18  Monthly Labor Review • December 2010

Measuring Productivity

Advances in information technology 

have created new opportunities for 

workers to perform their jobs away 

from their traditional workplaces. One implication of this change—and the subject of 

an ongoing debate surrounding U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS, the Bureau) productivity data—is that official estimates of 

productivity growth may be overstated because estimates of hours worked may not 

include unpaid hours worked at home. To 

shed light on this debate, this article examines two recent sources of data on U.S. 

workers who bring work home from their 

primary workplace: the 2003–08 American Time Use Survey (ATUS) and the 1997, 

2001, and 2004 May Current Population 

Survey (CPS) Work Schedules and Work at 

Home Supplement (CPS Supplement). The 

ATUS provides detailed information on time 

spent on work, work-related activities, and 

nonwork activities during a single day, as 

well as information on the locations of these 

activities. The CPS Supplement provides information on the number of hours worked 

at home each week, information on whether 

or not workers had a formal arrangement to 

be paid for work at home, and reasons for 

working at home.

Recent research on work at home has focused almost entirely on paid work done by 

Lucy P. Eldridge is a senior

economist in the Office of

Productivity and Technology, Bureau of Labor

Statistics. Sabrina Wulff

Pabilonia is a research

economist in the same

office. Email: eldridge.

lucy@bls.gov or pabilonia.

sabrina@bls.gov

Lucy P. Eldridge

and

Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia

Bringing work home: implications

for BLS productivity measures

About 8 percent of nonfarm business employees bring some

work home, mostly to finish or catch up on their work; 

those who bring work home work more hours per week, 

on average, than those who work only at the workplace,

but there is no evidence that this difference leads

to an overstatement in measures of productivity growth

those who have a formal arrangement to 

work at home. However, two papers published within the last 10 years have examined unpaid work at home. Using the May 

2001 CPS Work Schedules and Work at 

Home Supplement, Younghwan Song examined the determinants of unpaid work at 

home for full-time wage and salary workers in the nonagricultural sector.1

 He found 

that unpaid work at home is positively related to education, the absence of overtime 

rates, being a team leader, efficiency wages, 

and greater earnings inequality within occupation groups. Song attributed workers’ 

willingness to take on this additional unpaid 

work as an investment in their careers and 

future wage growth. In another study, Paul 

Callister and Sylvia Dixon used the 1999 

New Zealand Time Use Survey and found 

that bringing work home was much more 

common than working exclusively from 

home.2 The majority of work at home lasted 

for less than 2 hours per day, and a significant proportion was done in the evenings 

after work and on weekends.

Although hours worked at home under a 

formal arrangement are important economically, they almost certainly are included in 

official hours estimates; thus, their increased 

prevalence does not bias estimates of productivity growth. In contrast, when workers 
Monthly Labor Review • December 2010  19

bring work home on an informal basis, it is more likely that 

the hours are worked off the clock and therefore are not 

included in these estimates. This study begins by explaining 

productivity measurement and discussing how unmeasured 

hours can affect estimates. Next, those who bring work 

home are defined and their characteristics and reasons for 

bringing work home evaluated. Then, the data are examined to determine the amount of work brought home and 

whether those who bring work home work longer hours or 

are simply shifting the location of some of their work. Finally, the study assesses whether BLS measures of hours and 

productivity capture the hours worked at home by those 

who bring work home from the workplace and, more importantly, whether unmeasured hours worked at home affect productivity trends.

Unmeasured hours and productivity growth 

Labor productivity measures the difference between output growth and hours growth, and reflects many kinds of 

changes, including changes in the quantities of nonlabor 

inputs (that is, capital services, fuels, other intermediate 

materials, and purchased services) and changes in technology, economies of scale, management techniques, and 

the skills of the labor force. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

calculates labor productivity for the nonfarm business sector by combining real output from the National Income 

and Product Accounts produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis with BLS measures of hours worked for 

all persons. The primary source of data on hours is the 

average-weekly-hours-paid series for production workers in goods-producing industries and for nonsupervisory 

workers in service-providing industries.3 Data for these 

series are collected in the BLS Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey,a monthly payroll survey of establishments that collects data on employment and hours paid 

for the pay period that includes the 12th of the month.4

Average weekly hours are adjusted to remove the hours 

of employees who work for nonprofit institutions and 

to convert the series to an hours-worked basis, using an 

hours-worked-to-hours-paid ratio estimated from the 

BLS National Compensation Survey.5 The hours-worked 

adjustment ensures that changes in vacation, holiday, and 

sick pay, which are viewed as changes in labor costs, do 

not affect growth in hours, but it does not adjust for hours 

worked off the clock.

Total hours worked by production and nonsupervisory 

employees are calculated as

(1) 

where AWHP represents average weekly hours worked by 

production and nonsupervisory employees and NP is the 

employment of nonfarm business production and nonsupervisory employees.

Average weekly hours worked by nonproduction and 

supervisory employees are estimated by applying a ratio 

adjustment from the CPS data to the production and nonsupervisory hours data. The adjustment is the ratio of the 

average weekly hours worked by nonproduction and supervisory employees to the average weekly hours worked 

by production and nonsupervisory employees.6 This ratio 

(subsequently referred to as the CPS ratio), combined with 

the hours-worked series for production and nonsupervisory employees and CES employment data, is used to 

calculate the total hours worked by nonproduction and 

supervisory employees as

(2)

where AWHNP and AWHP represent CPS measures of 

average weekly hours worked by nonproduction and supervisory employees and production and nonsupervisory 

employees, respectively, and NNP denotes the employment of 

nonfarm business nonproduction and supervisory employees.

The Bureau constructs total hours worked by production 

and nonsupervisory employees and total hours worked 

by nonproduction and supervisory employees at the major industry group level in the North American Industry 

Classification System and the BLS-defined 14-sector level 

and then aggregates both measures to the level of all nonfarm business sector. Total hours worked by all persons 

in the nonfarm business sector are the sum of production 

and nonsupervisory employee hours, nonproduction and 

supervisory employee hours, and hours worked by unpaid 

family workers, employees of government enterprises, and 

the unincorporated self-employed.

7

 Chart 1 shows each 

group’s share of nonfarm business sector hours worked in 

2008. Production and nonsupervisory employees account 

for the majority of nonfarm business sector hours (71 

percent), nonproduction and supervisory employee hours 

account for 18 percent, and the unincorporated self-employed, unpaid family workers, and employees of government enterprises make up the smallest share (11 percent).

Some critics have suggested that innovations in information technology have allowed many more workers the 

flexibility to work outside the traditional workplace and 

that these hours are not properly captured in official BLS

productivity measures—in particular, the quarterly labor 

productivity estimates for the nonfarm business sector.8 AWH )( ) (52), H ( NP

M

P

M  P

( ) (52), AWH) AWH (AWH CPS NP

CPS

NP HNP ( ) N

P

M

P

M 

CPS CPS

M
Measuring Productivity

20  Monthly Labor Review • December 2010

 Chart 1. Percent of nonfarm business sector hours worked, by type of worker, 2008

Production and nonsupervisory

employees

Nonproduction and supervisory

employees

Unpaid family workers, emp

of government enterprise

the unincorporated self-em

11

18

Although, undoubtedly, unmeasured hours are a possible 

source of bias, it is important to keep in mind that an 

underestimation of hours worked will affect measures of 

productivity growth only if unmeasured hours grow at a 

rate different from that of measured hours.

Unpaid hours worked can affect the hours-worked calculations in two ways: through the CES estimates of average weekly hours and through the CPS ratio adjustment. 

As noted earlier, the CES survey measures hours paid, 

not hours worked, which means that any unpaid work 

brought home by production and nonsupervisory employees will not be counted. As regards the CPS ratio adjustment, if work at home is not accurately reported and if the 

percent of unreported hours worked at home differs between production and nonsupervisory employees, on the 

one hand, and nonproduction and supervisory employees, 

on the other, then the ratio could be biased. However, 

an examination of the bias in the CPS ratio adjustment 

is beyond the scope of this study, so the focus here will 

be on the extent to which unpaid hours worked at home 

are missing from the production and nonsupervisory employee hours series.

Data sources

As noted earlier, this study uses data from the CPS and 

the ATUS. For consistency with the productivity measures, the analysis focuses on nonfarm business employees, 

defined as employees who are 15 years and older, work 

outside of the farm sector, and work for private, forprofit entities. Although unpaid family workers and the 

self-employed are in the nonfarm business sector, these 

groups are excluded from the analysis because they may 

have the ability to shift freely between work and nonwork 

activities and may also lack a clear definition of a principal workplace; therefore, for such groups, the concept of 

bringing work home is not well defined and is beyond the 

scope of the study.

The American Time Use Survey. The ATUS, which began collecting data in 2003, is an ongoing survey of how 

people living in the United States spend their time. The 

ATUS sample consists of individuals living in households 

that recently have completed their final outgoing rotation interview for the CPS.

