It's interesting how truth gets so easily distorted in collective consciousness.
Henry Ford reportedly had a couple of intuitions about his workers also being consumers of his products, so now every time you look at any aspect of the consumerist society, some people will assume that Ford must have thought of that.
Also, you can't talk about socialism in polite society, right? So the whole history of worker-rights movements in XIX and XX century is "forgotten" and concepts are shifted to the next available historical subject.
This is why the practice of historical research is so important, so progressive, and so underfunded. Whoever controls the past, controls the future.
It's quite laughable that you call his story revisionist when yours meets the standard. How do you explain other countries having 40 hour work weeks with no "bitter decades-long" union fights necessary?
By the way, it's also quite laughable that you're citing a blatant biased piece from a union website. Please tell me you're just trolling.
Getting the 40-hour week took a revolution in France, Mexico and Russia, an incipient revolution in the UK and Chile, industrial action in Australia, Portugal and New Zealand...
If you really want to argue that the 40-hour work week was the product of benevolent capitalists I think you have to try a bit harder. Perhaps there's an Ayn Rand blog somewhere with some made-up facts you can use?
And yes, I linked to the website of a union.
The IWW worked tirelessly to bring about the 40-hour work week, as well as other fun bits like "weekends" and "workplace safety" (probably Ford's ideas too, right? -_-). I'd say they're in a better position to comment than either you or the author of the original misguided article.
Are you for real or am I just imagining someone who just registered with the name "not an idiot" and yet provides a comment that indicate no capacity for deductive reasoning whatsoever?
It's one of the greatest legacies of the US unions. E.g. May Day as the international day for workers demonstrations came about largely in recognition of the sacrifices of the Haymarket Massacre, and thanks to the AFL reiterating it's commitment to the 8 hour day by planning new demonstrations for May 1st 1890.
Less than 100 years ago, this stuff happened. Far out. I truly can't comprehend the strikebreakers getting away with... Well, cold blooded murder. Massacres. It's horrible.
Very simple: the striking workers were considered criminals - rabble that no upstanding citizen would want to get associated with. Today, they'd be called terrorists.
Now think about how today, the American military gets away with bombing weddings...
Do you have a citation for who said your quote - I'm not an American but that really doesn't sound like something one of their founders would have said (of course, I could well be wrong!).
"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
It is strange that the author attributes the eight-hour workday to Henry Ford's business strategy. It had been a demand raised by workers themselves from much earlier: “Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
Exactly. This article needs some better research. The real history of the eight-hour work day is intertwined with the history of worker's movements beginning in the mid 1800's. Ford was nothing more than an opportunistic Capitalist (hint: they all are). If you're interested in this subject, I suggest learning about the NLU, the Knights of Labor, August Spies, Haymarket, etc.
Yeah, shame that for most people the time they need for eating, household chores and commute cut only into the recreation/rest hours, and often do so enough that there's very little recreation left.
That's actually a contemporary problem. Back then, only men would work a full day; women would deal with household chores and preparing food, so when a man came home, in most cases he wouldn't literally raise a finger for 8 hours (except maybe to get some coal or logs). Also commuting was non-existent, people lived close to factories in most cases.
The truth is that, when it comes to work arrangement, we failed to keep up the struggle: we now work more (in productivity terms) and for less pay than we did in the XIX century.
I think he was attributing the 5 day working week to Ford rather then the hours/day. 8/8/8 could result in a 48 hour week if you work six days, as many factory workers used to.
What you do is important, not the hours I agree, but do you know what changed my life for the better with respect to work and home without changing the hours?
I do a less extreme version of this. I don't own a TV, but I still watch a few selected shows on my computer. Doing it that way means I can watch when I want, and also has the benefit of fewer commercials. In total, I probably watch about 4 hours of mindless TV a week, when many people watch that much in a day.
It took my son a long time to accept why you can't always fast forward through ads, and why everything isn't available on-demand. He often prefers Youtube, but gets really annoyed when he can't immediately skip the ads.
I used to think live TV would survive because people like to just turn stuff on, but watching my son and other kids I realise that kids growing up with on-demand services, Youtube and DVR's don't seem to grow into that mindset: My son does not want to just turn on some channel, he instead asks for ridiculously specific things and expect it to exist. And as it turns out, most of the time he'll find something "close enough" on YouTube - even if it's some crappy homemade recording of some kid playing with his toys - if it's not something he can find on TV.
Live TV is about to become something unfashionable that old people watch, other than for a few major events.
Television was one the first in the series of productivity destroying mechanisms. Today there are things like Youtube, Facbook, Twitter and what not! If not that, there are new time wasting methods- Reddit, HN, Slashdot. Where you can have meta discussions all day.
