# Current Economic Affairs/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II
THE EIGHT-HOUR AND TWELVE-HOUR DAYS
Much discussion bas centered upon the hours of work by wage earners. In the United States there has been a general reduction of weekly working time during the last 10 years, and many industries have been put upon the basis of eight hours per day, although this is still far from being universal. Recently there has been a strong and successful movement for the abolition of the 12-hour day which still prevailed, to a relatively small extent, in continuous industry. In Europe, under the inspiration of the League of Nations and idealistic or socialistic principles, the work-day of eight-hours has been made statutory in many countries. There has been, and continues, therefore a common movement to escape the confinement of working for employers and come into greater enjoyment of the luxury of leisure, although indeed there are many instances of men who want to work more in order to earn more.
It may be idealistic that man should be required to work only eight-hours per day, or only six hours, or not at all, so that he may have much time for enjoyment and culture, devotion to his family, the cultivation of home gardens, etc. There is room for voluminous discussion upon this subject. Psychologists may point out that the majority of men are incapable of cultural development, either now or ever. Biologists may suggest that ease in life promotes the multiplication of the unfit and ​historians may add that the most virile peoples have been those who have been constrained to work hardest, contending against adverse conditions. Philosophers may remark that human nature seems to make men and women congregate in cities where there is no opportunity to cultivate home gardens. The simple economic consideration, however, is whether a people, whose living must come out of production, can radically and suddenly shorten its working hours and still produce enough for its needs. The economic theory of the residual claimancy of labor would at once give a negative answer to this, with the reservation that great improvements in methods of production might make it possible; but engineers and entrepreneurs if asked respecting such improvements would answer: “Probably, but not quickly; certainly, not right away.” Psychologists, biologists, historians and philosophers might then unite in the polite inquiry whether the consequential prolificness in human breeding would not tend naturally to keep conditions much as they were previously.
It has not been until recently that there has been economic evidence respecting the effects of shortening of work hours by a people as a whole. Since the end of the war some of the European countries have furnished such evidence to us. Among these is Germany. In another paper, of not long ago, I mentioned that although the rate of employment in Germany had been high ever since the Armistice the efficiency of work had been low, and I attributed that to several evil factors, among which the general eight-hour day was prominent. Statistical evidence is positive to the effect that German production continues below the pre-war rate. This is not only the deduction of observers at a distance, but ​it is confirmed by the opinions of German industrial leaders. Thus, Dr. Carl Friedrich von Siemens, a member of the German Economic Council, recently declared that German production had reached only 70 per cent of the pre-war volume, in explanation of which he assigned firstly the operation of the eight-hour day, secondly a diminished intensity in working as a consequence of socialistic infection, and thirdly the increase in unproductive labor following the extension of the principles of state socialism.
The statistics show that Germany has been importing more goods than it has been exporting, wherefore the simple deduction that the German people have not been even earning their own living. Here again we have German confirmation in the form of a declaration by Hugo Stinnes that the German people must work 10 hours per day, instead of eight, for the next 10 or 15 years in order to be able even to exist. Socialists see in such a declaration a project for the further “exploitation of the proletariat” and assert that “between Stinnes and the eight-hour day we will stick to the latter.” Here we have a clear-cut issue between the practical and the impractical.
The eight-hour day has been introduced in many industries in the United States without any harmful results, and possibly with benefits in some instances. Apart from the social benefit, however, there has always been doubt whether diminution in production has not been averted only by an increased counteracting effect on the part of management. There has never been any exhaustive study of the effect of reduction of working time from 10 hours to eight hours in an industry that is incapable of mechanicalization, at least not so far ​as I am aware; and until we began to get these reports of European experiences we never had any data as to the consequences of the eight-hour day en masse. A dispassionate analysis of the situation that has been produced in Germany has been given by Doctor Hoffmann, director of the Chamber of Commerce of Minden, Westphalia, in a book entitled, “Working Hours and Production in Germany after the War.’ It is written apparently without bias, and admits evidence that in certain branches or in certain production conditions the eight-hour system has done no harm. But, on the whole, the judgment is highly unfavorable.