9

 Households are selected on 

the basis of demographic characteristics, and one person 

15 years or older is selected at random to be interviewed. 

ATUS interviews occur 2 to 5 months following the respondent’s final CPS interview. Unlike the CPS, the ATUS

does not allow proxy respondents. ATUS respondents are 

interviewed by telephone about how they spent their time 

over a 24-hour period. The 24 hours represent a “diary 

day” of activities that the respondent recalls engaging in 

and reports sequentially beginning at 4 a.m. on the day 

prior to the interview.

Interviewers categorize the diary entries into more than 

450 different primary activities. For each activity, the 

ATUS collects information on its duration (actually, beginning time and ending time), the location where the activ71
Monthly Labor Review • December 2010  21

ity took place, and the people who were in the room with 

the respondent or who accompanied the respondent during the activity.10 Thus, it is possible to construct measures 

of hours worked that include time at work; time spent on 

work activities by location, such as at one’s usual workplace, at home, or in a restaurant; and interruptions of 15 

minutes or longer that took place during the workday.11 

Single-day diaries are thought to be more accurate than 

retrospective survey questions because time diaries have 

a shorter recall period and are less subject to aggregation 

bias (the sum of time spent in all activities must equal 

1,440 minutes, and respondents do not have to add together individual work episodes themselves).12 Also, time 

diary data should capture all work done by all persons, regardless of their usual work schedule.13 Finally, the ATUS

updates the demographic and employment information 

that was collected in the CPS and asks respondents to report any activities during which children under 13 years 

were in their care. This request makes it possible to determine when parents are working and simultaneously caring for a child.

The ATUS sample covers every day of the year, except 

for the days before major holidays. In 2003, there were 

20,720 ATUS interviews. Beginning in December of that 

year, the sample size was reduced by 35 percent, yielding 

13,973 completed diaries in 2004. From 2005 to 2008, 

approximately 13,000 diaries were completed each year, 

with the exception of 2007, when only 12,248 diaries 

were completed.

Because the study presented here is concerned primarily 

with unmeasured hours of work at home, the analysis was 

restricted to work done for a respondent’s main job. It is 

expected that those who are working at home on a second 

job are in fact being paid for those hours, and the hours 

would be captured in measured hours. Hours of work 

brought home from the primary job may be “extra hours,” 

not explicitly paid for and thus unmeasured. The restriction to the main job also allows a comparison of results 

from the ATUS with those from the CPS Supplement, because the latter collects information about work at home 

only for the main job. This approach may slightly underestimate work done at home, and thus unmeasured hours, 

to the extent that people combine work at their workplace 

with work at home on their second jobs. However, most 

second jobs are part time and, therefore, more likely to 

pay hourly and be captured in standard measures.

To analyze hours of work, the minutes spent on activities 

coded as “work at main job” were aggregated by location for 

each ATUS respondent, in order to construct measures of 

worktime both at the workplace and at the home. Reported 

breaks of 15 or fewer minutes occurring at the workplace, 

as well as work-related travel (not commuting) occurring 

between episodes of work at a workplace, are included as 

worktime.14 From a productivity standpoint, short breaks 

are considered productive time.15

For this study, “bringing work home” is defined as 

bringing extra work home when home is not the primary 

workplace. Respondents whose diary day was a nonholiday weekday are classified as those who bring work home 

if they report any minutes of work for their main job both 

at the workplace and at home on the same day. Respondents whose diary day was on a weekend day or a holiday 

are classified as those who bring work home if they report 

any minutes of work at home on their diary day. Unfortunately, it is not possible to distinguish whether those 

who worked exclusively at home on a weekend diary day 

were home-based workers, telecommuters, or traditional 

“nine-to-five” office workers who bring extra work home 

to do over the weekend. However, when the hours worked 

at home by this group are described later in the article, it 

will become clear that the group consists primarily of employees who bring work home, rather than home-based 

workers. Because those who bring work home are identified only according to work activities they engaged in on 

their diary day, the analysis using ATUS data is further 

restricted to nonfarm business employees who worked on 

their diary day. It is important to keep in mind that, because the ATUS covers only a single day, it is impossible to 

identify people who bring work home if they do not do so 

on their diary day.

The CPS Work Schedules and Work at Home Supplement. 

The Work Schedules and Work at Home Supplement 

was collected as part of the May CPS in 1997, 2001, and 

2004. Although changes in industry and occupational 

coding and changes in the sequence and wording of the 

questions on work at home limit the direct comparability 

of some data collected in 1997, data from all 3 years are 

included in the analyses, with limitations noted as they 

occur. As previously mentioned, the CPS supplement collected information only on whether respondents did any 

work at home as part of their main job. Wage and salary 

respondents who reported working at home were asked 

whether they had a formal agreement with their employer 

to be paid for work at home or whether they were just taking (unpaid) work home.

The analysis focuses on those who reported that they 

were just taking work home, because their hours at home 

are the hours most likely to be unmeasured. Unfortunately, 

the questionnaire did not allow for the possibility that an 
Measuring Productivity

22  Monthly Labor Review • December 2010

employee had a formal arrangement to be paid for work 

at home and also took unpaid work home.16 Respondents 

were asked their reasons for working at home, how frequently they worked at home, and the number of hours 

per week they worked at home. In 1997, respondents were 

asked for actual hours worked at home, whereas they were 

asked for usual hours in 2001 and 2004. The 2001 and 

2004 respondents also were given a choice of “it varies” as 

a response for hours worked at home; therefore, it is not 

possible to determine a numerical measure of work hours 

for all respondents in these years. The analysis focuses only 

on workers who have positive weekly hours worked during the reference week.

ATUS and CPS Supplement matched data. CPS Supplement respondents in 2004 who were in their 5th through 

8th months in the May CPS were eligible for an ATUS

interview from July 2004 through January 2005. It is possible to directly match 745 nonfarm business employees 

who (1) were in the same industry and occupation, (2) 

reported the same class of worker in both datasets, (3) did 

not change employers between their last month in the CPS

and their ATUS interview, and (4) worked on their diary 

day. Of the 745 directly matched respondents, 93 reported 

in the CPS Supplement that they brought unpaid work 

home and 66 reported that they brought work home on 

their ATUS diary day. However, there are definitely limitations associated with the matched data. Some respondents to the Supplement questions answered that they did 

not do any work at home as part of their job, although 

their time diary clearly stated that they did some work 

at home. For example, of the 66 individuals who brought 

work home on their diary day, only 35 reported in the CPS

Supplement that they had ever worked at home.17 This 

may be because the nature of their job changed between 

the time the CPS Supplement was conducted and the time 

the ATUS interviews took place, a period that could have 

been anywhere from 2 to 8 months. Alternatively, the CPS

Supplement questions may have been misinterpreted by 

the respondents so that they answered affirmatively only 

if they brought work home on a regular basis, or answers 

may have been subject to proxy reporting bias; however, 

even self-respondents (as opposed to proxies) reported 

differently between surveys. The 2004 directly matched 

data indicate that 69 percent of those in the CPS Supplement who worked at home on their weekend or holiday 

diary day did not have a formal arrangement to be paid for 

such work. This finding provides additional evidence that 

most employees who worked at home on the weekend are 

not home-based or occasional telecommuters.

Who is bringing work home?

Many nonfarm business employees bring work home from 

the workplace. According to the 2004 ATUS diaries, 84 

percent of nonfarm business employees who worked on 

their diary day worked exclusively in a workplace that day, 

9 percent brought some of their work home, and 3 percent 

worked exclusively at home on weekdays.18 (See chart 2.)

The 2004 CPS Supplement data show that approximately 

12 percent of nonfarm business employees did some work 

at home. (See chart 2.) The CPS Supplement specifically 

asked those who responded that they did work at home 

whether they brought work home; 8 percent of employees 

reported bringing some work home in 2004, while 4 percent reported that they had a formal arrangement to be 

paid for work conducted at home. Because the ATUS captures only a person’s diary day, some employees who bring 

work home on some days, but not their diary day, may 

be categorized as working only at a workplace or working only at home. Therefore, the observed proportion of 

employees who bring work home is understated to some 

extent in the ATUS.

19

Both datasets reveal that the characteristics of nonfarm business employees who bring work home from the 

workplace are different from the characteristics of those 

who work exclusively in the workplace.20 Employees who 

bring work home from the workplace are more likely to 

be male, older, White, and married, to have a child and 

at least a bachelor’s degree, and to work in a management 

or professional occupation, compared with employees 

who work only in the workplace21 (see tables 1 and 2), 

and are less likely to be Black, Hispanic, part-time workers, or paid hourly.22 For example, according to the 2004 

CPS Supplement, 63 percent of those who brought work 

home held at least a bachelor’s degree, whereas 19 percent of those who did no work at home held at least that 

same degree. Also, of those who brought work home, 15 

percent reported being paid hourly, while 69 percent of 

nonfarm employees who did no work at home were paid 

hourly. Although 38 percent of those who brought work 

home worked in a management or professional occupation, not all work brought home is done by white-collar 

office workers. For instance, the 2004 CPS Supplement 

found that, among nonfarm business employees who 

brought work home, 3 percent worked in construction 

and maintenance occupations. The data indicate that 

women were less likely than men to have brought work 

home. Gender-related differences such as this may simply be capturing the fact that work may be less portable 

in traditionally female-dominated occupations and in-
Monthly Labor Review • December 2010  23

 Chart 2. Nonfarm business employees, by location of work, 2004

CPS Supplement: percent of persons

No work at 

Bring work ho

Work at home (formal arrangement)

 NOTE:  ATUS respondents represent only those who worked on their diary day. The category labeled“Other” consists of those

who worked at locations other than home or the workplace and those who combined other locations with the workplace. CPS

Supplement respondents represent those who said yes to the question“As part of this job, do you do any of your work at home?”

