The Revised W o J|g p

Results of a Pilot S tu a ^ irms

U.S. Department of Labor 

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
L ibrary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

S w erd lo ff, S ol.

The re v is e d workweek.

(B u lle tin - U. S. D ept, of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

S t a t i s t i c s ; 18^-6)

B ib lio g rap h y : p .

1. Four-day week—U nited S ta te s . 2 . Hours o f la b o r 

—U nited S ta te s . I . U nited S ta te s . Bureau of Labor 

S t a t i s t i c s . I I . T i t l e . I I I . S e rie s : U nited S ta te s .

Bureau of Labor S t a t i s t i c s . B u lle tin ; 18U6.

HD5l2lf.S9 331.2 ’ 5 72’ 0973 75-2271

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Revised Workweek:

Results of a Pilot Study of 16 Firms

U.S. Department of Labor 

John T. Dunlop, Secretary 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Julius Shiskin, Commissioner 

1975

Bulletin 1846

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, GPO Bookstores, or

BLS Regional Offices listed on inside back cover. Price 85 cents

Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.

Stock Number 029-001-01374

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Preface

This study was prepared for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by Sol Swerdloff, of 

Manpower and Education Research Associates, under the direction of Jerome A. Mark, 

Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics. John J. Macut, Chief of the 

Bureau’s Division of Technological Studies, and Janice Hedges, in the Office of 

Economic Trends and Labor Conditions, participated in planning the study and 

developing the interview guides. They also reviewed and commented on the draft of the 

report.

The study was financed through funds made available by the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Policy, Evaluation, and Research. Mrs. Audrey Freedman of that 

office provided many useful suggestions and served as liaison for the study.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents

Page

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1. Objectives for adopting revised workweek schedule and plans for in tro d u c tio n ................................ 2

O bjectives................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Planning for and introducing new schedules........................................................................................................ 3

Chapter 2. Descriptions of revised work schedules.................................................................................................... 5

Simpler plans ................................................................................................................ 5

More complicated plans ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 3. Assessing the effects of the revised w o rk w eek ........................................................................................ 8

Were firms’ objectives re alized ?............................................................................................................................ 8

Effect on productivity.................................................................................................................................................11

Length of workweek for e m p lo y e e s .........................................................................................................................13

Pay and benefits .........................................................................................................................................................13

Quality of work .........................................................................................................................................................13

Attendance ................................................................................................................................................................ 14

R ecru itm en t.................................................................................................................................................................15

Turnover .....................................................................................................................................................................15

Overtime .....................................................................................................................................................................16

Part-time em ploym ent.................................................... 17

Need for supervision .................................................................................................................................................17

Worker f a tig u e .............................................................................................................................................................17

Plant safety .................................................................................................................................................................17

Overall assessment by firms .....................................................................................................................................17

Chapter 4. Employee attitudes towards the revised w o rk w eek .....................................................................................19

Chapter 5. Data and methods for measuring effects of schedule ch a n g e .................................................................... 20

P ro d u ctiv ity ................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Quality of work ........................................................................................................ 23

Attendance .................................................................................................................................................................24

Turnover .................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Overtime .....................................................................................................................................................................25

Summary and conclusions.................................................................................................................................................... 26

Tables:

1. Objectives for adopting revised workweek schedule ................................. . . 2

2. Converting sales data to an output index for a machinery

manufacturing firm .................................................................................... . 2 0

3. Employment and hours reported by a manufacturing establishment, selected payroll periods ............................................................................................ . . 21

4. Employment and hours reported by a wholesale trade firm,

selected payroll p e rio d s........................................................................................................ . . 21

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents—Continued

Tables: Page

5. Developing a measure of productivity for an insurance f i r m .................................................................... 22

6. Deriving a measure of output per man-hour for an automobile

m ech an ic..........................................................................................................................................................22

7. Labor turnover in a boatbuilding firm: Separations and a c c e ssio n s............................................................ 24

8. Proportion of overtime to total man-hours in a boatbuilding firm ........................................................ 25

Appendixes:

A. Description of the study ..................................................................................................................................26

B. Interview g u id e s ................................................................................................................................................ 28

Selected bibliography............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Introduction

Much publicity has been given recently to 4-day,

3-day, or other rearranged workweeks for employees. 

Although in mid-1974 only about 2 percent of the 

full-time employees of U.S. firms were estimated to be 

on such a workweek, some observers of working 

arrangements have predicted a growth in the number of 

firms adopting such schedules.

The spread of this innovation has aroused considerable interest in the United States because of the 

potential effects of the revised workweek on the 

efficiency of the work force and the job satisfaction of 

individual employees. Interest in the revised workweek 

in this country is part of the reexamination of worktime 

patterns that is going on in most industrialized countries. 

In some European countries, the interest has centered 

around flexible work schedules that permit employees, 

within a prescribed band of time each day, to start and 

finish work at their discretion as long as they complete 

the total number of hours required for a week or a 

month. In some copntries, the concern is with length of 

vacations, length of the working life, or retirement ages. 

Evidence of this growing interest was the international 

conference on new patterns for working time held in 

Paris, France, in late 1972 under the auspices of the 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The Department of Labor had several purposes for 

conducting this pilot study on the revised workweek. 

One was to gain a general idea from a sample of firms of 

their objectives and methods for introducing the workweek changes. A second was to evaluate the availability 

of data and the feasibility of further research into the 

effects of the new workweek schedule on such economic 

factors as productivity, absenteeism, capacity utilization, 

and improved work scheduling, as well as on employee 

morale.

The survey covered five manufacturing firms, three 

banks, two insurance companies, two automobile 

dealers, two government agencies, one wholesale trade 

firm, and one hospital. Only one firm was unionized. All 

of the organizations surveyed had been on the new 

schedule for over a year; twelve considered it to be a 

permanent arrangement; three considered it to be still on 

trial; and one was considering discontinuing it.

Chapter 1 presents the objectives of the firms for 

adopting the revised workweek schedules. Chapter 2 

includes detailed descriptions of the types of workweek 

schedules adopted. Chapter 3 presents the assessments of 

the effects on the firms of the revised schedules. Chapter

4 discusses the attitudes of the employees, and Chapter

5 investigates the nature and adequacy of the data 

available to assess the economic effects. Finally, the 

report offers some conclusions, summarizing the experiences of the firms studied and evaluating the feasibility 

of large-scale studies of the effects of the new work 

schedules. The appendixes describe the research plan of 

the study, the 16 firms studied, and the interview guides.

The findings presented in this report represent only 

the experiences of the firms studied. Caution should be 

taken in drawing more general conclusions.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 1. Objectives for Adopting Revised Workweek Schedule

and Plans for Introduction

Objectives

Representatives of the firms visited gave many reasons for the adoption of a revised workweek schedule by 

their companies. Nearly all of the officials mentioned 

first the benefit to employees as a major reason. 

However, discussions disclosed other and perhaps more 

compelling reasons for the change. The officials were 

requested to indicate the principal objectives from a list 

of possible reasons offered by the interviewer. Table 1 

summarizes the principal objectives and major secondary 

reasons for the decision of the 16 firms visited to adopt 

a revised workweek schedule.

Easing recruitment appeared to be the principal 

reason for adopting a new workweek schedule for five 

firms and a major secondary reason for one other. The

4-day or 3-day workweek was used extensively by these 

employers in advertisements in attempting to attract 

employees who were in short supply. For example, the 

personnel director of a boatbuilding firm located in a 

tight labor market remarked that “the 4-day week is my 

best recruiting tool.” The firms pointed to the increased 

opportunity for leisure time for recreation, more time

Table 1. Objectives for adopting revised workweek

schedule

Objective

Number of

firms citing

as principal

objective

Number of

firms citing

as major

secondary

objective

Easing recruitment.......................... 5 1

Providing better service to

customers or company by

extending daily or weekly

hours ........................................... 4 2

Maximizing use of equipment or

otherwise obtaining

savings ........................................ 2 2

Enhancing image of company . .. 2 —

Improving workflow or

schedule...................................... 1 2

Reducing overtime or

absenteeism ............................... 1 4

Helping morale of employees . . . . 1 5

with families, and less commuting time and cost as a 

result of working 3 or 4 days a week instead of 5.

Extending the daily or weekly hours of operation of 

the organization was listed as the principal objective of 

four of the firms and a secondary objective for two 

other firms. The lengthened hours would increase the 

operating capacity of the firm and enable the company 

to provide better service to its customers, to its dealers, 

or to its branch offices around the country. For 

example, one automobile firm wanted to increase the 

service capacity of its dealership and extend business 

hours for its customers’ convenience. The company 

could not increase the size of the building because of 

zoning regulations. By having each mechanic work 2 

hours longer each weekday and work on Saturday, and 

by adding new employees, the firm was able to increase 

the number of hours it was open from 46 to 76 per 

week. An alternative to the revised workweek would 

have been to add a night shift. However, it was felt that, 

in a tight labor market, it would not be possible to find 

mechanics willing to work a night shift. Similarly, a bank 

wished to be open more hours per day so that its 

customers could use the bank during periods when they 

were not at work. The firm was able to achieve this by 

lengthening the number of hours each employee worked 

per day and giving each employee a day off on a rotating 

schedule during the week.

Representatives of two of the firms indicated that the 

principal objective in adopting the 4-day week was to 

maximize the use of equipment or otherwise obtain 

savings for the company. An egg produce company, for 

example, initiated the 4-day, 40-hour week in 1964 as a 

means of scheduling 60 hours of work during the week 

so that it could maximize the use of its equipment. With 

the 5-day, 40-hour week, the company found it difficult 

to devise a schedule so that it could operate its 

packaging line 60 hours a week. As another example, the 

plant manager of a food processing company said that 

his firm would obtain savings by operating only 4 days a 

week instead of 5. The plant is cleaned every night and, 

therefore, one cleaning would be eliminated each week. 

Similarly, it is time-consuming to start up the assembly

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
line each morning; the 4-day week eliminates one 

startup. Rest periods for employees would be reduced 

by two a week from 10 to 8. Maintenance work, when 

needed, could be done on Friday, when other employees 

were not present, and when it would not interfere with 

operations.

Representatives of two other organizations stressed 

that maximizing the use of equipment was one of the 

major secondary reasons for adopting a revised workweek schedule. Both organizations hoped to make better 

use of their computers and related equipment.

Representatives of two firms indicated that enhancing 

the image of the company was the principal reason for 

adopting the 4-day week. The president of a machinery 

manufacturing company wanted to affirm the company’s image of being a “progressive employer.” The 

company was about to “go public” and a good image 

might help in selling the stock. Similarly, the board of 

directors and president of an insurance company felt 

that adopting the 4-day week would enhance the image 

of the company as innovative and “looking out for the 

employees’ interests.”

Representatives of three firms said that the principal 

or major secondary reason for moving to a new 

workweek schedule was to improve the workflow or to 

solve scheduling problems. For example, the reason 

given by the vice president of a large bank for adopting a 

revised workweek schedule was “operational.” The 

purpose was to improve the workflow. The operations 

center processes a huge amount of paperwork—$30 

million of checks, letters of credit, etc., pass through the 

home office annually. By changing the work schedule so 

that a larger proportion of total man-hours would be 

available at the busiest period, it was expected that the 

flow of work from one department to another would be 

smoother.

Reducing the amount of overtime and absenteeism 

was the principal objective of one firm and a major 

secondary objective of four others. A large bank has rush 

periods at the beginning and end of each day in some 

departments and a relatively “dead” period during the 

middle of the day. An official of the bank concluded 

that by having employees come to work earlier and leave 

later (increasing the daily hours from 7 to 8-3/4), the 

two rush periods would be better taken care of. Less 

overtime would be needed to finish jobs at the end of 

the day and fewer employees would be at work during 

the slow time in the middle of the day. A number of the 

firms felt that a 4- or 3-day workweek would result in 

less absenteeism. One representative expected that 1-day 

absences could be reduced in his firm because employees 

could make medical or dental appointments or take care 

of personal business on their days off. The official said

that, when employees were “kind of sick,” they might 

nevertheless come to work if their scheduled day off was 

the next day or the day after.

As previously indicated, many of the firms mentioned 

improving employee morale as one of the reasons for 

adopting a revised workweek schedule. Less commuting 

time and costs, less child care need, and long weekends 

were often cited as employee benefits that would come 

from shifting to a 4-or 3-day week. A number of 

companies reported that, since some employees were off 

each day, considerable cross-training of employees 

would take place. This would be done so that workers 

could fill in for their fellow employees who were not 

scheduled to work on a particular day. The officials 

believed that this situation would result in more job 

satisfaction for some workers because they would have a 

greater variety of duties. (This would also result in a 

more flexible work force for the employer.)

Planning for and introducing

new work schedules

Research or feasibility studies. The company representatives interviewed were asked what research or feasibility 

studies, if any, were performed to help make the 

decision to adopt a revised work schedule. Officials of 

six of the organizations reported that no research or 

feasibility studies, as such, were undertaken to aid in 

making the decision. However, high officials of several of 

these firms had read about the 4-day week and decided 

it should be tried in their firms. (Three officials 

specifically mentioned reading a particular book on the 

4-day week.1)

Three of the sixteen firms employed outside consultants to evaluate the feasibility of moving to a 4-day 

week. The consultants also interviewed the employees 

about their feelings toward a revised workweek and 

helped in the development of shifts and other work 

schedule arrangements.

In five of the firms a management group had 

considered the advantages and disadvantages of a rearranged workweek schedule and had made recommendations to adopt the change. For example, in a large 

bank, an internal work measurement group investigated 

various departments to check on the feasibility of 

moving into various kinds of revised work schedules. The 

group used a department which had a regular work load 

(the vault department) as a test group. Other departments were picked carefully for the ease with which

1 Riva Poor, ed., Four Days, 40 Hours: Reporting a Revolution in Work and Leisure (Cambridge, Mass., Bursk and Poor

Publishers, 1970).

