who were struck by falling, sliding, or flying objects. One-third of these, or 12 percent of the total, resulted from foreign bodies lodging in eyes. While it is doubtful that all of these eye injuries could have been avoided by the wearing of goggles or similar protective devices, there is no excuse for the "welder's flash" cases, which accounted for 9 percent of the total disabling injuries. In most of these cases the welders themselves were the victims.

Fully 20 percent of all injuries resulted from falls, nearly evenly divided between falls on the same level and falls to a different level. Slips and overexertion, usually caused by faulty methods of lifting heavy objects and resulting in strains and hernias, accounted for another 15 percent. In fact, fully 21 percent of all injuries were sprains or strains, and nearly 7 percent were hernias. Sprains and strains are the outstanding type of injury reported.

Second in importance are burns and scalds (which include the "welder's flash" cases). This group accounts for nearly 13 percent of all disabling injuries. More than two-thirds of the burn injuries affected eyes; the remaining cases involved principally arms and hands.

The percentage of fractures appears to be high in shipbuilding, with 12 percent of all disabilities in this category. Fully half of these injuries were to feet and toes. Most of these injuries could have been prevented by the wearing of safety shoes.

UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS

In about one-third of the reported injuries, no unsafe working conditions were apparent. In the remaining two-thirds of the cases, unsafe dress or apparel could be identified as the most frequently recurring unsafe working condition, accounting for over a third of the cases in which unsafe conditions were indicated. Outstanding was the lack of protection through goggles.

There is considerable difference of opinion among safety engineers in the shipbuilding industry as to whether much can be done about the congestion of materials and equipment which is characteristic of the industry. The fact remains, however, that nearly a quarter of all injuries in which unsafe working conditions were involved could be traced back directly to hazardous arrangements and procedures. Defective tools and equipment accounted for another 10 percent.

UNSAFE ACTS

Unsafe work practices were indicated in about 90 percent of the reported injuries.

Failure to wear safety attire was easily the outstanding unsafe practice, accounting for about 26 percent of all injuries in which unsafe practices were involved. In nearly half of these cases the unsafe act consisted in the failure to wear goggles.

Using unsafe equipment, or using equipment unsafely, accounted for another 18 percent of unsafe-act cases. Unsafe loading or placing of materials was indicated in 17 percent of the cases.

Taking unsafe positions or unsafe postures was the fourth important unsafe act, charged with nearly 15 percent of the cases. Most frequently this practice resulted in strains or hernias. In numerous cases this practice resulted in falls, most of them to different levels.

Summary

THERE is no known cure-all which will prevent workers from being away from their jobs. Numerous conditions exist which make some absences unpreventable. In other cases, obvious reasons or specific causes cannot be singled out and the problem is one of worker morale. Absenteeism is an individual plant condition, and effective control over this illness of industry must be approached first by an accurate diagnosis of the facts defining the problem; and second, by the application of remedial measures designed to effect a partial or complete cure. First steps forward are the adoption of a uniform definition of absenteeism by industrial establishments and the maintenance of absence records that lend themselves to analysis. Experiences of other plants or industries in absence analysis and control are also helpful to individual companies in assisting them to apply the most effective remedies.

Because of wide variations in the extent of absenteeism reported by various airframe plants, the Bureau of Labor Statistics asked company officials to comment on methods of recording absenteeism and steps taken to determine causes. Replies received indicated clearly that failure to adhere to a uniform definition of absenteeism and lack of uniformity in maintenance of absence records were responsible for some of the differences in absence rates reported by airframe establishments. Many plants submitted, in addition, detailed reports on absence-control systems in operation.

Maintenance of company-operated medical units, improvement of plant facilities, and carefully planned work schedules are methods being utilized to curtail absences caused by illness and injury. Arrangements by companies, transit agencies, and local communities to provide adequate commuting facilities may help in removing transportation difficulties. Employers, communities, and the Federal Government can cooperate in alleviating critical housing shortages and subnormal living conditions which contribute to absenteeism. For situations arising from poor morale among workers, several kinds of publicity and morale-building campaigns have been used, as well as the establishment of machinery for handling employee job problems and supervisor relationships. Some companies have also provided recreational and entertainment facilities for their workers. As a final resort, certain disciplinary measures have been used when other means of reducing absences have proved ineffective, but such measures should be used only with caution.

