Hamburg May Fights 1890

The lockouts and strikes following May 1, 1890 , are known as Hamburg May Fights . On this first May day proclaimed by the Second International , organized Hamburg workers went on strike to reinforce the demands for the eight-hour day . This sometimes resulted in disputes with employers lasting several weeks. The movement attracted attention across Germany and sparked solidarity campaigns. In the end, the workers lost the conflict and their unions were severely weakened for years. At the Reich level, the Hamburg experience contributed to a stronger centralization of the free trade unions and to the establishment of the general commission of the trade unions in Germany .

prehistory

Hamburg had been a focus of the German labor movement for a long time . There had been work stoppages among the journeymen before. But it was only after the privilege guild was abolished in 1865 that there were broader strikes in Hamburg. Thirty labor disputes took place in 1865. The strike waves from 1869 and in the founding years from 1871 to 1873 drew even wider circles . Against this background, the trade union movement also expanded. However, this was still weak and many organizations already lost their importance during the economic downturn during the start-up crisis after 1873. The number of strikes also fell. The Socialist Law will also have played a role in this.

Nevertheless, the unions were able to recover. In 1890 almost every working class had its own organization. In 1890 there were 84 trade unions with over 30,000 members in Hamburg. Some had over 1,000 members, others barely 100 members. In total around 20% of the workers in Hamburg were organized. Even if the unions only organized a minority, the degree of organization was higher than in most other German industrial centers.

It was not until the end of the 1880s that there was another wave of strikes in the Hanseatic city. Between 1888 and 1890 there were thirty strikes and lockouts in the port of Hamburg. The climax were the strikes in connection with May 1, 1890.

The Hamburg-Altona Employers' Association was formed in Hamburg at the beginning of April 1890. This gave the employers a strong organization that did not yet exist in the rest of Germany. Even when strikes were actually limited, the unions had to expect that employers would respond in unison.

course

In 1889 the International Workers' Congress decided that on May 1, 1890, rallies should take place in all countries for the first time to introduce the eight-hour day. The implementation was left to the labor movements in the individual countries.

On April 11, 1890, the Prussian Ministry of the Interior issued a decree on how to deal with the actions of the workers on May 1. These instructions were largely adopted by the other states of the empire. The authorities expected strikes, demonstrations and a petition movement for the eight-hour day. The decree drew attention to the fact that work stoppages without prior notice could be prosecuted. Employers and those willing to work are to be protected by the police. Agitators were threatened with corresponding paragraphs of the trade code and the criminal code . Meetings and demonstrations in the open air should be banned because of the risk of disturbing public order. Meetings in closed rooms could be forbidden due to the still applicable Socialist Law. Police forces should be strengthened in the strongholds of the labor movement.

An infantry regiment was ready in Hamburg for May 1st and the following days. Most workers' meetings and all demonstrations in the city have been banned. Only a few evening entertainment events were approved. The employers in the Association of the Iron Industry of Hamburg announced that they would respond to work stoppages on May 1 with a lockout for eight days in all companies. Against the background of the threat of repression, the SPD parliamentary group in the Reichstag issued an appeal “To the workers in Germany” warning against a general stoppage of work. This should only take place where no conflicts with the authorities are to be expected. The free trade unions in Hamburg nevertheless stuck to a strike decision that had already been taken. On April 25, 1890, at a mass meeting in "Sagebiels Etablissement" of about 6,000 workers, against the advice of the preparatory commission, it was decided by an overwhelming majority to regard May 1st as a public holiday, on which all industrial work should be suspended.

As a result of the appeal by the SPD parliamentary group in the Reichstag, work was only stopped in a few German cities on May 1st. Instead, large rallies took place in the evening. Hamburg was an exception. About a third of the workers there stopped work. The employers responded with the announced lockouts. Over 20,000 workers were affected. The lockouts were sometimes extended by several weeks over the announced eight days. In doing so, employers tried to force workers to quit their organizations and sign a corresponding lapel . Instead of those who were locked out, employers recruited foreigners willing to work. Ultimately, the employers' goal was to have the unions break down financially by paying benefits. By the unions, the lockout was an attack on the right of association counted.

Some of the workers - especially bricklayers and carpenters, but also other professional groups - responded to the lockouts with strikes for better working conditions. Most of these movements failed. The strains of the labor disputes were enormous for the Hamburg unions. They had to support 8,500 members in mid-May and 2,500 in mid-July. After all, the Hamburg workers were financially supported by a solidarity movement in other parts of the Reich through fundraising. In other regions, individual strikes were postponed in order to be able to support the Hamburg fighters for the right of association. Help also came from southern Germany. From Baden alone 35 money transfers are known. However, these were often only small sums.

consequences

The wave of strikes aroused deep concern among merchants and industrialists, and in the urban bodies they dominate. Trade had already suffered from the labor disputes, and similar movements were feared for years to come. Attempts at political overthrow were even feared. The Social Democrats were blamed for the serious unrest in the Gängeviertel .

In fact, the strike had severely weakened the unions. Many members left disappointed. The number of members fell by two thirds. Many organizations only existed on paper. According to the authorities, the power of the trade unions was broken after the strike. Friedrich Engels judged similarly : The first of May "brought the hamburgers who stopped working that day a lockout (...) that broke the strength of their best-organized trade unions and paralyzed them for a long time." All strikes failed in the years to come. While the Social Democrats and unions appeared to be weakened, they had not really lost their influence. The dock workers ' strike of 1896 showed that the dispute between employers and workers had only been adjourned.

The defeat in Hamburg made it clear that fragmented and locally acting organizations were too weak to hold their own against employers. This experience contributed to the reorganization of the free trade unions and the formation of the general commission of the trade unions in Germany as an umbrella organization.

literature

• Hans-Joachim Bieber : The strike of the Hamburg port workers 1896/97 and the attitude of the Senate , in: Journal of the Association for Hamburg History , vol. 64 (1978), pp. 91-148 ( digitized version ).
• Dieter Schuster: Chronology of the German trade union movement from its beginnings to 1918 . Online version , Bonn 2000.

Remarks

1. ↑ Hans-Joachim Bieber: The strike of the Hamburg port workers 1896/97 and the attitude of the Senate , in: Journal of the Association for Hamburg History , vol. 64 (1978), p. 91f.
2. ↑ Michael Grüttner , Working World at the Water Edge, Social History of Hamburg Dock Workers 1886-1914, Göttingen 1984, p. 141
3. ^ Friedhelm Boll: Labor dispute and region. Labor disputes, collective agreements and waves of strikes in a regional comparison 1871–1914. In: Gerhard A. Ritter (Hrsg.): The rise of the German labor movement. Munich, 1990 p. 391
4. ^ Richard J. Evans : Death in Hamburg. City, Society and Politics in the Cholera Years 1830–1910. Reinbek, 1990 p. 124f.
5. ↑ Marina Cattaruzza: Organized conflict and direct action: two forms of industrial action using the example of the shipyard workers' strikes in Hamburg and Trieste (1880–1914). In: The modern age and its crises. Göttingen, 2012 p. 126
6. ↑ Klaus Schönhoven : The trade unions as a mass movement in the Wilhelminian Empire 1890 to 1918. In: Ulrich Borsdorf (Hrsg.): History of the German trade unions. Cologne, 1987 p. 181