Workplace only

Bring work home

Home only (weekdays)

Other

4

88

8

ATUS: percent of person-days

9

3

5

84

dustries. This finding is consistent with the observation 

that, among those who bring work home, just 3 percent 

are in service occupations.

In addition to shedding light on who is bringing work 

home, the CPS Supplement asked respondents why they 

worked at home. The following tabulation lists the 2001 

and 2004 percentages of nonfarm business employees 

who brought work home, by reason for working at home:23

 Reason 2001 2004

Finish or catch up on work................. 59 56

Nature of the job................................. 24 29

Reason other than any of those listed.. 7 6

Coordinate work schedule with 

 personal or family needs................... 5 5

Business is conducted from home........ 4 4

Reduce commuting time or expense.... 1 1

Participate in local transportation

 or pollution control program............. 0 0

As the tabulation shows, the main reason reported was 

to finish work not completed at the usual workplace. The 

second most frequently cited reason for bringing work 

home was that it was the nature of the job. Five percent of 

workers reported that they brought work home to coordinate their work schedule with personal or family needs. In 

support of this reason, ATUS data show that 49 percent of 

parents who brought work home over the 2003–08 interval worked at home while simultaneously caring for their 

children under age 13.24

Do those who bring work home work more hours?

Results from the ATUS. The following tabulation shows 

the percentages of nonfarm business employees who bring 

work home, by the day of the week, averaged over the 

2003–08 period:25

 Bring work home on—

 Day of week All diary days Weekdays

Sunday........................... 18 ...

Monday......................... 13 17

Tuesday.......................... 14 21

Wednesday..................... 16 25

Thursday........................ 15 23

Friday............................. 9 14

Saturday......................... 15 ...

According to the ATUS data, nonfarm business employees 

who brought work home on their diary day were more 

likely to work at home on a Sunday than on any other day 

of the week. Those who brought work home on a weekday were more likely to have brought it home during the 
Measuring Productivity

24  Monthly Labor Review • December 2010

Table 1. Comparison of characteristics of nonfarm business employees who bring work home with characteristics of those 

 who work exclusively in the workplace, 2003–08 (ATUS)

[In percent, except for age]

Characteristic

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Bring 

work 

home

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work 

home

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work 

home

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work 

home

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work 

home

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work 

home

Workplace 

only

Sex

Men........................................................ 59 60 67 57 68 56 67 56 61 57 64 56

Women.................................................. 41 40 33 43 32 44 33 44 39 43 36 44

Mean age, years................................. 42.00 38.09 41.82 38.39 41.88 38.38 40.99 38.06 41.97 37.68 40.67 38.65

Standard deviation of mean age (15.30) (15.91) (14.86) (15.89) (20.38) (17.00) (17.79) (18.77) (16.66) (18.38) (17.15) (18.17)

Race or ethnicity

White..................................................... 81 69 82 69 82 67 80 66 75 65 79 67

Black....................................................... 5 11 7 10 5 11 6 11 8 10 6 10

Other race............................................ 9 5 6 5 8 5 9 6 11 6 8 5

Hispanic................................................ 5 16 6 16 5 17 5 18 6 19 6 18

Marital status1

Single..................................................... 16 35 24 32 26 34 22 35 24 37 26 33

Married................................................. 69 54 66 56 64 53 68 53 64 52 66 54

Divorced............................................... 13 11 10 12 12 13 10 12 12 11 8 13

Pay status

Part time............................................... 11 18 12 17 10 17 6 18 8 17 7 18

Paid hourly.......................................... 26 67 33 67 25 67 23 67 24 67 25 68

Education

No high school degree.................... 4 17 4 15 4 15 3 15 2 16 2 15

High school degree.......................... 19 34 21 35 12 36 10 35 14 35 12 35

Some college...................................... 24 28 27 28 27 28 29 29 22 29 23 27

Bachelor’s degree.............................. 34 16 29 15 39 15 36 16 41 16 34 18

Advanced degree.............................. 19 5 19 6 18 6 22 5 22 4 29 5

Youngest child in the home

No children.......................................... 55 63 54 63 75 74 55 63 54 63 60 63

Infant..................................................... 8 7 8 7 6 9 9 8 11 8 10 8

Preschooler.......................................... 14 11 12 11 11 11 12 9 10 10 11 10

Elementary school student........... 12 9 10 10 11 9 11 10 12 9 8 9

Adolescent........................................... 11 11 14 10 10 10 13 10 13 10 11 10

Occupation

Management and professional.. 58 26 49 27 53 26 64 25 64 24 59 26

Service.................................................. 6 16 5 17 5 15 4 17 5 16 6 17

Sales and office ................................ 27 26 29 25 28 28 23 28 23 30 26 26

Farming, fishing, and forestry...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Construction and maintenance... 5 12 8 12 9 12 5 10 5 12 4 12

Production, transportation, and

material moving.............................. 4 20 9 18 4 19 4 19 4 18 5 18

Industry

Mining................................................... 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

Construction....................................... 5 8 5 8 7 9 6 8 5 8 4 9

Manufacturing................................... 19 19 19 19 14 20 19 18 20 17 12 18

Wholesale and retail trade............ 16 20 16 20 17 20 9 21 15 22 14 18

Transportation and utilities.......... 40 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 2 5 4 5

Information........................................ 7 3 7 3 6 3 5 3 8 3 6 2

Financial activities............................ 10 8 10 8 14 8 18 9 13 10 17 8

Professional and business

services............................................. 16 11 16 11 19 10 20 10 17 11 23 

Educational and health services.. 16 11 16 11 10 12 13 11 11 10 14 12

Leisure and hospitality.................... 6 10 6 10 6 9 3 10 6 12 3 12

Otherservices..................................... 2 4 2 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 2 3

Number of observations................ 554 3,746 403 2,466 356 2,359 374 2,317 403 2,340 380 2,287

1 Marital status is from outgoing rotation interview in CPS. NOTE: Sampling weigh
Monthly Labor Review • December 2010  25

middle of the week than on a Monday or a Friday. Chart 

3 presents the distribution of minutes worked at home 

in 2008 by those who brought work home, by the time 

of day that the work was done. For weekday diaries, the 

majority (56 percent) of work at home was done after 5 

p.m., and about 17 percent of work at home was done 

before 9 a.m. This work done outside traditional working 

hours suggests that workers are either bringing extra work 

home or shifting the timing of their work. For weekday 

diaries, there is also a distinct lull in work at home around 

lunchtime, as well as a small dip during the dinner hour. A 

different pattern of work at home is observed on weekend 

days, with work at home being more evenly distributed 

throughout the day on weekends than on weekdays.

Table 3 presents the percentage of nonfarm business 

employees who bring work home on their diary day by 

the number of minutes worked at home. The amount of 

work done at home is economically significant and, for 

the majority of employees who bring work home, definitely represents more substantive work than responding to an occasional e-mail or phone call. For example, 

in 2008, although 23 percent of those who brought work 

home reported working at home for less than 15 minutes 

on their diary day, 40 percent worked more than 1 hour 

at home and 22 percent worked at home for more than 2 

hours.

The ATUS data for 2003–08 show that nonfarm business employees who brought work home on a weekday 

worked, on average, 9.1 hours per day, while those who 

Table 2. Comparison of characteristics of nonfarm business 

 employees who bring work home with character-

 istics of those who work exclusively in the work-

 place, 2001 and 2004 (CPS Supplement)

[In percent, except for age]

Characteristic

2001 2004

Bring 

work

home

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work

home

Workplace 

only

Sex

Men..................................................... 62 55 62 55

Women............................................... 38 45 38 45

Mean age, years............................. 40.98 37.44 42.45 37.98

Standard deviation of mean age (12.02) (15.08) (14.61) (17.17)

Race or ethnicity

White................................................. 90 83 88 81

Black.................................................. 6 12 5 12

Other race........................................ 5 5 7 7

Hispanic1.......................................... 4 14 5 16

Marital status

Single................................................ 18 34 19 35

Married............................................. 70 53 70 52

Divorced........................................... 12 13 11 13

Pay status

Part time2......................................... 6 18 6 19

Paid hourly3..................................... 15 69 15 69

Education

No high school degree............... 1 17 2 16

High school degree..................... 15 36 12 35

Some college................................. 23 29 23 30

Bachelor’s degree......................... 41 14 39 15

Advanced degree......................... 20 4 24 4

Youngest child in the home

No children...................................... 56 67 60 68

Infant.................................................. 7 6 8 6

Preschooler...................................... 13 9 11 9

Elementary school student.. ..... 11 9 9 8

Adolescent....................................... 13 9 12 9

Occupation

Management and professional. 56 18 38 16

Service................................................ 11 6 3 19

Sales and office .............................. 13 5 25 29

Farming, fishing, and forestry.... 5 1 0 0

Construction and

maintenance ................................ 2 7 3 11

Production, transportation,

and material moving ................. 1 1 2 19

Industry

Mining................................................ 1 1 0 1

Construction.................................... 1 1 5 8

Manufacturing................................ 4 7 15 17

Wholesale and retail trade.......... 11 13 16 20

Transportation and utilities........ 8 8 3 5

Information...................................... 3 5 5 3

Financial activities.......................... 3 2 16 8

Professional and business

services............................................ 1 1 20 10

See notes at end of table.

Educational and health

services............................................ 8 5 14 12

Leisure and hospitality................. 10 23 3 12

Otherservices.................................. 16 7 1 4

Number of observations............. 2,851 29,280 3,080 33,941

1 Hispanic proportions for 2001 are based on 31,825 observations, with

no missing values. 2 Part-time proportions for 2001 are based on 29,892 observations on

hours worked per week. There are no missing values. 3 Paid-hourly proportions are based on the outgoing rotation sample.

NOTE: Sampling weights are used to account for survey design. Estimates are based on those who reported working positive hours during

the reference week of the survey.

Table 2. Continued—Comparison of characteristics of non- 

 farm business employees who bring work home

 with characteristics of those who work exclusively 

 in the workplace, 2001 and 2004 (CPS Supplement)

[In percent, except for age]

Characteristic

2001 2004

Bring 

work

home

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work

home

Workplace 

only
Measuring Productivity

26  Monthly Labor Review • December 2010

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

4–4:30 a.m.

5–5:30 a.m.

6–6:30 a.m.

7–7:30 a.m.

8–8:30 a.m.

9–9:30 a.m.

10–10:30 a.m.

11–11:30 a.m.

12–12:30 p.m.

1–1:30 p.m.

2–2:30 p.m.

3–3:30 p.m.

4–4:30 p.m.

5–5:30 p.m.

6–6:30 p.m.

7–7:30 p.m.

8–8:30 p.m.

9–9:30 p.m.

10–10:30 p.m.

11–11:30 p.m.

12–12:30 a.m.

1–1:30 a.m.

2–2:30 a.m.

3–3:30 a.m.

Weekday

Weekend day

worked exclusively in the workplace worked an average 

of 8.2 hours per day. (See table 4.) However, those who 

brought work home on a weekday worked an average of 

only 7.6 hours per day at the workplace. In other words, 

those who brought work home on a weekday worked, on 

average, 12.6 percent more hours than those who worked 

exclusively in a workplace; but they also worked an average of 6 percent fewer daily hours at the workplace.26 Thus, 

those who bring work home on a weekday are shifting 

some hours of work from their workplace to their home, 

as well as extending their workday; therefore, they work 

more hours, in total, on their diary day. Those who bring 

work home on a weekday tend to work approximately 15 

percent of their daily hours at home on their diary day.

Nonfarm business employees who work any hours at 

home on a weekend day or a holiday worked, on average, 

2.5 hours on their diary day, whereas those who work exclusively at the workplace worked 7.2 hours, on average, 

on their diary day. Although some of the respondents 

who bring work home on weekend days may actually be 

home-based workers, the 1.8 hours that they worked at 

home are not much different from the 1.4 hours worked 

at home by respondents who bring work home from the 

workplace on weekdays. In addition, those who bring 

work home on a weekend day or a holiday tend to work 

approximately 72 percent of their daily hours at home on 

their diary day. These findings suggest that the group of 

employees working at home on a weekend day or a holiday consists predominantly of employees who are catching up on office work not completed during the week. 

In order to determine whether workers who bring work 

home on their diary day work more hours in general than 

do those who work exclusively in a workplace (and are 

not completely offsetting the hours they work at home on 

their diary day with fewer hours worked on a different day 

of the week), table 5 compares each ATUS group’s average 

weekly hours worked, as reported in the CPS. The ATUS

asks about usual hours worked, the CPS about actual hours 

worked. Comparisons, however, should be made on actual 

hours, because hours worked at home may be variable and 

not included in reports of usual hours worked. Also, because the final month the respondent was in the CPS was 

2 to 5 months before the ATUS was conducted, the sample 

for the comparison of average weekly hours was further 

restricted to those who had the same employer, occupation, and usual duties when completing the ATUS diary as 

they did when last interviewed for the CPS.

27

According to both weekday and weekend/holiday diary data, those who bring work home from their workplace on their diary day report significantly higher av-

 Chart 3. Percent of minutes worked at home by 

those who bring work home, by time of 

day (ATUS, 2008)
Monthly Labor Review • December 2010  27

Table 3. Percent of nonfarm business employees who bring

 work home, by minutes worked at home, 2003–08

 (ATUS)

Minutes per day 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Less than15................ 17 20 23 21 20 23

16–30........................... 17 18 18 17 18 16

31–60........................... 24 24 22 18 21 20

61–120........................ 21 18 13 19 16 18

121–180...................... 9 9 11 12 7 9

181–240...................... 4 6 5 5 9 5

241or more................ 10 6 7 9 8 8

Number of observations...................... 554 403 356 374 403 380

NOTE:  Percentages are weighted to account for the sampling design

and may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Table 4. Daily hours worked by nonfarm business employ-

 ees, conditional on working on the diary day, 

 2003–08 (ATUS)

Year and type of daily 

hours

Weekday diaries Weekend/

holiday diaries

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work 

home

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work 

home

2003

Daily hours..................................... 8.2 9.1 7.1 2.2

Daily workplace hours............ 8.2 7.3 7.1

Daily hours at home............... .... 1.7 .... 

2004

Daily hours.................................... 8.2 8.7 7.3 2.6

Daily workplace hours........... 8.2 7.3 7.3

Daily hours at home............... .... 1.3 .... 

2005

Daily hours.................................... 8.1 9.0 7.1 2.2

Daily workplace hours........... 8.1 7.5 7.1

Daily hours at home............... .... 1.3 .... 

2006

Daily hours.................................... 8.2 9.4 7.2 2.6

Daily workplace hours........... 8.2 8.0 7.2

Daily hours at home............... .... 1.3 .... 

2007

Daily hours..................................... 8.1 9.4 7.0 2.8

Daily workplace hours............ 8.1 7.9 7.0

Daily hours at home................ .... 1.4 .... 

2008

Daily hours..................................... 8.1 9.3 7.4 2.5

Daily workplace hours............ 8.1 7.9 7.4

Daily hours at home................ .... 1.3 .... 

Average, 2003–08

Daily hours..................................... 8.2 9.1 7.2 2.5

Daily workplace hours............ 8.2 7.6 7.2

Daily hours at home................ .... 1.4 .... 

NOTE:  The sum of daily workplace hours and daily hours at home may

not equal daily hours because of rounding or work at other locations. Results of F-tests for differences in means are all significant at the 5-percent

level.

erage weekly hours than those who work exclusively in 

a workplace. Because the latter employees may actually 

bring some work home on unobserved days and the group 

of employees who bring work home had higher average 

weekly hours than those who work only in the workplace, 

the average weekly hours of the two groups appear more 

similar than they actually were. From the weekday diaries, the average weekly hours for those who bring work 

home were 11 percent greater, on average, than the hours 

of those who work exclusively in the workplace on their 

diary day. From the weekend/holiday diaries, the average weekly hours of those who bring work home were 

19 percent greater, on average, than the hours of those 

who work exclusively in the workplace on their diary day. 

Thus, the average number of weekly hours worked by 

those who bring work home, as reported in the weekend/

holiday diaries, is close to that of respondents who bring 

work home on weekdays. The fact that the number of 

hours worked at home reported in the weekend diaries is 

similar to the number of hours worked at home reported 

in the weekday diaries, as are the average total weekly 

hours spent working, suggests that those who bring work 

home on weekend days are not working a typical workday 

on the weekend, but rather are bringing extra work home. 

Therefore, combining weekday and weekend/holiday diaries to calculate both the share of workers who bring work 

home on their diary day and who worked on that day and 

the average weekly hours of those who bring work home 

is appropriate. Over all days, those who bring work home 

on their diary day worked, on average, 12 percent more 

hours than those who work exclusively in the workplace 

on their diary day.

