Back To The 40 Hour Work Week Article Review Examples

1. What is the author’s central argument (thesis)?
In "Why We Have to Go Back to a 40-Hour Work Week to Keep Our Sanity," Sara Robinson effectively argues that human beings need to go back to the 40 hour work week, as opposed to the 55-60 hour weeks most Americans are working today. She argues that limiting workers' productivity to 40 hours a week guarantees more productive hours on the whole, as people get burned out and more exhausted as the hours go on past that magic number.
2. What evidence is presented to support the central argument?
In order to support this argument, Robinson notes scientific research, the testimonials of other experts in the field, and more. She notes the history of suggested cuts in worker hours helping with productivity, as cited through Henry Ford's treatment of workers in relation to their productivity, as well as the consultation of experts like Tom Walker and his "Prosperity Covenant" (p. 142). Studies by writers for the International Game Developers' Association and more are also used to show shorter work weeks making for better workers. Robinson also cites the new Reagan-era expanded work week, and the increased emphasis on Randian work ethics that sacrificed personal lives for the sake of the company, as reasons for the lower morale and quicker burnout of employees.
3. How effectively do you think the evidence supports the central argument?
I believe that the evidence supports the argument somewhat - the information is presented in very interesting ways, using history and example to showcase businessmen like Henry Ford (who cut hours and raised pay to better productivity), and the Silicon Valley ideal of churning out programmers and workers with high turnover - the "churn 'em and burn 'em" philosophy (p. 146). However, I will admit that much of the argument is based on logical trains of thought moreso than actual scientific evidence, and that many emotional appeals are used in place of facts. There is plenty of evidence provided to support her assertion, but it is not used (or cited) very often outside of the early part of the article.
4. In your view, does this reading have particular strengths? If so, what are they?
This reading has quite a few strengths. First of all, it is incredibly persuasive and easy-to-read. The arguments are well-written, and the writing comes from the perspective of what to do about a persistent productivity and morale problem with American workers. The argument is brought into context - shorter work weeks would also require businesses to hire more, thus cutting unemployment, among other things. The call to action is presented directly to the American worker, presenting actionable items they can use to improve their lives (citing happier lives, a healthier environment and sustainable economic contributors). What research is there is strong, if vaguely presented - cases against the US military and NASA (for the Challenger explosion) are implicitly pinned on overworked workers.
5. In your view, does this reading have particular weaknesses? If so, what are they?
As I mentioned previously, one of the weaknesses of the article is that they rely too much on these emotional appeals and not as much on evidence. There are certainly correlations between Henry Ford's fair treatment of workers and their increased productivity, but no true causation is really established in the article. Furthermore, most of the examples the author gives are historic - it may not be possible to replicate the conditions that caused that greater productivity, no matter what. Our economy is much different than in Ford's time, and it may not be possible to achieve that level of happiness with a simple cutting of hours.
6. Do you agree or disagree with the central argument? Explain the reasoning behind your agreement or disagreement clearly and in detail. Your answer to this question needs to be substantial.
I agree with the central argument - human beings can be extremely overworked, and that can affect both their productivity and their happiness. There are many reasons I agree with the paper, despite my disappointment at not providing enough concrete numbers on the subject - for one, the trend of overworking places an undue emphasis on lives revolving around our work, instead of vice versa. Robinson articulates these shifting priorities well, by noting the 80s-era fealty to Big Business and giving up all semblance of a personal life or happiness to serve the company well. This is a very problematic way of life, as our work should be done as a means to an end, so that we can live our lives. Noting the changes in corporate and American culture throughout the years shows the overworking of American workers to be a systemic thing, and one that requires cultural changes in order to properly address. In the end, Robinson frames the argument in terms of finding peace and purpose in one's life, and that priority is something that I can identify with.