EXPERIENCE WITH FIVE-DAY WEEK 4]

not to know what the effect had been. This lack of information
 was apparently due not to a failure to keep records, but
rather to recognition that other changes in conditions had
taken place which largely invalidated comparisons. In some
cases, the character of the product had been changed materially
 on account of shifting styles or demand; in others, substantial
 changes in manufacturing processes had been or were
being made, sometimes as a result of the adoption of the fiveday
 week and sometimes independent of it. These changes
made output comparisons inaccurate, if not entirely futile.
In still other cases where results might have been comparable,
no attempt had been made to ascertain how production under
the five-day week schedule compared with the former output
under a longer work week.

TaBLE 9: WEeekLYy OutpuT UNDER FIvE-Day ScHEDULE
CompareD wiTH QuTruT UNDER FORMER F1vE-AND-ONE-Hair
 anp Six-Day ScuepuLgs, 127 CoMPANIES
(Source: National Industrial Conference Board)
Changes in Output
Total
Num- | Per
ber | Cent
100
100
100
222 127 1100

Reduction. . . .....
No em |
[ncrease..........
Total... ...

Table 9 presents a classified analysis of the effect of fiveday
 week operation upon production as reported by 127
companies. Of ninety-four companies that had reduced the
total hours of work per week in changing to the five-day
schedule, approximately one-quarter claimed that production
had declined in about the same proportion. Six companies
reported a substantial loss in output, while forty-six companies
 saw no appreciable change. On the other hand,
eighteen companies reported that production had increased.
Since the hours of work per week of this group had been
reduced in changing to the five-day schedule, it appears that