Results from the CPS Supplement. The following tabulation lists the percentages of nonfarm business employees 

who brought work home, by the frequency with which 

they did so, in 2001 and 2004:28

 Frequency 2001 2004

At least once a week........... 71 73

At least every 2 weeks........ 13 12

At least once a month........ 10 10

Less than once a month..... 6 5

The tabulation shows that, according to the 2004 CPS

Supplement, among the 8 percent of nonfarm business 

employees who bring work home, 73 percent reported 

working at home at least once a week, about 12 percent 

worked from home at least every 2 weeks, 10 percent at 

least once a month, and 5 percent less than once a month. 

Estimates are similar for the 2001 CPS Supplement, as 

shown.
Measuring Productivity

28  Monthly Labor Review • December 2010

Table 5. Average weekly hours worked by nonfarm business employees, 2003–08 (ATUS)

Year

Weekday diaries Weekend/holiday diaries All diaries

Workplace only Bring work 

home

Workplace 

only

Bring work 

home

Workplace 

only

Bring work 

home

2003

Average weekly hours....................................... 38.2 41.6 36.5 41.9 38.1 41.7

Number of observations.................................. 2,335 201 679 249 3,014 450

2004

Average weekly hours....................................... 38.0 41.7 37.0 43.0 37.9 42.2

Number of observations................................... 1,591 151 447 194 2,038 345

2005

Average weekly hours....................................... 38.4 43.5 36.2 43.6 38.2 43.5

Number of observations.................................. 1,523 131 393 169 1,916 300

2006

Average weekly hours....................................... 38.4 42.5 35.3 43.5 38.1 42.8

Number of observations................................... 1,469 134 432 185 1,901 319

2007

Average weekly hours....................................... 37.8 43.3 36.6 43.7 37.6 43.4

Number of observations.................................. 1,495 149 463 207 1,958 356

2008

Average weekly hours....................................... 38.2 42.3 34.9 42.9 37.9 42.5

Number of observations................................... 1,448 133 437 191 1,885 324

Average weekly hours, 2003–08.................... 38.2 42.5 36.1 43.1 38.0 42.7

NOTE:  Results of F-tests for differences in means are all significant at the 5-percent level. Hours are restricted to those who had the same employ

and duties in the ATUS as they had in the CPS.

The CPS Supplement data also indicate that employees 

who bring work home had statistically significantly higher average weekly hours (21 percent higher in 2004) than 

those who never work from home as part of their job. (See 

table 6.) On the basis of the available data, separate estimates are reported for those who worked at home at least 

once a week in 2001 and 2004, because they should include hours worked at home in CPS average-weekly-hour 

reports, whereas the hours of workers who work at home 

infrequently may be missed in those reports if the work at 

home did not occur during the CPS reference week. The 

subgroup of employees who bring work home at least once 

a week had a slightly higher number of average weekly 

hours than did all employees who ever bring work home. 

When nonfarm business employees were asked in the 

2004 CPS Supplement to report the hours they worked at 

home per week, roughly 31 percent of those who brought 

work home did not report how many hours they worked 

at home, but reported instead that their hours at home 

varied. Among those who worked at home at least once a 

week and whose hours did not vary, about 15 percent of 

their hours were worked at home each week. (See table 

6). The conclusion from the two data sources is that those 

who bring work home do, in fact, work longer hours, on 

average, per week.

Are hours of work at home measured?

As mentioned previously, the Bureau constructs hours estimates for its productivity measures separately for production and nonsupervisory employees, on the one hand, 

and nonproduction and supervisory employees, on the 

other. Therefore, it is important to evaluate these groups 

of workers separately in this article. 

Production and nonsupervisory employees. According to 

the 2003–08 ATUS data, 85.9 percent of production and 

nonsupervisory employees who worked on their diary 

day worked exclusively in the workplace, while 7 percent 

brought work home from the workplace. (See table 7.) 

Those who brought work home from their workplace reported, on average, 10 percent higher average weekly hours 

than those who worked exclusively in a workplace; the former also worked 16.5 percent of their daily hours at home 

on the day that they brought work home. No large consistent increase was seen in either the percentage of production and nonsupervisory employees who brought work 

home from their workplace or the number of hours that 

they worked at home over the 6-year interval examined.

Because the ATUS does not obtain information on 

whether work brought home is paid or unpaid, several as-
Monthly Labor Review • December 2010  29

Table 6. Average weekly hours worked by nonfarm 

 business employees, and share worked at home,

 1997, 2001, and 2004 (CPS Supplement)

Year, hours, and share No work 

at home

Bring 

work 

home

Bring 

work 

home 

at least 

once a 

week

1997

Average weekly hours................................. 38 47.4 (

1

)

Share worked at home............................... .... 17.7 (

1

)

Number of observations............................ 31,336 2,664 (

1

)

2001

Average weekly hours................................. 37.8 45.4 46

Share worked at home2.............................. .... 12.0 13.8

Number of observations............................ 29,280 2,851 2,001

2004

Average weekly hours................................ 37.6 44.9 45.5

Share worked at home2.............................. .... 12.8 14.6

Number of observations............................ 33,941 3,080 2,205

Average weekly hours, 1997–2004........ 37.8 45.9 45.8

Average share worked at home,

2001–04........................................................ .... 14.2 14.2

1 The CPS Supplement for 1997 had no question on bringing work home

at least once a week. 2 Estimates are based on those whose hours worked at home do not vary.

NOTE:  Results of F-tests for differences in means between average

weekly hours of those working at the workplace only and average weekly

hours of those who bring work home or who bring work home at least

once a week are all significant at the 5-percent level. Estimates are based

on employees who reported working positive hours during the reference

week of the survey.

 Table 7. Hours worked by production and nonsupervisory

 employees, 2003–08 (ATUS) 

Year, shares, and hours

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work 

home

Bring 

work 

home 

(salaried

employees)

2003

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees.............................................. 86.5 6.2 4.1

Number of observations................................ 3,032 326 210

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 20.1 19.1

Average weekly hours2................................... 37.2 38.6 39.6

Number of observations................................ 2,413 264 179

2004

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees............................................... 85.5 7.8 4.5

Number of observations................................ 1,942 261 168

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 15.9 16.7

Average weekly hours2................................... 36.7 39.9 41.4

Number of observations................................ 1,565 220 152

2005

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees............................................... 85.6 7.4 4.9

Number of observations................................ 1,847 217 153

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 16.9 15.4

Average weekly hours2................................... 37.2 42.1 43.4

Number of observations................................ 1,497 182 131

2006

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees............................................... 85.5 6.3 4.4

Number of observations................................ 1,893 224 160

Share of daily hours worked at home1...... ... 15.0 13.7

Average weekly hours2................................... 37.4 40.0 42.0

Number of observations................................ 1,544 188 136

2007

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees............................................... 87.3 6.2 3.7

Number of observations................................ 1,908 223 148

Share of daily hours worked at home1...... ... 15.6 18.3

Average weekly hours2................................... 36.9 41.4 43.8

Number of observations................................ 1,573 193 136

2008

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees............................................... 84.8 8.1 5.7

Number of observations................................ 1,865 223 160

Share of daily hours worked at home1...... ... 15.7 15.1

Average weekly hours2................................... 36.8 41.9 44.0

Number of observations................................ 1,503 189 139

Average, 2003–08

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees............................................... 85.9 7.0 4.6

Share of daily hours worked at home1...... ... 16.5 16.4

Average weekly hours2................................... 37.0 40.7 42.4

1 Weekday value used. 2 Average weekly hours are restricted to those who had the same employer and duties in the ATUS as they had in the CPS.

NOTE:  Results of F-tests for differences in means between average

weekly hours of those working at the workplace only and those who bring

work home (as either nonsalaried orsalaried employees) are allsignificant

at the 5-percent level for each year, except for 2003.

sumptions must be made in order to assess whether such 

work is measured. First, hours worked at the workplace

are assumed to be captured in the CES survey, through 

employers’ reports of employee hours paid; thus, these 

hours are measured. Second, it is assumed that hourly 

paid workers are paid for all the hours that they work 

whereas salaried workers who bring work home are paid 

only for the portion of their hours that are worked in the 

workplace. This assumption seems justified, given that 

more than 81 percent of production and nonsupervisory 

workers who report bringing work home without a formal 

arrangement to be paid were not paid hourly, according 

to the CPS Supplement. However, assuming that all work 

brought home is unpaid may overstate unmeasured hours 

in the ATUS, because some workers may be shifting work 

hours across locations, as suggested in table 4. Table 7 

shows that, according to the ATUS, from 2003 through 

2008 an average of 4.6 percent of production and nonsupervisory workers were paid a salary and brought work 

home. Among these employees, 16.4 percent of their 

weekday daily hours were worked at home on the day that 
Measuring Productivity

30  Monthly Labor Review • December 2010

Table 8. Hours worked by production and nonsupervisory employees, 1997, 2001, and 2004 (CPS Supplement)

Year, shares, and hours No work at home

Work at home

Paid Bring work home

Bring work 

home at least 

once a week

1997

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees.................................... 92.3 2.5 5.0 (

1

)

Average weekly hours................................................................................................. 37.3 40.2 45.6 (

1

)

Share worked at home................................................................................................ ... 38.2 18.0 (

1

)

Number of observations............................................................................................ 26,221 733 1,412 (

1

)

2001

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees.................................... 91.1 2.9 5.7 4.1

Average weekly hours................................................................................................. 37.1 39.5 43.5 43.7

Share worked at home2............................................................................................... ... 41.5 12.6 14.7

Number of observations............................................................................................. 24,327 768 1,535 1,096

2004

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees........................................ 91.6 2.8 5.3 3.9

Average weekly hours.................................................................................................... 36.8 38.7 43.2 43.7

Share worked at home2................................................................................................. ... 44.6 13.9 16.0

Number of observations............................................................................................... 28,710 914 1,711 1,249

Average, 1997–2004

Share of production and nonsupervisory employees........................................ 91.7 2.7 5.3 4.0

Average weekly hours................................................................................................... 37.1 39.5 44.1 43.7

Share worked at home.................................................................................................. ... 41.4 14.8 15.4

.