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
they could change work schedules. Similarly, officials of 

a computer data processing department of a large 

insurance company, after an internal study, developed a 

proposal to top management to schedule employees of 

the department on a 3-day workweek. They arrived at 

this recommendation because of the difficulty of obtaining personnel, the wish to run the computer more hours 

a week, and the desire to reduce overtime. The group 

recognized that the proposed revised workweek schedule 

might require a 15-percent increase in staff, but could 

result in a comparable reduction of overtime man-hours. 

The study had indicated that salaries of the company 

were already higher than the market and that a moderate 

salary increase would not succeed in recruiting sufficient 

manpower.

In only one of the organizations (a government unit) 

did the initiative for the revised workweek come from 

rank-and-file employees. In this government agency, an 

employee group, which had been formed to advise 

management and make suggestions which would improve 

efficiency and also be responsive to employees’ needs, 

proposed a revised work schedule (3-day week) for a 

computer unit. The group arrived at the proposal after 

reviewing literature on revised workweeks and studying 

their organization.

One of the companies investigated the experience 

with the 4-day week of a company in the same industry 

located in another city. Officials of a bank in a small 

community in New England had learned that a large 

bank in a nearby city had adopted the 4-day week for its 

employees. Representatives of the firm visited the larger 

bank and obtained information on the workweek schedule adopted and its effect on bank operations. These 

representatives concluded that the 4-day week would be 

feasible for their bank and would make it possible for 

the bank to stay open more hours and to provide better 

service to customers without a large increase in personnel. The experience of the larger bank led them to 

believe that the 4-day week would benefit employees 

and would reduce absenteeism.

How changes were introduced. All firms consulted with 

their employees (or union) before adopting a rearranged 

work schedule. The degree of consultation, however, 

varied considerably. Some companies took a vote of 

their employees; others merely met with individual

employees or groups and explained the proposed program and answered questions.

An insurance company gave all its employees a letter 

explaining the proposed schedule to take home and talk 

over with their families. A vote of the employees was to 

be taken a few days later. The workers actively 

campaigned for the 4-day week. Some made posters and 

put them up on the employees’ bulletin board. The 

company had decided in a meeting of department heads 

that at least a 70-percent positive vote of the employees 

would be required for the 4-day week to be adopted. 

(Seventy-eight percent of the employees voted for the 

change.)

A vice president of a large bank characterized the 

planning and introduction of the revised workweek 

schedule as “a carefully orchestrated affair.” An elaborate orientation program was initiated to communicate 

information to employees. Brochures were developed, 

explaining the change. An economic analysis of the 

savings to employees was prepared. Supervisors were 

briefed so that they could better answer questions of 

employees.

In a few of the firms, votes were taken by units or 

departments. If the majority of the employees of the 

units voted negatively, the rearranged workweek was not 

adopted for that unit.

Representatives of a large insurance company said 

that the company had decided to try the 3-day week as 

an experiment in one unit, even if the employees had 

voted against the change. (Employees could be shifted to 

another unit, if necessary.) The employees of the unit 

selected as an experiment did vote favorably for the 

change.

In some firms, all employees whose workweek was 

changed shifted to the 3- or 4-day week at the same 

time. This was especially true where the revised workweek schedule covered all or nearly all employees. In 

some large organizations, in which only a relatively small 

fraction of employees shifted to a 3- or 4-day week, the 

revised workweek was introduced piecemeal, that is, unit 

by unit.

The length of time for introducing the new workweek 

schedule after the employees were first told of the 

proposed change ranged from a week or less (for two 

firms) to as much as 9 months.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 2. Descriptions of Revised Work Schedules

The adoption of the revised workweek schedules took 

many forms. Some were simple. Others involved complicated, sometimes rotating, schedules for employees. 

Some firms operated more days a week and some firms 

operated fewer days as a result of the revised workweek 

schedules. One of the 16 firms was open for business 7 

days a week prior to the revised schedules and remained 

open 7 days a week after. The other 15 firms were open 

5 days prior to the schedule change, with four firms still 

open 5 days after. Four firms are now open 4 days; six 

firms 6 days; and one firm, 7 days.

The tabulation below summarizes the new workweek 

schedule adopted by the 16 organizations studied:

Number o f

Number o f firms

with more than

firm s1 Weekly schedule 1 shift

8 4 days, 40 hours2 5

2 4 days, 38 hours 0

2 4 days, 35 hours 2

1 4 days, 34 hours or 32 hours.

depending on day off 1

1 4 days, 40 hours, and 3 days,

30 hours, in alternate

weeks

3 days, 36 hours (plus makes

up 8 hours every 2

weeks) 1

1 3 days, 35% hours 1

1 3 days, 35 hours 1

1 Th e ta b u latio n contains 17 schedules because one o f th e

firm s had employees on both a 3- and a 4-day w eek.

2 For one o f these firm s, em ployees w o rk 4 6 hours du ring 2

o u t o f every 6 weeks.

Eight of the 16 organizations had their employees 

scheduled to work four 10-hour days each week. In five 

firms, employees were on a 4-day schedule but worked 

less than 40 hours a week (32—38 hours). Employees of 

one firm worked alternately 4 days and 40 hours in one 

week, then 3 days and 30 hours the next week. Three 

organizations had employees on a 3-day week schedule; 

all of these were in computer units. Employees of two of 

these firms worked slightly less than 12 hours each of 

the 3 days. Employees of the other organization were 

scheduled to work 80 hours each 2 weeks. They worked 

three 12-hour days each week and made up the other 8 

hours sometime in the 2-week period.

Simpler plans

For four firms, the scheduled changeover for employees was simple. The plants were scheduled for 

operation 4 days a week, instead of 5, and were closed 

on Fridays. Thus, all employees worked Monday^ 

through Thursdays, but 10 or 9Vi hours a day, instead of 

8. The other 12 organizations which adopted a 4- or 

3-day workweek for their employees had to devise a 

schedule in which some employees were “off work” at 

various times during the week.

Two firms remained on a 5-day-a-week operation 

with employees working 4 days. In one of these firms, 

employees were divided into two groups. One group 

worked Mondays through Thursdays, and the other, 

Tuesdays through Fridays. In the other organization, 

one unit divided its staff, for example, into three equal 

shifts, with only two of the shifts on duty each day. The 

schedule of “off” days was Monday, Wednesday, and 

Friday, with the days off rotating so that a scheduled 

shift would be off on Mondays of one week, Wednesdays 

of the next, and Fridays of the next. This rotation of 

shifts provided a long weekend, including both Friday 

and Monday, each third week. (This schedule was later 

changed so that there were only two shifts alternating 

Mondays and Fridays off.)

In one firm, the workers were divided into three 

teams—A, B, and C. Workers had a choice of hours when 

the new work schedule was initiated, that is, being on 

Team A, B, or C. The schedules do not rotate. Those 

with the most seniority had the first choice. As openings 

occurred in other shifts, those with seniority could move 

from C to B, B to A, or C to A. The schedule developed 

was as follows (W=workday; 0=off day):

Team A Team B Team C

M on day..................... .............. W O W

Tuesday..................... .............. W O W

Wednesday................ W W O

Thursday................................. W W O

F rid a y .................. . ............... O W W

Saturday ................................. O W W

Sunday ..................... .............. O O O

Those on the A schedule have Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday off each week; those on the B schedule have

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday off; and those on the C 

schedule have a 1 day weekend, Sunday, but have 

Wednesday and Thursday off.

More complicated plans

The other nine firms designed somewhat more complicated schedules for their employees when adopting 

the rearranged workweek. The employees of the data 

processing unit of an insurance company changed from a

5-day week to a 3-day week. However, their total 

scheduled weekly hours did not change; these remained 

at 35% hours a week, not counting a meal period of 35 

minutes. On the old schedule, employees were on one of 

three shifts:

Shift 1 ................................................................... 7:20 a.m. to 3:05 p.m.

Shift 2 .....................................................................3:05 p.m. to 10:50 p.m.

Shift 3 ...................................................................10:50 p.m. to 7:20 a.m.

Shift 3 employees worked 45 minutes overtime each 

day.

On the revised workweek schedule, the actual working time for each shift is 11 hours and 55 minutes, which 

includes one 25-minute break considered as working 

time and a 35-minute lunch period not considered as 

working time. Employees are assigned to shifts permanently, either day or night. For those working either day 

or night, there are alternating work schedules. These 

schedules are arranged so an employee will work no 

more than 2 consecutive days or nights. Employees work 

from 7:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. on the day shift, and 7:30 p.m. 

to 8 a.m. on the night shift. This permits a half-hour 

overlap. The work force is divided into two groups for 

daytime and five groups for nighttime. It was not 

possible to divide the staff into two groups with equal 

hours at night since the employees cannot work Saturday night (after midnight Sunday morning) because of 

the “blue law”.

Prior to the change in the workweek schedule, all 

employees of a bank were scheduled for five 7-hour 

days-35 hours a week. Those employees who shifted to 

a 4-day week work 8% hours a day. Most of the 

departments adopted a progressive rotating schedule. 

Personnel were divided into five teams, with one team 

off each day. The teams stayed on a particular schedule 

2 to 5 weeks, depending on the department, and 

progressed to the next schedule up, that is, those who 

had Monday off next had Tuesday off, etc.

In order to cover the extended hours adopted and 

with employees working only 4 days a week, both 

automobile dealers divided their employees into teams 

and put them on a rotating schedule. One auto mob ile 

dealer divided his mechanics into four crews. An 8-week

cycle was developed for each crew. Each crew changes 

its schedule every 2 weeks. For example, Crew 1 starts 

Week 1 and Week 2 at 12 noon on Monday and works 

until 10:30 that night Q/i hour off for a meal). Tuesday, 

Wednesday, and Thursday are repeats of Monday. The 

crew is then off on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The 

schedule for Crew 1 during the third and fourth weeks 

of the cycle is 7 aan. to 6 p.m., Monday through 

Thursday. Again, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday are days 

off. During the fifth and sixth weeks, the crew works 

Monday and Tuesday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., is off on 

Wednesday, and works from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on 

Thursday and Friday. During the seventh and eighth 

weeks, the crew works Wednesday through Saturday, 7 

a.m. to 6 p.m.

The other automobile firm has its personnel divided 

into three teams, working a rotating schedule. The cycle 

consists of 6 weeks and the employees shift every 2 

weeks. Basically, the schedule is as follows:

Team A .. . Monday through Thursday, 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and

Saturday, 8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., 46 hours, 'A hour off

each day.

Team B . . . Monday through Thursday, 12 noon to 10:30 p.m.,

40 hours, V2 hour off each day.

Team C .. . Tuesday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 40

hours, V2 hour for lunch.

One week out of every 6, the mechanics have a 4-day 

weekend. Three out of every 6 they have a 3-day 

weekend.

In the bank, employees rotate their time off within 

each unit. Employees have Monday off the first week, 

Tuesday off the next, etc. When an employee is off on 

Friday of one week, this employee is also off on Monday 

of the following week, so that once every 5 weeks the 

employee has a 4-day weekend.

Employees of the computer unit of a bank had 

worked, before the schedule change, a 5-day, 35-hour 

week. They either worked 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., or 5 pjn. to 

1 a.m. (with an hour for meals on each shift). The new 

shift is 3 days of 11 hours and 50 minutes each, or 35 

hours a week. They work either 7:45 a.m. to 8:10 p.m., 

or 7:45 p.m. to 8:10 a.m. (with 45 minutes for a meal). 

The computer unit personnel have been divided into 

four teams, each working 3 days. One team works 

Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, day shift; the second 

team works Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, day shift; 

the other two teams work Monday, Tuesday, and 

Wednesday nights or Thursday, Friday, and Saturday 

nights. There is no rotation of shifts.

Each of the three computer units of a government 

organization has moved to a 7-day, 24-hour-a-day 

operation. Previously, employees had worked five 8-hour

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
days. The new schedule for all three groups called for 

three 12-hour days plus additional time to make up the 

extra 8 hours so that each pay period of 2 weeks covered 

80 hours. One group had its employees working three 

12-hour days on a rotating shift with two shifts a day. 

Each employee worked 8 hours every other Sunday. One 

group had its employees working three 12-hour days and 

12 hours every other Sunday, but employees were given 

4 hours off sometime during the 2-week period.

Before the revised workweek schedule was adopted 

by an egg produce company, women on the processing 

line had worked a 5-day, 40-hour week. Now employees 

work four 10-hour days. The plant employees are 

divided into three teams. Each day, two teams are 

working and one is off. Teams rotate off every 2 

months. For example, in one period Team A works 

Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday; Team B, 

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and Team 

C, Friday, Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday. With this 

schedule, employees work every Saturday in 4 out of 

each 6 months.

The nursing service of the hospital had the following 

schedule for its employees before the revised workweek 

was adopted:

Three shifts: .......................................................7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

3 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.

11 p.m. to 7 a.m.

The first two shifts had half-hour meal periods. The 

third shift did not. Employees on each shift worked 8 

hours a day. Employees were given every second 

weekend off. Thus, nursing personnel sometimes had to 

work as many as 10 days in succession. In addition,

many part-time workers were hired to work the 2 days 

employees were off each week. An article describing the 

nursing service stated that “part-time nurses outnumbered full-time 2 to 1, compared to an industry average 

of about 1 to 4.”

The following is a schedule of the rearranged workweek which continued from the end of 1969 to January 

1972:

Three shifts: .................................................... Day—7 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Evening—5 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Morning—9 p.m. to 7 a.m.

