Average Weekly Hours

26 Monthly Labor Review July 2000

26

Katie Kirkland

On the decline in average

weekly hours worked

The decline in the workweek in private industry

as measured by the Current Employment Statistics survey

can be attributed to the combination

of disproportionate employment growth

and low and declining hours in retail trade

Katie Kirkland

is an economist

in the Office of

Employment and

Unemployment

Statistics, Bureau

of Labor Statistics.

How many hours per week do workers in the United States spend at theirpaying jobs? The answer can be found

by examining two principal BLS surveys used to

track the number of hours that Americans work

per week. The Current Population Survey (CPS)

shows that there has been little change in average weekly hours worked; from 1964 to 1999,

there was a decline of 0.5 percent in the average

weekly hours at work in nonagricultural industries. This statistic contrasts information on the

average workweek from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program, otherwise known

as the “establishment survey” or the “payroll

survey.” Here, data show a long-term downward

trend in the average length of the workweek.

From 1964 to 1999, average weekly hours fell

by a substantial 11 percent, from 38.7 to 34.5

hours, based on annual averages of monthly data.

Considering that most people do not differentiate between paid and unpaid work, it becomes clearer why these two labor economics

surveys from the BLS report contradictory data

on the workweek. The most apparent reason is

that the two surveys use different sources of information, resulting in a variation in the type of

data gathered.

The CPS survey is a household survey; the

CES survey is an establishment survey. The CPS

hours data is based on workers’ reports on the

hours they actually worked and includes all jobs they

held during the survey reference period.1 The CES

survey represents employers’ reports on the employees’ paid hours of work. If a person works for more

than one employer, the hours are reported separately

for each. For example, in the CES a person working

two part-time jobs of 20 hours a week is counted as

having two 20-hour jobs, but in the CPS , the same

individual is counted as one worker working 40 hours.

In May 2000, 5.7 percent of all employed persons

16 years and older were multiple jobholders. Thus,

the CPS is the appropriate survey to use to examine

trends in a person’s average workweek, while the CES

is used to examine trends in the average number of

hours people spend at each job.

Further, the scope of workers covered by the two

measures differs. The CPS presents data for the total

civilian noninstitutional population, while the CES

hours data are limited to the private sector. The CES

reports hours data for production workers in the

goods-producing sector and nonsupervisory workers in the service-producing sector. The data sources

and scopes of the two surveys explain why they could

have different trends in the length of the workweek,

but why does the CES measure show declining hours?

To investigate, one must first understand how average weekly hours are calculated using CES data.

For each industry, the sum of the reported paid hours

worked is divided by the total number of production

workers reported for that same industry.2 AccordAverage Weekly Hours
Monthly Labor Review July 2000 27

Average weekly hours and employment of production/nonsupervisory workers by major industry

T division, 1964–99

Total private ............................ 38.7 34.5 –4.2 –10.9 40,560 88,911 48,351 119.2

Goods producing

Mining .................................... 41.9 43.8 1.9 4.5 497 402 –95 –19.1

Construction ........................... 37.2 39.1 1.9 5.1 2,637 4,953 2,316 87.8

Manufacturing ........................ 40.7 41.7 1.0 2.5 12,781 12,739 –42 –.3

Service producing

Transportation

and public utilities ................ 41.1 38.7 –2.4 –5.8 3,490 5,660 2,170 62.2

Wholesale trade ..................... 40.7 38.3 –2.4 –5.9 2,832 5,538 2,706 95.6

Retail trade ............................. 37.0 29.0 –8.0 –21.6 8,037 20,046 12,009 149.4

Finance, insurance,

and real estate .................... 37.3 36.2 –1.1 –2.9 2,346 5,546 3,200 136.4

Services ................................. 36.1 32.6 –3.5 –9.7 7,939 34,027 26,088 328.6

Table 1.

Industry Change Change

Level Percent

1964 1999

AveAverage weekly hours

1964 1999

Level Percent

Production/nonsupervisory workers

ingly, when either the total hours or the number of production

workers change, average weekly hours are affected. Following are some situations that would cause such changes:

• When individual workers have fewer paid hours in

their current jobs, total hours decrease, causing average weekly hours to decline.

• When companies begin to employ more part-time

workers while holding on to their full-time workforce,

the average weekly hours total falls as the number of

workers increases at a faster rate than does the figure

for total hours.

• When companies that employ a large percent of parttime workers (that is, companies that have short average workweeks) grow faster than otherwise comparable companies within an industry, average weekly

hours decline.

