LABOR’S IMAGE OF ITS PLACE IN THE COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY TImsls Ior III. Degree oI M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Warren Louis Sauer 1958 LABOR'S IMAGE OF ITS PLACE IN THE COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY by Warren Louis Sauer A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology and Anthropology 1958 2 WARREN LOUIS SAUER ABSTRACT Since World War II organized labor has steadily in- creased its participation in community organizations and activities. The present study attempted to ascertain organized labor‘s image of its role in local affairs. It was, therefore, necessary to gain intimate knowledge of labor's community goals and aspirations, as well as its perception of the goals and objectives of business and management. To obtain these data, a selected sample of thirty-nine union members most influential in community affairs was interviewed. From them information was obtained on the amount of labor participation in local organizations, its motives in participating, the local problems of greatest concern, labor's role in resolving these problems, and the obstacles faced. A number of findings may be noted. Labor has a keen interest in local affairs, and wants to broaden its partici- pation to embrace all important community-wide organizations. This interest is motivated by the expressed desire to serve not only the needs of organized labor, but those of the public at large. Labor sees itself prevented from doing so by a rather small group of businessmen who have considerable influence and who act concertedly to resolve local issues. This group invites labor to legitimize its decisions after making them. Labor influentials do not see themselves as 3 WARREN LOUIS SAUER ABSTRACT .having significantly different community objectives than local businessmen. However, they feel that labor's objec- tives are somewhat broader. Moreover, labor wants to have greater representation in resolving community problems and to employ different means at arriving at their solution. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indebted to many people. He is prim- arily indebted to the labor officials in Lansing who gave generously of their time and cooperation in the interviews and to the Labor and Industrial Relations Center for providing the support for this study. He is grateful to Dr. Ishino who read earlier drafts of the thesis and offered many valuable suggestions regarding its form and contents. He also wishes to express his gratitude to the other members of his committee, Dr. Hoffer and Dr. Frost, for their encouragement. This thesis is a part of a general project on the place of labor and management in the community power structure, and a study of labor and management images of the community power structure. This study is under the sponsorship of the Labor and Industrial Relations Center and is directed by William H. Form. The author is partic- ularly indebted to Dr. Form, whose constructive criticisms and patient guidance made the author‘s task much less formidable. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. LABOR IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. . . . . . . 1 Historical considerations in labor's community involvement 1 Labor at the local level A Pragmatic theory of Perlman 5 '"Maturational" theories 7 Durkheim‘s theory . . . . . . . . . 11 Theoretical synthesis . . . . . . . . 1A The Lansing case. . . . . . . . . . 19 II. THEORY AND METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . 24 Theoretical significance of study . . . . 24 Hypotheses concerning labor's image of community power . . . . . . . . . 31 Suggested controls in testing hypothesis. . 33 Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 III. LABOR'S IMAGE OF THE COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE. A2 The sample described . . . . . . . . 42 First hypothesis: Labor's image of management power . . . . . . . . . 46 Conclusion—-first hypothesis . . . . . 67 Second hypothesis: Labor's perception of ‘"cleavage" between itself and management - 68 iv CHAPTER PAGE Conclusion--second hypothesis . . . . 83 IV. FACTORS AFFECTING LABOR'S IMAGE OF THE POWER STRUCTURE. . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Four control factors . . . . . . . . 85 Analysis of the data . . . . . . . . 86 Relationships among the control variables . 87 lntercorrelations between responses and controls . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 v. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . 102 What is labor's image. . . . . . . . 102 Further topics for investigation . . . . 105 Contributions to theory . . . . . . . 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. LIST OF TABLES Labor Influentials Interviewed, Union Affiliation, and Votes Received Social Characteristics of Labor Influentials in Lansing . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Lansing as a Union Town by Top Labor Influentials . . . . . . . Reasons Given for Evaluations of Lansing by Top Labor Influentials . Evaluation of Relative Power of Labor and Management in Lansing Labor‘s Image of Its Ability to Achieve Its Goals. . . . . . . . . . . Composition of Groups Making Big Community Decisions . . . . . Reasons Given by Labor Influentials for Non- Participation in Lansing Organizations. Source of Opposition to Labor's Community Participation Labor's Assessment of Its Influence on the Outcome of Outstanding Issues in the Community . . . . . . . . . . . Influential Organizations Listed by Labor Respondents. . . . . . . . . Civic Leaders Chosen by Labor Influentials as Capable of Sponsoring a Community Project. Distribution of Responses to Questions Dealing with Labor-Management Balance of Power. Important Community Issues Listed by Labor Influentials . . . . . PAGE 38 A5 A7 LIB 50 52 53 56 58 59 61 63 66 71 vi TABLE PAGE XV. Labor's Assessment of Whether Management Agrees on Naming Dominant Community Issues . 72 XVI. General Differences in the Community Objec— tives of Labor and Management as Perceived by Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . 73 XVII. Labor's Comparison of Its and Management's Economic Stake in Community Organizations and Activities. . . . . . . . . . 76 XVIII. Community Organizations and Activities in Which Labor Should Participate But Does Not . . . . . . 77 XIX. Community Organizations in Which Labor Should Not Participate . . . . . . . . . 78 XX. Comparison of Management and Labor Interest in Community Involvement . . . . . . 81 XXI. Distribution of Responses to Questions Dealing With Labor-Management Cleavage. . 83 XXII. Age Distribution According to Level of Influence . . . . . . . . 87 XXIII. Level of Union Position for Age Groups. . . 88 XXIV. Age Composition of Labor' 3 Community Representatives . . . . . . . . 88 XXV. Position Held by the Influence Level of Labor Officials . . . . . . . . . 89 XXVI. Position Level According to Organizational Representation. . . . . . . . . . 90 XXVII. Organizational Representation According to Influence Level . . . . . . . . . 9O XXVIII. Perception of Labor-Management Cleavage According to Influence Level of Labor Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . 92 XXIX. Labor—Management Cleavage Perceived by Labor Representatives According to Organizational Representation. . . . . . . . . . 93 . 30... n TABLE XXX. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. Cleavage Perceived Between Labor and Manage- ment by Position Within the Union _. . . Power Attributed to Management by Labor According to Organizational Representation Power Attributed to Management by Level of Position Within the Union . . . . . Power Attributed to Management by Level of Position Within the Union . . . . Power Attributed to Management by High and Low Influence Groups. . . . . vii PAGE 9U 98 99 99 .Q. CHAPTER I LABOR IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY Historical Considerations in Labor's Community Involvement It is the primary objective in the present study to investigate the View or image which organized labor has of its role in the community power structure in Lansing, Michigan. As background to this problem, it seems appro- priate to examine briefly some historical factors which pertain to labor's present state of involvement in community affairs generally. Until the relatively recent past, labor participation in community affairs has been the exception rather than the rule. In the present chapter an attempt will be made to explain labor's entrance into community activities by appraising the various alternatives which have been suggested to account for this phenomenon. "Community involvement" as we are using the term refers to the formal participation of labor union Officials in those local organizations and activities which are not directly related to the collective bargaining function as practiced by the unions in their dealings with employers. Thus labor representation on school or hospital boards, or labor taking a stand on such a community issue as taxation, II are examples of community involvement" or"participation.” A cursory glance at the history of the trade union movement in this country reveals a general lack of union involvement in community affairs. For the most part labor has been concerned with traditional economic aims such as increased pay, shorter hours, better working conditions, and the like. Where non-economic concerns did develop, they were mostly at the state and national levels. Perhaps the most notable of these "non-economic" concerns of labor has been an active interest in political affairs, again chiefly at the state and national levels. The various attempts to align the labor vote with a particular political party illustrate labor's continuing interest in political participation.1 Only in a few historical instances has labor been influential on the local scene--Hartford and Milwaukee being cases in point. Examining labor‘s changing role from World War I to World War II, several interesting observations may be made. There appeared to be a "marriage of convenience" between management and labor during both wars, which saw both parties cooperating jointly in various activities relative to the war effort.2 Both participated in bond drives, and 1David Henry, "One Hundred Years of Labor in Politics," in The House of Labor: Internal Operations g£_American Unions, edited by J. B. S. Hardman and Maurice Neufeld (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951), pp. 90-112. 2Duane Beck, An_ Historical Study 9; Organized Labor‘s Participation in Community Chest and Council Activities in Lansing, Michigan (unpublished Project Report, Department of Sbcial Work, Michigan State University, 1955). various war relief activities. Production quotas were raised to new levels through the amicable agreements which were engendered during the duration and expressed in such forms as "no-strike" pledges. Labor and management sat to- gether on various government agencies including draft boards, pricing boards, wage stabilization boards, among others. This cooperation obviously extended from the national down to the local level. But whereas the conclusion of the first World War saw the cessation of labor participation in such varied activities, the end of World War II brought labor's endorsement of many non-economic community activities as a matter of permanent policy.3 The position of labor after the second war was obviously much more stable and secure than it was after the first con- flict. The intervening years had witnessed a growth in the labor movement, the greatest impetus being provided by the New Deal administration and its labor-abetting legislation. Many sociological problems were posed by labor's new power. The extension Of labor into so many diverse areas of endeav— ors represented a virtual realignment of power, not only at the national, but at the local level as well. The main area which this study seeks to examine is labor‘s self image of this new position which it now enjoys. How does labor View 3Leo Perlis, "Unions and Community Services, The CIO Community Services Program," in The House of Labor: Internal Operations of American Unions, edited by J. B. S. Hardman and Maurice NeuIEId (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951),pp.333-3AO. its role in the community? Does it see itself at logger- heads with management or as an equal, cooperative partner? Is labor out to dominate the community? If so, what are the goals it hopes to achieve in the name of Labor? These are some of the questions with which we will be concerned as we study labor in Lansing, Michigan. Before proceeding to this problem, however, it would be well to assess some n of the factors which have affected labor's "new orien- tation of community participation. Labor at the Local Level Labor's entrance into community affairs has apparently received scant attention in the literature. Labor histor- ians, when writing about the "labor movement," were usually concerned with unionism per se, and, as a consequence, did not devote much attention to labor's community activities. Yet labor's influence is not only manifest on the national scene, but on the community scene as well. It may well be that the broad national programs of labor are more spectac- ular than its local program. However, the latter is now quite pervasive and deserves more attention than it has received in the past. A study of the national concerns of the labor movement deprive us of an understanding of the forces which have made labor concerned about community programs. This point should become clearer when the literature is examined for specific hypotheses concerning labor's 5 community involvement. Although several alternative explan- ations may be suggested they do not deal specifically with labor in the community. Explanations must be derived from speculations dealing with labor's functional relations to other institutions in the society. These must be used for the sake of theoretical parsimony. Specifically, although the work of Durkheim was concerned with labor as part of ‘ he nevertheless an economic organization or "corporation,' provided the most fruitful insights for the problem at hand. The following paragraphs will review and appraise several of the more prominent interpretations of labor's develop- ment, in the hope of providing at least a partial answer to this difficult question. Pragmatic Theory of Perlman An examination of Perlman's Theory of the Labor Meye- 22224 reveals little that is directly relevant to the problem area which has been selected. In fact, if Perlman's theory is accepted without qualification, one is hard pressed to explain non-economic functions of unions as represented in their various community activities. Although a lengthy treatment of Perlman's thesis is not possible here, a brief resume of his work may be attempted to assert “Selig Perlman, A Theory of the Labor Movement (New York: The MacMillan Company, I928). 