“(RE REMHONSHEP OF FARM . WORK EXPERIENCES T0 NON-FARM WORK ROLE 0R§ENTATIGNS AMONG MEJ‘CECANsAMERiCANS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY Thesis for the Degree of-M. A, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' PAUL D. TSCHETTER 1968 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF FARM WORK EXPERIENCES TO NON-FARM WORK ROLE ORIENTATIONS AMONG MEXICAN-AMERICANS: AN EXPLORATORX STUDY By Paul D. Tschetter The migration of low occupational status workers from rural to urban areas constitutes an important factor in the crises faced by our cities. Research has shown that the economic absorption of rural to urban migrants acts as an important threshold for the adjustment of migrants to other aSpects of urban life, (Miller,l96h; Shannon,l966). The purpose of this thesis is to explore the effect which a Mexican-America‘s farm work experiences have on his ability to successfully compete in a non-farm job market. The conceptualization used in this study is based on the work done by Fried concerm‘ng work role orientations, (Fried,l966). The ability of a rural-urban migrant involves the worker's capacity to accept the requirements of employment in a modern, industrially based occupational structure. The migrant, in his process of occupational adjustment, must move through successive levels of work role orientations which are appropriate to non-farm employment. The reSpective levels of work role orientation are directly related to the worker's awareness of extrinsic and intrinsic aSpects of non- farm employment. The findings can be broken down into two areas. First, it was found that those seasonal farm workers who had done hourly-rate farm work had higher levels of work orientation than those workers who had done piece-rate farm work. The subsequent job adjustment of hourly - rate workers was found to be higher than that for piece-rate workers. Second, it was found that those workers-~both former piece-rate and hourly-rate farm workers-mo developed higher levels of work orientation in terms of an awareness of the intrinsic aspects of employment had experienced more upward occupational mobility within the non-farm job structure, and were more likely to show indications of increased participation within their new community of residence. K"! in.» ‘3. ”#9.“ , $5... .1 r- .’ I I J 5‘ '..’ .f If .5 .- ’5";’ /‘{:},-l5 v \I w v THE RELATIONSHIP OF FfiRM WORK EXPERIENCES TO NON-FARM WORK ROLE ORIENTATIONS AMONG MEXICAN—AMERICANS: AN EXPLORATORI STUDY b. V, Paul D.” Tschetter A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociologyr 1968 ACIGJOWLEDGEIVIENTS The researcher would like to express sincere appreciation to those faculty members at Michigan State University who guided this thesis from its initial stage to its completion. Special thanks go to Professor Harvey Choldin, my committee chairman, and to Professor Grafton Trout for their guidance, suggestions and extreme patience. Thanks also goes to Professor Peter Manning for his useful criticisms of the manuscript. Lastly, this thesis could never have been produced without the encourage- ment of my wife, and for this I am especially grateful. TABLE OF CONTENTS CI‘IAPTE-R ONE...0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Introduction; objectives; methodology; description of the sample CMPTER TWOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000...... Conceptualization; work role orientations; job adjustment; work role orientations and job adjustment CMPTER TMEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...0.00.00... Farm work experiences; types of farm workers; job search techniques; the farm work situation; farm work and work role orientations CMPIER FOIIRCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Non-farm job adjustment; job adjustment; job adjustment and work role orientations CMPTER FI‘JECOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0.0.... Implications of the study APPEJDIX AOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO.. APPENDIX BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..0.0.0.0.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO BIBLIOGRAPIHOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCO 26 to 6’4 68 82 85 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Farm work--job search techniques by type Of worker-00000000000000.00.0.0000000000000 The number of piece-rate and.hourly-rate workers who had done a given type of directly related farm work......................... First non-farm job by type of work................. Jbb referral source by jobs held................... Source of job satisfaction by type Of fam workeroooooooo00000000....oooooooco Source of job satisfaction in desired jOb by type or far!“ worker......ouoo...u...o...” Page 31 314 115 I46 5h 57 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Relatively large numbers of Mexican-Americans have migrated from their origins in Texas and settled in various communities in Michigan. The causes for this phenomena can be traced to two factors-u-the economic push exerted by the limited employment opportu- nities of Texas and the economic pull of relatively full employment opportunities in Michigan. The low wages and underemployment of their communities of origin initially forced many Mexicanquericvans to seek subsistence levels of living as seasonal farm workers. Their travels as seasonal farm workers diapersed them over the Southwest, the Midwest, and the North Central regions of the United States. Such travels brought them into direct and indirect contact with the non-farm employment opportunities of these regions, and thus many Mexican-knericans settled in these areas and attempted to enter the non-farm occupational structure on a permanent basis. The Mexican-American who decides to settle in a community in Michigan faces crises of transition in mamr aspects of his life style. As a rural to urban migrant, the Mexican-American settling in Michigan bears the handicaps of his previous experiences. These handicaps include his distinctive cultural background, his low educational achievement, his lack of urban living experience, and the occupational skills which he has developed. The Mexican-American, as a newcomer to the urban, industrial environment, forms a significant proportion of the lowest status populations in Michigan sities. Experience within an urban setting is essential to upward social mobility. Thus the most important transition which the migrant must make is within the occupational structure, for itis from this base that the Mexican-American will achieve any social mobility.1 Due to the rural background of the Mexican-American, the assumption is made that he does not possess the skills necessary to function adequately in an urban occupational market. This lack of occupational skills involves the migrant in a process of transi- tion during which time he must acquire the work role orientations necessary to compete in the non-farm occupational structure. This process of transition implies that the migrant must develop those expectations, skills and abilities that are associated with obtaining and keeping a job. If the Mexican-American fails to acquire the necessary work orientations he will face either persistent unemploy- ment or will have to leave his new comrmmity. The subject of this thesis is the relationship of the Mexican- American's farm work experiences to the non-farm work role orientations which are necessary for competition in the urban job market. The analysis will attempt to discover and describe any patterns which emerge in the process of job adjustment. Particular emphasis will be placed on the work orientations of non-farm employment as they are 1The importance of economic stability of the adjustment of lower class workers can be seen in Miller's typology of lower class Americans S. M. Miller, ”The American lower Classes: A Typological Approach, " in Blue Color Worker, ed. by Arthur Shostak and William Gomberg(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961;), p. 111. affected by different types of farm experiences. The approach used in this thesis is exploratory in that we are trying to identify potentially significant variables in the develop- ment of non-farm work role orientations, and there are no attempts herein to estimate any parameters for the MeidcanuAmerican population. OBJECTIVES There has been a continuing concern in the literature with the job adjustment of workers, and this concern is eSpecially evident for the problems of adjustment faced by low status workers. The Federal Government places great emphasis in its policies and programs on training low status workers to become stable and productive workers in America's industrial based occupational structure. The unemploy- ment and underemployment of large segments of our lower socio-economic classes is seen as one of the underlying factors in the crises facing our cities. Concern for low occupational status workers has prompted con- siderable research concerning the various segments of our population that comprise this category. Probably the factor most common to all members of our lowest occupational levels is their rural origins and their migrancy to our urban cities. Research on rural to urban migrants has usually taken one of two forms. The first approach is to use survey research techniques to arrive at some configuration of variables that affect the adjustment of the migrant to the ”total meaning" of urban life. The second approach is the use of a case 1; study of individual rural to urban migrants which represents a detailed life history of the individual's adjustment to urban life.2 The study of the worker's occupational adjustment within a non- farm job market usually is presented as a part of the larger studies of urban adjustment. Although such efforts represent a useful and systematic approach to the problem, the inclusiveness of their efforts limits the emphasis that they can place on the complex process of occupational adjustment that the migrant faces. Such research lacks any systematic discussion of the relationship between the worker's "handicaps" as a migrant and his actual process of job adjustment. Recognizing the complexity involved in any study of urban ad- justment, we find that there are many aspects of the individual‘s life that face a process of transition. Gordon's work presents a rather complete analysis of the various types of adjustment that the 3 To be complete, any analysis should theoretically migrant faces. try to bring together the many aspects of adjustment for the rural to urban migrant. However, we shall limit this presentation to one aspect of the rural to urban migrant's process of adjustment-~job adjustment. The importance of job adjustment for the migrant can be seen to pervade the potential success of his adjustment to other 2Lyle Shannon, et al. , The Economic Absorption and Cultural In- tegration of Immigrant Workers. Department of Sociologr and Anthropol- ogy(Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1966), passim. 3Milton Gordon, Assimilation in American Id.fe(New York: Oxford University Press, 196117, passim, chapter 2. h S areaSo As mentioned previously, the rural to urban migrant possesses certain "handicaps" as he enters urban life. We are attempting to organize‘the idea of a migrant's "handicaps“ around the concept of work role orientations. As developed by Marc Fried, the concept of work role orientations is-based on the literature on job satisfaction and the meaning of work.5 However, the idea of work role orientations represents an extension of the above mentioned research, and as such represents an independent research effort. By using Fried's basic conceptualization we feel that we can discover some interesting re- lationships between the migrant's farm work experiences and his sub- sequent non-farm adjustment. METHODOLOGY The basic sampling procedure for this thesis was to select Mexican- Americans residing in Michigan and uho had previously done seasonal farm work on a regular basis. With this basic qualification for eligibility, the respondents were selected by means of an opportunity sample of Mexican-Americans residing in the commmities of Lansing, Charlotte and Eaton Rapids. The total sample consisted to twenty males --seven respondents from Lansing, six respondents from Eaton Rapids, and seven respondents from Charlotte. L‘Miller, op. cit. 5Marc Fried, "The Role of Work in a Mobile Society,“ in Planning For a Nation of Cities, ed. by S. B. Warner, Jr.(Cambridge, Massachu- setts: The M. I. T. Press, 1966), pp. 81-1014. Although the initial design had been to select respondents by the type of job they presently held, the difficulties of securing inter- views due to refusals by potential respondents and the language barrier involved made such a design impossible to carry out-~thus the opportu- nity sample. However, the respondents did exhibit a variety of occupa- tions so that the analysis involves a variety of job adjustment patterns among workers . The interviews were conducted using a schedule consisting of primarily open-end questions-see appendix A. All the interviewing in Charlotte, and Eaton Rapids was done by the researcher; however, in Lansing the researcher was aided by a Guatemalan interviewer who conducted six of the interviews. The areas of questioning were con- cerned with background information, farm work experiences, and job adjustment in the non-farm occupational structure of Michigan. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE All the respondents were Mexican-Americans and all were male, heads-of-households. The choice of male respondents was made because they were assumed to be most directly involved in the process of job adjustment in Michigan. The respondents had all been born in Texas and with one exception all were from small rural communities. One respondent had been born in Dallas, Texas. All the respondents attended school in Texas, and the highest level of achievement was the eighth grade. However, over half of the respondents had never gotten past the fifth grade. 7 With regard to marital status all of the respondents were now married, and the average size of their families was four children. A final description concerning the population is the present language facility of the respondents. As mentioned previously the researcher faced a language barrier in the selection of respondents, and thus all interviews had to be conducted in English. However, there were variations in the respondent's facility in the use of English, but these variations did not emerge as significant in the analysis of the data. CHAPTER II CONC EPTUALIZAT ION American society places great emphasis on the value that all able bodied men will seek employment with aspersion being cast on any individual who seeks to maintain himself by means of going on welfare. The pervasiveness of such a value has important implications for low status populations such as Mexican-Americans, where the appeal to seek subsistence levels of living by going on welfare might seem the greatest. The existence of a value system which stresses the need for work is one of the major reasons why indivichlals do work. In America, the structure of the value system concerning work has evolved from the culture of capitalism. The basic concepts of this culture are the ideas of "individualism" and ”the free market.” American capitalism has placed great emphasislon the self-interested, rational, and acquisitive individual. Although there has been some modification of this culture in the development of a new “social ethic ," the basic emphasis on individual competition and acquisition remains I as the basic force shaping America's value system concerning work.6 In addition, there are two more apparent reasons why men will work, the extrinsic and intrinsic rewards that work can offer. Extrinsic 6Harold L. Wilensky and Charles N. Lebeaux, Industrial Society and Social Welfare(New York: Russell Sage Foundation, l9§8) passim, chapter 2. . 