V. I.

Lenin

The New Factory Law [7]

I

Why Was The New Factory Law Passed?

On June 2, 1897, a new factory law was passed reducing working hours in
mills and factories and establishing holidays. The workers of
St. Petersburg have long been waiting for this law, which the government
promised in 1896, after the fright it received from the mass
workers’ strike in the spring of that year. This mass strike at the
cotton-spinning and cotton-weaving mills was followed by others, and in
all cases the workers demanded shorter working hours. The government took
savage reprisals against the strikers; it arrested masses of workers right
and left and exiled them without trial. It also tried, in its fright, to
influence the workers by silly talk about the employers’ Christian
love for the workers (Minister Witte’s circular to the factory
inspectors issued in 1895-96). But the workers only jeered at this talk,
and no amount of persecution could check the movement, in which tens and
hundreds of thousands of workers were involved. It was then that the
government realised that it would have to yield and concede to at least
some of the workers’ demands. In addition to the lies and cant and
savage persecution of strikers, the St. Petersburg workers received in
answer to their strikes the government’s promise of a law to reduce
working hours. This promise was announced to the workers with unusual
solemnity in special notices [8] from the
Minister of Finance, which were posted up in the factories. The workers
waited impatiently for the fulfilment of the promise, they expected the
law to be promulgated by April 19, 1897, and were already prepared to
believe that this government promise, like numerous other government
statements, was a gross lie. This time, however, the government kept its promise, a law was promulgated—but what kind
of a law we shall see further on. But first we must examine the
circumstances which prompted the government to keep its promise.

Ourgovernment began to occupy itself with the problem of reducing working
hours long before 1896. The problem was raised fifteen years ago: the
St. Petersburg employers petitioned for a law of this kind as far back as
1883. Similar petitions were made on several other occasions by other
employers, too (notably the Polish), but they were all pigeon-holed, as
were a host of other projects for improving the workers’
conditions. The Russian Government does not hurry to deal with such
projects; they lie pigeon-holed for decades. Now when it comes to handing
over several million rubles to loyal Russian landowners who
“petition” for doles from the public funds, or to granting a
subsidy or bonus to the “downtrodden” employers, then the
Russian Government does hurry, and the wheels of the bureaucratic and
ministerial machine begin to revolve at full speed, as though
“greased” with “palm-oil.” When matters concern the workers, however, not only are draft laws pigeon-holed for years and
decades (for example, the Employers’ Liability Bill has been in the
“drafting stage,” I think, for over ten years), but even laws
already passed are not enforced, for the officials of His Imperial
Majesty’s Government are loath to incommode Messrs. the Employers
(for example, the law of 1886, which makes it incumbent upon employers to
provide hospitals for their workers, has in the vast majority of cases not
been enforced to this day). The question is, what caused action on a
long-standing issue to be taken so quickly on this occasion? Why was it
settled at once, given priority over other measures and pushed through the
Ministry and the Council of State? Why did it at once assume the form of a
bill and become law? Obviously, there was some force that spurred on the
officials, stirred them into action, broke down their stubborn reluctance
to “pester” our native employers with new demands. This force
was the St. Petersburg workers and the huge strikes they conducted in
1895-96, which, thanks to the assistance the workers received from the
Social-Democrats (through the League of Struggle), were accompanied by the
presentation of definite demands to the government and by the distribution of socialist
proclamations and leaflets among the workers. The government realised that
no amount of police persecution would break the determination of the
working masses, once they had become conscious of their interests, had
united for a struggle, and were led by the party of Social-Democrats, the
champions of the workers’ cause. The government was forced to make
concessions. The workers compelled the government to pass the new factory
law, they won it from their bitterest enemy, just as they did in the case
of the law of June 3, 1886, passed eleven years ago, on factory rules,
fines, wage rates, etc. At that time the workers’ struggle was waged
most vigorously in Moscow and Vladimir gubernias. It took the form of
numerous strikes; then, too, the workers presented plain and precise
demands to the government, and during the famous Morozov strike,
conditions drawn up by the workers themselves were handed up to the
inspector from the crowd. These conditions stated, for example, that the
workers demanded a reduction of fines. The law of June 3, 1886, passed
soon after, was a direct answer to the workers’ demands and
contained regulations governing fines. [1]

Andso it is today. In 1896, the workers demanded a reduction of working
hours, and backed their demands by huge strikes. The government is now
answering this demand by promulgating a law reducing working hours. At
that time, in 1886, the workers’ revolts compelled the government to
yield, and it tried to reduce its concessions to a minimum, to leave
loopholes for the employers, to delay the introduction of the new
regulations, to do the workers out of as many of their demands as
possible. Today, in 1897, the government is in the same way yielding only
to the workers’ revolts, and in the same way is trying by all the
means in its power to reduce the concessions to the workers, to haggle, to
do them out of an hour or two, even to lengthen working hours as compared
with those proposed by the employers; it is trying to give the employers
the benefit of a few more holidays by not making them compulsory; it is
trying to delay the introduction of the new system by postponing the operation of the
principal regulations, pending future instructions by the ministers. Thus
the laws of June 3, 1886, and of June 2, 1897—which are the
principal factory acts in Russia—are both forced concessions, won by
the Russian workers from the police government. Both show how the Russian
Government treats the most legitimate demands of the workers.

II

What Should Be Considered Working Time?

Letus examine in detail the law of June 2,

1897. [2]

As we have said, the new law, firstly, limits the working day for all workers, and, secondly,
establishes compulsory rest-days on Sundays and holidays. Before laying
down rules about the amount of working time the law must first define
what is meant by working time. The new law lays down the following rule:
“Working time, or the number of working hours per day, shall in
the case of every worker be deemed to be the time during which,
according to the labour contract, he is obliged to be on the premises of
the establishment and at the disposal of the manager for the performance
of work.” Hence, all the time that the worker spends at the
factory, either according to schedule or at the manager’s demand,
is to be considered as working time.

Whetherthe worker, during this time, is engaged at his actual or
customary work, or whether the manager orders him to do some other job, or
even to just wait , makes no difference: all the time the worker
spends at the factory must be considered as working time. For example, in
some factories, after the bell goes on Saturdays, the workers remain to
clean the machines. According to the law, time spent on cleaning machines
is also to be regarded as part of working time. Consequently, if
an employer does not pay the worker for cleaning machines, it means that
he is making gratuitous use of the hired worker’s working time. Hence, if an employer who has hired a worker at piece rates
compels him to wait, or to do some other job without special pay (every worker knows that this often happens), it means that the
employer is making gratuitous use of the hired worker’s working time. The workers should remember this definition of working time as
laid down in the new law and, on the strength of it, resist every attempt
on an employer’s part to make gratuitous use of labour-power. Naturally, such a definition of working time should follow
logically from the labour contract: some workers may think this so obvious
that it is not worth talking about. But the government, in its anxiety to
serve the capitalists, deliberately obscures a great deal of what is
obvious to every worker. So here too the government has tried to leave a
little loophole for those gentlemen, the employers. The law defines
working time as the time the worker is obliged under the labour contract to be in the factory. But what if the labour contract does
not specify how many hours a day the worker is obliged to be in the
factory? It often happens at engineering plants, for example, that all the
contract between the workers and the employer says is that the workers
undertake to make a certain article (a machine part, a certain number of
bolts or nuts, etc.) at a certain price; but nothing is said
about how much time the worker has to spend on the job. Is the new law
about the number of working hours per day applicable in such cases? Common
sense, of course, would suggest that it is; after all, the worker is
employed in the factory—how can this not be considered working time?
But the “common sense” of the capitalists, and of the government that supports them, is of a special brand. According to the
letter of the clause we have quoted, the law on the reduction of working
hours can easily be evaded in such cases. The employer may argue that in
the contract he did not oblige the worker to be in the factory—and there you are. And since not every employer is so smart
as to see this trick, the officials of the Ministry of Finance hastened to
draw the attention of Russia’s merchants to this useful little
loophole in the new law. The Ministry of Finance has long been issuing its
own special sheet, Vestnik Finansov , Promyshlennosti i Torgovli [9] —one of those official periodicals which,
besides publishing government decisions, do their best to magnify the
achievements of the Russian capitalists and to extol the
government’s solicitude for the pockets of the bankers, factory owners, merchants and landowners, under the guise of
solicitude for the people. Shortly after the new law was passed this sheet
published an article on it ( Vestnik Finansov , No. 26, 1897)
explaining its significance at length and arguing that it was precisely
the government’s function to be concerned about the health of the
workers. Well, it was in this article that the officials did their best to
show the employers how to get round the new law. This article clearly
explains that the new law cannot be applied in those cases where the
labour contract says nothing about working time, for when a worker
contracts to do a definite job “ he is not a hired worker ,
but a person who accepts an order .” Thus, it is not very
hard for an employer to dispense with the inconvenient law: all he has to
do is to call the worker a “person who accepts an order” and
not a worker! Instead of stating that working time is deemed to be the
time a worker is in the factory at the disposal of the employer,
the law is deliberately worded more vaguely and speaks of the
time during which the worker is obliged under contract to be in
the factory. One would think that this amounts to the same thing, but
actually, here again they have not scrupled to resort to deliberate
vagueness to the workers’ detriment!

III

To What Extent Does The New Law Reduce Working Hours?

