Eight Hours and After

On April 21, 1856, the stonemasons working on the construction of the University of Melbourne stopped work at midday, marched through the center of the city, and held a celebration at the Criterion Hotel. They had just won a reduction in their working day from ten hours to eight by walking off the job during a construction boom, when building contractors could not afford to wait them out. It was the first time anywhere in the world that workers had achieved the eight-hour day; they did it not through moral persuasion but by applying collective leverage at a moment of their opponents’ weakness.

The demand itself was older. Robert Owen, the Welsh manufacturer and social reformer, had called for “eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest” as far back as 1817. The slogan was catchy, but Owen could not make it happen through goodwill and argument. It took workers who understood that goodwill was irrelevant and that argument only mattered when backed by the capacity to impose costs. The Melbourne stonemasons made exactly that calculation. They are mostly forgotten now, which is itself informative about whose history gets told.

What the Melbourne stonemasons demonstrated locally, labor movements across the world began demanding internationally. In May 1886, a general strike for the eight-hour day shut down factories across the United States. On May 4, a bomb exploded in Haymarket Square during a protest meeting in Chicago, killing both police officers and civilians. The bomb-thrower was never identified, but eight anarchists were tried anyway, and four were hanged. The Haymarket affair became a rallying point for the international labor movement; May Day was adopted as a workers’ holiday across most of the world (with the notable exception of the United States and Canada, which moved their Labor Day to September specifically to avoid the association).

In 1889, the newly formed Second International—a loose federation of socialist and labor parties—declared May 1 an international day of solidarity for the eight-hour day. The Second International’s campaign, and the May Day commemorations that followed, spread the eight-hour demand across Europe, Latin America, and Asia. But spreading a demand and achieving it are different things. In most countries, forty years passed between the first serious campaigns for the eight-hour day and its legal establishment.

What actually closed the gap was not sympathy, but the end of the First World War, a political crisis of such severity that governments in Europe and North America feared a revolution like one that threw Russia into chaos in 1917. Germany had a workers’ council movement in 1918 that briefly looked like it might go the same way, Hungary had a Soviet republic in 1919, and strikes were spreading in Britain, France, and the United States. Employers and governments that had resisted the eight-hour day for decades suddenly discovered they could live with it.

France legislated the eight-hour day in April 1919. Britain passed the Hours of Work Convention that same year. The first convention adopted by the newly created International Labour Organization in 1919 was an eight-hour day and forty-eight hour week for industrial workers. Then and now, labor gains were not won because employers and governments became convinced that workers deserved better. They were won because the cost of continued resistance exceeded the cost of concession.

On March 25, 1911, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory on the eighth floor of a building in Greenwich Village, New York. The managers had locked the stairwell doors to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks and to stop theft of fabric. 146 workers died, most of them young immigrant women, many of them Jewish and Italian. Some jumped from the windows. The owners were acquitted of manslaughter charges and collected the insurance.

The conditions the first exposed—locked exits, no sprinklers, overcrowding, and abusive supervisors—were standard practice at the time. What wasn’t standard was the combination of a catastrophic death toll and the organizational capacity that existed to exploit the political opening. The Women’s Trade Union League, the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and the socialist press had spent years building exactly that capacity. Within days of the fire, Rose Schneiderman gave a speech at the Metropolitan Opera House that reframed the debate. This was not a tragedy but a crime, and the perpetrators were not the invisible people who set fires but the visible people who locked the doors and blocked regulation.

The result was a legislative investigation that produced fifty-six pieces of legislation over three years covering fire safety, working hours, factory inspection, and child labor. The fire itself didn’t produce the laws; it was the fire plus organized political capacity. Without the unions and the reform organizations that could turn grief into legislative pressure, the Triangle fire would have been grieved and forgotten like the hundreds of industrial disasters that preceded and followed it.

It would be convenient if the story ended with legislative victory, but it doesn’t work that way. Laws passed under political pressure are enforced under political pressure. When pressure falls, enforcement falls with it. The International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 1 was adopted in 1919; a century later, most of the world’s workers are not covered by it in practice, and enforcement is fragmentary or absent in many countries that have ratified it.

In the garment industry—the industry where the Triangle fire happened—workers are still dying in predictable, preventable ways. The Rana Plaza building in Dhaka collapsed on April 24, 2013, killing 1,134 workers, most of whom were making clothes for Western brands. The building had visible cracks that workers reported the day before; managers ordered them back to work anyway.

After Rana Plaza, the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh—a legally binding agreement between brands and global unions—was signed within weeks. It covered over 1600 factories. This was a real gain, but it was also partial, contested, and reversible: the Accord expired, was replaced by a weaker voluntary mechanism, and was eventually renegotiated into a successor agreement after sustained campaigning. That was not a failure: two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward.

Tech workers currently occupy the same position as skilled craftworkers in the mid-nineteenth century. They are well-paid relative to most workers, which makes collective action feel unnecessary. They work under employment contracts that make collective action legally complicated. And they identify with their employers, which makes collective action feel like a betrayal, right up to the moment of a layoff.

Today, as their jobs are threatened by AI, tech workers are starting to care more about labor rights and organizing. What the history tells us is that in order for this to translate into effective action, what matters is organizational capacity, a moment of political opening, and the willingness to impose costs. The opening comes eventually, usually from a crisis or a shock. The organizational capacity takes years to build. The lesson from the eight-hour day is not that patience pays off. It is that you need to be organized before the opening arrives.

see the whole series · email me

Beckerman2022

Gal Beckerman: The Quiet Before: On the Unexpected Origins of Radical Ideas. Crown, 2022, 9781524759186.

Orleck1995

Annelise Orleck: Common Sense and a Little Fire: Women and Working-Class Politics in the United States, 1900-1965. University of North Carolina Press, 1995, 9780807844977.

Roediger1989

David R. Roediger and Philip S. Foner: Our Own Time: A History of American Labor and the Working Day. Greenwood Press, 1989, 9780313261206.

Thompson1963

E.P. Thompson: The Making of the English Working Class. Knopf, 1966, 9780394703220.