1 The CPS supplement for 1997 had no question on bringing work

home at least once a week. 2 Estimates are based on those whose hours worked at home do not vary.

NOTE:  Results of F-testsfor differencesin means are allsignificant at the

5-percent level. Estimates are based on employees who reported working

positive hours during the reference week.

they brought work home and their average weekly hours 

were 14 percent greater than the average weekly hours of 

those who worked exclusively in a workplace.29

Recall that the CPS Supplement specifically asked respondents whether they were paid to work at home or 

whether they took unpaid work home. The data indicate 

that approximately 92 percent of production and nonsupervisory employees did no work at home (see table 8) 

while about 3 percent reported some paid work done at 

home and roughly 5 percent said that they were bringing work home. Four percent indicated that they brought 

work home at least once a week. Thus, according to the 

CPS Supplement, in any given week between 4 percent 

and 5 percent of production and nonsupervisory employees bring unpaid work home. Those who bring work 

home have a statistically significant 20 percent higher average number of weekly hours worked than do those who 

do no work from home. About 15 percent of the average 

weekly hours worked by those who bring work home were 

worked at home.

Nonproduction and supervisory employees. Among nonproduction and supervisory employees who worked on their 

ATUS diary day, roughly 73 percent worked exclusively in 

a workplace on that day over the 2003–08 interval while 

about 17 percent brought work home from the workplace 

that day.30 (See table 9.) As with the results for production and nonsupervisory workers, those who brought work 

home from a workplace reported 10 percent higher average weekly hours than those who worked exclusively in a 

workplace. Also, those who brought work home worked 

more than 14 percent of their daily hours at home on the 

day that they brought work home. The ATUS data indicate that 14.5 percent of nonproduction and supervisory 

employees were salaried and brought work home. Average weekly hours of these workers were 12 percent greater 

than average weekly hours of those who worked exclusively in a workplace, and 14 percent of their daily hours 

were worked at home on the day they brought work home.

In the CPS Supplement, approximately 73 percent of 

nonproduction and supervisory employees reported that 

they did no work at home. (See table 10.) About 7 percent 

reported that they did some paid work at home, while 

roughly 20 percent reported that they bring work home. 

As in the ATUS, those who bring work home have significantly higher average weekly hours than those who do 

not do any work from home: 15 percent greater in 1997 

and 2001 and 13 percent greater in 2004.
Monthly Labor Review • December 2010  31

Table 9. Hours worked by nonproduction and supervisory

 employees, 2003–08 (ATUS) 

Year, shares, and hours

Workplace 

only

Bring 

work 

home

Bring 

work 

home 

(salaried 

employees)

2003

Share of nonproduction and

supervisory employees................................ 73.6 16.3 13.9

Number of observations............................... 714 228 188

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 13.6 14.2

Average weekly hours2 ................................. 41.8 45.9 47.3

Number of observations............................... 601 186 158

2004

Share of nonproduction and

supervisory employees................................ 76.7 12.8 11.0

Number of observations................................ 524 142 126

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 15.0 15.8

Average weekly hours2 ................................. 42.0 46.6 47.4

Number of observations............................... 473 125 112

2005

Share of nonproduction and

supervisory employees................................ 71.8 15.4 13.5

Number of observations................................ 482 139 120

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 13.7 11.5

Average weekly hours2................................... 42.2 45.9 46.8

Number of observations............................... 419 118) 104

2006

Share of nonproduction and

supervisory employees................................ 71.9 19.7 17.0

Number of observations................................ 424 150 134

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 13.5 14.5

Average weekly hours2................................... 41.0 46.2 47.1

Number of observations............................... 357 131 118

2007

Share of nonproduction and

supervisory employees................................ 69.0 19.9 18.6

Number of observations................................ 432 180 165

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 14.7 14.2

Average weekly hours2.................................. 40.8 45.7 45.5

Number of observations................................ 385 163 151

2008

Share of nonproduction and

supervisory employees............................... 72.3 15.8 13.2

Number of observations............................... 422 157 139

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 12.7 14.4

Average weekly hours2................................... 41.9 43.4 44.5

Number of observations................................ 382 135 121

Average, 2003–08

Share of nonproduction and

supervisory employees............................... 72.6 16.6 14.5

Share of daily hours worked at home1..... ... 13.9 14.1

Average weekly hours2 ................................. 41.6 45.6 46.4

1 Weekday value used. 2 Average weekly hours are restricted to those who had the same employer and duties in the ATUS as they had in the CPS.

NOTE:  Results of F-testsfor differencesin means between average weekly hours of those working at the workplace only and average weekly hours

ofthose who bring work home (as either nonsalaried orsalaried employees)

are allsignificant at the 5-percent level for each year, except for 2008.

Unmeasured hours. As mentioned earlier, the Bureau 

constructs annual hours worked by starting with CES survey data on hours paid for production and nonsupervisory 

employees. If hours for these employees are understated, 

it is only to the extent that hours worked at home are not 

captured in reported hours paid. The preceding findings 

indicate that there are likely to be unmeasured hours for 

production and nonsupervisory employees who work outside the workplace.

These unmeasured hours—hours worked at home by 

those who bring work home—are estimated for all survey 

respondents. For the ATUS, daily hours worked at home 

by those who bring work home and who are not paid 

hourly are summed over all diary days in a given year. For 

the CPS Supplement, estimated weekly hours worked at 

home by those who bring unpaid work home are summed 

across all survey respondents.31 The following tabulation 

Table 10. Hours worked by nonproduction and 

 supervisory employees (CPS Supplement)

Year, shares, and hours

No 

work 

at 

home

Work at home

Paid

Bring 

work 

home

Bring 

work 

home 

at least 

once a 

week

1997

Share of nonproduction/supervisory employees.................................74.4 6.6 18.9 (

1

)

Average weekly hours....................... 41.8 43.2 49.4 (

1

)

Share of hours at home..................... ... 36.0 17.0 (

1

)

Number of observations.................. 5,115 437 1,252 (

1

)

2001

Share of nonproduction/supervisory employees................................72.7 7.1 19.8 13.8

Average weekly hours....................... 41.6 40.8 47.5 48.6

Share of hours at home2................... ... 38.0 11.3 13.0

Number of observations................... 4,953 495 1,316 905

2004

Share of nonproduction/supervisory employees.................................72.7 7.2 19.8 14.1

Average weekly hours....................... 41.8 40.6 46.9 47.8

Share of hours at home................... ... 40.0 11.5 13.1

Number of observations................... 5,231 539 1,369 956

Average, 1997–2004

Share of nonproduction/supervisory employees.................................73.3 7.0 19.5 14.0

Average weekly hours....................... 41.7 41.5 47.9 48.2

Share of hours at home..................... ... 38.0 13.3 13.1

1 The CPS Supplement for 1997 had no question on bringing work home

at least once a week. 2 Estimates are based on employees who worked positive hours.

NOTE:  Results of F-tests for differences in means are all significant at

the 5-percent level, except for the difference in means between those who

do no work at home and those paid for work done at home.
Measuring Productivity

32  Monthly Labor Review • December 2010

designates the average weekly hours worked by production and nonsupervisory employees, and AWHNP and 

AWHP represent CPS measures of average weekly hours 

worked by nonproduction and supervisory employees and 

production and nonsupervisory employees, respectively. 

Assuming that production and nonsupervisory employees 

and nonproduction and supervisory employees accurately 

report their average weekly hours worked to the CPS, then, 

by construction, the percentage of unmeasured hours for 

nonproduction and supervisory employees will be the same 

as that for production and nonsupervisory employees. 

