Answer:
I agree with the Lochner v. New York decision. I see nothing wrong with allowing an employee to enter into a contract that prohibits working more than 10 hours in a day or 60 hours in a week.
The decision would have banned federal, state, and local government regulation of working hours, wages, and working conditions. This became part of the Supreme Court's laissez-faire era that lasted until the 1930s. The decision played an influential role in U.S. labor law. It has been cited as precedent in subsequent cases regarding minimum wage, maximum hours, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation.
Core to the case was whether the bakery employees (bakers) were "engaged in an occupation" within the meaning of Section 20 of the act, which exempted them from its provisions. This question was first considered by Miller J at first instance who held that the bakers were employed as "skilled workers", not ordinary laborers. When Miller J.'s decision was affirmed by lay judges, Lander J.R. abandoned the judgment of the Court of appeal and accepted Miller J.'s approach, albeit for slightly different reasons having regard to evidence on usage of words at the time. The majority judges held that the term "laborer" was used in a special sense and only comprehended unskilled laborers and not skilled workers such as bakers.
A number of appeals were brought before the Board of Review, consisting of five members who took up this issue and reversed Miller J.'s decision. This decision was then taken on further appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. What was particularly significant about the judgment of the majority, delivered by Justice Peckham, is that it not only included general statements on legal development in democratic societies but also a summary of Lochner's personal experiences as a working man. The use of such personal knowledge in Lochner v. New York was not unusual, however Lochner v. New York provides an unusually personal insight into Lochner's past experiences.
The majority held that "there are certain immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no member of the Union may disregard." The Court concluded that Lochner had been deprived of his liberty to contract in the way he had wished to. It is not an exaggeration to say that Lochner v. New York has been described as Lochner's revenge on the Court for its previous attempts to strike down legislation protecting workers, particularly Lochner v. New York itself.
Lochner's case was based on his contract with Blanck under which Lochner was to be paid at the rate of $1.50 for 12 hours' work daily, not including overtime work. Lochner claimed he should receive $2 per working day because he was working more than 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week. Lochner argued that Blanck had broken the contract by paying him only $14 for a 64-hour week. Lochner argued that the contract was a fair exchange in which he gave up his liberty to work more than 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week in return for $1.50 per day. Lochner's attorneys contended that "[t]he right of contract is another essential so deep in our thought." In Lochner v. New York , Lochner's attorneys argued that the law violated Lochner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by depriving Lochner of his right to contract without due process of law. The Lochner v. New York court rejected this argument, holding that Lochner had "no constitutional or natural right to make a contract and barter away his life or his liberty."
Explanation:
In 1908, Phoebe Irene Thompson filed a lawsuit which would later lead the United States Supreme Court to establish women's right to freely contract. Thompson, an Oregon female laundry worker, sued her employer for the twelve-hour workday because she wanted to accept another job that would require longer hours. Although she argued against state standards that outlined less than ten-hour workdays for women, she lost because the Court stated that it was not unconstitutional for employers to create different jobs based upon gender. The Court ruled in favor of employers' ability to set their terms of employment, fearing it would hinder small business growth.
This contrasts with the Lochner v. New York decision, 198 U.S. 45, where the Court held that the N.Y. Legislature's Bakeshop Act, which prohibited bakers from working more than 10 hours a day or 60 hours a week, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court said that liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment included freedom of contract, and it invalidated labor laws that restrict this freedom.