Some of the sharpest criticism of the eight-hour working day, Doctor Hoffmann points out, comes from labor leaders and even from Socialists. An old enthusiast for eight hours and a strong Socialist, ex-Minister Doctor Mueller, lately wrote that ‘‘compensation for the shortened time by more intense production has not taken place.” The editor of Die Konjunktur, Richard Calwer, who is not only a Socialist but also a statistician and economist of recognized rank, has condemned eight-hours as “economically fatal,’ saying that the reform has caused “a great injury to production.”
In general, German working hours at present are less by one-fifth than before the war. Production has fallen much more than one-fifth. But Doctor Hoffmann says quite fairly that there is no exact proof that production everywhere would have fallen more than one-fifth if there had been no other unfavorable factors. Reduced production may partly be explained by inferior health and feeding, by disappearance in war of many first class workers, by deterioration of machines and ​by political ferment. In many trades, however, the decline in output per worker is greater than can fairly be explained by these unfavorable conditions.
Coal mining in Germany is now a legal seven-hour day. Before the war the rule was eight hours. As against a reduction of one-eighth in working time, there has been a decline of about one-third in output—from 0.884 ton per man per shift to 0.597 ton. This is in the Ruhr mining district of Westphalia, but figures from other mining districts are much the same. [Doctor Hoffmann wrote before the French and Belgians occupied the Ruhr.]
Doctor Hoffmann holds that in works where payment by the hour prevails a one-fifth output reduction as due exclusively to the shortened hours may be taken as proved. In such operations the intensity of work has not increased at all. Where piece payment prevails conditions are otherwise. The working hours of concerns practicing piece payment have also been reduced to eight, and with them if the workman is to earn his former income he must either get a higher piece wage or he must work more intensely. Doctor Hoffmann holds that more intense work has been achieved in certain industries where the human element dominates; but that where the intensity of work depends primarily upon the speed of machines the shorter hours of piece payment workers have brought shortened production. He calculates for all the workers of Germany an average reduction of 15 per cent in production.
​The evidence from other countries of Europe where the eight-hour day has been put into effect—France, Belgium and Sweden—is similar to that from Germany. From Great Britain only we do not get such reports, but in view of the large percentage of unemployment that has been experienced there we should not expect to. The sameness of the results in the Continental countries is, however, commanding. All of them show a diminished production in at least the ratio of 10:8 in industries where the pace is fixed by machinery, which generally moves at the same rate in an eight-hour day as in a longer period. In other kinds of work there has been also a contraction in performance which is greater when payment is made by time than when it is made by the piece. Every country reports the occurrence of “black labor,” meaning that ambitious workmen after finishing a day’s work in one factory seek other employment, which leads them to work 12 or even 14 hours per day, returning the next morning to their primary job weary and inefficient. This habit has become especially prevalent in Germany. Belgium reports the emigration of workmen to France, where the enforcement of the eight-hour day is less strict.
This is how the statutory eight-hour day has worked en masse. The results are exactly what we should have expected from the evidence of single arts and industries in America, where there has been no offsetting mechanicalization, such as brick-laying, the work of stevedores in loading and unloading ships, etc. Indeed it may be deduced with positiveness that if any industry shows greater production per workman in eight hours than in 10-hours per day, barring rare exceptions, the explanation is to be found in machinery, which is not ​necessarily an economic benefit, although generally it is. The European countries, which have adopted the eight-hour day en masse, exhibit diminished production without exception, and without shutting our eyes to other contributory factors this is attributable in the main to the fewer hours of work. Diminished production spells diminished scale of living. The idealists who say to the laborers of a country that they should not work so hard tell them at the same time, though not in words, that they should not live so well.
Who can doubt that the shortening of hours in the United States, which here is coupled with an increased inefficiency per hour in many industries, is having the same effect? We do not see it plainly, for several reasons. Our labor statistics are but fragmentary. Our engineers and managers are making intense off-setting efforts. Our country is so rich that evil things and their consequences may be obscured for a long time. But examination of such data as are available is bound to find them pointing this way, which is indeed what is logically to be expected. It will be helpful to consider this subject in the light of the data presented in the sixth chapter of this book.
