30,000 locked out

In Short

This historical account chronicles the great lockout of 1887 in the Chicago building trades, a conflict that paralyzed the city’s construction industry for months. By detailing the escalating demands of unions and the collective, uncompromising resistance of contractors, the book provides a primary-source perspective on the era's labor disputes. It functions as both a record of a specific struggle and an ideological manifesto for the "individual liberty" of employers, capturing a pivotal moment when the American industrial landscape began to formalize the complex systems of arbitration that define modern collective bargaining.

The Story

The conflict begins with a seemingly minor dispute over pay schedules. For years, Chicago’s bricklayers, carpenters, and hodcarriers had steadily pushed for higher wages, shorter hours, and increased union control over job sites. By 1887, the situation reaches a breaking point when the bricklayers’ union unilaterally demands that all wages be paid on Saturdays. The Master Masons, viewing this as one further encroachment on their managerial authority, refuse.

The impasse quickly widens. The contractors, long frustrated by the power of "walking delegates" and restrictive apprenticeship rules, organize into a unified front. They secure agreements with building material suppliers to halt all deliveries to any project employing union workers, effectively weaponizing the entire supply chain. As the lockout spreads, 30,000 artisans and laborers are forced off the job. The unions retaliate with picketing and intimidation, and the city’s construction halts entirely, locking $20 million in capital away from the local economy.

The narrative arc follows the hardening of positions. The unions, led by a firm belief in collective strength and a distrust of individual negotiations, attempt to maintain morale through solidarity funds and the promise that the contractors will eventually break. Meanwhile, the contractors publish formal manifestos in the press, framing the struggle not as a debate over pay or hours, but as a defense of the fundamental right of an employer to manage his business and an individual to work without union interference. As weeks pass, both sides face mounting pressure. Contractors watch their projects stagnate, while workers endure the financial strain of unemployment.

The turning point occurs when the economic cost becomes unsustainable for both parties. Realizing that neither side can secure a total victory through attrition, a committee of representatives from the unions and the associations begins formal negotiations. The process is marked by secrecy, suspicion, and a delicate search for an impartial umpire. After weeks of negotiation, they appoint a local judge to mediate the deadlock. The final resolution establishes a permanent joint arbitration committee, a structured mechanism designed to prevent future total shutdowns. The strike ends with a compromise: the contractors retain their managerial independence on key operational issues, while the unions gain a formal, codified role in the governance of the building trades. The book concludes with a lengthy, exhaustive list of the various trade associations and manufacturers, illustrating the sheer scope of the industrial machinery that had been brought to a standstill.

How It Unfolds

The simmering unrest The conflict originates in years of incremental tension, where unions increasingly dictated work rules and foremen roles, eventually provoking the contractors to resist. This cycle of demands and concessions finally shatters when the bricklayers attempt to force a change in the weekly payday.

The industry locks down Builders organize a city-wide coalition, cutting off material supplies and refusing to hire union-card holders until the unions abandon their aggressive tactics. The strike escalates into a massive, organized lockout that halts all major construction projects across the city.

The standoff of principles Both sides publish formal declarations, elevating the dispute into a public battle over the "rights of man" and individual liberty. The unions hold firm, hoping the contractors will fold, while the contractors gain support from building exchanges across the country.

The path to arbitration Recognizing the danger of continued failure, the two sides finally agree to sit down together. They navigate the difficult process of choosing an neutral umpire to break the stalemate, leading to a signed agreement that creates a standing committee for all future disputes.

The People

The drama is defined less by individual character arcs than by the institutional personas of the leaders involved. Joseph Downey, representing the Master Masons, serves as the primary strategist for the contractors. He is portrayed as a firm, principled leader who refuses to negotiate until the unions acknowledge the employer’s right to manage his own affairs. His counterpart, Lewis Meyer and the leadership of the bricklayers’ union, represent the organized body of labor. They are depicted as persistent and deeply committed to the idea that collective bargaining is the only way for the individual worker to gain security. Judge Tuley enters the story late as the neutral arbiter; he is the essential bridge, accepted by both sides because he is untainted by the direct interests of either the builder or the bricklayer. These figures represent the shifting power dynamics of the age, where the authority of the individual boss is slowly being mediated by the organized power of the union and the neutral hand of the law.

In Its Own Voice

"The attention of the world has been called to the great strike and lockout in the building trades in Chicago because it rested upon the question of individual liberty--a question which is not only vital alike to the employer and the employe."

The author introduces the conflict as a grand, philosophical struggle rather than a mere dispute over wages.

"The building interests had been hampered for years by demand after demand, nearly all of which had been of an arbitrary character."

This captures the frustration felt by the contractors, who view the labor unions as a disruptive force in the market.

"The simplest mind can readily see how little control the employer has left him, when a man not in his employ is permitted to come upon his work and 'use his personal judgment' in questions of disagreement."

The author highlights the specific resentment held toward union delegates who intervened in daily operations.

What It's Really About

The book is a study of the transition from an era of unchecked managerial power to one of organized, systemic industrial relations. It poses a fundamental question: what is the limit of union interference in a private business? It argues that the "individual liberty" of the employer to manage his own assets is the cornerstone of economic stability, yet it acknowledges—often grudgingly—that the unions have become a force that cannot be simply ignored. The central tension is the struggle to reconcile the existence of large-scale, powerful labor organizations with the traditional, rugged individualism of the 19th-century builder. It is a snapshot of the birth pains of the modern labor contract.

Why Read It Today

Readers with an interest in labor history, urban development, or the evolution of American corporate law will find this a fascinating, if dense, primary source. It captures the raw, unfiltered rhetoric of the late 19th century, reflecting the period's intense, often heated views on socialism, the "rights of man," and the role of the state in private enterprise.

The reading experience is idiosyncratic. You are not reading a polished modern history; you are reading a contemporary report that frequently breaks into long, verbatim blocks of legal agreements, meeting minutes, and letters. It is a repetitive, bureaucratic, and occasionally dry journey, yet it provides a visceral sense of the scale of Chicago’s growth and the rigid, almost tribal loyalty of its early labor organizations. You will encounter outdated, strongly biased attitudes regarding the "walking delegate" and the perceived dangers of union leadership. Because the text includes extensive lists of organizations and the actual text of various resolutions, it is less a narrative page-turner and more a window into how the business of building a city was once conducted. If you can move past the archaic, sermonizing tone of the editorializing, you will find a remarkably detailed record of how a city once learned to negotiate its own survival.