6 its relevancy to the question of why the union has adopted so many "non-traditional" functions. Labor's representation in community affairs today most certainly stands in sharp contrast to what is considered by Perlman as the chief function of unions; namely, collective bargaining. Perlman has characterized American labor as being "job conscious" with a primary concern for attaining wage and job control. The labor movement is pictured as devoid of ideological substance, having a pragmatic orientation concerned with the attainment of "here-and-now" objectives, and lacking any long—range programs that would give it ideological 'direction. This portrayal hardly seems adequate to account for the present situation of unions branching out into "non-job" community activities. Although it may be true that American labor lacks a class consciousness in the Marxian sense and an accompanying class ideology, such an appraisal leaves a number of ques- tions unanswered. It does not explain satisfactorily how "job consciousness" accounts for the increase in the union community activities. Presumably, a strictly "economic" orientation would exclude community involvement. Of course, a case can be developed for supportingthe idea that such involvement, on the part of unions, is indeed "proof" that the unions are pragmatically-oriented and are really only furthering their economic Objectives by becoming involved in local affairs. Yet if the labor movement has been traditionally pragmatic, one must ask, why was it not sooner involved in community activities? The benefits to be derived from such involvement should have been apparent to local unions long before they actually began partici- pating widely in civic affairs. The question inevitably arises as to why there was a labor withdrawal from local- participation after World War I when labor had successfully become a community participant. No such retreat was evident after World War II. The Perlman theory does not explain the change in labor's position in soCiety from 1920 to 1945. It is not enough to speak only of the orientation of labor in the hope of explaining its somewhat erratic path of development. If it is accepted that labor has embraced a pragmatic value of adjusting to ever-changing conditions, then we can best understand labor‘s position today by examining those conditions to which it has adjusted, since they and not any "static" economic motivation would account for the change in its status over the past forty years. The question does not appear to be only one of labor ideology or lack of it. Even if, as Perlman has said, labor has always been essentially "job conscious," this fact does little to explain labor's rise to prominence in the com- munity area. "Maturational" Theories This leads to a discussion of another explanation to account for labor's "development." While not necessarily 8 providing a complete solution to the present problem, it is more in line with sociological thinking. As exemplified in the writings of such authors as Selekman and Whitehead the '"maturational approach" implies that the increased community activity of labor is partly the result of the development of union organizations to the point where they must assume additional functions beyond its primary economic function of collective bargaining in order to survive. To Selekman, unions have undergone a transition from "organization to administration."5 Conflict over union recognition has given way to cooperation in the bargaining process with administration Of the signed agreement now being the focal point in labor-management relations. This has enabled both parties to consider the wider social ramifications of their respective economic associations. Management, unhampered by the legal struggle which characterized the development of the union, naturally "matured" more quickly, and long has been a participant in community affairs. Labor's tenuous legal status precluded such rapid maturation on its part. ' However, the maturation which management belatedly mani- fested in collective bargaining has resulted in a parallel development on the part of the unions. They, too, must now be responsible for the general welfare. 5Benjamin Selekman, Labor Relations and Human Relations (New York: McGraw-Hill BOOk Company, 1947). According to Whitehead,'"the future of trade unions will depend upon the degree to which social living is made a first concern of those who are in a position to lead." Whitehead would consider not only the professed objectives of the unions, but also their "social tendencies" which are motivated by underlying social sentiments or needs, which presumably make such tendencies or activities inevitable.6 Such explanations enable us to understand better labor's interest in politics and public welfare. Indeed, such interests appear to be as "traditional" as the well— known bread-and-butter objectives. The fact that unions did not earlier develop a community welfare orientation is due not only to the union's "immaturity," but to the "immaturity" of the public as well. The maturational process is a reciprocal one involving the union on one side and manage- ment and the public on the other. Both sides have matured. Such an interpretation allows us to explain both the events which were manifestations of a changing attitude on the part of management and the public toward labor unions, and those which enabled unions to activate their latent social functions. Viewed in this light, labor‘s somewhat turbulent history is rendered more meaningful. The status of labor 6Thomas N. Whitehead, Leadership in a Free Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, I§36). 10 has risen not only because of a change in labor strategy or tactics but also because of a more tolerant public View toward those tactics. Public toleration resulted in the New Deal legislation, which at the least afforded unions legal recognition. Granted legal protection, the unions could devote more energy to non-economic pursuits previously neglected. A shift in policy from non-involvement in political and social activi- ties to an active participation thus becomes more apparent than real when considered from this viewpoint. The fact that the unions now have a community services program seemingly was contingent more upon public recognition of labor rather than the emergence of a "new" appreciation or awareness of the value of such a program on the part of unions themselves. Focusing as they do on the economic aspects of manage— ment and labor, the maturational theories provide little rationale for the importance which non-economic functions have assumed fOr such societal groups. They do explain the evolution of the collective bargaining process, but shed little light on the development of activities not directly related to labor-management relations. Why indeed have community activities engaged the attention of labor and management? Maturation at the bargaining level was a neces— sary but not sufficient cause for labor unions to enter community affairs. Management preceded labor into community '0'»... ll endeavors long before maturation of the collective bar- gaining process. Why should it have done so? What is the basis of the "social tendencies" of unions referred to by Whitehead? Are these tendencies a result of the maturation of unions per ea or are they intrinsic to economic organi- zations in general? How can the maturational process explain the unions' long—time interest in "sociaT'functions? White- head and Selekman explain the timing of the realization or activation Of such functions for unions, but do not explain their origin, either for management or labor. For answers to these questions, we now turn to the work of Emile Durkheim. Durkheim's Theory Akin to the work of Selekman and Whitehead, but dis- playing a far more comprehensive grasp of the role of econ- Omic groups in society, is the writing of Emile Durkheim. In his preface to the second edition of The Division of ‘Labgr, Durkheim gives an historical description of occupa- tional groups or "corporations" as they have developed in various societies.7 From his account one can clearly perceive in the light of history, that occupational groups seem destined to play a major role in any industrial society. The potential or "accretive" functions of such groups, only 7Emile Durkheim, The Division 93 Labor _i_r_1_ Societ , Translated by G. Simpson (Glencoe: The Free Press, 19%9I- 12 briefly touched upon by Selekman and Whitehead, are graph- ically portrayed by Durkheim. '"Corporate activity," according to Durkheim, can assume the most varied forms; from furthering of economic interests, to fulfilling moral and social needs as well. Men need to live communal lives; the state alone cannot provide a sufficient environment of communalization. Other groups are needed to integrate the individual into a meaningful social life. Occupational groups, according to Durkheim are well-suited to fill this role because they tend to produce an "intellectual and moral homogeneity." In helping to integrate the individual into society, the occupational group thus assumes many non-economic func- tions because of the "collective forces" which it inherently manifests. Durkheim speaks of the "functions of assistance," which can be admirably filled by "corporationsj‘because such functions require feelings of solidarity as exemplified by corporations. When applied to our present problem, Durkheim's theory makes the union's entrance into community affairs an inevitable consequence rather than an unanticipated develop- ment as it also explains business‘s entry into the community. This is in contrast to Perlman's hypothesis which renders the union‘s civic activity as virtually paradoxical or inimical to its primary interests. The fact that unions have always exhibited the socializing or integrative l3 tendencies to which Durkheim refers, seems to confirm his theory. That unions were not always successful in fulfilling their social functions was due perhaps to the "disruptive aspects" of their economic functions as viewed by other '"secondary groups." As long as the union's economic tactics were considered "illegal," the union could hardly act as a socializing community agency. The union first had to be accepted as a legitimate "secondary group." Of course the question of the functions which unions perform and/or why workers join unions has been the subject of many articles and books since Durkheim wrote.8 One safe conclusion that can be drawn from the literature is that the unions perform functions in addition to economic ones, whether they are variously labeled'"psychological,"'"social," or“political."9 Unfortunately, most writers have seen these non-economic functions of the union as internal func— tions. It seems unrealistic to conclude that if the functions are important, and if they can also be provided by outside community agencies that the union will not utilize these agencies or try to affect their operations. Since an endeavor is being made here to explain the union's entrance into community affairs, the literature bears out 8Daisy Tagliacozzo, "Trade Union Government, Its Nature and Its Problems, A Bibliographical Review, l944-55,"American Journal of Sociology, 61 (May 1956), 554-581. 9William H. Form and Harry K. Dansereau, "Union Member Orientations and Patterns of Social Integration," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 11 (October 1957), 3-12. 14 our contention that such a development represents an inev- itable or "natural" consequence of union functioning, which was given particular impetus following legal recognition. The traditional estrangement of unions from other com- munity groups has, indeed, reinforced the social functions which they seem destined to fulfill. If one of the inherent functions is to pull members into the "general torrent of social life," as Durkheim has insisted, then community involvement appears to be but an extension of this function. Again, thefact that this function was not more fully exer- cised at an earlier date is attributable to the historical "unlawfulness" of economic interests of unions. Theoretical Synthesis In synthesizing the various interpretations given to unions and their functions to explain their entrance into 'community affairs a number of salient factors stand out. Inasmuch as they all represent postfhgg explanations, they all have face validity to some degree. However, their degree of validity must be judged in terms Of how plausible they appear in the light of the many historical "irregulari- ties" which have marked the development of the American labor movement. The present state of American labor with its espousal of a community-welfare orientation stands in sharp contraét to their former "aloofness" toward community affairs. If one is to understand why such a change has come about, it is imperative to consider not only union 15 functions but other societal groups and their functions as well. The present chapter has dealt almost exclusively with the former. That the unions have economic, social, and a number of other functions, does not sufficiently explain their involvement in community activities. Their exercise of these various functions is influenced by other groups with which the unions interact. From their inception, American unions have been handicapped in the exercise of their diverse functions, which accounts for the varied directions which these have taken.10 Thus the pragmatic character which many have attri- buted to the American labor movement becomes somewhat more meaningful, if one is aware of the tenuous relationships which the unions had established with other societal groups. Unions perforce had to be pragmatic or job-conscious until they could obtain legal recognition, which in turn would allow them to adopt a somewhat more long—range, stable orientation. Returning once more to the Durkheimian frame of refer- ence, the activities of corporations other than unions (for Durkheim was not restricting the term to labor unions) clearly illustrates the integrative functions which they 10A comparative study of the American unions' societal involvement with that of European unions is impossible here. In many European countries unions are often formally joined with political parties, for example, as in Great Britain. 