,
The eight-hour workday seems eternal and inevitable—as if humans have always worked from nine to five. In reality, it's barely a century old, was won through bitter struggle, and was never intended to be permanent. Understanding this history might change how you think about your own work schedule.
Before Clock Time: Task-Oriented Work
For most of human history, work wasn't measured in hours. Agricultural work followed seasonal rhythms—intense during planting and harvest, lighter at other times. Craftsmen worked until tasks were complete, not until clocks struck. Even in early factories, work rhythms were irregular.
The idea of selling your time by the hour, rather than your products or your labor, was foreign. You weren't late or early; you were simply working or not. The concept of work hours required both clocks and an economic system that treated time as a commodity.
The Brutality of Early Industrial Work
The Industrial Revolution changed everything. Factories needed synchronized schedules—all workers arriving together, working together, leaving together. Factory owners had invested heavily in machinery that sat idle when workers weren't present. They wanted maximum use of their investment.
The result was brutal exploitation. In early textile mills, 12-16 hour days were common. Children as young as five worked these hours. There were no weekends—some factories ran seven days a week with shifts running around the clock. Workers were fined for lateness, talking, or bathroom breaks that exceeded allowed times.
The average industrial worker in 1830s Britain worked over 70 hours per week. Fatigue caused accidents. Life expectancy for factory workers was decades shorter than for other groups. This was the norm that reformers set out to change.
The Eight-Hour Movement
Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, eight hours for what we will. This slogan, popularized in the 1850s, captured a revolutionary idea: workers deserved time for themselves, not just subsistence and sleep.
The fight for the eight-hour day lasted nearly a century. Robert Owen, the Welsh reformer, advocated for it in 1817. The movement gained steam through the 1800s, with strikes and campaigns across Europe and America. May Day, celebrated internationally as a workers' holiday, commemorates the 1886 Haymarket affair, where workers demonstrating for the eight-hour day were killed in a bombing.
Henry Ford's Surprising Intervention
In 1926, Henry Ford did something unexpected: he cut his workers' hours to 40 per week while maintaining their pay. This wasn't generosity—it was calculated self-interest.
Ford had discovered through internal research that workers were more productive in shorter shifts. After about eight hours, fatigue reduced output. Errors increased. Injuries multiplied. The extra hours cost more in productivity lost than they gained.
Moreover, Ford realized that workers needed time off to consume. His factories produced cars, but exhausted workers working every waking hour couldn't use them. Leisure creates desire for products, Ford wrote.
The Fair Labor Standards Act
In 1938, the United States passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, establishing the 40-hour work week as a national standard. Employers had to pay overtime for hours beyond 40. This was celebrated as a major victory, representing decades of struggle.
But the victory contained an assumption that proved wrong: that as productivity increased, work hours would continue to decrease. Many economists expected the 30-hour week to arrive by 1970, the 20-hour week shortly after.
The Paradox of Productivity
Productivity has indeed skyrocketed since 1938. A worker today produces roughly three times as much per hour as a worker in 1950. By the logic that won the 40-hour week, we should be working 13-hour weeks.
Instead, average work hours have increased. Americans now work more hours than they did in the 1970s. The always-on culture of smartphones and email extends work into evenings and weekends. Many salaried workers effectively work 50 or 60 hours without additional compensation.
Where did the productivity gains go? Primarily to profits and executive compensation. Workers' share of productivity gains declined sharply after 1970. The bargain that produced the 40-hour week—productivity gains shared through shorter hours—was never renewed.
The Persistence of 40
Why has 40 hours persisted so stubbornly? Several factors converge. Labor union power has declined dramatically since the 1970s, reducing workers' ability to bargain for shorter hours. Economic insecurity makes workers afraid to ask for less work. The structure of benefits incentivizes full-time rather than part-time work.
Cultural factors matter too. In many workplaces, long hours signal dedication. Leaving on time is treated as lack of commitment. These norms are self-reinforcing even when they reduce productivity.
Experiments in Shorter Hours
Recently, experiments with shorter work weeks have produced striking results. Microsoft Japan tried a four-day week and saw productivity increase 40 percent. Iceland's four-day week trials showed no decrease in productivity with improved worker wellbeing. Companies in New Zealand, Spain, and elsewhere have adopted shorter weeks with positive results.
These experiments suggest that the eight-hour day may not be optimal. Beyond a certain point, more hours don't produce more output—they just produce more fatigue, more errors, and more burnout.
The Future of Work Hours
The 40-hour week was never meant to be permanent. It was a milestone on a journey toward more leisure, a journey that stalled when workers stopped sharing in productivity gains. The question is whether that journey can resume.
The eight-hour day was won through struggle. Any further reduction will likely require similar effort. But understanding that our current work schedule is a historical artifact, not a natural law, is the first step toward imagining something better.