Elimination of the Twelve-hour Day in the Steel Industry

ALTHOUGH the committee appointed by the President of the American Iron and Steel Insti-tute, to consider the twelve-hour day work in the steel industry and report conclusions and recommenda-tions, has made a very careful and painstaking study of the facts and figures developed, it is not yet ready to make what it would designate a final report. Apparently the underlying reason for the agitation which resulted in the appointment of this committee was based on a sentiment (not created or endorsed by the workmen themselves) that 'the twelve-hour day was an unreasonable hardship upon the employees who were connected with it; that it was physically injurious to a large percentage of the employes; and that it interfered with family associations essential to the welfare of the children; that for these reasons it was, in a sense, opposed to the public interest. TWELVE-HOUR DAY NOT NECESSARILY INJURIOUS Whatever will be said against the twelve-hour day in the steel industry, investigation has convinced this committee that the same has not of itself been an injury to the employes, physically, mentally or morally. Whether or not, in the large majority of cases, twelve-hour men devote less time to their families than the employes working fewer hours is perhaps questionable. A part of the manufacturing of iron and steel is necessarily continuous. Therefore, practically, there must be two shifts of twelve hours or three shifts of eight hours. The workmen, as a rule, preferr the longer hours because it permits larger compensation per day. It is asserted with confidence that there is less phys-ical work, as a total per day, and less fatigue from the work of the twelve-hour day in the steel industry, than pertains to the large majority of the eight-hour men. This is because in the former case there are more rest periods during the twelve hours on duty.