Thelaw of June 2, 1897, restricts working time on day-work to 11 <½ hours. On Saturdays, and on the eve of holidays, it restricts it to 10
hours. Hence, the reduction of working hours under the new law is
miserly. There are quite a number of workers—and in St. Petersburg
they most likely form the majority—for whom this law will mean
no reduction of working hours at all; rather the contrary, it
threatens to lengthen them. The ordinary working day in St. Petersburg
factories is 10 to 10 <½ hours. The legislative enactment of such
excessive working hours clearly shows that this law was an answer to the
demands of workers at the St. Petersburg cotton-spinning and
cotton-weaving mills. For these workers, the new law does perhaps
mean a reduction of working hours, since most of them worked 12 to 14 hours a day. (We
shall explain later why we say “perhaps.”) The law lays down a
ten-hour day for artisans, and also for factories under the jurisdiction
of the Ministry of War. The government, however, decided that factory
workers might be made to work longer hours! Even the St. Petersburg
employers petitioned the government for a reduction of the working day to
11 hours! The government decided to throw in an extra half-hour for the
benefit of the Moscow employers, who compel their workers to keep going,
in two shifts, right round the clock, and whom the workers apparently have
not yet taught a proper lesson. The Russian Government, which boasts of
its solicitude for the workers’ welfare, has in fact proved to be as
stingy as a petty huckster. It has proved to be more stingy than the
employers themselves, who squeeze extra thousands out of the workers as a
result of every extra half-hour of work. The workers can clearly see from
this example that the government not only protects the interests of the
employers, but protects the interests of the worst of them, and
that it is a far worse enemy of the workers than the capitalist class The
St. Petersburg workers would have won shorter hours for
themselves and for all Russian workers had not the government interfered. The united workers had forced the employers to yield; the
St. Petersburg employers were prepared to concede the workers’
demands; but the government forbade the employers to yield, so as not to
create a precedent for the workers. Then the majority of the
St. Petersburg employers realised that they would have to make concessions
to the workers, and petitioned the government to reduce the working day to
11 hours. But the government protects the interests of the employers of
all Russia, and not only of St. Petersburg, and since there are employers
in Holy Russia who are far more stingy than those of St. Petersburg, the
government, in its desire to be “fair,” could not allow the
St. Petersburg employers to rob the workers too little. The
employers of St. Petersburg must not run too far ahead of those in the
rest of Russia; and so the government adds a half-hour to the working day
requested by the capitalists. Clearly, the workers must draw three lessons
from this conduct of the government:

Firstlesson: Russia’s advanced workers must do their utmost to draw
the more backward workers into the movement. Unless the entire mass of
Russian workers is enlisted in the struggle for the workers’ cause,
the advanced workers of the capital cannot hope to win much, even if they
force their employers to yield; for the government is so
exceedingly “fair” that it does not allow the better employers
to make substantial concessions to the workers. Second lesson: the Russian
Government is a far worse enemy of the Russian workers than the Russian
employers are, for the government not only protects the interests of the
employers, not only resorts, for this purpose, to brutal persecution of
the workers, to arrests, deportations and the use of troops against
unarmed workers, but what is more, protects the interests of the most stingy employers and resists any tendency of the better employers to
yield to the workers. Third lesson: in order to win themselves
human working conditions and an eight-hour day, for which the
workers are now striving all over the world, the Russian workers must rely
on the strength of their own organisation alone and steadily win one
concession after another from the government. The government is, as it
were, bargaining with the workers, trying to see whether it can impose an
extra half-hour or so. But the workers will show that they know how to
stand up for their demands. The government is, as it were, testing the
workers’ patience, to see whether it can get off with quite a cheap
concession. But the workers will show that they have patience enough for a
most stubborn struggle, since to them it is a fight for their lives, a
fight to prevent the working people from being utterly downtrodden and
oppressed.

IV

What Does the Law Consider “Night-Time”
For the Workers?

“Night-timeshall mean the period between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. when one
shift operates, and between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. when two or more shifts
operate.” So runs the new law. “Night” for the common people, who have to toil all their lives for others, and
“night” for the fine folk, who live on the labour of others, are, according to the “law,” two entirely
different things. During the greater part of the year both in
St. Petersburg and in Moscow it is still quite dark, still night at 4
a.m. But the Russian law lays it down that the worker must adjust his
whole life to the interests of capital; the worker must believe that
day-time begins without fail after four in the morning, even if
it may still be several hours before sunrise. And if the worker does not
live in the factory grounds, he has to get up at three o’clock, and even earlier, in order to be at the factory at four!
For St. Petersburg officials the “day” begins at noon, or even
at 1 p.m.; but then, officials are a special type of people. . . . The
workers’ “day” only ends at ten at night, and if the streets are quite dark when he leaves the factory, he should not be
disconcerted by this: he should remember and believe that the
“day” has only just ended—for so the law decrees. Why not pass a law that makes the worker’s “day” begin when
the factory whistle summons him to work, and end when that same whistle
summons a new shift? That would be franker and fairer. In Switzerland they
already have a law which defines what night-time is for the worker; but
how can you expect the Swiss to be up to all the tricks devised by Russian
police officials? It appears that among these terrible Swiss a working
man’s “night” is the same as that of other people, namely, from 8 p.m. to 5 (or 6) a.m, The only restriction on
“night-work” in the new law is that workers engaged even part
of the night shall not work more than ten hours. That is all. The law does
not prohibit night-work. In this respect, too, the law falls short of the
petitions of the St. Petersburg employers, who fourteen years ago
(in 1883) appealed for the prohibition of night work for
adults. Consequently, the St. Petersburg workers would have won more from
the employers in this respect too, had not the government interfered in order to protect the interests of the most retrograde
employers in Russia. The government would not listen to the employers of
St. Petersburg, for it did not want to offend those in Moscow, most of
whom compel their workers to work at night. As usual, the government tried
to mask its subservience to the interests of the worst employers
by deceptive talk and assurances. In an article explaining the new law,
Vestnik

Finansov , published by the Ministry of Finance, stated that in
other countries (France, for instance) night-work is forbidden. But, it
declared, our law cannot do this. “It is not always possible to
forbid establishments to work a full twenty-four hours: a large number of
industries, by their very nature, require continuous operation.”

Thisis obviously quite a lame excuse. We are not discussing special
industries which require continuous operation, but industries in
general. Even under the present law continuous operation is impossible
when work is done in two shifts unless overtime is worked, since day-work
has been fixed at 11 <½ hours and night-work at 10 hours, or 21
<½ hours in all. That is why the new law makes special provision for
industries in which continuous operation is necessary (through special
ministerial regulations, of which more anon). Consequently, there was
absolutely nothing to make the prohibition of night-work
“impossible.” We have already said that the government would
have us believe that it is concerned for the workers’ health. Here
is what the Ministry of Finance says about night-work: “Night-work
is undoubtedly more fatiguing and unhealthy and, in general, less natural
than work by daylight; and it is more detrimental the longer and more
systematic it is. It might seem that in view of the detrimental character
of night-work, it would be better to prohibit it for adult male workers
too (just as it is prohibited for women and for adolescents of both sexes
in some industries, and in the case of children everywhere). But there are
no grounds for this even from the standpoint of the worker’s general
welfare; moderate night-work is less detrimental to him than excessively
long hours of day-work for the same pay.” You see how skilful
Russian Government officials are in throwing dust into the eyes of the
people! Even their protection of the interests of the worst employers is
presented as solicitude for the “worker’s welfare.” And
how brazen is the justification invented by the Ministry: “moderate
night-work,” don’t you see, “is less detrimental than excessively long hours of day-work for the same pay.” The Ministry
wants to say that the worker is driven to work at night by low wages, so
low that the worker cannot get along without working excessively long
hours. And so, the Ministry, confident that this will always be so, that the worker will never succeed in winning better wages, cynically declares:
since the worker has to toil monstrously long hours to feed his family, is
it not all the same to him whether he works the extra hours in the
day-time or at night? Of course, if the majority of the Russian workers go
on earning the same miserable wages as at present, want will drive them to
work extra hours. But how insolent it is to justify the sanctioning of
night-work on the plea of the worker’s downtrodden condition!
“The pay for the work will be the same”—that is the main thing
for the servitors of capital—“and with the present level of wages,
the worker cannot get along without working extra hours.” And
bureaucrats like these, who concoct kulak arguments in the interests of
the stingy employers, have the audacity to talk about the
“standpoint of the worker’s general welfare.” But are they not too confident in hoping that the worker will always be so
downtrodden, that he will always agree to this “same pay,”
that is, to the same beggarly remuneration for his labour? Low wages and
long hours always go hand in hand; the one is impossible without the
other. When pay is low, the worker is forced to work extra hours, and to
work at night, in order to earn enough to live on. When working hours are
excessively long, pay will always be low, because when working long hours
the worker produces less articles per hour and of far worse quality than
in a short working day, and because the worker, crushed as he is by
excessive toil, will always remain downtrodden and powerless under the
yoke of capital. Consequently, when the Ministry, which serves the Russian
factory owners, proposes to preserve the present preposterously low wages
of the Russian workers, and at the same time talks about the
“workers’ welfare,” it shows as clearly as clear can be
that its phrases are sheer cant and lies.

V

How Does the Ministry of Finance

Try to Prove That to Restrict Overtime

Would Be “Unfair” To the Worker?