16 have exercised. The position of the business firm in the American community hardly needs elaboration. In an undeni- able position of strength in its bargaining relations with the unions for many decades, it would be expected that business corporations would also be the dominant socializing force in the community, with the unions running far behind. The balance of power, once it was shifted toward the unions, enabled them also to become socializing agents in the com- munity. It is fruitless to impute various inherent functions to the union if its dynamic relationships with other groups are to be ignored. Functions are in large measure affected by these relationships. The two factors appear almost inseparable. If one of the union's functions is the culti- vation of harmonious relationships as Durkheim wrote, but such relationships are not fostered or desired by other ' then the exercise of such a function is "corporations,‘ rendered extremely difficult. Such a function obviously requires acceptance by other groups to be fulfilled. In the case of American unions such acceptance was not forth- coming until the Roosevelt administration. The granting Of legal recognition of the union's economic functions meant tacit approval of their socializing function. In other words, the union's task of establishing relations with other societal groups was made easier, indeed made possible, through its recognition as a collective bargaining agent for the workerst 17 For purposes of analysis the unions‘ functions have been dichotomized into those of an economic or social character. Obviously this is an oversimplification. The union remains basically a special interest group as is any economic organization. The objection can be raised that community involvement of labor is only meant to serve their particular interests, in short, is only an extension of their economic function. This view overlooks several impor— tant factors. First, if this charge is true of labor it must also be true of other organizations. Can it not also be said that community participation serves the economic interests of business groups as well as labor? Secondly, if the unions have no social functions to perform, but have always been primarily economically oriented, why weren‘t they earlier involved in community affairs, inasmuch as it could have furthered their economic interests? TO be sure community participation is used by all groups tO'"legitimize" their own interests, and the unions are no exception. In the case of the unions this motive is reinforced by their long period of exclusion. It seems nec- essary to account for labor's traditional lack of community involvement in terms of this exclusion even if one accepts the "selfish" motive behind labor's participation. But if one accepts this proposition, he must be prepared to accept the further proposition that labor‘s exclusion might have been due to the "selfish" motives of other groups. 18 Rather than impute purely selfish motives to any economic group to explain community involvement, it appears more plausible to speak of a socializing function which all such groups appear to manifest at some time in the course of their development, as Durkheim insisted. In the case of labor, full realization of this function was dependent upon legal recognition of its economic function. The relatively rapid extension of union activities following such recogn- ition adds support to such a supposition. Although non- economic activities were in evidence long before legal recognition, the expansion which took place was particularly manifest at the community level. - Essentially all of the foregoing explanations point to a question of power as a basis of the changes related to the union's position in the community. Whatever one posits as the function of American unions, reference must be made to the unique social setting in which the unions have developed and which has prevented or permitted the exercise of various functions. The potential behavior of unions has been covered by the various authors; their actual behavior must be explained in terms of the conditions in which this behavior was manifest. As indicated, these conditions changed and with them union functions also changed. Basically, these changes of conditional functions are all related to the legal recognition granted to unions, an event which gave them more power. 19 This slow integration of labor into the community power structure gives ample testimony that a question of power lay at the bottom of labor‘s long inactivity in the community. It is a slow, painful process as any such read- justment would necessarily be. Labor's place is still uncertain. As a newcomer, it poses a threat to the tradi- tionally dominant groups in the community. While this situation exists, labor can hardly win the support of powerful allies, but must content itself with lesser allies as it tries to establish its position. The question of power will be dealt with more fully in the next chapter in discussing the theoretical frame of reference behind this research. The Lansing Case An historical study by Duane Beck Of the role of labor in Community Chest activities in Lansing provides an 11 Labor excellent illustration of the preceding thesis. participation in Community Chest activities in Lansing was non—existent in the 1920's. Public sentiment appeared to be anti-labor and management's attitude was that Chest activities could be carried on without organized labor. For its part, labor was occupied primarily with problems of organizing, which were made especially acute by the prevailing anti—union sentiment. This difficulty was llBeck, op. cit. 2O compounded by the American Federation of Labor‘s (AFL) own inability as a craft union to organize industrial workers. After 1933 union activity expanded on the social as well as the economic front. Overtures were made to labor to participate in Chest activities to which laborresponded. The attitudes which resulted from the legal recognition of the union nationally were slowly carried over into other areas of local community life. In Lansing 1933 the Com- munity Welfare Fund, predecessor to the Community Chest, announced its intention to secure labor representation on its Board of Trustees. This shift in thinking had a prag- matic as well,as an altruistic base. Labor at first rejected offers to participate in Chest drives. As Beck indicates this was due not to an antipathy to Chest activities, but rather to their adminis- tration, which had always been under business‘ control. Workers formerly had contributed to the Chest through invol— untary payroll deductions.12 With their newly acquired status, unions elected to boycott the Community Chest, even though payroll deduction was eliminated. Without union support, the Chest could hardly survive with the result that the unions were given representation on its adminis- trative board in return for their support. In effect, the l2lbid., p. A8. 21 union was usurping a function which had previously been exercised solely by management. "Welfare capitalism" was giving way to union power. At this point, Durkheim's theory seems especially pertinent. One nascent occupational "corporation" (the union) was now acting as a socializing agent for a large segment of the community which had previously been dealt with impersonally by management. The unions could hardly fulfill this role until they had achieved a legal status as a corporation. The importance of this "social" function can hardly be underestimated, for its exercise by business in the form of "welfare capitalism" was recognized as one way of combating the growth Of unions. Once the workers‘ own organization was granted legal recognition, it was inevitable that the union would attempt to assume various functions. Because of the "intellectual and moral homo- geneity of the workers,’ their social and moral needs could best be channeled through the unions rather than through other"‘corporations.'"13 It should be noted that the social needs of the rank- and-file have not been met solely within the union itself, but by the union interacting with other groups in the com- munity. This may be a result of the worker's lack of class fi—s 13C. W. M. Hart, "Industrial Relations Research and Social Theory," The Canadian Journal of Economics and ~— Political Science, 15 (Februaryl949), 53-73. 22 consciousness (peculiar to American labor at least), which has prompted the unions to turn to other community groups in an effort tO'"prove" or reaffirm its classlessness. This need to join with other community segments was made especially acute by the long period of isolation of labor from other community segments. The "homogeneity" of Ihmerican labor may partially lie in its ethic of classless- 11688. Thus unions would be defeating their own purposes if tfldey did not turn to the community. In the Lansing case, labor representation on the Com- InLuuity Chest Board was followed by representation on the bHDElrds of various member agencies. Initial representation cof' labor on the Community Chest Board was due to a combin- ati on of four elements according to Beck: (1) Organized labor had become a power in the com- :munity, (2) Attitudes of both organized labor and lmanagement had changed to permit the two antagonists to work together, (3) The depression of the 1930's ‘was ending and the two opponents could think Of some- thing besides survival, (4) Leaders of organized labor recognized that unions were part O£ the community and wanted to support community values.1 Among the interesting conclusions drawn in Beck‘s study, twc) luave particular relevance to the present thesis. CIrganized labor was invited to participate in Com- nnanity Chest activities only after it became a sub- Eitantial force in the community. Organized labor Eneems to have a priority rating for its many respon- Eiibilities. Labor could participate in the Community Cflnest only after its energies and resources were no lxanger concentrated in the economic sphere of its ac tivity.1 \ 14Beck, op. cit., p. 67. 15Ibid., p. 85. 23 In the attempt to account for labor's entrance into community activities, the present chapter has presented a number of points which closely parallel those in the Beck Study. In this introduction, a theoretical framework for the "internal dynamics" of the union itself was given, but it remains for the next chapter to fit the union and other IIunter, organizations represent'"power units;" Two power units of concern in the community 'power structure are organized labor and business and industry. The community power structure may be thought of as those power relations existing among organizations repre- Senting two or more local institutions. It refers to the H 3Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure (Chapel 111: University of North Carolina Press, 1953) uIbid., pp. 6-7. 28 relative power that these two or more agencies have vis-a- vis each other, insofar as these relationships bear on broad, i.e. inter-institutional relations in the community. The community power structure also refers to the relative influence of these institutional organizations on broad community-wide agencies. It specifically excludes power :relations within single institutional agencies such as Laiions, trade associations, et cetera. The interest in labor as a relatively new power group irl the community is coupled with a desire to study the Eitlsucture and process of decision-making which a power unit HNAEBt necessarily influence. Indeed, the ability to influ~ erlcme decision-making can be equated with power.5 To this crud , the participation of labor and management organizations in representative community issues will be analyzed. Most inuocxrtant, however, as a new power group in the community we kuope to discover the image that organized labor has of ‘its: (own position and that of other groups in the community. TWIIES phase of the research with labor represents only a part of‘.a_ broader study which proposes to compare the image of 13K3 (zommunity power structure held by labor with that of management. Thus it is hoped to follow up this study of larnar' representatives with a similar study of management I"391713 s entatives . '\ 5James McKee,"Organized Labor and Community Decision- D A Study in the Sociology of Power" (unpublished Ph. lésgkkesis, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 29 There appears to be a paucity of literature concerning the "self-expressions" of labor as regards other groups in the community. Most works have been written by '" third party" observers and have not had as their main focus the study of the views of labor as a group, or more specifically their expressed views. Notable exceptions are the Illini City studies,6 McKee's study of Steelport,7 and Mills' The New Men of Power. ”##— behavior in the community context, it is first necessary 8 To more fully understand labor's to determine how it views its own role in the community. The behavior of a group may be predicated upon the image which it has of its role in relationship to other community groups. In speaking specifically of union-management rela— tions Stagner mentions three types of perception that can be of crucial importance: namely, perception of persons, situations, and issues.9 The same would certainly hold true in the broader community context. Such perceptions defin- itely affect the functioning of the community power structure. 5w. C. Chalmers, M. K. Chandler, L. L. McQuitty, R. Stagner, D. E. Wray, and D. M. Derber, Labor-~Mana emen-t BBQ-ations in Illini City (Champaign: Institute 0 Labor and Industrial—Relations, University of Illinois, 1954). 7James McKee, “Status and Power in the Industrial Com- munity”! American Journal of Sociology, 58 (January 1953), 364-370. L 80. Wright Mills, The New Men of Power: America's 4139.1; Leaders (New York: HarcourE, Brace Co., 1948). 9Ross Stagner, The Psychology 93 Industrial Conflict (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1 . "1‘. I; 33 Thus if labor sees itself as essentially opposed to the interests of other groups, a policy of non-cooperation might result. Such an attitude might engender a futile or a militant outlook. Conversely, if labor looks upon itself as an equal partner in the community power structure, other behavior might be predicted. Then one could possibly look for labor alliances with other community groups in the pursuit of “community" goals. Although a lengthy discussion of the social psycholog- ical aspects of groups is impossible here, it is obvious that to the extent that labor is a status group, it neces- sarily develops its own unique perceptions with regard to other groups, situations, and issues. If something can be learned of these perceptions, some of labor‘s overt acts will be rendered explicable. The functioning of the com- munity power structure presupposes some type of imagery on the part of each participating group of the other groups involved. The aforementioned works of Mills, McKee, and Hunter give a general picture of the views of labor, but detailed studies are lacking. Thus, we know that labor is Somewhat resentful of the traditional stewardship of busi- ness, that it resents the prestige accorded other community groups, but usually denied it. We know something of the Views of the “typical" union leader.lO However, little has \ 1 10See, for example, Orme W. Phelps, "Community RecoS‘ n tion of Union Leaders," Industrial and Labor Relations 31 been done in the way of differentiating the labor members in their views, or in relating the views to action on var- 1Ous issues which labor helps to resolve. In the present Study, consideration will be given both points at the com— munity level. Hopefully some of the factors influencing labor's image of the community power structure may be dis- covered. Furthermore, we wish to relate these views to the behavior of labor in the actual resolution of issues in the community power structure. Does a hostile image necessarily mean belligerency on labor's part in dealing with other community groups, or simply a hands-Off policy? Hypotheses Concerning Labor's Image of Community Power Since there were few studies to serve as guidelines