THE END OF SHORTER HOURS - jhemingway.netjhemingway.net/515_Mats/515_Readings/Hunnicutt_End... · hour movement—to describe labor's last initiatives (the 40 hour week that succeeded

THE END OF SHORTER HOURS

byBenjamin Kline Hunnicutt

Shorter work hours was a vital issue during the formation ofthe labor movement in the 19th century and continued to be im-portant until the end of the Great Depression. Some of the mostdramatic and significant events in the history of labor (such asthe strikes of 1886, the Haymarket disaster, the steel strike of1919) and some of labor's most notable achievements (such asthe ten hour day and the eight hour day) were parts of labor'scentury-long struggle for shorter hours. Recent writers havealso noted that workers valued shorter hours because it wasnecessary for the expression of the nonpecuniary values, mo-tives, and activities which the "new labor historians" haveshown to be of such significance.1

But the history of shorter hours transcends the labor move-ment. Shorter hours was a political issue almost as long as it wasa labor cause. It was part of reform politics from before theCivil War through Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second term. Itwas an issue for the idealistic, antebellum reformers. It had aprominent place in the Populists' Omaha platform and the BullMoose platform, and appeared in both the Democratic and Re-1 John R. Commons, et al., History of Labour in the United States (New York, 1918-1935,

4 vols.) 1, 170-172, 384-386, 479, 546; see also vol. III, 97-113; Harry A. Millis and RoyalE. Montgomery, The Economics of Labor (New York, 1938-1945, 3 vols.), Vol. I:Labor's Progress and Some Basic Labor Problems, 481-483; see also Vol. III: OrganizedLabor, 423; Irving Bernstein, The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920-1933 (Boston, 1960), 476-484; see also Foster Rhea Dulles, Labor in America (New York,1966), 106, 107; Marion C. Cahill, Shorter Hours: A Study of the Movement Since theCivil War (New York, 1922), 14-19, 43-46, 156-159, 211; E.P. Thompson, "Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism," Past and Present, 38 (Dec. 1967), 56-97; HerbertGulman, Work, Culture and Society in Industrializing America (New York, 1976), 3-78;David Montgomery, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862-1872(New York, 1967), 234-238.

O023-656x/84/2503/373© 1984 Tamiment Institute

Downloaded By: [Western Illinois University] At: 22:31 20 August 2009

374 LABOR HISTORY

publican platforms as late as 1932. Shorter hours also raised im-portant judicial issues in the early 20th century, leading to thewriting of some of the most progressive legal opinions of thatday. Federal and state legislation and executive action beganbefore the Civil War and continued until the Fair Labor Stan-dards Act of 1938. State hours legislation for the period fills agood sized book. Federal action, beginning with Van Buren'sten hour executive order, proceeded step-by-step to reduceworking hours for government employees until World War II.A large number of influential writers and social critics wel-comed and promoted shorter hours, believing it was as naturaland as good a result of technological advances as higher wages.While higher wages would lead to material welfare and security,shorter hours would make progress possible in other areas oflife—reducing the burden of work at first, and eventually allow-ing the common man to exercise his higher faculties in a demo-cratic culture.2

The average hours worked per week reflected these attitudes.Hours of labor reduced slowly but steadily from before the CivilWar to the turn of the century. Between 1900 and 1920 a rapidreduction took place—especially between the years 1913 and1919 when weekly hours fell about eight percent. During the1920s they stabilized at about 49 hours a week and during theDepression fell below forty.3

But for some reason, the shorter hour movement stoppedafter the Depression. During World War II weekly hours of

2 See for example John D. Owen, The Price of Leisure (Montreal, 1970), 62-67; Millis andMontgomery, The Economics of Labor, I, iii-v, 468-473; Cahill, Shorter Hours, 11-58,250-256; Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform (New York, 1955), 242; Arthur Link,Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era (New York, 1954), 226-239; Arthur M. Schle-singer, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order (Boston, 1957), 111-116; Bernstein, The LeanYears, 70-82; Leo Wolman, "Hours of Work in American Industry", Bulletin No. 71 ofNational Bureau of Economic Research (New York, 1938), 20; Robert McCloskey, TheAmerican Supreme Court (Chicago, 1960), 153-156; Norman Pollack, The PopulistResponse to Industrial America (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 28-31 New York Times,Aug. 8, 1912 and July 5, 1892.

3 Owen, 62-67; Joseph S. Zeisel, "The Work Week in American Industry," Monthly LaborReview, 81 (Jan. 1958), 23-29; U.S. Bureau of Census, Historical Statistics of the UnitedStates (Washington, DC, 1975), Section on "hours of Work"; Juanita Kreps, LifetimeAllocation of Work and Income (Durham, NC, 1971), 17-24; see also Ethel B. Jones,"New Estimates of Hours of Work Per Week and Hourly Earnings, 1900-1957," Reviewof Economics and Statistics, 45 (Nov. 1963), 374-385; and Hours of Work, Hearingsbefore the Select Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor,House of Representatives, 88th Congress, 1963, Parts I and II, 73-104.


THE END OF SHORTER HOURS 375

work increased, but afterwards stabilized at forty. Unlike otherbroadly based reform measures which have prospered in thiscentury, the shorter hour movement reached some sort of histo-rical plateau nearly 40 years ago. Some economists have recentlymade the stronger claim that there has been no increase in leisuresince World War 11/ During this period, labor has turned itsattention to higher wages, collective bargaining rights, and fringebenefits. These have virtually eclipsed all new calls for shorterhours. For 40 years, labor has done nothing comparable to its19th and early 20th century initiatives and successes. Similarly,since the Depression no major party has made shorter hours apolitical issue. In addition, state and federal legislators havesimply modified and corrected the 1938 law, elaborating uponbut not altering the Fair Labor Standard Act's forty hour weekprovision. During this tirne neither Washington nor the stateshave passed new laws substantially lowering working-hours.5

Indeed, shorter hours have ceased to be an important part ofpublic discourse. The dreams of the Utopian writers of the fourhour day and the hopes of those who believed that progressinvolved leisure as much as it involved economic growth have

4 See John D. Owen, "Workweeks and Leisure: An Analysis of Trends, 1948-75," MonthlyLabor Review, 48 (1976), 3-8 for the stronger claim. For other economists who have com-mented on the end of shorter hours see Y. Barzel and R. McDonald, "Assets, Subsis-tance, and the Supply Curve of Labor," American Economic Review, 63 (1973), 621-633;Donald H. Dalton, "The Age of the Constant Workweek: Hours of Work in the UnitedStates since World War II ," (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 1975);T. Aldrich Finegan, "Hours of Work in the United States: A Cross Sectional Analysis,"Journal of Political Economy, 70 (1962), 452-470; compare Finegan with Paul H. Douglas,Theory of Wages (New York, 1934), Chapt. xii; Staffan Linder, The Harried Leisure Class(New York, 1970), 135; Herbert Northrup, "The Reduction in Hours," in C. Dankert,et al., Hours of Work (New York, 1965), passim; G.C. Winston, "An International Com-parison of Income and Hours of Work," Review of Economics and Statistics, 48 (1966),28-39; Jiri Zuzanek, "Society and Leisure," Journal of Leisure Research, 6 (1974),294-304.

5 In 1979, Representative John Conyers of Michigan introduced a bill (HR1784) to amend theFair Labor Standards Acts by reducing the standard work week from 40 to 35 hours overa four year period. Very little interest in this bill was generated, even though Conyers usedlabor's traditional arguments. Nevertheless, this was the nearest legislators have come topassing such legislation. John Conyers, unpublished letter, dated Feb. 15, 1979, photo-copy. Another curious fact about shorter hours is that the work week and day declinedduring a period of relative stability in the total work force (as a percentage of the totalpopulation) and stabilized during the period when the work force has increased rapidlybecause of growing population and the entrance of more women into the labor force.More people are at work today as a percentage of the total population than ever before,the percentage increase occurring largely during the period of hours stability. See U.S.Bureau of Census, Historical Statistics of the United States from Colonial Times to thePresent (Washington, DC, 1975), 127.


376 LABOR HISTORY

evaporated, and labor's old demand for "the progressive short-ening of the hours of labor" has been forgotten.

Historians have not yet come to grips with these facts andbegun to formulate appropriate questions, much less constructhypotheses. By contrast, economists have recently asked "whyhave working hours stabilized in America since World War II?"They have also offered valuable explanations, most of which ofcourse are economic ones.6 But since the shorter hour move-ment was more than an economic event and since its ending in-volved political, social and cultural dimensions, it is necessaryfor historians to pose their own types of questions—a few ofwhich are suggested below as possibilities.

Why did organized labor abandon its century-long strugglefor shorter hours? Why have shorter hours ceased to be impor-tant as a political issue? Why did such a broad scale socialmovement and the ideas and public debate generated by thatmovement stop so suddenly? Why did this one part of the 19thand early 20th century liberal/progressive tradition end; andending, disrupt reform's continuum? Why did the work weekdo all of its shrinking during the century when the United Stateswas relatively poor and then stop during the time when thiscountry became the richest one in history? Why did the Ameri-can concept of progress change from dreams both of the growthof wages which would improve material welfare and of thesteady increase of ieisure which would free individuals from ma-terial concerns for other, finer things?

With these sorts of questions for guides, it is possible to begina search for answers to the larger puzzle—the end of the shorterhour movement. Since this is a large task, and since it is notclear just what the right questions to tackle are, the best courseof action is simply tp chronicle the last 20 years of the shorterhour movement—to describe labor's last initiatives (the 40 hourweek that succeeded and the 30 hour week that failed), to dis-

6 Ethel B. Jones, An Investigation of the Stability of Hours of Work Per Week in Manufactur-ing 1947-1970, Univ. of Georgia, College of Business Administration, Research Mono-graph Number 7 (Athens, 1970), passim; see also footnote no. 4. Among these economists'explanations are: the reduction of fatigue, availability of consumer credit, commutingtime, stability of employment, easier work, pent-up consumer demand, increased cost ofeducation and raising larger families, and stable cost of recreation.



cuss the public debate and the political events that bore on theshorter hour process.

