Full text of Performance of Physically Impaired Workers in Manufacturing Industries : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 923

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

The Performance
o f Physically Impaired W orkers
in Manufacturing Industries

A Report prepared by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics
fo r the Veterans Administration

Bulletin No. 923
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics

V eterans A dministration,

Washington, D. C., November 28, 1947.
1. This study on the Performance of Physically Impaired Workers in Manu
facturing Industries has been prepared by the United States Department of
Labor at the request of, and with funds provided by, the Veterans Administration.
2. Authorization for making the study is contained in Public Law No. 16,
78th Congress, Section II, Part VII, Paragraph 9, which reads in part as follows:
9.

T he Administrator shall have the power * * * to make, or, as b y agreement with other

agency or institution, cause to be made studies, investigations, and reports inquiring into the
rehabilitation of disabled persons and the relative abilities, aptitudes, and capacities of the
several groups of the variously handicapped and as to how their potentialities can best be
developed and their services best utilized in gainful and suitable em ploym ent * * *.

Omar N . B radley,
General, U. S. A r m y ,
Administrator of Veterans Affairs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
L. B. SchweUenbach, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewan Clague, Commissioner

The Performance o f Physically Impaired W orkers
in Manufacturing Industries
A Report prepared by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics

fo r the Veterans Administration

Bulletin No. 923

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1948

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
U nited States D epartment of L abor,
B ureau of L abor Statistics,

Washington, D. C., November 28, 1947.
T he Secretary

L abor :

I have the honor to transmit a study on the performance of seriously physically
impaired workers in manufacturing industries.
The study was made possible through the financial assistance of the Veterans
Administration. The report was prepared in the Industrial Hazards Division by
Henry S. Hammond, assisted by Frances J. Montgomery and Norbert J. Prager.
The work was under the direction of Max D. Kossoris, Chief of the Industrial
Hazards Division.
This is the first comprehensive, objective survey conducted in this field in the
United States.
E wan Clague, Commissioner.
Hon. L . B . SCHWELLENBACH,
Secretary of Labor.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents , U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.

Price 55 cents

Foreword
Since the original compilation of this report late in 1947 much work has been
accomplished in liaison with the Veterans Administration in the final preparation
of this document for public use.
The January edition of the Monthly Labor Review published a digest of some
of the more pertinent findings of the study, as part of our effort to provide facts
for the private and governmental groups working for greater employment possi
bilities for handicapped men and women.
Since General Bradley has left the Veterans Administration, the same co
operative liaison has been carried on under the administration of Carl Gray. This
report is published for the information and education of the American people,
employers, employees, and consumers, veterans and nonveterans, men and
women, citizens all.
June 30, 1948

David A. Morse,
Acting Secretary of Labor

CONTENTS
Page

Introduction_____________________________________________________________________________________

The impaired worker in industry:

Summary of statistical findings___________________________________________________________

W ork performance_________________________________________________________________________

M obility of working force____________________________________________________________

Quality of work performance________________________________________________________

Absenteeism------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nondisabling injury experience______________________________________________________

Disabling injury experience----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Output relative________________________________________________________________________

Quit rate_______________________________________________________________________________

Composition of the survey group_________________________________________________________

Geographical coverage---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry coverage__________________________________________________________________________

Occupations of impaired workers_________________________________________________________

Placement practices-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hernia cases:
Summary of statistical findings___________________________________________________________

Composition of the survey group_________________________________________________________

Industry and occupational coverage______________________________________________________

Placement p ractices_______________________________________________________________________

W ork performance_________________________________________________________________________

Absenteeism___________________________________________________________________________

Nondisabling injury experience______________________________________________________

Disabling injury experience----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Output relative________________________________________________________________________

Quit rate------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cardiac cases:
Summary of statistical findings______________________________________________ .____________

Composition of the survey g r o u p ________________________________________________________

Industry and occupational coverage---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Placement practices-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

W ork performance_________________________________________________________________________
Absenteeism___________________________________________________________________________
Nondisabling injury experience----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39
39
40

Disabling injury experience__________________________________________________________

Output relative________________________________________________________________________

Quit rate------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T he vision cases:
Summary of statistical findings___________________________________________________________
Composition of the survey group--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43
43

Industry and occupational coverage______________________________________________________
Placement practices------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

45
51

W ork performance_________________________________________________________________________

Absenteeism___________________________________________________________________________

Nondisabling injury experience----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disabling injury experience----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Output relative-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quit rate-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The orthopedic cases:
Summary of statistical findings-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Composition of the survey group--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry and occupational coverage---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Placement practices________________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

VI
D.

The orthopedic cases — Continued
W ork performance___________________

Absenteeism_____________________

Nondisabling injury experience.

Disabling injury experience____

Output relative__________________

Quit rate_________________________

The hearing cases:
Summary of statistical findings_____

Industry and occupational coverage.

Placement practices__________________

W ork performance___________________

Absenteeism_____________________

Nondisabling injury experience.
Disabling injury experience____

81
82

Output relative__________________

Quit rate_________________________

The multiple impairment cases:
Summary of statistical findings_____

Composition of the survey group___

Industry and occupational coverage.

Placement practices__________________

W ork performance___________________

Absenteeism______________________

Nondisabling injury experience.

Disabling injury experience____

Output relative__________________

Quit rate_________________________

The ex-tuberculous cases:
Summary of statistical findings_____

Composition of the survey group___

Industry and occupational coverage.

Placement practices__________________

100
100
100
101
102

W ork performance___________________
Absenteeism_____________________
Nondisabling injury experience.
Disabling injury experience____
Output relative__________________
Quit rate_________________________

103
103

H . The peptic ulcer cases:
Summary of statistical findings_____

104

Composition of the survey group___

104

Industry and occupational coverage.

105

Placement practices__________________

106

W ork performance___________________

107

Absenteeism_____________________

107

Nondisabling injury experience.

107

Disabling injury experience____

109

Output relative__________________

109

Quit rate_________________________

109

I. The diabetic cases:

Composition of the survey group___

110
110

Industry and occupational coverage

111

Placement practices__________________

112

W ork performance___________________

112

Absenteeism _____________________

112

Summary of statistical findings_____

Nondisabling injury experience.

113

Disabling injury experience____

114

Output relative__________________

114

Quit rate_______ ______ ___________

114

CONTENTS
J.

VII

The epileptic cases:
Summary of statistical findings___________________________________________________________

115

Composition of the survey group_________________________________________________________

115

Industry and occupational coverage---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

115

Placement practices________________________________________________________________________

116

W ork performance_________________________________________________________________________

117

Absenteeism___________________________________________________________________________

117

Non disabling injury experience______________________________________________________

118

Disabling injury experience__________________________________________________________

118

Output relative_______________________________________________________________________

119

Quit rate______________________________________________________________________________

119

Appendix:

Scope and method of the s tu d y :_________________________________________________________

120

Definition of impaired worker_______________________________________________________

120

W ork performance factors studied__________________________________________________

121

Selection of plants____________________________________________________________________

122

Selection of survey group____________________________________________________________

122

Collection of the d ata________________________________________________________________

123

Processing of the d ata_______________________________________________________________

123

W eighting_____________________________________________________________________________

124

Presentation of the data_____________________________________________________________

124

Forms used in the survey:
Worksheet A — Employee record (Exhibit I ) _____________________________________

125

Worksheet B — Absenteeism (Exhibit I I ) _________________________________________

126

Worksheet C — Medical visits (Exhibit I I I ) ______________________________________

127

Worksheet D — Disabling accident record (Exhibit I V ) _________________________

128

Worksheet E — Occupational data (Exhibit V ) ___________________________________

128

Worksheet F — General information (Exhibit V I ) ________________________________

129

Worksheet G — Job separations (Exhibit V I I ) ____________________________________

132

133

B . M . tabulation schedule (Exhibit V I I I ) --------------------------------------------------------

The Performance o f Physically Impaired
Workers in Manufacturing Industries
Introduction
Has industry a place for the person with a serious
physical impairment? Is he a desirable employee?
Can he hold his own in competition with unimpaired
workers? The answers to these questions may well
determine whether the man with a serious physical
impairment shall take his place on the production
line or in the bread line.
No reliable estimates of the number of seriously
physically impaired persons, either in the population
or in the labor force, are available. On the basis of
fragmentary data, the number of persons of employ
able age who have disabilities serious enough to
create difficulty in finding gainful employment is
estimated at five or six millions. Each year additional
thousands incur permanent disabilities as the result
of illness or injury. In addition, approximately 2
million veterans who were disabled in the services
are or will be a part of the labor force.
Even in the absence of exact figures on the number
of physically impaired persons in the population, it
is clear that the total is appallingly large. The very
size of the group creates an economic problem of
serious proportions. As a practical matter, it is a
question of whether these persons shall be productive
members of their communities or whether they shall
be public charges.
The urgency of the problem is further emphasized
by the fact that legislation was proposed in the
seventy-ninth Congress to require that some propor
tion of each employer’s pay roll be made up of im
paired persons. This proposed legislation was
similar to a British law which has been in effect for
several years. Without attempting to evaluate the
merits of the British practice, legal compulsion may
not be a desirable solution in this country, because
the impaired workers might, to cite only one reason,
be stamped as an undesirable minority group in
capable of satisfactory work performance.

The purpose of the study upon which this report
is based was to obtain factual answers to the follow
ing basic questions: Will the impaired be able to keep
up with production schedules? Will they tend toward
excessive absenteeism? Will they display a proneness
toward work injury and thereby increase workmen’s
compensation insurance costs? Will they be stable
on the job or will they be short-term employees? The
most reliable answers to these questions, it was be
lieved, could be found by examining the performance
of impaired workers who had been employed in in
dustry and basing the answers on the facts revealed
by industry’s own records. The function performed
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was to assemble
and organize into usable form the data obtained
from many sources.
This report of the findings is presented in 11 parts,
of which the first gives a comparison of the work
performance of the whole survey group of impaired
and unimpaired workers. The 10 remaining parts
are arranged in order of the size of the survey group;
each of these contains the complete findings on the
performance of one of the specific impairment types
included in the study. Although this arrangement
inevitably led to some repetition, it was believed that
the material would be more useful in this form to
those persons whose work or interest is with a specific
kind of impairment. The methods used in this study
are described in the appendix (p. 120).
Acknowledgment is owed to the many persons
and agencies whose published work in this field
provided invaluable aid to the present study. The
wholehearted interest and cooperation extended by
the Veterans Administration, by the Veterans Em
ployment Service, and by many other interested
agencies — both private and governmental — played
an important part in the successful completion of this
work. The firms and the many plant officials who
1

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

contributed time and facilities in making the data
available to the Bureau’s field representatives were
extremely cooperative and provided many construc
tive suggestions and criticisms. Special acknowledg
ment is due an advisory committee composed of the
following members:
D r. Ira D . Scott
Director, Advisement and Guidance Service
Veterans Administration

M r. Eugene Taylor
Assistant Veterans’ Consultant
New York Times
D r. H . P. Dutton
Chairman, Research Committee
Society for the Advancement of M anagement
D r. Dean A . Clark
Medical Director
Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York

D r. R . B . Teachout
Chairman, Rating Schedule Board

D r. Rufus B . Crain

Veterans Administration

Assistant Medical Director
Eastm an Kodak Co.

Dr. H . Dwight Y ork
Special Assistant for Planning, Registration and Research
Service
Veterans Administration

D r. Thom as L . Shipman
W orks Physician, River W orks
General Electric Co.

M r. T ed F . Silvey

M a j. A . R . Cullimore

Reconversion Officer

President, Newark College of Engineering

Congress of Industrial Organizations
M r. M artin P. Durkin
General President
United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steamfitters

The contributions made by this committee were
invaluable, particularly in organizing and formulat
ing the study.

The Impaired Worker in Industry
Summary of Statistical Findings
The objective measures of work performance in
this report reflect the experience of about 11,000 im
paired and 18,000 matched unimpaired workers
subject to the same job incentives and exposed to the
same job hazards. These measures are based on data
taken from industry’s own records. Analysis of the
data shows conclusively that the physically impaired
person was not necessarily a handicapped worker.
When given reasonable job placement consideration
— that is, the individual’s abilities balanced against
the job requirements — the physically impaired
workers as a group were fully able to compete suc
cessfully with unimpaired workers similarly placed.
An examination of the work-performance data in
table 1 makes it apparent at once that the outstand
ing features of the comparison are the similarities

between the impaired and unimpaired workers.
Differences in the measures of work performance
between the two groups were fractional for the most
part, with the balance slightly in favor of the im
paired worker group: impaired workers produced at
a slightly better rate and had relatively fewer dis
abling work injuries than did unimpaired workers on
identical jobs. The two groups had identical fre
quency rates of nondisabling injuries, and average
rates of absenteeism showed only nominal differences.
Although the voluntary quit rate was higher for the
impaired group, it is questionable whether the differ
ence is large enough to be counted significant.
It was equally true of the impaired and the un
impaired workers that some made exceptionally good
records and that a few made very poor records. It
would be absurd to assume that the existence of a
severe physical impairment automatically makes the

T a b l e 1 . — W ork performance of workers with serious physical impairments, and of matched unimpaired workers
Disabling injury
Absenteeism
frequency
rate1

Group

Nondisabling
injury
frequency
rate2

Frequency
rate3

Time-lost
rate4

Average days
of disability5

Output
relative 6

Quit
rate7

Average performance
Total:
Impaired..... ............................... ..............................................
Unimpaired....................................... ......... ......... ...................

