The Pursuit Of Happiness
A six-hour day at the Kellogg Company plant liberated time for
family and community, and provided jobs for the unemployed
by Benjamin Hunnicutt
One of the articles in It's About Time! (IC#37)
Winter 1994, Page 34
Copyright (c)1994, 1996 by Context Institute
| To order this issue ...
The 40-hour-plus workweek has been part of the US job system for so many
years that many people think of it as a natural law. Historian Benjamin
Hunnicutt has spent years researching one company - Kellogg's - that broke
that law by cutting work hours. He talked to hundreds of workers, many of
whom recall the freedom and creativity unleashed by the extra time. Hunnicutt,
who is the author of Work Without End, is in the process of writing
his findings on Kellogg's into a book, which will be published by Temple
University Press.
On December 1, 1930, at the start of the Great Depression, W.K. Kellogg
replaced the traditional three daily, eight-hour shifts in the Battle Creek,
Michigan, cereal plant with four six-hour shifts. From now on, W.K. declared,
his Cornflakes and Shredded Wheat would be produced by a company with a
conscience, willing to do its share to fight the depression. By adding one
entire shift, he reasoned, 30 percent more jobs would be added at the plant
- jobs desperately needed by the unemployed in the city.
Kellogg's six-hour day was an instant success, attracting national media
coverage and the attention of Herbert Hoover's administration. The initiative
won strong support from prominent businessmen and labor leaders all over
the country, and from community leaders and workers in Battle Creek. Observers
throughout the world speculated that Kellogg's experiment offered a practical
way out of the depression, and in light of the fact that hours of labor
had been steadily declining for over a century, was almost certainly a foretaste
of things to come.
W.K. and his lieutenants believed that the six-hour day would revolutionize
industry because the balance of the workers' lives would shift from concerns
about money and jobs to concerns about freedom. The true miracle of welfare
capitalism would thereby be revealed: expanding leisure. Under the direction
of enlightened industrialists such as W.K., the exchange of goods, services,
and labor in the free market would not have to result in mindless consumerism
or eternal exploitation of people and resources. Rather, workers would be
liberated by increasingly higher wages and shorter hours for the final freedom
promised by the Declaration of Independence - the Pursuit of Happiness.
Through the depression years, the six-hour day functioned as W.K. Kellogg
and Lewis J. Brown, the company president, hoped. Jobs were created as the
company payroll grew. Plant employees seemed delighted to have more time
of their own, especially so since their weekly paychecks were only a little
smaller. Workers were paid for seven hours during the first year of the
six-hour day, but beginning in the second year, total wages were raised
back to the nominal level of the eight-hour day.
Productivity was up, both because of the introduction of new technology
and because of Kellogg's innovative approach to hours and work incentives.
In essence, the management of Kellogg's was sharing the benefits of that
increased productivity with the workers in the form of free time.
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY LIFE
We have excellent information about what workers said about shorter hours.
In 1932, the Women's Bureau of the US Department of Labor sent a research
team to Battle Creek to interview Kellogg's women workers. The team found
nearly 85 percent preferred the six-hour shift, primarily because it provided
"more time for family activities and home duties and leisure"
and because it helped some of the unemployed find work.
The great majority of the Kellogg women used "freedom" or closely
related words when the agents asked them to compare the eight-hour and six-hour
shifts.
The second most commonly used pattern of words had to do with control and
possession; the women spoke about "my work," "my own time,"
"time to myself," or "enables." Several women told the
agents that the balance of their life seemed to be shifting from constraint/servitude
toward freedom/control.
Interviews and surveys I conducted more recently confirm the findings of
the Women's Bureau study.
For Susan Smith*, [*These names are pseudonyms to protect the privacy
of those interviewed.] one of the Kellogg employees I talked to, work
was never the central part of life. The extra time she had as a result of
the six-hour shift allowed her to get her housework out of the way and get
on to what she saw as the real part of the day: reading, walking, writing.