9 rewards refer to those things an individual receives from work that are not inherent in the work itself. The most important extrinsic reward is usually pay, although such rewards as security and status can also assume major importance.7 Intrinsic rewards of work reside in the fact that work itself might be pleasurable or satisfying to the worker.8 In reality the reasons wmr any given individual does work is usually a combination of both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. As mentioned in the introduction, successful transition into the non-farm occupational structure is the base from which the migrant will achieve any socialmobility. If we refer to the above discussion concerning reasons for work, the strongest emphasis for the Mexican- Anerican lies in the extrinsic rewards which work offers--higher than subsistence wages. However, the desire for adequate wages is not enough to insure the mig'ant that he can successfully function within the non-farm market. The idea of work is far more complex. We must attempt to arrive at an adequate definition of the concept work. Work is generally considered as the performance of some Specified task or tasks by an individual, for an employer, for which the employee receives in exchange for his services some form of reward. The reward 7F. Herzberg, B. Mausner and B. Synderman, The Motivation to Work(New York: John Wiley, and Sons, Inc., 1959), pass'gm. The extrinsic Eff-Hygiene factors of work would include wages, supervision, company policies, etc. 8Herzberg, Ibid. The intrinsic or motivator factors of work would include seIf realization, achievement, recognition, responsibil- ity, etc. 10 that the individual receives is usually monetary, although the rewards could be another form of extrinsic rewards or a combination of both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. The conceptual case of an individ- ual working for purely intrinsic rewards is possible, but such a case is not probable in an industrial society. The basic concepts com- prising work are the employee, the employer, the specified task or tasks, and the rewards that the employee receives. Referring to the above discussion we can break down the work situation into two basic areas. These are the material task involved and the social relations that the worker enters into in the performance of that task.9 These two areas comprise the aSpects of a work situation that a worker must conform to within reasonable limits if he is to maintain his employment. The assumption is made that an employer will not discharge a worker if he performs his assigned tasks up to certain minimal standards, and gets along with his fellowworkers and customers to the extent that he causes no major disruptions in the work situation. The above mentioned distinction between task and social relations aspects of employment implies that employment involves not only certain technical skills, but also a certain, necessary degree of social. skills. The necessity of possessing both technical and social skills becomes more acute as one moves up through occupational levels. The implication of such a relationship would be that the skill levels of the lowest 9O. A. Oeser and S. B. Hammond, Social Structure and Personality in a City(Londcn: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1994), pp. 231-237. ll occupational levels would be minimal, but would never be non-existent. WORK ROLE ORIENTATIONS Accepting the necessity of - mimmallevels of these skills for successful employment in an industrial based occupational structure, we face the problem of devising a method to deal with the establishment of different levels of refinement of such skills. Fried offers a begin- ning for establishing a hierarchical ordering ofwhat he terms m role orientations:O Intuitively,.,Fried's categorizations are appealing, but his work suffers from a lack of precise. Specification and there is no attempt to Operationalize the different levels. However, we will try to overcome some of these important deficiencies in Fried's work and use the concept of work role orientations for our analysis. The concept of work role orientations attempt to develop a hier- archical ordering of the way that individuals view their work. An important point is that the possession of one level of orientation presupposes that at some point in his life the worker has acquired all other lower levels of work orientation: work as a job, work as 3.1%, work as an occupation, and work as a career]:1 As the individ- ual ascends this hierarchy he is building on his previous achievement of the lower levels. Also, as the worker moves through each successive level of the hierarchy, the reapective level of work orientation comes w loFried, op. cit. llIbid. 12 to fill more of the worker's total life, to the point where in work as a career, the worker identifies his own personal achievement with the occupational role he fills. For our own analysis, the work orientations which are important are the two lowest levels. Work as a job is concerned with the work- er's conception of a distinctive job, separate from other life activ- ities. Such an orientation causes the worker to develop new values concerning the areas of restriction and freedom, and to develop new abilities to be able to interact with peOple of different occupational statuses.l2 The development of such an orientation is basic to adequate functioning within an industrial based occupational structure. It is assumed that the development of a work as a jib orientation is prob- lematical to the individual with a previously agricultural based history. Since the develOpment of this basic orientation is essential to sub- sequent movement up the hierarchy, the ability to view work as a job becomes even more crucial. The second level of the hierarchy, work as a task, presupposes the achievement of the lower level of orientation, and represents an increase of sldlls for the worker. Work as a task allows the worker to view certain aspects of his work as pleasurable; it allows the worker an opportunity to develop new manual and cognitive skills; and it allows the worker to develop a sense of mastery in the performance of tasks .13 The development of this level of orientation is not 12 13 Ibid. Ibid. l3 necessary to successful competition in an industrial based occupational structure, but merely represents an addition to the total skills that a worker can offer to a potential employer. Although it is theoretically feasible that a worker in the lowest status occupations could develop work role orientations beyond these two lowest levels of orientation, the assumption is made that the development of higher levels of orientations is not necessary for the transition process into an industrial based occupational structure to take place. Thus our analysis will be confined to Fried's two lower levels of work role orientation. Implicit for each level of orientation is a cluster of variables which, if measured, would allow us to arrive at some indication of a worker's achievement of a particular level of orientation. We must undertake the task of Specifying the variables which are relevant to the two levels of work orientation. considered herein, and thus try to arrive at some general indication of the worker's orientation. Work as a Job This level of orientation is solely concerned with the structural characteristics of employment in an urban, industrial basedoccupation- a1 structure. Possession of a work as a jgb orientation involves the worker's ability to "accept“ the various structural aspects of the non- farm work situationa The concept of acceptance becomes the key to the indication of the degree to which a worker possesses this basic orientation. To arrive at some indication of acceptance we“ must view the possession of a work orientation as falling on a continuum from 1h high to low possession of the attributes that define a particular level of orientation. As previously mentioned, any work situation can be broken down into the task performed and the social relations that are entered into in the performance of the task. A job in an industrial based occupation- al structure places certain minimel conditions, within these two areas, on the worker if he is to maintain his employment. In describing the orientation of work as a job we feel that emphasis should be placed on the social relations of the work situation, and such emphasis is justified because of the low technical skill requirements of low status occupations. The respondents in our sample enter the non-farm ,job market in the lowest status occupations. The possible social relations encountered in a work situation can be further divided into relations with the worker's boss or super- visors, with his fellow workmates, and with the employer's customers. The concept involved is the worker‘s ability to interact and communicate with the various categories he may encounter. Within these social relations, the worker's ability to interact with persons of different occupational statuses is crucial. With regards to supervisors and customers, the worker must be able to recognize and accept authority positions, and be able to absorb directions and criticisms. This ability implies a capacity for abstraction on the part of the worker-~he learns to react to a position rather than a person. As to his workmates, the worker must learn to get along satisfactorily with individuals from potentially divergent backgrounds. This last aspect is especially true for Mexican-American workers. The combination of these various 15 forms of social relations can be referred to as the social skills necessary for successful non-farm employment. The second aspect of the work situation is the task involved. In terms of work orientations, the implications of this aspect refer to more than the technical skills generally associated with employment in an industrial based occupational structure. Employment involves the worker's contracting to perform specified services for his employer. Thus task related activities would include the requirement that the worker show up for work at specified times and avoid excessive absences; the worker must take reasonable care of the work resources supplied to him; and that the worker will meet the production standards of his employer. These task related aSpects of the work situation would re- present the technical skills necessary for competition in an industrial based occupational structure. The foregoing discussion develops the notion that a worker can vary along a continuum with regards to his acceptance of work as a job. Assuming the Open job market and the availability of jobs, the lower end of the continuum would be represented by the case of the persis- tently unenployed worker. We would make the inference that he possessed a low level of a work as a job orientation. Acceptance does not necessarily mean the internalization of the skills necessary to function in a non~farm job, but rather mere conformity to the norms so that he can maintain employment over relatively long periods of ti.xne.l)"L Thus lhRobert Dubin, "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the 'Cmtral Life Interests' of Industrial Workers ," Social Problems, 111, No. 3 (January, 1956), 131-1141. . 16 stability of employment also becomes an indicator of the possession of this basic level of work orientation. Other indicators of acceptance are possession of a social security card and union membership. Also the respondents answers to several open-ended questions concerning aspects of their work situations will provide indicators of aCCpetance. Using such variables we hope to arrive at some estimate of the worker's development of the work orientation to work as a job. Work as a task This level of work role orientation assumes as a necessary con- dition for its development, the achievenent of the orientation to work as a job. The reasoning involved is that if the worker is not able to develop a sense of security in his ability to maintain consistent employment he will not have the opportunity to develop higher levels of work orientation. In effect, the acquisition of the lowest level of orientation removes important restraints on the individual so that he can look at other aspects of his job. Development of a work as a task orientation allows the worker to increase the various types of skills that he can offer to potential employers. The difficulties of deriving an indication of the worker's possess- ion of a work as a task orientation are greater than those for the lower level, of orientation. This higher level moves away from recogni— tion and acceptance of the structural aspects of employment. At this level the worker develOps a sense of mastery in the performance of his tasks. The worker develops the ability to view certain components of his job as pleasurable. The development of these abilities refers to the worker's first recognition of the intrinsic rewards in a work 17 situation. The importance of such developments lies in their ability to broaden the worker's perSpectives concerning work, and also to give him an opportunity and desire to develop further. The development of the above mentioned abilities puts the worker on a threshold for further advanc ement . The other aspects of this level of work role orientation is concerned with the worker's further recognition of the structural aSpects of the work situation. In conjunction with the development of the above mentioned abilities, the worker views the work situation as an opportunity to develOp new manual and cognitive skills.15 Manual skills would refer mainly to the technical skills. associated with occupational mobility in an industrial economy. However, the development of manual skills represents only one facet of the Opportu- nities available to the worker. Social skills are also involved and refer to an increased sense of capacity on the part of the worker regarding his ability for interaction and communication with his fellow workers and with individuals of different occupational statuses. The continuum for this level of work orientation involves us in deriving an indication of the worker's recognition of the potential intrinsics rewards in work, and also inhis development of increased manual and social skills. The lower limits of this orientation would be the case of the worker who has minimal recognition of some intrinsic rewards in work, but has not developed arm real new skills. The upper limits of the continuum would be represented by the case of the worker 1'5 Fried, op. cit. 18 who recognizes the potentiality of the work situation as an opportu- nity to develop new skills and achieve upward occupational mobility. Indicators for this level of orientation will come primarily from the analysis of reSpondents answers to open-ended questions con- cerning their work situations. Such an approach is necessary for the indication of a recognition of the intrinsic rewards in work. Also, indication of the development of social skills must also come from open-ended questions, especially those questions concerning intensity of interaction with workmates both on the job and after working hours --especially interaction with non-Mexican-Americans. Another indicator would be active participation in union meetings--attendance at meetings and participation in activities. The development of manual skills would be the easiest to observe in that they would be indicated by such skills as operating large machinery, an electrician, an auto mechanic, etc. Using such variables we would like to derive some estimate of the worker's possession of a work as a task orientation. Remarks Before preceeding in the conceptualization we would like to make a few added comments concerning the concept of work role orientation. Fried's concept of differing levels of work orientations inplies a process in which an individual ascends through the hierarchy by build- ing on each successive level below, and as was mentioned, the higher the level of orientation a worker possesses the more meaning work has for his “total life.” The implicit, underlying factor in the hierarchy is the respective importance of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. In order to clarify the notion that movement through the hier- l9 archy means a shift in the proportion of importance according to extrinsic and intrinsic rewards we must refer to the literature on job satisfaction. Herzberg makes the distinction between hygiene and motivator factors which is roughly equivalent to extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, respec- tively. Herzberg states that job satisfaction cannot be viewed on a single continum, but rather there are two continua. The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction. Job dissatisfaction re- fers to the adequacy of hygiene factors or the extrinsic retards in a work situation. There is job dissatisfaction--poor wages-nor there is simply the lack of dissatisfaction. Job satisfaction refers to the presence of motivator factors or the intrinsic rewards in a work situation. There is job satisfaction--pleasure inherent in the task-- or there is a lack of satisfaction. Applying the preceeding to Fried's conceptualization, the worker never looses his awareness of the extrinsic rewards of work no matter at what level of work orientation he is at. However, as the worker moves up the hierarchy he becomes initially aware of the intrinsic rewards in work. These intrinsic rewards become significant in that they might be as important as the extrinsic rewards in his selection of jobs. In fact, the presence of intrinsic rewards may cause a worker to keep a job which he feels does not have adequate extrinsic rewards. Thus far our analysis of the worker's initial awareness of intrinsic rewards in his work situation will serve as an indicator of movement 6Herzberg, et al., 0 . cit. 20 from a work as a job to a.work as a task level of work role orienta- tion. JOB ADJUSTMENT The actual process we are examining is the job adjustment of Mexican-Americans within the non-farm occupational structure of Michigan. The attempt, herein, is to develop some notion of the relative job adjustment of the worker. The basic approach was to acquire a work history of the respond- ents from the time they settled in Michigan and tried to get a non- farm job. From this data, the individual worker was classified in terms of the types of jdbs and the number of employers the worker has had.17 The use of the types of jobs that a worker has had serves as an indicator of the horizontal and vertical occupational mobility of the worker. The assumption is made that the existence of upward occupa- tional mobility does indicate job adjustment on the part of the worker. The number of different employers a worker has had.will serve as an indicator of employment stability; In this study a distinction is made between trial and stable employment. A trial employment situation refers to the individual working for the same employer for less than three years. A stable employment situation refers to the individual 17William H. Form and Delbert C. Miller, "Occupational.Career Patt- erns as a.Sociological.Instrument," in Man, Wbrk and Society, ed. by S. Nosow and W. H. Form(New York: Basic Books, Inc., l962),ipp. 287- 296 . 