for the present research, the hypotheses which were form- Ulated represent at best only hunches or "educated guesses." The fact of'labor's relatively recent entrance into the com- munity power structure would appear to have a direct bearing on the self-image which it holds. Since labor is a new- Comer occupying a subordinate position, it may temper its perception accordingly. In an effort to solidify its pO‘ESition, toshow that it has earned its place in the com- n“ill'lity, labor might be expected to reformulate some of its \ - Review, 7 (April, 195A), 419-433; Eli Ginzberg, The Labor W: An Exploratory Study (New York: MacmillaE—Com); v n W."Gouldner (ed.), Studies in Leadership (New York: HEBLI‘per Bros., 1950); Leonms'a'yles and George Strauss, he Local Union: Its Place in the Industrial Plant (New York: arper Brothers, 1953). IV 32 economic objectives in favor of certain community aims. To influence community decisions, labor must profess general, non-sectarian goals. Conversely, realiZing its subordinate position, economically and in the community power structure, labor may link the two and view the goals of management as being economic in nature, with the community power structure being used as a vehicle to foster management interests at the expense of community welfare. In brief, labor possibly sees its role as essentially opposed to the management-dominated community power structure. This is not unexpected in View of the long struggle labor has had to become a "member in good standing" of the com- munity. The power struggle between management and labor on the economic front should be reflected in the community power structure. Since the community power structure often deals with issues that are not always directly related to the interests of a particular organization, it is imperative for the various contestants to align their interests with those of the "public" Orthe "community," if they are to wield influence.ll This means that one should generally find the economic motives of an organization played down or min- imized in its attempts to be a spokesman for the public interest. The economic struggle between labor and manage- ment should be expressed by labor through its imputation of 11Alice Cook, "Labor‘s Search for Its Place in the " Community: The Role of a Professional Community Consultant, The Journal of Educational Sociology, 29 (December1955), ITS-183T“' .7. .v.. 33 economic motives to management and a corresponding minim- izing of its own economic motives. This is particularly so inTiew of the "illegality" attached to labor tactics for so long a period and which still are considered disreputable by many community groups. The minimal status which labor enjoys today can be increased mainly through an ever- increasing public welfare orientation. We have formulated two hypotheses concerning organ- ized labor and its role in the community power structure. The first hypothesis is: Labor perceives the community power structure £2.22 composed primarily gf‘gn integrated management clique which controls the outcome gf most signifi- cant community issues. As a corollary proposition, labor sees management community goals as specific and essentially economic in character. The second hypothesis is: Labor views itself as EB association which ig tangential 22 the community power structure. As a corollary proposition, labor sees its community goals as general and non-economic in character. Sgggested Controls in Testing Hypotheses A number of factors may influence labor‘s attitude toward the community power structure. Several variables immediately suggest themselves. For the purpose of this study, "labor" refers to members of labor unions, members who were identified by a panel of "knowledgeables,' as being most influential in getting things done in the community. 3A The method of selecting respondents will be described in detail below, but for now we wish to consider only controls in reference to our hypotheses. A possible variable which may account for diverse views is the age of the labor respondent. Traditionally, age is associated with conservatism; in this instance, con- servatism would presumably be manifested in a more tolerant view of the existing community power structure. That is to say, older union influentials may be expected to see the community power structure as being less management-dominated than the younger members. Having been in the community power structure longer than their younger associates, they might have "mellowing" views. Having had more dealings with business figures, they may well consider them "good guys;" Consequently, we hypothesize that older members view the community power structure §§_less management- dominated than the ygunger members. The decision was made to separate the respondents into those who represented labor on community organizations and those who did not. Labor officials working with manage- 'ment groups on various community agencies would presumably see the power structure as more of a "struggle of equals." In contrast, those respondents who had never worked with management would be prone to retain the imagery of hostility and subordination by virtue of this separation. It is thus hypothesized: Those labor members who represent labor in .167. o 35 Eommunity organizations view the community power structure §£_less management-dominated than those members who do not represent labor in community organizations. A further consideration which may influence the image held of the community power structure is the position of the labor member in his union. Perhaps different views are held by higher officers than those who occupy a subordinate position. Presumably, higher officials in the union will have more detailed knowledge of the community power structure than the subordinates, and consequently different images. High officials might have greater knowledge and a feeling of "being on the inside" and having more access to power, while subordinates may view themselves as being "outside" the power structure. Of course, just the opposite situ- ation could prevail, and those with greater knowledge may realize their lack Of influence. However, we are assuming that with greater knowledge comes a feeling of greater power. Thus we hypothesize: Those in subordinate uhion positions view the community power structure §§_more manage- mgnt-dominated Ehan those in higher union positions. Finally, those members who are judged most influential in labor circles should have different images than those considered to have lesser influence. It may be that those considered to have most influence are also the high office holders, although this does not necessarily follow. However, as in the hypothesis in the preceding paragraph, the 36 reasoning is the same. Those who wield more influence in labor should have a feeling of greater power than the less influential. Consequently, this hypothesis reads: The more influential labor members view the community ppwer structure ES less management-dominated thah thh less influential members. Methods Labor was defined for research purposes as members of labor unions who were identified by a panel of "knowledgeables" as being most influential in getting things done in the local community. Informal interviews with five such "knowledgeables" provided a list of twenty names, which were the most frequ- ently recurring from a total of about thirty-five names that were mentioned. Similarly, a list of general community influentials was compiled from various sources in order to determine how many, if any, labor representatives were found among them. NO alternations were made in the list of labor influentials provided by the panel as a result of this procedure. Finally, a sample of community issues was com- piled from various local publications, including the Lansing State Journal and several labor weeklies. This was done in order to Obtain some knowledge pertaining to the role of the various community groups, including labor, in the resolution of these issues. This knowledge proved particularly useful when the labor respondents were eventually interviewed and gave their "side of the story" regarding the resolution of 37 a specific issue. This prior knowledge could be checked or verified against the information provided by the respondents. Several knowledgeables were interviewed regarding the history of labor's participation in community affairs. This furnished background material as to labor's original views towards community participation and also insights into a possible evolving or changing labor philosophy regarding such endeavors. The original twenty labor respondents when subsequently interviewed were asked to vote for the ten most influential leaders from the list of twenty and to add names of labor influentials to the list if they so desired. In this manner nineteen additional names were obtained. Actually, there was little consensus on the influence Of those whose names were subsequently added to the list. Nineteen additional informants were arbitrarily selected from the thirty extra names received. Each of the last nineteen respondents were also asked to select the ten most influential men from the list compiled up to the time of their interview. Table I shows the total list of respondents and the total number of votes cast for each as a result of the foregoing procedure. In a subsequent chapter, the relationships of degree of influence to imagery of the community power structure will be considered in detail. For the present, influence was judged by the number of votes received by each respon- dent. 38 TABLE I LABOR INFLUENTIALS INTERVIEWED, UNION AFFILIATION, AND VOTES RECEIVED . . . . 1 '. . . . Name** Union Union Office Votes George Barnes CIO Pres.,Lansing CIO Labor Council 37 Elmer Johnson AFL Pres.,Lansing AFL Labor Council 33 John Porter CIO CIO Representative, Comm.Chest 32 Tod Benning AFL AFL Representative, Comm.Chest 31 Calvin Jackson CIO Subregional Director 30 Philip Hague CIO International Representative 24 Henry Hanson CIO Pres. Local 152 22 Sam Hunt CIO Servicing Representative 20 Will Cobo CIO Educational Director 20 Bob Ross AFL Community Services Council Rep. 19 Darrell Stone CIO Pres. Local 235 16 Arthur Cox AFL Pres. Local 410 15 Connie Fox AFL Legislative and Educational Dir. 14 Alvin Nagle CIO Editor, Lansing Labor News 9 Warren Benson CIO Educational Representative, Local 405 8 Gene Mintz CIO Financial Secretary, Local 405 8 Ray Stone CIO Pres. Local 514 8 Lennie Knox CIO Pres. Local 212 5 Peter George CIO Educational Director 5 Edith Park CIO Legislative Representative * Carl Sawyer CIO Treasurer, Local 180 * Steve Palter AFL Pres. Local 119 * Norbert Hill CIO Financial Secretary, Local 51 * 'Melvin Miles AFL Business Agent, Local 95 * Ted North AFL Business Agent, Local 42 * Frank Cole AFL Secretary, Greater Central Labor Council * Grant Gale AFL Assistant Project Director * Michigan State Employees Council Olive Knowle CIO Pres. Local 120 * Clint Iser CIO Financial Secretary, Local 130 * Ross Cohen CIO Pres. Local 55 * Alex Cotes AFL International Representative * Oliver Boss CIO President, Local 75. ’ * Helen Morgan CIO Secretary,Mich.CIO State Office * Larry Nile CIO Shop Committeeman, Local 75 * Nora Blake CIO Financial Secretary, Local 402 * Paul Aarun AFL Business Local 65 * Bruce Bale AFL AFL Representative to United Fund * Mike Doyle AFL Financial Secy. and Tres.Local 42 * Jud Payne ‘ AFL Pres. Local 32 * ====a==== :1: m *Less than five votes. **Psuedonyms are used to protect the identity of the informants. The numbers of the locals have also been changed. 39 The original interview schedule, pre-tested on three labor respondents, included questions only of direct relev- ance to the hypotheses. Subsequently, other information was added which would be of value to account for variations in perception of the community powe? structure. The final interview schedule obtained much more data than was neces- sary to test the hypotheses. Included were descriptions of various types of power structures, since the main concern of the research was to obtain labor‘s view of the type which existed locally. There was also presented various types of relations which labor might conceivably have in the community power structure in order to ascertain the self-image held. Along with this information, background material on the various respondents was obtained including occupational history, union career data, education, and community activity. The part played by labor in the reso- lution of various community issues was also studied. Some notion was gleaned concerning the position labor aspires to in the community power structure. Significant community issues from labor's point of view were obtained. Finally, labor‘s perception of its historical role in community affairs was revealed to some extent. The average interview lasted about two and one-half hours. All respondents were contacted by phone at which time arrangements were made for the interview. Each was told the purpose of the study and no refusals were encountered, although some delays were encountered in setting up appropriate interviewing times. Only two or three expressed concern over the use to which their replies would be put, but this was quickly assuaged when the project was explained and the respondents anonymity assured. Many of the respondents were quick to inform the author that they would be glad to discuss the role of organized labor in Lansing, adding that anonymity was of no concern, for what they told the interviewer, they would tell anyone else. In brief, establishing rapport was no problem. Most of the interviews took place in the office of the union official, which in most cases assured privacy. The ques- tions were read to the respondent, the replies being taken down as completely as possible. For the most part, this Seemed to act as a stimulant to the respondent, who seemed pleased that his answers were considered important enough to be recorded. In several instances, the respondents- were obviously disgruntled over the length of the interview although they never explicitly complained. This resulted in Several hurried interviews, which undoubtedly affected the Quality of the data obtained. The interviews which the author would judge as poor in teI’ms of supplying direct answers to the questions asked were tSl'lose with union officials who had little, if any direct contact with other groups in the community. Since many 0f the questions related to the union‘s role in the 41 community power structure, an informant who was ignorant of the existing relations between the union and other community groups could hardly be expected to give satisfactory answers. This simply means that a union leader who is relatively sophisticated and influential in internal union affairs may be comparatively unsophisticated (and non-influential) in union relationships within the community power structure. Thus it appears that the better interviews were supplied by those informants who were formal or informal labor representatives in community organizations. This factor assumes importance when it is introduced as a control in discussing the