an abandonment of the 12-hour shift in the steel industry would be impracticable, and while the reasons that were given were appealing to common sense, there were introduced certain unfortunate phrases that gave an opportunity to quibblers to argue about them.
In the renewal of the discussion there were reiterated representations that three eight-hour shifts are more economical than two 12-hour shifts, which would be the best of all reasons for the substitution if the representation were true. In fact there is much reason to doubt it, which is not to deny that there has been considerable apparent evidence to the contrary. Before we can come to any sound conclusion on this subject it is necessary to consider the nature of work.
In an essentially laborious operation, such as shoveling coal out of a gondola car, it is conceivable that a man, given the same conditions, might shovel as many tons in an eight-hour shift as in a 12-hour shift, but it is by no means certain that such a result would happen. The evidence afforded by the results of changing from 10 hours to eight hours indicates that it would not happen.
The other extreme is the condition of purely mechanical production in connection with which the human function is purely that of watching a machine. If the machine be working at maximum efficiency and if two men in 24 hours should give it the necessary attention without becoming unduly tired, manifestly the substitution of three men would be economically detrimental.
An easier condition exists with respect to the operation of such an apparatus as a blast furnace, in connection with which the manning may be arranged in two 12-hour shifts, but with the men actually working