21 working for the same emplqyer for al least three consecutive years. The above distinction is based on the assumption that after three years of continuous employment a low status worker has deve10ped ties within a company, and barring unforeseen circumstances is not likely to be "looking around” for a different job. The existence of a stable employment situation is a positive indicator of job adjustment. The foregoing discussion has indicated that the context and the content of employment are important considerations in any estimation of a worker's jdb adjustment. The other indicator of job adjustment is the level of work orientation. Although the work role orientation is the hypothesized crucial variable affecting the MexicanpAmerican‘s process of job adjustment, the variable itself is also important in measuring job adjustment. The higher the level of work orientation, the greater will be both the potential for job adjustment and also the greater will be the actual job adjustment. The line of reasoning can be briefLy outlined as follows. The worker's farm work experiences will influence the level of work orientation that he possesses, and the level of orientation will both affect the job adjustment of the worker in the non-farm job market, and will itself--work orientation--be affected.by the non-farm jobs that the worker takes. The data will be analyzed.in terms of the types of non-farm jobs the worker secures, the length of time he works for the same employer, and also the nature of the employer. This last aSpect refers to the type of employer the worker seeks, and employers are distinguished as large, absentee-owned corporations, or as small, privately-owned businesses. These two types of employers 22 18 represent important differences in the context of employment. WORK ROLE ORIENTATIONS AND JOB ADJUSTMENT This section is concerned with specifying the possible relation- ships between work role orientations and job adjustment. The assump- tion has been made that the level of work orientation will affect the possibility for adjustment on the part of the worker. All occupational levels have minimal technical and social skill levels associated with them, and thus the level of skill requirement will vary with the occupational level. The difference in skill requirements between professional and unskilled occupational levels can be easily seen, but it is assumed that there are meaningful skill level differences among lower occupational levels. Thus the extent to which a worker has achieved various degrees of the two relevant levels of work role orientation will have direct hearing on his job adjustment. Since our analysis is concerned with the development of work orientations, we must consider the sources of potential and actual development. Research on a migrant's adjustment to the non-farm occupational structure is generally concerned with listing the handicaps which affect the worker's job adjustment.198uch findings are justified when one considers the ratio of economic absorption of 18Sigmund Nosow, "Labor Distribution and the Normative System ,” in Man, Work and Society, ed. by S. Nosow and W. H. Form(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962), pp. 117-125. l9Shannon, et al. op. cit. 23 rural to urban migrants to non-migrants.20 Accepting such findings, we want to examine how these ”handicaps" affect the Mexican-American worker‘s development of the work role orientations appropriate to the urban job market, and the actual job adjustment that the worker makes within the industrial based occupational structure. The variables with which we are concerned are those that are potential sources for the development of the apprOpriate orientations. Such potential sources may be termed agencies of socialization, and can be divided into pre-settlenent and post-settlement agencies.21 Settlement in this context refers to the Meidcan-Atnerican‘s entry into the non-farm job market of Michigan. Among the pre-settlement agencies, our primary focus is on the seasonal agricultural work of Mexican-Americans. , The assumption is sometimes made that farm work does not provide for the development of work orientations appropriate to an urban labor market, and it is our intention to test the appropriateness of this generaliza- tion. Since agricultural work is the Mexican-American's major source of work, we want to investigate the effect which different types of farm work have on subsequent work orientations and job adjustment. The distinction emerges in the analysis between piece-rate workers 20Support of this statement can be found in Shannon(op. cit.) , and also in Fried's article(op. cit.) where he notes that rural to urban migrant's comprise the majority of the unemployed and the underemployed in our urban areas. 21W. Moore and A.Feldman, Labor Commitment and Social Change in DevelgpirgAreasmew York:Social Science Research Council, 1950), assim, chapter 1. P...— 214 and hourly-rate workers as categories of farm workers who have differ- ent work experiences, and we want to investigate the effect which these categories have on job adjustment. The family represents a potent agency of socialization. Research has found that parental occupational achievement is an important factor in the worker‘s subsequent levels of work orientation? The implication is that the parent can pass on to his children some of the important aSpects of his orientations to work. Education serves as another source of development of work role 23 orientations. The importance of the school as an agency of social- ization lies in its ability to impart to the potential worker such ideas as responsibility and a recognition of and reSpect for authority. Also, schools can aid the worker in the development of technical skills. The usual relationship posited is that the higher the level of educational achievement, the higher will be the worker's level of work role orientation. However, as mentioned in the description of the sample, the respondents had an average educational achievement of fourth grade, and thus we feel that their level of attainment makes this a rather doubtful source of important socialization. Other potential pre-settlement agencies of socialization are previous urban experiences, previous non-farm work experiences and military service. Since the respondents contact with such sources 22Michael Carter, Into Work(Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1966), pp. 107-17 0 2 3Ibid. 25 was limited, they will only be discussed as they are relevant to the analysis. All the above mentioned pre-settlenent agencies of socialization will affect the level of work orientation and his subsequent job adjustment. The primary post-settlement agency of socialization will be the worker's employment situations. It is from his job that a worker is most likely to develop any higher levels of work orientation. In this. respect, the length of employment, the types of job held, and the nature of the enployer become important. Thus the actual job adjustment process affects the work orientation. Secondary agencies of socialization in the post-settlenent environment can also be important. Examples of such agencies are public and private employment services, and agencies providing employee training services. Such agencies would be directly concern- ed with raising the worker's level of work orientation. This chapter has, been concerned with the approach to be used in the analysis of the data. The remaining chapters will be devoted to the effect which farm work has on the worker's level of work orientation and on the subsequent effects which the work orientation has on the job adjustment process. CHAPTER III FARM WORK EXPERIENCES When a Mercicanquerican worker settles in a Michigan community and tries to enter the non-farm occupational structure, he brings with him the usual handicaps of the rural to urban migrant. The most common occupational handicap with worker has comes from his previous socialization as a seasonal agricultural worker. In this chapter we are concerned with the effect of the Meadow-American worker's farm work experiences on his deveIOpment of the work role orientations appropriate to successful participation in the industrial based occupational structure of Michigan. Mexican-Americans form a significant proportion of the total seasonal agricultural labor force in the United States. In states such as Michigan, Mexican-Americans constitute the largest group in such work.2hThe working conditions of the Mexican-American and his fellow migrant workers have received considerable attention in the literature. Most accounts of migrant workers have been descrip- tions of their life styles and pleas for remedial action to improve the lot of such workers. The problems of low wages, inadequate housing, poor health services, and bad working conditions have been 21JMichigan Employment Securities Commission, prepared by the Farm Placenent Section, Michigan Farm Labor Reports L Post Season l95h-l966 (Detroit, Michigan), assim. 27 the usual focus of such reports25 The literature documents rather well that the life of the season- al farm worker is economically and socially unstable. The geographical mobility, low wages, and poor working conditions do nothing to con- tribute to the stability of such employment for the future. Related to the, development of work role orientations, The President's Commission on Migratory Labor presented some crucial problems with regards to seasonal farm work. The basic problem for the worker is that in rerdering his services the worker usually never acquires or experiences the rights and privileges that are attached to a job, or the stability normally characteristic of an e1ployee--employee relationship. In seasonal farm work, the commission found that from the worker's perspective his employer is the particular cr0p he is working in, rather than an individual grower. The commission felt that such conditions arise from the duration and bulk of migratory labor. Also, the inability of the worker to establish firm re- employment commitments makes each employment a "new 301,336 TYPES OF FARM WORKERS Before proceeding, we want to define what is meant by the term 2gTruman Moore, The Slaves We Rent(New York: Random House, 1965) , passim. . , , . _ - 26U. S. President's Commission on Migratory Labor, Miggatog Labor in American Agriculturemashington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, I951) , passim. 28 migrant agricultural worker. The definition we will use is as follows: An agricultural migrant is a person who moves each year to one or more work locations beyond normal commting distances from his home. His migration follows a seasonal course, often through several states. Customarily he returns to a place heanlls home when the crop season 18 over elsewhere. To the extent that seasonal farm work represents the main source of economic sustenance prior to settlement in Michigan, such farm work will be the primary source for the development of work role orientations appropriate to non-farm jobs. The above definition does not make mention of the fact that there might be different types of seasonal farm workers. Although all the re- spondents in our sample had done seasonal farm work and the mean number of years that they had done such work was six years, there are important qualitative differences in the meaning of such work experiences. Using a distinction between piece-rate and hourly- rate workers, it is possible to distinguish between three types of seasonal farm workers who can now be found in the non-farm occupa- tional structure of Michigan. These types are listed below. I. Piece rate workers: A. Migrant agricultural. workers who sought such employment regularly on an interstate basis. These workers con- tracted either with a grower or a crew leader for a piece-rate wage in which they were paid for each unit Q 27U. S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Committee for Children and Youth, Rural Youth Crisis: Facts, Myths and Social Change, ed. by Lee G. Burchinal(Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office, 1965), passim. 29 they produced (13 respondents). B. Migrant agricultural workers who sought such employ- ment regularly on an intrastate basis. Wage contract is the same as for interstate workers (2 respondents). II. Hourly rate workers: Migrant agricultural workers who sought such employment regularly on an interstate basis. Wage contract is by an hourly-rate (S respondents). Although the distinctions between the three types of workers are not complete, they will be elaborated in the analysis that follows. Within the broad categorization between interstate and intrastate workers, the distinction concerns the geographical mobility involved in farm work using the worker's state of origin as a reference point. Within this chapter, the discussion will be concerned with interstate piece-rate and hourly-rate workers. The former intrastate workers will be discussed in the next chapter. JOB SEARCH TEEHNIQUES All employment begins with a job search during which time the potential worker tries to contract for a job with an employer. The seasonal farm worker has four basic alternatives of getting farm work. First, the worker can sign up with a crew leader who will provide the worker transportation and secure work for the duration of the season. This job search method is usually the most common?8 The 28Charles Given, W. Vredevoogd, and M. Voland, "A Study of Inter- personal Relations Among Managers and Employees of Fruit and Vegetable Farms with Emphasis on Labor-Management Practices Utilized" (prepared for the Rural Manpower Center and Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing; Michigan, 1967), p. 36. (Mimeographed.) 