variations in responses obtained. CHAPTER III LABOR'S IMAGE OF THE COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE The Sample Described Although the size of the sample does not permit any conclusive statements regarding the "typical" labor leader, a brief description will acquaint the reader with some of the general characteristics of the group interviewed. The general portrait derived from the literature usually paints the union official as one having little formal schooling, having spent considerable time in the union hierarchy, and as being suspicious of the businessman and his views I‘egc'ir’ciing unions.l Certainly the thirty-nine informants interviewed exhibited the latter two characteristics if not the first. Almost half of the informants were forty-eight years old or over; the youngest being twenty-six, the oldest Sixty—seven. Two-fifths were affiliated with the AFL, and three—fifths with the CIO. This distribution is not unex- pected in view of the industrial composition of Lansing, Which includes several large automobile production plants. M L lOrme W. Phelps, "Community Recognition and Union leafiers ,‘" Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 7 (April, 95 L 419—433. I 43 Three—quarters Of the informants were natives of Michigan. Other states represented included Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, New York, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. Almost one—half of the leaders had lived in the Lansing area twenty-five years or longer, and only three had lived in Lansing less than five years. The educational range of the group is rather wide. Ten per cent had only grade school education, while three- fifths had some high school or were high school graduates. Almost one-fifth had some junior college work, and about a tenth had at least a bachelor‘s degree. One—half had been union officials for fifteen years or longer, only one-tenth had served less than five years. Over two-fifths of the informants were official labor labor representatives in various community organizations. These included seven on the Community Chest board and its various drive committees, eight on private health and wel- fare agencies, eight On city or county governmental com— mittees and agencies. Three were representatives on state governmental agencies. Almost nine-tenths of the respondents had held two or more union positions including committee memberships. The remaining held but a single position. Two-fifths served in four or more positions concurrently. The occupational histories of the interviewees revealed a familiar blue- COllaT’ pattern. Seven-tenths had worked in factories at 44 one time or another. Among the fifteen AFL representatives the most recurring trades were painting, construction, and carpentry. Among the white-collar jobs held at various times by informants were school teacher, accountant, college instructor, store manager, reporter, and newspaper editor. One informant had spent his entire life in the union hier- archy. All of the twelve respondents who lacked factory experience were currently holding white-collar positions, if filll-time union posts are included as white-collar. Three-tenths of the twenty-seven with factory experience were currently working the plant while holding their union positions. Finally, the main union positions represented in the Sample included ten local presidents, five financial secre- taries, four business respresentatives, one international r'epl'esentative, five regional or district international I‘epr’esentatives, six legislative and educational represen- tatives, one president city labor council, two labor I‘IePI-"esentatives on the Community Chest, one union newspaper editor, and one shop committeeman. The characteristics of the sample coupled with the exploratory nature of the present study should serve to remind the reader that interpretations given the data which follovw apply only to the labor influentials in Lansing, and not to the rank-and-file or the labor movement as a whole. (See Table II.) TABLE II SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LABOR INFLUENTIALS IN LANSING, 1957 m 45 Characteristic Number Per Cent Date of birth: 1904 or earlier 12 31 1905-1914 12 31 1915- 15 38 TOTAL 39 100 Years in Lansing area: 0-14 years 14 36 15-25 years 7 18 Over 25 years 18 46 TOTAL 39 100 Education: Eight years or less 4 10 DJine to twelve years 24 62 Thirteen and fourteen years 5 l3 Collage graduate 3 7 Post graduate 2 5 Not ascertained l 3 TOTAL 39 100 Community representation: Yes 17 44 No 22 56 TOTAL 39 100 Union affiliation: AFL 15 38 CIO 24 62 TOTAL 39 100 Union position: . Regional district, or Inter- riational representative 12 31 Local officer 2O 51 Other 7 18 TOTAL 39 100 46 First; Hypothesis: Labor's Image of Management Power The first hypothesis is concerned with labor‘s image Of true community power structure. To get at the different dimernsions of power which labor informants perceived two methxxis of questioning were employed. Three questions elicixted from the respondent a blanket comparison of labor verSLls management power and attempted to polarize his genexéal impression of the community power structure. Four questsions were aimed at getting the respondent's view of ' wherein the the (zommunity power structure "in action,’ probJJem of comparative power is related to specific ongoing issueas and those organizations concerned with them. All Questzions were concerned with labor's self—image as well as the iJnage they held of other groups, but the questions varieui in the directness with which they posed power prob- lems ‘to the informant. Although the problem of "who has the FHDwer" underlies each question, some questions were more ssituational, in the sense that the respondent was Calléci upon to compare labor‘s power with those of other SPOUFHS in the community in the resolution of particular issuess. Here the imagery was less diffuse with regard to labor-'3 conception of its own power and that of other groups. To establish labor's general evaluation of Lansing as a "latbor" town, the question was posed early in the inter- VieW, "What kind of a uniontown is Lansing?" Although not Of dilrect relevance to our hypothesis, the question was '47 asked to see to what extent the replies would evoke responses concerning the community power structure. The question is raised whether the respondents would view Lansing as a “good" luliJDrl town and yet see the community power structure as management-dominated. The responses to the question are presented in Table III. TABLE III EVALUATION OF LANSING AS A UNION TOWN BY TOP LABOR INFLUENTIALS if m Iivaluation of Lansing Number Per Cent Highly positive 25 64 Average 7 18 Poor or ambivalent 3 8 Other 2 5 Don't know or no response 2 5 TOTAL 39 100 M From the above it is apparent that Lansing was generally considered as good or better than other cities Witnd INhiCh it was compared. Only one respondent pointed a negative picture of Lansing. The reasons given for the various responses are pPeSented in Table IV. There is nothing which suggests thuit‘iLansing rejects organized labor or that labor leaders feel that they are marginal groups in the community. As a matter of fact almost one-third of those elaborating their evaluations indicated that organized labor was accepted in TABLE IV 48 REASONS GIVEN FOR EVALUATIONS OF LANSING BY TOP LABOR INFLUENTIALS Number of Times Reasons Mentioned Per Cent Labor is well organized in unions in Lansing 9 23 Community acceptance of organ- ized labor 6 16 Labor is well represented in community associations 3 8 Good union-management relations 3 8 Union has made gains, but much remains to be done 1 3 Other reasons 5 13 No reasons given for evaluating Lansing 14 36 No evaluation of Lansing given 2 5 mi #99.“ m the community and was given representation in various organizations. The most common response to the question evaluating Lansing as a labor town was in terms of labor's own organizational success-~i.e., Lansing is an organized town. Typical of others who saw Lansing as a good union town were such comments as the following: "The majority of the workers are organized." "Labor is active in politics and community affairs." "There is stabilized unionism in Lansing." "Lansing is better than some other towns where they have open shops." "Labor is favorably accepted by the majority of people." "There are good relations existing between the unions and employers. .II 49 Those who rated Lansing as an'"average'town saw room ‘ or stressed some other factor on for "more organization,‘ which Lansing would rate below some other cities in the. state. One interviewee expressed it as follows: '"Lansing is not too well organized in comparison to other cities, for example, in Muskegon bartenders and waitresses are organized but not in Lansing." Another respondent rated Lansing third behind Detroit and Flint in terms of organization of workers. One leader said: "It‘s really not a union town like Detroit; fewer numbers are involved in community activities." It does not necessarily follow that even though the respondents had a favorable opinion Of Lansing as a "labor" city that they would hold a similar view of the community power structure. Here the distinction between social and economic power may assume particular relevance. Just because unions in Lansing enjoy economic power does not guarantee that they are (or consider themselves to be) influential in the community power structure. The first hypothesis indeed asserts that labor influentials have a "negative" view of the community power structure; they acknowledge labor‘s lack of social power and at the same time decry management's dominance presumably based upon economic superiority. Respondents were asked directly to evaluate the relative power of management and labor. "How would you compare the relative influence of management and labor in 50 community affairs in Lansing?" Data in Table V reveals that about three-quarters thought that management wielded greater influence in the community and that about one-eighth thought that labor had equal or greater power. The question evoked a number of informative comments. '"Management has a stronger voice than we do. Maybe if we used our votes better we could offset the influence of those dollars." "Management has stronger influence but labor's influence is growing and it will keep growing as we keep developing better leadership;" "Business does a better public relations job than we do. "Management has more money to express their views, and put their ideas before the public." "Management has greater influence because of its control of the press and radio." TABLE V EVALUATION OF RELATIVE POWER OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT IN LANSING Evaluation Number Per Cent Management has greater influence than labor 29 74 Management and labor have equal influences 2 5 Labor has greater influence than management 3 8 Amount of influence depends upon issues, decisions, or persons in— volved Not ascertained LORD (I) TOTAL 39 100 51 One of the respondents who thought labor had more influence said that, "management is not as well organized; labor is more homogeneous." Another remarked, "Labor has more influence because they represent more people;" Evidence throughout the interview indicated that labor was concerned with community activities and had a community program. If labor perceived its power to be strong one may assume that it could achieve its community goals without the aid of management. That is, labor's feeling of independence is based upon its self-conception Of power. The question was asked, "To what extent do you feel that organized labor can realize its community objec- tives without the help of management and other groups?" If the first hypothesis is substantiated, it is not likely that the respondents would express a high degree of optimism concerning labor's ability to achieve its aims without the help of management. In view of the evaluation of labor-management influence in the community, the distri- bution in Table VI is hardly surprising. Only two respon- dents felt that labor was capable of achieving its community Objectives independently of other community groups. Three qualified their answers by saying that labor could achieve some objectives alone, but that others could only be accom- plished through close cooperation with other groups. They felt that labor lacked the power in and of itself to "go it alone." About half emphatically stated that while labor needed help, so too did other groups. TABLE VI LABOR'S IMAGE OF ITS ABILITY TO ACHIEVE ITS GOALS ~_ ‘—— . . . . . . I , . . ‘ . '. ’ 2 Image Number Per Cent Latx31° needs help of management and other groups 28 72 Labor needs help from others on some community Objectives 3 8 Labor does not need help 2 5 Other’ 1 3 Dcui‘t: know 1 3 Not ascertained 4 10 TOTAL 39 100 m r fir J======= "We've got to have management, contractors, and labor organizations working together. They got to have us and we need them." "It is hard for one group to act on issues; it takes everyone." '"No one group can gain their objectives without the help of all " Another question which probed for a blanket comparison between management and labor power was, “In your judgment, do ENDLI feel that big community decisions in Lansing tend to be made by the same small ‘crowd‘ of people working together °r<3<3 ‘these people change according to the issue confronting the ‘t3hesis was also thought as important in testing the second hypothesis. This question was, "Are there organi- zations or activities in the Lansing area in which you feel labor should participate, but does not?" If labor regarded itself as a tangential association, it was assumed that most of the replies would be negative. As such, a broad- ening of community participation would not be expressed as a labor objective. Conversely, a related question would reveal labor's desire to stay out of various community associations. It was, "Are there organizations or types of organizations in Lansing in which labor should not parti- cipate, including organizations in which they now have representation?" The following two tables, Table XVIII and Table XIX, shed much light on this point. TABLE XVIII COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS OR ACTIVITIES IN WHICH LABOR SHOULD PARTICIPATE BUT DOES NOT fj— W Number of Times Per Cent of <311ganization or Activity Mentioned Respondents Labor already participating 17 AA Locell governmental agencies & Ccnnnussions (police, fire Ccnnnussion, etc.) 1 Health and welfare organiza— tions Business organizations S Cl“lamberof Commerce) ChOOl board and educational B avgehcies us iness --‘Indus try-—Educ ation Day CSEH1<211 of Churches itical party Hmm W U.) 0\ L0 DOU'IU'I CD (D O\ \\ , - I .5 78 TABLE XIX COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN WHICH LABOR SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE 1 —-:—r Number of Times Per Cent of Organization Mentioned Respondents No limit on labor partici- pation 28 73 Chamber of Commerce 8 21 N. A. M. and other business organizations A 10 Welfare activities 3 8 Religious organizations 1 3' Communist Party 1 3 _:-’__ With regard to Table XVIII, it may be observed that over half of the respondents felt that labor should expand its community activities. Most of the remaining were .apparently satisfied with the status quo, in which labor is Inapresented in a long list of community organizations. The tcrtal responses are not those of a group which views itself gas tangential. However, a relative large proportion (one- tknirwi) feel that labor is excluded from governmental agen- ciezs , bodies which certainly constitute an integral part of the: <2ommunity power structure. On the other hand, Table XIX r‘eVeals little desire on the part of labor to restrict its present program of community participation; only three- ten13yls of the respondents mentioned organizations they re- garded as '"off limits" to labor. Thus, an over-all view Just3i:l€'ies the conclusion that labor considers it feasible to par”til—cipate actively in community affairs. 