The Hamburg dockworkers' strike of 1896-97 was considered one of the largest labour disputes in the German Empire. It began on November 21, 1896, lasted eleven weeks, involved nearly 17,000 workers at its peak, and ended on February 6, 1897, with the complete defeat of the strikers. The dispute had a significant impact on the Hamburg economy and also caused a stir outside Germany. The events prompted conservatives and the Reich government to attempt a policy of increased repression against social democracy two years later with the prison bill. Prerequisites and background Significance of the Port of Hamburg
Since the mid-19th century, Hamburg had been Germany's leading centre of trade and shipping. The port of the city was its economic hub. Between 1856 and 1886, the number of goods imported by ship to Hamburg tripled, mainly due to intensified trade relations with Latin America after this region broke away from Portugal and Spain. Added to this was emigration to America. This reduced freight rates for goods transported from America to Hamburg, as the cargo space for voyages from Europe to America was already used and paid for.
The economic centre of the port also shaped Hamburg's industry, which was heavily export-oriented. The production of goods with high craftsmanship played a greater role here than in industrial regions where mass production prevailed. Added to this was the manufacture of large goods: ships in Hamburg's shipyards.
The competitiveness of the Port of Hamburg grew during the German Empire. In 1873, the Port of Hamburg accounted for almost 30 percent of Germany's shipping traffic, measured in net registered tons. This made Hamburg the leading port city in Germany. Bremen/Bremerhaven followed far behind with a share of almost 12 percent. Hamburg's share grew to over 40 percent by 1893, reaching more than 44 percent in 1911. The ports on the Weser River, still in second place, were only able to improve their share by half a percentage point by 1911. The great advantage of the Port of Hamburg was its good connections to the hinterland. There was an extensive system of inland waterways and railways to and from Hamburg. From Hamburg's perspective, this hinterland extended beyond Germany's borders. As a transit station, the port was also of great importance for the movement of goods between parts of Central and Eastern Europe and the “New World.” In particular, the flow of goods to and from Austria-Hungary, the Balkan states, Scandinavia, and, to some extent, Russia often passed through Hamburg.
The Hanseatic city drew much of its economic and political power from its port. This also meant that there was potential for losses, especially if the port industry was disrupted, for example, by strikes. Trade union organisation Hamburg was the centre of the socialist trade union movement in Germany. In 1890, the city had 84 trade unions, and almost every group of workers had its own organisation, which together represented more than 30,000 members. Hamburg's prominent position in the German trade union movement was also reflected in the fact that the General Commission of German Trade Unions had its headquarters in the port city, as did a number of central executive committees of individual associations. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) had also established its stronghold in the city on the Elbe. In 1890, the party won all three of Hamburg's seats in the Reichstag and defended them until the end of the German Empire. However, the Hamburg workers' movement had suffered a heavy defeat in 1896. Six years earlier, there had been attempts in a number of states to strike on May 1 for the introduction of the eight-hour working day or a significant reduction in working hours. In Germany, these conflicts soon concentrated on the Elbe metropolis. However, during the Hamburg May Day clashes, the strikers found themselves facing a “heavily armed and well-organised business bloc whose power and determination could hardly be underestimated.” This power bloc refused to make concessions and responded with mass lockouts and further sanctions. The defeat of the strikers after weeks of industrial action led to a significant decline in membership of the Hamburg trade unions.
The economic downturn was also responsible for this decline in membership. The central dockworkers' union, newly founded in 1891, included all worker groups in the Port of Hamburg and had around 5,000 members that year, but by the following year, it had only 1,800 union members. The Hamburg cholera epidemic of 1892 was partly responsible for this decline. Furthermore, in 1892, the group of Schauerleute took a special organisational path, separating from the central association and founding the Verein der in Hamburg beschäftigten Schauerleute von 1892 (Association of Dock Workers Employed in Hamburg of 1892), an independent, locally based organisation. Criticism of the bureaucracy, centralised structures, the use of membership fees, and the burden on individual members caused by regular membership fees were the reasons given for the split. Differences and similarities between dockworkers
The dockworkers were a heterogeneous group. At least 15 different occupational groups emerged as a result of the different activities. After the largest group, the stevedores, the barge skippers were the next largest group in terms of numbers. They transported goods by water to and from seagoing vessels. They used so-called barge boats for this purpose. Although the importance of barge boat operations declined from the 1860s onwards, as ships were increasingly loaded and unloaded at the newly built quays rather than “in the stream,” this trade remained the most important branch of Hamburg's port shipping. Even ships moored at the quay were unloaded and loaded on the water side by barge operators so that the laytime, which was unproductive for shipowners, was kept as short as possible. Quay workers were also a large occupational group. Their responsibility was to load cargo from ships into warehouses on the quays or onto wagons or railway cars for immediate onward transport. Warehouse workers moved the goods in the warehouses and loaded the barges that took the goods to the ships. In addition to these occupational groups, there were others such as coal workers, grain workers, boiler cleaners, ship cleaners, ship painters, and machinists. In a broader sense, there were also approximately 13,000 seafarers of various ranks and occupations who were resident in Hamburg.