Scope of Study

Letters were written by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to 34 major airframe plants which had been reporting data on absenteeism to the Army Air Forces since January 1943. The following questions were submitted to these plants:

(1) What is your definition of absenteeism? Do you include in absenteeism time lost due to tardiness, part-day absences, vacations, and authorized days off? 1 Prepared in the Bureau's Division of Construction and Public Employment, by Jack Tourin.

(2) Do you maintain a record of absenteeism by causes? How do you establish the causes of absenteeism? Do you feel that your method of establishing absenteeism causes gives accurate results?

(3) Have you analyzed absenteeism to determine the proportion that is due to "repeaters" and the extent to which it is general among workers?

In addition, comments were requested on methods of reducing absenteeism which had proved effective in individual plants. The replies received from the 29 reporting companies are here summarized.

Definition of Absenteeism

The definition of absenteeism as supplied to airframe plants for reporting purposes was as follows:

An employee is considered as an "absentee" who does not report for work during the entire period of any shift on which he is scheduled to work. Include lost time through absence for a whole shift without permission and through absence for a whole shift due to industrial and nonindustrial sickness or accidents. Do not include time lost due to tardiness or to officially granted vacation or leave (other than sick leave, which should be included) or to lay-offs; nor time lost for a partial shift for any cause.

Only 7 of the 29 plants from which replies were received were following this definition strictly. Sixteen plants indicated that they did not segregate authorized days off in reporting time lost from absenteeism. Seven plants included in their computations man-hours lost through vacations. Part-day absences were also included by 7 plants, and 4 counted time lost from tardiness as absenteeism. Greater uniformity in reporting was in prospect, however, since a number of plants which were reorganizing their absence-control systems stated that authorized absences would henceforth be excluded from the calculations of man-hours lost. In other plants these figures were recorded separately and apparently could be segregated from total man-hours lost without great difficulty.

Stated Causes of Absenteeism

A number of plants indicated that they analyzed causes of absenteeism and maintained and tabulated absenteeism records on a plantwide basis. Other plants stated that no regular records of absenteeism by cause were maintained. Several companies reported that although no plant-wide analysis was made, information on causes of absenteeism was kept on individual employee records. In general, almost all reporting plants stated that absence-control programs were being instituted or revised to include detailed analysis of causes.

Causes most frequently recorded were as follows:

1. Illness and injury (industrial or personal).

2. Personal reasons.

3. Transportation.

4. Family difficulties.

5. Miscellaneous, or unknown reasons (or no report).

A large variety of causes was itemized in detail and included such factors as vacations, authorized leaves and lay-offs, which under the specified definition of absenteeism should have been excluded. Among specific reasons given were home responsibilities, care of children, shopping, housing, rationing, selective service, necessity to obtain professional services, jury duty, bad weather, observance of religious

holiday, and lost badges and credentials. A number of companies classified all causes as either excused or unexcused (or authorized or unauthorized) and all reasons in the latter group were placed in an A. W. O. L. (absence without leave) category.

There appeared to be divergence of opinion as to the general reliability of these results. One plant estimated only a 5-percent inaccuracy in its figures, but others frankly stated that the human element involved in determining causes was a limitation on the reliability of any cause analysis. Most establishments felt that the more exhaustive absence-control systems they were inaugurating would provide for greater accuracy in classifying causes.

Telephone calls or letters received from absentees and written absence reports submitted by returning absentees were the procedures for establishing causes.

Most companies operating absence-control systems provided for telephone service to their absence units or personnel offices and required employees unable to report for work to inform their supervisors immediately. In some instances letters of explanation were considered satisfactory. Almost every plant with an established absence unit required the employee to complete an absence report upon returning to work, with the cause of the absence specifically stated. The following procedures for verifying causes were reported: (a) Interview of returning absentee by company official. (b) Physical examination by company medical department. (c) Home visit by company nurse.

