New-York tribune., 1889-10-20
peoBLEu FOR WORKERS.

Next Nav. if the Knights of Labor and the
Federation of Labor adhere to their presene
plans there may be great struggle betWeeh
EMPLOYERS and employed. These organizations,
professedIy representing the entlre bOdy Oh
waee-e -earners, propose to demand a reduction
of working time to eight hours per day, ana
unless EMPLOYERS consent TO the change, the
| orcanized workers will strike. A contest OF
| this character would be exceedingly costly to
| the public and to the wage -eaners whether
II ends in their success or not, and it is there
fore right that employers and employed should
both consider the question thoroughly before
the time comes to act.
1t does not appear that the labor organlza-
tionS have made any serious effort to ascertain
whether the work necessary to the maintenance
of society can be done in eight hours per day
In some occupations it obviously cannot be-
In others the difficulty and the embarrassment
would he so great that perhaps no attempt to
change the hours of labor in those employments
would be made. But in most occupations the
contemplated change is entirely possible; the
question is whether the public can afford 1t.
If there were now unemployed as many as one
fifth Of all the working people, then reduc-
ton Of working hours from ten to eight would
lust suffice to restore the equilibrium, and the
work society requires would get done salts
factorily, ten men dividing the wages instead
of eight. But there is not only no evidence,
there is not even an assertion or belief, that
one-fifth of the possible workers are unem-
ploved. Out of twenty million persons who
seek to earn their living by labor certainly
not half million are at any time unemployed
and probably not half that number, or one IN
eighty
1t is a favorite theory with many reasoners
that human labor will accomplish as much in
eight hours as it does in ten. To deny TINS
dogmatically without any investigation would
be foolish. but it is equally foolish to assert or
believe il without any evidence. The man who
tends machine cannot as a rule get more work
out of that machine than it now does, whether
he works ten hours or eight hours. or only one
hour. The great army of men whose labor IL
connected with that of animals cannot get the
horses or oxen to do as much in eight hours as
they do in ten. In very large number OF
employmentS it seems to be obvious that the
amount of work now performed could not be
performed in less time, although in other en-
pOyments there is room for doubt about it,
The labor organizations do not appear to
have Investigated this matter. If they had
done so, if they had first asoertained i'll what
employ ments human labor might be cut down
in time without reduction in products, the pub
lie would be strongly impressed with the rca-
sonabeness of the proposed change as to these
kinds Of labor But the organizations seem to
have taken it for granted that the shorter hours
will result in smaller production, and that is
apparently what they want. More men will be
needed, they reason, and therefore wages will
rise.
But wages can be no more than the aggre-
gate value of the things produced. If society
decides that it will only do work enough to
raise eight bushels of wheat where it now
raises ten, there cannot be ten bushels divided
in wages, or distributed to consumers. So of
every other product. When labor decides to
work fewer hours, in most employmentS it de-
cideS to produce fewer things. And when it
produces fewer things there must necessarily
be fewer to divide among the producers in the
form of wages.
Every wOrkingmen'S organization ought TO
take up this question seriously, and discuss it
during the coming winter with care and thor
oughneSs. There will be time enough to form
a distinct and well l-gWunded opinion whether
in each employment the shorter hours will or
will not necessarily involve smaller production.
| If so, the inevitable result will be. smaller
wages less food, less clothing, and fewer COM
forts for the working people.