Wehave referred to the new law as a law to reduce the working day. We
have said that it restricts the working day to 11 ½ hours (10 hours
in the case of night-work). But actually this is not so, it is far worse. All the restrictions provided
for in the law relate only to ordinary, normal, regular work, but not to
overtime. Consequently, the employer’s “right” to compel the workers to work any number of hours, even twenty-four at a
stretch, is not restricted at all. Here is what the law says
about overtime: “Overtime shall mean work performed by the worker in
an industrial establishment during hours other than those in which he is
obliged to work by factory rules. Overtime shall be permitted only by
special agreement between the manager of the industrial establishment and
the worker. The labour contract may contain stipulations only as regards
such overtime work as is necessitated by the technical conditions of the
industry.” This is a highly important clause of the new law, and its
edge is directed entirely against the workers, leaving the employer a free
hand. Hitherto overtime has been regulated by custom; there has been no
mention of it in any law. Now the government has legalised
overtime. The stipulation in the law that such work shall require a
“special agreement” between worker and employer is just an
empty and utterly meaningless phrase. All work is done “by
agreement” between the workers and the employers. The workers are
not serfs (although many a Russian official would like nothing better than
to turn them into such); they work for hire, that is, by agreement. There
was no point in stipulating that overtime shall be done by agreement. The
government inserted that meaningless phrase into the law in order to
create the impression that it wants to restrict overtime. As a matter of
fact the law does not restrict it at all. Formerly the master used to say
to the worker: “If you want to work overtime, all right; if not,
here’s your discharge!”—and now he will say the same. Only
formerly it was done by custom; now it will be done with the sanction of
the law. Formerly, an employer who dismissed a worker for
refusing to work overtime could not claim the support of the law; now the
law directly suggests to him how he can oppress the worker. Instead of
restricting overtime, this clause of the law may easily render it more
prevalent. The law even permits the employer to include the demand for
overtime in the contract when “it is necessitated by the technical
conditions of the industry,” This reservation will cause no inconvenience to the employer at all. How is one to decide which work is
“necessitated by the technical conditions of the industry,”
and which is not? Who will investigate it? If an employer states that the
job he has given a worker to do out of hours is “necessitated by the
technical conditions of the industry,” how can he be refuted? Nobody
will investigate it, nobody will check the employer’s statement. The
law has only strengthened the arbitrary powers of the employers
by suggesting to them a particularly reliable way of oppressing
the workers.

Now,all the employer has to do is to stipulate in the contract that the
worker has no right to refuse to work overtime when “necessitated by
the technical conditions of the industry,” and the trick is done!
Let the worker decline to work overtime—he will simply be
discharged. And where (thinks the employer) will you find a worker who
will attempt to prove that the work was not “necessitated by the
technical conditions of the industry”! The very idea of a worker making
such a complaint is ridiculous. Needless to say, there will never be any
such complaints, and they would be useless if they were made. The
government has therefore quite legally endowed the employers with
arbitrary powers as regards overtime. How eager the Ministry of Finance is
in its haste to serve the employers and to teach them how to make the
widest use of overtime under the protection of the new legislation is very
clearly shown by the following argument in Vestnik Finansov :
“Overtime is also necessary in the case of rush orders, which the
employers cannot possibly foresee [3] in industries operating for definite and brief seasons, if the
owner of the establishment finds it impossible or difficult to
increase the number of workers.”

Yousee how skillfully the law is “interpreted” by the zealous
lackeys of the employers installed in the Ministry of Finance! The law
only speaks of overtime necessitated by technical conditions, but the
Ministry of Finance hastens to consider as “necessitated”
overtime due to “unforeseen” (?!)

orders, and even when the employer finds it “difficult” to
increase the number of workers! Why, that is simply making fools of the
workers! Any astute employer can always say that he finds it
“difficult.” Increasing the number of workers means hiring
others, which means reducing the number of unemployed hanging round the
factory gate, means lessening competition among workers, making them more
exacting in their demands and, perhaps, having to agree to pay higher
wages. It goes without saying that there is not an employer who would not
consider this to be “difficult” for him. With such arbitrary
powers for the employers to demand overtime, the law on the reduction of
the working day is robbed of all value. There will be no reduction at all
for vast numbers of workers, since they will continue to work 15 to 18
hours a day and more, remaining at the factory at night to do
overtime. The absurdity of a law to reduce the working day which does not
forbid (or at least restrict) overtime is so obvious that in all the
preliminary drafts of the law it was proposed to restrict overtime. As far
back as 1883, the St. Petersburg employers (the employers themselves!)
petitioned to have overtime restricted to one hour a day. The
government, scared by the St. Petersburg strikes of 1895-96, immediately
appointed a commission to draft a bill to reduce working hours; this
commission also recommended that overtime be restricted, namely, to 120
hours a

year. [4]

By
rejecting every proposal to restrict overtime in any degree whatsoever,
the government definitely set out to protect the interests of the worst of
the employers, openly legalised the complete subjection of the workers,
and made it quite clear that it intended to leave everything as it was
before and to make shift with meaningless phrases. In its anxiety to serve
the interests of the employers, the Ministry of Finance went so far as to
try to prove that any restriction of overtime would be “unfair to
the worker himself.” Here are its arguments, which should give every
worker food for thought. “To deprive the worker of the right to work
at the factory more than a fixed number of hours a day would be difficult in practice” (Why? Because the factory inspectors are very
remiss in the performance of their duties, fearing nothing so much as to
offend the employers? Or because so long as the Russian worker has no
rights and is inarticulate, it will be difficult to carry out any reforms
for his benefit? The Ministry of Finance has unwittingly let the cat out
of the bag: indeed, as long as the Russian workers, like the Russian
people in general, stand disfranchised in face of a police government, as
long as they have no political rights, no reforms can be effective)
. . . “and would be unfair to the workers: a man should not be
punished for seeking the means of subsistence, for occasionally exerting
his strength even above the limit beyond which his work may prove
detrimental to his health.” See how humane and philanthropic the
Russian Government is! Bow in gratitude, Russian workers! The government
is so merciful, that it “does not rob” you of the “right” to work 18 hours a day, even 24 if you like. The
government is so fair that it does not want to punish you when the
employer forces you to overstrain yourself at the job! In all other
countries, it is the employer, not the worker, who is punished if
work is done at the factory over and above the regular hours. Our
officials have forgotten that. Indeed, how could Russian officials take
the risk of punishing the employers! Perish the thought! We shall
soon see that the employers will not be punished even if they break every
clause of this new law. In all other countries, the workers, in their
“search for the means of subsistence,” have the right to
organise unions, mutual benefit societies, to openly resist the employer,
to present their demands to him, to conduct strikes. In our country this
is not allowed. On the other hand, however, our workers have been granted
the “right” to work any number of “extra” hours a day. Why did these humane officials forget to add that our fair government
“does not rob” the Russian worker of the “right” to be sent to prison without trial, or to be beaten up by any police
bashi-bazouk for every attempt to protect himself from the oppression of
the capitalists?

VI

What Powers Does the New Law

Grant the Ministers?