• When aggregating hours across industries, the average weekly hours for each industry are weighted (or

multiplied) by the proportion of production or

nonsupervisory workers in the industry division. Thus,

if employment in an industry with low average weekly

hours grows faster than the average pace for all industries in its division, then the low-hours industry

increases its share in the aggregation and the average

weekly hours for all industries would decline.

While the CES survey data do not explain why the workweek in a particular company or industry is declining, an

examination of which industries are responsible for the declines can shed light on the various reasons why the average workweek for the private sector has declined over the

past 35 years.

Shifts among industry divisions

Which major industry divisions caused the sharp downward trend in the private sector workweek from 1964 to

1999? During this period, all the goods-producing divisions—

mining, construction, and manufacturing—added hours to

their workweeks. In contrast, the service-producing divisions—transportation and public utilities, wholesale trade,

retail trade, finance, insurance, and real estate, and services—all lost hours in their workweeks. (See table 1.)

The two major divisions with the highest number of hours

in 1999—mining and manufacturing—saw a decrease in the

percentage of production workers. The loss of production

workers in these two divisions caused a reduction in their

shares of private sector production workers. This phenomenon negatively affected the level of average weekly hours in

private industry, because the goods-producing industries that

had higher average weekly hours carried less weight in the

private sector average. Also, the two industry divisions in

the service-producing sector with the lowest average

weekly hours, retail trade and services, experienced the

largest percent increases in nonsupervisory workers. The

number of nonsupervisory workers increased by 149 percent in retail trade. In services, the figure was even more

dramatic, increasing by 329 percent. With their large and increasing shares of private sector employment and their low

and declining average weekly hours, retail trade and services

NOTE: Levels of production/nonsupervisory workers are in thousands.

SoURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics program.
Average Weekly Hours

28 Monthly Labor Review July 2000

28

Retail trade ...................................... 33.4 29.0 –4.4 –13.2 10,717 20,046 9,329 87.0

Building materials ......................... 38.9 35.2 –3.7 –9.5 442 826 384 86.9

General merchandise ................... 31.7 29.6 –2.1 –6.6 1,982 2,589 607 30.6

Food stores .................................. 32.8 29.9 –2.9 –8.8 1,676 3,161 1,485 88.6

Automotive dealers ....................... 39.8 35.5 –4.3 –10.8 1,497 1,969 472 31.5

Apparel ......................................... 31.0 26.3 –4.7 –15.2 693 985 292 42.1

Furniture ....................................... 37.0 33.0 –4.0 –10.8 439 894 455 103.6

Eating and drinking ...................... 30.4 25.6 –4.8 –15.8 2,674 7,131 4,457 166.7

Miscellaneous retail ...................... 34.0 29.6 –4.4 –12.9 1,316 2,491 1,175 89.3

Average weekly hours and employment of nonsupervisory workers in retail industries, 1972–99

Change

Average weekly hours Nonsupervisory workers

Industry

Change

Level Percent

1972 1999 1 19721 1999

Level Percent

1

The earliest date of data available for some of the detailed industry series is 1972.

NOTE: Levels of nonsupervisory workers are in thousands.

Table 2.

were the two industry divisions most responsible for the decline in average weekly hours in private industry.

Retail trade experienced the most significant loss in average weekly hours—21.6 percent. Services was second with

a nearly 10-percent decline. The level of average weekly

hours in services was just below the level in private industry. (See chart 1.) A further investigation of retail trade and

services explains most of the long-term decline of average

weekly hours in the total private sector.

Declining workweek in retail trade

All of the industries within retail trade exhibited declining

average weekly hours from 1972 to 1999. (See table 2.) Total

retail trade and most of its industries had declining average

weekly hours from 1972 to 1991, followed by small gains in

hours over the 1992 to 1999 period. (See chart 2.) Overall,

from 1972 to 1999, average weekly hours in retail trade fell

by about 13 percent.

The repeals of the Blue Laws may have had a substantial

impact on weekly hours in retail trade. The Blue Laws, statutes that regulated personal and public conduct, originated

in Virginia in 1624. During the late 20th century, repeated

legal challenges to the constitutionality of the Blue Laws

were made in courts, particularly regarding the Sunday closing of retail and other business establishments.3 In 1961, all

50 States had Sunday closing laws, but by 1991, only 13

States still upheld Blue Laws.4 To keep stores open on Sundays, establishments would have been likely to hire more

part-time employees, leading to a shortening of the workweek because the level of total hours would not increase as

quickly as the number of workers. Therefore, the repeals of

the Blue Laws could help explain the decline in average

weekly hours throughout retail industries, including apparel,

furniture, and miscellaneous retail stores (such as toy, jewelry, and gift stores).

