——.——————————~————
‘vu-‘Mfg."° -‘ Co‘--—‘- --- -- 0“-.- --- A 7 -- , . q

COST OF FRINGE BENEFITS IN A
COLLEGE RESIDENCE HALL FOOD

SERVICE OPERATION

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE

Ruth EIIa Gould
1954

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

‘V/\‘ 17" ,‘|-- "”‘-'~7,‘ ~> --. w'-.-- -‘(- T.‘ A
_ . . g , . . m 7 ‘ .
L'k; L L J: l- l‘sAJ- I ‘rlL‘ 0‘1. . \ A-Iv- J. .L k; .Lai A

Ci.)LLLCJi iLLLIIIiLWL HALL FOOD
Light/'1 C... C)? Lit}. TIO N

presented by

RUTH ELLA CCUL

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

1-1"?ng UF bUILlICE degree in .1; .LI

WE“; stud”

Major professor

Date November 5, 1954

 

0-169

COST OF FRINGE BENEFITS IN A COLLEGE RESIDENCE

HALL FOOD SERVICE OPERATION

BY

RU TH ELLA. GOULD
M

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies gt" Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied“Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
I for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Institution Administration

1954

I‘)‘

\A)
\ i

ACKNOWLEDG MEN TS

The author wishes to express her grateful appreciation to
Miss Katherine Hart for her consideration, patience, encouragement,
and guidance in the execution of this study; to Dr. Pearl Aldrich,
for her constructive criticisms and advice; to Miss Mildred Jones,
for generous and valuable guidance and to Dr. William D. Baten,
Dr. Edward A. Gee, and Mr. Merrill R. Pierson, for their assistance
in the interpretation of the data.

The author also wishes to express her sincere gratitude to
Mrs. Marie E. Turner, Miss Marjorie Christie, and the resident
managers of the dormitories. This study was made possible through
their advice and cooperation in making records available. Apprecia-
tion is also extended to Miss Eleanor H. Scanlon of the Bureau of
Industrial Relations at the University of Michigan, for her help in

locating bibliographical mate rials .

ii

344489

TABLE OF CONTENTS

History of Union Development ...................
Paid Vacations and Holidays ....................
Workmen's Compensation Laws ..................
Paid Sick Leave .............................
Pensions and Old Age Assistance .................
Rest Periods and Miscellaneous Services ...........
Labor Cost Control in Food Services ..............
METHOD OF PROCEDURE .......................
Types of Fringe Benefits ................. . . . . .
Preliminary Data Collection . . . .................
Interviews ......... . .......................
Computation of Ratios and Percentages .............
DISCUSSION ..................... . ............
Direct Fringe Benefits ........................
Paid vacations ............................

Paid holidays .......... . ............... . . .

iii

15

18

20

2.5

28

3O

32

33

34

36

38

41

42

43

46

Page

Paid sick leaves .......................... 48
Workmen's compensation ..................... 50
Indirect Fringe Benefits ....................... 51
Rest periods ............................. 52
Employeest meals ......................... 55
Laundry of uniforms ........................ 57
Uniforms furnished ......................... 59
Health service charges ...................... 59
College Administrative Costs ..... . ......... . . . . . 60
Pensions ................................ 61
Health examinations ........................ 62
Miscellaneous administrative costs .............. 63

Cost of the Food Service Benefit Program . . . .‘ ...... 63
SUMMARY ................................... 67
LITERATURE CITED ........................... 70
APPENDIX .................................. 76

iv

LIS T OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Direct fringe benefits, expressed as percentages
of labor payroll and food service income . . ..... 45
2. Direct fringe benefits, expressed as dollars per
employee and per person served ............. 45
3. Indirect fringe benefits, expressed as percentages
of labor payroll and food service income ....... 54
4. Indirect fringe benefits, expressed as dollars per
employee and per person served ............. 54

5. Cost of fringe benefits ..... . ................ 64

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Fringe benefits as percentages of annual cost

of benefits ............................. 66

vi

INTRODUCTION

Fringe benefits, or the nonwage costs of labor, have been
found to comprise the largest single factor in increasing labor costs
in industry. In a study by the Economic Research Department of the
United States Chamber of Commerce in 1951, the average payment of
fringe benefits by 736 reporting companies was 18.7 percent of the
total labor payroll, or $644.00 per year per employee (20). This rep—
resented an increase of 66 percent during the preceding four-year
period. A similar study by the Economic Research Department in
1953 indicated a further increase in the cost of fringe benefits to
19.5 percent of the total labor payroll, and $739.00 per year for each
employee (21).

These fringe labor costs are present in the food service indus-
try, and parallel the national pattern of increases. The present study
was undertaken in an attempt to isolate fringe benefit costs in college
residence hall food services. For this purpose the labor costs of the
women's residence hall food serviceSa'of‘vMichigan State College were
analyzed. The findingsudistinguish the more costly types of benefits
from those of minor cost significance. Results of the study may be

valuable in indicating the direction and scope of future studies, as

l

well as the particular benefits or groups of benefits which need to be
studied in greater detail.

Michigan State College is located in a competitive labor mar-
ket with automotive industries and the state government. The per-
sonnel programs in local industry and state civil service determine
to a great extent the college policy for wage practices.

The women's residence halls of Michigan State College included
six dormitories in 1952-1953. The dormitories had a total census of
2,300 residents: the individual buildings ranged in census from 273 to
421. There were ninety—seven regular full-time food service employees.

The labor cost records of the full—time food service employees
in the women's residence halls were analyzed in order to isolate and
compute fringe benefit costs for the fiscal year, July 1, 1952, through
June 30, 1953. This was the most recent accounting period for which
complete cost figures were available.

Certain of the fringe benefit costs to management which add
to the employees' pay are provided almost universally in industry
today (11, 12, 23). These costs include paid vacations, paid holidays,
paid sick leave, and workmen's compensation as fixed by law. In the

present study these costs were considered as direct fringe benefits.

No standard definition could be found in industrial reports to
meet all concepts of what costs should be called fringe benefits.
General agreement existed concerning the above-mentioned benefits;
but in addition to these, there was a wide range of extra payments
for time worked, time not worked, employee security, and employee
services (11).

Industrial employers were arbitrary in their decisions as to
what constituted fringe benefits in their particular establishments.
Therefore, it was decided to obtain data on certain indirect labor
costs in college food services. These costs included employees'
meals, food furnished in rest periods, uniforms furnished, laundry
of uniforms, health service charges, and cost of health examinations
required of new employees or those absent more than 30 days.

The latter group of costs, in contrast with the direct costs,
were generally recorded by food service managements as operating
expenses. In this study they were included in the category of fringe
benefits, since they met the following criteria (11):

1. They are of some cost to management without being cor—

related with increased production.

2. They are of financial benefit to the employee or increase

his pay.

3. They are provided for all or most of the employees.

4. They fluctuate with the size of the work force.

Pensions and retirement plans of all kinds are considered by
industry as fringe benefits; in fact, they are the largest item in that
category in many business operations. However, at Michigan State
College the expense of the pension plan is borne entirely by the
college, and not by the individual residence hall food services. Since
this is true, pensions as well as preliminary health examinations
were classified as miscellaneous administrative costs in this food
service study.

The women's residence hall food services at Michigan State
College were considered typical of college residence hall food ser-
vices. Information obtained in this study could be used as a basis
of comparison in studies of costs in other college and university

food services. However, the findings would not be directly applicable

or comparable to commercial or hospital food service operations.

REVIEW OF LITERA TURE

Relations between management and the employee of today may
be better understood through study of the history of manpower man-
agement. Manpower was an elementary resource of society even
before man learned to harness wind and water. The management of
human beings by other human beings created problems for the early
Egyptians and medieval barons as well as for factory managers of
the twentieth century. The employer had to recruit, hire, train,
and supervise his laborers; while the status of the employer remained

relatively unchanged, the status of labor was progressively improved.
History of Union Development

During the ancient and medieval periods of European history
workers were considered as the property of their masters. A grad-
ual change in attitude came about with the agricultural stage of the
economic evolution until workers were thought of as servants. From
the limited specialization allowed to some talented servants, free
artisans developed who sold their services and products independently.

These independent craftsmen developed workshops in their

homes where they did the ”hand" work of the so-called "handicraft"

system. The craftsmen who hired apprentice employees and journey-
men, who frequently traveled from shop to shop, became the first
employers. As the shops increased in numbers of workers, owners 7
saw the need of banding together; over a period of several centuries
the guild system evolved. In the guild system, manpower manage-
ment was a major responsibility of the master craftsmen who owned
the shops, hired journeymen or wage workers, and trained the ap—
prentices. The guilds were the first form of worker organization,
and the forerunners of the unions we know today.

With the immense growth in production and the beginnings of
urbanization which came with the Industrial Revolution, the handicraft
system ceased to be the dominating type of economic organization
after 1760 (67). Members of the emerging middle classes in Europe
emigrated to the American colonies, and the various trades were
represented by guilds in this country as in Europe. Yoder (66) noted
that a journeyman guild of cordwainers was formed in Philadelphia
in 1792. These early collective-bargaining units required members
to be recognized master craftsmen and organized into guilds by trade.

The first national union in America, the National Union of
Typographers, was established in 1850 (66). Yoder mentioned the
founding of a national union of stonecutters in 1853, and of hat fin-

ishers in 1854 (66). By the end of the Civil War, thirty-two such

national unions existed (67). In 1866 the National Labor Union was
formed in Baltimore. This union made an unsuccessful attempt to
amalgamate the different craft unions into one large unit. Another
ineffectual attempt to include all types of skilled and unskilled labor
in one organization was the foundation of the Knights of Labor by
Philadelphia garment cutters in 1869 (67).

Leaders of the Knights of Labor were instrumental in founding
the American Federation of Labor in 1886. This voluntary federation
of craft unions was successfully launched with a constitution similar
to the Articles of Confederation. The American Federation of Labor
was founded on the premise that unionism of unskilled workers would
effect a leveling of wages and consequent loss of advantages to skilled
workers. The founders also believed that organization of unskilled
workers was impossible, since each one was replaceable at any time.

The national craft unions which made up the American Federa-
tion of Labor were known as ”international" because of their loose
affiliation with similar European unions. The internationals controlled
the federation and chartered thousands of local craft unions. There
were five departments within the federation: the metal trades, the

building trades, the railroad employees, the union label trades, and

the maritime trades. In 1945 the sixth department, the Government
Employees' Council, was established.

Shortly after the founding of the American Federation of LabOr,
Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890. This was the
first federal statute which applied to organized labor. Prior to the
Sherman Act, employers had restricted even limited union action by
the free use of injunctions which were upheld by courts and legis-
latures.

With the passage of the Clayton Act in 1914, labor organiza-
tions were excluded from the antitrust regulations of the Sherman
Act, because ”the labor of human beings is not a commodity or an
article of commerce" (66). The Clayton Act also limited injunctions
against labor organizations and specifically precluded injunctions
against quitting the job.