Using the preceding estimate of the percentage of unmeasured hours yields an hours series for all employees in 

the nonfarm business sector. In order to evaluate the BLS

measure of hours worked by all persons, the hours worked 

by the unincorporated self-employed, unpaid family 

workers, and employees of government enterprises are 

added to the estimate of employee hours. The ATUS and 

the CPS Supplement both suggest that unmeasured hours 

of nonfarm business employees range between 0.6 percent 

and 0.9 percent of measured hours, meaning that between 

0.6 percent and 0.8 percent of hours for all persons in the 

nonfarm business sector are unmeasured. However, from 

a productivity growth standpoint, it is important to examine whether unmeasured hours for all persons in the 

nonfarm business sector are increasing over time.

Growth of unmeasured hours. The analysis presented here 

finds that hours adjusted for work brought home from the 

workplace grew at about the same rate as the official hours 

series used to construct the BLS productivity measures for 

the nonfarm business sector over the 1997–2008 interval. 

(See table 11.) Year-to-year fluctuations are more volatile 

and will affect the official measures if the trends in hours 

differ by at least one-half of 1 percent, because the Bureau publishes productivity measures to the first decimal 

place. According to the ATUS results, adjusted hours grew 

annually by 0.01 percent to 0.1 percent faster than the 

official hours from 2004 to 2005 and from 2006 to 2007, 

but grew 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent slower from 2003 to 

2004 and from 2005 to 2006. From 2007 to 2008, adjusted hours declined 0.16 percent slower than the measured 

series. According to the CPS Supplement results, adjusted 

hours grew 0.05 percent slower from 1997 to 2001 and 

fell at approximately the same rate as the measured series 

from 2001 to 2004.

The potential bias in hours levels resulting from unmeasured hours worked at home does not lead to any 

conclusive finding that the growth in hours is biased.35

Instead, as table 11 shows, over most periods hours 

  C , PS

CPS

NP

NP AWH

AWH

AWH  AWH

P

M

P

M  

shows unmeasured hours as a percent of measured hours 

worked by production and nonsupervisory nonfarm business employees:32

 Survey and year Percent

 ATUS:

 2003...................................... 0.98

 2004....................................... .81

 2005....................................... .93

 2006....................................... .79

 2007....................................... .79

 2008....................................... .98

 2003–08 ................................. .88

 CPS Supplement:

 1997...................................... 1.04

 2001..................................... .81

 2004...................................... .83

 1997–2004............................ .89

 CPS Supplement (those bringing

 home work at least once a week):

 2001..................................... .68

 2004..................................... .70

 2001–04............................... .69

As the tabulation indicates, according to ATUS data approximately 0.88 percent of the average weekly hours 

worked by nonfarm business production and nonsupervisory employees is unmeasured because work brought 

home over the 2003–08 interval was not reported.33 According to the CPS Supplement, the percentage of unmeasured hours is 0.89 percent. Further, if the focus is 

on those who bring work home at least once a week, then 

approximately 0.69 percent of the average weekly hours 

worked by nonfarm business production and nonsupervisory employees goes unmeasured because work brought 

home was not reported.

Although the finding in this section suggests that nonproduction and supervisory employees who bring work 

home also work some unpaid hours at home, it does not 

imply that these unpaid hours are not measured, because 

BLS hours for nonproduction and supervisory employees 

are not constructed from a series of hours paid for nonproduction and supervisory employees, but rather incorporate self-reported CPS hours worked.34

From equation (2), average weekly hours worked by nonproduction and supervisory employees are measured as 

(3)

where AWHNP denotes the average weekly hours worked 

by nonproduction and supervisory employees, AWHP

M

M

CPS

CPS
Monthly Labor Review • December 2010  33

Table 11. Annual average growth of hours for all persons in

 the nonfarm business sector, various subperiods

 from 1997 to 2008

Survey and year BLS series Adjusted 

series Difference

ATUS:

2003–04................................ 1.25 1.10 –0.15

2004–05................................ 1.67 1.78 .11

2005–06................................ 2.15 2.02 –.13

2006–07................................ .48 .49 .01

2007–08................................ –1.93 –1.76 .16

Average, 2003–08................ .72 .72 .00

CPS:

1997–2001........................... .82 .77 –.05

2001–04................................ –.65 –.64 .00

Average,1997–2004................. .19 .16 –.03

CPS Supplement (at least

once a week), 2001–04.... –.65 –.64 .01

NOTE:  Entries in Difference column may not equal difference of adjusted series and BLS series because of rounding.

growth is only slightly understated, although in some periods growth is slightly overstated. Over the longer period 

from 2003 to 2008, measured hours and adjusted hours 

grew at virtually identical rates, leading to no change in 

measured productivity growth. Therefore, recent productivity estimates are not overstated through any misreporting in hours because they are worked at home rather than 

in the office.36

THIS ARTICLE ANALYZED DATA FROM TWO SOURCES—the ATUS and the May CPS Work Schedules and 

Work at Home Supplement—to determine whether 

hours worked by nonfarm business employees were understated and increased between 1997 and 2008 because 

of a growth in off-the-clock hours worked at home. The 

main advantage of using data from the CPS Supplement 

is that respondents report whether work done at home is 

paid—an indicator of whether hours at home are likely 

to be reported to the CES. The main advantages of using 

the ATUS data are that (1) the time of day when work is 

being performed at home is reported and (2) it is possible 

to get a more accurate measure of the number of hours 

worked at home across a diary day than over a week, the 

timeframe used in the CPS.

According to the 2003–08 ATUS data and the 1997–

2004 CPS Supplement data, 8–9 percent of nonfarm business employees brought some of their work home from 

their primary workplace. A majority of CPS Supplement 

respondents indicated that they did work at home in order to finish or catch up on their work. The evidence also 

suggests that some parents brought work home at least 

in part to better balance work and family responsibilities.

Both datasets reveal that those who bring work home 

have higher average weekly hours than those who work 

exclusively in a workplace. According to the ATUS data, 

total daily hours worked at the workplace are lower for 

those who bring work home than for those who work exclusively in the workplace. Thus, it does appear that those 

who bring work home shift some work from their workplace to their home, yet work more hours in total.

Overall, there may exist a 0.7-percent to 0.9-percent 

downward bias in the official level of hours worked for 

nonfarm business sector employees due to the prevalence 

of unpaid work at home. However, when the official indexes of hours for all persons are augmented to include these 

unmeasured hours for employees, little change is seen in 

the growth of hours over the 6-year period from 2003 to 

2008. There is no conclusive evidence that productivity 

trends are significantly overstated for the 1997–2008 period because of work brought home from the workplace.

The analysis revealed that nonproduction and supervisory employees are more likely to bring work home and, 

on average, work longer average weekly hours than production or nonsupervisory employees. Some previous research has found that those who work longer hours tend 

to overreport hours worked, compared with those who 

work “normal” hours.37 If average weekly hours are not reported accurately to the CPS and the reporting bias differs 

between the nonproduction and supervisory employees 

and the production and nonsupervisory employees, then 

the percentage of unmeasured hours will differ between 

the two groups.38

Because it is generally accepted that survey respondents 

are able to recall events of the previous day more accurately than they are able to recall those of the previous 

week, the ATUS data could be used to assess the reporting 

accuracy of responses of nonproduction and supervisory 

employees in the CPS. Such a task, however, is beyond the 

scope of this article, but there are plans to examine the 

issue in future research.

Notes

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Michael Giandrea, Anastasiya Osborne, Peter Meyer, Alice Nakamura, Phyllis Otto, Anne 

Polivka, Marianne Reifschneider, Larry Rosenblum, Younghwan Song, 

Jay Stewart, Leo Sveikauskas, and Cindy Zoghi for helpful comments. 
Measuring Productivity

34  Monthly Labor Review • December 2010

This article is an updated version of a publication by the Organization 

for Economic Cooperation and Development and includes 2007–08 

ATUS data, as well as the 2008 major revision to BLS productivity data. 

(See Lucy Eldridge and Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia, “Are Those Who 

Bring Work Home Really Working Longer Hours? Implications for 

BLS Productivity Measures,” in Julien Dupont and Pierre Sollberger, 

eds., Productivity Measurement and Analysis: Proceedings from OECD

Workshops (Neuchâtel, Switzerland, Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 

2008), pp. 179–209.

1 Younghwan Song, “Unpaid Work at Home,” Industrial Relations: A 

Journal of Economy and Society, October 2009, pp. 578–88.

2 Paul Callister and Sylvia Dixon, “New Zealanders’ Working Time 

and Home Work Patterns: Evidence from the Time Use Survey,” New 

Zealand Department of Labour Occasional Paper No. 5, Aug. 1, 2001.

3 Production workers include working supervisors or group leaders who may be “in charge” of some employees, but whose supervisory 

functions are only incidental to their regular work. Nonsupervisory 

workers include every employee except those whose major responsibility is to supervise, plan, or direct the work of others.

