The NYT says they are, but I don't think the data support the case, at least not yet. The article reports that the average workweek was 33.8 hours for March 2008, down from 33.9 in March of 2007. But before we make too much of this decline, it's worth noting that the average workweek was reported as 33.7 hours in February of 2007 and 33.8 hours in April of 2007. So the number reported for March of last year may have just been an aberration.
Hours typically fall in a downturn, but I don't think that there is much evidence of this decline in the data yet. In fact, there has been a small uptick in hours worked in manufacturing, where hours are best measured. Actually, the real story is that hours worked never recovered from the falloff in the 2001 recession. Prior to the recession, the average workweek was 34.3 hours. It has never gotten close to this level in this upturn.
Anyhow, it's good to see that the NYT is following hours worked -- it can be an important measure of labor market slack -- but I think they got this one wrong.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.