The greatest period of union growth occurred during the ex-
panding economy and resultant demand for manpower during World
War I. The need for effective use of that manpower caused study
of the worker as a person. F. W. Taylor advocated a number of
reforms in the management of industry which involved the direction
of employees to cut down waste of human effort. Taylor was a

pioneer in the movement known as scientific management, and

9

published The Principles o_f Scigntific Management in 1911. Thorstein

 

 

 

Veblen's classic, Th§_lrl_s_tinct of Workmanship, was published in 1914,

 

and Ordway Tead wrote Instincts in IndBEEEY. in 1918. Private indus-

 

trial-relations programs came into being; employers became con-
cerned about employee health, causes of absenteeism, unrest, accidents,
and fatigue. However, most employers held the paternalistic attitude
that the employees needed the firm but sympathetic guidance of the
employer (67).

The period following World War I was one of increasing pros-
perity through 1929. The stock market collapsed in October of that
year, and caused a financial panic which resulted in several years of
depression. Many factories closed, work was scarce, and labor un-
rest caused industrial disputes.

The effects of the Norris—LaGuardia Act, which was passed in
1932, lessened one of the points of friction between management and
labor at that time. The act outlined two conditions under which em-
ployers might issue injunctions: first, if there were danger of sub-
stantial property damage; second, if the danger of injury would be
greater if the injunction were not issued. The act also stated spe-
cifically that employers could not prohibit employees from striking

(66).

10

At the American Federation of Labor convention in 1935, a
group of eight national unions withdrew from the federation to form
the Congress of Industrial Organizations. These eight were: coal
miners, typographical workers, clothing workers, garment workers,
textile workers, oil and gas workers, cap and millinery workers, and
smelter workers. Their motivation was the wish to organize the
many semiskilled and unskilled workers who, by the nature of their
work, were not allowed in the Federation's, organization of skilled
trades. The original eight national unions were soon joined by five
more: the flat—glass workers; the auto workers; the rubber workers;
the iron, steel, and tin workers; and the American Newspaper Guild.
Thus the Congress of Industrial Organizations in a very short time
paralleled the parent organization in size and bargaining power.

The government had been trying every means within its power
to correct the economic depression, and in 1933 Congress passed the
National Industrial Recovery Act. This act encouraged collective bar-
gaining by making the domination of the union by management or
employer an unfair labor practice (66). Although it was declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935, most of the provisions
of this act were incorporated in the National Labor Relations Act of

1935, which superseded the NIRA. The Labor Relations Act cited as

ll
unfair the following antiunion tactics: blacklists, spies on the union,
"yellow-dog" contracts (those which promised a job in return for the
worker's promise not to join a union), discrediting of union leaders,
forming company police, farming out contracts, and other strikebreak-
ing tactics.

In 1937 New York and Utah passed the first state labor rela-
tions acts which paralleled the NLRA in their provisions. Massa-
chusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin followed in 1938 and
1939 (66).

Although national as well as state legislation reflected the
growing recognition of unionism, organized labor's aims were still
opposed to those of management. Unions employed the picket line,
closed shops, boycotts, control of output, and strikes as tactics to
gain recognition of their demands (66). The strike as a weapon of
unions had many variations: the general strike throughout an indus-
try; the outlaw strike of one union not authorized by the national
organization; the "flash" or ”quickie" strike used as a threat of
a general strike; and the slowdown. The first sit-down strike was
instituted by the CIO against General Motors in 1937.

By 1938, when the CIO Charter was adopted, several large

independent unions had been formed: the Brotherhoods of Locomotive

12
Engineers, Firemen, and Enginemen; the Brotherhood of Railway
Trainmen; the Order of Railroad Conductors; and the telephone work-
ers. Unions and management organizations were then entering into
politics, and were affecting the social, political, and economic struc-
ture of American society (66).

With the onset of defense problems of World War II in 1940
and 1941, the need arose for research in manpower management and
for high-level leadership development. Scarcities of manpower re-
sources became serious as industry converted to war production (67).
The War Labor Board was formed to attack major problems of man-
power management and work stoppages arising from industrial disputes.
The Board received pledges of no strikes from both the major unions
and, in return, required the inclusion of formal grievance procedures
in collective agreements (66).

In the governmental plan to keep prices in line and prevent
inflation, the same agency was charged with responsibility for wage
stabilization. The board made extensive use of wage surveys to ar-
rive at a program of stabilized wage rates for a wide range of occu-
pations in the major labor markets of the country. Nevertheless, by
1944 prices had risen during the war to an inflationary level. Almost

all of the country's workers had received the maximum increases

13
possible under the base wage rates set by the War Labor Board. How-
ever, because of price inflation, these wages were not considered ade—
quate by the unions.

Union wage demands were met by various indirect wage in—
creases which came to be known as “fringe benefits" because they
were not pay for actual hours of work (17). Lewis (39) stated that
employee benefits which supplemented payments made directly for
hours worked or units produced were commonly referred to as
"supplemental," ”related," or "fringe" payments. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics called fringe benefits those which were supplemental
to wages received by workers at a cost to employers (23).

These indirect wage increases added to the workers' net, or
"take-home” pay. Among the many services and benefits offered
were vacations and holidays with pay, allowances for travel time,
allowances for lunch periods, bonus and incentive plans, adjustments
for shift differentials, and health and insurance funds (16, 17, 42,
53, 66, 67).

During World War II the War Manpower Commission classi-
fied all principal labor markets and controlled job placements and
transfers. This commission was also influential in the introduction

of improved job techniques and the development of the Training

14
Within Industry program; it cooperated with the War Labor Board
in achieving increased manpower utilization. Both the War Labor
Board and the War Manpower Commission, as agencies of the govern-
ment, gave great impetus to the development of scientific manage-
ment principles. They worked to remove intraplant inequities through
job evaluation, classified certain activities as essential to the war
effort, controlled job placements indicating many possibilities of im-
proved manpower utilization, and suggested possible improvements in
training techniques (17, 67).

At this time it became generally accepted that the government
had a responsibility to encourage a high level of employment and to
render the economy less susceptible to recession (10). Many of the ,
management techniques learned through hard necessity during the war
resulted in significant changes in postwar industrial practices. Col-
lective bargaining became a recognized instrument of industrial prog-
ress, and union organizations were called upon to take part of the
responsibility of maintaining full employment and industrial harmony
(42).

The formal grievance procedures demanded by the War Labor
Board during World War II were incorporated in the Labor Management

Relations Act, a federal law passed in 1947. This law, known as the

15
Taft-Hartley Act, continued to encourage collective bargaining under
the wider definitions used by government agencies during the war
period. The Taft-Hartley Act placed restrictions on some union
practices and prohibited certain union political activity (67).

The National Labor Relations Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, and
the various state labor-relations acts were the determinants of the
major provisions of public policy on collective bargaining. Later
laws andIregulations defined and clarified the provisions of these
basic acts. For example, in 1948 the NLRB held that the employer
has an obligation to bargain collectively on questions of health and
welfare programs (18).

Yoder stated that services and benefits were first given to
workers by management in a spirit of charity, based on the paternal-
istic attitude toward employees which prevailed in the nineteenth
century. However, this attitude disappeared when employers realized
the long-term values of higher morale and increased production

which resulted from a satisfied work force (66).
Paid Vacations and Holidays

As industrial organizations increased in size, the distance

between employer and employees became greater, and personal

16

contacts became less frequent. This trend was expressed not only

in union development, but also in the setting up of internal organiza—
tions which recognized the need of communication between management
and the workers. On issues important to the employee, the aim of
management to maintain a stable work force was achieved through
collective bargaining.

Results of research in manpower management showed that
productivity did not increase in direct proportion to more hours on
the job. In the 80-year period preceding 1930, the average work week
dropped from 70 hours to the present 40 hours. Aspley and Whitmore
(3) pointed out that employers realized that a properly administered
vacation policy made for better labor relations, even though it added
to the cost of production. Yoder (67) concurred, and added that
holidays and paid vacations were directly related to motivation.

Mee (42) noted two different points of view regarding vacations:
first, as a reward for past service; and second, as a means of re—
conditioning employees for the coming year of work.

Vacations were first given only to salaried workers as a
reward for the year's work. The general policy was to relate vaca-
tion pay to certain eligibility requirements and to length of service;

some companies used the salary scale as a basis (3). The practice

17
of giving paid vacations soon spread to include hourly paid workers.
Lewis, in his study of forty major labor markets of the United States,
stated that almost all workers in these markets were employed in
businesses which provided paid vacations in 1953 (39).

Mee (42) reported a definite trend toward the liberalization
of vacation policies, noting that they specified regular pay for a
stated period of time graduated according to length of service. He
stated that the usual vacations given to workers were two weeks
with pay after two, three, or four years of service. Lewis' (39) study
of labor markets found all office workers and a substantial number of
plant workers eligible for two-week paid vacations after they had
completed only two years of service (39).

For many years paid holidays were given only to salaried
employees; hourly workers received compensation. Changes in this
policy during the past twenty years, according to Mee (42), showed a
trend toward giving all employees time off with full pay on certain
national holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.

Lewis (39) reported in his study in 1952 that holiday pay was
provided for nearly all office workers in each major labor market

and for the vast majority of plant workers in all areas except

18

Birmingham and Pittsburgh, where less than half the plant workers
received holiday pay because of the absence of holiday provisions in
the steel industry at the time of the study. However, on August 15,
1952, provision was made for six holidays for plant workers in the
steel industry.

Lewis found that the New England labor markets and the New
York, Newark, and Jersey City regions were the most liberal in the
matter of paid holidays. Most of the workers in these areas received
nine or more holidays. The nine holidays included the usual six
national holidays as well as two or three additional days which might
include Washington's Birthday, Lincoln's Birthday, Good Friday, Yom

Kippur, or Columbus Day (39).
Workmen's Compensation Laws

The first successful workmen's compensation law was passed
in the State of Washington in 1911. It provided payment in compen—
sation for illness or injury incurred in the performance of the job
(42). Prior to this time employers were expected under common law
to provide reasonably safe and healthy working conditions, and work-

ers were expected to work safely and avoid work hazards.

19

Employers could usually avoid payment in suits brought to
court by proving contributory negligence by the worker himself or
carelessness on the part of his fellow workers. Because the early
employers' liability laws passed by the states were not entirely
successful in fixing the cost of industrial accidents, many employees
suffered financial as well as physical losses (42).

Later state compensation laws were based on the idea that
costs involved in accidents and illness from work causes should be
an expense to the business and paid as an operating cost (42). These
compensation laws established benefits based on a percentage (usually
not more than 50 percent) of the worker's pay with a maximum and
minimum amount established. Waiting periods under the various
laws were different, as were the retroactive clauses and the types
of work accidents which were recognized. Most laws stressed the
use of safety devices provided and required that injuries must have
happened by chance and have been reported within a specified time
(2).

Jarchow stated that workmen's compensation laws covered all
injuries in the course of employment except those of wilful intention
and occupational diseases (30). Excluded from coverage in the state

laws were employees in nonhazardous occupations, agricultural workers,

20
domestic servants, interstate commerce employees, those working in
establishments employing less than a specified number of workers,
and those employed by nonprofit organizations (42).