Just as the repeals of the Blue Laws likely led to the addition of part-time jobs to cover Sundays, average weekly hours

also would have been affected by the steady proliferation

throughout the United States of shopping malls, with their numerous stores remaining open longer hours throughout the week

than had been the case in earlier years. These longer hours of

operation created the need for more part-time workers to staff

the extra hours. This, in turn, increased the numbers of

nonsupervisory workers with short hours, which lowered the

average hours in a workweek.

 From 1972 to 1999, eating and drinking places had the largest percent increase in production workers and the most significant percent decrease in average weekly hours among

retail trade industries. Because of eating and drinking places’

increased share in retail trade employment, the lower-thanaverage level of average weekly hours in the industry also

contributed to a decline in the level of retail trade’s average

weekly hours. Most significant was the compounding effect in

eating and drinking places. This industry experienced both the

largest decrease in average weekly hours and the largest increase in nonsupervisory workers, even while maintaining a

very low level of average weekly hours.

The sharpest declines in average weekly hours were in eating and drinking places during the 1970s. (See chart 2.) During

this period, the gains experienced by eating and drinking places

were caused, in part, by the growth of dual-earner families.

This created a higher demand and supplied the means to pay

for meals away from home.5 Eating and drinking establishments

have met their employment needs by hiring various types of

employees: students needing flexible work schedules, workers

seeking secondary part-time jobs, and retired persons desiring

supplemental income.6 The hiring of large amounts of parttime employees drove down the level of average weekly hours

in eating and drinking places, and with its increased share of

employment in retail trade, it also drove down the division’s

average weekly hours.
Monthly Labor Review July 2000 29

Chart 1. Average weekly hours for the total private sector and selected

 industry divisions, 1964 99

Hours

(annual averages)

Hours

(annual averages)

1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

25

30

35

40

45

25

30

35

40

45

Total private

Manufacturing

Retail trade

Services

Chart 2. Average weekly hours of selected retail industries, 1972 99

Hours

(annual averages)

Hours

(annual averages)

1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

24

26

28

30

32

34

24

26

28

30

32

34

Retail trade

General merchandise

Eating and drinking
Average Weekly Hours

30 Monthly Labor Review July 2000

30

Services ........................................................ 33.9 32.6 –1.3 –3.8 11,059 34,027 22,968 207.7

Agricultural services ................................... 135.7 34.8 –.9 –2.5 236 648 412 174.6

Hotels and motels ...................................... 33.1 30.9 –2.2 –6.6 718 1,569 851 118.5

Business services ...................................... 233.3 33.7 .4 1.2 32,361 8,200 5,839 247.3

Auto repair, services, and parking .............. 37.5 35.6 –1.9 –5.1 349 963 614 175.9

Miscellaneous repair services .................... 40.6 37.9 –2.7 –6.7 172 309 137 79.7

Motion pictures ........................................... 428.0 30.9 2.9 10.4 4

287 515 228 79.4

Amusement and recreation services .......... 427.2 26.5 –.7 –2.6 4862 1,450 588 68.2

Health services .......................................... 33.7 32.9 –.8 –2.4 3,083 8,845 5,762 186.9

Legal services ............................................ 34.4 34.9 .5 1.5 245 796 551 224.9

Social services ........................................... 32.7 31.2 –1.5 –4.6 467 2,422 1,955 418.6

Engineering and management ................... 4

37.4 37.3 –.1 –.3 41,728 2,444 716 41.4

Services, not elsewhere classified ............. 4

36.1 35.3 –.8 –2.2 425 41 16 64.0

Average weekly hours and employment of nonsupervisory workers in selected service

industries, 1972–99

Table 3.

Industry

Average weekly hours Nonsupervisory workers

1972 1972 1999 1999

Change Change

Level Percent Level Percent

Job growth in services

Like retail trade, the services industry division also had weekly

hours that declined over the 1964–99 period. However the

rapid employment growth in services was the more important

contribution of this industry division to the decline in the

private sector’s weekly hours. Over the period, the services

industry, where average weekly hours are shorter than the

private sector average, experienced a 329-percent increase in

the number of nonsupervisory workers. With its increased

share of private sector employment, the below-average figure for average weekly hours in services pulled down the private sector average. Business services and health services

account for about half of the growth among nonsupervisory

service industry workers, and the workweeks in these two industries were shorter than the average for all industries. (See

table 3.)

