missions and rehabilitation agencies, and went on record as favoring dependency allowances in workmen's compensation, with safeguards. Strengthening State Labor Departments The Conference recommended that the administration of all labor laws in each State be centralized in a State labor department, such legislation to include at least workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, and health or disability insurance; safety and health, including industrial hygiene; wage and hour standards (and related fields); child labor and youth employment; women in industry; wage payments; official apprenticeship programs; public (and private) employment agencies; machinery for the handling of industrial disputes, such as State mediation and voluntary arbitration boards and State labor relations boards; and bureaus of labor statistics. The Conference stressed the responsibility of State departments of labor to acquaint the public with their work and problems, through appropriate media, and urged greater cooperation and coordination of the functions of the Federal and State departments of labor. Wages and Hours Under Federal fair labor standards, the Conference urged a minimum rate of at least 75 cents an hour as early as possible, in face of sharply rising current living costs. It also favored an amendment to remove the statutory ceiling on industry-committee recommendations for wage rates, advocated the retention of the basic overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (time and a half after 40 hours), and suggested a similar standard to apply after 8 hours in 24. The Conference proposed the extension of coverage to workers affecting commerce, and the elimination or narrowing of some currently exempted groups. A 5-year statute of limitation and extension of power to the Wage and Hour Division to help workers collect wages due under the act were also advocated. As to State minimum wage legislation, the Conference recommended a statutory rate of at least 75 cents an hour, applicable to both men and women, with overtime pay of time and a half after 8 hours in 24 and after 40 a week, with provision for wage boards with authority to increa statutory rate in individual industries and broad standards of working conditions. T should prohibit discrimination on the basis sex, or race in the fixing of minimum wa A State standard urged for all workers basic 8-hour day and a basic 40-hour with time and a half after 8 hours in 24 and 40 hours a week. For women's work, the ference continued its support of a legal lim hours a day and 48 a week, with overtime 40 hours a week. Equal pay for women, State laws for wag ment and collection, and elimination of hom through legislation were also recommended Child Labor and Youth Employment Recommendations for basic standards of child labor legislation, covering entrance hours, night work, school attendance, haza occupations, and workmen's compensation adopted, and the importance of adequate per in laws stressed. The Conference endorsed strengthening extending the coverage of the child labor prov of the Fair Labor Standards Act under the state commerce powers, and specifically r mended the inclusion of a direct prohibition employment of children under the minimu set by the act. The serious problems of migratory child in industralized agriculture were noted. The ference urged that this employment be reg by State child labor laws, with the minimu as set forth in the State basic standards ad presently by the Conference. Federal prote including coverage under the Fair Labor Stan Act, was also advocated, and recommendatio made to improve educational facilities ava to migrant children. State Industrial Relations For purposes of cooperation, the Confe urged upon both management and labor, part tion in special training for their representati fundamental labor fields, as such programs held to afford both groups full opportuni develop genuine collective bargaining wi recourse to State agencies. State labor de ments were urged to take leadership in helping to develop these programs. It was proposed that, where necessary, the States be encouraged to provide facilities for the peaceful settlement of labor disputes by mediation, conciliation, and voluntary arbitration. The Conference urged the elimination of any existing duplication and overlapping of the functions of State and Federal services and a closer coordination of activities of the two groups of services. The Conference called for the repeal of all State legislation detrimental to the rights of organized workers and opposed the further enactment of this type of State law.3 For a fuller account of the Conference, see Résumé of Proceedings of Fourteenth National Conference on Labor Legislation, 1947 (Bulletin No. Division 92, of Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor), Washington. Work Performance of Physically Impaired Workers 1 WORKERS WITH SERIOUS physical impairments, who are placed so as to stress what they can do rather than emphasize what they cannot do, are every bit as desirable as workers without such impairments. It is not implied, of course, that every impaired worker is a desirable employee. But neither is every unimpaired worker a good worker. The important point is that the impairment in itself does not make the impaired person a poorer worker. These conclusions were reached from a study of the records of 109 plants employing such workers, made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with the financial aid of the Veterans Administration. An advisory committee assisted in the selection for study of 10 types of serious physical impairments-those sufficiently severe to create serious employment difficulties, and excluding, within each type, the lesser impairments. The 10 selected types of impairments were orthopedic, vision, hearing, hernia, cardiac, ex-tuberculous, peptic ulcer, diabetic, epileptic, and multiple (i. e., combinations of any two of these). 