Under workmen's compensation laws no court action was nec-
essary. After a waiting period of as much as fourteen days, benefits
were granted on a scale according to wages and according to the
number of dependents in some cases (67). Yoder (67) stated that
there has been a trend toward extending coverage to benefits for
industrial diseases at first on a limited scale and later to any illness
that could be shown to be job-connected.

Mee (42) was of the opinion that states would continue to con-
sider workmen's compensation as temporary assistance for injured

employees and would continue to endeavor to keep the incentives for

workers to remain on the job.
Paid Sick Leave

The first private industrial welfare programs were organized
during World War I as employee mutual benefit societies. Under
these plans, the workers banded together, and by means of periodic
contributions created a fund which was used to give disabled employ—

ees small benefits during the time they were incapacitated (7).

21
Brower (8) stated that these mutual benefit associations have gener-
ally been supplanted by group sickness and accident insurance plans.
She gave the following information concerning surveys of over two
thousand companies as proof of her statement:

Pe rcentage of Companie s

 

-

 

Annual .
Conference With Mutual Wlth Group
, Health and
Surveys Benefit .
. . Acc1dent
As soc1ations
Programs
1935 28.2% 30.7%
1939 22.3% 34.2%
1946 11.0% 64.0%

Brower (8) defined paid sick leave as a company-financed and
company-administered sickness benefit program under which the em-
ployee was paid his entire salary while incapacitated. She stated in
contrast that group health insurance plans required a waiting period
of three to seven days and paid the worker not more than one-half
to two-thirdsof his salary.

The decrease in frequency of paid sick leave provisions in
union contracts (from 20 percent in 1950 to around 15 percent in
1953) showed the trend toward handling sick leave by means of non-

occupational sickness and accident insurance plans (18). Lewis (39)

22
stated that although sick leave plans were frequently reported in each
of the major labor markets in the country, they were not nearly as
prevalent as vacation and holiday plans. This same study showed that
the paid sick leave plans differed greatly in qualification requirements
and length-of-leave allowances as well as in the proportion of wages
or salaries paid during illness.

The demand on the part of people in many countries for se-
curity against the various economic hazards which arose in war
economies became commonplace (15). In this country, group insur-
ance plans covered the major part of the cost to the employer of
providing workmen's compensation. There were three types of such
plans: private insurance plans which were sometimes based on the
accident rating of the insured company; self-insurance plans whereby
the employer assumed responsibility for the medical care and pay-
ment of benefits by showing evidence of ability to do so; and public
insurance systems which were run by the state (42).

Sickness and accident benefits were usually provided for those
not covered by compensation laws. The cost of these benefits was
borne principally bynthe employees themselves; the employer made
some contribution and absorbed the administrative expenses of the

plan (30). When the injured employee needed medical attention beyond

23
the time limit of the state law, the insurance company usually paid
the medical bill in order to get the employee back to work (29).

Yoder pointed out that group insurance was an area where the
employers could offer, by means of ”blanket" or group policies, a
financial service that could not be duplicated by the individual (67).
Aspley and Whitmore (3) agreed with Yoder that group insurance
programs benefit the employer by keeping down turnover. The
American Management Association (2) found that group insurance was
becoming increasingly important in collective bargaining. They also
stated that management was required to bargain collectively on group
insurance programs because such matters were considered to be con-
ditions of employment (15).

Jarchow (30) stated that in the ten-year period between 1934
and 1944 the number of employees protected by group life insurance
plans increased from six million to fifteen million. Lewis' (39) study
noted that a majority of both office and plant workers in 75 percent
of the major labor markets were employed in establishments which
maintained both life insurance and health and hospitalization plans
paid for wholly or in part by the employers. Surveys of four hundred
collective bargaining agreements showed that the number of social

insurance plans (hOSpitalization, life, nonoccupational sickness and

24
accident, and surgical care plans) increased 200 percent from 1949
to 1952 (18).

Since 1942, several states have passed laws to provide disa-
bility benefits (64). In that year Rhode Island passed a law which
specified that employers in certain industries contribute to a state
fund to provide weekly sick benefits. Employees also were required
to contribute at the rate of 1.5 percent of their earnings. California,
New Jersey, New York, and Washington passed similar laws in 1946,
1948, and 1949 (64). Recent insurance plans included accident and
sickness insurance ”across the board” whether the cause was occu-
pational or nonoccupational (15), major-illness policies with more
liberal hospitalization clauses (40), and a form of hospitalization and
surgical care policy which stated specifically that as long as the
premiums were paid the company could not refuse renewal (59).

The most recent development in the group insurance field was a gen-
eral coverage plan which provided medical fees for office or hospital
calls as well as home visits (30).

Although the employer was able to pass his obligations to pay
onto the insurance company, each new law presented new problems to
management of complying, record-keeping, and reporting (44). These

problems led to increased efforts on the part of management to

25

prevent accidental injuries and occupational diseases. Such efforts,

in turn, led to the establishment of health services within the plants.
These health services were not comprehensive, but they administered

emergency treatment and aimed principally at accident and illness
prevention (67).

Pensions and Old Age Assistance

In the first decade of the twentieth century, the idea of social

Security was prevalent in Germany, where the people had to pay for

Old-age pensions and death benefits provided by the state. Compul-

Sory social security was not accepted in the United States, where

People expected employers and insurance companies to fulfill the

flec'tion of old age protection (1).
In 1934, President Roosevelt called the Mayflower Conference,

in which he asked for the formation of a Cabinet Committee on So—

cial Security to study plans for national retirement insurance. At

this time the Townsend Plan, with its promise of $200.00 a month

a-nd retirement at 60 years of age, was gaining followers. Many

people were feeling the effects of the prolonged depression, and there

was a growing conviction of the impossibility of personal thrift as the

only agency for old age security in times of inflation (1).

 

I l l. ‘1' .Iv 1.? i

 

 

26

The Federal Old Age and Security Insurance Plan (the Social
Security Act) was passed in 1935 and amended in 1939 with a descrip-
tion of the range of benefits and a more specific class coverage (1).

It placed emphasis on individual equity rather than broad social equity,
as the European plans had done.

The American Management Association considered that the
Social Security Act was sound in its principle that government in-
surance should be supplemental to other ways of meeting old age
Security. However, this act was inadequate in coverage since it
applied to only three out of five jobs, guaranteed benefits too low

for subsistence, and required a long time for participants to qualify
for benefits (47). The insurance experts of the AMA stated that
individual saving has never been an important means of achieving
Old age security; records show that 37 percent of American families
do not save. Old age relief or assistance has been the principal
1"Ilethod of achieving security for the aged (47).

During the period from 1937 to 1949 many state old age
assistance benefits were increased because of the rising cost of
living (15). The inflationary economy enlarged former estimates of
adequate benefit plans (29). There was an increase in the average

wage of workers, and costs of company-sponsored pensions represented

-.F

27
a greater percentage of the operating costs. As a result, many cor—
porations hesitated to adopt broader supplemental plans (15).

The Steel Board Report of 1949 recognized that the average
age of workers had been increasing slowly but steadily, and that the
government could supply only the basic minimum of security (41).
This report recommended weighting the benefit formula to favor the
1O‘w-wage earners rather than those earning a high wage. Business
management began to recognize that private plans could be operated
t0 meet both minimum legal requirements and supplemental benefits
related to wage scales and cost ofiliving (15).

Personnel researchers of the AMA reported the existence of
four hundred private pension plans in 1929, and thirteen thousand in
1 950 (47). A survey of four hundred collective bargaining contracts
Showed a 400—percent increase in the number of pension plans from
1 950 to 1953 (18). Lewis (39) found similar gains in coverage of
both plant and office workers in more than thirty thousand selected
Companies; 95 percent of these companies which reported pension
Plans in 1952 had established them since 1945. Wandel (61) stated
that the number of private pension plans increased from about seven

thousand in 1945 to an estimated seventeen thousand in 1952.

28
Pension plans thus became a substantial and a permanent cost
to management which labor received in most cases in lieu of wage
increases (62). The attitude of labor was, first, that the employer's
contributions to pension plans were essentially deferred wages; second,
that retirement age should be flexible, and not automatic; third, that

the plan should provide universal coverage for all the workers in the

bargaining unit, be noncontributory, and be administered jointly by

management and labor (65). Wandel (64) believed that the unwilling-

ness of labor to be satisfied with existing plans meant that there
Would be extended adoption of the contributory plans which predom—

inated in smaller firms and which made possible more liberal pro-

grams.

Rest Periods and Miscellaneous Services

Rest periods were first given to industrial workers under
Private industrial relations programs begun during World War I (67).
These programs related low morale to fatigue and monotony, and
many firms found that short intervals of rest in the middle of the
morning and afternoon mitigated these conditions (67). Mee (42)

Stated that most industries adopted the practice of giving formal rest

periods during the war years, because experience showed that

29
increasing the hours of work beyond 52 hours a week did not result
in correspondingly increased production (42).

Yoder (67) felt that rest pauses had been introduced in many
companies without reference to output figures which indicated fatigue
as an inhibiting factor. He stated that reports on the value of rest
periods were conflicting. In 1952, a study made of 102 large and
Small companies showed the practice of pay for time not worked oc-
Curred in seven out of ten companies of all types (49).

Certain other benefits have been provided by management for
a period of. years in many industries. Mee (42) stated that the fun-
damental philosophy of management was an attempt to increase the
Comfort and well-being of the employee on the job and that any finan-
Cial advantage to management was essentially a by—product. Meals
in company cafeterias furnished at or below cost, protective clothing
for hazardous or dirty work (38), free laundry of uniforms which the
employees were required to wear, and discounts on company products
(22) were provided in industry before formal collective bargaining
Came into use. Increased attention to the worker's personal desires

formalized these practices into statements of policy by management,

until fringe benefits actually became conditions of employment.

30
Labor Cost Control in Food Services

In the operation of food services, recognition of the importance
of controlling labor costs lagged behind the primary concern of con-
trolling food costs. Systematic means of analyzing and reporting
actual and fringe labor costs were developed in many other industries
before the food service industry began to consider the problem (37). (

In 1950, many food service establishments reported that pay-
roll costs were the largest single expense of operation (6). Manage-
ment resorted to various means of control such as labor—saving

machinery, better layouts, prepared foods, and menu simplification. .
Raising prices to balance the increasing labor costs was found to
result in a decrease in sales (37). The increases in labor costs
from 1940 to 1950 were regarded as excessive, and the likelihood of
further rises was recognized (37).

Important factors which made setting standards of control of
labor costs difficultthroughout the food service industry were: vari—

ations due to size and type of service, wage differentials and local
labor supply, layout and equipment, and managerial efficiency (31).

By employing methods used in industry, food service managements

31
could compare their costs of labor on several different bases

clearly determine indicated remedial action (6).

to more

_ 2......1,’

32

METHOD OF PROCEDURE

During the period of this study the operation of the six dor-

mitories for women at Michigan State College was directed by the

Manager of Women's Residence Halls. Through her office all poli-
cies and information on food production, purchasing, personnel, and
finances were coordinated. A. resident manager was responsible for
housekeeping and food service in each building. The close working

relationship between the Manager of Women's Residence Halls and

the resident managers has created a centrally operated organization

With six component parts.