Television to me is the least distracting of them all.
Also, 8 hours of "work" vs. 8 hours of productivity is quite different. I use pomodoro timers to track my level of productivity and when they add up to 8 hours, my brain is totally done. I'd have to squeeze in a long run to shake myself out of it.
Yep. To be honest, since excluding television I worked out I'm maximally productive for about 25-30 hours a week. I've managed to get my working hours down to that from the standard 8 hour day by minimising politics and keeping collaboration tight as anything. Those hours may be over a 40-100 hour period though.
Obsessive tracking of the time is as unhealthy I found. I keep a work log but I never read it. It's mainly for other peoples' benefit.
In small settings, e.g. just yourself, or you and your co-funder, of just a few employees, I guess this article makes sense for everyone. But the problem is with growing, bigger scheme.
It seems like as businesses grow and add more and more employees, they move to a more repetitive and uniform way to organize. Everybody should have the same schedule, losing an employee or hiring a new one isn't felt as much as a problem, they start to receive less feedback from employees and treat them more as repleceable workers.
> Because we have different energy levels at different times,
> it would be counterproductive for my co-founders to work at
> 9AM (just like it would be inefficient for me to be
> working at 2AM).
Here in The Netherlands, this is a tough sell. It's hard to come by a company that REALLY implements this policy. I've heard the "Just put in your 8 hours" and it often will have the side-clause "But we would like you to put them in as we do".
Even at my previous company, where we were not customer-bound, and most of our contacts were in the U.S. It made sense I'd come in later, and work later.
But they didn't see it that way, and got in a lot of fights with management about it. They didn't "see" all the hours I often put in late nights at home, only the next day I might got in the office with a full day without conversions ..
There were a few people who would make jokes or "annoyed complaints" to management about me coming in a few hours later than them.
Being a misfit is often met with ill repute.
Man, being at work at 11:00 AM instead of 9 made all the difference for me:
- I got my social time in, which was most of the time late nights at the bar, or at the Dojo.
- I didn't get upset when I had to talk to contacts in the U.S. when they'd come online around 17:00-18:00 or discussing technical implementations even later.
- Our peak hours were U.S. targeted even, so I was having NewRelic sessions every some other night around 23:00-02:00.
Obviously, every next day when there were server/app outages, I would tell about my 3 hour fit to optimize query x by a factor 100. But in the end these moments seemed to be lost to management quite easily.
They will remember the times you will come in late though..
I was putting in 50 hours in a 40 hour week.
For these reasons I now freelance :) I enjoy working in start-ups and with people in general. I think a lot of talent is left on the table by companies because they can't adapt to how developers are generally wired a bit different than other people ..
Some people need strict guidelines to be able to trust they put in the 8 hours.
For me that comes naturally with having fun and sense of responsibility and being trusted.
This a misleading article. Ford didn't graciously concede the 40 hour week. Moreover, it is an insult to the memory of all the workers that fought and died for it (like in the Haymarket massacre).
> Quirky, a web company is working on an experiment to shut down operations for four weeks every year
He may want to see how this experiment worked in Italy for the last 50 years. Most companies completely shut down in August for a few weeks.
Even those which want to stay open would do so with nobody else to interact with so they close too.
Putting in time is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for progress. In a modern tech business, there is an endless supply of things that could be improved, and available human resource is the limiting factor.
I find that having a roughly fixed number of hours of work is useful in the long run to balance burnout from working too many hours against not working to your full potential.
My productivity per hour goes down as I work more hours, but unless I am really tired each additional unit of time still provides a (diminishing) positive return.
Thinking that you have been really productive and can slack off for the rest of the day is a dangerous trap to fall into if you want to work at your full potential - it is better to use the positive mood you get from making progress and use it to motivate you to make even more progress.
I suppose that depends whether one is driven to be productive at 'work', or productive ex-work.
If I've achieved my work goals for a day / other accounting period, there is no further reward for me pushing-on to achieve more. I'd rather use that remaining energy for my own personal goals.
So I don't see it as a trap, quite the opposite; use that positive mood to go and fix the leaky faucet, or whatever.
If you were paid per hour, at some point the marginal increase in productive work got for the hour would be swamped by the fixed costs of just hiring another person and getting some 'fresh' hours out of them.
The 40-hour work week was won after a bitter decades-long fight by workers and unions against business owners.
The idea that Ford bestowed it upon a grateful staff to improve capitalism is wrong, pointless and insulting.
Here's an article in favour of shorter workdays that takes history a little more seriously: http://www.iww.org/history/library/misc/Bekken2000