Wehave already shown that on the most essential points the new law has
not laid down any obligatory, hard and fast rules. The government has
preferred to grant the fullest possible powers to the administration
(namely, the ministers) to establish all sorts of rules and privileges in
the interests of employers, to hamper the application of the new law,
etc. The powers granted to the ministers by the new law are extremely
broad and extensive. The ministers (namely, the Minister of Finance or the
Minister of Railways, etc., in concurrence with the Minister of Internal
Affairs) are “empowered” to issue detailed regulations governing the application of the new law. A host of questions relating to
all the clauses of the new law in all and sundry respects are left entirely to the discretion of the ministers. The powers
of the ministers are so vast that they are virtually the sole executors of
the new law; if they want to, they can issue regulations which will really
enforce it; or, if they want to, they can act so that the law will be
scarcely enforced at all. And, indeed, see what regulations the ministers
are empowered to issue “in pursuance of the present law” (that
is the way the law puts it. We have already seen how smart the Ministry of
Finance can be when acting “in pursuance” of the law—it
will act in such a way that the workers, in its opinion, will only have to
be thankful that the government does not punish them for working too much
and does not “deprive them of the right” to work even 24 hours
a day). We would enumerate all the various categories of these regulations
if that were possible; but the fact is that, in addition to the questions
enumerated in the law which are to be settled by the ministerial
regulations, the law also empowers them to issue other regulations without any restriction. The ministers may issue
regulations governing working hours. That is to say, it is not enough to
have a law governing working hours; there are to be ministerial
regulations for the same thing. The ministers may issue regulations
concerning shifts; but, of course, they may also not, so as not to
inconvenience the employers. The ministers have been empowered to issue
regulations governing the number of shifts a day, meal times, etc. That is what the law
says: et cetera ( and so forth ); in other words, the ministers
are empowered to issue any regulations they like. If they don’t
like, there will be no regulations on meal times at all, and the employers
will go on oppressing the workers as they do now, not allowing them to go
home for dinner, and not allowing mothers to go home to feed their
children. It is left to the ministers to issue regulations governing
overtime, namely, indicating when it shall be permitted, how frequently,
and what record shall be kept, Consequently, here the ministers have a
perfectly free hand. They may even alter the requirements of the
law, that is, they may strengthen or mitigate them (the law
deliberately stipulates the right of the ministers to mitigate the
requirements of the new law in respect of the employers) in three cases:
firstly, “when same is deemed necessary owing to the character of
the industry (continuity and so forth).” This “and so forth” is also in the law, thus enabling the ministers to plead any
“character of the industry” they like, Secondly, “owing
to the nature of the work (tending of boilers or transmission belts,
current and emergency repairs, and so forth).” Here we have
“and so forth” again! Thirdly, “and in other important and exceptional cases.” Further, the ministers may determine which
industries are particularly detrimental to the health of the workers (or
they may not: the law does not compel, but only authorises them to do so
. . . although they had that authority before, but never wanted to
exercise it!) and to issue special regulations for these industries. The
workers now see why we said that it is impossible to enumerate the
questions left to be settled by the ministers: the law is strewn with
“et ceteras” and “and so forths.” Russian laws in general may be divided into two categories: those which grant some rights
to the workers and the common people generally, and others which prohibit
something, or allow officials to prohibit it. In the laws of the first
category, even the most trivial rights of the workers are enumerated with the utmost precision (even, for example, the worker’s
right to absent himself from work with good cause) and not the least departure is permitted on pain of the severest penalties. In
these laws you will not find a single “et cetera” or “and so forth,” In the laws of the second category, only general prohibitions are invariably indicated,
without any precise enumeration , so that the management may
prohibit anything it likes ; in these laws you will always find
small but very important additions: “et cetera,” “and so
forth.” These little phrases are striking testimony of the almighty
power exercised by Russian officials over the people, and of the
latter’s utter rightlessness in regard to them; of the senseless and
savage character of the abominable bureaucracy and red tape in which every
institution of the Imperial Russian Government is steeped through and
through. Any law which may be of the slightest benefit is invariably so
wrapped up in red tape that its enforcement is endlessly delayed. More,
the enforcement of the law is left to the complete discretion of the
officials, who, as everybody knows, are ready heart and soul to
“serve” any moneybag, and to play every possible dirty trick
on the common people. The ministers, be it remembered, are only empowered
to issue all these regulations “in pursuance of the present law”;
that is, they may issue them or they may not. The law does not bind them
to anything. The law does not fix any date: they may issue the regulations
now, or they may do so in ten years’ time. Naturally, the
few rules enumerated in the law lose all meaning and importance:
they are empty words that merely conceal the government’s desire to
frustrate the law in its practical application. Vast powers are granted to
our ministers by practically every law affecting the life of the
workers. And we understand perfectly why the government does so: it wants
to be of the greatest possible service to the employers. After all, it is
much easier for an employer to influence the official responsible for
enforcing the law, than to influence the passage of the law
itself. Everybody knows how easily our capitalist magnates gain access to
the drawing-rooms of Messrs. the Ministers and there engage in pleasant
conversations, how hospitably they entertain each other at dinners, what
gracious little presents to the tune of tens and hundreds of thousands of
rubles are made to the corrupt officials of the Imperial Government
(either directly, in the shape of bribes, or indirectly, in the shape of
shares to company “founders,” or of honorary and lucrative
posts in these companies). Consequently, the broader the rights the new
law confers on the officials in respect of its enforcement, the more advantageous it is both for the
officials and for the factory owners : the advantage to
the officials is that they can grab more, and to the factory owners that
they can more easily secure privileges and exemptions. In illustration,
let us remind the workers of two cases which show what these ministerial
regulations issued “ in pursuance of the law” lead to in practice. The law of June 3, 1883, laid it down that the fines money
belongs to the workers and must be expended on their needs. The minister
“pursued” this law in such a way that in St. Petersburg, for
instance, it was not enforced for ten years, and when at last it began to
be enforced, the whole matter was put into the hands of the employer, whom
the worker has to beg for his money as though it were a dole. Second
example: this same law (of June 3, 1886) lays it down that wages must be
paid not less than twice a month; but the minister “pursued”
the law in such a way as to give the employers the right to withhold the
wages of a new worker for six weeks. Every worker now clearly understands
why this time, too, the ministers have been empowered to
“pursue” the law. The employers also understand this perfectly, and they have already set their machinery going. We have seen
that the ministers are “empowered” to issue regulations on
overtime. The employers have already begun to bring pressure to bear on
the government to induce it not to restrict overtime. Moskovskiye Vedomosti , a newspaper which always
zealously defends the interests of the worst employers, persistently eggs
on the government to the most savage and brutal actions, and enjoys such
immense influence “in high spheres” (that is, among the higher
officials, ministers, etc.), has now launched a regular campaign against
the imposition of restrictions on overtime. The employers have thousands
of ways of exerting pressure on the government: they have their societies
and associations; employers are members of numerous government commissions
and boards (for example, the Factory Boards), they have personal access to
ministers; they may write as much as they like in the press about their
wishes and demands, and the press has tremendous influence in our
times. As to the workers, they have no legal means of exerting pressure on
the government. There is only one thing the workers can do, and that is to join forces, to spread the consciousness of their interests as members of
one class among all the workers, and to put up united resistance to the
government and the employers. Every worker can now see that the
enforcement of the new law will depend entirely on who exerts strongest
pressure on the government, the employers or the workers. It was only by
struggle, by a conscious and staunch struggle, that the workers secured
the passage of this law. Only by struggle will they be able to
secure the actual enforcement of the law, and its enforcement in the
interests of the workers. Without a stubborn struggle, without the staunch
resistance of the united workers to every claim the employers make, the
new law will remain a scrap of paper, one of those false and pretentious
signboards with which our government tries to embellish the utterly rotten
edifice of police tyranny and the rightless and oppressed state of the
workers.

VII

How Our “Christian” Government

Curtails The Workers’ Holidays

Besidesregulations on working hours, the new law also contains a
regulation concerning compulsory rest-days for factory workers on Sundays
and holidays. The grovelling hacks, of whom there are so many among our
Russian newspapermen and journalists, have hastened to mark this
regulation by lauding our government and its humaneness to the skies. We
shall presently see that actually this humane law tends to curtail holidays for the workers. But first let us examine the
general regulations concerning Sunday and holiday rest. First of all, it
should be noted that the St. Petersburg employers petitioned for the
establishment of legal rest-days on Sundays and holidays fourteen years
ago (in 1883). In other words, here too, the Russian Government only
delayed, postponed and resisted reform as long as it was
possible. According to the law, the list of holidays on which work is
forbidden explicitly includes all Sundays and fourteen other holidays, of
which we shall speak at greater length later. The law does not absolutely
forbid work on holidays, but permits it on the following conditions:

firstly, “mutual agreement” between the employer and the
workers is required; secondly, work on a holiday is permitted, provided it
is “compensated by a week-day”; thirdly, the agreement to replace
the holiday by a week-day must be immediately reported to the factory
inspector. Hence, under the law, work on holidays must on no account be
allowed to reduce the number of rest-days, for the employer is obliged to
compensate the workers for working on a holiday by giving them a free
week-day. The workers must always bear this in mind, and also the fact
that the law demands the mutual consent of the employer and the workers
for such an arrangement. In other words, the workers may always quite
legally refuse to agree to such an arrangement, and the employer
has no right to compel them to do so. In practice, of course, the
employer will be able to extort the workers’ consent in the
following way: he will ask the workers one by one to agree, and each
worker will be afraid to refuse, for fear of being discharged. In doing
this, the employers will of course be acting illegally, for the law
demands the consent of the workers , that is, of all the workers
jointly. But how can all the workers in one factory (and there are
sometimes hundreds and even thousands of them, working in many different
places) make their common consent known? The law does not say how, and
here again it has placed in the hands of the employers another means of
oppressing the workers. The workers have only one way of preventing such
oppression: in every such case they must demand the election of
workers’ deputies to convey the general decision of all the
workers to the employer. The workers can base this demand on the law, for
the latter speaks of the consent of all the workers , and all the
workers cannot speak to the employer at once. This system of electing
workers’ deputies will, in general, be very beneficial to the
workers, and will be useful for all kinds of other negotiations with the
employers and the office, inasmuch as it is very difficult, and often
quite impossible, for the individual worker to present his demands,
claims, etc. Further, as regards workers of “non-Orthodox
persuasion,” the law “permits” that days which are not celebrated by their Church may not be included in the list of
holidays. But then there are other holidays which are celebrated by
Catholics, and not by Orthodox people. The law says nothing about this and, therefore,
makes an attempt to discriminate somewhat against non-Orthodox
workers. Even more marked is the discrimination against non-Christian
workers: for them the law “permits” other days in the week
instead of Sunday to be included in the list of holidays. Only
“permits”! Our Christian government so savagely persecutes persons
who do not profess the ruling religion that very likely this too is an
attempt to oppress non-Christians by making the law vague. The law is
indeed very obscure on this point. It should be interpreted as meaning
that one day in the week must be a compulsory rest-day, and that all that
is permitted is the substitution of some other day for Sunday. But the
“ruling” religion only grants privileges to the “rulers”; as for the working man, it will never miss an opportunity
to invent some sort of a trap for him. Let us see which holidays
the law says must be included in the list. It is all very well talking
about establishing Sunday and holiday rest; but even before this the
workers did not as a rule, in the majority of cases, work either on
Sundays or on holidays. The law, after all, may fix the rest-days in such
a way that the total number of compulsory holidays may prove to
be far fewer than the number of customary holidays. This is exactly what our Christian government has done in the new law. It has
established 66 holidays in the year: 52 Sundays, 8 fixed holidays (January
1 and 6, March 25, August 6 and 15, September 8, and December 25 and 26)
and 6 movable holidays (Friday and Saturday in Passion Week, Easter Monday
and Tuesday, Ascension Day and Descent of the Holy Ghost). But how many
customary holidays a year have there been in our factories till
now? We have precise information on this score for Moscow and Smolensk
gubernias, and that only for a few factories. But as the difference
between the factories, and even between the two gubernias, is very small,
this information is quite sufficient to enable us to form an opinion about
the real value of the new law. In Moscow Gubernia, figures were collected
for 47 large factories, employing a total of over 20,000 workers. It was
found that in hand-operated factories, the number of holidays per year is
97, and in the machine-operated factories the number is 98. The lowest
number of holidays per year is 78, These 78 holidays are celebrated at all the investigated factories without exception. In Smolensk
Gubernia, the information relates to 15 factories, employing a total of
about 5,000 to 6,000 workers. The average number of holidays per year is
86, or nearly as many as in Moscow Gubernia. The lowest number of holidays
was found at one of the factories, where it was 75. Corresponding to this
number of holidays per year, which is customary for Russian
factories, is the number of holidays established for factories under the
jurisdiction of the War Ministry, where 88 annual holidays are the
rule. The laws of our country recognise practically the same number of
days for civil servants as non-working (87 a year). Consequently, each
year the workers had the same number of customary holidays as
other citizens. In its solicitude for the workers’ health, our
“Christian government” cut out a fourth of these customary
holidays, 22 in all, leaving only 66 compulsory holidays. Let us enumerate
the customary holidays cut out by the government in the new law. Of the
fixed holidays the following have been cut out: February
2—Candlemas; May 9—St Nicholas’ day; June 29—St
Peter’s day; July 8—the Feast of Our Lady of Kazan; July
20—St Elijah’s day; August 29—St John the
Baptist’s day; September 14—the Feast of the Holy Cross;
October 1—the Feast of the Intercession (even this holiday the
government deemed superfluous and non-compulsory. We may be certain that
not a single employer will be found who will dare compel his employees to
work on that day. Here again the government is protecting the interests
and mean practices of the worst employers); November 21—Presentation
of the Blessed Virgin, and December 6—St Nicholas’ day. Thus,
10 fixed holidays have been cut out. [5]