30 Mexican-American worker will sign up with a crew leader in Texas, and then as a part of a crew will travel together to the various jobs lined up by the crew leader. This system receives the most criticism based on the fact that the crew leader has a general lack of regard for his workers 3 that he has complete dominance over the workers' lives while they are with him; and that he usually abuses the employer-employee relationship to his own financial advantage.29 A second job search alternative involves the worker in actual contracting for work with a grower directly.30 In such a method the worker must make his way to Michigan and seek employment with the growers in the region. Most workers using such a method will seek re-employment commitments from season to season. The third job search alternative is for the worker to contract for a job with a private agency in Texas which has ,job orders from growers in Michigan. This agency may even give the worker an advance against his salary so that the worker will have enough money for 31 travel expenses. Such a method insures the worker's initial employ- ment in a particular area, but this employment may be for only a short period. The fourth alternative is to seek employment through referrals from the Farm Labor Division of the Michigan Employment Securities 29U. S. President's Commission on Migratory Labor, op. cit. 30 Given, et al., 0 . cit., p. 39. 31Knowledge of this alternative came through an interview with a Mexican-American living in Lansing. 31 Commission. The worker will go to the local employment offices in various parts of the state and there be given referrals to growers that are hiring workers. However, our sample shows that this method is not used by interstate migrants.32 TABLE 1 FARM WORK--JOB SEARCH TECHNIQUES BY TYPE OF WORKER ‘ Method rum.a ' H.R.W.b Crew Leader 9 -- Grower 3 5 Texas Agency 1 .. Total 13 S a. P.R.W. refers to piece-rate workers. b. H.R.W. refers to hourly-rate workers. In our sample, the workers had used three of the four job search methods. Twelve of the respondents had signed up with a crew leader in Texas, and. then traveled with him for the duration of the season. Seven of the respondents had used the method of contracting directly with a grower directly for employment. The one remaining respondent had signed up with a private agency in Texas to get work in Michigan. Although the data support the common assumption concerning the job search method of farm workers, it does not reveal an important difference in job search techniques used by different types of workers. By referring to the categorization of types of interstate 32Any use of this approach is probably made by intrastate migrants, or possibly crew leaders in Lansing. 32 workers, we get some interesting differences in the job search method us ed. The data show that there is a considerable divergence in the way that various segments of the farm work labor force go about get- ting jobs. While the piece rate worker follows the usual approach of signing up with a crew leader, the hourly rate worker secures employment through direct contact with a potential employer. Thus in the initial process of seeking employment as a farm worker, variations in the work situation begin to emerge. The potential importance of these differences will be discussed in the section of this chapter concerning the development of work role orientations . THE FARM WORK SITUATION The farm work situation, itself, provides for differences in the potential work experiences of the worker. In Michigan such differences are due not only to the ramifications of the job search method used, but also to the agricultural makeup of the state. The worker's Opportunities are at least indirectly related to the crops and the type and amount of labor needed in the production of these crops. In Michigan there are twelve crops that offer potential employment to significant numbers of seasonal. farm workers.33 The amount and type of work available, the length of potential employment, and the time in the season that work is available, are determined by 33Michigan Employment Securities Commission, op. cit. 33 these major crops. For example, the major crop in terms of number of workers hired is cherries, but the length of employment in weeks worked is relatively short since harvesting is the only real work to be done. “Pickles“-cucmmbers--represents a crOp that employs relatively large numbers of workers, and due to the necessity for cultivation and careful care of the individual plants, employment is for a relatively long period of time--employment can last up to three months . 3}" Agricultural production involves many types of work which are related either directly or indirectly to the actual growth of the particular crop. Directlyorelated work is such tasks as planting the crop, cultivation, harvesting, and cleaning up the fields after the crOp has been harvested. Indirectly related work is usually in conjunction with the harvesting of the crop, and would include supervising other workers, making sure that workers have receptacles for their harvest, and getting these units from the field to the atorage area. Directly related work may involve either piece rate or hourly rate wages, while indirectly related work involves hourly rate wages. Thus a piece worker will never have done that type of work indirectly related to the production of the crop, while the hourly rate worker may have done both kinds. Again using the piece-rate-hourly-rate distinction, the data reveal differences even in the type of directly related work done. Both types of workers will have done all the directly related tasks, 3thid. 3h but the table does give an idea of what type of work the given cat- egory of worker is most “likely“ to have done. While the hourly-rate worker has done all types of directly related work, the piece-rate worker is far more likely to have done only harvesting work. There is a sound reason for this difference which refers to the job search methods used by the worker. Due to the fact that the piece-rate worker is likely to be working for a crew leader, the greatest income potential lies in harvesting activity, the crew leader will seek to find this type of work on a regular basis. TABLE 2 THE NUMBER OF FIBER-RATE AND HOURLY-RATE WORKERS WHO HAD DONE A GIVEN TYPE OF DIRECTIX RELATED FARM WORK Type Work P.R.W.a H.R.W.b Planting 6 j Cultivatiyg h 5 Harvesting 13 5 Cleaning Up 3 5 Total Responding 13 S a. P.R.W. refers to piece-rate workers. b. H.R.W. refers to hourly-rate workers. Another important difference between piece-rate and hourly-rate workers is in the number of crops they usually worked. Although we did not specifically'ask for the number of jobs he would have during a season, the data on the crops which the worker usually worked in should give an indication along this line. The hourly-rate workers responded that they usually worked on only one or two crops at the most. However, the piece-rate workers were likely to have worked in three or more crops, and several of the respondents answered that they had worked in “all crops" or “any we could get work in.“ The only 35 exceptions to these findings for piece-rate workers and those workers who had worked in such crops as sugar beets and pickles. We feel that the data indicate that the piece-rate worker is more likely to have worked for several growers during a season. This fact is prob- ably also related to the piece-rate worker's association with crew work. Next, we want to examine the differences which emerge between piece-rate and hourly-rate farm workers in the development of work role orientations. FARM WORK AND WORK ROLE ORIENTATIONS As the general data on job search techniques and the work sit- uation indicate, there are differences between piece-rate and hourly- rate workers. The data cited allow for potentially different work experiences for the reapective types of workers. Relative stability of employment offered by working for one grower during a season gives the worker a greater opportunity to experience an employee-employer relationship. Also, the existence of re-employment commitments from season to season would increase this potential. To the extent that hourly-rate workers do work for fewer growers and do have re-employ- ment commitments, then we would expect that they have greater poten- tial for the development of work role orientations than do piece-rate workers. The total farm work situation will now be examined to see if there are any other important differences in the experielces of the two types of workers. The job search has implications in that signing up with a crew leader restricts the piece-rate worker‘s opportunities for contact 36 with his actual employer. The piece-rate worker relegates most of his rights as an employee to the crew leader. An argument can be made that such an approach is efficient because it insures the work— er of jobs during the summer and limits the necessity of excessive costs of going from grower to grower seeking work. However, to the extent that this approach restricts the worker's contact with his employers, it places limits on his ability to successfully interact with individuals of different occupational statuses. The worker's interaction with a crew leader is very one-sided, and offers little to the worker. Due to the fact that the crew leader's success is in large measure tied to the work he can get from his crew, the extent to which he can control the crew's actions will increase his gains. The crew leader tries to handle all poten- tial worker-employer contact. With regards to work grievances, the crew leader tries to have the family leader pass all grievances through him to the grower. Also, the payment of wages goes through the crew leader to the respective work units. The hourly-rate worker finds himself .in a different work sit- uation. There is no intermediary between the worker's contact with his actual employer. The problems of grievances and wages are settled through direct contactkwith the grower. A possibly important aspect of such contact is the fact that the grower also has more Opportunity to know the worker as an erployee, rather than as a part of a large group of Mexican-American farm workers. Support for the preceeding discussion can be found in the Given and Voland data. Over three-quarters of their respondents who were 37 members of crews received all. their work instructions from the crew leader. Among those who traveled by themselves, at least half re- 35 Since hourly- ceived their instructions directly from the grower. rate workers use this mode of transportation, they would be included in this group. Unlike most of the agricultural. labor force, the Mexican-American workers travel as family units, with the father as leader and skokes- man for the unit. The family generally functions as a work unit in the fields, being assigned a portion of the field by the crew leader. The workers are rather closely supervised to see that they do a good job. The supervisor is either the crew leader or a I‘field walker.” A field walker is an older worker hired by the grower to watch the. other workers, and is paid an hourly-rate. The type of work done by hourly-rate workers includes that done by piece-rate workers. Also, this worker will haul crates to the fields, and when they are filled he will take them to the storage area. Such work also includes the possibility of driving trucks and operating other machinery for the grower. Although such workers will travel as a family unit, only part of the family does hourly-rate work and the rest of the family will probably do piece-rate work. Age and sex seem to be factors in getting hourly-rate work, so that a son will be able to get hourly-rate work when he reaches a certain age. The separation from the family in the work situation could be a factor in the development of higher levels of work orientation for 3SGiven, et al., op. cit. 38 those doing hourly-rate work, but it is difficult to gauge the import- ance of such experiences. Probably the strongest evidence for the existence of differences in work role orientations between the two types of workers comes from the question concerning what the workers liked about farm work. All the respondents replied that they liked such work because they could be out doors. Although such a reason may have implications for the type of non-farm job a worker seeks, it is not really relevant to this discussion. Any import would be in that such a reason indicates erphasis on the extrinsic rewards of work. With regards to the types of workers, hourly-rate workers said that their type of work gave them more stability in terms of longer employment with one grower. Since piece-rate work offers a potentially greater income than hourly-rate work, the hourly-rate worker was willing to sacrifice this greater potential income for a relatively assured and steady income. Also, the hourly-rate workers mentioned the fact that they felt their employer trusted them, while none of the piece-rate workers made such a response. Conclusions From the prec eeding discussion it would seem that hourly-rate workers have higher levels of work role orientation than do piece-rate workers. While the technical skill level of both types of workers is generally low, there appear to be differences in the level of social skills which the respective types possess. If the general relationship posited in this thesis is true, we would expect that hourly-rate work- ers would be more likely to achieve job adjustment, and that this adjustment would be qualitatively different than that for piece-rate 39 workers. Whether the relationship holds will be examined in the next chapter, but first we would like to make a few remarks concern- ing farm work. We have used the distinction between hourly-rate and piece-rate workers to distinguish different work experiences which are poten- tially available in agricultural work. However, the number of hourly- rate workers which are actually present in the farm labor force is extremely small compared to the number of piece-rate workers. Any large sample of Mexican-American workers would find relatively few such workers, so the question becomes one of distinguishing between different experiences among piece-rate workers. As we have seen cert- ain piece-rate workers do travel by themselves and contract for work. Also, those workers who return to the same farm each year have a potential for experiencing an employee-employer relationship. Re- elployment from season to season is probably an important source for workers to first get hourly-rate jobs. The size of our sample limited our investigation of such possibilities, but any future research should take them into account. CHAPTER IV NON -FARM JOB ADJUSTMENT Once the decision to settle in Michigan is made by the Mexican- American farm worker, the job search and the initial job are among the worker's first contacts with his new environment. Research done on the entry into the industrially based occupational structure indi- cates that the new worker is now equipped to seek work in a systematic way and usually follows the casual recommendations of friends and relatives. Among low status workers, first choices represent little more than notions of desirable jobs and when an employment Opportu- nity occurs, the worker will take it irreSpective of the nature of the work. If there are no strong disincentives to the job, the worker will take it, at least temporarily, indicating a tendency for low status workers to drift into jobs.36 Previously the reference was made to the context of employment and the content of the job. Nosow‘s study of the Lansing labor market looked at the proportional distribution of workers, by industry, according to their origins. Mexican-Arnericans were most likely to seek employment on automobile assembly lines and in other forms of 37 manufacturing. The large numbers employed in such jobs could be 36Carter, op. cit. Nosow, op. cit. hl expected in light of the sheer number of such jobs potentially available. Nosow argued that the normative system of the labor market makes workers of certain origins--those categories of workers most likely to be discriminated against--seek employment in large, absentee-owned corporations whose hiring practices are more likely to be based on rational, objective criteria. The fact of a lack of discrimination and the potential hiring of relatively large numbers of workers implies an additional con- sideration to the context of erployment for the Mexican-American. Since Mexican-Americans do work for a given company, their sheer presence may serve as an enticement for other Mexicanqucricans to seek erployment there. Thus we could identify jobs that Mexic an- Americans, as low status workers, would be likely to seek employment in. Examples would be foundry, automotive assembly, construction, and food processing work. The foregoing discussion has emphasized the context of employ- ment, but the content of employment is also important to the extent that it influences the worker's decision whether or not to take the job. Accepting the importance of the job market itself, we believe that there exists a preference schedule for the individual worker, and that this preference schedule reflects qualitative differences 39 between workers as to their respective levels of work role orientation. 