 a news item read that a certain firm of knit-goods
manufacturers had "given orders to the,i r cord-room spinners and
spoolers to work overtime every night till 9 o'clock, until further
notice (this includes female help as well) and those refusing to comply_ with their request are ordered to leave." 95
The organized textile workers began to protest this practice and
finally in 1890 brought their protest to the legislature in the form of
a bill to prohibit the employment of women and minors in manufacturing between the hours of 6 p. m. and 6 a. m. The committee
on labor substituted a compromise measure that prohibited such
employment between the hours of 10 p. m. and 6 a. m. There seems
to have been little or no opposition to this compromise measure, and
it became law. 00 The chief of the division of factory inspection
after the passage of the act reported, " It would seem that there
91 A similar bill introduced by the Women's Trade Union League the previous year had
been rejected because it included women in banks. Some of these women PPOtested against
the measure and it was defeated. They were not included when the blll was introd11ced
ilt 1921.
n Boston Transcript, Mar. 8, 1921.
us Massachusetts.
Session laws, 1921, ch. 280 .
.. Night-work legislation in Massachusetts for women over 21 years of age applies only
to manufacturing.
QI Wade's Fibre and Fabric, Boston, Oct. 16, 1886, p. 263.
11 Massachusetts.
Session laws, 1890, ch. 183.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

could be ;ao division of opinion as to the necessity of such a law, and
' it is in exact line with the policy of the Commonwealth in respect
to the labor of women and children." 97
The night-work law of 1907.
The employment of women between 6 p. m. and 10 p. m. in the
textile mills was resorted to more and more by employers in certain
sections of the _State who attempted to increase their profits by running their mills 14 hours a day instead of 10, and 83 hours a week
instead of 60. To comply with the 58-hour law for women they
posted two sets of notices, one for day labor and the other for night.
The enforcing officers held that this system practically nullified
the 58-hour law. Women worke"d in one establishment for 10 hours
and then worked 4 hours more in another plant. 98
Supported by a ruling of the attorney general of the State that
" the employment of women and minors both day and night, whether
in the same factory or different mills, is a violation of the 58-hour
law," 99 the inspectors served notice on the mills running overtime
that the practice must stop or legal proceedings would be instituted.
One plant refused to comply and the case was brought before the
courts. There were three counts against the defendant : One, with
having two different notices posted that, together, aggregated more
than 58 hours a week; two, with employing an operative for a longer
period than the extra notice stated; three, with employing a woman
who had already worked the full legal period in another mill. The
court held that the legislature had not forbidden the mills to run
extra hours nor had it forbidden a person to work as many hours
as he chose, and that therefore in none of the instances cited had a
crime been committed. 1
This decision tied the hands of the inspectors in any further
attempt to prevent overtime. It was clearly not to their liking and
they invited "the attention of the legislature to the subject of more
strictly regulating the hours of labor of women and minoriS." 2
The textile workers had not rested their case upon the efforts of
the factory inspectors to prevent overtime, but had introduced a
bill year after year to prohibit the employment of women and minors
in the textile industry between the hours of 6 p. m. and 6 a. m. 3 But
the decision referred to did have the effect of stimulating interest in
legislative efforts. A bill was favorably reported by the committee
on labor in 1900 but was rejected by the house. 4
The following year the textile workers and their representatives in
the legislature postponed pushing the 54-hour bill and concentrated
upon the abolition of overtime. They secured the passage of the
measure in the house and lost by only one vote in the senate. 5 Again
9'1 Massachusetts.
District Police, Inspection of Factories. Twelfth annual report of
chief, 1890, p. 18.
98 Ibid.
Twenty-second annual report of chief, 1900, pp. 9-10.
111 Massachusetts.
Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Thirtieth annual report, 1899, p. 85.
1 Ibid.
Thirty-second annual report, 1901, pp. 11-12.
11 Massachusetts.
District Police, Inspection of Factories. Twenty-second annual report
of chief, 1900, p. 12.
s Massachusetts.
Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Twenty-eighth annual report, 1897,
p. 313; and U. S. Industrial Commission. Report on the relations and condftions of capital and labor. 1901 v. 14, p. 570.
'Massachusetts. Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Thirty-second annual report, 1901,

p . 8.

5 American Federation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch.
annual conventhn, 1902, pp. 22-23.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Proceedings of seventeenth

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

J.n 1903 they were near victory but the opposition of the textile manufacturers was more powerful than a united labor support. 6
The arguments of the opposition during these years varied little.
They contended that the textile industry could not stand this added
burden; that the bill if passed would prevent the making up of lost
time, that it would eliminate the possibility of coordinating the work
of the various branches and therefore would be against efficiency, and
that the operatives did not favor the legislation.7
The representatives of the textile unions and of the State Branch
of the American Federation of Labor testified that the workers
wanted this law but were afraid to express their wishes for fear of
losing their jobs. Instances were cited where women and minors
had worked from 6.30 a. m. to 10 p. m. and had been discharged for
testifying to such facts. They claimed that seven strikes in Fall
River alone were in protest against overtime and that this should
prove that operatives were opposed to working at night. 8
The "overtime" bill of 1903 was referred to the governor's committee on the relations between employer and employee. While it
did not indorse the bill, except for minors under 16 between the hours
of 7 p. m. and 6 a. m., its arguments might well have been construed to favor the limitation for the industry as a whole. It reported that overtime usually was resorted to in making up for lost
time by stoppage of machinery, and that in well-ordered plants accidents were of comparative unimportance; that some mills discontinued the practice of running overtime at night because it tended
"to irregularity in production"; that if all mills in the State were
placed upon the same basis competition within the State would be
no factor and competition without the State would be " very
•
inconsiderable." 9
This noncommital report to the legislature of 1904 probably was
of little importance. Labor succeeded " after 10 years of strenuous
effort and against the combined lobby of the Massachusetts Legislature" in having the overtime or night-work bill passed, only to
have it vetoed by Governor Bates. 10 The governor gave as his reasons
for the veto that there was no abuse of the privilege of employing
women and minors until 10 p. m. ; that the bill was " special legislation applying to one branch of manufacture only "; that the textile
mills ran in the evenings only "when some particular exigency" demanded; that women were anxious for the opportunity to work in
the mills at night; that the textile industry was in " no condition to
stand further burdens "; that the committee on relations between
employev and employee had failed to recommend this measure. He
summed up his remarks as follows: "I can not believe * * *
that this bill is in the interest of minors, or of women, or of labor, or
of capital, or of the Commonwealth." 11
Springfield Republican, Apr. 16, 1903.
'Iloston Globe, F eb. 18 and Mar. 1, 1902; and l!"'ibre and Fabric, Boston, Mar. 31, 1900,
p. 76.
8 Boston Globe, Feb. 14 and 18, 1902.
• Massachusetts. Committee on Relations Between Employer and Employee. Report.
Boston, State Printers, Jan. 13, 1904, p. 31.
10 American Federation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch.
Proceedings of nineteentb
annu al convention, 1904, p. 37.
u Massach usetts. Legislative dQcuments. House No U38 . .l.904, pp. 1--i.
6

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

A s1,udy made by the bureau of statistics of labor of night work
in textile mills 12 bore out some of the governor's contentions. It
was found that comparatively few mills operated after 6 p. m., only
12 in a total of 169 mills visited reported having worked overtime
in 1903. Three of these employed women the year around for this
work, the others for less than half of the year. The average number
of women employed was 175, the :(>eak berng 329.13 Testimony indicated that these women had families and were engaged in household
duties during the day. They worked in the mills at night "in order
to increase their limited incomes, which opportunity was eagerly
solicited by them." i . No conclusions were drawn in the report but
the genetal tone of it indicated that the prohibition of the work of
women in the textile industry after 6 p. m. was a matter of comparative unimportance.
The labor group was of a different opinion. Governor Bates was
roundly denounced for his veto of the night-work bill, and a cam- ·
paign was immediately launched to prevent his reelection. 15 Labor
showed a surprising strength at the polls and Governor Bates was
retired. His i5uccessor recommended in his first annual message that
the appeal " from the mills, factories, and workshops in all sections
of the · Commonwealth * * * for the prohibition of overtime
for women and minors, should not go unheeded." 16
Now that labor had a governor willing to sign, the measure was
defeated by the senate in both 1905 and 1906. In the latter year
the defeat of the bill was accomplished by methods that called forth
a great deal of criticism in the press and elsewhere. Fibre and
Fabric, a textile-trade publication, gave the following account of
the procedure:
.
The measure had already passed the house • • • •. The real cause of the
bill's defeat was the absence of , • • * [names of four senators] all of
whom had voted for the bill on Thursday • * •. Labor men from all over
the State filled the corridors, and the members of the house interested in the
bill crowded upon the floor of the senate outside the railing, so that the proceedings went on amidst a suffocating crowd. After the final vote some of
these labor men denounced the absent senators with extreme vehemence and
declared that they would defeat them if they came up for reelection.
There was very little real debate. The opposition to the bill, content with
having the votes, refused to be drawn into a discussion. When the advocates
of the bill found that it was likely to be defeated they tried to leave the
chamber and break the quorum, but the doors were locked against them.
Then came appea,ls and motions and the defeat after a tedious parliamentary battle of the opposing sides. 11

Legislative representatives from Fall River and New Bedford
joined in an appeal to Governor Guild, suggesting that in the light
of what had transpired he might see his way clear to send a special
message to the legislature urging a reconsideration of the overtime,
or night-work, bill. The governor, after consulting with legal authorities, replied that by acting in the manner suggested he would
12 Massachusetts.
Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Labor Bulletin No. 33, September,
1904.
18 Ibid., pp. 243-245.
1, Ibid., pp. 245-246.
ia American Federation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch.
Proceedings ot nineteenth
annual convention, 1904, p. 37.
11 Massachusetts.
Legislative documents. Senate No. 1, 1!)05, p. 19.
tt Fibre and Fabric, Boston, Mar. 31, 1906, p. o.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

be interfering unduly with the rights of the legislative branch of the
government. 18
Before the next session labor organized a comprehensive campaign against the senators who had voted against the night-work
b,ill. 19 The measure of this success was the ease with which this
much opposed bill passed the legislature of 1907. There was no
debate in either house and only one vote was recorded against it.
It promptly received the signature of the governor. 20
One powerful organ of the textile interests, after having opposed
the bill for years, came out early in the session with the statement
that the bill was of" little importance" as was proved by the "overtime" reports from Fall River, the leading cotton-manufacturing
center in New England. It stated that for the 41 corporations in
that city there was overtime work from January 1, 1906, to February 1, 1907, a 'period of 13 months, of 70 hours and 24 minutes,
which certainly was no hardship for women or minors, as the lost
time was made up largely in 5-and-10-minute runs at noon or after
6 o'clock; and but for the persistent efforts of labor to carry on a
controversy with capital, not one operative ,i n a thousand would have
given the subject a moment's thought.
"There is no particular objection to the bill on the part of the
manufacturers, other than their wish to have it contain protective
clauses for themselves, as the history of these restrictive measures
has always shown the operative to be the offender, much more than
the manufacturer or his agents." 21
After the passage of the bill this same journal commented editorially that it was passed " more out of fear of political death than
for any merit" it contained. 22 In a later number it blamed the
"reformers" for making the weavers-the chief malcontents among
the textile workers--so " irrational as to put through legislation such
as the overtime law." It traced "the secondary cause at least for the
unrest of the women weavers" to this body of "wealthy women
particularly, but, sad to say, many men of prom.inence.'' "From the
published doings of these reformers they (the weavers) really believe that they are being abused and underpaid, and that they are
altogether too good to work at their occupation." 23
The legislation vreventing women from working after 6 p. m. in
the textile industries was accepted by the employers with little comment. During the war they were a-llowed by the defense act to
secure spec.i al permits for overtime and night work of women for
the performance of work required by the war emergency. A considerable number of employers took advantage of this opportunity
when first granted, but later the War Emergency Industrial Commission, the administrative body, backed up by the policy of the Federal
Government that labor legislation should not be relaxed in war
time, granted fewer and fewer applications for suspension.
18 Idem.
lll American Feder ation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch.
Proceedings of twenty-first
annual convention, 1906.
20 Springfield Republican, Mar. 21, 26, 29, and 30, 1907; and Massachusetts.
Seililio11
laws., 1901\ ch. ~67.
n American Wool and C.ottor Reporter, Mar. 7, 1907, p. 301.
i , Ibid., Ap r. 4, 1907, p. 426
• lbi'l. May 2. 1907, p. 606.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGiSLATION FOR WOMEN'

Since the war the general depres~ion in the cotton-manufacturing
industry has brought demands in Massachusetts
the repeal of the
overtime law as well as of the 48-hour-week limitation. Cotton
manufacturers have claimed that the industry in Masachusetts
could not compete with that in other States and that unless the
most restrictive of the labor laws were suspended Massachusetts
mills would move to the South, where conditions were more
favorable. 24
Nothing has come of these attempts at repeal. At the last legislature ( 1927) the Arkwright Club, in behalf of the cotton manufacturers, confined its activities to a modification of the 48-hour-week
law without attacking the night-work law. 25
It will be remembered that the law of 1890, 2 6 prohibiting the work
of women and minors between the hours of 10 p. m. and 6 a. m.,
applied only to manufacturing. The hours of women and minor
workers in textile mills were further restricted in 1907,27 but no
change was made in the application of the general night-work law
until 1913. In that year the Massachusetts Child Labor Committee,
with the support of the Women's Trade Union League, the consumers'
league, the Women's Educational and Industrial Union, and other
organizations,. secured the passage of a law prohibiting the employment of girls under 21 and boys under 18 in factories, workshops,
manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishments, express and
transportation companies, barber shops, bootblack stands or establishments, public stables, garages, brick or lumber yards, telephone
exchanges, telegraph or messenger offices, or in the construction or
repair of buildings, or in any contract or wage-earning industry
carried on in tenement or other houses between the hours of 10 p. m.
and 5 a. m. 28 At the same time the 6 o'clock closing in the textile
mills was reenacted.
At the request of the telephone operators' union, this law was
amended in 1917 29 to allow girls under 21 to be employed as operators
in regular service in telephone exchanges until 11 p. m.

for

WAR-TIME LEGISLATION

The participation of the United States in the World War brought
a demand in Massachusetts, as in other States, for a suspension of the
labor laws in order to speed production. Any relaxation or modification of these laws was firmly opposed by the laboring interests, the
Women's Trade Union League, the consumers' league, and the various
women's organizations. Late in the session of 1917 the legislative
committee of the State Branch of the American Federation of Labor
felt that there might be "wholesale nullification of the laws" unless
some concessions were made. So they joined in a conference of labor,
u Mase~husetts. General Court, 1924. Committee on Labor and Industry. Statement by ward '.rhoron on Senate 93 and 94 in re Hours of Labor and Senate 95, The Two
Shift Bill. Feb. 13, 1924.
25 American Wool and Cotton Reporter.
Feb. 24, 1927, p. 68.
28 Massachusetts.
Session laws, 1890, ch. 183.
27 Ibid., 1907, ch. 267.
ss Ibid., 1913, ch. 831, sec. 9.
1111 Ibid., 1917, ch. 294.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LA.BOR L.EGiSLAT!ON FOR WOMEN" IN :M:ASSACltUSETTS

leaders and representatives of the Public Safety Committee that resulted in the passage of the defense act. 30
This act provided for a special committee of five to be appointed
by the State board of labor and industries with the approval of the
governor. One member. of the committee was to be the commissioner
of labor, two members were to represent employers, and two the wage
earners. The committee so constituted was to receive applications
from any employer for the suspension of any or all labor laws that
interfered with the performance of work required by an emergency
arising out of the war. Hearings were to be given on such applications to which representatives of the interested parties were invited.
This committee, entitled the War Emergency Industrial Commission,
received 145 applications for suspension _d uring its first year and
granted 65. Most of these were permits allowing women to work
overtime, a few allowed night work. 31
With the pronouncements of the various branches of the Federal
Government on the need for maintaining the labor standards of peace
time, the tendency of the committee more and more was to restrict
the number of permits granted. So, while most of the friends of
labor legislation felt that the committee should never have been
provided for, nevertheless they agreed that its activities were of
little consequence in affecting labor standards in the State.
MINIMUM-WAGE LEGISLATION

Massachusetts was the pioneer State in minimum-wage as well as
in hours legislation for women.. The passage of the minimum-wage
law in 1912 was an unexpected culmination of the efforts of a group
of representative people of Boston and the vicinity to secure some
sort of remedial legislation to meet certain conditions affecting the
lives of the 350,000 working women of the State. The rapidity with
which these interested citizens attained their goal is traceable to
influences at work both within and without the State.
The first real impetus to wage legislation in this country came
with the passage by Great Britain of the trades board act of 1909.
This was followed closely by the publication in 1910-11 of the .findings in the investigation of the Federal Bureau of Labor into theconditions of work of women and children in the United States.
Other industrial studies made at about this time helped to focus
public attention upon the low wages of women workers. Chief of
these may be mentioned Women and the Trades (Pittsburgh Survey,
1909), by Elizabeth B. Butler; Women in Industry ( 1910), by Edith
Abbott; Wage-Earning Women (1910), by Annie M. MacLean; and
The Living Wage of Women Workers (1911), by Louise M.
Bosworth.
Minimum-wage legislation as a remedy for the evils disclosed by
these studies was vigorously pushed by the National Consumers'
League. This orgamzation made the passage of minimum-wage
laws in the various States part of its 10-years program adopted
:io American Federation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch.
Proceedings of thirty-second
annual convention, 1917, p. 50.
81 Massachusetts.
State Board of Labor and Industries. Fifth annual report, Januar,.
1918, pp. 58-63.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

in Mar-ch, 1910. The subject was introduced to the social workers of
the country at the annual meeting of the National Conference of
Charities and Corrections in May, 1910. 82 The National ·women's
Trade Union League, in its third biennial convention in 1911,
adopted as one of its recommendations for legislative action by its
State branches a " legal minimum wage in sweated trades." 33
Members of these organizations, particularly Mary Morton Kehew,
Emily Balch, and Elizabeth Glendower Evans, became impressed
with minimum-wage legislation as a possible solution for wage difficulties in Massachusetts and were instrumental in having the
Women's Trade Union League of Boston take the initiative in a
study of the question. Mrs. Kelley, general secretary of the National
Consumers' League, was invited to present the subject of minimumwage legislation at a league meeting in December, 1910. At this
meeting it was voted that the president form a committee "which
might bring into cooperation, to the end of minimum-wage legislation, the forces of organized labor, the consumers' league, and other
groups who would naturally be interested." 34 Early in January, 1911,
such a committee was organized to draft and promote a bill to be
introduced by the Women's Trade Union League asking for the
appointment of a commission to study the question of wages of
women and children and the advisability of establishing wage boards.
By February the committee had grown to include, besides the
Women's Trade Union League, the Consumers' League, the child labor
committee ( of Massachusetts), the Women's Educational and Industrial Union, the Central Labor Union of Boston, and the Massachusetts Branch of the American Association for Labor Legislation. 311
The burden of the campaign, first for the investigating commission and later for the minimum-wage law, was carried on through
this minimum-wage committee, by its counsel and legislative agent,
H. La Rue Brown.
The committee, while it believed that minimum-wage legislation
was needed in Massachusetts, realized that it had not the facts that
would be accepted by the public as proving conclusively the necessity
for such legislation. It therefore submitted a petition to the legi8lature of 1911 accompanied by a resolve "For the appointment of a
commission to study the question of wages for women and minors
and report as to the advisability of the establishment of a minimumwage board." 36
The proponents carried on a quiet campaign and avoided arousing
any latent opposition. A hearing was given in March before the
joint committee on labor of the general court. Practically the only
persons present were the representatives of organizations sponsoring
the bill.
The main arguments for the measure were presented by the counsel for the minimum-wage committee. The keynote of his address
112 Kelley, Florence.
The Case for the Minimum Wage: Status of Legislation in the
Unit~d States. The Survey, New York. Feb. 6, 1915, p. 3.
~ Life and Labor.
National Women's Trade Union League of America, Chicago. Decemher, 1911, p. 356.
u Correspondence between Boston Women's Trade Union League (Gillespie ) and Masi;:achusetts Child Labor Committee (Conant), 1910-1912, on fl.le 1D Massachusetts Child
Labor Committee office.
86
Itlem.
• Massachusetts. Session laws, 1911, ch. 71.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

was the quotation from St. Augustine, "Thou gavest bread to the
hungry, but better were it that none hungered and thou hadst none
to give." He approved the contention that underpaid labor was the
greatest social cause of dependency and delinquency and that to meet
social ills the Commonwealth of Massachusetts expended approximately $5,000,000 a year, or, roughly speaking, one-third of its total
appropriations.; an expenditure quite exclusive of the millions spent
by private and semipublic charitable agencies for the same causes.
In other words, he claimed that society at large, through taxes and
gifts, was bearing an appreciable part of the labor costs that should
legitimately be borne by industry. Attention was called to studies
made b( the W om~n's Educat~on~l a_nd Industrial Uni<?n and the
Women s Trade U mon League md1catmg that for a working woman
the minimum cost of living was $8 a week, while Massachusetts
statistics of manufactures for 1908 showed that almost 75,000 adult
women in the State were earning less than that amount. One effect
of the gap between earnings and living costs was cited as follows:
" One of the great Boston hospitals maintains a department of statistics from a social and industrial point of view. Of 31 cases which
clearly are those of working girls suffering from anremia, tubercular
tendencies, and similar troubles which come from undernourishment,
over 20 were those of girls earning less than $6 a week."
Mr. Brown went on to say, "We are spending millions in the fight
against tuberculosis. We are spending a third of our State appropriations on institutions to deal with dependence and delinquency.
The petitioners for this resolve ask merely that the light be turned
on conditions and that we may really know what are the facts." 37
Another advocate of the resolve was John Golden, the president
of the United Textile Workers of America. He had become interested in minimum-wage legislation, primarily because of its possibilities as a means for preventing strikes and secondarily because
it would throw light on the low wages paid in the sweated industries. He was throughout the campaign the most active of the labor
leaders. The others were converted to the idea of a minimum wage
by the Women's Trade Union League, but their support was purely
nominal. The counsel to the Arkwright Club, the organization of
the textile manufacturers, advocated the·appointment of an investigating commission but " doubted the right of the legislature to fix
wages." The president of the Women's Trade Union League also
spoke in favor of the resolve. 88
The bill passed the legislature with practically no opposition. The
groups who ordinarily would have opposed such legislation probably
were of the opinion that the appointment of the investigatmg commission would kill the popular clamor for wage relief. They were
strengthened in this belief by the action of the legislature in postponing the appointment of the commission until the beginnin~ of
summer and by providing so little money that it could not make a
satisfactory report.
37 Brown, H. La Rue.
Unpublished manuscript prepared as statement for the presa.
Boston, March, 1911.
88 Boston Post, Mar. 16, 1911.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

The personnel of the commission undoubtedly was responsible
for the achievements secured under such adverse circumstances:
HAnry Le Favour, president of Simmons College, was appointed
chA.irman; Elizabeth G. Evans, the candidate of the Women's Trade
Union League, was appointed a representative of women; and John
G()lden, president of the United Textile Workers of America, was a
representative of labor. Two remaining members were attorneysGeorge W. Anderson and Richard Olney, 2d. The latter generally
was considered representative of the employing interests.
Despite the season, the commission organized at once and began
its wage investigations. One member, Mrs. Evans, not only contributed office space but, by collecting voluntary contributions, made
financially possible a much more extensive survey of wages than was
contemplated by the legislature. Although without power to inspect
pay rolls the investigators were granted this privilege by all the
large retail stores and candy factories and by most of the large
laundries. · The original wage investigation was confined to these
three industrial groups. In addition, an analysis was made of material on the cotton industry published by the Federal Government _
in the first volume of its report on conditions of woman and child
w9.ge earners in the United States. The commission held public
hearings, at which representatives of the employers and of organized
labor testified as to the wage conditions of working women and the
advisability of providing by law for minimum-wage boards. Economists and lawyers were called before the commission to discuss
the practicability of wage legislation. All available data were
studied.
The findings and recommendations of the commission were embodied in the report that it submitted to the legislature in January,
1912. 3 9 The wage data, covering 15,278 female wage earners engaged in :four different occupations, showed " low wage rates for a
very considerable number of persons." The numbers of women over
18 earning less than $6 a week varied from 29.5 per cent in the
retail. stores to 65.2 per cent in the candy factories. 40 The relative
unimportance of productivity in determining wage rates was shown
in the wide divergence in .rates paid by establishments within the
same industry ·and engaged in the same class of work. I!l- one candy
factory 53.3 per cent of the employees over 18 were paid less than
$5 a week, while in the majority of the candy factories not a single
employee in this age group was paid so low a wage. 41 It was on the
basis of these facts that the commission recommended a law establis];iing a permanent minimum-wage commission that should investigate wages in industries that seemed to be paying less than Ii ving
wages to their women employees. Where the wage data warranted,
the commission should establish a wage board to recommend a minimum wage for the industry in question. The commission supported its recommendations for a minimum-wage commission by the
following r easons :
rn~lfassachusetts.
,o Ibid ., pp. 9- 10,
+i

Jpid., p. 12,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Commission on Minimum-Wage Boards.

Report.

Boston, January,

HISTORY OF LABOR. LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

1. It would promote the general welfare of the State because it would tend
to protect the women workers, and particularly the younger women workers,
from the economic distress that leads to impaired health and inefficiency.
2. It would bring employers to a realization of their public responsibilities,
rnd would r esult in the best adjustment of the interests of the employment
and of the women employees.
3. It would furn ish to the women employees a means of obtaining the best
minimum wages that are consistent with the on-going of the industry, without
recourse to strikes or industrial disturbances. It would be the best means of
ensuring industrial peace so far a s this class of employees is concerned.
4. It would tend to prevent exploitation of helpless women, and, so far as
they are concerned, to do away with sweating in our industri~s.
5. It would diminish the parasitic character of some industries and lessen
the burden now r esting on other employments.
6. It would enable the employers in any occupation to prevent the undercutting of wages by less humane and considerate competitors.
7. It would stimulate employers to develop the cap:icity and efficiency of the
less competent workers in order that the wages might not be incommensurate
with the services r endered.
8. It would accordingly tend to induce employers to keep together their
trained worker s and to avoid so far as possible seasonal fluctuations.
9. It would tend to heal the sense of grievance in employees, who would
become in this manner better informed as to the exigencies of their trade
and it would enable them to interpret more intelligently the meaning of the
pay roll.
10. It would give the public assurance that these industrial abuses have an
effective and available remedy. 42

Mr. Olney, "without dissenting from the general intent and purpose of the majority of the commission," did not approve entirely
of the legislation recommended and reserved "the rtght to suggest
certain modifications of the bill at the comm,ittee hearing." 48
At the legislative hearings on the recommendations of the commission the argument in favor was presented by three members of
the commission and by counsel for the minimum-wage committee.
They relied almost entirely upon the findings of the commission.H
The opposition was represented by counsel for the Arkwright
Club, counsel for the cotton manufacturers of Fall River, the president of the manufacturers' association, a representative of the candy
manufacturers' association, and others. 45 The arguments in general
were that the Massachusetts textile industry was paying as high a
wage as was possible in competition with England and the southern
States; that other Massachusetts industries could not afford additional labor costs ; that the proposed legislation would prevent the
employment of large numbers of women who were incapable of
earning the minimum ; that the minimum would become the maximum; that minimum-wage legislation, if not in itself pure socialism,
was the opening wedge for socialism; that it contravened both the
letter and the spirit of the Constitution; that it violated the fourteenth amendment; that it took away the right of contract from both
the employer and the employee; and, finally, that wage legislation
had been proved economically unsound by all experience to date. 46
42 Ibid., pp. 25-26.
(:; Ibid., p. 27.
" Boston Tra nscript, Feb. 28, 1912.
"'Idem.
' 6 Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mar. 29, 1912; and Mcsweeney, Edward F., The
Case Against the Minimum Wage. Addres~ before the Massachuseits Sta,,te ~o~,rd, ~~
,;"rade, Boston, Feb. 14, 1912.
· · · .. ·.
.. " •, · . .-, '' · · •·. ,· :, · '·

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

While making it clear that he was not opposing the legislation as
such, Richard Olney came forward with the proposal that the law be
made nonmandatory, that is, enforceable only by the pressure of public opinion. The direction of Mr. Olney's dissent was somewhat unexpected by the advocates of mandatory legislation but it found immediate support from the group in the legislature who were not
thoroughly in sympathy with the principle of minimum-wage legislation but felt that the general demand of organized labor and liberal
groups for a remedy for sweated labor must be met.
The disturbances and excitement growing out of the Lawrence
strike, that had resulted from a wage reduction at the time the 54hour law went into effect, increased the feeling of the legislature that
the labor situation was acute and that ,something had t o be done. The
committee appointed by the legislature to look into the causes of t.he
strike was said to have been very much affected by the horror..:; of
industrial life and some of the members were converted to, the minimum-wage bill as a result of this experience.
Moreover, labor had shown real strength at the last election and
its demands could not be ignored entirely. Minimum-wage legislation was one of the least objectionable measures in its programY
The stage was set for some sort of remedial legislation. The advocates of the minimum-wage bill recognized that they could secure ·
enactment of their bill by this legislature if two concessions were
made: First, the postponement of the date when the act should take
effect to a year from the date of its passage; and, second, the substitution for the mandatory clause of a provision that would leave the
enforcement of the act to public opinion-in other words, the acceptance of Richard Olney's suggested amendment. There was considerable dissension within the ranks of the advocates of the bill as
to the stand that should be taken. It was decided finally that the
mere fact of recognition of the principle 0£ legislative determination
of wages was a considerable gain, tha.t the nonmandatory law would
be an m strument of publicity of the greatest importance, and that a
strong commission under the compromise bill could build up a case
for a mandatory law and secure the passage of the necessary amendment at a later session. Furthermore, if advantage were not taken
of the present favoring circumstances the legislative prospects of
securing the desired law within the next few years were none too
promising. So the compromise was reluctantly accepted and the
amended bill was unanimously recommended by the joint committee
on labor, was approved by the committee on ways and means, and was
passed by both houses without debate. The bill was promptly signed
by Goyernor Walsh and the first minimum-wage law in the United
States was placed on the statute books of Massachusetts.4 8
· It was soon found that the law had more strength than ordinarily
was credited to it and opposition to it grew.
a American Fede-ra tion of Labor , Massachusetts br a nch. Proceedings of twent y-seventh
annual conven t ion, 1912, p. 47.
~ Massach usetts. Session laws, 1912, ch. 706. One of the opponents of the measure accounts for the passage of t h e bill as follows : " The so-called minimum-wa ge bill • • •
is a monument to tfte timidity of the legislature, which allowed itself, because of a situation created by the Lawrence strike, to be bullied into passing without debate a bill which
was sent through the general court, because of the belief th a t, under the conditions of
labor excitement then prevailing, failure to approve it might cost votes at the coming
election , and of the feeling that the bill as dra wn did not really amount to anythln~
anyway."