Further, of the movable holidays, the following have been cut out: Shrove Saturday and Wednesday of the last week of Lent,
i.e., two holidays. In all, therefore, 12 holidays have been cut out from
the minimum hitherto allowed the workers as rest-days according
to prevailing custom. Our government is so fond of calling itself a
“Christian” government; when addressing the workers, the ministers and other officials sweeten
their speeches with phrases about the “Christian love” and
“Christian sentiments” of the employers and of the government
towards the workers, etc. But as soon as action takes the place of
phrases, all this hypocritical and canting talk is sent to blazes, and the
government becomes a huckster trying to extort something from the workers
wherever possible. The employers themselves, that is, the best of them,
long long ago petitioned for the establishment of legal rest-days on
Sundays and holidays. After fifteen years of procrastination, the
government has at last passed a law establishing compulsory rest
on Sundays and holidays, but while making this concession to the workers
it does not miss the opportunity of injuring them by cutting out
one-fourth of the customary holidays from the list of those that are
compulsory. Thus, the government is behaving like a real usurer: while
making one concession, it does its best to make up for it by some other
extortion. With such a law, it may very easily happen that at some of the
factories the employers will try to reduce the number of
workers’ rest-days and compel the workers to work on holidays which
have hitherto been kept but which the law has not included in the
compulsory list of holidays. To prevent their conditions from being
worsened, the workers must, in this respect too, always be ready to resist
every attempt to reduce the number of holidays. The law only specifies the
compulsory holidays; but the workers have the right to demand others as
well. Only they must see to it that all the holidays are stipulated in the
rules of the factory and should place no trust in verbal promises. The
workers can be sure of not being compelled to work on a holiday only when
that holiday has been included in the factory rules. Just as in the case
of holidays, so in the case of half-holidays, the law attempts to leave
matters where they were before, and even in some respects to worsen
them. The law provides for only one half-holiday—Christmas eve: on
that day work must cease not later than noon. This has been the case until
now at the majority of factories, and if any factory did not release the
workers at noon on Christmas eve, in most cases it allowed them a
half-holiday on the eve of some other big holiday. Generally speaking, one
half-holiday in the year has hitherto been the rule at the majority of the factories. Further, the new law says
that on Saturdays and the eve of holidays the working day is limited to
ten hours, that is, 1 <½ hours less than the ordinary working
day. Here, too, the law has not improved the workers’ conditions,
and, if anything, has worsened them: hitherto, at nearly all the factories , work on Saturday ceased earlier than usual. One
investigator, who has collected a great deal of information on this
subject and who is generally well acquainted with factory life, states
that it may be safely concluded that, on the average, work on Saturdays
ceases two hours before the usual time. Consequently, here, too, the law
did not miss the opportunity, while converting a customary rest
period into a compulsory one, to extort from the workers at least
one half-hour as compensation for this concession. One half-hour a week
amounts to 23 hours a year (counting 46 working weeks), that is, two days
extra work for the employer’s benefit. . . . Not a bad present for
our poor, indigent employers! We may be quite sure that these knights of
the moneybag will not hesitate to accept this present and will do their
best to compensate themselves in this way for the “sacrifices”
demanded of them by the new law (as they are fond of putting it), and,
therefore, in this respect too, the workers must rely only on themselves,
on the strength of their organisation. Without a stubborn struggle, the
working class, in this respect too, will fail to achieve any improvement
in their condition, notwithstanding the new law.

VIII

How Is The Observance

Of The New Law Guaranteed?

Howis the observance of laws guaranteed in general? Firstly, by
supervision over the observance, and secondly, by punishment of
infringements, of the law. Let us see how matters stand with regard to the
new factory law. Supervision over the observance of laws has been
entrusted to the factory inspectors. Hitherto, the regulations governing
factory supervision issued in 1886 have not been extended to the whole of
Russia by far, but only to a few gubernias, the most highly industrialised ones. The extension of the area
of factory supervision has always followed the extension of the area of
the working-class movement and of workers’ strikes. On the very date
that the law to reduce the working hours was promulgated (that is, June 2,
1897), another law was issued extending factory supervision to the whole
of Russia and to the entire Kingdom of Poland. This extension of the
factory regulations to the whole of Russia and the institution of Factory
Inspection is, of course, a step forward. The workers will take advantage
of this to inform a larger number of their comrades about their
conditions, about the labour laws, about the attitude of the government
and its officials towards the workers, etc. The application of the same
rules that govern the advanced workers (of St. Petersburg, Moscow,
Vladimir and other gubernias) to all factory workers in Russia will, of
course, also help the working-class movement to spread more rapidly to all
Russian workers. As to how far effectively the factory inspectors
supervise the observance of the law, we shall not go into this in
detail. A separate pamphlet should be written on this subject (it is so
wide), and perhaps we shall find some other opportunity to discuss the
question of Factory Inspection with the workers. Let us only briefly
remark that so few factory inspectors are appointed in Russia that they
are very rarely to be seen at the factories. The factory inspectors are
completely under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance, which turns
them into servitors of the employers, compels them to report strikes and
unrest to the police, to prosecute workers for leaving the factory even
when the employer himself does not prosecute them; in a word, it turns
them, in a manner of speaking, into police officials, into factory
police. The employer has thousands of ways of exerting influence on the
factory inspectors and of forcing them to do what he wants. The workers,
however, have no means of influencing the factory inspectors, and cannot
have such means as long as the workers do not enjoy the right of free
assembly, the right to form their unions, to discuss their affairs in the
press, and to issue workers’ newspapers. So long as these rights are
withheld, no supervision by officials over the employers can ever be
serious and effective. But supervision alone is not enough to secure the observance of the law. Strict penalties for non-observance of the law
must also be imposed. Otherwise, what is the good of a factory inspector
telling the employer that he is acting wrongly? The employer will simply
ignore him and go on acting as before. That is why, when a new law is
passed, the penalties imposed on those who infringe it are always
stipulated. The new law of June 2, 1897 , reducing working hours and establishing rest-days, however , contains no penalties for its infringement. The workers can see from this how different is
the government’s attitude to the employers and to the workers. When
a law is passed, say, forbid ding the worker to leave the factory before
his time is up, the penalty in case he does leave is fixed at once,
including even so severe a penalty as arrest. For going on strike, for
example, the workers are liable, under the law, to arrest and even
imprisonment, but the employer is only fined for the infringement of the
regulations which causes the strike. So in this case, too, the requirement
of the law that the employers shall allow the workers to rest on Sundays
and holidays and not make them work more than 1 <½ hours a day is not
supported by any penalties for its infringement. What will be done to an
employer who is guilty of infringing this law? At the most, he may be
hauled before the magistrate, who cannot levy a fine exceeding 50 rubles,
or the Factory Board may itself impose a penalty in the shape of a
fine. But will a fine of 50 rubles deter an employer? Why, he makes far
much more than 50 rubles profit by compelling all his workers to work a
night or on a holiday! It will actually benefit the factory owner to break
the law and pay a fine. The failure of the law to stipulate the penalty
for its infringement by the employer is a crying injustice, which plainly
shows that our government is anxious to delay the enforcement of the law
as long as possible, that it does not intend to demand strict observance
of the law by the employers. It happened in other countries, too, in times
long past, that a government would pass factory laws without stipulating
any penalties for their infringement. And, in fact, such laws were not
observed at all and remained mere scraps of paper. That is why this
ridiculous custom of passing laws without ensuring their enforcement has
long been abandoned in other countries. Today the Russian Government is
resorting to this same old trick in tile hope that the workers will not notice it. But this
hope is unfounded. As soon as the workers become acquainted with the new
law, they themselves will see to it that it is observed; they will not
allow the slightest departure from it and will refuse to work until its
provisions are complied with. Such supervision by the workers themselves
will be far more effective than that of any factory police. Without such
supervision the law will not be observed.

IX

Will The New Law Improve The Workers’
Condition?

Atfirst glance, it may even seem strange that we raise this question. The
law reduces working hours and establishes compulsory rest-days on Sundays
and holidays. Surely this is an improvement of the workers’
condition? But we have already shown in detail above how vague and
indefinite are the provisions of the new law, how often the law, while
laying down rules to improve the workers’ condition, itself
frustrates those rules by leaving the employer’s arbitrary power
untouched, or by limiting the compulsory holidays to a number far smaller
than is customary.