38Ibid. 39It is assumed that a worker will look for jobs that allow him to perform at the level of his work orientation. The further ramifica- tions of this assumption will be examined at the end of this chapter. I42 Since the Mexican-American worker enters the non-farm job market in the lowest occupational statuses, his employment can be accurately described as marginal. For example, employment in service work as a diswasher or gas station attendant would represent extreme- ly marginal occupations due to the low wages and the lack of any real guarantee of job security. Automotive assembly work would be less marginal due to the protection of unionization and generally high wages that such work provides. Although low status occupations do vary in their marginality, these types of jobs cannot assure the worker of absolute job stability. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the worker‘s job adjustment process can be viewed as a matter of strategy. The worker with a higher level of work orientation uses a different strategy in his development of job stability. Strategy refers to the total approach which the worker uses in dealing with such prob- lens as getting his first job, subsequent job shifts, andthe job he finally gets and keeps. This last stage of the adjustment pro- cess makes use of the operationaljzation of a stable job, but we recognize the fact that the use of data at one point in time makes a final determination of a worker‘s adjustment quite arbitrary. With- in the framework used in this thesis, we will examine the job adjust- ment of hourly-rate workers compared to that of piece-rate workers. JOB ADJUSTMENT Decision to settle The instability of seasonal farm work raises the question of why considerable numbers of Mencan-Americans still do such work. Introduc- 16 tion into such work is a generational process, a son being introduced by his father and traveling as part of a family work unit. The decis- ion to leave such work involves a complex set of variables. The argument that restricted employment Opportunities due to technological advancement in agricultural production forces these workers to seek new forms of employment seems to be an oversimplification of the decis- ion malc‘mg process. In response to the question of what they disliked about farm work all the reapondents listed wages. Other frequent responses were poor working conditions and the lack of steady work. Such responses would not be uncommon to those Meadow-Americans still doing farm work, so that the reasons for settling in Michigan can only partly come from such responses. If we examine some demographic variables relevant to the time in the Mexican-America's life that he decides to leave regular agricul- tural work, some possible intervening variables in the decision making process can be described. All of the respondents were under thirty years of age when they actually stopped doing seasonal farm work and settled in Michigan. Support for this notion that younger workers are more likely to actually make the decision to leave farm work can be found in the Given and Voland data in that over half of the Mexican- American sample were between the ages of forty and sixty, which seems to indicate that younger workers are more likely to have stopped doing seasonal farm work due to the overrepresentation of middle and older aged workers .140 hOGiven, et. al., op. cit., p. 32. hh Another demographic factor which is uniform among our reSponses was the marital status of the workers. All of the respondents left seasonal farm work either when they were first married, or soon after they began to have children. The latest time when this decis- ion was made was at that time when their children approached school age. The actual decision to settle in Michigan arises from an aware- ness of the instability of farm work, but also the additional aware- ness of the potential non-farm opportunities in Michigan. Such an awareness is gained through contact with relatives and friends, and other individuals living in Michigan. Although Given and Voland state that there is no real relationship between such contacts and the desire to stay in Michigan, their analysis has really not shown whether the presence of relatively large numbers of settled Mexican-Americans might exert an influence on their desires. Also, among the three- quarters of the Mexican-American sample who did not have a desire to settle, there was no analysis made of the number of relatives and friends that they had in Michigan’lll A final observation that lies outside the data from our sample, but is implicit in the Given and Voland data, concerns the type of worker that will decide to settle out. Although one-half of their total sample of Mexican-American farm workers were members of crews, only one-fourth of those workers planning to stay in Michigan after 142 the work season were members of crews. Since the remainder of those hl h2 93., p. 55. Ibid. 145 deciding to stay were from the groups that traveled.alone and con- tracted for their work with a grower, and we stated in the last chapter that such workers were.more likely to either be hourly workers or become hourly workers, the implication is that possibly those workers with higher levels of work role orientation are more likely to make the actual decision to seek non-farm.employment in Michigan. If this conclusion were substantiated, the implications would seem to be that workers with higher levels of orientation have:more confidence in their ability to compete successfully in a noananm job market. Non-farm job search The initial contact the worker makes with his new environment is the securing of non-farm.employment and housing. The first job gives the worker a foothold.in.the process of adjustment. The type of employment that the worker seeks is not as important as his ability to get that first job. The first jdb can represent the per- TABLE 3 FIRST NON-FARM JOB BY TYPE OF WORK Industry Number Automobile manufacturingOOOOOOOOOOOO... Construction................ warehouse................... Food processing............. WNWP‘E’ Service..................... other.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO h manent employment of the worker, but usually it represents the base for looking around for other jdbs. Table 3 shows the types of first jobs that the respondents secured. The data shows that the workers to gravitated to those jobs where we would expect to find relatively large numbers of Mexican-Americans. However, these jobs represent permanent employment for only three reapondents, one of whom has only lived in the area for one year. There seems to be no differences between the different categories of exé-farm workers as to the type of job they get, or to the skill level of the job. The initial con- cern for all workers is getting a job, and any differences between types of workers emerges with length of participation in the non- farm occupational structure. For almost all workers the first job serves as a base for looking around. The actual method of job search shows a great reliance on self- initiative in securing employment, but the data do reveal some trends which seem to emerge with length of time in the non-farm job market. Table 1; presents the referral source used by workers in their initial TABLE h JOB REFERRAL SOURCE BY JOB HELD Referral Job Helda Source 1 2 3 Self 10 13 7 Relative 5 l 2 2 -- Friend h 2 2 Agency 1 l h 3 2 Totals 2O 17 15 9 8 a. Job held refers to the chronological order of the worker's different employments. job search and all subsequent job searches. The implication seems to be that with length of experience within the non-farm job market the worker comes to rely on his own abilities to seek employment. Also, the importance of experience in such a market brings an increase in h? the use of employment agencies. If we regard agency referrals as a form of self-initiative, then the'worker's self reliance increases as he gains experience in the non-farm job market. A system seems to exist wherein one member of a family or an extended family settles in an area and seeks initial employment. Then as other workers of the extended family enter the area, the initial settler serves as a referral source for these other workers. For example, a worker in Eaton Rapids has been the referral source for five related workers in finding their first job. The use of a common referral source would lend support to the notion of the importance of the awareness of potential jobs through relatives and friends. Since reliance on self-initiative would be difficult, the possibility exists that workers using such a method have a higher work orientation than those who rely on others for job sources. Subsequent job searches are more the responsibility of the individual worker. An interesting fact is that the use of agencies for job referrals comes with the length of stay intthe non-farm job market. The use of such formal procedures is limited to reSpondents living in Lansing, and only respondents who had been piece-rate work- ers. The fact that hourly-rate workers did not use agencies at all again gives support to the fact that they have enough confidence in their ability to seek employment successfully. The fact that a worker lives in a small community such as Charlotte or Eaton Rapids seems to have an effect on the worker's perspective concerning work opportunities. Such workers do have the employment Opportunities offered in their respective communities, 118 but they also have the additional opportunities of the larger city in the area. All but two of the respondents living in smaller communities either had or have jobs in Lansing, and one case is a new settler in Eaton Rapids. The implication seems to be that the site of residence has an effect on the job market potential of the worker. While the resident of Lansing looks only for work in his community of residence, the resident of an adjacent smaller community has a larger job market, a market that he is aware of. However, since the majority of workers living in smaller communities are hourly-rate workers and former intrastate piec e-rate workersh3 it is difficult to say whether residence or level of work orientations is the crucial variable. If the difference was due to level of work orientation, the broader perSpective of the worker would be consistent with our previous conclusions. The differences in the workers settling in the two areas might also affect the use of agencies in the job search. The worker with a higher level of skills--technical and social--will be less likely to have to go to an agency because he is better equipped in seeking work and he is more likely to leave a job for better employment rather than being fired or layed off. Those respondents who did use the Michigan Employment Securities Commission all got lower status occupa- tions, and seem to possess lower work role orientations than did their counterparts who did not use an agency‘s services. incidence of farm work in job adjustment In a consideration of various job adjustment strategies, the ’43 For a categorization of intrastate piece-rate workers see pages 28-29. h9 return to seasonal farm work emerges. Again the type of farm work done after entering the non-farm job market falls into two categories. These types vary by the place where the work was done and the type of work done. The recurrence of farm work occurs among former interstate piece-rate and hourly-rate workers. The distinctions between the two types of workers continue to exist in their intrastate work experiences. Any incidence of farm work after settling in Michigan seems to occur in the first years of residence, and completely disappears when the worker achieves job stability. Former hourly-rate workers were found to have a greater incidence of return to farm work than former interstate piece-rate workers. In fact all the hourly-rate workers had done farm work after they had settled in Michigan. The most common pattern was for such workers to work for a single grower whom they usually knew before they settled in Michigan. All but one of these workers worked for a grower near their site of residence in Michigan, so that such employment did not involve any real travel. The fact that all hourly-rate workers lived in small communities when they did such work presents the possibility that the site of residence has an effect on whether a worker will do any such farm work. The implication seems to be that hourly-rate workers are more likely to settle, at least initially, in small communities, and that residence in such communities offers a more ready availability of farm work opportunities. Since one of the reasons that farm workers left farm work was to avoid the excessive travel, the pattern of residence of hourly-rate workers makes such 50 work still possible without excessive traveling. Any incidence of occasional farm work declines with the length of the reSpondent's participation in the non-farm job market. The incidence of continued farm work among piece-rate workers was frequently mentioned in preliminary research. However, there was only one reported case in our sample of a reSpondent having done such work after settling in Michigan. However, the important fact concerning such work is the fact that it usually involves patterns similar to those of interstate piece-rate workers. The emtire family unit travels and works together for a brief period during the summer, usually during the father's vacation or on weekends. The ability of the worker to maintain himself in a non-f arm job would make the occurence of continued farm work unnecessary, and also the necessity to use different job search techniques in securing farm work from a Michigan residential base makes any occurence of such work rather unlikely. The data do suggest an interesting possibility concerning the strategy of job adjustment used by different types of workers. The high incidence of continued farm work among hourly-rate workers seems to offer them an additional foothold in their job adjustment process. The use of farm work in the worker's attempt to develop a secure economic base connotes the existence of a different strategy of adjustmelt. Also the nature of hourly-rate workers responses to the question concerning why they liked farm work showed more emphasis on the intrinsic rewards of such work, and thus would make the incidence of such work among hourly-rate workers more likely, at least on a 51 part time basis. JOB ADJUSTMENT AND WORK ROLE ORIENTATIONS Thus far we have approached the job adjustment process in terms of the effect which farm work has had on the development of work role orientations. The development of work orientations involves an on going process, so that to focus solely on the orientations developed prior to settlement would be a naive approach. The job adjustment of the worker depends on both his previous farm and non- farm work experiences and his work experiences after he has settled in Michigan. None of the respondents possessed what could be termed a level of work orientation completely unappropriate to non-farm employment, even at the time they settled in Michigan. Indications of this would come from the worker's knowledge of some of the requirements for employment in an industrially based occupational structure. Each reapondent had obstained a social security card by the age of eighteen years. Another indication of a knowledge of the requirements for employment is the prevalence of union membership among the reapondents, at least wherever possible. However, active participation in inion activities was usual. Even when agricultural work has been the work- er's primary form of employment, there is enough contact with non-farm work to gain some knowledge of the requirements for such employment. Using the criteria of job stability already established in this ‘ thesis, we found that there are six respondents whose present employ- ment situation are unstable. Two of these respondents have been in the non-farm occupational structure of Michigan less than three years 52 so that they could not meet the definitional requirements of job stability. 