3.8
3.4

9.9
9.9

8.9
9.5

0.10
.11

14.5
14.9

101.0
100.0

3.6
2.6

Male:
Impaired________ _______ _________ ____________________
Unimpaired------------------------- ---------- ----------------------------

3.6
3.2

10.1
10.1

9.3
10.0

.11
.12

14.7
15.0

100.3
100.0

3.3
2.3

Female:
Impaired---------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --------Unimpaired------------------------------------------- ---------------------

6.4
6.5

7.0
6.9

2.5
1.3

.01
.01

6.0
6.3

103.3
100.0

6.9
5.3

Number of workers

Total:
Impaired
_
_
______________________
Unimpaired__________________________________________

11,028
18,258

10,858
18,001

10,973
18,202

10,973
18.202

895
1,404

5,217
8,783

Male:
Impaired
Unimpaired
Female:
Impaired
Unimpaired

_________________
________________

10,253
16,926

10,094
16,692

10,203
16,875

682
1,069

4,695
7,909

_
_

__________________
_ __ ___________

775
1,332

764
1,309

770
1,327

770
1.327

213
335

522
874

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
2 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
8 Number of injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
4 Number of days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.

6 Number of days of disability per disabling injury.
8 Percentage relationship of production efficiency of impaired to that of matched
unimpaired.
7 Number of voluntary quits per 100 employees in the survey group.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

individual a better worker. But the results of the
study indicate that the assumption that a physical
impairment makes a man a less efficient or a less de
pendable worker is equally unsound. Many charac
teristics of the individual (temperament, personality
traits, etc.) influence the quality of the work per
formance. These characteristics are possessed in the
same infinite variety and degree by impaired and
by unimpaired persons and undoubtedly influenced
individual performance, but these obviously are out
side the scope of this study. The factor under
scrutiny here is the effect of the physical impairment.
Based upon the record, it seems reasonable to con
clude that physical impairment did not produce an
adverse effect on either the quantity of work pro
duced or the quality of the work performance. No
matter how different these physically impaired
persons may have been in other respects, on the job
they were just another group of workers able to
meet their unimpaired fellow workers on an equal
competitive footing.

Work Performance1
A proposal for the employment of impaired persons
immediately raises questions as to how and to what
extent employment of such persons may affect plant
operating programs. There is uncertainty in many
minds as to just what sort of work performance may
reasonably be expected from these impaired persons.
This doubt and uncertainty lead to the anomalous
situation in which the impaired person may be re
jected for employment because of what he cannot do
rather than considered for employment on the basis
of what he can do.
Basically, only a relatively few points require de
termination. These are summarized briefly in the
following two paragraphs.
Mobility of Working Force
Impaired persons are somewhat more limited than
unimpaired persons in their job assignments. This
means that they cannot be transferred from job to
1 O ther studies w hich deal w ith on e phase o r an other o f jo b perform an ce
are: P h ysical Im pairm ent and J o b P erform a n ce, b y V erne K . H a rv e y ,
M .D ., an d E . P arker L u on go, M .D ., U .S . C iv il Service C om m ission , in
Journal o f the A m erican M e d ica l A ssociation , A p r. 7, 1945; T h e P h ysi
cally H a n d ica p p ed W ork er in In du stry, b y G ilbert B righouse, B u lletin N o.
13, C aliforn ia In stitu te o f T e ch n o lo g y , Pasadena, 1946; A n E x perim ent w ith
V oca tion a lly H a n d ica p p ed W orkers, b y J. W . D ie tz, in Personnel Journal,
F ebru ary 1932.

job quite as easily as the unimpaired. But this limita
tion is one of degree and depends entirely upon the
nature and extent of the impairment and the require
ments of the jobs. In a given plant, there may be
literally scores of jobs that a person with a specific
impairment can perform, and he can be transferred
among them as readily as any unimpaired worker.
It was noted in many of the plants studied that at
the time an impaired worker was assigned, alternative
jobs were listed in the same and in other departments.
The matter of mobility, then, is an operating prob
lem peculiar to the individual plant.
Quality of Work Performance
What sort of work performance does the impaired
worker bring to the job? What effect will employ
ment of impaired persons have on production
schedules, absenteeism, work-injury frequency, and
labor turn-over? These are questions which lend
themselves to specific and objective answers. Prob
ably the most reliable evidence of what may be
expected from impaired workers is the character of
the performance of those who are employed. If the
impaired worker, veteran or nonveteran, cannot hold
his own on a job and cannot compete successfully
with his unimpaired fellow worker, then his employ
ment is questionable. If, however, he can compete
successfully with unimpaired workers on the same
jobs, his impairment ceases to be a valid basis for
excluding him from employment. For the impaired
and the unimpaired alike, the decision as to who gets
the job then rests on skill, background, experience,
education, and all the other elements of the job
specification. In other words, the approach becomes
a positive one based on what an applicant can do,
and not a negative one based on what he cannot do.
The present study was undertaken to evaluate on the
basis of dependable, factual data the quality of the
work performance of impaired workers in comparison
with unimpaired workers on the same jobs.
The remainder of this section and table 1 show
how the impaired workers compared in their work
performance with matched unimpaired workers on
the same jobs.2 The measures are based entirely on
objective, quantitative data taken directly from the
records of cooperating firms. They contain no ele
ments of subjective valuation or selection, or a desire
to prove a preconceived thesis.
2 D escription of m atch in g process w ill be fo u n d in the discu ssion o f th e
scop e an d m eth od o f the stu d y in the app endix (p. 120).

THE IMPAIRED WORKER IN INDUSTRY

Absenteeism
For the purposes of the study, an absence was
defined as absence from the job for a full day or more
when the employee was scheduled to work. Lay-offs,
holidays, shut-downs, and regular vacations were not
counted as days absent nor were they included as
days scheduled to work. The absenteeism rate was
computed as days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
The group of 11,028 impaired workers had an
absenteeism rate of 3.8 as against 3.4 for the 18,258
unimpaired workers matched with them. The survey
group was made up of 10,253 impaired males and 775
impaired females matched, respectively, with 16,926
unimpaired males and 1,332 unimpaired females.
The female workers, both impaired and unimpaired,
had a considerably higher absenteeism rate, but this
did not affect the group averages materially.
Table 2 and chart 1 show a frequency distribution
of the absenteeism rates for the groups of impaired
and unimpaired workers. There was a very heavy
concentration in the low frequencies, with a scatter
ing from both groups in the higher frequencies. No
absences at all were reported for 22.6 percent of the

impaired and 23.2 percent of the unimpaired during
the periods in which they were studied. About 62
percent of the impaired and 65 percent of the unim
paired had frequency rates of less than 3.0.
T able 2.— Percentage distribution of impaired and matched
unimpaired workers, by absenteeism frequency rate 1 and by sex
Total

Female

Male

Absenteeism
frequency rate class
Impaired

0________________________
0.1 and under 1.0 _________
1.0 and under 2.0______ __
2.0 and under 3.0_________
3.0 and under 5.0_________
5.0 and under 10.0______
10.0 and under 15.0_____
15.0 and under 20.0_____
20.0 and under 30.0______
30.0 and over____________
Total__________

22.6
15.1
13.7
10.4
13.3
13.8
5.9
2.7
1.9
.6

Unim
paired
23.2
16.4
14.6
10.7
13.2
13.2
4.7
2.1
1.3
.6

Impaired

23.7
15.7
14.0
10.5
13.2
12.9
5.3
2.5
1.6
.6

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

24.4
17.2
14.9
10.8
12.9
12.1
4.2
1.8
1.2
.5

10.5
8.6
9.0
9.3
14.8
24.6
11.9
5.5
4.8
1.0

10.1
6.2
10.0
10.1
15.8
27.9
10.1
5.0
2.6
2.2

100.0

Number of workers_______

11,028

18,258

10,253

16,926

775

1,332

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

Related to absenteeism as an element in work per
formance is the question whether a physical impair
ment predisposes a worker to greater absenteeism for
certain specific reasons, such as illness, transportation

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

difficulties, etc. In an effort to see how significant
the various reasons for absence were in actual prac
tice, data on reason for absence were obtained
wherever possible. Unfortunately, many of the
plants studied did not keep such records. Hence, the
reason for nearly half the absences had to be recorded
as “ unknown.” However, table 3 indicates that for
those cases in which reasons for absence could be ob
tained, the rates were substantially the same in the
two groups.
There is some indication that a slightly greater
incidence of absence because of illness may have been
responsible for the fractionally higher rate recorded
for the impaired group. However, only limited re
liance can be placed on this inference. The sizable
group of absences for which the reason was not avail
able, if properly distributed, might have changed the
pattern materially. On the information at hand,
however, it seems reasonable to conclude that the
physical impairment exercised at most only a very
limited influence.
T able 3.— Absenteeism frequency rates1 for impaired and
matched unimpaired workers, by reason for absence and by sex

Nondisabling Injury Experience

Reason for absence
Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Total____________________

3.8

3.4

3.6

3.2

6.4

6.5

Illness_______ ______ _____
Personal business_________
Transportation difficulties.
Unknown _______ __ —

1.5
.3
(2)
2.0

1.2
.3
(2)
1.9

1.3
.3
(2)
2.0

1.1
.3
(2)
1.8

2.4
.9
(2)
3.0

2.4
.9
(2)
3.1

Number of workers_______

11,028

18,258

10,253

16,926

775

1,332

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
2 Less than 0.05.

Considering the group rates, 3.8 and 3.4, and the
frequency distributions of the individual rates for
the impaired and unimpaired workers, there is no
significant difference between them with respect to
regularity of work attendance. The statistics show
a fractionally higher rate.for the impaired workers
equivalent to about 1 day in each 250 scheduled
workdays. In this connection there are three con
siderations which are of primary significance. First,
the level of the rates was very favorable for both
impaired and unimpaired workers. Second, the
similarity of the rates emphasizes the fact that while
many forces influenced regularity of work attendance
for better or worse, physical impairment did not seem
to be one of them. In the third place, the frequency
distributions show that there were cases of excessive

Work Injury Experience. Two diametrically opposed
opinions are commonly encountered in discussions
of the employment of impaired persons with respect
to injury frequency. One is that the impaired person
is more likely to be injured because his actions, move
ment, etc., are hampered by his impairment; the
other, that the impaired person is believed to be less
likely to be injured because he tends to be more
safety conscious. The data obtained indicate that
neither of these statements is completely accurate,
although there is probably some truth in each.
Possibly the force of the one tends to neutralize the
effect of the other.
In this study, work injuries were divided into
nondisabling and disabling and are discussed sep
arately.

Female

Male

Total

absenteeism among the unimpaired workers just as
there were similar cases among the impaired workers.
It is equally true for both groups, however, that
these examples are the kind of individual cases of
poor performance which one would expect to en
counter in any large group of workers.

A nondisabling injury was defined as an injury
experienced in the course of the individual’s work
which did not result in any permanent impairment or
in any loss of time beyond the day or shift on which
the injury occurred. The experience for each indi
vidual was computed as a frequency rate on a base of
1,000 exposure-hours. The experience for the groups
and subgroups of workers was computed on a base
of 10,000 exposure-hours.
Data were available for 10,858 impaired and 18,001
unimpaired workers. The group was composed of
10,094 impaired males matched with 16,692 un
impaired males and 764 females matched with 1,309
unimpaired females. The difference between the
number of workers constituting the survey groups
for nondisabling injuries and absenteeism is ac
counted for by the fact that in some few instances
nondisabling injury records had not been kept, had
been lost, or for other reasons were not available.
Where this was true of either the impaired or the
matched unimpaired worker it was necessary to drop
that matched unit so far as nondisabling injury
experience was concerned.
To obtain a factual measure of the nondisabling

THE IMPAIRED WORKER IN INDUSTRY

injury experience of the impaired workers compared
further demonstrated by the frequency distributions
shown in table 4 and chart 2. About half of each
with that of unimpaired workers exposed to the same
group had no injuries at all during the periods
hazards, reliance was placed on the dispensary
records of the cooperating firms. It does not seem & studied, about 70 percent had a rate of less than 1
per 1,000 hours, and 90 percent of each group had a
that the level of the rates should be given much con
rate of 2.9 or less per 1,000 hours. There was a
sideration here because the level of the rate reflects
not only the injury experience of the groups but also
T able 4.— Percentage distribution of impaired and matched
company policy in encouraging or requiring im
unimpaired workers, by frequency rate 1 of nondisabling injury
mediate treatment of minor injuries, employee
and by sex
cooperation on such a program, medical facilities
maintained, etc. However, the conditions were the
Male
Female
Total
Frequency rate class
same for both impaired and unimpaired workers
Impaired Unim Impaired Unim Impaired Unim
within each plant. Hence, while the level of the rate
paired
paired
paired
for the survey group as a whole is probably not
51.0
49.2
50.0
50.0
63.9
59.7
0________________________
very significant, the comparison between the rates
0.1 and under 1.0__ _
19.1
19.4
19.7
13.4
19.9
16.3
14.2
1.0 and under 2.0___
14.1
14.5
14.2
11.1
12.7
for the impaired and unimpaired workers is valid.
2.0 and under 3.0__ _
6.5
6.7
6.5
6.8
5.3
6.0
3.0 and under 5.0
_. ..
4.9
5.1
5.3
5.5
2.9
4.1
The nondisabling injury frequency rates in the
3.2
3.2
5.0 and under 10.0 _
3.3
3.4
2.2
1.7
10.0 and under 20.0_ ___
1.0
.9
1.1
.9
.5
.2
two groups of workers were identical, 9.9 work
.1
.1
20.0 and over............. .........
.1
.1
0
0
injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours. The female
100.0
Total_____________
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
impaired workers had a fractionally higher rate than
Number of w orkers.._ . . .
10,858
10,094
16,692
18,001
764
1,309
their matched unimpaired workers, 7.0 and 6.9,
1 Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.
respectively. The male impaired and unimpaired had
scattering of cases, about 5 percent, with a rate of
identical rates, 10.1.
The similarity of the nondisabling injury ex
5.0 or higher. The very marked similarity of the
perience of the impaired and unimpaired workers is
experience in the two groups is extremely significant.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Clearly, there was no special proneness on the part
of the impaired toward minor work injuries.
A further factor considered in connection with
nondisabling injury experience was whether the
presence of an impairment tended to increase the
frequency of any particular kind of minor injury.
Data were obtained on the nature of the injuries
experienced by both impaired and unimpaired groups.
The rates by type of injury are shown in table 5.
Certain kinds of injuries, such as cuts and abrasions,
are by their nature quite common in factory employ
ment. The point of interest in this analysis, however,
was that the kinds of injuries which had a high
incidence in one group had an equally high incidence
in the other. For example, cuts and abrasions had
rates of 6.9 and 7.0 among the impaired and unim
paired, respectively. The pattern of the rates by
kind of injury is nearly identical in the two groups.
When it is considered that these data reflect the
experience of 10,858 impaired and 18,001 matched
unimpaired workers, the data indicate clearly that
the nondisabling injury experience was related to the
hazards of the job and not to the impairments which
characterized one of the groups.