Letus try and calculate whether working time will be reduced by the
introduction of the new law if the number of rest-days is no more than the
number established by the law, that is, if the workers are given rest-days
only on the compulsory holidays established by the law, and the employers
succeed in compelling them to work on the other, customary
holidays. Whether they succeed or not is, of course, an open
question. That will depend on what resistance the workers put up. But that
the employers will try to compensate themselves for the reduction in
working hours by reducing the number of holidays, is beyond doubt. That
the law does its utmost to assist this noble endeavour of the capitalists
to oppress the workers, is also beyond doubt. Well, let us see what the
effect of this would be. To compare working time under the old system with
that

under the new (i.e., under the law of June 2, 1897), we must take the number of working hours per year. Only in this way can account be
taken of all the holidays and shorter working days on the eve of
holidays. How many hours a year does the Russian factory worker usually
work now, that is, before the operation of the law of June 2, 1897? It
goes without saying that exact information on this point is not available,
for it is impossible to calculate the number of working hours of every
worker. We must avail ourselves of the information collected for a few factories, and assume that the number of hours at other factories
is approximately the same as that at the factories investigated. Let us
take the information collected for Moscow Gubernia. The number of working
days in the year was calculated exactly in the case of 45 big
factories. It was found that the total number of working days in the year
at all these 45 factories together was 12,010, that is, an average of 267
working days per factory. [6]

The number of working hours per week (as shown by data for several hundred factories) averages 74, or 12 <½ hours a
day. Hence, in the year there were 267 x 12 <½ = 3,293 working hours,
or in round numbers 3,300. In the city of Odessa, we reckoned up the
figures for 54 large factories for which we have information regarding the
number of working days in the year, and the number of hours. We found that
the average number of working hours per year in all these factories is
3,139, or considerably less than in Moscow Gubernia. In Odessa the working
day is shorter, in most cases 10 <½ hours, the average for these 54
factories being 10.7 hours. Hence the number of working hours per year is
lower, although there are fewer holidays. Let us see how many working
hours we get under the new law. First of all, let us count up the number
of working days in the year. For this purpose, we must deduct from 365,
firstly, 66 holidays; secondly, half a day on Christmas eve, and, thirdly,
the free time the worker enjoys by ceasing work 1 <½ hours earlier on the eve of holidays. The
number of holiday eves will be 60 (not 66, for about 6 holidays coincide
with other rest-days). Hence, the reduced hours on the eve of holidays
amount to 60 x 1 <½ = 90 working hours, or 8 working days. Thus, in
all, from the 365 days in the year, we have to deduct 74 <½ holidays
(66 + <½ + 8 = 74 <½). The result is 290 <½ working days,
or 290 <½ x 11 <½ = 3,340 working hours. Thus we find that if
the number of holidays is reduced to the compulsory number established by
the law, the condition of the workers will be worsened rather than improved by the introduction of the new law. On the whole, the number
of working hours per year will remain what it was before, or will even be
increased ! Of course, this calculation is only approximate; it
cannot be made with complete accuracy. But it is based on quite reliable
data and clearly shows what a smart device the government has invented to
oppress the workers by reducing the number of compulsory holidays as
compared with the customary number. This calculation clearly shows that if
the workers do not firmly stand up for one another and offer joint
resistance to the employers, their condition may be worsened by the
introduction of the new law! And please note in addition, that in this
calculation we have taken only day -work, that is, ordinary working hours. But what about overtime? As we have seen,
the law placed no restrictions on this, and we do not know whether the
ministers will introduce any restrictions in the regulations which they
have been “empowered” to issue. It is this absence of any
restrictions on overtime which chiefly leads us to doubt whether the new
law will improve the condition of the workers. If, with the reduction of
the normal (ordinary) working day, the wages of the majority of the
Russian workers remain as preposterously low as they are at present,
the worker will be compelled by want to consent to work overtime ,
and his condition will not improve. What the worker needs is to
work no more than eight hours a day, and to have time for rest, for his
development, and for the enjoyment of his rights as a human being, a
family man, and a citizen. What the worker needs is to get not a beggarly
wage, but enough to live a decent human life, himself to enjoy the
advantage of the improvements introduced in production, and not to
surrender all the profit to his exploiters. If in order to earn the same pay the
worker has to work the same number of hours as before, is it not all the
same to him whether his excessive toil is called ordinary time or
overtime? The law to reduce the working day will then remain a dead letter , a scrap of paper. The new law will then not affect
the employers in the slightest, and will not compel them to concede
anything to the working people. And the officials of the Ministry of
Finance, in their servility to the capitalists, are evidently already hinting at this. In the same Vestnik Finansov article they
reassure the employers by saying: “The new law, while restricting
freedom of contract in the hiring of workers for ordinary jobs, does not
deprive the employer of the opportunity to operate his establishment at
any time of the day or night and even, in case of need” (yes, yes!
our poor downtrodden employers so often experience the “need”
for the unpaid labour of the Russian workers) . . . “on holidays by
entering into special agreements” (to work overtime) “with the
workers.”

Yousee how these lackeys bow and scrape to the money bags! Please
don’t be much disturbed, Messrs. the Employers, they as much as say:
you may “operate your establishment at any time of the day or
night”; all you have to do is to call overtime what used to be
considered ordinary time. You merely have to change the name, that is all!

Themost amazing thing in this statement is the brazenness of the
officials; they are convinced in advance that there will be no restriction
whatever on overtime (if overtime is restricted, the employers will not be
able to operate at any time of the day or night!). They are convinced in
advance that their frank and cynical advice to the employers not to stand
on ceremony will not reach the ears of the workers! In this, even the
officials of the Ministry of Finance, we think, have excelled themselves!
It will be very instructive for the workers to learn how
officials talk to the employers and what advice they give
them. On learning this, the workers will realise that under cover of the
new law their old enemies are attacking them, in pursuit of their old
striving to enslave the workers on the most “ legal grounds .”

X

What is the Significance of the New Law?

Wehave now acquainted ourselves with the new law in all its details. All
that remains is to discuss what significance this law has for the
workers and the working-class movement in Russia.

Thesignificance of the new factory law lies, on the one hand, in its
being a forced concession by the government, in its having been
won from the police government by the united and class-conscious
workers. The promulgation of this law shows the success of the
working-class movement in Russia; it shows what tremendous power lies in
the class conscious and staunch demand of the working masses. No amount of
persecution, no wholesale arrests and deportations, no grandiose political
trials, no hounding of the workers have been of any avail. The government
set all its forces and resources into motion. It hurled itself upon the
St. Petersburg workers with all the weight of the tremendous power it
commands. It hounded and persecuted the workers without trial and with
unparalleled ferocity in the endeavour at all costs to knock the
spirit of protest, of struggle, out of the workers, to crush the workers’ incipient socialist movement against the
employers and the government. It was all to no avail, and the government
was compelled to realise that no amount of persecution of individual
workers would eradicate the workers’ movement and that it
would have to make concessions. This autocratic government, considered to
be all-powerful and independent of the people, had to yield to the demands
of several tens of thousands of St. Petersburg workers. We have seen how
insignificant and ambiguous these concessions are. But this is only the
first step. The working-class movement has long ago spread beyond
St. Petersburg; it is growing and expanding, embracing the masses of
industrial workers with growing thoroughness all over the country. And when all these masses, led by one party, the socialist
party, present their joint demands, the government will no longer be able
to get away with such an insignificant concession!

Onthe other hand, the significance of the new law lies in the fact that
it necessarily and inevitably gives a fresh impetus to the Russian working-class movement. We have seen how
the law tries wherever possible to leave loopholes for the employers, to
leave the most important points vague and indefinite. Everywhere there is
bound to be conflict between the employers and the workers over the
application of this law; and this conflict will embrace a far larger area,
for the law applies to the whole of Russia. The workers will be able to
wage the struggle consciously and firmly, to insist on their demands, and
to evade the snares which our anti-strike police laws have set for
them. The introduction of new factory regulations, the change in the
ordinary, regular working day in the vast majority of factories all over
Russia will be of tremendous benefit: it will stir up the most backward
sections of the workers; everywhere it will awaken a most lively interest
in questions of factory life and factory regulations; it will provide a
splendid, convenient and lawful opportunity for the workers to
present their demands , to uphold their interpretation of the law , to uphold the old customs when they are more
advantageous to the worker (as, for example, the customary holidays and the cessation of work on Saturdays not 1 <½ but 2
and more hours earlier), to press for more favourable terms when
concluding new agreements on overtime, and to press for
higher pay , so that the reduction of the working day may really
benefit the workers and not be detrimental to them in any way, Appendix