She was self-educated, and it was in the few hours between routine housework
and the job that she could keep the life of her mind and spirit alive, and
find time to be involved in her community.
Many of the women found routine, repetitive housework to be a burden, but
they enjoyed canning, sewing, gardening, and other household activities
that had a sense of 19th century craftsmanship to them.
Josephine Isley* spoke enthusiastically about canning at home during her
early days at Kellogg's, remembering it as a family project that "we
all enjoyed." To her, canning wasn't work in the same way that the
job at Kellogg's was work. Certainly canning required effort - great effort
in some cases to get her sons involved. But it was a productive activity
that provided a number of important non-financial benefits; the most important
was that her family was together doing something worthwhile. After they
were recruited, Isley recalled that her "sons opened up to talk freely"
and that during such activities "we were the most together as a family."
Because of such activities "we were better parents."
She contrasted such complex activities with the "silly" kinds
of leisure pastimes (TV and video games) which, together with modern jobs,
take all the time from family activities.
George Howard* wrote that "the six-hour shift let dad be with four
boys at ages when that was important."
The shorter shift made a difference on the job as well. Roberta Babcock*
wrote "I retired before they did away with the six-hour day ... but
from my observation in talking to friends who were still working, there
was a vast difference in attitudes regarding their work. They more or less
lost interest and didn't look forward to going in to work like we all did
on six hours. Then, there was a much more relaxed attitude, not the tension
that exists on eight hours. They all liked the additional money but felt
it wasn't worth the constant hassle."
Like generations of workers before them in Europe and the United States,
the Kellogg's women also saw the shorter hours as a moral act, symbolizing
their willingness to share their good fortune with others. They criticized
those who didn't support the six-hour policy as "money-hungry work
hogs."
Although there is no comparable survey from the '30s for the men, there
is strong evidence that their general support was similar. In addition to
plant-wide votes taken in the 1930s and '40s in which men voted three to
one for a six-hour shift, interviews with surviving male workers support
this claim. To a man, workers who still remember the 1930s recall that there
was nearly total support at the plant, and that the few who opposed shorter
hours were branded as misfits and "work hogs."
Community life was strengthened and opened as well. Although there is no
hard data on changes in the use of libraries and recreational facilities,
interviews with some 500 residents of Battle Creek who lived during this
period and a review of the 1932 women's survey indicate that there was a
strengthening of the traditional institutions that thrive when people have
free time: amateur sports, bars, clubs, churches, community service.
The six-hour shift also represented a new opportunity to do things beyond
the traditional. There was a sense of expectation and experimentation. One
woman learned how to fly, for example. Schools were well-attended by adults
interested in personal enrichment, the arts, or getting a better job. People
would go to the city. There was a lot of discussion about this opportunity
to create something new.
A POST-WAR SHIFT
After 1938, Kellogg management soured on the short shift, and the company
began to withdraw support. This was in part because of union demands that
all workers be put on the six-hour shift; departments that had needed extra
scheduling flexibility had until then remained on an eight-hour shift.
Also, the fixed costs associated with each worker on the payroll had increased.
Kellogg management had tried to prorate retirement pay, insurance benefits,
and other benefits, but the union had pressed for increases.
Another factor was that Kellogg himself stepped down, turning over management
of the plant to Watson Vanderploeg, a banker from Chicago who didn't share
Kellogg's welfare capitalist philosophy.
Complying with Franklin Roosevelt's executive order mandating a longer work
week as a wartime measure, the Kellogg plant went to three eight-hour shifts
in the early days of World War II. But prompted by the union, management
reluctantly promised to return to the six-hour day as soon as the war ended.
After the war, management tried to convince workers to continue working
eight hours. Despite generous money incentives and company pressure, workers
voted three to one in 1945 and again in 1946 to return to the short shift.
Management insisted that "those who want it" be allowed to work
longer hours. Workers were divided by this tactic. Senior men in skilled
crafts were more interested in working longer for more money and less interested
in sharing their work. This group formed a coalition with management and
together they began to challenge the six-hour supporters. They did this
largely by trying to persuade others in the plant to join them in voting
for eight-hour days. They began to talk about "necessity" as an
absolute and unchanging reality, the importance of "full-time work,"
and the unimportance of "leisure."
