266 BIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS 



the saving of costs by running the machinery for 72 

 hours a week instead of 48 hours would not be con- 

 siderable. Still, taking the industries as a whole, 

 there would doubtless be a very great saving. When 

 we come to compare the total output in a six-hour day 

 with that in an eight-hour day it is clear, from the data 

 previously quoted, that no hard-and-fast rule can be 

 laid down. The workers engaged in vigorous and 

 active work would probably produce nearly as much 

 in six hours as in eight hours, but those who were pas- 

 sively watching automatic machines, or were engaged 

 in other light work, would find it impossible to do so. 

 Perhaps the difficulty might be solved in their case 

 by arranging for them to work seven hours per day 

 instead of six hours. They might start work at 6 a.m. 

 instead of 7 a.m., whilst the second shift might work 

 on till 9 p.m. 



With Lord Leverhulme's contention that the workers 

 ought to have two hours a day to devote to educational 

 classes, or, later on, in the case of men, to military 

 service, one has every sympathy. In consequence 

 of their better education the workers would doubtless 

 be able to work more skilfully and intelligently, and 

 so the large amount of unskilled labour would gradu- 

 ally be abolished, and be replaced by more skilled 

 labour, which could achieve a much greater production 

 by the employment of more machinery. Still, the 

 question is bound to be controlled to some extent by 

 economic factors. If this country wishes to compete 

 in the open markets of the world against other coun- 

 tries, such as Germany, which might be running two 

 eight-hour shifts each day (e.g. 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., and 

 2 p.m. to 10 p.m.), it might be found impossible to 

 grant the workers such considerable relaxation of 

 hours. However, the question which should first be 

 decided is: What number of hours, with work paid 



