INDUSTRIAL FATIGUE. No phase of industrial efficiency is attracting greater atten tion, both in this country and in Europe, than the question of fatigue. 'While comparatively little thought was given to this matter prior to the war, except by a few progressive manufac turers and exponents of scientific management, the necessity of meeting war-time emergencies led to a careful investigation of the subject of fatigue with a view to increasing the industrial output to the highest degree possible without making too great demands upon the health and strength of the workers.
A study of industrial fatigue was one of the purposes for which the British Health of Munition Workers Committee was appointed, in September 1915, and the
"It is of great importance to note that a special and strenuous voluntary effort in indus try, if it be maintained under a badly arranged time-table of work and rest, does not neces sarily bring increased output over a long period, however praiseworthy the intention or effort may be. Under wrong conditions of work, with excessive overtime, it is to he expected, indeed, that some deliberate 'slacking' of the workers might actually give an improvement of output over a period of some length by sparing wasteful fatigue, just as the of a boat crew over a part of a long course may improve their performance. It can not under such circumstances be said that a workman so restraining himself, consciously or uncon ciously, is doing more to damage the output, on the whole, than the employer who has ar ranged overlong hours of labor on the baseless assumption that long hours mean high output.'
In the United States, the Council of National Defense recognized the importance of this sub ject soon after preparations for war began and started investigations in factories engaged in the manufacture of war supplies to determine how a maximum output might be obtained with out unnecessary fatigue. The results of this series of studies and experiments was published in January 1918 by the sub-Committee on In dustrial Fatigue. Like the British report, it draws the conclusions that while "it is often possible to increase output temporarily by in creasing the work of the employee . . . such a method, if carried far, quickly defeats itself and in the long run is not profitable," as °fatigue is the greatest single obstacle to a maximum output.
The committee naturally lay emphasis upon the distinction between the harmless fatigue that is the normal effect of bodily activity and the unnatural fatigue that is the result of badly arranged hours of labor and other improper industrial habits, and it recommended various methods for the reduction of the latter, not only without decreasing the output but °even in some cases with an increase of it." These methods include: 1. Adjusting Hours of Labor.— While it is obvious that the length of working day that avoids fatigue varies with different kinds of work and can be determined only by careful study, the tendency to increase hours and introduce overtime work has not always proved profitable. CA man can do more work in two hours than in one hour," say the committee, but does not necessarily follow that he can do more in twelve hours than in ten, or more in ten hours than in eight. In fact, whenever the work is of such duration that fatigue begins to be pronounced, it has been shown again and again that shortening the working-period ac tually increases the amount of work done.' 2. Discouraging Overtime.— The commit tee's investigations seem to justify the dis couragement of overtime on the ground that, if the ordinary day's work has been properly ad justed, if will stop just short of undue fatigue and the overwork necessitated by overtime will produce injurious results by diminishing the worker's efficiency, in lessening the output and increasing the amount of spoiled work.