T able 5.— Nondisabling injury frequency rates1 for impaired
and matched unimpaired workers, by nature of injury and by sex
Total

Female

Male

Nature of injury
Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Total................. ...................

9.9

10.1

7.0

6.9

Burns and scalds_________
Cuts and abrasions______
Eye injuries--------------------Strains and sprains. --------Fractures and dislocations.
Dermatitis_______ _____ __
Other______________ _____

.6
6.9
1.5
.5
(2)
.1
.3

.5
7.0
1.6
.4
.1
.1
.2

.6
7.1
1.6
.4
(2)
.1
.3

.5
7.2
1.7
.4
.1
.1
.1

.6
4.6
.8
.6
(2)
.1
.3

.5
4.5
.9
.5
(2)
.2
.3

Number of workers. ..........

10,858

18,001

10,094

16,692

764

1,309

physician. These varying practices influenced the
total number of redressings recorded in the study.
In each plant, however, the practices affected im
paired and unimpaired workers alike.
To the extent that the average number of redress
ings per injury reflects the severity of the injuries,
there was no difference between the two groups. In
both groups the average was 0.9 redressings per
injury. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore,
that nondisabling injuries experienced by impaired
workers did not tend to be any more or less severe
than those experienced by unimpaired workers.
A final point considered in connection with the
medical record was nonindustrial use of medical
facilities. This was defined as dispensary visits for
treatment of illness or injury not related to the work
er’s employment. Again, practices between plants
varied widely. In some plants such visits were dis
couraged; in others they were encouraged and even
supplemented by home visits from the nurse or
physician. The study showed that the average
number of such nonindustrial visits to the dispensary
was the same for both groups, 1.5 visits per person
during the periods studied. Clearly, the existence of
the impairments did not have a measurable effect on
the demands made upon the medical facilities by
impaired workers because of injury or illness not
related to the job.
In brief, nondisabling injuries of the same nature
and severity were experienced with equal frequency
by these groups of impaired and unimpaired workers
matched on identical jobs and exposed to the same
hazards. Also the existence of the impairment had
no measurable effect on nonindustrial use of plant
medical facilities.

Disabling Injury Experience
1 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
2 Less than 0.05.

An attempt was made to obtain a measure of the
severity of the nondisabling injuries in terms of the
number of redressings required per injury. A limita
tion on these data is the fact that plant practices
varied widely. In some cases redressings were given
only if requested by the employee, in other cases
employees were encouraged to have complete treat
ment for the most minor scratches, and in still others
the employee was required to report for redressings
at intervals until given written clearance by the plant

Probably one of the most difficult barriers for the
impaired person to surmount in finding a place for
himself in industry is the fear in the prospective
employer’s mind that another injury, added to the
existing impairment, may result in a permanent total
disability, with a consequent skyrocketing of work
men’s compensation insurance costs. Realizing that
the employer might well be laying himself open to
serious potential hazards, various agencies, govern
mental and private, have advocated shifting that
risk from the employer by establishment of secondinjury funds under the workmen’s compensation laws

THE IMPAIRED WORKER IN INDUSTRY

of the several States.3 Under this arrangement, the
employer pays only for the specific injury. The fund
pays the difference between the amount paid by the
employer and the amount due the worker for the
permanent total disability. As of August 1947, 36
States had second-injury funds or equivalent ar
rangements. In a few other States, employees with
certain physical impairments are permitted to sign
waivers releasing the employer from second-injury
liability under the workmen’s compensation law.
Without going into the merits of the various secondinjury provisions, the significant fact is that in most
of the highly industrialized States some provision
is made to protect the employer against disastrous
increase in insurance costs as a result of a “ second
injury” to an impaired employee who becomes per
manently and totally disabled through the combi
nation of the work injury and the existing disability.
Experience under various State second-injury
funds indicates that the likelihood of injuries of this
type in reality is small. A very modest number of
claims have been made on these funds. The experi
ence recorded in this study constitutes further evi
dence that this type of injury is a comparatively rare
occurrence. Of the 11,000 impaired workers compris
ing the survey group, 172 experienced disabling in
juries of one kind or another but not one of these
resulted in additional permanent disability which
would place the employee in the category of the
permanently and totally disabled. However, there
is a qualification which should be placed on these
findings. It is possible that in some instances the
permanent disability may have been increased even
though not to the extent of permanent total dis
ability. In such instances the provisions of the usual
type of “ second injury ” fund would not be operative.
The disabling injury record of the impaired
workers of the survey group compared very favorably
with that of the unimpaired workers matched with
them and exposed to the same hazards. According
to table 1 the injury frequency rate per million ex
posure-hours was 8.9 for the impaired and 9.5 for the
unimpaired group. According to the accident statis
tics published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
rate for all manufacturing industry for the year 1946
was 19.9 per million exposure-hours. The experiences
of the 11,000 impaired workers and their unimpaired
3
Second In ju ry F u nds as E m p lo y m e n t A ids t o the H an d icap p ed , U . S.
D epartm en t of L a bor, D iv isio n of L a bor Standards, W ash in gton , 1947.
776106° — 4 8 — 2

co-workers, therefore, were considerably better than
the experience in industry as a whole.
There is, of course, the question as to the extent
to which a worker is likely to experience a disabling
injury as a result of his impairment. Inquiry made
at the time the data were obtained from cooperating
firms disclosed only one instance in which the injury
was definitely caused by the impairment. In that
instance the safety director of the plant informed the
Bureau’s field representative that while the impair
ment had caused the injury, the responsibility lay
with a foreman who had placed the impaired worker
on a job from which he was definitely restricted. As
the result of an oversight, the foreman had assigned
the man to one of the few jobs in the shop he was not
supposed to perform.
There were a few other instances in which it was
possible that a causal relationship might have
existed between impairment and injury, but the
evidence was superficial and inconclusive. For ex
ample, in one instance a worker blind in his right eye
struck his right hand against a projection while
walking down an aisle. It happened on the blind
side. It is possible that the lack of vision con
tributed to the accident. But this type of injury has
been experienced by many people whose vision was
in no way impaired. Similarly, in another plant, a
worker with a crippled leg dropped a small casting
on his foot. Possibly some lack of agility prevented
him from jumping away from the falling piece and
hence may have contributed to the injury. But in
the same plant the same kind of injury was experi
enced by an unimpaired worker of the survey group.
There were several such instances in the various
plants, but always parallel accident cases were
encountered among the unimpaired workers studied.
In the vast majority of the work injuries there was
not even a remote indication of the existence of any
causal relationship between the impairment and the
injury. On this point, therefore, the findings of the
study lead to the conclusion that there is little reason
to believe that the existence of the impairment will
be a factor in work injury if the impaired worker is
properly placed on the job.
Paralleling the belief that the impaired person may
be a hazard to himself is the belief that he may con
stitute a hazard to his fellow workers. It is certainly
true that both beliefs may at times be realized. Im
properly placed in a job in which the abilities do not
correspond to the requirements of the job, any

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

worker — “ impaired” or “ unimpaired” — may well
be a hazard to himself and to the people working in
his vicinity. A man with even moderately defective
depth perception operating an overhead crane may
be a menace to himself and everyone working in the
area. The same condition is true of any worker no
matter how “ normal,” if he is placed in a job which
he is not equipped to perform. The deficiency need
not be physical — it may be mental or emotional.
Among the disabling injuries recorded among the
unimpaired workers of the survey group there was
no evidence that any had been caused or contributed
to by a fellow worker’s impairment. Information on
this score was obtained from the accident records and
accident-cause studies in the files of the various
plants included in the survey. In order to get a
broader coverage on this point, this question was
raised at every plant studied, concerning impaired
and unimpaired employees outside the survey group.
While records were not examined in this connection,
none of the plant officials questioned could recall any
instances of the kind. The conclusion seems war
ranted that the impaired worker was no more likely
to be a cause of injury to either himself or others than
was his fellow worker who had no such impairment.
In summary, the impaired workers studied made a
very favorable record in comparison with the un
impaired workers exposed to identical hazards. A
number of factors probably contributed to this result.
It is likely that the impaired person received some
what more careful placement. Moreover, having an
impairment, he may be more safety conscious. In
discussing this subject, a personnel director said:
“ Take a walk through my plant. You won’t find the
impaired fellows engaging in horseplay and chasing
one another with air hoses. Of course they have a
better accident record!”
Time Lost. The time lost as the result of work in
juries is another important consideration in this
comparison. There is a fairly common belief that,
because of the existing impairment, any additional
injury may result in excessive loss of time; that the
period of convalescence or recovery required for the
impaired person may be much longer than for the
person who is not burdened by an existing physical
disability. What are the facts?
Of the total survey group of 11,000 impaired
workers, 172 experienced 174 disabling injuries dur
ing the periods studied. The time lost as a result of

these injuries amounted to 2,531 days, or a rate of
0.10 days per 100 scheduled workdays. In com
parison, the 18,000 matched unimpaired workers
experienced a disabling injury time-lost rate of 0.11
per 100 days scheduled to work. A further indicator
of the severity of the injuries experienced in the two
groups is the average time lost per injury. Among
the impaired workers the time lost per injury was
14.5 days. For the unimpaired group, the time lost
per injury was 14.9 days.
For the entire group of impaired workers, then,
the record clearly shows that excessive time lost as a
result of disabling injuries was not a factor to cause
concern.
In assembling the data for each plant, it was noted
too that there was a very marked similarity in the
kinds of injuries experienced in the two groups.
When burns or contusions were common among the
impaired, they were also common among the matched
unimpaired workers in the same plant. It was ap
parent that the injuries experienced were related to
the hazards of the particular job, not to a proneness
on the part of the impaired person to experience
certain kinds of injury.
Because of its importance to the whole general
subject of the impaired worker in industry, the
disabling injury findings are summarized briefly
here: If the impaired person is placed intelligently,
then (1) The likelihood of an injury, which will result
in permanent total disability when superimposed on
an existing impairment, is very small. This is shown
by this study and the experience of various State
second-injury funds. (2) The impaired worker was
no more likely — if anything, perhaps, a little less
likely — to experience a disabling work injury than
an unimpaired worker exposed to the identical
hazards. (3) The impaired worker was not a source
of danger to his fellow workers. (4) The average
time lost as the result of disabling injuries was some
what less among the impaired workers than among
their unimpaired co-workers.
Output Relative
Data to provide a comparison of production
efficiency were obtained in all instances where re
corded measures of individual output were available.
The number of cases for which such data were avail
able is comparatively small, 895 impaired cases out
of the total 11,028 studied. Subjective measures such

THE IMPAIRED WORKER IN INDUSTRY

as foreman’s evaluation, efficiency ratings, etc., were
reviewed at the time the study was made but were
not included or “ weighted” into the data recorded
in table 1. The measure was computed as a relative
of the production efficiency of the impaired to that
of the matched unimpaired workers, the output of
the unimpaired in each case equaling 100.
- The output relative for this group of 895 impaired
workers is 101.0 against 100.0 for the 1,404 unim
paired workers with whom they were matched.
Clearly, the impaired workers, as a group, were well
able to hold their own with respect to volume of pro
duction.
Male and female impaired workers alike made a
somewhat better production record than the un
impaired workers with whom they were matched.
Data were available, however, for only a relatively
few female workers, 213 impaired who had an effi
ciency relative of 103.3 against 100.0 for the 335 un
impaired female workers matched with them. The
difference was narrower among the male workers,
where 682 impaired had a relative of 100.3 against
100.0 for 1,069 matched unimpaired workers.
While the averages quoted are very favorable, they
do not mean that every impaired worker produced
at a better rate than did the unimpaired workers
matched with him on the same job. Individual differ
ences are as common among the impaired as among
the unimpaired. As would be expected, some of the
impaired showed a poor record. Many of them, on
the other hand, had an excellent record. The follow
ing tabulation shows the number of impaired workers
in three broad performance groups:
Output relative

Number of
impaired

work. A rather large number of such cases were
found. On the assembly line operations the working
speed was controlled by the speed of the line and
those working on it had to keep up with it. Where
group incentives are in use, one member of the group
who cannot keep up his end will cut down the earn
ings of all. No individual production records could
be obtained for these people. But the fact of their
employment demonstrates that they were able to
match the speed of the unimpaired workers on the
same assembly lines or groups.

Quit Rate
Various published works and magazine articles
dealing with the subject of the impaired worker have
advanced the opinion that these workers are more
stable on the job and have a lower turn-over rate
than unimpaired workers. In order to reduce this
factor to a statistical determination, a follow-up was
made in 68 of the plants included in the study to
determine what the separation rates were for the
survey group during a period of 6 months following
the end of the survey period. Data obtained on
5,217 impaired and 8,783 unimpaired workers of the
original survey group are shown in table 6 as quit,
termination, and total separation rates per 100 em
ployees in each of the two groups.
T a b l e 6 . — Separation rates 1 for impaired workers and matched

unimpaired workers, by reason for separation and by sex
Total

Male

Female

Reason for separation
Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Less than 9 5.0 _______________________ 245
95.0 and under 1 0 5 .0 _______________ 359

Voluntary quits__________

3.6

2.6

3.3

2.3

6.9

5.3

105.0 and over_______________________291

Health reasons_______
Family reasons______
Moved from commu
nity_______________
Transportation diffi
culty_____ ________
Dissatisfied with job__
O t h e r . ___________
Unknown_______ ____

.6
.2

.3
.2

.4
.1

.2
(2)

1.8
1.1

.9
1.3

If it is assumed that an efficiency relative range of
95.0 to 105.0 represents about equal performance of
the impaired and the matched unimpaired, 40.1 per
cent of the impaired were as good as, 27.4 percent
were poorer than, and 32.5 percent were better than
the matched unimpaired workers. Thus, 650 or 72.6
percent of the group produced at a rate as good as, or
better than, their unimpaired fellow workers on the
same jobs. It is significant that the largest group of
the impaired fell in the range 95.0 to 105.0.
The figures quoted above do not take into con
sideration the impaired workers who were employed
on assembly lines or on jobs involving group piece

1.0

.1
.3
1.0
1.0

(2)
.3
1.0
.6

(2)
.3
1.1
1.0

(2)
.2
1.1
.6

.4
.2
1.3
1.1

.1
.3
1.2
1.3

Terminations3....... .............

5.2

3.1

5.2

3.1

4.4

2.9

Total separations. _.

8.8

5.7

8.5

5.4

11.3

8.2

Number of workers. ...........

5,217

8,783

4,695

7,909

522

874

1 Number of separations per 100 employees of the survey group.
* Less than 0.05.
> Separations initiated by the employer.

As an indicator of relative stability on the job, the
rate of voluntary quits provides a comparison be
cause the responsibility for initiating the action rests

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

with the employee. This rate was 3.6 for the im
paired workers and 2.6 for the unimpaired workers.
It is questionable whether the difference is significant.
Two reasons accounted for half the difference. More
of the impaired quit because of health reasons and
more moved from the community. It is interesting
that the quit rate attributed to dissatisfaction with
the job was identical in the two groups. The rate
attributable to “ other” was made up of a variety of
reasons. It was noticeable, however, that two rea
sons were fairly common in this “ other” group —
a sizable proportion of both impaired and unimpaired
quit “ to take another position” or “ to set up own
business.”
Terminations 4 showed a rate of 5.2 for the im
paired and 3.1 for the unimpaired workers. Termina
tions because of reduction in force were primarily
responsible for this difference. It is not surprising
that the impaired workers had the higher termina
tion rate. In large part, impaired workers were the
last to be hired. Consequently, when cut-backs had
to be made, those workers with the lower seniority
were the first to be laid off.

Composition of the Survey Group
Estimates of the number of impaired persons in
the labor force vary widely, as the number depends
largely upon how the term “ impaired person” is
defined. For the purpose of this study, the basic
concept of impairment was a physical disability
severe enough to constitute a serious problem for
the individual in obtaining employment. With the
assistance of an advisory committee, composed in
part of industrial physicians, specific definitions were
drawn in such a way as to exclude any doubtful,
minor, or border-line cases.5 Nine impairment
types selected and defined for the study were serious
orthopedic, vision, hearing, hernia, cardiac, extuberculous, peptic ulcer, diabetic, and epileptic
cases. A tenth group consisted of persons with a
combination of two of these nine impairments, each
in itself severe enough to fall within the adopted
definitions.
N o selection was exercised in including or ex
cluding the various impairment types covered by the
10 categories selected for study. All of the impaired
4 Separations in itiated b y the em ployer;
5 T h e definitions o f im pairm ent as a p p ro v e d b y the a d visory co m m ittee
are given in detail in the A p p en d ix (p. 120).

workers within the definitions and with whom un
impaired workers on the same jobs could be matched
with respect to sex, age, experience, etc., were in
cluded in the survey group at each plant studied.
Consequently, the composition of the survey group
may reflect fairly closely the composition of the
impaired worker group in industrial plants in general.
Table 7 shows the distribution of the impaired
workers studied, by type of impairment.
T able 7.— Number of 'physically impaired workers of the survey
group j by type of impairment

Type of impairment

Number
of
workers

Total_________________________

11,028

Orthopedic_________ __________
Amputees_______________ __
One hand_________________
Two hands_______________
One arm__________________
Two arms________________
One foot__________________
Two feet_________________
One leg__________ ________
Two legs_________________
Loss of use_________________
One hand________________
Two hands_______________
One arm__________________
Two arms__________ _____ _
One foot__________ _______
Two feet__________ _______
One leg___________________
Two legs_________________
Back deform ity____________
Multiple orthopedic_______ __

1,522
484
183
5
72
2
38
1
176
7
761
114
8
174
9
51
19
335
51
214
63

Vision________________________
Totally blind_______________
Blind, one eye___________
Legally blind_______________
Partially blind______________

1,721
34
941
25
721

Hearing______________________
Totally deaf________________
Hard of hearing_____________
Deaf m u t e _________________

595
92
313
190

Hernia________ ________ ______

3,543

Cardiac_______________________

1,840

Ex-tuberculous________________

513

Peptic ulcer___________________

428

Type of impairment

Number
of
workers

Diabetic____________________

144

Epileptic_________________ __

134

Multiple____________________
Orthopedic-Vision_________
Orthopedic-Hearing_______
Orthopedic-Hernia
Orthopedic-Cardi ac
Orthopedic-Ex-tuberculous
Orthopedic-Peptic ulcer___
Orthopedic-Diabetic
Orthopedic-Epileptic_____
Vision-Hearing______ __ _
Vision-Hernia_____
__
Vision-Cardiac
Vision-Ex-tuberoulmis
Vision-Peptic ulcer
Vision-Diabetic.
Vision-Epileptic
Hearing-Hernia
Hearing-Cardiac
Hearing-Ex-tuberculous___
Hearing-Peptic ulcer
Hearing-Diabetic_________
Hearing-Epileptic
Hernia-Cardiac
Hernia-Ex-tuberculous____
Hernia-Peptic ulcer
Hernia-Diabetic
Hernia-Epileptic__________
Cardiac-Ex-tuberculous___
Cardiac-Peptic ulcer
Cardiac-Diabetic___
Cardiac-Epileptic
Ex-tuberculous-Peptic ulcer
Ex-tubereulous-Diabetic. . .
Ex-tuberculous-Epileptic. . .
Peptic ulcer-Diabetic
Peptic ulcer-Epileptic
Diabetic-Epileptic

587
28
11
75
21
9
5
3
0
16
78
52
12
6
4
1
23
17
3
5
0
0
120
29
18
9
2
22
9
4
1
2
0
0
2
0
o

The large number of hernia cases, 32.1 percent
of the survey group, is probably the result of two
factors: First, it is apparently relatively easy for the
person with a hernia condition to get a job, as about
the only restriction to which he is subject is that of
excessive lifting; furthermore, the disability can be
minimized by the use of a truss. Second, hernia is a
common industrial injury and many of the workers
studied probably remained with their employers
after the impairment was acquired. Cardiac, vision,
and orthopedic impairment cases were nearly equally
common, 16.7, 15.6, and 13.8 percent, respectively.
Epileptics constituted the smallest impairment

THE IMPAIRED WORKER IN INDUSTRY

group, 134 cases or 1.2 percent of the total impaired
workers studied. An unexpectedly large number of
multiple impairment cases were encountered, 587 or
5.3 percent of the group, making it sixth in the list
of 10 impairments studied. A combination of im
pairments naturally complicates the placement

problem, since additional qualifications and restric
tions have to be considered in matching the man to
the job. Nevertheless, a sizable number of these
cases were encountered, although the number of
cases in any given combination of impairments was
small. Excluding the double orthopedics, 36 possible

CHART 3

COMPOSITION OF SURVEY GROUP
BY TYPE O F IMPAIRM ENT
HERNIA
CARDIAC
VISION
ORTHOPEDIC
HEARING
EX •TUBERCULOUS
PEPTIC ULCER
DIABETIC
EPILEPTIC
MULTIPLE

U N ITED S T A T E S D EP A R TM E N T OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR S T A T IS T IC S

combinations of the impairments were studied. The
largest number recorded for any combination was
120 in the hernia-cardiac group.
The distribution of the impaired workers by age
group is shown in table 8 and in chart 4. Since im
paired and unimpaired were matched with respect
to age, no separate age tabulation was prepared for

NOTE\ SUR V EY GROUP IN C LUD E D 11,028 P H Y SIC A LLY IMPAIRED
WORKERS IN M ANUFACTURING.

the unimpaired group. The impaired workers were
concentrated in the middle age ranges with a slight
tendency toward the higher ages. About 52 percent
of all the impaired workers studied fell within the
range between 25 and 50 years of age. Slightly less
than 86 percent were under the age of 60. At the
extremes of the age range were approximately 15

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

CHART 4

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF IMPAIRED WORKERS
IN SURVEY GROUP
PERCENT

PERCENT

eo
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU' OF LABOR S TA TIS TIC S

YEARS

OVER
NOTE: SURVEY CROUP INCLUDED II,O SS PHYSICALLY
IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURINS

THE IMPAIRED WORKER IN INDUSTRY

percent who were 60 years or over and about 5 per
cent who were under 25. When calls for military
service withdrew large numbers of younger workers
from industrial employment, their places were fre
quently taken by women or by older workers. To
some extent this worked against inclusion of the
younger impaired workers in the study because they
frequently could not be matched with respect to
age, sex, or experience with unimpaired workers on
the same jobs. For the most part, the periods studied
fell in 1945, a time during which this effect was
especially pronounced. On the whole, however, the
age distribution seems to show a reasonably balanced
pattern.
The age distribution for the male and female im
paired workers differed widely. Whereas only 55
percent of the male workers were under the age of 50,
84 percent of the female workers fell in the same
range. The difference was particularly marked in
the upper and lower age brackets. Nearly 20 percent
of the females, as against only 5 percent of the males,
were under the age of 25 while 15 percent of the males
and only 2 percent of the females were 60 years of
age or over.
T able

8 . — Number and 'percentage* distribution of impaired

workers of the survey group, by age and by sex
Percent

Number of workers
Age group
Female

Male

Total

Male

___

11,028

10,253

775

100.0

Under 20 years___________
20 and under 25 years____
25 and under 30 years____
30 and under 35 years____
35 and under 40 years____
40 and under 45 years____
45 and under 50 years____
50 and under 55 years____
55 and under 60 years____
§0 and under 65 years____
65 and under 70 years____
70 and under 75 years____
75 years and over________

79
511
901
1,117
1,184
1,238
1,312
1,562
1,543
1,088
370
96
27

53
411
764
1,016
1,077
1,130
1,239
1,498
1,497
1,076
369
96
27

26
100
137
101
107
108
73
64
46
12
1
0
0

.7
4.6
8.2
10.1
10.7
11.2
11.9
14.2
14.0
9.9
3.4
.9
.2

.5
4.0
7.5
9.9
10.5
11.0
12.1
14.6
14.6
10.5
3.6
.9
.3

3.4
12.9
17.7
13.0
13.8
14.0
9.4
8.3
5.9
1.5
.1
0
0

Total....... ................. ..

Total

Female

No attempt was made to regulate the proportion
of male to female workers included in the survey
group in any of the plants or in the study as a whole.
As finally constituted, the survey group was made
up of 10,253 impaired males matched with 16,926
unimpaired males, and 775 impaired females matched
with 1,332 unimpaired females. This proportion of
female workers is low: according to figures pubfished by the Employment and Occupational Outlook
Branch of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, females
constituted 26 percent of factory employees in man

ufacturing industries in December 1946. Nor can it
be said that this proportion in the survey group
reflects the composition of the employed impaired
male and female workers in all manufacturing in
dustries. A change in the number of plants studied
in various industries could have changed the pro
portion of male and female workers in the survey
group.
There were sizable differences in the performance
rates for the two groups, and for this reason the
separate tabulations by sex are shown. However,
the effect of the female group on the over-all rates is
nominal because of the relatively small number of
cases involved.