In the United States a relatively small proportion of the workers, especially those employed in continuous industry, have been engaged on 12-hour shifts. More men have been so employed in the iron and steel industry than in any other one industry. There was prolonged agitation for the abolition of that practice, not at all by the workers themselves but rather by persons who thought that no man should be required to work so long. A committee of the steel manufacturers reported a few months ago to the effect that ​an abandonment of the 12-hour shift in the steel industry would be impracticable, and while the reasons that were given were appealing to common sense, there were introduced certain unfortunate phrases that gave an opportunity to quibblers to argue about them.
In the renewal of the discussion there were reiterated representations that three eight-hour shifts are more economical than two 12-hour shifts, which would be the best of all reasons for the substitution if the representation were true. In fact there is much reason to doubt it, which is not to deny that there has been considerable apparent evidence to the contrary. Before we can come to any sound conclusion on this subject it is necessary to consider the nature of work.
In an essentially laborious operation, such as shoveling coal out of a gondola car, it is conceivable that a man, given the same conditions, might shovel as many tons in an eight-hour shift as in a 12-hour shift, but it is by no means certain that such a result would happen. The evidence afforded by the results of changing from 10 hours to eight hours indicates that it would not happen.
The other extreme is the condition of purely mechanical production in connection with which the human function is purely that of watching a machine. If the machine be working at maximum efficiency and if two men in 24 hours should give it the necessary attention without becoming unduly tired, manifestly the substitution of three men would be economically detrimental.
An easier condition exists with respect to the operation of such an apparatus as a blast furnace, in connection with which the manning may be arranged in two 12-hour shifts, but with the men actually working ​only at intervals, with considerable rest periods intervening. Much of the work on continuous 12-hour shifts is done under such conditions.
Now, if the machine or the furnace be operating at maximum efficiency, and if the arrangement of personnel be also designed for maximum efficiency, it is manifestly impossible for three men per 24 hours to effect a unit cost of production so low as two men. If something of that kind appears to result it is obviously ascribable to something offsetting that is introduced by management. For example, the shock of having to put three men on a job previously done by two may lead management to substitute an improved machine, or an improved arrangement of personnel.
Improvement of industrial practice by shock is efficacious occasionally, just as a boy may sometimes be taught to swim by pushing him off a boat. There are conditions however when shocks may not be beneficial, and the higher we move toward perfection in our industrial arts, the less likelihood is there of any benefit. When the silver-lead and copper smelters of the West were arbitrarily constrained to change from two 12-hour shifts to three eight-hour shifts, 20 to 30 years ago, they quickly responded to the force of circumstances, being well able to do so by virtue of the wide room for improvement that then existed. If they were now constrained to change from three eight-hour shifts to four six-hour shifts they would have far more difficulty. The doctrine that men in general can perform as much work in eight hours as in 10 hours, by virtue of their greater freshness, or that they will have the will to do so, is contradicted by common experience both in America and Europe.
​Soon after the Committee of Steel Manufacturers had reported that an abandonment of the 12-hour shift would be impracticable, they felt themselves constrained to bow to outside popular desire, and the substitution was ordered to come into effect as soon as possible. The abolition of the 12-hour day incontinuous operations in the steel industry that is thus soon to be consummated sprang solely from the sentimental and sociological thought that men should not be detained so long from their homes or be so long deprived of their freedom to live their own lives. It is well to be clear in the mind about this and strip away the buncombe respecting men being able to do as much in eight hours as in 12, respecting shortening shifts and ipso facto reducing costs, respecting the incentive to management to improve its practices, etc. There was no such thing as a general demand from the 12-hour workers themselves to have their time reduced. Their work was not of the nature to strain their energy any more than eight hours of intensive work, probably not so much, and they liked the opportunity to earn the wages commensurate with their hours.