Purchase records, payrolls, and financial statements were
filed in the main office of the Manager. This complete system of
records made greater organizational control and economy of opera—

tion possible. The Manager was assisted in the main office by a

Secretary and a payroll clerk.

The payroll clerk was consulted for an explanation of the rec-

Ords available. These records were found to contain exact figures

on four fringe benefits: paid vacations, holidays, sick leaves and

time off for funerals, and workmen's compensation. The reports

furnished data necessary to compute the costs of five fringe benefits:

33
rest periods, laundry, uniforms furnished, health service charges,

and extra cost of employees' meals over the amounts deducted from

their checks.

Types of Fringe Benefits

Since the four fringe benefits previously mentioned were in-
C1uded in the labor payrolls of the food services, they were called
Hdirect” fringe benefits for the purposes of this study. Data on the
direct fringe benefits were collected without computation from the
Payroll reports. Since the five remaining costs were customarily
regarded as operating expenses of the food services, they were com—
puted from available records, and were called ”indirect" fringe
benefits.

Time records were summarized in“ the office of the Manager
of Women's Residence Halls for all regular employees and students
On the labor payroll. The payroll periods for regular full-time 1
employees were two weeks in length. The twenty—six payroll periods
Covering the fiscal year July 1, 1952, through June 30, 1953, were

Studied.
The procedure for this study followed a general pattern: (1)

compilation on six individual sheets of direct and indirect fringes

34
from payroll records and reports filed in the main office of the Man-
ager of Women's Residence Halls; (2) personal interviews for clarifi-

cation of the collection and interpretation of the figures; (3) decisions

which pertained to the limitations and scope of the material; and (4)
compilation of a master sheet which summarized the total data for

the entire operation for the year.
Preliminary Data Collection

A preliminary data sheet was designed for the collection of
information for one dormitory for the fiscal year (Appendix Tables
1, 2, 3). This data form was then used for collection of information
for the other five dormitories.

The first column on the sheets for collecting data listed the
ending dates of the pay periods. The data for fall, winter, spring,
and summer terms were separated by dash lines. The first six pay-

roll periods of the fiscal year of 1952-1953 included the summer
Session. During this period the food service of Yakeley Hall was
the only one in operation; the other five buildings were closed for
ClCaning and repairs.

Census figures for each dormitory were taken from the

1rrlohthly profit and loss statements sent to the Manger of Women's

35
Residence Halls from the college accounting office. These figures
were averaged for the year and added to averages of numbers of
regular employees and student men workers to obtain an average
of the number of persons served. Dollar computations for all fringe
benefits studied were based on the total number of persons served
and also on the total number of regular employees.

The number of days of operation of the food services was
taken from the payroll records in the Manager's office. All employ-
ees of Michigan State College are on a 40-hour work week, but resi-
dence hall food services are in operation seven days a week. There-
fore, the number of days of operation included employees' regular
days off from work. The number of days of operation was used in
computing the cost of meals, rest periods, and laundry.

Information concerning food service income was obtained from
the monthly profit and loss statements furnished by the accounting
Office. Food service labor payroll figures were taken from the

Payroll records in the Manager's office. Percentage computations
for all fringe benefits studied were based on the total income and

the total labor payroll.

36

Interviews

The Personnel Director of Michigan State College was inter-
viewed on the subject of college policy on retirement, group life :—
insurance, health services, workmen's compensation, vacations and
holidays with pay, sick leave pay, overtime pay, rest periods, season
athletic books at reduced rates for employees, uniforms and laundry ,. .
of uniforms, meals furnished, and job classifications. The Director
made available the orientation booklet given to all new employees at
Michigan State College and the booklets of other universities for com-
Parison.

The Manager of Women's Residence Halls was interviewed for ‘
her estimates of the following costs which were used in the compu-
tations: cost of food supplied during rest periods, length of rest
Periods given the employees, number of uniforms and aprons laundered
PC 1' employee, and number of aprons purchased during the year. These
We re costs which were either too small to be significant or impossible

to obtain from current records. The resident managers were also

CCnsulted on these costs, and in some cases they supplied census

fi—gures for the study.

37
The head nurse at the college hospital was interviewed to ob—

tain information concerning the number of emergency cases and the

charges for treatment of food service employees. She also supplied

details of cost allocation for the preliminary health examinations a.“

given to new food handlers and to those employees absent from work 1‘

for more than .30 consecutive days. ;

The Comptroller of the college was interviewed to obtain de- “I

tails of the college retirement plan, the number of former food service 13‘

employees on retirement for 1952-1953, and the approximate percent-

age of the regular payroll allocated by the college for the pension

Plan. This last figure was computed as a percentage of the total

labor payroll for the year and in dollars per employee for the year.
The Comptroller also furnished the approximate figure used

as the cost of the preliminary physical examinations required of new

employees. This cost and that of pensions were administrative ex-

Penses borne by the college, and were not included in the fringe

bel'lefits .

Professors of statistics and accounting at Michigan State
CCllege and a representative of the accounting firm of Horwath and

IfilCl‘wath were consulted on various methods of presenting and inter-

Preting the data. Correspondence with authorities in the industrial

38
relations field on questions concerning semantics supplied valuable

information on industrial practices of reporting costs of fringe bene—

fits.

Computation of Ratios and Percentages

Industrial reports of fringe benefit costs used different meth—
ods of expressing the costs according to the use which was to be
made of the information. The need for knowing the annual cost of
each fringe benefit and of relating this to the number of employees
was widely recognized among the companies (11, 12, 20, 21, 36).
Another commonly used method showed the fringe benefits costs as
Percentages of the total labor payroll for the year (7, 11, 12, 20, 21,
28, 31). United States Chamber of Commerce studies expressed the
COsts of groups of fringes in cents per labor hour compared with
the average hourly wage or base rate (20, 21). Some surveys showed
each fringe benefit as a percentage of the total cost of fringes given
for the period of the studies (12, 20, 21).

In some surveys, percentages and ratios were found for fringe
benefits which had been grouped by type of payment (7, 11, 12, 20,
2'1). Division was made between legally required payments, pensions

and other private welfare payments, payments for time not worked,

1!. n
.
‘~ I,

39

other payments such as paid rest periods, travel time and lunch pe—

riods, and profit- sharing or bonus payments. Frequently all benefits

other than those legally required were considered together as the

"benefit package” for bargaining purposes. T
.3

In studies of food service labor costs, results were based on

the number of persons served in the establishment (4, 36, 58). Some

food service studies also presented the costs as percentage of sales, i

receipts, or income for the year (9, 36). Authorities in food-service

management felt that the ratio of labor costs to sales was not the

best or most accurate way to state results. They calculated the

work units or the minutes of labor per customer to reflect shifts
in the work load and to give a clearer picture for remedial action
(5. 6, 58, 61).

The following four methods were selected as bases for the

Computations in this study: (1) costs of fringe benefits as percent-

a‘ges of annual income; (2) dollar costs of fringe benefits per em-
pl()yee; (3) costs of fringe benefits as percentages of labor payroll
for the year; (4) dollar costs of fringe benefits per person served.
A master compilation sheet was designed to summarize the
to tal direct fringe benefits (those included in the food service labor

pa-yroll) and the total indirect fringe benefits (those regarded as

 

40

operating expenses of the food service and of financial benefit to the

employees). (See Appendix Tables 4, 5, 6, 7.) Percentages of food

service income and of food service labor payroll were calculated for

each of the fringes. The dollar cost per person served and the

dollar cost per regular full-time employee were calculated for each

of the fringe benefits. Finally, the costs of individual fringes were

computed as percentages of the total cost of the nonwage benefit pro-

gram for the year.

41

DISCUSSION

The food services of the Women's Residence Halls at Michigan
State College employ both regular full-time employees and part-time
student men and women. Only the regular employees are eligible
for all the fringe benefits discussed in this study. However, in the
residence hall food service operations the part-time student workers
form an integral part of the labor force. Palmer (45) found that stu—
dent employees were used in 96.1 percent of the food service units in
Seventy-three colleges and universities she studied in 1941. Augustine
(4) stated that it has become an established policy of college adminis-
trators to offer financial assistance in the form of work opportunities
to as many students as possible. Thompson (58) and Blaker (5) both
included data on student employees in their studies of college cafe—
te rias.

Women student workers lived in the dormitories, and they, as
Well as the men student workers, were part of the total number of
Persons served. Uniforms and bus coats were laundered for the
Students, and accidental on-the—job injuries of students were treated
at the college hospital and charged to the cafeterias. Except for

these services, the status of student workers as part-time employees

 

42

precluded their receiving fringe benefits. All data presented in this

study are based on the number of regular employees, and do not refer

to student employee 5 .

Differences in operation which affected the average numbers ‘37"!
of workers employed were observed among the dormitories. The
smallest of the six residence halls employed more regular and fewer
student workers, because student labor could not operate efficiently ’

in the limited kitchen space. Only one of the three largest residence

halls was operated each summer session. Employees from all six

buildings who wished to work in food service during the summer were
Scheduled in this operation.

Direct F ringe Benefits

The direct fringe benefits analyzed in this study were those

readily recognizable as nonwage labor costs: vacations, holidays,

Sick leaves, and workmen's compensation. Workmen’s compensation

Was the only legally required benefit received by the food service

eT‘Ilployees; all other benefits were provided as a part of the college

Wage policy.

43

Paid vacations

 

The cost of paid vacations in industry may be computed directly
or on the basis of averages (11). For vacations graduated according
to length of service with the company, some firms use the product
of the average vacation allowance in hours times the average base
rate times the average number of employees (11). Data on paid va-
cations in this study are exact--not averaged--since the figures were
available in the payroll records prepared by the resident managers.

Michigan State College policy on vacations in 1952-1953 granted
two weeks with pay at the completion of a full year of satisfactory
service or one week at the end of six months' service. In the case
of residence hall and food service employees, the ten months of fall,
winter, and spring terms were counted as a full year of service.

The Manager of Women's Residence Halls gave food service
employees the option of working on the cleaning crew in the residence
parts of the building for the summer months or of taking leave of
absence until school opened in the fall. In this way food service
employees who wished to work a full year were given the opportunity

to do so.

44

All college employees were on a 40—hour work week. No pay
was listed for overtime; any time worked over an eight-hour day was
added to vacation time, or the employee took extra days off to com—
pensate. All vacations were scheduled during the summer months,
except in cases of termination of employment, in which accumulated
vacation pay was given the employee at the time of termination.

The total cost of vacations paid for the period studied was
found to be $8,801.05, as shown on Table 1. This was the second-
largest fringe benefit cost, exceeded only by the cost of rest periods.
Table 1 shows that paid vacations were about 0.8 percent of the total
food-service income. Vacations amounted to $3.26 per person served
for the year (see Table 2).

Vacation pay was found to represent 4.15 percent of the total
labor payroll for the year (see Table 1). The United States Chamber
of Commerce found that vacations represented 3.2 percent of the total
labor payrolls throughout industry as a whole in 1951 (20), and Mee
(42) quoted the percentage as being 4 percent of the average annual
payroll.