Despite these internal differences, there were a number of similarities. Workers were often exposed to high levels of physical strain, frequently in environments that were hazardous to their health and prone to accidents. Work was carried out at all hours of the day and night, and in all seasons. Many of the workers also came from the Gängeviertel, a cramped residential area near the port. The vast majority were unskilled and had no permanent employment. The exceptions were the boatmen and engineers, whose jobs required several years of training. Other characteristics of the work were extremely short employment contracts and abrupt changes between unemployment and days of uninterrupted work, which could last up to 72 hours during peak periods. Only skilled workers and state dock workers were unaffected by these vicissitudes. The lack of a regulated, officially controlled employment service made the situation even worse. Workers were often recruited in port taverns, which remained the “actual centres of employment” well into the 20th century. The chance of employment, therefore, depended on consumption and personal relationships with innkeepers and agents. Shipowners and merchants no longer selected the workers needed in the port themselves, but instead commissioned intermediaries known as Baase and their foremen, called Vizen. In addition, some business associations in Hamburg had started to set up their own employment records. They hoped this would allow them to consistently exclude unpopular workers from employment. The “Hamburg system” of employer-dominated records spread from the Hanseatic city throughout Germany. These forms of job placement took place in a labour market that was always characterised by a significant surplus of workers. Another common feature of the workforce was its low level of unionisation, which was mainly due to the lack of relevant vocational training and high staff turnover. The instability of employment conditions also resulted in a comparatively high propensity to strike among dockworkers. As day labourers, they did not have to fear losing their jobs or their regular income if a strike was limited to a few days, unlike workers in permanent employment. The relatively high propensity to strike was also due to the limited influence of the trade unions, which regarded strikes as a last resort and preceded them with a long and complicated internal decision-making process. Declining standard of living The wage agreements for the Port of Hamburg dated back mainly to the 1880s. There were hardly any increases after that, but reductions were more frequent. The pace of work had increased since then, as had the cost of living. The customs union of Hamburg in 1888 led to a series of price increases, some of them massive. The free port created in the same year led to the demolition of apartments near the port, with the land now intended for industrial and commercial use. The homes of around 24,000 people disappeared. Rents for the remaining apartments near the port rose dramatically. A large number of those employed in the port had to find accommodation in distant districts such as Eimsbüttel, Winterhude, Barmbek, Hamm, or Billwerder. Rents were also higher there across the board, and commuting times to the port became significantly longer. Course Prologue The opportunity for an improvement in income only arose when the economy picked up significantly in the spring of 1896. Unemployment fell noticeably, union membership rose, freight rates doubled, and contemporary observers described a significant grain boom in August, which led to many ships crowding the harbour. The balance sheets of shipowners showed considerable profits. The piecework dockworkers responded to the improved economic conditions in September and October with two short strikes, both of which ended in victory for them. The strikes were organised by the local union Verein der Schauerleute von 1892 (Association of Dockworkers of 1892), chaired by Johann Döring. Other groups of dockworkers also successfully went on strike for higher wages during these two months, including coal workers, grain workers, quay workers, and a subgroup of ship cleaners.
The tense situation was exacerbated by the arrest and expulsion of the English dockworkers' leader Tom Mann, who was also well known in Germany and had wanted to promote the unionisation of dockworkers in Hamburg and Altona in mid-September 1896. Adolph von Elm, a Hamburg trade union leader and member of the Reichstag who was supposed to translate Mann's speech, stepped in as a speaker and reported on the arrest. This measure, initiated by Hamburg's police senator Gerhard Hachmann, was also widely regarded among the unorganised dockworkers as an unacceptable and insulting restriction of freedom of association. As a result, the expulsion had the opposite effect to that intended: events focusing on Mann's treatment were very well attended, and wage and working conditions soon became a topic of discussion. Occasionally, speakers even called for the defeat of 1890 to be avenged. Start and extent of the strike