Geographical Coverage
An effort was made to obtain some representation
in the study from various sections of the country. As
no information on the number of impaired persons
employed or in the labor market in each area was
available, no attempt was made to obtain a definite,
proportionate share from each area. Furthermore,
in order to obtain data on a group sufficiently large
to yield statistically valid results within the limits of
time and funds available for the study, it was neces
sary to concentrate on the large industrial centers
where information could be obtained on the largest
number of impaired workers in the shortest possible
time. (The distribution of the survey group by
geographical area is shown in table 9.) No represen
tation at all was obtained in the West South Central
and Mountain States because industries in these
areas generally tend toward small and scattered
units. Petroleum refining, which would have been
an exception, had already been covered in other
areas. About three-quarters of the study was con
centrated in the highly industrialized New England,
Middle Atlantic, and East North Central areas.
The rest of the establishments surveyed were in the
West North Central, South Atlantic, and East South
Central States and on the West Coast.
On the whole, it is not likely that geographical
location would exercise any pronounced effect on the
factors under consideration in this study. It is true
that various State workmen’s compensation laws,
insurance regulations, second-injury funds, etc.,
have an effect on the industrial employment of im
paired persons. But the effect of these factors is
apparent in the number of such persons employed

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

rather than in a comparison of the work performance
of impaired and matched unimpaired persons work
ing on the same jobs.
T able 9.— Distribution of impaired workers of the survey group,
by geographical division
Geographical division

Number of
plants

Number of
impaired

Total______________________ _____________________

109

11,028

New England__________________________ __
Middle Atlantic_________________________ __ __ __
East North Central________ ______ ________________
West North Central________________ ____________
South Atlantic________________ _____________ _ ___
East South Central_______________________________
West South Central____________________ __________
Mountain__ _____ ________________________________
Pacific___________________________________________

28
30
33
7
3
2
0
0
6

1,748
2,737
5,359
399
105
111
0
0
569

Industry Coverage

employment of impaired persons is proportionately
greater in these industries. Large operating units
were selected whenever possible in order to use the
time of the field force most effectively in building up
a large survey group in the shortest possible time.
The number of impaired workers studied in any
industry was further influenced by various con
siderations, other than the number of such persons
employed. For example, although the apparel in
dustry employs impaired persons, records of pre- or
post-employment physical examinations were rarely
available in that industry. Without such records the
study could not be made. The same difficulty was
encountered in certain areas where, by custom or
collective bargaining agreement, no medical exam
inations were used in connection with employment.
T able 10.— Number and percentage distribution of impaired
workers of the survey group, by industry

It was not intended that comparison of work per
formance should be drawn between impaired workers
in various industries. It was considered desirable,
however, that a wide variety of industries should be
represented in the impaired group studied. The
Bureau of the Budget’s Standard Industrial Classi
fication was used as the guide, and as the study
progressed special efforts were made to obtain repre
sentation in those major industries which were not
turning up in the regular course of the field work.
The number and percentage distribution of the im
paired workers of the survey group, by industry
classification of the plants in which they were em
ployed, is shown in table 10.
Some representation is present for each of the
industry groups in the Standard Industrial Classi
fication except lumber and timber basic products.
Although it is known that impaired workers within
the definitions used in this study are employed in
logging, sawmill, and similar operations, the industry
is characterized by small operations which frequently
are not easily accessible. It was not considered
feasible to spend the time required to locate plants
in the industry sufficiently large, with records ade
quate for survey purposes. Furthermore, this work
would have been very costly.
N o quota or representative sample could be set up
by industrial groupings because the number of im
paired workers employed in any given industry is not
known. The concentration of coverage was heaviest
in industries characterized by large operating units.
It should not be inferred from this, however, that

Standard
Industrial
Classifica
tion Code
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

Industry group

Number
of
workers

Percent

_
Food and kindred products_______________
Tobacco manufactures_________________________
Textile-mill products________ ______ ___________
Apparel and other finished products____________
Lumber and timber basic products_________ __
Furniture and finished lumber p ro d u cts______
Paper and allied products_______________ _______
Printing, publishing, and allied industries
Chemicals and allied products__________________
Products of petroleum and coal____ _____________
Rubber products_______ ______ _________ _______
Leather and leather products___________________
Stone, clay, and glass products_________________
Iron and steel and their products_______________
Nonferrous metals and their products___________
Machinery except electrical_____________________
Electrical machinery____________ ________ _____ :
Transportation equipment, except automobiles. __
Automobiles and automobile equipment_________
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries_________

475
127
266
146
0)
91
134
32
213
652
136
143
472
1,753
663
1,314
974
1,608
1,656
173

4.3
1.2
2.4
1.3
P)
.8
1.2
.3
1.9
5.9
1.2
1.3
4.3
16.0
6.0
11.9
8.8
14.6
15.0
1.6

Total_________ __________________ _______

11,028

100.0

1 The lumber and timber basic products group was omitted from the survey because
of the practical consideration of expense.

The whole point of industry coverage so far as this
study was concerned was that the performance data
recorded should reflect a wide range of industrial
activities. For this purpose the coverage and variety
of manufacturing industry represented seems ade
quate. It demonstrates that employment of the
impaired person is not limited to a relatively few
industries. Impaired workers were found in all kinds
of industrial activity, from the lightest to the heav
iest. This wide distribution indicates clearly that
impaired workers were adaptable to a great variety
of occupations and that reliance need not be placed
upon some few carefully selected and defined in
dustries to provide employment opportunities for

THE IMPAIRED WORKER IN INDUSTRY

impaired persons generally, and for disabled veterans
in particular.

Occupations of Impaired Workers
The findings of the present study indicate that
practically any job in any plant is potentially a job
for an impaired worker of one kind or another. The
jobs held by the impaired workers are listed for each
type of impairment. (See under Industry and Oc
cupational Coverage, parts A to J.) But as far as
a specific job is concerned, the use of an impaired
worker is an individual problem. The employment
manager, personnel director, shop foreman, or who
ever is responsible for assigning a man to a job has to
weigh the abilities of the individual applicant, his
skills, experience, temperament, personality, etc.,
against the requirements of the particular job. This,
however, is true of any scientific placement work,
regardless of whether or not a worker is impaired.
The impairment is an additional element for con
sideration.
As significant as the variety of jobs was the range
of skills reflected by the jobs performed by impaired
workers of the survey group. This range included
everything from unskilled manual labor to the most
highly skilled of the machinist classifications. The
implications here are many and varied. Some of these
workers had acquired their skills before suffering
their impairments; in many cases the impairments
did not affect the exercise of these skills. In other
instances, either because the impairment occurred
before skills were acquired or because the impair
ment was such that it destroyed skills already ac
quired, the impaired person had learned new jobs
and had acquired new skills, some of them of a higher
degree than those lost.
In connection with the variety and range of skills
reflected by the lists of jobs on which impaired
workers were employed, one fact must be borne
constantly in mind and cannot be overemphasized.
These jobs are merely examples. Many of the im
paired workers in each plant could not be included in
the study because they could not be matched suit
ably with unimpaired workers doing the same work.
Hence, there were many jobs other than those listed
which were being performed by impaired workers
and which do not appear in these listings. Further,
it is readily apparent that there are many jobs which
differ in only minor respects from those listed and

which would be equally suitable for impaired persons.
These listings are not to be interpreted as a definitive
list of occupations for impaired workers.
In compiling the data for the study, the United
States Employment Service publication Dictionary
of Occupational Titles was used to assign a code
number to the occupation of each of the impaired
workers studied. In all, 971 different code numbers
were used. But even this understates the case. The
Dictionary of Occupational Titles frequently assigns
the same code to a number of varied jobs. Actually,
the 11,000 impaired workers of the survey group were
employed in 1,488 separate occupations.
To determine the general classes of operations in
which the impaired workers were employed, their
occupations were grouped according to the occupa
tional patterns used for wage studies by the Wage
Analysis Branch of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

T able

1 1 . — Percentage distribution of impaired workers, by

occupational pattern
Occupational pattern
Maintenance___________
Working foremen___________ _____ _____
Processing______________ _______________
Inspection and testing__ ________ __
Recording and control__________ _____ _
Material movement____ _________________
Custodial__ __ _______________________
Total____________________________
Number of workers______________________

Total
15.2
.7
57.9
6.4
4.4
8.5
6.9

Male

Female

16.3
.7
56.3
6.0
4.5
9.0
7.2

1.4
.8
80.7
11.1
2.2
1.2
2.6

100.0

11,028

10,253

775

The major proportion of the impaired workers were
found in jobs in the processing or producing opera
tions in the various plants studied. This kind of
employment of impaired workers undoubtedly re
ceived a sharp stimulus during the war years. It
also reflects the efforts of public and private place
ment agencies and personnel and medical depart
ments of many industrial plants to assign the appli
cant where he fits best by matching the require
ments of the job with the abilities of the man. This
practice, commonly referred to as selective place
ment, has resulted in opening jobs throughout the
plant to the impaired person. The very variety of
skill requirements shown demonstrates conclusively
that jobs such as watchman and janitor need no
longer constitute the employment opportunities for
those who have had even severe limitations placed
on their physical equipment by the ravages of ac
cident, illness, or the hazards of war.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

CH AR T 5

OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTIO N O F
IM PAIRED W O RKERS IN SURVEY GROUP
PERCENT

___

X,
MAINTENANCE

W o r k in g

fo r em an

INSPECTION & TESTING

MATERIAL MOVEMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

NOTE- SURVEY GROUP INCLUDED It,0 2 8 PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED
WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING.

”1

THE IMPAIRED WORKER IN INDUSTRY

Placement Practices6
A proper evaluation of the performance data of
impaired and unimpaired workers requires that the
analysis take into account the placement practices
used in the plants studied. With adequate factual
knowledge of the requirements of the particular jobs
and of the environmental conditions under which
the work is performed, and with an inventory of the
physical abilities of the applicant (results of the
physical examination), it is reasonable to believe that
the placement officer will be able to place the appli
cant intelligently. Under a hit-or-miss method, it is
not unlikely that the person with a given impair
ment will be placed on a job which requires powers
or abilities he does not possess. Through no fault of
his own the impaired person might be placed at such
a disadvantage that he would be a failure in the job
from the start.
In the discussions preliminary to the study, the
opinion was advanced that in the plants which prac
tice selective placement the impaired automatically
turn in a better record of work performance than the
unimpaired workers matched with them. It was
found however that, in practice, selective placement
is not usually limited in its application to impaired
persons. Consequently, the unimpaired benefit as
well as the impaired. In the absence of intelligent
placement practices, however, the impaired are
likely to suffer disproportionately more. The basic
fallacy underlying the opinion stated above is that
the so-called “ unimpaired” person does not need
selective placement. Whether the practice is dignified
with the name of “ selective placement” or not, it
has long been a basic tenet of sound personnel prac
tice that an applicant, no matter how able-bodied,
cannot be assigned to just any job. Every placement
officer practices selective placement in some degree
when he balances the qualities he wants in a certain
job against the apparent abilities and capabilities of
the applicant.
To a degree, the data compiled in this report are
6 F or other detailed discussions o f various phases o f jo b p lacem ent see
T h e P h ysically H a n d ica p p e d in Industrial E stablishm ents o f th e G overn
m ent, b y V erne K . H a rve y, M .D ., an d E . Parker L u ongo, M .D ., U .S.
C ivil Service C om m ission, in Journal o f the A m erican M e d ica l A ssociation ,
Jan. 9, 1943; J ob P lacem ent o f the P h ysically H an dicapped, b y C lark D .
B ridges, N ew Y o r k , M c G r a w -H ill B o o k C o ., In c., 1946; O perations
M anual fo r P lacem ent o f the P h ysically H an dicapped, U .S. C iv il Service
C om m ission, W ash in gton , 1947; and M a tch in g the P h ysical Character
istics o f W orkers and Jobs, b y B ert H anm an, in Industrial M ed icin e, M a y
1945. Selective P lacem en t fo r th e H an d icap p ed , R e v . F e b . 1945. U . S.
E m p loy m en t Service.

biased in the direction of the plants with more ad
vanced placement practices because of the necessity
of selecting for study only plants whose medical
records revealed physical impairments. This re
quirement was necessary in order to select, first, the
impaired workers within the definitions adopted for
the study and, second, the unimpaired workers to be
matched with them.
The scope of the medical examinations varied
widely among the 109 plants surveyed. In some
instances the examinations were comprehensive and
included blood and urine analysis, X-ray examina
tion, etc., for every applicant. In other cases, such
tests were made only when the applicant's history
indicated their advisability or when the kind of
employment being offered indicated their necessity.
In most of the plants, the examination was made by
a plant physician. In others, forms were supplied
by the plant and the examination was made by the
applicant's family physician or by a physician desig
nated by the employer.
A further factor which had tb be considered when
setting up the survey groups was the recency of the
physical examination. Some plants which otherwise
might have been selected for study had to be ex
cluded because the physical examination data for
many of the employees were too old to be depend
able. On the other hand, many of the plants studied
provided annual physical examinations or examina
tions following any illness or injury of the employee.
In general, however, the absence of adequate data
of this kind handicapped the study. Because no
pre- or post-employment physical examinations were
given, 62 plants had to be excluded from the survey.
As already indicated, these plants were the larger
firms in their various communities. There were
various reasons why physical examinations were not
used. In some cases it was a matter of tradition. In
other cases it was because of objection on the part of
the employees, who feared that the physical exami
nations might be used to prevent the employment
of workers objectionable to management for other
reasons, or that workers would be laid off rather than
placed in other suitable jobs.
In many plants it has been a long-standing policy
to exclude certain types of physical impairment.
When in the course of the pre-employment physical
examination the specific type of impairment is dis
closed, the applicant is automatically rejected. The

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

type of exclusion referred to here is not selective in
the sense that certain impairment types are rejected
only for certain kinds of jobs. This exclusion is of a
general nature and the person with the specified
impairment will not be accepted for employment on
any job in the plant.
During the war most plants relaxed the physical
standards to be met by new employees. Since the
end of the war, however, many plants were found to
have reinstituted exclusions in their hiring policies
affecting certain types of impairments. A sizable
number of the 109 plants included in the present
study stated specific exclusions as a matter of com
pany policy, as follows:
Excluded impairments

Number
of plants

Hernia_________________________
Epileptic______________________

33
32

Cardiac------------------------------------

Vision__________________________
Orthopedic____________________

16
11

Diabetic_______________________
Ex-tuberculous_______________

8
7

Peptic ulcer___________________

Hearing________________________

Six plants excluded all impaired applicants as a
matter of policy, and 75 plants had no definite policy
as to specific exclusions. On the other hand, only
25 of the surveyed plants had definite, stated policies
of no exclusions because of any impairment. In
these plants, if the abilities of the applicant met the
requirements of the job vacancy, physical impair
ment was not a cause for rejection.
The question may well be asked: How were these
plants included in the study in the face of these
exclusion policies, particularly the six plants which
professed to exclude all types of physical impair
ment? The seeming contradiction is resolved by the
fact that persons acquiring impairments subsequent
to their employment were not discharged but were
placed in jobs they were able to perform. There is a
sort of unconscious distinction between the person
who has acquired an impairment after entering the
service of the company and the impaired applicant
seeking employment. It is more than a sense of
responsibility to the impaired employee, although
that is a factor. The employee who has become im
paired in the company’s service is a good man who,
perhaps, has to be put on somewhat different work.
The impaired applicant, on the other hand, is an
untried person who presents an immediate problem
of placement. Also, some of the impaired persons

hired during the war were retained in their jobs. As
a result, these firms had sizable numbers of impaired
persons in their employment even though no addi
tional persons with impairment were being hired.
In a large number of plants, the exclusion of the
impaired was more thorough: 76 of the large plants
contacted had to be excluded from the study be
cause not enough impaired workers were employed
to justify the time and expense involved in searching
the records and recording the performance data. The
minimum had been set at 20 impaired workers.
The employment methods used varied consider
ably among the plants studied. The plants ranged
from small to large operations, but in each of them a
clearly defined personnel function had been (estab
lished as the responsibility of some person or group.
It seems reasonable to believe, therefore, that the
placement practice which characterized these firms
are representative of that segment in manufacturing
industry in which the personnel problem had received
careful consideration.
The placement techniques used in the firms studied
differed with the requirements of the various types
of operations and the needs of the individual plants.
In 55 plants, comprehensive job analyses were in
use; 19 plants used job descriptions; and 7 plants
utilized job analyses only for selected departments
and occupations. In 28 plants no such data were
used; but in 11 of them, job analysis studies were
under way at the time the survey was made. Many
of the plants also supplemented their own facilities
with others obtained from the United States Em
ployment Service and other sources.
The actual placement of the impaired worker was
also subject to a variety of methods. In many of the
plants, the placement required the approval of the
medical department, in some the approval of the
safety department, and in a few the foreman made
the assignment with the approval of the personnel
or employment manager. Transfers from one job to
another were handled in much the same way. In
most of the plants studied, considerable importance
was attached to the approval of transfers by either
the medical, safety, or personnel departments, or
some combination of the three. The reason, of course,
was that if transfers were made by a foreman or
other supervisor who was not acquainted with place
ment techniques, and for that matter might not even
have known which of his men had organic impair
ments, serious difficulties might result. The impaired

THE IMPAIRED WORKER IN INDUSTRY

person might be put on a job he was not at all
equipped to perform, one in which he might even
endanger himself or others. A few such instances
actually were encountered during the study. To
insure against such mischance, most of the plants
required approval by higher authority before trans
fers and reassignments could be effected. In some
places this applied to all employees, in others only
to certain employees on “ limited” or “ restricted”
lists.
In practically all of the plants some form of follow
up was maintained, but only in very few cases was
it sustained over any considerable period of time.
For the most part, a follow-up was made at the end of
a probationary period. Beyond that point no further
follow-up was made except in cases of complaint on
the part of the supervisor or employee. It was prob
ably because of this absence of systematic and
periodic follow-up that some of the very high indi
vidual rates of absence and injury on the part of
both impaired and unimpaired workers were found
in a number of plants.
It is not the purpose of the present study to pass
judgment on the placement practices as they affected
impaired workers in the plants studied. Effective
placement of the impaired worker is not a matter of
interviews, formal job analyses, assignment con
trols, etc. These are merely some of the tools which
can be used. The care and understanding with which
they are used is the final determinant. If the im
paired worker is automatically excluded by the mere
existence of the impairment, the tools at hand are
meaningless for him. On the other hand, if he is
considered in terms of what he can do as against
what the given job requires he is on an equal com
petitive footing with the unimpaired applicant.
Obviously, the greater the extent to which place
ment can be translated from a subjective to an ob
jective plane by the use of such devices as job re
quirements data, etc., the better. But the study
indicates clearly that it is not essential that each
company contemplating the employment of im
paired persons must undertake elaborate and ex
pensive research as a prerequisite. Assistance, if it
is needed, is readily available from the United States
Employment Service and other governmental and
private agencies. For the most part, the techniques
used for intelligent placement of so-called 11normal”
workers are all that need be brought into play for effec
tive placement of the impaired. The essential addition

is that the nature of the impairment and the require
ments of the job be clearly understood by all concerned.
One very significant fact brought out in the present
study was the nearly complete absence of job re
engineering for the impaired. One hundred and nine
plants employing 11,000 impaired persons had not
found extensive re-engineering necessary. In a few
instances, slight modifications had been made in the
machines or in the work place when impaired workers
were placed on the job. However, in large part the
same modifications had subsequently been adopted
for the unimpaired workers as well. Thus, the study
demonstrates clearly that extensive and expensive
re-engineering of jobs was not necessary for the em
ployment of sizable numbers of physically impaired
persons.
Selective placement as it applies to the impaired
and to the unimpaired person differs only in degree.
No matter how sympathetic the employer may be
toward hiring impaired persons, the basic fact re
mains that in one way or another the impaired person
is limited as to job assignments. He cannot be put
on just any job that happens to be available. In a
large number of plants the management told Bureau
field representatives that impaired persons would be
hired regardless of impairment if they had special
skills. In plain terms, the person with a severe
physical impairment must have a skill to sell which
will make it worth while for management to under
take a solution to the problem of his placement. The
industrial establishment with a competitive position
to maintain can afford to hire the impaired person
because of his skills, not because of his impairment.
This, of course, throws the emphasis on rehabilita
tion and retraining. Whether an impairment destroys
an existing skill or an impairment exists before skills
are acquired, it is of the utmost importance that the
impaired person acquire specialized skills. The
present study has indicated clearly that such skills
can be exercised by impaired persons and that such
persons can turn in a record of work performance
comparable to that of unimpaired workers on the
same jobs. The study also brought out the fact that
the emphasis in placement is upon finding the job
in which the impaired person can exercise his special
abilities to the best advantage. If impaired persons
are to be employed in greater numbers, it is highly
desirable that they bring to the jobs for which they
apply a specialized training and ability which will
induce management to hire them.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

A. The Hernia Cases
Summary of Statistical Findings
The record of work performance of 3,544 workers
with hernias was nearly identical with that of 5,869
unimpaired workers matched with them on the same
jobs. Differences between the two groups were
fractional for most of the factors studied. With
respect to frequency of absenteeism, nondisabling
work injuries, and disabling work injuries the rates
varied by tenths of a point. The time lost as a result
of disabling injuries was higher for the hernia cases
by only a fractional part of a day. The quit rate, too,
was slightly but not materially higher for the hernia
cases. However, as a group the hernia cases on in
dividual incentive work recorded an output slightly
over 1 percent higher than the unimpaired on the
same jobs.
In view of the marked similarity of the per
formance records, it seems reasonable to conclude
that the hernia cases were not handicapped by the
impairment as far as job performance was concerned.
T a b l e A - l .— Work performance of workers with hernias and of

matched unimpaired workers
Number of workers

Average performance

Factor
Unimpaired

Impaired

Unimpaired

3,544

5,869

3.2

3.1

3,501

5,806

9.2

9.1

3,543
3,543

5,868
5,868

226
1,805

365
3,068

9.9
.12
14.8
101.5
2.9

9.9
.11
14.4
100.0
1.8

Impaired
Absenteeism frequency rate1-----Nondisabling injury:
Frequency rate2___________
Disabling injury:
Frequency rate3___________
Time-lost rate4____________
Average days of disability 5
Output relative 6_ _ ______ ____
Quit rate7 __________ _________

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
2 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
2 Number of injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
4 Number of days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.
6 Number of days of disability per disabling injury.
8 Percentage relationship of production efficiency of impaired to that of unimpaired.
7 Number of voluntary quits per 100 employees in the survey group.

Composition of the Survey Group
The definitions adopted for the study required
that in selecting impaired workers in each plant only

cases of existing hernia were to be taken. All cases
of incipient or potential hernia, relaxed rings, and
cases in which the worker had undergone a successful
herniotomy were excluded.
Inguinal hernia was by far the most common type
found, and accounted for 2,409 cases. Of those, 51
were direct, 145 were indirect, 565 were double, and
1,648 were listed merely as inguinal hernia without
further designation; 220 cases were recorded as
umbilical herinas. There was also a fairly large
group, 915 cases, which the plant records described
only as “ hernia” without any further information as
to type. For the purposes of the present study, no
comparative performance tabulations were prepared
for each of the several types of hernias, and all data
shown cover the entire group.
Workers with hernias tended toward the higher
age ranges. Only 6 percent of the hernia cases were
under 30 years of age while 17 percent of the other
impaired workers fell in this age group. On the other
hand, while 38 percent of the other impaired workers
were 50 years of age or over, fully 51 percent of the
hernia cases fell in this group. Nearly 60 percent
of the hernia cases fell in the 20-year range from 45
to 65 years, and 34 percent in the 10-year range from
50 to 60 years. This is probably owing to the fact
that hernia is a fairly common work injury. Because
of longer exposure to conditions that produce hernia,
it is only natural for older workers to show a greater
incidence of hernia than younger workers. It is
possible, too, that there is less inclination on the part
of the older worker to undergo a herniotomy except
in emergency cases. In general, however, older men
are not placed on jobs requiring heavy lifting or
strenuous exertion. These conditions are also of
major importance in placing workers with hernias,
young or old.
Hernia cases were encountered more frequently in
the survey than any other type of physical impair
ment. The 3,544 cases studied constituted nearly a
third of all the impaired workers with whom unim-

A. THE HERNIA CASES
T a b l e A -2 .— Comparison of number and percentage distribution

of 8,544 hernia cases and 7,484 other impaired workers studied,
by age group
Percent

Number of workers
Age group
Hernia
cases

Hernia
cases

Other
impaired

...

3,544

7,484

100.0

Under 20 years_________ _____ ______
20 and under 25 years______________
25 and under 30 years______________
30 and under 35 years______________
35 and under 40 years______________
40 and under 45 years______________
45 and under 50 years. ____________
50 and under 55 years ------------- -------55 and under 60 years. ____________
60 and under 65 years _ _____ . . .
65 years and over. ________________

8
64
146
264
372
408
460
608
602
419
193

71
447
755
853
812
830
852
954
941
669
300

.2
1.8
4.1
7.4
10.5
11.5
13.0
17.3
17.0
11.8
5.4

.9
6.0
10.1
11.4
10.8
11.1
11.4
12.8
12.6
8.9
4.0

Total_________________________

paired workers could be matched in the 109 plants
studied. This large group was overwhelmingly male.
Only 35 of the group, or about 1 percent, were
females. Because of the small number of observa
tions for the female group, no performance data for
these cases are shown. Their influence on the group
averages was negligible.

Industry and Occupational Coverage
The hernia cases were very widely distributed
throughout the 19 major industry groups surveyed.
In fact, hernia cases were found in all of the 109
companies studied. This is particularly interesting

in light of the fact that more companies had specific
exclusion policies concerning hernia cases than for
any other of the impairments included in the study.
To some extent the large number of hernia cases
encountered can be accounted for by the retention of
employees who contracted hernias after entering the
employment of a company.
The jobs at which these impaired persons were
employed were about as varied as the hernia cases
were numerous. The following list of occupations in
which these impaired persons were found employed
indicates that most of them were in direct pro
duction activities. The number on maintenance,
inspection, and similar types of occupations was
small. Only about 3 percent of the group were on
custodial jobs, such as sweepers, janitors, etc. The
range and variety of skills represented is very broad.
This is not surprising because the nature of the her
nia impairment does not tend to destroy skills al
ready acquired unless heavy lifting is involved.
Similarly, the impairment places few limitations
upon the acquisition of new or additional skills.
The evidence of the present study points clearly
to the fact that employment opportunities for workers
with hernias were present in a very wide variety of
industries and occupations. The jobs listed are
merely illustrative. Many other jobs on which work
ers with hernias were employed do not appear in this
list because the impaired worker could not be in
cluded in the survey group.

Jobs at which 8,544 Hernia Cases of the survey group were found employed
[[Titles used are those app earing in the U n ite d States E m p lo y m e n t Service D ictio n a ry o f O ccu p ation a l T itles an d are grou p ed and n um bered a cco rd in g t o the
classifications used b y the W age A nalysis B ran ch o f the B u reau of L abor Statistics. T h is is n ot to be interpreted as a com plete listing o f jo b s at w hich
persons w ith hernia im pairm ent can be e m p lo y e d ]

1. Maintenance

Electric-truck repairman

Laborer (forging)

Electrical-instrument repairman

Laborer (foundry)

Electrical repairman

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Automobile mechanic

Electrician, locomotive
Electrician, powerhouse

Laborer (iron and steel)
Laborer (machine shop)

Blacksmith II

Fireman, stationary boiler

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

Boiler operator II

Flame-cutter operator

Laborer (m alt liquors)

Boilermaker

H od carrier

Bricklayer I I

Instrument repairman

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and
products)

Bricklayer, refractory brick

Kitchen helper II

Laborer (office machines)

Carpenter

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Laborer (paper and pulp)

Carpenter, flask

Laborer (ammunition)

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Cement finisher II

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Chauffeur I I

Laborer (boot and shoe)

Laborer (wire)

Coal pulverizer operator

Laborer (building)

Laborer, process (dental equipment)

Concrete-chipper man

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Electric-truck operator

Laborer (fabricated plastic products)

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal and
products)

Airplane mechanic
Asbestos worker, general

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

J o b s at w h ich 8 ,5 4 4 H e r n i a C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

1. Maintenance — Continued

— Continued

Soda-room man

Celluloid-roll man

Stillman II

Centering-machine operator

Laborer, process (petroleum refining)

Centerless-grinder operator

L ay-ou t man I

Charging-machine operator I

Lead burner

3. Processing

Machine apprentice

Chassis assembler II
Checker

Machinist II

Absorberman

Chiller man

Maintenance man, factory or mill

Chipper, foundry

Maintenance mechanic II

Absorption-plant operator
Acid maker I

Millman

Adjuster II

Millwright
Oiler II

Ager

Circular-sawing-machine operator
Coil assembler II

Aircraft carburetor subassembler

Coil assembler IV

Oiler, machinery

Aircraft mechanic

Coil winder I I

Painter I

Airplane woodworker

Cold-saw operator

Painter, sign

Airplane woodworker II
Annealer

Color matcher IV
Compounder helper

Pipe fitter
Pipe-fitter helper

Annealer II

Control man

Annealing-bath operator

Control man I I I

Plumber

Apprentice machinist

Conveyor man

Plumber apprentice

Armature winder I
Assembler IV

Cooper I

Powerhouse engineer
Refrigerating engineer

Assembler II

Coremaker, machine I

Refrigerator mechanic

Assemblyman helper I I

Coremaker, machine I II

Rigger I I I

Autoclave operator

Core-oven tender

Sheet-metal worker I I
Stationary engineer

Automobile mechanic, motor I
Baker I

Core paster

Steam fitter

Balancing-machine operator

Crankshaft plugger

Structural-steel worker

Band-ripsaw operator

Cupola tender

Switchboard operator I I I

Cutter, hand I V (boot and shoe)

Tool-grinder operator

Band-sawing-machine operator
Barrel driller

T ool maker

Barrel filler II

Cutter, machine V

Truck mechanic

Baster, hand

Cutter-off II

Tube cleaner
Turbine operator
W asher, machine II

Batch-still operator II
Batteryman II

Cyanide furnace operator
Cylinder-block repairman
Cylinder-machine operator
Cylindrical-grinder operator

Welder, arc

Batting-machine operator
Bead flipper, hand
Beater operator

Welder, combination

Bench assembler V

Pipe bender, machine

W ater filterer

Wire-fence erector

Bench grinder

W elder helper, acetylene

Bending roll operator
Blacksmith II

Yardm an I

Blank horner

Churn man II

Coremaker I

Correction man I II

Cutter, machine I

Defective-cigarette slitter
Dehydrogenation operator
Detail assembler I II
Die-casting-machine operator II
Die maker II
Die-setter I

Bottle-machine operator II

D ie sizer operator

Box maker, wood I II

D ie weigher I I

Absorption-plant operator

Box tender I

Digest operator I

Brakeman, yard I

Brakeman, automobile

Dipper I I

Chemical-laboratory chief

Brake operator, machine I I

Dissolver operator II

Foreman (electrical equipment)

Broaching-machine operator

Dividing machine operator

Foreman (paper and pulp)

Bucket-conveyor operator

Do-all-saw operator

Foreman (petroleum refining)

Buffer I

Dockm an I I

Foreman (nonferrous metal alloys and

Buffer, machine

Dough-mixer

Burrer, hand

Drawer builder

Glass grinder

Button-hole machine operator

Drophammer operator II

Glass polisher

Calender operator I

Dryer operator

Grease maker, head

Carton-forming-machine operator

Drying-machine operator

Hammersmith

Casting finisher

D yer V I I

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Catalytic-convertor operator

Dynam ic balancer

Pumpman X I I

Causticiser man

2. Working Foremen

products)

A. THE HERNIA CASES

J o b s at w h ich 8 ,5 4 4 H e r n i a C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

— Continued

3. Processing — Continued

Ingredient scaler
Instrument maker I

Laborer, process (iron and steel)
Laborer, process (leather manufacturing)

Electric-arc furnace operator

Instrument maker I I

Laborer, process (machinery manufac

Electric-motor assembler

Instrument maker IV

Electric-motor repairman

Insulating-machine operator I

Laborer, process (machine shop)

Electrical assembler I I

Internal-grinder-operator

Laborer,

Electrician, airplane I

Jig-boring machine operator

Engine-lathe operator

Job setter II

Laborer, process (m alt liquors)

Experimental-body and minor assembler

K ettle operator

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal alloys

turing)
process

(machine

tools

and

accessories)

Experimental mechanic

Kettle operator, head

External-grinder operator I

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Extruder operator II

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Laborer, process (petroleum refining)

Filler mixer I

Laborer (automobile parts)

Laborer, process (phonograph)

and products)
Laborer, process (paper and pulp)

Film-drying-machine operator

Laborer (bakery products)

Laborer, process (plastic materials)

Filter cleaner

Laborer (boot and shoe)

Laborer, process (plexiglas)

Filter man V

Laborer (cutlery tools)

Laborer, process (plumbing supplies)

Filter operator V

Laborer (foundry)

Laborer, process (radio manufacturing)
Laborer, process (rayon and allied

Filter-press operator I

Laborer (furniture)

Final assembler V II

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Fireman, still

Laborer (glass products)

Laborer, process (rubber goods)
Laborer, process (rubber tire and tube

products)

First helper II

Laborer (iron and steel)

Flaker operator I I

Laborer (leather products)

Floor assembler

Laborer (machine tools and accessories)

Foil-rolling-machine operator

Laborer (m alt liquors)

Ladle man I I

Folder, hand I

Lapping-machine operator

Forging-press operator

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and
products)

Lathe operator, automatic I

Form builder I

Laborer (paper and pulp)

L ay-out man (foundry)

Forming-press operator I

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Lay-out man (shop)

Furnace-tender, heat treating

Laborer (phonograph)

Lead burner I I

Furnace tender, oil-gas
Gager man V II I

Laborer (photographic apparatus)
Laborer (plastic materials)

Lehr man

Gatherer I I

Laborer (radio manufacturing)

Leverman, shear table

Gear-hobber operator

Laborer (rubber tire and tube manu

Lime slaker I I I

Gear-milling machine operator

manufacturing)
Laborer, process (wire)

Lead coater

facturing)

Lithographic-press man

General assembler II

Laborer (wire)

Glass blower II

Laborer, process

Glass blower, laboratory apparatus
Glass cutter
Glass grinder

ing)
Laborer,

Glass polisher

Laborer, process (aluminum products)
Laborer, process (ammunition)

M achinist II

Laborer, process (asbestos products)

M ajor assembler I

Laborer, process (automobile manufac

M ajor-assem bly installer
Marker

Grainer, machine I I
Grid-caster, automatic
Grid-machine job setter
Grid paster

process

Loader V II
(aircraft

manufactur

(agricultural

equip

ment)

turing)

Machine adjuster I II
Machine molder, jarring
Machine molder, rollover
Machine operator, separator department
M achinist, bench

Grinder

Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Grinder operator IV

Laborer, process (bakery products)

M c K a y stitcher
Melter IV

Hammersmith helper

Laborer, process (chemicals)

M etal finisher, hand filing

Hardener II

Laborer, process (coke production)

Milling-machine operator I I

H eat treater I I

Laborer, process (cutlery tools)

Milling-machine operator, automatic

Heater I I I

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

M illman

Heater, forge

Laborer, process (electroplating)

M ixer II

Heater tender

Laborer, process (foundry)

Mixing-machine operator I

Honing machine operator

Laborer, process (furniture)

M ock-up assembler

Hot-blaster man

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

M old closer

Incinerator man II

Laborer, process (glass products)

Molder

Induction-furnace operator

Laborer, process (instrument and

Molder, bench

Induction-furnace operator helper
776106° — 48 — 3

appliances)

Molder, squeeze

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

J o b s at w h ich 3 ,5 4 4 H e r n i a C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

3. Processing — Continued

— Continued

Reverberatory-furnace operator

Surface-grinder operator

Rheostat assembler

Sweater man

M olding-machine tender
M old painter

Ripening-room operator

Swinging-cut-off-saw operator
Switch adjuster

M old setter I I I

Riveter, pneumatic I II

Switch room man

M otor adjuster

Roller operator V

Table splicer I

Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Outsole molder

Roller operator I X

Tablem an I I I

Rougher II

Tacker V I I

Oven fireman

Router operator I II

Tankroom man III

Ovenman helper

Rubber compounder

Oven tender I

Sandblaster, glass

Tankroom man I V
Teaser I I

Oven tender V I

Sand-cutter operator

Temperer I I I

Painter, aircraft

Sand-slinger operator

Template filer

Riveter, aircraft

Painter, brush II

Saw filer, hand

Tem plate maker IV

Painter, sprayer I

Saw filer, machine

Thread-milling-machine operator

Panel trimmer

Saw setter II

Thrower I I

Paper cutter V

Screw-machine operator, automatic

Tin plater I I I

Paste cooker

Screw-machine operator, semiautomatic

Tire bagger

Patternmaker X I

Seaming-machine operator IV

Tire builder, drum

Patternmaker, metal

Second helper II

Tire repairer

Patternmaker, wood

Setter, hand

T ool designer

Photostat operator

Sewing-machine operator, shirts and re

Pilot-control operator

lated products

Tool grinder operator
T ool maker

Pipe-threading-machine operator

Shaper operator I

Treater II

Planer operator II

Shaving machine operator

Treater helper

Platen-press feeder

Sheet-metal-fabricating-machine

Treer, hand

Plater I

operator

Plexiglas former

Sheet-metal worker II

Trimmer, hand V I I I
Trimming-press operator II

Plunger

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft

Tube-bending-machine operator I

Pointer operator

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft II

Tube cleaner

Polisher

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Tube drawer

Pot fireman

Slicking-lathe operator

Tube-machine operator I I I

Pot-heater tender
Pourer, bull ladle

Slitting machine V I
Slitting machine operator

Tumbler operator II
Turret-lathe operator

Pourer, crane ladle
Power shear operator I

Soda-room man
Solderer I

Twisting-machine I
Up-fitter I I

Press cutter

Sorter

Vertical-boring-mill operator

Presser, hand I

Speed-lathe operator

Vertical-lathe operator

Presser, machine I

Spinner V I
Spinning-bath patrolman

Wafer-machine operator

Pressman
Pressman, paraffin plant

Splicer II

Watchcase-vulcanizer tender

Profiling-machine operator

Sprayer V I

W elder, acetylene

Profiling-machine operator I I

Spreader I

W elder, arc

Pumpman I

Spreader operator II

Welder, butt

Pumpman V II

Sticker

Welder, combination

Pumpman X I I

Stillman II

W elder, flash

Pumpman helper

Stillman helper

W elder, spot

Punch-press operator I

Still-operator helper

W ire drawer I I I

Punch-press operator II

Straightener, hand

Wire-tinning-maehine tender

Pyrometer man I I

Straightening-machine operator I I

W ireman V I

Quenching-car man

Straightening-press operator

W arm -in box

Radial-drill-press operator

Stranding-machine operator

Radiator-core assembler

Stretching-machine operator II

Radiator-core dipper

Strip-mill operator

Airplane inspector

Radio-chassis aliner

Subassembler

Airplane inspector I

Reactor operator I

Subassembler I I I

Body-assembly inspector

Repairman V

Subassembly installer II

Bottle inspector IV

4. Inspection and Testing

A. THE HERNIA CASES

J o b s at w h ich 8 ,5 4 4 H e r n i a C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

— Continued

4. Inspection and Testing — Con
tinued

5. Recording and Control

Laborer (iron and steel)
Laborer (leather products)

Checker

Laborer (machine tools and accessories)

Casting inspector

Clerk, general

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

Checker

Expediter I I

Laborer (m alt liquors)
Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and

Checker I

M aterial clerk

Chemist, assistant I I

M aterial planner

Chemist, organic

M ill recorder

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Chemist, physical

Parcel-post packer

Laborer (photographic apparatus)

Cloth examiner, hand II

Production clerk II

Laborer (plastic materials)

Core checker

Production planner

Laborer (plumbing supplies)

Deflector operator

Receiving clerk I II

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Electrical inspector I I

Shipping checker

Laborer (rubber tire and tube manufac

Engineman II

Shipping checker I I

Experimental mechanic

Shipping clerk I
Shipping clerk II

Final-assembly inspector
Final-assembly

inspector,

fuselage

Stock chaser I I

products)

turing)
Laborer (surgical appliances)
Laborer (wire)
Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Final tester II

Stock-control clerk
Stock supervisor

Gager I V

Tallym an I I I

Laborer, process (iron and steel)

Gear roller

Timekeeper

Hardness inspector

Tool clerk

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal alloys
and products)

Hot-forging inspector

Weigher I I

Laborer, process (paper and pulp)

6. Material Movement

Laborer, process (rayon and allied
products)

installation

Inspector I
Inspector I I
Inspector, Chief I

Laborer, process (bakery products)

Laborer, process (rubber tire and tube)

Inspector, Chief I II

Brakeman, yard I

Locomotive-crane operator

Inspector, crude rubber

Bucket-conveyor operator

Locomotive engineer, gasoline
Rigger X

Inspector, hammers and presses

Diesel-dinkey operator

Inspector (machine shop)

Dum p-truck driver

Inspector, plate forming and drying

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Routeman I
Shipping clerk I I

Inspector, raw materials
Inspector and tester

Electric-monorail-crane operator
Electric-truck operator

Truck-crane operator

Tractor operator

Installation inspector

Elevator operator, freight

Truck driver, heavy

Instrument maker I

Floor boy II

Truck driver, light

Laborer (iron and steel)

Follow-up man I II

Laborer (machine shop)
Laborer process (glass manufacturing)

Gasoline-truck operator
Hot-metal-crane operator

7. Custodial

M eter tester

Industrial-locomotive operator
Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Filter cleaner

Planer operator I I
Procurement inspector

Laborer (aluminum products)

Fire equipment man
Fireman I I I

Pump tester

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Gateman I V

Radio repairmen I I I

Laborer (automobile parts)

Raw-material inspector II

Laborer (bakery products)

Grounds keeper I
Janitor I

Refrigerator inspector

Laborer (chemical)

Salvage inspector I I

Laborer (cutting tools)