Within business services, help supply services (which is

dominated by temporary help agencies) showed the largest

increase—2.5 million nonsupervisory workers from 1972 to

1999. Help supply services also had a shorter workweek than

the average for all services industries. Some companies use

such help supply firms to supplement their workforce when

product demand increases. This competitive strategy of using “just-in-time labor” enables companies to increase flexibility and decrease organizational costs.7

Average weekly hours not only were lower in services than

in all private industries, but were declining as well. The downward pressure on average weekly hours for the services division was widespread, as three-fourths of the services industries showed declines in their workweeks. The increase of

workers in personnel supply also helps to explain the decline

in services average weekly hours, because even though average weekly hours for help supply are increasing, they are lower

than the overall services average.

THE DECLINE IN THE LENGTH of the total private workweek over

the last 35 years was caused primarily by the combined effects of disproportionate employment growth and low and

declining average weekly hours in retail trade and services.

In fact, among the eight private sector industry divisions, retail trade and services had: 1) the shortest workweeks in 1964,

2) the largest declines in average weekly hours measured in

either hours or percentages between 1964 and 1999, and 3)

the highest employment gains over the period on either a level

or percent basis. Within retail trade, average weekly hours

were particularly low and on the decline in eating and drinking places, which experienced strong employment growth.

Within services, strong employment growth in the help supply industry, which has a shorter-than-average workweek, also

contributed to the decline in average weekly hours in the private sector, in spite of its increasing average hours. In addition, employment declines in mining and manufacturing,

which have high average weekly hours, had a negative impact on average weekly hours in the private sector because

of their decreased shares in private sector employment.

NOTE: Levels of nonsupervisory workers are in thousands.

1Start date is 1982. 3Start date is 1981. 2Start date is 1988. 4

Start date is 1988.
Monthly Labor Review July 2000 31

(UMI Publications, Heldref Publications), on the Internet at http://

www.westlaw.com (visited Sept. 10, 1999).

5

 According to the Current Population Survey, from 1960 to 1999,

the proportion of traditional families (the husband only in the labor force, not the wife) decreased by 69.2 percent, and the proportion of dual-worker families (both husband and wife in the labor

force) increased by 71.8 percent.

6

 In 1999, 22.8 percent of employed persons aged 16 to 19 years

worked in eating and drinking places; 10.5 percent of nonagricultural wage and salary multiple job holders were employed in eating

and drinking places in their secondary job. In 1999, 57.7 percent

of persons aged 55-64 years were employed; 12.8 percent of these

employed persons worked in retail trade. Of them, 17.7 percent were

employed by eating and drinking establishments. The above data

are from the Current Population Survey.

7

 “‘Just-in-Time’ Inventories and Labor: A Study of Two Industries, 1990-98,” Report on the American Workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999), Chapter 1.

Notes

1

 The CPS provides data on several different concepts of hours

worked. Each month, all survey respondents are asked about the

total hours worked at all jobs during the survey reference week; a

quarter of the sample respondents each month are asked about the

usual hours worked per week on the primary job; and, each year in

a supplement to the CPS conducted in March, all survey respondents

are asked about the usual hours worked per week during the last

year. For further information, see “Hours of Work,” Report on the

American Workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999), Chapter 3.

2

 For a more detailed explanation of methods for computing industry statistics on hours, please refer to the “Establishment Data”

section (particularly Table 2-A) of the “Explanatory Notes and Estimates of Error,” in Employment and Earnings, a monthly publications of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

3

 See “Blue Laws,” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia

2000, on the Internet at http://encarta.msn.com (visited Aug. 30,

1999).

4

 See Steven Lagerfeld, “Spending Time,” Current, February 1, 1999

Shiskin Award winner

Dr. Edwin R. Dean of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has been awarded the 2000 Julius Shiskin

Award for his important contributions to the improvement and understanding of productivity measures

and for his leadership in international comparisons of labor statistics. Dr. Dean’s expertise and

innovations also have expanded the Bureau of Labor Statistics international technical cooperation

program, thereby fostering the reputation of the United States as a leader in the world’s increasingly

global economy. The award, established by the family of the late Dr. Shiskin and administered by the

Washington Statistical Society and the National Association of Business Economists, honors original

and important contributions to the development and interpretation of economic statistics.