ROMANTICIZING WORK
Embracing the new "Human Relations" techniques of business management,
Kellogg's management tried to convince employees that work was the center
of life, important for its own sake. Echoing management's rhetoric, senior
male workers joined management in supporting work as an ideal, affirming
work as life's center and organizing principle. A few workers and union
leaders even joined the more loquacious managers in romanticizing "The
Job" and raising work to heroic and mythic proportions.
During the depression and the 1940s, Kellogg's workers had spoken of necessity
declining as wages increased, of the possibility of a person getting "enough"
or "too much," and of being able to "share the work."
They had also spoken of their "needs" in relation to non-monetary
values, saying things such as, "I need the extra money, but I need
the time at home more."
But after the 1950s, the majority of the eight-hour workers abandoned the
language of freedom and control that both men and women had used for over
50 years, insisting that money was the only real job benefit. They insisted
that they never had "enough" to work less than full-time. Shorter
hours for less money was "stupid," "silly," "crazy,"
"wasted," etc. and only for the "weak girls," "lazy,
sissy men," or "housewives" who really didn't need to work
or didn't realize the seriousness of The Job.
This issue divided workers along gender and class lines. More and more,
leisure was feminized. Those with power and status in the community stood
to lose out if another part of life - leisure, community, family - made
competitive claims to meaning and significance in the lives of the workers,
along with claims on their time and allegiance.
If the most important part of people's lives is outside the context of work,
who is in control? Traditionally women have had more power in the home and
in the community. So the battle over time became a power struggle between
those who wanted work to continue in its central role and those who were
claiming the importance of other parts of the culture. To a significant
degree, this division came down between sexes and classes.
THE SIX-HOUR MAVERICKS
Through the late 1950s and 1960s, more of the six-hour departments voted
to go to eight-hour shifts. But the workers in the remaining departments
closed ranks, becoming a mutually supportive and combative group. After
1960, the majority of six-hour workers were women.
The six-hour mavericks believed they were fighting labor's historic battle
against unemployment. The local union had given up that effort on a local
level in favor of supporting politicians who claimed they would conquer
unemployment by creating more jobs at the national level. But the mavericks
still spoke about unemployment as a local problem; the unemployed were laid-off
friends, neighbors, and relatives.
The primary reason most of the mavericks gave for their being at work in
the first place was necessity. Nonetheless, this group continued to insist
that it was possible to make "enough" on the short shift to live
reasonably. They also spoke of balancing the need for money and the need
for free time by limiting their work hours.
This group also hoped that shorter hours would revitalize the home and community.
If the family spent more time at home as the industrial work day diminished,
more energy for home-making would be available, housework could be shared,
and the positive parts of home-making accentuated. The home and neighborhood,
rather than factories, shops, and stores, might then grow in importance.
By the late 1950s, the remaining six-hour mavericks were not only fighting
a losing battle with Kellogg management and senior craftsmen, they were
facing the intrusion of mass culture.
During the '40s and '50s, consumerism increased as a cultural force nationwide.
Workers in Battle Creek offered more resistance than others, unwilling at
first to give up their time for "living" to the lure of new things
to buy.
But after the '50s, mass amusements, radio, and TV began their domination
of leisure time. Passive culture consumption began to replace the traditional
active practice and creation of culture. Why go see the women play baseball
when you can watch the Detroit Lions on TV? Why do your own canning when
you can buy canned goods at the supermarket? Why do anything in leisure
time when you can pay someone else to do it?
As leisure lost its cultural role, emptied of activity and community and
family meaning, consumerism strengthened. After the the centrality of work
was reaffirmed and abundant leisure branded as only for "silly girls,"
consumerism no longer had a rival in Battle Creek.