I

Thepamphlet on the new factory law (the law of June 2, 1897) had already
been written when, in the beginning of October, there were published
regulations governing the application of this law, as endorsed by
the Ministry of Finance in agreement with the Ministry of Internal Affairs
on September 20, 1897. We have already spoken about the enormous
importance these regulations must have for the law as a whole. This time
the Ministry hastened to issue regulations before the new law came into
force, because these regulations (as we shall see presently) indicate the
cases in which departures from the requirements of the new law are
permitted, i.e., when the employers are permitted “to operate”
for longer hours than stipulated by law. If the factory owners did not
urgently need these regulations, the workers, of course, would have had to
wait long before they were issued. The publication of the
“regulations” was soon followed by the publication of
Instructions to Factory Inspectorate Officials concerning the application
of the law of June 2, 1897, ostensibly for the purpose merely of
explaining to the factory inspectors how the law should be
applied; these instructions legally give the officials a perfectly free
hand and are directed entirely against the workers , for they
permit the employers to evade the law in every way. The Imperial
Government is very fond of drafting laws in magnificent terms and then of
permitting these laws to be evaded by substituting instructions for
them. A detailed examination of the regulations reveals to us that this is
precisely the nature of the new instructions. Let us also point out that
these “instructions” are largely copied word for word from the
article in Vestnik Finansov which we referred to on many occasions in the pamphlet on the new law. Thus, in the pamphlet
we showed how Vestnik Finansov suggested a trick to the
employers, namely: the newspaper explained that the new law did not apply
in those cases where no mention was made of the length of the working day
in the contract between the worker and the employer, since in that case,
it suggested, the worker was not “a hired worker, but a person who
accepts an order.” This pettifogging explanation is repeated word
for word in the “instructions.” The regulations consist of
twenty-two clauses, many of which, however, simply repeat in their
entirety the clauses of the law of June 2, 1897. Let us observe that these
regulations apply only to employers “who come within the
jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance”; they do not apply to mining and
metallurgical plants, or to railway workshops, or to government
factories. A strict distinction must be drawn between these regulations
and the law itself: the regulations have been issued only in pursuance of the law, and the ministers who issued them may
supplement and amend them, or issue new ones. The regulations deal with
the following five subjects: 1) meal times; 2) Sunday and holiday rest; 3)
departures from the new law; 4) shifts and 5) over time. Let us examine
the regulations on each subject in detail and show in each case how the
Ministry of Finance, in its instructions, recommends that these
regulations be applied.

II

Concerningmeal times, the following regulations are laid down: first,
that meal times do not count as part of working hours, that the worker is
free during meal times; the meal times must be indicated in the factory
rules; second, that meal times are obligatory only in those cases when the
working day exceeds ten hours, and the meal time must not be less than of
one hour’s duration. This regulation does not improve the
workers’ condition in the least. If anything, it does the
opposite. An hour’s break is very little: most factories allow an
hour and a half for dinner, and in some cases also half an hour for
lunch. The ministers did their best to make the break as short as possible! Quite often the worker
scarcely has time to go home to dinner in an hour.

Itgoes without saying that the workers will not permit such a short break
to be established and will demand a longer one. Another reservation
concerning compulsory meal hours also threatens to encroach upon the
workers’ rights: according to the ministers’ regulations, a
break for meals is obligatory only when the working day exceeds
ten hours! Hence, where the working day is ten hours, the employer is
entitled not to give the workers a break for meals! Again, the workers
themselves will have to see to it that the employers will not be able and
will not dare to take advantage of this right. The workers can refuse to
agree to such regulations (when they are included in the factory rules)
and can demand more frequent breaks for meals. The ministers were not
satisfied even with these restrictions. In a “note” to this
regulation it is added that “in cases where considerable obstacles
are encountered, departures from this requirement are permitted ,
“ i.e., Messrs. the Employers are permitted to give the
workers no breaks for meals at all! The ministers permit this, but it is
hardly likely that the workers will permit it. Moreover, the
ministers also permit departures when the demand for a break is
recognised as burdensome for the workers. Oh, these solicitous ministers!
Our ministers thought about the “burden” which meal time
breaks would impose upon the workers, but Messrs. the Ministers do not say
a word about the “burden” imposed upon the workers by having
to get their dinner within an hour, or about the still greater
“burden” of working ten hours with out a break! A third regulation governing meal times requires that the worker be given
the opportunity to take food at intervals of no more than six hours. But
the regulations do not call for a break every six hours; what,
then, is the sense of such a regulation? How can a worker take food
without a break? Messrs. the Ministers did not trouble about that. If
there is no break (the regulations say), the worker “must be given
an opportunity to take food during working time, and the factory rules
must indicate the place for taking food.” The whole of this
regulation is so absurd that one can only express astonishment! One of two
things: either this “place for taking food” will be indicated as one other than where the worker works ; in that case a
break will be inevitable. Or the place will be indicated as
the one where the worker works ; in that case, what is the sense
of indicating the place? If the worker has no right to interrupt his
work—how can he eat without interrupting his work?
Messrs. the Ministers regard the workers as machines: a machine can be fed
with oil while it is working, why then (think our “solicitous”
ministerial hangers-on of the capital) cannot the worker stuff himself
with food while working? The only hope left to the workers is that such a
stupid regulation could only have been invented in Russian bureaucratic
offices, and will not actually be put into force. The workers will demand
that the indicated “place for taking food” will not be where they work : the workers will demand a break for meals every six hours. This, then, is all the regulations say about
meal times. The ministers have pursued the law in such a way that it can
only worsen the workers’ condition, unless the workers themselves
stand up, and stand up together, for their rights and not for the
ministerial regulations.

III

Concerning Sundays and holidays, there is only one brief regulation,
namely, that on Sundays and holidays the workers must be free from work
for no less than twenty-four hours at a stretch. This was the least that could be ordered “in pursuance” of the law
governing Sundays and holidays. It could not be less. It never occurred to
the ministers to give the workers longer rest periods (for example,
thirty-six hours, as is the case in some other countries). As regards
non-Christians, the regulations say nothing.

IV

Onthe subject of departures from the law, there are many regulations,
very many in fact, and drawn up in great detail, Let us remind the workers
that the law gave the ministers power to permit, in the regulations,
departures from the law, by extending the requirements of the law
(i.e., demanding more for the workers from the employers) and reducing the
requirements of the law (i.e., demanding less for the workers
from the employers). Let us see what the ministers have done. First
regulation. Departures from the law are permitted in those cases where
“the workers are engaged on continuous operations, i.e.,
such operations as cannot arbitrarily be interrupted without damage to
instruments, materials, or goods.” In such cases, Messrs. the
Employers may “operate” for periods longer than that provided
for in the law. All that the regulation demands in such a case is,
firstly, that the working hours during the course of two consecutive days
should not exceed twenty-four hours (and in the case of broken
shifts—thirty hours). Why it says twenty-four hours in two days and
not twelve hours in one day we shall see in the paragraph dealing with
shifts. Secondly, the regulation demands that where operations are
continuous, the worker must be freed from work four days a month, if his
working day exceeds eight hours. Thus, for workers who are engaged on
continuous operations, the number of rest-days is greatly reduced : four a month, forty-eight a year, whereas even the
law (with all its restricted holidays) allows sixty-six compulsory
holidays a year. What reasonable grounds did the ministers have for
reducing this number of holidays? None whatever; in any case, the
continuity of operations is broken even with four holidays a
month, i.e., in any case the employers must hire other workers for the
holidays (if the operation is indeed continuous, i.e., if it
cannot be interrupted ). Thus, Messrs. the Ministers cut the
workers’ holidays still more only in order to “restrict”
the employers as little as possible, to reduce the number of cases when
other workers must be hired! More than that. The “instructions” go so far as to permit the factory inspectors
to sanction factory rules which provide for even fewer rest-days for the workers ! The factory inspector must merely report such cases to
the Department of Commerce and Industry. This is a very striking example,
which shows why our government is fond of meaningless laws and detailed
regulations and instructions: to alter an inconvenient regulation, it is
sufficient to apply to the Department . . . of Palm-Greasing!! Similarly,
the factory inspector may (according to the instructions!) permit the term
continuous to be applied to such operations as are not included in the list appended
to the instructions: it is sufficient to report to the Department. . . . A
note to this regulation says that the continuous operations must be
specially indicated in the factory rules. “Departures from
this law are only permitted insofar as they are really necessary” (this is what the ministers’ regulation says). But
who is to see whether they are really necessary or not? Nobody but the
workers: they must not permit reservations regarding continuous operations
to be included in the factory rules unless they are really
necessary. Second regulation. Departures from the law are permitted in
cases where the workers are engaged on auxiliary operations in various
kinds of production (current repairs, tending of boilers, motors and
transmission belts, heating, lighting, water supply, watch and fire
service, and so forth). These departures must also be especially indicated in the factory rules. As regards rest days for these
workers, the regulations do not say a word. Again, the workers
themselves must see to it that they get rest-days, i.e., must not agree to
factory rules which do not provide rest-days for such workers. Third
regulation. Departures from the regulations governing the length of the
working day and rest on Sundays and holidays and from the factory rules
are permitted in two other cases: first, in case of sudden damage to
machines, tools, etc., which causes a stoppage of work in the whole
factory, or in one of its departments. In such cases, the necessary
repairs may be made regardless of the regulations. Secondly,
permission is given, regardless of the regulations, to perform
“temporary work in any department of the establishment, in those
cases when, as a consequence of fire, break-down and similar unforeseen
circumstances, the work in one or another department of the establishment
is reduced or entirely stopped for a time, and when that is essential for
the full running of the other departments of the establishment.” (In
such cases, the employer must that very day report the matter to the
factory inspector, who sanctions such work.) This last regulation
shows what tremendous “solicitude” our ministers display to
ensure that the employers do not expend an extra ruble. Suppose there was
a fire in one department of a factory. Work is stopped. After the repairs are made the employer wants to make up for lost
time. Therefore , the minister permits him to squeeze as much
extra labour out of the workers as he likes by compelling them to work
even as long as eighteen hours a day. But what have the workers got to do
with it? When the employer makes more profit, does he share it with the
workers, does he shorten the working day? Why, then, should the working
day be lengthened for the workers when the employer suffers loss?
Why, that means—I take the profit, but I make the workers bear the
losses. If it is necessary to make up for lost time, why not hire
additional workers? The “solicitude” displayed by the Russian
ministers for the pockets of the employers is amazing! Fourth
regulation. Departures from the new law may also be made “in other
especially important and exceptional cases.” (What are these cases?
So many especially important and exceptional cases have been enumerated
that one might think no more would be left!) Such departures are permitted
in each separate case by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of
Internal Affairs. Thus the employer will make a request, the ministers
will grant permission, and all’s well. The workers are not even
asked: can the “gentry” be expected to ask the opinion of the
common people? The vulgar mob must work for the capitalists and not argue
about whether it is an “exceptional” case or just the ordinary
lust for gain that compels the employer to go begging. Such are the
ministers’ regulations about departures from the new law. As we see,
all these regulations indicate how and when the law may not be obeyed, how
and when the law’s demands on the employers for the workers’
benefit may be reduced. The ministers say not a single word about
increasing the legal demands upon the employers for the workers’
benefit. Let the workers recall what was said in the pamphlet on the new
factory law about the purpose for which the law gives the ministers such
great powers!