Note the 1-hour overlap from 9 to 10 p.m. in the 

evening to take care of the busy period when patients 

are being put to bed. The evening shift is generally 5 

hours long (but some employees work 4 hours, 5 to 9 

pm.), and is filled by regular part-time employees. These 

are married women, many of whom had previously left 

nursing. The other two shifts are 10 hours long. Thirty 

minutes allowed for lunch and 15 minutes for coffee 

break are included in the 10 hours each day.

For each shift, employees were distributed into two 

teams, Group A and B. Group A worked 4 days 1 week 

and 3 days the second week, and Group B worked 3 

days the first week and 4 days the second week. Thus, 

all 7 days were accounted for. Employees thus worked 

70 hours every 2 weeks. The schedule rotated every 2 

weeks. When on the 3-day week, employees work 

Sunday, Wednesday, and Thursday; on the 4-day week, 

they work Monday, Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday.

The schedule above was discontinued because of its 

cost; most employees now work four 10-hour days each 

week.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 3. Assessing the Effects of the Revised Workweek

In assessing the effects of the change, in many cases 

one can only measure a before-and-after situation and 

speculate whether the change resulted from the revised 

workweek schedule or from other factors. For example, 

recruitment or turnover might be affected by a change in 

economic climate as well as a shift to the 3- or 4-day 

week. Productivity may be affected by the introduction 

of new equipment or technology or the presence of 

more space per person for assembly operations which 

came into being at about the same time as the revised 

workweek.

This chapter first assesses the effects of the revised 

workweek schedules in terms of the firms’ stated 

objectives and then examines some significant economic 

factors which may have been affected by the changeover. An evaluation of the adequacy of the data and of 

some of the problems in their use is presented in chapter 5.

Were firms' objectives realized?

The amount of success of the revised work schedules 

in meeting the objectives for which they were initiated 

varied by the reason for the new schedule.

To extend operating hours. Six of the sixteen establishments visited had as a principal objective or major 

secondary objective for adopting the rearranged workweek the extension of hours that the firm was open. The 

lengthened hours would increase the operating capacity 

of the firm or increase the ability to service customers or 

branches or sales offices. These firms include an automobile dealer and a bank in the New England region, a 

wholesaler and an automobile dealer in the Border States 

region, an insurance company in the Midwest, and a 

local government agency in the Southeast.

The experience of these organizations would indicate 

that the major objective for instituting the rearranged 

workweek was being realized. Both automobile dealers 

greatly increased the hours when they were open to 

service customers’ automobiles. One had been open 5 

days a week for a total of S2Vi hours. The revised 

workweek schedule resulted in the service department

being open 84 hours a week, an increase of 60 percent. 

The number of hours for the service department of the 

other automobile dealer increased from 46 to 76 hours 

per week, or 65 percent. Both firms are now open 

evenings and Saturdays. The extended hours apparently 

met with favorable responses from the firms’ customers. 

Data provided by one of the automobile dealers indicated that dollar receipts for mechanics’ labor time for 

the first 6 months of the calendar year just after the 

rearranged workweek went into effect were about 22 

percent greater than the receipts for the first 6 months 

of the previous year. The president of the firm credited 

the increase to the extended hours. The president of the 

other automobile firm reported a more than 20-percent 

increase from a comparable period before the change in 

the workweek.

The bank had previously been open for customers 35 

hours a week. Now the bank is open AlVi hours a week, 

or 36 percent more. The bank reported an increase in 

business beyond what it might have expected without 

the extension of hours. At first, customers did not 

greatly utilize the earlier and later bank operating hours. 

But as they became aware of this convenience, customers began using the bank more and more in the 

extended period.

The wholesaling firm increased the operating hours of 

its warehouse by 50 percent. It was done by increasing 

the hours of its employees by 2 hours each weekday and 

adding 10 hours of work on Saturday. This made it 

possible to handle a greatly increased workload with the 

same warehousing space. In addition, the new workweek 

schedule resulted in a smoothing of the daily output of 

the firm (that is, the amount of work done varies much 

less from day to day than it had on the 5-day week).

The revised workweek schedule of the insurance 

company resulted in the central office being open IVi

hours longer a week. Sales offices (100 around the 

country) now have a longer period to call in for service 

and information. This is especially helpful for those 

located in different time zones. For example, sales 

offices on the West Coast have 1 hour more in the 

afternoon for reaching the home office. Those on the 

East Coast, open a half-hour earlier, have this additional 

time in the morning.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The workweek schedule apparently was having mixed 

results in the local . government organization. For 

example, the personnel department’s extended hours 

made it possible to provide better service to applicants 

for city positions by being open early and late in the 

day. However, since most departments continued to be 

open 8, rather than 10, hours a day, applicants could not 

be referred during the other 2 hours nor could information be obtained from these departments during these 2 

hours. Moreover, since the personnel department operated with many fewer employees on Mondays and 

Fridays as a result of the revised workweek, it could 

provide less service to the public on these days. This also 

resulted in a backlog of paperwork.

To aid in recruitment. A major objective of six firms 

adopting a rearranged workweek was to aid in recruitment of employees. It would appear that the revised 

workweek was having some success in meeting the 

objectives of easing recruitment for some firms, but was 

providing little help for others.

The hospital has been very successful in recruiting 

married nurses to work the 4- or 5-hour evening shift 

(instituted with the revised workweek schedule). Officials of the boatbuilding firm believed that the 4-day 

week had helped in recruiting new workers. The company mentions the 4-day week extensively in its advertisements. The personnel director indicated that most 

new applicants knew about the 4-day week schedule 

when they applied for work. The company has exit 

interviews whenever possible. In answer to the question, 

“What did you like most about the company?” , about 9 

out of 10 of those leaving say the 4-day week. Monthly 

statistics of job openings indicate that there was a 

reduction of unfilled jobs after the adoption of the 

4-day week relative to a comparable earlier period.

The recruitment of data processing personnel in the 

insurance company did greatly improve after the adoption of the 3-day workweek. However, factors other 

than the 3-day week may have contributed to this 

improvement. The labor market for data processing 

personnel changed greatly about the time the rearranged 

workweek was adopted. The slowdown in businesss 

activity, especially in financial and stock brokerage 

firms, resulted in a greater availability of data processing 

personnel in the New York City area. Moreover, the 

company moved part of its data processing work out of 

the New York City area. (This decentralization was not 

due to the shortage of personnel.)

The plant manager of the clothing factory believed 

that the change in the workweek schedule was helping in 

recruitment. He said that, out of each 10 applicants for 

jobs, about 6 mentioned the 4-day week as the reason

for applying for work at this plant. However, despite 

extensive advertising on radio for personnel, with an 

emphasis on the 4-day week in such advertisements, the 

company has found it difficult to keep employment at a 

relatively stable level. There has not been a period in the 

last few years when the plant did not have vacancies for 

operators. A review of its monthly employment data 

indicates that employment actually declined in the first 

6 months after the adoption of the 4-day week. This was 

not a result of the changeover since only a few 

employees left at that time.

An automobile dealer has not found that the revised 

workweek schedule has been a great help in recruiting 

mechanics. Despite considerable advertising in which the 

4-day week is featured, the change in the workweek has 

not been successful in attracting mechanics to the firm. 

Recruiting in other nearby states has also proved a 

failure, despite the offer of higher wages. The company 

has filled its employment needs by training and is now 

about to hire some mechanics from another country 

(Korea). The other automobile firm has apparently had a 

little more success in attracting employees by the 4-day 

week.

To improve utilization o f equipment. The principal 

objective of two firms in adopting the 4-day week was to 

maximize the use of equipment, or otherwise obtain 

savings for the company. This was also a major secondary objective of two other firms. A representative of 

the egg produce company felt that the objectives for 

adopting the 4-day week had been realized. The firm 

now operates its processing line 10 hours a day, instead 

of 8, and on Saturdays, increasing hours of operation by 

50 percent. The 4-day schedule of employees, with a

6-day-a-week operation of the plant, also gives the 

company a labor reserve to fall back on in emergencies. 

Workers off on a particular day can be called on to fill in 

for absent coworkers. The plant manager of the other 

food processing firm felt that the company had achieved 

savings from the 4-day week schedule. As indicated 

previously, the plant has to be cleaned one night less a 

week; the assembly line is started up one fewer time a 

week; uniforms are provided for only 4 days instead of 5 

days a week; and there are two less rest periods per 

week.

Both a government organization and a bank apparently have been able to better utilize their computer 

facilities. The bank reported that its computer is 

operated 50 percent more than before the revised 

schedule was adopted. Before the workweek change, 

with employees on a 2-shift schedule, the computer was 

not used between 1 a.m. and 9 a.m. Now it is used 24 

hours a day. The government organization also utilized

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
its computers more on the new schedule. Before the 

workweek change, the three computer units of the 

government organization had their employees working 8 

hours a day and 2 shifts. One of the units operated 6 

days a week and the other two 5 days. With the revised 

workweek schedule, the computers are now utilized 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week.

It is interesting to note that, despite the greater usage 

of the computers, there actually has been less downtime 

for computer repair than previously. There is some belief 

that cutting off the computer and starting it up again 

may result in more downtime in working hours than 

does continuous operation.

To improve scheduling. Improved scheduling was a 

major objective of a bank and the hospital. The reason 

given by the vice president of a large bank for adopting a 

revised workweek schedule was “operational.” The 

purpose was to improve the workflow. In the operations 

center there is a great deal of paperwork; about $30 

million of checks, letters of credit, etc. pass through the 

home office each year. By changing the work schedule 

so that employees work longer hours at the end of the 

day, the bank has a greater proportion of its employees 

at work during the busiest times. For example, branch 

deposits generally arrive at the home office between 5 

and 6 p.m. In some units where checks and other 

deposits are processed, economies result if they are 

processed faster. Having employees on duty at the right 

time facilitates the work in these units.

The hospital found that it was easier to handle 

scheduling by working nursing personnel alternate 

periods, either morning or evening, with two teams each 

period covering the entire week. By scheduling the short 

evening shift (4 or 5 hours), the two 10-hour shifts each 

day covered the 24-hour period without needing parttime help.

To reduce overtime or absenteeism. One firm had as a 

primary objective and five firms had as a secondary 

objective for adopting the revised workweek schedule, 

the reduction of overtime or absenteeism. The representative of a bank said that, in the departments in 

which they had checked the records, a decrease of 

overtime has been evident since the changeover. In the 

vault department, the first department to go on the 

4-day week, overtime had been virtually eliminated. This 

department has to be open to take securities out and 

bring them back during the time the bank is open. The 

4-day week gives the firm more flexibility and allows 

employees to be on duty for a longer period at the end 

of the day. From the first 3 months of 1971 to the first 

3 months of 1972 (the latter after the workweek

change), overtime pay was reduced from about $7,000 

to about $90 for the 100 employees in the unit. The 

representative of the bank also believed that there has 

been a relatively big improvement in absenteeism since 

the workweek change, but does not feel that the period 

has been long enough to warrant definite conclusions 

about the effect on absenteeism.

One of the major effects of the change in the work 

schedule, according to the plant manager of the clothing 

manufacturing company, was the reduction in overtime. 

He thought that, as a whole, overtime may have 

decreased by as much as 70 percent. Data confirmed the 

large decrease in the amount of overtime for 1971, after 

the workweek change, compared with 1970, before the 

change. An examination of individual pay cards indicated that, when employees were working on the 8-hour 

day, they often worked 9 or 10 hours in order to meet 

schedules, in addition to working on Saturdays some of 

the time. Since moving to the 10-hour day schedule, 

there appears to be little or no overtime on Monday 

through Thursday. Overtime takes place mostly on 

Fridays. The plant manager also thought there had been 

a considerable decrease in absenteeism. The memorandum to employees announcing the revised workweek 

stipulated that, because everyone would have a full 

weekday to take care of personal business, no absences 

would be excused from Monday through Thursday 

except in emergencies. The plant manager guessed that 

absenteeism had been reduced by about 25 percent. A 

check of payroll records for six 2-week periods before 

and after the change in the workweek schedule also 

showed a significant drop in days of recorded absences.

The plant manager of the egg produce company 

also believed that there had been a reduction in the 

amount of absenteeism (because employees know well in 

advance which days they are scheduled to work). He 

believed that overtime had been greatly reduced and is 

only worked by employees when they are filling in on 

their days off because of absences of fellow workers. 

The plant manager, however, had no data to substantiate 

the reduction in overtime or absenteeism (the workweek 

change had taken place 8 years previously).

A large insurance company reported a significant 

drop in overtime. Overtime as a percent of total 

man-hours for the units which went to the 3-day week in 

September 1969, was: 1968, 15 percent; 1969, 17 

percent; 1970,8 percent; 1971,4 percent.

The president of the wholesaling firm believed that 

there had been a decrease in the amount of absenteeism. 

Data had not been summarized but during the visit 

information was compiled for 6 weeks before the 

changeover and 6 weeks after the changeover. These data 

showed that, on the average, the number of workers off

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
per day was 11 in the earlier period and 6 in the latter 

period. (It should be noted that a worker had only 4/5 

as much opportunity to be off in the latter period.) The 

expected decrease in overtime in this firm did not appear 

to have materialized. For the 6 weeks before and after 

the change in the workweek, overtime pay was $3,800 

and $3,900, respectively.

The change in the workweek schedule has not had an 

appreciable effect on the amount of overtime in the 

boatbuilding company, according to representatives of 

the firm. Data were available on the number of 

production worker overtime hours. However, the fluctuations in the company’s production results in great 

variation in the amount of overtime work required from 

month to month, and probably masks the effect on the 

amount of overtime resulting from a revised workweek 

schedule.

