XLV EIGHT-HOUR SHIFTS BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION1 THE HERE is one thing that separates continuous industries from all other industries and gives them a distinct classification and a peculiar claim for legislation. In a continuous process there can be no gradual reduction in hours of labor. Employees must work either two shifts of twelve hours or three shifts of eight hours. There is no middle ground. It is impossible to reduce the hours gradually, say, from twelve to eleven, then to ten, then to eight, but they must be reduced abruptly from twelve to eight. This sudden change in length of the day's work requires that these industries be treated in a class by themselves and not confused with other industries. Arguments which hold good for a gradual reduction of hours may have little or no place in an industrial process which can be improved only by an almost revolutionary reduction of hours. First, for instance, there is the argument of increased efficiency of labor when working shorter hours. No amount of investigation whatever can give to this argument any greater weight than it has without investigation. We know by mere arithmetic that to reduce hours from twelve to eight means a reduction of 333 per cent in hours, and that in order to produce as much in eight hours as in twelve efficiency must be increased 50 per cent. Furthermore, since these industries often work their employees seven days a week, or a limit of eighty-four hours a week, we know that a reduction from eighty-four to forty-eight hours a week is a reduction of 43 per cent in hours and that for a man to produce as much in a week of forty-eight hours as in a week of eighty-four hours would require an increased efficiency of about 75 per cent. No amount of investigation can conclusively show in all continuous industries that a man's efficiency can be increased 50 to 75 per cent 1 From American Labor Legislation Review, Vol. VII (1917), pp. 139–154. by merely reducing his hours of labor 30 to 43 per cent. It may, perhaps, be shown in some industries; and there is reason to believe that in the manufacture of paper, which is now largely on the three-shift system, the men are turning out as much paper in eight hours as they formerly did in twelve hours. In this process the amount of output seems to turn upon the watchfulness and close attention which the machine tender is able to devote to the huge machine that pours out miles of paper when running correctly or balls up rubbish when it gets out of order. The machine might run smoothly for several hours and the man might sleep or doze, but experience seems to show that an eight-hour day without fatigue is about equal to a twelve-hour day half asleep the last four hours. This seems to be borne out by the fact that twelve-hour mills and eight-hour mills have been and still are competing with each other. Yet even in this case the evidence is not conclusive, for the wages per day on some positions may have been reduced when the change was made and the low cost of labor to the employer on the eighthour system may have been secured partly by the lower wages per day and partly by the larger output. In other industries, such as iron and steel, the work is already speeded up to the capacity of the equipment, and a reduction of hours from twelve to eight cannot be shown to increase the efficiency of the worker the necessary 50 per cent to offset the reduction. We have, indeed, the report of a small company operating three open-hearth furnaces to the effect that the higher efficiency of the eight-hour system brought about a slight decrease in the cost of production. This was owing in part to greater economy of raw material used, such as pig iron and fuel oil, and partly to improved quality of the castings. But the lower cost of production was owing also to the fact that the hourly rate of pay was increased only about 20 per cent.1 Had the hourly rate been increased 50 per cent, in order that the men might earn as much in eight hours as they had earned in twelve hours, the cost of production would have been increased some 25 per cent. But there is another circumstance that tends to increase the cost of production if the eight-hour system is to be required by law. 1 Commonwealth Steel Company, address of superintendent before Foundrymen's Association, 1912. Manufacturers who oppose the reduction say that they cannot get enough workmen on the eight-hour basis, and that the workmen prefer to work twelve hours; therefore the twelve-hour competitors get all the workmen needed, while the eight-hour shops are short of men. The evident answer to this objection is that workmen, of course, prefer twelve hours when they can make more money than they can in eight hours. The reason why manufacturers cannot get enough workmen on the eight-hour basis is that they do not pay as much wages for eight hours as their competitors pay for twelve hours. Of course, no matter how high the wages, there are always men who are willing to work overtime for more money. One of the reasons given for overtime is that in a continuous process a man on one shift cannot leave his work until the man for the next shift shows up. This is evident, and the only way it can be met and overtime prevented is to have enough spare hands employed to jump in and fill the gaps when the regular men fail to come around. An essential thing, therefore, in any eight-hour law is the prohibition of overtime. No exceptions whatever should be allowed except, perhaps, in case of accident, and these exceptions should be strictly limited under rules and regulations carefully laid down by a