- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,698
- Reaction score
- 1,539
- Location
- The City Different
- Website
- www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
On this day in 1905 the Supreme Court solidified the power of Gilded Age plutocrats by handing down their decision in the famous Lochner v New York case. At issue were the competing interests of the state's power to regulate what they determined to be job safety and the employers' rights to set whatever working conditions they liked. It's another interesting example of what we see even today: theoretical examination of angels dancing on the head of a pin pitted against stark reality.
Working conditions for most workers in America in 1905 were horrible, with little prospect for improvement after the semi-collapse of labor organizing efforts. But a few work-related laws were passed by Progressives. This case hinged upon a New York state law limiting the hours a baker could work to 60 per week. Lochner was a bakery owner who was fined for violating the law by requiring his bakers to work more than that as a condition of employment. The court found for Lochner by a narrow 5-4 margin (hmmm . . . sounds like today) and declared laws limiting working hours as unconstitutional infringements on the right of contract. That interpretation prevailed until the New Deal era. Justices Holmes and Harlan wrote famous dissents.
The obvious problem with the majority opinion, theoretically pleasing as it may be, is that it is absurd to believe that, say, an Italian immigrant worker who barely speaks English could bargain for his wages and working conditions on equal terms with John D. Rockefeller. Yet this is what the Supreme Court alleged. It denied reality. (Maybe some more current parallels?)
I occasionally hear our brethren of a Libertarian bent make this same pro-Lochner argument today: the right of contract trumps all others. Some of them think the first Gilded Age was just dandy and want to hurry along our new Gilded Age. I disagree. I think governments have the right to regulate working conditions, including hours, to protect the health of workers and thereby indirectly the public as well. It is perfectly fine for the precise details of what that means to be thrashed out in the courts to avoid extremes either way. But the principle should stand.
If you want to read more about Lochner, Erik Loomis, a labor historian, has a very nice summary here.
Working conditions for most workers in America in 1905 were horrible, with little prospect for improvement after the semi-collapse of labor organizing efforts. But a few work-related laws were passed by Progressives. This case hinged upon a New York state law limiting the hours a baker could work to 60 per week. Lochner was a bakery owner who was fined for violating the law by requiring his bakers to work more than that as a condition of employment. The court found for Lochner by a narrow 5-4 margin (hmmm . . . sounds like today) and declared laws limiting working hours as unconstitutional infringements on the right of contract. That interpretation prevailed until the New Deal era. Justices Holmes and Harlan wrote famous dissents.
The obvious problem with the majority opinion, theoretically pleasing as it may be, is that it is absurd to believe that, say, an Italian immigrant worker who barely speaks English could bargain for his wages and working conditions on equal terms with John D. Rockefeller. Yet this is what the Supreme Court alleged. It denied reality. (Maybe some more current parallels?)
I occasionally hear our brethren of a Libertarian bent make this same pro-Lochner argument today: the right of contract trumps all others. Some of them think the first Gilded Age was just dandy and want to hurry along our new Gilded Age. I disagree. I think governments have the right to regulate working conditions, including hours, to protect the health of workers and thereby indirectly the public as well. It is perfectly fine for the precise details of what that means to be thrashed out in the courts to avoid extremes either way. But the principle should stand.
If you want to read more about Lochner, Erik Loomis, a labor historian, has a very nice summary here.
Last edited: