LABORuIE-UEINEQSS [MAGQ Q3? COMMUNITY POWER: CG NV’EETGENCES AND- @[VERGENCES Them for {'510 Dogma 05 DE. D. MLCHEGAR STATE URWERSETY Warr-em Lewis Same: £960 This is to certify that the thesis entitled LABOR-SLSIJ;SS IMhQES OF OJ .UAITY HOLER: COHViRCLdCUS LAD DIVLRLLJC-S presented by HARnEN LOUIS SAUER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. SOCiOlogy and Anthropo-ogy degree in Major professor Date (1/30/471) / / 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State Universit Y r 0 MIA—1 II ‘ , w: U‘u—\¢s Bls‘v‘. .- ‘1‘»...Q.‘ An‘... b‘yfl‘ «“ u ' .5 s . ‘ _ ‘."-: '- “s&: - s \ t In“‘._‘ a . \ ‘L- ‘ » I‘L“Q~v - y“ t . \ h v. Q ‘- .d t ‘i L3“. - urn- - LABOR-BUSINESS IM G83 OF COMMUNITY POWER: CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES By WARREN LOUIS SAUER A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Staci-e3 of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF; PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology and Anthropology :1]; 2 o 2, .1 film/5y LABOR-BUSINESS IMAGES OF COMMUNITY POWER: CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES By WARREN LOUIS SAUER AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology and Anthropology ‘ 6 Approved: ”W 70 Q’VW “’1 WARREN LOUIS SAUER ABSTRACT Studies of community elites are legion in the sociological literature. The focus of such studies, along with the methodological procedures employed, generally strives to document the reputed power of community elites as a single group, thereby excluding inter-institutional analy- sis of power. Usually business representatives qualify as community influentials and labor representatives do not. Whether labor's lack of reputational power, as evidenced in its minimal representation among community elites, ignores its actual power is a researchable problem. This study re- ports the findings of interviews conducted with thirty-nine community influentials and thirty-nine labor influentials in a middle-sized industrial community in a midwestern state. The two groups were selected on the basis of nominations sub- nflited by separate panels of knowledgeables including repre- sentatives from business, labor, religion, education, mass communication, government, and welfare. The main focus of the study is a comparison of business and labor imagery of: (a) the community power structure in genera1,(b) their own, and (c) the other group's position in this structure. Three-fourths of the "community" influentials proved to be representatives of local business organizations. Two -1- WARREN LOUIS SAUER -2- ABSTRACT of the labor influentials also qualified as community influ- entials. A comparison of the social characteristics of the two groups revealed that the community influentials were pro- ducts of a higher socio-economic background and were currently more active in community affairs and organizations than their labor counterparts. The respective roles played by business and labor in the resolution of past community issues were examined. Most local issues were defined and subsequently resolved primarily through the efforts of community influentials. Labor in- volvement was either totally lacking or came at a relatively late stage in the decision-making process. Both community and labor influentials saw business as the dominant group in the power structure. However, labor influentials perceived less of a power differential between the two groups than did the community influentials. Labor accounted for the power imbalance in terms of busi- ness' greater unity, interest, and stake in community affairs, as well as the group's closer alliance with local govern- ment. Labor perceived community decision makers to be primarily the representatives of business organizations who, although resolving issues publicly, were less socially responsible than labor. The latter expressed a desire to c00perate with business in the attainment of community Ob? jectives and in the resolution of community issues, seeing WARREN LOUIS SAUER -3- ABSTRACT itself in essential agreement with business on community goals. Labor attached most importance to its participation in welfare organizations, but wanted to increase its partici- pation on all community fronts. Together with increased or- ganizational participation, labor looks to increased politi- cal activity on its part to further reduce the power advan- tage which business currently enjoys in the community. Community influentials accounted for their greater influence in the community when compared with labor on the basis of their relatively greater interest and stake in com- munity affairs. However, they viewed labor as being more united than business in their goals for community action. Community influentials identified themselves as resolving issues publicly without need of organizational approval and as exercising a strong sense of social responsibility. They perceived labor as sharing business' community goals and saw labor cooperation as imperative for the attainment of local goals. Like the labor influentials, the business influentials attached considerable importance to wide organizational par- ticipation in general, and to participation in welfare cr- ganizations in particular. Viewing itself as "politically apathetic” in the past, business would increase its political participation in the future as a means of maintaining its local power. "b '0' A.- V." '~ . ~£ ~I: \ I t s. u ‘s '0 § 'V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author owes a debt of gratitude to many sources. He wishes to express his appreciation to the Labor and In- dustrial Relations Center which employed him_as a research assistant during which time the data were compiled for this study. He is appreciative of the interview-time given him by the business and labor respondents. I am also indebted to many staff members and particularly to Dr. Archie O. Haller who offered many useful suggestions. I must also acknowledge the aid of the graduate students and especially George Won, who not only listened patiently to my troubles in informal discussions but who offered valuable suggestions more than once. ‘ This dissertation represents a part of a larger pro- ject concerned with the place of labor and business in the community power structure. This project is sponsored by the Labor and Industrial Relations and is under the direction of William H. Form. It is to Dr. Form that the author is most indebted, for without his insightful and critical, yet al— ways patient direction, the author could scarcely have com- pleted this dissertation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT e o o e e o o o o o o o e o o . e e 0 LIST OF TABLES e e o o e o o e o o e o o o e e e o 0 Chapter I. II. III. IMAGES OF COMMUNITY POWER STRUCTURE PARTICI- PANTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . Background 0 e o e o e e e o e e e o o o 0 Power: Economic and Social . . . . . . . . The Problem 0 o e e o e o e o e e e o o e o Hypotheses:- "GlObfll" e e e o o e o e e e e Hypotheses: "Structural" (Ima ery'of Power of Participants in Structure ~. . . . . . Hypotheses: "Attributive" (Imagery of Attributes of Participants in the Power Structure) 0 e o e e e e e e o e 0‘. e e Hypotheses: "Interacti n" (Imagery of Inna-group RelatiOHS) e e e e e e e o e MethOdOIOgy o e e o e e o e e o e e e o BRIEF HISTORY OF BUSINESS-LABOR INVOLVEMENT IN THE WHEELSBURG POWER STRUCTURE . . . . . Research Site 0 e o e o e o e o o o o o o e Poser-wielding in the Wheelsburg Community hGSt o o o o o e e e e e o e o o e 0 Three Periods of Involvement . . . . . First Period: Labor Exclusion . . . . Second Period: Labor Participation Begi The Third Period: The Post-War Scene . Involvement in Other Sectors of the Power Structure 0 e o e o o e e e o o e e o o o The 83363 or Power 0 o o o e e e e e e e 0 Current Positions of Labor and Business . . e o . ns 0 THE PRESENT POSITIONS OF BUSINESS AND LABOR IN THE WHEELSBURG POWER STRUCTURE . . . . . Comparison of Labor and Community Influ- entials e o e e o o e e o e e o o e e o 0 iii Page ii vii Chapter IV. V. TABLE OF CONTENTS Community Influentials e o o o e e e o o o Occupations of Community Influentials . . . Organizational Participation of Community Influentials e o o o e e e 0 Background of Community Influentials . . . . The Power of Wheelsburg's Community-Business Influentials o e e e e e e o e o o o e A Profile of Wheelsburg's Labor lnfluentials Summary 0 o o o e e o e e o o e o e e e e 0 BUSINESS IMAGES OF COMMUNITY POWER . . . . . . GlObal Hypotheses o e e o e e o e 0'. e o 0 Assessment of Political Participation . . . Assessment of Areas of Community Participation Structural Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . Attributive Hypotheses: Composition and Autonomy of Decision Makers . . . . . . . Attributive Hypotheses: Social Responsibility and Technique Attributed to Decision Makers Attributive Hypotheses: Comparative Business- Labor "Unity," "Economic Stake," and "Inter- GSt" O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0| 0 O O O 0 Interaction Hypotheses: Business Relation- ships with Labor and Other Community Or- ganizations e e o o e o o e e e o o o o o Business-Labor Cooperation . . . . . . . . . Importance of Organizational Participation . LABOR IMAGES OF COMMUNITY POWER . . . . . . . GlOb81 Hypotheses o e e e e o o o e e e o 0 Assessment of Political Participation . . . Assissment of Areas of Community Participa- t on e e e o o o e o e o e o e e e o o e StrUCtural HYpOtheses e o e o o o o o e o Attributive Hypotheses: Composition and Autonomy Of DeCision Makers 0 o e e o e Attributive Hypotheses: Social Responsibility and Technique Attributed to Decision Makers Attributive Hypotheses: Comparative Business- Labor "Unity," "Economic Stake," and "In- tOPBSU" e e e e o e e o e o 0'. e e e e 0 Interaction Hypotheses: Labor Relationships with Business and Other Community Organi- zations o e o e e o e e o o e o o o e o e Business-Labor Cooperation . . . . . . . . . Importance'of Organizational Participation . iv - 100 105 109 110 140 1A0 142 lhh 1&6 152 156 160 165 168 169 Chapter VI. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS BUSINESS AND LABOR PARTICIPATION IN ISSUE- RESOLUTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Part I: Historical Reports of Community fluentials o e e e e e o o o e o e o 0 Summary Of Data on Issues 0 o o e o e 0 Community Influentials and Organizations An Issue Analysis: The Hospital Project Other Issues 0 e e . e o o o e e e o o 0 Summary of Group Participation in Issue- RBSOlUtion e e e o o e e e e e o e e o Other Reports 0 o o e e e o o o o o e o CODClUSions o e o e o o o o o o e e o 0 Importance of Community-Wide Participation Validated o o o o o o o e e o o a Part II: Historical Reports 6f Labor Influ- entials o o e e o o o e o Inter-Group Divergency o o o o o o o o o e summary or Comparisons o e e o o e e o e o Labor's Report Of Issues 0 o o o o e o o o CODClUSiOflS o e e e e e e o e e o e o o 0 Labor Lethargy e o e e e o e e o o o e o e VARIATIONS IN GROUP IMAGERY . . . . . . . Inter-Group and Intra-Group Variation . Variations in Responses as Bases for theses e e o e e e e o e o o o o Rationale 0 o o o o 0 Control Factors . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . Relationships Among Con s fl 0. e o .4 ”1 e e e 0 O 0 echo ecse 0 0'10 0 e m Age as a Control . . Degree of Influence a Tenure as a Control Summary 0 o o e e e Labor's Internal Variat o Hypotheses . . . . . . . Comparison of Labor's and B Variation 0 o o o e e o e Inter-Group Variation . . . . . Other Hypotheses re Inter-Group Varia Assessment of Welfare Participation Assessment of Political Participation Issue Priority. 0 o e o e e e o o e 0 Assessment of Labor Power . . . . . Inter-group Variation: Social Responsi Unity e o e e o o o o o o e e o o 0 Decision Maker Autonomy . . . . . . . . V O 0 c1». 0 0:30 £ a 1 0:30 0(30 ‘ P1 0(30 0:30 0 04s. o 01.0 e e m d c Po 0:». ge>mcne e e ecoe ecse kdecfle e e S m o o o e o 0 t6 0 O o o b a: e e §¢se 01.0 e cave s e i n 1 e 0's. so 0 m o ecfie so ef themselves as organizational representatives. Twen"Edi-"three indicated this and only eight gave an unqualified "no." 'Fhe types of organizations they mentioned are presented in Table 23. ¥ - —L W ‘a-“l-WF'. -94- The wide range of responses indicated here does not support definite conclusions. Business organizations were mentioned as frequently as "all organizations." Although viewing themselves as organizational representatives in the broadest sense, there was obviously little consensus regard- ing what types of organizations they felt themselves to be representing. This, in turn, might account for their re- sponses in regard to autonomous responsibility in community action, the distribution of which serves to refute the present hypothesis. While viewing themselves as organizational repre- sentatives, community influentials do not perceive local decision makers as requiring organizational approval. Al- v though the question was phrased in such a manner as to indi- cate that community decision makers did not necessarily in~ clude the informants, it was assumed that in answering the question the respondents in essence would be perceiving them- selves 533 the decision makers. Table 2b shows that almost three-tniarters of the interviewees indicated that organizational appr“Val was not needed contrary to the hypothesis formulated. (M the IVsspondents who answered unqualifiedly that approval was needed, only one answered that "management" representa- tives needed organizational approval. When business or management, was specifically mentioned in answer to the ques- tier) ’ ten of the respondents explicitly stated that its repre Sentatives could act on their own. ”—__ (3 di tion" suzgeszs 38 anion: \~ '- NEE“, :1“. “c" an»; .“N, v "M- ‘, “u-‘vcm . V“ U. ‘4 Slq‘ v :.‘Jfi§. -95- One possible explanation for the apparent "contra- diction" in the responses to the two questions immediately suggests itself. The rather hazy organizational affiliations elicited from the respondents regarding the groups which they purportedly represent or see themselves as represent- ing might account for their perception of decision makers as autonomous actors. The apparent multi-organizational allegiance which was manifest ties in with the community welfare orientation expressed above in reference to the non-partisan issues dealt with by the community power struc- ture. If the power structure is viewed as dealing with general.community issues and the representatives in this structure view themselves as representatives of various or- @nuizations, perhaps such a situation dictates individual autonomy on the part of the decision makers as expressed by the imiformants. The decision makers are not perceived as neediang organizational approval since they are not perceived as true representatives of any one group in the community. SUCh.ea situation might dictate that decision makers act "on their own" in the best interests of the community. It is a difficnilt but necessary task at this point to separate the reSpondents' perception from the situation which actually exists.» The task is to explain why the respondents view deCisicui makers as acting autonomously when at the same time they View themselves as organizational spokesmen. We have also attempted to explain in fact, why this may actually be e-‘J -95- the case. It is helpful to consider some of the representative remarks made by the informants themselves: Some need approval, labor leaders for example. Management has more freedom. No top executive will be a rubber stamp. They know what the policy is, so they can act on their own. They have autonomy; there is very little absentee direction. They very seldom go into activities with instruc- tions from their organizations. These represented the general tenor of the responses. Some qualified their responses by stating that although autonomy was the rule, no representative would act con- trary to his organization's policy. Others indicated that the individual's autonomy depended on the particular issue involved and its relationship to the particular organization. Those who indicated that approval was needed mentioned such factors as size of the organization as being important; hufividuals representing smaller units, it was claimed, had mudiless freedom than those who were representatives of larger Organizations. Several answered that it was simply Cmmmhy policy to require organizational approval. A ttributive Hypotheses: Social Responsibility and Technigue Attributed to Decision Makers After assessing the "autonomy" and "stability" of CO . O o o c - n nmmnity deCision makers, the community influentials were _4_J| -97- then queried as to the "social responsibility" which they attributed to them. This was followed by a question regard- ing the manner in which these decision makers resolved com- munity issues, whether the community influentials viewed them as working "behind the scenes" or "out in the open." The respondents were asked the following question to test the hypothesis that business would perceive itself as exer- cising social responsibility: "Concerning the people who are primarily involved in making the big deemixnsin Wheels- burg, do you feel they have a broad sense of community re- sponsibility or are they more concerned with protecting or furthering their own particular interests?" The responses obtained are presented in Table 25. Over three-quarters of the informants expressed the view that community decision makers exercised a sense of social responsibility, lending substantial support to the PFOposition. Only one-tenth voiced the opinion that special interests wereznxe important; three answered that it was a combination of special interests and community responsibility. Typical of the responses were the following: The huge majority have no particular axe to grind. I think maybe ten per cent are thinking of their (”“1 interest; ninety per cent are thinking of the cOmIHIanity; they all have children. 'Ths real leaders have a strong sense of social responsibility. 31 think they are big enough to look to community welfare 0 ¥ -98- They have a real sense of breadth in their com- munity relationships. As expected the community influentials were quick to deny any lack of community responsibility. The allegiance of the autonomously-acting decision makers was the "com- munity." Possibly because they were viewed as occasionally changing in composition from issue to issue, they were con- sequently perceived as indeed precluded from having the opportunity to consistently further special interests. Then too, the community orientation is not unexpected in light of the "issues" and "achievements" perceived by the busi- ness influentials, which also were community-wide in nature. The next proposition, that issues would be perceived as being publicly resolved, seems to follow logically. With a selfzyerception of community responsibility, it is diffi- cult to envision that any other image could obtain. The reSPOndents were asked, "Are the important issues in Wheels- burg usuially quietly resolved without the public knowing what they arms, or are they usually brought out in the open?" Table 27 summarizes the responses to this query. ifiell over half of the respondents maintained that community issues were resolved with public awareness. About One-fourth thought that the opposite situation prevailed Secret" resolution. These results give adequate support to t he Proposition. Among the comments elicited in response to t ' hls question were the following: -99- Formerly "quiet" resolution was the rule. Today adequate publicity is given to community problems. I think most issues are brought into the Open. John Newsworthy has been very cooperative. By and large, issues are generally brought out into the Open. The mass mediate disseminate information; diverse groups are represented in the decision-making process. Somewhat paradoxically, several who saw issues as being resolved privately were quick to take the local news- paper to task. Such remarks as the following were heard: This city needs another newspaper; any city needs several newspapers. The citizens would be served better, if there were another paper. Too much fanfare can be a handicap. It is better to solve issues quietly. There is a misconception about private resolution of issues. Remember most of these men are very com- munityiminded. There is public trust in the judgment of these men. i30th the press and city government are apathetic. Idle respondents in this category were split between those whc>‘were legitimizing the Sflmation and those who wished to correct; it. For the former, private resolution was con- Sidered legitimate since the decision makers after all had a Sense of‘<:ivic-mindedness and were also considered capable individuals.. For the latter, the situation should and could be improved by better public airing of issues, particularly in t he local mass media agenCies. -lOO- fittributive Hygotheses: Comparative Business-Labor "Unity," "Economic Stake," and "Interest" The remaining three prOpositions in the attributive set of hypotheses concern comparative business judgments of itself with organized labor. In the first, business com- pares its "unity" in community participation with that of labor. Table 28 summarizes the responses to the question, "Do you feel that organized labor in Wheelsburg is more or less united than management in what they want for the community?" The data lend qualified support to acceptance of the prOposition that business perceives organized labor to be more united. Approximately two-fifths maintained that organized labor was more united. Only six of the informants were of the opinion that business was more united. Approxi- mately one-fourth indicated that management and labor were equally united. The distribution indicates that few busi- ness influentials were willing to concede that business was nmre united than labor. The diversity of business agencies rePresentedby the informants undoubtedly accounts for these results.. This, plus the fact, that labor was naturally more united, 'by its very organizational structure, which saw the AFL and CIO joined together in a local labor council. This percepfizixan of manifest unity, overlooks the fact of course, that JJihHDr leaders are not necessarily in any more agreement on COHHUUUHity goals than are their heterogeneous group of bUSin e . SS counterparts. k ~101- Responses among the various categories included the following: Labor has more agreement on what is good for the people. There is too much pressure brought to bear on labor representatives to express the same views, especially since the merger. Labor is more united. Organized labor is more united than business; on the parking problem labor went right down the line for what it wanted. Management was in disagreement; real estate men opposed the position of local businessmen. Organized labor is less united. Some individual labor leaders have excellent insights, but this is not true of most of them. Labor is less united because its leaders can't boss around the good American workers. Labor has achieved a merger on the local level. Frankly, I think the degree of unity is fairly even. I would say on particular issues the unity might very. It is clear that "unity" did not mean the same thing to all respondents. To some it was synonymous with the merger accomplished between the AFL and CIO. To others unity among labor included the rank-and-file as well as the labor leaders; this was considered to be an impossibility. To still others unity necessarily referred only to the labor lead- 835; “hei:‘ unity was net necesszrily any greater than that of bUSiness lxeaders. In sum, however, it can be said that the unity thenua prevailed in the business influential's percep- tion of orgganized labor, thus leading to acceptance of the propOSitiOn . Th6? proposition concerning business' perception of ~102- greater economic stakes was also tested through the use of a single question, "Do you feel that management has a greater or smaller economic stake than organized labor in partici- pating in community organizations and activities?" Again, the results, as shown in Table 29 tend to support the prOpo- sition. Over half perceived business as having the greater stake in community participation. Twenty-two gave this re- sponse, whereas only half that number were willing to concede that the stake was equal. Only three perceived a greater stake on the part of organized labor. An elaboration of responses is helpful in gaining the composite imagery elicited from the informants. - Of course the question is a relative one, but in dollars and cents management has the higher stakes. Of ccnxrse the fellow in the plant depends upon management for his job . The stakes of the two are equal. Management in- claides folks who work as well as organized labor. Labor has a greater stake because they receive most of“the help from the community agencies. The stakes are equal. The community is a part of Perry Corporation. Perry is a good place to work be- amise it is located in a good community.. The factors are :interdependent. h No, I don't think management has a greater stake. nverybody benefits from a good community. The stakes are equal. Management has greater stakes because its financial conceruis are acute. Management has to measure its abil- 1tY13> pay from the way the business is run. Labor organizations are financed by dues. -103- Summarizing the diversity of these images is diffi- cult. Apparently those who perceive that business has a greater stake in community participation cling to the pater- nalistic position that business provides the basis of the community's economy. Business is responsible for providing employment for organized labor, therefore it must have more at stake. However, no clear relationships between "community participation" and economic benefits to business were por- trayed. Those who saw the stakes as equal evoked a strong communal orientation given voice in such expressions that labor and management both represented "working folk" and were members of the same community. Both were, economically speaking, interdependent. The final comparative prOposition concerned busi- ness' perception of its greater interest in community par- ticipation. This hypothesis was tested by posing the ques- tion, "Do you feel that management has greater interest than organized labor in local community affairs or not?" Over- whelming support was given this proposition as is evidenced in Table 30. Two-thirds of the respondents answered the question affirmatively. Seven held that the interest was equal. Only five perceived organized labor as having a greater interest. The distribution leaves little doubt as to the general disposition of the business influentials. The fbllowing statements are typical: Management has far more interest. Local labor lead- ers haven't any authority for direct interest. -104- Management has had more experience in community affairs. Management must have more interest in the community or it doesn't deserve the title of "manage- ment." Management has more interest and influence. Labor is shortsighted. Management has to be more interested. Printers, railroads, construction companies, have all played an important part in building this community. I think management has a greater interest in affairs as they apply to the whole comunity. Labor's interest centers on union members only. Two general reasons seem to account for this pre- vailing type of imagery. First, management is spurred to have a greater interest. Again, it has more at stake. It is interested in preserving or protecting this stake. Secondly, management is better qualified to express its interest than is labor, whose interests are not identified with the community as are those of management. Management's greater capacity for community leadership at one and the same time is seen as serving all interests as well as its own. In sum, each of the so-called "attributiva" hypotheses was accepted with the exception of those positing organiza- tional responsibility and variability among community de- cision makers. Community decision. makers were perceived as an unchanging group, acting. independently, and exercising social responsibility. They resolved issues publicly. Com- paring itself with organized labor, business viewed itself as having a greater stake and interest in community partici- 44” -105- As The pation, but concurrently saw itself as less united. expected, the total image was thus quite favorable. favorable image of itself was complemented with the less favorable image of organized labor, furthering somewhat rational- izing business' power position. Interaction Hngtheses: Business Relationships with Labor an er ommun t1 rgan zat ons It remains to test the final set of hypotheses, the "interaction" propositions. Having considered perceptions of the power structure and attendant evaluations or inter- pretations of same, it remains to consider those perceptions Which might yield a clue to future courses of action on the Part of business. This involves ascertaining business' Perceptions of labor's perceptions and also business’ per- ceptions pertaining to possible rapproachment between itself and labor. Finally, it involves ascertaining business' View of organizational participation in the community power St’al'ucture as a whole. Reviewing, it was hypothesized that: (a) Business would perceive itself to be in essential accord with organized labor regarding community "objectives" and the existence of current community issues. (b) Business would maintain that cooperation is n eeded between itself and labor to achieve these community ObJe ctiVCSo ¥ -106... (c) Business would consider it important to partici- pate in as many community organizations as possible. It has already been established that business considers participa- tion in business organizations as being more important than participation in any other type of community organization. As a fellow-up it was considered essential to determine whether or not this meant that business was generally selec- tive in its participation in the community power structure. After the business respondents had been asked to list what they considered to be important and current com- munity issues, the investigator posed the question: "Would community representatives of organized labor generally agree or disagree that these are the most important issues?" The responses to this question are given in Table 31. A substantial majority, three-quarters, answered that labor would agree, thus indicating support for the hypothesis. Only three gave an unqualified "no." Others answered the question affirmatively, adding that organized labor also had issues of its "own.“ The general tenor (If responses can be gleaned from the fellowing: I think it would be inclined to agree. The labor leaders are of pretty high calibre. Of course they are selfish in their approach but who isn't. They would agree. Labor is growing up. It is being educated by the Chamber of Commerce. They would agree. This is a pretty well-educated c“Dmmtmit y. -107- These are not controversial issues. Labor is get- ting more responsible. A dissenting voice made the following remarks: Elmer Local is the only labor leader I have respect for. The typical labor leader promotes agitation. He wants to justify himself to his union membership. Or- ganized labor has no community goals and does not appre- ciate that there are community issues. An opportunity was given the respondents to list what they considered to be "unique" labor issues. They were asked, "What are the most important issues for them (Labor's community representatives)?" Business' perceptions of labor issues are presented in Table 32. Clearly, there is a 1minimal divergency between management's perception of their own and labor's issues. Of course, the problem is the degree of importance which business perceives labor as attributing 'tOvthese issues. The wide range of responses indicates little consensus on the part of the business respondents. (lver half of them fell into the "don't know" or "not ascer- tained" categories. Of those giving explicit answers, one- f1fth replied that labor's issues were the same as those which they had listed for management. Other issues, listed by only one respondent, included parking, increased aid to the aged, and improvement of community health services. The business influentials were then asked, "What aIVa the general differences, if any, in the community objec- t1Ves of labor and business?" The summarized results in Telble 33 further support the proposition that business -lO8- would perceive itself in "agreement" with labor. Approxi- mately two-fifths did not discern any differences. The next most frequent response was that labor and business disagreed as to what constituted proportional representation on com- munity organizations. It is highly questionable whether this response qualifies as a community objective or is more a matter of power "rights" or legitimacy. The relative in- frequency of the remainder of the responses leads one to nunimize their importance. The vagueness of the imagery obtained is evident in the fellowing quotations: Labor would prefer things to be more socialized. For example, they would like free parking. I don't really know if there are any differences in basic objectives. I think the labor unions have deliberately gotten representatives on community or- ganizations. This is all right if they act as com- munity representatives rather than union representa- tives. I don't think that labor and business are at odds on community objectives. Their differences are in col- lective bargaining. There are very few differences and a great deal of cooperation. The data indicate that business perceives itself tobe in essential harmony with labor both in terms of com- ‘nuurity issues and objectives. When differences were expressed, they appeared to be based upon either specific economic tustions related to the union's "bargaining" philosophy or tothe question of "preper" power distribution, neither type °f7 divergency qualifying as differences in ultimate com- “unity objectives. An additional question was asked the -109- respondents, which although not relative to the present hypothesis, is helpful in determining the degree to which business attributes "economic" motives to organized labor, a tendency which began to manifest itself in the responses immediately above. The interviewees were asked, "Assuming that organized labor has three general objectives; namely, (1) improvement of wages and economic security, (2) political influence, and (3) community participation, how do you think they rank them in terms of importance to labor?" As shown in Table 36 the same tendency is evident in response to this question. Over half of the respondents felt that labor considered economic objectives as the most ' important. Approximately a third saw labor as striving for political influence. None saw labor as holding community Participation as most important. This type of imagery is Obviously helpful in interpreting business' claim to greater Stakes, interest, and social responsibility in community Participation. Business-Labor Coogeration In testing the hypothesis that business would cite the necessity of cooperation with organized labor, the com- munity influentials were asked, "To what extent do you feel that management and other groups can realize their community °bjectives without the help of organized labor? Many of the I‘espondents apparently felt that the question was rather naive, since the answer to them was considered "obvious." -110- This resulted in a large number of brief, wague and incom- plete responses which the author necessarily had to classify as "not ascertained." The virtually unanimous categorizing of those who gave explicit responses, however, leaves little doubt as to the prevailing opinion of the business influen- tials. No support was given to a "go it alone" approach to community affairs. The help of organized labor was deemed imperative for the attainment of community goals. Although management perceives itself as considerably more powerful than labor, what power is attributed to organized labor cannot be ignored. As the responses of the eighteen inter- viewees classified as "not ascertained" were brief, so too were the responses of the twenty who acknowledged that busi- ness needed the help of organized labor. For the most part, they could be capsulized in the brief phrase, "both are needed." Thus the hypothesis is accepted. Importance of Organizational Participation ' The hypothesis that business attests to the importance of general organizational participation was tested by asking, "Do you think it is important or not important for business ‘30 participate in as many community organizations as possible?" If it was considered important, they were then asked why it Was so considered. Approximately nine-tenths considered Wide participation to be important. Only two contended that -111- it was not important. With this distribution in mind, it is to be recalled that the respondents expressed an "organi- zational preference" for participation in welfare and busi- 11638 groups. The importance attributed to communityawide pxarticipation, however, seems significant and is consistent vrith its expression of "interest" in community affairs as knell as its sense of social responsibility. Also issues, eachievements, and objectives are perceived in a multi-or- ganizational context. As indicated in Table 37, the respondents were ambivalent when giving reasons for the importance attached to this participation. For a third of the respondents, com- munity service was the motivating force. For a quarter of the group business interests was the motivating factor. IFor about an eighth of the business influentials, it was a combination of both. The split in responses is rendered more understandable in light of the above findings. The respondents perceive business as having a substantial economic Stake in community participation, moreso than labor. Busi- ness organizations are the most powerful agencies in the com- !munity. For these reasons, a business orientation is not Surprising. On the other hand, community issues are essen- ‘tially non-economic in nature, as are business achievements in the community. Thus community participation also invokes a "non-sectarian" or welfare orientation. A summary of the above imagery is in order before ~112- attempting to relate its various perceptions to business' historical perceptions concerning past issue-resolution in the community. Again, the objective of this was to establish possible relationships between a group's imagery of a struc- ture and the actions or tactics which it manifests in this structure. With regard to the former, it has been shown that business perceives itself as the dominant group in a power structure dedicated to serving ”community" interests. Issues are resolved publicly by a responsible and changing body of decision makers, the large majority of whom are businessmen. Business would Continue participation in all community organizations, acknowledging that welfare and business organizations are more important. Primarily "com- munity-minded," business influentials gave some evidence that a concurrent business orientation existed. It would cooperate with organized labor, which it sees as sharing its community objectives. At the same time labor is seen as more united in what it wants for the community. Greater business stakes and interest in community affairs are appar- ent. "reasons" for its greater influence, compared to labor in community affairs. 0n the basis of such findings it was hoped that an anaIYsis of the historical perceptions of business influen- tials would yield validation of such important factors as bUSiness Power and responsibility and perhaps, business- lab°r 1‘ approachment. Another potential objective was to -113- ascertain the various stages of involvement manifest in issue-resolution and the roles played by different groups, particularly labor. Ultimately the notion was entertained to relate the power-wielding of an actor (business or labor) to the group imagery which it possessed, attempting to establish the latter as a possible basis of the former. In general, business imagery would seem to presage a relatively conflict-free, integrated power structure with business being table to maintain its superior position with little or no real opposition from labor. It is realized of course, that to establish the relationship between imagery, action, and structure is an extremely difficult undertaking. It is entirely possible that imagery is the result as well as the "cause" of the existing structure. The analysis in Chapter VI is undertaken with these qualifications in mind, and compares the historical perceptions of both labor and tmsiness. Chapter V presents labor's images of the community Power structure . -llh- TABLE 9 IMPORTANT COMMUNITY ISSUES LISTED BY COMMUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS Per Cent of Times Mentioned Respondents Issues Business Labor Business’ Labor NetrOpolitan planning- annexation 23 1h 59 36 Parking 16 26 Al 67 Downtown development 13 8 33 21 Attracting new business 11 O 28 0 Public transportation A 18 10 L7 Revision of city tax ’ policy 9 O 23 0 Pay roll tax 0 8 O 21 School develOpment 5 9 13 23 Governmental reorgani- zation 5 O 13 0 Medical facilities 0 5 0 13 Full employment 0 1; O 10 Retirement program 0 L O 10 “ ~115- TABLE 10 GROUP ACHIEVEMENTS IN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LISTED BY COMMUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS Per Cent of Times Mentioned Respondents Achievement Business Labor Business Labor Raising effectiveness of Community Chest 16 ll #1 28 Hospital expansion aid 15 6 39 15 Promotion of civic plan- ning ll 0 28 0 Solution of traffic problems 10 I O 26 0 Increased representa- ‘tion in community agencies 0 ll 0 28 Improvement of local economic conditions 0 9 O 23 City hall construction 8 O 21 O Inauguration of programs for the aged 0 7 O 18 GOVernmental improvement 7 O 18 0 Development of favorable community image toward labor 0 7 O 18 Attainment of greater Political influence 0 5 O 13 k ~116- TABLE 11 RANKING IN IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION BY CCMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS Ranking Number Per Cent Most important 16 1.1 Average importance 1!. 36 Other 5 13 Not important 2 5 Not ascertained l 3 TOTAL 39 100 TABLE 12 LABOR'S RANKING OF ITS POLITICAL, a,ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY OBJECTIVESa Ranking Number Per Cent Economic objectives ranked first 15 38 Political objectives ranked first 119 36 Community objectives ranked first A 10 Ranked of equal importance 3 8 Other 3 8 TOTAL 39 lOO ‘ 1 b a"Labor" and "Business" are used interchangeably for a 0r influentials and community influentials respectively. -ll7- TABLE 13 OPINIONS OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS REGARDING EXISTENCE AREAS OF DIFFERENTIAL IMPORTANCE FOR BUSINESS IN COMMU- NITY PARTICIPATION Opinions Number Per Cent All areas of participation important 9 23 Some areas more important 26 67 Other . 1 3 Not ascertained 3 7 TOTAL 39 100 TABLE 114- IMPORTANT AREAS OR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION LISTED BY COMMUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS Per Cent of Area of Times Mentioned Respondents Organization Business Labor Business Labor Health and welfare 19 32 1+9 82 BUSiness ll. 0 36 0 Governmental or political 7 22 18 57 Educational 6 7 15 13 ‘i -118- TABLE 15 REASONS GIVEN BY COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS FOR IMPORTANCE OF AREA IN COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Reason Number Per Cent — —— Contributes to general wel- fare of community 15 38 Promotes respondent's own business or profession ll 28 Promotes economic growth of city 6 15 Promotes good government 3 8 Not ascertained h 10 TOTAL 39 99 TABLE 16 LABOR'S ASSESSMENT OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN COMMUNITY ORGANI- ZATIONS Labor not Times Per Cent of Labor Effective Effective Mentioned Respondents Community Chest 7 18 Red Cross 5 13 Hospital Boards L 10 State Children's Aid 1 3 YNCA 1 3 Gouernmental Agencfis 1. 3 Democratic Party 5 13 —119- TABLE 17 KEY INFLUENTIALS AND VOTES RECEIVED AS NOMINATED BY COMMUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS Community Position Votes Received Influential Business Labor Harold Car Generallfianager, Perry Motors Corporation 32 18 Seth Dean President, State University 29 17 John Newsworthy Publisher, City Journal 26 28 Gunner School Superintendent of public schools 21 21 Mike.Macey Manager, retired, Seller's Department Store 21 11 Rob Govern Mayor 16 27 Gary Iron President, Williams Metal Corporation 14 * George Piston President, Wheelsburg Motors 13 * Joe Writ Partner, Writ, Kale, and Paul Law Firm l3 * Tom Banker President, Kent State Bank 13 * ‘Monsignor Abbott Paston St. Thomas Church * 22 George Wage President, Wheelsburg CIO Labor Council * 19 Kent House President, Kent House Realty Company,xnember of city Council * l6 CalvinJ’acksona CIO Subregional Director * 13 ‘_ *Did not make group's tap ten choices. 8Jackson, a labor influential, did not appear on the list of community influentials presented to the labor informants. -120- TABLE 18 TOP TEN INFLUENTIALS AND VOTES RECEIVED AS NOMINATED BY CON- SENSUAL TOP TEN OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS Community Votes Influential Position Received John Newsworthy Publisher, City Journal 8 Seth Dean President, State University 8 Harold Car General Manager, Perry Motors Corporation Tom Banker President, Kent State Bank 7 Rob Govern Mayor, Wheelsburg Mike Macey Manager, retired, Seller's Department Store 5 George Piston President, Wheelsburg Motors 5 (Manner School Superintendent of public schools A Cary Iron President, Williams Metal Corporation A Joe Writ Partner, Writ, Kale, and Paul Law Firm 3* k *Jay Sale, Monsignor Abbott, Rev. Bishop, and Phil Asset also received 3 votes. -121- TABLE 19 INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATIONS LISTED BY COMMUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS Per Cent of Times Mentioned Respondents Organization Business Labor Business Labor Chamber of Commerce 29 28 7h 73 Perry Motors Corpora- tion 20 7 52 18 City Journal 22 10 57 26 Organized labor 15 28 38 73 Churches lO 6 26 15 Board of Realtors 7 10 18 26 Service Clubs (Rotary, Lions, etc.) 7 6 18 15 Parent-Teachers Associ- ation 7 O 18 O Uptown Businessmen's Association 0 5 O 13 Community Chest 0 3 O 8 City Council 0 2 0 5 —- -122- TABLE 20 COMPARISON OF RELATIVE POWER OF BUSINESS AND LABOR BY COMMU- NITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS Number Per Cent Comparison Business Labor Business Labor management has greater influence than labor 3h 29 87 7A Management and labor have equal influence 2 2 5 5 labor has greater influ- ence than management 2 3 5 8 Amount of influence varies by issue 1 2 3 Not ascertained O 3 O 8 TOTAL 39 39 100 100 -123- TABLE 21 COMPOSITION OF DECISION-MAKING GROUPS ACCORDING-TO BUSINESS AND LABOR W Number Per Cent Composition Business Labor Business Labor Same group, no comment about composition 12 17 31 A3 Same group, ex- plicitly composed of businessmen 9 5 23 13 Same group, labor included 1 3 3 8 Gmoup changes accord- ing to issues 15 9 38 23 Other 2 2 5 5 Don't know 0 2 O 5 Not ascertained O l O 3 TOTAL 39 39 100 100 -12“- TABLE 22 OPINIONS OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS REGARDING THEIR ACTIONS AS BUSINESS OR NON-BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES IN COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES Opinion Number Per Cent Act as business representa- tive 23 59 Do not act as business representative 8 21 Other 5 13 Not ascertained 3 7 TOTAL 39 100 TABLE 23 ORGANIZATIONS MENTIONED IN WHICH COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS REPRESENT BUSINESS Organization Times Mentioned Rggpgzggngg Business 8 21 All Organizations 8 I 21 Civic or welfare l» 10 G("Vel‘nll'lental 2 5 x -125.- TABLE 2h OPINIONS OF BUSINESS AND LABOR REGARDING AUTONOMY OF WHEELS- BURG DECISION MAKERS Per Cent of Times Mentioned Respondents Opinion Business Labor Business Labor Can act on their own, no elaboration 17 A 44 10 Can act on their own (business) 10 3 26 8 Can act on their own (labor) 0 l 0 3 Must get or anizational approval no elabora- tion) 6 12 15 31 Must get or anizational approval Ibusiness) l 3 3 8 Must get or anizational approval labor) 3 12 8 31 Autonomy depends on issue 3 8 8 21 Other 0 3 O 8 Net ascertained 0 2 0 5 ._-_i -126- TABLE 25 BUSINESS' AND LABOR'S ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF WHEELSBURG DECISION MAKERS Number Per Cent Assessment Business Labor Business Labor Have broad community responsibility 31 18 79 A7 Responsibility depends upon issue 1 11 3 28 Lack social responsibil- ity, further particular w interest A 9 10 23 Combination of self- interest and social , responsibility 3 O 8 0 Not ascertained O 1 O 3 TOTAL 39 39 100 100 -127- TABLE 26 LABOR'S COMPARISON OF LABOR AND BUSINESS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Comparison Number Per Cent Labor has greater sense of responsibility 12 31 Sense of responsibility equal 19 A9 Business has greater sense of responsibility 3 8 Other 1 3 Not ascertained A 10 TOTAL 39 100 -128- TABLE 27 OPINIONS OF BUSINESS AND LABOR REGARDING MODE OF RESOLUTION OF COMMUNITY ISSUES Number Per Cent Opinion Business Labor Business Labor Issues generally made public 27 16 69 A1 Issues made public but slanted toward business 0 1 O 3 Issues resolved secretively 10 7 26 18 Mode varies l 12 3 31 Don't knOW' O 2 O 5 Not ascertained l l 3 3 TOTAL 39 39 101 101 -129- TABLE 28 COMPARISON OF DEGREE OF GROUP UNITY BY BUSINESS AND LABOR fi— #* Number Per Cent Comparison Business Labor Business Labor Labor is more united than business 16 11 Al 28 Business is more united than labor 6 17 15 AA Labor and business are equally united 11 ll 28 28 Unity depends on issue 2 O 5 0 Don't know' 2 O 5 0 Not ascertained 2 O 5 0 TOTAL 39 39 99 100 -130- TABLE 29 BUSINESS' AND LABOR'S COMPARISON OF GROUPS' ECONOMIC STAKES Number Per Cent Comparison Business Labor Business Labor Business has greater economic stakes 22 12 57 31 Labor has greater economic stakes 3 10 8 26 Economic stakes are equal 11 9 28 23 Stakes are relative to issue 0 l O 3 Don't know 1 A 3 10 Not ascertained 2 3 5 8 TOTAL 39 39 101 101 ~131- TABLE 30 BUSINESS' AND LABOR'S COMPARISON OF GROUP INTEREST IN COM- MUNITY AFFAIRS Number Per Cent Comparison Business Labor Business Labor Business has greater interest than labor 26 12 67 31 Labor has greater interest than business 5 8 13 21 Business and labor have equal interests 7 15 18 38 Other 0 2 O 5 Don't know 1 l 3 Not ascertained O l 0 3 TOTAL 39 39 101 101 -l32- TABLE 31 LABOR'S AND BUSINESS' ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER OTHER GROUP AGREES ON NAMING DOMINANT COMMUNITY ISSUES W Number Per Cent Assessment Business Labor Business Labor Business (labor) disa- grees on naming com- munity issues 3 S 8 13 Business (labor) agrees on community issues 27 27 69 69 Business (labor) partially agrees on community issues 1 A 3 10 Other 3 O 8 0 Don't know A 1 10 3 Not ascertained 1 2 3 5 TOTAL 39 39 101 100 -l33- TABLE 32 BUSINESS' AND LABOR'S LISTING OF ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO OTHER GROUP W Times Per Cent of Issues Mentioned _ Respondents Business' Listing Same as listed fOr business 8 21 Economic improvement A 10 Other 10 26 Don 't know 6 15 Not ascertained 1A 36 Labor's Listigg School district mergers l 3 Public transportation 3 8 Parking accommodations 3 8 Annexation A 10 Pay roll tax 2 5 Local city administration 2 g No response 23 5 -134- TABLE 33 BUSINESS' AND LABOR'S PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENCES IN COMMU- NITY OBJECTIVES BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS Times ‘ Per Cent of Differences AMentioned Respondents Business Preportional representation in government and civic boards 10 25 Differences over financing of projects A 10 Differences in philosOphy of government 3 8 Differences over wage levels for labor 3 8 No differences 16 Al Not ascertained 3 8 Labor No differences ll 28 Differences in methods of achieving identical goals 9 23 Depends on the issue 6 15 Differences in tax policies 5 l3 Differences in political objectives A 10 Differences in social philosophies 2 5 Not ascertained 2 5 #— -l35- TABLE 3A LABOR'S PERCEPTIONS OF STAGE OF COMMUNITY DECISION MAKING WHEN LABOR IS CONSULTED M417 Stage Number Per Cent Beginning stage 10 25 Later stages 20 52 Depends on issue 7 18 Don't know 1 3 Not ascertained l 3 TOTAL 39 101 TABLE 35 LABOR'S PERCEPTIONS OF ITS STAGE OF ENTRANCE INTO COMMUNITY DECISION MAKING W Stage of Entrance Number Per Cent Labor in from beginning 9 23 Labor not in from beginning 16 Al Stage of entrance depends on issue 9 23 Don't know’ A 10 Not ascertained l 3 TOTAL 39 100 ff w V— -136- TABLE 36 COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS ASSESSMENT OF HOW LABOR BANKS THE IMP PORTANCE OF ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES, POLITICAL.PARTICIPATION, AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION W Assessment Number Per Cent Economic objectives ranked first 22 57 Political participation ranked first 11 28 Other (Equal priority given to economic objectives and political participation over community participation) A 10 Don't know 1 3 Not ascertained l 3 TOTAL 39 101 -137- TABLE 37 REASONS GIVEN BY COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS FOR IMPORTANCE AT- TACHED TO MAXIMAL ORGANIZATIONAL PARTICIPATION BY BUSINESS W Reason Number Per Cent Community orientation 13 33 Business orientation-specific business interest 11 28 Professional orientation 3 8 Combination of community and business orientation 5 13 Not ascertained 7 18 TOTAL 39 100 ~138- TABLE 38 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS OR ACTIVITIES IN WHICH LABOR SHOULD PARTICIPATE BUT DOES NOT 4* J _:_. t— ___ fi__. Times Per Cent of Organization or Activity Mentioned Respondents Labor already participating 17 AA Local governmental agencies 13 33 Health and welfare organizations 6 15 Business organizations 3 8 Educational agencies 3 8 Council of Churches 2 5 TABLE 39 SOURCE OF OPPOSITION TO LABOR'S COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Times Per Cent of Sources 'Mentioned Respondents No opposition 21 55 Mayor and governmental bodies A 10 Business and management groups 5 13 City Journal 1 Groups cannot be specified 3 8 -139- TABLE AO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN WHICH LABOR SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE i L i -_ Times Per Cent of Organization Mentioned Respondents No limit on labor partici- pation 28 73 Chamber of Commerce 8 21 N.A.M. and other business organizations A 10 Welfare activities 3 8 Religious organizations 1 3 Communist Party 1 3 CHAPTER v LABOR IMAGES OF COMMUNITY POWERI Global_gHypotheses The first set of hypotheses concerning organized labor's "global" images of the power structure suggested essential convergences with business images with one impor- tant exception. Thus, as with business, it was hypothesized that labor would perceive: (a) the power structure pri- marily as a vehicle for serving general, non-economic in- terests, (b) community participation as less important than political participation, (c) participation in welfare or- ganizations as more important than participation in any other type of organization in the power structure. In testing the first proposition, the labor influ- entials like their business counterparts were asked to list the "most important" issues facing Wheelsburg. Secondly, they were asked to list the "most important" achievements lSee warren L. Sauer, "Labor's Image of its Place in Community Power Structure; An Exploratory Study" (un- published MAA. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthro- pology, Michigan State University, 1958). -140- ~1Al- of organized labor in community affairs. The objective in both cases was again to ascertain to what extent labor per- ceived the power structure as dealing with "partisan" issues as opposed to "community" issues. As in the case of business, it was expected that a communal orientation would prevail. The issues listed by the labor informants are pre- sented in Table 9. As can be seen, parking, public trans- portation, and annexation, in that order emerged as the most important issues. Clearly, these can be interpreted as "issues" of importance to all community groups, not merely labor or business. Traditional labor concerns such as em- ployment, education, and welfare concerns, ranked far down on the list. It will be recalled that metropolitan planning, traffic, and downtown develOpment were the most important issues according to the business influentials. The achievements mentioned by the labor influentials are presented in Table 10. Here labor's view of the power structure is slightly more partisan in nature, although the top two achievements mentioned again could be considered as beneficial to the community as well as to organized labor. Thus labor considers its tOp achievements to be in the area of community welfare services. In this instance, labor is perceiving its own participation in the power structure as contributing to the resolution of communitydwide issues. The mentioning of such achievements as the acquisition of representation in community agencies, and improved prestige, -142- political standing, and economic conditions, of course lends a slightly more partisan hue to labor's image of its position in the structure. However, as in the listing of issues, the present distribution relative to achievements tends to sup- port the proposition. Organized labor, like business, views the power structure as dealing primarily with general "non-economic" issues. Coupled with this general imagery, there is some evidence to indicate that labor perceives its participation in the power structure as having "achieved” certain "labor" objectives despite the general character of the issues dealt with by the structure.‘ Thus, labor considered as an achieve- ment the mere acquisition of its ability (through representa- tion) to be a participant in the structure. It is important to note that labor representation in community agencies was not listed as an "issue." Both with respect to its own powerdwielding in terms of past achievements and power- wielding in terms of issue-resolution, organized labor views each as involving communityawide concerns. Assessment of Political Participation The second proposition relative to the comparative im- portance of political and community participation was again tested through a direct question, "Assuming that organized labor has three general objectives, viz., (l) improvement of wages and economic security, (2) political influence, -1A3- and (3) community participation, how would you rank these in terms of importance?” The distribution of responses ap- pears in Table 12. Fifteen respondents accorded tOp-ranking to labor's economic objectives, whereas feurteen accorded most impor- tance to political participation. Only four thought community participation was the most important objective of labor. Although political participation was not considered labor's most important function, it far outdistances community par- ticipation. Thus, the distribution tends to support the preposition. Supplementing the rankings which were given were the following comments: Unions must have political power before they can obtain the other objectives. wages are no good in and of themselves. Man does not live by bread alone. In the over-all picture political action helps everyone out. Through it the unions have obtained un- employment and compensation benefits and old age pen- sions. Our organization (the UAW) looks at what's good for the country! Without political influence the unions would have no chance of succeeding in collective bargaining. It follows that community participation would improve economic conditions. Labor couldn't be accepted if it sought only politi- cal influence. On the other hand, it would be operating in a vacuum, if it didn't seek political influence. Labor doesn't deserve to be given political responsibil- ity, if it doesn't participate in community affairs. In sum, labor's traditional economic functions were seen as being served more through political activity than -1AA- through diffusely-oriented community participation. Al- though not considered unimportant, community participation could wait until the union had accomplished its more "im- portant" objectives. Perhaps the main function attributed to community involvement was the raising of organized labor's prestige level in the eyes of other community groups. Labor's imagery with respect to political participation again con- verges with that of business. Assessment of Areas of Commppity Participation With regard to labor's assessment of organizational importance relative to its position in the power structure, the labor respondents were asked, "Are there some organiza- tions or areas of the community where you believe the par- ticipation of organized labor is more important than other areas?" The responses to the question are categorized in Table 1A. The most frequently mentioned area or type of or- ganization, as hypothesized, was "welfare." Running a close second, was the "political" area. Business, too, attributed most importance to welfare organizations. However, second in imPortance for business was "business" organizations; the "Political" area ran a distant third. It was previously suggested that the importance attributed to welfare organizaticns by labor might in large measure be due to its successful penetration into the area -1A5- and its modest success in wielding influence in this arena. To this end the respondents were asked, "Generally speaking do you feel that participation of organized labor in Wheels- burg organizations genuinely affects their basic policies or not?" Almost nine-tenths of the labor influentials attested to the effectiveness of labor's participation. In Table 16 is a list of specific organizations which were mentioned. These were divided into two types, those in which labor was supposedly effective and those in which they were not. The incompleteness of the data prohibits the draw- ing of any definite conclusions. Labor perceived itself as effective in various welfare organizations such as the Community Chest, Red Cross, and hospital boards. Some effec- tiveness is also perceived with respect to the Democratic party. On the other hand, only three respondents listed labor as ineffective in any type of community organizations and two of the organizations mentioned were welfare organi- zations, i.e. hospital boards and the State Children’s Aid Society. In brief, labor perceives itself as influential in the power structure, particularly in the welfare sector, yet it desires to increase its influence in this area. The responses in Table 16 lend some support to the speculation that the welfare arena is most important to labor because of the Opportunity it affords for influence-wielding. The summary of these global images which labor has -146- of the power structure and its own position in it lead to the following observations. Acknowledging that the power structure deals with communityawide concerns and that its own participation in the structure has helped achieve "com- munity" objectives, organized labor does not attribute para- mount importance to community participation. much more im- portant are labor's political and economic objectives, which are barely distinguishable. Apparently, labor does not see in community participation at this time an opportunity to fulfill these more "traditional" functions. Although com- munity participation is obviously considered as accruing "welfare" benefits to labor as well as the community, these same interests are also linked more directly with economic security and political involvement, objectives which are divorced from such participation. 4As in the case of busi- ness, labor's imagery of its position in the structure is seen primarily as "contributing to" rather than "receiving from” the set of relationships which obtain. The partisan interests of the group are better served in the political arena 0 Structural Hypptheses To test the proposition that labor would perceive business as more powerful than itself, the respondents were presented with the complete list of community influentials and were then asked, "Which ten have most influence and power -1A7 to put a decision across in the community or to stop a pro- ject from being executed or realized. Add other names if you wish." Table 17 presents the list of individuals with the nominations which each received. A comparison with the same list offered by the community influentials is illumi- hating. Newsworthy, the top vote-getter of the labor respon- dents, ranked third on the business list behind Car and Dean. Govern, number two on the labor list, ranked sixth on the business list. Monsignor Abbot, number three on the labor list, did not appear on the business list. School, the local public school superintendent, ranked feurth on each list. Dean, the university president, was ranked second on the business list and seventh on the labor list. While no labor leader appeared on the business list, two appeared on the labor list, namely Wage and Jackson, the latter repre- senting an addition since his name did not appear on the community influential list presented to the labor respondents. Altogether four names appeared on the labor list that do not appear on the business list; these are Abbott, House, Wage, and Jackson. In place of these four business substitutes Writ, Banker, Piston, and Iron. This difference in the group's selections points to their divergent assessments of labor's power, with labor including two of its own represent- atives among the top ten community influentials while busi- ness fails to include any. -143- Analyzing labor's selections by agency affiliations, the results lend only minimal support to the hypothesis. Only three of the ten are what might be called business- economic dominants: Newsworthy, Car, and Macey. The business selections included seven such business- economic dominants. The labor list included two political figures, Govern and House, while business selected only Govern, as one of the top ten community influentials. Both groups selected two educators. Again, labor included two union leaders on its list, while business omitted labor figures from its list. In summary, labor's list included three business affiliations, two educational affiliations, two political affiliations, two labor affiliations, and one religious affiliation. The business list included seven business affiliations, two educational affiliations, and one political affiliation. Despite the fact that labor tended to see community power more diffused among the various institutions and mani- festly appears to attribute business only a slightly higher degree of power than itself and other community agencies, subsequent analysis gives some indication that the group tends to identify business interests wih other community agencies, particularly local government. Thus, labor's perception of diffuseness is more apparent than real. The list of community influentials is indicative of the consistent trend revealed in the interviews with the labor leaders. -149- While acknowledging that business had more influence, labor tended to credit itself with more influence than business was willing to accord labor. Thus labor perceived two of its own members as community influentials while labor representatives were omitted from the list offered by busi- ‘ ness influentials. To further test the present proposition, the labor respondents were also asked, "What organizations in Wheels- burg do you feel have the most weight in getting things done, or in preventing some things from getting done in Wheelsburg?" Table 19 presents the resultant distribution. Like the business influentials, the labor respondents most frequently mentioned the Chamber of Commerce. At the same time, the labor informants mentioned labor itself an equal number of times. With the business influentials, the local newspaper received the second highest number of mentions, the Perry Corporation the third highest number, and labor, the fourth highest number of mentions. Labor placed the Board of Realtors and the local newspaper in a tie for third and fourth place. The labor responses conceded business dominance in the power structure, but perhaps to a lesser degree than business itself. on ién this question, labor is clearly expressing power 3 behal . As expected, the respondents themselves more or less bi-polarized community 'wer between labor and management. However, where no b anket comparison 0f power is asked for, labor views itself in a more -150- favorable position, with respect to management. Yet the image of management dominance continues to pre- vail even in this distribution, if the different types of groups are considered. Most of the organizations are obviously "management" organizations. In an addi- tive sense, management again emerges as superior to labor. Almost three-tenths of the respondents left labor organizations off their list, although all of them mentioned business organizations. The lack of influ- ence attributed to governmental agencies is also sig- nificant and is perhaps due to their being viewed as business vehicles. The relative infrequency with which Perry Motors was listed as an influential organization belies the observation that unions see the city as a "company" town. It is not paradoxical for labor to con- sider itself the equal in power to any other single organization but still see the community power structure as management-dominated. It is apparent from the above that labor's view of community power is made up of labor, plus an alliance of different management groups.2 In brief, labor like business sees labor as a force to be reckoned with in the community. However, labor like business also sees the power structure as made up primarily of a number of different business organizations. The Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors, and the Qipy Journal can hardly be considered as allies of labor and are not per- ceived as such by the labor influentials. The two groups are identical in their listings of the top four with but one exception. Whereas business included the automobile corporation, labor included the Board of Realtors. Perhaps the main reason for labor's inclusion of the Board of Realtors as one of the top influential organizations is the fact that this group did align itself with labor on a particular comnmnity issue and the two were "victorious" in the ultimate rosolution. The relative lack of influence attributed to ¥ k. 2Ibid., pp. 61-62. .-151- the Perry corporation by labor is perhaps due to the "behind the scenes" operation often carried on by this organization unbeknown to labor. Finally, the labor respondents were asked, "How would you compare the relative influence of management and organized labor in community affairs in Wheelsburg?" As can be seen in Table 20, approximately three-quarters per- ceived management as having the greater influence. Less than one-tenth attributed greater influence to labor. The distribution is essentially the same astflum obtained from the business informants. Such comments as the following were evoked: Management has a stronger voice than we do. Maybe if we used our votes better we could offset the in- fluence of those dollars. Management has stronger influence but labor's in- fluence is growing and it will keep growing as we keep developing better leadership. Business does a better public relations job than we do. Management has more money to express their views and put their ideas before the public. Management has greater influence because of its control of the press and radio. Thus labor concedes greater influence to business because of its economic dominance which labor sees as re- solting in business control of the mass media, which affords the group a better public relations program. However, labor is not completely pessimistic about the situation, seeing the possibility of overcoming this business advantage by -152- developing its own leadership and perhaps exerting more political influence. Viewing the complete set of data obtained, the proposition relative to labor's perception of greater busi- ness power must be accepted. Business is conceded the greater influence in the community. Business' strength is perceived more in an organizational sense than in an individual sense. This greater power is seen as based upon business' greater economic resources, which, however, labor feels some chance of overcoming through greater political activity and better leadership. Apppgbutive Hypotheses: Composition and Autonomy of Decision Makers It was in the area of "attributive" imagery that the author expected the greatest, indeed, the only real divergency between the business and labor influentials. Whereas the business group was expected and has been revealed to have a positive image of the power structure and its own position in the structure, it was expected that organized labor would hold a much less favorable view, not of its own position, but of the structure itself. To test the various propositions, the labor group was asked the same questions that were asked Of the business group. The first prOposition states that labor perceives most community decisions to be made by the same small group of p°""“3I'f‘ul people. The labor influentials were asked, "In -153- your judgement, do you feel that big community decisions in Wheelsburg tend to be made by the same small 'crowd' of Imople working together or do these people change according to the issue confronting the community?" It was hoped that the responses to this question would also yield some clues as to the composition of the group, particularly in regard to labor or business as participants. Table 21 summarizes the responses obtained. Quoting from my M.A. thesis: Two-thirds of the respondents perceived a ruling clique, and of these only ten per cent saw labor as in- cluded in this clique. Although two-fifths of the re- spondents made no comment about the composition of the group, it was quite obvious that labor was not thought to be included. One respondent said that he had heard that there was a small group running things, but that he did not know from first-hand experience who they were. Another replied simply: "Every town had a smal clique running it." Another was slightly more specific, saying, "A handful of people run things, with I being the leader." Still another generalized from his experience stating that in any group, "Religious, community or union, there is a smaller clique within, actively running things." The three who included labor in the ruling group were equally vague. One elaborated, "You go to various governmental board meetings and see the same faces; la- bor is included in this small group usually." Those who thought that influentials involved in im- Portant community decisions changed according to issues ‘were umclear as to the composition of the influential group» but again it seemed that labor was not generally included. Most comments ran in a similar vein. "They changeaccording to issue and over a riod of time." “flu: "they" were was not generally exp ined. Another Said. "I think the group changes according to what the PPOb ems are; officers change in government and in the Cowmlnity Chest." Several did give labor a role among -15g- the community decision makers. One replied, "People change according to the issue in both management and labor," indicating that he felt that there was labor participation in community decision making. Similar comments were elicited from only one or two other re- spondents, however.3 Whereas business perceived little variability and change among community decision-makers, labor too saw stability, thus supporting the proposition offered. Labor, as expected, was less explicit as to the composition of the group, but when explicit statements were forthcoming, it like business attributed a greater role to the latter's representatives in this small "crowd." At the same time, it attributed a greater role to itself than did business. In short, both groups acknowledged business' greater power, but business perceived a greater power differential than did labor. It will be recalled that contrary to the preposition formulated, business influentials perceived community decision makers as being able to act without organizational approval. With regard to labor, it has been proposed that labor will perceive community decision makers as acting without need of organizational approval. The labor influentials were also asked, "Is it your opinion that people who make the important community decisionsin Wheelsburg can do this pretty much on their own or do they have to get approval for BIbido , pp. 53'5“. m._"'d-~ “.3 ~ ' ~155- their actions from the organization to which they belong?" Table 24 lists the distribution of responses obtained, re- lating where possible the perceived "need of approval" to either management or labor. Two observations can be made with respect to the results presented in Table 24. First, the data serve to reject the hypothesis. Almost three-quarters of the labor influentials see community decision makers as requiring some organizational approval. However, breaking the responses down according to the specific group mentioned, only four perceived management representatives as requiring organiza- tional approval, while twelve saw labor as requiring such approval. Secondly, although the question was not used primarily to elicit a perception of labor's own power, it is extremely important to note that one-third of the re- spondents explicitly mention labor in their responses, thus indicating that to some degree labor influentials perceive themselves to be among the people that make "big" community decisions. Such comments as the following were expressed by the labor leaders: 0n routine issues, these people can act on their own. 0n important issues,when the battle lines are drawn, representatives return to their organization for approval, including representatives of labor. It depends on the issue, but usually labor selects those individuals who can make their own judgement. I don't know about other organizations. -l§6- Labor leaders get approval; business leaders don't need approval. Everybody needs organizational approval, labor representatives as well as others. Divergent business-labor imagery was manifested in response to this question, but not in the expected direction. Unlike the hypotheses which were proposed, it was business and not labor that attributed autonomy to community decision makers. One reason for this unexpected finding seems clear. Labor saw its own representatives as decision makers, and it is customary for them to report back to their organiza- tions and secure their approval for the expression of labor's stand on a particular issue. It was apparent that business influentials tended to identify themselves and not labor influentials as community decision makers. It was previously suggested that business influentials legitimize their autono- mous actions on the basis of their perceived identity with all community groups or their perceived "disaffiliation" from any particular group. Attributive Hypotheses: Social Responsibility and Technigue Attributed to Decision Ma are The next hypothesis states that labor would perceive :itself as having a greater sense of community responsibility than business. The labor influentials were first asked, "Concerning the people who are primarily involved in making the big decisions in Wheelsburg, do you feel they have a broad sense of community responsibility or are they more -157- concerned with protecting or furthering their own particular interests?" In Table 25 approximately half attributed re- sponsibility to community decision makers. Slightly less than a fourth said that they were concerned with furthering their own interests, and an equal proportion qualified their response by saying that the responsibility manifested depended upon the particular issue. These results again are probably in no small measure related to the fact that labor is includ- ing its own representatives among these community decision makers. Willing to acknowledge that business influentials are more powerful, labor sees both these and its own influ- entials as making up community influentials. The inclusion of its own representatives among community influentials fosters a favorable image on the part of labor. However, when asked to compare specifically labor's sense of community responsibility with that of business', the labor informants tended to support the hypothesis sug- gested. Table 26 reveals that approximately half perceived both groups to have an equal sense of responsibility. Three- tenths however, thought that labor had a greater sense of responsibility. Only a small minority conceded greater re- sponsibility to business. The following views were expressed: Both groups have the same sense of responsibility. Basically, they have community interests at heart, despite the fact that some are misguided. Everything stems from business. Business has a greater sense of responsibility because it has greater power. -153- I believe on the whole that organized labor is in- terested in both labor and the community. Business representatives put their own organizations before the community. Labor is far more community-conscious. Both groups have the same sense of moral obligation. Labor represents people who are in the greatest need. We are a little more statesmanlike. Management is interested in profit. Although responsibility was attributed to business, it is obvious that it was not considered to be as "sincere" as that exercised by labor. There was a tendency to relate business' responsibility to its economic power, whereas labor's responsibility was not motivated by economic con- cerns. The image of the "underdog" is strongly suggested. Labor's perception of issue-resolution by the commu- nity power structure was analyzed by asking the respondents, "Are the important issues in Wheelsburg usually quietly resolved without the public knowing what they are, or are they usually brought out in the open?" It was hypothesized that labor would perceive issues as being resolved "privately" or secretively. The data in Table 27 serve to reject the hypothesis. Approximaufly'two-fifths of the respondents saw community issues as being publicly resolved. Less than one- fifth perceived issue-resolution as being "secret" in nature. About three-tenths saw both methods as being in operation. It is debatable whether this distribution is due to labor's perceived.role in the power structure or its "real" or actual -159- role. It has been obvious from some of the data presented above that labor influentials have tended to perceive them- selves as community influentials, although acknowledging the greater influence of business influentials. The images of business influentials attributed labor a minor role in community decision making, yet labor does not perceive this decision making as taking place without public awareness. Again, the perceived power differential is greater for busi- ness than for labor. Labor influentials elaborated with respect to de- cision making as follows: Most of the issues are brought into the open. Those that aren't brought out I wouldn't know about. Issues are made public if the City Journal decides to publicize them. It really depends on the issue; some are resolved quietly. Issues are brought out in the open. We have a good labor press. If it's a vital issue it comes out in the Open. People often don't know things, so they can't see an issue. The average worker isn't concerned about build- ing a new hotel fer the city. He doesn't know that Lobby has sewed up the hotel property in this city. Issues are brought out, but you only get one side of an issue. Clearly, there are many qualifications attached to labor's image of public issue-resolution. As one individual indicated issues are publicized, but he wouldn't know if they weren't. Then the criterion of "importance" is intro- duced. Apparently, "important" issues are perceived as being ~160- dealt with out in the open. However, even when issues are brought into the open, the labor influentials disagree as to the nature of the publicity which they receive. There is evidence of an underlying feeling that many of the mechanics of issue-resolution may remain hidden. In short, it is apar- ent that labor ghigkg issues are resolved publicly, but it really is not certain that this is the case. Attributive Hypgtheses: Comggrative Business-Labor "Unity," "Econo c St, e," an " nterest The final three attributive propositions elicit inter-group comparisons from the labor reapondents. The first proposition states that organized labor sees itself as less united that its co-participant in the community power structure. The labor leaders were asked, "Do you feel that organized labor is more or less united than manage- ment in what they want for the community?" Table 28 presents the responses which tend to support the hypothesis. Over two-fifths perceived management as more united than labor. Slightly less than three-tenths indicated that the two groups were equally united and the same proportion saw labor as more united. The author had assumed that each group would see the other as being more united, with "unity" being con- sidered as a possible dimension of power. The divergent interpretations given to the question are evident in the following quotations: ‘- . ..._-.-“.. .—_—— _— _ V . . _ .. . ..¢—- v ’—'———— 3‘F—‘_ ' ‘ i___._ _ . _~ . 1.7 , -vifla-v - — —— -161- Management is less organized than labor. This is why we're effective. Business doesn't really get all of its groups together in the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors. It's a good thing that they don't. Labor is more united because it represents a more homogeneous group. They are both solid groups. There isn't much differ- ence between them. Issues are resolved by both groups being united. Labor is less united. In Wheelsburg, there is no doubt about the unity of Perry Motors. Labor disunity is inevitable because it has more than one organization. Management has "associations!" It knows what it is going to do. Generally, it doesn't come out into the open, but labor does. Most of the respondents who saw business as more united could not verbalize their reasons for holding this view. In some instances business' unity was seemingly re- lated to its power. To others business was less united be- cause of the diverse groups which it represented. To still others this inter-group diversity was what made labor less united than management. Labor's organizational unity as manifested in the local labor council was considered by some to be more apparent than real, serving to obscure disa- greements among various locals, particularly between AFL and CIO locals. The over-all distribution justifies accept- ance of the hypothesis that labor perceives business to be more united as indeed business perceives labor to be more united. Labor influentials were asked, "Do you feel that management has a greater or smaller economic stake than -162- labor in participating in community organizations and activities?" The distribution in Table 29 indicates rejec— tion of the hypothesis. Approximately three-tenths attribu- ted greater stakes to management, whereas as one-fourth thought that labor had the greater economic stake. Slightly less than one-fourth thought that both groups had equal stakes in their community involvement. Some of the labor respondents made the following remarks: Management has more money invested. They have to have the money so that labor can survive. Both groups have economic objectives, but management moreso than labor. Management's stakes are just as large as ours. Our stakes relate to the health and welfare of our people. Management has more money and thus can participate in more things. But both groups have equal economic stakes. Labor has a greater economic stake, because all of the people represented by labor are personally affected by economic conditions, although the rank-and-file doesn't really know this. Management recognizes clearly its economic stake and is more effective in initiating economic policy. Thus to some respondents management's greater stakes are a natural consequence of its greater economic power. This "natural consequence" is subject to varied interpreta- tions, however. To some, it is "good" since labor is seen as being dependent upon management '3 economic power. On the other’hand, some thought that management was primarily interested.in protecting this greater economic power and not -163- sharing its benefits with labor. At the same time others took the position that management's greater economic power is "proof" that labor has the greater economic stake. Man- agement has nothing to lose in community involvement and labor has everything to gain. The virtual trichotomizing of the responses is indicative of the conflicting and ambivalent perceptions held by the labor influentials. To ascertain how the labor informants compared labor- business "interest" in community involvement, they were asked, "Do you feel that management has greater interest than labor in becoming involved in community affairs or not?" The data.agak1reject the proposition that labor would per- ceive itself as having a greater interest. The responses are again trichotomized. Approximately three-tenths indicated that management had greater interest as shown in Table 30. Slightly less than two-fifths indicated that the two groups had equal interest. Only a fifth indicated that labor had greater interest. As with their perception of economic stakes, the labor respondents again manifest a high degree of ambivalence and uncertainty. Consider the following comments: Management has greater interest. Labor doesn't have the machinery to originate policy. Labor has more interest because laboring people have homes in the community. Labor is just as much interested in getting things going as management is. The livelihood of the peeple is important to labor. 461+- Labor has a more "active" interest. Labor really believes in what it is doing. Over-all,management has a greater interest because of its greater economic stakes. Suspicion of management's participation in community affairs is again in evidence. Management's interest or greater interest rests upon "questionable" motives, often thought to be economic in nature. Like business' show of responsibility and the question of economic stakes, labor tends to view business' actions in terms of its greater power. Labor's actions are predicated upon service to the "community." Four of the seven "attributive" propositions relative to labor's imagery of the power structure have been rejected. As hypothesized, labor perceived community decision makers as a relatively stable group. Contrary to expectations, 'they were perceived as requiring organizational approval and as resolving issues publicly. Comparing itself with business, as hypothesized, labor considered itself as exer- cising greater responsibility but as being less united than ‘business. Also,contrary to the hypotheses formulated, labor jperceived business to have greater stakes and interest in community participation. In sum, both groups agreed as to the consistency of community decision makers. Labor perceived them as requiring organizational approval, but business did not. Both groups attributed greater responsibility to them- selves. They both perceived issues as being publicly resolved. Each saw the other group as being more united. Each agreed -165- that business had a greater interest and stake in community involvement. Interaction Hypotheses: :Labor Relationships with Business and'Other Community Organizations Further convergence between labor-business imagery has been postulated in the so-called "interaction" hypo- theses. It has been hypothesized that labor would perceive itself to be in essential agreement with business regarding community objectives and the existence of current community issues. It was also hypothesized that labor would assert that cooperation is needed between itself and business to achieve these community objectives. Finally, the proposition was formulated that labor would consider it important to participate in as many community organizations as possible. Having listed what they considered to be important community issues, the labor respondents were then asked, "Would community representatives of management generally agree that these are the most important issues?" The results are presented in Table 31. Seven-tenths answered affirmative- ly, tending to confirm the hypothesis. Only about one- eighth perceived management disagreeing as to the importance of the issues which labor had listed. Again, the latter had listed parking accommodations, public transportation, and annexation to be the most pressing community issues. Business has listed metropolitan planning, parking, and downtown development. -166- The labor respondents were given a chance to list what they considered to be specific management issues. Table 32 categorizes these responses. The wide range and low frequencies for the various issues mentioned indicates a high degree of uncertainty. As can be seen, however, annexation, transportation, and parking are more frequently mentioned than any other issues, indicating that labor feels that business also attributes importance to these issues. Two other questions were posed to the labor influ- entials, which although not directly relevant to the present hypothesis give added evidence concerning labor's perception of its power in community involvement. Table 3a categorizes the responses obtained from asking the respondents "Was or is organized labor in Wheelsburg consulted from the be- ginning on these community issues or not?" Two-fifths in- dicated that labor was not in at the initial stage of an issue, tending to confirm the recapitulations given by the business infermants. Slightly more than one-fifth asserted that labor was in at the beginning, while the same proportion indicated that laboris sequential involvement depended upon the particular issue. A still more general question was asked, "Is organized labor usually brought in from the beginning to make policy on broad community issues or not?" As Table 35 indicates, slightly more than one-half maintained that labor did not become involved in issue-resolution at the initial stages. ~167- Only about one-fourth asserted that labor was consulted from the beginning. Again, labor is acknowledging its subordinate position in community decision making. A second question used to test the proposition that labor would perceive itself in agreement with management as to the existence of issues and the holding of community ob- jectives was the following: "What are the general differences if any in the community objectives of labor and management?" Table 33 shows that slightly more than half could ascertain no differences in objectives. Half of this same group saw only differences in means. Slightly more than one-eighth indicated that differences depended upon the issue. Of those mentioning specific differences, only "governmental objectives" and "tax policies" appear as significant items and these received infrequent mention. These data lend support to the prOposition. The following are representative comments: Basically, the objectives are about the same. The solutions of problems may differ slightly. Labor is fer everyone; it works for things that bene- ,fit the community, not for things that benefit one small group. Management leans towards those things that will help them and others that have a broad education and the necessities of life. I don't think that we're too far apart. Maybe I'm thinking wrong. Labor wants a better community in which to live. They vary. Labor would judge any program as to its effects on the lower income groups. Management retains its attitude of privilege. ~168- It would appear that labor is hard pressed to discern basic differences between itself and business. The general tenor of responses indicated that perceived differences were essentially differences in motivation. Thus precise differ- ences were not formulated even in the cases where tax poli- cies or governmental objectives were mentioned. As shown above, references was usually made to business' sectarian motivation as Opposed to labor's "common man" orientation. Both with regard to objectives and issues, labor's agreement with business is validated by the data. It may be recalled that labor acknowledged the importance of economic objec- tives in terms of its own program. At the same time, both business and labor attribute to each other primary economic motivation for the group's community involvement. Business-Labor Cooperation Labor's perception of the desirability of cooperation with business was elicited through the use of a number of questions. The labor respondents were first asked, "To what extent do you feel that organized labor can realize its community objectives without the help of management and other groups?" Over seven-tenths acknowledged that labor needed the assistance of business to attain its community objectives. Only two respondents voiced the Opinion that labor was not in need of assistance from business. These results clearly Support the author's hypothesis. -169- As a followup, the following question was posed: "In the long run will labor be better Off to set up its own com- munity services program independent of other groups in the community?" The respondents were virtually unanimous (nine- tenths) in denying the feasibility of an independent labor program. This, of course, is not surprising in view Of the reSponses to the question immediately above. In short, labor is dedicated to a program Of general, community-wide involve- ment. Its own goals are identified with those of the com- munity and for the attainment of both labor perceives the need and desirability of cooperation with other civic agencies. [Importance of Organizational Participation Some indication Of labor's perception of organiza- tional participation in the community has already been red vealed. Welfare organizations were considered to be labor's most important concern; labor generally feels that its par- ticipation has affected the policies Of various organizations. The present prOposition states that labor considers it im- portant to participate in as many community organizations as possible. TO indicate the degree to which labor felt its present participation was adequate, the respondents were asked, "Are there organizations or activities in the Wheels- burg area in which you feel that labor should participate but does not?" Table 38 summariZes the responses given.' As -170- indicated, almost half felt that labor's present participa- tion was adequate. However, the remainder took the opposite view and listed various organizations and areas in which they felt labor participation was inadequate. The most fre- quently mentioned area was government. This is particularly significant in view Of business-government participation in issue-resolution as revealed by the business informants. The other responses cover a wide range with only hospital boards and the Board of Water and Light receiving as many as four mentions. They do indicate perceived gaps in labor's com- munity involvement on the part Of labor influentials. The respondents were then queried as to possible opposition to labor participation in these various areas rand organizations. They were asked, "Is anybody Opposing labor?" The results in Table 39 indicate that labor is 'uncertain of the existence of possible Opposition, and if it is, the Opposition cannot be clearly specified. Again, slightly less than one-half perceived no Opposition. Those that did perceive Opposition most frequently mentioned "business" groups and next in order the mayor and govern- mental bodies. The local newspaper received one mention as a source of labor Opposition. The author wrote in his master's thesis: Vflhen.pressed to name the "Opposition" only about three- tenths Of the respondents actually pointed to business groups as Opposing their participation in community affairs. To be sure management groups were the only ones mentioned, for municipal agencies or officials were -l7l- considered "management" in the eyes of labor, as was brought out in numerous ways during the course of the interviews. As a matter of fact, local government agencies and commissions were mentioned frequently as opposing labor participation. These were seen as almost entirely staffed by business and industrial figures, appointed by the mayor. The difficulty of getting a labor representative on the parking authority was men- tioned by a number of informants who resented its being "packed" with businessmen.h Labor is clearly split with regard to the general level of satisfaction with its present program of community involvement. This is revealed in a dimly perceived source of Opposition manifested in a business-government alliance. To probe further into the problem, the respondents were asked, "Are there organizations or types of organizations in which labor should not participate, including organizations in which it now has representation?" It was assumed that labor might evince a desire to curtail rather than expand its community participation. The results in Table A0 demonstrate rather conclusively that this is not the case. Almost three- quarters Of the informants gave a negative reply to the question. Of those answering affirmatively, most frequent :mention was given to business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufac- turers. It might be added, somewhat parenthetically, that in neither of these organizations did labor have representa- 'tione 'Phe general conclusion that can be drawn from these Albido , p. 57. ~--—- *4..- --—~ -172- two queries is that labor desires to maintain its present level of community participation, and if possible, to in- crease it. It would seem that this conclusion is supportive of the proposition under investigation. Finally, the respondents were asked, "Do you believe it is important or not important for organized labor to participate in as many community organizations as possible?" All but two voiced support of the widest range of community participation possible. The responses resound with such comments as: Organized labor summarizes the thinking of the people. It cuts across many segments of the community. Labor can make its greatest contribution if the doors are kept open. For the common good of the community, it is desir- able and necessary for labor to participate. Labor must know what other organizations are doing. No organiza- tion should become sectarian in its views. Wide participation for labor gives each side a better understanding of the other. Labor makes up the largest segment of the population. It should have a voice in community affairs. Anything that happens in the community will affect labor so labor has to participate. Thus, the widest participation is important to labor because it is both "right" and "functional" for labor to do so. In the first instance, labor is identified with the community. In the latter, labor participation better ac- quaints the group with other community agencies; this is necessary so that each group will retain its community orienta- tion. -173- As was the case with business, each of the "inter- action" hypotheses was confirmed. Labor, like business, perceived the two groups to be in accord with respect to issues and objectives. Both stressed the importance of mutual assistance and cooperation. Communityawide organi- zational participation was likewise considered to be im- portant by both labor and business. Comparing the total imagery of the two groups, it has been shown that both groups viewed the power structure as being concerned with "non- economic" issues. Both groups perceived community partici- pation as somewhat less important than political participa- tion. With respect to the power structure, both groups attributed primary importance to participation in welfare organizations. With respect to "structural" imagery both labor and business perceived the latter as wielding the greater power. Most divergency was found in the two groups' "attributive" imagery. They agreed as to the invariability iof community decision makers and that the mode of issue- :resolution was "public." Labor, however, perceived these decision nakers as requiring organizational approval, while business perceived them as acting autonomously. Viewing ‘their'respective positions in the power structure, business perceived itself to be more responsible but less united than labor and to have more interest and stakes in comunity participation. Labor viewed itself as being more responsi- ble tnxt less united than business. It agreed that business -174- has more stake and interest in community participation. Given such labor imagery, it is again necessary to relate such perceptions to labor's actions through an analysis of the group's further perception of issue-resolution. Does labor's imagery of business domination "come through" or emerge in its historical recapitulations of issues or pro- jects? Are labor tactics predicated upon a perceived lack of Opposition? Does labor really wield the influence which it claims to wield? Is potential powerawielding on the part of labor inhibited by its imagery? Does labor in "reality" manifest the "cooperative" spirit revealed in the above imagery? In short, what is the relationship between labor's "definition of the situation" and its actions in the situation? The same questions can also be applied to busi- ness as the-historical perceptions of the two groups are analyzed in the next chapter. CHAPTER VI BUSINESS AND LABOR PARTICIPATION IN ISSUE-RESOLUTION Part One: Historgpal Reports offCommunity_Influengiglg To more accurately assess the objective power positions of business and labor and also to complement the study of group imagery as it relates to action, an attempt was made to ascertain the role of each group as it participated in the resolution of particular issues. An analysis of a group’s participation in the decision-making processes involved in issue-resolution affords the oppor- tunity to test the group's potential or reputed power. Ac- cordingly, in the last part of the interview, the respondent was invited to discuss an issue of his own choosing or to select one from a list which the investigator had compiled on the basis of a sample drawn from a perusal of past editions of the local newspaper. The respondent was queried as to the individuals and organizations involved, judgments as to the position taken and influence wielded by the participants mentioned, and finally questions as to the techniques manifested by the various participants. Experi- ence gained from the initial interviews led to the abandon- ment of strict adherence to the fOrmal questions, since most -l75- ~176- of the respondents tended to stray from the formal line of questioning and would give rambling accounts of various issues as they came to mind. As a result the desired infor- mation was not always elicited or was usually incomplete. However, in some cases the information obtained suggested new modes of analysis not previously considered by the investigator. Summary of Data on Issues Table 41 briefly summarizes the quantity and quality of the data procured from the business informants. Twenty- four of the respondents gave what might be called historical recapitulations of issues. Two of the twenty-four gave accounts of two issues. Fifteen respondents limited them- selves to brief statements, usually pertaining to the per- ception of the general role played by particular organi- zations or individuals in the power structure, sometimes supplemented by a brief anecdote to support their generali- zations. Table 41 also shows that only ten "types"of issues were related. As will be revealed in the fellowing para— ‘graphs, most of these were in reality what might be termed "projects" rather than issues, since there was little per- ception of conflict among participants as to the "end" to ‘be achieved and only a minimum Of perceived conflict as to the "means" to be used. Regarding business-labor relations, 'there was little, if any, perception of cleavage. As can be ~177- TABLE Al SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DATA ON ISSUES OBTAINED FROM BUSINESS AND LABOR W Number Issue Business Labor Respondents giving issue-resolution histories 24 23 Total histories given 26 23 Different histories (i.e. different types of issues mentioned) 10 6 Types of issues labor mentioned as participant 2 6 Types of issues business mentioned as a participant 10 6 Types of issues government mentioned as a participant 8 A -178- seen, labor was viewed as a participant in only two issues. Government, on the other hand, was viewed as a participant in eight of the ten issues. Here too, there was little perception of cleavage, but rather a general imagery of business-government "cooperation" which virtually without exception saw business as "winning its point." For this reason, the relatively high incidence of perceived govern- ment involvement does not mean that government wielded a great deal of community power. This point too will become clearer as the analysis proceeds. . Table #2 attempts to relate the types of issues mentioned and their frequency of mention with perception of actor involvement and frequency of mention. For example, thirteen historical resumes of the "hospital issue" were related. Business was included in all of the resumes, labor in six, and government in none. Four recapitulations of ‘the "downtown development" issue were Obtained; business xmas mentioned in each while labor and government were excluded from.each. The only other issue in which labor rated.a mention was the parking bond issue. Government 'was perceived as a participant in all issues except those of the "hospital" and "downtown development." In a gross sense, of’the twenty-six recapitulations given, labor was included in seven while government was included in nine. Such figures give a clear indication of business' self- perceived power-wielding, even though the histories do nOt ~179- reveal any "tests of strength" involving Opposition between business and other institutional segments. For the most part, "issues" seen in oppositional terms involved internal splits among business itself and not between business and labor or business and government. The nature of the issues mentioned again points to an imagery of business' social responsibility. With per- haps but one exception, "Sunday shopping," the issues were of a broad, community-wide nature. Particularly significant is the fact that one-third of the respondents felt disposed to give an account of the hospital expansion program and the role which business played in it. The next most fre- quently mentioned issue was downtown development in which apparently business was the only group involved. Both types Of’issues are of Obvious importance to the whole community as are such problems as "annexation," "metropolitan plan- ning," "airport facilities," and the others. The respon- dents were usually quick to point this out, by implication (tisclaiming any self-interest on the part of business. How- ever, some exceptions will be noted, wherein an accusing finger was directed at a particular organization or in- dividual for being "selfish." A degree of ambivalence was expected in view of some of the findings noted above which revealed business to be participating in community organi- zations for itself as well as for the community. Based upon the types of issues mentioned, however, the author is -l80- TABLE 42 FREQUENCY OF ISSUES AND ACTOR PARTICIPATION MENTIONED BY BUSINESS AND LABOR 1 Times Times Times Fre- Labor Business Government Issue quency Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Business Hospital expansion 13 6 13 O Downtown develop- ment A O A O Annexation 2 O 2 2 Metropolitan planning 1 O l 1 Parking bond 1 l l 1 Airport construc~ tion 1 O l 1 Street extension 1 O l l Triecounty pro- posal l O l 1 Sunday shopping 1 O 1 1 Location city hall 1 O l 1 TOTAL 26 7 26 9 Laser: Hospital expansion 9 9 9 O Payroll.tax 5 5 5 5 Parking bond 5 5 A 5 ~181- TABLE 42 - Continued it 4 Times . Times Times Fre- Labor Business Government Issue quency Mentioned Mentioned Mentioned Labor Bus subsidy 2 2 2 ’2' Flouridation l l l 0 Revision of city a charter l l l 1 TOTAL 23 23 23 13 led to conclude that business perceives the community power structure in terms of a "public welfare" model. This view usually obtained whether business was relating its own role in community participation or the role of labor or govern- ment. Thus business was not quick to attribute selfish motives to either government or labor as well as itself. Before attempting a needed elaboration of this pre- liminary summarizing date, two outstanding Observations are in order, both of which will be lent further support by the analysis to follow. The first observation is that the re- spondents apparently did not report "real" issues. Rather the exe- cation of "projects" was reported in which there were no. real contests of power between Opposing groups. Certainly ~182- on no issue, was business found to be opposing labor. Second, overwhelming influence was attributed to business in these various histories and little influence was attributed to both labor and government. Granted an image of power structure integration in which cOOperation is the perceived mode of Operation, it might appear that business' prepon- derant influence in realfiy renders this cooperation unnec- essary. The paragraphs to follow relate in more detailed fashion such cooperation as was reported by the inter- viewees. We shall note the number of references to specific people named as participants in the various issues. More difficult is the task of presenting in a precise form the influence attributed to participants and the task of repre- senting precisely the "techniques" of influence they used. Both tasks will be attempted with the verbal reports of the influentials themselves serving as the chief guidelines. Community Influentials and Organigationg In constructing Table 43 an attempt was made to ascertain the role played by the various community influen- tials in the various types of issue-resolutions which were mentioned. The main purpose was to determine whether cer- tain influentials were found participating in all issues or whether influentials varied from issue to issue. Is there a solid core among the influentials who take the lead in all community problems, or are they divided into -183- TABLE A3 FREQUENCY WITH WHICH INFLUENTIALS AND ORGANIZATIONS WERE MENTIONED BY TYPE OF ISSUE Issue Frequency Frequency of Mention of Influentials Frequency of Mention of Organizations Hospital expansion (13) Downtown develop- ment (A) Annexation (2) Airport construc- tion (1) Street extension (1) Metropolitan plan- ing (1) Tri-County pro- posal (1) Sunday shopping (1) Location of city hall (1) Parking bond (1) Newsworthy (7), Car (A). Macey (A), Sale (3), Banker (2 Metal (2), Hearse, Wage, Local, Medick Iron, Piston, Mine Car (2), Newsworthy (l), Writ (1) Acre (l) Banker (1) Brick (1), Dean (1) Risk (1), Piston (l) Bigsell (l) Lobby (l), Govern (l) Govern (l), Wage (l) 11) Chamber of Com- merce (7), City Journal (3), Perry Motors Corporation (2) Chambef cf Com- merce A City Journal (I), Uptown Business- men's Assoc. (1) City Journal (1) Chamber of Com- merce (1) Chamber of Com- merce (1) Chamber of Com- merce (1) Chamber of Com- merce (1) Board of Realtors (1) ~184- sub-groups of "specialistS" whose influence is wielded only in particular kinds of community issues or projects? It will be recalled that the business influentials were asked to designate their ten top key leaders. The present analy- sis should provide a further check on the reliability of the choices of the individuals so designed. Table #3 Pro- vides the same cross-check on influential organizations pre- viously mentioned by the informants. With respect to the naming Of organizations, it should be mentioned that un- less an organization was specifically mentioned it was not included in the tally. Similarly with regard to the naming of influentials, if a particular organization was named this in some cases would necessarily imply the involve- ment of certain influentials. These influentials were not included in the tally unless they were specifically mentioned by name. ‘ An illustration should make this point clear. For example, if "labor" was mentioned as a participant, it was Obvious that this meant meant that Wage, the labor influential was also a participant. However, this was only recorded , as a mention for "labor" and not for Wage. Conversely, if Wage was mentioned and not "labor," this was recorded only as a tally for the individual Wage and not the organization "labor." This point is particularly important when viewing the total results, particularly as its concerns the mention- ing of the Chamber of Commerce. Although the Chamber of ~185- Commerce was not specifically mentioned in each issue-re- capitulation, its involvement was implicit since those in- fluentials mentioned were members of the Chamber of Commerce. This is an extremely important point to bear in mind, even though the Chamber garnered the highest number of mentions. The final tally is not wholly indicative of the pervasive influence of this organization. Table AA summarizes the detailed tallies of organi- zations and individuals given in Table A3. Table AA presents the total mentions received by individuals and organizations and the total number of gypgg of issues which these mentions covered. The results are informative, if not conclusive. Among the community influentials, the highest frequency of mention was given to Newsworthy, the local newspaper pub- lisher. Can the automobile plant executive, received the next highest number of mentions. In third place was Macey, a department store executive. At the bottom of the list were Govern, the mayor, and Wage, one of labor's representa- tives among the community influentials. Each of these in- dividuals rated only two mentions apiece. As can be seen, the range of mentions is relatively small, going from News- "OrthY*s eight to Wage's and Govern's two. However, even this small distribution is consistent with the general imagery documented above, in which business accorded itself the leading position in the community power structure. ~186- TABLE ha TOTAL MENTIONS RECEIVED BY ORGANIZATIONS AND INFLUENTIALS BY NUMBER AND TYPES OF ISSUES Mentions Number and Type of Issues Organizations Chamber of Commerce City Journal Perry Motors Corporation Labor Influentials' Newsworthy ,.Car Macey Banker Sale Govern Wage 1h (Hospital, downtown development, airport construction, metro- politan plannin , tri- county proposal? (Hospital expansion, _ downtown development, annexation) (Hospital expansion) (Parking bond, hospital expansion) (Hospital expansion, downtown development) (Hospital expansion, downtown development) (Hospital expansion) (Hospital expansion, airport construction) (Hospital expansion) (Location city hall, parking bond) (Hos ital, parking bond? -187- It will be recalled that Car, Dean, Newsworthy, Banker, School, Macey, Govern, Iron, Piston, and Writ repre- sented the key influentials as chosen by the total list of informants themselves. Half of these influentials, namely Car, Newsworthy, Banker, Macey, and Govern make their appearance on the list of participants in issue-involvement. Somewhat surprising is the absence of Dean, the university president, who received the second highest number of votes among the key influentials. In reality he received one mention as a participant. However, comments made by a number of respondents indicate that Dean Operates "behind the scenes" not of choice, but perhaps of necessity because of the heavy burden of his office. His role in community affairs apparently was often limited to the expression of a judgment or Opinion, which in itself was sufficient to stimulate the initiation of a project or the resolution of an issue. It might be added that each of the key influ- entials received at least one mention as a participant, but these were not included in Table AA. In general, the overlap between the lists of influentials and participants lends some support to the community influentials' judgments as to their key powerawielders. Table an only partially supports the influentials' xuytion that the same members of their group are represented on diiTerent issues; that the body of community decision- xmakers is a solidary "stable" group. For example, Car was -188- mentioned as a participant in the resolution of only two out of a possible ten issues. Newsworthy, who received more mentions than Car, received these mentions in reference to only two issues. In fact, five of the seven "participants" received mention in reference to only two issues. Notwith- standing these observations, it is quite clear that decision makers are drawn from the pool of community influentials. The data point to the existence of "specialists" among the business influentials. Issue-involvement appears to be selective among the group. Of course, it is extremely difficult to generalize in this regard due to the paucity of issues mentioned. The author realizes that the "full" or complete participation of the influentials was not ob- tained by his investigation. The data he did Obtain, how- ever, lead to the conclusion just offered.. Yet even this conclusion must be qualified. Though there is some turnover of influentials from issue to issue, it is not definite that certain influentials are associated with only certain "types" of issues. For example, in viewing Table AA it is difficult to maintain that Newsworthy concerns himself with only a particular type of issue. Newsworthy was mentioned in reference to hospital expansion and downtown development. In the former, raising money was the basic problem; in the latter setting up organizational machinery was the initial task. These two "problems" seemingly require different skills, and thereby different "specialties." In one sense, -l89- both issues required publicity, which Newsworthy was able to supply through his newspaper. From the recapitulations which were given, however, it would seem that Newsworthy contributed organizational skills as well as publicity. With these facts in mind, the reader is left to his own judgment regarding Newsworthy's classification as a community "specialist." The same comments apply to Car who raised money for the hospital expansion program and was instru- mental in setting up the organizational framework for "down- town develOpment." The same trend toward selectivity in issue-involve- ment is evident in an organizational sense, with the sole exception Of the Chamber of Commerce which was directly or indirectly involved in all Of them either through what might be called direct "formal" participation or "indirect" participation through individual members who serve as its informal representatives. Thus this organiation's involve- ment in Table 1.1. is underestimated, wherein it is shown that the group participated in five types of issues. Even taking the distribution as it is, the diffuse power of the Chamber of Commerce is unmistakable. The organization received five times as many mentions as the next organiza- tion, the local newspaper! Only two other groups, labor and the automobile corporation, received more than one men- tion and they only received two each. Numerous agencies received only one specific mention and are not included in -190- the table. Conspicuous by its absence is the city council which received only one specific mention. The author should reiterate that these are mentions of specific organizations. Otherwise the data presented in this table might seem con- tradictory to the data presented in Table 41 in which it was shown that "government" was a participant in eight of the ten issues. The latter table was developed by consider- ing the mention of both individuals and organizations and by looking at the total history which was obtained. Often- times the interview included references to "politicos" or politicians with no further elaboration. In some instances, no reference was made at all to governmental participation, although it was obvious from the nature of the issue that government had to be a participant. For example, one in- formant spoke of annexation without any direct or indirect reference to the role which government played, limiting himself exclusively to the part played by business. When the influentials were asked to nominate the most powerful organizations in the city the top four, in order; were the Chamber of Commerce, the local newspaper, ‘the aumomobile concern, and the labor council. This rank- ing coincides perfectly with that in Table 41.. The pre- ponderance of influence attributed to business associations is validated in terms of their perceived participation in issue-resolution. As one views the perceptions of issue- resolution, business power vis-a-vis labor and government -l9l- is strikingly portrayed. As will be revealed shortly, even those issues in which labor and government were involved fOund both agencies to be largely devoid of influence- wielding. The writer is fully aware of the methodological hazards facing the investigator as he attempts to recon- struct the histories of various issue-resolutions. Dependence upon the verbal reports of infOrmants in the present instance represents a formidable Obstacle or short-coming. The nature of the present problem demands that such an undertaking be attempted. Actually it represents an attempt to compare the reputed power of the influentials with their "actual" power. There is one important qualification, however. The "actual" power wielded by the influentials in the resolution of the following issues is based upon their own perceptions and not those of the investigator. But again, a comparison of such historical perceptions with those structural images revealed above seems highly significant. Of concern is the discernible relationships between the two. In a broader sense, the question revolves around the effect which a group's imagery has upon its relationships in the power structure as these relationships are manifested in part by the group's tactics of issue-involvement. Since the most data was com- piled on the so-called "hospital" issue, the author will present a brief recapitulation of its whole history for the purpose of illustrating the type of information which -l92- was Obtained. This information in turn will be used to document actor involvement as to mode and degree of influence- wielding. Such information regarding the other issues will be summarized in tabular form. An Issue Analysis: The Hospital Project Form and Miller suggest that a study of actual power based upon an analysis of decision making should attempt to construct what they call "tests of involvement."1 Three such tests are formulated by the authors. The first one is called Involvement by Issue or Decision Saliency, in which an attempt is made to link influentials and groups to issues differentiated by their degree of saliency or importance. The more important the issue the more accurately the power of the actors can be gauged. The second test is called Involvement by Temporal Sequence in Issues of Relative Saliencya This test assumes that early involvement indicates greater’power. The third test is Involvement by Sanctions. It attempts to ascertain the effectiveness of the sanctions that are>applied by the various power contestants. Due to the dearth of "real" issues uncovered by the author in his investigation, he cannot make full use of such tests. The data obtained do not seem adequate for 1William H. Form.and Delbert C. Miller, Industr and Community (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1965). -l93- the construction of either test one or three. Regarding test one for example, in no instance was there a clear challenge to business authority considering "business" as a unit. In some instances there was revealed an internal split among business itself, when the influence of a specific business agency was challenged. In general, one would be forced to conclude that one issue was considered as important as any other. Similarly, for test three since there was no real challenge to business, there was little apparent use of sanctions. In view of the nature of the data, test two seems most applicable. Most of the infor- mation obtained was relative to the temporal sequence of involvement. Following this mode of analysis, the author is best able to document the relative power Of business and labor in issue resolution. The history of the hospital issue runs as follows: The board of one of the local hospitals had drawn up a prOposed plan for expanding its facilities. One of the board members happened to be Newsworthy, publisher of the local newspaper. Newsworthy eventually agreed to give the plan publicity in his paper. It was generally agreed upon by the board that the financial backing of the community was needed, if the desired expansion was to be a success. This entailed the organization of some type of hospital "drive." A meeting was called at one of the local hotels, in which.various influentials, including the then president -l9h- of the Chamber of Commerce, Mine, and Newsworthy attended. The proposed plan was presented at the meeting. Several doctors were in attendance who represented hospitals other than the one which had proposed expansion. They objected to holding a drive for only one hospital. Several spoke up for a local Catholic hospital. Two influentials, Macey and Iron put in a word for the local osteopathic hospital. Apparently a year and a half elapsed after this meeting before the project was resumed. After this time lag a meeting was set up in the office of the Qipy'Journal at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce. In attendance were representatives from Perry .MOtors (including Car), Wheelsburg Motors, and the 3 hospitals, and, of course, Newsworthy. At this meeting an extremely important development occurred. Car said that he could net guarantee the financial support Of Perry unless the osteo- pathic hospital was to be included in the drive, the reason being that many Of his corporation's employees availed them- selves of the services of this particular hospital. Appar- ently there was little if any opposition to this demand. The meeting was adjourned after making two important de- cisions. First, the drive was to include all three of the hospitals. Secondly, to organize the fund-raising a non- profit corporation was set up with Newsworthy as president and Macey as vice-president. Car wanted the incorporating process speeded up so that any contribution which Perry -l95- might make could be used for tax deduction purposes, since the year was drawing to a close. This was accomplished and at a "kick-off" dinner Car presented Newsworthy with a check for $750,000, which according to Newsworthy was to his com- plete surprise. It will be noted that labor was not represented in this initial phase of the project. After the above had transpired, Al Barrett the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce contacted Wage, president of the CIO labor council, to enlist the union's support. Newsworthy called Local, the president of the AFL council. Apparently the need for rapid incorporation was used in both cases to pressure a verbal comittment of support from both labor leaders. This proved a source of later embarrassment and difficulty since in giving a verbal commitment the labor Officials were by- passing regular union channels to which such matters were usually referred. As it turned out, the matter was ultimately thrashed out in respective council meetings of the two unions, but was never referred to the rank-and-file accord- ing to standard procedure. Newsworthy made personal appear- ances at the labor council meetings to "sell" the program. After lengthy debates, in which various union Officials made the charge of "rail-roading" the labor groups agreed to support the program. The net result of ignoring the rank-and-file in this process also placed a heavy burden upon the union leaders themselves who had to explain to the -196- workers in the various plants the nature and purpose of the drive. However, for its participation, the unions insisted that several demands be met. The chief of these was that labor be represented on the boards of the various hospitals. The Hospital Fund Committee which had been set up as part of the campaign agreed to meet this demand. Almost immedi- ately, two of the hospital boards solicited labor representa- tion. The third agreed to set up an advisory committee to its board in which labor could participate, saying that its board did not have members who represented any organized group. For the edification of the reader, a sampling of the reports from which the above history was reconstructed, is in order. Anong these were the following: There was pressure for beds at Robin hospital. Robin decided that it was too small. It started plans to add beds on its own. Plans for a Robin hospital drive got underway. Someone talked to the Chamber of Commerce about it, and the Chamber suggested a joint drive. Representatives from the three local hospitals got together and organized a joint drive. Many groups were contacted, including labor. Newsworthy was the big push. He had expansion plans all drawn up for Robin hospital, where he was serving on the board. We had the same idea for Osteo hospital. When I heard that Robin was going to have a drive, I called Mike Macey and told him the news. I told him to contact the St. Martin hospital. He's a Catholic. Macey contacted Newsworthy. We decided to- join Newsworthy and Macey in a joint fund-raising cam- paignr. Car told Newsworthy that Perry corporation wouldn't participate if Osteo hospital wasn't included. -l97- Newsworthy, the most frequently mentioned individual, gave this version, which has been edited and abbreviated by the author: I initiated the project at a board meeting of Robin hospital. I contacted Car, Ames, and others by letter explaining the need for such a project. Ames suggested a community-wide campaign so we formed a corporation. Car and Ames invited me to a surprise dinner at which Car gave the corporation a check for $750,000. Letters ‘were written to Wheelsburg Motors and other groups and we were pledgeiSl,250,000 befOre the actual cam aign got started. Then complaints came in from the abor unions. We explained the whole thing to them and they came along. For purposes of making the desired analysis of this issue or project the fOllowing salient points should be noted. The emphasis of course will be on the particular roles played by business and labor. This analysis will serve as a model when considering the other issues as well, Business influence is in evidence from the inception of the project. It was a "business" representative who defined the "problem" and got hospital expansion accepted by other community groups as a problem. Business was totally (responsible fOr organizing the fund-raising campaign. Busi- ness groups made the initial contributions to the campaign. Internally, one agency within business, wielded effective sanctions in the form of threats to withhold its support. Its demand was met as a result. All this transpired 1391933 labor entered the scene. Excluded from this initial stage of definition and organization, labor was then called upon for its financial support. It also wielded an effective -198- sanction in the form of a threat to withhold support until its "demands" were met. In terms of sequence of involvement then, business wielded much the greater influence. In terms of sanctions, a power comparison is difficult to make. Business did ppp wield sanctions against labor. Labor did wield sanctions against business, which proved effective. Thus there was no real "power struggle." Both groups were "for" hospital expansion, but labor's apparent perception of its exclusion from the initial stage of the program, led it to attach conditions to its participation. In this instance, it had the power, based upon its financial resources, to see that these conditions were met. In brief, labor did manifest the ability to influence business. However, in a gross sense, the author must declare the power balance to be in business' favor. Business evidenced greater influence in getting not only labor, but other community groups as well to agree that there was a problem and in enlisting their support to solve it. Business was obviously influential in the actual execution of the project, organizing the campaign during which time it "moved" other groups. These aspects entail "manifest" power on the part of business; in terms of Q; ppgp £§ppp_issue analysis, it is essentially illustrations of "manifest" power which the investigator must use in his comparison of inter-group influence. In this instance ~199- business' latent or potential power was Obviously transformed into "actual" power. To some degree, the same process was also true of labor, but in the author's opinion, to a much lesser extent. This particular project serves to illustrate that labor's power potential, at thissmage of development of its position in the power structure, is based primarily on its economic resources as was indicated in earlier chapters. BusinesS'power potential as evidenced in this case has a much broader base in terms of its resources; its occupancy of key potential power positions in the community power structure being one of these. One can argue of course that this in itself is the result of the possession of other resources such as "talent," "status" or the like. Of importance in the present analysis, however, are the ob- jective consequences of this fact which yield examples of power-wielding. Any quantitative judgments as to "greater" or "lesser" power-wielding on the part of particular groups is difficult to make when consideringa particular situation. Yet it would seem that such discrete judgments are necessary if one is to make an over-all judgment regarding the power balance between two such institutions as business and labor. In the present issue analysis the author's judgments are based primarily on the temporal sequence of involvement as reconstructed from the respondents' reports, and to a much lesser degree on the apparent effectiveness of sanctions -200- since their use in most instances must necessarily be in- ferred by the investigator due to the lack of real issues which limited clear manifestations of same. (It should be noted that there was little disagreement between respondents , regarding their reports of the same issue). Thus, it is somewhat easier for the investigator to discern the use of "negative" sanctions or'penalties than it is to discern and portray to the reader the use of "positive" sanctions or rewards. The issues analyzed here see heavy use of the latter, but not the former. In the hospital issue under consideration, business made use primarily of "positive" sanctions in influencing other groups. Labor made use only of a "negative" sanction. Because of business' realizations of' its will as measured by the "objective" results, its influencing of other agencies, and because of its earlier involvement, the author is led to attribute greater influ- ence to business in the hospital project. This trend will carry'through the other issues as the reader will see shortly; Unfortunately in the analysis of the other issues, labor was revealed as a participant in only one. This bald fact of itself strikingly documents business supremacy in the community power structure. The other most active participant was government, whose influence was also revealed to be minimal. Other Issues The analysis of the various issues is summarized in -201- Table AS. It includes the nature of the issue, the sequence of actor involvement in the issue, the nature of sanctions or techniques employed by the participants, and finally, a judgment as to the power-ranking of the various participants. Those issues reported more than once will be described briefly. "Downtown development" was and continues to be a favorite project of local businessmen. Manifestly, the concern of all community elements, its initiation and imple- mentation have not extended beyond the circle of community influentials if the following reports are any indication: Car, while a member of the municipal parking commission, suggested that the city hire a group of planners. He was supported by the Uptown Businessmen's Association which was interested in the ultimate develop- ment of a good downtown shopping area. The idea of a proposed study was taken up by the Journal and given wide publicity by Newsworthy. The idea was taken up by the Chamber of Commerce. ‘Writ was president at the time. He appointed a special study committee with Jones as chairman, who in turn appointed sub-committees. The net result was the for- mation of the Downtown Develo ment Corporation. It is currently trying to raise 70,000. Although technically born in a city agency, the reports obviously show that local government has virtually drOpped out of the picture as far as the program of down- town development is concerned. The program although origi- nally given expression in a government commission was the exclusive product of business thinking. One informant in answer to the question why the city didn't plan local .socmmm moonwmsn Ah so a: pen shocwgoms mw HmnOHumnwnmwno .m . .noama was as Hmfipco nuance mmenamsn he posauanna gownonm .N .hpon unoscno>om no Hmwpco Isaac“ mmocwmao .nmo an eeeaeee peenotm .H pcoacno>oc mmomfimsm wewxcmhuhosom .oonossoo mo neesmno so posnom nowpmnoapoo pemsmoam>oo axon uasoa.oonossoo no awesome n« a: new weepwesoo modem .hUSpm m venomous Assume» Noam .nmnsos a new .coammwssoo mnaxnma Hmdwoacss cw oe>aoonoo movH Items-names Jnosgo>oc .N .m .N .H Hams n no cowpusnpmcoo manammom weapsaoca spec one MO poaupmwp mmocamse Homecoo mo coapw>occom utpnmsaoao>op esopnsOm anoso>HO>cH mo Osvannoosnnoaponmm pceso>ao>nH MO mocoavom osmnH mmMZHmDm hm omsmommm mZOHBoo .oonmssoo Mo nonsmno aw amendmsn he >Ho>amsao two penance poononm -203- .esononOMon mnwpnoaasm mucuamon he poocmcwm swamasmo meanapno>p< .poadmn no use women sspconomon a“ menace (on unmaoapaaoa spa: scammsomap .mnOpHmom .N .H .N .H pnoscno>oo muonamsm wcaxnmnnno3om .huwo one an peatpmae Heeapa on some noun o>wpmpcomen on anoscno>om one moonwmsn m «o pomoqsoO nonsmno an poahOM oopuwssoounpnosnno>oo .oonoesoo Mo nonsmno mo moppwssoo amenmae no oo>woocoo mouauummonamsm unmanno>ooswmonwmzm mcfixcmnunosom .oommwa one cowumwoncm now uOHHmn no use sepnmnomom .pmnnoocoo powppmap one ca :mcmaOHpaHome oopomunoo ono< wcwosaocu .mnopamou napnosnno>oo.mmonwm:m .N .N .H .H .N .H .opo .nwca uoawsn see no eoauosnpm 3:00 one .mmmnm wcfiAHpno mo cowpmwocnm Mo mama spend cannon on sesame Hmpcosnno>ow no oa>ao w Mo pnoenmaanmumo one no nowpmnooannoo :uwcancmam ampaaoaonpoz ease as poatpnat Hoonom mo cowumwonc< pnoso>Ho>cH mo osaaenooaacowuonmm unoao>Ho>nH mo mononuom osmmH eesaapaoounme mamas unmanno>oo .m =.mome . nonmqummenfimsm .H nonmase pnwwm op mnaxcmnunosom puogasm weapmaace 0H0 pepompnoo onmom .N .wcaonmcwm .Hmmoaeua omen seam wnwaasm Mo pmohep cw wnwoasmen non haamwpcepea mexmp mnOpHmon ponHOn momma .m .noauosnom momma: mnemoaao mo .osno>on ones Op 3:00 meapflaaomm mew awoponm no mnopamem pomomao mnepamom mo onmom .N nxnma eonmcam Op sumo we onmom sweeten .Hwocsoo spec an women one be women we came commence mmecwmsm .H Iona OHmm pconsnpcoscno>oo .H pomoaonauupnon museums _ mos, unmannm>oo .N on mmecwmsm .H . wcaxcwnnnosom .opms .mmcfi one some peopmm mucoso>onasw .m names peach sweeps» .mo>apmonomouaon uses no: monmoaeoom one unne>em Hmnopoh one .oumum phoneme unmanno>oo .N .hpao weapsaonfi eonossoo mo .83 noose-85 a: new anonm bosom .N moons Mo coapficmeo .eonessoo he nonsmso he Sea . mowpwaflomm Hmcwsnou mmecwmsn O>Hmsaoxm .H speed we noanmpaummochsm .H phoneme mo pcese>ondsH pnese>ae>nH we oneso>Ho>cH mo oonoswom epmmH oaaficnoeennoapocmm madcapGOOItms mamoc .N mwmcfimSm .H waxamplhoZOA .950 h, voapumo nomnopm .cmEmmmc w Iwmsn :33me 95588 RE». . ufipa um ma gamut swag Hanan .d .pomthm mwsu cmwn op voHHmo wcflpmma owansm .m .mmwcmeD .mo>Hpmpcommpmmu ucmscum>ow hp amazomxo oomnopm .N no hpfiommmo Hmwofimmo :H .poohoua wcwpuw poc mamaowuaaoa Hmooa mmmawmsn vw>wmocoo Hmum>mm cum .nmoa .cmEmmo: thaopw>wpm uuoaaam uamzn :mwzpon yam: wcwpmmz .N .ummupm on ma unwzopp paws .mpnmnopme asapczon Hmpm>mm mafia czopnzoc mo mew azuo>om vum :oHHnsm: .H up um>wmonoo mmuwnnmmoswmsm .H uzonpwcwHaIGOquopXm poouum paoam>ao>nH no unmau>ao>cH mo mocmndmm cammH osuaqnomsnnoapoqmm g i cmsaapnqua-m¢ mgm uponzm hocsoo pom amp -smno up cams Lounge .H unoEm>Ho>nH Mo msvwnnomannowpocmm pcmacnm>oo mmmcamsm mcwxcmhoumzom .emanopm spa: mev on umpomum hpmcwnome psmachm>oo Lmnsmgo hp vapompcoo whomw> nquSm quSOoucpcoenpm>oo .mawpmma magmasoo no umnsmzo pm umGHMov zemanonmzanmmmsamzm pcoso>ao>aH mo mocmnvmm 1 uwsafipcoo-m¢ mqmuom Handmadum>om wcaumnwvhooo cam wnw>0pm new we amanoumnnhpasoonaue osmmH vmcwapopmucs mcaxawunnozom .wnwuamm ho um>aommncs 05mma .mmmcwmsn :HHmSwz you . W 3.22303” woummmmSm 93.390." 4% .HmmOQOAQ mmmaamdn was an weapow sundae upoahpm: awn Hammmam .Haonsoo mafia Hmooa uamauo znzov waaumumzz on umpmowwsm mHpr msoaum> .N Ho paaoa mad :0: .Hmmonoum pmcwmwm mumnwmsn .uouSoom puma mmocwnsn Hausa .Hmmcm nm>Ho>aa paoscnm>oc .N noun mawvumMmu uaamm anon .meomoum nansn HHmanuwwn .moamm hmv .thGSm :o mucosnmaanmpmo .mmnonsno on omnoammu mm team mo wnannmn vomomona mmmnflmsn mcwcmao mo pzmam>ao>aw mmozamam .H mmnouzno Mo Haonaoo Hmooq .H coapmmdonnwcwmmonm hmvcam pcoSo>Ho>uH Ho ocmao>ao>cH ho oucosuom osmmH osuunnooaacoaponmm cmscwpgoo--m¢ mqmoo .N mwmcamsm .H wawxcmunumzom . MW .30»: mama 63330 no: mm: J~ .pmcwmwm upped cowmmHsSOo wcficcaam mvahuum>o .wamm how HwOGSOU mafia on vmvmm: mpo> Hwocsoo 4\m .m no Hwapnmaamzw mum: .pfiamm Hwonsoo haw; uamwp .puaam pamsanm>om .mawm pmnwmwm a: Umcwa .kpnog :w umpumHMmh paamm .cowmmHEEOo wcwccmaa .nommz .N mmmcamsn Hmnumch .N .mHmm umcfimmm m>wpsomxm .mpmogwp Hmuos Hwooa .hnnoqusmmmcwmam IGH Hmooa on pmmgnp .Hamn mpao pcwmwum mo mpfim cm>fiooumm op museum co Hope: unsupmnoo op wnwnmaz .Hamn ton mm coapmmwowuumm aaoum mmmnflmsn muamaso hp hpwo mo phanm vmmomopm muonfimSQ Hmucmswom .H nanomouaam un>m8unucoanho>oo .H auaamn hpao coauwoog pcoam>Ho>cH mo paoSm>Ho>cH Mo mucosvom mammH osvwnnomauaowponwm mszflcod..-3 mam: -209- development replied that there were many interests in the city's fringe areas, representing many votes, that did not wish to see such develOpment concentrated in the down- town area. Many respondents expressed concern over the loss of business to suburban shopping areas. Government inactivity in this case had a "practical" basis. Regarding annexation, some extremely interesting remarks were verbalized by the informants. These included such as the following: We got the Sampson district in the city without too much difficulty. It didn't cost a lot of money. We contacted several of the politicians in the areas. I put in $lh00 and another realtor put in the same amount. The local fellows spent it where it would do the most good. Then we got the advertising campaign launched and they came in. Another respondent gave a much more elaborate and insightful analysis of annexation in general. His report is worth quoting in more detail. When we go into an area to consider school annexa- tion posibilities, I usually go first to the Chamber of'Commerce and ask their ideas on a city and the outlying area. Now I know that Perry wants the Wilson district (where their forge plant is located) and the west side (where their jet plamLis located) to be brought into Wheelsburg. Adman, their public relations man asked me years ago to pull in the Wilson District, not because they wanted the educational facilities, but because they wanted the fire protection of the ‘Wheelsburg department. Since then they have worked out.an.arrangement to get the protection they need. But ‘they'were and are afraid to come out and say that this is what they want. I know that Perry is behind an annexation study. fPhey'are willing to foot the bill in the guise of a (Huamber of Commerce study. In Laurel they have come right out in favor of a study of the Laurel metropoli- i'tan.district and they are paying for that study openly. -210- They are afraid of antagonizing the local popula- tions in the area where they are located. This is a lot different than the situation years ago, when they pushed their weight around. Labor too has gone through the same stages, from pushing their weight around to being afraid to offend someone for fear of being told they have ulterior motives. They both now push the information approach. "Let's see what the facts are." The above reports concerning annexation point to business influence, but not without important qualifications. In this instance, government is again the "influencee" and business the "influencer." Business' approach seems predicated on the assumption of potential opposition or at least as it perceives same. Such imagery results in a "cautious" approach bent at winning over the opposition which may be perceived as the government or the "public" through advertising campaigns or through more subtle study plans. Although the techniques may vary, the net result is usually the upholding of business' position. Yet it is interesting to witness the varied modes of influence- wielding employed by business, despite its proven success as a power group which can overcome the opposition, it still feels disposed to proceed with caution. As the latter infbrmant remarked, this seems to represent a "new" tact on the part of business. The informant who reported on the parking bond issue also made a number of general comments about the functioning of the power structure which merit repeating here. They are particularly enlightening as they pertain to the -211- relationship between local government and business. we can work through city government only indirectly. For example, someone in the Negro district wants to move his tavern into a white district. He wants to follow his trade. Some on the city council are against this; they want Negroes to confine their drinking to the colored area. However, the proprietor has the right to serve the clientele he wants to. I lined up two or three peOple on the council and told them the story. They agreed to back it. Max Printer and Fred House gave their approval, because this fellow would place his tavern in an industrial area where there were no single homes. Also he would build a nice place that would furnish good taxes to the city. ”You can't stop progress,” said Fred. I had lunch with the two councilmen and told them to tell my story. We then hired an attorney to present the case to the council and he swung over two or three more votes, so we got the change of license through. Ybu've got to work quietly on these kinds of things. People ‘will say you are fer the proposal only because you are interested in making the fee. The planning commission in Wheelsburg is sad. It has no power whatsoever. Everything has to go through the council. There is no sense hiring professionals if they cannot make any decisions themselves. Politics always get involved. In the general bonding issue for parking, the idea was that every alderman would have a parking place in their district as a monument for ‘what they had done for their area. If the ten people I checked got behind a proposal they could put it across. The Community Chest gets ‘together about thirty or forty people occasionally. JMbst of’them are on your list. They ask this group 'what they want, and then they put it into effect. The 'trouble is that this group does not act together on 'things that are important for the city as a whole. TPhey are really interested only in their plans and in some very general things such as the Community Chest. Government is really not in rtant for them. This is *why they let the small fry fgmall businessmen) handle gowernment jobs. Most of them are incapable of hand- ling the second largest business in Wheelsburg which runs into millions of dollars. The Big Five (Perry Remo, Wheelsburg Motors, John IPlough, and Ferris Body) could if they want, put .anything across in this community. But they don't. {They'are content to make their contributions to the Community Chest,but are not concerned with general vital -212- or governmental issues. Government could act on the downtown problem. They have all the power they need, but they are not handling the problem. They are letting the Downtown Development Council do the job they should be doing. The informant is clearly conceding greater power to business in the community power structure. Yet it is not used efficiently to cope with community problems. As for the informant's other remarks, several comments are in order. There is more or less a tacit admission of the government's subservience to business interests. This, however, has not resulted in an unfavorable image of busi- ness. It is not looked upon as "interfering" with local government except for the purpose of protecting its own interests; this interference does not result in "unreason- able" demands. This image of business' studied "non-inter- ence" in governmental affairs, stands in sharp contrast to ‘previous imagery which viewed business' position as largely apathetic or lackadaisical regarding its relationship with government. Summary of Group Participation in Issue Resolution Summarizing business, labor, and government partici- patixna in the various issues a number of salient factors should be noted. These types of issues mentioned by the informants bear out a general conclusion which one infers from the imagery documented above. The "issues" were essentially "projects" which for the most part did not pro- voke contesting positions on the part of the participants. -213- The perceived power structure is conflict-free. In general, what conflict there was appeared to represent a "means" conflict rather than an "ends" conflict. For example, no group was against hospital expansion Le; £53, a minimal amount of friction was generated over which groups were to benefit from the program and/or which groups were to participate in the pregram. Such an integrated power struc- ture as was evidenced makes it difficult to cite examples of "raw" power-wielding from the historical recapitulations given. In terms of sequential involvement, business power is clearly established although such documentation rests upon the reports of the informants. In virtually each type of issue, business itself had defined the issue or became immediately involved therein in its resolution. Government, although appearing in eight of the ten issues obviously played a relatively minor role. Its involvement was usually secured by business to validate and legitimize an already defined project. Organized labor made an appearance in only two of the issues and then its involve- ment came at a rather late stage of the resolution process. On the basis of mere involvement, organized labor manifested little power. In terms of sequence of involvement, the judgment is hardly more favorable. In terms of "techniques" of involvement, it was invariably business that got other groups to be involved merely by asking them to be a participant. In most instances, -211" the "other" group(s) represented government. cation was usually sufficient to win support for business' Mere communi- "position." It was usually a position regarding the ex- istence of a "problem" and its solution. The general lack of contesting positions made the use of other than verbal persuasive techniques on the part of business unnecessary. In perhaps in only one instance did business find itself confronted by a solid front of opposition; this was in the parking bond issue. Business, with the support of organized labor and the. public vote, won its position. On this issue, it will be recalled, business itself was split into opposing camps. A degree of internal disunity was also in evidence, on the "Sunday shopping" issue, but business itself did not appear to be in a contesting position with the church group. In essential agreement with the local church group, it can indeed be said to be winning its "position" that the Sunday ban should be applied with discretion. Finally, in regard to the location of the city hall, a business split was re- flected in the government's position with the result that a certain business unit won its position and another unit lost its position. In sum, looking at the total number of issues, in no instance can it be said that "business" as a whole lost its position. The limited opposition en- countered was overcome by winning the support of other groups, again through verbal techniques rather than the use of overt sanctions . -215- Other Reports The responses of the fifteen respondents who gave no histories were limited to brief statements about the general functioning of the power structure and occasional remarks about particular individuals or groups. For the most part these comments run in the same vein as the his- tories related above and serve to reinfbrce business' self- perception of influencedwielding. Several are quoted. Business supports churches by check, but not by attendance. People seek us because we help them when they're in trouble. [The infbrmant was a clergyman.) They see the clergyman as being a potentially influ- ential individual. Every Christmas I give talks on the meaning of the religious holidays. This way we gain a wide reputation. The influentials on your list know each other well, but they represent varying personalities. There is no advance planning for the problems which arise in this community. Problems come into focus only when particu- lar interests are affected. Then they send for an expert, after blaming each other for shortcomings. They ‘want the expert to tell them what they should have known. There is no scandal to arouse the people in this ‘town. We need a crisis; there are no special problems. ‘we can't stimulate the mayor . . . Government is large- ly'neglected by businessmen; business delegates jobs ‘to be done. It is impossible to get important business people to run for the city council . . . Dean operates 'behind the scenes locally. I talked to him about an- nexing East Wheelsburg to Wheelsburg. I've no doubt Jhe is for it and will work for it, but not in public. We rely on experienced individuals to carry out community projects. We usually go to the top of an organization and get its clearance if we want to use one of their men. We give the newer men first-hand experience by placing them directly on a project. We indoctrinate beforehand; it is usually worth the effort. There is a carry-over of personnel from one project to the next. It's a network of interpersonal relations . ~216- Conclusions It now remains to relate, if possible, the various historical perceptions of the informants with their pre- viously obtained imagery to ascertain to what degree the actions of business are influened or affected by its imagery of the power structure in which it is a participant. The general tenor of the historical perceptions appears to lend further validation to business' self-image of power and "responsibility." A rather fluid group of business actors dealt with "community" issues. The professed importance attached to participation in or cooperation with other com- munity groups did reveal itself in the resumes which were given, but to a limited degree. Cooperation was revealed mainly with government and much less so with labor. Busi- ness participation ig other community agencies was scarcely a factor in the resolution of any issue. It is significant that this "cOOperation" was revealed to be in the later stages of an issue or project. The perceived rapproachment ‘with.organized labor was realized, with qualifications, in ‘those two issues in which labor made an appearance. Briefly, business' techniques or actions revealed 13: community involvement perhaps could be summarized as follows: A rapidly-formed coalition of business units was usually developed for the purpose of defining an issue or project. In most cases, business deemed it necessary to secure the involvement of other community actors, one of ~217- which was invariably the city government. Usually, coopera- tion was secured from other community groups, by merely "explaining" the issue. However, business itself usually continued to play the principal role in the actual execu- tion of the project or the resolution of an issue. The problem now becomes to relate this general mode of involvement or techniques with the structural images which business holds. Are these techniques a direct result of business' perceptions of "issues," "power," "responses of the other," and "techniques?" Is perception itself one of the bases of business' power-wielding in the community? A review of business' perception of each of these elements is in order if the problem is to be clarified. Thus, with respect to "issues," it has been established that business perceives these to be community-wide and essentially "non-economic" in nature. It views community power’in terms of "interest," economic stakes, responsi- ‘bility; and "unity." It perceives the "responses of others" as essentially harmonizing or converging with its own position rather than opposing it. Finally, business per- ceives the techniques of power-wielding primarily in terms of "participation" in various community agencies. For the most part, an assessment of the data col- lected, would seem to justify the conclusion that business' imagery of the power structure facilitates rather than impedes its power-wielding. Its techniques are affected -218- by the imagery which it holds and are generally "success- ful" as a result because the imagery itself represents what one might call a "correct" or valid definition of the power situation existing in the community. The mechanics of issue-resolution are generally anticipated by business. The point under consideration needs further elaboration, since several qualifications must be introduced. In view of the historical recapitulations obtained, one must conclude that business power is most in evidence in its ability to win acceptance for its "definitions" of issues. This, in itself, does not represent a suprise finding. The more important question is "why" other groups accept the definitions. To say that acceptance is based upon the fact that business enjoys obvious status and prestige and/or power seems to beg the question. It is not enough to say that business wins acceptance because it has power. ‘The important question to consider is how business' obvious power'potential is transformed into manifest power in the vact of winning acceptance. It will be recalled that busi- ness perceives issues to be "community-wide" in nature and it is clear that it wins acceptance for its issue-definitions 1J1 the concrete situation by retaining this "communal” orientation. Business is able to win acceptance from other community groups by pointing out the implications which a particular project or issue has for these groups. An important theoretical issue arises at this point. -219- Does business' success in the winning of acceptance really represent an act of power? This again returns to the com- plex problem of the use of sanctions. It can be claimed that "true" power is manifest only in those situations wherein one has opposing groups and may judge the power of the groups concerned by noting the effectiveness of the sanctions which each applies. This position is necessarily holding to one important assumption with regard to sanctions, namely that sanctions are necessarily always "negative" in character. Following from this, the only valid measure of power is to note the effectiveness of these negative sanc- tions when applied. In the data which were obtained there were few illustrations of the use of negative sanctions. Only in the hospital issue did several groups, including a busi- ness organization and the local labor organization, resort to the use of negative sanctions, these taking the form of a threat to withdraw economic support. The question be- comes, does such a general finding with regard to the lack of use of negative sanctions, preclude the observation that business wielded power in those issues in which it did not resort to such negative sanctions? For example, in the airport project, is it correct to say that no "true" power was wielded by business, because after all, government was in basic agreement with business from the initial stages of the project? Since the data dealt more with projects ~220- rather than issues, do these involve power-wielding? We shall contend that power is also manifest through use of "positive" sanctions; it is through the use of some form of positive sanctions that business invariably won support fer the project which it proposed. Part of these sanctions include the very "definitional mode" which was employed by business and which was careful to point out the benefits to be reaped by other groups if the proposed project was supported. It seems that the winning of such legitimation is itself a form of power. At one and the same time it is realized also that the very fact that business takes the pains to secure such legitimation may also be taken as a sign that business perceives itself as incapable of "going it alone," that is, it is an indication of the group's awareness of its own power limitations. Granted this assumption, it would still seem that business is confident that it can effectively use the power which it does have. The use of positive sanctions also is in evidence ial'the later stages of project execution. Business was able to "move" other groups to aid in the carrying-out of ‘the various projects. Business was invariably the influenc- ggyg group rather than the influenced group. Of course, from the data obtained, it is extremely difficult to portray the various "forms" which such positive sanctions took. The various conclaves held between business and government -221- elements undoubtedly saw the former "selling" its plan of action which entailed "joint" participation, by showing that such c00peration was needed and would be rewarding to each party. The basic reward offered by business per- haps could best be described as a "sharing of credit" for the successful accomplishment of the particular project. Business' own reward in many instances was "prestige," for government the intangible reward of "sharing the credit" could often result in the more tangible reward of increased political strength. The use of such positive sanctions assumes greater importance when one views the lack of pro- ject-initiation and acceptance on the part of other community groups such as churches, the local labor organization, ‘welfare agencies, or the government itself. As business' imagery of "issues" affected its actions in the power structure so too did its view of "power" it- self} For example, business actions always achieved a degree of unity which business perceived as a basis of commmmity influence. However, labor was viewed as more "united" than was business. Related to this achievement of unitywas business' perception of its economic stake in ‘the community. One of the bases for the rapid assemblage 11f key influentials themselves was undoubtedly the per- ception of protecting these stakes in the resolution of 'flissues" defined to "outsiders" as being community-wide in nature. In short, among the business elements the business ~222- orientation prevailed. In the latter stages of an issue or project when other groups were drawn in, a community orientation prevailed. Similarly, the technique of draw- ing in other community agencies could be traced in part at least to business' self-perception as a "responsible" power group, "interested" in the welfare of the community. Mani- fest in the actions of business and related to its imagery was the recognition of the need to legitimize its power by securing the involvement of other community agencies. That business' actions are predicated upon an ex- pectation of the favorable responses of "others" is evi- dent as one views the relative "exclusiveness" of the first stage of an issue or project. The frequent absence of other community groups which are later presented with a "pre-packaged" issue provides mute testimony of confidence of acceptance. Of course, in such an instance as the hospital issue, the expected favorable response was not immediately forthcoming, as on the part of labor for example. However, as can be seen, such a case was the exception rather than the rule ; business' confidence in the other's cooperation was usually not disappointed. That this confidence would affect the practiced exclusion seems quite clear. Immrtance of Community-wide Participation Validated Finally, one may conclude that business' perception of the techniques of power-wielding as revealed in the -223- importance which it attributed to "community-wide" partici- pation was also manifested in its actions. Undoubtedly business' success in winning support of its position can largely be attributed to its multieorganizational partici- pation in the community. Although manifestly by-passed in the initial stages of an issue, other community agencies were indirectly involved in the sense that the business influentials themselves were simultaneously members of these other groups. Again, the inter-locking directorate formed by the influentials often made it easy to win the support of various "non-partisan" agencies in the later stages of an issue. Although business could not be said to control government in the formal sense of having its representatives in key governmental positions, it was able to exercise control quite often through informal channels. Nominally, only three of the community influentials were in government, the mayor and two councilmen. The former had been a businessman, having operated a grocery store. The latter two currently headed their own business concerns. Officially, the city government is ”non-partisan." Un- officially, the Republican ties of the present administration, which has been in power for over 15 years, are well known. The overwhelming choice of those business influentials who expressed their political allegiance was the Republican party. As a result, it was not surprising to learn that the mayor's long tenure in office was in no small measure -22h- due to the rather consistent support which he has received from the majority of business influentials. However, it was evident from the remarks of several of the informants that business' ardor fer the present administration was cool- ing. This fact, coupled with business' self-acknowledged apathy toward political participation, nearly resulted in the mayor's defeat in the election two years ago. In this election, a labor-backed candidate was defeated by a very slim majority. With these facts in mind, business' "informal" control of city government is readily apparent. Where business acted in unison or concern on an issue or project, government entered the scene only in the later stages or in several instances was completely by-passed. This was the case in both the hospital and downtown development programs. Official government involvement in the first stage of an issue was realized only when the issue itself .required government action for its resolution or was "politi- cal" in nature to begin with. In these instances, factions among the business influentials often resulted in factions among the government, as in the city hall and parking bond :issues. Part of business' ability to put over projects wttth little or no governmental participation must be ex- plained by the hesistancy or reluctance of either or both groups to endow a project with overt political overtones. Tfiuus the government was not initially involved in the downtown -225- develOpment program because the administration did not want to lose the support of outlying business interests. This fact raises the question of how much unanimity there is among business itself with respect to the program. In this study, "business" refers to the business influentials and there was no indication of a split among them on this particular issue. Whether or not business was split on a particular issue, in terms of business-government relations, the fact remains that the latter was invariably "responsive" to the former or at least a segment of the fermer. In conclusion, with regard to business' actions in these relations, or its actions in community involvement in general, it might be said that these were definitely influ- enced by business' underlying perceptions of the "situation." Business' "technique" of securing the involvement of other community groups, albeit it at the latter stages of issue- resolution, appears to be a direct consequence of the value and importance it attaches to community-wide participation. Business actions vis-a-vis labor in the power structure represent a clear embodiment of pre-existing imagery. Business' imagery of its "responsible" or legiti- mized power-wielding actually results in little formal contact with organized labor. Labor's support was solicited and wen in only two of ten issues. In both cases, labor's involvement was secured primarily through a portrayal of the economic consequences for labor. This was the technique -226- employed in both the hospital and parking bond issues. In the former, labor was asked to contribute its economic support fer the success of the program; in the latter it was asked to support an educative or propaganda barrage in order to defeat the proposal. In the other issues an apparent perceived identity between business, community, and labor interests resulted in the complete exclusion of organized labor. In none of these instances was there any indication of a labor protest. From business' point of view the perceived agreement between itself and labor on the existence of community issues could be used to legitimize the latter's exclusion. In point of fact, labor's "needed cooperation" did not materialize. Furthermore, business did not expect and did not meet "unfavorable" responses from labor. Indeed, it did not meet gay responses from elabor unless it solicited a response. One might conjecture that business' tie-up of the power structure justified :its confidence in the ability to wield power and perhaps blunted labor's enthusiasm for attempting to do so, at least in those areas where its potential economic and political strength were not telling factors. Where these factors were important, business utilized them to its own as well as labor's advantage. In the majority of issues or projects in Wheelsburg, the power potential of business was realized while that of labor was not. Again, the bases of the power potential -227- of the two groups is considerably different. The ability of labor to move other groups is considerably less than that of its co-participant in community affairs. As has been revealed, labor influentials are not community influ- entials. For all practical purposes, community influentials are business influentials. Labor is effective only in those issues where it can marshal its own ferces and this in itself is often a formidable task with labor not always being able to "deliver." Although nominally more "united" than its business counterpart, labor can rarely match in effectiveness the small coalitions of community influentials who initiate community projects and issues. The latter do not have the stigma of special-interest groups. The ability of these small business fermations to influence other groups seems to rest in large part on the "non-partisan" posture 'which they assume. This is particularly true when the "other" group is not merely another business unit but repre- ' sents another institution such as government or religion. iBusinoss influentials, being community influentials, are ' largely devoid of the partisan stigma which often attaches to the labor leader. In some instances, as in the present study, the business influential is seen playing a role in auuyther institution such as government. All these state- ments, of course, merely represent a description of the structural advantages which business enjoys and which give it a greater power potential than labor along with the ~228- greater ability to realize the potential. Labor "internally" perhaps is less united in fact than is business. "Externally" .it has demonstrated a striking lack of ability to influence other groups or perhaps more accurately it has not revealed any significant attempts to wield power on its own. In conclusion, business' imagery directed the trans- formation of its potential power into manifest power. Its actions seem a direct outgrowth of its assessments of the power structure. There was blanket and early involvement in all issues. Each of the issues required the resources possessed by business. These included not only economic, but the so-called "social" resources like "status," "respon- sibility," and "interest." The supportive involvement of other groups, which invariably responded favorably to busi- ness' position, was obtained. The whole mode of issue- resolution and involvement related by business influentials seemingly validates business' images of issues, other's responses, bases, and techniques as these relate to its own powerdwielding in the local community. Part II: Historical Rgports of Labor Influentials Table 41 briefly summarizes the outstanding char- acteristics of the data obtained from the labor influentials relative to their historical resumes of issue-resolution. ‘Approximately two-thirds were able to give such recapitula- ‘tions. The number, (23) is one less than the corresponding -229- number of business influentials who volunteered such sum- maries. However, where the business influentials mentioned ten "types" of issues, the labor leaders included only six types. Whereas the business informants saw labor as being involved in only two of its ten issues, labor saw itself in all of the issues it related. Also, labor saw business as being involved in all these issues. Business perceived government as an actor in eight of its ten issues, while labor perceived government as an actor in four of its six issues. A tentative conclusion from the data in Table bl ‘would indicate that labor attributes power to itself as well as government and business in the power structure. ‘While labor attributed power to business, business attributed little power to labor. A differential perception between 'the two groups is also revealed in labor's rather constricted :range of types of issues when compared with business. This .fact perhaps illustrates the general quality of labor's historical perceptions, which, as the following analysis will reveal, were much less rich and detailed. The average resume lacked names of specific individuals and organizations auui their sequence and mode of involvement. Even the precise role which labor played was not always clearly described. Part of the reason for this was undoubtedly due to the fact that many of the respondents were not directly involved in a particular issue either as labor representatives meeting -230- with the representatives of other community agencies or even to the extent of performing an inner-union role. For example, with respect to the hospital issue, only Wage and Local found themselves in the former role, while several of the respondents became involved in the issue only after ' being contacted through union channels by these two leaders. Then again, some respondents played neither role, with the result that their recapitulations were perhaps based pri- marily on second-hand information garnered from their "active" compatriots, their attendance at local labor council meetings, or any other number of "indirect” sources. "Knowledgeable" reports could hardly be expected from such infbrmants. The importance of this fact for group imagery should be obvious. As the historical recapitulations were sketchy, even moreso were the comments of the sixteen re- spondents who did not relate such summaries. These ranged imitnature from "I can't help on this question," to ”I've been away too long" or to a one-sentence statement regard- ing a particular issue such as "Regarding the hospital ex- pansion program, Mike Macey appeared at one of our labor council meetings and asked for our support." Considering the responses of all the respondents a tally of individuals and organizations is not presented as in the case of busi- ness informants, again because of the paucity of such detailed information volunteered by the labor interviewees. A.rnunber of quotations will be cited to illustrate the -231- general sketchiness of the historical recapitulations ob- tained. Inter-group Divergency An indication of divergency between labor and busi- ness imagery with respect to the groups' positions in the power structure is to be noted in the fact that labor listed four issues not included on the business list. Thus, pay roll tax, bus subsidy, flouridation, and revision of the city charter were not listed as issues by the business influentials. With the exception of the last issue, in each instance labor's position was upheld, but again it is difficult to document the "manifest" power wielded by labor because of the lack of crystallized opposition either on the part of business or government. For example, with respect to the bus subsidy issue, labor's position was clear: it was against subsidizing the local bus company. However, it is not possible to say that business or govern- ment was "for" such a subsidy. It is only possible to say that the bus company itself had proposed such a subsidy, a proposal which was debated by the city fathers and various business leaders and eventually turned down. Labor's anti- proposal campaign undoubtedly played a part in the final decision, but labor's degree of influence remains indeter- minate. The same comments apply even to the pay roll tax, which was not wholeheartedly endorsed by either business -232- or government although apparently it was originally proposed in a government agency, the city council, at the behest of certain business representatives. The important factor in terms of labor's tactics in such issues, however, is the perceived opposition of business and government. In many instances it was obvious that the respondent perceived crystallized business or government Opposition, although in reality such opposition did not really exist. Only on the question of revision of the city charter did there appear opposing positions taken by business and government on the one side and labor on the other. This issue was ultimately decided at the polls and labor's position was not supported by the public. It will be recalled that labor, with the support of the Real Estate Board, "won its point" against the sale of parking bonds through a general city election. The two issues on which labor and business reported in common were the hospital and the parking bond issues. 'The hospital program was the most frequently mentioned issue by both groups. Thirteen business influentials re- ported on this issue, while nine labor influentials did likewise. The parking bond issue was reported by five labor leaders but only one busines influential. With regard to the hospital project, the business reports were unanimous in citing labor as a relative late-comer into the decision- making process. On the other hand, three of the nine labor -233- respondents reporting on this issue, saw labor as being in "from the beginning." Again, lack of personal involvement and consequent "ignorance" would seemingly account for this ”erroneous" imagery. As in the case of perceived opposition, this kind of imagery can have "real" conse- quences in terms of labor's tactics in the power structure alignment. A~perception of power when in reality no power was manifested, can result in the inhibition of a group's power potential. More specifically, if labor is unaware of the early stages of issue-resolution it is unlikely to act in these early stages. By virtue of the type of issues mentioned and labor's perception of its position being upheld with respect to these issues, (with the one exception noted), one must conclude that labor sees itself as more influential than does business. In the business recapitulations labor was assigned a relatively insignificant position. However, that labor itself concedes the greater power to business is also evident if one considers the sequence of actor involvement reported in the group's historical summaries. With the exception of the hospital issue, no report was given in which labor was seen as being involved in the initial stage of issue-definition or resolution. Using the sequence of involvement as a criterion of a group's influence, it could be said that labor perceived itself as less powerful than business. The informant usually saw -234- labor as being influential in the later stages of an issue, after labor's participation had been solicited by some other community agency. As in the case of business, docu- menting the group's "real" influence is extremely difficult because of the lack of conflict-producing issues which would have resulted in clearly opposing groups resorting to the use of'negative sanctions. There is no clear illustration of labor being influential "on its own," of labor getting a group to accept its position on the basis of labor's resources alone. Labor invariably needed an ally, when it stood alone it risked defeat. Indeed, if the use of positive sanctions for the purpose of winning allies be used as a criterion of a group's power labor's historical perceptions, unlike those of business, revealed little evidence of the group's success. Business, as an initiating agent in issue-resolution, had no diffhmflty in winning allies. Labor, as a "fbllower" in the decision-making process was won as an ally. Finally, in no case did a labor informant perceive singular action by the group, another criterion of power, as was evident in business' perceptions of the downtown development project. Whereas business revealed itself to be quite influ- ential in its dealings with local government the latent ‘tendency for labor to perceive a business-government coalition perhaps inhibited the group's attempts to influence the‘ ‘government directly and.seemdngly shifted its attention -235- more to governmental processes, namely city elections. Truly, political participation was revealed as being ex- tremely important to labor, since in two of the six issues, a decision was made at the polls; these were the charter revision and parking bond issues. With respect to the pay roll tax issue, there was a tendency for the respondents to credit labor with keeping the issue off the ballots. Regarding the bus subsidy issue, labor looked forward to putting the final decision up to the voters. The apparent reliance of labor on the electorate seems to be direct in- dication or reflection of its lack of influence with other formal agencies. Judging from the historical resumes, of particular consequence was the dearth of labor representa- tives or supporters, especially on the various governmental units. It was considered a victory by labor when the mayor appointed Henry Hanson to the parking commission after the 'bond proposal was defeated at the polls. Previously men- 'tioned was labor's unsuccessful attempt to put'its own camdidate into the mayor's office in the city election of two years ago. Implicit in these summary observations with re- spect to the historical data obtained from the labor influ- eertials is the general conclusion that an "objective" power ranking of labor and other groups on discrete issues, as was done with the business reports, does not seem possible 401‘ feasible in this instance. Admittedly, even with the -236- business summaries such a procedure was at best highly opinionated due to both the qualitative nature of the data which revealed rather subtle modes of influence-wielding in essentially "conflict-free" situations and to the con- sequent reliance on such limited criteria as sequence of involvement and issue-definition in order to rank a group's power on a particular issue. Attributing power to business 5 in various issues was based primarily on the fact that the group ranked "high" using these criteria. Due to the reasons listed above, labor's precise role and attendant influence- wielding on specific issues is difficult to determine. From its own reports, it would not rank high on all criteria, despite the aformentioned tendency to report issues in which labor's position was upheld. This fact, coupled with the sketchiness of the reports, renders the utility of a power-ranking even more dubious. Accordingly, the author will tabularize by issue, only the sequence and mode of involvement and the reader can make his own power-rankings. Summar of Com arisons Considering the total set of issues mentioned by both labor and business, both groups listed business as a participant in all the issues. All told, there were fourteen types of issues listed, ten by business and four by labor. (The labor total does not include the hospital and parking bond issues which it mentioned as well as business.) -237- Both business an labor listed the latter as a participant on these two issues. Out of fourteen total issues, labor is seen as a participant in only six of them and four of them were issues mentioned only by labor. These data are summarized in Table 46. Whereas labor had listed parking, public transportation, and annexation as important issues in Wheelsburg it clearly saw the group "acting" on the first two, if not on the last issue. Business saw itself as acting on the "important" issues which it had listed, namely, metropolitan planning, traffic, and downtown development as well as annexation which labor had listed. Granting a degree of saliency to all of the issues mentioned, one can conclude that business is a more frequent as well as a more powerful participant in their resolution. Labor's Report of Issues~ The fellowing table summarizes the labor reports in the same manner followed for business influentials in ‘Table as, except for the aforementioned deletion of a powerbranking. The author will consider individually each :issue reported more than once, using in each case selected quotations from the informants. Table 1.7 which is self- explanatory, is based solely on the reports of the labor informants and illustrates the group's perceived mode of involvement in the resolution of issues reported. -238- TABLE #6 A COMPARISON OF BUSINESS AND LABOR VIEWS ON THEIR INVOLVE- MENT IN LOCAL ISSUES Labor Perception Business Perception Issue of Actor Involvement of Actor Involvement Hospital Labor-Business Labor-Business expansion Parking bond Labor-Business Labor-Business Pay roll tax Labor-Business Issue not reported Downtown devel- Issue not Business opment reported Annexation Issue not Business reported Bus subsidy Labor-Business Issue not reported Flouridation Labor-Business Issue not reported Revision of Labor-Business Issue not reported city charter Metropolitan Issue not Business planning reported ‘Airport con- Issue not reported Business struction Street ex- Issue not reported Business tension Tri-county Issue not reported Business proposal Suuuday shOpping Issue not reported Business Location of Issue not reported Business city'hall -239- TABLE h6--Continued Issues reported in common: Hospital expansion, parking bond Issues reported only by labor: Pay roll tax, bus subsidy, flouridation, revision of city charter Issues reported only by business: Downtown develop- ment, annexation, metro- politan planning, airport construction, street extension, tri-county pro- posal, Sunday shopping, location of city hall. Labor mentioned as a participant in two issues by business. Business mentioned as a particfipant in six issues by a ore llljlullIl. I: .1 I'll I. .pH pmmammm mwwmmemo momma new unmom mummmm Hmom nmmmm vommomov dam moHHmm no mam ammomopm .m .coamamoamo vooao> mommm .moammaesoo msathm mo wcwpmme om wcaccmm vopa>ma zooms .Hmmomoum pmwam .N on muomamom mo venom mm .0093 m.cmamme§msm comompsoo mommm .hoomz hm £3099: new ooumEEoo Hemomomm mo weapomaa pommm .N No mmmsmmo no mmomom .uomEma m heomzssoammfleaoo . pm vommwmwcw ammomonm .H wmaxmmm mm meme Hamomoum .H w . .coms vmouwm muOQQSm momma .mwnamoos aaossoo momma m>amoommmu pm Emwwomd Ho coflmmSomHa .N .hmpuoz .wcwmmmn-vssm nmzoz hm madame upopnmm cw soapmmwoapnmm momma .N .moummm..>.oem mommaaoo mo .o>Huv vasm nomemmo mm umHHmo 0mm; .H no commmuficmmno mmomwmsm .H mmsmp wcaxmmm pawsm use mocmcwm om ammo emu mm nnmom mo came ummoaonmuuvcom waaxumm .meamwaaomm Hmmammom Hmaoamwvnm no composmpm umOU pom shame venomonm assoamsmmxm Hmpwmmom pnoso>ao>mH pamEe>Ho>cH no mucosvom mo osvaamoea no coo: mammH mmbmmH ho ZOHH momma .wcammms .wmamcmm aaamm enema . aaomsoo pm monmmmoupm .pmmsvom om :OHmamommo ma mm>ammmmmmommmm momma mo moammamasa mmnommp mwsommp manna mma: momm mam8m>ao>ma momma .m npmamsvom momma moasmmmm .N .moammmamam .pmmsumm human op momma .aaemeo mam momma op Imam acmemmm>om mommmsvmm mm mommaommm mmmmaeaoo .a mums mmmswmm mammfioo mam .a mmaa msm mummamqsuhmammsm mam .moaamm mo nmomam mom ammomomm.soapanommo wsaoao> aaocsoo ammo om mmmpma meow aaemsou momma .N .ammmzow ma ~2hl- mmpmmm ammOQomm .moaamm .ammmsow Nwao ma no can om :oaummsv mmaoaamsm mwaommm manna amp pmmp wmamnmmwzm mmaz mommmmamsmom momma .N aaomsoo ma soapsa .aaomsoo mpao .mmmomomm xmp nommm moosmompca mmoo .a ma :memmuam mm mmmomomm .a aaom ammuuxmp aaom hmm pmmsm>ao>za pcmsm> o>= o museum no 053503. mo 0602 a H .w mm 263 I- -II'I'I‘ 1‘..', A. C I amalgam}: Smem .mmwmmm ammomomm .moauomam mpao ca moaamm so moomam manna .coama>mm uncamwm swammemo mmsommp mamam>ao>ca momma .ammom nomm aaocsoo.mmao Mo pmoQQSm ca swamnemo mmmmamsm mmmmmmmmaz -ZWZ- .ammomomm :ummmmmmm: «emumomma .omumaeeoo om m>apmpmmm ummmom mommaommm momma .ammomomm hvsum op mam mm as mom omppaeeoo moammmamsoam .N .a .m .N .a .coamammm umcammm awammamo cmwmm momma .ammmsow wam mam .moammaoomm< m.:msnmmmamsm :zopm: .oommssoo Ho mmmsmmo hm mmpmoamsm .aaomdoo moan ma mvms ammomoma .mmpmaesoo noapmmamsoam om m>apmommmmmmmm pcaoamm on «mm mm empa>ea momma .moaumaoommm .mmmammem mm mums ammomomm .N .a .N .a .aaoqsoo hpao mo muam moamosmmm venomomm aummpmmmo hmao Mo momma>mm .aammsm mmmms spas omca mcmmmoo mmamoamo Mo wcapmsmuumSmma moammmamsoam mmmEm>ao>ca Ho msvanmoms mo mmoz mmmEm>ao>cH no mocmsvmm mammH eesemmeoo--ae mamam ~2h3- As to the hospital project, the investigator heard the following reports: Labor was in from the first. wage and others were invited to private meetings. There was considerable discussion in the various locals and the labor councils befOre labor agreed to support the drive. Management representatives made appearances at the union halls. It was Newsworthy's idea to have a united campaign which would include the three hospitals. He was presi- dent of the Robin board. Wage was invited to serve on the Hospital Fund Board which was fermed at the begin- ning of the campaign. The drive wouldn't have been a success unless labor was behind it. 0“. There was a letter to Wage asking him to join an initial committee meeting. Various people on the city council wondered why the Community Chest couldn't handle the problem. we were angry because labor didn't have representation on the boards of hospitals as had been promised. The project was discussed at our council meetings. management set up meetings with the various shOp com- mittees. Labor was right in from the beginning and was just as active as management. Certain management people living outside of Wheelsburg were afraid to express their anti-fund views. Someone contacted the CIO Council. I was told at a i council meeting to report the proposed campaign back to my local. Certain individual citizens were opposed to the campaign because they didn't know exactly how the money was to be spent. Labor decided to keep close tabs on the fund-raising because of this. Almost totally lacking in these reports was any :reference to the first stage of the issue in which the pro- gram was conceived and organized by business influentials. To some, the "first" stage of the project was marked by labor's acceptance of business' invitation to support the campaign. To others, even the particulars relating to labor's entrance into the program are unknown. Also largely ignored -244- by most informants was any reference to the difficulty en- countered by both the union leaders and business leaders in selling the project to the lower echelon and the rank-and- file, a difficulty apparently traceable to a lack of know- ledge as to the campaign's real objectives and labor's lack of representation on the hospital boards. Both of these factors were magnified when labor was presented with a ready-made program. The most "obvious" fact to the labor influentials, as revealed in their reports, was that labor was "in" the project and contributed heavily to its success. The role played by most informants with respect to the pro- ject was an intra-labor role in which information about the campaign was disseminated to the various locals. With the exception of Wage, Local, and possibly one or two others, none had direct contact with business influentials. For this reason, the lack of knowledgeable reports is understand- able. The parking bond issue was reported in the following ways : Labor was contacted after the thing was all set up. lmace§,who was on the parking authority, called me (Ben- ning and said that they were proposing a 5 million dollar bond sale to build ramps. It was put on the ballot at the next election. We sent a letter to the city council Opposing the bond proposal. We advertised cnnr stand in our newspaper and the opposition publicized their stand. The Uptown Businessmen's Association and the Chamber of Commerce sent out letters stating that the proposal would mean more business for the downtown area. Labor felt that parking facilities should be paid for from meter revenue. The Board of Realtors worked -245- with us and the proposal was defeated on the ballot. Labor wouldn't have been effective without the realtors. The city council had expensive surveys made and then ignored them. Obligation bonds were put on the ballot. Labor opposed the sale of bonds as did the Board of Realtors and the prOposal was defeated. After the election, the mayor requested that a labor representative be on the parking commission. Labor chose Hansen; he was acceptable to the city council. Labor was not contacted when the bond proposal was suggested. We were opposed to it; parking should be a joint responsibility of the public and businessmen. We distributed a lot of union literature against the idea. The Wheelsbur Labor News published articles against the proposal. With respect to this issue, labor was aware of its late entry into the resolution process and the important part played by the Board of Realtors. Labor's perceived effectiveness in this instance was the advertising campaign which apparently won public support at the polls. Clear- cut reasons for labor's stand were also revealed, which were not the same as those given by a business influential who reported on this issue. He reported that the opposition group was against higher taxes, whereas the labor infbrmants spoke of parking as being a joint responsibility that could be paid for from meter revenue. The pay roll issue was reported as fellows: Various city council members and industrial groups are for a pay roll tax. It's an inequitable tax that has more disadvantages than advantages for the commu- nity; The final decision will be made by popular vote. ‘We're getting our views before the membership and community organizations through the Wheelsburg Labor News. -2h6- Cobb introduced the notion of a pay roll tax in the city council for political reasons. Our staff studied the tax and decided to oppose it. we sent a letter to the city council advising it of our opposition. The mayor was confronted by our committee; he said he opposed it. It's a dead issue for now. Labor learned of Cobb's proposal through the City ,Jgurgal. The tax was discussed in labor council meet- ings and a resolution was passed against it. Cobb is working undercover, but the prOposal will be defeated' in the long run because labor has the votes. The tax proposal will be defeated. It's unconsti- tutional and the peOple in Wheelsburg are intelligent enough to know this. we will get the facts to our mem- bership through our paper and by distributing literature. In this issue, labor is not certain as to its opposi- tion, but it is quite sure that the pay roll tax will not pass a popular vote. Up to this point, labor and others had been successful in keeping the proposal off the ballot. Apparently, the council member is seen as a front for. certain unknown business groups. Again, the reasons for labor's stand are quite vague with the tax being labeled ‘flunconetitutional' and "inequitable." As expressed by one informant, there is some indication that the city government as a whole is considered to be labor's ally on this particular issue. Two informants spoke of the bus subsidy issue: The bus company wants a subsidy. Another company has offered to take it over. The voters will decide and labor will bring out the voters. Transportation affects the working people. The labor council went on recgrd against any subsidy. Wage and Local are working on to -2h7- Bus transportation is important to all workers. I am only familiar with various discussions which have taken place. The mayor has appointed a committee to study the subsidy question. The problem has been dis- cussed at our monthly council meetings. Labor is opposed to the subsidy which the company wants. Again, labor's position is made clear, but the in- formants do not give precise reasons why the position is taken. Whereas parking was considered a "joint" respon- sibility of the public and businessmen, apparently the "public" should not subsidize a "private" bus concern. The brief reports given are based mainly on second-hand information obtained from discussions at labor council meetings. The informants were not able to crystallize labor's official position on the matter. The dual reference to transportation and its effects on the "working people" obviously hint at labor's aversion to a possible hike in 'bus fares or taxes which it sees as resulting from subsidi- zation. Once again, labor expresses confidence in the "voters." Conclusions Labor's historical recollections generally tend to confirm its various images of the community power structure. In: the issues related labor was perceived as influential in ‘theiJ-resolution, but less so than business. Labor manifested social responsibility by being concerned with community-wide, non-partisan issues. Its professed influence in various A community organizations did not reveal itself; what influence in; did wield seemed dependent upon political processes and/or ~2A8- alliances initiated by other community agencies. As a "trailer" in community participation that perceives itself to be in agreement with business as to community objectives, labor's professed desire for "cooperation" in issue-resolution could only be manifest in the later stages of the decision- making process. Its expressed need for aid in the attain- ment of community goals through increased organizational participation, coupled with its awareness of late entry into issue-resolution, was strikingly confirmed in its historical recapitulations. Because it perceived business' greater stakes, interest, unity, and consequent power in community involvement, labor directed its challenge to business through political channels. Exhibiting only a crude aware- ness, not only of the decision-making process itself, but of the range of issues as well (when compared to business), labor could hardly be expected to realize its power potential. In short, labor's attempts at power-wielding in its commmmity involvement and its actions or techniques in 'these attempts, seem directly related to its images of power, issues, responses, and techniques which this involvement entailed. For the present, labor's actions in the power structure invariably involve it in issues where business has 'the advantage. Business' pervasive influence in the network «if organizations comprising the power structure, wherein mummy issues are resolved, affords labor little chance of success. This fact is acknowledged by labor which perceives -249- business' power as resting upon greater stakes, unity, and interest in community participation. Despite labor's avowal that the power structure is not a "closed" system and its implicit expectation of favorable responses from business to labor's community actions, labor's manifest actions do not indicate an acceptance but rather an acquiesence to the situation. Despite labor's claim of influence and lack of opposition to increased organizational participation, in actual issues, labor's tactics were directed at wielding influence not in the power structure itself, but in the political arena, where it could compensate for its lack of community power. In short, the original impression gained .from labor was that the power structure was not unalterable, 'but its tactics in issues were not directed so much at an (alteration of the structure as they were at a counter- balancing of its effects. As a respondent to the actions of other groups rather tnuan the initiator of action, labor's tactics were necessarily different from those of business. Indeed, this fact illus- trates the power differential between the two groups. Labor, uatlike business, in no instance defined an issue or project. It made its views known but not always felt with respect to issues defined by other groups which sometimes had requested a statement of labor's position and sometimes had not. In any event, labor's frequently belated entrances often meant 'tkurt a solid core of opposition had already formed. In this -250- regard, it is important to note that labor's historical summaries dealt more specifically with valid issues, than did the resumes of business. But again, these did not generate intense conflicts, where genuine tests of strength between labor and business could be used to measure the power of the two groups. One could perhaps best character- ize labor's role in the power structure as that of a watch- dog, wherein the group would become involved in issues which it considered important. Sometimes involvement was at its own initiative: sometimes its participation was solicited. When labor's participation was solicited, it was usually by a potential ally. When labor "intruded" into an issue uninvited, it usually meant that labor could expect some opposition. One may speculate whether in its) role as watch- dog labor "missed" a number of the issues mentioned by the business influentials, or whether they were considered "unimportant" from labor's point of view. Judging from the combined reports of the two groups, business did not miss any issues, regardless of importance. On the other hand, the conclusion that labor was selective in its community involvement does not appear to be supported by the evidence, since the issues mentioned were all of a community-wide nature, with only the pay roll tax question being particularly crucial to organized labor. Only in the hospital project, did labor's participa- tion entail anything more than propagandizing a position. -251- Here labor's economic support was needed and solicited. This was the only issue in which labor took a "pro" position. On the other five issues labor propagandized its "anti" position, pointing almost to its role as a protest group. On these five issues labor's economic resources did not appear to be a telling factor in the ultimate decisions made. In the hospital project, labor could "get tough" by threatening to withdraw its support of the campaign. Labor's reliance on verbal persuasion, at least according to its own reports, had not been without success. Yet because labor's power potential does not include direct contact with most influential organizations, but is primarily "economic" in nature, the effectiveness of such techniques appears limited. Since labor is further removed from the "inside" of the decision-making process than business, it is most effective when it can make use of economic re- sources. In Rossi's terms, business has control over "prestigeful interaction" as well as economic resources. Failing to find many Opportunities to utilize its economic strength and not having "status" and/or representation in the organizations of the power structure, labor necessarily turns to the political realm to compensate for these factors. 01’ course, the opportunity for labor to validate its position at the polls does not always present itself. As was seen above, when it does, labor is not always victorious. -252- Labor Lethargy It is somewhat perplexing to observe that despite labor’s "correct" assessment and "positive" evaluation of the power structure and its avowed intention to increase its participation in this structure, that it is content to play the limited role which it does. Particularly striking is its lack of initiative in the whole process of issue- resolution. Essentially, labor is aware of its belated entrance into community decision making, yet its tactics are not geared to alter the situation, at least with respect to those issues that do not require a political mandate. How- ever, in considering the other side of the picture, it should be recalled that labor placed more importance on political participation than community participatiOn in terms Of further- ing its set of primary economic Objectives. Although identifying its goals with those of the community and busi- ness as well, it would appear that labor is more concerned with political power than community power at the present time. As a result business' community power remains largely unchallenged, or at best is challenged only indirectly through labor's emphasis on community issues of a "political" flat ure 0 CHAPTER VII VARIATIONS IN GROUP IMAGERY Inter-Group mightrkGroup Variation In this chapter an attempt will be made to compare the imagery of labor and business both in terms of internal and external variation. A number of control factors were run against the responses obtained from each group separately. In addition, numerous runs were made simply comparing the responses of the two groups to various questions. The first procedure was obviously aimed at determining the possible existence of internal variations when controlling for a number of selected characteristics. The latter pro- cedure aimed at determining the possible existence of "sig- nificant" external or between-group variations. In view of the essential convergence between the two groups as was revealed in the testing of the vari- ous hypotheses above, external variation itself can scarcely In only three areas did the be considered a "problem." in their respective author find the two groups differing perceptions. First, labor perceived community decision makers as requiring organizational approval while business saw them as acting on their own. Second, labor perceived itself as the more responsible group while business, by -253- -254- implication likewise perceived itself as more responsible. Finally, they disagreed on the question Of unity, both per- ceiving the other as more united. Thus the more pertinent problem becomes the necessity of relating this limited inter- group divergency to whatever intra-group divergency or vari— ation that exists. Essentially the problem focuses on a search for those factors which could be used to account for the latter. Given the existence of this inter-group divergency, and additional divergencies to be hypothesized, the author first wishes to consider the question Of internal variation. Variations in Responses as Bases for Hypgtheses The business influentials were split in their re- sponses to six questions, a fact which facilitated analysis of internal variation within the group. A high degree of consensus characterized the distribution of responses to most of the questions, which in itself represents an im- portant finding, and likewise renders a consideration of areas of "disagreement" extremely important. In order, the questions eliciting disagreement were those pertaining to: ( 1) the assessment Of the importance of political participa- tion for business, (2) a judgment as to the variability in composition of community decision makers, (3) a listing of influential organizations with either the inclusion or exclusion of labor from the list, (1+) a judgment as to the -255- comparative "unity" of labor and business, (5) perceived "differences" between the two groups, and (6) a judgment as to the "selectivity" of labor's policy of community in- volvement. The author would fermulate a series of hypotheses around these six questions. Rationale Undoubtedly, some of the divergent responses to these questions is attributable to the nature of the ques- tions themselves, which are highly speculative and Open to diverse interpretations.1 This Observation perhaps is appli- cable to other questions on the schedule, although to a lesser degree. It was deemed important to make the questions as "Open-ended" as possible, permitting the respondent a great deal of leeway in his answers. By this procedure, it 'was felt that much could be learned about the possibly ‘varied frames of reference Operating behind the "manifest" imagery which was expressed. In view of the high degree of homogeneity verbalized by the informants, it is not nec— ‘essarily incorrect to infer that essentially most questions 1Of course, chance alone could account for some of ‘the variation in reponses. It is particularly important when .a considerable number of tests of assocation are run, con- ‘trolling fOr certain factors, and arbitrarily selecting a certain level of significance as indicating "significant" relationships. In the present case, only eighteen "runs" were made, using the .10 level. -256... were answered by the informants from the same frame of reference. This apparently was not the case with the six questions under consideration, different answers being given because different frames of reference were employed by the respondents. The author realizes that his assumption may be in- correct. Thus a convergency Of responses does not deny the possibility of the existence of different "reasons" for answering a particular question on the part of the interviewees; they may answer the same way, but for differ- ent reasons, or through different frames of reference. Con- versely, a divergency of responses can result even though the "reasons" or the frames of reference are the same. ‘ For example, all business respondents may agree that business exercises greater social responsibility than labor, with some respondents equating responsibility with business con- tributions to the Community Chest, Others thinking of re- sponsibility in terms of the time spent by businessmen in various welfare organizations. Given disagreement on this question, theoretically it is pOssible for all respondents to be using the same criteria for assessing "responsibility," although it is more likely they are using different criteria. In the six questions under consideration, it may well be that different frames of reference are operating.‘ One may speculate that this situation is a result, not only of the interpretive nature of the questions themselves, but also a -257- result of the influence of certain variables, which in effect "determine" the nature or quality of the respondent's frame of reference. Several assumptions are made: First,we would argue that the more knowledgeable the informant is, the more "accurate" his perceptions should be.' As a whole, the busi- ness respondents' perceptions of the power structure are assumed to be essentially "correct." Thus, the objective power situation finds business to be considerably more powerful than labor, and this fact is acknowledged by the business respondents. Second, it is assumed that the more knowledgeable informant "sees" or concedes more readily the objective power structure than the less knowledgeable infor- mant. This implies that the less knowledgeable informant would tend to attribute greater influence to organized labor than it "really" has or has objectively demonstrated. There would be a concomitant tendency to perceive labor as a ,greater'threat to business on the part of the less knowledge- able informant. Conversely, the more knowledgeable in- formant would not see in labor a great threat to business' power. A third assumption is that the more knowledgeable informant is more conversant with labor's community policy. Specifically, he should view labor's policy as selective or structured, while the less knowledgeable informant should view it as non-selective or unstructured. -253- Control Factors The author would submit that the more knowledgeable informants include the "Older" infOrmants, the more "influ- ential" respondents, and finally, those enjoying long or "high" tenure in their present occupational positions. As for "Old" informants, they simply have had a longer time to observe, if not participate, in the power structure. In this instance, time alone should effect greater knowledge- ableness. As for the "high" influentials, their greater participation in decision-making processes should make them more knowledgeable. Finally, those respondents with long positional tenure should be more knowledgeable also because of their greater chances for Observation of and participation in the power structure. Hypotheses Employing these controls on the six questions in which the respondents evidenced disagreement the author would hypothesize that the Older, the more influential, and the high tenure respondents would: (1) rank political participation as being of only average importance, (3) P9P- ceive labor as less united than business, (3) perceive labor as committing its resources on only Specific community issues, (1,) perceive no differences in the community Objectives of labor and business, (5) perceive community decision makers as unchanging, and ( 6) omit labor from their listings of influential community organizations . -259- Relationships Among_ContrOl Varigbles On the basis of age, the business infOrmants were dichotomized into "old" and "young" categories with the former including all individuals born before 1900. Using "influence" as a control, the respondents were divided into "high" and "low" groups with the "high" group including all those business respondents who received six or more votes from their colleagues as one Of the top ten "key" influentials in the community. Finally, using tenure of position as a control variable the business group was divided into "high" and "low categories with the former including all those respondents who had been in their present positions 15 or more years. The above procedure resulted in the following numer- ical breaks considering each control variable: age, twenty "Old", nineteen "young;" influence, twenty "high," nineteen "low:" tenure in position, sixteen "low" and twenty-three 'Thigh." As with all of the runs made by the investigator ‘the Chi-Square test was utilized, with a relationship being «considered "significant" if the probability of the chi-square was .10 or lower.2 2The procedure fOr determining Chi-Square followed that described by G. Udney Yule and M. G. Kendall, An Intro- duction to the Theor of Statistics (13th edition, revised; EZSndon: Charles Griffin, I§AS), pp. AlB-ABB. -260- Each control was run against the other two in an effort to determine their degree of association. Chi-Square tests were converted into contingency coefficients to as- certain the degree Of correlation among the controls. A decision was made to retain each control, if they were not correlated above .80 (corrected coefficient contingency).3 Tables 48 through 50 reveal that no pair of controls reached this level. Table #8 indicates that high and low business in- fluentials are almost evenly split between old and young age groups. Only a small difference is indicated, in which the imbalance finds slightly greater representation of young influentials among the high influence groups. An expected tendency, revealed in Table #9, indicates a slight but positive relationship between age and tenure in position. The Older respondents tend to exhibit a longer tenure in their positions than do the younger re- spondents. No significant association is shown in Table 50 be- ‘Uween.degree of influence and tenure in position. However, - 2 3The formula used for computing 0 was c = N£:—§7— The correction for c was '6' - t g . Both formulas are r c taken from Thom C. McCormick Elementar Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, l9Ll)‘,—p'p_,_'2U6%§U7,—_‘—_—— -261- TABLE 48 DEGREE OF INFLUENCE OF COMMUNITY)INFLUENTIALS BY AGE (IN PER CENT Influence Old Young Total High 1+5 58 52 Low ‘ 55 A2 48 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 20 19 39 x2 = .70 p = .5o-.3o TABLE 1+9 AGE OF COMMUNITY INFI..UEN'I‘IAL.(S3 BY)TENUR.E IN POSITION (IN PER ENT W Tenure in Position Age High Low Total Old 59 41 52 Young , Al 59 1.8 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 22 17 39 X2 3 1.2 p = 030-020 -262- TABLE 50 DEGREE OF INFLUENCE OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS BY TENURE IN POSITION (IN PER CENT) m Tenure in Position Influence High Low Total High #5 59 52 Low 55 Al (,8 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number Of cases 22 17 39 X2 g .70 P ‘ 050-030 a slightly higher proportion of the low tenure group is ground among the high influentials. Apparently, high tenure does not guarantee one a high degree of reputed influence. Ase_EsLEL£22222l Using age as a control, all but one of the hypotheses was rejected. As shown in Table 52, the younger business influentials tended to perceive labor as committing its resources on all important community issues, while the older influentials tended to perceive labor as choosing particular issues on which to commit its resources. This finding is open to a number of different interpretations. Assuming the Older influentials to be more accurate in their per- ceptions, their responses to this question do not necessarily -263- TABLE 51 RANKING OF IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION BY AGE OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) -—._ w ‘1 M— T Age Ranking Old YOung Total Most important 50 32 41 Other V 50 68 A9 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 20 19 39 X2 = 106 p = 30-020 Question: How would you rank the importance of political participation? TABLE 52 ASSESSMENT OF LABOR SELECTIVITY IN COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BY AGE OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) I __‘-—“— v , Age Assessment Old YOung Total Labor non-selective 30 A7 38 Labor selective 7O 53 62 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 20 19 39 X2 = 308 p 8:<.OS Question: Does organized labor in Wheelsburg carefully choose what community issues it is ready to use its in- fluence on, or does it commit its resources on any problem important to the community? ~264- TABLE 53 RANKING OF LABOR AS AN INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION BY AGE OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Ranking Old YOung Total Labor influential 25 A7 36 Labor not influential 75 53 64 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 20 19 39 x2 = 2.2 p = .2o-.10 Question: What organizations in Wheelsburg do you feel have most weight in getting things done, or in prevent- ing some things from getting done in Wheelsburg? indicate an unfavorable view of labor. Thus, it is debatable ‘whether they are perceiving labor to be "selfish" in its community involvement, while the younger influentials are jperceiving labor as being more "liberal" or non-selective in.its issue—involvement. It may be that the Older influ- entials perceive labor as having a definite policy toward community involvement, while the younger influentials see Jaabor as lacking any community program. Again, neither age group or perhaps both age groups are using the dimensions suggested by the author in answering this question. Of course, the author's own assumption that age is positively correlated with knowledgeablesness is itself Open to question. -265- Deggee of Influence as a Control Using influence as a control variable, two of the six hypotheses were confirmed. These findings are presented in Tables 5A through 57. The "high" influentials perceived community decision makers as invariant, and management as more united than labor. Contrary to expectations, this group saw labor as committing its resources on all important community issues. In each of these instances, the respondent's degree of influence appeared to effect a more "realistic" view of the power structure. On the other hand, degree of influence effected no significant differences in the per- ception of inter-group differences, the ranking of political participation, and the ranking Of labor as an influential organization. The more active involvement of high influ- entials within the inner circles of community decision makers probably accounts for the stability and unity 3 attributed to them. Similarly, this could possibly account for their less critical and unexpected assessment of labor's policy of community involvement. Greater involvement in community decision making processes could result in a greater .appreciation of labor's activity. With respect to the other ‘three questions, knowledgeablesness and cognition perhaps give way to interpretive value-judgements, thus accOunting for the nil effect of degree of influence. When compared with the findings using age as a control ‘variable, the question of interpretation becomes more complex. -266- TABLE 5h RANKING OF IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION BY INFLUENCE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Influence Ranking High Low' Total Most important 35 A7 L1 Other 65 53 59 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of Cases 20 19 39 x2 = .61 p = .50-.3o Question: How would you rank the importance of political participation? TABLE 55 COMPARATIVE UNITY OF BUSINESS AND LABOR BY INFLUENCE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) W Influence Unity High LOW' Total Business equally or more united 60 32 #7 Labor more united #0 63 53 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 20 19 39 x2 = 3.2 p = 4.10 Question: DO you feel that organized labor in Wheelsburg is more united or less united than management in what it wants for the community? -267- TABLE 56 ASSESSMENT OF LABOR SELECTIVITY IN COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BY INFLUENCE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Influence Assessment High Low' Total Labor non-selective 80 32 57 Labor selective 20 68 43 TOTAL - 100 100 100 Number of cases 20 19 39 x2 = 9.2 p = (.01 Question: Does Organized labor in Wheelsburg carefully choose what community issues it is ready to use its influence on, or does it commit its resources On any problem important to the community? TABLE 57 PERCEPTION OF VARIABILITY AMONG COMMUNITY DECISION MAKERS BY INFLUENCE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS Influence Variability High Low Total No change 70 37 5# Change 30 63 A6 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 20 19 39 x2 = 4.2 p =<.05 Question: In your judgment, do you feel that big community decisions in Wheelsburg tend to be made by the same small "crowd" Of people working together, or do these people change according to the issue confronting the community? -268- Thus, it has been shown that the older respondents perceive labor as more selective in its community policy, while those of more influence view labor as non-selective. The apparent "discrepancy" poses a problem but since neither degree of influence nor age is consistently associated with "knowledgeable- ness" of’the power structure, its "meaning" seems less sig- nificant than debatable. On the basis of these limited findings, it seems unwaranted to conclude that the Older informant is less knowledgeable regarding labor than is the higly influential informant. Tenure as a Control When controlling for tenure in position, two of the six hypotheses were confirmed. Table 58 indicates that the high tenure respondents tended to rank political par- ticipation as being of only average importance. Similarly, Table 63 indicates that high tenure respondents tended to omit labor from their lists of influential community organi- zations. However, in one instance, as shown in Table 59, the rejection of the hypothesis served to indicate a relation- ship between tenure in position and perception of unity, but in the reverse of'the direction hypothesized. Thus, those respondents with low tenure tended to perceive management as more united than did those respondents with high tenure. As expected, those with high tenure tended to minimize labor's threat to business domination in the power structure. -269- TABLE 58 RANKING OF IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION BY TENURE IN POSITION OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Tenure Ranking High Low Total Most important 27 59 Al Other 73 Al 59 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 22 17 39 X2 ' 309 P g <005 Question: How would you rank the importance of political participation? TABLE 59 COMPARATIVE UNITY OF BUSINESS AND LABOR BY TENURE OF POSITION OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Tenure Unity - High Low Total Business equally or more united 3O 63 LA Labor more united 7O 37 56 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of Cases 23 16 39 .X2 = 3.9 p = <<105 Question: DO you feel that organized labor in Wheelsburg is more united or less united than management in what it wants for the community? ‘— -270- TABLE 60 ASSESSMENT OF LABOR SELECTIVITY IN COMMUNITY INVOLMENT BY TENURE IN POSITIONS OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Tenure Assessment High Low Total Labor non-selective 5O 65 57 Labor selective 50 35 43 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 22 17 39 X2 z 101 p = 030-020 Question: Does organized labor in Wheelsburg carefully choose what community issues it is ready to use its influence on, or does it commit its resources on any problem important to the community? TABLE 61 PERCEPTION OF DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES BETWEEN BUSINESS AND LABOR BY TENURE IN POSITION OF COMMUNITY IN- FLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Tenure Differences High Low Total Differences 50 71 59 NO differences 50 29 Al TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 22 17 39 X2 g 107 p = .20’010 Question: What are the general differences, if any, in the community objectives, of labor and business? -271- TABLE 62 PERCEPTION OF VARIABILITY AMONG COMMUNITY DECISION MAKERS BY TENURE IN POSITION OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Tenure Variability High Low Total No change ‘ A6 71 57 Change 5h 29 #3 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 22 17 39 X2 a 20‘. p a 020-010 Question: In your judgnent, do you feel that big community decisions in Wheelsburg tend to be made by the same small "crowd" of people working together, or do these people change according to the issue confronting the community? TABLE 63 RANKING OF LABOR As AN INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION BY TENURE IN POSITION OF COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) __ _ W*-A .Mq-fi-V“~—_———e-—.b_—_¢-* -_-_~“‘_ ,_ _- -- ‘_.———- Tenure Ranking High Low Total Labor influential 18 65 38 Labor not influential 82 35 62 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 22 17 39 x2 = 8.9 p = <.01 Question: What organizations in Wheelsburg do you feel have most weight in getting things done, or in pre- venting some things from getting done in Wheels- burg? -272- Consequently, political participation was considered of only average importance, since it really was not needed to ward-off this minimal threat. Also labor was not perceived as an influential organization. However, unexpectedly, those with high tenure perceived labor as more united than business. Possibly, "unity" in this instance was equated with organized labor's organizational structure with busi- ness perceived as having no equivalent to the local labor council. Another possible interpretation is that long tenure in a particular position serves to acquaint the incumbent with the many and diverse wants of other local businessmen, thus resulting in the image of business "disunity" when compared with organized labor. Summary Summarizing the internal variation of the business group, some divergency in responses was found between differ- ent age, influence, and tenure groups. Several of the findings support the original assumptions; others do not. Age accounted for the least variation, with older respondents perceiving labor's community policy to be selective. Higher influentials perceived community decision makers to be un- changing, management to be more united than labor, and labor ‘bo be non-selective in its community involvement. High 'tenure respondents ranked political participation as being of average importance, did not rank labor as an influential -273- organization, but did consider labor to be more united than business. On two questions where two controls were operating, the respective distributions served to both confirm and to reject the hypotheses which were formulated. Thus with respect to the hypotheses relative to labor's policy of community involvement, both age and influence seemed to operate. However, while the hypothesis that the older in- fOrmants would perceive labor as selective was accepted, the hypothesis that high influentials would perceive labor to be selective was rejected. Similarly, the hypothesis that the high tenure group would perceive business to be mmre united was rejected, while the hypothesis that the high influentials would perceive management to be more united ‘was confirmed. On those questions where one control was Operating, each of the hypotheses was sustained. As hypo- ‘thesized, high influentials perceived community decision xnakers to be unchanging, and high tenure influentials ranked jpolitical participation of average importance, and did not rank labor as an influential organization. No control was operating on the question concerning inter-group differences. 131 sum, only five of the eighteen hypotheses were confirmed. Labor's Internal Variation The findings in the paragraphs to follow, relative to internal variations within the labor group, are taken ~274- from the author's master's thesis. Three control factors were introduced: influence, union, position, and representation in community organizations. Quoting from the author's thesis: With each factor except position, the sample was dicho- tomized. Influence categories were determined by the number of votes each respondent received from his colleagues. Those receiving eight or more were classi- fied as having "high" influence, all others as "low," resulting in seventeen and twenty-two in their respective categories. With respect to organizational repre- sentation, the respondents were classified simply as officially representing labor in any community organi- zation or not. Seventeen were representatives and twenty- tWO were HOt o The sample was divided into three groups in terms of the union position held. International representatives, regional, legislative and educational representatives were "high," as were labor representatives on the Com- munity Chest and the head of the city CIO labor council. All presidents of locals (with the exception of two who headed the lar est locals in the city and were classi- fied as "high"? were placed in the "median" category. Also included here was the editor of the Wheelsbur Labor News. All others, such as financiaI secretaries or Business agents were classified as "low." This pro- cedure resulted in eighteen "high," thirteen "medium," and eight "low."4 Hmtheses Using these control factors, the author hypothesized ‘that the more influential, the high position holders, and the representatives in community organizations would view “warren L. Sauer, "Labor's Image of its Place in Community Power Structure: An Exploratory Study," (unpub- lished M.A. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University, 1958), pp. 85- 6. -275- the community power structure as less management-dominated than their counterparts. With regard to management domination of the com- munity power structure, two questions elicited responses supporting all but one of the various hypotheses offered. Asked to compare the relative influence of management and labor, the respondents attributed greater power to the fOrmer. Similarly, when asked to name a group of community leaders to sponser a community project, the infOrmants again perceived management superiority judged in terms of the preponderance of management names sub- mitted. With respect to the specific hypotheses less management power was perceived by organizational repre- sentatives and high influentials. In listing community leaders the high position holders included more labor names than did the median and low groups. This also was interpreted as the highs viewing the power structure as less management-dominated compared to those in lower union positions. However, the high position group also listed the name of John Newsworthy, newspaper pub isher, more frequently than did the other two groups. This was interpreted as a view of high management-concentra- tion of power on the part of the highs as compared to the median and low groups, a finding contrary to the original hypothesis.5 Tables 64, 65, 66, and 67, reproduced from the author's master's thesis, present the labor group's perception of power when controlling for influence, position, and or- ganizational representation. As indicated above, with the one exception noted, less business power is perceived by those of high influence, of high position, and those repre- senting labor in community organizations. The rationale behind the hypotheses that the informants in these categories would attribute less power to business than would the labor 51bid., pp. 95-96. -276- TABLE 64 POWER ATTRIBUTED TO MANAGEMENT BY LABOR ACCORDING TO ORGANIe ZATIONAL REPRESENTATION (IN PER CENT) Representation Perception of Power Yes No Total Greater power of management 67 9O 81 Labor equal or more power 33 10 19 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 15 21 36 x2 = 3.2 p = .10-.05 Question: How would you compare the relative influence of management and labor in community affairs in Wheelsburg? TABLE 65 POWER ATTRIBUTED TO MANAGEMENT BY LEVEL OF POSITION WITH THE UNION (IN PER CENT) Position Perception of Power High Medium Low Total Concentrated management power-- John Newsorthy group 78 39 63 62 Diffuse management power-- other business spokesmen 22 61 37 38 ’EOTAL 100 100 100 100 Number of cases 18 13 8 39 x2 = 4.9 p = .10-.05 Question: If you were responsible for a major project, which was before the community that required decision by a group of leaders that nearly everyone would accept, which ten would you include on this list? -277- TABLE 66 POWER ATTRIBUTED TO MANAGEMENT BY LEVEL OF POSITION WITHIN THE UNION (IN PER CENT) W Position Perception of Power High Medium. Low' Total (Management power)--No labor name given 17 69 37 39 (Labor power)--Labor name given 83 31 63 61 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 Number of cases l8 l3 8 39 x2 = 8.8 p = .02-.01 Question: If you were responsible for a major project which was before the community that required decision by a group of leaders that nearly everyone would accept, which ten would you include on this list? TABLE 67 POWER ATTRIBUTED TO MANAGEMENT BY HIGH AND LOW INFLUENCE GROUPS OF LABOR (IN PER CENT) —L r Influence Level Reply High LOW' Total (Management power)--No labor name given 18 55 39 (Labor'power)--Labor name given 82 #5 61 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 17 22 39 X2 a 505 p = 002-001 Question: If you were responsible for a major project which was before the community that required decision by a group of leaders nearly everyone would accept, which ten would you include on this list? -278- informants of low influence, low position, and not repre— senting labor in community organizations was essentially that the fermer would most likely include those individuals who have contact with and knowledge of the business group. With such greater contacts and knowledge with the business group and with greater influence within the ranks of labor itself, it was assumed that such individuals would tend to a see business as less powerful than those individuals further ) "removed from the scene," so to speak. . This same rationale led to another set of hypotheses in which it was stated that the high influentials, high position-holders, and those representing labor in community organizations would tend to see labor as being "within" the power structure, while their respective counterparts would view labor as being a tangential association. In short, those in the former categories would tend to perceive less cleavage between labor and business than would those in the latter categories. Cleavage was revealed in answer to two questions asked of the respondents. One concerned organizations or activities in which the respondent felt labor should participate, but in which it was currently inactive. The other concerned management-labor agreement as to what were the important community issues. In both ques- tions, perception of cleavage was significantly asso- ciated with a particular control variable. The findings indicate that more cleavage was perceived by the high influential, tHE_Eigh position-holders, and the organi- zational representgtives, contrary to the various hypo- theses formulated. 6Ibid., p. 91. -279- The findings relative to labor's perception of cleav- age, when using the various controls, are presented in Tables 68, 69, and 70. The author attempted to explain the rejec- tion of his "cleavage" hypotheses as follows: It is quite possible that the reception given these groups in community organizations has resulted in their "realistic," albeit unfavorable, imagery. As new par- ticipants in community affairs, they have not been able to identify the interests of labor with those of other community groups, particularly when the other groups hold the balance of power and Often times reject such an attempt by labor.7 The apparent paradox revealed in such findings, in which the high position-holder attributed less poWer to business, yet perceived more cleavage between labor and business was discussed: ' 1 One possible explanation is that their experiences in community activities have been such that they have em- phasized management-labor differences while at the same time reinforcing their image of labor's own power potential. Evidently, labor has not yet successfully penetrated the power structure to the point where the differences between it and other groups are simply those of degree rather than of kind. It is understandable that the divergencies between labor and management would be spotlighted as the former attempts to become a "work- ing member" within the power structure. These differ- ences would be particularly impressed upon those union leaders representing labor in the power structure. The fact remains, however, that labor has enjoyed considerable success in at least entering the power structure, if its representation in various community organizations is any criterion by which to judge. Hence, a feeling of power could develop simply out of this fact. Whether labor's influentials feel that such participation is furthering labor's interests is another tmatter. As newcomers who have proven labor's power 71bid., p. 95. ~280- TABLE 68 PERCEPTION OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT CLEAVAGE ACCORDING TO INFLUENCE LEVEL OF LABOR INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Influence Level Perception High Low Total No cleavage 25 59 44 Cleavage 75 Al 56 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 17 22 39 x2 = A.9 p = .05-.02 Question: Are there organizations or activities in the Wheelsburg area in which you feel labor should participate but does not? - TABLE 69 LABORQMANAGEMENT CLEAVAGE PERCEIVED BY LABOR INFLUENTIALS AC- CORDING TO ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATION (IN PER CENT) W Representation Perception Yes No Total No cleavage 24 59 Ah Cleavage 76 Al 56 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 17 22 39 x2 - 4.9 p = .05-.02 Question: Are there organizations or activities in the Wheelsburg area in which you feel labor should participate but does not? -281- TABLE 70 CLEAVAGE PERCEIVED BETWEEN LABOR AND MANAGEMENT BY POSITION WITHIN THE UNION (IN PER CENT) Position Perception High Medium Low Total No cleavage 56 100 '75 75 Cleavage AA - 25 25 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 Number of cases 16 12 8 36 X2 3 700 p a 005-002 Question: Would community representatives of management generally agree that these are the most important issues? by entering community organizations, the view may be held that labor's goals might best be achieved outside community ranks. This image could obtain even though the influentials express a desire to enter still more community organizations, for this obviously raises labor's prestige in the community and is thus not without benefit. Lacking the skills of the upper echelon, the lower labor influentials see less cleavage, contrary to the hypothesis originally formulated. In brief, their lack of knowledge, apparently makes them less aware of labor- management differences. However, as was hypothesized, this contributed to their imagery of management domina- tion in the power structure. Comparison of Labor's and Business’ Internal Varigtion A comparison of the respective internal variations of the two groups should help to explain the minimal amount 81bid., pp. 100-101. -282- of external or inter-group variation which exists. Very briefly, it appears that the internal variation which is manifest, in large measure, tends to negate potential inter- group variation. While high position and influence within labor result in perceptions which minimize inter-group power differentials, but maximize inter-group policy differences, the reverse is apparently true within the business group. In the latter, the respondents of high influence and high tenure maximize the power differential and minimize the "policy" differences. Conversely and perhaps somewhat iron- ically, the "lows" of the business group tend to converge in their imagery with the "highs" of the labor group, while the lows of the labor group tend to converge with the highs of the business group. Thus the "lows" of the business in- fluentials like the "highs" of the labor influentials, tend to perceive less of a power differential between the two groups and more differences between the two groups in terms of their aims in community involvement. The "lows" of labor and the "highs" of business converge in their imagery, both perceiving a wide power differential, but seeing little policy difference. The above observations are made more meaningful if the responses to specific questions are recalled. The busi- :ness respondents of high influence emphasized business power by seeing business as more united than labor and by perceiv- ing community decision makers as basically an unchanging -283... group. At the same time labor, presumably like business, was considered to be non-selective in its community involve- ment. In the same vein the "low" labor respondents, when asked to compare business and labor power invariably attrib- uted greater power to the former. However, when asked about possible disagreement between labor and business regarding the impOrtance of community issues, little divergence was perceived by the "low" labor respondents. On the other hand, "high" labor informants, compared labor's power favor- ably with that of business, but perceived more disagreement between the two groups regarding the importance-of particu- lar community issues. Likewise the "low" business infOrmants tended to attribute greater power to labor (than their "high" business compatriots) by perceiving labor as more united than business and by attributing less stability to community decision makers. Correspondingly, the "low" business in- formants tended to perceive inter-group policy cleavage, ‘with labor viewed as selective in its issue-involvement. The perception of power equality but inter-group cleavage by the high labor influentials, converging as it does with the perceptions of the low business influentials, raises some interesting questions concerning labor's status- and power-seeking techniques. It may be that labor leaders in the higher echelon see labor as increasing its power by concentrating on inter-group differences rather than inter- group convergences in objectives. Organized labor acquired -234- economic power out of a conflict-situation, consequently the high labor influentials may choose or elect to win status and social power in the same manner. Competition with, rather than emulation of business influentials may be con- sidered the most feasible 993513 opgrggdi. Whether social power in this manner can be "usurped" is of course another question. Again the question revolves around the trans- formation of labor's economic strength into social power. As has previously been suggested, the objective observer both presently and in the past, must judge the Wheelsburg power structure to be essentially conflict-free. Very few issues have appeared and when they have, organized labor and business have rarely been found in direct opposition to each other. Given this situation, labor has been literally forced by circumstances to emulate business tactics. Thus it has been difficult to ascertain, just what power, if any, organized labor has or does wield in the community. Most issues in which labor has been involved have not afforded the group the opportunity to make use of its economic potential. For its part, labor generally has not tended to disrupt the stggug gut; by being an innovator and by itself defining . issues. Again, it has tended to "go along" with business. In some respects, the situation is paradoxical. The high labor influentials while verbally expressing cleavage between labor and business, have in point of actual fact, done nothing about pressing for a resolution of these perceived 'w-‘v—— -235- "differences." Ironically enough, this apathy on their part may be due to the fact that they also perceive less of a power imbalance between the two groups. Given this perception, the differences perceived may not be considered "crucial," since the power imbalance itself is not considered crucial. Then too, one cannot over-generalize with respect to this perception of cleavage since it was rather limited in scope. Thus, high labor influentials also stressed the desirability of "cosperation" with business. As for the low business influentials, their views tend to run in the samedirection as those of the high labor influentials, but for a different set of reasons. Perhaps the main reason for the views of the former group is their distance from the inner circles of community decision making which result in a tedency to perceive labor as more powerful than it really is. The actual power of business is not fully appreciated. Correspondingly, labor's "threat" results in this group emphasizing the importance of political participa- tion and perceiving labor's policy of issue involvement as being ”selfish" or selective, when compared with that of business. Finally, the convergence between the high business influentials and the low labor influentials must be inter- preted. Again, an awareness of the high business influ- entials of what the objective power situation really is probably accounts for their "accurate" perceptions. Thus, -286- unmagement power is emphasized concurrently with a minimiza- tion of inter-group cleavage. Consequently, this group holds labor's policy to be non-selective, as business' pre- sumably is. The low labor influentials hold similar views, not because of their knowledge, but precisely because of their lack of knowledge. Little is known of business-labor relationships in the power structure, still less is known of the functioning of the power structure. In brief, the power structure is perceived in only the grossest and sketchi- est terms. Consequently, a stereotyped image of rather complete business domination is held with the attendant image of labor-business identity of interests with respect to most community issues. Inte -Grou V ri tion Consistent or extensive inter-group divergency would seemingly be precluded by the above findings. Certainly, 'this is also the conclusion to be drawn from.the empirical .findings relative to the substantive hypotheses concerning ‘business and labor imagery. Of all the hypotheses drawn 'up, only in the so-called “attributive” hypotheses was inter- group divergency postulated and in this set of hypotheses only two were tentatively accepted. A third hypothesis re- vealed divergency, but in the reverse of the direction hypo- thesized. Thus the expectation that each group would see the other as more united but also view'itself as more socially -287- responsible have been tentatively accepted. The hypothesis that labor would view community decision makers as acting autonomously while business would view them as requiring organizational approval was rejected, but did reveal inter- group imagery divergence. The Chi-Square test will be used to analyze these inter-group divergences, as it will also be used in analyzing the hypothesized inter-group divergences which follow in the succeeding paragraphs. 9 Other Hmtheses re Inter-Group Va_riation- Although to a degree, both groups ”correctly" define the objective power structure, in the sense of acknowledging the power differential which exists in business' favor, the findings do indicate that this broad convergency does not serve to over-ride differences in "meaning" which the two groups attribute to the situation. Broadly speaking, the jpower differential is interpreted in different ways by labor and business. To business, the power differential is accounted for by business' greater responsibility, (interests, and stakes is: community involvement. To labor, business' greater power is accounted for by the group's greater interest, stakes, and also its greater unity and to some degree, its perceived alliance with the governmental structure. Given these some- vflurt varying evaluations of the situation, the next question or problem is to relate these to the groups' past or future actions in terms of their stated objectives in comunity ~288- participation. As economic power groups, both labOr and business, tend to minimize their economic motiviation or to define the pdwer structure in "non-economic" terms. In terms of stated objectives, labor ranked community participa- tion pg; 33, a distant third behind its economic objectives. Neither group tends to define or perceive the community as an economic battleground. Both attest to the importance of political participation. Despite these essentially con- gruent perseptions, it would appear that labor as the less powerful of the two, both economically and ”socially,” would tend to have different priorities or areas of interest within the general sphere of community activities. The differ- ence may be in degree as well as kind. Agsessment of'ngfare szpicipggign In brief, some further divergency in imagery can be expected as a result of the power differential itself and the diverse interpretations given to it and differences in objectives between the two groups, particularly economic objectives. With respect to the latter, it is obvious that 'these should affect their respective actions in community Inerticipation. Thus while community participation is econom- ically profitable for both organized labor and business, ‘tJee "profit" motive is served by participation in different types of organization. Accordingly, this should be reflected in group imagery. It has already been established that -289- both groups consider participation in welfare organizations (as more important than participation in any other type of community organization. It is hypothesized that labor perceives participation in welfare organizations to be more important than does busi- ness. The minimal importance attached to community partici- pation in general by organized labor is in part based upon its perceived unrelatedness to labor's primary economic ob- jectives. Seemingly, participation in welfare organizations, would be perceived as being more directly related to these objectives. Compared with business, labor stands in greater need of welfare services. The apparently greater importance attached to community participation by business is perhaps because of the fact that much of this community participa- tion is identified with participation in business organi- zations. Business, like labor, does not view community par- 'ticipation primarily as a vehicle for fostering specific economic objectives, however. The importance attached to participation in welfare organizations by business, unlike labor, is totally unrelated to the group's economic objectives and.thus, should be of a somewhat lesser degree. The welfare concerns of business are more likely related to status rein- .forcement alone, while the welfare concerns of labor are both (economically and "socially" beneficial, and hence are more "important." It is also in welfare organizations that labor can make excellent use of its economic power potential. -290- It was in the hospital expansion program that labor was able to wield sanctions and actually "influence" business. In short, although neither group looks upon its com- munity participation as being particularly profitable in an economic sense, the peculiar economic goals which each has (should result in the placing of slightly different degrees of emphasis with respect to participation in welfare organi- zations. This segment of community organizations,pmesently controlled by business, perhaps bears the greatest potential for labor-business conflict. However, the "conflict" is over status rather than economic resources, which would tend to minimize its intensity. Assessment of Political Participation Since neither group has defined the existing power differential as due to business' monopoly or control over scarce "resources," political participation looms large in importance for both business and labor. Both groups have attributed importance to political participation. From busi- xaess' point of view political activity is important for Inaintaining the differential. To date, it would appear that tnasiness could afford to be politically apathetic, because leabor's challenges have been only intermittent and sporadic. Vfiiih business perhaps expecting an increasing challenge by organized labor, political activity may be considered as one Vflasr of warding off this pOtential threat. Labor, on the . . _. \. In.“ .11 o .. . g d .9». ._ 0.14. wt- DJ .uHIW—OOJ‘C ,- V. -, “WW. ....J- . -.e\rt.- w m» 3.1%.. L ”(In I... t). . ..-.T 1.!- ) RAVII-eLlff'll’rh . . -|JD-I.I!\ul|‘ )IF- v. H4 (LIST )1 l . w....-}Y§xcrpmn§. 1141.4... .14. ..¢-...lhuch-.-_,x...ue...33- .. ,1 ems-Hue. (Ia-3 tirrvywenr....$ - _-. .- - t -291- other hand, tends to account for business' power superiority, on the basis of business' "unholy alliance" with city govern- ment. For this reason, labor should consider political par- ticipation as more immediately important to change the power differential between itself and business. This is taken as a formal hypothesis. Issue Priority Labor's slightly greater economic-political orienta- tion toward the power structure should be reflected in the relative emphases it places on certain community issues as compared to business. Between the two,parking, transporta- tion, downtown development, and metrOpolitan-planning or annexation were listed as the most important issues facing ‘Wheelsburg today. .Metropolitan planning and parking ranked as the two top issues according to business. To labor, park- :ing and transportation were considered the most important :issues. Labor, is in effect trying to accomplish two things through its community participation. First, it is, of course, trying to increase its social status and. power. Secondly, it vnould win what economic benefits it can for its constituents. 11> accomplish the first aim, it should place considerable emphasis on issues in which it can make use of its economic strength or'its self-perceived political strength. The second aim would seemingly require considerable emphasis on issues Which have particularly important economic consequences ~292- fknr the rank-and-file. Both parking and public transporta- tion qualify as important to labor on each count. Given the above loosely formulated labor aims, downtown development and annexation are considered of lesser importance. Busi- ness should place greater emphasis on different types of issues because of its different status and economic require- ments. Granted business' current high status, the group faces the constant problem of reinforcing this status. It must constantly reaffirm the imagery of responsibility. In addition, its economic goals are different from those of organized labor. The consequences of particular issues are more important to the business organization than are the consequencees of other issues. Whereas labor is presumably concerned with the economic needs of the individual, busi- ness is more concerned with the economic needs of the organi— zation. Accordingly, business considers annexation and park- ing of greater importance than downtown development and parking. The four issues of metrOpolitan planning, transporta- tzion, parking, and downtown develOpment represented issues on which the two groups evidenced most agreement as important community issues. The ranking for labor was parking, trans- portation, annexation, and downtown development. For busi- ness, the order was annexation, parking, downtown development, and transportation. Thus each of these issues is given a different ranking. Because of the different status and -293- economic needs of the two groups the author hypothesizes that: (a) business considers annexation of greater importance than does labor; (b) business considers downtown development Of greater importance than does labor; (c) labor considers park- ' ing of greater importance than does business; (d) labor con- siders transportation of greater importance than does busi- ness. The problem of annexation appears to be of more pressing concern to business than to labor. The consequences of its resolution are much more directly related to the in- terests of various business organizations than to labor. Labor's interest in this case seems to be more related to its drive for status rather than economic gain and as a re- sult the group should consider this issue as less important than business. For essentially the same reasons, downtown development should be considered more important by business ‘than by labor. The issue is important to business in an eeconomic sense and also, because it provides a status plat- form through which business can "prove” its sense of community ruesponsibility. For labor, the issue is important, but again cuily or primarily for the latter reason. Although parking Visa important to both groups for status and economic reasons, the issue would seemingly be more crucial for labor. While business is perhaps viewed as the primary beneficiary of improved downtown parking facilities, making the issue of importance to business, the question of financing the project -294- is perhaps even considered of more importance by labor, since it may view itself as having to bear the burden of financing this "business" project. Also, the issue is a "political" one, and provides labor with an Opportunity to challenge business' superior social power at the polls. Finally, transportation as an issue is perhaps of greater importance to labor because it has more direct economic consequences for the rank-and-file union members and also because any permanent solution seemingly requires a political mandate, again pro- viding labor with an Opportunity to make use of its organiza- tional strength. . Assessment of Labor Power Finally, it is hypothesized that organized labor attributes greater power to itself than business attributes to labor. While there is basic agreement between the two that business wields greater influence in the community than_ labor, there was discernible on labor's part a rather con- sistent tendency to perceive the power differential as less «extensive than did business. This was particularly evident vvhen the two groups Offered their list of influential commu- riity organizations. Labor mentioned itself as an influential organization much more frequently than business listed labor. Basically, business is perceived as having greater influence because it has greater unity, interest, and stakes in commu- nity participation. Consequently, labor perceives the power -295- differential as being reduced if it increases its own unity and interest in community participation. Increased activity on its part is seen as leading to increased power. Perhaps the main reason for the present hypothesis is that labor tends on the whole to have a more limited or circumscribed view of the sc0pe or range of the power structure in terms of the issues which it resolves. To begin with, labor's emphasis on its economic objectives led it to "de-emphasize" the importance of community participation. Being less power- ful in and less knowledgeable of the local social structure, it tended to view its community participation primarily in terms of those issues in which it had been active, and, by so doing, would inevitably attribute relatively more influ- ence to itself. Business, on the other hand, with its greater local .power, took a more comprehensive view of the issues which 'were resolved, listing some issues in which labor had played :30 part, either because of lack of interest or lack of aawareness. It is not likely that the over-all result of this nuare knowledgeable and comprehensive perception would credit limbor with as much influence as labor credits to itself by virtue of its correspondingly less knowledgeable and more . I ’restrictive perception. Thus business, while perhaps concur- ring with labor as to the latter's influence on particular issues, tends to see labor as completely inactive and non- influential on other issues. -296- Inter-group Variation: So_c_i_z-11 Responsibility Table 71 offers support to the hypotheses that each group would perceive itself as exercising greater social responsibility vis-a-vis the other. In view of the nature of the question asked, the evidence offered is purely inferen- tial. It was assumed that a positive image of the decision makers, if differing in degree of intensity between the two groups, could be used, albeit indirectly, to compare the groups' images of self-responsibility. Since both groups obviously viewed the decision makers primarily as business- men, this meant that the business influentials were, in effect, viewing themselves. As can be seen in Table 71, they tended to attribute a greater degree of responsibility to community decision makers than did the labor influentials. Thus it rtay well be that each tended to view itself as exercising more tresponsibility than the other. Labor's less favorable per- <:eption of the power elite is taken as evidence that it views :itself more favorably in comparison. Admittedly, the negative crmaracter of such "evidence" precludes any but the most tentative of conclusions. However, the comparative group eaveiluations of community decision makers do indicate con- siderable disparity between labor and business in their re- spective assessments of community leaders. Labor is obviously much more hesitant to attribute responsibility to them than is business. Aside from the basis of this hesitancy or re- luctance, this image can have important consequences for -297- TABLE 71 PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMUNITY DECISION MAKERS BY LABOR AND COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Perception Labor Business Total Decision makers have social responsibility #6 79 ‘63 Decision makers lack social responsibility 54 21 _37 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 39 ' 39 78 x2 = 9.2 p = 4.01 Question: Concerning the people who are primarily involved in making the big decisions in Wheelsburg, do you feel they have a broad sense of community respon- sibility, or are they more concerned with protect- ing or furthering their own particular interests? future business—labor relationships in the locality. This perception is somewhat in conflict with labor's expressed desire to cooperate with business in the resolution of com- munity issues. As labor seeks further penetration into the power structure, it appears to be ambivalent concerning the tactics it should employ. Labor would cooperate with busi- ness, yet is seemingly suspicious of business' motives. To date, labor's policy of OOperation has been only modestly sliccessful in gaining social power. Whether labor will attempt 'tco increase its own status in the fUture by "undermining" —298- the status of the other remains to be seen. M Table 72 offers further evidence to support the hypo- theses that each group views the other as more united. Labor, however, is much more emphatic about business' unity than business is about its own unity. Apparently, business is less impressed with labor's manifest organizational unity than labor is with business' multi-organizational cOntrol of the power structure, control which gives the appearance of "unity." The greater unity attributed by each group to the other is particularly interesting in view of the fact that both perceive themselves to be in essential agreement regard- ing community objectives and community issues. Intra-group "disunity," whether real or fancied, could serve to inhibit inter-group cooperation. The latter could conceivably be made contingent upon getting one's own "house" in order. Also worthy of note is the link which labor makes between business' power and unity, whereas business although seeing labor as less powerful also sees the group as more united. _pecision Maker Autonomy The hypotheses that business would view community ciecision makers as requiring organizational approval while liabor would perceive them as acting autonomously is emphatic- allly'rejected by the data in Table 73. Exactly the reverse is; indicated, with labor perceiving decision makers as -299- TABLE 72 PERCEPTION OF COMPARATIVE GROUP UNITY BY LABOR AND COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Perception Business Labor Total Management has greater unity AA 72 58 Labor has greater unity 56 28 A2 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 39 39 78 x2 = 5.5 p =4.02 Question: Do you feel that organized labor in Wheelsburg is more united or less united than business in their goals of community participation? TABLE 73 .PERCEPTION OF DECISION MAKER AUTONOMY BY LABOR AND COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Perception Business Labor Total Organizational approval needed . 31 7h 53 Approval not needed 69 26 A7 IVumber of cases 39 39 78 x2 = 14.8 p =.<:.OI iQtiestion: Is it your opinion that people who make the im- portant community decisions in Wheelsburg can do this pretty much on their own, or do they have to get approval for their actions from the organi- zations to which they belong? -300- requiring organizational approval. In this instance, labor is projecting the procedures which its own representatives must follow unto community influentials in general. On the other hand, the expected business denial that community de- cision makers worked independently of their organizations did not materialize. Decision makers are socially respon- sible precisely because of the fact that they are not viewed as "business" representatives, but as "community" repre- sentatives. They perhaps are viewed in a somewhat less favorable light by labor because they are viewed as "tools" of business organizations. Nelfare Organizations That welfare organizations are considered slightly more important by labor than by business is supported by Table 7h. As hypothesized, labor does evince a greater in- terest in participation in welfare agencies than does busi- ness. This has been one sector of community endeavor in ‘NhiCh labor has successfully made its economic strength ;felt. It is also an area where labor has in one sense, more tx: gain than business. A combination of these factors tends ‘tc> lend slightly greater importance to this area of com- nurnity activities for labor than for business. goli_tical Participation Greater labor emphasis on political participation is indicated in Table 75, thus supporting the hypothesis. -3 01- TA LE 7% IMPORTANCE OF PARTICIPATION IN WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS BY LABOR AND COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Assessment Business Labor Total Welfare participation mentioned #9 7h 62 Welfare participation not mentioned 51 26 38 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 39 39 78 x2 . 5.4 p = szoz Question: Are there some organizations (or areas) of the community where you believe the participation of organized labor (business) is more important than other areas? What are they? TABLE 75 IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION INDICATED BY LABOR AND COMMUNITY INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) ‘ Assessment ‘ Business Labor Total Political participation ‘ mentioned 18 57 37 Political participation not mentioned 82 A3 63 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 39 39 78 x2 - 12.4 p =4fi:.01 Question: Are there some organizations (or areas) of the community where you believe the participation of organized labor (business) is more important than other areas? What are they? -302- Although of importance to both groups, labor tends to look to increased political activity as one way of reducing the present imbalance between itself and business. While busi- ness looks to political participation as one way of warding off labor's "challenge," it is considered of lesser importance by business since the group does not see labor as posing much of a challenge or threat at the present time. leave Three of the four hypotheses relating to differen- tial group emphases on particular issues are supported by the data presented in Tables 76, 77, 78, and 79. Table 76 indicates that labor does attribute greater importance to transportation. Table 77 likewise demonstrates that labor places somewhat greater emphasis on parking. Table 78 shows, on the other hand, that business places greater emphasis on annexation than does labor. Table 79, however, indicates no difference with respect to downtown development. These findings do indicate some group divergency in emphasis with respect to different issues. For example, labor apparently was much more concerned with public transportation than was business. Such varying emphases as were indicated may pro- vide clues as to the present power differential between the tuna groups and the future actions which may affect this dilfferential. The greater or lesser emphasis placed on par—ticular issues can affect the potential conflict which -303- TABLE 76 IMPORTANCE OF "TRANSPORTATION" AS A COMMUNITY ISSUE BY COM- MUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Assessment Business Labor Total Transportation mentioned 10 A7 28 Transportation not mentioned 90 53 72 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 39 39 78 x2 = 11.7 p =<.01 Question: What are some of the most important issues facing Wheelsburg today? TABLE 77 IMPORTANCE OF "PARKING" As A COMMUNITY ISSUE BY COMMUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Assessment Business Labor Total Parking mentioned L1 67 SA Parking not mentioned 59 33 . A6 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 39 39 78 x2 = 5.0 p = .05 (Ingestion: What are some of the most important issues fac- ing Wheelsburg today? A -304- TABLE 78 IMPORTANCE OF "ANNEXATION" AS A COMMUNITY ISSUE BY COMMUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) ‘ Assessment Business * ‘ Labor Total Annexation mentioned 59 36 A7 Annexation not mentioned _ Al 6h 53 TOTAL 100 100 100 Number of cases 39 39 78 x2 . 4.1 p - 4.05 Question: What are some of the most important issues facing Wheelsburg today? TABLE 79 IMPORTANCE OF "DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT" AS A COMMUNITY ISSUE BY COMMUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Assessment Business Labor Total Downtown develOpment mentioned 31 21 26 Downtown development not mentioned 69 79 7h TOTAL , 100 100 100 Number of cases 39 39 78 x2 3 101 p 3 030-020 Question: What are some of the most important issues facing Wheelsburg today? -305- common involvement may generate. Emphasis on different issues would, of course, largely mitigate inter-group conflict ask would differential emphasis on the same issues. The differ- ential emphases indicated above might, in part at least, explain the lack of intense conflict between labor and busi- ness on the local scene. Labor Power Finally, Table 80 provides support to the hypothesis that labor perceives itself as more powerful than does busi- ness. Labor tends to rank itself as an influential organi- zation in the community more often than business does. While conceding greater power to business, it is evident that 1a- bor does not view the differential as significant as busi- ness does. One receives the impression that another reason labor is not really "pushing" for a greater voice in community activities is simply because it is not very dissatisfied with progresss it has made in the past. This feeling may be due not so much to its own lack of resources, but to its failure to make full use of them. Business, perhaps is seen as "ruling by default." Business on the other hand tends to attribute some- what lesser influence to labor since it perceives labor to be no more or less powerful than any of several separate business organizations. Also labor's lack of involvement on specific issues in which business participates may account -306- TABLE 80 POWER OF LABOR BY COMMUNITY AND LABOR INFLUENTIALS (IN PER CENT) Assessment Business Labor Total Labor mentioned as an influ- ential organization 38 72 55 Labor not mentioned as an in- fluential organization 62 28 AS TOTAL 100 100 100 39 39 78 Number of cases X2 = 8.8 p = 4.01 Question: What organizations in Wheelsburg do you feel have most weight in getting things done, or in prevent- ing some things from getting done in Wheelsburg? for business' tendency to minimize labor's influence. W The analysis of inter-group variation has found the tan) groups varying slightly in their respective comparative assessments of such group characteristics as unity and social responsibility. Business perceived community decision makers as independent actors, while labor viewed them as organiza- Labor was revealed as placing slight- tional representatives . The 1y more emphasis on political and welfare activities. current issues of parking and transportation were likewise considered of greater importance by labor. Slightly greater -307- importance was attached to annexation by business. Finally, the two groups varied somewhat in their assessment of the inter-group power differential, with labor considering it to be of less magnitude than business. The full implications of this external variation for both persistence and change in the existing power structure as they apply to future group actions are not readily dis- cernible. This question will be considered more fully in the concluding chapter. The inter-group divergency is help- ful in interpreting the past actions of the two groups as these are illustrative of changing patterns of relationships between business and labor in the community power structure. Up to now, organized labor's most "successful" area of pene- tration in the power structure has been in social welfare agencies like the Community Chest. It has enjoyed much less success in the political arena. Therefore, it is not sur- prising that the group's two main priorities would be in one area where they have enjoyed success and in another area where they would like to wield more influence. Its success 'in the former area is probably due to the fu11 exploitation of its economic potential which it has used on occasion to wrest concessions from business with regard to policy-making decisions in agencies such as the Community Chest. Labor's self-perceived failure in the political realm it attributes ‘to business' control of the local political structure, there- 13y enabling it to wield the greater influence in community -308- decision making. It would correct this situation by making use of its self-perceived political strength. Business to date has weathered quite successfully the "challenge" of labor on both fronts. It has conceded a number of lower-level positions in various welfare organi- zations to labor personnel while retaining the top posts for its own representatives. (While viewing itself as politically "apathetic," by its own admission business' candidates have been elected to the top city offices for years. This has inevitably led to business representatives also filling the numerous appointive positions. In other areas of the power structure, business' domination has been even more complete, with labor involvement totally lacking. The relatively conflict-free relationships between the two groups is perhaps accounted for by a number of factors, but the above Observations bring to light several outstanding ones. While the two groups have many common objectives in terms of community participation, they also have many objectives peculiar to their specific organizations. Given this situation plus organizational differences in in- ternal structure, one could expect the groups to have differ- ent priorities in community participation as well as differ- ent techniques in their roles as community participants. As .revealed above, certain issues are more important to one (group than the other. In some instances, an issue may be of <:oncern to only one group. Historically speaking, direct . Lrth.‘ ) gw-LbnfluruTLH-RKL . v . . . 1 ...:..-§N-Ms5mv¥.k v u: ... .-... .. L. i I O n. O» I. x v ()5) ) y y I ”If. )‘fldn (OIL‘VI 1 ml) (1.6!. (I) ‘ Brn. )I) 8 -309- labor-business opposition on any one issue, was virtually non-existent. The difference in the range or scope of in- terests between the two groups while obviously related to the uniqueness of group objectives is also in some measure an outgrowth of the difficulty which labor has in crystallizing its position on various issues. The community representa- tives of organized labor are at an inherent disadvantage be- cause of the democratic procedures followed by their organi- zation. Labor, in many instances, is fOrced into the role of a "watchdog" or follower because its representatives can- not offer a labor "position" without first consulting their rank-and-file constituency. And often-times, unless the issue is of a "bread-and-butter" nature, he can never formu- late labor's position. Consequently, many issues are left to business' resolution by default. Labor's orientation toward increased political ac- tivity seems to involve two alternative courses of action. In the past, it has tried both. First, it has attempted, without much success, to elect its own candidates to local city offices. This is one sure way of guaranteeing increased labor influence in community affairs. Secondly, it has attempted to deliver the labor vote on issues which have been submitted to the ballot for resolution. Its success in the latter course is also open to question. In either case .labor's political unity has been fOund wanting. Yet the political process seems to offer labor the best opportunity Ii. cvdkflgl. ( ..n.l J. .Jzfl‘taiE -310- for increasing its influence in the community power struc- ture. Business, too, looks to increased political activity to retain its present power position. That business is most concerned with labor's threat in this area is not surprising, despite labor's past failures. At present, labor must find most of its allies at the polls. The government itself re- mains an ally of business. A reshuffling of the alliance with government join- ing labor would most certainly effect the present power differential between business and labor. Labor's penetration into other areas or segments of the power structure business can afford, as witness the welfare sector. Business is still by far the more influential group in this area. It can less afford to relinquish its control of local city government, because of the dmsequences which it would have for the group's economic and "social" objectives. The loss of political influence would be much more costly to business. \ . w p .\ . . .Age‘g M0,... . . v . 10.1‘9; . virus. I-. LPLIJ. )Vrlell 4 H? ‘(II‘)’: -). .-(A..I) WNW .mo.«.u.J.4.. to) CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIONS The Problem and Relevanp_Findings This investigation established as its primary ob- jective the study of inter-group imagery as it related to group tactics in the community power structure. It is the relationship between various groups' tactics that engender a resultant power "structure." To more fully understand the actions of business and labor locally, it was deemed impera- tive to ascertain how these groups perceived the structure as a whole, their respective positions in it,and the positions of each other. Certainly the actions of a group in a situ- ation are largely predicated upon its perception of that situation. The "objective" power structure, while obviously dependent upon the resources possessed by the various ele- ments, is also contingent upon their perceptions of their own and the others' power potential. Such perceptions can either inhibit or foster the full use of this potential thereby having an effect on the emerging structure. Groups occupy- ing different power positions in the community power struc- ture, such as labor and business, presumably would converge .and diverge at certain points in their perceptions of that -311- r, \lt’)‘: ’ - .1 v9 $0911.33 .l. -uw afi .‘rnshoWK 11 ..0. . )1.ib“nul(\u.fu.¢$13-r\!.. t\..\.0.1 .- JCIO {9.1).}! o, NS. . -\.YI0 fi)‘ .Cl“ . H 1 .HLMWII-.L I A . f . . .. .)))§1.K‘ll I- A UN. u...y.q(.l?!n. -312- structure. Correspondingly, their actions or tactics would also converge and diverge at certain points. Behavior be- tween groups would seemingly be based in part at least upon their images. By'objective means the investigator defined,as did the groups themselves, that business is more powerful than labor in the local community. The basis of the power dis- parity is variously interpreted by the two groups. Neither group sees the disparity as giving rise to a power struggle for the two groups would rather cooperate than contest. The groups do cooperate when they come into contact, which apparently is rather infrequently. The historical analysis of past issues in Wheelsburg revealed only one in- stance in which it could be said that organized labor faced "organized business." In this case the issue was ultimately decided by the "public" at the polls with business' position being upheld by the electorate. Those issues reported by both groups revealed them to be invariably agreed in "prin- ciple" if not "methods." Other issues were mentioned by one group, but not the other. The same comments with respect to lack of conflict and diverse priorities could be applied to ‘the groups' listing of current issues. With respect to the Imast or the present, the observer's judgement remains the same: business occupies the dominant position in the power structure. The reconstruction of the respective roles which both groups played in the resolution of past issues, while L. 0‘ (-00)-) ~313- admittedly a highly subjective undertaking, dependent as it was upon the perceptions of the groups themselves and the author's inferences from these perceptions, did indicate in a gross sense a power balance in business' favor. In view of this past action and present imagery a few tentative con- clusions can be drawn concerning the relationships existing between group imagery and group action and thus also, between imagery as it affects the existing power structure. Group-Imagery and Action These diverse group orientations crucial as they are, in turn are related to inter-group interaction from which a power structure emerges. It is much easier to describe the objective power situation than to explain it.) It has been contended that the actual power which a group wields in the community is, in some measure, traceable to group imagery. This statement, in and of itself, is unprovable. However, even the mere description of such a relationship is a truly fermidable undertaking since it at best can only be a sub- jective interpretation. The search for the bases of power and for evidence of "actual" power-wielding continues to occupy the sociologist and will, in all likelihood, continue to occupy him for some time to come. Group imagery of the power situation however, affects the actual power and can :itself be a power resource or power liability, so to speak. lit the least, group imagery conditions group actions. T..- .. .. 1...... t.) t . igv. . . 2. p . ..lcc )- .4.... u. 1 . ., 1’ ~ I E .III. '(u. . ..- ..Wfitr... 1&9 .L . 1. \ 5.. . . .2- ALT... if : . . is. {31L1):1).111 .Y. .. . . .. P)‘. \.|.lJ‘)1..l.AM-)O.W‘AOI.H\.( 1!... . .1... 1 . .1 l.)1 ul)).l.).1 AW). (I. I u)..‘ . V .1. ))I()c 1.. )l |.1 . 0. ..,.w)). . )1 (WI!) 3111-)}; 1 -31h- Rossi lists such bases of power as control over wealth, mass media, solidary group, values, and prestigeful interaction.1 Again, Polsby in his concern fOr the study of "actual" power says that the power of an actor in a community situation is indicated by (and the author would add, dependent gpgg) his power bases, the techniques through which these bases are employed, the issues involved, and the responses of other actors.2 Certainly, it is hoped, that to some degree, the present investigation has documented business' power along these different dimensions. In this regard, Rossi's criteria are easier to employ than Polsby's. The author's brief assessment of business' present position in the power structure revealed the group to indeed control prestigeful interaction, mass media, and solidary groups. While this was primarily a study of reputed power, the author feels that his historical consideration of past community issues did reveal business as wielding "actual" power, granted the many methodological short-comings of such a procedure, chief of which was the dependence upon the verbal reports of the power-wielders themselves. 1Peter H. Rossi, "The Study of Decision Making in the Inocal Community," mimeographed, August, 1957. 2Nelson w. Polsby, "The Sociology of Community Power: 11 Reassessment," Social Forces, 37 (March 1959), 232-236. t 1?th v .2 I1“.l'l.v$\ -315- The aim of the author was to demonstrate that the manifest power of a group is dependent upon not only such "objective" factors as control of wealth, but also upon the subjective factor of group imagery. The existing power imbalance between business and labor is accounted for by both "types" of factors, since in one aspect, "control of wealth," labor would appear to have as much latent power as business. If one considers this to be the most important of the power bases, then the question again arises as to why the manifest power differential is as great as it is. To answer this question a recapitulation of group imagery is extremely helpful. Although agreeing on community objectives, it was clear that business had more clearly specified these than had labor. Business' rather "liberal" involvement in a wide range of issues contrasted with labor's rather restricted involvement. Labor apparently perceived few reasons or few opportunities to wield or attempt to wield power. Community participation pg£_§g, was considered relatively unimportant in terms of its primary economic objectives. When labor did participate with business in the resolution of an issue it found itself in agreement with rather than opposition to busi- ness. Coupled with this diverse group imagery, which on the one hand facilitates group action and on the other inhibits it, is comparable diversity of imagery with regard ‘to the bases of the power imbalance. The preoccupation of O ‘ V 1 -1 1 l 1 l I- I ‘V 1 l ‘QUI l 11... '4. “‘l 1 11 “5" (1.1111! - 1110. 1... T - . . _ . . _ .5 1H 1..1r... - 1 .1 . 1,. 1... _ .1. 1 u . fl.‘ . . .. .. . . . .5. .. I .1_ atliqlierlll .o . 1 J .. . .. ..... . 1. .. :,. . . . . .. . ..’\ Kr L...11.415. 1. 1 . . .... . . . u WI.~,I.IL1.‘|.’\ D“ ...\l .1 . . . y -1 . .311” ..H.) 1 1- .. . 1. J 1.‘1.1 1... .1 . J.- .1 .111... .‘Vltrrqu’1.$.1‘ll.li.¢ .. 1 ..-|1.I..1 1.1«1‘. 3-1“...111 -316- the two groups with social responsibility serves to temper .the actions of both groups, but moreso for labor. Since business is in a position to judge the responsibility of labor's as well as its own actions and defines power in terms of social responsibility, labor is at a further disad- vantage as it attempts to reduce the power disparity. To labor, business' greater power is a matter of the group's greater interest. The lesser responsibility attributed to business influentials by labor is not a view held by other community groups, if one agrees that business has "control over values." Again, such a situation serves to inhibit labor actions which challenge business supremacy, thus leaving the structural relationships between the two groups unimpaired. Labor's docile actions and deference to business on most community issues is also conditioned by the group's per- ception of a business-government alliance. Judging from the findings of this investigation this perception is not erron- eous. While both groups attest to the importance of polit- ical participation, labor is more dependent on political action than is business, since the latter could invariably ’ count on governmental support on most issues. Because of labor's failure to elect its candidates to office, political action to the group meant attempts to influence the elec- torate on issues which were decided at the polls. On those issues not decided on the ballot, labor's entrance into the decision-making process came invariably at a late stage 11..) ll 1.1.15 1 1 ’v . 1,1: . «1,1 1.11.1.1... 3.1.1.1.... 1111.. hwnnhrfi. 2...; .. . . . 1 3,317.11} ‘4J.JJ¢.1.|11111.1 7:1? 1.1 1"....u«\.. . 11w..0101..vo.1|101 -317- and was relatively unobstrusive, whereby it in reality validated a decision already made. Granted that many such issues may have been of little concern to labor, the group's general apathy is perhaps indicative of its imagery of the existing power structure which holds labor involvement in "non-labor" issues as affording few opportunities for the group to wield influence in view of the influence which business is perceived to have with the city government. In other words, attempts at power-wielding are con- ditioned to a large degree by a group's perception of the ex- pected responses of other groups. While business expects favorable responses from the local government, labor does not. Furthermore, on most issues business expects and usual- 1y gets a favorable response from labor. While labor mani- festly claims agreement with business on most community issues and objectives, the "follower" role which it plays in issues leads one to believe that the group is dubious of the responses of business and other groups if labor were to attempt to initiate issues. Again imagery, acting as an inhibitor of group action, can serve to affect the manifest power structure which is observed. Finally, a group's actions in the power structure sire conditioned by its perceptions of the mechanics of issue- ;resolution. Labor influentials perceive their own lack of arutonomy in community decision making and project the same lxack of autonomy on business influentials. Whether or not X..‘v«11fi .. .11.? «11.1.1 1....1...11..l.l11 . 1r .. ..1. 1.. ._ 1. . '14 1 .. 1. 1 . . .Qdaanicqfiodywv 111.111.41.17. 11.111... .1.“. . .1 11“..I. «'11 l J 1 311a ..«Illlot 111 111.1... 1101l A -318- business influentials require organizational approval is unimportant, since in the decision-making process they do act autonomously in the sense of being able to speak for the organizations which they represent. Usually, the labor influ- entials do not enjoy this same privilege. Labor action and influence is thus inhibited. Business' Power Business representatives dominated the list of commu- nity influentials and the latter occupied potential power positions. The occupancy by business representatives of the top posts in "community" organizations (as well as their own organizations) was established. The dearth of labor repre- sentatives in various "community" organizations was likewise established. Finally, business' "actual" power, as revealed ‘by the reconstruction of past issue-resolutions, found the group to be wielding predominant influence. In the Weberian sense, business has class, status, and party power. Social or community power often requires one, two, or all three of these basic elements. Repeatedly, :rt has been argued that organized labor's lack of status, serves to circumscribe the group's power-wielding. It is of ZLittle explanatory value to point to labor's lack of status as accounting for the group's dearth of community or social power. In Wheelsburg, one can point to business' "reputation" or reputed power as evidence of its "status," but where does ‘Isi’z 1. .1 U605” . 1 1. gill 1:... r; 1‘” . 11 I '1‘ . 111-11.}..- 11.. . ’J’n’fil 111’. I. -319- one go from this point? Thus one might further say that business' status is responsible for the group's representa- tives occupying the potential power positions, but again what does this tell us? These "facts" obviously account for business' "actual" power as witnessed by the observer in Wheelsburg, but they are descriptive, rather than explanatory in nature. In the present study, the status disparity between labor and business was more or less taken for granted. The effect which this disparity would have on a group's social power potential, as manifested in the occupancy of socially powerful positions in the power structure was an important focus of this investigation. Not surprisingly, the status differential in business' favor was reflected in the group's considerable social power potential, judging from the posi- tional analysis which was made. Approximately half of the labor influentials occupied no positions in community or- ganizations. This gave rise to the question raised at several earlier points, as to the relationship between a group's economic power and its social power. The Basis g£;Status: Stable Economic Power To help answer this question, Weber's observation regarding status honor as being a matter of usurpation was utilized. Weber also suggests that the development of status ‘by a particular group depends upon a stratified social order .. .r-.u......:. . .1.- ..1, 1. . .. \IO’.~11'.§I\. . 5 unv11!.n,11111.1|.1 ..r Kass“ .. . . . . . .11.r.w.11 .111‘. .Ilr 1‘11111‘."AI.1‘ I. .11 1 .1v'1.,.11hll1.1l1lt.0‘)11|(‘1\ul.A.dl 1 ...l.‘.v.1W 1" ‘l‘ 411.![1‘1a11l ‘11.! 1,‘V1 . Cfi‘ i.‘r1t A! 4‘H1.l.f.il‘0.11“1.17.1.11 quiz. ‘1). 1“ -320- given "stability" by an apparently permanent distribution of economic power. Given this prerequisite of stability, assuming that a group does have economic power, Weber attaches another condition to the development of status honor. The group must agggg to develop its own life style and not merely imitate or emulate thestyle of life of another group. With these two conditions in mind, an examination of labor's posi- tion in the community and the group's drive for status be- comes more intelligible or meaningful. Interpreted in this framework, particularly crucial are the group's actions and its images of its own and business' actions as well. The same mode of analysis is equally applicable to business. If status itself is a partial derivative of economic power, what clues are given in the group's perceptions relative to the question of status development? In brief, what does status "mean" to business and labor and how do these meanings condition or affect their actions and thus the power which they ‘ wield and the "structure" which results? Granted the economic power of both groups, why is business a group with status honor and social power in the community while labor is not? As a case study of the evolving power relationships between labor and business, the Wheelsburg situation provides a specific illustration of a more general set of conditions that obtain between the two groups beyond any particular local setting. Very briefly, neither of Weber's "prerequisites" for the development of status are fully met in the case of 1 .111... .11 1 1 .. -1 1 .1...“ 1.11.“...N11 1.11... 1 1...- . I‘ II I 1 v )7 I . ‘ n <’ §§U11.11 .1 11.1.me“1111:11111 . . .. J .1 - 1.11.5... 11.13.10,... 1. .1. 1 1 1.. 1. 9,. . 1 . 1.... .. 1 .. .1 1‘gm1v1111 , . _ 1 .. 1.. 1 1 (I 11%.. {1” ‘3‘ ,nr’wu o . a . 1 1. .1111 . 1.11. . 1 .{. .rv ..Jfi.\l;w1iil 511., ‘v .1011 ..1 .1. .1.. .1. . .1... . .1 .....1.1..md«it.111..111 v1.1 . . 11‘; ..1... thins. . ..I1V.IJ)1 P111..11\ ..1.1 . . .1 9 v ‘11 _§qr.flnrhl 11. . 1 . 1 .‘ . . 1 . 11.. y 1 1 1. .fiVJ‘nlb‘Y‘U: . x -321- organized labor. Given the oft-times conflicting economic claims of the two groups, one could hardly expect a "stable" distribution of economic power. This of course acts to the , detriment of labor, because in an historical sense, business had stable economic power before labor. It consequently did develop its own life style, through "agreed-upon communal action." To be sure, the present "unstable" distribution of economic power is of concern to both groups, but since business has.historically enjoyed greater and more stable economic power than labor with a resulting accrual of status, the problem in some respects would appear more crucial for labOr, assuming that such stability is a prerequisite for status acquisition. Labor could hardly be expected to con- centrate on the development of its own life style, while be- ing preoccupied with the balance of economic power between itself and business. By its own admission, labor attributes less importance to community participation than to the pur- suance of its economic objectives. Granted that economic ob- jectives are also paramount to business, the somewhat greater importance which it appears to attach to community participa- tion is perhaps due to the very fact that its status in the community (itself based upon permanent economic power) can be utilized to further its ebonomic objectives. Similarly, current business influence with local government makes "political participation" with its attendant economic ad- vantages important to the group, but even moreso to labor, ‘lIO‘ I IV“. v .I V ..1 . vita... ., iv ‘..1 .fl‘llu£.\itl \J’RVLI - 1101‘ , \n .1). ‘ .441 4‘}..-‘0 i‘. -322- which would use it to further re-distribute economic power. Labor's imagery reflects the paradoxical situation which the group faces. Tactics appropriate in the economic realm, which have acquired power for organized labor are obviously not feasible in the wider realm of community affairs, or at least have not proved feasible to date. Ironically, to wield power labor finds itself in a situation in community affairs having to use these very same "inappropriate" or "militant" tactics. Organized labor won its present position in Wheelsburg and continues to maintain this position pri- marily on the basis of its economic strength. It is much more dependent upon economic strength than is business, which, enjoying "status," can afford to underplay its economic re- sources. Labor cannot wield power on the basis of prestige or status if it has none. Accordingly, two courses of ac- tion seemed to have been pursued simultaneously by labor, at least in Wheelsburg. Lgbor's Pursuance of Status Hindered by its More Direct Economic oncerns In view of the findings of the present investigation, labor haslmxiofly lhmmed success. Thus, on the community front, labor has on occasion reverted to its militant economic ways and at other times attempted to emulate the "velvet glove" tactics of its business counterpart. Since it sees itself pursuing "common" community objectives with business, judg- ing from manifest expresSions it would prefer to follow the [1: .fl. I‘ll- .IIIII:\ \ ill. II. I w c. .Ju. 1.4.5... ...: 3.3.... 131.‘ IL. ‘ pl!w.1l¢\. ..1:..L.Lrs hm...” . .. 0.10:8. H .801. 1 1. 1111101121... ...fluuui....v.tv.y. s , .1.-.. -1. )\‘o l . 1 -323- latter course. By and large "issues" in Wheelsburg have not demanded the "maled fist" approach on the part of labor, simply because on most issues the positions of labor and business either converge or labor is simply not concerned with the issue. On occasion, however, labor has taken a different position and has then attempted to wield power "on its own merits." In these instances, it has been forced to revert to a direct reliance on its economic strength, as in the hospital issue when it threatened to boycott the cam- paign, or has been forced to do battle at the polls, as in the parking bond issue. At this point, labor's actions in community involvement became somewhat self-defeating in terms of status-acquisition. As a group desirous of status, labor's primary emphasis on its economic objectives leads to involv- ment on "bread-and-butter" issues which often call forth actions readily labeled as "partisan" with the result that the group's status is impaired rather than enhanced. That business can afford to underplay its economic goals in community participation or at least places them more subtly under the guise of community welfare is of inestimable advantage in terms of generating an image of social responsi- bility. The business influentials do not have a group of constituents to whom they must show the "tangible" results of their community participation. In many cases, community participation pg; s3 is considered "good business." The bene- fits of such participation although possibly less obvious -324- for the business organization are no less important. The labor influentials, on the other hand, must answer directly to their own organizations. Accordingly, their actions in community participation must be directly geared to the pur- suance of economic objectives in most instances, wherein their notion of social responsibility becomes a partisan en- deavor in the eyes of other community groups. The identifi- cation of group interests with those of the community is a concern of both business and labor, but moreso for labor. The easier identification which business can make is attribu- table to the "lesser" needs of its own constituency, which enable business influentials to be "communally" oriented. Status Concern and Power-wielding The intense desire of both groups that their actions be adjudged as socially responsible can, of course, have a powerful effect on the mode or character of community decis- ion making. Given concern with different types of issues on 'the part of labor and business, the actions of the two groups can be geared to a "clearance" or an "acceptance" by other. community groups. In the case of the actions of particular business units, this means essentiauy gaining the support of other business units. Labor's task of winning such accept- .ance from business or community influentials, for obvious reasons, is usually much more formidable. Business' task of ‘winning public support for its actions is facilitated by -325- the fact that business influentials 33g community influentials. The labor influentials' sphere of influence is largely circum- scribed within the labor organizations themselves. The inter- group concern for social responsibility would seemingly temper their respective actions in community issue-resolution. Their expressed desire to cooperate with each other is perhaps an outgrowth of this concern, but due to the power which it possesses, business has much less need of this cooperation than has labor. It is obvious that the "clearance" procedure Operat- ing in the Wheelsburg power structure accounts for the groups? differential interpretations of the existing power disparity between labor and business. Not unexpectedly, business ac- knowledged it had greater power than labor. But again, to business this greater power was merely evidence of its greater sense of responsibility, its greater interest, and its greater stake in community affairs. Business saw itself as less united than labor, however. To the observer these represent reasons why business ghgglg have power or more power, not why it actually does have power. The equating of responsibility through intra-group clearance with power represents, in essence, a form of self-legitimation of the group's actual power-wielding. With this orientation, labor is perceived as lacking power because it lacks social respon- sibility and it lacks soCial responsibility because it is removed, for the most part, from the inner circle of -326- business influentials. The situation represents a self-fulfilling prophecy. Labor concurs with business as to the latter group's greater interest and stake in community affairs, but takes less kindly to its exclusion from the main body of community decision makers by viewing this group as less socially responsible than labor itself. Labor's somewhat ambivalent orientation towards community participation at this point is readily apparent. Having rated community participation lowest on its priority list, byimplication it would increase its "interest" in such participation and thereby reduce the power differ- ential between itself and business. At the same time, however, it is not clear just what direction this greater interest should take, since labor also perceives itself to have less stake in community affairs. Since many of the issues resolved in the community are apparently of little concern to labor, a showing of greater interest might mean a desire to initiate issues on its own or to enter at an earlier stage those issues which are defined by the community influentials and are seen as crucial to labor's interests. The rather moderate tone expressed by the labor influentials, which gave little evi- dence of extreme dissatisfaction with the existing power arrangement, leads to the conclusion that labor would be content if it could move up its sequence of involvement in issues originated by the community influentials. -327 Limitations As a study of community power, the findings of the present investigation are subject to important qualifications. Several community variables associated with Wheelsburg pre- clude the extension of the present conclusions, relative to business-labor imagery, to those local settings in which these same variables are not approximated. Thus, size, industrial and labor composition, and the local strategies of business and labor in community participation represent important vari- ables to be controlled, if the present findings are to be properly assessed through needed comparative studies in the future. Moreover, the methodological procedures utilized de- mand further caution in interpreting the data. Primary re- liance was placed on the subjective reports of selected busi- ness and labor representatives. As'a result, no claim is made that the full power of either group has been determined, or that all elements in the power structure have been isolated. Only a few of the many dimensions of power have been investigated. The precise relationship between group imagery and power awaits more intensive analysis. Similarly, the complex question of the bases of power awaits further study. Focusing on reputed power, this study did so at the expense of a detailed concern with actual power. While this in- vestigation has provided some insight into labor and business orientations on a local level, the effect of such orienta- tions in terms of future group actions must be determined by subsequent research. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Agger, Robert E. "Power Attributions in the Local Community," Social Forcgs, 3h (May, 1956). Beck, Duane. An Historical Stud of Organized Labor's Pai- tici ation in Community Chest and ouncil Activities in WEeeIsBurg,Midwest. anublish d Project Report, Department 0 061a Work, Michigan State University, 1955. Belknap, George and Ralph Smuckler. "Political Power Rela- tions in a Mid-West City," Public Opinion Quarterly, 20 (Spring, 1956). Bell, Daniel. "Labor's New Man of Power," Fortune, June, 1953. 1 Chalmers, W. E., M. K. Chandler, L. L. McQuitty, R. Stagner, D. E. Wray, and D. M. Derber. Labor-Mama ement Re- lations in Illini Cit . Champaign Illinois: In- stitute of Labor and I ndustrial Relations, University of Illinois, 1954. Chamberlain, Edward H., 33. 3;. Labor Unions and Publig Polic . Washington: American Enterprise Association, 1553- ' Commons, John R. and Associates. Histor of Labor in the United States Vols. I and II. New York: fiacMiIlan Company, 1925. Cook, Alice. "Labor's Search for its Place in the Community: The Role of a Professional Community Consultant," The Journal of Educational Sociolo , 29 (December, 19553- ' . D'Antonio, William V. "National Images of Business and Political Elites in Two Border Cities." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthro- pology, Michigan State University, 1958. Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Societ . Trans. by 0. Simpson. G encoe: T e ree .ress, 19A9. -3 29... -330- Form, William H. "Organized Labor's Place in the Community Power Structure," Industrial and Labor Relations Re- view, 12 (July, 1959 . Form, William H. and Delbert C. Miller. Industrf and the Com- munity. New York: Harper and Brct erS, 9 . Form, William H. and Warren L. Sauer. "Community Influentials in a Middle-Sized City: A Case Study? Bulletin, Institute of Community Development and Labor and In- dustrial Relations Center, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1960. Ginzberg, Eli. The Labor Leader: An Ex loratory Study. New York: MacMiIIan Company, l9fi . Hart, C. W. M. "Industrial Relations Research and Social Theory," The Canadian Journal of Economics and Polit- igal Science, I5 (February, a . Henry, David. "One Hundred Years of Labor in Politics," in The House of Labor: Internal Operations of American Unions. Editedfiby . . S. ardman an urice eu- TEIE. New York: Prentice-Hall Company, 1951. Hunter, Floyd. Communit Power Structure. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1952. Imberman, A. A. "Labor Leaders and Society," Harvard Busi- ness Review, 28 (January, 1950). Lynd, Robert s. and Helen M. Middletown in Transition. N... York: Harcourt, Brace, an Company, 37. McCormick, Thomas C. Elementar Social Statistics. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, I94I. McKee, James. "Status and Power in the Industrial Community," American Journal of Sociology, 58 (January, 1953). . "Organized Labor and Community Decision Making: AStudy in the Sociology of Power." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 1953. lMiller, Delbert C. "Industry and Community Power Structure: A Comparative Study of an American and an English ggtgs" American Sociological Review, 23 (February, 5 . -331- . "The Seattle Business Leader," Pacific Northwest IBusiness, 15 (February, 1956). Mills, C. Wright. "Labor Leaders and the Power Elite," in Industrial Conflict. Edited by Arthur Kornhauser, Robert Dubin, and Arthur M. Ross. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill Book Company, 1954. . The New Man of Power. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1953. f__. The Power Elite. New York: Oxfbrd University Press, 195 . Moore, W. Industrial Relations and the Social Order. New York: The MacMi lan Company, 947. Olmsted, Donald W. "Organizational Leadership and Social Structure in a Small City," American Sociological Review, 19 (June, 195h). Pellegrin, Roland J. and Charles H. Coates. "Absentee-Owned Corporations and Community Power Strcture," American Journal of Sociology, 61 (March, 1956). Perlis, Leo. "Unions and Community Services, the CIO Com- munity Services Program," in The House of Labor: Internal 0 erations of American Unions. Edited by 3. B. S. Hardman and Maurice Neufeld. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951. Perlman, Selig and Philip Taft. Labor Movements Vol. IV, 1896-1932. New Ybrk: Mac an ompany, 5. Peterson, Florence. American Labor Unions: What Thefi Are and How They Wor . New Yer : arper an Brot ers, 945- Phelps, Orme W. "Community Recognition of Union Leaders," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 7 (April, 195h). Polsby, Nelson W. "The Sociology of Community Power: A Reassessment," Social Forces, 37 (March, 1959). Ross, Aileen D. "Philanthropic Activity and the Business Career," Social Forces, 33 (March, 1954). Rossi, Peter H. "Community Decision Making," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1 (March, 1957). q «.2— I A "J . "The Study of Decision Making in the Local Com- munity," mimeographed, August, 1957. Sauer, Warren LL "Labor's Image of its Place in Community Power Structure: An Exploratory Study." Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthro- pology, Michigan State University, 1958. Schulze, Robert O. "The Role of Economic Dominants in Com- munity Power Structure" American Sociolo ical Review, 23 (February, 1958). Schulze, Robert O. and Leonard Blumberg, "The Determination of Local Power Elites," The American Journal of Sociology, 62 (November, 57 . Speier, Hans. "Honor, and the Social Structure," Social Research, 2 (February, 1935). Tagliacozzo, Daisy. "Trade Union Government, Its Nature and Its Problems: A Bibliographical Review, 19Ah-1945." American Journal of Sociolo , 61 (May, 1956). Walker, Charles R. Steeltown. New York: Harper and Brothers, 195 . Warner, W. L., gt. g1. Democrac in Jonesville. New York: Harper and Brothers, i545. Weber, Max. "Class, Status, and Power," From Max Weber: Essa%s in Sociology. Trans. and Eds. H. H. Gerth Ind6 . r ght ‘ s. New York: Oxford Press, 9h . Whitehead, Thomas. Leadershi in a Free Societ . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, I936. Wray, Donald E. "The Community and Labor-Management Rela- tions," in Labor-Mana ement Relations in Illini Cit . Champaign: Institute of Labor and IndustriaI Re- lations, 1953. Yule, G. Udney and M. G. Kendall. An Introduction to the Theor of Statistics. Thirteenth edition, revised. London: CHarIes Griffin, 19h8. sr'.‘ “Q. . u}: but.‘