1 Prepared by M. D. Kossoris and H. S. Hammond, of the Bureau's Industrial Hazards Division. This article summarizes the material to be published in the Bureau's Bulletin No. 923, The Performance of Physically Impaired Workers in Manufacturing Industries. 771086-48 -3 Study of a large number of workers from industry's own records was considered necessary in order to permit valid conclusions for individual types of impairments. Furthermore, the survey was so organized that the difference between impaired and unimpaired workers was focused solely on the existence of the impairments. Essentially alike in every other respect, it was sought to find how the impaired worker compared with one or more unimpaired workers doing the same kind of job in the same plant, under identical conditions. During the survey, a period of nearly 2 years, the performance of 11,0-8 impaired workers was matched with that of 18,258 unimpaired workers. Both industries and the geographic distribution of the plants varied widely. Scientific sampling to obtain data for separate industries was not possible, owing to lack of information on the distribution of impaired workers by industry or by area. The most difficult problem was that of identifying impaired workers on a company pay roll. Only workers in plants having adequate medical records based on pre-employment physical examinations could be covered. A worker who was impaired (as defined in the study) was matched with one or more others who were not impaired and who were doing the same kind of job. An impaired worker who could not be matched with someone of his own approximate age and work experience in the same plant department was excluded from the survey. Nearly 58 percent of the impaired workers surveyed were engaged in processing of some kind, 15 percent were engaged in maintenance work, about 6 percent in inspecting and testing, over 4 percent in recording and control, nearly 9 percent in material moving, about 1 percent in supervision, and about 7 percent in custodial operations. Over 90 percent of the group were males-only a small fraction of these were veterans. Findings in Survey In summary, the comparative performances of the impaired workers and the unimpaired workers matched with them follow: (1) As a group, impaired workers were as efficient as unimpaired workers. According to the available individual output records for both groups, the measure of efficiency was 101 for the impaired as against 100 for the unimpaired. The difference is not sufficiently large to be significant, but nevertheless it shows that, as a group, the impaired workers held their own on the production line. (2) Impaired workers lost slightly more time through absenteeism than unimpaired workers. Each impaired worker averaged 3.8 days of lost time per 100 scheduled workdays as against 3.4 days for the unimpaired. The difference amounts to only 1 full day in 250, or 1 more day lost per year per impaired worker. Furthermore, no significant differences existed between the two groups as to the reasons for absences. (3) The impaired worker was found to be as safe a worker as his unimpaired co-workers. In terms of minor injuries which required only first aid, the injury frequency rates per 10,000 exposure-hours were identical for the two groups— 9.9. About half of each group experienced no injuries at all during the period studied. Analysis of the types of injuries emphasized further the similarity of the two groups. The injuries were clearly related to the job hazards and were not affected by the presence of impair ments. About equal severity in the injuries was indicated by the fact that each group averaged slightly less than one redressing per injury. (4) The record for disabling injuries—i. e., injuries that result in death, permanent impairment, or absence from work for at least 1 full day-was better for the impaired than for the other workers. Whereas the unimpaired group averaged 9.5 such injuries per million hours worked, the impaired group averaged only 8.9. They also averaged a slightly lower number of days lost per injury. Against 14.9 days for the unimpaired group, the impaired workers averaged 14.5 days. (5) In no instance had an impaired worker suffered another permanent work injury sufficiently severe to place him in the group of permanently and totally disabled. However, that was not surprising, as the number of such cases in important industrial States, such as New York and Wisconsin, averaged not more than about 5 per year over a long period. (6) No disabling injury to an impaired worker could be traced to his impairment. Nor were any cases found in which the impairment caused an injury to a fellow worker. Inquiries as to the experiences of other impaired