After World War I, labor leaders attempted to consolidatethe gains in the eight hour day that they had made and openedup a new initiative—the five day week. Whereas the eight hourday had received considerable public support and advanced rap-idly during Wilson's administration—one observer noted that"it seemed quite literally to sweep the country"—still, pocketsof "long hour resistance" remained in major unorganized in-dustries such as steel. Labor set the goal of standardizing theeight hour day as one of its first priorities. By the end of thedecade, this goal had largely been realized. Fairly confident thatthe eight hour day was becoming universal, labor leaders beganto turn their attention to the five day week in the 1920s. In thisinitiative they achieved only limited success.7

Before the end of the war, fewer than 20 manufacturing es-tablishments had adopted the five day week. Most of these wereJewish establishments, managed and staffed by Jews who con-sidered it a religious obligation to observe the Sabbath day. Butduring the 1920s, over 240 manufacturers adopted the plan. By1929, approximately 400,000 to 500,000 employees were work-ing a five day week.8

In addition to these few advances, the AFL, at its October1926 Convention in New Orleans, recommitted itself to theshorter hour movement in general, using some interesting lan-guage:

7 Opinion that the eight-hour day, 48 hour week was becoming standard was expressed in arti-cles such as: "Doom of the Twelve-Hour Day," Outlook, 13! (1922), 24S-6; "Triumph forthe Eight-Hour Day," Outlook, 134(1923), 572-4; "Death Struggles of the Twelve-HourDay," Literary Digest, 70 (June 9, 1923). The idea that the five-day week was a new direc-tion taken by labor and was a trend that, like the eight-hour day, was becoming a nationalforce may be found in: "Labor Now Out for a Five-Day Week," Literary Digest, 91(Oct. 16, 1926). 9-11; New York Times, October 17, 1926; "Prevalence of the 5-DayWeek in American Industry," Monthly Labor Review, 23 (1926), 1153-69; "How theFive-Day Work Week Works," Literary Digest, 86 (Aug. 15, 1925), 10-11; "Coming: AFive-Day Working Week," Literary Digest, 36 (March. 31, 1928), 12-13; "New Era, FiveDays a Week," Business Week, (Sept. 7, 1929), 5-6; "Five Days Shalt Thou Labor,"Literary Digest, 101 (May 18, 1929), 8.

8 National Industrial Conference Board, The Five Day Week in Manufacturing Industries(New York, 1929), 15-24. See also New York Times, June 2, 1929, feature article on "His-tory of Movement for Shorter Hours in Industry and the Five-Day Week"; "The Preva-lence of the 5-Day Week in American Industry," Monthly Labor Review, 23 (Dec. 1926),1153-1169; John P. Frey, "Labor's Movement for a Five-Day Week," Current HistoryMagazine, 25 (1926), 369-372.


378 LABOR HISTORY

Whereas in the present methods of modern machine industry the work-ers are continually subjected to the strain of mechanized processeswhich sap their vitality; andWhereas if compelled to work for long hours under modern processesof production, the vitality, the health, and the very life of workers is[sic] put in serious jeopardy;Resolved, that this convention place itself on record as favoring a pro-gressive shortening of the hours of labor and days per week, and thatthe Executive Council be requested to inaugurate a campaign of educa-tion and organization to that end . . . . '

Labor's initiatives were met by exceptionally strong businessopposition.10 But they were also supported by an unusually largeand varied group of people; ranging from James Truslow Adamsto Stuart Chase, from Orthodox Jewish groups to "progres-sive" educators. This was true because more than at any timebefore, labor's shorter hour cause involved basic questionsabout the purpose of work and economic growth, the future ofcapitalism, and the very course of progress. This widespreadpublic interest took the form of a debate, with one side support-ing labor and the other rejecting the open ended increase in lei-sure time.

This debate, its scope and intensity, was occasioned by whatwas then seen to be the larger social and economic problem of"overproduction." Many Americans, businessmen and laborleaders alike, believed that chronic unemployment and massivedisruptive surpluses constituted national threats and were thebitter fruits of improved productivity and economic abundance.A "mature economy" was seen to be a real and present danger.

9 Chester M. Wright, "Epoch-Making Decision in the Great American Federation Labor Con-vention at Detroit," American Labor World (1926), 22-24. American Federation ofLabor, Report of the Proceedings of the 46th Annual Convention of the American Feder-ation of Labor (Washington, DC, 1926), see especially the Report of the Committee onthe Shorter Workday, 195-207. See also Hillman's statement in "Attitude of OrganizedLabor Toward the Shorter Work Week," Monthly Labor Review, 23 (1926), 1167-1168.

10 The Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, 35 vols. (New York, 1900-1983), III, IV, V, VI,VII, under the heading "leisure." This standard reference provides some indication of theincrease in public interest in leisure during the 1920s. In Vol. V, an index of 1919-1921,only four entries are listed for articles dealing with leisure. In Vol. VII, covering the years1925-1928 and giving an index of the same 180 reports and periodicals as did Vol. V, over45 entries are listed. See also L.A. Thompson, "Worker's Leisure: A Selected List ofReferences," Monthly Labor Review, 24 (1928), 508. The best available bibliographiesdemonstrate this increased interest. See for example Majorie Casebier, An Overview ofLeisure (San Anselmo, 1963); Eric Larrabee and Rolf Meyerson, Mass Leisure (Glencoe,1L, 1958), 389 ff; Larrabee and Meyerson found 51 articles and books having to do withleisure from 1910-1919 and over 410 for 1920-1929.



Businessmen and economists tried to deal with these threats byembracing the "new economic gospel of consumption" whichproclaimed that new consumption could keep the economy eter-nally dynamic. Spokesmen for this new gospel opposed labor'sefforts and offered alternatives to increased leisure such as animproved standard of living, consumerism, and steady work.Those who supported the shorter hour cure for unemploymenthad a different view. They supported labor's call for "progres-sive shortening of the hours of labor," believing with labor thatthis would help to control unemployment and shape the direc-tion of industry; limiting surpluses, encouraging the productionof basic needs, and discouraging "luxuries."

At the beginning of the 1920s, businessmen tended to have asgloomy a view of the economy as any other group. In 1922 GaretGarrett pointed out that "American business [was] despairingat overproduction," believing that "we are equipped to producemore of the goods that satisfy human wants than we can use."A number of other observers commented on "the prevalentbusiness view" that America was experiencing "universal con-sumptive indigestion" resulting from "the outright satiation ofhuman wants.""

Examples of bullish investors and pessimistic businessmenwho expressed these sorts of fears may be found throughout thedecade. The New York Times in its annual assessment of "thefinancial outlook" reported periodically that "business ex-perts" believed that "great prosperity" invited "industrial reac-tions," and that the "saturation point" in traditional marketssuch as textiles had been reached and was near in the newer in-dustries such as automobiles.12 But the majority of such rhetoric

11 Garet Garrett, "Business" in Harold Stearns, ed.. Civilization in the United States (NewYork, 1922), 414; John A. Hobson, Economics of Unemployment (New York, 1923), 23;Hobson, Incentives in the New Industrial Order (New York, 1923), 50; Hobson, "TheLimited Market," The Nation 120(1925), 350-2; Francis J. Boland, Wage-Rates andIndustrial Depressions: A Study of the Business Cycle (New York, 1924), 4-7, 75; alsoWarren M. Persons, "Crisis of 1920 in the United States," The American EconomicReview, 12 (March, 1922—Supplement No. 1), 5; Maurice Leven, Harold Moulton, andClark Warburton, America's Capacity to Consume (Washington, DC, 1934), 115-117.

12 Victor M. Cutter, "Our Greatest Economic Problem," Current History, 27 (Oct. 1927),74-76; Wright, "Need We Be Afraid of a Job Famine?" Nation's Business, 15 (Jan.1927), 22-24; "Volume, Production, and 'Stabilized Prosperity'," Nation's Business, 15(Aug. 1927), 88, 89, for a representative quote from Iron Age; P.M. Mazur, "Mass Pro-duction, Has It Committed Suicide?" Review of Reviews, 78 (1928), 476-479; New York


380 LABOR HISTORY

occurred during and just after the 1921-22 depression. Duringthis time, the press was full of expressions such as "buyers'strike," "psychological reactions," the "dominance of the buy-ers' iSarket," "overproduction," and "limited markets." Inspite of professional economists who tried to assure those whowould listen that motives to buy were not limited to some set ofspecific human needs and would expand quite readily whenwages increased, businessmen as well as labor feared that Amer-icans were working themselves out of their jobs by producingmore than they would consume. Chronic unemployment anddepression seemed to be a likely result of this "need saturation."13

But like labor, some pessimistic businessmen saw anotherpossibility—shorter work hours. Unlike labor though, thosebusinessmen who recognized the possibility, despised it. Theydid not see the open-ended increase of leisure as a positive de-velopment but as a clear threat to future economic growth. Ifbasic needs were being met by industry and workers chose todevote less and less of their time to their work and do otherthings, then extended periods of general unemployment wouldnot be necessary to halt progress. Free time in the form of lei-sure could create the same conditions as free time in the form ofunemployment; reduced production and consumption, idle pro-ductive capacity, limited investment opportunities and even amature stable economy.14

Businessmen's fears about the threat of increased leisure toeconomic growth were expressed throughout the decade. Themost elaborate and thorough-going expression may be found in

Times, Jan. 1, 1923; Jan. 1, 1925; Jan. 1, 1926; Oct. 26, 1926; Jan. 1, 1927; Oct. 10, 17,1927; New York Herald Tribune, Jan. 2, 1926; Herman E. Krooss, Executive Opinion(New York, 1961), 92-94.

13 Kuanty Yung, "Some Aspects of the Business Depression of 1921," (unpublished Master'sEssay, Univ. of Iowa, 1926), 79, 80. See also for example, New York Times, Dec. 5, 1920,20; Dec. 28, 1920, 18; Sept. 21, 1921, 16; Jan. 8, 1921, 18; Jan. 10, 1921, 28; Feb. 16,1921, 4; Sept. 29, 1921, 1.