0f the eighteen respondents who have been in the non- fanm job market three or more years, fourteen can be classified as exhibiting stable job situations. The use of job stability serves as an indicator of job adjustment, but due to the marginality of low status occupations it does not offer a complete measure. The concept of work role orientations becomes important when we want to add another dinension to the actual job adjustment of the worker. There are several possible indicators of the relationship between job adjustment and work role orientations. Occupational mobility, work role orientations, and _job adjustment A possible indicator of the level of work orientation is the actual job that the worker has now. Although hourly and piece-rate workers entered the non-farm job market in the same occupational level and the same types of jobs, the hourly-rate workers now have better jobs. Even when the worker has been employed by the same company for a number of years, the hourly-rate worker is more likely to have experienced upward mobility within the company. Also, the hourly-rate worker is more likely to have experienced upward mobility between companies. A Although the above are hypotheses concerning the relationship between work orientation and job adjustment, the data SUpport them. All but one of the hourly-rate workers are now in skilled or supervisory positions with the exception being a worker who has only lived in the area for two years. Eyel this worker achieved upward mobility within a company he worked for, but was eventually laid off 53 because he lacked union seniority. The present occupations of the hourly-rate workers are part's manager for an auto dealership, foreman for a construction firm, furnace tender for a glass company, and a supervisor at a vocational rehabilitation center. None of the piece-rate workers have experienced any upward mobility within the same company, but three workers have experienced upward occupa- tional mobility between organizations. The occupations of those workers are automotive assembly, construction laborers, janitor, food processing, television repairman, and warehouse workers(N=l3). Job satisfaction, work role orientations and job adjustment Another possible indicator of work orientations comes from the sources of satisfaction the workers find in their present jobs. We would expect to find differences betweel workers by their level of work orientation, and the data thus far have shown that there should. thus be differences between hourly and piece-rate workers. The major types of responses which the different categories of workers gave seem to support this hypothesis. Hourly-rate workers emphasized the challenge that they found in their work, while piece-rate workers were more likely to emphasize the wages they received. The hourly- rate workers emphasize the intrinsic rewards of their work and this would support the notion that hourly-rate workers have developed a work as a task orientation. The piece-rate workers emphasis on extrinsic rewards would indicate a primarily work_ as a job, orientation. In our discussion of Fried's concepts, it was mentioned that a sense of security in one's ability to keep a job was a crucial aspect of the lowest level of work role orientation. All workers can be said to 5h have developed this basic prerequisite to further development of higher orientations, but there is variation in the degree of this security for the worker. The saliency of the responses is important, TABLE 5 SOURCE OF JOB SATISFACTION BY TYPE OF FARM WORKERa Satisfaction Piece-rate Hourly-rate Extrinsic: Wages 8 1 Benefits5 3 2 Clean job 1 -- HelLfamily 3 l Intrinsic: Can get ahead 1 -- Work itself )4 2 Skilled job 1 _ 3 Challenging -- )4 Total number reaponding 13 5 a. The responses are for each possible source, and each respondent could list more than one source of satisfaction. b. Benefits refer to insurance, sick leave, etc. and all the hourly-rate workers except one listed the challenge in their work first. The hourly-rate worker who reSponded wages and benefits is a new settler in the area, and works for a car dealer washing and preparing cars. He is looking around for another job and took this job because of the wages and benefits offered. Another response given by hourly-rate workers is the same as they gave to farm work--their employer trusted them. The implication of the data is that the hourly-rate worker has developed his sense of security in 55 his ability to maintain a job so that he can look beyond this basic concern to the intrinsic aspect of employment. Even among the piece-rate workers there is considerable variation as to their level of work orientation. Those workers who replied that they liked the job because of the benefits they got and also the work itself, show the beginnings of the development of higher levels of work orientation. The worker who replied that he had a skilled job--television repaimanushows the definite development of a work as a task orientation. The ramifications of these diff- erences between piece-rate workers can be seen in the types of non- farm jobs they got. Those who mentioned benefits seen to look for those jobs offering security; they do not go from service job to ser- vice job as those workers with lower levels of orientation do. The differences between piece-rate workers may not be that great-~they all have language handicaps and low skill levels--but the piece-rate worker who seeks a job at Motor Wheel by having someone go with him to fill out the application would seem to have a higher level of work orientation than the worker who works for a series of gas stations or construction companies . Differences also emerge between hourly-rate and piec e-rate workers with regards to what they do not like about their present jobs. The hourly-rate worker who was a car washer and preparation man felt that his work was unskilled and anyone could do it, but he took the ,job because of the wages and benefits. The piece-rate workers did not feel that having an unskilled job was a source of dissatisfaction, but rather they were concerned primarily with the supervision they received 56 on the job. Dissatisfaction with wages was found in the case of an hourly-rate worker who was a supervisor at a vocational rehabilitation center. Originally, he had come to the center as the result of a back injury, but had become a supervisor of other workers at the center. The worker's dissatisfaction with his wages, while also being satisfied with the work itself, supports Herzberg‘s contention that rather than being a single continuum of job satis- faction, there are actually two distinct continua.hhThe data support- ed the notion that piece-rate workers generally have not experienced the security in their jobs that is necessary for movement to a higher level of work orientation. This last conclusion receives support from the type of job that the worker would like to have. Although the types of jobs desired are interesting, this is not as important as the reasons why they would like to have the respective jobs. Again we see differences between hourly and piece-rate workers. The hourly-rate workers place emphasis on the nature of the work itself, and are not as immediately concerned with the extrinsic aspects of employment. On the other hand, the piece-rate workers are concerned with the security in their employment situation, and thus look to jobs they feel can give them this seeming security--jobs with good wages. The responses that they would like jobs that would make them independent shows additional concern for achieving this sense of security. The data on job satisf actions has shown that there are differences MLPlease refer to the discussion on pages 18-19 in this text. S7 betwee hourly and piece-rate workers regarding the level of work TABLE 6 SOURCE OF JOB SATISFACTION IN DESIRED JOB BY TYPE OF FARM WORKERa Satisfaction Piece-rate Hourly-rate Extrinsic: Wages 9 -- Benefits 3 .. Independent 1; 1 Intrinsic: Get ahead h .. Help othersb -- 2 Work itself 1 5 Skilled job 3 3 Total number reSponding 13 S a.Respondents could lit more than one source of satisfaction. b.These respondents wanted to work for poverty programs. orientation, and that the hourly-rate worker has a greater level of job adjustment in that he feels more secure in his employment than does the piece-rate worker. Worker interaction, work role orientations and job adjustment Since the respondents were all Mexicanquericans, another indicator of job adjustment is the extent of their interaction with non-Mexican-Americans both on and off the job. Some contact is inevitable even within organizations that employ large numbers of Mexican-Americans such as assembly line and foundry work. However, the use of Spanish at work and the interaction with non-Mexican- Americans after work hours can indicate the adjustment of workers. 58 An immediate distinction must be made between the possibilities and the probabilities of such interaction by Mexican—American workers. Former hourly-rate workers would seen more likely to interact with non-Mexican-Americ ans outside of work, and this is shown in the data. All the hourly-rate workers do interact with nonJVIexican-Ammans outside of work. This interaction includes both workmates and other Anglo friends. Also, the hourly-rate workers do not speak Spanish at work, but their ability to do so is limited by the small number of other Spanish speaking people at their places of employment. With regards to former piece-rate workers, there is some inter- action with non-Mexican-Americ ans outside of work, but the worker‘s who do interact seem to have a higher level of work orientation. Just under one-third of the piece-rate workers interact with non-Mexican- Americans. All of these workers who do interact with non-Mexican- Americans exhibit stable work situations, and were more likely to respond to the intrinsic aspects of their work situation than non- interacting workers. However, the emphasis on such factors was not as great as that found among hourly-rate workers. Another area of possible interaction with mn-Mexican-American workers would be participation in union activities. Although member- ship in unions is mandatory in certain jobs, active or limited parti- cipation in union activities differs between the types of workers. Two hourly-rate workers who have belonged to unions have been active participants in unions. One of the workers helped to establish a union among city employees in Charlotte, and the other worker is now a union steward. Participation in union activities is non-existent .59 among piece-rate workers who do belong to unions. The implications of these differences between former hourly and piece-rate workers as to their interaction patterns with non- Meflcan-Americans gives further support to the importance of work role orientations. Not only does a higher level of work orientation --work as a task-~seem to enhance the worker's job adjustment process and occupational mobility, but it also could have an effect on the worker's overall adjustment to urban life. Certainly such findings would demonstrate that the successful job adjustment of the rural to urban migrant--as shown in a stable job situation and higher level of work orientation-wan, serve as an important base to assimila- tion in other areas of his life. The establishment of economic secu- rity seems a prerequisite to adjustment to other areas of life in Michigan. Job adjustment among intrastate piece-rate workers In the preceeding chapter we made the distinction between three types of farm workers. Although the major distinction was between hourly-rate and piece-rate workers, the added distinction between interstate and intrastate piece-rate workers was made. Such a distinc- tion used Texas as a base in distinguishing between the types. In preliminary research, the statenent was often made that all Mexican- Americans living in Michigan had been ”migrants." Although all the reSpondents in our sample had been'farm workers, the distinction between interstate and intrastate workers emerged as important. Among intrastate workers, their primary source of support was in the non- farm occupational structure of Texas. 60 It is apparent that their primary source for the development of work orientations is not farm work experiences, and their participa- tion in non-farm jobs on regular basis will probably give them a higher level of work orientation than most farm workers. In our sample, there were two such workers, and these workers did differ from the interstate piece-rate workers. The jobs which these workers have now are welder and a clerk for a silo repair company. If we compare the reSponses of these workers with those from the hourly- rate workers, we do not find the awareness of intrinsic rewards in their work; at least these workers do not place as great an emphasis on the intrinsic aspects of work. The purpose of including the data on such workers is to show an inportant distinction that must be taken into account when researchers classify all Mexicans-Americans as ex-f arm workers. Also, the existence of such a category of workers emphasizes the wide variation in the "handicaps" which the rural to urban migrant brings to the urban area. Remarks We would like to make a few additional remarks concerning the process of job adjustment of Mexican-American workers. The discussions of this chapter mentioned two factors as possibly important variables in any explanation of the worker' S development of work role orientations and subsequent job adjustment. These were the generational influence on the worker‘s level of work orientation and job adjustment, and the influence of the context of employment on the same variables. The first of these is the generational influence on a worker's work orientation and job adjustment. In the section concerning the 61 worker's decision to settle in Michigan, it was mentioned that age seems to be an interesting variable in the decision making process. Since the Meadow-American worker, unlike other farm workers, travels 145 as a family unit, the intergenerational influence of the father on his son becomes important. Penalosa and McDonagh, in research on a Mexican-American community in California, found that the second gen- eration of Mexican-Americans experienced higher upward mobility and lower downward mobility than the other generations of Mexic an- Americans living in this country.)46 Such results are important for our study for two reasons. First, most of our respondents are members of a second generation of Mexican-Americans in the United States. Thus, the development of work role orientations and any occupational mobility experienced could well be the result of the sheer experience of residence in this country and contact with its occupational structure. Thus workers who represent first generation Mexican-Americans would be expected to have lower work orientations than second generation members. The second interpretation of Penalosa‘s findings concerns a possible alternative explanation of the variance in the differences between hourly and piece-rate workers and an individual worker's level of work orientation in general. Previously it was mentioned that parental occupational achievenent can be a source of influence in the hSGiven, et al., op. cit., pp. 37-38. l‘6Fernando Penalosa and Edwud McDonagh, “Social Mobility in a Mexican-American Community,“ Social Forces, XLIV(June, 1966), 1498-505. 62 development of work orientations. Related to this is the age at which the decision to settle in Michigan and enter the non-farm job market is made. Specifically, our concern is whether the worker‘s father decided to settle and enter the non-farm job market was made when the worker was a child, or after the worker himself had left agricultural work. The former case particularly interests us. If the father made this decision when the worker was a child, then the worker could be considered a second generation participant in the non-farm occupa- tional structure. Among the respondents were a few cases in which the father decided to settle in Michigan when the workers were around twenty years of age. Since such workers have higher levels of work orientation, one might feel that the father's decision had an important effect on the worker‘s own decision, and the worker'ssubsequent level of work orientation. However, the worker's fathers never achieved the non-farm job stability that their sons have, which would cast doubt on the father's influence on the worker‘s development of a given level of work orientation. Another area we would like to comment on is the possible relation- ship between the context of employment and the development of wprk orientations. Fried mentions that the content of a worker‘s job can restrict the development of higher levels of work orientation, eg. , assembly line work.m The possibility also exists that the context of employment could alSo influence the development of work orientations, especially higher levels. Since most of the workers with higher levels h7Fried, op . cit. 63 of work orientation work for small, privately owned firms, it might seen that such a work situation might attract such workers. Also, there is the possibility that a particularistic work situation is more conducive to the development of higher levels of orientation given the worker possesses a given threshold for further development. Our data seen to support this latter possibility, eSpecially for the development of a work as a task orientation. CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY In this chapter we will try to tie together the findings that have been presented, and then draw any implications for further research. In a sense, an exploratory study raises more questions than it answers, and to the extent that we are drawing implications from the data we are raising these questions. We have found that Mexican-American workers use different approaches to the problem of job adjustment, and these differences are refelected in the worker's level of work orientation. Probably the most naive conclusion that we could reach is that seasonal agricultural work was the sole variable determining the worker's level of work orientation at the time he entered the non-farm occupational structure of Michigan. To the extent that farm work was the primary form of sustenance, then such work experiences will be the primary source for the development of work orientations. However, there are other sources of experience that our analysis has shown as potentially important.. Enployment in seasonal farm work is not a continuous source of support for these workers. Since farm work usually assumes a cyclical nature, there are times during the years when a worker must take a non-farm job to add to the family's income. Such employments are generally found between seasons. There are other agencies of socialization that can influence the 65 development of work orientations. A potentially important agency of socialization is the military, especially if such service brings the Meadow-American into extensive interaction situations with non-Mexican-Americans. Such experiences should increase the worker's sense of his ability to interact with individuals of potentially divergent backgrounds. Although our data did not allow for the examination of the intervening effects of military service on work orientations, future research concerning rural to urban migrants should take such service into account. The fact that none of the reSpondents possessed work role orientations that were inappropriate to an industrially based occupa- tional structure can be attributed to an idea that is parallel to the importance of previous urban living eXperience as a prerequisite for more rapid economic absorption. Since all the respondents represent- ed at least a second generation of Mexican-Americans, participation within the social structure of the country, itself, probably helped the workers deveIOp at least a minimal level of work orientation appropriate to employment in an industrially based occupational structure. However, more complete investigation of such an hypothesis would have to come from analysis of rural to urban migrants who are first generation Mexican-Americans--born and raised in Mexica. The discussion of the relationship between job adjustment and work orientations raised several interesting questions. The most interest- ing finding is that developments in contemporary industrial society have facilitated the potential for all low status workers to achieve job stability. The most striking example of this is unionization 66 which offers the worker who can achieve seniority, an artificial yet very real form of job stability. Union seniority is an artificial protection in that the worker can achieve permanent job stability with a minimal level of work orientation. Under such conditions there is no real need to achieve higher levels of work orientation which would represent added insurance for his future work life. For example, one respondent with a low level of work orientation had worked in a foundry for ten years when the foundry closed and moved to Detroit. This example shows a situation where a seemingly permanent employment stability was established, yet since the foundry has moved the worker has had three jobs in three years. Apparently, the worker did not develop any real new skills or a higher level of work orientation during his employment in the foundry. there seems to be a possible relationship between the worker's level of orientation and the job he seeks. Since jobs that provide the protection of unionization seem to be the most desirable, it would seem that such employment would be the most common. However, this is not the case. An explanation for this might be that the workers fear that they will be rejected at the factories, and if such an explanation was correct, then it would be likely that those workers who had greater confidence in their abilities to get a job would be most likely to seek unionized jobs. The data showed that workers in union jobs did have higher work orientations than those workers who had service or construction jobs. However, the workers with the highest levels of work orientation had jobs in smaller companies, and were interested in more than mere job security. 67 We feel that the data have generally supported the notion that the concept of work role orientations can be a useful addition to the study of job adjustment. The whole question of job adjustment among rural to urban migrants is involved with a process, and work orientation offers a framework to distinguish between levels of adjustment within an industrially based occupational structure. The deficiencies that might be noted in the use of the concept of work orientation are related to the problen of measurement and the nature of most sociological data. The data used examined only the statics of the phenomena of economic absorption among migrants. The phenomena of migration is processural, and brings change in almost all aspects of the workers' lives. Although work role orientations has heuristic value for the explanation of a worker's level of job adjustment, the best use of the concept would be in the collection of time series data for the analysis of the total process of economic absorption. The use of such data would allow for the discrimination between levels of absorption throughout the worker's work life, and also for a descrip- tion of the stages of development of work orientation. APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO INTERVIEW SCHEDULE I. Background Information 1. What state and.town were you born in? State: TeanOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 20 Size of town: O-S,OOO.................... S 53000-15900000000000ooooooo 10 lS,OOO-lO0,000............. h 100,000-00.00.00.000.000... l 2. How long have you lived in.Michigan? Number of years: O‘Soooooooooooooooo0.0.00.0 6-10.0.0...0.00.00.00.00... 11‘200000000000000000000000 N0 responseoo.ooooooooooooo H-nmxi 3. What is the last grade of school which you completed? Grades completed: 1'30000000000000000000.0000 h‘6ooooooooooooooooococo... 6£OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Graduate............o.....o FJUJODG) h.Are you single, married, separated or divorced? Maniedoooo0.000000000000000 20 Singleogoooooooooooooooo0.0. O S.How many children.do you.have, and what are their ages? 'Number of children: oneOOOOOOOOOoOOOOOOO0...... tmOOOOOO0.00.000.000.00... three...................... fouroooo.oooooooooooooooooo fi-VGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Sj-XOOOOOOOOOIOOCOOOOOOOOCOO Hmc‘n’wwo tmOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO00.... 6. How old are you now? Age: 69 25-290...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 30-3h....................... 35-39....ooooooooooooooco... 14041140000000.0000...Coo-o... NO responseoooooooooooooa... HE'NON 7. During your life you have probably had marv jobs, and have found that you liked some of these jobs, and that you have not liked other jobs. If you could start all over what kind of a job would you like to have, and what makes this a g_o_9§_ job? Sources of satisfaction: Wages.....c.....oo........c 9 Skilled job................ 6 Feeling of helping others..................... 2 Chance to be independent................ Opportunity to get alleadOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..00... Like the job itself........ OMP'UI II. Agricultural work 1. About how many years did you migrant, agricultural work? Number of years: threeooooooooooooooooooocoo fowOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCCOCO five....................... sire....................... sevaOOOOOOOOCCCOOOOCOOOOO tmOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC no responseoooooooooooooooo waNme 2. When you were doing farm work, there were probably some crOps that you worked in more than others. Which crOps did you work in? Number of crops worked in during season: oneoooooOOOooooooooooooocoo tWOoooooooococoa-0.0.0.0000 threeooooo00.000.000.000... four...................o..o all-000.00000000000000000... n0 responseOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOD—'HF’N 3. When you were doing farm work, were you usually doing piece work, or were you ever hired by the hour? Type of work: piece-rate work. . . . . . . . . . .. 20 hourly-rate work..... . ..... S a ‘51. 70 b. As a farm worker, you probably did various kinds of work in the fields, such as planting, hoeing, and picking. Was there any particular type of work that you did? Type of work: plmtingoocoooooooooo00.0.0. ll hoeing......c......ooocoo... 9 picking or harvesting....... 18 cleaning up the fields...... 8 5. How did you usually go about getting a job as a migrant? Did you sign up for a job in Texas before you left, did you go to a crew leader in Texas, did you go th the grower here in Michigan yourself, or did you go to an agricultural employ- ment office here in Michigan? Job source: Texas agency................ 1 cm leader00000000000000000 l2 grower...................... 7 Michigan thployment Security Commission......... 0 Piece-rate workers' questions: 6. Did you usually stop working and take a rest during the day? Yes No . yeSOOOOOOOO0.000.000.0000... 2O No.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC O 7. How did you know men it was time to stop working for the day, did someone tell you when it was time to stop working, or did you quit when you got tired? selfOOOOO...OOOOOOCOOOOOOOO 2 formanooooooOOQOOOOooooooO 7 crew leader................ 12 tiredooooococoa-00000000... O 8. About how many hours did you work on a regular day? Number of hours worked: tmooooooooooooooooooo000.0 6 twelve..................... 10 fourteen.....o.......oo...o Ll 9.During the picking season, how many days did you work a week, if it didn't rain? Days worked: smoooocooooooooooooo0.0.00 h SevmoooOOOOOOQQOOOO00.0.0. 16 - v e 9 ‘ . ‘ v , . . v ‘f " P . v . A ‘ lo. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. 71 During the rest of the summer, about how many days did you work in the week? Days worked: SiXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0... 8 only harveStOOOCCO.....0.0.. 12 When you were doing farm work, did anyone tell you where to work in the fields? Who was this person? Supervisor: grower 01‘ formanOOOQOOQOOOO 9 crew leader................. lO self-0.000000.000.000.000... 1 Did you ever feel that other workers were given better parts of the field to work in? Who was usually given the best parts? Yes No Who . yeSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 12 nOOOOOOOC0.000000000000COCO. 8 Who: family that were the best workers................ 13 everyone the same........... 7 Did the supervisor come out in the fields to watch the workers, and see that they were doing a good job? Yes No . yeSOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO 20 11000000000000.0000...0.0.0.. 0 What did the supervisor do if he felt a worker was not dning a good job? yell-0.000.000.0000...000000. 12 no response................. 8 Was the supervisor usually fair, or did he usually expect too much from the workers? fairOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00... 8 unfair....OOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 10 no response................. 2 Did you like the supervisor watching you? Yes No . YBSOOOOCOCOCOOOOOOO...0.0... 12 no...coo-0.0000000000000000. 6 n0 responseOooooooooooooooo. 2 72 17. In the fields, did your whole family work together? Yes No yeSOOOOOCOOO00.00.00.000.0.. 15 nOOOOOO0.000000000000QOOOOO. 5 18. Who was the family leader when you worked in the fields? Family leader: famerOOOOCOOOOCOOO0.0.0.... 2O 19. Who talked to the grower for the family if there were any problems? crew leader................. 6 famerooooooo000.000.000.000 9 seuoooooooooooooooOOOoooooo S 20. Did you like working in a group, or would you have rather worked alone? alone....................... 3 group...ooooooooooooooooooo. 17 21. Why did you feel this way? things go better............ 3 Close to familycooooooooooo. 10 no response................. )4 22. Did you usually get more work done in the morning, or in the afternoon? aftemoonOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO saneooooooooooooooooooooo0.. momjngQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 11" O 6 23. Was there a contest among your family members to see who could do the most work? Yes No . yes...0.0.0.0............... 13 nOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.000... 7 2h. Did your family pick more than the other workers in the fields? Yes No . yes............0.0.0.0000... ll no.000000000000000.0000...o. 9 25. Did the family which picked the most usually get a better part of the field to work in? Yes No . yeSOOOOOOOOOOOO.0.0.0.000... 1? no.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.. 3 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 73 Which part of Michigan did you usually work in? Region: southwest................... 0 western..................... 5 central..................... ll thumbOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00... lo southeast................... 10 Were most of the other workers interstate migrants, or were they local Mexic an-Amcricans and Anglo workers from Michigan? local Mexican-Americans. .. . . 2 AnglosOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0... 2 Interstate.................. 16 Did you often have Anglos and negroes working in the fields with you? Yes No yes...OOCCOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 9 nOCOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOOOOOOO... ll When you were working in the fields, did you get much of a chance to talk with the other workers in the fields? Yes No - yeSOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0.0.0... 15 no.......................... 5 Who were the workers you would usually talk with? friends...OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOC 7 relatives................... 12 no response................. 1 Did workers ever try to help each other out while they were working in the fields? Yes No yes.oooooooooooooOoooooooooO 20 mOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... 0 How did they help each other? workooooooooooooooo00.000000 5 Honey, fOOd, emu-0000000000 15 After you finished work for the day, did you have much to do with the other workers that you met during the day? Yes No YBSOOOOO00.0.0000000........ lo no.0...0.0000000000000000... lo a . 1 D l o . . a e v c . o l x 5 a a ' - ~ \ a a 0 . n s A I I a n a n \ . . p ‘ 0 ~ - . . t o a _ ~ I V. .— a a a 4 n t . . . n a . \ O . 0 l1. 35. 37. 39. 140. Lil. 1L2. 7h Who were these workers? friends......cc”one...“.. 7 relativeSoOOooo0.00000000000 3 What did you usually do with these workers? talk, sing, etc............. 5 g0 t0 tomOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 5 Did you ever ask anyone you met while working in the fields about finding a job in Michigan so that you could stay here over the winter? Yes No yeSQoooooooooo00000000000000 ll no.00.0000000000000000000000 9 Who did you ask? grower...................... crew leader................. priest....o....c.."c..”