To improve employee morale. Several organizations 

indicated that helping morale of employees was one of 

the major objectives of adopting the revised workweek 

schedule. Information from company officials and employee attitude surveys and interviews conducted by 

university groups or by the company itself seem to 

indicate that the great majority of employees were most 

favorably inclined to the 4-day or 3-day week. A 

discussion of employees’ attitudes is provided in chapter 4.

To enhance image o f firm. As indicated previously, the 

principal objective of two of the firms adopting a revised 

workweek schedule was to enhance the image of the 

firm. It is, of course, not possible to evaluate whether, in 

fact, the two firms had enhanced their image by 

adopting the revised workweek schedule. Both firms had 

obtained considerable publicity at the time of adopting 

the 4-day week.

Effect on productivity

Productivity may be defined to mean the relationship 

between a given quantity of output to one or more of 

the various input factors required for such production. 

As used in this study, the input factor concerned is 

labor. Therefore, the concept used, output per manhour, indicates how much labor is expended in providing 

a given volume of output. The gain (or loss) in 

productivity after the workweek schedule change may 

result from many factors in addition to the revised 

workweek. Change in output per man-hour may reflect 

technological innovations, scale of production, the skill 

of management, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to single

out the productivity change arising from one factor such 

as the change in the workweek schedule. Over a short 

period, however, the other factors may not change 

significantly or would be known, and the effects on 

production of changes in the workweek can be deduced.

Representatives of 10 of the 16 firms believed that 

productivity had increased since the workweek schedule 

was revised. One organization reported increases in some 

units and decreases in others. Officials of two firms felt 

that there had been little change in productivity as a 

result of adopting the 4-day week. Officials of one firm 

felt that there had been a decrease in productivity. 

Representatives of two firms said that adequate data 

were not available on which to base an opinion as to 

productivity change.

There was a considerable range in the estimates of 

productivity gains provided by officials of the 10 firms, 

and several of these firms did not provide data to verify 

these estimates. The plant manager of the machinery 

manufacturing firm estimated that the total value of 

output had increased by about 25 to 30 percent with 

little growth in the number of employees. However, 

measuring the effects of the 4-day week on productivity 

is complicated by the fact that the company moved to a 

new building about 1 month after the change to the 

4-day week. The new building has more work space, a 

better layout, and better working conditions. On the 

other hand, a vice president of a large bank maintained 

that the increase in output and productivity in the 

bank’s computer unit had occurred without a change in 

computer equipment. The plant manager of a food 

processing company said that productivity had increased 

by about 10 percent in 1971 (the first year after 

adopting the 4-day week) over 1970. This estimate was 

based on monthly computations of labor cost per unit.

Officials of some firms based their belief regarding an 

increase in productivity in part on the fact that the 

amount of work (output) had increased or remained the 

same with fewer man-hours of employment expended. 

For example, an official of an insurance company said 

that, in the period immediately after the change in the 

workweek schedule, about the same amount of work 

was done as before, with fewer employees, and with 

each employee working fewer hours per week. Similarly, 

a bank reported that when the 4-day week was adopted 

for its workers no employees were added and about the 

same amount of work was done despite a decrease of 

about 3 hours in the workweek of employees. An 

official of an automobile firm indicated that mechanics 

were turning out about the same amount of work in 40 

hours (under the 4-day week) as they had in 42 hours 

(under the 5-day week schedule).

Where data were available, as illustrated in chapter 5,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
they appear to verify the belief of the officials in regard 

to productivity gains. Representatives of these firms 

provided reasons for the increases in productivity. Less 

startup time and less closedown or cleanup time were 

most often mentioned. (With a 4-day week operation of 

the firm, there is one less startup and closedown each 

week.) A number of officials mentioned fewer rest 

periods. Those firms giving employees two rest periods a 

day had 8 rather than 10 a week after moving to the 

4-day week. A unit of a government agency reported one 

less day of travel to and from work sites. An official of 

another government agency observed that having two 

(12-hour) shifts a day, rather than three (8-hour) shifts, 

resulted in an increase in efficiency. He said that at the 

beginning of every shift there was about a 45-minute 

period when the new arrivals received instructions, etc., 

which was “time lost.” Similarly, at the end of the shift, 

there was about a 30-minute period of “time lost.” 

Going from a 3-shift to a 2-shift operation, he estimated, 

resulted in a reduction of this lost time from 6 hours and 

15 minutes to 3 hours and 45 minutes.

The revised workweek may have had indirect effects 

on productivity. For example, the shift to a 10-hour-aday, 6-day-a-week operation resulted in a 50-percent 

increase in capacity of the wholesaler. Thus, fewer 

employees were at work at any given time. More work 

space per employee (in order filling units, for example) 

was credited as a factor in greater output per man-hour. 

Similarly, greater ease in recruitment (resulting in part 

from the 3-day week) permitted an insurance company 

to become more selective in hiring personnel and made it 

more feasible for them to release the least productive 

employees. Officials of two firms reported that by 

lengthening the day for employees the revised workweek 

schedule resulted in a higher number of man-hours 

scheduled in the busiest periods (at the beginning and 

end of the day) and fewer man-hours scheduled for the 

“dead period” in the middle of the day.

Officials of two firms believed that there had been 

little change in productivity since adopting the revised 

workweek schedule. Data from one of these firms, the 

clothing manufacturer, substantiated this belief. Data on 

the number of slacks produced per man-hour and 

piece-rate earnings of the same employees both indicated 

little change in output per man-hour. The other firm had 

adopted the 4-day week about 8 years before the 

interview and records were not available to measure a 

before-and-after situation. However, the plant manager 

believed there had been little change. The line operation 

of the plant is timed and would not have varied much.

Officials of two firms would not venture an estimate 

on productivity change. An official of a bank said that 

the workweek change had been too recent for many of

its units to arrive at conclusions. Moreover, the periods 

since the change were abnormal and the volume of work 

was less than normal, which might affect productivity. 

For the hospital, data are available for such measures as 

nursing man-hours per patient day. However, with this 

data, it is difficult to know whether a difference in 

man-hours per patient day or some comparable measure 

would mean a difference in productivity or efficiency, or 

would just mean that patients were getting more or less 

nursing care. The hospital had asked a research organization to evaluate the new 10-hour shift of nursing 

personnel and to provide information, among other 

things, on per unit costs for nursing services and 

productivity of nursing personnel. However, comparable 

data for the period before and after the workweek 

change were not available. Moreover, other innovative 

practices were introduced at the same time as the 

10-hour day. As a result, the cost and productivity 

aspects of the study were dropped.

Officials of the boatbuilding firm believed that there 

had been a gradual decrease in productivity since the 

4-day week was adopted. When the revised workweek 

was first put into effect and was on a trial basis, 

employees put out greater effort in order to induce the 

company to make this change permanent. However, as 

time went on, the officials believed output per worker 

had declined. They provided the following indications:

1. The coffee breaks were discontinued and employees were given a half hour shorter workday as 

a tradeoff. However, as time went on, personnel 

took longer periods to go to the restroom, to get a 

smoke, to get coffee from the vending machines, 

etc., so in fact, the managers believe, employees 

are taking as long a break as they did when the 

breaks were official.

2. The new management hired an industrial engineering firm to look into the operation of the 

establishment. One of the things that the engineering firm did was to observe the employees at work. 

One finding was, for example, that at the end of 

the day, at the last hour, only about 40 percent of 

the people were working at one time. This was a 

much smaller percentage than at any other time 

during the day.

It was not possible to obtain adequate data to 

measure output and productivity for this firm. Man-hour 

data for production workers and total employment are 

available. However, an adequate measure of output 

would be very difficult to develop. At about the time 

the workweek change was instituted, new technology of 

production was introduced; some new laborsaving equipment was installed; the product was changed; the boats 

produced were larger than prior to the workweek 

change; instead of performing some operations themselves (for example, laminating), products were purDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
chased from other companies; and work standards for 

particular operations were revised because of these 

changes. As a result, it was felt that output measures 

such as the number of boats produced or the dollar value 

of products sold would not provide valid data on which 

to estimate productivity change.

Length of workweek for employees

In addition to resulting in a longer workday and 

fewer days worked a week, the 4-day or 3-day week had 

other effects on the work schedule of employees of 

some of these companies. Employees of some firms 

moved to rotating shifts in which their scheduled 

workday and hours changed periodically (as was explained in chapter 2). The number of hours worked per 

week was reduced for employees of six firms. However, 

employees of these firms did not benefit as much as it 

would first appear as a result of this decrease in 

scheduled hours. The employees of the two automobile 

firms are on a piece-rate (standard hours produced) pay 

basis. Any decrease in weekly hours would reduce the 

amount of time spent by mechanics to produce earnings. 

A bank and an insurance company both reduced weekly 

hours for their employees. However, in both firms, 

employees received less holiday time off after the 

workweek change. When a holiday fell on a scheduled 

workday, an employee made up that day on his day off 

that week. So, in effect, part of the reduction in weekly 

hours was offset by loss of holiday time off to 

employees. A boatbuilding firm reduced the workweek 

for employees by a half hour a day or 2 hours a week, 

but employees “lost” the two 15-minute rest periods 

which they had prior to adopting the 4-day week. The 

hospital, under its first revised schedule, provided for a 

reduction in working hours for nursing personnel from 

80 hours every 2 weeks to 70 hours every 2 weeks with 

little change in pay. (This schedule was later changed 

because of cost.)

Pay and benefits

For most firms, as far as vacations and holidays were 

concerned, employees were given the same number of 

hours off under the 4-day or 3-day week as they 

previously had on the 5-day week. For example, 

employees on a 3-day week in an insurance company 

received approximately 3/5 as many days for vacations 

as the 5-day-a-week employees. In most cases, fractional 

days have been rounded up in favor of the 3-day-a-week 

employees. Employees of a bank are given 12 holidays a 

year. Those on a 3-day week are given 8; these

employees thus gain a fraction of a day a year. Several 

firms provided employees the same number of days off 

for holidays. However, employees received 10-hour days 

off compared with 8-hour days off prior to the 

workweek change. In a few companies, employees who 

were not scheduled to work on the day a holiday falls 

are given another day off as compensatory time. As 

indicated previously, employees of two firms work on 

their day off when a holiday occurs on a scheduled 

workday. One firm now pays overtime for all hours after 

38 a week. The hospital, in its first revised schedule, paid 

overtime for all hours after 8 a day. (This was later 

discontinued and no other firm visited paid overtime for 

hours worked above 8 in a given day.)

Quality of work

Only a few of the 16 firms had data to show the 

change in quality of work for a comparable period 

before and after adopting the revised workweek schedule. A number of the officials interviewed had impressions of what effect the 4-day week had had on quality 

of work, but no clear picture was evident.

One automobile dealer provided data as an example 

for the same calendar month in the year before the 

4-day week and the year after. For the earlier month, 

there were 474 “comeback” hours on a vo me of work 

of $26,700. For the latter month, the, were 357 

comeback hours on a volume of work of $32,100. Thus, 

the latter month had 37 percent fewer comeback hours 

per $1,000 of repair work. The other automobile firm 

did not have records of comeback hours before the 

4-day workweek was adopted. Both automobile dealers 

attributed an improvement in quality of work to the 

team approach which was instituted with the 4-day 

week. The supervisor is responsible for fewer cars for 

inspection and advice in terms of repair. (It should be 

noted that the team approach introduced with the 4-day 

week resulted in an increase in the amount of supervision.)

An official of a government agency believed that 

there had been an improvement in quality as a result of 

the 12-hour day shift. Many of the errors in computer 

operation occur at the time of the change in shifts. 

Because there were now only two changes in 24 hours 

instead of three, the amount of necessary communication and direction between employees on different shifts 

had lessened, and the number of errors had declined.

The audit of hospital service was not begun until after 

the revised workweek was adopted and so cannot 

provide an indication of any change in quality of work. 

The attitude survey of nursing personnel, however,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
might provide an indication of quality of patient care. 

Twenty-six percent of the nursing employees thought 

that the quality of patient care provided by the 10-hour 

shift was better than that when on the 8-hour shift; 11 

percent thought it was worse; the remainder either 

thought that it was no different or did not answer the 

question. Thirty-nine percent of the nursing staff 

thought more time and attention was given to the 

patient since being on the 10-hour shift; only 7 percent 

thought there was less time and attention.

The limited data available for the machinery manufacturer indicated that there apparently had been little 

change in the quality of work, although the plant 

manager thought it might have been improved somewhat. Information on the cost of replacing or repairing 

products returned by customers was provided for the 

year after and the year before instituting the 4-day 

week. In 1970, the cost of “charge-back” was about 

$33,000 from net sales of $10.8 million. For the year

1969, it was about $27,000 from net sales of $7.9 

million. This would indicate a “charge-back” for returns 

or repairs of 0.34 percent in 1969, and 0.31 percent in

1970.

Officials of the boatbuilding firm indicated that there 

had been an increase in the quality of operations during 

the past 2 years, but that the improvement had not 

resulted from the change in the workweek schedule. 

New quality standards had been set and there has been a 

concentrated effort by the company to maintain these 

standards.

The plant manager of a food processing firm said that 

there had not been any change in the quality of work. 

The plant has a rigid quality control system and there 

has not been a noticeable change since the revised 

workweek schedule went into effect.

An official of an insurance company said that error 

rates for their operating employees run about 3 to 4 

percent and have not changed. When new employees 

come in, error rates are high. The company did not 

provide any actual data on error rates.

Attendance

Thirteen of the sixteen firms reported an improvement in attendance (decrease in absenteeism) since 

adopting the new workweek schedule and most attributed the improvement to the revised workweek. Data 

to show the improvement in attendance were provided 

by a number of companies. An insurance company, as 

indicated previously, provided some data for short-illness 

absences (less than 8 consecutive calendar days). For the 

units which went to the 3-day workweek, the number of

working days lost per employee in 1968, before adopting the 3-day week, was 4.77. In 1971, the number of 

working days lost per employee in these units was 4.22. 

A check of the records of the wholesaler at the time of 

the interview for a sample period, covering the 6-week 

period just prior to the workweek change and a 6-week 

period just after the change, showed that the number of 

workers absent per day averaged 11 in the earlier period 

and 6 in the latter period. Similarly, during the plant 

visit to the clothing manufacturer, payroll records were 

checked to indicate the number of days absent for the 

same individuals for six 2-week pay periods before the 

workweek was changed and six 2-week pay periods after 

the change. The number of persons having at least 1 day 

of absence was exactly the same — 59 of the 97 persons 

surveyed. However, in the earlier period, 201 days of 

recorded absences were shown, compared with 120 days 

in the latter period. In the examples of the wholesaler 

and the clothing manufacturer which showed reduction 

of absences, it should be noted that employees were 

scheduled to work only 4 days a week in the latter 

period and 5 days in the earlier period. Therefore, each 

employee had 20 percent fewer opportunities to be 

absent in the latter period.

One of the computer units in a government organization reported that, in the first 3 months after the 3-day 

week was instituted, the employees of the unit had used 

only 57 hours of sick leave compared with 200 hours for 

the 3 months prior to the workweek change. The other 

government organization showed that absenteeism declined in three of the units, but actually increased in one 

unit. For a 5-month period in 1970 and 1971, the 

tabulation below shows the absence rate for the four 

units:

Absence rate (percent)

1970 1971

Bridge department ............................... 5.5 4.2

Personnel departm ent.......................... 2.6 2.1

Purchasing departm ent........................ 2.7 1.1

Building inspection department . . . . 3.3 3.8

A number of the other firms indicated that significant 

decreases in absenteeism had occurred but did not 

provide actual data on attendance.

Officials of these firms mentioned as reasons for the 

improvement in attendance such things as: employees 

know their work schedules well in advance so they can 

schedule medical, business, or other appointments on 

their days off; and employees lose 25 percent of their 

weekly pay for being absent 1 day. Some firms 

permitted employees to trade days off with other 

employees in the same unit when they had a good 

reason. The biggest improvement in attendance was

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
claimed by the plant manager of a food processing firm 

who said that absenteeism now ran 1 to 2 percent 

compared with 5 to 6 percent before the workweek 

change.

Officials of two of the firms indicated that there had 

been no change in the amount of absenteeism. The plant 

manager of a machinery manufacturing company said 

that absenteeism was not a problem now nor had it been 

before the workweek change. Workers are now often 

permitted to make up time lost during the week by 

working on Fridays. Officials of an insurance company 

reported that absenteeism measured by the number of 

hours absent divided by the number of hours scheduled 

had held steady—at about 3 percent—after the 

workweek schedule change. Fewer persons are absent 

each day. However, when a person is absent for a day, he 

is absent 10 hours now compared with 8 hours on the 

previous schedule. This has about offset the smaller 

number of persons absent. The company had hoped that 

the attendance rate would show a marked improvement. 

The 4-day week has, however, made the company’s 

operation more flexible. Persons absent on Monday can 

work on Friday to make up, and vice-versa. Moreover, 

the company finds it easier now to get employees to 

work on their days off than it had been to persuade 

employees to work extra hours per day or on Saturday 

on the old schedule.

The employee attitude surveys sometimes included 

the employees’ opinions as to the amount of absenteeism. Fifty-five percent of the employees of the clothing 

manufacturer indicated that they felt absenteeism had 

decreased, 11 percent that absenteeism had increased, 

and 34 percent that there had been no change in the 

amount of absenteeism.

Officials of only a few of the firms had impressions as 

to the amount of tardiness before and after the 

workweek change. Officials of three of the firms thought 

that tardiness may have increased. Employees found it 

harder to get to work on time because of earlier starting 

times, getting their cars started in the winter mornings, 

and child care problems. Tardiness may have decreased 

in some firms (such as one of the automobile dealers) in 

which the team approach was instituted with the 

workweek change. Members of the team “policed” the 

starting time.

Recruitment

Nearly all of the firms used the 4- or 3-day week in 

their newspaper or radio advertisements to attract new 

employees. For example, the personnel director of the 

boatbuilding firm said that the 4-day week was her best 

recruiting tool. Officials of 11 of the firms felt that the

revised workweek schedule had significantly helped in 

recruiting new employees. However, officials of two of 

these firms said it was difficult to know how much 

effect the revised workweek had because, just after the 

revised workweek was adopted, the labor market became 

more favorable for hiring workers. In two other of these 

11 firms (a food processor and a bank) a considerable 

amount of newspaper publicity heralded their adoption 

of the 4-day week. These stories resulted in a flood of 

applicants which provided these firms with a list of 

potential employees. A number of the officials interviewed said that a relatively high proportion of new 

applicants mentioned the 4-day week as the reason for 

applying for work at the firm. Officials of 3 of the 16 

firms said that their companies had no trouble in 

recruitment before or after the workweek change. One 

firm, an automobile dealer, said that the 4-day week had 

not been successful in helping to recruit new mechanics, 

despite considerable newspaper advertising featuring 

long weekends off, etc. One organization provided no 

information on recruitment.

Turnover

There appeared to be little relationship between the 

revised workweek schedule and the amount of turnover. 

About half of the firms indicated that there was no 

significant change in the amount of turnover since 

adopting the revised workweek. Two of the firms 

reported having high turnover rates both before and 

after the workweek change. These high rates reflect 

working conditions at the companies, the relatively tight 

labor market, or the high proportion of women employees, and have little to do with the workweek schedule. 

Officials of some firms indicated that few, if any, 

employees resigned at the time of the workweek change. 

Some of the larger of these organizations offered to 

transfer, to units not changing the workweek schedule, 

those employees who found it difficult to adjust to the 

3- or 4-day week. In a few firms, some employees who 

would find it difficult to adjust to the revised schedule 

(child care, transportation problems, conflict with 

spouses’ working time, etc.) were permitted to stay on 

the old schedule.

Officials of a few firms indicated that there had been 

a decrease in turnover in their companies since adopting 

the revised workweek schedule. The loosening of the 

labor market may have been the principal reason for the 

lower turnover of at least one of these companies. 

Officials of two organizations reported a higher rate of 

separations. An official of one of these firms reported 

that the separation rate had been up somewhat (from an 

annual rate of 30 to 33 or 34). He blamed the Wage

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Board wage increase limit (rather than the 4-day week) 

for the increase in the number of employees quitting. 

Employees could receive greater wage increases than the 

company was permitted to grant by transferring to other 

firms. One of the units of a government agency showed 

an increase in the number of resignations. However, 

none of the employees gave the 4-day week as a reason 

for leaving.

Overtime

Seven of the thirteen firms which had data or 

impressions of the amount of overtime for a comparable 

period before and after the workweek change reported 

significant decreases in the amount of overtime. The 

clothing manufacturer showed a significant decrease in 

the amount of overtime after the change in the 

workweek schedule. An examination of the pay cards 

for individual employees of this firm for a period before 

and after the workweek change revealed that, prior to 

the adoption of the 4-day week, employees often 

worked 1 or 2 hours overtime on weekdays and also 

often worked on Saturdays. After employees shifted to 

the 10-hour, 4-day week, there appeared to be little or 

no overtime on Mondays through Thursdays. Overtime 

takes place primarily on Fridays.

An insurance company also reported a significant 

drop in overtime. Officials of the company indicated this 

was partially due to the 3-day workweek (as a result of 

eliminating the almost regularly scheduled overtime on 

Saturdays) and partially due to its expanded computer 

capacity. Overtime as a percent of total man-hours for 

the units which adopted the 3-day week was: 1968, 15 

percent; 1969, 17 percent; 1970, 8 percent; 1971, 4 

percent. (The first unit shifted to the 3-day week in 

September 1969 and the last section was converted in 

May 1970.)

In one department of a bank, overtime had been 

almost eliminated. Comparing the first 3 months of 

1972 with the first 3 months of 1971, the amount of 

overtime was reduced to $90 from $7,000 for the 

approximately 100 employees in this unit. The amount 

of overtime in another bank had decreased as a result of 

the revised workweek schedule. In the computer unit, 

there had been considerable overtime when employees 

were on the old schedule. Now there is practically none. 

The principal reason for this decrease is the 50 percent 

longer time that the computer is now regularly operated. 

An official of the third bank, during the interview, 

checked overtime in the July quarter of the year before 

the adoption of the 4-day week and the same quarter in 

the year after the change. The record indicated that 

overtime was somewhat higher in the earlier period.

Officials reported that one computer unit of a 

government agency sharply curtailed the amount of 

overtime. In the first 3 months after the revised work 

schedule was adopted, only 2 hours of overtime were 

worked. In the previous 3 months (before the revised 

work schedule), this unit had worked 1,237 hours of 

overtime. (It should be noted that this unit increased its 

staff so that it could operate seven 24-hour days a week, 

so that the decrease in overtime is not entirely a savings.) 

The plant manager of the egg produce company said that 

overtime had been greatly reduced and is generally only 

worked now when employees come in on their day off 

to fill in for absent fellow workers.

Four firms reported little change in the amount of 

overtime worked. The plant manager of the food 

processor indicated little change in the amount of 

overtime, although he provided no data to substantiate 

this. Before the workweek change, employees worked 

overtime at the end of the 8-hour day and sometimes on 

Saturdays; now overtime is worked only on Fridays. To 

give an indication of the amount of overtime, the 

president of the wholesaling firm obtained data for a 

sample period (6 weeks before and 6 weeks after the 

change in the workweek). Overtime pay was $3,800 for 

the earlier period and $3,900 for the latter period, when 

employment was up somewhat. The rule under which 

one of the government agencies operated in the 4-day 

week experiment was that no additional costs would be 

incurred as a result of the pilot project — overtime 

would be restricted to emergency situations and would 

have to be approved in advance. Officials of the 

boatbuilding firm did not think that the change in the 

workweek schedule had had an appreciable effect on the 

amount of overtime. However, fluctuations in the 

company’s production result in great variation in the 

amount of overtime worked from month to month and 

probably mask the effect on the amount of overtime 

resulting from the revised workweek schedule.

Two firms reported an increase in the amount of 

overtime. In the hospital, a big increase in the amount of 

overtime resulted from the initial (but later changed) 

decision to pay overtime on all time worked beyond 8 

hours a day. Thus, when employees’ schedules were 

changed to a 10-hour day, the last 2 hours of each day 

were paid at the overtime rate. An official of the 

machinery manufacturing company indicated that the 

firm had more overtime now than before the workweek 

change. Overtime now primarily occurs on Fridays. 

Overtime is voluntary, but the company has no trouble 

in getting the employees to come in. The plant manager 

felt that overtime is much more productive on Fridays 

now than before the change in the workweek schedule, 

when employees worked 1 or 2 hours extra per day,

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
after their regular tour of duty. There is considerable 

advantage in having Fridays a nonworkday for plant 

employees because it provides flexibility in getting rush 

work out by having another 10-hour day. Maintenance 

personnel especially have more overtime. They often 

work on Fridays when they can do their work without 

interrupting the work of other employees.

In three companies, officials had no records or 

opinions on the amount of overtime worked by their 

employees before and after adopting the revised workweek.

Part-time employment

The number of part-time workers was not affected by 

the revised work schedule in most of the firms visited. 

Two of the banks reported an increase in the use of 

part-time personnel. For example, there is some operation for which phone calls are made to customers of one 

bank each morning. Because, under the 4-day week, 

fewer employees are at work each day, part-time 

personnel are employed for 2 or 3 hours in the morning 

to help out in this operation. Similarly, the other bank 

employs part-time personnel in busy times at the first of 

the month and to make up for the reduced number of 

employees at work resulting from the 4-day week. The 

automobile firms employed part-time workers such as 

cashiers and “car jockeys” for the new evening and 

Saturday hours.

Need for supervision

About half of the firms indicated that an increase in 

supervision was required as a result of the revised 

workweek schedule. Representatives of the automobile 

dealers said that the new team arrangement increased the 

number of supervisors. An insurance company reported 

a need for supervisory backup because, on the 4-day 

week schedule, supervisors are not scheduled to work 

either on Mondays or Fridays. With regular supervisors 

off, the company had to train other persons to be the 

backup supervisors. A bank increased the number of 

supervisors because of the lengthened workday (supervisors were not put on a longer workday schedule as a 

result of the revised workweek in this bank).

Worker fatigue

Few of the companies interviewed had information or 

impressions that the revised workweek was resulting in a 

significant increase in fatigue for the firms’ employees. A 

large bank was in the process of studying the effects of

the nearly 12-hour-a-day work schedule of its employees. One insurance company, on the basis of its medical 

department’s recommendation, has scheduled not more 

than 2 consecutive days of work for persons on the 

12-hour shift. The medical staff of one government 

organization had been concerned with fatigue of its 

employees on the 12-hour schedule. At some times when 

shifts are changing, individuals may be on four 12-hour 

days in a row, and there had been some complaints. A 

check of sick leave for one 3-month period just after the 

revised workweek was adopted showed that employees 

in the unit had taken only 57 hours of sick leave 

compared with 200 hours for the 3-month period just 

before the changeover.

Questions regarding fatigue were included in the 

employees’ attitude surveys. A question in the survey of 

employees of a food processing firm asked for an 

opinion on the statement: “With a longer workday and 

an extra day off, I am more tired now than before.” The 

replies were: Strongly agree, 7.0 percent; agree, 8.0 

percent; neutral, 14.8 percent; disagree, 39.3 percent; 

strongly disagree, 26.9 percent; and did not answer, 4.1 

percent. Thirty-five percent of the clothing manufacturer’s employees indicated that fatigue had increased 

with the 4-day week; 11 percent felt it had decreased; 

and 54 percent said that the revised workweek had no 

effect. About 39 percent of the employees of an 

insurance company indicated that the longer workday 

resulted in fatigue. However, it should be noted that 

more than 88 percent of the employees of this firm 

voted for the 4-day week in this same survey. Although 

81 percent of the employees of a government organization favored the 4-day week schedule on which they 

were working, some cited as a disadvantage “ 10 hours is 

too long in a day.”

Plant safety

All the companies surveyed now keep records on 

work injuries as required under the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act (OSHA). Several of the firms displayed 

their log of accidents during the interview. However, 

since the new reporting system under OSHA was not in 

effect before the revised workweek schedule was initiated by most of the firms studied, data were not 

obtained on injuries or illnesses. Future surveys, however, could obtain these data for a period before and 

after a revised workweek schedule was adopted.

Overall assessment by firms

One indication of a firm’s assessment of the effects of

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the revised workweek might be the current status of the 

new schedule. Is it permanent, still on trial, or is the firm 

considering dropping the new work arrangements? Fourteen of the sixteen firms have been on the rearranged 

schedule for more than a year. Four firms have 3 years 

or more of experience with the new schedule; one of 

these has been on the 4-day week for 8 years. Twelve of 

the firms apparently are pleased with the results and 

indicated that they had no plans for reverting to the old 

schedule. As the president of an automobile dealership 

said, indicating that the new schedule would continue, 

“the workers like it, the customers like it, and we are 

getting better utilization of our building.” One of these 

twelve organizations had changed the work schedule 

from that first adopted (because of cost). The president 

of a wholesale trade firm said that the rearranged 

workweek is permanent but not necessarily in its present 

form (a 4-day week for employees with operation of the 

firm on a 6-day a week basis). He said that he would like 

to see if a 3-day week were possible and also would 

consider a 4-day week but no Saturday work for 

employees.

The rearranged workweek was still on a trial basis for

a bank and both of the government organizations. In one 

of the government organizations the trial period had 

been extended, although indications were that the 4-day 

week had not been working well in some of the units in 

which it had been tried.

One firm had decided that the 4-day week was not 

advantageous to the firm. At the time of the interview, 

the firm was planning to return to the 5-day week. A 

later phone call to the personnel director of this 

company disclosed that the salaried employees—office 

and sales—had returned to the 5-day week. This would 

eliminate some of the problems of the rearranged 

workweek schedule. The firm, however, had postponed 

temporarily the return to the 5-day week for its 

production workers because of concern with employee 

morale (employees very much liked the 4-day week). 

The company was considering revising its wage and 

benefit schedule to go into effect at the same time that 

the workweek is changed, in order to offset the loss of 

long weekends. Unemployment in this area was very low 

and the personnel director thought the company might 

lose some workers when the 4-day week was discontinued.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 4. Employee Attitudes Toward The Revised Workweek

Nine of the 16 firms had undertaken surveys of 

employee attitudes toward the rearranged workweek. 

These surveys were taken from a few months to more 

than 2 years after the adoption of the revised schedules. 

For several firms, surveys were conducted by university 

groups; in the remainder, the firm itself conducted the 

survey.

Five of the firms provided copies of the survey 

results. The questions in the surveys included employees’ 

feelings toward the revised workweek before the new 

schedule was adopted as well as after experience with it. 

In some surveys, employee attitudes were analyzed by 

age, sex, marital status, and kind of work performed by 

employees covered. Some surveys asked employees to 

report attitudes of their spouses toward the revised 

workweek. Some surveys also provided indications of 

workers’ feelings in regard to the effect of the revised 

work schedule on absenteeism, tardiness, overtime, 

productivity, and employee morale in the firm. Questions were included in some surveys regarding fatigue, 

home problems resulting from the revised schedule, and 

use of leisure time.

Most of the firms that had not conducted surveys of 

employee attitudes had obtained impressions of employees’ feelings toward the revised workweek schedule 

from discussions with individual workers. Officials of 

these firms, and the firms which had conducted surveys 

but did not provide the detailed results of these, all 

reported very favorable attitudes by employees towards 

the revised workweek schedule. An official of an 

automobile firm said that all except one employee liked 

the workweek schedule. Employees g^ve such reasons as 

having time to do things that they weren’t able to do 

before, such as home repairs, on their long weekends. 

One significant benefit mentioned by a number of 

employees with school-age children was that, while 

formerly they had had very little time alone with their 

wives, now they had at least one day, and sometimes 

two, each week at home with their wives while their 

children were in school. This has meant a change in their 

marital relationship. Officials of an insurance company 

felt that the employees of the firm were very much in 

favor of the new schedule. The commuting time was 

now outside of rush hours. In addition, moving from 

three to two shifts had eliminated traveling to or from

work late at night. Employees save 2 commuting days a 

week, and parking has now been provided for those on a 

3-day week.

The vice president of a bank said that in a survey of 

computer personnel, taken 9 months after the 3-day 

week went into effect, 95 percent of the employees were 

enthusiastic about the revised work schedule. Officials of 

the boatbuilding firm reported that informal discussions 

with employees indicated that the workers generally 

liked the 4-day week and did not complain about the 

91/£-hour day. However, indications were that some 

employees did not know what to do with the extra day 

off, and some wives of employees had complained about 

their husbands being home while they were at work.

The president of an automobile dealership said that 

the firm’s employees seemed to like the revised work 

schedule. He had had a test of this recently when he 

tried to change the work schedule to include more night 

work. The employees indicated they liked the schedule 

the way it was and did not want to work nights and 

Saturdays more often than they did now. The trade-off 

between long weekends and night work was about equal. 

If they were scheduled for more night work, the long 

weekends might not be worth it.

The business agent of a union local which had 

organized employees of one firm studied reported that, 

although the 4-day week was voted in as part of the 

labor-management contract, it was greeted with mixed 

emotions by the workers. Men were generally enthusiastic about it, but women (making up about two-thirds 

of the work force) were somewhat skeptical. Many 

employees complained about the work schedule when it 

was first introduced. However, the number of complaints has greatly diminished. Some women complained 

about fatigue, child care problems, and having days off 

when their husbands were working. Employees reported 

liking the 4-day week because the long weekends gave 

them greater recreational opportunities. Also, they can 

now do errands or schedule appointments (bank, doctor, 

beauty parlor, etc.) on Fridays when they are not at 

work. The business agent believed that the workers 

would not want to go back to the 5-day week. However, 

before the new contract came up, the union was going to 

arrange to survey employee attitudes toward the workweek schedule.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter 5. Data and Methods for Measuring Effects of

Schedule Change

As indicated earlier, one of the principal purposes of 

this study was to assess the availability of data to 

measure the impact of the change in the workweek 

schedule. Data were sought on such indicators as changes 

in productivity, turnover, attendance, quality of output, 

and amount of overtime. The availability of the data 

varied widely by type of indicator and by firm.

Productivity

Few of the firms visited had current measures of 

productivity change calculated at the time of the 

interview. Many of them, however, had basic data from 

which productivity measures might be developed.

Output. The output of an establishment (in manufacturing industries) is the number of physical units produced. 

When only one product is made, a count of the number 

produced represents the output. One of the firms 

produced only men’s and boys’ slacks and could provide 

data for this fairly homogeneous product. A boatbuilding firm also had essentially one product but the number 

of boats would not be a good measure of output because 

the size of the boat had changed since the earlier period. 

Moreover, the company had begun buying some components, rather than producing these itself.

For establishments producing more than one product 

(the more common case) or for which the production 

mix changes from period to period, the different 

products could be combined (with base-year weights) to 

derive a production measure. The product should be 

combined in terms of the different man-hours required

to produce each unit in a base period. However, 

man-hour weights are not likely to be available for 

individual products. Other weights, such as unit value, 

might be substituted, particularly if labor costs are a 

substantial proportion of total costs. The use of price 

weights, however, may pose other problems. A food 

producer, for example, makes 280 different items and 

the product mix varies from week to week. For some 

firms, the only figure available to measure output is total 

value of production or total sales. For example, a 

machinery manufacturer provided total sales by year, as 

shown in table 2. To convert total sales for a number of 

years to a measure of output, the effect of price changes 

would have to be eliminated. In the example of the 

machinery manufacturer, the BLS wholesale price index 

for pumps and compressors could be used to deflate the 

sales to a base year, as shown in table 2, provided the 

products manufactured are close to those used to derive 

the wholesale price index.

As will be discussed later, a number of firms have 

other measures of output (and productivity) for the 

entire establishment or for a particular operation.

Labor input. Labor input data available from the 

employers visited consisted of the number of employees 

in the firm or establishment (or for the units involved) 

or man-hours of production or nonsupervisory workers. 

Several of the firms visited reported regularly as respondents to the Bureau of Labor Statistics—Cooperating 

State Agencies Employment Statistics Program. Tables 3 

and 4 show data collected in the program from a 

manufacturing establishment and a wholesale trade firm.

Table 2. Converting sales data to an output index for a machinery manufacturing firm

Year Sales

BLS wholesale price index

for pumps, compressors,

and equipment (1967 = 100)

Index

relative

Deflated

sales

Output index

(1968= 100)

1968 . . $ 5,673,919 104.6 1.000 $ 5,673,919 100.0

1969 . . 7,880,249 109.8 1.050 7,504,999 132.3

1970 10,806,775 115.1 1.100 9,824,340 173.1

1971 .. 12,641,333 121.6 1.163 10,869,589 191.6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 3. Employment and hours reported by a manufacturing establishment, selected

payroll periods

Month

Payroll period

All employees

Production workers

From Through Number Man-hours

December 1970 ................................. 3 11 227 168 11,707

January 1 9 7 1 ...................................... 11 21 231 173 1 2,342

February 1 9 7 1 .................................... 8 18 238 178 13,110

Productivity measures. The productivity measure can be 

derived by dividing the output measure by the corresponding labor input measure. Perhaps the simplest 

measure of overall output per man-hour can be illustrated from data provided by the clothing manufacturer. 

For example, the number of slacks produced in the first 

quarter of 1971 (after the change in the workweek) was 

about 4.8 percent less than the number produced in the 

third quarter of 1970 (before adopting the 4-day week). 

The number of man-hours of production workers in the 

latter period was about 4.6 percent less than the number 

of man-hours in the earlier period. This would indicate 

little change in output per man-hour (-0.2 percent). 

One insurance firm used as an indicator of productivity 

the relationship of new applications for automobile 

insurance (as an output measure) and total employment 

in the central office. Table 5 illustrates the development 

of a productivity index using these data.

A representative of a bank said that data available in 

their computer — the number of active accounts and the 

number of employees — could provide an indication of 

overall productivity.

An approximation to measuring output per man-hour 

is to use piece rate earnings per hour. In this, the 

assumption is made that the task performed on a 

particular product is related, by its piece rate, to the 

time required to perform the job. Data from the clothing 

manufacturer can illustrate this procedure. The piece 

rate paid had not changed in the period measured so that 

the earnings per hour of individuals would be equal to 

output per hour for the same individual. Total productivity data in a manufacturing plant such as this are 

significantly affected by the amount of turnover. New 

employees produce much less at the beginning of their 

employment than do experienced ones (as their piece 

rate work shows). Thus, it was decided that productivity 

data for individuals (only those on a piece rate basis)

would be obtained for comparable periods before and 

after the change in the workweek schedule. For the 

post-schedule change period, the six (2-week) pay 

periods following the first of the year were used. For the 

period before the schedule change, it was necessary to 

use various pay periods in the second half of 1970 

because not all records could be located for all employees. Thus, the pay periods ending July 24, August 7 and 

21, September 18, and October 2 and 16 were used. 

Only persons on a piece rate basis were included in the 

analysis. It was assumed that piece rate pay was 

equivalent to output for each individual. The earnings 

from piece rates for each day were used and not the 

wage paid to the employee, because whenever the 

employee did not earn the $1.60 per hour minimum, the 

employer made up the difference. Overtime hours and 

payments were not included in the analysis. Those 

employees who might be working on a salary in a 

particular pay period were excluded for those pay 

periods. The results of the analysis indicated that output 

per worker (as measured by average hourly earnings) for 

94 workers as a group (who were employed in both 

periods, who were not learners, and who were on a piece 

rate basis) was the same before and after the schedule 

change. Many individual workers, however, had very 

different hourly earnings for the two periods.