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOB LlWldLATlON FOR WOMEN IN :MASSACHUSETTS

Since the beginning the law has been under almost constant fire
from employers. The constitutionality of the law in its essential
provisions has been tested and twice .u pheld. Four different legislatures have been asked to repeal it. In 1922 a recess commi,ssion was
appointed to consider whether the law should be made mandatory,
"otherwise extended, amended, or repealed." 49 As a result of its
findings this commission advocated a further trial for five years and
recommended "that the department of labor and industries be authorized and directed to gather, in the meantime, such information
and facts as will make it possible to determine more accurately
whether the legislation is justified or required." 50 A minority reported in favor of an amendment making the law mandatory. 51
The legal powers of the commission have been attacked, and finally
the. effectiveness of the law has been jeopardized by transferring its
administration to the board of conciliation and arbitration in the
department of labor and industries. 52
The amendments that the sponsors of the legislation hoped to gain
from succeeding legislatures have been slow of passage. The early
minimum-wage commissions recommended that the law be made
mandatory; the enforcing officials under the reorganization act of
1919 have made the same recommendation; but the legislature has
failed to accept this advice. It has been difficult even to secure minor
amendments recommended by the commission as essential for carrying on its work. Four of the most important amendments passed
gave the commission power to fill vacancies on the wage boards,
power to require employers to post notices of hearings or nominations
for wage boards or minimum-wage orders affecting the employees,
and power to require employer.s upon request to kee-p records of hours
worked as well as wages paid during certain per10ds, and allowed
the commission to reconvene wage boards when changes in cost of
living made it advisable.
The minimum-wage law in Massachusetts has never had a free
field for operation. It has been handicapped by the failure of the
legislature to enact promptly the amendments that the work of the
commission p~oved necessary, by insufficient funds, by the constant
attack of unfriendly employers, and finally by the transfer of administration to a department whose primary interest is conciliation.58
,vith all these handicaps it has determined and largely enforced
minimum-wage rates for women employed in 20. industries, employing approximately 75,000 women and girls, or about one-fifth of all
the female wage earners in the State to whom it is practicable to
apply the minimum-wage law. 54
REGULATED EMPLOYMENTS

It has been seen that Massachusetts was the leader among the
States in establishing by law industrial standards for women's work.
to Ibid., 1922, ch . 43.
110 Massachusetts.
Legislative documents. House No. 1325, 1923, p. 20. Report 01' the
special commission on unemployment, unemployment compensation, and the minimum
wage.
51 Ibid., p. 47.
52 Massachusetts.
Session laws, 1919, ch. 350, sec. 69.
158 Lucas, A. F.
•.rbe Legal Minimum Wage in Massachusetts. Annals 01' the Amerkan
Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, supplement to v. 130, March, 1927.
.
.
p. 72.
Mu. s. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. The Development of Mimmum-Wagt
Laws in the United States, 1912 to 1927. Bul. 61, 1928, pp. 66-68 and 331.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

With one exception-the prohibition of employment immediately before and after childbirth-this movement to protect women from
working conditions detrimental to thei health has been accomplished
by regulation rather than by prohibition. Restrictions as to hours
and to working conditions apply to pr ctically all woman-employing
industries, but there are no occupations in Massachusetts from which
women legally are barred.
At one time there was an unsuccessful attempt made by the metal
polishers' union to exclude women from brass polishing, and in
another instance there was a determined legislative fight by the core
workers to have women prohibited from making cores, but even in
the latter case the legislature prescribed regulation rather than
prohibition.
Work in core rooms.
The movement for the prohibition of the work of women in core
rooms was initiated by the molders' union of Holyoke. One of ,the
large foundries there, according to the union, had " displaced men
in their core rooms by the employment of women." 55 The union
declared that, while it recognized the women's right to labor, nevertheless there were "occupations in which women should not be employed" and core making was such. A resolution instructing the
executive board of the State branch to have a bill introduced at the
next session "calling for the abolishment of female employees in the
core rooms and manufacturing departments of iron foundries " was
adopted at the convention of the State branch in 1911.56
In pursuance of this resolution a bill prohibiting the employment
of women in foundry core rooms was one of the measures upon which
candidates for State office were asked to commit themselves. This
particular question assumed undue importance in the campaign when
it was discovered that one of the candidates for governor who refused
to commit himself employed women as core makers in a foundry
owned by him. His opponent made much of this discovery and it
became one of the live issues of the campaign. 57 Leading citizens
were quoted for and against. Two members of the commission on
minimum-warre boards, one representing labor and the other the
public, visited some of the foundries and reported that the work in
itself was not bad and that the wages were unusually good. They
recommended regulation of the working conditions, not prohibition
of employment. 58 A committee of Congregational ministers interested in industrial questions made an investigation of the foundries
and reported to the same e:ffec;t. 59
The bill came before the legislature early in 1912. It was supported by the vice president of the International Molders' Union,
several representatives of the local molders' unions, and the legislative representative of the State Branch of the American Federation
of Labor. They testified that between 600 and 700 women were employed at core making in the State; that these women were employed
611 American F ederation of Labor, Massachusetts Branch.
annua l convention, 1911, p. 82.
66 Idem.
111 Boston Herald, Nov. 1, 1911.
118 Bo11ton Globe, Oct. 15, Nov. 3, 4, and 6, 1911.
18 lbitl., Nov. 6, 1911.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Proceedings of twenty-sixth

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

f>3

solely because their labor was cheaper than that of men; that the
work was too heavy for women; and that women frequently were
overcome by the core gas and had to be taken home. 60
Opposing the measure were the counsel of the Metal Manufacturers' Association of Massachusetts, a representative of the General
Electric Co., a minister, a forewoman, and a "score or more of women
and girls " employed as core makers.61 The representative of the
metal manufacturers assured the committee that the molders had
misrepresented the case and the work was entirely suitable for
women. He invited the committee to inspect any of the foundries
without notice. The agent of the General Electric Co. said that his
company paid the women the same wages as men and the conditions
of work were satisfactory. Other speakers held that core making
required no more strength than family wash nor more heat than the
kitchen; women were not made ill by the core gases ; the heavy lifting
and pulling was done by men; the wages were better than in most
other occupations; and women were eager to get the few positions
open. 6 2
Members of the labor committee visited some of the foundries.
According to the press, these visits convinced them that core makinf
was" about the best work in which women can be employed * * .
The work was not hard, while the pay was good." 6 3 At any rate,
they refused to report the bill calling for the prohibition of the work
of women in core rooms. They reported instead" a bill which provided for an investi~ation of the subject by the State board of health.
This bill was entirely unsatisfactory to the molders * * *. The
matter was taken up by the international body of the molders, and
a compromise was finally agreed to between the labor committee and
the representatives of the molders." 64
The compromise bill, as passed, provided that the State board of
health "shall investigate" and" make rules regulating" the employment of women in core rooms. The rules were to relate " to the
structure and location of the rooms, the emissions of gases and
fumes from ovens, and the size and weight which women shall be
allowed to lift or work on." 65
Such an investigation was made by the State board 0£ health in
1912, and as a result the following regulations for the industry were
adopted:
Rule 1. Core rooms where women are employed should be so separated from
the foundry that the women workers should not be exposed to the fumes and
gases from the foundry.
Rule 2. Core rooms where women are employed should have a separate
entrance so that women going and coming from work should not have to pass
through the foundry.
Rule 3. The ovens located in the core rooms should be so constructed. and
mechanical devices used when necessary, as to carry off all the fumes generated
in the process of baking the cores.
Rule 4. No woman should be permitted to carry cores from benches to ovens.
Rule 5. Forty pounds should be the maximum weight that a woman should
•be permitted to lift.
Ibid., Feb. 16, 1912.
Idem.
Ibid.; and Springfield Republican, F eb. 15, 1912.
03 Lowell Citizen, Ma r. 6, 1912.
°' America n F eder a tion of Labor, Massachusetts Branch. Proceedings of twenty-seventh
annual convention, 1912, p. 48.
• Massachusetts. Session laws, 1912, ch. 653, secs. 1 and 8.
80
61

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Ll.BOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

Rule 6. The State inspector of health of the health district wherein the
foundry is located shall be empowered to change the maximum limit which a
woman shall be allowed to lift if on personal examination of that woman
working in a core room it shall seem to him safe and proper to do so.

In connection with these rules it was stated that " It does not seem
necessary to prescribe any limit for the size and the weight which
the women shall work on, as such work does not seem injurious to
a woman's health." 66
When the State board of labor and industries was dreated, the task
of carrying out the provisions of this law was transferred to it from
the State board of health. No changes of note were made in the
rules until February, 1917, when an investigation of the foundry
industry led to a complete revision of the old regulations of the
State board of health. 6 7 These new rules provided that-Where rooms in which core ovens are located adjoin rooms in which cores
are made by females, and in which the making of cores and baking of cores
are simultaneous operations, and where the process generates objectionable
gases, smoke and fumes in the room in which cores are made by females, the
board at its discretion may require that a suitable partition be erected or other
suitable means adopted to prevent such objectionable gases, smoke and fumes
in the room in which cores are made by females.
No female shall be permitted to lift any core or number of cores upon one
plate, the total cubical contents of which exceeds one (1) cubic foot, or the
total weight of which, including plate, core box or boxes, exceeds twenty-five
(25) pounds, unless assisted by mechanical appliances that limit her physical
effort to twenty-five (25) pounds.
'
No female shall be permitted to work on any core, the total cubical contents
of which exceeds two (2) cubic feet, or the total weight of which, including
plate, core box or boxes, exceeds sixty (60) pounds. 88

Moving of weights.
The failure of the molders to keep women out of the core rooms
of foundries and the lack of specifications in the law that they obtained, coupled with the pronouncement of the State board of health
that it was not necessary as a health measure to prescribe any limit
for the size and the weight of cores that the women should work on, •
brought forth another bill in 1913-aimed at the foundries. This
bill passed with very little opposition or interest. The law provides
that " Boxes, baskets and other receptacles having dimensions not
less than 2 feet in width, 2½ feet in length and 2 feet in height or
equivalent dimensions," that are to be moved by female employees in
any manufacturing or mechanical establishment, shall be provided
with pulleys, casters, or some other mechanical device so that they
may be moved easily from place to place in such establishments. 69
The following year it was made more practicable by striking out the
dimensions and substituting the phrase "which with their contents
weigh 75 pounds or over." 70
SEATING LEGISLATION

A law requiring that suitable seats be provided for " females " in
manufacturing, mechanical, and mercantile establishments for use.
66 Massachusetts.
State Boarc of Health. Fort y-fourth annual report (for year end,!d
Nov. 30, 1912), 1913, p. 49.
17 Massachusetts.
State Board of Labor and Industries. Bulletin No. 10, 1917.
68 Ibid., secs. 28 and 30, pp. 15 and 16.
• Massachusetts. Session laws, 1913, ch. 426, secs. 1 and 2.
10 Ibid., 1914, ch. 241.
.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS

when the women are "not necessarily engaged in active duties for
which they are employed ~, was passed in 1882. 71 Such a law had
been urged as early as 1874, by the commissioner of labor statistics.
He deplored " the barbarous· practice of keeping shop-girls all day
upon their feet" and suggested remedial legislation. 7 2 Physicians
and others later interested themselves in the passage of a seating law.
The testimony o:f medical men as to the serious results to health from
long hours of standing moved the legislature to action. 73
There was no opposition to the law before its passage and it seems
to have been accepted by the employers without much question. It
was not specific enough to be readily enforced, but factory inspectors
proceeded to make the necessary specifications. Rules requiring that
"there must be two-thirds as many seats as saleswomen; and that in
factories no box or arrangement likely to be used for other purposes,
and so carried away from the worker " was to be considered a seat,
were promulgated and enforced by one inspector and apparently
others followed suit.-74
There were' no changes in the early seating law until 1912, when
it was amended to allow the use of seats " while at work, except in
such cases and at such times as the work can not properly .be performed in a sitting position." 75
This amendment was in line with the general interest being shown
in industrial fatigue and efficiency. It was found that many tasks
could be performed as well, if not better, by a person seated as by
one standing.
The bill was proposed by Representative W. A. O'Hearn and had
the indorsement of the State Branch of the American Federation of
Labor. 76 It passed without attracting public interest.
PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE AND
AFTER CHILDBIRTH ,

The first law in the United Stat~s prohibiting the employment of
women immediately befo e and after childbirth was passed in Massachusetts in 1911. 77 It was introduced by petition of Henry
Abrahams, secretary of the Boston Central Labor Union, and was
support ed by President Eliot of Harvard as well as by representaomen's Educational and Industrial Union and other
t.ives of the
organizations. The physical benefits that would accrue to both
mother and child as a result of such legislation were stressed by the
speakers. No objections were raised and the bill was put through
the legislature. The new law provided that" No woman shall knowingly be employed in laboring in mercantile, manufacturing, or
mechanical establishments within two weeks before or four weeks
after childbirth." 78

I bid. , 1882, ch. 150.
Massachusetts. Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Fifth annual report, 1874, p. 47.
Massachusetts. District Police, Inspection of F actories. Seventh annual report ot
chief, 1885, p. 34.
74 Ibid.
:Fifteenth annual report of chief, 1893, p. 414.
7& Mass2t-husetts.
Session laws, 1912, ch. 96.
76 Am erica n Federati on of Labor, Massachu set ts Branc.li.
Proceedin~s of twent1-sevent1J,
aunnal convention, 1912, p. 49.
77 Massachusett1.
Session laws, 1911, ch. 229,
'llldem.
71

12
71

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CHAPTER 111.-HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR
WOMEN IN NEW YORK
HOURS LEGISLATION

The 60-hour-week law for women under 21 and minors.
New York began its factory legislation for women in 1886 with
a law that prohibited the employment of women under 21 and
minors under 18 for more than 60 hours a week. 1 The agitation for
this bill had been started and carried on for years by the workingmen's assembly,2 organized by the unions of the State in 1864 to
protect the interests of labor before the legislature. However,
nothing effective was done toward securing legislation until other
organizations became interested in the problem of child labor and
gave the technical aid necessary to secure enactment'. 8
In 1882 the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children aroused the New York Medical Society to the need for
regulation of child labor, and together the presidents of the two
organizations, Mr. Elbridge T. Gerry and Dr. Abraham Jacobi,
drafted and had introduced a bill limiting to 10 a day the hours of
emJ?loyment of children. This bill passed the assembly without opposition but was not acted upon by the senate. 4
In 1883 the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
again had a similar bill introduced. This and another bill designed
for the same purpose were defeated because of the bitter opposition
of manufacturers, who claimed that it was impossible to operate
their factories without children, as adults could not be secured at the
wages offered.
More attention was g,ven to the child-labor bills by the legislature
of 1884, for in that year, for the first time, the workingmen's a~,sembly cooperated with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Children in trying to secure enactment. Again they were defeated. 5
Material assistance was given to the cause by the report of the
State bureau of labor statistics to the legislature of 1885 on childlabor conditions in the State. A year's study of the situation led
1 The seating law of 1881 applied to factories, but it provided for no means of enforcement. For practical purposes it was nonexistent prior to 1896 .
. 2 'l'he Workin gmen•s Assembly of tbe State of New York was the parent body of the
present New York State Federation of Labor. In 1898 it amalgamated with the State
Branch of the American Federation of Labor and the name was changed to the Workingmen's Federation of the State of New York . When in 1910 the Knights of Labor as an
organization had disappeared in the _state, the present title was adopted.-O'Hanlon,
John M. When and Where and by Whom the New York State Labor Movement was
Given Life.
New York State Federation of Labor, 1923, p . 4 .
• New York. Assembly documents, No. 97, 18!=16. v. 2. np. 1827-1828. Report an d testimony taken before the special committee of the assembly appointed to investigate the
condition of female la bor in the city of New York; and Fairchild. F. R . Factory Legislation of the State of New York. Publications of the American Economic Association, 3d
aerie!'!, 1905, v. 6, No. 4.
'Fairchild, F. R. Factorf Legislation of the State of New York. Publication, of the
t,meric:rn Economic Association, 3q S(!:rie!J, 1905, v. 61 No. 4, pp. 39-40,
I Ibid., pp. 40-41,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEOISLATION FOR WOMEN lN NEW YORK

•

the commissioner of labor statistics to conclude that State action
was necessary to protect the "physical and moral well-being" of
youth. He recommended that a factory and workshop act similar
to that in effect in Massachusetts be enacted in New York. 6
The impetus to legislation that came from this report .should really
be credited to the workingmen's assembly. Convinced by its many
futile legislative campaigns that if it was to secure legal protection
it must be able to back up its demands by reliable information concerning the evils it was .seeking to remedy, this organization had
urged and secured the creation of the bureau of labor statistics in
1883. No sooner was this bureau organized than the workingmen's
assembly, by vote of its convention, requested that a thoroughgoing
study of child labor be made. The report and recommendations
already noted followed. 7
Con,stant agitation :for the control of child labor aroused a more
general public interest in the question. In 1886 Governor Hill reflected this awakened interest by strongly urging in his annual message to the legislature some sort of regulation of child labor. 8 The
bill of the workingmen's assembly and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was reintroduced and debated at length.
It wa.s strongly opposed by the manufacturers of the State, who
claimed that it would cut down their profits and ruin their business.
They threatened to move their factories to other States if the bill
was passed. They also painted a pitiful picture of the poor families
deprived of the earnings of little children. 9
Despite these protests the legi.slature passed a child-labor bill, but
one that was lower in its standards than the bill introduced. It
limited to 60 hours a week the work of women under 21 and minors
under 18 in factories, but it omitted the provision for a 10-hour day.
It permitted overtime to make up for time lost in repairs. Its provision.s for enforcement also were weak. It provided for two factory inspectors but made no provision for clerical help nor office
space, so the inspectors were obliged to keep their records in their
homes and were practically limited to following up complaints. 10
However, two conscienti~us inspectors with an inadequate law to
enforce proved to be a very effective agency for improving an imperfect labor code. During the next 10 years they put through,
practically without a,ssistance, improvements in enforcement and
extensions which cumulatively made one of the most effective labor
codes in the country.
Extensions and improvements secured by factory inspectors.
The first improvements in the law suggested by the new inspectors
were substantjal. In their annual report for 1886 they recommended
the 10-hour day and the extension of the law to all women employed
in factories and to all mercantile establishments. 11 These recommendations were repeated, added to, and defended for several years
New York. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Second annual rep,ort, 1884, pp. 330-356.
Fairchild, F. R. Factory Legislation of the State of New York. Publications of the
A.merican Economic Association, 3d series. 1905, v. 6, No. 4, pp. 43-44.
8 Ibid., p. 43.
11 Ibid., p. 45.
10 New York.
Session laws, 1886, ch. 409.
u New York. Factory Inspectors. First annual r eport, 1886, pp. 23 and 31.
6

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

and received some recognition in the legislation of 1889., 1890, and
1892. ,
From the beginning the inspectors had laid special emphasis on
the need of a provision limiting daily hours to 10 to prevent the
abuses that the existing law permitted. They cited cases in mailini~
houses where girls and young women were required, two or three
times a week, to work from 24 to 26 hours without rest other than
the time r equired for meals. These .extremely long, irregular working days did not constitute a violation of the law, for the 60-hourweok limit was not exceeded. 12 They showed how some employerg
took advantage of every opportunity to work long hours. In weeks
in which legal holidays occurred it was not uncommon to increase
the hours of work on other days so that the full 60 hours was worked
during the week.
In 1889 a law was passed that was intended to comply with the
recommendations of the inspectors. It designated 10 hours as the
legal limit of a day's work for all minors and women under 21 years
of age employed in factories, but it permitted overtime for refairs
when necessary to avoid stoppage of the ordinary running o the
establi~hment or to allow a shorter · workday on S aturday. It also
prohibited work between 9 p. m. and 6 a. m.13 The 10-hour provision was strengthened further in 1890 by the elimination of the
provision permitting overtime to make up for time lost in repairs
and by the prohibition of employment for more hours in any one
week than would average 10 a day for the whole number of days
worked during the week.14 This made illegal the pr actice of working 11 or 12 hours a day for the first days of the week and closing
entirely on Saturday. To facilitate enfor cement a third change was
made in 1892, by a law that required establishments to keep records
of overtime and to notify the inspectors of the schedule of hours to
be worked during the week in order to make a shorter workday on
Saturday.16
Other amendments made by the law of 1892 clarified the labor
statute and extended its application. The 1889 law defined the term
"manufacturing establishment" as "any place where goods or products are manufactured, repaired, cleaned, or sorted in whole or in
part * * *." Persons or corporations in small towns who employed fewer than five persons or children were not deemed manufacturing establishments. This definition was changed in 1892 to
read "any mill, fa ctory, or workshop where one or more persons are
employed at labor," thus extending the law to small €st.ablishments
outside the cities that previously had been exempted.
The other two important recommendations of the inspectors also
were enacted into law-the extension of the law to all mercantile
establishments in 1896 and its extension to all women in factories in
1899. In the case of the extension to mercantile establishments the
efforts of the inspectors had to be supplemented by the agitation of
other groups interested in store employees before they were successful.
Ibid., p. 22.
New York. Session laws, 1889, ch. 560, secs. 1, 5, and 8.
Ibid., 1890, ch. 398, secs. 1, 3, and .21.
• Ibid., 1892, ch. 673, secs. l, 17, and 21.

12
18
14

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

The mercantile act of 1896.
None of the early labor laws except the seating law of 1881 applied
to mercantile establishments. Each year the factory inspectors
pointed out the unreasonableness of this exclusion, showed the need
for regulating hours and conditions of work in these establishments,
and recommended an extension to them of the factory law. But it
was not until the working women themselves interested the public
m these conditions and gave publicity to them through an investigation by a legislative committee that the legislature took action upon
the measure.
The organization most responsible for securing the support for
this legislation was the Working Women's Society. It had been
formed in 1888 "to found trades organizations in trades where they
do not at present exist." 16 Complamts from members employed in
stores led the society in 1_889 and 1890 to make an inquiry into the
conditions under which saleswomen and cash girls worked in New
York City. During the course of its inquiry the society became convinced that efforts to organize this young, shifting, unskilled group
must be supplemented if immediate results were to be obtained.17 So
part of its energies were directed toward securing public support for
the improvement of conditions. With its findings it was able to
mterest in its c!l.use over 100 leading clergymen of various denominations. In May, 1890, these clergymen, together with the Working
Women's Society, held a large public meeting at Chickering Hall
" to consider t'q.e condition of working women in New York retail
stores." 18 Alice Woodbridge, the most active working woman in
the society, reported the results of her inquiry to the group assembled.
Her recital of excessive hours, no pay for overtime, low wages, ini,anitary working conditions, child labor, and other abuses was concluded with the statement," In all our inquiries in regard to sanitary
conditions and long hours of standing and the effect upon the pealth.
the invariable reply is that after two years the strongest suffer
injury." 19
The outcome of this meeting was the adoption of a resolution
recommending that "a committee be appointed by the chairman
[Hon. Everett P. Wheeler] to cooperate with the Working Women's
Society in the preparation of such a white list, as has been suggested at this meeting, of those houses which deal fairly with their
employees." 20 The deliberations of this joint committee resulted
in the organization of the Consumers' League of the City of New
York, 21 a body that, as will be seen, was instrumental in securing
the public support necessary for the passage of much of the later
legislation affecting women in industry.
In 1891 the Working Women's Society drafted and had introduced a bill regulating the employment of women and children
16 Working Women's Society.
New York City. Annual report, 1892.
17 Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Historical sketch of the pioneer con•
sumers' league. June 8, 1908, p. 3.
18 Lowell, Mrs. Charles Russell [Josephine Shaw Lowell].
Consumers' Leagues. Chrletian Social Union, No. 46, Boston, Feb. 15, 1898, pp. 5, 6, and 7.
10 St"'wart. William Rhinelander.
Philanthropic Work of Josephine Shaw Lowell. New
York, M:icmillan Co., 1911.
20 Preamble and resolutions adopted a~ the mass meeting at Chickering Hall, New York,
May 6, li:l!lO.
rl'Lowell, Mrs. Charles Russell [,Josephine Shaw Lowell]. Consumers' Leagues. Christian Social Union, No. 46, Boston, Feb. 15, 1898, p. 7.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

in murcantile est ablishments.22 Each succeeding year the same bill
was introduced and secured increasing support. The chief bUpporters were the Working Women's Society, the Workingmen's
Assembly, the Consumers' League of the City of New York, and
the factory inspectors. In 1894 the governing board of the consumers' league obtained in support of the bill the signatures of 64
physicians and 218 other persons, men and women of education and
standing in the community. 23 But strong as this support was, it was
not sufficient to offset the opposition of the mercantile interests: and
the bill failed to pass.
In 1895 the bill passed the assembly and in the senate was referred
to the Reinhard committee, which had been appointed earlier in the
session " to investigate the condition of female labor in the city of
New York." 24 This committee conducted a systematic survey of
the mercantile industry, held public hearings, examined in executive session working women picked at random from various stores,
and interviewed experts and interested members of the public. In
the course of its deliberations arguments were heard for and agajnst
the mercantile bill introduced year after year at the request of the
Working Women's Society.
The leading arguments for the bill as presented by the counsel
of the Working ,vomen's Society were that hours of work in mercantile establishments were excessively long and wages were inordinately low; that the workers were mostly young-approximately
seven-tenths of them being under 21 years of age-and because of
their youth were unable to defend themselves against the encroachments of the employer; that sanitary conditions were bad and
seats were not provided; that long hours of standing resulte<l in
permanent physical injury to the women employed; that these conditions would not be improved until the State stepped in to prevent
their continuance. 25
A representative of the retail merchants of New York opposed
the bill on the ground that a store was not like a factory and that
employees therein did not need "protection" as did factory employees; that store work was agreeable and educational; that if the
bill were passed young men and women would find it difficult to
secure employment and their morals would suffer as a consequence. 26
Tp.e opposition of the merchants was sufficient to prevent the
Reinhard committee from recommending the bill in its original form.
Several changes were made that materially weakened the bill as
recommended to the legislature and enacted in 1896. In the main,
the pr.ovisions of the factory act were applied to mercantile establishments. The important variations were that _Saturday was ex•
cepted from the 10-hour-day provision, that all the provisions relat.
ing to hours were suspended each year from December 15 to January
1, that cities and villages of less than 3,000 population were exempted,
and that the enforcement of the law was put into the hands of local
Working Women's Society. New York City. Annual report, 1892.
Consumers' League of the City of New York. Annua l r eport, 1894, p. 11.
Assembly documen ts , No . 97 , 1896, v. 1, p. 3. Repor t a n d testimony
taken before tlle special committee of the assembly appointed to iJ1vestigate the conditloa
of female labor in the city of New York. ·
25 Ibid., v. 2, pp. 1945- 1948.
:zcs Ibid., v. 2, pp. 1934-1940.
22

u New York.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

boards of health. The last provision, inserted at the request of the
merchants, was vigorously opposed by the friends of the measure,
but without avail.
Extension of the factory law to adult women, 1899.
By far the most important of the changes in the law secured by
the factory inspectors was its extension in 1899 to all women employed in factories. 27 This extension had been urged annually by
the inspectors, beginning with their first report in 1886. They urged
it on the ground that the working women themselves wanted the
benefits of this legislation, and, furthermore, that if it applied to all
women the younger ones would not be forced " to prevaricate [ as to
age] in order to retain their situations." 28
In later years stress usually was laid on the necessity for the application of the law to all women in order that it might be enforced
for the younger women and children. 29 Apparently it was largely
on this basis that the law was passed. There seems to have been
little organized public support or opposition to this measure. It
was approved by the Workingmen's Federation of the State of New
York, and this approval, with the arguments of the factory inspectors,
seems to have been sufficient to pass the bill. The federation had
been interested for a long time in the regulation by law of the
working hours of women. It was instrumental in having the bureau
of labor statistics in 1885 make a study of the effect of factory work
upon the health of women. The report of the bureau was noncommittal. It pointed out that, though hours of work were long in some
places and wages usually were low, working wome'n were in as good
health as women in general. 3 0
However, when once the bill was on the statute books it had the
solid support of all labor and welfare groups. Repeated attempts
were made to repeal the law. The most aggressive of these was the
campaign for the Marshall bill, introduced in 1902 at the request
of manufacturers, that sought to remove all restrictions on- hours of
work of adult women in manufacturing establishments. The concerted efforts of the Consumers' League of the City of New York,
labor leaders, settlements, and other interested groups were able to
prevent its passage. 3 1
Hours legislation for women in factories, 1899-1910.
For more than a decade there was little improvement in the
standards of hours legislation secured during the late eighties and
nineties. This was not due to lack of agitation for shorter hours.
The movement for further reduction was almost continuous. It
came from four sources-the factory inspectors, the bureau of labor
statistics, the commissioners of labor, and organized labor.
.
The factory inspectors had begun to recommend shorter hours as
early as 1893. They called attention to the more stringent laws regulating hours of employment of women and children in other States;
they noted the inability of women to organize; they cited as an
instance of the hardships that women endured, because of this lack
New York. Session la ws, 1899, • ch. 192. sec. 77.
New York. Fact o1·y inspect ors. Second annual r eport, 1887, pp. 27-28.
Ibid. Eleventh a nnua l report, 1896, p. 12.
• New York. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Third annual report, 1885, p. 28.
ll Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Annual report, 1902, pp. 16-lT,
2'I

211

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

of organization, the case of the cigar makers ( in this industry men:
through their unions, had secured the 8-hour day, but the unorganized women worked 10 hours a day on work as confining and
laborious as that done by the men) ; they urged that since women
and children could "only look to the legislature to obtain the relief
which nature and existing industrial conditions " demanded :for
them, the ·State should :follow in the lead of other States by providing a shorter workday :for these workers. 32 They recommended
" that 8 hours be made the limit of a day's work for all women and
for children under 16 years of age employed in mills, factories, workshops, and mercantile institutions." 33 After the Illinois 8-hour law
had been declared unconstitutional they changed their recommendation to an 8-hour law for women under 21 and children under 16.
and asked for an investigation as to the :feasibility of a general
8-hour law applying to men as well as to women. In subsequent
years they made the extension of the hours law to all workers, irrespective of sex, one of their chief recommendations. 34
Their efforts were supplemented in 1901 by the study made by the
bureau o:f labor statistics of the 8-hour movement both here and
abroad. 85 In this study the history of the movement for reduction
of hours was traced and the practicability of the 8-hour day and the
methods for securing it were considered in detail. The commissioner concluded his report with a strong plea for 8-hour legislation
for women and children, for men in dangerous occupations, and in
fact for all classes that could jump the constitutional hurdles. 8"'
Com.m issioner of Labor John McMackin added his voice to the
demand for decreased hours in his reports for 1903 and 1904. H e
noted the progress toward the shorter workday; various unions had
secured shorter hours; the new child-labor law :forbade the employment of children for more than 9 hours a day; and it seemed
"reasonable to expect the 9-hour day to become general in all
manufacturing industries" in this country within a few years, as
it was already in England. In view o:f this tendency he recommended that the 9-hour law · for children be extended to all women
and minors employed in factories. 37
He argued further that as long as women were allowed to work
10 hours a day it was difficult to make certain that children ceased
work at an ear lier hour than did their elders.38 According to the
commissioner, New York industry would not be handicapped by a
54-hour law for women, for its competitors, Massachusetts and Rhode
Island, already had 58-hour laws, New Jersey had a 55-hour law,
and England a 55½-hour law. Moreover, the 9-hour day predominated in the clothing and tobacco trades, two of the industries
that employed the largest numbers of women. Only in the textile
mills would reduction in hours be felt seriously, and even in that
industry 18 per cent of the employees worked less than 58 hours a
week. 39
New York. ·Factor y in spectors. Eighth annual report, 1893, pp. 25 and 26.
Ibid., p. 100.
Ibid. Tentb annual report, 1895, p. 122.
85 New York.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. EigbteeJ:!tb annual report, 1900, p. v1.
a, Idem.
ttt New York.
Depa rtment of Labor. Third annual l'eport of commissioner, 1903, p. 27.
38 Idem.
89 New York.
Department of Labor. Third annual report of commissioner, 1903, pp.
112

27-28.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

Meanwhile the workingmen's federation, at the reque;5t of the textile unions, introduced in 1901 and every year thereafter a bill providing for a 9-hour day and a 54-hour week for all women employed
in factories. These bill were so vigorously opposed by the textile
interests that they received little consideration from the legislature.' 0
The whole question of labor legislation for women was brought
prominently to the fore in 1906 by a strong criticism of the labor
laws then in effect, because of their unenforceability.41 This indictment was the result of a study of working women in factories
made by Mary van Kleeck, then fellow of the College Settlement
Association. She had the cooperation of 18 settlements, the .Alliance
Employment Bureau, the .Association of \V orking Girls' Clubs, the
Women's Trade Union League, and the Consumers' League of the
City of New York. Women were found to be working long hours,
as long as 78 in a week, in spite of the 60-hour-week law.
The labor department was not blamed for this situation; the law
itself was held to be at fault, for it was almost impossible to prove
a violation. To do this the inspector must be able to prove the
number of hours worked on each one of the six days in the week,
and the total number of hours for the week. Each day's work of
10 hours could be performed any time between 6 a. m. and 9 p. m.
Furthermore, 10 hours a day could be exceeded so as to make a
shorter workday at the end of the week. The last provision alone
was enough to nullify the law, but when this was combined with the
other loose provisions the law was practically a dead letter from
the standpoint of enforcement. . The only way to secure a conviction was for the workers to complain and testify, and this they
feared to do.
To remedy these evils the following legislation was suggested:
.A law prescribing a definite maximum not to be exceeded in any day either
·' to make a shorter workday on Saturday" or for any other qualifying
reason.
A la w defining a legal period within which the working day must fall and
not greatly exceeding the prescribed maximum wor.:ing day, such as from
6 a. m. to 7 p. m., in order that night work may be prevented and the enforcement of the maximum day may be possible. 42

The wide publicity given Miss van Kleeck's study was responsible
in part for the recommendations made by Commissioner of Labor
Sherman and embodied in the Prentice bill of 1907. These recommendations were made by the commissioner in good faith in an effort
to remedy the abuses, improve the standards, and make the law
• more readily enforceable. He was quite unprepared for .the storm
of protest from both the friends and the enemies of labor legislation.
The bill raised existing standards in three respects : It established
a 6-day week; it definitely limited hour.s to 12 a d,ay, when the existing law had allowed a maximum of 14 hours in order to make a
shorter workday on Saturday; and it prohibited the employment of
wome:c and minors by two or more establishments for more hours per
day than the law allowed for one establishment.
4AI Workin~men' s Federation of the State of New York.
Proceedings of conventions of
1904 a ncl 1~05.
Q Va n Kleeck, Mary.
Working Hours of Women in Factories. Charities and the Commons , New York, 1906, v. 17, pp. 13-21.
4ll Jbid., p. 21.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

The value of other provisions was seriously questioned. Chief
among these qu~tionable provisions were the repeal of the section
limiting the average hours per working day to 10, the substitution
of a time book for advance notice of overtime, and the extension of
hours for seasonal industries to 66 a week.
The commissioner held that the provision limiting average hours
per working day to 10 "was unreasonable, for a hio-her average can
be ,snstained without injury or weariness for 4 or 5 days a week than
for 6 * * * it was absurd in practice, for it forbade 55 hours'
work in 5 days if nothing were worked on the sixth day, but allowed
not only 55 but even 59 hours' work in 5 days if 1 hour were worked
on the sixth." 4 3 The consumers' league opposed the repeal of this
section because it might allow a greater number of overtime hours to
be required in a given number of days than wa,s the case under the
existing law. 44
Friends of labor legislation also opposed the substitution of a
time book for advance notice of overtime that would be required during the week. The reason given by the commissioner :for this change
was " that many factories can not possibly fix their working hour,s
weekly in advance" as was required under the law, but if they kept
"correct time books" the purpose of the law would be equally well
accomplished. 45
All interested parti~s opposed the e·xt ension o:f hours in seasonal
indu,stries to 66 a week. The canners and candy manufacturers were
not to be satisfied with less than a 70-hour week, 46 and the organizations instrumental in securing hours legislation opposed the extension
of hours for any industry.
The controversy over these section,s led to a conference between
Commissioner Sh~erman and representatives of organizations interested in improving labor laws. The list included the Consumers'
League of the City of New York, the People's Institute, the Charity
Organization Society, the Women's Trade Union League, the
Woman's Municipal League, the United Garment Workers. the
Typographical Union, the Association of Neighborhood Workers,
and various settlement houses. As a result of the conference the
representatives present agreed not to oppose the recommendations of
the commissioner except the one that extended hour,s in seasonal
industries to 66 a week. 47
Neither did they support the recommendations when the bill came
before the legislature. They were of the opinion that if the law
was to be amended it should go much further in improving conditions.48 The workingmen's federation held that it was working· for
a 9-hour day for women and could not support a bill that continued
'3

New York.

p. 1.48.

Department of Labor.

Seventh a nnual report of commissioner, 1907,

" Consumers' League of the City of New York. Unpublished correspondence with Commissioner of Labor Sherman, Jan. 28, 1907.
45 New York.
Depa rtmen t of La bor. Seventh annual r eport of commissioner, 1907,

p. 1.48.

48 Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Unpublished correspondence with Russell Sage Foundation, May 20, 1907.
' 7 Unpublished proceedings of conference with Commissioner of Labor Sherman on subject of assembly bill 79, F eb. 17, 1907.
"'Unpublished minutes of meeting called for consideration of assembly bill 79, Feb. 14,
1907.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

the 10-hour day. 49 All the organizations united in opposition to the
extension of hours in certain seasonal industries to 66. The protest
against this provision was sufficiently strong to prevent action upon
the bill as a whole, and when Commissioner Sherman realized this
he reluctantly agreed to withdraw the provision, and the bill passed
the assembly in the amended form. 50 In the senate the manufacturing interests succeeded in having the amendment rewritten into the
bill. But public protest again led to its elimination.51 The bill
became law without the extension of hours for seasonal industries. 52
Mercantile hours legislation, 1896-1912.
The compromise measure enacted in 1896 as a result of the investigation of the Reinhard committee secured the 10-hour day and
60-hour week for women under 21 and minors employed in mercantile establishments. This law was practically killed by the legislature that enacted it, for enforcement was handed over to local
boards of health instead of to the labor department.· For the first
year enforcement was fairly good, but thereafter no provision was
made for special inspectors and the law was violated on every hand.
Each year the Consumers' L eague of the City of New York, assisted
later by the New York Child Labor Committee, had bills introduced
providmg for the transfer of enforcement to the department of
labor. Governor Roosevelt indorsed this change by recommending
it in his annual message in 1899.53 But the support was not sufficient to overcome the vigorous opposition of the retail merchants,
who always prevented action by the legislature. 54
More far-reaching changes in the law were sought in a bill introduced in 1907 at the request of the Consumers' League of the City
of New York and the New York Child Labor Committee. 55 This
bill was an attempt to secure for all women employed in stores the
60-hour week and 10-hour day and the night-work prohibition that
had been secured for women in factories in 1899. It provided for
the repeal of the Christmas exemption and transferred administration of the law to the department of labor. In addition to the consumers' league and the New York Child Labor Committee the chief
supporters of the proposed legislation were Commissioner of Labor
Sherman, the National Consumers' League, the National Child L abor
Committee, the Association of Neighborhood Workers, the State
Charities Aid, and the workingmen's federation. 56 They agreed that
the law governing the labor of women and children in stores established standards far below those established in factories and far below
proper standards, with the result that there was unfair discrimination and serious difficulty in enforcing the factory law. Further' 9

Workingmen's Federation of t he State of New York.

5, 1907.

Legi slative News, No. 14, Apr.

Unpublished correspondence between Lawrence Veiller and Assemblyman J. W. Wadsworth, jr., Mar. 13, 1907.
51 Menace to the Labor Law: Protection to Women and Minors in Factories Seriously
Endan ger ed. Printed statement issued b:v 20 organ izations . New York, May 3, 1907.
52 New York.
Session laws, 1907. ch. 507, secs. 77 and 78.
53 New York.
Assembly documents, No. 2, 1899, v. 1, pp. 8-9.
M Consumers' League of the City of
ew York. Hi ~torica l slrn tch of the pioneer consumer s' league, June 8, 1908, pp. 8-fl aud 17-18; and annual r eport, 1908, op. 33-34.
55 Ibid.
Annual report, 1907, p. 3R.
111 New York.
Assembly bill No. 1738, 1907.
60

91970°-32--6

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

mor~, they contended that it was incumbent upon the St9,te to prevent young girls from being worked until 1 or 2 o'clock in the
morning during the Christpias rush, as had been done often. 57
The bill was opposed by representatives of associations of retail
merchants of New York and Buffalo, who held that such a law
would not allow large stores to remain open in the evenings during
the Christmas rush, thus entailing heavy losses, and that they would
have to close on Saturday nights, which would be against prevailing
custom. They asked for an amendment allowing them to keep open
on Saturday evenings and for a period during the Christmas holidays. Despite the strong support behind this bill it was never reported out of committee. The legislature probably feared tbat the
higher courts would uphold the lower courts in declaring unconstitutional the night-work provision of the 60-hour-week legislation
for women in factories and did not wish to pass a similar statute
until the question of constitutionality had been decided finally. 58
The legislature had no sooner adjourned than a decision adverse
to the night-work law was handed down by the court of appeals.
(People v. Williams, 189 N. Y. 131.) The public press misconstrued
this decision and announced that the whole hours law for women
was wiped out by the courts. The department of labor tried to make
it clear that this was not the case, but in spite of all its efforts the
law limiting daily and weekly hours was utterly disregarded. 59
There was no use in taking violations to the courts, for the decision
in the Williams case made the constitutionality of all labor legislation
for women doubtful, and judges were loath to convict, even in
clear cases. Demoralization in the· administration of the laws continued until 1908: when the United States Supreme Court, in the
case of Muller v. Oregon, declared that a State had the right to
limit the working hours of women in the interest of public health. 60
During the legislative session 0£ 1908 and before the Supreme
Court decision had been handed down, the proponents of hours
legislation thought it advisable to push for better enforcement rather
than extension. They concentrated, therefore, on the bill introduced by Labor Commissioner Williams for the transfer of enforcement of the mercantile law from the local boards of health
to the department of labor. The commissioner advocated as an
administrative measure the bill formerly sponsored by private
agencies, and he appeared personally before the legislature to request
its enactment. 61 He was supported by representatives of the workingmen's fed~ration, the New York Child Labor Committee, the
National Child Labor Committee, and the National, State, New
York City, and Buffalo Consumers' Leagues. Excommissioner Sherman and Health Commissioner Darlington were quoted as favoring the measure. Opposition to the bill came from representatives
_o f the Association of Retail Dry Goods Merchants of New York
m Consumt>rs' League of the City of New York. Printed statement entitled "A bill to
Improve the conditions of labor of women and children in mercantile establishments.
1907," assembly bill No. 1738.
GS Hall, George A.
Child Labor Legislation. Charities and the Commons, New York.
1907, v. 18, pp. 435-436.
119 New York.
Department of Labor. Seventh annual report of commissioner, 1907,
p. 1.47.
80 Muller v. r>regon, 208 U. S. 412.
n Consumer..- League of the City of New York. Annual report, 1908, p. 34.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISL ATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

City and a similar organization in Buffalo. They argued that inspection by the health department was thorough and there was
no need for amending the law. They held that if this bill were
passed department stores would be subjected to dual inspection and
there would be an unnecessary conflict in orders. 62
The bill failed to pass at the regular session but was revived in the
extraordinary session by Governor Hugh~s, who urged its immediate
passage in his messa~e. 68 It became law in 1908. 64
Encouraged by this victory, the Consumers' League of the City
of New York, supported by the labor commissioner, again introduced the 1907 bill extending the law to all women, providing for
a 10-hour day between 7 a. m. and 10 p . m., and repealing the holiday
exemption. The advocates succeeded in getting the bill reported
favorabl by the senate judiciary committee, but no action was taken
by the assembly. 65
The commissioner of labor and the Consumers' League of the City
of 1. ew York, the chief advocates of mercantile legislation, decided
again to use the piecemeal method for securing improvement in
the law. Consequently, in 1910 they dropped their recommendation
for extension of the law to all women and concentrated on improving existing provisions. T he bill introduced that year would have
limited the employment of women under 21 to 6 days a week .and
10 hours a day ( except Saturday, when 12 hours was to be allowed),
and would have abolished the Christmas exemption. 66 As finally
passed by the legislature it was hardly recognizable by it_s friends.
The only improvement made was to cut down the period of unregulated hours so that the hours limitation should not apply between
December 18 and December 24 ( instead of December 15 to January
1) and on Saturdays. 67 This provision was agreed to by the Association of Retail Dry Goods Merchants of New York City, which
accounts for its passage, while the opposition of this group to the
other improvements suggests the reason for their elimination. 68
Undaunted, the labor commissioner, supported by the Consumers'
League of the City of New York and the New York Child Labor
Commit.tee, took further steps toward improvement the following
year. This time the bill provided for a 6-day week and the posting
of hours in order to make the law more easily enforced. 69 But no
progress was made on this measure. The same bill was reintroduced in 1912,70 but little was done to aid its passage, for the energies
of all the interested groups were concentrated on securing the passage of the 54-hour law for women employed in factories. The
chances of success were reasonably good and the proponents probably
felt that if women in factories were given the 54-hour week they
would be in a strong position to ask for the extension of the law to
62 New York Sun, May 21, 1908.
Department stores oroteflt against bill providing tor
inspection by State labor commissioner.
63 New York.
Assembly Journal, 1908, v. 3, Appendix II, p. 5.
64 New York.
Session laws, 1908, cb. 520, sec. 171.
66 ConsumMs' League of the City of New York.
Annual report, 1909, p. 36.
66 Ibid.
Unpublished report of committee on legislation, March, 1910.
07 Ibid.
Annual report, 1910, p. 24.
68 New York.
Department of L abor. Tenth annual report of commissioner. H '•10, pp.
30-31.
69 Consumers' League of the City of New Yor k.
Unpublished report of comm: Uee 011
legislation. April, 1911.
'° Ibid. Unpublished leiislative su mmary, 191:il.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

women employed in mercantile establishments. Furthermore, the
appointment of the fac.tory investigating commission offered a possible means for securing further official support for this legislation
in the near future.
The New York State Factory Investigating Commission.
The need for public regulation and control of factory conditions
was brought vividly to the fore by the Triangle ·waist Factory fire
of March 25, 1911, and the investigations growing out of it. In this
tragic fire 145 persons, mostly young girls and women, lost , their
lives. The factory doors were locked, the fire escapes barred, the
workers trapped. The death toll was consequently heavy. The inci.dent made a deep impression upon the working people. Several
hundred thousand men and women were in the funeral procession.
Eighty thousand of them marched the streets of New York rom 10
in the morning until 4 in the afternoon as a protest against the
utter disregard of human life shown by employers such as the proprietors of the Triangle Waist Factory.7 1
The day after the fire a meeting of representatives of various
organizations was held at the omen's Trade Union League to consider ways to avert such tragedies in the future. They appointed
a committee to call a mass meeting of citizens. Out of this mass
meeting, held at the Metropolitan Opera House on April 2, grew
the Committee on Safety of the City of New York. 72 " A superficial
examination " by the committee on safety " revealed conditions in
factories and manufacturing establishments that constituted a daily
menace to the lives of the thousands of working men, women, and
children. Lack of precautions to prevent fire, inadequate fireescape facilities, insanitary conditions that were insidiously undermining the health of the workers were found existing everywhere." 73
Upon the basis of these facts leading citizens joined the Committee
on Safety of the City of New York, the Fifth Avenue Association of
the City of New York, and other organizations in urging the governor and the legislature to appoint a committee to make a thorough investigation into the general conditions of factory life. The
factory investigating commission was provided for by a law passed
June 30, 1911. 74
The commission appointed under this law was composed of 9
persons, of whom 2 were members of the senate, appointed by the
president of the senate, 3 were members of the assembly, appointed

Women's •rra de Union League of New York. Annu al report, 1911-12.
Idem.
New York State Factory Investigating Commission. Preliminary report, 1912, v. 1,
p. 13.
74 John M. O'Hanlon, ch a irman of the legislative committee of the New York State F ed·
eration of Labor, account8 fol' the appointment of the factory investigating commission as
follows : " In 1911 • • • the State labor department • • • occupied a small
space under the southern eaves of the capitol, the labor commissioner's office being ap·
proached by a ladder leading to a mezzanine floor, bis insufficiE:nt st aff of inspectors working out from the floor below amid the paraphernalia of records being bandi ed by a few
clerks. The State federation of labor bad repeatedly Introduced bills to provide for more
(actory Inspectors and more equipment for enforcing the la bor laws. Failure to secure
enactment of these bills was followed by the federation drafting and having introduced a
bill permitting the State labor commissioner to appoint members of labor unions to act
as factory Inspectors, their salaries and expenses to be paid by organized labor. This bill,
introduced by Assemblyman Samuel Prince, a union cigarmaker from New York, was no1
passed, but it forced the issue and finally brought about the enactment of the legislatiop
creating the State factory investigating commission."-O'Hanlon, John M. When and
Where and by Whom the New York State Labor Movement Was Given Life. New York
State Federation of Labor. 1923, p. 23.
71
72

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

by the president of the assembly, and 4 were representatives of the
public at large, appointed by the governor. They were Senators
Robert F. Wagner and Charles M. Hamilton, Assemblymen Alfred
E. Smith, Edward D. Jackson, and Cyrus W. Phillips, and Mary E.
Dreier, Simon Brentano, Robert E. Dowling, and Samuel Gompers.
Robert F. Wagner was elected chairman and Alfred E. Smith
vice chairman. Abram I. Elkus was selected as chief counsel
and Bernard Shientag as his assistant. 75
The duties of the commission were to investigate fire hazards,
ventilation, sanitation, occupational diseases, tenement-house manufacture, hours of labor, and other related questions, and to recommend "such new legislation as might be found necessary to remedy
defects in existin? legislation, and to provide for condit10ns at present unregulated.' 76 To carry out these duties the commission was
given all the powers of a legislative committee. It could compel
the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers
and could appoint the necessary staff to carry on its work.
The commission's activities were more prolonged and more farreaching than had at first been expected. Each year, beginning with
1912, it reported to the legislature the results of its investigations
and proceedings and each year it was continued in office to complete
its work. The final report was submitted to the legislature in February, 1915. In the first two years alone the commission held more
than 50 public hearings, examined approximately 500 witnesses, and
took over 7,000 pages of testimony. "The investigations conducted
by the commission during this period covered several hundred
thousand men, women, and children working in the different industries of the State." 77
The extent and thoroughness of the undertaking were made possible by the voluntary services of the commissioners and of many
public-spirited citizens and interested social and civic organizations. The report of the commission's activit.ies submitted to the
legislature was embodied in 11 large volumes.
With the commission's investigations and recommendations to the
legislature began what has been called "the golden era in remedial
:factory legislation " in the State of New York. Its first year's
activities resulted in the addition of 8 new laws to the labor code,
followed by 25 the next year, and 3 in 1914. These laws completely
reorganized the department of labor and gave it a sufficient staff
to carry out the many new duties thrust upon it by additional legislation.18 Women and minors in mercantile establishments were
brought under the 9-hour-day provision, canneries were brought
under the labor law and working hours for their women and minor
employees were limited, and night work for women and children was
prohibited: Other legislation of interest to this study brought about
by the recommendations of the commission provided for seats with
backs for women employees, prohibited the employment of women
immediately after childbirth, and regulated the· employment of
women in core rooms. 79
75

New York State Factory Inves tigating Commission.

p. 13.
76 Ibid ., p . 16.
77 Ibid.
F ourth report, 1915, v. 1, p. 5.
,.. Ibid., po. 3-10.

"Idem.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Preliminary report, 1912,

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

The 54~hour-week law of 1912.
The 54-hour-week law of 1912, while not passed upon the recommendation of the factory investigating commission, must be attributed in
large measure to the educational work done by the commission.
The movement for the 54-hour week was started in 1901 by the
workingmen's federation, in behalf of the textile workers. It was
given impetus by various commissioners of labor, who urged its
passage both as an added protection to women workers and as a
means for aiding the enforcement of the child-labor law. But, on
the whole, the workingmen's organization played a lone hand in the
support of this legislation. Each year the federation had the bill
reintroduced but each year it made no headway. Finally in 1910
it was given a hearing in the assembly. No opposition appeared,
and the bill was favorably reported by the committee. It was
straightway recommitted by the assembly and a second hearing was
held. This time two representatives of textile manufacturers from
Utica appeared against it and the bill died in committee. 80
The following year the federation secured the interest and support of other agencies for this bill. The most important of these
were the Women's Trade .Union League and the Consumers' League
of the City of New York. 81
·
The Women's Trade Union League had been formed in 1904 to
promote unions in unorganized trades, and it had concentrated its
efforts on this work during the early years of its existence. Gradually the leaders began to realize that the courts and the legislature
were instruments that had an important effect upon their efforts
to organize. "It was a recognition of the possibility of using this
influence as a helpful rather than a restricting and hampering one
as it has been in the past'' that actuat ed the league in formmg a
legislative committee in December, 1910. The appeal of the federation persuaded the league to undertake the campaign for the 54-hour
bill as its first legislative measure. 82
The league set about this task immediately. The first step was
the formation of the joint labor legislative conference, composed of
the legislative committees of the New York central labor bodies,
including those of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, the United
Hebrew Trades, the Socialist Party, and the Women's Trade Union
League. The object of this conference was "to indorse, support,
and agitate for any labor bill which any of the bodies represented
proposes and also to originate bills which the conference decided
necessary for the interest and protection of labor." They also proposed to watch labor legislation, to work for the defeat of members
of the leITTslature who opposed or failed to support labor measures,
and "to familiarize the workers with their power to intro.duce legislation for their own benefit and to make them realize the present
devious methods of the administration of the law." 83 One of the.
first actions of t~is conference was to support the 54-hour law.
80
New York State FPdera tion of Labor. Proceedings of convention, 1910, p. 94.
81
Women's Tra de Union L eague of New York. Unpublished correspondence with President Harris, New York State Federation of Labor, January, 1911; and Consumers' League
of the City of New York. Unpublished r eport of committee on legislation, January, 1911.
82
Women's Trade Union League of New York. Annual report of legislative committee,
March, 1911.
88
Life and Labor. National Women's •.rrade Union League of America, Chicago, April,
1911, p. 125.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

When the bill came up for a hearing be:fore the assembly c1,mmittee on labor in 1911 the array of supporters was unprecedented.
A large union delegation from all over the State appeared. John
Golden, president of the United Textile Workers of America, was
the chief speaker in favor of the bill. He was supported by representatives of the Consumers' League of the City of New York
and of the New York Child Labor Committee, a manufacturer of
Cohoes, and a group of union women who urged legislation to protect their unorganized sisters. 84 Although they did not appear at
the hearing, a large number of clergymen, educators, and other
prominent persons had signified to the legislature their approval of
this measure. 86
Opposing the measure were manufacturers of Cohoes, Troy, Utica,
and Amsterdam, the leading textile centers of the State, and the
attorney for the canners, who urged exemption for the canning
industry. 8 6
Again the bill was reported to the assembly. An attempt was
made to weaken it by n.n amendment that would have given the
commissioner of labor authority to suspend upon request all regulations regarding hours. But a vigorous campaign on the part of
the proponents of the measure led to the defeat of the amendment.
The .original bill finally passed the assembly by a vote of 86 to 40.
Such strong legislative support for a labor bill had not been known
in years. 87
In the senate the bill did not meet with final success. The senate
hearing was attended by both parties in full force. Florence Kelley,
the general secretary of the National Consumers' League, was added
to the list o.f speakers in favor of the bill. The opposition was
strengthened by the appearance .of the collar manufacturers of Troy,
with 100 women employees who protested against the bill "under
the pretext that if the bill passed it would deprive them of their
Saturday half holiday," and the candy manufacturers of Buffalo,
who joined the canners in requesting an exemption for seasonal industries. Although the bill was favorably reported to the senate.
the opponents prevented it from coming to a vote be:fore the end
of the session. 88
This defeat led to a storm of protest from the State federation of
labor. The 54-hour bill was made the big issue at the State convention at Oswego in Sei:)t ember. Printed on banners, badges, and
programs were the words, " We demand the immediate passage of
the 54-hour bill for women." 89 By vote of the convention the senate leaders were notified that unless they passed this legislation at
their adjourned session labor would hold responsible the dominant
influences of the legislature and attempt to secure their defeat at
the next election. 90
8' New York State F ede.·a tion of Labor.
Proceedings of convention, 1911, p. 87.
811 Women's Tra de Union League of New York.
Unpublished correspondence, F ebruary
1911.
86 New York Sta t e F ederation of Labor.
Proceedings of convention, 1911, p. 87.
87 Consum ers' L eague of the City c-f New York.
Unpublished report of committee on
legisla'tion, May, 1911.
ss New York State F ederation of Labor. Proceedings of convention, 1911, p. 27.
811 Ibid.
Un published press material, 1911.
eo Ibid. Unpublished letter of committee. addressed to senate leaders, Septembe=, 1911.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR L E GISLATION FOR WOMEN

The plans of the State federation of labor to have the bill reintroduced in the opening days of the 1912 legislature were ha~pered by
the action of the United Textile Workers. The textile workers were
trying to have the bill amended . to exempt canneries because they
felt certain that it would pass if this exemption were made. 91 Their
position was opposed by the officers of the federation and by the
Consumers' League of the City of New York, and finally the bills
were introduced in both houses without the exemption of canneries.
But subsequently the assembly bill was amended to give the canners
oomplete exemption between June 15 and October 15. Joint hearings
were held on both these bills on March 6.
The speakers in behalf of the measure represented the New York
State Federation of Labor, the United Textile Workers of America,
the Consumers' L eague of the City of New York, and the New York
Child Labor Committee. The opposition was represented by textile
manufacturers, confectioners, and canners. The arguments against
the legislation were the same that had been advanced for years against
this bill: That it would hurt business, would drive business out of the
State, would deprive women and children of their right to work 10
hours a day, and, if passed, would be declared unconstitutional. 9 2
The protest of the opposition fell on deaf ears. The people as a
whole and the members of the legislature had been educated over a
period of years to believe that such legislation was desirable. During
the past autumn and winter this education had been more nearly completed as a result of the investigations and hearings carried on by the
factory investigating commission. Furthermore, and probably most
important, in carrying out the wishes of the electorate the legislative
leaders as members of the commission had learned much as to conditions of work and the need for remedy. ·when the 54-hour bill came
up for passage, these two men-Senator Robert F. Wagner and Assemblyman Alfred E. Smith-gave it such intelligent and consistent
support that they were able to overcome, at least in part, the :eolitical
maneuvers resorted to by the opposition to prevent the bill from
coming to a vote.
Support was centered on the senate bill, which made no exemption
for the canning industry. This bill passed the senate but could not
be brought to a vote in the assembly. Finally, in the closing hours
of the session, friendly legislators, ably assisted by Frances Perkins,
legislative representative of the Consumers' League of the City of
New York, succeeded in passing the assembly bill, which exempted
canneries, and having it favorably acted upon by the senate. 93 When
the bill came before the governor, considerable pressure was brought
by both sides. Labor Commissioner "\Villiams submitted a memorandum in which he stated, " without :fear o:f any untoward consequences
to the industrial and commercial interests o:£ our State, I urge the
approval of this bill." 94 After considerable delay the governor
signed the measure. 95
91 Ibid.
Unpublished letter to Women's Trade Union League from President Harris.
New York, J anuary, 1912.
P2 Ibid.
Proceedings of convention , 1912, p. 62.
93 Ibid.
Legislative Labor News, Apr. 5, 1912, p. 6.
94
Ibid. Proceedings of convention, 1912, p. 24.
1115 New York.
Session la ws, Hl12, ch. 539,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

Mercantile hours legislation, 1913-1927.
The factory investigating commission undertook an extensive
investigation of the mercantile industry to determine the conditions
under which women were employed. It found that long hours of
. standing, nervous strain, and poor ventilation were characteristic of
·: the occupation of the saleswoman. These conditions were intensified
by long hours of toil. The regular hours of work were not excessive,
, but most stores kept open on Saturday n~ht, which meant long hours
_: on one day of the week. During the vhristmas holidays 80 to 90
~ hours a week was not uncommon. In periods of stock taking and
· special sales overtime also was resorted to; Sunday work was not
( unusual. 96 As a result of this preliminary investigation the commission reported that it had found no reason~ why the mercantile indus, try should be favored above manufacturrng; that, on the contrary,
' the conditions in stores called for immediate remedial legislation;
: that it had not had time to study conditions in smaller establishments
1 and in all types of stores and wished to go still further into the whole
, subject before recommending legislation.9 7
It was foiled in this desire by the introduction and passage of a
bill providing that the hours of labor of women and minors in
mercantile establishments be limited in cities of the second class to
54 a week and elsewhere to 60 hours a week. Although unsupported
by labor or any of the other organizations interested, this bill became
law in 1913. 98
This law was roundly criticized because of its discrimination
gain~t cities of the second class. It was felt that from the standoint of health there was no justification for such a difference in
ndard. The commission, therefore, without further study, hast~ned to recommend the amendment of this law to apply to all women
mployed in mercantile establishments in all cities and villages havg a population of 3;000 or over. 99 This recommendat10n was
arried out by the legislature in 1914. For the fir.st time in the
istory of the State the work of women of all ages in the larger
oties and towns, whether employed in factories or in stores, was
l ought under practically the same hours regulation.
· From the standpoint of its backer s the new law was a distinct
inprovement over the old, but it still had one serious defect-it
a'.lowed unlimited hours during the week before Christmas. Freq)ent efforts to remove this exemption have been made but it remains
ot the statute books.
• he same legislature that passed the hours law for women in
mrrcantile establishments passed an amendment to the public health
lav that was designed to exempt registered pharmacist,s from the
privisions o:f the day-of-rest law. 1 The amendment, however, was
cotstrued by the attorney general 2 as removing all restrictions of
hd!trs of women and children employed in drug stores.

,
I

ew York State Factory Inves tigating Commission.
264-,~90.
97\bid., p. 289 .

Second report, 1913, v. 1, pp.

..s Ibid. '!'bird report, 1914, p. 53.
Idem.
New York. Session laws, 1914, ch. 514.
2 New York.
Department of Labor. Fourteenth annual report of commlssloner, 191f,
p. 87.
99

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

The drug stores immediately took advantage of this privilege.
Women and children were employed at any hour tha.t suited the
w nvenience of the proprietors. The result wa,s that merchants
complained bitterly that these drug stores, which in many instances
were conducting a mercantile business in addition to the selling of "'
drugs, were competing unfairly in the labor market. The commis- ·
sioner of labor and the Consumer,s' League of the City of New York
both urged the repeal of this amendment to the public-health law
on the plea that it was discriminatory and unneces,sary legislation. 3
B efore the law was repealed, however, the labor department ruled
that drug stores that sold things other than drugs were to be classified
as mercantile establishments for purposes of law enforcement. Ac- -f
cordingly, in 1918 they began to enf rce the mercantile law in these
drug stores. Some of the proprietors refused to comply on the
ground that they were exempted from the hours legislation by the
public-health statute of 1914. 4 A case was taken to the courts, appealed, and reappealed, until finally-in 1919-the highest State
court upheld the lower courts in a decision that drug stores that sold
articles other than drugs, medicines, chemicals, etc., were mercantile 1.
establishments within the meaning of the labor law. 5
After this court decision the groups interested in having women
pharmacists exempted from the mercantile law turned their attention to having this particular law amended by the legislature. The
industrial survey commission finally drew up such an exemption and ·.
introduced it in the legislature in 1928. The bill, which exempted.
only duly licensed pharmacists, passed without any discussion. 6
Canneries and hours legislation.
"'
Up to 1912 the law limiting to 60 a week the hours of labor of
women in factories applied to canneries. When the first real attemp:t
was made to enforce the law in this industry the canners sought t ~
have it amended to give them total exemption. They were unsuccesf~
ful in their early efforts but renewed their attempts year after yead
They claimed that the perishable nature of the crops, the shortneE
and variability of the season, and the healthfulness of the work wer
sufficient grounds for exemption. They asserted that nature alor
determined when the crops were ready for canning, and that no pr1~
vision could be made in advance to meet the unusual demands oft
industry. Furthermore, the canneries were located for the mo.,.
part in open fields so that the work was more like agricultural th, r
factory labor. They contended that the long hours of work were
detrimental to the health because they were not continuous. Ru
periods were followed by periods of idleness, with ample time f :
; •
rest and recuperation.7
Commissioner of Labor Sherman experienced difficulty in enforci · Cl
the law in canneries and thought it better on the whole to legal e
• Ibid., pp. 87- 88; and Consumers' League of the City of New York. Annual rei] ~.
1914, p. 32.
,, ,
• New York. Depa rtment of L a bor. Annua l r eport of the Indus tria l Commission, J}: 8,

p. 26.
'
1
11 People v. Louis K. Liggett Co. , 171 N. Y. Supp. 44, Afl'd. 227 N. Y. 617.
8 New York.
Session laws, 1928, ch. 567.
1 New York State Canned Goods Packers'
Association. Canners' statement, 1912:
Why women and minors over sixteen, enga ged In the packing of canned fruits and vegetables, should be excepted from the operation of the general labor statute. Siglled b1
1, l?- Olne1, president, 1912.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

overtime in the industry rather than to have the law flagrantly violated on every hand. He therefore drafted and had introduced in
the legislature a bill that amended the labor law to permit the
employment of women in the manufacture of perishable, seasonal
products more than 60 hours a week, this schedule to be increased to
66 hours a week during a period of six weeks. 8 ·
Neither the canner·s nor the advocates of labor legislation approved
of this proposal. The canners wanted a working week of 72 hours
for three months in the year and their opponents argued again.st any
relaxation of labor standards in the canning industry. 9
In the legislative wrangle that followed it was found that neither
the commissioner of labor nor his public opponents had any specific
knowledge of conditions in the canneries. They agreed, therefore, to
postpone legislative action until the facts could be ascertained. The
canners also consented to this proposition. 10
Accordingly, a study was undertaken by Pauline Goldmark. for
the Russell Sage Foundation in cooper·a tion with the Consumers'
League of the City of Tew York. It was a thoroughgoing investigation of the employment of women and children in the industry and
the need for a special exemption from the labor law for canners.11
The conclusions were that the work in canneries was neither so easy
nor carried on under such favorable conditions that the canning
industry should be allowed special privileges. The report made this
. statement :
It [cannery work] is characterized by irregularity of employment, extreme
of working hours, physical discomfort, and the chief hardships incident to
actor y work, such as speed and noise of machinery. Much of the work is
! berefore distinctly detrimental to health. Like all other manufacture, can.' eries need specific regulation of labor laws capable of effective enforcement in
n)rder that the health and welfare of working women and children may be
roperly protected."
11 ength

i, It was found further that the contentions of the canners were, on
' . e whole, without basis; that not only did the conditions of the
h dustry not warrant special exemption, but mor·e laws were needed
13
- 1b curb existing evils.
, 1 The canners were dismayed by this report, but in 1910 they again
}ught exemption from hours regulation and had a bill introduced
n. r that purpose. Before the bill was acted upon, the canners agr'eed
1 ·th legislative representatives of the workingmen's federation, who
re impressed by their plea for exemption, to withdraw their bill
the present and to submit their· whole case to the next convention
t
the federation.14 At this convention, however, the workers them• +' ves emphatically went on record as opposed to the exemption of
· v neries or other special industries. 1 is
,''(fhe active lobbying of the canners for an exemption from the
posed 54-hour bill for women employed in factories in 1911 was a
- - l_L-_ _ _ _ ___:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

r/·

ew York. Department of Labor. Seventh annual report of commiss ioner, 1907,
19- 50.
.
.
,t _ oldmark, Pauline. Women and Children in tbf' Canning Industry: An investigation
In · 1 w York State. New York, March, 1908, p. 1 (preface).
•1

•

In
12

bid., p. 2 (preface) .
oldmark, Pauline. Women and Children in the Canning Industry: An investigation
cw York State. New York, March, 1908.
Ibid., p. 92.

8
:: it;;!·•y~rJ
itate Federation of Labor.
Ibid., ..p. 113.
11

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Proceedings of convention, 1910, p. 56.

LABOR LEGISLATlON FOR WOMEN

decided factor in prevent ing the p assage of that bill. The same bill
in 1912 became law only by excepting the canners from its provisions
for the period from June 15 to October 15.
But such exception was not for long. The factory investigating
commission, aroused by the cases of abuse brought before it, undertook a careful investigation to determine what basis there was, if
any, for the canners' plea for an exemption, and what legislative·
measures were necessary for the protection of the women and children employed in the industry. Practically all the canneries in the
State were covered in this investigation. Investigators obtained work
in canneries in order to check up on the canners' statements. Members of the commission personally inspected canneries and examinecl
under oath the canners, their superintendents, and the women and
children who were at work. A public hearing on proposed legislation
was held in Albany, to which all the canners were invited. They
were represented either personally or by counsel and were given
every opportunity to present their case and examine witnesses.
Again at a public hearing in Rochester they were allowed to call
and examine witnesses. 16
The investigation and testimony convinced the commissioners that
the exemption of the canning industry from the labor law was entirely unnecessary. They held that the exemption was "most improper," that it was opposed to the best interests of the State, and
that it was granted because of a "misapprehension of the true contions" existing in the canning industry. They held _that work in
canneries was distinctly factory work and the strain on the worker
was just as great as in any other factory. They recognized that the
seasonal nature of the industry ~istinguished it from practically all
others, but that the seasonal reqmrements were not such as to demand
the labor of women for 119 hours a week, as one woman was reported to have worked. They believed that the 54-hour law should
not apply to canneries during the canning season and that such a
regulation would be unfair to both the workers and the industry; but
they believed that a wide-open exemption was still more unfair and
unreasonable. 17
They recommended that " during the canning season, between the
15th day of June and the 15th day of October, the hours of labor of
women should be limited to 10 · hours a day and 60 hours a week.
During the p ea-crop season, which extends from the 25th of June
to the 5th of August, when the perishability of the product handled
is extreme and the rush of work is very great, the industrial board,
on application of any canner, may permit women in his establishment
to work for not more than 12 hours in any one day and 66 hours in
any one week." 18
This recommendation of the commission, strengthened by a 6-dav.
week provision, was enacted into law in 1913 despite the oppositic~n
before the legislature of the canners and fruit growers, who urged a
longer work week, and the Consumers' League, State and local, which
wanted the limit reduced from 66 to at the most 60 hours per week. 19
18

New York State Factory lnvestigating Commission.

17 Ibid., p. 170.
u Ibid., p. 171.
111 Ibid., v. 4, pp. 2261 and 2276.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Second report, 1913, v. 1, p. 127.

HISTORY OF LABOR L:E(HSLA'!'ION FOR WOM:BN IN NEW YORK

'rhe canners took advantage of the wave of reaction that swept
over the State in 1914 and 1915 to try to destroy the work of the
commission. Despite public protest, a bill providing that women and
female minors over 18 could be employed from June 1 to October 1
for 16 hours a day but not more than 72 hours a week passed both
houses of the legislature in 1915. . Governor Whitman, at the urgent
request of members of the factory investigating commission, 20 the
consumers' leagues-city, State, and ational-the vVomen's Trade
Union League, the New York Child Labor Committee, the Woman's
Municipal League, the League of Catholic Women, and various other
groups, as well as prominent citizens, vetoed the bill. 21
The following year the canners' position was strengthened by the
support of the industrial commission. After the defeat of the canners in the 1915 session, the industrial commission sent some of its experts to study the canning question from the viewpoint both of the
workers and of the farmers who raised the products for the canneries.
With this report before them the commission called a public hearing
(•n the question, to which it invited the canners, " various public bodies," and "public-spirited organizations" to send representatives. 22
After hearing this expression of opinion the commission drafted
and had introduced a bill which was thought to meet the situation;
it "adequately protected'the workers from unduly long hours," and
it" granted certain relief to the canning industry." 23 It empowered
the industrial commission to adopt rules permitting the employment
of women over 18 years of age for a limited number of days for 12
hours a day, 72 hours a week, and extended the closing hour to
midnight.
This measure was agreed to by the legislative representatives o:f
the State federation of labor and of the Associated Manufacturers
and Merchants, and it was included in the recommendations of the
special legislative committee appointed to investigate labor legislation. As a part of the bill to " amend the labor law generally " this
provision passed the legislature. 24
A campaign was started immediately by the Consumers' League
of the City of New York for veto by the governor. It was supported
by many civic and welfare orgamzations but most particularly by
the Women's Trade Union League. 25 The latter organization sent
a. protest to all the unions throughout the State, asking that they
petition the governor to veto the bill. At the hearing before the
governor on May 10 many representatives of organized labor appeared against the bill, although President Holland, of the State
federation of labor, and Commissioner Lynch, a former labor leader,
spoke in favor of it. 26 Once more the canners were defeated by the
veto of the governor.
20 Memorandum submitted t o Governor Whitman on behalf of members of the New York
State Factory Investigating Commission in opposition to the Bewley cannery bill permitting women to work 72 hours a week In ca nneries. Apr. 13, 1915.
21 Consumers' L eague of the City of New Yorlc.
Unpublished corl'espondence, 1915.
22 New York.
Department of Labor. Annual report of the industrial commission, 1910,
p. 14.

23
2'

I).

Idem.

New York. Department of Labor. Annual report of the industrial commission, 1916,
15.
25 Consumers' League of New York State.
Bulletin, May, 1916, p. 24.
• Women's Trade Union League of New York. Unpublished legislative report, 1916.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEG!SLA'.1'1O:N :FOR WOMEN

In recent years no further attempt has been made by the canning
industry to secure additional special-hours legislat10n for their
-industry.
Reaction against labor laws and efforts to suspend them during
the war.
The legislatures of 1912, 1913, and 1914 were kept busy enacting
labor laws recommended by the factory investigating commission.
Within these three years -36 laws amending or adding to the labor
code were passed. The department of labor grew from a small insignificant organization to the second largest department of the State.
In one year alone 151 new officials were added to its ranks by the
legislature. 27
By the end of 1914 a decided reaction had set in. The business
depression, aggravated by the outbreak of the war in Europe, came
at a time when industry was adjusting itself to the new requirements
of the law. Naturally enough, there was a tendency to blame the
new legislation for the general business decline. The opposition
made political capital of the protest on the part of employers and
succeeded in gaining control of the legislature in 1915. As was to
be expected, repeal bills of every description filled the calendar.
The Consumers' League of New York State was led t o report that
" never before in the history of labor legislation has there been such
an alarming attack upon the labor law in this St ate as has been
witnessed in 1915." 28 According to the league "twelve destructive
and antisocial amendments" to the labor law were introduced. One,
already noted, would have exempted the canners entirely from the
labor law. This was amended later to provide for a 12-hour day.
Another would have given to the industrial board power to prolong
the working day for women over 18 from 9 to 12 hours in factories
"when the stress of business demanded." Others provided for re~
laxing the fire-protection rules. Still another was :for the reorgani•
zation of the labor department. 20 An amendment enacted in 1915
allowed the mercantile industry unlimited overtime for two additional days at any time during the year for stock taking, and reworded the provision relating to shorter hours on one or more days
of the week. 30
This widespread effort to amend the labor law led the commissioner
of labor to urge that cause and effect be examined carefully so that
blame would not be placed upon New York laws for business conditions that existed throughout the country. He went on to say : " Is
there not grave danger that New York labor laws may unwisely be
changed on a wholly mistaken assumption that they are to blame
for the existing business situation 1 Still more must it be kept in
mind that these laws in question have to do with the health and safety
of great numbers of wage-earning citizens. Modification of laws
to promote business activity no one can take exception to when the
price thereof be not the sacrifice of some interest of equal or greater
moment for the general welfare. But safety of life and limb for
27 New York State Federation of Labor.
Achievements of progressive, up-to-date labor
organization. Albany, 1918.
28 ConsQ,mers' League of New York State.
Bulletin, May, 1915, p. 33.
• Ibid., pp. 33 and 34.
• New York. Session laws, 1915, ch. 386.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

eny class of citizens can not, with advantage to the State, be sacrificed for encouragement of business." 81
A public meeting of protest against such amendments, under the
chairmanship of William J. Sch1effelin, was held in New York on
the evening of March 26, 1915. The speakers included Abram I.
Elkus, counsel to the State factory investigating commission,
Florence Kelley, general secretary of the National Consumers' League,
and James F. Holland, vice president of the State federation of labor.
Representatives of the leading labor, civic, social, and philanthropic
groups were among the vice chairmen. 82
Public disapproval prevented the passage of most of the bills; and
of those that reached the governor only the one providing tor a
reorganization of the department of labor was signed.
Provision was made, however, for a special legislative committee
to investigate the subject of labor legislation. After consultation
with representatives of the manufacturers' association and the State
federation of labor and two of the industrial commissioners, 88 this
committee recommended to the legislature of 1916 a bill " to amend
the labor law generally." This bill came before the legislature with
the backing of the labor department, organized labor, and organized
capital, and was quickly passed. Protest to the governor by the Con·sumers' League of the City of New York, the Women's Trade Union
League, and other interested groups led to a public hearing. At this
hearing it was evident that the representatives of the women's unions
had not been consulted by the spokesmen of the federation before
they entered into agreement with the manufacturers on various
important points CQncerning working conditions of women. The
,vomen's Trade Union League, backed by the Central Labor Union
of Brooklyn and various other labor organizations, as well as by the
Consumers' League of the City of New York, protested vigorously
against certain provisions of the bill. One of them, which has been
discussed already, was the section per mitting the canners to employ
women 12 hours a day for 20 days during the canning season and
extending the closing hour to midnight. Another allowed the suspension of the 54-hour law for women employed in factories when
machinery broke down. The first provision would have given the
canners, at least in part, the exemption that they had been seeking
for years, an exemption felt by the opponents to be unjustifiable and
unnecessary. The second provision would, according to the opponents, legalize the unjust principle that working women should be
made to suffer for delay often caused by mismanao-ement. 84 The
governor vetoed this bill on the general ground that the dangers involved were greater than the benefits to be derived. 85
The participation of the United States in the World War again
offered an opportunity to repeal labor legislation. Scarcely had
war been declared when a bill was introduced in the legislature giv81

New York.

pp. 17-18.

Department of Labor.

Fourteenth annual re port of commissioner, 1914,

Protest meeting at t he Berkeley Theater, New York City, Mar. 26, 1915.
aa New York State Federation of Labor.
Proceedings of convention, 1916, p. 74.
14 Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Unpublished manuscript, 1916.
• N~w 'for}! State F~deration of :t:,abor. PJ."oceedin~s ot conventfon, i916 1 pp. 715
82

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ap.q 71.

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

ing the industrial commission power to suspend, under certain conditions, all labor laws during the period of the war. 86 Under the
auspices of 17 organizations-civic, social, patriotic, and labor-a
protest meeting against the Brown bill was held at Madison Square
Garden Theater on May 2, 1917. A r esolution was passed condemning
this bill and its companion bill in the assembly "which ignore
English and French experience~ which would curtail efficient procluction and sap the strength and health of the children and working
women of the State at a time when true patriotism demands the most
careful conservation of our r esources and our people." 37 Telegrams
were sent to all the New York City repr esentatives in the legislature,
calling attention to the r esolution passed at this meeting. 88 Nevertheless, the bill passed both houses by over whelming majorities. In<lividual legislators, although convinced of the unwisdom of the legislation, voted for it rather than run the risk of being .called unpatriotic.39
The seriousness of the situation brought such widespread disapproval that the governor gr anted a public hearing before acting upon
the bill. The legislation was supported by three of the five industrial
commissioners ( the other two opposed it), who held that they could
administer the act without injury to the existing labor laws. It was
further supported by representatives of the manufacturers' association, the Chambers of Commerce of Buffalo and Rochester, and the
employing printers of New York City. 40
P r actically every civic, social, and · welfare organization in the
State that conceivably might h ave an inter est in the work of women
and children sent r epresentatives to this hearir:i-g to protest against
any relaxation of the labor laws. The unprecedented opposition,
together with the unfortunate experience of other warring countries
with the suspension of labor laws, persuaded the governor to veto
the bill. In his accompanying message he said :
Of course, it is of supreme importance tha t every man and woman shall
be willing to make every necessary sacrifice in this great W orld War in which
our count r y is t o take so conspicuou s and so unselfish a part, but if we are
to attain the gr eatest mea su re of efficiency in our pr epar ation a nd in our
prosecution of the war, we must not permit ou r people who are engaged in
industrial pnrsuits to become a ppr ehensive that the sta ndards erected for
their protection will be set a side ; and we must not permit our industrial
population to h ave cause to feel that th e war' s burdens and sacrifices may
rest most heavily upon the shoulder s of those lea st able t o bear them. T o
give cause for such an impression would be a gr ave error. We must do nothing that will impair the confidence or weak en the loyalty of the service of
those who are engaged in the field and the factor y. We should not disregard
the error s of other nations with r espect to the suspension of their labor laws.
On the contrary, we should profit by their mistakes.

•

Without in the least r eflecting upon the good f aith and the patriotic purposes of those responsible for this legisla tion, I am confident that no emer gency ca n arise in this St ate, a t least befor e t he next session of t he legislature,
which will justify the suspension of the laws passed in r-esponse to an over86 New York Tribune, Apr. 25, 1917 (editoria l).
87 War on wo men a nd children .
Emer gency protest meeting, Ma dison- Square Garden
Theater , New York, May 2, 1917.
88 f'on sumers' Lea gue of th e City of New York.
Unpublished r eport of executive secretary, May 18, 1917.
89 Ibid.
Un publish ed cor respondence, April, 1917.
4ll ~~W Y:ork State Fe.d_e rati?n ~f lta~oi:, Pr~ceedin~s ~1' ~onve_n ti_Qljl, 1_917, '!· 8~•.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

whelming sentiment of our people for the protection of women and children
compelled to labor for their daily bread.41

Efforts to render the labor law ineffective were repeated the following year. Scarcely had the legislature of 1918 convened when
Senator Brown introdu~ed the selfsame bill that Governor Whitman had vetoed the pnwious session. Again the opposition, led
by the Consumers' League of the City of New York, the National
and State Child Labor Committees, the Men's City Club and Women's City Club, the State Suffrage Association, the Women's Trade
Union League, and the New York State Federation of Labor, protested w vigorously that the bill failed to become a law. 4 2
In spite of the continuous efforts made during the war period to
break down the labor law, only one other minor success was
achieved by the <;>pponents of hours legislation. Women writers in
newspaper offices were exempted from that section of the mercantile
law that prohibited work on seven days of the week. 43

Restaurant hours legislation.
Not only did the important attacks fail, but this same period saw
the extension of the hours law for women in hitherto unregulated
industries. The first of these laws, enacted in 1917, gave the women
employed in restaurants in first and second class cities a 9-hour day
and a 54-hour and 6-day week.
Agitation for the inclusion under the mercantile law of women
employed in restaurants began in 1913 with the recommendation of
James L. Gernon, chief of the division of mercantile inspection. He
reported that the long hours and hard work of these women caused
much physical suffermg. Many complaints were registered with
the inspectors that they were powerless to remedy as long as the
law was not specifically made to apply to restaurants. 44
The next year Mr. Gernon, in urging hours legislation for restaurant workers, reported as follows:

•

At present restaurant employees do not come within the provisions of the law
relative to the hours of labor of females, ·or the day-of-rest law. To the casual
observer it is very evident that there is no other employment in which males
and females are employed, where the hours of lab0;r are so long, and where the
employees are compelled to be constantly on their feet. It is admitted that there
is no class of work in which so large a percentage of females is employed. The
legislature has recognized that the females working in restaurants should be
protected to some extent, by providing in section 17 of the labor law that" Every
person employing females as waitresses in a hotel or restaurant shall provide
and maintain suitable seats" but by the very nature of their work the employees
have no opportunity to use these seats. There seems to be no good r eason why
the hours of employment of females in restaurants should not be subject to law as
in mercantile establishments, and that all those employed in the same should
enjoy the benefits of the day-of-rest law, as they do in other employments. The
evil resulting from restaurants being exempt from the provisions of the laboc
law relating to hours and day of rest, is shown in the fact that bakeries alri
confectionery establishments have arlded to their business the serving of sand•
wiches and lunches, and endeavor to escape the provisions of the law by claimu Memorandum filed with senate bill introdu ctory N<'. 1495, printed No. 2149, by Mr.
Brown, entitled "An act relative to the enforci>ment of cntain laws as to hours of labor."
Gov. Charles S. Whitman, June 2, 1917.
42 Consumers' Lea gue oi tbe City of New York.
Elon R. Brown and the labor law.
Unpublished manuscript, 1918.
48 New York.
Session laws, 1919, ch. 582, sec. 4.
44 New York.
Department of Labor. Thirteenth a~nq&,l report Qf coi:pµiisl'liQner, 1918,
p. 87.

91970°-82--7

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

ing that they are. exempt because they are operating a restaurant. This lllustrates the subterfuge to which many employers will resort rather than comply
with the law. 46

The continual stress of the labor department upon the need for regulation of the hours of work of women in restaurants led the Consumers' League of the City of New York to conduct an investigation
into the hours, wages, and general conditions of work in the restaurant industry to determine their effect upon the life and health of the
woman worker. The study made of this industry by the United
States Bureau of Labor in 1910 46 covered New York, but the material
was not recent, specific, nor exhaustive enough to serve as a basis for
a legislative campaign.
Investigators for the league interviewed 1,017 women restaurant
employees in New York City and six of the larger cities· in the
State. Supplementary information was obtained from employers,
employment agencies, girls' clubs, and published reports. 47 Excessively long hours were found, one girl of 20 being employed for
122 hours in a week. This was an extreme case, " yet one-half of the
1,000 women interviewed by the league worked 12 hours a day, 7 days
a week, and 15-hour days were not uncommon. Not quite one-half of
the waitresses worked over 54 hours a week, or 9 hours a day. The
reason for this is that a large number of them, 31 per cent, are' 1-meal
girls.' Seventy-eight per cent of all other restaurant workers, however, exceed the 54-hour week." 48
Another finding of the league that it considered "most significant" was that the restaurant worker was unknown to settlements or
girls' clubs. " She does not share the group interests and social life
open to other working girls. In the evening schools less than 1 per
cent were restaurant workers. They simply do not have the physical
strength for outside activities and interests." 49
Based on its findings, the Consumers' League of the City of New
York in 1917 initiated legislation · for the limitation of the work of
women employed in restaurants to 9 hours a day and 54 hours and
6 days a week. ·while this bill .was still in the drafting stage the
Consumers' League of the City of New York asked the Women's
Trade Union League for its support. This was at first refused, the
reason being that the Women's Trade Union League was having
introduced a general 8-hour bill that would apply to restaurant
workers as to other women employees. To support at the same
time a bill providing for a 9-hour day and a 54-hour week for this
one group would put it in a rather ambiguous position. 50 However,
before the public was called upon to support such a measure, the
Women's Trade Union League agreed to be opportunistic and threw
4.15 Ibid.
Fourteenth annual report of commissioner, 1914, pp. 90-91.
'° U. S. Bureau of Labor. Condition of Women and Child Wage Earners in the United
States, 1910, v. 5, pp. 189-199.
,1 Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Behind the Scenes in a Restaurant,
1916.
~ Ibid., p. 12.
"' Ibid., p. 7.
l50 Women's Trade Union League of New York.
Unpublished minutes of meetini of legislative committee, Jan. 10, 1916.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

•

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

its support behind the restaurant workers' bill. So did the New
York Child Labor Committee and the State federation of labor. 51
Public support was well aroused in behalf of this measure. As expressed at the time: "The public was quick to see the necessity
of giving this group of women the protection of the law. Those
who were not impressed by the statement of doctors, that ·the effect
of running about with heavy trays for many hours decreases a
woman's capacity for child bearinO', were ·affected by the danger of
spreading ·disease incident to emp,oying waitresses who could not
keep in health under existing conditions." 52
Little opposition was voiced. The president and the counsel of
the Hotel Men's Association appeared at the hearing to make certain
that the bill would apply in no way to hotels. A number of representatives of leading restaurants in New York City protested that
if the bill were passed they would not be able to employ cleaners
before 6 a. m. or telephone girls after 10 p. m. They cited instances
of widows who would be discharged if this legislation were enacted.
It was suggested that the bill be amended to apply only to waitresses
employed in restaura.nts. 53
The bill passed at the first session in which it was introduced. 11 '
It applied to all women employed in or in connection with any
restaurant ( those in hotels excepted) in first or second class cities,
with the exception of singers and performers of any kind or attendants in ladies' cloakrooms or parlors.
Since its passage the industrial commission has urged again and
again that it be extended to all restaurants wherever located, but no
action has been taken by the legislature.
Legislation governing hours of women in war-time services.
With the war came the great influx of women into occupations
formerly heJd by men. Labor department officials were among the
first to recommend tho extension of hours legislation to these new
occupations. 55 A study of these openings for women was made by
the Consumers' League of the City of New York in cooperabon
with the New York State Committee on Women in Industry of the
Advisory Commission of the Council of National Defense. 56 The
findings led to the introduction of bills regulating the hours of
women and girls in messenger, transportation, and elevator services.57
Sponsored initially by the Consumers' League of the City of New
York, these bills were actively supported by the New York Indus-

~ Minutes of a joint confer ence of the Consumers' Lea gue of the City of New York, the
Women's Trade Union Lea gue, the New York Child Labor Committee, and other s, New
York, J an . 3, 1917; and New York State F edera tion of Labor. Special letter to member
organizations from chairman of legislative committee, Ma y 14, 1917.
52 Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Annual r eport, 1917, p. 7.
fill New York Times, Ma1·. 7, 1917.
M New York.
Session laws, 1917, ch. 535.
55 New York.
Department of Labor. Annual report of the indu strial commission, 1918,
pp. 28-29.
~ The Committee on Women in Industry of the Advisory Commission of the Council of
National Defen se was appointed in 1917 " to advise on mean s for safegua rding the health
and welfare of women workers during the war." It a imed t o serve '' a s a n ational
center • • • · for coordina ting the efforts of existing organiza tions fo r the Improvement of the conditions of women's employment, a nd through investigation to r ecompiend
methods of increasing the efficiency of women's work as a n Important fa ct or in t he s uccessful conduct of the war."-U. S. Council of National Defense. Advisory Commission,
Committee on Women in Industry. P a mphl et , Dec. 10, 1917.
17 Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Annual report, 1918, p. 8.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

trial Commission, New York ChiJd Labor Committee, Women's Trade
Union League, ij°ew York State Federation o:£ Labor, National Consumers' League, Federation o:£ Women's Clubs ( city and State),
New York State "'"1...omen's Suffrage Association, Women's City Clnb,
Women's Municipal League, Young Women's Christian Association,
Council o:£ Jewish Women, Council o:£ Women's Organizations, Association o:£ Neighborhood ·w orkers, and others. The main argument :£or this legislation was that women had gone into these new
occupations as war service and they were entitled to proper safeguards to health. It was held further that the work in most cases
could be made suitable for women with a few changes and adjustments
and that such changes should be made without delay. 58
Messenger service.-The only bill that became law in 1918 59 was
the messenger-service bill, that prohibited the use at any time o:£ girls
under 21 years o:£ age in the delivery o:£ messages and packages for
telegraph companies, and limited the employment o:£ women over
21 years o:£ age to 6 day,s a week, 9 hours a day, and prohibited
their employment between 10 p. m. and 7 a. m. This work was
considered dangerous :£or women and girls because o:£ the character
of the places to which they were liable to be sent. 60 Messenger-service
companies opposed this legislation, but the support was so general
that their opposition was o:£ no avail. The bilJ as passed provided
:£or a 54-hour, 6-day week.
Women's J oiwt Legislative Oonference.-There · had al ways been
considerable cooperation among the various organizations interested
in labor legislation :£or women, but often, because of lack of coordination, they had found themselves to be working at cross purposes.
The possibilities of a closer union had been informally discussed, but
no action was taken until the New York State Federation of Labor
called a group together in Albany on October 10, 1918, to consider
the legislative program upon which various organizations could
unite. Representatives of the Women's Trade Union League, the
Young Women's Christian Association, the National Consumers'
League-also State and city-and the New York State Woman
Suffrage Association were present. Out of this meeting grew the
omen's Joint Legislative Conference. The original membership
included all the organizations participating in the conference with
the exception of the National Consumers' League, which, because of
its national character, was considered ineligible. 61
The program as adopted included six bills-the 8-hour day, minimum wage, health insurance, protection o:£ office workers, protection
of transportation workers, and protection of elevator operators. 62
Transportation service.-The transportation bill was the first of
the bills sponsored by the vVomen's Joint Legislative Conference to
become law. This bill had been one o:£ the three measures introduced by the Consumers' League of the City of New York in 1918

,¥

118
&9

Ibid. Unpublished records, 1918.
New York. Session laws, 1918, ch. 434, sec. 161- c.

eo New York Evening Post, Apr. 17, 1918: and Consumers' League of New York State.

Bulletin, March, 1918.
61 Consumers' League of the Citr. of New York.
Unpublished report ~ executive secretary, October, 1918; and Womens Trade Union League of New York. Annual reoort.
1918-19.
62 Women's Joint Legislative Conference.
Give Back to the Women Who Work the
Spirit of Life. New York, 1919.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEG!SLAT!ON FOR WO:M:EN !N NtW YORK

to regulate hours in war-time occupations for women. It limited
the employment of women on transportation lines to 9 hours a day
(which must be consecutive except for a lunch period of 1 hour),
54 hours a week, and 6 days a week, and prohibited work between
the hours of 10 p. m. and 6 a. m. The outstanding condition that
the proponents of this bill sought to change was the employment
of women at night. 68 They had comparatively few data showing the
need for regulation of the transportation industry. Their plea was
based mainly upon the argument that women in the industry should
be under the same hours regulations as were women in factories
and stores. But in the face of the active opposition of all the transportation companies, the bill did not receive much attention from
the legislature. 6 4
Before the next legislative campaign the lack of specific data to
support this measure was met by the investigation of the May
grand jury of Brooklyn into the conditions of work of women employed as conductors on the surface cars and as guards on the subway lines of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Co. This investigation
was undertaken because of the many complaints from Brooklyn
residents of the abuses surrounding the women working in these
occupations. Investigators discovered children under 16-one girl
was only 14-employed as conductorettes. Women under 21 were
found working on cars on night runs. Some women worked in excess
of 10 hours a day-one woman worked 24: 42 hours in a stretch with a
rest period of only 2: 20 hours between swings. Not only were the
women required to work long hours but frequently they were required to r eport for work and wait for hours before being assigned
a run. One woman reported that she was compelled to wait from
4 a. m. until noon before she received her run for the day. These and
other findings led the May grand jury to advocate legislation regulating the hours of labor of women employed on street railways
similar to th at in effect in factories and mercantile establishments. 611
This report was decidedly important in securing favorable action
on the bill by the 1919 legislature. The district attorney's office of
Kings County kept an active interest in the legislation. The final
bill was drafted by Helen McCormick, of the district attorney's
office, and was advocated by her at the legislative hearing. 60 Additional support came from Governor Smith. In his first annual
message to the legislature he urged the extension of hours Jegislation
to the women employed on surface, subway, and elevated roads. 67
Besides the Women's Joint Legislative Conference, the industrial
eommission, the State federation of labor, and many civic and social
organizations supported the bill. It was included in the program
of _both Democrati? and Rep1;1blican Parties. Lit~le opposition was
vmced at the hearmg; the bill passed and was signed by the gov- ·
ernor. 68 When the law was to take effect, however, a "cry went up
from the women empJoyed saying if the law was rigidly enforced the
Consumers' League of New York State. Bulletin, March, 1918.
rbid . Reco rd of the 1918 legisla t ure. Unpubli sh ed ma nuscript, 1918.
McCormick, Helen, deputy assistant district attorney, Kings County, ~- Y.
lished report of investigation to th e May grand jury, May 11, 1918.
68 New Yorlc Times, J an. 26, 1919.
8'1 New York.
Legislative documents, 1919, v. 1, Governor's message, p. l3.
88 New York..
Session laws, 1919, ch. 083.
63

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Unpub-

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

majority of them would lose their positions." 69 The industrial commission, charged with the enforcement of the act, asked that the
bureau of women in industry make a study to determine the number of women who would lose their positions as a result of this law
and the policy of the transportation companies with reference to the
employment of women prior to the enactment of the law.
It was found that only 17 per cent of the women employed on
May 1 were employed without violation of any section of the law;
48 per cent were working in direct violation of the night-work law,
and the remainder were violating the provisions for a 9-hour day
and consecutive hours. 70
The opposition charged that over 5,000 women employed by the
t,ransportation compames had lost their jobs when the law took
effect. The study of the State bureau of women in industry showed
that it was the policy of the transportation companies to discharge
their.women conductors as soon as the men returned from the Army,
and the actual number of women discharged because of the law did
not exceed 867.
Following the enactment of the law, and with the return of peace
conditions, women conductors and guards were replaced by men, but
the women ticket seJ}ers and choppers remained as a perm~nent factor
in the industry. They f elt that their positions and advancement were
being jeopardized by the transportation law of 1919, so under the
leadership of the Women's League for Equal Opportunity they
carried on an active legislative campaign for the repeal of the sections of the law applying to them. They met with little, if any,
opposition. The organizations responsible for the enactment of the
legislation seemed to agree with Nelle Swartz, director of the New
York Bureau of Women in Industry, that the Jaw that they had
sponsored was far from perfect; it was particularly weak in that it
went into effect "immediately, without giving the employers ample
time for adjustinent or employees time to find other positions;" and
it was ill adapted to the needs of the industry. 70
The law as passed in 1920 amended the law of the previous year
so that it applied only to conductors and guards in the operation of
street railways. The provision requiring that work be done in consecutive hours was stricken out. 71
Elevator service.-The bill regulating the hours of work of elevator operators had been introduced by the Consumers' League of
the City of New York in 1918 as the result of a study of the conditions under which this group of women worked made by the Bureau
of Information of the Federation of Nonc.ommercial Employment
Agencies, assisted by the Consumers' League of the City of New
York and the committee on industry of the New York State Council of Defense. Through interviews with the women themselves
and with superintendents it was found that the hours o.f work of
women employed as elevator operators were " unnecessarily long "
and very often were unbroken even by a lunch period. The Job
involved night work in more than half the cases interviewed. The
1111 Swartz, Nelle.
New Yorl{ Bureau of Women in Industry, in BuUetin of the Conaumers' Lea gue of New York State, December, mm.
70 Idem.
"New York. Session laws, 1920, ch. 284.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

usual shifts were from 6 p. m. to 8 01 9 a. m., with little provision,
if any, for sleep. Seventy-six per cent .of the women interviewed
worked more than 6 days a week. The study ended with a recommendation 1or legislation limiting the work of these women to 9
hours a day, 54 hours and 6 days a week, and prohibiting the employment of women at this work between the hours .o f 10 p. m.
and 7 a. m. 12
The bill introduced by the consumers' league in 1918 embodied
these recommendations. But it failed to pass the legislature, although it was indorsed by practically all the labor, civic, and welfare groups in the State.
In the fall of 1918, when the Women's Joint Legislative Conference was organized, the elevator bill was one of the six measures
included in its legislative program. Governor Smith added his
support to the bill by recommending its passage in his annual message to the legislature of 1919. 73 In addition, the bill had the indorsement of the industrial commission, the State federation of
labor, and various other groups, including both political parties.
There was practically no opposition and the bill became law. 74
During the next session of the legislature an attempt was made to
repeal this law. A bill was introduced and passed the assembly
but was defeated in the senate by two votes. 75

The 48-hour-week law of 1927 and the minimum-wage bill.
The passage of the transportation and elevator bills left the major
part of the program of the Women's Joint Legislative Conference
unrealized. The measures affecting the largest numbers of women
and in which the greatest interest was centered were the 8-hour-day
and the minimum-wage bills. Both these measures had been before
the legislature for years.
The organization responsible for initiating the 8-hour-day and
48-hour-week bill for women and minors was the Women's Trade
Union League, which had introduced it for the first time in 1914
and had kept it before the legislature each succeeding year. While
previously indorsed by other organizations, this labor measure did
not receive active legislative support from most of the member
organizations of the Women's Joint Legislative Conference until
1919.
The minimum-wage bill had been first introduced at the recommendation of the factory investigating commission 76 in 1915. The
Consumers' League of the City of New York had been particularly
mterested in this measure and had been instrumental in having the
commission undertake a study of the wage situation. T he commission's findings were such that it unhesitatingly recommended remedial
legislation in the form of a minimum-wage bill. The legislation
was not r eady for introduction until after the reaction against the
work of the commission had set in and legislative control P!~d
changed hands.
72 Consumer s' League of the City of New York and Bureau of Information of Federation
of Noncommercial Employment Agencies. Going up. Unpublished manuscript, 1918;
and Women's Joint Legislative Conference. Give Back to the Women Who Wct['k the.
Spirit of Life. New York, 1919.
•
73 New York.
Legislative documents, 1919, v. 1, Governor's message, p. Us.
7' New York.
Session laws, 1919, ch. 544, secs. 176, 178, and 179.
711 Consumerf League of the Ci~y _of New York.
Annual report, ],9].9, e,, \.
~ }f OJi ~h~ h.1,st0\17 ~t ~h1,s cowm,1~s1.o n 1;1 ee ~-. 7;8--,
'
·
• ·

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LA.SOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

In spite of this ~hange, both this bill and the 8-hour bill on their
merits received considerable support in 1915, and sentiment in their
favor grew in each of the years following. They passed the senate
a number of times, but the opposition of the Associated Industries
was always sufficient to prevent their coming to a vote in the assembly. The supporters claimed that if ever they were reported out of
committee they would pass the assembly by an overwhelming
majority.
The legislative tactics responsible for this situation not only
caused indignation in the ranks of the organizations sponsoring the
bills but met with the stern reproof of Governor Smith, who had
always been a stanch supporter of these measures. In a public
address in New York on March 26, 1920, he declared that "he-would
abide by the decision of the majority of both houses of the legislature " if the welfare bills on his program were brought to a vote,
but that "it was unfair and a breeder of discontent to have it
known that interested rersons were able to throttle pro~ressive
measures in committee.' He opposed having "organized effort
outside the legislature trying to prevent even a discussion of these
bills on the floor of the assembly," and held that the State should
not tolerate such action. 77
From . its original membership of 6 organizations in 1918 the
Women's Joint Legislative Conference grew until in 1927 it included
15 organizations, with a large membership throughout the State.
Furthermore, its legislative program was supported by organized
labor and various civic and social organizations. On the other
hand, a new element joined the opposition-the National Woman's
Party. This organization appeared in this connection for the first
time in 1923, advocating an amendment to the bills of the Women's
Joint Legislative Conference that would make them apply "alike
to men and women." It took the position that " sex should be taken
out of the law as rapidly as possible." 78
The Women's League for Equal Opportunity and its offshoot, the
Equal Rights A ssociation, supported the position of the Woman's
Party, claiming that it made no difference which way equal opportunity was obtained. As one of their spokesmen put it, " vVe want
adult working women to have the same rights in industry with
adult men and we don't care which way they get it. Industrial
equality is our goal." 79
It is difficult to weigh the strength of this new opposition or to determine its influence in delaying the passage of the 48-hour bill or
preventing the enactment of minimum-wage legislation. While not
a large group, there can be no doubt that it exerted a real influence
by supporting, though for other reasons, the powerful manufacturing industries in their opposition, and that 1t became an effective
smoke screen :for legislators who did not wish to offend these employing interests.
In 1925 it appeared to all disinterested observers that the 48-hour
bill had every chance of becoming law. It was in both party platn New Y<>rk Times, Mar. 27, 1920.

78 New York Legislature.
Unpublished stenographic minutes of joint bearing on bllls to
amend the labor law. Testimony of Doris Stevens, F eb. 27, 1923, pp. 73-74. [Michael
J Deignan, senate stenographer.)
711 Jbld~, _p. 51.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

forms, it was part of Governor Smith's legislative program, and it
was introduced in both houses by a member of the dominant party.
Again the Associated Industries brought about its defeat. 80 They
were instrumental in having substituted the so-called Joiner bill,
which provided for a 9-hour day and a 54-hour week~the legal
standards then in e:ff ect-but which would empower the industrial
board "to investigate conditions and occupations in processes in
which women are employed in :factories and mercantile establishments to determine whether or not the hours worked are detrimental
to the health of women," in which event they would reduce hours to
not less than 48 a week. Despite opposition from the 20-odd labor,
civic, and social organizations supporting the bill and a break within
the majority party itself because of this resort to subterfuge in carrying out its preelection pledge, the bill passed the assembly by a bare
majority and was accepted by the senate. 81
When it came before Governor Smith for his signature he held
a public hearing, at which a long list of representatives of organizations voiced their objections-chief of which was that the bill was
'' unworkable and absolutel3r without merit." 82 The governor assured the group that he would veto the bill, which he promptly
proceeded to do.
In 1926 the fight for the 48-hour week was taken up again and
defeated in the closing hours of the session. But the legislature,
with the support of the Associated Industries, passed a measure obviously designed to postpone for another year action on the 48-hour
bill. 88 It provided for a joint legislative committee "to consist of
three senators to be appointed by the temporary president of. the
senate, and five members of the assembly, to be appointed by the
speaker of the assembly, to investigate as speedily as possible the
existing conditions under which the manufacturing and mercantile
business of the State is carried on * * * to the end, among other
things, that such remedial legislation, to the extent necessary, may
be enacted as will advance the prosperity, health, and safety of the
working people, the prosperity and safety of the industry, and the
prosperity of the people of the State of New York as a whole." 84
The committee was authorized to elect a chairman from its members
and to select three persons-one representative of "the working
people," one of the manufacturing and mercantile interests, and one
of the public-" to sit with and advise the committee in its deliberations and furnish it with information and suggestions, and otherwise
assist the committee in its investigations." It was empowered to
employ counsel and all necessary assistants, provided that the expenses did not exceed $25,000. The committee was to report its
proceedings to the legislature on or before February 15, 1927. 85
The committee met and organized on June 18, 1926, and for the
sake of convenience adopted the name New York State Industrial
Buffalo News, Feb. 27, 1925.
New York Herald-Tribune, Mar. 24, 1925.
New York Bulletin, May 19, 1925.
Consumers' League of New York State. Bul1etin, April, 1928, p. 2; arid Newburgh
News, Aug. 20, 1926.
!>i New York.
Legislative documents, No. 69, 1927, Report of Industrial Survey Commission, pp. 3-4.
116 Idem.
80
81
82
88

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

100

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

Survey Commission. 86 In its outline of survey it listed seven objects
for careful study, one of the most important of which was, "Legal
restriction on wages; hours of work and employment of men, women,
and children-day work, night work, overtime, work in hazardous
occupations-to what extent has the health of women workers been
injured by the operation of the present 54-hour law-the results
of 48-hour-week legislation for women in other States-a study
of the probable effect upon the principal competitive industries of
the State of reduction of the hours of labor for women below 54
hours a week." 87
The 48-hour-week question was without doubt the central point in
the commission's activities. It devoted days to hearing arguments
for and against the legislative proposal. The opposition, represented
largely by the Associated Industries, the textile manufacturers, the
National Woman's Party, and the Women's League for Equal Opportunity, were given every chance to present their case.
At the request of the employing interests the National Industrial
Conference Board prepared a report for the commission on " Regu •
latory legislation and the competitive position of New York State
industries." Among its conclusions as to the harmful effects, if
any, of women working 54 hours a week, which formed the basis of
much of the employers' opposition, was the following: " Authoritative studies of fatigue in industry do not prove that 54 hours is too
long a period if working conditions are satisfactory; and New York
State through legislation has done much to assure safe, comfortable,
and hygienic conditions." 88 In trying to prove that New York
industries could not stand a further reduction in hours, the report
said: " In the decade ending with 1923, the State of New York industrially fell back, compared with the United States as a whole.
In other words, measuring the growth of New York State industries
as a whole, by the number of establishments, the number of wage
earners and the volume of production, New York State has had
a smaller development in relation to the population of the State since
1914 than the country as a whole." 8 9 With this statement as a basis
employers' representatives pointed out that a great many New York
industries were struggling for existence; if hours were cut they would
fail. They argued that New York industries would move to other
States, where they were not handicapped by industrial legislation,
and that shorter hours for women would decrease output, lower
wages, and lead to the replacement of women by men. 90
Representatives of the opposing women's groups held that "Restrictions on the conditions of labor should be based upon the nature
of the industry, not_ on the sex of the worker, and they should apply
to women's competitors wherever they apply to women." 91 They
contended that 48-hour-week legislation would "discriminate against
women and handicap them in competing with men in earning their
livelihood." 92
88 l\~w York.
Legislative documents. No. 69, 1927, Report of Industrial Survey Com•
mission , p . 5.
87 Ibid., P. 11.
ss Ibid., p. 72.
Ill Ibid., p. 7 4.
'°1 Ibid. , pp. 16-17.
• White Plains (N. Y.) Reporter, Feb. 10, 1926.
92
New York State Industrial Survey Commission, 1926-27. 'l'estimony of Mrs. Clarence
t.l. S-nith at hearings, Nov. 8, 1926, p. 935.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

...

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

·"

!Q}

The proponents tried to prove that the 48-hour week was a genuine
health measure; that it already was the standard working week for
women in New York State; that the working women of the State
wanted this legislation; and that neither the workers nor industry
would suffer from its enactment.
Some of the most pertinent testimony laid before the commission
consisted of the following: A study of the New York Bureau of
Women in Industry on the hours worked by women in the State; a
preliminary report of the Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor on the effect of hours legislation on women's employment; a study of the Consumers' League of New York on whether
or not the working women wanted 48-hour-week legislation; and an
investigation by the Women's Joint Legislative Conference of the
effects of a 48-hour schedule on employers, employees, and industry.
The study by the State bureau of women in industry of data filed
by employers with the State department of labor showed that over
half of the women employed in factories and mercantile establishments in New York worked 48 hours a week or less and only a small
proportion worked in excess of 50 hours; in the shorter-hour plants
not only were wages higher than in the longer-hour plants but employment was more regular. 93
The Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor
reported on the results of its widespread investigation of the effects
of hours legislation on the employment of women in industry. Its
summary findings were as follows :
1. In the employment of women in industries and in stores legislation limit- ·
ing their hours of work to 48 and 50 hours weekly does not hinder their advancement. It reduces their hours, it also reduces the hours of men, it occasionally results in increases in the number of women employed, it does not
close occupations to women to any appreciable extent, it does not result in a
decrease in the numb~r of women employed, and it does not decrease wages.
2. In the employment of women pharmacists the effect of legal regulation of
daily and weekly hours of work seems to have been a handicap in some instances. In a number of States this fact seems to have been recognized, and the
law has been amended or interpreted so as to exempt this employment.
3. The really significant factors affecting women's employment are not the
legislative regulations to which they are subject but the arrangement of
processes of manufacture to meet the requirements of their strength and skill,
the prejudices for or against their employment in certain types of work, the
wages they are willing to accept, and the attitude of their fellow workmen.

The investigation of the Consumers' League of New York clearly
indicated that the women who worked wanted 48-hour legislation.
Of the 500 women interviewed, 4 in 5 answered " yes " to the question :
"Would you be in favor of a law that limited a woman's working
hours to 48 hours a week~" The reasons given were that eight hours
a day were long enough to work; when they worked longer they were
too tired to do their work at home; they wanted time for their necessary home duties and recreation. To a large majority of these women
not even the lure of more money could offset the advantages of a
shorter workday. They had found from experience that " longer
hours meant more illness and greater loss of efficiency, so that there
was really no gain in the long run." 9 t
83 New York.
Department of Labor. Special bulletin No. 121, November, 1923.
N Consumers' League of New York.
The 48-Hour Law: Do Working Woi,1en Want It?
New York, 1927.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

l02

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

The material presented in behalf o:f the Women's Joint Legislative
Conference on the actual workings of the 48-hour week in New York
industries and in Massachusetts led to the conclusion that from the
economic viewpoint there was nothing to fear in the passage of a 48hour-week law; there was no reason to believe that it would hamper
the efficiency of labor or management or seriously hamper industry
in the State. And :furthermore, " from the viewpoint of women
workers as human beings it would be desirable to place such a law
on the books." 9 5
These factual surveys, together with other pertinent testimony as
to the effects of long hours of work on health, successfully offset
the contentions of the Woman's P arty, the Women's League for
Equal Opportunity, and the Equal R ights Association that if the
law were passed it would "cause a grave injustice to thousands of
women workers." 96
The commission apparently was not convinced that the 48-hourweek law would be an unmixed blessing, but the preponderance of
evidence in favor of it, the widespread support, and the failure of
the opposition to substantiate its arguments led to a recommendation for such a law with certain modifications for women employed
in mercantile and manufacturing industries.
The commission favored a maximum 8-hour day where women
were required to work 6 full days a week, but being impressed with
the Saturday half holiday as "a great factor for the physical wellbeing of women workers" and wishing to retain such holiday where
it already existed and to give it an additional impetus elsewhere,
the commission recommended a provision that would permit factories
or mercantile establishments to employ their women workers 9 hours
a day and 49½ hours a week in order to give them a full half holiday
on one day of each week besides their regular day of rest. 9 7
As a recognition of what it considered the need of industry for a
moderate amount of overtime, it recommended " a provision that
would permit of not to exceed 78 hours of overtime in any one year,
such overtime to be available to the employer whenever he requires
it, but upon giving notice to the industrial commissioner at the time
of beginning such overtime work." 98
The representative of the employing interests on the commission
did not accept the part of the report dealing with the 48-hour-wP,ek
law, but held to the position that there was no evidence showing t nat
the health of women was injured by working 54 hours a week and
that the industries of the State could not stand the additional burden
of shorter hours. 99
Labor representatives, while preferring a straight 48-hour-week
law, accepted the compromise proposal, for it established the principle of the 48-hour week.
115 New York Sta t e Industrial Survey Commission , 1926- 27.
T estimony, pp. 1200 and
1242.
86 Ibid., p. 16.
97 Ibid., p. 18.
88 I bid., p. 19.
The proponents of the 48-hour-week law the year previous had generally
accepted a provision a llowing 12 weeks of overtime. The commission's recommendation
stretched this to what amounted to 13 weeks to be a llowed whenever the employer's needs
required.
119 _
l bid., pp. 72-76.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

.HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

103

Social and civic organizations were not enthusiastic in their support, but they did not openly oppose the commission's recommendation when it came before the legislature and was enacted into law.
According to the provisions of the statute signed by Governor
Smith, the· 48-hour week, with the exceptions recommended by the
commission, went into effect January 1, 1928. 1
The passage of the 48-hour-week law leaves the minimum-wage
bill as the outstanding legislative proposal of the Women's Joint
Legislative Conference and allied organizations for the amelioration of the working conditions of women. The fight for this measure was so closely identified with the campaign for the 48-hourweek bill that, except for their source, the legislative history of the
two bills was practically identical up to 1925. Then came a change
jn that the majority party indorsed the 48-hour week but refused
to support the minimum wage. This meant a slightly smaller
vote for the discharge of committee on the latter bill. It also
meant that there was not the same p arty urge that the industrial survey commission make some sort of recommendation with regard to
minimum-wage as well as to 48-hour-week legislation. Although
the commission heard testimony both for and against wage legislation it made no report on the subject.
It remains to be seen whether the interested organizations will
continue to back the minimum-wage bill with the same enthusiasm
now that its more popular companion piece has been made law.
NIGHT-WORK LEGISLATION

Law of 1889 prohibiting night work for women under 21 in
factories.
The first suggestion for the control of night work for women
in New York came from the factory inspectors. In their report for
the year 1887 they recommended that " no woman should be permitted to be employed after 9 o'clock at night in a manufacturing
establishment." 2 They argued that women who worked at night
were more subject to nervous prostration and debility than were
women day workers, and furthermore that the dangers from insult
and bodily harm when returning late at night were such that women
bhould not be subjected to them. 3 The same r ecommendations made
to the legislature of 1889 resulted in the passage of an amendment
to the law of 1886 prohibiting the employment in a manufacturing
establishment of women under 21 years of age and male minors under
18 between the hours of 9 p. m. and 6 a. m. 4
Extension to adult women urged by factory inspectors .
The inspectors were not entirely satisfied with the scope .of this
legislation. They contended that the women themse}ves wished that
the night-work prohibition should be applied to. all women. In their
report of 1891 they said: " It seems to us that the prohibition could
wisely be extended so as to preclude any woman from being employed
in workshops and factories after 9 p. m. Such an amendment to
1 New York.
Session laws, 1927, ch. 453.
· •New York. Factory Inspectors. Second annual report, 1887. p. 28.
1 Idem.
'New York. Session laws,. 1889, ch. 560, secs. 1, 5, and 8.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

104

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

the law has been suggested by those most immediately concerned-the women themselves-it being their opinion that they could find
employment at the same occupations in practical.ly the same institutions during the day, and that all necessary night employment
would consequently devolve upon men." 5 For many years nothing
came of this and subsequent recommendations on the same subject.