(d) Home visit by company field representative.

(e) Review and analysis by absence-control unit.

In many plants before an absentee was permitted to return to work, he was required to report for an interview. This interview was conducted by the company's personnel office or by the employee's department head, job foreman, or direct supervisor. At this time, the reason for his absence had to be substantiated to avoid disciplinary action. In a number of plants if the employee had specified illness as the cause of absence, he was required to report for a medical examination at the company dispensary or first-aid unit and obtain clearance from a physician. Many companies had staffs of field representatives and visiting nurses to investigate absenteeism cases by visits to the employee's home. Some plants provided for investigation of all absentees whereas others merely conducted spot checks of special cases. Generally, nurses followed up on illness claims, and field representatives investigated other causes. A review and analysis of all cases was usually made by absence units in plants, to establish causes of absenteeism for inclusion in plant-wide tabulations.

Availability of Data on Chronic Absentees

Few companies reported that data on "repeaters" were available regularly, although spot checks had been made in several plants. It should be observed that the determination of chronic absenteesim requires study over a considerable period of time. A statement that "20 percent of the employees are responsible for 50 percent of the lost time" is useful only if the period covered by the statement is given. For example, if only 1 day were covered, it might be said that "6 percent of the employees caused 100 percent of the lost time." The amount of time loss attributed to any stated proportion of all em

ployees will tend to decline as the period covered by the study increases. One large plant reported that 68.8 percent of its employees accounted for 100 percent of all absences during a 10-week period. This is, of course, another way of saying that during the period 31.2 percent of the employees were not absent at any time.

Studies of "repeat" absenteeism should also be distinguished from studies of the frequency with which absences of different duration occur. Repeated absence refers to the number of occasions on which an employee did not check in for work. The duration of an absence refers to the length of time that a worker remained away from his job. These latter studies can be made covering a relatively short period of time. For example, a survey in one large plant revealed that during a recent month 40 percent of all absences were of 1 day's duration only. Data of this type can be helpful in revealing the effectiveness of absence-control programs with respect to preventable short-term absences. Many companies were of the opinion that their new absence-control systems would provide for more accurate data in studying repeated absenteeism.

Use of Incentive Systems and Disciplinary Measures

It appeared that disciplinary measures were more widely used than incentive systems as means of checking absenteeism. Many companies indicated that chronic offenders were discharged for unauthorized or unexcused absences. "Visual reprimands" and "flag warnings" inserted in time-card racks were employed by other plants as a means of forewarning employees of disciplinary action. One large establishment which had experimented with this type of warning reported that it was being curtailed because it seemed to arouse resentment on the part of the employee. Poster and bulletin campaigns prevailed as methods of promoting awareness among employees of the serious nature of absenteeism. Interdepartmental competition was used by a number of plants to encourage better attendance, and recognition of outstanding groups was awarded by displaying banners, score boards, graphs, charts, etc. One plant reported that it had just inaugurated a lottery plan for awards to departments with perfect attendance records (no A. W. O. L. absenteeism). Prizes of war bonds and stamps were to be given to employees in these departments who were successful in the lottery drawing.

Suggested Methods of Controlling Absenteeism

The problem of reducing absenteeism can be approached first, by the determination of the facts that define the problem; and second, by the adoption of measures designed to correct the causes of absenteeism as disclosed by the records. To facilitate more extensive use of such techniques a list of records and remedies has been compiled.

Section I itemizes records which have been found useful in actual plant experience. It is not expected that every establishment would necessarily maintain all records listed. Some, such as attendance and sex records, are already kept by many companies. Others could be added if the additional information were considered valuable. Section II summarizes remedies which have been found helpful in reducing absenteeism and also in improving the morale of workers generally. The suggested remedies are arranged according to major causes of absenteeism and reveal numerous methods which have been tried.