board created for the purpose. In no other way can it be provided that the manufacturer will employ enough spare hands to take care of emergencies. But to have spare hands costs more money. They must be paid even when not working, or when working at less important jobs, in order to be on hand when needed. Another reason for increased cost of the eight-hour system when imposed by law is in the matter of administration, getting evidence of violations and enforcing penalties for overtime. In order to make the law enforceable the eight-hour system cannot be limited merely to continuous processes, but must extend to all occupations in the same establishment. It would be almost impossible to get evidence of violations if a man on an eight-hour job could be transferred to other work when he finishes his eight-hour task. All jobs in the same establishment must be reduced to eight hours in order to enforce the eight-hour limit on the continuous jobs. Consequently, there are at least three points where the eighthour system, if enforced by law, will cost the employer more than the twelve-hour system. He must pay as much for eight hours as other employers are paying for twelve hours in order to get enough supply of labor. He must employ and pay spare hands in order to avoid overtime for regular hands. And the eight-hour system must include all employees in the shop in order to prevent evasion. So much for the alleged increase in efficiency of labor to be expected from a reduction in hours. It must be conceded that efficiency will not be increased enough to offset the decrease in hours from twelve to eight. Second, there is the argument for improved health of the worker when working shorter hours. This argument also is inconclusive in continuous industries. Under the decision of the United States Supreme Court the bakery business is not so unhealthful as to make a legislative ten-hour day constitutional,' although an eight-hour day by law is constitutional in smelting and underground mines. It seems to be the theory of the Court, as it is also the theory of those who oppose the universal eight-hour day, that industries can be classified according to the probable injury which they inflict upon the worker, and that the hours of labor can correspondingly be adjusted so as to counteract this damage. It follows that in light and easy occupations the reasonable hours of labor might be ten, twelve, or even more per day, but in the heavy and exhausting occupations they might constitutionally be reduced to eight or even less per day. But in the continuous industries this nice theory of compensation does not work. It might undoubtedly be shown that eight hours is all a man can stand when operating a Bessemer converter, but it can plausibly be shown that he can stand ten, twelve, or thirteen hours as a machine tender in a paper mill, or a heater in a steel mill, where he has very little manual work and merely has to wait. and watch while the machine does the work. If the health argument alone is depended upon, the reduction of hours in continuous industries could be brought about under the decisions of the courts only in a few occupations where it can be shown that more than 1 Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 25 Sup. Ct. 539 (1905). eight hours is excessive. But in many occupations in the same industry, from the standpoint of health alone, nine, ten, and even eleven hours cannot be shown to be excessive. Consequently, when the question of constitutionality of an eighthour law for continuous industries comes before the court, other arguments besides the health argument must be allowed a place, or the legislation will fall under the judicial veto. These additional arguments may be summed up under the head of citizenship. The peculiar fact about a continuous industry, compared with a noncontinuous, is its enormous increase in the production of wealth at an astounding decrease in cost. This is on account of the huge investment in fixed capital, so that the machine, more than the man, is the great producer. The man only watches, guides, and repairs the machine. The machine even feeds itself and unloads itself, and the man only touches buttons and handles levers. The fixed charges for interest and depreciation on these great investments might, in some cases, actually exceed the wages of the workers if the machines were operated only eight or ten hours a day. But operated continuously day and night seven days a week, these fixed charges go down in comparison with wages and outputin other words, the production of wealth is increased enormously in comparison with the cost of production. To whom, then, shall this increased production go? Shall it go in part to the wage-earner in decreased hours without reduction in wages, or shall it go to the consumer in reduction in prices? The steel industry shows us where it goes. Before the Homestead strike of 1892 the hours of labor were nine, ten, eleven, or twelve, according to the time the man required to finish his task. Two shifts were all that could be used, and the equipment was idle as much as four to six hours or more out of the twenty-four, besides the expense of stopping and starting. The union of iron and steel workers foolishly opposed the eight-hour continuous system, against the protests of their own leaders, and consequently the union was smashed. After the loss of the strike and the expulsion of unionism the continuous system was introduced or extended. With it came not eight hours in three shifts but twelve hours in two shifts, wherever by any ingenuity the men could be forced to stand the physical strain of more |