The labor union aspiration for the eight-hour day has in mind the fixing of a limit beyond which overtime renumeration may be exacted. The philanthropological demand for it is founded on the thought that work is a dreadful thing, imposed by capitalistic task masters, that ought to be escaped whenever and however possible. The labor union principle is parasitic. The philanthropological is covertly socialistic.
Let philanthropologists and sociologists take note, however, that the will to work has not yet been extinguished in human nature. The American people ​became prosperous and obtained the enjoyment of an advanced scale of living owing to their eagerness to work, Even in some of the countries of Europe where the universal eight-hour day has been established by law it has been observed that there are men who after completing their time in one factory go to another job to eke out the day. The erstwhile 12-hour steel workers may still find opportunities to remain away from their families. Indeed, it appears that they do exactly that and the sociologists have on their hands the job of warning them away from such pernicious activity and wheedling them into more devotion to their families.
Incidentally, I may point out an ugly immorality in this practice. The man who used to give 12 hours of easy work to one employer cannot give four hours of hard work to a secondary job and eight hours to his primary job and show an undiminished rate of efficiency in the latter, which fairness to the primary employer demands. There is nothing new in an employer frowning upon outside work by ambitious employees on the ground that it causes them to become stale and inefficient for the regular job for which he pays them. The steel-makers were confronted by the practical condition that if 12 hours at 40 c. had been giving the worker $4.80 per day, eight hours at the same price would not give him enough. Nor would they be able even to hold him, for he would seek other employment where he could earn more. The steel-maker needed more men, not fewer. Yet the raising of the hourly rate might throw other rates out of balance. In the end it was decided to raise the rate to 50 c. per hour. Obviously this spells an increased wage bill, an increased cost of production, for which some one must ​pay and that some one can be no other than the general public. The latter must do without so much steel, or if it cannot dispense with some of that it must do without something else. In brief there can be no economic compensation for diminishing work hours if they be employed at maximum efficiency except by an offsetting invention. Otherwise there is simply deprivation.
Sociologists say comfortingly that improved methods and improved mechanicalization will be the immediately offsetting factor. What, pray, have the steel masters and their engineers been doing during the last 20 years? Fierce competition has not permitted them to preserve uneconomical methods. There will indeed be increased mechanicalization if for no other object than to make a machine do the work of a man with no advantage other than to obviate the scarcity of men willing to do disagreeable work. However, let it not be imagined that mechanicalization does not cost anything and is inherently economically advantageous. There are humane managers who instal machines to relieve men from arduous and killing work even when they are economically more costly. There are many jobs done by hand that might be done by machine in instances where the capital charges on the machine would be more costly than the wages of the men whom it would displace. There is always a shadowy zone of economic uncertainty, influenced by wage rates, interest rates and other things between the choice of doing things by hand or by machine. Out of that zone we may rise to the immense economic advantage of the locomotive which with relatively small capital charges and the attention of only three men will do the work of 10,000 men.
​No one will deny the theoretical desirability of reducing excessive hours of work, but let it be clearly understood that the present successful efforts in that direction, whether they be statutory eight-hour day in Europe or the abolition of the 12-hour day in continuous work in the iron and steel industry of the United States, are in the nature of an economic restriction, which while conferring more ease upon the worker tend inevitably to impair the scale of living of people as a whole. There is a stubborn refusal to recognize that the essential thing for every country of the world at the present time is simpler living and harder work by wage earners. The exigency is more acute in some countries than in others. In Italy, a relatively poor country, the people found themselves constrained to bow to this in order to avoid early disaster. In the United States, a very rich country, the need is less acute and more obscure, but the hard times of our farmers and white-collar classes show that it exists.
One of the main reasons for the slow recovery in Europe from the effects of the war undoubtedly is the shortening of the hours of labor and the increase in the cost of manufactured and mineral products and of transportation that has resulted from this policy. It was, in fact, stupid to curtail production at a time when the greatest possible production was needed. It was done on the hypothesis that the scale of living for the workers should and could be raised and that it should and could be done at the expense of the employers, which, of course, proved to be a grotesque fallacy.