The Eight-Hour Day: Who Gets It and Who Doesn't?
A definitive ruling clarifies that Washington’s landmark labor protections were intended for physical toil, not office work.
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.
Olympia, April 22.—The legislature has passed two acts on the subject upon which you inquire. Chapter 101 of the Laws of 1899 and chapter 44 of the Laws of 1903 should be read together. The 1903 act declares that public work shall be performed in work days of not more than eight hours, except in case of extraordinary emergency. However, Assistant Attorney-General J. T. S. Lyle has advised that the phrase 'by contract or day labor done' limits the scope of the statute to physical labor. The act does not apply to public officers, clerical workers, attendants, nurses, guards, or foremen, as the legislature intended to protect those performing manual labor. The method of payment is not controlling; even if one is paid by the week or month, if they are performing manual labor for the public, they fall under the eight-hour protection.
“The use of the phrase 'by contract or day labor done' in our judgment shows that the legislature had in mind physical labor as distinguished from labor in which mental effort is dominant.”
This 1911 legal interpretation highlights a century-old tension in labor law: the definition of who counts as a 'worker' entitled to protections. Today, the debate has shifted from manual versus clerical labor to the 'gig economy,' where misclassification remains a primary tool for bypassing wage and hour regulations.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.