Vacation pay averaged $86.00 per employee in this study,
which was more than two weeks' pay on the average-pay base. An

average pay check was computed by dividing the total annual payroll

~. I—n“. .. ' ..I~.... ._ 4_
‘22.,
new

45

Table 1. Direct fringe benefits, expressed as percentages of labor
payroll and food service income (July 1, 1952, to June 30,

 

 

 

 

 

1953).
Percent of Percent of
Direct Fringe Benefit Amount Labor Food Service

Payroll Income
Vacations .......... $ 8,801.05 4.15% 0.78%
Holidays ........... 5,596.36 2.78% 0.52%
Sick leaves ......... 6,096.03 3.03% 0.57%
Workmen's compensation 363.68 0.18% 0.03%
Total .............. $20,857.12 10.37% 1.94%

 

 

Table 2. Direct fringe benefits, expressed as dollars per employee
and per person served (July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

 

 

Cost Cost per
Direct Fringe Benefit Amount per Person
Employee Served

 

Vacations .............. $ 8,801.05 $ 86.00 $3.26
Holidays ............... 5,596.36 57.69 2.19
Sick leaves ............. 6,096.03 62.85 2.38
Workmen's compensation . . . . 363.68 3.75 0.14

 

_—_

Total .................. $20,857.12 $215.02 $8.16

 

 

46
by the number of employees, and then by 26, the number of payroll
periods in a year. By this method, an average pay check amounted
to $79.77. The National Industrial Conference Board in its survey
of fringe benefit costs in 1952 found that paid vacations averaged
$126 per employee, which was two weeks' pay (11).

Since vacations were allowed on a graduated scale based on
the length of service, a relationship might be found between this cost
and labor turnover. The amount paid for vacations could change
radically from year to year. A high turnover of employees in a
year might result in a lower cost for this fringe benefit, but the
cost of training and turnover would undoubtedly more than offset the

reduction.

Paid holidays

 

Regular employees of Michigan State College who had been
employed six months or more received pay for the six holidays: New
Year‘s Day, Independence Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving,
and Christmas. In 1952-1953, only those employees scheduled to work
on Memorial Day were paid for the holiday, since it fell on Saturday,

a normal day off for most of the employees. In addition, one and

one-half days plus holiday pay were granted for Christmas in 1952.

47

Table 1 shows that the total amount paid for holidays during
the period studied was $5,596.36, the fourth-largest fringe benefit cost.
It amounted to $57.69 per employee, or about eight days' pay (see
Table 2). By comparison, $51.00 per employee was found to be the
average paid'holiday cost among fifty-nine companies studied by the
Industrial Relations Counselors in 1949 (12). This cost, comparable
to the amount found in the present study, was based on a. higher av-
erage wage, and, therefore, represented only four days' pay per
employee.

Paid holidays amounted to almost 2.8 percent of the total labor
payroll for the year in the present study (see Table 1). This was
almost 30 percent higher than the 2 percent figure quoted. by the
United States Chamber of Commerce for the nation's industries in
1951 (20). Table 1 shows that paid holidays represented 0.52 percent
of total food-service income. Table 2 shows that holidays cost $2.19
per person served for the year.

Recent investigators stated that pay for six working days was
almost a general standard for paid holidays in this country by 1954
(27). It would seem that because of the extra day and a half given

at Christmas, 1952, the total amount paid in the period studied was

48
substantially higher at Michigan State College than for American in-

dustry as a whole.

Paid sick leave 5

 

Policy on sick leave with pay at Michigan State College states
that the employee earns one day's sick leave per month for the first
year, or a total of 12 days per year, which may be accumulated to
30 days (68). Food service employees must furnish a statement from
their doctor and must also notify their supervisor concerning their
illness to be eligible for sick leave pay.

Records of time allowed for sick leave and time granted to
attend funerals were obtained from payroll information in the Manag-
er's office. In the national survey of fringe benefit costs undertaken
by the United States Chamber of Commerce in 1953, time granted
for attending funerals was treated as a separate item (21). However,
in the present study, pay for time allowed for attending funerals was
negligible and wasarbitrarily included with sick leave pay because
of the small number of employees involved.

Industrial studies of fringe benefits note that formal sick leave
plans are relatively uncommon (11, 12, 13). Most industries compute

nonoccupational sickness and hospitalization-insurance plans together

49
with informal and formal sick leave plans. The Industrial Relations
Counselors stated that the cost of formal sick leave plans plus in-
surance amounted to $38.00 per employee in 1951 for fifty-nine com-
panies; this was their fourth-largest fringe benefit (12).

Tables 1 and 2 show the high cost of sick leaves for the
residence hall food service operation for the period studied. Sick
leave amounted to $6,096.03, and was the third-largest fringe benefit,
outranked only by rest periods and paid vacations. It averaged $62.85
per employee, almost twice the amount quoted above for industry in
general; Table 2 shows that sick leaves cost $2.38 per person served.
Table 1 shows that sick leaves amounted to 0.57 percent of the total
food service income for the year.

The United States Chamber of Commerce found cost of sick
leaves to average 0.6 percent of the total labor payroll for the year
(20, 21). In contrast, the food services of the Women's Residence
Halls paid 3.03 percent of the total labor payroll in sick leave pay,
as shown in Table 1. This difference was not as significant as
might appear, because many industries in the Chamber of Commerce
studies did not have formal sick leave plans to report. Such com-
panies depended entirely on nonoccupational sickness and accident

insurance plans.

50

Workmen' s compensation

 

The Michigan Workmen's Compensation law requires payment
of $28.00 per week, starting one week after the time of injury, to an
employee injured while at work. It is the policy of Michigan State
College to pay the employee during this first week and then to review
each case individually after a month of absence from work. Although
employees may be absent from work less than a week, they are com-
pensated for slight injuries incurred on the job which are not covered
by law.

The United States Chamber of Commerce found that workmen's
compensation payments amounted to 0.6 percent of the labor payroll
(20). Another study found that it amounted to 0.44 percent of the pay-
roll (31). Table 1 shows the results of the present study to be sub-
stantially lower than these percentages. In the food service operations
of the Women's Residence Halls, workmen's compensation payments
amounted to only 0.18 percent of the total labor payroll, and 0.03
percent of the total food service income for the year (see Table 1).
Table 2 shows that workmen's compensation cost $3.75 per employee

for the year, and only $0.14 per person served. The cost of this

51
fringe benefit ranked eighth out of the nine studied, and was only
slightly above the cost of health service charges.

These low figures pointed up the value of close attention to
safety and elimination of work hazards. The small amount paid
under the legal requirements of workmen's compensation might also
be coupled with the high amount paid for sick leaves for comparison
with industry. From this comparison one might conclude that the
reports and doctor's examination required under the compensation
law discouraged employees from reporting minor injuries and en-

couraged them in reporting sick leave.
Indirect Fringe Benefits

The indirect fringe benefits isolated in this study were not
readily available in the records kept by food service management.
There was a stated policy concerning the amount of time granted
for rest periods during the working day, but no cost figures were
kept. Costs of laundry and uniforms furnished, as well as charges
made by the college health service, were treated as operating expenses.
Employees were charged flat rates for meals and the total amount

charged was deducted from their checks. However, because these

52
costs were of financial value to the employees, they were considered

to be fringe benefits, and were computed as such.

Rest periods

 

Industrial surveys of fringe costs, without exception, include
the cost of rest periods which are generally computed as a percent-
age of the total payroll (11, 49, 59). One investigator used 5 percent,
or one-twentieth, of the total payroll as the figure covering lunch and
rest periods (59).

In the present study, one twenty-fourth of the total labor pay-
roll was used as the cost of time spent in rest periods, twenty minutes
per day. Employees were allowed two ten-minute breaks per day, and
usually coffee was served. Several of the food services supplied cake,
cookies, cereal, or other food for employees, but the practice was
different in each building. This necessitated use of an estimated
figure for the cost of food served during rest periods. The Manager
of Women's Residence Halls made this estimation, which was ten
cents per employee per day.

Accordingly, days off were subtracted from total days of oper—
ation, and the result was multiplied by the number of regular employ-

ees, and by ten cents. This total cost of food served in rest periods

53
was then added to the cost of the time spent in rest periods to arrive
at a total cost of rest periods. No rest period cost was computed
for the summer months for the five dormitories which were closed
for cleaning.

In the present study, rest periods cost more than paid vaca-
tions, and were the largest fringe benefit given to food service em-
ployees, amounting to $9,652.17, as shown in Table 3. This amounted
to $99.51 per employee for the year (see Table 4), and 4.8 percent
of the total labor payroll (see Table 3). Two percent of the labor
payroll was found by the United States Chamber of Commerce in 1953
to be the cost of rest periods and lunch periods combined, throughout
the nation's industries (21).

Table 4 shows that rest periods were found to cost $3.77 per
person served, and Table 3 shows that they amounted to 0.9 percent
of the total income for the year in the Women's Residence Halls
food service operation. These figures are only slightly higher than
the $3.44 per person served and 0.82 percent of total income found
in this study for cost of paid vacations, the second-largest fringe
benefit.

Since the policy of allowing rest periods during the working

day has become generally established and appears to be closely related

54

Table 3. Indirect fringe benefits, expressed as percentages of labor
payroll and food service income (July 1, 1952, to June 30,

 

 

 

 

1953).
Percent of Percent of

Indirect Fringe Benefit Amount Labor Food Service

Payroll Income
Rest periods ........ $ 9,652.17 4.80% 0.90%
Laundry ........... 3,039.41 1.51% 0.28%
Meals ............. 2,195.26 1.09% 0.20%
Uniforms ....... . . . . 1,307.13 0.65% 0.12%
Health-service charges . 148.50 0.07% 0.01%
Total . . . . . . . . ...... $16,342.47 8.12% 1.52%

 

 

 

Table 4. Indirect fringe benefits, expressed as dollars per employee
and per person served (July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

—-:-:
1

Cost Cost per
Indirect Fringe Benefit Amount ' per Person
Employee Served

 

Rest periods ............ $ 9,652.17 $ 99.51 $3.77
Laundry ............... 3,039.41 31.33 1.19
Meals ................. 2,195.26 22.63 0.86
Uniforms ............... 1,307.13 13.48 0.51
Health-service charges ..... 148.50 1.53 0.06

Total ....... . .......... $16,342.47 $168.48 $6.39

55
to morale and production, any attempt on the part of management to
reduce this cost might result in more costly grievances and produc—

tion lag s .

Employees' meals

 

Regular employees of Michigan State College who are provided
meals at work are charged thirty cents for breakfast, forty cents for
lunch, and fifty cents for dinner. Records of meals eaten by each
employee are kept, and the total amount is deducted from his pay
check each payroll period. Employees who work the early shift in
the food services have seventy cents (two meals) per working day
deducted from their checks, and employees who work the late shift
have ninety cents (two meals) deducted per day.

Since check deductions for meals do not amount to the value
of the meals eaten, figures which represented cash value to the food
service were computed on the basis of the daily board charge of
$1.87. for residents of the dormitories. The ratio of the check deduc-
tion to $1.20, the total possible deductions, was computed to arrive
at the figures of $1.09 and $1.40, which were taken to be the income

value of the seventy—cent and ninety-cent meal deductions, respectively.

56

According to advice of an. accountant from the firm of Horwath
and Horwath, the cost of furnishing meals to the employees was found
by multiplying the cash value of the meals by the total operating ex-
pense percentage, and subtracting the check deductions. The total
operating expense percentage was taken from the monthly profit and
loss statements of the college accounting office; it included the ex-
penses of food, labor, equipment, insurance, laundry and cleaning,
repairs and maintenance, supplies and materials, transportation,
utility services, andimiscellaneous expenses of the food services.

During the summer, meals were served to employees who
worked in the one dormitory which remained in operation. All food
service employees working in the other units either brought their
lunches or ate at this dormitory. Cost of meals was computed only
for the school year which comprised fall, winter, and spring terms.

The total extra cost of employees' meals, as shown in Table
3, amounted to $2,195.26 for the period studied. This was the sixth-
largest fringe benefit of the nine studied, and was found to be 1.09
percent of the total labor payroll for the year. This percentage was
considerably less than the 3 percent allowed by Harris, Kerr, Forster

and Company in their study of commercial operations in 1952 (26).

57
Employees' meals were found to amount to a little over 0.2

percent of the total food service income (see Table 3), and eighty-six
cents per person served for the year (see Table 4). It is interesting
to note that the extra cost of employees' meals in excess of deductions
from their checks was only $22.63 per employee for the entire year
(see Table 4). Any change in the standard amounts of thirty, forty,
and fifty cents charged for employee meals would result in the food
service making a profit on meals served to employees, a departure

from established policy.

Laundgy of unifo rm 5

 

At the time of this study, women employees of the food ser-
vices of the Women's Residence Halls furnished their own white uni—
forms which were laundered at the expense of the food services.
Their aprons were furnished by the food service and laundered by
the college laundry. Male employees wore blue shirts and trousers
rented by the food service from a commercial laundry; for the pur-
poses of this study, these rentals were classified as uniforms furnished.
There was one clerk in each food service who did not wear uniforms.

The cost of laundry service for the regular food service em-

ployees was computed on the basis of an estimated average number of

58
uniforms and aprons used per person per week. These estimated fig-
ures were obtained from each resident manager, and varied among
the food services. 'The coflege laundry charged ten cenusfor launder-
ing one apron and thirty-five cents for one uniform.

The cost of laundry was computed for the entire year for each
food service. It was found to be the fifth-largest fringe benefit‘cost,
about half as large as paid holidays, and slightly larger than the cost
of meals. Table 3 shows the amount paid for employees' laundry
to be $3,039.41, or 1.51 percent of the total labor payroll for the
year. This figure is very close to the percentage quoted by Harris,
Kerr, Forster and Company of 1.44 percent for 106 employees (26).
Johnson (31) found laundry costs to amount to 2.61 percent of the
labor payrolls of 171 cafeterias.

Johnson (31) also found that laundry cost $37.47 per employee;
this compares with the $31.33 per employee for laundry in this study
(see Table 4). His higher percentage of labor payroll could be at—
tributed to an average wage in the 171 commercial operations which
was lower than the wage at Michigan State College. Table 3 shows
that cost of laundry was 0.28 percent of total food service income for
the year, and Table 4 shows that laundry for employees cost $1.19

per person served.

59

Uniforms furnished

 

White aprons, blue shirts and trousers, and rubber gloves were
purchased by the food service operations of the Women's Residence
Halls and provided for regular employees' use. Resident managers
estimated the average number of these items used for the year, and
costs were obtained from purchase records in the Manager's office
for use in the computations.

The cost of uniforms furnished, shown in Table 3, was $1,307.13,
which was the seventh-largest fringe benefit cost, and ranked above
workmen's compensation and health service charges. It was found to
amount to 0.65 percent of the total labor payroll and 0.12 percent of
the total food service income for the year (see Table 3). Uniforms
furnished cost $13.48 per employee and $0.51 per person served (see

Table 4).
Health service charges

Since the college hospital facilities were too limited to make
a general practice of treating anyone except students, the college

health service made a nominal charge for treating on-the-job injuries

60
of regular employees. These charges were obtained from the purchase
journals in each dormitory office.

This fringe benefit cost was found to be the smallest of the nine
studied, and amounted to $148.50 for all six dormitories for the entire
year (see Table 3). This was less than the cost of workmen's com—
pensation. Table 3 shows the computed percentages to be 0.07 per-
cent of the total labor payroll and 0.01 percent of the total income.
Health service charges were also found to cost $1.53 per employee
(for an average of less than one call per year per employee) and

$0.06 per person served, as shown in Table 4.
College Administrative Costs

All regular full-time employees receive certain benefits which
are provided by the administration as a part of college wage policy.
The costs of benefits such as pensions and health examinations are
not charged to the employees' particular department, but are borne
entirely by the college. For the purposes of this study, these benefits
were not classified as fringe benefits. However, they are discussed
in order to present a complete picture of the nonwage financial

benefits received by food service employees.

61

Pensions

—.-—_——_-—._

Industrial studies, without exception, listed cost of retirement
plans as the largest item of fringe benefit costs to management. The
National Industrial Conference Board in 1952 stated that pensions cost
$179.00 per employee and constituted one-third of the benefit costs
(11). The United States Chamber of Commerce studies showed an
increase from 3.6 percent to 5.9 percent of the total payroll for
pensions in the two years between 1951 and 1953 (20, 21).

The present funded noncontributory retirement plan was adopted
by the college in 1937. It was not intended to be a complete plan
for the individual employee's retirement security, but was considered
a basis on which the employee could build. The employee became
eligible for the pension plan after six months' satisfactory service,
provided he was less than 50 years of age at the time of his employ—
ment.

The comptroller of the college stated that, although the figure
has not been proved by an actuary, approximately 5 percent of the
total labor payroll is being allocated by the college for the cost of
pensions. The computed cost of pensions was $10,059.16 for the

group of employees studied for the year 1952-1953. This was found

62

to amount to $103.70 per employee. There were approximately eight
former food service employees receiving pensions during the period

studied.

Health examinatiorls

 

Palmer (45) stated that 73.7 percent of the schools she studied
used health examinations as part of the basis for selection of food.
service employees. Michigan State College required health examina—
tions for new food handlers and for those food service employees
who had been absent from work more than 30 consecutive days (65).
The cost of these examinations is absorbed by the college, and not
charged to the individual units. The comptroller of the college stated
that a physical examination of a regular employee at the college
hospital would cost approximately $5.00.

The payroll clerk furnished the data concerning health examina-
tions given during the year 1952-1953. During the period of this
study twenty-five new employees and fifty employees reinstated after
absences of more than thirty days were given physical examinations
at the hospital. A cost of $375.00 to the college was found for these

examinations, which averaged $3.87 per employee.

63

Misce11a_neou_s__a_d_n_1i_rli_s_tgative costs

 

 

Michigan State College policy provided certain other benefits
for employees, the cost of which could not be ascertained. These
costs included administration and accounting costs of maintaining the
credit union, administration of group life insurance and hospitalization
plans, and provision of discounts on season tickets to college athletic
events The difficulty of determining the administrative costs of
benefit programs led research staffs to omit them in industrial stud-
ies (12, 20). They were not included in the present study for the

same reason.
Cost of the Food Service Benefit Program

The results of this study, shown in Table 5, indicate that the
total cost of the nine fringe benefits studied in the food services op-
eration of the Women's Residence Halls of Michigan State College was
$37,199.59 for the year 1952-1953. This was found to be 18.49 per-
cent of the total labor payroll for the year, which was remarkably
close to the average of 19 percent for American industry as a whole
(11, 12, 20, 21). However, it should be noted that industrial surveys

included pensions, but did not include cost of meals, laundry, or

64

Table 5. Cost of fringe benefits (July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

 

 

 

 

 

 

P t.
, Pet. of C 0f Cost Cost per
Frmge Food
, Amount Labor , per Person
Benefits Pa r 11 Serv1ce E 1 S d
y 0 Income mp oyee erve
Direct $20,857.12 10.37% 1.94% $215.02 $ 8.16
Indirect 16,342.47 8.12% 1.52% 168.48 6.39
Total $37,199.59 18.49% 3.46% $383.50 $14.55
uniforms as benefits. These costs were sometimes classified as

fringe benefits under the heading "Discounts on Goods and Services"
(20, 21). Thus, if the college food services were charged for pen-
sions, the cost of the total fringe benefit program would be consider-
ably higher than that reported in industry.

The total cost per employee for all fringe benefits studied
was $383.50, as shown in Table 5. On the basis of $79.77 for-an
average (pay check, more than nine weeks' pay was received by the
individual employee in the various fringe benefits. The total cost
of fringe benefits was computed as 3.46 percent of the total food
service income for the year, and $14.55 per person served (see

Table 5) .

65

Figure 1 illustrates the relative importance of the various
fringe benefits in the total cost of the program. Considering
$37,199.59 as 100 percent, rest periods cost 25.95 percent, vacations
cost 23.66 percent, sick leaves cost 16.39 percent, and holidays cost
15.04 percent. The total of these four benefits was 81.04 percent
of the total cost of fringe benefits. Laundry, meals, uniforms, work-
men's compensation, and health service charges, taken together, com-
prised the remaining 18.96 percent of the total cost.

The indirect fringe benefit, rest periods, ranked highest in
cost, and the direct fringe benefit, workmen's compensation, ranked
eighth in cost out of the nine studied (see Figure 1). The fringe
benefits studied were originally classified as direct and indirect
according to cost. Other criteria might have been chosen for this
classification; industrial studies usually classified fringes by type,
and not by cost. For instance, payment for time not worked, pay-
ments required by law, and payments for employee welfare were
sometimes used. However, since the fringe benefits analyzed in this
study were treated bymanagement as either payroll costs or operat—
ing expenses, classification by cost seemed more valid than classifi-

cation by type.

66

Figure 1. Fringe benefits as percentages of annual cost of benefits
(July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

 

 

Percentages

5 10 15 20 25

 

Rest Periods L —]

 

Vacations

Sick Leaves

Holidays

Laundry

Meals

Uniforms

Workmen's
Compensation

BIDUI'I'

Health Service
Charges

Fringe Benefits

Direct -
Indirect E

67

SUMMARY

Fringe benefits, or the nonwage costs of labor, have been
found to comprise the largest single factor in increasing labor costs
in industry. This study was undertaken in an attempt to isolate
fringe benefit costs in college residence hall food services. Food
service records were analyzed to find direct costs, those included
in the labor payroll, and indirect costs, those regarded as operating
expenses by management but of financial benefit to the employees.

The six women's residence halls at Michigan State College
were centrally operated; they functioned as one organization. There-
fore, data were computed for the whole operation for an entire fiscal
year. Costs of each of nine fringe benefits, as well as the cost of
the total benefit program, were computed as percentages of labor
payroll and food service income, and also as dollars per regular
employee and per person served. These ratios and percentages
were compared with figures for similar fringe benefits reported in
industrial surveys.