THE END OF THE SIX-HOUR SHIFT
In this environment, the remaining six-hour workers had little chance. Under
siege through the '60s and '70s, the group nevertheless held their position
until the issue came to a head in the summer of 1984. The company claimed
that strong competitive pressure within the cereal industry was forcing
it to make its work force more "efficient." Singling out the six-hour
departments for cutbacks, Kellogg's Board of Directors threatened to relocate
most of the jobs at the plant to other cities unless all six-hour departments
voted to go to an eight-hour shift immediately.
Pressured by the union and threatened by the company, a majority of the
six-hour workers voted on December 11, 1984, to accept the longer hours
.
A CULTURE OF WORK & CONSUMERISM
Most economists and historians assume that the reason working hours have
not gotten shorter for 50 years and that we are now increasingly overworked
is because we can't afford to work less.
The Kellogg story demonstrates that the "necessity" to work full-time
does not come from on high, but is the product of changes in community beliefs,
values, and culture.
Consumerism was a strong competitor for the extra time. Moreover, as leisure
became little more than TV, its attractiveness waned.
Class and gender interests, traditions, and allegiances also helped determine
the course of events. It was no accident that women were the strongest and
most persistent of the six-hour advocates, doggedly criticizing the work-centered
life and promoting alternative social structures, activities, and values.
After World War II, for reasons of community status and power, Kellogg's
managers and senior male workers promoted work, trivialized leisure, and
made shorter hours into an issue strongly associated with feminine values.
Their position set them apart from six-hour women, who were looking outside
the job to the family, school, and community for meaning and satisfaction,
control, and status.
Over 50 years, the debate in Battle Creek evolved from strong support of
"less work and more life" in 1930s and '40s to a reaffirmation
of work as the center of life and a rejection of increasing free time.
This cultural change, rather than economic necessity, is the fundamental
reason why the six-hour day ended at Kellogg's.
The New Economic Gospel Of Consumption
Where did our culture pick up the notion that there is no such thing
as enough? That we have to work long hours our whole lives just to get by?
That we have to have the latest gadget, clothes, cars, and so on?
Ben Hunnicutt, in his book, Work Without End, describes the way these
notions were consciously promoted starting in the 1920s. Consumerism was
the business world's answer to "demand saturation." The idea that
people would have enough, and therefore both buy less and work less, was
not appealing to the business leaders of the day.
The following is excerpted with permission from Work Without End, published
by Temple University Press.
In the 1920s, work was becoming critically scarce because, as so many observers
agreed, human needs for work's products were being satisfied. At the same
time, traditional motives for working were diminishing due to the fact that
basic needs were being met.
It's "perfectly clear that the middle class American already buys more
than he needs," but "unless we have a greater outlet for our goods
. . . as manufacturing efficiency increases, there will be larger groups
with too much leisure," observed business spokesperson Walter Henderson
Grimes.
Since many Americans had achieved a standard of living above "need,"
economic growth seemed doomed.
By the mid-1920s, the fears of businessmen that people had too little work
were gradually replaced by a new and vigorous optimism, which industrial
relations counselor E.S. Cowdrick called the "new economic gospel of
consumption."
The good news was that increased consumption could save economic growth
and redeem work. If existing markets were being saturated, then the reasonable
response would be to find new markets and increase consumption.
Growth in the "new era" of abundance, however, seemed to be complicated
by the fact that workers did not desire new goods and services - automobiles,
chemicals, appliances, and amusements - as spontaneously as they did the
old ones - food, clothing, and shelter.
It would be the hard work of investors, marketing experts, advertisers,
and business leaders, as well as the spending examples set by the rich,
that would promote consumption.
With this, the business community broke its long concentration on production,
introduced the age of mass consumption, founded a new view of progress in
an abundant society, and gave life to the advertising industry.
- Benjamin Hunnicutt
Please support
this web site ... and thanks if you already are!
All contents copyright (c)1994, 1996 by Context
Institute | To order this issue ...
Please send comments to webmaster
Last Updated 29 June 2000.
URL: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC37/Hunnicut.htm
Home | Search | Index of Issues
| Table of Contents
|