Night-work provisions of mercantile act of 1896.
Meanwhile the Working Women's Society and the Consumers'
League of the City of New York became active in support of nightwork legislation for women in mercantile establishments. In their
"standards of a fair house" in 1891 they demanded that work in
mercantile establishments be performed between the hours of 8 a. m.
and 6 p. m. More leeway was given in the bU} they drafted. This
bill, subsequently indorsed in large measure by the Reinhard committee, provided that women under 21 should not be employed
tetween the hours of 10 p. m. and 7 a. m. These were the standards
that were incorporated in the law of 1896, with the important exception that they did not apply on Saturdays or during the period each
~;ear between December 15 and January 1.

Extension of the prohibition of night work to adult women in
factories, 1899.
The prohibition of employment of all women at labor in manu. facturing establishments between the hours of 9 p. m. and 6 a. m.
was accomplished in 1899. 6 The factory inspectors had insisted for
years that if the hours legis,lation for women under 21 and male
minors under 18 was to be enforced it must be applied to all women;
that the working women wanted this legislation and that there was
no good reason why they should not have it. At the time there was
little discussion of the merits or demerits of the .prohibition of night
work as such for adult women. This prohibition was part and parcel
of the hours legislation for younger women and minors and was
applied to adult women, firs,t , to aid enforcement and, second, to
give these women the same lega,l protection afforded to women
under 21.

Changes in the grouping of females to meet constitutional difficulties.
The constitutionality of the factory night-work law was always
a question in the minds of the enforcing officials. They allowed
violations to go unnoticed rather than run the risk of having a test
case. When in 1905 it looked as if a test could no longer be averted,
the factory inspectors called attention to the possible danger arising
from the existing grouping of females. They recommended that
this grouping be changed so that older gir,ls still would be prohibited from night work even if the law were tested and declared
invalid for adult women. 7 Commissioner of Labor Sherman made
this recommendation his own but it was not acted upon by the
legislature.
When the court of special sessions handed down its decision declaring the night-work law for women unconstitutional, CommisNew York.
• New York.
'New York.

Factory Inspectors. Sixth annual report, 1891, p. 37.
Session laws, 1899, ch. 192, seC', 77.
Factory Inspectors. Twentietb annual report, 1905, p. 25.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

RIS1'0R1: OF LAlmn LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

105

sioner Sherman had a bill introduced that divided females, for purposes of hours legislation, into two classes-those under 21 and those
over 21-so that in the event that the court of appeals affirmed the
decision of the lower court the night-work provision still might
apply to women under 21 instead of only to girls under 16. The
bill was passed," and even before it was signed by the governor 8 the
adverse decision of the higher court (New York v. Williams) wiped
out the night-work law for women. The signature of the governor
served to keep the younger women under its provisions. 9
The night-work law of 1913.
For the following six years night work was prohibited only :for
women under 21 employed in manufacturing and mercantile establishments. During these years sentiment in favor of prohibition of
night work for adult women was steadily increasing. In 1906 representatives from 14 European governments made and signed the now
famous international convention for the prohibition of night work
of women. By this convention the contracting States bound themselves to prohibit the industrial night work of women between the
hours of 10 p. m. and 5 a. m. and to provide for a minimum period
of 11 consecutive hours for night rest. 10 Ratification by these countries gave impetus to the movement for night-work laws in the
United States. The decision in 1908 of the United States Supreme
Court in Muller v. Oregon, upholding the constitutionality of the
10-hour law for women, also acted as a definite spur toward further
hours legislation.
The factory investigating .commission made the subject of night
work for women one of its major considerations and had a comprehensive study of the question undertaken. Part of this study was
the histories of 100 women night workers in a cordage plant. Seventy-seven of these women were married and five were widowed.
Seventy-five had children. These working mothers had 97 children.
Their chief reason for working at night was that they could be at
home during the day to care for their children. They also did their
housework, cooked, and washed. They averaged four and a half
hours of sleep a day.11 The results of this study, together with other
social and economic data available on the subject, were summed up as
follows:
The objections to night work of women are many. Among the principal ·
ones are the following: Lack of sunlight ; lack of normal sleep ; no compensation in the restless, interrupted sleep of day for the sleeplessness of
night ; the abnormality of sleeping by day ; abnormal cha nge in daily life ; the
rlestruction of home life; impossibility of properly caring for home and children; lack of restraining influences; day work besides the arduous night tasks. 12

The commission, with this information before it, recommended
• that night work for women in factories be prohibited between the
hours of 10 p. m. and 6 a. m. The purpose of the legislation was
8

New York Session laws, 1907, ch. 507, sec. 77.
New York. Department of Labor. Seventh annual report of commissioner, 1907, p. 61.
U. S. Department of Labor. Women's Bureau. The Employment of Women at Night.

Bul. 64, 1928, p. 69.

11 New York Stai:e Factory Investigating Commission.
t89--458.
u Ibid., p. 489.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Second report, 1913, v. 2, pp.

106

LABO:tt LEG1SLA1'ION FOR WOMEN

clearly stated in the bill-" to protect the health and morals of females employed in factories." It was hoped thereby to meet the
ronstitutional difficulties that led to the overthrow of the law of 1899.
The commission justified the enactment of a new law for two
reasons : "First, because an adequate period of rest at night is essential for the health of women employed in manufacture ; second,
because the provision of legal closing and opening hours is the only
effective method of enforcing the limitation f hours." It was held
that "no legitimate industry will suffer from this measure, urgently
needed to protect the health of the workers and to assist the factory
inspectors in the difficult task of enforcement." 18
It is worthy of note that no objection to the bill was received from
any source, though it was widely distributed. No o:ue appeared at
the legislative hearing in protest. On the contrary, the purpose of
the bill was commended by physicians, workers, and manufacturers
as well as by the general public. This bill became law in 1913. 14
Extension of the night-work provisions to women in mercantile

establishments, 1913 and 1914.
The same year a bill was introduced prohibitino- work for women
in mercantile establishments between 6 p. m. and a. m. in cities of
the second class and between 10 p. m. and 7 a. m. elsewhere, except
in towns of less than 3,000 population. It did not apply to Saturdays, provided the total weekly hours did not exceed 54 in cities of
the second class nor 60 hours elsewher e. A Christmas exemption
was allowed, as usual. Since the stricter hours provisions applied
only to cities of the second class, this bill was not supported by the
factory investigating commission nor by organizations particularly
interested in such measures. Nevertheless, in the rush of labor
legislation it was passed and became law .1 5
The following year the law was amended 16 to prohibit the employment of all women in mercantile establishments after 10 p. m.
and before 7 a. m. This law was the result of the recommendation
of the factory investigating commission after a thorough investigation of the whole industry. The Saturday exemption was not continued, but the seven days before Christmas were left unregulated.
Two more days with unlimited hours for stock taking were granted
in 1915 by the legislature at the request of the retail merchants'
association. 17

Further extension of the night-work faw.
As hours legislation was gradually extended to women employed
in other industries, the night-work provisions as well as t he daily and
weekly limitations were made to apply. In 1917 women employed
in or in connection with a restaurant in cities of the first or second
class were prohibited from working between the hours 10 p. m. and
6 a. m. This law did not apply to women employed in or in connection with restaurants in hotels, nor to singers, performers, and
attendants in ladies' cloakrooms and parlors.
ia Ibid., v. 1, p. 212.
14 New York.
Session la ws, 1913, ch. 83. This legisla tion was upheld in 1924 by the
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Ra dice v. New York.
111 New York State Fact ory Investigating Commission.
Third report, 1914, p. 53; and
New York. Session laws, 1913.t ch. 493.
:u N~ York. Session laws, litl4, ch. 331.
1f New York.
Session laws, 1915, ch. 386.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

;HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

107

Legislation of 1918 prohib.i ted the employment of women over· 21
as messengers between the hours of 10 p. m. and 7 a. m. T he same
prohibition was applied the following year to operators of elevators,
but women over 21 employed in hotels were excepted and work
might begin at 6 a. m. in an industry or business in which the employment of women between 6 and 7 was not prohibited. This same
year women over 21 years of age engaged in certain occupations in
the transportation services were prohibited from working between
the hours of 10 p. m. and 6 a. m.
Exemption from the night-work law of women in newspaper
offices and women printers.
Repeated attempts have been made to break down the night-work
law, but in only two instances have they been successful-the case of
women in newspaper offices and that of women printers.
Soon after the law was passed the group of women employed in
newspaper offices as proof readers, linotypists, and monotypists began
to protest against the application of the law to their employment.
Each year they had a bill introduced into the legislature that would
grant them an exemption from the night-work law. They claimed
that they were being discriminated against in newsp aper work
because of the law, that wages were lower on the day shifts than on
the night shifts, and that they were losing their seniority rights by
being unable to accept night work. 18 They were opposed by the
industrial commission, the State federation of labor, the Women's
Trade Union League, and the Consumers' League of the City of
New York. The opposition contended that while the present bill
affected fewer than 50 women it would provide a dangerous precedent that would react unfavorably upon the large body of women to
whom the act as a whole applied.
In 1917 the women printers succeeded in pushing their bill through
the legislature before the opposition got into action. The governor
heard the appeal of the State federation of labor, the Consumers'
L eague of the City of New York, and others and vetoed the bill. 19
The following year considerable bitterness was aroused over t his
bill. Typographical Union No. 6 of New York City, the union to
which the affected women printers belonged, asked the executive
council of the State federation of labor to support the exemption
of the printing women from the night-work law. The council
refused on the grounds that the bill granted a special privilege to
one industry and so provided a dangerous precedent for further
exemptions, that it was too broad in its scope, and that it would take
away from the women printers needed health protection. 20
According to the• federation rules, this refusal to indorse the
measure precluded Typographical Union No. 6 from giving it further legislative support. D espite rules to the contrary, the president of No. 6 and a committee of union women printers appeared
in favor of the bill at the hearing and actively lobbied for 1t. The
15 New York.
Department ot Labor. Division of women In Industr y. T he employment
of women in newspaper offices as proof readers, linotypists, and monotyplsts. November,

1921.

19 Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Unpublished report of executive com·
mittee, Ma y 18, 1917.
20 NPw
York State Federa tion of Labor. Proceedings of convention, 1918, pp. 12t
11.na 127.

91970°-32-3

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

108

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

bill finally was defeated through the efforts of the State federation
of labor, the industrial commission, the Women's Trade Union
League, and the Consumers' League of the City of New York. 21
To prevent the recurrence of such an apparent split in trade-union
ranks, the Women's Trade Union League called a conference of tradeunion women representing 17 different unions, including Typographical Union No. 6,. to thresh out the question of night work and legislation for women in general. This conference went on record as
favoring not Jess but more industrial legislation for themselves. 22
When the bill was introduced the following year -and succeeding
years it no longer had the official support of Typographical Union
No. 6. A new organization, the Women's League for Equal Opportunity, officered largely by printing women, took the field in behalf
of this legislation. Its slogan was "Equa,l opportunity-industrially "; its purpose, to oppose all industr ial legislation that did not
apply equally to men and women. Undoubtedly the league had its
inception in the earJy efforts of the printing women to obtain release
from the night-work law. These women, while lobbying for their
bill, found themselves at odds with other working women and representatives of organizations supporting increased legal protection
for women in industry. At first they contented themselves with
merely pushing their own measure. But when they found that it was
inextricably bound up with the whole movement for industrial legislation for women they began to oppose each and every bi,11 for the
improvement of the working conditions of women that came before
the legislature.
This opposition was particularly embarrassing in trade-union
~ircles as long as these women officially represented their local union.
When the printers' union withdrew its support from the bill, the
Women's League for Equal Opportunity sprang into being,2 3 and
in 1920 this organization was successful in securing the passage of the
night-work exemption for women printers. The tactics used by the
Jegislative majority to pass the bill were roundly denounced by the
legislative agent ot the State federation of labor, who claimed that
the bill never passed the senate. 24
Governor Smith vetoed the bill. In his accompanying memorandum he discussed the legal recognition of the need for night-work
laws and the findings of the factory investigating commiss10n as to
the evils of night work for women, and then said:
I regard this proposed enactment as a distinctly backward step for the State
of New York to take at a time when there is international recognition of prohibition of night work for women, as a health mea sure.
It is wrong to compromise · with a principle. If we exempt printing establishments this year, we will be urged to exempt some other establishments
next year, and gradually the statute will be so weakened as to make it useless.
This is not a matter of personal convenience to the peo,ple affected. It is
a matter of interest to the people of the whole Stat e. The United States
Supreme Court in Muller ii. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, struck the keynote of the
matter when it said, " As healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring,
the physical well-being of women becomes an object of public interest and care
in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race." 2G
Ibid., p. 127.
Ibid., p. 233.
Idem.
16 New York State Federation of Labor.
Proceedings of convention, 1920, pp. 7 and 8.
• New York. Public Papers of Governor Alfred E. Smith, 19!l0, p. 319.
21

22
28

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

109

The year 1921 saw the culmination of the efforts to repeal the
night-work law as it applied to women proof readers, linotypists,
and monotypists. The removal of all active opposition may have
been a factor in this success. At the hearing before the joint committee on labor and industry the Women's Joint Legislative Conference took the position that inasmuch as the bill "covered so few
workers, that these workers were protected by the union, that they
were highly skilled, highly paid workers with an 8-hour day, it would
not oppose their exemption from the night work law." 26 The State
federation of labor did not change its position but it did not actively
oppose the bill. The bill passed the legislature with large majorities
and was signed by Governor Miller. 27
While the women printers were struggling to be exempted from
the night-work law the women reporters and writers in newspaper
offices became alarmed lest the law be interpreted to include them. In
1919 they had a bill introduced in the legislature specifically exempting them from the night-work la.w and the 6-day-week provision of
the hour law. Since the department of labor had never interpreted
the law as applying to these groups, the bill exempting them passed
immediately without any opposition. By some curious oversight
the mercantile law, not the factory law, was thus amended.
PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION

Most States have prohibited the employment of women in certain
industries and under certain conditions. New York is no exception to
this rule. There is a law on her statute books prohibiting the work
of women in mines and quarries and a law prohibiting the selling of
liquor by women. Women were early forbidden by law from cleaning machinery while in motion and from operating certain polishing
and buffing wheels. Later they were prohibited from working for
four weeks after giving birth to a child. The widespread substitution
of girls and women for men during the war brought about the legal
exclusion of the younger group from certain occupations considered
morally hazardous.
The genesis of some of this prohibitory legislation is unknown.
No records show how or why the law excluding women from work
in mines or quarries was enacted.28 Apparently it was a pet measure
of some legislator which, while it might have had real purpose in a
mining State, was practically without influence in New York. The
statute passed in 1892 that prohibited women from selling liquor may
have originated with the bartenders' union. It is known that in 1893,
upon motion of a representative of this union, the American Federation of Labor passed a resolution demanding legislation to forbid the
employment of females in any capacity in connection with saloons
and other places selling liquor. 29 Whether the influences that
brought about the passage of this resolution were the same that led
to the enactment of the New York law is a matter of conjecture. The
sources of other laws are more easily traceable.
Consumers' League of the City of New York. Annual report, 1920. p. 6.
New York. Session laws. 1921, ch. 50, sec. 2.
:is Ibid., 1906, ch. 375, sec. 133.
• American Federation of Labor. Proceedings of convention, 1893. p. 48.
26
21

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

110

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

Cleaning machinery.
'The law of 1887 prohibiting females under 21 and minors under
18 from cleaning machinery in motion was the direct result of a
recommendation by the factory inspectors. 30 They found that these
inexperienced workers were likely to clean machinery while in
motion in order to save time, with the result that their clothes often
were caught in the wheels and belts, thus causing injury. 81
The factory inspectors were supported in their recommendation by
the workingmen's assembly and by the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children. The bill passed at the session in which it was
first introduced, although it was opposed by the manufacturers of
the State. 3 2
E xcept for changes in penalties and a minor change in wording
thjs law remains on the statute books as originally passed.

Buffing and polishing.
The prohibition of the work of women in the operation and use of
buffing and polishing wheels was clearly brought about by the metal
polishers' union. It was entirely unsupported, and was even opposed,
by the factory inspectors, who ordinarily were sympathetic with
measures for the improvement of working conditions or for the protection of health. These inspectors had early recognized the need for
control of dusty trades. In 1887 they had published a lengthy article
by Dr. Roger S. Tracy, sanitary inspector of the Board of Health
of New York, showing the dangers to health of dusty trades, and
had suggested that when manufacturers did not adopt the latest
improvements in exhaust fans, blowers, and other such devices, they
should be forced by law to do so. It was their opinion that most of
the danger to health could be obviated by proper devices. 8 3
The legislature had carried out their suggestions in 1889 by passing a law 3 4 that required the provision of exhaust fans for carrying
off dust from emery wheels, grindstones, and dust-creating machinery. 3 5 This law seemed to make for considerable improvement in
the industry. 3 6 There was no concerted demand for further legislation until women began entering these trades in appreciable numbers. Then the metal polishers' union began to agitate for a law to
prohibit the employment of women in an industry so fraught with
danger to health. It did not show that the work was more dangerous
to women than to men, nor did it attempt to secure remedial legislation to make the industry more safe for both women and men. By
active lobbying the officials of the metal polishers' union, supported
by the legislative agent of the workingmen's federation, secured
without opposition in 1899 the passage of a bill 87 that they thought
would eliminate women from the industry as a whole. 38
This law was opposed by the factory inspectors. They argued
that while it was proper to restrict and limit the employment of
New York. Session laws, 1887, ch. 462, secs. 11 a nd 20.
New York. Factor y In spect or s. Ji' irst a nnual repor t, 1886, p. 21.
lfairchild, F. R. F a ctory Legislation of the Sta t e of New York. Publications of the
A.merica n E conomic Associ ation, 3d series, 1905, v. 6, No. 4, p. 49 .
38 New York.
Factory I nspect or s. Second annu al r eport, 1887, p. 68.
34 New York.
Session la w s, 1889, ch. 560, sec. 12.
811 New York.
Factory Inspectors. Fourth annua l report, 1889, pp. 18 and 19.
116 Ibid.
Sixth annua l report, 1891, p. 54.
111 New York.
Session laws, 1899, ch. 375.
18 Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers, and Brass Polishers• Union.
Journal, v. 8, 1899
pp. 262 and 347.
10

SJ.
12

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

11 J

women it was not proper to prohibit their labor in certain fields,
particularly in one in which their service was "as valuable, as effective, and as well paid for as that of men. " 39
To the chagrin of the metal polishers, these inspectors held that the
law as passed prohibited the employment of women only on polishing
and buffing wheels and did not cover all polishing operations. When
this interpretation was upheld by the attorney general the union immediately began to agitate for an amendment to the act so that it
would prohibit the employment of women in all branches of the
industry.
It was partially successful in this attempt in 1903. In this year
a bill was passed prohibiting the employment of women in these occupations on all processes in which the baser metals or iridium were
ustd. Processes involving the finer metals were exempted because
of the active opposition of the jewelers,4 0 who claimed that they had
skilled women polishers doing the finer grades of work under
healthful conditions. These women could not be replaced satisfactorily by men. The legislature acceded to their request for an
exemption. 4 1
The rapid turnover of male employees during the war made the
employment of women at metal polishing particularly desirable. A
bill was introduced and passed in 1919 permitting their employment
by rule or regulation of the industrial commissioner. A hearing was
given by Governor Smith at which representatives of the metal polishers' union and the legislative representative of the State federation
of labor opposed the measure, and Mark Daly, legislative agent of
the Associated Industries, spoke in its favor. 42 The governor vetoed
the bill, for the following reasons.
I believe the sta tute as it now stands is a very salutary one, which protects
the health of the women worker s. I am unwilling that any board or comrnission should be permitted to make exceptions to the statute, because I believe
that the nature of the work is such as would tend to undermine the health of
women. 43

The special legislative committoo appointed to recodify the labor
law recommended in 1921 an amendment to the law of 1899 to the
effect that women over 21 years of age could be employed " in operating such wheels for wet grinding under conditions specified by the
industrial board in its rules." Although opposed by the metal polishnrs and the St'il-te federation of labor, this recommendation became
law. 44 So far the industrial board has made no rules governing the
conditions under which this work may be carried on and the amendment remains inoperative.

Employment immediately after childbirth.
The New York prohibition of labor of women immediately after
childbirth was given its initial urge by Dr. C. T. Graham-Rogers,
medical inspector of factories, when in 1909 he suggested that in
conformance with European practice such labor be prohibited for
four weeks after confinement. 4 5 In 1910 he called attention to the
New York. Fact ory In spectors . Fourteenth annua l report, 1899, p. 35.
•
York. Department of Labor . 'l' hird annual report of commissioner, 1903, p. 60.
Idem.
C? New Yor k State Federation of Labor.
Proceedings of convention, 1919, p. 127.
.a New York. Public Papers of Governor Alfred E. Smith, 1919, p. 160.
"New York. Session laws, 1921, ch. 642.
• New York. Department of Labor. Ninth annual report of commissioner, 1909, p. 79.
89

'° New

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

112

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

close connection between infant mortality and the employment of
women. The mortality was highest in towns where the largest proportion of women were employed in manufacturing. He gave as
causes industrial labor injuries to the expectant mother or her exposure to various poisons that might affect the health of the child,
substitution of ar tificial feeding for breast feeding, and neglect. 46
That medical men in general were in agreement with Doc.tor Graham-Rogers is evidenced by the number of articles appearing about
that time in the leading medical and economic journals stressing the
evils of employment of mothers immediately before and after childbirth. The comprehensive study of infant mortality made by Dr.
George Newman and published in 1906 showed the relationship between infant mortality and the employment of the mother.47 This
study had a profo und effect upon laymen as well as upon the medical profession.
The Consumers' League of the City of New York in 1911 became
interested in the general subject of legislation regulating the employment of mothers before and after childbirth and addressed letters
to the leading pediatricians and health officers, asking their opinion
as to the advisability of legal prohibition of such employment.
Extensive research of published material on the question also was
carried on. The data gathered were conclusive enough to support
legislation, but legislative activities affecting larger numbers of
women pushed the subject into the background.48
The factory investigating commission, in its early efforts to obtain
suggestions from representative employers, labor leaders, and citjzens " for improving the conditions under which manufacturing was
carried on," sent out a questionnaire. Among the questions was this :
" How should the employment of women be prohibited immediately
before and after childbirth~" 49
The wording of the question required a suggestion of method of
prohibition rather than advisability of such legislation. It may have
been this requirement that led to the paucity of the answers. Of the
45 persons who replied to the questionnaire, in whole or in part, only
3 -tried to answer this particular question. One, a city health officer,
advocated prohibition of employment durinO' p r egnancy and for one
year thereafter; another, a layman, suggested prohibition three weeks
before and three weeks after childbirth ; and a third, at one time
labor commissioner, gave the only answer to the question of method
by suggesting a fine for the employer who knowingly employed a
woman i:rpmediately before or after childbirth. 50
In proposing legislation the commission apparently was guided
largely by what it called "a matter of common knowledge that
women who have to deny themselves rest and care during the last
few weeks of pregnancy, and the first few weeks after confinement.
are very liable to suffer from hemorrhage and chronic uterine dis~
eases." 51 It accepted, too, the generally recognized relationship between infant mortality and the employment of the mother. Legisla"'Ibid. T enth annua l report of commissioner, 1910, p. 78.
47 Newman, George.
I nfant mortality. London, Methuen & Co. , 1906.
Consumers' League of the City of New York. Unpublished records, 1911.
49
New York State Factory Investigating Commission. Preliminary report, 1912, v. 1,
pp. 588 and 593.
'° Ibid., pp. 600-602 and 647-649.
11 Ibid., pp. 99-100.
68

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

113

tion ~nacted in foreign countries and in Massachusetts served as a
guide. Th0 commission appreciated the difficulty of enforcing legislation of this ch~racter, p articularly that applying to the period before childbirth, and therefore adopted the suggestion of the chief
medical inspector of factories that the English law be followed; that
is, that employment be prohibited only for the four weeks after
confinement. 5 2 This proposed legislation aroused little discussion.
It passed the legislature without opposition in 1912. 5 3
Messenger, transportation, and elevator service.
Shortage of labor during the war led to the employment of girls
and young women in new and unregulated occupations that commonly were considered morally hazardous. The New York Child
Labor Committee and the Consumers' League of the City of New
York were largely instrumental in having the law of 1918 provide
that no f emale under 21 should be employed as a messenger for a
telegraph or messenger company. 5 4
The transportation law enacted the following year, at the insistence
of the Women's Joint Legislative Conference and many other organizations, prohibited the work of women under 21 in, or in connection with, the operation of railways. 5 5 This same year, 1919,
femaleH under 18 were prohibited from operating or caring for elevators.5 6 There was practically no opposition to the provisions of
this war-time legislation. All groups were convinced of the wisdom
of protecting young girls from such clearly recognized hazards.
REGULATION OF CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS

In addition to prohibiting the work of women in certain industries
· and under certain conditions, the laws of New York regulate most
specifically the conditions of their employment in mercantile base•
ments and in foundries.
Work in mercantile basements.
The law regulating the employment of women and children in
mercantile basements was passed in 1896 upon recommendation of
the Reinhard committee. It was first proposed by the Working
Women's Society, to remedy the evils of long hours of work in illlighted and ill-ventilated basements.
The Reinhard committee was convinced by its visits and inquiries
that there were basements of r etail stores that were damp, badly
ventilated, and without proper lighting facilities. The committee
agreed that work in such places was injur ious to the health of the
employees. It did not feel justified in recommending an absolute
prohibition of employment in basements, but it did recommend that
before women or children could be employed in a mercantile basement the employer must have a permit from the local board of health.
Such permission was to be granted only when the basement was suf Ibid., p. 100.
I bid ., 1912, ch. 331.
I bi d ., 1918 , ch . 434, sec. 161-c.
New York. Session laws, 1919, ch. 583.
&e Ibid., ch. 544.