A measure of output per man-hour, similar to piece 

rate earnings per hour, illustrated above, was that 

available for the auto mechanics. This measure is the 

number of standard hours produced by a mechanic per 

hour worked. (Standard hours are the predetermined 

“book hours” charged to a customer to do a particular 

job, for example, 1 hour to install a muffler.) This 

information was available for individual workers or 

could be combined for all mechanics. An example is 

shown in table 6 for one employee. Using this measure, 

output per man-hour for this employee might be

Table 4. Employment and hours reported by a wholesale trade firm, selected payroll

periods _____________

Month

Payroll period All

employees

Nonsupervisory employees

From Through Number Man-hours

January 1 9 7 1 .................................... 9 16 480 433 16,423

February 1 9 7 1 ................................. 6 13 503 454 15,914

March 1 9 7 1 ...................................... 6 13 484 434 16,187

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 5. Developing a measure of productivity for an insurance firm

Year and

month

New auto insurance applications Employment Applications

per employee

Index1

Monthly

number

Quarterly M onthly

number

Quarterly

Number Index1 Number Index1

1970:

Janu ary......................................................... 6,800 274

February ...................................................... 7,900 273

March ............................................... ........... 7,600 277

First quarter .................................... 22,300 92.7 276 98.2 94.4

April .............................................................. 8,150 285

M a y ................................................................ 8,100 271

June................................................................ 7,800 286

Second quarter ............................... 24,050 100.0 281 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

J u ly ................................................................ 8,000 296

August............................................................ 8,400 286

Septem ber.................................................... 8,800 287

Third quarter.................................... 25,200 104.8 290 103.2 1 0 1 .6

O cto ber......................................................... 8,500 294

N o vem ber.................................................... 8,600 280

December .................................................... 8,400 288

Fourth quarter................................. 25,500 106.0 287 102.1 103.8

1971:

January ......................................................... 8,100 278

February ....................................................... 8,300 277

March ........................................................... 9,000 290

First quarter .................................... 25,400 105.6 282 100.4 105.2

April .............................................................. 9,200 284

M a y ................................................................ 9,200 279

June................................................................ 9,500 282

Second quarter ............................... 27,900 116.0 282 100.4 115.5

J u ly ................................................................ 9,200 284

August........................................................... 9,200 277

Septem ber.................................................... 9,600 280

Third quarter.................................... 28,000 116.4 280 99.6 116.9

O cto ber......................................................... 9,900 278

November .................................................... 9,200 276

December .................................................... 8,800 274

Fourth quarter................................. 27,900 116.0 276 98.2 118.1

1972:

January ......................................................... 8,300 272

F eb ru ary....................................................... 8,000 272

March ........................................................... 7,800 282

First quarter .................................... 2 4 ,1 0 0 1 0 0 .2 275 97.9 102.3

S e c o n d qu arter 1 9 7 0 = 1 00 .

considered to be 3.6 percent higher in April 1972 than 

in April 1971 (1.44-s-1.39).

A large bank has a measure somewhat similar to that 

which can be developed from data from the automobile 

firms. Standards are set on the amount of time per 

function (for example, time to process a letter of credit).

The total of hours available (spent) on a particular 

function is developed in a Work Measurement-Performance Report. A separate entry is the average standard 

hours allowed per day to produce the volume of work. 

The number of standard hours allowed is divided by the 

number of hours available to arrive at a percent of

Table 6. Deriving a measure of output per man-hour for an automobile mechanic

April 1971 April 1972

Hours

worked

Standard

hours produced

Standard hours

per hour worked

Hours

worked

Standard

hours produced

Standard hours

per hour worked

Employee 6:

Week 1 ___ 45 59 37 57

Week 2 ___ 45 51 38 50

Week 3 ___ 38 55 30 43

Week 4 .. .. 38 65 33 49

Average... . 41.50 57.50 1.39 34.50 49.75 1.44

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
effectiveness (per month). The trend in this ratio might 

be considered a measure of productivity change.

Another example of the potential use of standards 

data for the measurement of productivity is that utilized 

by a midwest insurance company. This measure is the 

percent of norm obtained in each pay period for each 

operation (and each employee). For example, for the 

operation in which employees decide whether applications for insurance are to be approved, a norm of 12 

minutes may have been determined (to examine the files 

and process the application). The actual time per unit is 

measured and the utilization rate (actual rate divided by 

norm) is calculated. The change in the utilization rate 

over time would be an indicator of change in productivity.

An official of a large bank said that his firm had data 

on output for individual units which could be related to 

employment in the unit to show trends in output per 

employee. He mentioned (but did not provide) output 

data such as the number of checks processed in an 

operations unit and the number of transactions made by 

tellers.

A wholesaler has a measure of output for its order 

filling (pickers) and pricing employees. (A large proportion of the firm’s employees are engaged in these 

activities.) Pickers fill the orders for each customer. 

(Customers get one shipment a week.) Each customer 

may have only a small number of units of a particular 

item. Each item for each customer is “a line” on the 

computer printout for that customer’s order; for 

example, 12 tubes of Blank toothpaste. Pickers fill each 

line for each customer for the goods in their area and 

initial it. As the baskets for a particular customer go 

down the line, the customers’ orders are filled and 

initialed by each picker. The company, from its computer printout, has a record of the number of lines filled 

for each order and for each day. It also has the number 

of hours in each operation. Thus, one productivity 

measure might be the number of lines picked per hour. 

The president of the firm obtained some data, at the 

interview, for a period of 8 weeks before the revised 

workweek and a 3-month period after the revised 

workweek. The measures provided for picking of two 

lines: houseware items, and items for a particular 

customer - Super X. For the period before the workweek 

change, the average number of lines per hour for the 

houseware items was 190. For the period after the 

change, the average number of lines was 210 an hour 

(about a 10-11 percent increase). For the Super X items, 

the average increased from 147 to 160 an hour, an 

increase of about 9 percent.

In summary, there are many problems in deriving 

output measures (when heterogeneous products and

services are produced) and corresponding labor input 

measures. Various alternative approaches have been 

indicated to devise output measures, including weighting 

physical output, removing price changes, and using piece 

rate earnings as output measures. Productivity measures 

have been derived utilizing percentages of standards 

attained. Although the firms themselves generally have 

not derived these measures, data are available in most 

firms with which to develop this information.

Quality of work

Several of the companies are now maintaining records 

on quality of work. The two automobile firms have a 

measure which they call “comeback hours.” This is the 

amount of time required to redo service work not 

acceptable to the customer. One of the automobile 

dealers provided data (as an example) for the same 

calendar month in the year before and the year after 

adopting the 4-day week. The other automobile firm 

now keeps records of comeback hours but did not do so 

before the 4-day week was adopted. The machinery 

manufacturer had a similar measure of quality. This was 

the cost of replacing or repairing products returned by 

the customers.

The wholesaler now has a measure of quality which 

the company did not have prior to the adoption of the 

4-day week. An inspector checks a particular customer’s 

order. This check indicates whether too few or too many 

items are contained in the order shipped to that 

customer. (The net error in terms of retail dollars now 

runs about 0.584 percent.) In addition to this measure, 

sales workers check orders when they are delivered to 

the stores (for those customers for which sales workers 

put orders on customers’ shelves). If there is an overage, 

it is brought back to the warehouse. When there is a 

shortage, the customer is given a credit. Presumably, the 

amount of returns and the amount of credits, as related 

to the amount of sales, could be compared over time.

The vice president of a bank maintained that the firm 

did have a measure of quality for some units. He said 

that, for example, in the branch office, one measure is 

whether the tellers can “prove out” at the end of the 

day, that is, whether they have more or less money than 

they should. The bank, however, did not provide any 

actual data on changes in quality of the work.

An official of the hospital said that a measure of 

quality of nursing care is now being obtained at the 

hospital. It is called an audit of nursing services. In the 

audit, charts of patients are examined and compared 

with doctors’ orders and nursing notes. From these, it is 

determined whether the patient received the exact order 

that the physician prescribed. For example, the variance

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
from that prescribed of the order filled is measured (if 

medicine was supposed to be given at 10 a.m. and was 

given at 10:10 a.m.; if some service or medication was 

supposed to be 4 hours apart, but was 4Vi hours; if some 

medication or service was omitted; or if a patient fell out 

of bed). With an audit system and sampling, one might 

weight the variance in services provided and compare the 

results from one period to another. Unfortunately, the 

audit did not begin until after the 4-day workweek 

schedule had been adopted.

by the number of scheduled hours. Most of the firms 

kept records merely of the number of employees absent 

per day, which could be related to total employment 

(potential absentees) per day. One firm kept records of 

short absences (illnesses) separately from longer absences 

of 8 calendar days or more.

These firms did not maintain records of tardiness.

Turnover

Attendance

Nearly all companies interviewed maintained some 

records on attendance, but some have not summarized 

such data. Data on attendance might be viewed as a 

percent of persons employed who are at work each day. 

It can be measured by the amount of time (hours) 

employees are at work as a percent of the total time 

(hours) scheduled. An insurance company has such a 

measure—the number of hours actually worked divided

The great majority of the 16 firms visited have 

records on hiring and separations of individual workers, 

but most of the firms have not summarized the data. It 

would appear that, with varying degrees of difficulty, 

these firms could trace their hirings and separations. A 

few of the firms report labor turnover data to the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics and cooperating State agencies. An example of the data for one firm for the same 

number of employees before and after the schedule 

change is shown in table 7.

Table 7. Labor turnover in a boatbuilding firm: Separations and accessions

Type of turnover and

month

Separations:

January ..........................

February........................

M a rc h .............................

A p r il...............................

M a y .................................

June ...............................

Ju ly .................................

August ..........................

September.....................

Total (January to September)

Percent change, 1970 to 1971

Accessions:

January . .

February .

March . . .

April

M a y ..........

June

J u ly ..........

August ..

September

1970

Before change to 4-day week

1971

After change to 4-day week

Total separations Quits Discharges

LayoffsTotal separations Quits Discharges

Layoffs

139 57 82 75 38 37

125 41 84 - 74 38 35 1

104 43 40 21 101 23 25 53

83 32 15 36 22 14 4 4

38 22 9 7 18 12 6 —

94 17 3 74 15 9 6 —

31 13 14 4 17 11 6 —

38 22 15 1 22 17 5 —

29 19 6 4 39 22 16 1

681 266 268 147 383 184 140 59

- - - - -4 3 .8 -3 0 .8 -4 7 .8 -5 9 .9

1970 1971

Before change to 4-day week After change to 4-day week

Total

accessions

New

hires

Total

accessions

New

hires

273 273 111 97

115 108 78 73

8 6 15 14

13 8 8 7

10 9 20 13

20 5 23 20

41 36 36 32

30 20 51 38

36 32 70 68

546 497 412 362

- - -2 4 .5 -2 1 .2

Total (January to September)

Percent change, 1970 to 1971

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Overtime

Nearly all of the firms visited had basic records from 

which the amount of overtime worked by their employees could be compiled. Many of these firms, however, 

have not regularly summarized the data. Several of the 

firms reported overtime hours of production workers 

(on BLS Form 790-C) as part of the Federal-State

cooperative employment statistics program. Neither of 

the two automobile dealers kept track of overtime for 

their service employees.

Where employment may be fluctuating, a refinement 

of reviewing just the number of overtime man-hours 

might be to derive the proportion of overtime man-hours 

to total man-hours. This is illustrated by table 8 which 

describes the overtime situation before and after the 

workweek change for the boatbuilding company.

Table 8. Proportion of overtime to total man-hours in a boatbuilding firm

Month1

Before change to 4-day week After change to 4-day week

Overtime man-hours

of production

workers

Percent of

total

man-hours

Overtime man-hours

of production

workers

Percent of

total

man-hours

January ............................. 2,921 13.3 1,192 7.9

February .......................... 849 4.3 2,532 15.1

M arch................................. 488 2.7 232 1.7

A p ril.................................... 291 2.0 16 0.1

May .................................... 587 4.2 327 2.9

J u n e .................................... 323 2.9 328 2.9

July .................................... 243 2.2 901 7.9

A u gu st............................... 799 6.8 1,876 13.4

September ........................ 395 3.5 2,703 17.4

1 Pay period including 12th of m o n th .

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Summary and Conclusions

Does a revised work schedule such as the 4-day week 

increase productivity, reduce turnover and absenteeism 

and, in general, raise plant performance? Does it increase 

job satisfaction, aid in recruitment of workers and 

improve work scheduling? These are some of the 

questions being asked as the 4-day week gains a foothold 

in the United States.

This pilot study of 16 firms was undertaken to 

attempt to find out what kind of a survey would be 

necessary to answer some of these questions. The goals 

of the study were to ascertain what records were 

available; what types of measures would be useful in 

assessing the economic effects of the compressed schedules; what data were available to develop these measures; 

and the manner in which a large-scale study might be 

conducted. In addition, readily available data at the 16 

organizations were collected and a number of measures 

developed to discover what they would show.

The Bureau study showed that most of the employers 

had basic records from which an evaluation of the 

economic factors could be made, although very few had 

done so. For example, productivity measures can be 

developed from existing records of output (physical 

quantity, value of production, piece-rate earnings, standard hours) and input records (man-hours worked or 

paid). The study concluded that definitive answers to 

these questions could be determined by an extensive 

nationwide survey. Such a study would be very costly 

for it would have to cover firms of varying size in many 

industries. In addition, the questionnaire would have to 

be carefully planned to include the various characteristics of the firm and industry. However, a less ambitious 

study of one or a few industries may be feasible.

Although this study consisted of too small a sample 

to draw substantive conclusions, the findings do provide 

some observations on popularly held beliefs. For example, productivity is generally believed to increase with a 

compressed workweek. However, survey results show 

that, while productivity did in fact increase at some 

organizations, there was no change at others, and a 

decrease for the remainder. Turnover is also generally 

thought to improve, but there appeared to be little 

confirmation at the organizations surveyed. Other benefits usually associated with the revised workweek are 

reduced absenteeism, ease in recruitment, improved 

work scheduling, improved use of plant and equipment, 

and reduced overtime. The findings did show a reduction 

in absenteeism among the 7,000 employees covered and 

progress in recruitment. While improvement in use of 

plant and equipment and work scheduling was not 

common to all employers, there was a hint that such 

benefits may be obtained in firms with large computer 

operations or in service industries, such as banking. The 

effect of a compressed workweek on overtime varied: at 

some organizations overtime was reduced, at others it 

remained unchanged, while at others it increased. Pay, 

benefits, and weekly hours did not appear to have 

changed greatly. No attempt was made by the author to 

survey employee attitudes directly. Nine of the firms 

had undertaken attitude surveys and five of these made 

the results available for this study. In general, employees 

liked the new schedule and did not wish to change back.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix A. Description of the Study

Research plan

The original plan of the project was to make eight 

case studies of firms which had adopted a revised work 

schedule. In order to cover a wider range of work 

schedule situations, the number of case studies was 

increased to 16.

