Economics Volume II: Modern Economic Problems

by Frank A. Fetter

§ 3. #Fewer hours and greater efficiency.# Quite contrary to the foregoing view is the claim that in the shorter day the rate of work is so increased that the output is at least as large as in the longer day, or even larger. A faster working pace is possible with a shorter day, particularly in those operations calling for physical or mental dexterity. This view is less attractive to the workers than the preceding one, but is more acceptable to the employers and to the public. The change undoubtedly has resulted in many cases in the manner indicated, and could be made to result so in many other cases by applying the methods of scientific management. But it is a change which cannot be repeated indefinitely and under all conditions with like favorable results. Whether in any particular case it can be, depends in part on the length of the working day at the start. Such an increase in output might occur in a change from exhausting hours, as from 12 to 10, and again from 10 to 9, and yet not be possible in a change from 9 to 8. Moreover, the speeding up of the workers beyond a certain point may have had physiological effects outweighing the benefit from shorter hours. It is now said that with the increase of automatic machinery there are more and more workmen who much of the time have merely to watch the machine-tool run, and occasionally adjust the material. There has, however, been collected a notable body of evidence to show that, in many industries and in different establishments using much machinery, a reduction of hours to a number as few as eight has been followed by the increase of the output per worker, or by improvement in the quality of work, or by improvement in the management, resulting in a reduction of the cost of production. This is often sufficient, or more than sufficient, to compensate for the shorter time. Wages have remained as high as, or higher than, before, and employment has been more regular. So far as this result is due to the individual worker, it is explained by the same evidence referred to below[5] as bearing upon the health of the worker. This evidence tends to prove that with longer periods of rest and recreation the worker lives in a physical and mental condition fitting him far better for his work, and for continuing his working life.

§ 5. #Child-labor.# All the foregoing arguments are weighed in terms of private incomes and of the value of the products, whereas the main considerations that have of late been influencing legislation and judicial decision in favor of shorter hours have been those of public welfare. The legal limitation of working hours is being treated primarily as a health measure, into the judgment of which is more and more entering a broader conception of the happiness, morality, and opportunities for good citizenship for the worker and his family.

In agricultural conditions, such as have prevailed generally in America, there is little need of limiting the hours of work and the age at which children may begin to work. The barefoot boy trudging over clover fields to carry water to the harvesters may be the happier, healthier, and better for his work. Child-labor in agriculture has never become a social "problem" so long as the children work with their own parents at their own homes; but the labor of children for wages, especially in gangs on large farms (as in beet cultivation and cranberry picking) or in canning factories, has exhibited evils as pronounced as any in urban manufacturing conditions.

The evil of forcing children into factories was early recognized. The most obvious evils of child-labor are neglect of the child's schooling; destruction of home life; overwork, overstrain, and loss of sleep, with resulting injury to health; unusual danger of industrial accidents; and exposure to demoralizing conditions. The usual assumption that the worker is able to contract regarding the conditions of labor on terms of equality with the employer is most palpably false in the case of children. The child, subject to the commands of his parents and guardians, is not a free agent. Lazy fathers are tempted to support themselves in idleness on the wages of their young children. Often poverty leads the parents to rob their children of health, of schooling, and of the joys of childhood. The competition of child-labor also depresses the wages of adults, and thus the evil grows.

§ 5. #Child-labor legislation.# The limitation of hours was first applied to children working in English factories early in the nineteenth century and thence has extended throughout the world, tardily following the spread of the factory system. The first American law of the kind was in Massachusetts, in 1842, limiting to 10 hours the labor of children under twelve years of age in manufacturing establishments. All the earlier state laws established low minimums of age and high maximums of hours, and were poorly enforced for lack of adequate administrative machinery, this in turn being the result of lack of active public interest. In all these respects many states gradually improved their child-labor laws in the latter part of the last century, and much more rapidly since 1903. Now the maximum working day for children in about one half of the states is 8 hours, in one quarter is 9 hours, and in one quarter is 10 hours (and in a few southern states, 11 hours). Night work by children is very generally forbidden (in about forty states). During the same time the minimum age has been pretty generally raised to fourteen years for factory work, with higher ages (sixteen, eighteen, or even twenty-one) in some states for certain occupations dangerous to health or morals. In addition to these general limitations, special provision is made for individual examinations to determine whether the child is mentally and physically fit to work and has met the requirements of the compulsory education laws of the state.

The most important child-labor legislation in recent years was the enactment of the long debated national child-labor law (passed in August, 1916). This prohibits the interstate shipment of goods produced in factories wherein any child has, within thirty days, been employed under unfavorable conditions as to hours and time of work as specified in the act. The passage of this act was the culmination of years of efforts in and out of Congress.

Child-labor legislation viewed as a merely negative policy is not of great moment. Its real significance is to be judged only in connection with the broader social policy of protecting and developing all of the children of the nation to be healthy, intelligent, moral, and efficient citizens. Children growing into blighted and ignorant manhood and womanhood are threats to society.

§ 6. #Limitations of the working day for women#. But little later than the limitation of child-labor usually comes some legislation to limit the hours and conditions of employment of women. The grounds of this policy are that women likewise are less able than men to protect themselves in the labor contract, that they are physically weak and are peculiarly exposed to certain dangers to health, that as future mothers they need protection for their own and the public welfare, and that in the period of maternity the dangers are especially great. The work of women in factories operates in some ways to depress the wages of men, and it is harmful in its effects upon the home and family life. At present five states limit the hours of women to 8 a day, twelve to 9 a day, fifteen to 19 a day, four to 11 or less a day. A number of states forbid the work of women in designated places of work such as saloons, mines, or where constant standing is required. Only as late as 1911, in America, has legislation, now in four states, given maternity protection, as is now more fully provided in European countries in connection with systems of health insurance.

In all of the great industrial countries of Europe night work by women is restricted (prohibited between 10 P.M. and 5 A.M. or yet more narrowly limited); but legislation along this line is found in only eight American states.

§ 7. #Limitations of the working day for men#. The general assumption made in law has been that the adult male worker is competent to judge of the working conditions, hours of labor, and wages, and is capable of protecting his own interests sufficiently by his power of refusal to accept employment. The legislatures have, much more tardily than in their legislation for children and for women, acted contrary to this assumption, but, when this has been done, the courts in America have vigorously asserted the general doctrine and denied the constitutionality of the laws. However, some exceptions were made in legislation, and, after much apparent hesitation and vacillation, were allowed by, the courts to stand, and these have now grown in number until they form an impressive total.