14 "Attitude of Certain Employees to the 5-Day Week," Monthly Labor Review, 23 (1926),1168-70; William Boyd Craig, "Business Views in Review," Nation's Business, 14 (Dec.1926), 72-75, for Judge Elbert Gary's views; "Mass Production of Time," Nation's Busi-ness, 14 (May 1926), 33. See also "Business Attitudes Toward the Five Day Workweek,"Nation's Business, 15 (April 1927), 32; for pro and con business views see "Manufactur-ers Discuss Ford's Five-Day Week," Iron Age, 118 (1926), 592; A.H. Young, "SomeConsiderations in Reducing Working Time," Iron Age, 119(1927), 1599; John Edgerton,"Annual Address of the President," Proceedings of the National Association of Manu-facturers (1929), 23; Edgerton, "Annual Address of the President," Proceedings of theNational Association of Manufacturers (1930), 17.



the National Association of Manufacturer's Pocket Bulletin ofOctober 1926. The NAM questioned 32 prominent business lead-ers about the five day work week that unions were demandingand Henry Ford had already instituted in some of his automo-bile plants. All but two of these businessmen were opposed.Some equated increased leisure—"the extra holidays on Satur-day"—with crime, vice, the waste of man's natural capacity,corruption, radicalism, debt, decay, degeneration, and decline.John E. Edgerton, president of the NAM, for example, de-clared that

it is time for America to awake from its dream that an eternal holiday isa natural fruit of material prosperity, and to reaffirm its devotion tothose principles and laws of life to the conformity with which we owe allof our national greatness. I am for everything that will make work hap-pier but against everything that will further subordinate its importancein the program of life.

George L. Markland warned that "the men of our country arebecoming a race of softies and mollycoddles . . .". He saw thefive day week as an indication of "a gradual sinking into decay,"a trend toward the dissipation and frivolity that had causedRome's downfall."

These businessmen saw free time as the result of marketsaturation. Nevertheless they vehemently opposed reduction ofwork hours and searched about for alternatives such as "newforeign markets," "enforced attention to business" and work,appeals to patriotism, and an increased standard of living whichmight deal with overproduction and stem the tide of free time.But they all agreed that shorter hours meant less production andlimited growth. They also characterized labor's position on thisissue as "unAmerican" since they felt that labor's bid for the40 hour week was basically an attempt to limit production.16

Other pessimistic observers of the economy linked increasingproductivity to saturated demand, and saturated demand to un-employment or the process of shorter work hours. For themfree time was the chief threat to industrial advance. In any15 See Pocket Bulletin, 27 (Oct. 3, 1926), for the entire issue devoted to criticism of the 40 hour

week.16 See W.H. Grimes, "The Curse of Leisure," Atlantic Montly, 142 (1928), 355-360 for one of

the best summaries of business pessimism concerning overproduction and leisure.


382 LABOR HISTORY

form, free time would mean slower growth or outright cessationof growth. Work was critically scarce and becoming more so asproductivity improved.

But by mid-decade, these sorts of fears were evaporating.They were gradually replaced by a new and vigorous optimism,founded upon what Edward Cowdrick called the "new economicgospel of consumption."17 Responding to the threats of chronicoverproduction and the decline of the need to work, business-men began to concentrate on consumption and conclude thatdemand could be stimulated. If traditional markets were being"saturated," then the reasonable response would be to find newmarkets and increase consumption, not to reduce working hours.Businessmen became increasingly convinced that Americanscould be persuaded to need things produced by industry whichthey had never needed before and consume goods and services,not in response to some out-of-date set of economic motives,but according to a standard of living that constantly improved.With this concern with consumption, the business communitybroke its long concentration on production, introduced the ageof mass consumption, founded a new view of progress in anabundant society, and gave life to the advertising industry.18

Some businessmen and economists, such as Henry Ford,went so far as to suggest that workers be paid enough to buy17 Edward Cowdrick, "The New Economic Gospel of Consumption," Industrial Management,

74 (1927), 208; Report of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, "Pros-perity and Production," Nation's Business, 15 (May 20, 1927), 40, 41; William Fosterand Waddill Catchings, "What Is Business Without a Buyer?" Nation's Business, 14(June 1926), 27; William Craig, "Digest of the Business Press," Nation's Business, 14(June 1926), 14; Glen Buck, "This American Ascendancy," Nation's Business, 15 (Mar.1927), 15; "Business Views in Review," Nation's Business, 15 (July 1927), 117 and (Aug.1927), 95; "Other Times, Other Occupations," Nation's Business, 13 (July 1925), 35;Lewis Pierson, "Looking Ahead for Business," Nation's Business, 16 (June 1928), 13;John Hammond, "Look Back—and Ahead," Nation's Business, 16 (Dec. 1928), 35;A.W. Shaw, "Is This Why the Overproduction Bogy-Man is a Bogy-Man?" Magazine ofBusiness, 54 (1928), 263-5; P.U. Kellogg, "When Mass Production Stalls," Survey, 59(1928), 683-6; H.S. Dennison, "Would the Five-Day Week Decrease Unemployment?"Magazine of Business, 54 (1928), 508; Henry Ford and S. Crowther, "The Fear of Over-production," Saturday Evening Post, 203 (July 12, 1930), 3.

18 Irvin S. Paull, "When is Industry's Job Complete?" Nation's Business, 15 (Dec. 1927),28, 29; James L. Wright, "Is the Machine Replacing Man?" Nation's Business, 15 (Sept.1927), 78-80; Merle Thorpe, "The Amazing Decade," Nation's Business, 16(Sept. 1928), 9;J.H. Collins, "Producer Goes Exploring for the Consumer," Saturday Evening Post, 195(April 7, 1923), 8; T.C. Sheehan, "Must We Limit Production?" Magazine of Business,53 (1928), 150-152; E.S. Martin, "Advertising as a World Power," Harpers, 148 (1924),553-554; E.J. Kulas, "Whip of Prosperity," Saturday Evening Post, 201 (June 29,1929), 5;"We Have Because We Spend," Collier's, 196 (Sept. 2, 1927), 146; I.F. Marcossen,"Production and Prosperity," Saturday Evening Post, 189 (Aug. 14, 1926), 12.



what they produced." But most businessmen relied heavily oncapital spending and on the gradual increase of the consumermarkets to insure steady demand. And this demand could be as-sured only if the enlightened business community provided sta-ble or expanding capital markets and then gradually convincedthe American consumer to desire goods and services enough tounderpin economic growth in the consumer sector. Growth inthe "New Era" of abundance was a problem of human nature,not simple economics. Higher wages did not automatically as-sure more consumption. If raises were given to workers too rap-idly then it was quite possible that production would cease togrow as the workers lost their desire for hard work and tastesfor new goods and services, and used high wages as an excusefor taking time off from their jobs. Consumption was not guar-anteed, but it could be promoted. It would be the hard work ofinvestors, marketing experts, advertisers, and business leaders,as well as the spending examples set by the rich which wouldpromote consumption and prevent workers from taking timeoff from their jobs.20

Businessmen's new interest in consumption has been welldocumented as has their optimism that demand could be stimu-lated.21 Herbert Hoover's Committee on Recent Changes pub-lished one of the first and finest examples of this documentationin 1929. The Committee criticized pessimistic predictions about"saturation points," calling these predictions "abstract" andthe likelihood of market saturation "remote." They pointed19 Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind In American Civilization (New York, 1949), 5 vols.

IV, 57, 58, 84, 343; Henry Ford, "Why I Favor Five Days' Work with Six Days' P a y -Interview by Samuel Crowther," World's Work, 52 (1926), 613.

20 Thomas Nixon Carver, The Present Economic Revolution in the United States (Boston,1925), 59-65; John E. Edgerton, "Industry Has Advanced Further Than Religion,"Pocket Bulletin, 27 (April 1927), 4; Edgerton, "The President's Annual Address," Pro-ceedings of the National Association of Manufacturers (New York: National Associationof Manufacturers, 1925), 12; Robert S. Lynd, "The People as Consumers," in Report ofthe President's Research Committee on Social Trends, Recent Social Trends, 857.

21 W.W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth (London, 1960), 9-11; Dorfman, IV, 60;Thomas C. Cochran, 200 Years of American Business (New York, 1977), 192; ThomasC. Cochran and William Miller, The Age of Enterprise: A Social History of IndustrialAmerica (New York, 1961), 310-324; Herman E. Krooss, Executive Opinion (New York,1970), 90, 91; Charles H. Hession and Hyman Sardy, Ascent to Affluence: A History ofEconomic Development (Boston, 1969), 666; Frederick Lewis Allen, Only Yesterday: AnInformal History of the Nineteen-Twenties (New York, 1964), 140; David M. Potter,People of Plenty (Chicago, 1954), 173-175; David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd (NewHaven, 1950), 74, 75, 96-98, 116-123, 150, 189-191. 227, 290; William Leuchtenburg,Perils of Prosperity, 1919-32 (Chicago, 1958), 278.


384 LABOR HISTORY

both to economic theory and actual accomplishments to attackthe notion that the economy had matured. On the one hand,"economists have long declared that consumption, the satisfac-tion of wants, would expand with little evidence of satiation ifwe could so adjust our economic processes as to make dormantdemands effective." On the other hand, Americans had proventhat this theory actually worked in the 1920s. The "almost insa-tiable appetite for goods and services, this abounding produc-tion of all things which almost any man can want, which is sostriking a characteristic of the period covered by the survey . . ."was the hard reality shattering false fears about overproduction.The Committee found

from study of the fact finding survey on which this report is based, thatas a people we have become steadily less concerned about the primaryneeds—food, clothing and shelter . . . the slogan of 'full dinner pail,' isobsolete and we now demand a broad list of goods and ser-vices which come under the category of 'optional purchases'. . . . 'Op-tional consumption'—optional in the sense that this portion of theincome may be saved or spent, and if spent the manner of this spendingmay be determined by the tastes of the consumer or the nature of theappeals made to him by the industries competing for his patronage—presents one of the marked characteristics of the recent economic situa-tion. . . . the survey has proved conclusively what has long been heldtheoretically to be true, that wants are almost insatiable; that one wantsatisfied makes way for another. The conclusions is that economicallywe have a boundless field before us; that there are new wants which willmake way endlessly for newer wants, as fast as they are satisfied . . . .By advertising and other promotional devices, by scientific fact finding,by carefully predeveloped consumption, a measurable pull on produc-tion has been created which releases capital otherwise tied up in immo-bile goods and furthers the organic balance of economic forces . . . .As long as the appetites for goods and services are practically insatiable,as it appears to be . . . it would seem that we can go on with increasingactivity. . . . our situation is fortunate, our momentun is remarkable.22

Business optimism about the possibility of increasing "op-tional consumption" spilled over into and answered the con-cerns expressed by organizations such as the NAM about thedeclining need to work and the threat of leisure. Optimisticbusinessmen such as Henry Ford and Henry Dennison saw the22 Report of the Committee on Recent Economic Changes, Recent Economic Changes (New

York, 1929), XV, XVIII, 52, 59, 80, 81, 574-578.