&s
M
111

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

114

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

ficiently lighted and ventilated and in all respects in the sanitary
condition necessary for the health of the employees. 57
These recommendations were embodied in the mercantile act of
1896,58 which did not apply to towns of less than 3.000 population.
The only important amendment to this law was in 1924, when it was
extended to cover basement employment in restaurants. 59
In 1908, when enforcement of the mercantile law in cities of the
first class was transferred to the bureau of mercantile inspection
of the department of labor, it was further enacted that permission
to employ women and children in mercantile basements in these
cities must be secured from the bureau of mercantile inspection instead of from the local boards of health. 00 The power of this bureau
was extended to second-class cities in 1913, with the enforcement of
the mercantile-hours legislation in cities of this class.61 When the
labor law was recodified in 1921 the power still vested in the health
authorities in the smaller cities was transferred to the labor comm1ss10ner. The enforcement of the act as a whole has from that
time on been in the hands of the labor department officials. 62
Core making.
Legislation regulating the employment of women in core rooms
was framed by the factory _investigating commission and passed by
the legislature upon its recommendation. Apparently the only agitation that led to the passage of this measure came from the organized molders.
As early as 1910 the workingmen's federation , on behalf of the
molders, secured the introduction of a bill prohibiting the employment of women at core making in the foundries of the State. At the
hearing on this bill support was limited to the molders' represf>ntatives and to the legislative agent of the federation. 63 A numlaor of
foundrymen appeared in opposition. Although they were not represented at the hearing, the legislative committee of the Consumers'
League of the City of New York opposed the bill, for the reason
"that cores for metal castings may be manufactured under good conditions if the process is not carried on in a general foundry." 64
The labor and industries committee of the assembly refused to
report the bill, on the ground that there was no general demand for
a measure of this kind, for only 174 women were employe,d in the
foundries of the State. 65
Tlie molders intended to reintroduce their bill in 1911 but were
deterred by the action of the International Molders' Union. When
asked for support of the measure by the New York locals, the international had turned the bill over to its counsel for advice. He advised that if such a bill were passed it certainly would be declared
unconstitutional. The international therefore suggested that the
M New York.
Assembly documents, No. 97, 1896. v . 1, pp. 39-40. Report of speelal
cowmittee of the assembly to investigate the condition of female labor in the citJ a-:
New York.
118 N e w York.
Session laws, 1896, ch. 384, secs. 7, 11, and 12.
G9 Ibid., 1924, ch. 466, sec. 383.
60 Ibid., 1908, ch. 520.
• 1 Ibid., 1913
ch. 145, sec. 173.
82
Ibid., 1921 . th. 50. secs. 201 , 383, and 391.
ea New York State Federation of Labor. Proceedings of convention, 1910, p. 94.
e4. Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Unpublished report of th e committee
on l egislation, April , 1910.
• New York State F 0 1 " i'fl tion of Labor. Proceedings of convention, 1910, p. 94.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

115

bill be dropped. This the New York locals were loath to do. They
interested the factory investigating commission in conditions in the
molding industry as a whole, and then laid before it the so-called
evils of the employment of women in the industry. 66
Preliminary investigation led the commission to report as follows:
"The occupation is an arduous one, and the workers during the
day are exposed to marked changes in temperature. The washing
facilities are bad. The system of ventilation in many of the foundries
is entirely inadequate. The result is shown by the number of molders
suffering from rheumatism, pulmonary diseases, and kidney trouble."
It was found that women work " under exactly the same condition
and with the same surroundings as the men. They are subjected
to the fumes of gas and to smoke. This work means severe manual
labor, and altogether the occupation seems to be a most dangerous
one for a woman in so far as her health is concerned." 6 7
The commission o-ave as its opinion that the employment of women
in the foundries of the State should be prohibited; that their employment in the industry was not only a great injury to themselves
but it was a " menace to posterity, and should not be tolerated by
any civilized community." 68
During the next year the commission made a more extended investigation of foundry conditions. Its investigations and deliberations
led to the formulatiop of a tentative draft of a bill strictly regulating, rather than prohibiting, the employment of women in the industry. The commission still believed that foundry work was not suited
to a woman, but an appeal from women working in the industry, as
well as the constitutional difficulties, led it to attempt regulation
rather than exclusion.
The bill read as follows:
No female sh all be employed or permitted to work in any brass, iron, or
&teel foundry, at or in connection with the making of cores where the oven
in which t he cores are baked is located and is in operation in the same room
or space in which the cores are made. The erection of a partition separating
the oven from the space where the cores are made shall not be sufficient unless
the said partition extends from the floor to the ceiling, and the partition is so
constructed and arranged and any openings therein so protected that the
gases a nd fumes from the core oven will not en er the room or space in which
the women are employed. 6 9

Two public hearings were held on this proposed leo-islation, which
foundrymen and labor organizations throughout the State were urged
to attend and to give the commission the benefit of their criticism.
The molder s argued for total exclusion of women from foundries,
because a fo undry was no place for women, the molders as a class
were too rough for women to work with, the work was too dirty and
too arduous. It was evident, however, that the real motivating force
was economic. They were opposed to women making small cores
principally because the lower wage acceptable to women would lead to
86 O' Connor, D. W.
Foundry Legislation tn New York State. International Molders
Journa l, April, 1913, pp. 272- ::184. "The original cause of th e mol6ers here (New York)
• starting things ' was a desire to elimina te th e female core maker from the foundry, a
bill for such object failing in the session of 1910, but such a gitation ' evoluted ' into a
movement havin g fo r its object the ben efit of a ll molders."-p. 272.
87 New York State Factory Investigating Commission.
Preliminary report, 1912, v. 1,
p. 107.
118 Idem.
• New York Sta e Factory Investigating- Commission. Second report, 1913, v. l, p. 198.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

116

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

the gradual displacement of men in the core-making process as a
whole. This was made quite clear by one witness representing the
organized molders. He told of a firm that had introduced women on
the plea that " they only wanted these girls to make these little bits of
cores "; they would not " take the place of men " but would only
"eliminate the boys." The union a€,'reed to this, with the consequence
that" To-day those girls are using these monstrous rammers and making cores of great size * * * and .there are very few men there
now." He went on to say that women were not paid in proportion to
their output and legislation regulating conditions of work would
not secure them such payment. 70
Another molder, in response to an employer's statement that it
was difficult to find boys to do the core making, testified that there
was no real difficulty in getting boys to do this work; " but," he
added, " the wages the boys get and the men get, are superior to the
women * * *. The wages of these girls run from three dollars
and a half to six dollars provided they work hard, and the boys used
to get fourteen to fifteen dollars a week, and that is the reason they
[women] are employed, and I don't see any reason .unless it is the
lower wage." 71
That this man and other witnesses made this point clear is evidenced by the retort of the chairman of the commission, Robert F.
Wagner, "I think everybody agrees with that.. " 72
Later in the testimony, Abram I. Elkus, counsel to the factory
investigating commission, emphasized this fact still further by interrupting an employer's statement with, " It has been shown that
because women work for so much less wages, that while you now
are working them on very small cores, the inevitable tendency will
be to put them on larger and larger and larger ones." 73
The molders' contention that women should be excluded from
foundries was supported by Doctor Fronczak, 7 4 health officer o:f Buffalo, and Dr. C. T. Graham-Rogers, 75 medical inspector of factories
for the department of labor, both of whom held that the work was
too dusty and too dirty for women. Labor Commissioner Williams
also testified that he was opposed to t he employment of women in
foundries. 76
All the foundrymen who employed women were opposed to the
measure. They said it was so framed as practically to exclude women
from core making. Their opposition to exclusion, according to
their testimony, was apparently just as altruistic as that of the
molders. They wished to give women the " opportunity " to work in
core rooms. - They held that the work was neither unhealthful nor
arduous. In addition, some stressed the difficulty of getting boys to
do the small core making and others the better service rendered by
the women. When pressed by the commission, the representative of
the members of the National Founders' Association in New York
fO Ibid., v. 3 , pp. 933-935.
n Ibid., P. 921. For further testimony of molders see v. 3, pp. 906, 92_4_, a.i;id 93{1 a_n _d
~- 4, pp. 1809 and 2110--2111.
12 Ibid., v. 3, p. 921.
.
78 Ibid., p. 937.
"Ibid. Second r eport, 1913, v. 4, p. 1787.
'Ill Ibid.
Preliminary report, 1912, v. 2, p. 295,.
.._. {b,\d,. Secom~ re1,>ort, 1913,, v. 3,, J?· 12.:Z:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

R1STORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN NEW YORK

117

admitted that the lower wages for which women could be obtained
was the ruling factor in determin,i ng their employment. 77
One employer made a clear case for the opposition when he stated
thatA measure of this kind when made practicable and workable, as far a s conditions pertaining to the health of the individual is concerned, should be a~
plicable to men as well as women. Certain features of this bill appear to be
framed in such a way as to exclude women entirely from the core-making
privilege, in face of the fact which is now fully established that light core
making, under proper conditions, is entirely fitting work for women to perform,
and is one of the few occupations where she can honorably secure a wage return
equivalent to that which men receive in the same employment. 78

In its final report the commission frankly stated that it still believed that a foundry was no place for a woman and that it would
have been better if they had not started to work there. But since
300 women had been trained to this work it did not wish to take the
responsibility of denying them their jobs. Therefore it advocated
~uffi.ciently stringent regulations of women's work to prevent the extension of their employment. It believed that these regulations
would in a few years result in the complete elimination of women in
foundries. 7 9
The bill, substantially in its original form , was recommended to
the legislature for passage. At the hearing before the joint legislative committee on labor and industries the representative of the
foundrymen asked for permission to file a brief. 80 There was
no further opposition and no voice in support unless general indorsement of all the bills of the commission by such organizations as the
consumers' league, the New York Federation of Churches, and the
State federation of labor may be considered to apply specifically to
this legislation. The bill became law in 1913. 81
The industrial board was empowered to adopt rules and regulations
governing the construction, equipment, and operation of core rooms
and the size and weight of cores that might be handled by women.
Such rules and regulations were adopted in 1915. Aside from specific provisions governing construction, the following are the rules
adopted:
No female shall be allowed t"o ha ndle cores which have a temperature· of
more than one hundred and ten (110) degrees Fahrenheit. (Rule 584.)
No female shall be permitted to make or handle cores when the combined
weight of core, core box and plate at which she is working exceeds twenty-five
(25) pounds. (Rule 585.) 82

SEATING LEGISLATION

The first labor legislation for women in New York State was the
law of 1881 83 that provided that all employers of women in any mercantile or manufacturing business or occupation must provide and
maintain suitable seats for the use of women employees and permit
the use of such seats to the extent reasonable for the protection of

·----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ibid., v. 3,
Itid., v. 3,
v. 1,
80 Ibid., v . 4,
81 New York.
112 New York.
81 New York.
77
71i

ro Ibid.,

pp. 827-829; anl'I v. 4, pp. 2063 and 2096-2100.
p. 807.
.
pp. 261-- 263.
p. 2806.
Session laws, 1913, ch. 464.
Department of Labor. Industrial B oard. Bulletin No. 10, 1915, pp. 10-11.
Session laws, 1881, ch. 298, secs. 1 and 2.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

118

LABOtt LEG!SLATION FO!t WOMEM

health. This act, passed at the instigation of the workingmen's
assembly, was so loosely drawn that it was impossible of enforcement.
Every few years groups would attempt to secure convictions under
it, but in vain. In the early nineties the Working Women's Society
took up the cudgels in behalf of this legislation. As a result of an
inquiry into working conditions of women in stores it reported as
follows:
We find the law requiring seats for saleswomen generally ignored; in a few
places one seat is provided at a counter where 15 girls are employed, and in
one store seats are provided and saleswomen fined if found sitting. 84

The Consumers' League of the City of New York, formed to aid
the Working ·women's Society in securing better working conditions
in stores, made the observance of this law one of the standards of
a "fair house." A firm that did not observe it couid not have its
name on the "white list."
Except for the few firms on the " white list," employers violated
the law on every hand. In 1894 the consumers' league, cooperating
with the City Improvement Society, urged the district attorney to
bring a suit against certain firms that refused to comply with the
law, and offered themselves as witnesses. The district attorney advised that the law was so loosely constructed that it would be useless to
attempt to secure a conviction under it. 85 Thereafter, efforts were
centered upon securing passage of the proposed act to regulate the
employment of women and children in mercantile establishments.
One of its provisions was that employers in mercantile establishments
be required to provide seats to the number of at least one to every
three women employed and that women be permitted to use these
seats at reasonable times.
This bill was later turned over by the legislature to the Reinhard
committee for recommendations. After investigation of store conditions and hearing testimony from store employees the committee was
of the opinion that the provision of seats was of the " highest importance " to the health of the females employed. They stated that
" The testimony of the female employees demonstrated the fact that
they themselves regard the necessity of sitting down at unemployed
times during the day as imperative. 'l'hc testimony of physicians
is corroborative of the truth of the statements of employees" and
that some employers agreed with the employees and physicin,ns. 86
Although it was the wholesale violation of the old statute that led
friends of the working women to demand an amendment, their demand was reinforced by Mr. E. W. Bloomingdale, speaking for the
Retail Dry Goods Association, who stated that a law providing for
proper seats should be placed on the statute books and that he believed that most of the merchants of New York wanted such a law
enforced. 87
The Reinhard committee recommended legislation requirino- one
8eat for every three female employees, that the seats should be so
placed that the employees could use them conveniently, and that they
8' Consumers' League of the City of New York.
Annual report, 1894, p. 4.
• Ibid., p. 11.
se New York. Assembly documents, No. 97 , 1896, v. 1, pp. 38-39. Report of special
committee of the assembly to investigate the condition ot female labor in the city ot New
York.
ff1 Ibid., v. 2, pp. 1807 and 1810.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1IIS'.r0RY OF LABOR LEG!SLATiON FOR WOMEN iN NEW YORK

119

should be permanent in character. Its recommendations were embodied in the legislation of 1896. 88 The new seating law applied only
to mercantile establishments. 89 The unenforceable act of 1881 was
in effect in factories until 1913, when it was replaced by the statute
recommended by the factory investigating commission.
Prior to 1911 there was no public concern expressed in the lack
of adequate seat1ng facilities for women workers in factories. In
that year the medical inspector of factories called attention to the
fr~quent use of improvised seats, such as boxes, barrels, and boards.
He suggested that a " suitable " seat should be defined as one that
would permit the feet of an employee to rest comfortably on the floor
and the back of which was set at an angle of not less than 100° .00
The commissioner of labor also recommended that the seating law
be amended to require the provision of adjustable seats, permanently
secured at convenient locations. He deemed this amendment neces~ary to " simplify the problem of enforcement and remove ambiguity
1n the law" as well as to provide rest for women. 91
The factory investigating commission agreed with the commissioner on the need for a better seating law for women in manufacturing establishments and for wa:i'.tresses in hotels and restaurants. It
found that" the continual ·s tanding of women in factories and manufacturing establishments is one of the worst features of a large part
of their work. Women are required to stand in candy factories, laundries, textile mills and printing shops for hours at a time and often
for the entire day. The effects of continuous standing upon the
female organism are grave. Much of this standing is unnecessary,
a great deal of the work could very readily be carried on in a sitting
posture." 02
The commission found further that the existing law was too vague
and indefinite to be of much use. It recommended that the law be
amended by defining a suitable seat as one with a back at an angle
of not less than 100° and by specifying that such seats be provided
for women employed at all processes adapted to a sitting position. 08
This bill was rejected by the legislature as being too specific. It
was revised, reintroduced, and enacted the following year. The new
law provided that "suitable seats with backs where practicable"
should be supplied. 04 The industrial board was given power to make
rules and regulations prescribing the number and kinds of seats that
should be provided and when they could be used.
The law of 1919 that re~ulated the hours of work for elevator operators also provided that ' suitable " seats should be maintained for
any woman operating or caring for an elevator and that she" should
be allowed the use thereof at such times and to such an extent as may
be necessary for the preservation of her health." 95
•

)
88 New York.SPssion laws, 1896, ch. 384, secs. 6, 11, and 12.
89 New York.
Session laws, 1900, ch. 533. Waitre:;,ses in hotels and restaurants were
brought under the provisions of the fac tory act in 1900.
00 New York.
Department of Labor. Eleventh a nnual report of commissioner, 1911.
p.. 77.
1
0 Ibid., p. 34.
• 2 New York State Factory Investigating Commission.
Second 1·epol't, 1913, v. 1, p. 213,
18 Ibid.
Preliminary report, 1912, v. ·1, pp. 832-833•
.. New York. Session laws, 1913, ch. 197.
• Ibid., 1919, ch. 544, art. 12 A, sec. l 71.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CHAPTER IV.-HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR
WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA
HOURS LEGISLATION

Efforts to regulate hours prior to 1910.
As compared with other industrial States California was late in
enacting hours legislation for women workers, but when enacted its
8-hour law for women was the first effective and the most comprehensive in the United States. When agitation for shorter hours by
law began in most States, California industries, particularly the unskilled trades, were manned largely by Chinese. The comparatively
small number of women employed did· not present the need for special
legislation that had been felt in the industrial States of the East.
w·here women competed with men, undercutting was prevented by
bringing the women into the unions. Organization of the women
workers, most of whom were native born, was not so difficult as it
was in the congested manufacturing centers of the East, with their
large percentage of foreign laborers. Furthermore, the struggle for
existence was not so . intense: wages and living conditions were better, life was easier2 than among the working population of most of
the States. Men tar outnumbered women, and their tendency was
to be chivalrous, to give women a chance, to treat them as equals. A
demonstration of this tendency appears in an unusual provision of
the California constitution, adopted in the convention of 1878-79.
Article 20, section 18, provides that " No person shall, on account of
sex, be disqualified from entering upon or pursuing any lawful
business, vocation, or profession." 1
Wrhat prompted this early declaration of woman's right to work
is not clear. There is no evidence that women had been refused
admission to any trade or profession. It probably was a compromise
measure inserted to satisfy those who urged constitutional provision
-for woman suffrage and that half the employees of the public printing office and half the clerical force in the public offices of the State
1
be women. 2
The only time this section of the constitution was successfully invoked was in connection with a San Francisco ordinance making it
a misdemeanor for women to be employed as attendants in places
where intoxicating liquor was sold. The ordinance was declared unconstitutional and promptly repealed. 3
While it has not played an important part in court decisions there
can be no doubt that the presence of this constitutional provision
1 California.
Constitution, art. 20, sec. 18.
2 Eaves, Lucile.
A History of Ca lifornia Labor Legislation.
Pu1'lications in Economics, 1910, v. 2, p _. 313.
• Ex pa rte Maguire, 57 California 604 ( 1881).

120

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

University of California.

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA

121

had for years a deterring effect upon efforts to secure legislation
governing the conditions of women's work. 4
Though comparatively few women were employed in industry
prior to 1890, interest in the conditions of their employment was not
lacking. In 1888· an assembly of tl;ie Knights of Labor, composed
entirely of women, called a mass meeting in San Francisco, with the
mayor presiding, to consider ways of bettering conditions of the
working women of the city, particularly those in the needle trades. 5
The same year the State bureau of labor statistics made a study of
"the condition of women who labor for a living." 6 As a result of
his investigations the commissioner of this bureau pointed out that.
sanitary conditions in many cases were bad, seating facilities were inadequate, proper protection from machinery was not afforded, and
as an example of what might be done to remedy these conditions he
quoted the Massachusetts statutes covering the same field. The commissioner was instrumental in having a law passed at the session of
1889 to improve industrial conditions. 7 Sanitary conditions werP
regulated, ventilation was prescribed, basements and cellars were
barred as work places if considered by the commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics as " unhealthy or unsuitable," dusty trades
were brought under the supervision of the commissioner. These provisions all applied to both sexes. Another section of the law was to
the effect that women employed in manufacturing, mechanical, or
mercantile establishments should be provided with " suitable seats "
and should be allowed to use them when they were " not necessarily
engaged in the active duties" for which they were employed. 8
Again, in its report for the years 1899-1900 the bureau considered in a general way the question of " female labor in the State
of California." 9 The commiss10ner deplored the low wages and long
hours of women workers but feared that there was no hope in legislation as a method of relieving this condition because of the freedomof-contract clause in the constitution. He suggested that the constitution of-the State be amended to provide that the legislature " shall,
by appropriate legislation, provide for the health and welfare of
women wage earners in this State." With this amendment he
thought hours legislation would be safe in California as it had been
in Massachusetts, where a similar constitutional provision existed. 10
Four years later the bureau again devoted a section of its report
to "women and children wage workers." 11 From data gathered in
the fall of 1904 in San Francisco and Oakland it was found that the
hours of women employed in stores were 48 to 57½ a week, averaging
50% in dry-goods stores. The manufacturing average was 53 hours
a week, but in bakery salesrooms, where the range was from 54 to
95 hours a week, the average was 68½ hours. The commissioner
made no recommendations as to legislation but pointed out that the
' Eaves, Lucile. A History of California Labor Legislation. University of California.
Publ kations in Economics, 1910, v. 2, p. 316.
5 Ibid., p. 315.
8
California. Bureau of Labor Statistics. '.rhlrd biennial report, 1887- 88 pp. 14-108.
7
California.
Eaves, Lucile. A History of California Labor Legislation . . University
Publications in Economics, 1910, v. 2, p. 315.
8 California.
Session laws, 1889, ch. 5, secs. 1-5.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ninth biennial report, 1899-1900, pp. 36-46,.
~ CaVfornia.
0
Ibid., p. 46.
11 lbid.
Eleventh biennial report. 1903-04, pp. 11-17.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

122

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

law of 1901., limiting weekly hours of work of minors to 54, had
brought about a reduction of hours for all persons employed in drygoods and department stores.
The long hours of work of women in some industries, together
with the possibility of hours legislation for women as a means of
reducing hours for all workers, led the State federation of labor to
take a chance on constitutionality and introduce an 8-hour bill for
women. This was done in 1905 and again in 1906. No active campaign was made to secure the passage of these bills, and they died
m committee. 12
The 8-hour law of 1911.
Meanwhile organization amons- working women was spreading
rapidly, and most of the unions m San Francisco had obtained the
8-hour day for their members. The proposal that this 8-hour standard be secured and extended by legislation was made in the summer
of 1910 at a meeting of the Women's Union Label League, a small
organization of union women and wives of trade-unionists. This
suggestion met with the approval of the membership, and a delegation was sent to the meeting of the State federation of labor later in
the year to obtain the indorsement and support of organized labor for
an 8-hour bill for women. 13
This federation, at its meeting in October, 1910, welcomed the proposal of the Women's Union Label League for three reasons: It
gave organized labor an opportunity, first, to show a broad humanitarian spirit in seeking to obtain for unorganized women workers
the benefits of shorter hours that th~ union men and women had secured by oq~anization; second, to r.,olster up the 8-hoµr standard of
the unions throughout the State; And third, to demonstrate the political strength of the labor movtment.
Labor had a bill drafted and ·.ntroduced soon after the legislature
convened in 1911. Two other 'Jills originating with the Democrats
of Stanislaus County were int,roduced-one by Assemblyman Griffin, calling for a 10-hour day, and the other by Assemblyman Callahan, calling for a 9-hour day H
The labor group saw that the Griffin bill, except for the 10-hour
provision, was better than their measure, so they suggested that it
be amended to an 8-hour bill. The author accepted the amendment
and also one exempting the fruit and vegetable canners, the only real
opponents of the bill who appeared before the assembly. The bill
· as amended passed the lower house without a vote being recorded
against it. 111 It provided for an 8-hour day and a 48-hour week for
all women employed in manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile
establishments, laundries, hotels, restaurants, telephone and telegraph
fjStablishments or offices, or by express or transportation companies.
The bill did not find such smooth sailing in the senate. Before
it could come to a vote the business interests of the State began to
voice their objections. They demanded a hearing before the senate
12 E a ves, Lucile.
A History of Ca lifornia Labor Legislation. Univer sity of California.
Publications in Economi cs, 1910, v. 2, p . 316; and California State F ederation of L abor.
Proceedings of fifth annual convention, 1905, p. 51.
18 Hichborn, Fra nklin.
Story of the Session of the Ct,1.n£9rpja Le~isll!,tqre 9f 19).J..
Ban Francisco, ,Tames H . Barry Co., lJlU, p. ~H@,
1 ' Ibid., pp. 246-248.
I
11 Jbi(l., pp. 2i9-21>0,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA

123

committee on labor, capital, and immigration, to which the bill had
been referred. Their request was granted. At the hearing both sides
were represented in full force. Opposed to the bill were representatives of the laundry interests, hotel men, candy manufacturers,
cotton-goods manufacturers, cracker manufacturers, and departmentstore proprietors. 16 The chief arguments against the measure were
presented by President Schlesinger, of the San Francisco Chamber
of Commerce, Charles F. Oliver, representing the merchants of San
Francisco, and a cotton-mill manufacturer. In general they conceded
that the principle of the bill was highly commendable, but they held
that in practice it would work hardship on the business interests and
upon the women themselves. If passed, it would throw many women
out of their jobs, and those who were retained would have their
wages reduced.17
It has been said that the opposition was, on the whole, "blunderingly represented "; 18 that the arguments were not substantiated, and
that a most "unfavorable impression" was created by the apparent
"indifference of some of the speakers, particularly of a number representing department stores and candy manufacturers, to the wellbeing of their female employees." 19
Labor forces were effectively marshaled by John I. Nolan, legislative agent of the San Francisco Labor Council. The most telling
speeches in favor of the bill were made by the working women themselves, Hannah Nolan, of the laundry workers' union; Margaret
Seaman, of the garment workers; and Louise La Rue, of the waitresses' union, being the chief speakers. Practically every union with
a woman membership had a representative speak in favor of the
bill. The women took their stand upon physiological, humanitarian,
and economic grounds. 20 They argued that 8-hour legislation
"would do much toward preserving the health of the workmg girl,
thereby aiding in putting a stop to race suicide, better labor conditions among women generally, and cut down greatly the percentage
of tuberculosis among girls." 21 According to their labor friends,
every argument of the opposition was "met and vanquished" by
these women of the labor movement. 22
The Women's Christian Temperance Union went on record in
favor of the legislation. 23
At the request of the employing interests a second hearing was
granted by the senate committee, at which nothing new developed.
The committee then proceeded to report the bill for favorable consideration by the senate. A bitter fight ensued to defeat the measure
by amending it so that it would be clearly unconstitutional.
Seven roll calls were necessary before the bill finally passed the
senate. 24
1e Ibid., p. 252.
17 California State Federation of
1911, pp. 80 and 93.
1B Hlchborn, Franklin.
Story of
San Francisco, James H. Barry Co.,
18 Idem.
20 California State Federation of
1011. pp. 80 and 93.
11 Sacramf'nto Bee, Feb. 17, 1911.
12 California State Federation of
1911). p. 80.
113 isacramento Bee, Feb. 17, 1911.
u Hlchborn, Franklin.
Story of
Ban Francisco, James H. Barry Co.,

01970°-82-9

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Labor.

Proceedings of twelfth annual convention,

the Session of the California Legislature of 1911.
1911. p. 252.
Labor.

Proceedings of twelfth annual convention.

Labor.

Proceedings of twelfth annual convention.

the Session of the California Legislature of 1911,
1911, pp. 253-258.

124

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

Final passage was due almost entirely to the untiring efforts of
John I. Nolan, legislative agent of the San Francisco Labor Council,
E. A. Clancey, legislative agent of the building trades, and Maud
Younger, a leading suffragist identified with the waitresses' union.
Miss Y ounger's individual support was practically the only influence
outside of labor circles that was brought to bear upon the legislature
in favor of the 8-hour bill. Her affiliation with the waitresses'
union led many people to class her support with that of labor, and
the victory for 8-hour legislation is ascribed properly to labor alone.
The opposition, defeated in the legislature, then transferred its
activities to the governor's office. The Merchants' Association,
Board of Trade, and Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco, and
the Women's Garment Association of San Francisco and Oakland,
sent an appeal to employers' organizations throughout the State. It
read as follows :
Do the retail storekeepers, merchants, and other employers of female labor
realize that the bill limiting the hours of women's labor to 8 hours a day and 48
hours a week has passed the legislature, and that only the veto of the governor can prevent the bill from becoming a law? This law will cripple all
retail business in the State, and drive out hundreds of manufacturers, and
displace thousands of women wage earners. The governor has promised to
set a day for hearing of arguments and protests, and we do confidently believe
that the governor will veto the bill if the evil results of same are properly
and promptly presented. Have all interested in your community individually
and collectively immediately telegraph their protests to the governor and ask
him to exercise his veto. Please bring the contents of this telegram at once
to the attention of your principal merchants and others interested. 211

Telegrams and petitions came to the governor "by the wagonload," but as the leader of the Pro~ressive Party in the State he
could not well veto a bill that orgamzed labor considered "perhaps
the most important labor law" ever passed in the State. 26
In signing the 8-hour bill, Gov. Hiram Johnson, in a statement
that recited the economic arguments advanced against the bill,
pointed out that these were the same that had been made by employers and some economists ever since the shorter-hours movement
was inaugurated, that their predictions had not come true in other
countries and States, and that there was no reason to believe that the
situation would be different in California. He struck a popular
note in his sentences: "Strong-men, by unity of action, have obtained
for themselves an 8-hour day. Shall we requ.i re greater hours of
labor for our women 1 " 27
Extension of the 8-hour law in 1913.
No sooner was the law in effect than a case was taken to the courts.
The defendant, a hotel proprietor, claimed that the statute violated
the freedom-of-contract clause of the Federal Constitution and also
article 20 of the State constitution _prohibiting discrimination
between the sexes in the pursuit of a busmess or J?rofess,i on; that the
act was special, and was not uniform in its operation, since it applied
211 Labor Clarion, Mar. 17, 1911.
~ California State Federation of Labor.
Proceedings of twelfth annual convention,
1911, p. 80.
27 California.
Journal of the Assembly, extr a session, 1911, p. 2562. Statement of
Gov. Hiram W. Johnson relative to assembly bill No. 248 [8-hour bill]; and Session laws.
1911, .ch. 258.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA

125

to hotels but not to rooming or boarding houses doing the same class
of business. 28
The trade-unions took up this complaint, which they interpreted
as meaning that the law did not go far enough, and urged an amendment at the 1913 session of the legislature extending it to public
lodging houses, apartment houses, hospitals, and places of amusement, and to the canning industry. 29 Opposition to this measure
~ame primarily from the canneries and the hospitals. The active
support of Katherine Philips Edson and Bessie Beatty succeeded in
keeping the hospitals, with the exception of graduate nurses, within
the provisions of the bill, but the canning mdustry was exempted
before final enactment. so
The same session of the legislature saw an effort made by the
California State Federation of Labor to secure the enactment of an
8-hour law governing the work of men as well as of women. 81 This
action was due partly to the fear of an influx of unskilled labor
with the opening of the Panama Canal, and partly to the unsuccessful efforts to gain a foothold for unionism in Los Angeles. Not
succeeding in its legislative efforts, the federation made use of the
initiative and referendum the following year. A bill providing for
an 8-hour day for all persons was submitted to the people at the
general election in November, 1914. This measure failed to carry.
The further extension of the 8-hour law by statute was in 1919,
when it was made to cover elevator operators in office buildings. The
bill was introduced at the request of the bureau of labor statistics
because during the war women worked on elevators for the first
time. 82
Regulation of hours by the Industrial Welfare Commission.
In addition to losing its fight for a general 8-hour law, labor
received another defeat at the 1914 election, when a constitutional
amendment validating an act establishing an industrial welfare
commission was referred to the people and approved by a generous
majority. This act, giving a commission of five wide powers to
regulate the conditions of women's work, was bitterly assailed by
labor as well as capital, but nevertheless it was accepted by the people
as a proper safeguard of the women workers of the State. Since the
main importance of the law is its minimum-wage provisions, the
details of its passage will be outlined in that connection. It must
be noted here, however, that this act gave the newly created commission power to regulate the maximum hours of labor of women
and minors in any occupation, trade, or industry in the State, provided that the hours so set did not exceed the legal maximum of the
8-hour day and 48-hour week in the industries to which the hour
law applied. 88
•
·
The industrial welfare commission has accepted the 8-hour-day and
48-hour-week standard for all occupations covered by the 48--hour
Miller v. Wilson. 162 Calif. 687 ; arr. 23.6 U. S. 373 ..
"° Ca lifornia State Federation of Labor. What They Promise to Do for Labor.
phlet Oct. 7 , 1912, p . 9.
·
00 caJifornia.
Session laws, 1913, ch. 352, secs. 2 and 4.
11 California State Federation of Labor.
Labor legislation pamphlet, Feb. 15
p. 4.
82 California.
Session laws, 1919, ch. 248.
• Ibid., 1913, ch·. 324.
28

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Pam~
1913.

