[Rezension zu] Heinrich Fränkel: Die tägliche Arbeitszeit in Industrie und Landwirtschaft mit besonderer Bezugnahme auf deutsche Verhältnisse

Gustav Gross: Review of Heinrich Fränkel on Daily Working Hours (1883)

Gustav Gross’s brief review assesses Fränkel’s study of working hours in industry and agriculture, particularly in Germany. It follows the study from statistical evidence to legal proposals and their implications for employers. Gross welcomes its compilation of surveys by Max Hirsch and Berlin’s municipal trade deputation, valuing synthesis more than originality:

Wenn hier auch nichts besonders Neues gesagt wird, so finden wir doch eine übersichtliche Zusammenstellung der Gründe für Einführung eines Normalarbeitstages.

English translation: Even though nothing particularly new is said here, we do nevertheless find a clear compilation of the grounds for the introduction of a normal working day.

The central proposal makes the standard working day a statutory limit:

Seine Forderungen formuliert nun der Verfasser dahin, dass als allgemeines Maximum eine tägliche Arbeitszeit von 12 Stunden gesetzlich einzuführen sei.

English translation: The author now formulates his demands to the effect that a daily working time of 12 hours is to be introduced by law as a general maximum.

Certain occupations would require shorter limits, down to eight hours. Agriculture and directly related trades would receive exceptions, though Fränkel still considers some restrictions necessary. Gross identifies a gap here: their form remains unspecified. His response to home industry instead foregrounds enforceability:

In der Hausindustrie hätte hingegen jeder Zwang hinsichtlich der Arbeitszeit zu entfallen, was wohl schon durch die practische Undurchführbarkeit gerechtfertigt erscheint.

English translation: In domestic industry, by contrast, every compulsion with regard to working time would have to be dispensed with, which indeed appears justified already by its practical impracticability.

The review closes by reporting Fränkel’s attempt to show that employers would not be harmed. Its significance lies in distinguishing a general protective norm from occupational exceptions and practical limits on enforcement.