4 ms·

How does the science on this compare to the science which got us the 40 hour work week? There seems to be a lot of anecdotes in the article. I'm not sure I cou

by gexla 8y ago

How does the science on this compare to the science which got us the 40 hour work week? There seems to be a lot of anecdotes in the article. I'm not sure I could gauge my productivity well from one day to the next. There's too many variables. There's other people, luck, different issues, strengths, weaknesses, shrimp gumbo, BBQ shrimp, shrimp soup... I do know I give it my all during the week and I crash into the weekend. It's invigorating and exhausting at the same time. Getting over a rough week seems to take as long as getting over a bad hangover. Two days for sure, and sometimes I need a third.

Voloskaya 8y ago
What science got us the 40h work week? It seems to me we just went from making people work as much as humanly possible to less and less (to 40 today in the US) as workers got more power through unions. I don't think science was much involved here.
- naasking 8y ago
  40h was first most widely implemented by Henry Ford, because of equal productivity with fewer mistakes than the 10-16 hour days that were then the norm. So there is some empirical evidence that it's better than more hours, and some empirical evidence that it's better than fewer hours in some cases, and plenty showing no change with fewer hours. The fairest characterisation is that there was considerable back and forth between legislation, unions and capitalists seeking better workers.
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    The 8-hour-workday and 5-day-workweek movements were largely independent in time, and while there was some overlap in terms of both implementation and in terms of the populations demanding them, they really came from different places. People first started getting into the 8-hour workday at the beginning of the 19th century, and it was largely driven by workers, tradesmen, and utopian communists who wanted life to consist of more than just working from the moment they woke to the moment they collapsed into sleep. "8 hours work, 8 hours rest, 8 hours sleep" was the sort of slogan that went in to that. Working too much each day just sucks. The 5-day workweek was at the beginning of the 20th, and was much more tied into the Great Depression, automation, and managing employment as a civilization. While people have come to enjoy the quality-of-life improvements associated with the existence of a "weekend", it wasn't really the motivation for the shift so much as limiting the work done per worker to offset the decreased labor demand associated with increased productivity. (Although, practically speaking, a lot of the actual regulations that encourage employers to only work people 8 hours a day date/40 hours a week date to this time in the US.)
    - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
      The UK had a 3 day week for a short period when coal supply was restricted (because of a miners strike). The economy was in a bit of a mess then so I'm not sure you would find any useful information from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    Please provide a citation to some scholarly or historical work to that effect. The last time I looked into this any way seriously there was nothing suggesting 40 hours was chosen for reasons of productivity. One of the extremely few studies that was decent was of productivity on building sites which found that total (not average) productivity increased up until 60 hour weeks.
    - improbable22 8y ago
      Interesting, I had an idea there were studies from WWII aircraft plants or the like, but have never tried to look them up. The optimum must depend strongly on what work you are doing, how expensive tired mistakes are to fix, how much downtime there is waiting for someone else, etc.
    - gexla 8y ago
      Thanks, this was my point. I'm skeptical that this study is any better than whatever studies may have got us here in the first place. 4 day work weeks seem as arbitrary as as what we have now. If happiness and well-being is productive, then a 3 day work week might even be better. Some might be more productive by never working at all. > One of the extremely few studies that was decent was of productivity on building sites which found that total (not average) productivity increased up until 60 hour weeks. Taylorism?
      - ghaff 8y ago
        If we're talking anecdotes, I'd much rather have 5 days in a typical week (with provision for exceptions) and the excess put into a pot for longer vacations.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      It may be worth pointing out as well that the stereotypical 40 hour/5 day week applies primarily for people commuting from their homes to a factory/office. There are lots of situations where people commute to a remote location and work ~12 hour days in a week/2 week/month on-off schedule. Probably not based on scientific study but just a practical response to crews that need to be transported to a remote location and operate 24 hours a day collectively.
lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
There wasn't really science that got us the 40 hour week. That was just the compromise organized labour arrived at in the early 20th century after blow back from unconstrained work weeks (there average man working in 1900 was estimated at 60 hours weekly).

by gexla 8y ago

Voloskaya 8y ago

What science got us the 40h work week? It seems to me we just went from making people work as much as humanly possible to less and less (to 40 today in the US) as workers got more power through unions. I don't think science was much involved here.

naasking 8y ago
40h was first most widely implemented by Henry Ford, because of equal productivity with fewer mistakes than the 10-16 hour days that were then the norm. So there is some empirical evidence that it's better than more hours, and some empirical evidence that it's better than fewer hours in some cases, and plenty showing no change with fewer hours. The fairest characterisation is that there was considerable back and forth between legislation, unions and capitalists seeking better workers.
- saalweachter 8y ago
  The 8-hour-workday and 5-day-workweek movements were largely independent in time, and while there was some overlap in terms of both implementation and in terms of the populations demanding them, they really came from different places. People first started getting into the 8-hour workday at the beginning of the 19th century, and it was largely driven by workers, tradesmen, and utopian communists who wanted life to consist of more than just working from the moment they woke to the moment they collapsed into sleep. "8 hours work, 8 hours rest, 8 hours sleep" was the sort of slogan that went in to that. Working too much each day just sucks. The 5-day workweek was at the beginning of the 20th, and was much more tied into the Great Depression, automation, and managing employment as a civilization. While people have come to enjoy the quality-of-life improvements associated with the existence of a "weekend", it wasn't really the motivation for the shift so much as limiting the work done per worker to offset the decreased labor demand associated with increased productivity. (Although, practically speaking, a lot of the actual regulations that encourage employers to only work people 8 hours a day date/40 hours a week date to this time in the US.)
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    The UK had a 3 day week for a short period when coal supply was restricted (because of a miners strike). The economy was in a bit of a mess then so I'm not sure you would find any useful information from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Please provide a citation to some scholarly or historical work to that effect. The last time I looked into this any way seriously there was nothing suggesting 40 hours was chosen for reasons of productivity. One of the extremely few studies that was decent was of productivity on building sites which found that total (not average) productivity increased up until 60 hour weeks.
  - improbable22 8y ago
    Interesting, I had an idea there were studies from WWII aircraft plants or the like, but have never tried to look them up. The optimum must depend strongly on what work you are doing, how expensive tired mistakes are to fix, how much downtime there is waiting for someone else, etc.
  - gexla 8y ago
    Thanks, this was my point. I'm skeptical that this study is any better than whatever studies may have got us here in the first place. 4 day work weeks seem as arbitrary as as what we have now. If happiness and well-being is productive, then a 3 day work week might even be better. Some might be more productive by never working at all. > One of the extremely few studies that was decent was of productivity on building sites which found that total (not average) productivity increased up until 60 hour weeks. Taylorism?
    - ghaff 8y ago
      If we're talking anecdotes, I'd much rather have 5 days in a typical week (with provision for exceptions) and the excess put into a pot for longer vacations.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    It may be worth pointing out as well that the stereotypical 40 hour/5 day week applies primarily for people commuting from their homes to a factory/office. There are lots of situations where people commute to a remote location and work ~12 hour days in a week/2 week/month on-off schedule. Probably not based on scientific study but just a practical response to crews that need to be transported to a remote location and operate 24 hours a day collectively.

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago

There wasn't really science that got us the 40 hour week. That was just the compromise organized labour arrived at in the early 20th century after blow back from unconstrained work weeks (there average man working in 1900 was estimated at 60 hours weekly).