40 hour week as an ally to growing consumption rather than asa threat to production. Like the new "consumption econo-mists," such as Teresa McMahon and Hazel Kyrk, they believedthat increased leisure would increase consumption. Spokesmenat the National Distribution Conference agreed and pointed outthat increased leisure stimulated the growth of some of the mostvital industries, such as amusement, radio, phonographs, mo-tion pictures, publishing, and hotels. Henry Ford argued that"leisure [was] a cold business fact." He maintained that "wherepeople work[ed] less they buy more," since "business is the ex-change of goods. Goods are bought only as they meet needs.Needs are filled only as they are felt. They make themselves feltlargely in the leisure hours." E.S. Cowdrick agreed that the40 hour week was good because "it promises more leisure to useup golf balls and holiday clothes."" Examples of this reasoningwere numerous in the decade, but the President's Committee onRecent Economic Trends again presented one of the best sum-maries:

It was during the period covered by the survey (the 1920s) that the con-ception of leisure as "consumable" began to be realized upon in busi-ness in a practical way and on a broad scale. It began to be recognized,not only that leisure is "consumable" but that people cannot "con-sume" leisure without consuming goods and services, and that leisurethat results from increasing man-hour productivity helps to create newneeds and new broader markets. . . . the acceleration of technologicalshifts in production and consumption would have resulted in muchmore serious unemployment if workers had not been absorbed in thenewly expanded service industries which both create and serve leisure.24

While recognizing leisure as an ally to consumption, busi-nessmen such as Ford and Cowdrick nevertheless reaffirmedtheir faith that work was, and should remain, a primary Ameri-can value. Ford, for example, while praising the economic sig-nificance of leisure, cautioned "of course, there is a humanita-rian side of the shorter day and the shorter week, but dwellingon that subject is likely to get one in trouble, for then leisure

23 " N a t i o n a l Dis t r ibut ion Confe rence Meet ing, 1 9 2 5 , " Outlook, 141 (1925), 656-7; Cowdr ick ," T h e New Economic Gospe l of C o n s u m p t i o n , " 209; Dennison , " W o u l d the Five DayWeek Decrease U n e m p l o y m e n t ? " 508.

24 Recent Economic Changes, X V I .


386 LABOR HISTORY

may be put before work rather than after work—where it be-longs." Leisure was deemed to be valuable by businessmen, notas an alternative to work, but as a new reason to work—vitalbecause the traditional reasons for work to meet basic needswere not sufficient to support the economy. Leisure, subordi-nate to work, supported economic growth and thereby helpedto save work.25

But because leisure entailed increased consumption it waslimited. The century-long shorter hour process would taper offsince workers would need higher incomes in order to finance theleisure they had already. Together with the traditional pessi-mists such as Judge Gary and John Edgerton—who were calling"the thought of reducing the week's working time" a "blasphe-my," optimistic businessmen supposed that increased leisurehad to have a limit. Even though the 40 hour week was reason-able because it stimulated consumption, shorter hours as a con-tinuous, open-ended process was opposed by most businesmen.26

. But according to optimistic businessmen, the shorter hourprocess would either stop naturally or be controlled by the ef-forts of advertisers and marketing experts. Since "more sparetime would mean desire to spend more money" and "it is im-possible to reduce income and the supply of goods and services(through reduced hours) and then have more money to spend"progressively shorter hours would eventually come into directcompetition with new spending. But what the economist Con-stance Southworth called "the infinite capacity of the commonman to want things," would check workers' desire for increasedleisure. The good coin of increased material wealth would even-tually drive out of circulation the bad coin of increased leisure.As Henry Dennison put it, prosperity offered society the chance"to take more leisure or to get more wealth, as it chooses."Even though "luxuries or leisure" was a theoretical "free con-sumer choice," optimistic businessmen were confident that they

25 "The 5-Day Week in the Ford Plants," Monthly Labor Review, 23 (1926), 1163.26 T.M. Kappen, "Can We Work Less and Earn More?" Magazine of Wall Street, 39 (1927),

788-91; William Boyd Craig, "Business View in Review," Nation's Business, 14 (Dec.1926), 72-75; D.A. Laird, "This Bunkum About Hard Work," Printer's Ink, 147 (April 18,1929), 33-4; T.H. Price, "Employing the Labor Saved by Machinery," Commerce andFinance, 17 (June 20, 1928), 134-7; James Wright, "Need We Be Afraid of a Job Fam-ine?" Nation's Business, 15 (January 1927), 22-24.



could successfully compete with leisure by linking it to con-sumption and promoting their new products.27

During the time businessmen were reaffirming their belief inwork and industrial growth and looking to "optional consump-tion" to undergird that growth, others such as labor spokes-men, religious leaders, reformers, intellectuals, educators, andsocial critics were disturbed by this new economic gospel of con-sumption. Some of these people became convinced that it wasbeginning to exploit workers. By producing new goods and newdemands for these goods, industry was keeping the commonman at work longer than necessary. He was working more toserve the interests of the capitalist profit system and less to takecare of his real material necessities or meet his own individuallyfelt needs. They questioned perpetual industrial growth, believ-ing that it would continue to exploit workers by convincingthem to produce unnecessary "luxuries." The worker had lostcontrol of production. Now he was losing control of consump-tion and the ability to shape his future and culture. He was fac-ing a new definition of progress—economic growth for the sakeof economic growth. Growth toward obtainable goals, such asthe meeting of basic needs, still made human sense. But longhours of work in his new "squirrel cage" which capitalism hadset up did not. These people continued to feel that higher wagesand shorter hours together constituted "genuine progress." Thedisciples of the new economic gospel of consumption had brokentradition and set up a false idol to resemble real progress.

However, these groups shared the pessimism of those whopredicted saturated demand and limited markets. Like business-men, they too feared and wished to avert the unemployment,chronic or acute, that was threatened by industrial productivity.But in contrast to businessmen and economists, they promoted

27 Dennison, "Would the Five-Day Week Decrease Unemployment?" 508-510; T.T. Read,"The American Secret," Industrial Management, 73 (June 1927), 321-3; C. Stelzle,"Religious Ideal Dignifies the Work of Man," Forbes, 21 (Jan. 15, 1928), 26-28;F.M. Trumbull, "Work," Industrial Arts Magazine, 16 (Aug. 1927), 281-2; J. Klein,"Can Industry Provide New Jobs as Machines Take Away Old Ones?" Magazine of WallStreet, 44 (Oct. 19, 1929), 1078-1081; James Prothro, Dollar Decade: Business Ideas inthe 1929's (Baton Rouge, 1954), 5-15; Ford and Crowther, "The Fear of Overproduc-tion," 3.


388 LABOR HISTORY

labor's alternative solution to general overproduction and un-employment: limited production through shorter work hours.

Between 1920 and 1934, the shorter hour cure for overpro-duction and unemployment was almost as important as theother solution, the gospel of consumption. The critical debateabout unemployment that developed in the 1920s was not, as ithas been since the Depression, over how to stimulate demand.Rather the debate revolved around the question of whetherwork time would continue to decrease, limiting unnecessaryproduction and distributing necessary employment, or new mar-kets would be established. Both points of view shared the ideathat the economy had reached a critical juncture.28

The arguments of the supporters of increased leisure and theshorter hour cure for unemployment may be abstracted as fol-lows: Modern work was an increasing burden. Economic abun-dance threatened overproduction and unemployment. Shorterhours could decrease work, raise wages, spread employment, re-duce unnecessary production and surpluses, and insure a mini-mum standard of life for everyone. Therefore, leisure was aspractical in "New Economic Era" as new markets and waspreferable. It was preferable in the first place because leisurecould be used to revive the benefits and values that work hadlost to the machine. Things such as craftsmanship, creativity,worker control, and initiative could take place during sports,hobbies, volunteers projects and other constructive recreation.Leisure was preferable also because it would help keep otherinstitutions and traditions alive which were threatened by masssociety, standardization, and mass consumption. Individualism,the community of workers, the family and the church would bestrengthened and would grow as people had more time to de-vote to these things. In addition, increased leisure would keepopen the possibility of what Edwin Sapir called "genuine prog-

28 For example see "Shorter-Hours Cure for Overproduction," Literary Digest, 90 (Sept. 18,1926); "Would the Five-Day Week Decrease Unemployment?" Magazine of Business, 54(Nov. 1928), 508-9. One way of understanding the position of the advocates of limitedproduction is by reviewing their opponents' attacks. For the businessmen's and econo-mists' views of the limited production idea see L. Ardzrooni, "Philosophy of the Restric-tion of Output," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 91(Sept. 1920), 70-5; E.J. Kulas, "Whip of Prosperity: Curtailment of Production—a Mis-take," Saturday Evening Post, 201 (June 29, 1929), 5.



ress." The dreams of Utopian writers, socialists, and reformerswhich had been around for over a century—dreams of a demo-cratic culture, worker education, the universal pursuit of happi-ness, and "humane and moral freedom"—were reasonable pos-sibilities given increased leisure. Lastly, shorter hours wouldcounter the new "economic gospel of consumption" which hadbegun to define progress solely in terms of economic growthand abandon the other, more humane kinds of progress."

AFL President William Green, for example, explained thatless work and more free time were natural results of technologi-cal advance and the more efficient satisfaction of human needs.This free time could either be forced upon some workers as un-employment or it could be rationally divided among all workersas leisure.30 A. O. Wharton, president of the International Asso-ciation of Machinists, argued that "increased production accen-tuates the problems of overproduction and underconsumption.Increased wages and reduced hours go hand in hand with in-creased production . . .". Economic balance could be main-tained only if "wages advance and leisure hours increase. Ifsome sort of balance is not maintained, we are headed straightfor disaster." AFL vice president Matthew Woll observed thatsince "production is overlapping our ability to consume," short-er hours would serve as a "restraining influence" and limit pro-duction to "rational levels."31

2 9 Robert Green McCloskey, American Conservatism in the Age of Enterprise: 1865-1910(New York, 1964), 12, 15, 17, 20, 2 1 , 46, 169, 170.