V

Asregards shifts, there is only one short regulation which, in cases
where 18 hours’ work is done in two shifts, permits an increase in the number of hours to 12 a day with the proviso that the working time for two weeks shall not exceed 9 hours per
day for each worker. Thus, this regulation also permits
lengthening of the working day. How many regulations have there
been to lengthen the working day, but not one to shorten
it—and there will be none! According to this regulation, the
workers may be compelled to work 12 hours a day for a whole week, and the
“instructions” again add that the factory inspectors may
permit other departures from the law, provided they report these to the
Director. . . . The question of shifts is also covered by the
above-mentioned regulation which fixes the working time on continuous
operations at 24 hours in two days. The instructions explain why
it says 24 hours in two days and not 12 hours in one day. This is said in
order to leave in force the scandalous system that prevails in some
factories of working a continuous double shift with an interval of eight hours : under this system, a worker works 16 hours one day and
8 hours the next, without ever having proper rest or proper sleep. It is
difficult to imagine anything more scandalous than such shifts; but far
from doing anything to restrict this scandalous system, the ministers even
had the insolence to say in the “instructions” that under many
circumstances such shifts are more convenient for the workers!! How
solicitous the ministers are for the convenience of the workers !

VI

Asregards overtime, the regulations at first sight appear to give the
most precise directions. The limitation of overtime is the chief thing
required not only in the ministerial regulations, but also in the new law
as a whole. We have already spoken above about the utter vagueness of the
law itself on this point, about the original intention of the Ministry of
Finance not to issue any additional overtime regulations. It now turns out
that the ministers have after all limited overtime, have limited it in
precisely the way proposed by the commission which drafted the new law,
i.e., to 120 hours a year. But, on the other hand, in his
“instructions,” the Minister of Finance reproduced from
Vestnik Finansov , for the edification of the factory inspectors,
all the

traps and tricks against the workers which we quoted in the
pamphlet on the new law: the “instructions,” we repeat, are
copied from Vestnik Finansov.

Thefirst regulation concerns the point in the new law which permits the
employer to include in the contract with the worker the stipulation to
work such overtime as is necessitated by the technical conditions of the
industry. We have already mentioned the vagueness of this. And yet, this
clause of the law is of enormous importance: if the stipulation to work
overtime is included in the factory rules, then overtime becomes
obligatory for the worker, and the entire law remains entirely unenforced in this respect. The ministerial regulations now
interpret this term in the following way: only such work may be regarded
as “necessitated by the technical conditions of the industry”
as is called forth “exclusively by departures from its normal course
which are accidental and dependent upon the nature of the industry.”
Thus, for example, departures called forth by an increased influx of
orders are not affected (as they are not dependent upon the nature of the
industry). Departures called forth by a fire, break-down and so forth, are
also not affected, because they, too, do not depend upon the nature of the
industry itself. Common sense would suggest that this is how the
regulation should be interpreted. But here the “instructions”
come to the employers’ aid. The “instructions” so brilliantly increase the number of cases when overtime may be made
compulsory for the workers, including it in the terms of hire, i.e., in
the factory rules, that absolutely anything you like can be
classed among these cases. Indeed, let the workers recall how the law
was pursued in the Vestnik Finansov article and compare
the “instructions” with the latter. First, the “instructions” speak of work “necessitated by the
technical conditions of the industry”—and then, imperceptibly, it
substitutes another term: “work that is absolutely essential”
(Is that so? But who is to judge what is essential?)—and further on
the instructions give petty examples of what is “absolutely
essential”: it turns out that this includes those cases when the employer
finds it “impossible, or difficult” (our old acquaintance!)
“to increase the number of workers,” when there is rush and
urgent work (in seasonal work, for example); when a print-shop has to issue a newspaper daily; when the job could not
be foreseen in advance, and so forth. In short, if you want anything, ask
for it. The shameless hangers-on of the capitalists in the Ministry of
Finance have pursued the law in such a way that the employer
has the right to include in his factory rules the demand for any amount of overtime. And once such a demand is included in the factory rules , the whole new law goes to blazes and everything remains as before. The workers must not permit these demands to be included in
the factory rules, otherwise their conditions, far from being improved,
will be worsened. This example shows the workers how the employers and
government officials conspire to enslave the workers again on a legal
basis. The “instructions” clearly reveal this conspiracy, this
subservience of the Ministry of Finance to the interests of the
capitalists.

Thesecond overtime regulation lays down that the overtime by each worker
shall not exceed 120 hours per year, but this figure does not include , firstly, the overtime stipulated in the contract as
obligatory for the worker due to “the technical conditions of the
industry,” and we have just seen that the ministers have permitted
this term to be applied to any number of cases which have nothing
to do with the “technical conditions of the industry”; secondly, it
does not include the overtime worked in case of fire, breakdown, and so
forth, or to make up for time lost in case of a stoppage in some
department.

Takentogether, all these overtime regulations remind us astonishingly of
the fable about how the lion shared the prey “equally” among
his fellow hunters; the first portion he took by right; the second portion
he took for being the king of beasts; the third for being strongest of
all; and as for the fourth—whoever dared as much as stretch his paw
towards it would not get away alive. [10] This is exactly how our employers will now argue
about overtime. First, they will squeeze overtime out of the workers
“by right,” on the plea that it is “necessitated by the
technical conditions of the industry,” i.e., any amount of overtime,
as long as it is provided for in the factory rules. Second, they will
squeeze overtime out of the workers in “special cases,” i.e.,
when they want to throw the burden of their losses on the workers. Third, they will squeeze another 120 hours per year out of
them on the grounds that they are rich and the workers are poor. Fourth,
in “exceptional cases” they will receive special privileges
from the ministers. And then the workers may “freely” enjoy
what remains out of the 24 hours of the day after all this—bearing
well in mind that the fair government does not by any means “deprive
them of their right” to work even 24 hours a day. . . . To legalise this squeezing of overtime out of the workers it is ordered
that the employers shall keep special registers of all these
forms of overtime. In one register they will record what they squeeze out
of the workers “by right”; in another register, what they squeeze
out in “special cases”; in a third, what they squeeze out by
“special agreement” (not more than 120 hours per year); in a
fourth, what they squeeze out of them in “exceptional cases.”
Instead of an improvement in the workers’ condition, we get nothing
but red tape and bureaucratic correspondence (as is always the case with
all the reforms introduced by the autocratic Russian Government). The
factory policemen will visit the factories and “inspect”
. . . these registers (which the devil himself will not be able to make
head or tail of), and during the time that they are free from this useful
occupation they will report to the Director of the Department of Commerce
and Manufacture suggesting new sops for the employers, and to the
Department of Police about workers’ strikes. How shrewd are these
people, these hucksters and bashi-bazouks who constitute our government!
For a reasonable price they will now hire a foreign representative who
will shout at all the crossroads of “Europe” about the laws
for the workers’ benefit that we have in this country.

VII

Inconclusion let us make a general survey of the ministerial
regulations. Let us recall what regulations the new law provides the
ministers with. Three categories of regulations: 1) regulations to
interpret the law; 2) regulations to increase or reduce the demands made
by the new law on employers; 3) regulations concerning trades especially
harmful to the workers’ health. What use have the ministers made of the powers
granted them by this law?

Asto the first category, they have confined themselves to the most
essential, to the very minimum below which they could not go. They have
permitted overtime on a very wide and elastic scale—120 hours per
year and, moreover, by means of the instructions have introduced such a
host of exceptions that they rob the regulations of all meaning. They have
done their best to cut down the workers’ meal times, they have left
the scandalous shift system as it was, if they have not actually made it
worse.

Asto the second category of regulations, the ministers have done all they could to reduce the demands of the new law on the employers,
i.e., they have done all they could for the employers and absolutely nothing for the workers : in no single case do the regulations
increase the demands of the new law upon the employers for the
workers’ benefit.

Asto the third category of regulations (i.e., those for the benefit of
the workers who are compelled to work at the most harmful occupations),
the ministers have done absolutely nothing, they have said not a single
word about them. All that the instructions say is that the factory
inspectors may report to the Department about especially injurious trades!
As far as “reporting” goes the factory inspectors could
formerly also report anything they liked, only till now, for some
inexplicable reason, these factory policemen “reported” about
workers’ strikes and about methods of terrorising the workers, and
not about protecting the workers in the especially injurious trades.

Fromthis the workers can see for themselves what they may expect from the
officials of the police government. To secure an eight-hour day and the
complete banning of overtime the Russian workers still have a long and
stubborn struggle to wage.