EFFICIENCY AND FATIGUE 255 



they put in only 58.2 hours of actual work. Taking 

 their relative hourly output as 100, their total weekly 

 output came to 5820. Subsequent to December, 1915, 

 the men worked shorter hours, and in the next statis- 

 tical period recorded, viz. February to April, 1916, 

 they put in only 50.5 hours of actual work per week, 

 or 7.7 hours less than before. However, their relative 

 hourly output increased in consequence to 122; i.e. 

 their total weekly output was now 6161, or 6 per cent 

 greater than before; but this figure by no means 

 represents their best effort. In the next period re- 

 corded, viz. November to December, 1916, the men 

 were working practically the same actual hours as 

 before, but their nominal hours were 6.3 per week 

 less, and the frequent Sunday labour which was im- 

 posed on them in the February to April period was 

 completely abolished. Under these conditions they 

 worked much more steadily, so that their lost time, or 

 the difference between nominal and actual hours, was 

 now only 5.3 hours, instead of 12.3 hours per week, 

 and their relative hourly output rose to 139. Their 

 total output accordingly worked out at 7117, or was 

 22 per cent greater than when the longer hours were 

 being worked. In June to September, 1917, their 

 hours of work were rather shorter still, and their 

 hourly output again went up a little, but their total 

 output was practically unchanged. That is to say, 

 a reduction of the actual hours of work from 58.2 a 

 week down to 48.8 per week, accompanied as it was 

 by the abolition of Sunday labour, caused their total 

 output to go up some 21 per cent. 



Equally striking were some of the results observed 

 in women. Table II shows the relative output of 80 

 to loo women engaged in turning aluminium fuse 

 bodies on capstan lathes. In this operation they were 

 actively employed every moment of their time, and 