126

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

law. In a<l<lition, it has sought to establish the 6-day week for all
occupations. To do this the commission adopted three methods for
limiting the number of da_Y.s on which a woman could work in one
week: Certain industries (laundry, mercantile, manufacturing, nut
cracking and sorting, and labelers and office workers included m the
orders covering canning and drying of fruit, fish, and vegetables)
were forbidden to work on more than 6 days in any one week; other
industries (unclassified occupations and hotels and restaurants) were
allowed to work on 7 days if the individual woman worker's daily
hours did not exceed 6; finally, the seasonal industries (fruit and
vegetable canning, fruit and vegetable packing, and fish canning)
were allowed to employ their women workers on the seventh day in
emergencies if they increased their rate of pay. Through the industrial welfare commission orders, all women workers covered by the
hour law and some women outside the hour law have obtained a
limitation of the number of their working days.
The commission was given power to regulate hours in all occupations. The canning and packing industries, that had been powerful
enough to secure exemption from the 8-hour law and its amendments,
thus were under the jurisdiction of the commission. One of the
most important pieces of work done by the commission has been in
connection with these industries. By a gradual process their entirely unstandardized business has been brought to an acceptance of a
basic 8-hour day and a 48-hour and 6-day week. Higher rates of
pay for overtime work have tended to keep it in check. For certain
occupations within the industries, such as labeling, dried-fruit packing, and office work, where there is no necessity for seasonal employment, no overtime has been allowed.
With the exception of domestic servants and agricultural workers"'
practically all women in California are working the 8-hour day and
48-hour week, or less, and in the few instances where overtime is
permitted higher rates are secured.
Amendments exempting fish canners and pharmacists from the
8-hour law.
The Galifornia 8-hour law for women is unusually broad in its
scope, and questions naturally have arisen as to its application. In
two instances where there was doubt the matter was settled finally
by amendments excluding the particular occupations from the provisions of the 8-hour law. The first of these amendments applied
·
to the women employed in fish canning.
The fish canners were employing women longer hours than those
allowed in the law. · The State federation of labor protested this
practice, contending that fish canning was covered by the 8-hour law
and consequently no overtime was allowable. To settle the difficulty,
the fish canners were instrumental in having a bill introduced in the
1917 legislature exempting their industry from the provisions of the
8-hour law. Labor opposed the measure before both the legislature
and the governor, but it became la.w.H
Another question as to the application of the 8-hour law was
brought up by the women pharmacists. Hours of all persons " selling
8' Ibid., l917, ch. 582; and California State Federation of Labor.
Report on labor Iegt•lation and labor records of senators and assemblymen, 1917, p. 14.
·

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA

127

drugs or other medicines or compounding physicians' prescriptions in
any store, establishment, or place of busmess, where and in which
drugs or medicines are sold, at retail, and where and in which physicians' prescriptions are compounded " were limited to 10 a day and
60 a week by legislative act in 1905. 35
No issue in which women were involved was raised by this law
until after the passage of the 8-hour law in 1911. The commissioner
of the bureau of labor statistics, the enforcing officer, then held that
the 8-hour law applied to all women who sold merchandise, whether
in a drug store or in any other kind of store. Since practically all
women pharmacists combined selling with the putting up of prescriptions, it meant that the 8-hour law applied to them. While this
ruling was never contested as far as the women were concerned, it
was held by many that the 8-hour law did not supersede the earlier
dn1g-clerk law. Nevertheless, women druggists enjoyed the 8-hour
day by interpretation of the statute until 1925. In that year six or
seven women pharmacists, led by Mrs. Bruce Phillips, a former drugstore operator, asked for an amendment to the drug-clerk law that
would make it, and it alone, apply to hours of work of pharmacists.
The rank and file of women pharmacists affected by the measure were
opposed to it. Many of them were employed in hospitals for 8 hours
a day, and they feared that under the proposed amendment they
would be forced to work 9 hours, the standard of the drug-clerk law as
amended in 1921. The Society of Registered Pharmacists also was opposed to the suggested change; it was believed that the amendment
would open the door for other exemptions from the 8-hour law.
But in order to get the support of the women pharmacists for another
amendment that the men pharmacists wanted, the society finally
agreed to support the proposed measure. Thus supported as a compromise by the organized pharmacists, despite the objections of the
vast majority of the women workers, the amendment passed. 36 The
hours of women pharmacists are now definitely governed by the
drug-clerk law, which allows a 9-hour day. 37
NIGHT-WORK LEGISLATION

There is no night work law in California. Such regulation of
Night work as exists is by order of the industrial welfare commission.
California industries have never made it a practice to operate at
night. Evening work was not uncommon prior to the enactment of
the 8-hour law, but that legislation put an effective check on most
of it.
Though night work in manufacturing establishments was practically nonexistent, the industrial welfare commission did not propose to let it gain a foothold in the future. The commission wished
to set up and maintain an ideal industrial code in California, so in
1918 notice was served on employers manufacturing or contemplating manufacturing in that State that after January 2, 1919, work for
California. Session laws, 1905, ch. 34.
Ibid., 1925, ch. 394.
This material was secured by interview with Mr. Walter G. Mathewson, commissioner
of labor statistics and industrial commissioner; Mr. Philip Weiss, secretary of the Society
ot Registered Pharmacists: Mr. Zeh, secretary, and Mr. Fletcher, inspector, of the State
board of pharmacy.
85
36

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

128

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

women between the hours of 10.30 p. m. and 6 a. m., unless a permit
had been obtained from the commission, was proh,ibited. Permits
would be granted only for essential war work or where the process
was continuous and night work a necessity. 88
Subsequent orders for the manu:facturmg industries had varying
provisions :for night work, but in the last order issued and still effective 11 o'clock was made the hour when night work would be considered to begin. When work is allowed under a permit, rates o:f
pay must be at least one and a hal:f times the day rate. 89
The same conditions were made to apply to the nut cracking and
sorting industry when that was brouO'ht under an order in 1923.4°
O:f the nine wage orders issued by the industrial wel:fare commission in 1919, :four-fruit and vegetable canning, laundries, fruit and
vegetable packing, and offices-prohibited the work of women and
minors between the hours of 10 p. m. and 6 a. m., and manu:facturing
prohibited it between 11 and 6. Another, fish canning, required a
higher rate o:f :r.ay for women and minors working at night. Only
three-mercantile, hotel and restaurant, and unclassified-had no
provisions limiting night work.
Since 1919 there has been a retrogression. The night-work pro- vision has been omitted from recent orders governing fruit and vegetable canning, green-fruit and vegetable packing, fish canning, and
offices.
.
MINIMUM-WAGE LEGISLATION

Minimum-wage legislation in California was not the result of a
popular demand for a remedy for underpaid labor. It was part
and parcel of a program of social reform of a :progressive governor
with power enough to put through any legislat10n that he seriously
advocated.
In 1912 Katherine Philips Edson, a prominent clubwoman who at
the time was associated with the bureau of labor statistics, called
the attention of Gov. Hiram Johnson to the low wages o:f women
in California as brought out in a study made by the bureau in 1910. 41
From comprehensive data covering all the leading occupations in
the cities and larger towns of the State, it was found that, of the
3'7,204 women for whom wage data were obtained, 14,681, or approxi•
mately 40 per cent, were receiving less than $9 a week.4 2
Impressed with .the need for remedy and the solution that Massachusetts was attempting to apply to a similar situation, the governor
suggested that Mrs. Edson have a bill drafted along the lines o:f the
Massachusetts Minimum-Wage Commission. This measure was introduced as part of his legislative program in 1913.
In the meantime a bill drafted by the National Consumers' League
for legislative leaders in Oregon was introduced in the California
legislature at the request of Helen Todd, a leading suffragist. Mrs.
Edson saw that this bill, with certain amendments, was far better
than the administrative measure, and she induced the governor to
transfer his support to it. The new bill provided for an industrial
as California. Industrial Welfare Commission.
Ibid., Order No. 11-A., issuPd Jan. 80, 1928.

Order No. 11, issued Nov. 2, 1918.

110

:~ ~~flrSii~~r
~:rAtAo/st~1i~/°sfa~stf~f3· Fifteenth biennial
Dl-4
_
58
.u Ibid., p. 458-

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

report, 1911-12, pp•

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN OALIFORNU

129

welfare commission of five, with power to fix wages, hours, and con<litions of labor for women and minors. Penalties were provided
for noncompliance with its orders.
At the joint public hearing of the senate and the assembly practically the only proponents were the representatives of the governor.
The opposition was made up of representatives of organized labor,
almost every union in which women were employed expressing disapproval.
Although organized labor was officially opposed to the bill and
had expressed itself accordingly, it was too busy promoting other
pieces of industrial legislation-workmen's compensation, compulsory
insurance, and the 8-hour day-to devote much time to an active
effort to defeat the measure. Similarly the employers of the State
were so thoroughly engaged in fighting labor's legislative program
that they paid almost no attention to the minimum-wage bill.
A few prominent employers were in favor of the legislation. The
California Retail Dry Goods Association indorsed the bill; it had
petitioned the governor to apQoint a commission to investigate the
question of women's wages. Ever since the report of the Chicago
Vice Commission there had been considerable talk linking with vice
the low wages in department stores. Merchants were quite sensitive
about this and were willing to pay more in wages if by so doing they
could shift the responsibility for wage conditions to the State.
The State federation of women's clubs and the Women's Christian
Temperance Union formally indorsed the measure. No particular
interest was displayed by any group, and the bill was put through
by the administration in the last days of the session. 43
It was after the law was passed that the opposition came. Both
labor and the employers became excited. The California constitution offered them a chance to discredit the law and render it practically ineffective, and they made the most of their opportunity.
The legislature that passed the minimum-wage law was not sure
of its power to enact such a measure and so at the same time passed
a constitutional amendment giving the legislature and its delegated
body, the commission, the right to fix minimum wages. It was
believed that this amendment, if ratified, would make it possible for
the commission to proceed to determine wages without fear of having
its every action held up in the courts on the plea of unconstitutionality.
The enabling act was submitted to the people at the general election, November, 1914. Each side had ample opportunity to prepare
its case and present it. Labor carried on an active campaign through
the labor press and on the public platform against the measure. The
Los Angeles and San Francisco Chambers of Commerce, the California Merchants and Manufacturers' Association, and various other
business organizations bitterly assailed the measure.
The supporters were not idle. The Progressive Party, which was
then the dominant party in the State, made the amendment one of
its major issues. The State Federation of Women's Clubs, with
Mrs. Edson as chairman of the section on industrial relations, had
4.:1 California.
Session laws, 1918, ch. 324; and Edson, Katherine Phlllps. Statement
to the women's organizations of California on the present statu1 of minlmum-wllge legislation in this and other States, Apr. 22, 1922. o. 8.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

130

LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

been thoroughly aroused to support this legislation. Club women
adopted slogans, such as, " Let us be our sisters' keepers " irn<l " F.mployed womanhood must be protected in order to foster the motherhood of the race." The Women's Christian Temperance Union also
was active with its membership and in church circles. The California Retail Dry Goods Association threw its support behind the
amendment.
The leading arguments for and against the amendment to validate
the law of the previous year were printed by the State for the information of the electorate. The proponents argued that the State had
passed hours legislation for the benefit of its working women and it
&hould now finish its job by assuring them proper working conditions
and at least a living wage• • • a wage that insures for them the necessary shelter, wholesome food,
and sufficient clothing. We know that the absenc-e of this is the cause of ill
health, lack of strength for a good motherhood, and frequently degeneracy and
prostitution for the weakest. • • •
Forty per cent of the women and girls employed in our great State to-day
receive less than $9 per wee~. • • • Is $4, $5, $6, $7, or $8 a week enough to
provide a growing woman with proper living?
The most powerful reason for action at this time is to get the wage fixed
before the opening of the Panama Canal, when the great horde of cheap labor
from southern Europe will come to lower the . Ca lifornia standard of living and
tend to bring the American and native born down to the living conditions
entirely foreign to us and to the California ideal of necessary comfort. • • •
Many employers in California pay good wages, but less kindly employers
undersell the better ones because they pay lower wages. These unfair employers
will be compelled to come up to the standard set by the commission and thus
be placed in a position where they will be on the same competitive basis as the
employers who are to-day giving their employees " proper conditions."
With adequate food and comfortable housing, the workers will be more
efficient and can give better value for the money received.
Interstate competition will not be a considerable factor, as Oregon and
Washington have similar commissions and are controlling their conditions of
industry as in California. 44

The arguments of organized labor against the measure were these:
Any minimum established by law would certainly be lower than that established by the unions, thus tending to undermine the union scale and reduce
wages.45
Such legislation, besides being in itself impracticable, would prove a detriment to the only practical method of improving the cond}tions of the working
women, namely, organization.
Any attempt on the part of the State to 1·egulate wages * • • would be
an unwarranted invasion of the right of the workers to determine that que&tion for themselves..a
Women are fitted to perform, without previous experience and study, but
very few avocations.
In many cases a woman without experience is helpless, while if given time
and an opportunity she readily becomes useful and a valuable worker.
To fix a wage arbitrarily, and say unless paid this sum she shall not be
employed at all, takes from her the opportunity many times to any employment whatever and the help, encouragement, and assistance of those employers
who otherwise would give her a chance.
There is as much difference in the capacity and ability of different women
as of different men--either may be in such condition, mentally or physically,
as to need great care and attention before they can adapt themselves to any
"Amendments to constitution and proposed statutes, with arguments respecting the
same, to be submitted to the electors of the State of California at the general election on
Tuesday, Nov. 3, 1914. State Printing Office, California, 1914.
@ Coast Seamen's Journal, Jan. 22, 1913.
"Ibid., Apr. 2, 1913. See also Labor Clarion, Dec. 27, 1912.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA

131

kind or character of employment. These people need especial care and welldirected persevering effort to bring them to such condition that they are of
any value as help. They therefore should be encouraged, not discouraged, in
their endeavors to be self-supporting, or at least partially so. A fixed minimum wage 4estroys all their opportunities.'7

The employers' objections were ~long the following lines: The
law does away with the right of the employer to regulate pay according to ability; fewer women would be employed; labor costs would
be increased and the State subjected to unfair interstate competit1on.48
After a wide educational campaign the people were called upon
to vote. The amendment carried by 379,311 to 295,109} 9
San Francisco, the stron~hold of both organized labor and organized capital, showed a maJority of over 5,000 against the measure,
while Los Angeles County, a nonunion center, gave 60,000 of the more
than 80,000 majority in the State. The clubwomen's vote was distinctly evident in this disproportionate showing in favor of the
amendment.
With this popular indorsement the commission proceeded with
its work of determining wages and working conditions. Its rulings
with reference to hours of work have been considered. In addition,
minimum-wage rates were established for women employed in practically all the industries of the State.
As need has arisen the commission has secured amendments to the
law creating it that have tended to strengthen its work. Only one
amendment opposed by the commission has become law and that was
the striking out of the specific appropriation stated in the organic
act. 110 Under this condition it would be possible for a hostile administration to stop the work of the commission by refusing to vote
money for its continuance. Organized labor as a whole is still unfriendly, but many of the business organizations and the public in
general appreciate the progress that the commission has made in
building industrial standards for the State. Ever since the United
States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the minimum-wage
law of the District of Columbia, the commission has been handicapped in the administration of the minimum-wage features of the
California law by the uncertainty surrounding the constitutionality
of all mandatory minimum-wage laws. But since its own law has
not been passed upon adversely by the highest court, the industrial
welfare commission continues to function to the best of its ability.
SEATING AND WEIGHT-LIFTING LAWS

In creating the industrial welfare commission the legislature
shared with that commission law-making functions with reference
to women's work that in most States are carefully preserved by the
legislative body. Not only is the commission empowered to regulate
the hours of women's work, as long as it does not exceed the statutory limits, and to fix minimum wages, but it may regulate " the
' 7 Amendments to constitution and proposed statutes, with arguments respecting thti
same, to be submitted to the electors of the State of California at the general election on
Tuesday, Nov. 3, 1914. Sta te Printing Office, California, 1914.
.a 8an Francisco Bulletin, Oct. 30, 1914.
'9 Caltfornia Blue Book, 1913-1915, p. 427,
1e California.
Session laws, 1923. ch. 291.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

132

LA.HOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN

conditions of labor " in so far as they affect the health and welfare
of women and minors. The commission has made several moves in
this direction, the most important of which are 'the weight-lifting and
seating regulations, both of which supplement laws on the subject.
Seating.
A seating law was the first recognition by the State of California
of a need for special legislation for women. A law passed in 1889
required that women employed in manufacturing, mechanical, or
mercantile establishments should be provided with "suitable seats"
and should be allowed to use them when they were "not necessarily
engaged in the active duties" for which they were employed.ca
The commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics was responsible
primarily for the passage of this act, after a study of industrial
conditions affecting women. He reported to the legislature that seating facilities were inadequate and later suggested a bill to remedy
the conditions. 62
Compliance with the act seems to have been general. Seats of
some .sort were supplied, . but frequently they were not of sufficient
comfort nor provided in adequate numbers to carry out the intent of
the law. 68 An attempt was made to provide a sufficient number of
seats by the amendment of 1903, which prescribed that there should
be not less than one seat for eyery three females employed. 54
In 1911 the seating law was made to apply to all establishments
employing women, and instead of requiring one seat for every three
female employees it required seats for all women workers. 611
The industrial welfare commission has done what the legislature
would have :found it difficult to do-that is, defined the term "suitable seats." It has ordered that seats meeting .i ts specific requirements be maintained in canneries, factories, laundries, and mercantile establishments, and by doing away with makeshift seats, many
of which were worse than useless, it has obtained for women workers
the relief from fatigue that the more general law attempted but
never secured.
Weight lifting.
The lifting or carrying of heavy burdens was first prohibited by
the industrial welfare commission in canneries in 1916, and during
the next four years this prohibition was extended to factories, laundries, and mercantile establishments. The agricultural order jssued
in 1920 specified 25 pounds as the maximum weight that any woman
should be required or permitted to lift or carry. 56
Except in rare instances the commission has ruled that any weight
over 25 pounds should be considered excessive. Th.is wei~ht, therefore, may be considered the maximum allowed in practically all the
occupations regulated by the commission.
This being true, it is difficult to understand why the State federation of labor put through the legislature of 1921 a law regulating
Ibid., 1889, ch. 5, sec. 5.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Third biennial report, 1887-88, pp. 101-108.
Ibid. Eleventh biennial r eport , 1903-04, p . 16.
"California. Session laws.1,, 1903, ch. 12, sec. 5.
11 Ibid:1 1911, ch. 258, sec. ~.. Callrornia. Industrial Welfare Commission. Order No. 14, issued May 25, 1920.
•1

u California.

151

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

HISTORY OF LABOR LEGISLATION FOR WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA

]

heavy lifting and carrying by women. 57 This law, which passed
without discussion or dissension, provides that the lifting or moving by women of boxes, baskets, or other receptacles or bundles
weighing 75 pounds or ovet· in any mill, workshop, packing, canning,
or mercantile establishment, be prohibited unless equipped with pulleys, casters, or other contrivances so that they can be easily moved. 58
Legally, then, until the industrial welfare commission reissues its
orders governing weights, the maximum weight that a woman may
be required to lift or carry is 75 pounds in all industries, but practically the- commission is still able to enforce its 25-pound limit.
17 California State Federation of Labor.
Proceedings of twenty-second annual conven•
tion. 1921, p. 87.
zs Caltfornia. Session laws, 1921, ch. 903, sec. 12.

"'
)

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PUBLICATIONS OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU
[Any of these bulletins still available will be sent free of charge upon request]

*No. 1. Proposed Employment of Women During the War in the Industries of
Niagara Falls, N. Y. 16 pp. 1918.
*No. 2. Labor Laws for Women in Industry in Indiana. 29 pp .. 1919.
No. 3. Standards for the Employment of Women in Industry. 8 pp. Fourth
ed., 1928.
No. 4. Wages of Candy Makers in Philadelphia in 1919. 46 pp. 1919.
*No. 5. The Eight-hour Day in Federal and State Legislation. 19 pp. 1919.
No. 6. The Employment of Women in Hazardous Industries in the United
States. 8 pp. 1921.
No. 7. Night-work Laws in the United States. (1919.) 4 pp. 1920.
*No. 8. Women in the Government Service. 37 pp. 1920.
*No. 9. Home Work in Bridgeport, Conn. 35 pp. 1920.
-*No. 10. Hours and Conditions of Work for Womrn in Industry in Virginia.
32 pp. 1920.
No. 11. Women Street Car Conductors and Ticket Agents. 90 pp. 1921.
*No. 12. The New Position of Women in American Industry. 158 pp. 1920.
*No. 13. Industrial Opportunities and Training for Women and Girls. 48 pp.
1921.
*No. 14. A Physiological Basis for the Shorter Working Day for Women. 20 pp.
1921.
No. 15. Some Effects of Legislation Limiting Hours of Work for Women. 26 pp.
1921.
No. 16. (See Bulletin 63.)
No. 17. Women's Wages in Kansas. 104 pp. 1921.
No. 18. HeaJth Problems of Women in Industry. 6 pp. Revised, 1931.
No. 19. Iowa Women in Industry. 73 pp. 1922.
*No. 20. Negro Women in Industry. 65 pp. 1922.
No. 21. Women in Rhode Island Industries. 73 pp. 1922.
*No. 22. Women in Georgia Industries. 89 pp. 1922.
No. 23. The Family Status of Breadwinning Women. 43 pp. 1922.
•·No. 24. Women in Maryland Industries. 96 pp. 1922.
No. 25. Women in the Candy Industry in Chicago and St. Louis. 72 pp.
1923.
No. 26. Women in Arkansas Industries. 86 pp. 1923.
No. 27. The Occupational Progress of Women. 37 pp. 1922.
No. 28. Women's Contributions in the Field of Invention. 51 pp. 1923.
No. 29. Women in Kentucky Industries. 114 pp. 1923.
No. 30. The Share of Wage-earning Women in Family Support. 170 pp. 1923.
No. 31. What Industry Means to Women Workers. 10 pp. 1923.
No. 32. Women in South Carolina Industries. 128 pp. 1923.
No. 33. Proceedings of the Women's Industrial Conference. 190 pp. 1923.
No. 34. Women in Alabama Industries. 86 pp. 1924.
No. 35. Women in Missouri Industries. 127 pp. 1924.
No. 36. Radio Talks on Women in Industry. 34 pp. 1924.
No. 37. Women in New Jersey Industries. 99 pp. 1924.
No. 38. Married Women in Industry. 8 pp. 1924.
No. 39. Domestic Workers and Their Employment Relations. 87 pp. 1924.
No. 40. (See Bulletin 63.)
No. 41. Family Status of Breadwinning Women in Four Selected Cities. 145
pp. 1925.
No. 42. List of References on Minimum Wage for Women in the United States
and Canada. 42 pp. 1925.
No. 43. Standard and Scheduled Hours of Work for Women in Industry.
68 pp. 1925.
No. 44. Women in Ohio Industries. 137 pp. 1925.
• Supply exhausted.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

135

136

PUBLICATIONS OF THE WOMEN 's BUREAU

No. 45. Home Environment and Employment Opportunities of Women in
Coal-mine Workers' Families. 61 pp. 1925.
No. 46. Facts about Working Women-A Graphic Presentation Based on Census Statistics. 64 pp. 1925.
No. 47. Women in the Fruit-growing and Can ning Industries in the State of
Washington. 223 pp. 1926.
*No. 48. Women in Oklahoma Industries. 118 pp. 1926.
No. 49. Women Workers and Family Support. 10 pp. 1925.
No. 50. Effects of Applied Research upon the Employment Opportunities of
American Women. 54 pp. 1926.
No. 51. Women in Illinois Industries. 108 pp. 1926.
No. 52. Lost Time and Labor Turnover in Cotton Mills. 203 pp. 1926.
No. 53. The Status of Women in the Government Service in 1925.
103 pp.
1926.
No. 54. Changing Jobs. 12 pp. 1926.
No. 55. Women in Mississippi Industries. 89 pp. 1926.
No. 56. Women in Tennessee Industries. 120 pp. 1927.
No. 57. Women Workers and Industrial Poisons. 5 pp. 1926.
No. 58. Women in Delaware Industries. 156 pp. 1927.
No. 59. Short Talks About Working Women. 24 pp. 1927.
No. 60. Industrial Accidents to Women in New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
316 pp. 1927.
No. 61. The Development of Minimum-wage Laws in the United States, 1912
to 1927. 635 pp. 1928.
No. 62. Women's Employment in Vegetable Canneries in Delaware. 47 pp.
1927. .
No. 63. State Laws Affecting Working Women. 51 p.p. 1927. (Revision of
Bulletins 16 and 40.)
No. 64. The Employment of Women at Night. 86 pp. 1928.
*No. 65. The Effects of Labor Legislation on the Employment Opportunities of
Women. 498 pp. 1928.
·
No. 66--I. History of Labor Legislation for Women in Three States. 133 pp.
1929. (Separated from No. 66--11 in reprint, 1932.)
No. 66--11. Chronological Development of Labor Legislation for Women in the
United States. 145 pp. 1929. (Revised and separated from
No. 66--I in 1932. In press.)
No. 67. Women Workers in Flint, Mich. 80 pp. 1929.
No. 68. Summary: The Effects of Labor Legislation on the Employment
Opportunities of Women. (Reprint of Chapter II of Bulletin 65.)
22 pp. 1928.
No. 69. Causes of Absence for Men and for Women in Four Cotton Mills . . 24
pp. 1929.
No. 70. Negro Women in Industry in 15 States. 74 pp. 1929.
No. 71. Selected References on the Health of Women in Industry. 8 pp. 1929.
No. 72. Conditions of Work in Spin Rooms. 41 pp. 1929.
No. 73. Variations in Employment Trends of Women and Men. 143 pp.
1930.
No. 74. The Immigrant Woman and Her Job. 179 pp. 1930.
No. 75. What the Wage-earning Woman Contributes to Family Support. 21
pp. 1929.
No. 76. Women in 5-and-10-cent Stores and Limited-price Chain Department
Stores. 58 pp. 1930.
·
No. 77. A Study of Two Groups of Denver Married Women Applying for Jobs.
11 pp. 1929.
No. 78. A Survey of Laundries and Their Women Workers in 23 Cities. 166 pp.
1930.
.
No. 79. Industrial Home Work. 20 pp. 1930.
No. 80. Women in Florida Industries. 115 pp. 1930.
No. 81. Industrial Accidents to Men and Women. 48 pp. 1930.
No. 82. The Employment of Women in the Pineapple Canneries of Hawaii.
30 pp. 1930.
No. 83. Fluctuation of Employment in the Radio Industry. 66 pp. 1931.
No. 84. Fact Finding with the Women's Bureau. 37 pp. 1931.
· No. 85. Wages of Women in 13 States. 213 pp. 19~1.
No. 86. Activities of the Women's Bureau of the United States. 15 pp. 1931.
• Supply exhausted.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

P U BL ICATIO NS OF T HE WOMEN 's BURE AU

137

No. 87. Sanitary Drinking Facilities, wit h Sp ecial Reference to D rinking
Fountains. 28 pp. 1931.
No. 88. The Employment of Women in Slaughtering and Meat Packing.
211 pp. 1931.
No. 89. The Industrial Experience of Women Workers at the Summer Schools.
.
62 pp. 1931.
No. 90. Oregon Legislation for Women in Industry. 40 pp. 1931.
No. 91. Women in Industry . A Series of Papers to Aid Study Groups. 79 pp.
1931.
No. 92. Wage-earning Women and the Industrial Conditions of 1930. A
Survey of South Bend. (In press.)
No. 93. Household Employment in Philadelphia. (In press.)
Pamphlet. Women's Place in Industry in 10 Southern States. 14 pp. 1931.
Annual Reports of the Director, 1919, * 1920, * 1921, * 1922, 1923, 1924, * 1925,
1926, 1927,* 1928,* 1929,* 1930,* 1931.
• Supply exhausted.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Full text of History of Labor Legislation for Women in Three States : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 66-I

FRASER