The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-05-06
PROSPERITY AND SHORTER DAY.


The progress of those who are endeavor-
ing to secure an eight-hour day for labor
has been so marked during the past two
years, and particularly during the past six
months, that the only obstacle to complete
success in the larger occupations is a re-
turn of a period Of industrial stagnation
At first thought it would seem that a
shorter day of labor could be secured more
easily when the great industries of the
country found it difficult to dispose Of their
products and would gladly curtail produc-
ton by reducing the hours. Experience.
however does not sustain such natural
assumption. In dull seasons, when fac
tories are running short time and with re-
ouced force, there are so many idle men
that those who have places in which they
can earn reduced wages are too eager to
retain what they have to enter into a gen.
eral demand for fewer hours of labor In a
day. 1t was when the industries of the
country began to revive that employees be-
gan to talk hopefully Of shorter day. and
when those employed listened to the prop
osition as If it were one that they could
consider. If not entertain. The success of
the typographical unions in getting a nine
hour day in the fall of 1898 was due to the
fact that in all the cities of the country the
printing industry had taken new life, or
that employers could give employees better
terms. If the proposition for a nine-hour
day had been made In 1896 employers would
not have considered it a moment So now
it is fair to assume, in the light of expert
ence, that If the eight-hour day should
generally be adopted the full employment
of labor which has marked the past two
years must continue.
The proposition for shorter day of labor
has a rational and logical basis. The in
creased the volume of production by put
ting into the hands of one man the power
TO produce the results that two and often
half dozen could not work out without
machinery. Such increased power of pro-
duction cheapens the cost of the product
to the consumer, and should. by a much
smaller profit upon a much larger output,
be advantageous to the owners of fac
tories. This change would bring loss to
labor in general through displacement, IL
not by reduced wages. The change from
ten to eight hours would go far to give
employment to those who. in any one line
OF production, would be displaced by the
introduction of labor-saving machinery.
The shorter day would be the natural adj
vantage which labor should receive from
labor-saving machinery. The shorter day
is so logical conclusion from the general
introduction of labor-saving machinery
that it must come sooner or later. IL 1t is
not postponed indefinitely by industrial
prostration and long and bitter strikes.
which are disastrous alike to employer and
employee. This is illustrated by the situa-
ton in the building trades in Chicago at
the present time and the great engineering
strike in England two or three years ago,
which continued ten months. While the
employees failed to get what they demanded
in that strike, the employers were so
crippled by the loss of business which had
gene to the United States and Germany.
much Of 1t past recovery. that they could
not employ half as many men when the
strike was over. From that prolonged
strike in England the United States gained
rruch in the machinery trades. This ad-
vantage can be held unless American me-
chanics should decide upon a general
strike. which was attempted by several
leaders few weeks since. but has not
succeeded. Labor unions of mechanics In
this country can strive Tor fewer hours