One direct fringe benefit and four indirect fringe benefits were
found to comprise less than 20 percent of the total cost of fringe

benefits for the period studied.. These included laundry, meals,

68
uniforms, w'irkmen's compensation, and health-service charges. One
indirect and three direct fringe benefits were found to comprise over
80 percent of the total cost of fringe benefits. These included rest
periods, vacathnis,1uflidays, and sick leaves.

Rest periods were found to be. the most expensive fringe
benefit received by food service employees, and vacations were found
to be the next most costly. Industrial studies found holidays to be
the third-highest cost, but in the present study holidays ranked fourth,
and sick leaves ranked third. Of the total cost of fringe benefits,
rest periods amounted to almost 26 percent, vacations almost 24
percent, sick leaves more than 16 percent, and holidays about 15 per-
cent.

When compared to the total labor payroll of the food services,
fringe benefits were found to amount to 18.49 percent of the payroll.
This paralleled the 19 percent of total payroll (reported in several
industrial surveys. On this same basis, rest periods amounted to
4.8 percent, vacations to 4.4 percent, sick leaves to 3.0 percent, and
holidays to 2.8 percent. None of the five other fringe benefits stud-
ied amounted to more than 1.5 percent of the total labor payroll for

the year.

69

A second important comparison was made by computing the
dollar cost of fringe benefits per employee for the year. The total
cost of the nine fringe benefits per employee was $383.50, which
amounted to more than nine weeks' average pay. per employee. On
this basis, rest periods for the year amounted to $99.51 per employee,
more than two weeks' average pay. Each employee received an aver-
age of $90.73 in vacation pay, which was in excess of two weeks'
average pay. The cost of sick leaves averaged $62.85 per employee
for the year. Paid holidays cost $57.69 per employee for the year,
approximately eight days' average pay. Cost of laundry service
amounted to $31.33 per employee, and meals to $22.63 per employee
in addition to check deductions for meals.

Two other bases were used for computation of the data: per-
centage of total food service income and dollars per person served.
In each case, these figures were too small for the period of a year
to permit meaningful interpretation. However, these data may be of

interest to food service managers for purposes of comparison.

10.

11.

70

LITERATURE CITED

Adjusting insurance coverages to fluctuating values. Insurance
series no. 80. N. Y., Am. Mgt. Assn. 1948.

Advances in insurance coverage--accident prevention and control.
Insurance series no. 78. N. Y., Am. Mgt. Assn. 1948.

Aspley, John C., and Whitmore, Eugene. The industrial relations
handbook. 3rd ed. Chicago, Dartnell Corp. 1953.

Augustine, Grace M. Some aspects of management of college
residence halls for women. N. Y., F. S. Crofts and Co.
1935.

Blaker, Gertrude G. Labor hours and labor costs in a college
cafeteria. Unpublished M. S. thesis. Ithaca, N. Y., Cor-
nell Univ. Library. May, 1952.

Brodner, Joseph; Carlson, Howard M.; and Maschal, Henry T.
How to limit labor costs. Rest. Mgt. pp. 29-30. Sept.,
1950.

Brower, F. Beatrice. How much do employee benefits cost?
Conf. Bd. Mgt. Record. 11(no. l):97-99,l40. Mar., 1949.

--9 ------ Paid sick leave for wage earners. Conf. Bd. Mgt.
Record. 9(no.10):309-11. Oct., 1947.

Bryan, Mary deGarmo and Zabriskie, Alice M. Labor hours
and costs in house and food departments. J. H. Ec.
21:163-170. 1927.

Coming developments in labor relations. Monthly Labor Rev.
76(no. 6):609-11. 1953.

Computing the cost of fringe benefits. Studies in Personnel
. Policies No. 128, Conf. Bd. Reports. N. Y., National
Industrial Conf. Bd., Inc. 1952.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

71

Cost of fringe benefits for employees. Industrial Relations Memo
No. 123. N. Y., Industrial Relations Counselors, Inc.,
Rockefeller Center. July 3, 1951.

Croft, A. C. Patterns in fringe benefits. Personnel. 25(no. 2):
11-17. July, 1948.

Croxton, Frederick E., and Cowden, Dudley J. Practical business
statistics. 2nd ed. N. Y., Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1948.

Developments in social security and workmen's compensation.
Insurance series no. 81. N. Y., Am. Mgt. Assn. 1950.

Dooher, M. Joseph, and Marquis, Vivienne, eds. AMA handbook
of wage and salary administration. N. Y., Am. Mgt.
Assn. 1950.

Dulles, Foster Rhea. Labor in America. N. Y., Thos. Y.
Crowell Co. 1949.

Employee benefits: a survey of recent trends. (Abstract). ‘
The Mgt. Review. 62(no. 7):377-78. 1953.

Francis, A. Gordon. Relation of work hours to receipts. Am.
Rest. Mag. 27:21,22,68. April, 1943.

Fringe benefits, l951--the nonwage labor costs of doing business.
Wash., D. C., Chamber of Commerce of the USA. 1951.

Fringe benefits, l953--the nonwage labor costs of doing business.
Preliminary report. Wash., D. C., Chamber of Commerce
of the USA. 1954.

Fringe benefits for supervisors. Personnel Policies Forum
Survey no. 6. Wash., D. C., Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc. 1953.

Glossary of currently used wage terms. Bureau Labor Statistics
Bull. no. 983. Wash., D. C., U. S. Dept. of Labor. June,
1950.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

72

Hagerty, Philip E., and Galvin, Bertrand J. Fringe benefits in
blue and white collar jobs. Personnel. 27(no. 1):28- 35.
1950.

Harris, Kerr, Forster and Co. Pin-pointing your profits 1.
Rest. Mgt. 70(no. 1):30-31. Jan., 1952.

-------- Pin-pointing your profits 11. Rest. Mgt. 70(no. 2):
48-49. Feb., 1952.

Hill, James C. Stabilization of fringe benefits. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review. 7(no. 2):221-245. Jan., 1954.

Industrial relations and "fringe" benefits report, 1949. Chicago
1, 111., The Employers' Assn. of Chicago, 75 E. Wacker
Drive. 1949. -

Insurance needs in a preparedness economy. Insurance series
no. 90. N. Y., Am. Mgt. Assn. 1951.

Jarchow, C. E. Cost aspects of employee security plans. Per-
sonnel. 22(no. 6):408-21. 1946.

Johnson, John F. A statistical analysis of the relationship be-
tween the number of meals served and the number of
employees in 171 cafeterias. Unpublished M. S. report.
Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Library. Mar., 1950.

Kerr, Clark. Social and economic implications of private pen-
sion plans. Reprint no. 16. Berkeley, Calif., Inst. of
Industrial Relations, Univ. of Calif. 1949.

Kirkpatrick, Russell C. Controlling labor costs 1. Rest. Mgt.
64(no. l):40,41,96,98. Jan., 1949.

———————— Controlling labor costs 11. Rest. Mgt. 64(no. 21134,
35,36,92. Feb.,1949.

-------- Controlling labor costs 111. Rest. Mgt. 64(no. 3):35,36,
110,112. Mar., 1949.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

73

-------- A comparative study of labor costs in cafeteria, foun-
tain luncheonette and table service units in a commercial
restaurant. Unpublished M. 5. report. Chicago, Univ. of
Chicago Library. Sept., 1948.

Knight, Fred J. Cutting labor costs. Hotel Monthly. 57(no.
679):38. 1952.

Labor cry: more fringe gains. Bus. Wk. no. 1229:168. Mar.
21, 1953.

Lewis, L. E., et a1. Related wage practices in major labor
markets. Monthly Labor Review. 76(no. 3):268-72. 1953.

Major protection against major illnesses. Insurance series no.
93. N. Y., Am. Mgt. Assn. 1951.

Management's stake in the welfare issue. Production series no.
192. N. Y., Am. Mgt. Assn. 1950.

Mee, John. The personnel handbook. N. Y., Ronald Press. 1951.

Myers, John H. Statistical presentation. Ames, Iowa, Littlefield,
Adams and Co. 1950.

Operating under non-occupational disability laws. Insurance
series no. 87. N. Y., Am..Mgt. Assn. 1950.

Palmer, Clara E. The trained dietitian in college food service.
Unpublished M. S. thesis. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State Coll.
Library. 1941.

Pension funds: fastest grower of all. Bus. Wk. no. 1229:128-30.
Mar. 21, 1953.

Pensions and fact-finding in labor relations. Personnel series
no. 133. N. Y., Am. Mgt. Assn. 1950.

Preparing employees for retirement. Personnel series no. 142.
N. Y., Am. Mgt. Assn. 1951.

49.

50.

51.
52.

53.

54.
55.
56.
57.

58.

59.
60.

61.

74

Rest periods: equivalent of 2 weeks with pay. (Abstract). The

Mgt. Review. 42(no. 5):263. May,

1953.

Rowe, Evan K., and Paine, Thomas H. Pension plans under
collective bargaining 1. Monthly Labor Review. 76(no. 3):

237-45. 1953.

-------- Pension plans under collective bargaining II. Monthly

Labor Review. 76(no. 5):484-89. 1953.
-------- Pension plans under collective bargaining III. Monthly
Labor Review. 76(no. 7):714-22. 1953.

Scott, Walter Dill; Clothier, Robert C.; and Spriegel', William R.
Personnel management. 4th ed. N. Y., McGraw-Hill.

1949.

Smith, Ralph B. Comparing cafeteria costs. Rest. Mgt. no.

71(no. 3):44-45. Sept., 1952.

Strow, Carl W. A survey of employee benefit plans. Personnel

.Journal. 28(no. 3):98-101. 1949.

Taylor, Frederick Winslow. The principles of scientific man-
agement. N. Y. and London, Harper and brothers. 1911.

Tead, Ordway. Instincts in industry, a study of working-class
psychology. N. Y., Houghton Mifflin Co. 1918.

Thompson, Eleanor Gibbs. Hours and costs of administration
and labor in three food service units. Unpublished M. S.
thesis. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State Coll. Library. 1944.

Trends in health and accident insurance.

(Ab stract) The Mgt.

Review. 43(no. l):57-58. Jan.,1954.

United States government printing office style manual (abridged).
Rev. ed. Wash.,D. C., Supt. of Documents. .1953.

Vanderlee, Eileen. An analysis of labor

hours and costs in six

industrial feeding operations. Unpublished M. 8. report.

Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Library.

hdar. 16, 1951.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

75

Veblen, Thorstein Bunde. The instinct of workmanship, and
the state of the industrial arts. N. Y., The Macmillan
Co. 1914.

Wages and related benefits-—major labor markets 1953-1954.
Bull. no. 1157-1. Wash., D. C., U. S. Dept. of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1954.

Wandel, W. H. Pension and insurance costs of employing older
workers. Monthly Labor Review. 76(no. 9):955-58. 1953.

Welfare issues in collective bargaining. Personnel series no.

131. N. Y., Am. Mgt. Assn. 1949.

Yoder, Dale. Personnel management and industrial relations.
3rd ed. N. Y., Prentice-Hall. 1952.

-------- Personnel principles and policies. N. Y., Prentice—
Hall. 1949.