79 Considering the organizations listed in the two ques- tions, labor appears to differentiate sharply between "management" and "community" organizations. Labor largely evinced a negative attitude to enter management organizations. Table XIX denotes some agreement that labor should stay out of such organizations as the Chamber of Commerce. Perhaps labor resists the claim that certain organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce are legitimate community associations, as management often claims. With respect to such'"community" organizations as hospital and school boards, the View is largely expressed that labor participation should, if any- thing, increase. Labor has been successful in penetrating these organizations to a degree and is not anxious to relinquish what it has achieved. Rather it hopes to accom- gilish even more in the way of securing additional represen— txation. In these “community" organizations, labor perhaps feeils it has a greater chance in its power struggle with maruagement, since power is often diffused among a number of guirtxisan groups with the result that labor can occasionally SOCILITB allies. The important point is that labor does not 589 .itzself divorced from these organizations which are as mucki 51 part of the community power structure as is such a group as the Chamber of Commerce. IFinally, one other general or summarizing question was eI’n'ployed with the aim ofobtaining labor‘s over-all view witkl ieegard to community participation. Is labor fundamentally 8O interested in community participation? A tangential group would presumably see no profit in being a member of the community powersmructure, since its "different" objectives could not be attained through such participation. Since the preceding results show that labor included itself within the power structure, it would be reasonable to assume that it would be interested in community participation. However, one complicating factor, labor's perceived lack of power, could engender a feeling of futility and subsequent apathy towards community affairs. Table XX presents the results of this inquiry into labor's interest in community involvement. The largest proportion, four-fifths, believed that labor and management were equally interested in community involvement. Three- tenths thought management had more interest and two-tenths iruiicated labor had a greater interest. However, it was .fcnlnd that even when management was said to have greater iritearest, some rationalization for this was provided. ldaruagement‘s interest was pictured as the result of its greater power and the desire to maintain that power. The Conunfiants are particularly illuminating. "Management has a greater interest because they are naturally set for meetings. Management is all dressed up to go to meetings. Labor has the problem of picking men to place on these boards, who can speak well and mix well. "Only insofar as it affects themselves, does management evince a greater interest. Manage- ment is more aware of the importance of parti- cular issues in many cases." 81 TABLE XX COMPARISON OF MANAGEMENT AND LABOR INTEREST IN COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Comparison Number Per Cent Management has greater interest 12 31 Management and labor have equal interest 15 38 Labor has greater interest 8 20 Other 2 5 Don‘t know 1 3 Not ascertained 1 3 TOTAL 39 100 "Management has accepted labor more than formerly, but management has greater interest. Labor has‘t the machinery to originate policy." The economic-power motive attributed to management 113 obvious in the following remarks: "They have a greater interest because of finances; they have more to gain or lose financially. They have a bigger investment." '"They have ways and means to get more interest." The general impression received from these responses is 'tflat labor interest in community participation is high and-Would be higher, but for management supremacy in the CCmHnLUnity power structure. The apathy toward community inv{Divement implied in the second hypothesis did not reveal itseil f, although labor's perceived lack of power did seeniiangly lower its interest to a degree. Labor has again I‘evealed its image as a member of the community power 82 structure, by citing this interest-power link with which a tangential association would hardly be concerned. Again by way of summary, the six questions dealing with cleavage were weighted by the response given to each question and total cleavage scores were computed for each respondent. A score of plus one was given for a "non- cleavagé'response, a minus one for a perception of cleavage; zero for undecided responses or those not ascertained. As in the case with the first hypothesis, no analysis was made of specific responses comprising the total scores. Thus, equivalent scores do not necessarily indicate identical answers to the same questions. The theoretical range of scores could be from plus six to a minus six. In fact, however, they ranged from a plus four to a minus four. The randomness of the responses concerning cleavage is; clearly evidenced by the distribution in Table XXI. The plllS and minus scores each composed two-fifths of the cases, arnd .zero scores composed one-fifth of the cases. If scores ranging from plus two to minus two may be interpreted as eVidencing moderate integration or cleavage, almost seven- terrtrls of the respondents saw a small degree of integration or <31Jeavage between management and labor. Only three-tenths therl 19erceived a high degree of integration of cleavage; i.e. sscores of plus three to four and minus three to minus fbur- Thus, as'a whole, the group cannot be said to have a ' 013511‘ image of a gulf between labor and management in the community power structure, if the questions are valid. ' TABLE XXI DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO 83 QUESTIONS DEALING WITH LABOR—MANAGEMENT CLEAVAGE m Number of Responses Number Non-Cleavage Not Cleavage of Response Ascertained Responses Scores Cases A 2 - +A l 5 - -l +A A A l —1 +3 1 A _ —2 +2 5 3 l -2 +1 A 3 - -3 O 7 2 2 2 O 1 2 l -3 -l 2 2 - -A -2 7 1 2 -3 -2 l 1 1 -A -3 2 1 - -5 -A 3 Conclusion--second hypothesis. Clearly does not support the second The evidence presented hypothesis. Labor and management have common as well as opposing goals. Labor feEEle it can attain its goals by participating within the pr'eE’ient community power structure. Labor acknowledges its own goals, as well as those of management, to be largely ‘"economic" in character. To further its interests,labor would extend its community participation, rather than '"pull out" or reduce its activity. It does not perceive itself as tangential because it has enjoyed a modicum of success, enough at least to see itself as a participating, 8A albeit a subordinate member, desirous of continuing as such. CHAPTER IV FACTORS AFFECTING LABOR‘S IMAGE OF THE POWER STRUCTURE Four Control Factors It will be recalled that four factors were hypothesized as influencing the respondents' image of the community power structure, namely: age, union position, influence, and organizational representation. With each factor except position, the sample was dichotomized. Thus with respect to W" Old ' .11 I! age, the categories were and young,‘ representing those born in 1909 or earlier and those after that date. This resulted in eighteen "old" and twenty-one "young" respon- dents. Influence categories were determined by the number of votes each respondent received from his colleagues. Those receiving eight or more were classified as having‘"high" influence, all others as ”low," resulting in seventeen and twenty-two in their respective categories. With respect to organizational representation, the respondents were classi- fied simply as officially representing labor in any community organization or not. Seventeen were representatives and twenty-two were not. The sample was divided into three groups in terms of the union position held. International representatives 86 regional, legislative, and educational representatives were ‘"high," as were labor representatives on the Community Chest and the head of the city CIO labor council. A11 presidents of locals (with the exception of two who headed the largest locals in the city and were classified as "high") were placed in the "median" category. Also included here was the editor of the Lansing Labor News. All others, such as financial secretaries or business agents were classified as H '"low. This procedure resulted in eighteen‘"high;" thirteen l H "medium,' and eight "low. Analysis of the Data The Chi-Square test was used to analyze the data in terms of these selected controls.1 A relationship was con- sidered "significant," if the probability of the Chi—Square was .10 or lower. Each factor was run against all the questions used in testing the two hypotheses. In addition, each control was run against the other three, in an effort to determine their degree of association. Chi-Square tests were converted into contingency coefficients to ascertain the degree of correlation among the controls. A decision 1 I 1The procedure for determining Chi-Square X2 zf f‘f‘ (where f = observed frequency, f' = expected frequency) followed that described by G. Udney Yule and M. G. Kendall, An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics (13th edition, PEVIsed; London:_Charles GriffIfi,7I9487, pp. Al3-A33. 87 was made to retain each control, if they were not correlated above .80 (corrected contingency coefficient).2 Relationships Among the Control Variables All the controls were retained because in each in- stance E was less than .80. However, some high associations were found. Older representatives received significantly more votes than did the younger men (Table XXII). As might be expected, a reputation usually takes considerable time to develop. However, as Table XXIII indicates, there was no association between age and position. Of some signifi- cance is the comparatively low percentage of high influen- tials occupying low positions. Like influence, advances in the union hierarchy require time to be realized. TABLE XXII AGE DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF INFLUENCE Influence Level Age Level High Low Total 01d 65% 32% 46% Young 35 68 54 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases 17 22 39 = A.3 p = .05 - .02 c = .31 6 = .A9 ‘fi ‘ 2The formula used for computing c was c =[__)£I_2 . The correction for 5 was c = c . N + X trtC Both formulas are taken from Thomas C. McCormick, Elementary Social Statistics (New York. McGraw—Hill, 19A1), pp. 266— 267. Tfie use of C was arbitrary since there were not enough cells for a true conversion to c. 88 TABLE XXIII LEVEL OF UNION POSITION FOR AGE GROUPS Position Age Level High Medium Low Total Old AA% 54% 38% A6% Young 56 A6 62 54 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases 18 13 8 39 x2 = .57 p =.70-.80 c = .12 c = .17 Table XXIV demonstrates no relationship is indicated between age and representation in community organizations. Both young and old men appear as community representatives of labor. Table XXV reveals a significant positive rela- tionship between union position and votes received as a labor influential. As expected, influence attends the higher position. TABLE XXIV AGE COMPOS TION OF LABOR‘S COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES Age Level Representatives Non—Representatives Total 01d 53% A1% A6% Young A7 59 5A TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases 17 22 39 X2_= .60, p = .505.30. c =.12 c = .14 89 TABLE xxv POSITION HELD BY THE INFLUENCE LEVEL OF LABOR OFFICIALS ‘fi Position Level Influence Level High 'Medium Low _ Total High 72% 23% 13% 44% Low 28 67 87 56 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases l8 l3 8 39 x2 = 11.7 p< .01 c = .A8 5 = .70 w A slight positive association between position and organizational representation is revealed in Table XXVI, with organizational representation increasing from the low to the high position. Community spokesmen for labor, in short, are often drawn from the upper echelon of the union hierarchy. Also, as Table XXVII shows, a strong position associ- ation exists between organizational representation and influence, with the high influentials representing the bulk of labor‘s community representatives. Influence thus appears to be a function of three factors: age, position, amd organizational representation. TABLE XXVI POSITION LEVEL ACCORDING TO ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATION vi V a —f—v Position Level Organizational v—— Representative High Medium Low Total Yes 61% 31% 25% 44% No 39 69 75 56 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases l8 l3 8 39 x2 = A.3 p = .20-.10 c = 31 E = .A6 TABIE XXVII ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATION ACCORDING TO INFLUENCE LEVEL Mir—"fitsfil r r r t rr lei figciliilifi ======= Organizational Representative Influence Level Yes No Total High 76% 22% AA% Low 2A 78 56 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases 17 22 39 x2 = 13.3 :p<;.01 c = .50A 5 = 79 91 Interoorrelations Between Responses and Controls The hypothesis will be recalled that the_older, the more influential, the high position holders, and the repre- sentatives in community organizations would view the commu- nity power structure as less management-dominated than their counterparts. Carrying this line of reasoning over into the second hypothesis, these fourgnwnnxswould tend to see labor as being within the power structure, while the younger, the low influentials, the low position holders, and the non- representatives would view labor as a tangential association. The following tables present those questions where a control was apparently operating to influence the response obtained to some degree; i.e. where it affected the perception of power or cleavage. The responses are labeled as showing either the presence or absence of cleavage and in the case of power, whether management or labor power is indicated. Cleavage was revealed in answer to two questions asked of the respondents. One concerned organizations or activities in which the respondent felt labor should parti- cipate, but in which it was currently inactive. The other concerned management—labor agreement as to what were the important community issues. In both questions, perception of cleavage was significantly associated with a particular contrnol variable. The findings indicate that mgrg cleavage was pmerceived by the high influential, the high position- hOlders, and the organizational representatives, contrary to the various hypotheses formulated. 92 The results of Table XXVIII run contrary to the hypothesis that'"high" influentials would see less cleavage than "low" influentials. Indeed, the reverse tendency appears to be true, for the ”high" influentials more often than "low" influentials perceived labor as a tangential association. In answer to the question of what organizations labor should be participating in but is not, he high groups named organizations much more frequently than did the low group. TABLE XXVIII PERCEPTION OF LABOR—MANAGEMENT CLEAVAGE ACCORDING TO INFLUENCE LEVEL OF LABOR RESPONDENTS Influence Level Perception High Low Total No cleavage 2A% 59% AA% Cleavage 75 Al 56 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases 17 22 39 x2 = A.9 p = .05-.02 Question: Are there organizations or activities in the Lansing area in which you feel labor should participate but does not? —r— w #1 a Similar conclusions can be drawn from Table XXIX which also refutes the hypothesis that representatives in community organizations perceive less cleavage than do 93 non-representatives. Again there is a slight tendency for community representatives of labor to see cleavage more often than the non-representatives, for the former indi- cated more often than the latter that labor was not parti- cipating in various organisations in which it should. TABLE XXIX LABOR-MANAGEMENT CLEAVAGE PERCEIVED BY LABOR REPRESENTATIVES ACCORDING TO ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATION Vf Representation Perception Yes II'PNo _ Total No cleavage 2A% 59% A% Cleavage 76 A1 56 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases 17 22 39 x2 = A.9 p = .05-.02 Question: Are there organizations or activities in the Lansing area in which you feel labor should participate but does not? v fl ~—r . w Finally, in Table XXX there is a slight tendency for those in high positions to perceive cleavage more often than those in middle or low positions. This again is con- trary to the hypothesis formulated. Those holding high positions were less sure than those in lower positions that management would agree with labor as to the importance of community issues. 9A TABLE XXX CLEAVAGE PERCEIVED BETWEEN LABOR AND MANAGEMENT BY POSITION WITHIN THE UNION fie-vc weefi - alleles -wfi' - vy-c ‘— r i a fifi v or Position Perception IHigh Medium Low Total No cleavage 56% 100% 75% 75% Cleavage AA, - 25 25 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases l6 l2 8 36 x2 = 7.00 p = .05-.02 Question: Would community representatives of management generally agree that these are the most important issues? These findings with regard to labor as a tangential association exhibit a strain of consistency which was expected to be found, but not in the expected direction. It was assumed that degree of influence within union ranks as measured by such factors as position would be carried over to the respondent‘s image of the community power struc- ture. It was reasoned that his participation in the commu- nity as "spokesman" for labor would result in his having more favorable image of the power structure. Thus labor and management would be viewed more as power equals in the community, and correspondingly, labor would be considered within the power structure rather than without. However, as has been revealed, it is precisely these groups, which tend to see labor as tangential to the power structure rather than within it. It is quite possible that the reception given these groups in community organizations ‘ albeit unfavorable, has resulted in their "realistic,' imagery. As new participants in community affairs, they have not been able to identify the interests of labor with those of other community groups, particularly when the other groups hold the balance of power and often times reject such an attempt by labor. With regard to management domination of the community power structure, two questions elicited responses supporting all but one of the various hypotheses offered. Asked to compare the relative influence of management and labor, the respondents attributed greater power to the former. Similarly, when asked to name a group of community leaders to sponsor a community project, the informants again perceived manage- ment superiority judged in terms of the preponderance of management names submitted. With respect to the specific hypotheses, l§s§_management power was perceived by organi- zational representatives and high influentials. In listing community leaders the high position holders included more labor names than did the median and low groups. This also was interpreted as the highs viewing the power structure as less management-dominated compared to those in lower union positions. However, the high position group also listed the 96 name of Martin Karnas, newspaper publisher, more frequently than did the other two groups. This was interpreted as a View of high management-concentration of power on the part of the highs as compared to the median and low groups, a finding contrary to the original hypothesis. Table XXXI gives slight support to the hypothesis that organizational representatives of labor see the community power structure as less management dominated than do non- representatives. One-third of the representatives compared labor's power favorably with management, while only one- tenth of the non-representatives did so. fHere participation in community organizations has apparently effected a more favorable image of management influence. TABLE XXXI POWER ATTRIBUTED TO MANAGEMENT BY LABOR ACCORDING TO ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATION Representation Perception of Power Yes No Total Greater power of management 67% 90% 81% Labor equal or more power 33 IO 19 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases 15 21 36 x2 = 3.2 p = .10—.05 Question: How would you compare the relative influence of management and labor in community affairs in Lansing? _— h j 97 Table XXXII gives a different dimension of the respon- dent's imagery of the community power structure. It was assumed that the name of Martin Karnas would epitomize management-domination in community affairs to those who men- tioned him, since he was frequently mentioned in connection with many questions. Certainly, all respondents would agree that Karnas was highly influential in community affairs, whether they placed him on the list of influentials or not. In brief, he was ”Mr. Business." It was arbitrarily assumed that those respondents who included his name on the list of community influentials viewed the power structure as concen- trated in the hands of a small group, headed by Karnas. Conversely, those who omitted his name saw management power as more diffuse and less effective or pervasive in community activities. Table XXXII offers evidence rejecting the hypothesis that the high group would tend to perceive less management power. The high position group sees concentrated management power, the medium group diffuse management power. In this instance, the experiences of the "high" group in community activities have apparently effected a less favorable image of management power. Their greater experi— ence in the power structure enables them to pinpoint the opposition and to hold a conception of greater management power, as the result of seeing it "in action." 98 TABLE XXXII POWER ATTRIBUTED TO MANAGEMENT BY LEVEL OF POSITION WITH THE UNION Wfifvv -—v—+ V fi Position Perception of Power 'ITHigh Medium Low Total Concentrated management power--Martin Karnas group 78% 39% 63% 62% Diffuse management power—~other business spokesmen 22 61 37 38 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases l8 l3 8 39 x2 = A.9 p = .1c-.15 Question: If you were responsible for a major project, which was before the community that required decision by a group of leaders that nearly everyone would accept, which ten would you include on this list? Table XXXIII offers additional support to the hypoth- esis that those in high labor positions have a more tolerant view of the community power structure. The "highs" tend to include labor names in the list of community influentials, while the "medium" group tends to omit them. Similarly, in Table XXXIV the high influential labor respondents tend more often to include labor names than do the low influ- entials. 99 TABLE XXXIII POWER ATTRIBUTED TO MANAGEMENT BY LEVEL OF POSITION WITHIN THE UNION a ww—v j ‘7‘ Position Perception of Power High Medium Low Total (Management Power)——No labor ’ name given 17% 09% 37% 39% (Labor Power)--Labor name given 83 31 63 61 TOTAL loos 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases 18 13 8 39 x2 = 8.8 p z .02-.01 Question: If you were responsible for a major project which was before the community that required decision by a group of leaders that nearly everyone would accept, which ten would you include on this list? ifiw a- H fifi TABLE XXXIV POWER ATTRIBUTED TO MANAGEMENT BY HIGH AND LOW INFLUENCE GROUPS a W 1 ‘fi. ‘filnfluence Level Reply High Low Total (Management Power)--NO labor name given 18% 55% 39% (Labor Power)——Labor name given 82 45 61 TOTAL 100% 100% 100% Number of Cases 17 22 39 x2 = 5.5 p = .02-.01 Question: If you were responsible for a major project which was before the community that required decision by a group of leaders nearly everyone would accept, .which ten would you include on this list? . v fi—w v—v a fiw —v w a 133 Summary Some remarks are in order concerning the apparent contradictions manifested in the above distributions. With respect to cleavage, the hypotheses are uniformly rejected by the data. However, with respect to power, all are sub— stantiated with the one exception. There remains the question of why those holding high union positions perceive more cleavage between management and labor, yet View labor's power as relatively higher than do their counterparts. One possible explanation is that their experiences in community activities have been such that they have emphasized management-labor differences, while at the same time reinforcing their image of labor‘s own power potential. Evidently, labor has not yet success— fully penetrated the power structure to the point where the differences between it and other groups are simply those of degree rather than of kind. It is understandable that the divergencies between labor and management would be spot- "working member" lighted as the former attempts to become a within the community power structure. These differences would be particularly impressed upon those union leaders representing labor in the power structure. The fact remains, however, that labor has enjoyed considerable success in at least entering the power struc-' ture, if its representation in various community organi- zations is any criterion by which to judge. Hence, a lOl feeling of power could develop simply out of this fact. Whether labor's influentials feel that such participation is furthering labor's interests is another matter. As new- comers who have proven labor‘s power by entering community organizations, the view may be held that labor's goals might best be achieved outside community ranks. This image could Obtain even though the influentials express a desire to enter still more community organizations, for this Obviously raises labor's prestige in the community and is thus not without benefit. Lacking the skills Of the upper echelon, the lower labor influentials see less cleavage, contrary to the hypothesis originally formulated. In brief, their lack of knowledge, apparently makes them less aware of labor- management differences. However, as was hypothesized, this contributed to their imagery of management-domination in the power structure. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS What Is Labor's Image The present study has been concerned with labor‘s image of its place in the community power structure. Since the investigation has concerned itself essentially with attitudes, the following description is limited to what 'the informants think the community power structure to be and labor's role in it, not what actually prevails. Such a description may provide clues to the actual behavior which labor manifests in its community involvement. A group‘s actions are in large measure predicated upon the image which it holds of other groups with which it inter— acts. Thus much "irrational" behavior is rendered more meaningful. This is not to say that no factual information was obtained, for the preceding chapters contain must Objective data on the behavior of the informants. Important community problems were noted, and to some extent the machinery by which they were resolved was indicated. Thus not only the structural aspects, but the functional concerns of com- munity power were considered; i.e. organizations and individ- uals concerned with community power were cited as well as their interrelationships. 103 A number of attitudes may be said to comprise labor‘s perception of its role in the community. First of all, labor admits it needs the cooperation of management in resolving community issues. At present community decisions are perceived as being made primarily by a small group from management. Correspondingly, labor feels excluded from many community organizations which it perceives as being management—dominated. Nevertheless, labor does credit itself with someinfluence on the outcome of community issues and sees itself as one of the influential organizations in the city. Similarly, a few labor representatives are con- sidered to be community influentials. Although minimizing its influence in the community, labor did not clearly view itaself as being an‘"outside" group. Its perception of community issues was thought to coincide with that of management. Differences between management and labor regarding community issues were seen as revolving around methods of solution rather than ultimate Objectives. Both groups were perceived as having important economic stakes in their community participation. Labor expressed an eagerness to increase its community involve- ment, and saw its participation in community affairs as being less motivated by narrow economic interests, compared to management. Significantly, labor viewed Lansing as a "good" union town, although they had a less favorable image of the com- munity power structure. Lansing was considered a "good” 13M town because in the area of collective bargaining, it was felt that the union was dealing with management on an equal footing. This position of strength did not carry over into the community power structure, however. The unbalance perceived by labor has seemingly engen- dered a striving to correct what it considers to be an inequitable situation. it wants to increase both its com- munity involvement and community power. The perception of its subordinate position vis-a—vis management in community activities has not resulted in attitudes of futility. Nor has labor developed a militant attitude although this could easily be interpreted from its present philosophy of commu— nity participation. The fact that labor wants to be included on various community endeavors is better explained by its long history of non-involvement rather than by any desire to dominate the community. Labor's historic desire for status continues. It has long had some economic power, but this was not enough to give it social recognition. With legal recognition of its collective bargaining rights, the next step was to obtain respectability in the eyes of the community, to show that it had earned its place so to speak. Hence, the union turned to community activities. The aura Of disrepute sur- rounding its bargaining function made the union‘s entrance into the community arena especially difficult. Their motives are still highly suspect. For its part, labor is also highly suspicious of others whom they feel are pur- posely preventing them from participating in community affairs. One might describe labor's present attitude as some- what opportunistic. Feeling somewhat devoid of community influence, labor tries to ”get what it can." What influ- ence it does have seemEs to be perceived as largely negative in character, i.e. labor can protest or invalidate decisions, but cannot make them. As a result it will continue in thi" role until such time that its penetration in community organizations is sufficient to enable it to have an equal voice in making decisions. This "wait and see" attitude is somewhat tempered with caution, for the drive for status could hardly afford to appear as an intemperate, militant posture. As an“ Underdog in local structures it is noteworthy that labor has not professed a desire to align itself with other community groups. Community power was perceived as a bi-polar relation of labor versus management. Various “non-partisan" organizations were perceived to be dominated largely by management representatives and, as such, were not considered allies of labor. Further Topicsfbr Investigation The limitations inherent in the present research pre- clude discussion of the labor image. Both size and com- position of the sample do not allow room for widespread .3 Ir (Ill! 1 iii. :. inn-I4]! 106 generalizations regarding how sub—groups perceive the place of labor in the community. All subsequent findings are subject to rather severe qualifications. Neither labor nor H management can be considered ”typical, if one demands precise usage of the term. The present sample contained a majority of industrial union representatives. Furthermore, the respondents represented, for the most part, a non-mobile work force within the community. One of the most important features Of the sample was that it consisted of labor influ- entials rather than the "average" rank—and—file members. The effect of these factors must be determined before one can speak of the labor image. Subsequent research can thus yield many bases of comparison with the current study. How does the average union member perceive the union's role in the community? How does the imagery of migratory workers compare with that of stable workers? How would craft union representatives differ from industrial union leaders? Still other questions would arise if one considered a management group different from the one perceived in the present study. It is not likely that a bi—polar perception of the community power would Obtain in a larger city such as Detroit or Seattle. Power was much more localized in the eyes of the Lansing informants than it might be in a study in a larger city where the question "Who has the power?" is less easily answered. Also, in the current investigation, labor—management relations in collective 107 bargaining were viewed as quite satisfactory, a fact which partially carried over into the imagery of the community power structure. This raises the rather obvious question regarding the image held if the reverse situation prevailed, i.e. if there were labor—management strife in collective bargaining. The community power structure has only been consid— ered from the viewpoint of one of its participants. TO broaden understa.ding the image of management must also be considered, for its actions are alsoconditionedtw'how it views labor. The present study has provided only a few clues as to how management considers the role of labor in community activities. Labor's entering wedge into the community arena could engender a number of images, which can be determined in future research. Contributions to Theory The basic dichotomy between economic and social power made at the beginning of this study appears to have been substantiated. ”Power," broadly conceived, has various determinants and can be divided accordingly. Community power is not necessarily determined by "wealth," for the ability to influence community decisions on the part of labor was severely curtailed, and no one would deny that labor has resources sufficient to give it power in an econ- omic sense. Economic power alone, however, was not enough to make labor influential in community affairs. This is 138 not to say that the major influential groups in Lansing did not also possess economic power, but in addition they also enjoyed a high degree of status, an element which labor lacked. The low prestige Of labor presents a somewhat para— doxical situation. Prestige accrues to a group by virtue of its position in a stratification system. It is the basis of what has been called social power. The problem for labor has been to increase its power and influence by raising its prestige in the wider community. Only in this way could it successfully compete with management in the com- munity power structure. However, labor's relative lack of prestige to begin with, has prevented it from exercising decisive influence in the community. A certain degree of prestige is needed before a group can wield legitimate power in the community. The question becomes, "How labor can prove its 'right‘ to wield social power in the commu- nity?" Indeed, how does any group become influential in the community? To say that position determines status does not answer the question, but gives rise to the complex problem of how the position was originally assigned. If labor is to improve its position in the stratification hierarchy, it must know on what basis such a position is assigned. Historical precedence has assigned labor a low position because of the negative overtones surrounding its bargaining 109 tactics. In this sense, one could say that labor's status has been determined by its achievements in the economic sphere. To the detriment of labor these "achievements" have been negatively appraised by other groups, as having gained power through coercion rather than through "honorable” means. Contrariwise, management‘s achievements have been evaluated "positively” in the sense that management has been viewed by itself and others as contributing to the economic well—being of the community. Management, like other segments of the community has been defined as the'"victim" of strikes. Thus the carry—over from collective bargaining has enabled management to ally its interests with those ,_‘ .n H 1 '1. \J the community,’ while labor could not easily do so. The latter‘s interests were often seen as conflicting with those of "the community." Finally, this raises the problem as to what groups make up the community for whose recognition labor is striving. It would appear that such groups must necessarily be higher in prestige than labor, for labor is trying to emulate the behavior of groups whose evaluation are impor- tant for bestowing prestige. Prestige can come to labor only through the deference accorded it by groups which themselves are higher in prestige. Accordingly, labor must look to the middle and upper status groups, both of which are identified with management. Consequently, labor would model its community participation after these groups. 110 However, the determinants Of social power while often described in such terms as status, prestige, or wealth are not readily discernible. Status is seen as being related to the evaluation of a group's behavior which, in the case of labor, means a low status level. When labor deals with non-economic concerns, its actions are usually not judged in their own right but rather through the reputation gained from the economic sphere. Because of this, labor's attempt to move up the stratification hierarchy, and into the com- munity power structure has proved especially difficult. The Lansing case has amply illustrated labor's attempt to erase the stigma attributed to its economic function by becoming active in community affairs. However, activity and influence in community affairs are two different things, and labor has not attained the latter precisely because of the stigma which has been attached to it. Social power cannot be usurped by a group as is the care with economic power. In essence, it is bestowed upon a group, whereas economic power is exerted with material and organizational resources.1 Management has been suc- cessful in defining itself as creating wealth, while defining labor as "taking" it. As a result social power has occurred to the former but not the latter. Consequently lHaUS Speier, "Honor and the Social Structure,” Social iesearch,2 (February, 1953), 74-97, 111 the contributions which labor can make to general community welfare have not been appreciated or accepted. This dilemma has engendered feelings of ambivalence and futility and lack of direction on the road to community influence. B [BL I OGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY‘ Bakke, E. Wight. "Why Workers Join Unions," Personnel, 22 (July, 1945), 37-46. Beck, Duane. An Historical Study of Organized Labor's ParticipatiOn in Community Chest and Council ActIvi- ties in Lansing,‘Michigan. UnpuBIIshed Project Report, Department of Social Work, Michigan State University, 1955. Bell, Daniel. '"Labor's New Man of Power," Fortune, June, Chalmers, W. E., M. K. Chandler, L. L. McQuitty, R. Stagner, D. E. Wray, and D. M. Derber. Labor-Management Relations in Illini City. Champaign, Illinois: Institute 5? Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois, 1954. Chamberlain, N. W. Collective Bargaining. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill Book Co., 1951. Commons, John R. and Associates. History of Labor in the United States, Vols. I and II New York: Macmillan Company, 1926. Cook, Alice. '"Labor's Search for its Place in the Community: The Role of a Professional Community Consultant;" The Journal of Educational Sociology, 29 (December, I955}. lReprIfit , l Dulles, Foster Rhea. Labor in America: A History. Revised edition. New YETk: Thomas Y. Cromwell, 1955. Durkheim, Emile. The Division Of Labor in Societ . Trans. by G. Simpson. Glenco: Tfie Free Press, 19 9. Faulkner, Harold U. and Mark Starr. Labor in America. Revised edition. New York: Harper and Bros. 1955. Form, William H. and Harry K. Dansereau. "Union Member Orientations and Patterns of Social Integration," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 11 (October, 19575, 3712. ‘ I ‘ 114 Ginzberg, Eli. The Labor Leader: An Exploratory Study. New York: MacMillan Company, 1948. Gouldner, Alvin W. Studies in Leadership. New York: Harper and Bros. 1950. Gulick, Charles A. and Melvin K. Bers. ‘"Insight and Illu- sion in Perlman' s Theory Of the Labor Movement, " Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 6 (July, 1953), 510-531 Hart, C. W. M. '"Industrial Relations Research and Social Theory," The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 15 (Februaryf'l949), 53-73. Henry, David. "One Hundred Years of Labor in Politics," in The House of Labor. Internal Operations of AmerICan‘Uniofigfl Edited by J.’B.‘S,'Hardman—End Maurice Neufeld. New York: Prentice-Hall Company, 1951. Pp. 90-112. Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill: - The University OfINOPth CaFOIina Press, 1952. lmterman, A. A. '"Labor Leaders and Society," Harvard Business Review, 28 (January, 1950), 52-60. Lansing State Journal, November 5, 1957. Lester, Richard A. Labor and Industrial Relations: A General Analysis. New YOrk: MacMillan CO., 1951. McCormick, Thomas C. Elementary Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill BOOk CO., 1941 McKee, James. "Status and Power in the Industrial Community," American Journal of Sociology, 58 (January, 1953), 364- 370. ' . ‘"Organized Labor and Community Decision—Making: A Study in the Sociology of Power." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 19:33. Mills, C. Wright. The New Men of Power: America‘s Labor Leaders. New York: Harcourt, Brace CO., 1948.TI Perlis, Leo. '"Unions and Community Services, the CIO Community Services Program," in The House of Labor: Internal Operations of American Unions? Edited By J. B. S. Hardman and MauFice Neufeldf' New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951. Pp. 333-340. 115 Perlman, Selig. A Theory of the Labor Movement. New York: MacMillan Company, ml928. I Perlman, Selig and Philip Taft. Labor Movements, yOl. IE, 1896—1932. New York: MacMillan Company, 1935. Peterson, Florence. American Labor Unions: What They Are and How They Work. New York: Harper and Bros.,1945. "a Phelps, Orme W. community Recognition of Union Leaders," Industrial and Lab: r Relations Review, 7 (April, 1954 , 419- 433. Sayles, Leonard R. and George Strauss. The Local Union: Its Place in the Industrial Plant. New‘YOrk: Harper and Bros., 1955. ' 5" Selekman, Benjamin. Labor Relations and Human Relations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1947. Speier, Hans. "Honor and the Social Structure," Social Research, 2 (February, 1953), 74—97. Stagner, Ross. The Psychology of Industrial Conflict. New York: Wiley and Sons, Co. 1956. Starr, Mar k. "Role of Union Organization," in Industry and Society. Edited by William F. Whyte. New york: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1946. Pp. 148-167. Sturmtha 1, Adolf. "Comments on Selig Perlman' s ‘A Theory of the Labor Movement'," Industrial and Labor Rela- tions Review, 4 (July, 1951), 483:496. Taft, Philip. "Theories of the Labor Movement,“ in Industrial Relations Research Association, Interpreting the Labor Movement (1952), pp.1-38. Tagliacozzo, Daisy. "Trade Union Government, Its Nature and Its Problems: A Bibliographical Review, 1944- 1945," American Journal of Sociology, 61 (May, 1956), 554-581. Tannenbaum, Frank. A Philosophy of Labor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951. Weber, Max. '"Class, Status, and Power," From Max Weber: Essays_£g Sociology. Trans. and Eds. H} H.5Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford Press, 1946. Pp. 180-195. 116 Whitehead, Thomas. Leadership in‘a Free Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936. Yule, G. Udney and M. G. Kendall. Ag Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. Thirteenth edition, revised. London:I_Charles Griffin, 1948. nr" 1! ‘ ~ 1% 5 I. 31": ,1 E; E. {Hr-Du 14 Inn by f . up: in“ im.‘ L V U ‘ ud was I a 1 We; [488:ng a?