History of the eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek
“Eight hours labor, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest.” This is a phrase coined in 1817 by Robert Owen—an 18th century Welsh mill owner and labor rights activist.
Owen was just one of the many activists and labor union groups who advocated for better working conditions after the Industrial Revolution. In the 1800s, it was common for people in manufacturing to work nearly 100 hours per week: between 10- and 16-hour shifts over six-day workweeks.
Labor unions were the biggest early supporters of the eight-hour workday in the U.S. In 1866, the National Labor Union asked Congress to pass a law mandating the eight-hour workday. Although the law wasn’t passed, the discussion increased public support for the change.
By the early 1900s, many industries had adopted the eight-hour workday, but most people were still working six days a week. That continued until 1926 when Henry Ford removed one required day of work from his employees’ schedules.
Ford’s employees had been working 48 hours a week: eight-hour days and six-day weeks. Removing one day resulted in eight-hour shifts for five days a week—what we now know as the 40-hour workweek.
Ford found that his workers were actually more productive working 40 hours a week than they had been working 48 hours a week. His success with the change inspired manufacturing companies all over the country to adopt the 40-hour workweek.
In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which required employers to pay overtime to all employees who worked more than 44 hours in a week. They amended the act two years later to reduce the workweek to 40 hours, and in 1940, the 40-hour workweek became U.S. law.
Is 40 hours a week too few?
This question is the only one with a definite answer, and the definite answer is no. There’s a mountain of evidence from more than 100 years of research and tests to prove it.
Back in 1913, German psychologist Hugo Münsterberg wrote:
Ernst Abbé, the head of one of the greatest German factories, wrote many years ago that the shortening from nine to eight hours, that is, a cutting-down of more than 10 per cent, did not involve a reduction of the day’s product, but an increase.
Even before Ford, manufacturers all over the globe were running experiments and discovering how shorter working hours led to increased productivity.
Münsterberg is considered the founder of applied psychology. His book, Psychology and Industrial Efficiency, is one of the earliest arguments for using psychology to find solutions to everyday problems. Since then, psychologists and researchers have put Münsterberg’s ideas into action to study nearly every aspect of the effects of working conditions.
What they’ve found is that working more than 40 hours a week benefits no one.
A 2004 report published by the CDC’s Department of Health and Human Services provides a summary of 52 applied psychology studies on the impacts of extended shifts and regular overtime. Across the board, the studies found the impacts were negative—both for employers and employees:
People who regularly work overtime are less healthy than those who don’t. They’re more likely to gain weight, fall ill, and get injured on the job.
People are less alert and more likely to make mistakes after the 8th hour of work.
People who routinely work extended hours and overtime are less productive than those who work eight hours a day and 40 hours a week.
And although a century’s worth of studies have shown that extended shifts and overtime have a variety of negative consequences for both employees and employers, the average number of hours Americans work has been steadily increasing over the last several decades. A 2014 Gallup study found that 50% of full-time workers work more than 40 hours a week.
Is 40 hours a week just right?
If working more than 40 hours is definitely bad for employee health and business productivity, then were Henry Ford and President Roosevelt right? Is the 40-hour workweek ideal?
The answer to this question is less clear, but it’s a bit more interesting to consider.
First, the 40-hour workweek is rooted in industrialism. When it was established, most people worked in factories and other manufacturing facilities. They started working when they got to work and quit working when they left. Working from home or outside of business hours was impossible.
But modern advances in technology have provided today’s workers with the tools they need to work anywhere, anytime—and they do. 80% of people continue working after they leave work for the day, and 50% check their work email while they’re still in bed in the morning. On average, people work an extra seven hours a week outside of the office.
Second, most manufacturing employees were paid an hourly rate, so they qualified for overtime pay. This was a disincentive to employers for requiring overtime because it hit them where it hurts—in the pocket.
But many office professionals today are salaried and don’t qualify for overtime. Though 59% of the U.S. workforce is paid hourly, the majority (70%) of hourly employees are under 30. Only 16% of hourly workers are in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. As people gain more experience in their careers and industries, they’re more likely to become salaried employees.
Finally, when the 40-hour workweek was established, two-income households were rare. Only 15.2% of married women were employed in 1940. But as of 2012, 60% of households had dual incomes.
When both members of a couple work, it leaves less time for children, chores, errands, food preparation, and everything else that must occur outside of working hours.
Society is different now than it was when the 40-hour workweek was established. Knowledge workers are more common than manufacturing workers. People can—and do—work outside of the workplace. People have less time to enjoy their lives because the eight hours they have each day for fun are filed with chores and errands—more rote tasks to handle.
This has led some people to claim that the 40-hour workweek is too long.
Is 40 hours a week too much?
There are a few studies that have shown employees are happier, healthier, and more productive when they work less than 40 hours a week.
During the first two months of 1974, government officials in the United Kingdom limited the workweek to three days in an attempt to save energy. Though people were working two fewer days a week, production only dropped 6%. People worked fewer hours, but they were more productive and less likely to miss work.
From 2000-2008, the French government limited the maximum working hours per week to 35. In a survey of French employees, more than half said they were happier working reduced hours and more able to achieve a balance between work and life.
From 2015-2017, a Swedish nursing home conducted a two-year experiment where its nurses switched from working eight-hour days to working six-hour days for the same pay. During this time, sick leave dropped by 10%. Nurses who were part of the trial claimed they were healthier, more energetic, and more alert.
So there is some evidence that the 40-hour workweek is too long. It’s not enough to come to a definitive conclusion, but it’s certainly enough evidence for HR professionals to consider the potential benefits of reducing the number of hours in the workweek for their companies.