4 Another source of data on hours is the BLS CPS. However, the 

CES survey is preferred for productivity measurement because it 

samples 400,000 nonfarm establishments, more than 6 times the 

60,000 households sampled in the CPS. In addition, the CES survey 

is benchmarked annually to levels based on administrative records of 

employees covered by State unemployment insurance tax records. There 

is no direct benchmark for CPS employment data. Adjustments to the 

survey’s underlying population base are made annually with intercensal 

estimates and every 10 years with the use of the decennial census. Also, 

hours data from establishments are more consistent with the measures 

of output used to produce productivity measures; output data are based 

on data collected from establishments. In addition, establishment data 

provide reliable reporting and coding on industries and thus are well 

suited for producing industry-level measures. Industry measures based 

on household reports tend to produce estimates with considerable 

variance, even in a survey as large as the CPS. Hence, the Bureau’s 

official measures by industry come from establishment surveys 

whenever possible. The CES survey began collecting data on earnings 

and hours for all employees in September 2005. An experimental series 

that includes these new data is available on the Internet at www.bls.

gov/ces/cesaepp.htm. The Bureau is currently evaluating whether to 

start using this new series in its productivity statistics.

5 Prior to 2000, the annual Hours at Work Survey was used.

6 The Bureau introduced this new method of constructing estimates 

of hours for nonproduction and supervisory workers in August 2004. 

(See Lucy P. Eldridge, Marilyn E. Manser, and Phyllis Flohr Otto, 

“Alternative measures of supervisory employee hours and productivity 

growth,” Monthly Labor Review, April 2004, pp. 9–28.)

7 Average weekly hours for unpaid family workers, employees of 

government enterprises, and the unincorporated self-employed are 

obtained directly from the CPS. Employment counts for employees in 

agricultural services, forestry, and fishing come from the BLS Quarterly 

Census of Employment and Wages (formerly the ES-202 program), 

based on administrative records from the unemployment insurance 

system. The number of employees of government enterprises comes 

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

8 In this regard, Steven Roach argued that, as a result of the new 

portable technologies of the information age—laptops, cellular 

telephones, home fax machines, and pagers—many white-collar 

workers are working longer workdays than the official U.S. data 

show. (See Stephen Roach, The Boom for Whom: Revisiting America’s 

Technology Paradox, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Special Economic 

Study, Jan. 9, 1998.)

9 The CPS collects information on the demographic characteristics 

of all individuals in a household from a sample of about 60,000 

households on a monthly basis. In addition, the CPS provides 

information on employment and hours worked by household members 

15 years and older. Households are in the survey for 4 months, out for 

8 months, and back in for another 4 months.

10 The ATUS does not report with whom a respondent spent time 

sleeping, grooming, on private activities, working, or taking a class; also 

excluded are activities the respondent refuses to classify by type and 

activities the respondent was unable to remember.

11 A workplace is the place where a person usually works. For 

example, a waitress probably would work in a restaurant, a teacher 

would work in a school, and an accountant might work in an office 

building. ATUS interviewers are trained to ask a respondent about work 

breaks of 15 minutes or longer any time the respondent reports that he 

or she worked. Beginning in January 2004, an automated question was 

introduced into the survey instrument. If a respondent reports working 

for more than 4 hours at one time, the interviewer automatically is 

prompted to ask, “Did you take any breaks of 15 minutes or longer?” 

If the respondent reports taking a break, the interviewer records the 

beginning and ending times and what was done on the break; if the 

respondent reports that he or she did not take any breaks, a solid work 

episode is recorded.

12 Suzanne M. Bianchi, John P. Robinson, and Melissa A. Milkie, 

Changing Rhythms of American Family Life (New York, Russell Sage, 

2006).

13 Rachel Krantz-Kent, “Where People Worked, 2003 to 2007,” Issues in Labor Statistics, Summary 09–07 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). 

14 Statistical testing excluding breaks and work-related travel yielded 

essentially the same results as the tests that included those activities.

15 See Edwin R. Dean and Michael J. Harper, “The BLS Productivity 

Measurement Program,” paper presented at the Conference on 

Research in Income and Wealth: New Directions in Productivity 

Research, Silver Spring, MD, March 20–21, 1998.

16 The 1997 CPS Supplement included a probing question later in 

the survey asking for the existence of additional unpaid hours; however, 

it is unclear how the information collected through this question may 

be appropriately analyzed.

17 These figures include those who were bringing a little work home 

on the weekend, as well as those who worked all day at home on their 

weekend diary day.

18 The distributions of work locations for other years are not statistically different from the 2004 results.

19 Throughout this article, all ATUS estimates are weighted with the 

ATUS respondent final weight. The sample of nonfarm business employees also is reweighted so that each day of the week is weighted 

the same in each of the analyses. All CPS Supplement estimates are 

weighted with the work schedules supplement weights.

20 Lucy Eldridge and Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia (see Eldridge and 

Pabilonia, “Are Those Who Bring Work Home?”) used the ATUS

sample and a multinomial logit model to estimate the effect of demographic and job characteristics on the probability of bringing work 

home, compared with working exclusively in the workplace. Then they 

used the CPS Supplement to perform a similar analysis. 

21 From this point forward, results are presented for combined weekday and weekend diaries. Separate analyses conducted for weekday diaries and weekend diaries yielded similar results.
Monthly Labor Review • December 2010  35

22 ATUS results may incorrectly categorize those who bring work 

home as working at the workplace only if they were not observed to 

bring work home on their diary day. As a result, the workplace-only 

cohort may be slightly “contaminated,” leading the two groups to appear more similar than they actually are. The finding that these groups 

have different characteristics remains.

23 Note that the percentages shown are weighted to account for the 

sampling design. The reasons for working at home cited in the 1997 

CPS Supplement are not comparable and, therefore, not reported here.

24 The 49-percent figure is calculated from secondary childcare 

measures and does not imply that the child was in the same room 

while the parent was working. That is to say, the child may have been 

elsewhere in the home, but the parent was available if the child needed assistance.

25 The percentages are weighted to account for the sampling design.

26 Those who worked for 2 or more hours at home on a weekday 

worked, on average, 7.1 hours in the office on the same day, while their 

total hours were 9.9.

27 A comparison of usual hours reported in the ATUS and in the CPS

reveals that those who held similar jobs reported closer usual hours to 

the two surveys than did those who changed jobs.

28 The percentages are weighted to account for the sampling design.

29 Those who brought work home on a weekend or holiday diary day 

worked more than 70 percent of their hours at home.

30 Numbers do not sum to 100 because workers could work in other 

locations or exclusively at home.

31 Weekly hours worked at home are estimated by multiplying average weekly hours by the share of hours worked at home. Shares of 

average weekly hours worked at home were calculated from data for 

those who reported actual hours worked at home; these shares were 

applied to the average weekly hours for all respondents who brought 

work home, yielding estimates of total hours worked at home for those 

who reported that their hours varied.

32 Measured hours are constructed as the sum of all hours worked, 

less unmeasured hours.

33 However, the quality of these additional hours worked at home 

may not be the same as the quality of those worked in the workplace, 

especially if the workers are engaged in secondary childcare while 

working at home.

34 See equation (2).

35 In a similar analysis, Eldridge found that a hypothetical hours series constructed by combining CPS average weekly hours with CES

employment data produced slightly higher levels of hours, but hours 

showed a comparable trend from 2000 to 2003. (See Lucy P. Eldridge, 

“Hours Measures for Productivity Measurement and National Accounting,” paper presented to Paris Group on Measuring Hours of 

Work, Lisbon, September 29–October 1, 2004.

36 The results presented in this article are somewhat different than 

those arrived at in an earlier version, for two reasons. First, an improved 

method was used to adjust the weights in the ATUS data to account 

more accurately for differences in group selections. In addition, there 

was a major revision to the major sector productivity data on September 2, 2009, that significantly changed the employment and hours 

series for 2003–06. 

37 See, for example, John P. Robinson, Jonathan Gershuny, Kimberly 

Fisher, and Steven Martin, “Workweek Estimate: Diary Differences 

and Regression to the Mean,” presented at the International Association for Time Use Research Annual Conference, Washington, DC, 

October 17–19, 2007; Steffen Otterbach and Alfonso Sousa-Poza, 

“How accurate are German work time data? A comparison between 

time-diary reports and stylized estimates,” Social Indicators Research, 

June 2009, pp. 325–29; and Jens Bonke, “Paid work and unpaid work: 

Diary information versus questionnaire information,” Social Indicators 

Research, February 2005, pp. 349–68. 

38 Using the 2003–06 ATUS sample, Harley Frazis and Jay Stewart 

found that the CPS understates production and nonsupervisory workers’ hours worked on the main job by 1.2 hours per week; however, the 

CPS overstates production and nonsupervisory workers’ hours worked 

on all jobs by 0.2 hour per week, because of overreporting on second 

jobs, but this small difference is not statistically significant. (See Harley Frazis and Jay Stewart, “Why Do BLS Hours Series Tell Different 

Stories about Trends in Hours Worked?” in Katharine G. Abraham, 

James R. Spletzer, and Michael J. Harper, eds., Labor in the New Economy, National Bureau of Economic Research Book Studies in Income 

and Wealth, vol. 71 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2010), pp. 

343–72.)