Employers Fight Washington's Eight-Hour Law for Women
Employers traveled to Olympia by special train to argue that women workers didn't want shorter hours, sparking a legislative firestorm.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
At a legislative hearing in Olympia, employers of women across Washington state gathered to oppose the proposed Women's Eight-Hour Law. The opposition, which arrived on a special Pullman train, claimed that the law would lead to bankruptcy and that women preferred longer hours to earn more money. Mr. Kilburn of the Cascade Laundry in Seattle argued that laundry work was healthy exercise, while others suggested that the movement was merely driven by sentimental women's clubs rather than legitimate labor needs. Representatives from labor groups, including Alice Lord, were present to challenge these claims, asserting that the current system trapped women in a cycle of overwork to meet basic necessities.
“The arguments in the main advanced against the eight-hour for women wage earners are so ridiculous as to be laughable, were it not for the tragedy underneath a system that sends the girls and women into industry to eke out a precarious livelihood.”
This debate over the eight-hour day mirrors modern struggles to secure living wages and predictable schedules for service workers. More than a century later, the tension between business owners pleading poverty and employees seeking basic dignity remains a fixture of Washington's labor politics.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.