Carvell McLeary | Demise of the 40-hour workweek?

Is the 40-hour workweek, the sacred foundation of employment practices, at an end? Is it blasphemous to offer such words? As Jamaican businesses struggle with productivity concerns, culture and strategy misalignment, or the rise of remote work, it is the perfect time to raise this uncomfortable question.

The narrative surrounding the birth of the 40-hour workweek is not boring history. It is a frightening drama of bloody protests, economic crisis, and the fight for the right to rest.

THE BLOODY BIRTH

Let’s go back to 1886, Chicago.

The Industrial Revolution gave factory owners wealth but also created misery for those who built that wealth. Women, children, and men worked up to 100 hours per week. It was six or seven days of work. Weekends did not exist.

However, prior to 1886, in 1817 a controversial meme was planted in the imagination of the public by Robert Owen, a Welsh factory owner. He envisioned workers having a three-part day: eight hours for work, eight hours for recreation, and eight hours for rest. Of course, this radical proposal was ridiculed by his contemporaries.

By 1866, this meme became louder with the National Labor Union lobbying the US Congress for an eight-hour workday. Then, on May 3, 1886, a massive national strike in support of the eight-hour workday transitioned into mayhem when a bomb exploded in Chicago’s Haymarket Square. Long story, short: Police responded, and people died. This tragedy became a watershed moment in the struggle for the eight-hour workday and is celebrated today as May Day (May 1 – International Workers’ Day).

TRANSFORMATIONAL CAPITALIST

Leading up to May Day and beyond, the eight-hour social movement was dismissed as socialist radicalism. And then, Henry Ford, one of history’s industrialists and famous capitalist adopted it and proved the opposition wrong. In 1926, the Ford Motor Company shocked the business world by adopting a five-day, 40-hour workweek and doubling its workers’ pay. Henry Ford could not be considered as a man imbibing on emotionalism as he was obsessed with efficiency. He measured productivity and knew that, when workers went beyond eight hours, only small improvements occurred, and they were prone to mistakes! Ford also recognised that tired workers don’t buy cars and theorised that, if workers had recreation time and disposable income, they may buy his cars.

Ford’s theory was correct. The 40-hour workweek improved the workers’ lives and aided the building of the middle class.

CRISIS CREATED PROGRESS

As revolutionary as Ford’s experiment was, it was a catastrophe that made the 40-hour workweek into law. The 1930s Great Depression caused millions of Americans to be unemployed, so President Roosevelt shortened the workweek to spread the limited jobs to a greater number of persons.

By 1933, the government encouraged businesses to adopt a 35 to 40-hour workweek. As we say, the rest is history; businesses responded positively. And, in 1940, the law was enacted for the 8-hour workday and 40-hour workweek.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

In Jamaica, most of us operate on the 40-hour workweek. This practice came from our colonial past, and it is so natural that we haven’t questioned it.

But we must now question it. Wasn’t it designed for a manufacturing economy in the early 20th century, not the modern service economy that exists (for the most part)? Wasn’t it designed for physically present workers to operate machinery? It certainly wasn’t made for knowledge workers in rural Jamaica and Kingston who collaborate across time zones using laptops. In the epoch when it was designed, ‘work’ meant ‘hours spent at one’s worksite’. not ‘value created for an organisation’. So, the 40-hour workweek was designed for someone else’s economy, in someone else’s century.

Today, the 40-hour workweek is under pressure as we are working far more hours. In a 2025 survey, the University of St. Thomas Newsroom found that 40 per cent of employees work 40 hours, 38 per cent work 41 to 59 hours, and 15 per cent do over 60 hours. So, around the world, companies have done the unthinkable by experimenting with a four-day workweek (4DWW). In Iceland, they found that reducing workweeks to 35-36 hours, without cutting workers’ pay (2015 to 2019), produced similar or improved productivity, and increased worker well-being.

There are lessons for Jamaica:

First, productivity is not about hours. Ford understood this and the Icelandic trial confirmed it. Yet ‘presenteeism’ is equated with productivity. A worker who stares at a screen for 10 tiring hours does not create value as one who delivers focused results in six hours and then goes home.

Second, organisational flexibility is critical for attracting talented Jamaicans. When organisations require a rigid 9 to 5 work schedule – in office – and their competitors offer flexibility, the talented people will leave for the flexibility. Relatedly, the Government must be vociferously commended for proactively implementing the Flexible Work Arrangement Act to facilitate a flexible work environment.

Third, crisis creates opportunity. The 40-hour workweek became law during the Great Depression. Today, Jamaica’s crises are many (low productivity and trust levels; high turnover intentions), but they are an invitation for innovating and reimagining work.

I put into perspective my youngest son and daughter, who will soon graduate from university and high school. They will change jobs frequently; likely work remotely, and value personal time as much as salary. But will our workplaces be ready for them?

The 40-hour workweek was a revolutionary achievement in response to brutal exploitation of people. So, will a new generation that abhors the working traditions of a century ago force change, or will we? The train is coming!

Carvell N. McLeary, PhD, is a people leader and culture engineer based in Kingston. Send feedback to carvell.mcleary@protonmail.com