... peOple in town.............. NI—‘Ff-xl What was the first thing that you did when you decided to stay here in Michigan? Did you first look for a job or did you first look for housing? jObooooooooooooooooooooooooo lo houSingoooooooooooooooooocoo 6 bOthooooooooo00000-000000... )4- When you were working in the fields, who would pay you, the grower, the foreman, the crew leader, or someone else? groweroooooooicoo000000.000. 7 crew leader................. 13 Did you get paid by the day, by the week, or when you were finished working for the grower? weeKOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.000... ls seasonoooooooooo00.000.00.00 5 Did each menber Of the family get paid, or did they give all the money to the family leader? individualJyOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO 2 leader.00oooooo0.00.00.00.00 18 What did you usually make a week during the peak harvest season? 75 Wages: $500000...OQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 75.000.00.0000000000000O... 100.00.00.0000.000.000.00... 12500000000000.000.000.0000. 70-me ’43. Since you have been living in Michigan have any members of your family done any farm work during the summer? Yes No yeSOOOOOOOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 6 nOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...O. 1h 1411. Which members of your family have done summer farm work since you have lived in Michigan? fanlij-yOO0.000000CCOOOOOOOOOC l selfoooooooo0000000000000... S 145. When do they usually do this work, on weekends, holidays, or on vacation? vacation.................... 1 part-time summerQOQOQOOQOOOO S 146. Is there any particular reason why they do this summer farm work? additional money............ 6 A7. Was there anything that you liked about farm work? Sources of satisfaction: liked the work itseu0000900 6 can be close to family...... 2 WOI‘king OUt-Of-dOOrSoooooooo 15 trust of employer........... 5 cooler in Michigan dining the summerooo.”....o 1 1&8. Was there anything that you really disliked about farm work? Sources of dissatisfaction: wages...............o...occ. 20 not steady work............. 10 had to travel too much...... 3 working conditions--poor sanitation, housing, etc.... 7 work itself................. 0 felt like not helping family 5 76 Hourly-rate workers ' intestions: 119. How did you get a job that was paid by the hour? grower...................... 6 50. What kind of work did you do if you had a job that was paid by the hour? cratingoOooooooooooooo000.00 3 operating machinery. .. .. .... 3 general farm work........... 1 51.Did the supervisor watch the hourly workers closer than he did the other workers? Yes No yes...OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 no.......................... 5 52. Did you usually work alone or in a group? doneOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000...... 3 group.‘000000000000000...... 2 53. Did you have to depend on other workers to do work in order for you to do your work? Yes No yes.OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO. 1 no.......................... 5 Sh. Did you get to take a rest during the day if you were working by the hour? Yes No yes....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO S no.a...00.000000000000000... O 55. Was there anything that was better about working by the hour, than working by a piece-rate? What was the difference between the two types of work? steady‘Work................. 2 average wages better. . .... . . 3 better work( operate machinery )................. 3 56. How much money did you make a week if you were paid by the hour? Wages per hour: $1.00....OOOOOOOOOOOO0...... 2 1.25...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI... 3 IOA‘I 77 III. Non-farm work See Appendix B for work histories 1. Did you have an interview or fill out an application to get the job you have now? Yes No yes......................... 20 no.0...0.09.00.00.0900000000 O 2. Did you like the interview, or was there something that you didn't like about the interview? fidrl't mj—ndOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 15 very difficultOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 no response................. 2 3. Do they have shift work where you work? Yes No yeSoooococoocooooooooooooooo S nOOOOQQOOOOOOOOOO000000.000. 15 1:. Do you like working on the shift that you do? Yes No yeSoooooooooooooco.oocoooooo h mOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00... l 5. Have you ever worked a shift other than the day shift? Yes No yes..................o...... S nOOOOOQOOOQOOOOOO.0000000000 O 6. Did you like working on this other shift? Yes No yBSoooo00.0.0000000000000000 O n00...OOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOO 2 fidIl't mjndQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 7. Is the work pretty much the same all the time? Yes No yes...oooooooooooooooooooooo 12 nOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0... 6 8. On your job, do you work alone or in a group? alone.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOCOCC ls groupoooooooooooooo00.000... S 9. Do you like this? Yes No Alone: yeSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0... l3 nOOoooo00.000000000000000... 2 78 Group: yeSoooo00.000000009000000... S O no.0...OOOOOOOOOCOOOOOQOOOOO 10. Do the other workers on the job help each other out? Yes No yes......................... 5 no.......................... 15 ll. How do they help each other out? help worker catch up........ 5 12. Who is the boss on your job? foremanooooooooooooooo000000 7 curl-81.00.000.000... Coo-coo... 13 13. Does the supervisor watch you and tell you how to work, or do you work pretty much on your own? once...0.000000000000000... 9 supervised.................. 11 lb. Do you feel pushed in your work? Yes No yesooooooooooooOOoo00.00.... 7 110.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOO 1'2 no response................. 1 15. Why do you feel this way? close supervision........... 7 l6. On.your job, is there much time to talk to other workers? Yes No yes........................ 6 no......................... 1h 17. Who do you usually talk to on the job? “IglOSoooooooooooooooococo. 8 Mexican~Americans.......... lO Negroes...................o 0 no response................ 2 18. What do you usually talk about? work...00000000000000.0000. 3 gOSSipococooooooooooooooooo ls 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 79 Are there any other Spanish-speaking workers on your job? Yes No yeSOOO0.0'COOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 8 nOOOOCCOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... 12 How much time do you spend with other Spanish-Speaking workers as compared to the time you spend with Anglo workers? more with Anglo............. 2 more with Spanish........... 1 $81116...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 5 Do you speak Spanish while you are at work? Yes No yes......................... 8 mootooooo00-000000000000000 12 When do you usually speak Spanish, while you are working or on your breaks and at lunch? work........................ 1 breaks and lunch............ 2 bOthOO00000000000000.0000... 5 Do you spend any time with other workers after you are finished working for the day? Yes No yBS.......................o. 10 no.......................... 10 Are these workers Spanish-speaking, Anglos or negroes? Meadcanquericans........... lO AngloSOOOOOOOOOOO00000000000 8 negroeS..................... 0 What do you usually do with them? family ViSitSooooooooooooooo 3 go drinking................. 2 recreation09000000000.0.0000 7 Do you have a social security card? Yes No yeSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 20 moo...000.000.00.0000000000 0 When did you get your social security card? Age: 15‘200ecoooooooooooooooooooo 20 -.l .00..” a 9 ’ V ' ‘ — s .. l 'i . - A. - 4 \ -\ I \ ’ I . ‘ ».§o 28. 29. 31. 32. 33.Did anyone help you to get these benefits? Yes No 35. 37. 80 Is there a union where you work? Yes No yes...OOOOOOOCOCOCOOOOOOOOOO 5 n0.0.00.00.00.00...c.0000... 15 Do you belong to the union? Yes No yeSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO S 11000000000.000.00.0000000000 0 Do you go to union meetings? Yes No yeSooooocoooooooo000900.000. S no.0...0.0000000000000000... 0 Do you feel that the union helps its members with their jobs, or in any other way? Yes No yes.000.00.00.00000000000000 5 no...OOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO 0 Have you ever received worker's compensation or unemployment benefits? Yes No yes...coco-00000000000000... S no.......................... 15 yeSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO s no.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOC 0 Who helped you to get these benefits? arlployerOOOOOOOO...0.0.0.... 3 agency...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 2 When did you get these benefits? injllred00000000coco-00.0.... 3 mlemployed.............o.... 2 How much money do you make a week on your job? Wages: $SOo-7Sooooooooo000000000000 75.-lO0.00................. 100.-125.oo.................. 125.00 --QQOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HQ C1343" Is there anything about your job that would make you stay here if you heard of a good job somewhere else? Yes No Bl yeS0000000000000000000.0000. 13 nOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...00...... 7 38. What is this? fellow workers.............. bOSSoooo0.000000000000000... gOOd compaKY000000oo0ooo0ooo Wbrk itself0000000000000o000 w%es....D.COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NNO\0\I\J 39. Is there anything that you really like about your present job? Sources of satisfaction: 'wages...................o..o Skilled j0b00000000000000000 like the work itself. . . ..... nice, Clean jdb0000000000000 gglgeto help family chance to get ahead......... bmefit500000000000000.000.. ChallengiIIgOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4:“er HOMITV) ho. Is there anything that you really dislike about your job? Source of dissatisfaction: 'WageS................o.ooooo 2 unskilled job-anyone Can.d0 it0000000000000000000 too muCh superViSiOn00000000 poor working conditions . . . . . don't like the people in.department............... l RJUIF‘ Ill. Does your wife work now? Yes No ye30000000000000000000.0000. l9 1100......00000000000.0.00... l 12. Does she work full or part time? full000.0.000000000000000... 1 part tmeoo00000000000000000 O .. APPENDIX B NON-FARM WORK HISTORY The following section is included in attempt to help the reader gain some insight into the types of jobs and job shifts that occur among the workers in our sample. The individual work histories, included herein, start with the worker's first non-farm job in Michigan. Any additional comments about the content and context of a worker's employment will be made below the respective work history. Hourly-rate workers: as semb 1y servic e c ity construc tion line work laborer foreman 5 months 3 months 9 years 3 years The worker initially did part-time farm work for a grower he knew before settling in Michigan. service truck vocational work driver rehabilitation 3 months 1 year 5 years The worker came to a vocational rehabilitation center due to a work injury, and has now become a supervisor at the center. warehouse assembly car agency line worker 7 months 6 months 8 months The worker still does part-time farm work during the summer for a grower he knew before moving to Michigan. assembly assembly assembly maintenance furnace line line line tender 5 months 1; months Lt months 1 year 3 years The worker has done seasonal farm work each summer he was laid off in his assembly line job. 83 maintenance car agency parts manager 2 years 10 years This worker's initial job at the car agency was as a maintenance worker, and has advanced through several positions to his present job. This worker has also done part-time work since settling in Michigan as a seasonal farm worker. InterstateLpiec e-rate workers: factory maintenance worker 1 year 3 years construction service construction worker work worker 2 years 1 year 7 years warehouse foundry maintenance construction assembly line 3 months 10 years 1 year 1 year 1 year service service service service laborer work work work work 8 months 6 months 8 months 10 months 6 months construction construction television repair shop 8months 9 months 5 years food processing 1 year Worker got this job through a contact with a grower. assembly line 1; years warehouse 5 years 8h construction warehouse construction service construction work 7 months 6 months 5 months 1 year h years construction laborer servic e construc tion construction work 3 months 6 months 3 months 3 years 3 years service service maintenance laborer assembly work work line 1 year 1 year 6 months 7 months 3 years assembly service warehouse service factory line work work worker 1; months 6 months 1 year 3 months 3 years food warehouse construction construction construction processing 1 year 6 months 1 year 6 months 1: years Intrastate piece-rate workers: store clerk construction repairman 3 years 6 months 7 years repairman auto mechanic assembly line 5 months 2 years 18 months BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauder, W. W. and Burchinal, L. G. Adjustment of Rural-Reared Young Adults in Urban Areas. Paper given at the National Conference on Problems of Rural Youth in a Changing Environment. Septem- ber, 1963. Washington, D. C. National Committee for Children and Youth, 1963. Carter, Michael. Into Work. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1966. Dubin, Robert. "Industrial Morkers' Worlds: A Study of the 'Central Life Interests' of Industrial Workers.“ Social Problems, 111, No. 3(January, 1956), 131-1141. Form, William H. and Miller, Delbert C. "Occupational Career Patterns as a Sociological Instrument.“ Man, Work and Society. Edited by Sigmund Nosow and William H. Form. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962. Fried, Marc. "The Role of Work in a Mobile Society." Planning For A Nation of Cities. Edited by S. B. Warner, Jr. Cambridge, Mass- achusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1966. Given, 0.; Vrederoogd, W.; and Voland, M. "A Study of Interpersonal Relations Among Managers and Employees of Fruit and Vegetable Farms with Emphasis on Labor-Management Practices Utilized.“ Prepared for the Rural Manpower Center and Department of Sociol- ogy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1967. Gordon, Milton. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 19511. Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; and Synderman, B. B. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959. Michigan Enployment Securities Commission. Farm Placement Section. Michigan Farm Labor Reports, Post Season 19514-1966. Detroit, Michigan. Miller, S. M. "The American Lower Classes: A Typological Approach." Blue Collar Worker. Edited by Arthur Shostak and William Gamberg. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1961;. Moore, Truman. The Slaves We Rent. New York: Random House, 1965. Moore, W. and Feldman, A. Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960. Nosow, Sigrmmd. “Labor Distribution and the Normative System." Man, Work and Society. Edited by Sigmund Nosow and William H. Form. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962. 86 Oeser, O. A. and Hammond, S. B. Social Structure and Personality in a City. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1951:. Penalosa, F. and McDonagh, E. "Social Mobility in a Mexican-American Community.“ Social Forces. XLIV (June, 1966), 1498-505. Shannon, L.5 Krass, E.; Meeks, E.: and Morgan, P. The Economic Absogp- tion and Cultural Integration of Immigrant Workers. Department of Sociolog and Anthropology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1966. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. National Committee for Children and Youth. Rural Youth in Crisis: Facts, Myths and Social Change. Edited byTee (T. Burchinal. Washington, D. 0.: Government Printing Office, 1965. U. 8. President's Commission on Migratory Labor. Mgratgry Labor in American Agriculture. Washington, D. C.:Government Printing Office, 1957.. Wilensky, Harold L. and Lebeaux, Charles N. Industrial Society and Social Welfare. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1958. 5/ 6/5/25 555mm