Creating Jobs through Shorter Hours
AFL-CIO American Federationist | November 1962, pp. 19-21.
Economic Trends & Outlook
Most opposition to the idea of attacking unemployment by shortening the
workweek without loss of pay is based on the view that other policies are
more efficient or otherwise more desirable ways of meeting the
unemployment problem.
The case for shorter hours does not rest on the notion it is the best
way. It is based rather on the view, supported by ample evidence in the
past decade of mounting unemployment, that: (1) other economic measures to
achieve full employment are not being applied and perhaps cannot be
applied; and (2) even if other economic policies are successful in
stimulating greater growth in the period ahead, the rate of advance in
technology and other labor-displacing changes is gathering such momentum
that, unless part of the gains in efficiency are distributed in reductions
in hours, it is virtually inevitable that it will show up in persistent
and increased unemployment.
Organized labor has not made shorter hours its first choice in the
campaign against unemployment. Its first choice has been to apply its most
vigorous efforts, all through the last decade, for a range of other public
and private actions to stimulate a more rapid rate of economic
growth. Shortening of hours has been discussed periodically but a major
drive has been held off as a "last resort."
Unemployment has been mounting steadily and is threatening to increase
further because of automation and other technological innovations and
because of the increased rate of labor force expansion due in the
mid-1960s as postwar babies enter the job market. The economic programs
relied on thus far to expand economic growth and job opportunities have
been inadequate. Additional programs discussed as preferable to shorter
hours -- most notably tax reduction, reform of the tax structure, marked
expansion in public investment and an eased monetary policy -- are not
being put into effect. To oppose hours reduction on the ground that other
approaches are sounder and then to fail to apply them is not an acceptable
course of action.
The relative merits of alternative economic approaches are not evaluated
here. The points below may be useful, however, in assessing the wisdom of
hours reduction as against other measures generally:
1. Shortening of hours does not need pinpoint timing for full
effectiveness but is practicality and value diminish once a full-fledged
recession is in process. The workweek can best be reduced with no loss in
weekly pay while the economy is still comparatively prosperous, before
unemployment pressures have mounted to become the dominant economic
force. If the shorter hours tool is held in reserve too long and turned to
only after the full shock of recession or immense load of unemployment
arrives, its practicality and positive benefits will be severely
blunted. Shorter hours would likely come then largely in an undesirable
worksharing, cut-wage form force by overwhelming unemployment and would
not be adequate to the task of contributing substantial momentum to
employment upturn.
2. Advocacy of shorter hours does not mean rejection of other measures to
increase employment. The choice need not and should not be an either/or
proposition. Reduction of hours should be one of many steps applied to
control unemployment, with the size of the reduction determined by the
effectiveness of the overall program. If other measures prove effective in
providing needed jobs, hours reduction can of course proceed more
gradually.
3. Shorter hours are increasingly recognized by most workers and the
public generally as directly related to the unemployment problem. This is
not true to the same extent for other measures, such as government fiscal
or monetary policies. Because so many workers would be directly or
consciously involved in a general shortening of hours, there likely would
be a wide sense of participation and appreciation of the anti-unemployment
campaign, with accompanying psychological benefits for the economy.
4. Many of the collective agreement and government measures used to ease
unemployment effects are geared to helping the unemployed worker hunt for
a new job. These include private public retraining programs, relocation
aid, counseling, severance pay and approaches. A major objective of
shorter hours, on the other hand, is to reduce the need for layoffs and
thereby encourage retention of workers in the type of work and industry to
which they are already attached and in which they have already acquired
training.
5. There is rather wide recognition that rapid technological strides will
enable or force radically shorter hours at some point in the future,
perhaps not all distant. Reduction in typical hours of work in the present
period are necessary to aid in the economic and social transition to
increased reliance on technology in place of manpower.
(This was the first half of the fourth in a series of articles on the
reduction of working hours that ran in the AFL-CIO American Federationist
from August to November of 1962. The article went on to discuss the
government's role in reducing working time and the estimated employment
effects of shorter hours.)
Tom Walker