30 William Green, "Less Working Hours is Logica l , " American Labor World (Nov. 1926), 20;" T h e Proposed Five-Day W e e k , " Industry, 108 (Oct. 23, 1926), 1; " T h e Five Day Week,Facts for W o r k e r s , " Labor Bureau Economic News Letter (Nov . 1926), 12; " L a b o r NowOut for a Five-Day W e e k , " Literary Digest, 91 (Oct. 16, 1926), 9-11.

31 James Wright , " I s the Machine Replacing M e n ? " , Nation's Business, 15 (Sept. 1927), 79;William Green, " T h e Five Day W e e k , " American Federationist, 33 (Nov. 1926), 1299,1300; for Green and Woll ' s at t i tudes see also American Federation of Labor , Report ofthe Proceedings of the 46th Annual Convention (Washington, D C , 1926), 195-207;H . S . Dennison, " W o u l d the Five-Day Week Decrease U n e m p l o y m e n t ? " Magazine ofBusiness, 54 (1928), 508-9; William Green, "Leisure for L a b o r , " Magazine of Business,56 (Aug. 1929), 136-7; James M. Lynch, "Shor t e r Working Day Urged as Alleviation forDepression Cyc les , " American Labor World (Nov. 1926), 28, 29; William Green, " T h eFive-Day W e e k , " North American Review (1926), 567-575; New York Times, Dec. 9,1926; James Lynch, " T h e Shorter Workday: The Complete A r g u m e n t , " American Fed-erationist, 33 (Mar . 1926), 291; " T h e Shorter Hour Cure for Overproduc t ion , " LiteraryDigest, 90 (Sept. 18, 1926), 16; New York Times, July 18, 1926, Sect. 7, p . 6, col. 1;William Green, " T h e Five-Day Week to Balance Product ion and C o n s u m p t i o n , " Ameri-can Federationist, 33 (Oct. 1926), 1299; William Green, " T w o Kinds of Unemploymen t , "American Federationist, 35 (April, 1928), 402; John P . Frey, " L a b o r ' s Movement for aFive Day W e e k , " Current History, 25 (Dec. 1926), 369-372.


390 LABOR HISTORY

In addition to limiting production to "rational levels," short-er hours would improve wages according to labor spokesmen.By reducing the supply of labor, shorter hours would create asellers' market for labor, strengthening the unions' bargainingposition. Thus workers would be able to command a large pro-portion—their "fair share"—of the nation's wealth. Instead ofthe rich buying more luxuries, workers could buy necessities.The direction of the economy would be changed from the pro-duction of useless and expensive goods for the more wealthy, tothe tasks of assuring that everyone had their basic needs met.Before 1927, organized labor considered shorter hours as an ef-ficient and fair way to help redistribute wealth and assure thatnecessities were produced before luxuries—without direct gov-ernmental action."

An example of those reformers who actively supported laborwas George Alger. Active in New York reform efforts such aschild labor laws and penal reforms, he came to believe that re-form and "racial minds" in the 1920s were concerned "as muchwith the growing social surplus of time" as the "distribution ofthe social surplus of things." He argued that the new businessview of economic advance led to "artificial demands for uselessproducts." It led to "a consumer wonderland" and to a "newslavery." Individual self-expression and creativity had been sac-rificed because "the people who can set before us a long list ofnew things to want and a way to make us want them irresistiblyare the main contributors to our current squirrel cage conceptof progress." He criticized work as specialized, mechanical,passive, lacking in self-expression, dull, monotonous, and thecause of increased drug addiction, insanity and crime. He wasalso suspicious of industrial psychologists and advertisers who,between them, led the masses to a "pendulum-like existence"—a "life of producing and purchasing" useless things for arti-ficial reasons. He reasoned that "the stimulus of what we wantto buy rather than what we want to be is, in current theory, thatwhich keeps us at work."

32 Matthew Woll, "Leisure and Labor," Playground, 19 (1925), 322-23; Matthew Woll,"Labor and the New Leisure," Recreation, 27 (1933), 418; William Green, "What is aFive Day Week?" American Federalionisl, 39 (Sept. 1932), 985.



Concluding that in the face of the "new economy of con-sumption, . . . any theory of the use of leisure which shouldmake it something else than principally an expression of buying-power, may be considered an alarming heresy because of itspossible effect on sales," Alger nevertheless suggested such atheory. "The quality of work and the lack of self expressionthrough work" eroded virtues and "paralyzed our powers."But "enlarged leisure" could revive "artisan and craftsman"values such as creativity, self-expression, and individual con-trol. Leisure could also renew cultural and spiritual values.Through leisure Americans could "enlarge their field of selfexpression, become active and in control of their lives and free-dom and come to grips with the greatest practical problem be-fore us to which depends the future of Western civilization . . .the reapplication of love to life.""

Like Alger, Stephen Leacock thought that industry's needsto grow, to promote more consumption, and to create new mar-kets for luxuries were socially destructive. He also believed thatthe concept of progress was changing. Progress has been re-defined by businessmen and economists as the chasing after the"phantom of insatiable desires." This progress had little to dowith old progressive ideals about material or human welfare.According to Leacock, the satisfaction of human needs throughindustrial production had reached the point of diminishing re-turns. The creation of "luxuries and superfluities" was a per-version of progress. Businessmen were producing values as wellas new goods and services. "Real human needs" were being ig-nored in this situation. Leacock maintained that "the shorten-ing of the hours of work with the corresponding changes in thedirection of production [was] really the central problem of so-cial reform."34

These sorts of arguments were widespread in the 1920s. Jew-ish groups and individuals used them in their Sabbath cam-paign.35 They were repeated by people with widely differing po-3 3George Alger, "Effects of Indus t r i a l i sm," Atlantic, 135 (1925), 486-92.34 Stephen Leacock, The Unsolved Riddle of SocialJustice (New York, 1920), 2 3 , 24, 31 , 34,

66-70, 82, 149, 125-35.35 Benjamin Kline Hunnicut t , " T h e Jewish Sabba th Movement in the Early Twentieth Cen-

t u r y , " American Jewish History, 69 (1979), 196-225.


392 LABOR HISTORY

litical persuasion—from Elilu Root to Samuel Strauss.36 WalterL. Weyl, Stuart Chase and Edward Ross followed their teacherSimon Patten, the "discoverer of abundance," in condemningthe way America was adjusting to economic prosperity." Thedisplaced aristocrat James Truslow Adams and the humanistscholar Irvine Babbit joined the fray to support shorter hours.38

Labor leaders, radicals, sociologists, educators, psychologists,prominent religious leaders and intellectuals continued as manyAmericans had for a century, to believe that leisure, like higherwages, was still a basic element of social reform.39

With the onset of the Great Depression, shorter hours be-

3 6 Joseph K. Hart, "The Place of Leisure in Life," Annals, 93 (Mar. 1925), iii; Samuel Strauss,"Things are in the Saddle," Atlantic Monthly, 294 (1924); "Elihu Root at the ClassicalLeague," New York Times, Feb. 25, 1923; New York Times, Nov. 23, 1924.

37 Daniel Fox, The Discovery of Abundance (New York, 1967), 145-69; Edward AlsworthRoss, "Adult Recreation as a Social Problem," American Journal of Sociology, 23(1918), 516-28; Walter Weyl, Tired Radicals (New York, 1921), 73; Stuart Chase, "Lei-sure in a Machine Age," Library Journal, 41 (1931), 629-32; Stuart Chase, "Consumersin Wonderland," New Republic, 50 (May 2, 1927), 38; Stuart Chase, Men and Machines(New York, 1929), 35-43; Stuart Chase, "Play", Charles and Mary Beard eds. WhitherMankind (New York, 1928), Chap. 8, passim.

3 8 J a m e s T . A d a m s , Our Business Civilization (New York, 1929), 15-25, 191-96; Kate Sargent ," P u s h or be P u s h e d " , Forum, 78 (Oct . 1927), 17-24, 622; Irving Babbi t t , On Being Cre-ative (Boston, 1932), 229.

3 9 Weaver Pangburn , " T h e Worker ' s Leisure and His Individual i ty ," American Journal ofSociology, 28 (1922), 433-41; Robert S. and Helen M. Lynd, Middletown (New York,1929), 11, 53 , 80, 8 1 , 225, 226, 301-10, 495-97; George Lundburg , etal, Leisure: A Subur-ban Study (New York, 1934), 21-25; John A . Ryan, " T h e Experts Look at Unemploy-ment : A Shorter Work P e r i o d , " Commonweal, 10 (1929) 636-48; Henry Suzzallo, " T h eUse of Le i su re , " Journal of the National Education Association, 14 (1930), 123; Joy E.Morgan , " T h e Leisure of T o m o r r o w , " Journal of the National Education Association,19 (1930), 2; George Cut ten , "Leisure and E d u c a t i o n , " Playground, 20 (1927), 601-5;John J . Loftus, " A Program for the Desired Use of Leisure Time as a Cardinal Objectiveof the Public Elementary S c h o o l , " National Education Association: Addresses and Pro-ceedings (1928), 390; Frank D . Boynton, " H o w We Should Educate for Le i su re , " SchoolExecutives Magazine, 49 (1930), 406; Eugene Liles, The New Leisure Challenges theSchools (New York, 1933), 14, 15; W . D . Ross, " T h e Right Use of Leisure as an Objectiveof E d u c a t i o n , " Educational Review, 94 (Sept. 1923), 71-74; New York Times, J une 5,1924; Althea Payne , "Educa t ion for Leisure as Well as for Voca t ion , " English Journal,10 (1921), 202; M . C . Winston, " T h e New Le i sure , " Progressive Education, 4 (1927),315-17; J . W . H a m m o n d , " T h e Challenge of Growing Le i su re , " American Education, 27(1925), 166-67; L . P . Jacks , "Vitalized Le i su re , " Journal of National Education Asso-ciation, 19 (1930), 145; A . B . Brown, " E d u c a t i o n for Le isure , " Hibbert Journal, 31(1933), 440-450; G. Stanley Hall , "No tes on the Psychology of Recrea t ion ," PedagogicalSeminary, 29 (1922), 72-99; Hall , Life and Confessions of a Psychologist (New York,1923), 531-36; Hall , Recreations of a Psychologist (New York, 1920), vii; John MaynardKeynes, The Economic Consequence of the Peace (New York, 1920), 2 1 ; A . H . Silver,"Le isure and the C h u r c h , " Playground, 20 (1927), 539-43; J . David, " O u r Leisure Classat P l a y , " Christian Century, 44 (1927), 897-99, G . S . Coyle , " M a r g i n s of Le i su re , " Jew-ish Center, 5 (1927), 20-24; Albert B. Wegener, Church and Community Recreation (NewYork, 1924), passim; Weaver W. Pangburn , "Chal lenge of Le isure , " Religious Educa-tion, 23 (1928), 748-52; L .L . W a r d , " P l e a for Light H a r n e s s , " Catholic World, 127(1928), 562-68; "Leisure T ime of W o r k e r s , " Playground, 18 (1924), 342-7; Ralph Aiken," A Labore r ' s Le isure , " North American Review, 1931, 268.



came more than a topic for public debate. It took center stageas a political issue for nearly five years. The different opinionsexpressed in the 1920s about the economic and social potentialof increased leisure on the one hand and the benefits of the neweconomic gospel of consumption on the other became politicalpositions and surrounded concrete proposals such as the Black/Perkins Bill and key components of Roosevelt's New Deal.

In the first years of the Depression, some businessmen tem-porarily abandoned their opposition to shorter hours and ac-cepted the concept as a solution to unemployment. In 1930 and1931, several major industrial firms cut weekly working hoursto 40 and later to 30. Kellogg of Battle Creek, Sears Roebuck,General Motors at Tarrytown, several cotton manufacturers,Standard Oil of New Jersey and the Hudson Motor Companyeach thought it was better to institute a shorter work week thanto lay off workers. Even though this usually meant a decrease inwages, managers of these firms thought that this measure wouldincrease job security.40 Herbert Hoover gradually began to lookwith favor upon such voluntary and spontaneous efforts to"share-the-work." Beginning in 1931 with his public support ofthe chemical industry's program to spread its work, Hoover be-gan to incorporate shorter hours as a basic part of his adminis-tration's Depression policies—a position consistently pressed onhim from the time of the stock market collapse by Secretary ofLabor Doak and later by his Emergency Committee on Employ-ment and his Organization on Unemployment Relief.41

In June 1932, pressed by the AFL to call a national congresson shorter hour legislation, Hoover chose instead to meet with agroup of New England politicians and businessmen organizedby Governor Winant of New Hampshire to discuss worksharing.This choice reflected Hoover's faith in business voluntarism, his

4 0 New York Times, July 30 and Oct. 2 , 1931.41 Letter to President Hoover from Walter S. Gifford, Director of the President 's Organiza-

tion on Unemployment Relief, Box 319, IA; "Repor t of the President 's Organization onUnemployment Relief," Box 339, Herbert Hoover ' s Presidential Papers , Hoover Library,West Branch; "Spread-Work Plans Gain Ground on the Employment F r o n t , " BusinessWeek (Aug. 3 , 1932), 11; "Spreading-Work Program of President 's Conference ofAugust 26, 1932," Monthly Labor Review, 35 (1932), 790-92; "Pres ident Hoover ' s Econ-omy Proposal : Five Day Week Staggered Furlough P l a n , " Congressional Digest, 9 (May,1932), 130.


394 LABOR HISTORY

recognition that shorter hours was an important political issuein the presidential campaign, and his disapproval of labor'smovement toward shorter hour legislation.42 In August Hoovergave his blessings to the National Conference of Business andIndustrial Committees' appointment of the Teagle Commissionon employment spreading. Teagle opened the "share-the-workdrive" in September. This grew into a national force with strongindustrial and business support principally because the Cham-ber of Commerce and the NAM saw this voluntary effort as ahedge against labor's push for national legislation. Teagle re-peated labor's arguments that work-sharing would increase em-ployment, provide relief, promote job security, and lead to eco-nomic recovery. Unlike labor though, Teagle and his businesssupporters thought that shorter hours were a temporary expedi-ent which depended on wage reductions and which would nolonger be needed when the Depression ended.43

During 1930 and 1931 the AFL intensified its efforts to gainthe 40 hour week. But as the Depression deepened it began topress for federal legislation for a 30 hour week. This was a clearbreak from its historic policy of voluntarism. The Federationhad always relied upon collective bargaining and had opposedlegislation except for women and children. But union spokes-men now argued that a new tack was necessary because the De-pression was an abnormal situation. In normal times, hours gotshorter and wages increased together. Collective bargaining wasdesigned basically to insure this. But labor had not been verysuccessful since the war. Average hours had stabilized around49 per week—this following a period of very rapid reduction.Fewer than 20% of American workers had benefitted from the40 hour initiative and worked less than 48 hours a week. Fur-thermore, all other industrial nations in the world had made sig-nificantly more progress than the United States in this area.Since hours had not been reduced in a reasonable manner, free

42 New York Times, July 21, 22, 24, 25, Aug. 2, 1932; J.G. Winant, "New Hampshire Plan,"Review of Reviews, 86 (Nov. 1932), 24.

43 New York Times, Aug. 27, 28, Sept. 2. 1932; "Job Sharing: 5 Million Helped by Work-Spreading, Teagle Committee Estimates," Business Week (Feb. 1, 1933), 14; "Nation-wide Drive for the Five-Day Week," Literary Digest, 145 (Aug. 13, 1932), 3-4; New YorkTimes, Sept. 9, 1932; New York Times, Aug. 14, Oct. 3, 1932; Jan. 15, 1937.



time had come all of a sudden—in the economic jolt of massiveunemployment.44

Abandoning their briefly held optimism about the benefits ofincreased productivity/5 labor leaders again saw general over-production and acute technological unemployment linked to-gether. The Depression seemed to have demonstrated that Wil-liam Green had been right—that free time was a natural result oftechnological advance and workers had a choice only as to theform that that free time would take: leisure or unemployment.46

The Depression had shown that the new economic gospel ofconsumption was bankrupt. It was felt that labor was under anextreme disadvantage because of the excess, not so much ofworkers, but of total time worked. A buyers' market for laborruled. The possibility of negotiating any contract for higherwages and shorter hours was remote. In the Depression condi-tion shorter hours meant a reduction in pay. This was borne outby the efforts of businessmen, Hoover's administration, and theTeagle Commission to deal with unemployment by "sharing thework" voluntarily.47

Hence, after some half-hearted overtures to the Teagle Com-mission in August 1932, the AFL leadership directed the Feder-ation's Executive Council to draft 30 hours legislation. HugoBlack introduced the Federation's Bill to the 72d Congress inDecember. The Bill specified that anything produced by estab-lishments where the work week was more than five days and thework day more than six hours was prohibited in interstate orforeign commerce.48

4 4 William Green, "Shor t e r H o u r s , " American Federationist, 38 (1931), 22; " L a b o r ' s Ultima-tum to Industry: Thi r ty-Hour W e e k , " Literary Digest, 114 (Dec. 10, 1932), 3-4; " A . F . ofL. Opens War for Its 30-Hour W e e k " , Newsweek, I (July 22, 1933), 6; New York Times,Oct. 12, 1932, Sept. 28, 1933, Oct . 10 and 23 , Dec. 13, 1934; July 17, 1932.

4 5 J . Charles Lane, " T h e Five-Day Week is Now a Vivid Industrial I s sue , " New York Times,Oct. 17, 1926, section 9, p . 1, cols. 1-8; Elsie Gluck, " W a g e Theor i e s , " American Feder-ationist, 32(1925) , 1163.

4 6 H . L . Slobodin, "Unemploymen t or Le isure—Which?" American Federationist, 37 (1930),l205-8;New York Times, Oct. 30, Nov. 18, 1931;U.S. Congress House of Representatives,Commit tee on Labor , Hearings on HR 14105, 72nd Congress , 2nd Session, 1933, 1-23.

47 New York Times, April 25 and 27, 1933; U .S . Congress, Senate , Commit tee on The Judi -ciary, Subcommit tee Hearings on S. 5267, 72d Congress, 2d Session, 1933, 1-23 283 ff;New York Times, J a n . 9, 1932; Feb. 13, 1933.

4 8 The evolution of Labor ' s shorter hour legislative cure for unemployment may be followedin the American Federationisl. See in sequence, American Federationist, 38 (1931), 22,(1931), 145, (1931), 401, (1931), 677, (1931), 1056, (1931), 1455; 39 (1932), 382, (1932),


396 LABOR HISTORY

Several affiliate unions had argued that provisions for a min-imum wage should be included in this Bill. The AFL, however,concluded that such a piece of legislation would have less politi-cal support and would almost certainly be ruled unconstitu-tional by the Supreme Court. Moreover, some labor spokesmenopposed the minimum wage provision because they felt that aminimum wage might easily become a maximum wage. The bestcourse was to enforce a nationwide reduction in the supply oflabor. This would provide immediate "work relief" —make the"work sharing" idea really work. Then, as more people wereput back to work at thirty hours, buyer confidence would return,purchasing power could expand, and the economy would re-bound. As the economy improved, labor could then bargain ef-fectively for higher wages in a condition of continued laborscarcity. Shorter hours legislation was a necessary first step tohigher wages.49

Labor closed ranks behind the Black Bill (and the Conneryversion in the House of Representatives) from 1932 to 1938. Infact, unions exhibited an exceptional degree of agreement andmilitancy. Green and the AFL, for example, threatened severaltimes to call a "national strike" in support of the Black andConnery Bills and firmly believed that they had worker backingnationally for such drastic measures.50

Green was moved to some of his most extreme rhetoric bythis bill. During the hearings conducted by the Senate JudiciaryCommittee in 1933, the following exchange took place betweenGreen and Hugo Black:

Senator Black. That being true, you say organized labor is going tofight for it [thirty hour week] and it can be accomplished in one of threeways, the first by voluntary action. Has experience demonstrated thatyou will get it by voluntary action?Mr. Green. I am satisfied we will never get it universally by voluntaryaction.

504, (1932), 985, for continuous support of Black/Connery Bills see 40 (1933), 13, (1933),347, (1933), 458, (1933), 1174; 42 (1935), 12,(1935), 132; 43 (1936), 1244; 44(1937), 1052;45 (1938), 1176.

49 New York Times, Jan. 8, 1932, Feb. 13, 1922; "Shorter Work Periods in Industry," MonthlyLabor Review, 36 (1933), 87-91; F.T. Carlton, "Employment and Leisure," AmericanFederationist, 39 (1932), 1256-60.

50 New York Times, Jan. 6 and 28, Dec. 12, 22, 1933.



Senator Black. One of your suggestions is the application of economicforce.Mr. Green. Yes; for we can organize the workers, and whenever weorganize them and can arrange to demand—Senator Black. By universal strike?Mr. Green. By universal strike.Senator Black. Which would be class war, practically.Mr. Green. Whatever it would be, it would be that.Senator Black. That is the second alternative.Mr. Green. Yes.Senator Black. And the third is legislation in line with this bill?Mr. Green. Yes. This is force.Senator Black. Legislative force.Mr. Green. Legislative force, and that is the only language that a lot ofemployers ever understand—the language of force.Senator Black. So that your conclusion is you will not reach this objec-tive except by the application of economic force?Mr. Green. Yes.Senator Black. Or by legislative force?Mr. Green. Yes; one of those ways.51

In the same year, the AFL at its annual convention declaredthe five day week-six hour day its "primary objective" and ac-companied the resolution with some more threats. Green calledfor the use of "force" to establish the thirty hour week andcommented on the "militant spirit" that characterized the con-vention and labor, nationally. He saw a willingness to use "everyweapon; economic, political, and industrial at our disposal."52

By 1937, union agreements for the 35 or 36 hour week werethe rule in five major American industries; glass, coal mining, furmanufacture, men and women's clothing. Approximately 66%of organized workers in newspaper publishing had negotiatedagreements for less than forty hours—about half of them worked371/2 hours. The 36 hour week was a part of agreements cover-ing two-thirds of motion picture operators and half the workersin the manufacturing of hats. Two of the largest companies inthe rubber industry and two large radio companies had the 35 or36 hour week. About 5% of organized building constructionworkers had 30 hour agreements—another 5°7o worked 35 hours.51 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee Hearings on S. 5267,

72d Congress, 2d Session, 1933, 21-22.52 Richard M. Boeckel, "Thirty-Hour Week," Editorial Research Reports, 1 (Jan., 1936),

35-50; W. Green, "Thirty Hour Week," American Federationist, 40 (1933), 1174.


398 LABOR HISTORY

Longshoremen on the Pacific Coast also had won the 30 hourweek by 1937. These few examples indicate that individual unionswere struggling on their own toward the 30 hour objective. Eventhough the AFL considered national legislation a prerequisite forshorter hours during the Depression, workers such as the SanFrancisco Longshoremen were willing to strike for the 30 hourweek and other workers such as those in the rubber industrywere willing to give up other benefits for shorter hours in theirbargaining sessions.53

During 1932 and 1933 the shorter hour cure for unemploy-ment built up momentum. Both the Republican and Democraticplatforms pledged their parties to shorter hours (but did not en-dorse the 30 hour bill). Hoover and Roosevelt went out of theirways to approve the shorter hour concept. In fact, this was justone of the few concrete unemployment proposals made by thecandidates during the election.54 Some of this interest was trans-lated into support for the Black and Connery Bills. Supporterswere found along the range of the political spectrum, includingsuch people as Monsignor John Ryan, C.H. Palmer, GovernorPinchot, Representative LaGuardia, Secretary of Labor Doak,Frances Perkins, Henry Ford, Senators Wagner and Walsh,E.A. Filene and Viscount Astor.55

During the hearings held in Congress on the Black and Con-nery Bills and in the public debate, educators, sociologists, poli-ticians, intellectuals, old fashioned reformers, farm groups, reli-gious leaders, and others accepted labor's argument that shorterhours would reduce unemployment, improve wages, provide re-lief and lead to economic recovery. In addition, the Senate andHouse hearings provided a forum for reciting the humanitarianbenefits of shorter hours which had been explored thoroughlyduring the 1920s. Like labor leaders, supporters of the 30 hourbill felt obliged to defend the leisure time that would have re-

53 "Hours of Work Provided in Collective Agreements in 1937," Monthly Labor Review,46(1938), 341-347.

54 New York Times, May 16 and 21, June 21 and 30, Sept. 22, Oct. 5, 1932; William Graf,comp., Platforms of the Two Great Political Parties: 1932 to 1944 (Washington, DC,1944), 336, 354; Robert F. Himmelberg, The Great Depression and American Capitalism(Boston, 1968), 41.

55 Henry Ford, "Unemployment or Leisure?" Saturday Evening Post, 203 (Aug. 2, 1930), 19;New York Times, May 30, June 8, Sept. 26, Oct. 15, Nov. 4, 1930.



suited from the legislation, and in so doing expressed an ideal-ism as old as the liberal reform movement itself.56

The Senate passage of the Black Bill on April 6, 1933,prompted Roosevelt and his advisers, who had been engrossedin the banking crisis, to take their first legislative steps towardeconomic recovery. Secretary of Labor Perkins was instructedto come up with an administrative alternative, which whendrafted and presented to the House Labor Committee, included

56 New York Times, Jan. 6, 8, 12, 19, 20, 1933; U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,Committee on Labor, Hearings on 158 and H.R. 4557; 73rd Congress, 1st Session, 1933;passim; U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Labor, Hearings onH.R. 7202, H.R. 416, and H.R. 8492, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session, 1934, passim;Dorothy Canfield Fisher, "The Bright Perilous Face of Leisure," Journal of Adult Edu-cation, 5 (1933), 237-43; Louis C. Walker, Distributed Leisure: An Approach to theProblems of Over-Production and Under Employment (New York, 1931), 21-52; A.Pound, "Out of Unemployment into Leisure," Atlantic Review, 146 (1930), 784-92;"Unemployment and Tomorrow's Leisure," Recreation, 25 (1931), 478-82; BertrandRussell, "Reeducation of Working Hours and the Advantages of Leisure," Review ofReviews, 82 (1932), 48-54; George B. Cutten, Challenge of Leisure (Columbus, 1933),passim; Henry P. Fairchild, "Exit the Gospel of Work," Harper's, 162 (1931), 566-73;Arthur O. Dahlberg, Jobs, Machines, and Capitalism (New York, 1932), passim; StewardGrant Cole, Leisure in Our Time (Philadelphia, 1934), passim; Cecil Delisle Burns, Lei-sure in the Modern World (New York, 1932), passim; Spencer Miller, Jr., "Labor and theChallenge of the New Leisure," Harvard Business Review, 11 (1933), 462-67; W.H.Hamilton, "Challenge of Leisure," New Republic, 74 (1933), 191-92; Thomas D. Eliot,"Reevaluating Leisure in Our Civilization," Christian Register, 113 (1934), 758-59; FelixS. Cohen, "The Blessing of Unemployment," American Scholar, 2 (1933), 203-14; F.H.Allport, "This Coming Era of Leisure," Harper's, 163 (1931), 641-52; "New Leisure,"Nation, 137 (1933), 610-11; "In the Driftway: American Vice of Busyness," Nation, 132(1931), 98-99; E.E. Calkins, "Lost Art of Play," Atlantic Monthly, 106 (1933), 438-46;A.B. Brown, "Education for Leisure," Hibben Journal, 31 (1933), 440-50; Ralph Aiken,"A Laborer's Leisure," North American Review, 232 (1931), 268-73; "Coming: The Ageof Leisure," Literary Digest, 112 (Jan. 16, 1932), 26; "Not Less, But More: Thirty-Hour-Week," Saturday Evening Post, 207 (Feb. 9, 1935), 26; Weaver Pangburn, "Leisure Timeand Education Opportunities and Needs," Recreation, 27 (1934); 499-500; ArthurN. Pack, The Challenge of Leisure (New York, 1934), passim; Roger Payne, Why Work?Or the Coming Age of Leisure and Plenty (Boston, 1939); passim; A. Daniels, "Responsi-bility of the College in Education for Leisure," Schools and Society, 41 (1935), 706-7;H.S. Dimock, "Can We Educate for Leisure?" Religious Education, 29 (1934), 120-24;Elizabeth E. Hoyt, "The Challenge of the New Leisure," Journal of Home EconomicsOct. 1933, 688;Eugene T. Lies, "Education for Leisure," National Education Associa-tion Journal, 21 (1932), 253-54; Lawrence P. Jacks, "The Coming Leisure," New Era, 13(1932), 349-51; Lawrence P. Jacks, "Education and Training for Leisure," VocationalGuidance Magazine, 11 (1931), 28-31; B.A. McClenahan, "Preparation for Leisure," So-ciology and Social Research, 18 (1933), 140-49; J.T. Palmer, "New Leisure—Blessing orCurse?", School Executives Magazine, 54 (1935), 198-99; Martin H. Neumeyer, "TheNew Leisure and Social Objectives," Sociology and Social Research, 20 (1936), 347-51;William Aylott Orton, American in Search of Culture (Boston, 1933), passim; Harry A.Overstreet, A Guide to Civilized Loafing (New York, 1934), passim; Herbert Mongredien,"Leisure," New Church Magazine, April-June, 1934, 113-17; W.S. Coffin, "Art andLeisure," Art Digest, 7 (1933), 10; T.F. Coade, "Education for Leisure," in Educationof Today (New York, 1935), 141-52; W.B. Bizzell, "Learning and Leisure," School andSociety, 39 (1934), 65-72; Marjorie L. Greenbie, "The Meaning of Leisure," Forum, Dec.1936, 290-92; Lawrence P. Jacks, "Leisure: A New and Perplexing Problem," WorldWide, July, 1931, 1091; Nicholas Murray Butler, "Leisure and Its Uses," Recreation, 28(1934), 219-222.


400 LABOR HISTORY

the Black Bill's 30 hour provision with the additions of a mini-mum wage and federal control of production.

The business community was outraged. Because of the 30 hourlegislation's political momentum, business interest in voluntari-ly "sharing-the-work" had decreased and by 1933 the Chamberof Commerce had shelved the Teagle program. By the time theBlack Bill had passed the Senate and Roosevelt had respondedwith administration support, business had closed ranks againstshorter hours as a desirable Depression measure. In fact, thestrongest opposition came from businessmen, economists, andindustrial managers. Hugh S. Johnson characterized this oppo-sition by declaring, "they would turn back-hand somersaultsagainst the thirty hour week."57

Through Raymond Moley the Chamber of Commerce of-fered Roosevelt their own alternative plan which they had beenworking on since 1931. Moley, Hugh S. Johnson, and RexfordTugwell met with the Chamber of Commerce on May 3, 1933and worked out a compromise which the Chamber accepted.With this compromise secured, Roosevelt sent this National In-dustrial Recovery Act to Congress on May 15. The NIRA wasdesigned specifically to accomplish the same goals that laborwas seeking with the Black Connery Bills—providing work re-lief, limiting production to "basic needs" to stabilize prices,and establishing minimum wages and maximum hours.

But as the NIRA folded and the Depression continued andthe so-called second New Deal began, Roosevelt abandoned theproject of controlling production and lost patience with businessvoluntarism. He was convinced by new advisors such as HarryHopkins to act directly to stimulate economic activity. Leavinghis suspicions about market maturity and limited growth behind,Roosevelt began to use such things as public works, liberal mane-

57 New York Times, Nov. 1, Dec. 10, 1932; "What Price Leisure," Business Week (Aug. 3,1932), 36; "Work-Spreaders Will Make Jobs Now, Face the Issues Later," BusinessWeek, Oct. 12, 1932, 13-14; "Work-Spreaders Will Have to Spread It Thin," BusinessWeek Oct. 26, 1932, 6; "6-Hour Day: Cornell Crystallizes Some Conclusions on Indus-try's Attitude," Business Week, May 10, 1933, 4; U.S. Congress Senate, Committee onthe Judiciary, Subcommittee Hearings on S 5267, 72d Congress, 2d Session, 1-28, 283-90;New York Times, Mar. 17, 1932; New York Times, Feb. 5, April 29, May 5, 1933; U.S.Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on House, Hearings on H.R. 7202, H.R.416, H.R. 8492, 73d Congress, 2d Session, 1934, 285; New York Times, Oct. 28, 1934.



tary policy, larger government payrolls, and deficit budgets topromote production and consumption. As Robert Heilbronerdescribed these events:

to the economists in the Roosevelt administration . . . the governmentnot only could but should use its spending powers as an economic ins-trument for securing full employment. . . They envisioned a new formof guided capitalism—a market society in which the all-important levelsof employment and output would . . . be promoted, protected againstdecline and stimulated toward growth by public action.

Such programs as the WPA demonstrated that Roosevelt hadbegun to think of the Federal government as having an obliga-tion to provide work for its citizens if the private sector couldnot. But government would be the employer of last resort. Thefirst line of attack would be to stimulate business activity. What-ever slack was left in the economy would be taken up not byshortening the hours of work but by constructive governmentspending policies. Hence, Roosevelt, at the prodding of his ad-visors, consistently opposed the 30 hours legislation throughoutthe Depression, offering his own programs as a series of alter-natives.58

The New Deal and the new gospel of consumption sharedeconomic goals but differed about the means to obtain them.Those who supported the gospel of consumption relied on adver-tising, salesmanship, capital growth, the consumption exampleof the more wealthy, and the slow growth of wages to competeefficiently with workers' desire for leisure and thus to provideeffective demand. Roosevelt, however, looked to governmentspending to stimulate that demand, since these other methodshad not worked. Drew Pearson saw this similarity of goals whenhe wrote: "Uncle Sam is a drummer with a commercial line tosell. He sold Liberty Bonds before but never refrigerators."59

Certainly Roosevelt supported private attempts to increasebusiness activity. He encouraged and supported the NationalRetail Dry Goods Association and department store owners' ef-forts to expand retail credit and even defended certain question-58 Arthur S. Link, American Epoch (New York, 1963), 390-395; New York Times, May 12,

1933, Oct. 14, 1934; Robert Heilbroner, The Economic Problem (Englewood Cliffs, NJ,1970), 152-153.

59 Pearson quoted in Carl Degler, "The Third American Revolution," in Out of Our Past(New York, 1959). 379-385.


402 LABOR HISTORY

able marketing techniques. In return, retail business peopletended to be among the strongest and most loyal of his support-ers. As Harry W. Schacter, president of the Kaufman StrausCompany in Louisville, pointed out, manufacturers opposedRoosevelt because "they are so far removed from the public."Retailers, on the other hand, knew through direct contact withthe consumer about the importance of his efforts to expand"purchasing power." One of the best examples of Roosevelt'sefforts to help retailers was his 1939 proclamation, moving upthe national celebration of Thanksgiving by one week in orderto expand the Christmas shopping season. While Roosevelt triedto assist private efforts to boost retail sales, he was more con-cerned with increasing purchasing power through Federal spend-ing. This was illustrated by such things as his opposition to theearmarking of work relief money to some of the PWA's heavyconstruction projects, which he thought would tie up too muchmoney in material and capital costs. He favored instead thoseprojects that paid more wages and thus more directly increasedretail spending.60

The Roosevelt administration began to characterize the short-er hour movement as regressive, the 30 hour bills as a clever ruseto disguise the tragedy of unemployment. Such legislation wouldnot cure unemployment; it would simply "redistribute the mis-ery." According to Roosevelt and his advisors, unemploymentwas unemployment. It had to be cured by full recovery and reli-able economic growth. "Normalcy" was to be found in an econ-omy that grew, that provided 40 hours of work a week, and thatallowed the standard of living to increase steadily—not one that"forced" people to work fewer hours a week." With the failure

60 New York Times, Jan. 2, 19, Feb. 20, April 18, Oct. 4, 13, 20, 1936; Mar. 19, Oct. 13, 1937;Aug. 5. Nov. 1, 1939.

61 "Satin Still Finds Work; Summary of Report of the NRA Committee of the Use of LeisureTime," Nation, 138 (1934), 663-4; Committee on the Use of Leisure Time of the NRAwas composed of Chairman, Raymond B. Fosdick, and members Nicholas MurrayButler, Alfred Smith, Mattew Woll. Conferences were held in the Fall of 1933; RaymondB. Fosdick, "The Public Hearings on the Use of Leisure," Recreation, 27 (Dec. 1933),418; " In the Driftway; Spurious Leisure," Nation 138 (1934), 73; "Wages, Hours, andRecovery," Business Week, (Mar. 3, 1934), 24; "What Price Leisure," Ibid., Aug. 3,1932, 36; "Hours and Wages," Ibid., Oct. 20, 1934), 5; "Labor's Day: NRA PolicyHearings," Ibid., Feb. 9, 1935, 6; "Washington Notes," New Republic, 81 (1934), 191;Hearing on HR 14105, 1-23; New York Times, April 29, May 3, 1933, Oct. 28, Nov. 22,1926, Dec. 3, 1934.



of the Black Bill and the advent of governmentally managedcapitalism, the shorter hour movement lost its short-lived politi-cal momentum. But more importantly, Roosevelt's administra-tion committed the Federal government to assuring Americanworkers a 40 hour week and in so doing institutionalized a biasagainst free time in any form—leisure or unemployment. Sincethe Depression, few Americans have thought of free time as anatural, continuous, and positive result of economic growthand increased productivity. Rather, leisure has been seen as adrain on the economy, a liability on wages, and the abandon-ment of economic progress.

Certainly, the end of the shorter hour movement has manydimensions and causes which must be explored. But the shortnarrative of events presented in this essay suggest two importantdimensions and causes—one social, the other political. Amongthe reasons for the ending of the shorter hour movement wasthe fact that American attitutes toward free time changed. Forover a century, American workers and their supporters valuedshorter hours. They did so for a variety of reasons—some eco-nomic and some non-pecuniary. Only higher wages competedwith this issue for workers' attention. During the 1920s and ear-ly 1930s labor and other groups and individuals saw in "theprogressive shortening of the hours of labor" a practical foun-dation for liberal idealism as well as a necessary remedy for eco-nomic ills. But during the Depression, free time took the formof massive unemployment. Instead of accepting labor's 30 hourweek remedy, Roosevelt and the majority of Americans saw thisfree time as a tragedy that had to be eliminated by increasingeconomic activity—an activity stimulated by government spend-ing if necessary. The concept of free time as leisure—a naturalpart of economic advance and a foil to materialistic values—was abandoned. The reform continuum in this one area wasbroken by Roosevelt's New Deal and by the modern adherenceto economic growth as the great liberal goal.

The change in attitudes found concrete forms in Federal lawand policy established during the Depression, which continuetoday. Hence the end of the shorter hour movement is to be ex-plained partially in political terms. Since the Depression, public


404 LABOR HISTORY

policy has been designed to maintain "adequate demand" and"full employment." Government deficit spending, liberal trea-sury policy, increased government payrolls, and expanded pub-lic works projects have usually been employed whenever the pri-vate sector has shown indication of stagnation.

Beginning with Roosevelt's inauguration and continuingthrough such efforts as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,the Employment Act of 1946, the Commission on Money andCredit in 1961, and the Humphrey-Hawkins Bill of the 1970s,liberal programs to deal with unemployment have been con-stant. They have been premised on, in the words of the Unem-ployment Act of 1946, "the continuing policy of the federalgovernment... to promote maximum employment, produc-tion, and purchasing power . . .". In practical terms, liberalprograms have been and continue to be designed to remedy un-employment by the federal government acting as a "permanentstabilizing force in the economy," spending whatever is neces-sary to stimulate the economy to "full employment" and "fullproduction."62

The shorter hour cure for unemployment has been forgottenfor over 40 years partly because of the public policy describedabove. Share the work and increased leisure have simply nothad a political constituency since the Depression. Leisure hasneither been an important social nor a political issue. The deci-sions made during the Depression about the unimportance ofincreased free time and the importance of economic growth and"full employment" have become articles of modern liberal faithand political dogma. This faith and dogma are demonstrated bymodern public policy and economic assumptions. And they aremanifest in the fact that the shorter hour movement has beendormant for nearly half a century.

62 Arthur M. Okum, ed., The Battle Against Unemployment: An Introduction to a CurrentIssue of Public Policy (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1965), pp. vii-viii; AlbertRees, "Dimensions of the Employment Problem," in A Symposium on Employment(Washington, DC: The American Bankers Association, 1964, passim; Heilbroner, TheEconomic Problem, 140-170.


Documents

THE END OF SHORTER HOURS - jhemingway.netjhemingway.net/515_Mats/515_Readings/Hunnicutt_End... · hour movement—to describe labor's last initiatives (the 40 hour week that succeeded