Library Collections: Document: Full Text

This group, together with 652 "A" workers, gave us a group of 1304 workers to study. We can assume that this is a legitimate random sampling of the total Works' population in that the "A-VD" cases were distributed among the nine branches of the Kearny Works in the same proportion that the total on roll of each branch bears to the Works as a whole.

An analysis was made of those whose relations with the Company were severed. This disclosed the following facts: 7.9% more "A" cases resigned than "A-VD's."

2.6% less "A" cases were laid off due to lack of work than the "A-VD's."

7.4% more "A" cases were relieved because they were not suited to type of work.

The remaining part of this study was made by securing all available information on 230 employees; that is to say, 115 original pairs of "A-VD's" and "A's." In some cases where an "A" and an "A-VD" had been placed at the same time, on the same job, and in the same department, one of the two, for some reason, had been transferred or had left the Company. All such cases were eliminated. In other words, the, 115 pairs of employees represent comparable data in all respects, even to the extent of the man-hours exposure on the same job.

The information used in the study was obtained from the following sources:

1. Payroll records
2. Hospital records
3. Departmental records

and covered such topics as:

1. Sickness
2. Accidents
3. Personal absences
4. Income
5. Production
6. Turnover
7. Cost of special placement service.

SICKNESS -- Over a period of the year, there were 7% more of the "A" cases as compared with the "A-VD's," absent on account of sickness.

ACCIDENTS -- 5.6 % more of the "A" cases had accidents than did the "A-VD's." (None of the 230 people had a lost-time accident.)

PERSONAL ABSENCES -- 9.5 % more of the "A-VD's" than the "A's" were absent on account of personal reasons. (Personal absences are for such reasons as personal business, marriage, funerals, etc.)

INCOME - The "A-VD" weekly rated employees showed an average of 4.6% increase in earnings as against 4% for the "A's."

The "A-VD" hourly rated employees showed an average of 8 % increase in earnings as compared to 9.9 % for the "A" hourly rated employees.

(The difference in the rate of increase between the hourly and weekly rated employees is probably accounted for by the fact that the average hourly rate as of August 8, 1930, shows actual earnings, while the rate of pay at time of employment shows only the base rate.)

PRODUCTION-Since the cases were spread over many types of work and since many of the jobs were such that objective measurement of success was quite difficult, if not impossible, all that can be said is that the supervisors reported the "A-VD's," in most cases, to be equal to any employees in their departments. Many cases have been reported among the "A-VD's" as exceptionally outstanding in production.

TURNOVER - At the end of the trial period from August 8, 1929, to August 8, 1930, there were 307 "A-VD" and 217 "A" employees still on roll. The unusually large turnover was due to the reduction in the number of short service employees made necessary because of the current economic depression.

COST OF SPCIAL PLACEMENT SERVICE -- One relatively unfavorable factor in this work is the additional cost involved in the hiring of "A-VD" employees. To eliminate this additional expense, a routine has been devised whereby the regular employment interviewers may do also the special interviewing necessary for the acceptance of "A-VD's." This plan reduces the salary cost of hiring "A-VD" employees to the same amount as for a normal employee through the elimination of the services of the rehabilitation assistant in this work. There will still be some additional expense in the "A-VD" work, however, due to the periodic follow-ups to assure a suitable placement. The salary cost of an investigator, together with the expense incidental to the progress reports, should constitute the only additional outlay hereafter. No statistics are available showing how many vocationally defective people there are in our industrial community. Since we do not give physical examinations to applicants until they have been considered suitable by the interviewers and the foreman, it is impossible to state that we have taken an actual cross section of the local population. We can state, however, that we have placed 58% of those classified by the medical examiner as "A-VD," that is, physically sound but having some vocational defect. This group of "A-VD's" was employed not because they possessed vocational defects but because they were qualified to perform a useful service in the Company. It is also impossible to state just how many vocationally handicapped employees can be assimilated in industry. Too many employees of this class would tend to develop an inflexibility in an organization's personnel. In conclusion, based upon the data presented thus far in this paper, we are of the opinion that there is no real reason why people possessing certain vocational defects should not be employed by large industrial concerns.