A list of organizations which had adopted a revised 

workweek schedule was developed from a number of 

sources. Selection of the organizations for the case 

studies was made to cover a variety of schedules, 

industries, firm sizes, and geographic locations.

A general interview guide was developed and tested 

and personal visits were made to each of the organizations selected. A copy of the interview guide which was 

used to solicit information from company officials is 

included in appendix B of this report. Information 

contained included a description of the firm or organization, such as size, industry or principal products, 

location, and union status. A description of the changes 

made in the work schedule was obtained and included 

(a) the length of time the company or department had 

been on the revised work schedule; (b) the current status 

of the schedule (e.g., on trial, permanent, discontinued); 

(c) how the work schedule changed for employees. This 

included information on the new and old weekly hours, 

the number of days, the time worked each day, the days 

off, and the description of shifts, if any; (d) the changes 

that occurred in pay practices; (e) how the work 

schedule changed for the firm (weekly hours, daily 

hours, number of days of week closed, number of 

shifts); and (f) who was covered by the revised work 

schedule. A similar interview guide was prepared for use 

with union officials and is also included in appendix B.

Reasons for changing the workweek schedules were 

discussed with the officials of the firms visited. An 

attempt was made to learn the companies’ major 

objectives in adopting a revised work schedule. The 

representatives were asked why the changes were necessary and why they thought the new work schedule might 

improve the situation. The officials interviewed were 

questioned regarding research or feasibility studies that 

were done to help make the decision to adopt the 

revised work schedule. A description of how the changes

were introduced in the firm was obtained. Were the 

changes introduced piecemeal or all at one time? What 

preparation or consultation with employees was undertaken? What was the length of the period for introducing 

the new work schedule?

A major aspect of the interview was an evaluation of 

the effects of the workweek change on a number of 

economic factors and on employee morale. This included an investigation of the kinds of data available to 

assess the effects of the changes in the workweek. Data 

were obtained, where possible, and opinions of the 

officials of the firms visited, on the effect of the 

workweek change on productivity, quality of work, 

attendance, ease in recruitment, turnover, overtime, 

change in cost of other fringe benefits, supervision, 

safety, occupational distribution of employment, age, 

sex, and other characteristics of employees, amount of 

part-time personnel, ability to service customers, change 

in pay methods and pay scheduling, and the effects on 

employee morale.

The 16 firms selected

The 16 organizations studied consisted of 5 manufacturing firms, 3 banks, 2 insurance companies, 2 automobile dealers (automobile repair personnel), 2 government 

agencies, 1 hospital, and 1 wholesale trade concern.

The selected organizations ranged in size from one 

with fewer than 50 employees to two with more than 

17,000. The tabulation below gives the size distribution 

of the 16 firms studied:

Number o f Number o f

employees organizations

Fewer than 1 0 0 ................................................................. 4

100-249 ............................................................................ 3

250-499 ............................................................................. 2

500-999 ............................................................................ 3

1,000-2,499 ..................................................................... 0

2,500 and o v e r ................................................................. 4

In some firms, nearly all employees were included in 

the revised workweek schedule. In some of the larger 

firms, however, only a small percentage of the employees were, at the time of the interview, on a 4- or 3-day 

workweek. Whereas 2,100 of the 7,000 employees of a

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
large bank were on a revised workweek schedule, only 

500 of the 17,000 employees of a large insurance 

company were on such a schedule. Only nursing personnel of the hospital were on a rearranged work schedule. 

Both government organizations had only a very small 

percentage of their employees on a revised workweek 

schedule, and, even for these workers, the arrangement

was still “on trial.”

The 16 firms studied were located on the Eastern 

seaboard, in the South, and in the Midwest, in the 

following States: Florida, 1; Georgia, 2; Indiana, 1; 

Iowa, 1; Kentucky, 1; Maryland, 1; Massachusetts, 2; 

Minnesota, 2; New York, 3; Rhode Island, 1; and 

Virginia, 1.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix B. Interview Guides

Guide for Interview with Company Officials

I. Description of firm (or organization)

Size (include number of employees, value of 

sales or production, number of establishments, etc.)

Industry and/or principal products

Location

Union status

Names of persons interviewed

II. Description of changes made in work schedule

When did your company (or department) go 

on the revised work schedule?

What is the current status of the new 

schedule (that is, on trial, permanent, 

discontinued)?

How did the work schedule change for 

workers?

New Old

Weekly hours 

Days

Number

Length

Starting/ending time 

Days off 

Rotating shifts

What changes occurred in pay practices 

(changes in overtime, take-home pay, 

wage incentives)?

How did the work schedule change for the

firm? XTNew Old

Weekly hours 

Daily hours 

Days of week closed 

Number of shifts

Who was covered by the revised work 

schedule?

If only one part of the firm or department is 

under a revised work schedule, why was 

this department selected? (number of 

persons affected, kinds of occupations 

and their physical and mental demands) 

Who were excluded? Why? If possible, 

obtain some information on economic 

climate for firm just preceding and during 

change.

III. Reasons for changing workweek schedule

What was the company’s objective in adopting a revised work schedule?

Checklist: (Indicate most important objectives)

a. Increase output and/or productivity 

through:

1. better equipment (capital) utilization

2. better scheduling

3. less startup and/or closedown time

4. less downtime of equipment (e.g., use

fifth day for maintenance)

5. other

b. Reduce absenteeism

c. Reduce tardiness

d. Reduce employee turnover

e. To aid in recruitment of qualified personnel (also reduce training costs)

f. Reduce overtime

g. Reduce amount of injuries and illnesses

h. Reduce waste of material

i. To better service customers (e.g., longer

workday or open more days)

j. Better employee morale (e.g., less time

commuting, fresher after long weekend, etc.)

(Why were changes necessary? Why did 

management think that changes in work 

schedule would improve situation?)

IV. What research or feasibility studies, if any, were 

performed to help make decision to adopt revised 

work schedule?

Who made studies? Can we obtain these?

V. How were the changes introduced?

Piecemeal or all at once 

Preparation of (or consultation with) employees

Length of period for introducing new work 

schedule

VI. Effects of change

(Obtain immediate reaction and longer term 

changes)

What kind of data are available to assess the 

changes in the workweek?

If available, obtain information for the 

following items for comparable 

periods before and after the change 

in schedule:

a. Output (by commodity for whole plant 

or department)

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
b. Labor input (for whole plant or department) (or as an alternative to output 

and labor input, something like value 

of goods produced per labor cost. If 

such an alternative is available, information should be sought on price 

changes and wage changes. If data on 

which to measure productivity are 

obtained, ask for information regarding introduction of new equipment, 

change in organization, methods, etc.)

c. Quality of work (include such things as

waste, errors, etc.)

d. Attendance (absenteeism) Indicate reason-amount of sick leave, leave 

for personal business, etc.

e. Tardiness

f. Ease in recruitment (job vacancy data)

(Include information on kinds of 

employees—economic climate)

g. Turnover

Separations (quits, discharges, retirements, and accessions)

h. Amount of overtime

i. Change in cost of other fringe benefits

(vacations and other benefits)

j. Safety record

k. Change in number and length of official

rest periods

(coffeebreaks, washup time, startup 

time, shutdown, etc.)

l. Change in supervision (number of supervisors, kind, schedule)

m. Change in occupational distribution of

employment

n. Change in characteristics of employees

(age, sex, etc.)

o. Change in the amount of part-time personnel

p. Ability to service customers

(e.g. open more hours; open fewer 

days)

q. Scheduling (e.g. longer runs, better use of

equipment)

r. Changes in related overhead costs (e.g.

extra guard for fifth day; no cafeteria on Friday) Indicate importance.

s. Change in pay methods and pay scheduling; holiday-vacation problems (if 

holidays come on Monday do employees work on Friday? Do they 

receive 4-day or 5-day pay?)

t. Change in annual hours of employment

per individual

u. Legal considerations

Walsh-Healey Act

Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act

Fair Labor Standards Act 

State laws (if any)

v. Union (if any) relations

w. Effect on employees’ morale

(amount of grievances, expressions of 

satisfaction or dissatisfaction with 

changes, commuting time, carpools, 

complaints of married women regarding home responsibilities, such 

as caring for children and making 

meals)

moonlighting

fatigue (e.g. visits to health units)

Guide for Interview with Union Officials

1. Do your members generally approve of the changes 

that have been made in their work schedule?

What kind of changes would they have preferred? (e.g., fewer hours per week, fewer 

days, rotating or nonrotating schedules, etc.)

2. What advantages or disadvantages does the new 

schedule have for individual workers?

More leisure'time—more time with family 

Ability to obtain basic services while off 

(banks, doctors, etc.)

One or two less days for commuting (less travel 

costs, less day care costs)

Time to do volunteer work or receive education 

or training

Time for moonlighting 

Fatigue

Carpool scheduling 

Spouses working different hours 

Leisure time expenses 

Women not home in time to make meals 

Interferes with education courses or volunteer 

work

Difficulty in acquiring second job

3. What are the overtime provisions of the current 

contract? How do they differ from those in effect 

before going on the new workweek?

4. What effect do you think the 4-day week will have in 

the long run in shortening weekly hours?

a. Speed up the reduction in weekly hours

b. No effect

c. Retard the reduction in hours

5. What problems, if any, have been created for labor 

by:

a. schedules for individual workers (e.g. 4-day)

that differ from the schedule for the 

establishment (e.g. 5-7 days).

b. hiring of more part-time workers

c. changes in pay schedules

d. less overtime

6. Do you think that the employees turn out more, the 

same, or less work per hour under the new work 

schedule?

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Selected Bibliography

Cross, Wilbur. “The Four-Day Workweek is Coming Sooner Than You T hink” Business Management, April 1971, 

pp.14—16.

Dobelis, M.C. “The Three-day Week — Offshoot of an EDP Operation,” Personnel, Vol. 49, No. 1, January-February 

1972, pp.24-33.

“Four-day Week: How Widespread by 1990?” Commerce Today, Vol. 2, No. 9, Feb. 7, 1972, pp. 37-44.

Hedges, Janice N. “A Look at the 4-day Workweek,” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 94, No. 10, October 1971, pp. 

33-37.

Hedges, Janice N. “New Patterns for Working Time,” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 96, No. 2, Feb. 1973, pp. 3—8.

Hellriegel, Don. “The Four-day Workweek; a Review and Assessment,” MS'UBusiness Topics, Vol. 20, No. 2, Spring, 

1972, pp. 39-48.

Hoffman, Eileen B. “The Four-day Week Raises New Problems,” Conference Board Record, Vol. 9, No. 2, February 

1972, pp. 21-26.

“How Four-day Workweek is Catching On,” U.S. News and World Report, Vol. 70, No. 10, Mar. 8, 1971, pp. 41—43.

Martin, Neil A. “Can the Four-day Week Work,” Dun's, Vol. 98, No. 1, July 1971, pp. 39—40,45.

Moore, Geoffrey H. “Measuring Leisure Time,” Conference Board Record, Vol. 9, No. 7, July 1971, pp. 53—54.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. New Patterns for Working Time - International

Conference, Paris, September 26—29, 1972, Final Report and Supplement to Final Report. Paris, 1973.

Poor, Riva, (ed.). “Four Days, 40 Hours: Reporting a Revolution in Work and Leisure. Cambridge, Mass., Bursk and 

Poor Publishers, 1970.

Poor, Riva, “Social Innovation: 4 Days — 40 Hours,” Columbia Journal o f World Business, January-February 1971.

Samuels, Gertrude. “Thank God It’s Thursday! Coming Soon? The Four-day Week,” New York Times Magazine, May 

16, 1971, pp. 3 2 - 3 4 .

Samuelson, Paul A. “The Four-day Week,” Newsweek, Nov. 16,1970.

Saso, Carmen D. 4/40: The Four-day Workweek. Chicago, Public Personnel Association, 1972.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Domestic Commerce. The Rearranged Workweek - A Background Study.

February 1972.

Wheeler, Kenneth E. “Small Business Eyes the Four-day Work Week.” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1970.

Wheeler, Kenneth E.; Gurman, Richard; and Tarnowieski, Dale. The Four-Day Week. An AMA Research Report. 

American Management Association, 1972.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

REGIONAL OFFICES

Region I

1603 JFK Federal Building

Government Center

Boston, Mass. 02203

Phone: 223-6762 (Area Code 617)

Region II

Suite 3400

1515 Broadway

New York, N.Y. 10036

Phone: 971-5405 (Area Code 212)

Region III

P.O. Box 13309

Philadelphia, Pa. 19101

Phone: 597-1154 (Area Code 215)

Region IV

Suite 540

1371 Peachtree St., NE.

Atlanta, Ga. 30309

Phone: 526-5418 (Area Code 404)

Region V

9th Floor, 230 South Dearborn St.

Chicago, III. 60604

Phone: 353-1880 (Area Code 312)

Region VI

1100 Commerce St., Rm. 6B7

Dallas, Tex. 75202

Phone: 749-3516 (Area Code 214)

Regions VII and VIII *

Federal Office Building

911 Walnut St., 15th Floor

Kansas City, Mo. 64106

Phone: 374-2481 (Area Code 816)

Regions IX and X **

450 Golden Gate Ave.

Box 36017

San Francisco, Calif. 94102

Phone: 556-4678 (Area Code 415)

Regions VII and VIII are serviced by Kansas City

Regions IX and X are serviced by San Francisco

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis