“WWW OF LOCAL WANTS AS MC.” TO WORK BY THE MALE WW OI‘ A MIDDLE-SIZED INDUSTRIAL WIT? Thais fat tho Dunn. of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Paul Raymond Vaughan “59 unfit->15 LIBRARY Michigan Sm: ll . . EVALUATION OF LOCAL PLANTS AS PLACES TO WORK BY THE MALE WAGE- EARNERS OF A MIDDLE-SIZED INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY by Paul Raymond Vaughan AN ABSTRACT Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Soc- iology and AnthrOpology in Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 1959 fi ’y, 2/’ P ”' /// :2 Approved h/U//Cléétt%4\_ “9“,, .0 /¢0\_,,,wrr PAUL RAYMOND VAUGHAN ABSTRACT A sample of 588 male, manual workers was taken from the Lansing labor force and examined for this study. An attempt was made to determine how they rated local plants as places to work. First, the data were analyzed to deter- mine which plants were rated as the best and as the worst and the order in which they were ranked. The largest plant, Oldsmobile was found to be rated the highest followed by Motor Wheel, Rec Motors, and Fisher Body, in that order. The forges and foundries were rated worst as places to work. However, they were rated high by their own employees. The first hypothesis that workers from small, locally owned, non-manufacturing plants would rate their plants higher than large, absentee owned, manufacturing plants was not upheld. In fact, the reverse was found to be true. The explanation for this seems to be that the large, absentee owned, manufacturing plants can pay higher wages and provide better working conditions. The second hypothesis that the largest plants in terms of number of employees would be named most often as the best places to work was upheld even after making correc- tion for difference in size of the plants. Fisher Body, which rated lower than expected was an exception and points to the fact that large size does not automatically bring a plant high reputation. Plants must be managed in such a way that their employees are satisfied with the programs and policies. It was hypothesized that workers rate the plants in their community as places to work with the same criteria that they use to rate their Jobs. The criteria used in common partially supporting this hypothesis were the most important criteria: working conditions, wages, steady em- ployment,and good human relations. However, there were some additional criteria used only to rate Jobs and others used only to rate plants. The next section focused on the workers ranking of their own plants. It was hypothesized that workers with high Job satisfaction tend to evaluate plants where they work more highly than workers with low Job satisfaction. This hypothesis was statistically supported. The final hypothesis was that plants would be rated differently by workers with varying social backgrounds. The background characteristics were grouped into demographic variables, age, birthplace, and marital status; labor market variables, number of years in the Lansing labor market, time employed by present concern, number of companies worked at 1940-1951, and union membership; and stratification variables, educa- tion, income, and occupational level. Results of chi-square tests indicated that marital status, union membership, and occupational level is associated with the way in which the workers rate their own plants. There are indications that workers who rate their own plants low show a greater degree 11 of association between social background characteristics and the way in which they rate their plants. Further research might show this to be true. 111 EVALUATION OF LOCAL PLANTS AS PLACES TO WORK BY THE MALE WAGE- EARNERS OF A MIDDLE-SIZED INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY by Paul Raymond Vaughan A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Soc- iology and AnthrOpology in Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 1959 Approved ACKNOWLEDCZENTS I am indebted to Dr. Villiam H. Form, my major professor, fer the use of the data which formed the basis for this study. His suggestions as to how the data should be handled were very helpful. I wish to thank him especially for the promptness and thoroughness with which he reviewed material which I gave to him and for his encouragement. I also am grateful to the members of my committee, Dr. William A. aunce, Dr. J. Allen Beagle, Dr. Walter Freeman, and Dr. Charles P. Larrcwo, for their time and helpful suggestions. John Van Dyke gave valuable H, assistance in explaining the use and interpretation 0 34 statistics. 1 also wish to thank Paul Russell for t.e * rassistance he gave in providing data on the Lansing Labor force. For the typing of all drafts and for constant moral support, I am indebted to my wife Margaret. Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE . . . General Review of the Literature . . . . . . . Research Problems . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Site '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Design and Composition' . . . . . . Statistical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . RANKING OF PLANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Ranking of Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plant Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Ia: Type of Ownership . . . . . . . Hypothesis lb: Size . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Hypothesis Ic: Type of Industry . . . . . . . . Hypothesis II . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . Hypothesis III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE WORKERS RANKING OF HIS OWN PLANT . . . . . Hypothesis IV: The Relationship of Plant Reputation to Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . The Relationship Between the Image Held of the Firm and the Social Characteristics of the workers 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 ii Page 10 11 11 12 15 17 17 21 26 26 52 Chapter Demographic Variables . . Birthplace . . . . . Marital Status . . . Labor Market Variables . Number of Years in Lansing Number of Companies Worked at 1940-1951 Union Membership . . Socio-Economic Variables Relationship between Social teristics of Workers and their Ranking of Educat ion 0 a e e 0 Income 0 I O O O 0 Occupational Level . Community Plants 0 e e 0 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . Limitations of the Study Relevance for Further Study LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . APPENDIX-A 111 Background Charac- Labor Time Employed by Present Concern Market 0... Page 67 7O 77 77 79 80 Table I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XII. XIII. xIv. LIST OF TABLES Reasons Given for Selecting a Place to Work . Worker Evaluation of Best Plants in Which to Work . . . . Worker Evaluation of Worst Plants in Which to work 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of Plants Evaluated among the Best Most Frequently with Plants Evaluated among the Worst M0313 ,F‘I'equently e e e e e e e e e o Worker Evaluation of Plants by their Type of Ownership............... Worker Evaluation of Plants by Size of Work Force in their Plants .‘. . . . . . . . . . . Worker Evaluation of Plants by Type of Industry in Which They Were Employed . . . . . Ranking of Largest Plants Based on Number of Employees Compared with Ranking Based on Expressed Choices of Workers . . . . . . . . . Criteria Used by Workers to Rate Plants as Best and Jobs as Satisfactory . . . . . . . . Criteria Used by Workers to Rate Plants as Worst and Jobs as Dissatisfactory . . . . . . Worker Evaluation of their own Plant by their Degree or Jab Satisfaction e e e e e e e e e e Worker Evaluation of their own Plant by their Demographic Characteristics Worker Evaluation of their own Plant by Labor Market Variables e e o e e e e e e e Worker Evaluation of their own Plant According to their Socio-Economic Characteristics . . . iv Page 5 22 24 25 28 29 31 38 42 45 5O 55 58 64 Table XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. Summary of Chi-squares for Tests of Associa- tion between Rating of Plants and Social Characteristics of Workers . . . . . . . . . . Job Satisfaction of Employees of Selected Plants . . . . . . . . . . . O O'C'C'O'. C O 0 Age Distribution of Employees of Selected Plants . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Birthplace of Employees of Selected Plants . . Marital Status of Employees of Selected Plants Years in Lansing Labor Market of Employees of SGlOCtedplantseeeeeeeeeeeee Time Employed by Present Concern of Employees ofSelectedPlantS.............. Number of Companies (1940-1951) in Which Employees of Selected Plants Have Worked . . . Union MemberShip of Employees of Selected PlantSeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Education of Employees of Selected Plants ’. . Income of Employees of Selected Plants ... . . Occupational Level of Employees of Selected Plants 0 O O O O O O O 0'. O O 0 O O O O O O I Comparison of Respondents With Non-respondents Based on Size of Company.. . . . . . . . . . , Comparison of Respondents with Non-reSpondents Based on Plant Working at Time of Study . . . Comparison of Reapondents with Non-reapondents Based on Nature of Industry . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Reapondents with Non-reapondents Based on Union Membership . . . . . . . . . . Page 69 8O 81, 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 9O 91 91 92 Table XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. XXXVI. XXXVII. Comparison of Respondents with Non-reapondents Based on Occupational Level . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Respondents with Non-reapondents Based on Type of Ownership of Plant . . . . . Comparison of Reapondents with Non-respondents Based on Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Reapondents with Non-reapondents Based on Marital Status . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Reapondents with Non-respondents BSSOd on Birthplace e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 Comparison of Respondents with Non-reapondents Based on Age 0 e e e e e e e e e e o 0-0 0 e 0 Comparison of Respondents with Non-respondents Based on Number of Different Companies Worked at in LanSIng (1940‘1951) e e e e e e e e e 0 vi. Page 92 93 93 94 94 95 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE In present day American society the job which a person holds is of great significance. A person's Job determines the status which he has and influences the type of life which he can lead. Thereforethe worker is concerned about the type of job which he holds and also about the type of employer for which he works. Moreover workers commonly evaluate the local plants while seeking employment. They rate a plant as a good or a bad place to work based upon their previous work experiences and upon what they have heard from fellow workers. This evaluation of local work plants is a subject about which little is known. Due to the importance of work and place of work the historical evalua- tion of community plants is considered an important area for sociological investigation. The relationship between the institutions of work and social life has long been recognized. More than fifty years have passed Since Durkheim published his thesis dem- onstrating that interdependence between men in industrial society increases with the division of labor. Based upon comparative studies of other societies Durkheim maintained that occupational associations will deveIOp along with complex industrial systems. These associations, he held, would assume many non-economic functions which, when com- bined with the economic functions, would provide norms for the society and prevent a condition of anomie, a societal state characterized by an absence of common values, senti- ments, and Social norms.1 There are some trends in American society today which support Durkheim's prediction that economic associa— tions tend to assume non-economic functions. For example business establishments are devoting increased time and effort to support and influence community educational systems. Currently many industrial leaders feel that in order to operate their plants with minimum friction they need to have a favorable public image." To obtain adequate municipal services and a qualified labor force industry may find it helpful to be regarded as a "good community citizen." Such a reputation can be assured by keeping informed about their community image and taking an active part in community affairs. Some companies make a systematic effort to obtain representation on all types of community boards, commissions, and committees. This is all a part of the growing public relations movement. Businessmen who have spent many years in build- ing a favorable community image of their industry are con- vinced that the good labor recruitment, brand loyalty, and consumer loyalty is a function of their efforts to build a 2 good reputation. According to John W. Welcker a management 1Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, Translated by George Simpson, The Free Press, 19 7. 2William H. Form and Delbert C. Miller, Industry and Community, Chap. 4, p. 29, Unpublished manuscript, Harper and Brothers, forthcoming, 1960. which is successful in maintaining good community relations not only improves the company's internal Operations, but also strengthens the reputation of industry as a whole throughout the nation.3 General Review of th§=Literature The present study is concerned with evaluation which manual workers in a middle-sized city make of local firms as places to work. Very little has been done to study systematically he co nmuniW reputations of firms and em- ployers. In his study of Illini City, Wray asked samples of the public, union members, and employers, six general ques- tions concerning the reputations of six major companies and the unions with which they dealt. He found that respondents generally tended to have clearer attitudes toward the larg- est companies and unions. They tended to have positive attitudes toward organizations about which they know the most.4 ROper conducted a study for Fortune in Terre Haute, Indiana, to find out which of the leading industrial compa- H nies in town were good neighbors" and why. He found that a good product at a reasonable price does not automatically 3John W. Welcker, "The Community Relation Problems of Industrial Companies," Harvard Business Review, November, 1949 , 13‘ 0 73C) 0 4Donald E. Wray, "The Community and Labor-Manate- ment Relati as, " Labor-Management Relations 13 Illini City, Institute of Labor and Industrial Islations, Champaign, University of Illinois, 1953, p. 122 -12A. result in public favor for the company. The company is looked upon as a citizen and neighbor and is judged the same as other members of society. One company was well known for doing things for the community, but was not rated very high as an employer. The best company in Terre Haute did not pay the best wages or build the most playgrounds, but it did create the most Opportunities. The peonle were asked how they felt about the ten leading industries as places to work and why they felt the way they did. They were given a list of criteria and asked to choose two or three of the most important for picking a company to work. Table I Shows the results ob- tained.5 Terre Haute is large enough to have important and diverse industry and yet small enough so peOple are familiar with the firms in town. Yet a significant finding was that two-thirds of the reapondents could not name a best plant to work for in Terre Haute. On the other hand, four-fifths indicated that they did not know a worst company or that there was no worst company. One company was named by one- third of the remaining twenty percent as worst because of low wages. Reapondents could not or would not derogate firms except for failure to provide steady employment. In general companies were rated high because they provided 5ROper, "The Fortune Survey,” Fortune, March, 1950, p. 40. "3 3 . u} If" [‘1 H w 7: PI ,« w 0” L if) '0 k 1.. H r5 C Lu L,.' L r4 of] C) 5-3 I—c L N ”7 A ELLGE TO WORK b 9.) 01 O , ) U) w (D *‘S O (D : (—f SD (’0 U) .; (0 go fl: Po f‘S (T; K J U] Q r—t. U ,3 H Q d (D p‘ D (7‘ U1 C) C) ’2» p ‘3: Q g.) :3 (J \1‘ E: G) :5 cf ‘04 k L") *x] 6 W F :3 C 0 i J i - ('1‘ P. O :3 U) K ‘I \ )4 (,3 0. DJ {\J Atlltide Toward Labor Unions [\3 \JJ ' H - ~A v7. ‘ v—\ A Relatio' Hi 2 :css j LU 'L H S s t f FJ. O ’ - g (- f P ’11 (D H H 9 'di 0 d.‘ (D '4, (D \J.) Number of Respondents Not given * From Roper. steady employment, chance for advancement, good wages and good workinj conditions. General dlectric conducted surveys to appraise th community reputati ns of some of their plants. Its manage- ment has indicated that General Electric can exist only as long as the public allows it. They believe that they cannot attract and hold the best employees, have mutually rewardin: relations with them and otherwise achieve good over all Operations unless they deserve, seek, and yet good coimunity- wide understanding and approval of their policies and activ- ities. General Llectric has set up standards for a company to be rated as a good employer, a good neighbor, and a good citizen. The reason for the corporation's concern with this problem of plant reputation stems from the results of a survey taken during a strike in 1946. They found that the mayor, the city council, the clergy, the newspaper, and CD local merchants felt that the trike was justified, that emplo"ees were not paid well, that prices were kept as high as possible by G.E., and that the company's motives were dishonest and contrary to public interest.6 The results of the strike surveys and the comments of its neighbors in the cities where the plants were located indicated that Eeneral Electric needed a strong, well-planned community relations program. First the company reviewed its previous activities in the communities. For a half century 6i , . __ _ general LleCtPlC Publications, ERV—PA, 1935, pp, j-Q, pamphlet directed toward professional managers in the corporation._ it had felt secure in the knowledge that, measured against accepted standards, it ranked high as a good employer. The wages, working conditions, benefit programs, the community participation of management, and company contributions to human needs, small businesses, and industry as a whole were believed to have been of high quality. The surveys showed however, that company policy had not resulted in high job satisfaction among the workers or a good community reputation. In fact the harder the com- pany tried and the more it got done, the more misunderstand- ing and disapproval seemed to develOp. Something was lacking and General Electric officials felt that they must get local peOple to: 1. Understand and believe that a profitable industry is not good only for employees, share owners, customers, and suppliers, but most important to General Electric‘s community neighbors. - 2. Know that the favorable benefits resulting from a profitable industry cannot continue to be enjoyed unless the citizens understand the business system which makes these bene- fits possible and understand their roles in keeping it profitable. 3. Appreciate that good paying jobs depend on the success of local businesses, including General Electric. Based upon the findings of additional surveys conducted by Opinion Research Corporation the company de- vised a "formula" for rating plants. They maintain that the companies rated most favorably by the public followed this three point "formula" which is given below. 1. Live Right - treat employees fairly and humanely, pay good wages, provide employee benefits, and contribute fairly to charities. 2. Tell Employees About It - keep information channels Open, tell employees company aims, objectives, and problems. 3. Tell the Community About the Company - inform community on company plans, aims, objectives, and problems. Show neighbors what company does for the community.7 According to General Slectricithe companies rated lowest followed only the first part of the “formula" and those which were in the middle ratings followed only the first two parts. Barlow and Payne have probably done the most ex- tensive study of how to go about rating an industrial firm in a local community. They found that there are two main obstacles for researchers in a study involving the public Opinion survey. First, respondents usually show a greater willingness to commend rather than to condemn a company, 71b1d., ERV-EA, 1955, pp. 9-13. ,. J..._:" 7.4,» r v r. U _ ‘\,J A O ~L 1 xi 1 4.: La . l ‘ v'r-N -€~ ’ iavvi'c‘. +'\ .L 3- -.AJ v .. HEV': 4. DC GOTHJU‘ S ,-l a II. .1. - V [J C‘» 1" r\ -8. ‘ techninue ...: I}. (C .1 1 T. 6 fl .1 3 3 .A ‘ r ..4.-. 5 av ..L +9 S e 6 3; ..D n 3 “In; AT. 0 ing ank 14 : _ w‘ - -, ' L «kt L3 - I -~ ‘ 1‘31} at, islits - \ i ‘3- L GETDO \‘i i *‘v \ '2 L'o¢C of A no . 5U ..-; 9U of problem {‘1 e T‘ ., .3 s."-\ I) ‘ \ | "v A €341" C.— V I‘Vv 9 f ‘ V a male r" . t ! sis pa: lat ‘ W; N t . Oi 1:. :1. 4.0; «.3 2U. n .1 t v 1 nlar the “at L GPS 1 OPLI W of n dc ...h f |. \- I cll* .p A . T‘ x.) q fW‘ O 11.. .1 O L O .l T T. O N C ..III. 9 a; and .ruu. *pL Cc P u o ab Tau nu \IV V .IL _. . t 1 a a 1 at. e to H . .3 1, .Q +t .v.“ 11. l 1 “IA (L I U .n 3 O .1 1" _‘ uL’ a IT.’ '\ on .Jo a . s ,1 40 p. % 10 1. What are the characteristics of plants which are rated best and worst in the community? 2. Why do the workers evaluate plants differ- ently? 3. How do the workers rate their own plants as places to work? 4. Are the factors used to rate a plant the same as those used to rate jobs? P 3. Is there a relationship between the social backgrounds and experiences of the workers and their plant rankings? The Terre haute study selected a sample from the general public and inquired about the rating of local firms as "good neighbors," as "good citizens," and as places to work. The present research chose a sample of the male wage-earners in the city and is focused only upon the firms as places to work. Five hypotheses were developed which will be further develOped in the subsequent chapters. Hypotheses l. The ratin of the plants by the workers is associated with the size, type of industry, and type of wn- ership of the plants. a. Locally owned plants will be rated higher than absentee owned plants. b. Workers in small plants will rate their own plant higher than workers in large plants. 0. Non-manufacturing industries will be rated higher than manufacturing industries. 2. The largest plants in terms of number of em- 11 ployees will be named most frequently as the best places to work. 3. The workers rate the plants in the community as places to work with the same criteria th ey use to rate their jobs. i.. Workers who have high Job satisfaction tend to evaluate plants where they work more h 5h y than workers with low job satisfaction. 5. Plants will be rated differently by workers with different social backgrounds. Methodology Because the data used for this research has been obtained from a larger study, the research site an sample selection for that study are relevant for this research. Research Site The data for this studyvmre gathered in 1950-1951. According to the 1950 census, Lansing, h chigan had a pOpu- lation Of 92,129. This represented a seventeen perc en at in- crease over the 1940 figures and contrasts with the almost stable pOpulation of the previous decade. Annexation account- ed for approximately 8000 of the increase. For a c m*u~i‘f with such a hL h concentration of automotive and met work- ing i1 idustries the growth during the war years was relative- ly low and reflected a moderate degree of stability. The pOpulation of Lansing is highly ho: HO eneous, comprised essentially of the descendants of early Anglo-Saxon, New England migrants and nineteenth century German migrants. Most of the movement into the area over the last few decades has been from rural Michigan. The only larg e are , of :- migrants to Lansing from areas other than rural Michigan 12 ‘ | . . crooratio n 'J ‘3 \J ‘. ~ A J_ ‘ k'l otors y 0 ‘ I A A from al 1“ . {GPS or f" '\ .xene 'a a en “5 a I .l of the ion 4. b SPODOI‘ i3": .4 AAA CI“. 1 ‘.J. x ‘ p ,r'. 1A (7 s.) nment - ~ V‘ 71 tfifill l‘. oto c. m V : ... S L) k, _auufactur Cfl . 1: II .‘-L 1.7} eel V Y. ""\ \I . o otor ot I. n. V,’ L'. ,7 are so 3 -dreo i l n - Q DC t' F? '\ 'V erce for in“, r'q '1‘ .n‘&.‘ O I U food 3 n P111 4 l I’: ‘3 - .‘ 14 x“, B ‘- ,_ ‘na3“dr 0 S 0 A ‘. ".i11._« ’ r‘: J =or allied, l \;4 {a . ,.. m J3“. in c "\ ,4 were in met I v a lo erorises 1' .ril A‘“‘ .4“ U w t A. whim r u A «D , 9 e "02:; in '1’. J a m manufacturinf 10 tiles. lleO'JS , r 5 ta) A A ""._l 11’ ‘.l \. —i lagr‘er \ fie ori- from zen ,ta‘ {ers z.) W P. T‘ wori ‘4Q' LU. L 4. L: 'V'! .-t ‘FYILsal ition for l.’ vale 1.7301“ (x COLCQO W ... .LL t0 1 8. u \ ‘> d \ A 93.1" | "'1 3 HIE-3.1T- -i th n. V".." vws.) Des nle E? l (3 1‘ 1-, am ...,” 88.31 1‘ p.) .1 . 0 P218. DY -. 01‘? ’ s. U I" O ’0 gmund 1OJ1 ’7 -) tor‘ Mo~ '13 labor market who were unskilled, semi-skilled, or skilled and the "first line" supervisors who were in charge of manual workers. A five percent sample of male wage-earners consisted of approximately 750 workers. A sample of 300 was decided upon, 200 to be taken from the fringe areas of Lansing, the remainder being residents of the city. Having drawn the "city" group from the Polk's Directory of Lansing, it was found that the 500 contained a representative sample of fringe residents. The schedules finally analyzed consist- ed of 583 interviews taken during the period from Novemhen, l , l , 1950 to June,195l. Each respondent was personally inter- viewed using a prepared schedule designed to obtain along with other data that which was needed for the original prob- lem. This was to study the relevance of migration to loca- tion in the job market during an era of a tight labor force. The study was carried out by J. Allan Seegle, William H. Form and Sigmund Nosow. For purposes of this research only the 251 respond- ents who rated their own plants were used to test hypotheses one, four and five. Since the non-reapondents were drOpped out,chi-square tests were made to determine whether or not the respondents differed significantly in any way from the -1. I\ non-respondents. If they do not then generalizations can ue made '{L‘l bout the total sample based on the findings for 11Ibid, pp. 2;- A .L W) 9. * The questions on plant evaluation were added after interviewing had begun. 'lh ifieant at the .OLl level. A con- siderably larfier proportion of the respondents were from the case of plant (D plants with more than 500 employees. In th at which the workers were presently enulojed a larger pro- portion of‘UuereSpondents were from Oldsmobile, Fisher body, Reo Motors,and Motor Wheel. There were about twenty percent more respondents than non-reapondents from the auto plants. For all other types of industry there was a smaller prOpor- tion of reapondents than non-reapondents. Approximately ten percent more of the respondents were union members. The chi-square tests for occupational level, type of owner- ship,and income were significant at the .01 level. A slightly larger proportion of the reapondents were unskilled, ten percent less of the reapondents were semi-skilled,and slightly more of the respondents were skilled. For type of ownership of plant fifteen percent more respondents than non-reapondents worked in absentee owned plants. A smaller preportion of the respondents were in the income group earn- ing less than $1.50 per hour. Therefore,there is a signifi- cant difference indicated between the reapondents and the non-respondents for these factors and findings for this study with regard to them can be based only on the reapondents. **For complete results of the tests for differences between respondents and non-reapondents see appendix tables XXVII through XXXVII. 15 The chi-square tests for marital status, birthplace, a5e,and education were not significant. Thus findings with regard to them are indicated as being true for the total sample. These results do not necessarily mean that the results from the non-respondents would be different if they had reaponded. The chi-square tests merely indicate that the two groups can not be said to be the same. Statistical_zechniques The chi-square tests of association between var- iables was used to determine whether or not rating of a plant is associated with the variables named. The .05 level of significance was used as evidence to reject the null hypoth- esis. However, higher levels of significance are noted. The formula used for computation of the chi-square values was the basic formula:l2 fij= observed frequency. F13: expected frequency. By computing the chi-square value for each row in a table it can be determined which row contributes the most to the total significant chi-square. The same procedure holds true for the columns in a table. The total of the 12Helen M. Walker and Joseph Lev, Statistical inference, Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1953, p. 97. chi-squares for the rows is equal to the total of the chi- squares for the columns which is the chi-square value for the whole table. 16 17 CHAPTER II RANKING OF PLANTS introduction How does the reputation of a plant get established in a community? What actually determines whether a plant will be rated as a good or a bad place to work? An attempt will be made to give at least a partial answer to these questions in this chapter. The hypotheses to be discussed are as follows: 1. The rating of the plants by the workers is associated with the size, type of industry, and type of ownership of the plants. a. Locally owned plants will be rated higher than absentee owned plants. b. Workers in small plants will rate their own plant higher than workers in large plants. c. Non-manufacturing industries will be rated higher than manufacturing industries. 2. The largest plants in terms of number of em- ployees will be named most frequently as the best places to work. 3. The workers rate the plants in their community as places to work with the same criteria they use to rate their Jobs. '18 Studies have established that the reputation of a plant is determined for the most part by its employees. Welcker found that tr e principal factor influencing cozmunity relations is employee relations. The standing of a plant in a community was found to be largely a reflection of what its wn employ ees think about their cm,lo"’ This applied equally to large cities and small towns.1 Barlow and Payne 9 obtained similar findings in their research.” They base their findings on the concentric ring theory of pu:lic rela- tions which maintains t1“. at a company's reputation starts 3110021 (73 its employees and spreads outward. Workers partici- pating in community activities talk about their jobs and employers. Their Opinions gradually Spread over the commun- ity and a plant gets a peculiar reputation as a place to work. In addition to nearing others talk about tne local plants m ny workers change employers from time to time and in this way obtain first hand information ahout establish- ments. There are many other fac ors that affect a firm's reputation. It must be emphasized that firms may have unique factors that make compari more difficult. For example, a firm whose employees come in constant co tact with the public, lJohn w. Welcker, "The Community Relatiors Probi‘ ems of Industrial Companies," Harvard Business Review, FOVeTLQ , 1149. 2Walter 3. barlow and Stanley L. Payne, "A Tool for Evaluating Company Community Relations," Public Opinion QBaPtePlE, fuLL. i9fi9. 19 such as a department store, have more Opportun nit y to influ- 1 enc e pus lic Opini :1 than a firm whose empiOfi' es have little or no public contacts. It should also be noted that once a plant has established a good or sad reputation in the community it does not get changed easily This golds eSpecially for a firm with a bad reputation. It may retain a low rank even after the reasons for the bad reputation have been corrected. This situation may be minimized if the firm has a good public relati ns and publicity department. done of the ob;ective characteristics which car he used to compare plants are size of capital investment, number of employees, and type of ownership. A large firm with an impressive guilding and which engages in natioz :ide business and Mdver ising will tend to have a Letter reputa- tion because it is better known. Whether 1 ;iru i owned or part of a.huqe corporation may also effect its conducted a study in a larae U) Peliegrin and Coate Soutzern city in 1955 which focused upon the influenCe of absentee ow.ei corporations and their executives in tie civic ”lairs of the comauni y. ihese researc ers pointed out that recent changes in the Soutr and in the na tion have promoted the corporate concern with public sentiment and ‘2 2 ,. ...: i n e~ . .. 'Yolanu J. Fellegiin and tnaries n. Goa tes, ” ~ H '3 I" ’ fl -' ”-7-“ -.~ 1 ‘1 ~‘1-l " " " ‘ ' Cor901ations and Coamanity Powel structtre, anezican Journal Oi SOCioloey, Karen, JEt, :. 415. 20 .1.» 4.1 '1. D .; I; ._ O n. f: 4. y ‘ LJL,‘ .L. ‘0. ‘3» V'- C F“ v ‘- ‘ '7 \‘ g ‘ ‘IT‘II‘ C.‘ I x; >¢ ,, ._ s -' . Ir _~. r.£‘ .fl ' \a ”A. I . w-.- . ...9..u -- a~v .- ’ ,_. ’18. n ~i; m hi... v'. V - 4- , ‘O‘K ptj"‘ Y‘- a. LA 0 fl '1. ' 5 ~ r‘x ~- a: I 'u, .& :1 ...] n7 ’ “i ‘J 'J lie ‘ ‘ I Ttul V‘y.“ -r ;A»‘I ’n ..\ f3 . 5-. 1.. «J O... ...J 4 a; “ A . . 1 ‘4' ~ A f l“ n ‘d h. \I 7““ A.‘—& .1... \ 4 ... K.-n'\.rl‘-\~e ...m n. , . . . I s . . A. 2 . ‘,t‘~, 1.1!‘3 VII. \1 '\-LAUJ.UC.:.J 3-9.6" y o '8) t ‘. u A ETCGL 1 l _‘ IV' . I. so 0 V. V ‘1 .5 u communiv ‘- \J 7*" y)“ ‘ t o o '4 ... -‘ g'. 'V g ~Q ,- .5“ J. c6: .... .-.L A ...» 3: ital H vs 7' L ‘- - G. -\ .. 4L.-- ~\ | a“, "1 Q“ IV. ~ \¢ .8...‘ \- .“- 'n 1 Q s ,- O O u I a A w‘ 6 s0 .L.‘ of people L lid .f l ‘1 pile (Q 5“ a“ ‘ua 1' 0 1‘2; 7 I 'v x ire fl". ..4 u . I" G 1». ul “ v‘ -I :3- |_) a A " 1‘: “‘r M“~V.‘v‘--- Y 1 higher V J- also pav -" .4- - -"--~l . t" " If. ‘4'... 'v“‘- .J'C I'd" ..- I a-c-u. ‘- ‘1'- Un Cam... 0-... .... v :1 M ed. - 21 industries call for the more highly educated will differ from a community whose industries require the less educated. Paul Gillen has attempted to develOp a yardstick for measuring cities. He points out that the occupational profile of a city is a basic measure of its overall worth. Occupations of peOple reflect not only their more obvious characteristics such as income, health, education, and housing, but also their attitudes, hOpes, fears, ambitions, and frustrations. He found thatoccupations have much to do with education in a city,and that attitudes regarding educa- tion can be changed and additional financial support can be 3 obtained by changing tne occupational distribution of a community.5 Under these circumstances a plant which attracts highly educated peOple and pays them well will be more like- ly to have a good reputation in the community than a plant which attracts less educated and lower paid workers and their families. All of these factors must be taken into consideration as things which will influence plant reputation. Ranking of Plants Beepondents were asked the question, "What com- panies do you consider the best places to work in Lansing?" Table II shows how the firms were rated by the workers. Since some workers named more than one plant there were 411 reSponses from the 271 reSpondents. Oldsmobile was 5Paul B. sillen, The Distribution of Occupations as a City_Yardstick, King's Crown Press, Columbia University, New York, 1951, pp. 107-111. TABLE II WORKER EVALUATION 0? BEST PLANTS IN WHICH TO WORK 22 Plants Respondents Reaponses Percentages Oldsmobile 59.0 38.9 Motor Wheel 19.9 13.1 Reo Motors 15.1 10.0 Fisher Body 12.5 8.3 John Bean 4.8 3.2 Government; Federal, State, Local 3.3 2.2 Utilities 2.2 1.5 Other Plants not Specified 26.9 17.8 Small Companies 2.2 1.5 No Difference among Plants 4.1 2.7 No Opinion 1.5 1.0 Total -- 100.0 Number of ReSpondents 271 -- Number of Heeponses -- 411 Average Number of ReSponses -- 1.5 23 rated among the best by three-fifths of the workers. Next was Motor Wheel closely followed by Reo and Fisher Body. These latter three were named among the best less than one- third as many times as Oldsmobile. All of these are auto- mobile manufacturing plants. Next the reSpondents were asked, "What companies do you consider the worst places to work in Lansing?" There were 212 reSponses to the question from 182 respondents. ‘Table III reveals that Fisher Body was named by almost one- quarter of the workers. The forges and foundries were named most often as the worst places to work in Lansing. A little more than one-fourth of the men named them among the worst places to work. Reo Motors received the next largest number of unfavorable responses, followed by Motor Wheel and Olds- mobile. Note that the four plants which were named among the best the largest number of times were also named among the worst the largest number of times afterthe forges and foundries. If the latter are excluded we see that the plant named among the best the largest number of times, is named the smallest number of times among the worst. For the four plants named most frequently we see that their ranking as best is the reverse of their ranking as worst. See Table IV. As shown in Tables II and III, the remainder of the firms in the city were named as one of the best or worst a very small number of times or the firm was not even identi- fied. The reasons for ranking the firms the way they did will be discussed later in connection with hypothesis number three. TABLE III WORKER EVALUATION OF WORST PLANTS IN WHICH TO WORK 24 Plants ‘ Reapondents Responses Percentages Forges and Foundries 26.4 22.6 Fisher Body 24.2 20.8 Reo Rotors ‘ 16.5 14.2 Motor Wheel 6.6 5.7 Oldsmobile 5.5 4.7 John Bean 0.5 0.5 Other Plants not Specified 24.7 21.2 Any Factory 3.3 2.8 Not Much Difference among Plants 2.2 1.9 No Opinion 6.6 5.7 Total -- 100.0 Number of Respondents 178 -- Number of ReSponses -- 212 Average Number of Responses -- 25 TABLE IV COMPARISON OF PLANTS EVALUATED AMONG THE BEST MOST FREQUENTLY WITH PLANTS EVALUATED AMONG THE WORST MOST FREQUENTLY +4 Plant One of Best One of Worst Percentages Oldsmobile 59.0 ' 5.5 Motor Wheel 19.9 6.6 Reo Motors 15.1 ' 16.5 Fisher Body 12.5 24.2 Number of ReSpondents 271 178 26 Plant Characteristics In an attempt to provide more background informa- tion about the plants included in this research an analysis was made of their type of ownership, size, and industrial type. The first hypothesis of this research is that the rating of the plants by the workers is associated with the type of ownership, size,and industrial type of the plants. a. Locally owned plants will be rated higher than absentee owned plants. b. Workers in small plants will rate their own plant higher than workers in large plants. 0. Non-manufacturing industries will be rated higher than manufacturing industries. First the respondents were divided into three groups 1. Those who listed places where they work as among the best. 2. Those whose own plant was not listed as best or worst. Presumably their plants were in the medium range. 3. Those who listed places where they work as among the worst. Then the workers w>re distributed for each charac- teristic based on the way in which they rated their plant. Hyppthesis Ia: Type of Ownership It is eXpected that workers in a locally owned plant will tend to identify it more with the community and rate it higher than an absentee-owned plant. The data in Table V do not uphold the expectation that locally-owned plants would be rated higher than the aosentee—owned plants. feven-tenths of the absentee-owned plants were rated among the seat compared to only a little more than half of the ‘ locally-owned. Tnat these differences are not due to chance ‘ is revealed by the probability of th chi-square which (D is significant at the .05 level. One-tenth more of the men from locally-owned plants rated their plant medium than did [51 men from absentee-owned plants. Twice as many fro locally-owned plants rated their plant low as did those from absentee-owned plants. However, since there was such a small percentage who ranked their own plant low, most of the analysis concerns differences between middle and high. Hypothesis lb: Size Since a small plant permits a greater amount of personal contacts with other workers and with supervisors, it is expected that the workers will identify with these plants to a greater degree than will workers in large plants. The former will therefore rate their own plant higher than will workers in large plants. Table VI shows data on how the workers rated their own plants on the basis of number of employees. The data do not support the hypothesized expectation. Thus seven-tenths of those from plants employ- ing over five-hundred men rated their plant high as compared with only~one-third from the plants with less than one TABLE V WORKER EVALUATION OF PLANTS BY THEIR TYPE OF OWNERSHIP 28 Plant Reputation Type of Ownership Local Non-local Total Percentages High 55.5 68.6 62.6 Medium 37.5 28.1 32.4 Low 7.0 3.3 5.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of Respondents 128 153 281 x2 -.- 6.41 (1.1". = 2 .O28 same was done for Fisher Body, Reo Motors, and Motor Wheel. These tests were made for the same ten social background characteristics that were used in the previous section. The data in Table XV is a summary of the chi-square values found for each of the ten characteristics and the four largest plants. Only the four largest plants were used for these tests because they account for all but a very small percentage of the total responses. Since multiple responses were given to the questions asked about which plants are the best and which are the worst each plant had to be taken individually. This was to avoid having the results biased in the direction of those workers who gave more than one response. No association was found to exist between the social characteristics of the workers and the way in which they rated the plants in their community. Only two out of the forty chi—square values were significant at the .05 level. These were the one for education of workers who rated Fisher Body as best or as worst,and the one for age of men who rated Motor Wheel as best or as worst. There were a few others that approached significance and a larger sample would be desirable to enable one to state whether these characteristics are significantly related to the way in which workers rate plants in their community. 619 \l ‘ .Eemmmsm mo meagre mac mafia flab.w aw ecsrnflwfizmam we amama no. esp pm mmam> mamsrmufico .SSSHeo hump Cw pews :3.Hu video mv:w * | :3--.’ {1.1. ,‘I‘Iil' 6“- I - ‘1’; ’5‘“! El... ‘ ' I‘ t‘ 1| '1'. ‘.i‘1’i'l"".‘ UN N. am. om.3 mm H z mLOpofi 0mm no. no. em. no. so. om.m mm.a OH. #0. 3V¢ 00-. mo.. mO-N “DON NO. wnoo Hos mm.» nu meow taxman mm.m an.m mo.a am. no.4 as.a as. mm.m on. oo.n no u a amen: Louofl on.“ a.. mo. .mo. :0. no. an.m mm. ea. ma. mos * ’ @HHOOC.WJCJJJ mmummwmnflcu msoozm mcpmpm Lc.Ev. ammu .uxz .bmq :amocoo mowed ao>mq .osmfl mm< Hmhflmfia i_nH:D 1 Odma mafiacmq pcommmm sauna“ .Qdooo .mlau .oz CH .mnw ..deem made pmuoz no . 111111111 1-1111111! 11:1 1 - when wC03d W'HmXLDNS. MO WOH1WW HcmeU QNJcpmcu HQHUOW umpmm “CNHHW mmmxmog mo DOHBmHmmg0x mqm<9 71) CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The responses of 588 male, manual workers in the Lansing labor force were examined in an attempt to deter- mine how they rated local plants as places to work. The data were first analyzed to determine which plants they rated as the best and as the worst places, and in what order they were ranked. Then the relationship was examined between the size, type of industry, and type of plant owner- ship,and plant rankings. This was followed by an attempt to determine what criteria workers used to rate plants and Jobs and whether these criteria were similar or different. The final portion of this research attempted to find out if a relationship existed between Job satisfaction and social characteristics of the workers and the way they ranked their own plant. The largest plant, Oldsmobile, was found to be rated the highest followed by Motor Wheel, Rec Motors, and Fisher Body in that order. These are the four largest plants in the community. All of them manufacture motor vehicles or automobile equipment. The forges and foundries were ranked the lowest as places to work in the community follow- ed by Fisher Body, Reo Motors, Motor Wheel, and Oldsmobile, in that order. Hypotheses were developed in the areas discussed above and tested to determine their validity. The first 71 hypothesis was that the rating of the plan function of their size, industry, and tvpe of ownership. IL was ex- pected that workers from locally-owned, small, non-manu- facturing plants would rate their plants h gher than workers from absentee-owned, large, manufacturing plants. Usin: chi-square tests for significance of association, it was found that the men from the locally-owns plants did not rate their plants higher than the men from absentee owned plants. In fact, the reverse was found to be true. The chi-square was significant at the .05 level. The explanation for this seems to be that 1h absentee-owned plants are larger and are able to provide more benefits and better -+ 5..) (D p m (+ C“ O b '3 working conditions for their workers, enough a. than offset the alleged advantages of greater intimacy in the m mailer plants. CL hesize (‘9' Also, the data did not support the hypo expectation that smaller plants would have a more favorable reputation as places to hCYd. The chi-square was found to be significant at the .001 level. An explanation for this reversal mi“nt be, as eXplained above, that larger plants can do more for the workers and for 1he community. It was ‘2; (4. ha {‘4‘ foun two-thirds ofthe men in manufacturing plants rated their plant high compared with only one-third from non-manufacturing plants. This reversal was statistically supported by a chi-square at the .301 level. Although manufacturing plants may have some disadvanta 72 noise and dirt,if they have good pay and satisfactory working conditions they will still be rated high. A good example of this is the high percentage of workers from the forges and foundries who rated their plant high. The second hypothesis was that the largest plants in terms of number of employeesvmmld be named most frequent- ly as the best places to work. This research found that the four largest plants were named most frequently as the best places to work and that the largest plant, Oldsmobile, was named most often even after correcting for differences in size. Not to be disregarded however, is the fact that Fisher Body, the second largest plant, was named most fre- quently as one of the worst places to work; even more often than it was named among the best plants. From this we may conclude that potentially the plant with the largest number of employees has an advantage and will be ranked first in the community, but only on the condition that its employees have something good to sav about the plant. If working condi- tions, wages, or employment policies are such that the en- ployees are not satisfied then they will disseminate information in the community that will give the plant a bad reputation. In cther words in order to have a good community reputation a plant must have grounds for being well Spoken of. It must see to it that its employees are made aware of these favorable grounds and that the community , knows ao ut the lant throueh its employees and by other 1’. "a L means of communication. 73 3 ‘ - if... ‘- 1...-.3 4‘; ‘ - . 4- +‘ It ‘.’.’.’:.:3 i-J.§Otl-‘33.Lg’:Lc L' .fct the u'o’OT‘K'S'TS Page ».,_1-3 ‘1 - A 6') .3 she 00.31.. plants in their connunitv as places to work with criteria that they use to rate their jobs. The data exam- ined partiallv support this hvpothesis. It was found that workers do use essentiallv the same criteria in ratinr plants and jobs. In fact, the most imnortant criteria are used in common. However, there are some additional criteria which are used only in rating plants and others which are used onlv in ratin? jobs. The main reasons qiven for likinq their job were job interest, yood waves, independence and control, steadv work, and good human relations. Less than two oercent of the men indicated no fish satisiactions. fiscd wares, steady employment, fiOOd human relations and flood working conditions were the main reasons given for ratin? a plant high. Two percent of the workers said there was no difference in plants. When asked for reasons for disliking jobs the most sisnificant finding was that two-fifths of the men had no dissatisfactions. Almost as many of the men listed poor working conditions as the reason for job dissatisfactions. Hard physical work and dirty work were fiven bv one-fifth of the men as reasons for rating a plant low. This is prob- ably partially due to the fact that persons in such jobs are assigned a low status. It should he noted however that generallv the worker rates his own plant high. It is the workers from the other plants who rate such a plant low. 7&- Here again the forges and foundriescan be cited as an example. They were named most frequently as the worst places to work by the men in the sample, but they were rated high by their own workers a greater percentage of times than any of the other plants. Also in the case of Fisher Body,of the 44 who named it as one of the worst places to work 38 were from other plants. The main con- cerns of the men in this sample then are working conditions, wages, steadiness of employment, and human relations. These findings are similar to those found in the Terre Haute and General Electric studies. The third chapter dealt with the worker's ranking of his own plant as related to his Job satisfaction and social background characteristics. The hypothesis that workers Who have high job satisfaction tend to evaluate plants where they work more highly than workers with low Job satisfaction was supported by the data. The chi-square was significant at the .001 level. Of those who had high job satisfaction three-fourths rated their own plant high and only 4 percent rated it low. Only one-fourth of those with low job satisfaction rated their own plant high. Finally it was hypothesized that plants would be rated differently by workers with different social backgrounds. The background characteristics were divided into demographic variables; age, birthplace and marital status; labor market variables, number of years in Lansing labor market, time employed by present concern, number of ‘75 companies worked at 1940 to 1951, and union membership; and stratification variables, education, income, and occupation- al level. The data did not uphold the expectation that the older men would rate their plants higher nor that place of birth would be significantly related to the way in which a plant is ranked. The expectation that the married workers would rate their own plant higher than the single workers was upheld. Examination of the data revealed that number of years in the Lansing labor market, time employed by present concern, and number of companies worked at was not assoc- iated with the way in which the workers rated their own plants. Although the chi-square was not significant there is some indication that those who had worked in three or more plants tend to rate their own plant a little lower. The eXpectation was upheld that union members would rate their plants higher than non-union members. The chi-square was significant at the .02 level. Union membership alone does not mean that a plant will be rated high. Fisher Body, is the most highly organized plant and yet it was rated fourth. It was eXpected that the more highly educated men would rate their plants higher. The results of this study show that the workers with high school and college educations did not differ from those with an elementary education when rating their plants. The chi-square did not 76 begin to approach significance. The data also revealed that the men with higher incomes did not rate their plants higher than those with low incomes. In view of the fact that wages were given as one of the most important criteria for rating plants this finding is rather surprising. The only explanation this writer can think of is that the workers think they are getting as much or more in wages as other workers in the community when actually they are not. Since they do not know this they are satisfied and give their plant a high rating. The data for this study revealed that as expected the higher skilled workers rated their plants higher. Thus, 70 percent of the skilled rated their plants high compared to 60 percent of the semi and unskilled. ‘None of the skilled rated their plant low while 7 percent of the semi and unskilled rated their plant low. The chi-square approached significance at the .02 level. Although the results found in this research do not definitely establish it there are indications that workers ratings vary with their social background character- istics. Since a significant relationship was indicated for only three out of the ten characteristics and the ranking of the men's own plants,a question arose as to whether or not a significant relationship would be found for the rating of all the plants in the community. An analysis of the data revealed that there were significant differences between 77 those who rated plants best and those who rated plants worst when distributed on the basis of age and education. Limitations of the Study Tiere are some limitations on the results obtained in this study. First of all, it must be remembered that the data used were not collected specifically for this study. Therefore, some ofthe questions were not asked in such a way J. 'I.‘ as to get so what may haVe been preferred for the purposes of this research. It should be remembered also that all :ategor'ies were determined prior to thought about this stud . However, it is belieVed that the data obtained were generally (0 cuate for the uses of this research. The studies mentioned 5 £11 a in this research that dealt with the ranking of industrial plants in the tummunity differ from the present study. They F.) zsed as their samples a wider represent tion of the tota communit*. The sample for this study was made up of only male, manual workers in a specific community who were employed predominately in automotive na.nufacturi g. Thus, the results cannot be apnl ied to all communities, industries, and occupa- tional, and class groups. For example, when male, manual workers are asked about the rating of plants in a commun ty, they would answer more in terms of working conditions, wages paid, and other job-related criteria. Respondents from professional :nd managerial groups would probably answer the V question more in terms of how much tne firm participates in community affairs and how much the firm contributes to the community Differences such a these between professionals 78 :3 ‘y " r‘ V ‘1‘- ‘-’4 v v" ‘ '3'", ‘35 + fi ‘ “ 3 the manual workers are no doubt represenuative oi the kind or 0% V differences whicn would be found between classes. A sample more representative of the entire commt nity w uld allow for more valid conclusions concerning the ranking of the plants in the communitv as a whole. Howe yer because of the v D U ‘ ('9‘ :3‘ 2.1 c f f‘ 1 O {D V. y... U! 9.} t: (J (“a t v (D .4 on 5 w J F" O #- U) importance of the differ noe‘ groups in aur community, it may as wise or the researcher to choose samples from each of these gPOUpS and to find out how L eacn ranks the lants in the commmflr ty and whrt criteria Relevanze for Further b‘uay As was mentioned in Chapter I, little syst err tic study of the reputations of industrial plants in 1oca1 communi tie. has been carried out. Some of tne things which . , . Vt" n 1 v w ~ A n h ‘ A *3 ;.O W ...1.‘ Vi; uU further research mL gh. be able to find out a pp. ‘ '- “ ".’ ‘ r~ " -* ' 7- - _ ~n' f $‘ -, -“ the workers in any 3ven plan really know about other p1a anus .- in the corn-unity ? Do they know enough to enable them to rank he plants fairly as places to work, as good cosnunity citizens, or for 'ny other reason? Also, do the ratings we, ‘ r' “’w ‘ : "' rt * r 1 r..'v~. vv '1' I acme from the sa;; 9 uDTVerse of plants for e on WOYA.1. As 5 go :5 O 'D De w I.) ’5 :4 D 3’ H O C. (‘9- J (D O 5‘ A c P ’3 Q. ,J H H s .I ' o. ‘ ‘." -V ‘3‘ ' , a _ 1 a with social bacxgrotnu V ch"racteri:tics, further research is desiratle in order to conclude more reliably whether soc iel characterisiics a e associated with the wa< in which workers rate their plants. It would be especial y desiret le to stud" further whether ratings are related to the social background character- LC, *4 (' P an H D} c r H (J U) 0 P” 2" O Fjl Pa 0 '3' 9 H (“P H U" ’ D O )(J C) ( . ev-I ’ D (3 fl ( 0* ' J LJO (I) ’5 ‘D U) (1 {J ‘3 ('4 . 1 *J H ,4- ( 4* D PAL 5 .. if). 7;“ .I in cepteo C a t O b e do 121L181 PS J.) “4' ~. I‘K vo it V 1 41, v. Q all who are eua‘ol e is f O .1 reputat ‘ LOOG - ‘C \1 >ortant it) a v AK}..- ‘ feel is 80 LITLP LTUPL CIILD "1 _..,. j -!~ on... - ... "a '7‘ "9 n :ColaloVI , (Cum. JO ’ GIL/1Q :LiJ‘. (1(4, ductile“, IL. ’ t ‘ \DC’JL .LC’L" V“. ~,L,..,,. .,.,:, .. - " , a ‘ (f -, w Lia] dating Company- ooLLanitJ -riations, :uolic - f‘ 3- - H “1 q '\ fi.~ A z p- ' Ooinion 3uarterlj, r313, ,1L1f -F- 4.3-Lga, ;‘ W uh n (4' r 3 -rtal.~1:b{7(4 Durkheim, Emile, The Division of LaL r in Sociec{, by 1*?0‘33511hp78011,i.lc FTC-’6. P110553, 1 .... -... -~ .. ”2 fl . ‘ ..-,n, 4- - , J—q w Licher, J. 4., N. A. Thesis, Job :xtlbiuC.lUJ. It. Rel tion- " '5' g. -'2 .-‘r (V I "I n: z ' r '3 ‘fifiy\‘ ... tzlinj-;) LO CCL'u/Ll‘jcl-t'LOAl-J-HL, QLF&:JLI1.ILC:t-$Orl, L411“ CKJLJJJLXALJ.LJ ' " ' - .J- — '. ,- -... . 1. :2:- Variables, hlculbgn Stave Lnikersitj, L9Ju. Community, Unpublished Kanls c Brothers, forthcoming, 19 0. Form, Willis; 3., and “11 er, Delbert, c 1‘ Fowler, Irving A., "Local Industrial Structures, Econ mic Power, and Community Neil re," Social roblers, VI, Gunner, 1958, pp. 41- General Electric Publications, ERV-SA, 1933. The Distribution of Occupations As A Cit; . 4., 3ardstick, KingTs Crown Press, Columbia University, New York, 1951. ~~~ ‘ '3 - -, - 1 3 ~ v“ - I J“ 1 '. 3x 4 .3 4- 1r, -\ , r«es, "sync, Conpany ano DOMEULioj, marker CLu Brothers, New York, 1958. FA LU Kosow, Sigmund, "Labor Distii uti n and the Norrative System," Social Forces, October, l95o, :3. 23—33. Pollegrin, Rola.nd J., and Coates, Charles 5., "Corporations and Conzunit" Power atluc ure," American Journal C.SOC10lOffllY, LIL-.PCI; , 35'), {p a 413-419 0 vs .1; -. '9 . 3 n .. .. [Oger, The Foxtune SUPLGJ," For! Walker, Helen 2., and Lev, Joseph, statis? Henry Holt and Co., Iew Yor:, Welcker, JOLD W . "Ilze Communii" Relatior s Prat- as ”f Illdubt Pia]. COS}: 213.1188 ,' PIS—I‘ve rde‘ASi 218.5 :3 ‘r f ..l'v. ’ 1:0 *Wemt‘el’ 1349, p33. ‘71.!" 71:0. 'Jray, Donald 7., ""‘ne Co x;‘muni ty and Labor-Management T,Lations,” Lglor-naLarewent Relations in Illi i C 1?, Institute of La; oz anl lndustz ial «LlGLLoi , ChadpaiQn, Lhiiiersit;v of Illinois, 953, pp. CC- 8‘1 003 can w.m m 0.0“ Hm u.wm mm m.mm mod n.mm mm ampoe 003 m: a.m a m.: N o.mm NH m.mm 63 :.mm ma 3m332 Leno, ooa mm .. u- 3.33 3 m.~m w 3.3m a“ n.3m Na mpopoz 0mm 003 mm o.m m m.NH m 3.3: mm o.mm ma n.33 m beam emgmflm cod and m.m n “.03 m« 0.0m 0: «.mm om 0.:N N: maflnosmnao m #560 m. 9560 & 6.560 w £500 m p500 R #860 .2309 HQ #4. uoz «I: “Mom on #02 00933. «600 aupopm £052 hpm> :ofipomumfiumm non mucmHm Han ”flamed. mhzjm omegm ho ESE mo ZOHBOdeHQRm mo“i 2 8 ooa can 0.:« m: OCH (1) :I' NW N OOH 00” on o.m n OOH «Ba 0.:H mm m 0:200 R assoo & 1': l" Hmuoe 53.00 (V \ ('4 1“. k :I to v\ m.om Ga m.:fi m N (\I ®.H H zfion Lynn“ 0‘“ m« 5.0“ MCSOU R pCSoo & unsoo m pcfiao & n.~ : Annoy «»N a H9053 hound” Gem « nhov:g wax 0.0 a m+«QQEMu43 r. . r 0 F r.\ nadoo & padoo & wagoo & “cup, P ma mpcmam m82¢qm mmeomqmm mo mmmwoqaxm mo ZOHRDmHmBmHQ m0< HH>N mqmx mqmde maz000 pmanm H.N NN H.HN 0m H.00 0m oHHQQEmnHo m 0:300 « 02000 K 00300 M «mt- EH -1-- m#cmHm mem03 m>¢m mezHxx mqmqe 9() oofl one n.n ma m.o a n.m H o.m m m.m on m.wu mm n.m¢ mg” m.: 3a 0.0 m m.o 4 anuoh 004 we m.0 n un nu uu -n uu nu :.o« n ®.mq «m mnmm ma ~.w a nu u uu nu Home: pagan cod mm o.m m In nu uu nn 5.0 m m.m N m.NN w m.m2 ca 0.3 m nu n m.m « mgopoi cox 004 on N.a m uu nu uu nu uu uu m.n n m.mm NN m.mm NN m.N a w.« a nu u- moon uocmflm cod «\4 m.m a 0.0 a 9.0 « m.m o m.0a ma N.NN mm Nnmn Hm m.m o 0.0 a nu uu mdwoosmoao w padoo m accoo & assoc & ucsoo m assoc m uCSOU R venom R 9:300 m #:500 m #:500 & ucdoo mm.m em.m m2.m mm.a em.fl ms.« Hmuoa «\z umm.ma non.m» -mm.mn :m.mume umm.fiw uon.«3 umm.flw a~.«uaa aw mSOOCH nu mucmam mhzxM mqm—— _. .L -‘ ‘..vl~ ‘ u.) Perc n') It" -q 1):) \JJ 0 C) O 1‘) p \1 O ‘0 < .CC'J TABLE XXXI coxraatsom 16.3“NILJTK w: r\\9 OCCUPA.lt“ “H I: C I‘d-137:? ~71‘s1‘xgvfifi ‘1 n l \. .L \A—N-«L J‘IUL‘“ LL} ‘ w—IQ'v-‘Q “L Li. 1 141.: Occupational P. ‘g 3‘ + Non-Respondents Total Unskilleu 16.0 Semi-sxilled 59.4 Snilled and Foreren 53.5 Sales, etc. 2.1 -.ta‘ 100.0 iiumber of Cases 283 n“ . & “A rEFCE-ntaaarS I“ ”Mir” 4"- F3?’ f‘ v-g Y.\r.~.l~‘“ h‘r v-‘JYTI' ‘ 174—er ‘Q q“. fi'fl .... «‘var~ c‘u»‘ ' ' rt 51" ‘ ' - .. . .- .. -. ... - UKMI; 7.» \.-I [JP .1L‘AA‘L \at‘h'-ual.‘—‘ V'). .Ll ‘\‘-’ ‘L‘----A . ‘JiJ..:.nL\..~o Y“ \ “iv-x“ "T rr', ryfi" , Y“ ‘1°~*r ".v— t'f ’ f’n‘. y-n ~ .4 I ...-J 0“ H >—-. ‘ _ .4 AJAX‘JHL3 b.\ A ...L L.‘ or 4"AIHRQ ..L 1'. ‘-‘- A ~r.-l Type of Owne ship Respondents Non-Respondents V A ‘ )" Lx? “U061; “L‘ok‘ _, 109 " + ’5 7 Ctav? 102‘ L40, ..J O (r H.‘ m *5 \‘1 ‘M 0 \_r3 'L) H O c+ pa H O O 9 O Q ; (3 Number uf Cases 281 756 >1 II A (D 0 j] C O ,_ I H [.\ 0 (. .... /\ "J O O r; ._) I TABLE VYYTII CO‘mAnloou 11F RELPOIIZENTS WITH NON BETP‘NPZNIS Bu'u SED ON INCOME Income Respondents Non-Respondents 31‘ r J ~Vun VHF - PEI; Venn/3S9: ff. 0 {U .L‘ D O) O\ O gzogz-lou‘ (7.2; $1., 3.: 0533-] .74 LI...‘ 3703 311.734.9913.: ;:.1 32.nn-:.¢4 11.0 6.0 3603:)“:049 “03 "“0..-l <,:\o€"‘:) 30:; 300 L1,;u. 51.3 ’02 :"T'Ai; t t. 100.0 95 11' V YT ADA TABLE KT “IS S f. e d w v G p S ‘1‘ Reapondents 92.7 . at n . " 8': 'V-. r szxi.‘ .‘A L 5.7 04.3 / 00.0 I 8 100.0 Total 2A PW ,,. 2... 2 f" -. O .. ~-- 2.3 : Q! J» <._~.