Your job at M. S. C. East Lansing, Mich., Personnel Office.
[ca. 1950].

76.

APPENDIX

Table

l. Fringe benefit data sheet No. l--Yake1ey Hall
Food Service ................ . . . ........

2. Fringe benefit data sheet No. 2--Yakeley Hall
Food Service ...........................

3. Fringe benefit data sheet No. 3--Yakeley Hall
Food Service ...........................

4. Summary No. l, fringe benefit data--women's
residence hall food services ................

5. Summary No. 2, fringe benefit data--women's
residence hall food services ................

6. Summary No. 3, fringe benefit data-—women's
residence hall food services ................

7. Summary No. 4, fringe benefit data--women's
residence hall food services ..... . ..........

8. Direct fringe benefits, expressed as percentages
of annual cost of fringe benefits . . . . . ........

9. Indirect fringe benefits, expressed as percentages
of annual cost of fringe benefits .............

Page

77

78

79

81

82

83

84

85

86

77

Table l. Fringe benefit data sheet No. 1—-Yakeley Hall Food Service*
(July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of
Payroll Por’ N°‘ of Male Days of Holi—
Period mito ry Employ- Student Op.e ra- days
Census ees tion
Workers
July 11 110 19 13 1
25 20 14
Aug. 8 112 21 14
22 21 14
Sept 5 428 12 1
_ 19 ______ 43.4 _________ 7 ___________________________
oc—t _ 3 450 16 24 14
l7 16 23 14
31 432 16 23 14
Nov 14 16 31 14
28 18 20 8 l
9.44-1.2 ______ 4.39 _______ 1.8 ________ 1.9 ________ 1.4 _________
Dec 26 17 7 1
Jan 9 422 15 25 5 1
23 410 15 25 14
Feb 6 16 25 14
20 417 16 24 14
Mas.__6 ________________ 1.5 ________ 71.2 ________ L4 _________
17131. 20 17 21 14
April 3 405 17 20 8
17 18 22 14
May 1 17 22 14
15 17 21 14
29 17 20 14
J “112-8 ______ 4.0.3 _______ 1.7 ________ 1.9 ________ 1.3 _______ 1 _ _
515m 26 17 7
Averages 372** 17** 22***

 

 

* This. form was used for data collected from be six individual
food services.
** Summer session data included in these averages.
*** Average for fall, winter, and spring terms only.

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Fringe benefit data sheet No. 2--Yakeley Hall Food Service*
(July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953)
Direct Fringe Benefits
Payroll Food Labor Work-
Period Serv1ce Payroll Sick men's
Income Vacations Holidays Com-
Leaves
pensa-
tion
July 11 $ 2,106.54 $ 270.00 $ 184.57 $ 137.50 $ 38.40
25 $ 10,028.50 1,913.90 57.23 11.45 114.44 90.00
Aug. 8 2,049.90 226.71 28.64 40.00
22 10,288.10 1,951.35 262.28 9.68
Sept. 5 1,199.61 818.54 24.05
_____19____2.644.zi____3_72._12_ __________ 3.5.42 _____________
Oct. 3 1,603.66 55.60
17 1,498.78 53.09
31 26,226.26 1,569.42 43.00
Nov. 14 1,546.49 27.64
28 24,223.97 1,582.01 172.13 33.12
Dec. 12 ________ 1 46.3933}. _________________ 16.1__6 ______
13.5.76.“ 137675.60 1,202.05 356.15 7 __
Jan 9 1,173.96 144.75 3.40
23 22,993.17 1,447.40 66.32
Feb 6 1,466.24 193.17
20 23,473.96 1,428.84 60.08
Mse__é_______-_____1_._3_3z._12 _________________ 155.04 ______
Mar. 20 21,260.57 1,509.92 40.40
April 3 1,318.36 18.72
17 24,598.68 1,634.24 46.40 21.96
May 1 1,594.64 24.16
15 1,581.04 86.08
29 25,248.39 1,596.24 6.80
June 12 1,612.64 77.52 25.52
J 1112—2- 6- - ' ”15,—3115.56 ' _ 371—50 .7371 ' _ — 3072—0“ " ‘ _1—4T8-8_ ‘ '— .3—51-0-8 ______
Totals $223,087.40 $39,093.02 $1,810.36 $1,120.80 $1,249.00 $168.40

 

 

 

 

 

 

j

 

 

 

 

I

* This form was used for data collected from the six individual food

services.

79

Table 3. Fringe benefit data sheet No. 3--Yakeley Hall Food Service*
(July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

J
—_

 

 

 

 

 

A Indirect
Payroll Time Rest Periods TOta1_
Period . Spent . Food Co st Operating
Expense
July 11 $87.77 $17.10- $104.81
25 79.94 20.00 99.74
Aug. 8 85.41 21.00 106.41
22 81.31 21.00 102.31
Sept. 5 49.98 12.00 61.98
_____19 15 80 7.00 22 80
Oct "3' ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 56-8—2 ——————— 1-6T0'0 ''''''' 8 2‘82 “““““““““
17 62 45 16.00 78 45
31 65 39 16.00 81 39 71 6%
Nov 14 64 44 16.00 80 44
28 65 92 10.80 76 72 62 5%
1222-17; _______ 6.7.85 _______ 13310.0 ______ 8 5.95 _________
Dec 26 50 09 8.50 7 58 5'?) _ <30 1%”
Jan 9 48 91 4.50 53 41
23 60 31 15.00 75 31 65 6%
Feb 6 61 09 16.00: 77 09
20 59 53 16.00 75 53 66 0%
Means. _______ 251.1 _______ 1.5.80 _______ 7 9.7.1. ____________
Mar 20 62.91 17.00 79 91 63 6%
April 3 54.93 10.20 65 13
17 68.09 18.00 86.09
May 1 66 44 17.00 83.44 62 2%
15 65 88 17.00 82 88
29 66 51 17.00 83 51 63 0%
Julie 12__ ___67.19 15_._30 _ 82 49 __ __
June-26 __-_ 478728 ““““““““ 8 50 ““““““ 5 6:78 """""" '76 80/3 7
Totals t $2,014.69

 

 

 

 

 

 

*This form was used for data collected from the six individual
food services.

**Credit figure, which reduced the expense of employees' meals
to management.

***Total for fall, winter, and spring terms only.

80

Table 3 (Continue (1)

 

 

 

 

Fringe Benefits

 

 

Employees'
Meals Total Health
Check Laundry Uniforms Service
Com-
Deduc- Charges
tions puted
Cost
$29.52
34.85 $12.00 $10.00
36.90
36.90 15 00
18.45
________________-___§39________3399 ____________
8131 60 $24.34 26 65
12310 32.84 26 65
131 70 24.24 26 65 15 00
131 20 4.93 26 65
109 30 17.12491: 18 45 12 00 100
_1_3§_39 ______ 8.3 ;1_7_______39_7§ _________________________
48 20 56.23 14 35 15 00
76 00 35.86** 7 38
121 20 12.49 24 60 12 00
111 50 32.25 26 65
121.70 22.05 26 65 12 00
305.02 _____ Z 3.463----__.Zé_69_______-__________“13.5.9-
135.20 _ 12 22 28 70 12 00
108.40 21.89** 17.22 78.18 5.00
135.90 16.99 30.75 12.00 i
143.30 .88 28.70 4.00
134.20 11.83 28.70
140.60 5.43 28.70 15.00
3:19.40 ______ 1 2:33}..- __ _ _ _ 3.5. .32 ________________________
8100 48.28 14 35 12 00

 

 

$317.47*** i $647.80 $234.18 $25.50

 

 

 

 

81

Table 4. Summary No. l, fringe benefit data—-women's residence
hall food services (July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

 

 

 

‘

 

 

 

—:—:

Average Number of Persons Served

 

 

Do rmitory Male

Census Employees Student Total

Workers

Campbell 388 17 31 436
Gilchrist 273 19 15 307
Landon 421 16 32 469
Mayo 319 13 26 358
Williams 332 15 29 376
Yakeley 372 17 22 411

 

Totals 2,305 97 155 2,557

 

 

l

 

 

82'

Table 5. Summary No. 2, fringe benefit data—-women's residence
hall food services (July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

 

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M

 

 

 

 

Dormitory Food Service Income Labor Payroll
Campbell $ 190,139.56 $ 35,135.77
Gilchrist 131,256.67 35,786.86
Landon 207,261.18 34,028.93
Mayo 157,078.59 26,820.55
Williams 166,029.39 30,318.02
Yakeley 223,087.40 39,093.02

 

Totals $1,074,852.79 $201,183.15

 

 

 

 

83

Table 6. Summary No. 3, fringe benefit data——women's residence
hall food services (July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

 

v__'__ m :—:_
- m -_

Direct F ringe Benefits

 

 

 

Dormitory , , Sick Workmen's
Vacations Holidays Leaves Compensation

Campbell $1,285.16 35 963.47 $ 772.69

Gilchrist 1,557.47 1,017.77 964.13 $115.72
Landon 1,398.26 939.21 1,252.60

Mayo 1,098.19 742.60 977.28 79.56
Williams 1,192.25 812.51 880.33

Yakeley 1,810.36 1,120.80 1,249.00 ' 168.40
Totals $8,801.05 $5,596.36 $6,096.03 $363.68

 

 

‘—;__

 

 

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Summary No. 4, fringe benefit data--women's residence
hall food services (July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).
Indirect Fringe Benefits
. E _
Dormitory Rest m Uniforms Health
, ployees' Laundry , Servme
Pe r1ods ' Furnished

Meals Charges

Campbell $1,646.27 $ 410.21 $ 472.27 $ 219.60 $ 5.00
Gilchrist 1,705.74 418.49 620.06 244.80 23.50
Landon 1,571.32 326.83 481.27 224.85 6.00
Mayo 1,280.86 291.53 496.11 147.60 61.00
Williams 1,433.29 430.73 321.90 236.10 27.50
Yakeley 2,014.69 317.47 647.80 234.18 25.50
Totals $9,652.17 $2,195.26 $3,039.41 $1,307.13 $148.50

6L
Li

85

Table 8. Direct fringe benefits, expressed as percentages of annual
cost of fringe benefits (July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

 

r
r

 

Percentage of
Amount Annual Cost of
Fringe Benefits

Direct
Fringe Benefits

 

Vacations $ 8,801.05 23.66%
Sick leaves 6,096.03 1 16.39%
Holidays 5,596.36 15.04%
Workmen's

compensation 363.68 0.98%

 

Totals $20,857.12 56.07%

 

 

 

w

86

Table 9. Indirect fringe benefits, expressed as percentages of annual
cost of fringe benefits (July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953).

 

 

Percentage of
Amount Annual Cost of
Fringe Benefits

Indirect
Fringe Benefits

 

Rest periods $ 9,652.17 25.95%
Laundry . 3,0 39.41 8.17%
Meals 2,195.26 5.90%
Uniforms 1,307.13 3.51%

Health se rvic e
charges 148.50 0.40%

 

Totals $16,342.47 43.93%

 

 

93 03

 

um lull mum: 1111111111 1,111 um