workers e from the survey group led to the same con the impairments did not cause workers hazards to themselves or to fellow workers (7) The findings as to the frequency wit workers used plant medical facilities for of illness or discomfort not related to empl still further emphasized the similarity b the impaired and unimpaired groups. Th of such visits varied widely between pla pending on facilities available and the de which workers felt free to use them. Both averaged about the same rate of such v each plant. (8) The most important difference betw two groups was found in the quit rate (i. number of voluntary quits per 100 wor the pay roll). During a 6-month period a completion of the plant studies, the Burea in studying labor turn-over that the i workers' quit rate was 3.6 compared with the able-bodied workers with whom the matched. This finding is in sharp contrast to t earlier and more restricted surveys. It is ally accepted that impaired workers are than others because they have greater d in finding jobs, and consequently are mor tant to give up those they have. The period studied may, however, acco this variation in findings. Much of the period-particularly the 6 months of lab over follow-up-was in the last half of 194 many plants were shifting back to normal tion routines. It is most likely that an accurate app the higher quit rate involves several other factors here listed, and perhaps more. first time, many impaired workers had a to acquire salable skills during their wart ployment, when management-contrary t practice was glad to hire them. Havi skills, these workers now had somethin could sell in return for better jobs. Stil must have anticipated their imminent and shifted to jobs promising longer tenu such jobs were still available. Finally, it all unlikely that some impaired workers the labor market during the war with no i of remaining after the war ended. Although these considerations indicate quit rates accurately reflect the greater instability of the impaired workers during the period studied, experience probably would be quite different in more normal periods. Significance of the Survey Several other important conclusions were brought out in the survey, in addition to those showing definitely that sensibly placed impaired workers are as good as unimpaired workers at the same jobs. (1) Discrimination against the seriously impaired worker at the employment office, if his impairment is visible or is established either by medical examination or by his own admission, has never been a secret. While management readily subscribes to the doctrine that, to get the best results from a worker he must be placed in the job he is best equipped to do, it frequently refuses to apply the same thinking to the seriously impaired worker. Although the impaired worker cannot be as readily shifted about as the unimpaired worker, he can be employed on many jobs which he can do well, and which do not require the performance abilities he lacks. For example, a one-legged person, or cardiac, or ex-tubercular, or hernia case can work as well at most bench operations as any able-bodied person. The requirement that, regardless of the work to be performed, an applicant be free of physical defects before he will be hired is unreasonable. Impaired workers are employed in plants that, as a matter of policy, would not hire workers with identical impairments. These workers had acquired their disabilities after they had entered the company. The fact that they were fully satisfactory did not, however, lead plant management or medical directors to modify their exclusion policies. Furthermore, these exclusion policies varied. widely between plants. For example, one plant refused to hire anyone with a hernia; another in the very same industry did not hesitate to hire workers with hernias, but refused to hire cardiacs. (2) The survey further indicates the great need for rehabilitation-the acquiring of a definite skill by an impaired worker. As between two unskilled workers, one of whom is impaired, the hiring preference invariably tends to the able bodied. He offers less of a problem. But the impaired worker with a skill to sell is apt to get the preference over a lesser skilled able-bodied applicant. (3) The fear of higher cost of workmen's compensation for impaired workers appears to be largely unfounded, as the present study clearly demonstrates. Problems arise only when new permanent impairments are imposed upon existing impairments. When ultimate disabilities reach permanent total incapacity (such as the loss or complete loss of the use of both hands, or arms, or legs, or feet, or eyes, or any combination of these such as a hand and an eye), they are handled under the second-injury funds. About two-thirds of the States have such funds, under which the employer is responsible only for the cost of the second injury; the State fund compensates the worker for the difference between this amount and the amount due the worker for permanent total disability. Such cases are few, however, as indicated by the experiences in New York, Wisconsin, and several other States for which reliable statistics are available on this point. Such second permanent impairments are more serious when the resulting disability is a higher degree of permanent impairment, but short of total disability. For example, a worker who previously lost an arm, suffers a 50-percent loss of vision of an eye, which may disable him to continue his employment in the plant in which he suffered the eye injury. He may also have serious difficulty in finding a new job, but he is entitled to compensation only for the partial impairment of vision. Wisconsin and New York alone have attempted to compensate for such increases in degree of permanent incapacity. This consideration does not, however, supply a valid reason for employer discrimination against an impaired worker, but it does point to a serious inadequacy of existing workmen's compensation legislation from the workers' point of view. (4) Finally, there is the question as to whether industry will solve the problem of the impaired worker on its own initiative. Industry's own records indicate that even seriously impaired workers, when properly placed, are capable of holding their own with their unimpaired fellow workers on a purely competitive basis. Medical Service Plans Under Collective Bargaining1 UNIONS, IN NEGOTIATING HEALTH PROGRAMS for inclusion in agreements, have adopted two general approaches. One is the cash benefit plan, under which visits to doctors, hospitalization, maternity, and surgical costs are provided through employer pay-roll contributions (premium payments) to a commercial or union-owned insurance carrier.2 The other is the medical service plan, under which medical care is provided through a health center supported by employer pay-roll contributions at little or no cost to the workers. Although the medical service plan covers relatively few workers compared with the cash benefit type, the comprehensive medical care sought for low income groups through such voluntary, private organizations merits particular attention. In the early part of 1947, representatives of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the United States Public Health Service studied two comparable medical service plans established through collective bargaining: The Labor Health Institute in St. Louis and the Union Health Center in Philadelphia. Origins of the Plans Both medical service plans were started in the war years. Favorable business conditions, part of operating expenditures offset through tax deductions, and wage stabilization regulations, which made direct wage increases difficult to obtain, stimulated the establishment of the health centers. The Philadelphia Union Health Center was established in March 1943, under the terms of an agreement between the Philadelphia Waist and Dress Manufacturers' Association and the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (AFL) acting through the Philadelphia Joint Board Waist and Dressmakers' Union. This was the first ILGWU plan to be established under collective bargaining, the earlier centers having been maintained by the union through dues and assessments.3 Funds to 1 Prepared by Jonas Silver formerly of the Bureau's Industrial Relations Branch and Dr. Lee Janis, U. S. Public Health Service, under the direction of Abraham Weiss. 2 Some plans provide for contributions to a union administered fund. The ILGWU founded the first union health center in New York in 1911. For a description of this plan, see Monthly Labor Review, February 1947 (p. 201). operate the new venture were obtaine employers' contributions of 31⁄2 percent, be in June 1942, and raised to 6 percent i including unemployment benefits. A sick and vacation fund was also financed from contributions." Unlike the ILGWU in Philadelphia, Louis Board of the United Retail and WI Union (CIO) had no model health center pr ly set up by the union. The local union had been members of a consumer group association, organized by a physician wh became the medical director of the Labor Institute, and they were convinced that no ance package" could meet the health need: workers. The employers were not so easi vinced, however. Although conferences proposed medical service plan were held i agreements covering the projected Labor Institute were not obtained until the s and fall of 1945. For the first few month existence, the new health center was cor from the office of its medical director, large the aid of a loan later repaid to the unio November 1945, sufficient funds were accur from the employer pay-roll contributions percent to enable the Labor Health In to move into its own quarters in a downtow building. 6 Membership and Eligibility The Philadelphia program serves about workers, of whom 10,000 are in dressmaki 5,000 in knit goods, cloaks, raincoats, deps stores, and south New Jersey dress firms nondressmakers' locals have their own agre providing for health insurance funds. Un isting arrangements they are not direct pants in the Union Health Center, but rei the health insurance fund of the Waist and makers' Joint Board on a fee-for-service b those members who avail themselves of the facilities." In 1945, average earnings in the Philadelphia ladies' garme were reported at $32 per week. The break-down is 2 percent for health center, hospitalizati and sickness, 2 percent for vacations, and 2 percent for une insurance and administrative costs. In 1946, average earnings in the companies covered by the St. 1 Health Institute were reported to be about $33 per week. 1 Members of nondressmaker locals report to their own locals fi are referred to the Union Health Center. |