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (automobile parts)

Sheet-metal inspector I

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Laborer (felt goods)

Tester I

Laborer (fabricated plastic products)

Laborer (foundry)

Tester, chemical process

Laborer (firearms)

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

Tire inspector II

Laborer (foundry)

Laborer (petroleum refining)
Porter I

Tool inspector

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

W elding inspector I

Laborer (glass products)

Porter I I

X -r a y technician II

Laborer (hardware)

W atchm an I

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Placement Practices

N o special features of placement were encountered
in the placement of hernia cases. For the most part,
a knowledge of the existence of the condition and a
knowledge of the simple physical requirements of the
job were found to be sufficient for proper placement.
The pre-employment physical examination is the
only means by which the nature and extent of the
impairment can be determined accurately. In the
absence of the examination, the applicant may or
may not admit the existence of a hernia. In the event
he chooses to withhold the information, he may be
placed on a job which will aggravate his condition.
Such a result may have serious consequences for both
the impaired person and the company employing
him.
The principal consideration involved when the
existence of a hernia has been established is that the
worker shall not be placed on a job requiring excessive
lifting or other strenuous exertion which is likely to
cause strain. In general, other factors such as the pres
ence of moving equipment, high speed machinery, etc.,
are not particularly significant unless the applicant
has other characteristics which influence the match
ing of abilities to the requirements of the job. Place
ment is thus comparatively simple, a fact which
probably accounts in part for the large number of
hernia cases encountered in the survey.
Because restrictions were few, the hernia group
was found to be more mobile than most of the other
impairment groups. Given the requisite skills, a
worker with a hernia can perfom many of the jobs
in a given shop. Furthermore, clearance of transfers
through the personnel and medical departments was
also found to be comparatively simple.
One of the most important aspects of the employ
ment of a worker with a hernia is the possible ag
gravation of the existing hernia, and the likely
increase in workmen’s compensation costs. However,
this factor can be controlled. In the entire survey
group of more than 3,500 persons with existing
hernias, only one instance of an abdominal strain
was recorded as a disabling injury. The degree of
control exercised in the various plants varied widely.
In some plants an applicant with a hernia was re
quired to have it repaired within some reasonable
period after employment. In other plants, the em
ployee had to agree to wear a truss. In some plants
periodic checks were made to determine whether the

employee complied with this requirement. Primarily,
of course, the best control for existing cases is pro
vided by careful placement and adequate provision
for review of transfers by the personnel and medical
departments. On jobs which do not involve factors
that might aggravate the hernia condition, it
probably is not important whether the worker has a
hernia or not. Although it may be to the personal
advantage of the individual to have his hernia re
paired, if that can be done, the existence of the hernia
did not have an adverse effect on work performance
of the survey group.

Work Performance
As it was possible to obtain data on a large group
of active hernia cases, findings were possible for all
of the factors of work performance under considera
tion in the study. Table A - l and the following
paragraphs summarize the findings:
Absenteeism
All absences of 1 day or more on days on which an
employee was scheduled to work were recorded for
each member of the survey group. Absenteeism rates
were computed for each individual as well as for the
group as the number of days absent per 100 sched
uled workdays. Lay-offs, regular vacations, etc., were
not counted either as absences or as days scheduled
for work.
Data were available on absenteeism for all of the
3,544 hernia cases and the 5,869 unimpaired workers
matched with them. The rates for the two groups
were practically identical, 3.2 and 3.1, for the im
paired and matched unimpaired workers, respec
tively. The slight variation in the rates indicates
that, as a group, the hernia cases had 1 day more of
absence than the matched unimpaired in each 1,000
scheduled workdays — clearly not a significant
difference. As a group then, it can be said that the
hernia cases were as regular in their work attendance
as the matched unimpaired workers on the same jobs.
Comparison of the individual rates by means of a
frequency distribution bears out the similarity of
performance indicated by the group averages: 26
percent of the impaired and 25 percent of the unim
paired had no absences at all during the period
studied; 74 percent of the impaired and 75 percent
of the unimpaired had rates of 3.9 days per hundred

A . THE HERNIA CASES

or lower. A scattering of poor performance was
found in both groups: 1.4 percent of the impaired
and 1.5 percent of the unimpaired had excessively
high individual rates of 20.0 or higher. Individual
cases of this kind, however, may be expected in any
sizable group of workers.
T a b l e A - 3 .— Percentage distribution of 8,544 hernia cases and

5,869 unimpaired workers, by absenteeism frequency rate 1
Absenteeism frequency rate class

Impaired

Unimpaired

0.......................................................................................
0.1 and under 1.0........... ................................. ..............
1.0 and under 2.0_________________________________
2.0 and under 3.0____________ ______ _____ _____ ___
3.0 and under 4.0..... ............... ............. ........... ............
4.0 and under 7.0............. ......................... - ............. ......
7.0 and under 10.0............... ................... .......................
10.0 and under 20.0_________________________ _____
20.0 and over_____________ ___________ ______ _____

25.7
17.5
14.2
9.5
7.4
12.1
5.4
6.8
1.4

24.7
17.9
15.5
9.8
7.0
12.9
4.8
5.9
1.5

Total.................. ........................... .......................

100.0

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

An effort was made to determine the cause for
each absence. The results were disappointing, how
ever, as information on the reasons for absences were
available for less than half the absences reported.
To the extent to which such reasons were obtainable,
however, the rates attributable to various causes
for absence were nearly identical for both the im
paired and the unimpaired workers (see table A -4).
Within the limits of the data, it appears that the
persons with a hernia condition did not lose any
more time than the unimpaired workers because of
actual or alleged illness.
T able

mately 2,000 hours of work per employee.
Data were available for 3,501 of the impaired
workers and for 5,806 of the unimpaired workers
matched with them on the same jobs. For the re
maining cases the records were not available. For
the group as a whole, the rates were 9.2 and 9.1
nondisabling injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours
among the impaired and unimpaired, respectively.
The variation in the rates indicates that hernia cases
as a group had about one more nondisabling injury
than unimpaired workers for each 100,000 hours of
exposure, clearly not a significant difference. It may
be concluded safely that the nondisabling injury
experience was the same in the two groups.
The same similarity of the nondisabling injury
experience was apparent on individual comparison.
The individual rates computed on a 1,000-hour base
are shown as a frequency distribution in table A -5.
About 50 percent of the impaired and 49 percent of
the unimpaired had no injuries at all during the pe
riods studied; 85 percent of the impaired and 84
percent of the unimpaired had rates of less than
2 per 1,000 exposure-hours. As would be expected,
some cases of very poor performance were found in
both groups of workers: about 1 percent of the work
ers in each group had rates of 10.0 or higher per
1,000 exposure-hours.
T a b l e A - 5 .— Percentage distribution of 8,501 hernia cases and

5,806 unimpaired workers, by frequency rate 1 of nondisabling
injuries

A - 4 .— Absenteeism frequency rates 1 for 8,544 hernia
Frequency rate class

cases and 5,869 unimpaired workers, by reason for absence
Reason for absence

Impaired

Unimpaired

Total....................................... . . ......................... ............

3.2

3.1

Illness____________________________________________
Personal business........................... —--------- -------------Unknown------------------------- --------------------------------

1.1
.3
1.8

1.1
.3
1.7

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

Nondisabling Injury Experience
A nondisabling injury was defined as one which
did not result in any permanent impairment or in
loss of time beyond the day or shift on which the in
jury occurred. Frequency rates for the groups were
computed on a base of 10,000 exposure-hours, and
individual rates for frequency distributions on a base
of 1,000 exposure-hours. The use of the smaller base
was necessary for the individual cases because in
most instances the periods studied covered approxi

Impaired

Unimpaired

0 ...................................................................................... ..
0.1 and under 1 . 0 _______ _____ ____ ______________
1.0 and under 2.0___________ _____________ ______
2.0 and under 5.0__________ ____________ ________
5.0 and under 10.0______________ ________________
10.0 and over __________________________________

49.5
21.4
14.4
10.6
3.0
1.1

48.7
21.8
13.9
11.9
2.8
.9

Total. ...................................................................

100.0

1 Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.

An effort was made to determine whether the
hernia cases displayed a proneness toward any par
ticular kind of injury. The rates attributable to the
various kinds of injuries are practically identical in
the two groups (see table A -6). Cuts and abrasions
accounted for most of the injuries in both groups,
and in about equal proportions. No more proneness
on the part of the hernia cases toward any particular
type of nondisabling injury could be determined
than was apparent among unimpaired workers on the
same jobs.

30
T able

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
A - 6 .— Frequency rates 1 of nondisabling injuries for

8j501 hernia cases and 5,806 unimpaired workers, by nature
of injury
Nature of injury

Unimpaired

..........

9.2

9.1

Burns and scalds____________________________ ____
Cuts and abrasions__________ _____ ________ _____
Eye injuries______________________ ____ _________

.5
6.5
1.4
.5
.3

.5
6.4
1.5
.4
.3

Total

Impaired

Strains and sprains
Othnr

.....

. .

aged 1.3 visits per person while the 5,806 unimpaired
workers matched with them averaged 1.4 visits per
person. The difference between these two groups of
workers with respect to demands upon plant medical
facilities for nonindustrial purposes clearly is not
significant, and whatever difference there may be
appears to be in favor of the hernia cases.
Disabling Injury Experience

l Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.

As a possible measure of the severity of these minor
injuries, the number of redressings required per in
jury was computed for each group. Although policies
on first-aid services varied widely between companies,
this comparison is valid because the conditions in
each plant were the same for the impaired and the
unimpaired workers. Among the hernia cases and
the unimpaired workers matched with them practi
cally no difference was found in this measure. The
hernia cases had an average of 0.9 redressings per
injury against an average of 1.0 for the unimpaired.
Measured in this way, there was no tendency indi
cated on the part of the hernia cases to experience
nondisabling injuries of greater severity than was the
case among the unimpaired workers.
So far then as the nondisabling injury experience
is concerned, frequency, severity, and nature of
injury were practically identical in the two groups.
From these facts it seems reasonable to infer that
the nondisabling injuries were related to the hazards
of the jobs and were not influenced by the existence
of the hernias.
The medical records also disclosed pertinent facts
on the prevalence of nonindustrial illness and injury
in the two groups. “ Nonindustrial visits” were de
fined as dispensary visits occasioned by causes not
related to the worker’s employment. For this factor,
too, policies varied widely as to the use of medical
facilities. However, the policies did not vary for im
paired and unimpaired workers in the same plant.
The purpose of these data was to determine how the
two groups of workers compared with respect to
demands made upon the medical facilities of the
plant. Most plants were liberal in their policies and
it is conceivable that impaired persons might make
demands on such facilities for treatment or medi
cation related to the impairment. For the hernia
cases this was definitely not true. The 3,501 workers
with hernias for whom data were available aver

Frequency. A disabling injury was defined as a workconnected injury which resulted in a permanent im
pairment or in a time loss of 1 day or more beyond
the day or shift on which the injury occurred. The
frequency rate was computed as the number of in
juries per million exposure hours.
Data on disabling injuries were available for 3,543
of the hernia cases matched with 5,868 unimpaired
workers on the same jobs. The rates were identical,
9.9 for the impaired and the unimpaired groups. The
workers with hernias and the unimpaired workers
exposed to the same hazards had the same disabling
injury experience.
The similarity of this injury experience extended
also to the kinds of injuries sustained. Contusions of
the hands, arms, legs, and feet accounted for a sizable
proportion of the injuries in both groups. Fractures
of the extremities were also fairly common. Several
lost-time cases resulted from infected cuts. Sprains
and strains, particularly of the back and legs, were
also fairly numerous in both groups. But no case of
aggravation of an existing hernia was found among
the impaired workers. On the other hand, four of the
unimpaired workers incurred hernias during the pe
riods surveyed. One reason for this difference may
have been that the workers with hernias exercised
somewhat greater caution when handling materials.
Time Lost.
Not only were the injury frequency
rates nearly identical, but the average time loss per
injury was nearly the same in both groups.
The time-lost factor was computed in two ways:
As a rate per 100 days of scheduled work for the im
paired and unimpaired groups, and as the number of
days lost per injury in each group. In either way, the
differences between the two groups are not signif
icant. The time-lost rate was 0.12 days per 100
scheduled workdays for the hernia cases and 0.11
days for the unimpaired group. On the time-lostper-injury basis, the hernia cases averaged 14.8 days

A. THE HERNIA CASES

per injury, and the unimpaired workers 14.4 days.
In each group most of the injury disabilities were of
short duration, with the heaviest concentrations at
10 days and under.
Plant accident reports were examined to deter
mine whether injuries among the impaired workers
were caused by or related to the worker’s impair
ment. In none of the injuries was this found to have
been the case. Similarly, no instance was found in
which the hernia of an impaired worker was a causal
factor in an injury to an unimpaired worker. These
findings were confirmed by interview with the plant
safety directors or other responsible officials.
In summary, it was found that (1) the hernia cases
had the same disabling injury frequency as the unim
paired workers exposed to the same hazards; (2)
the injuries were of about the same severity, as meas
ured by the amount of time lost per injury; (3) no
causal relationship between impairment and injury
could be established. According to the survey find
ings as well as in the opinions of responsible plant
officials, the existence of a hernia condition was not
a causal factor in the injury experience of either the
impaired workers or their unimpaired fellow workers.
Output Relative
This measure was computed as a relative of the
production efficiency of the impaired to that of the
matched unimpaired workers, the output of the un
impaired in each case equaling 100. The output rel
ative could be computed only for those cases for
which data on individual production were available.
For all practical purposes, this meant that data for
this factor could be recorded only where the impaired
worker and the unimpaired workers matched with
him on the same job were paid on an individual
piecework or similar incentive system. In order to
maintain an objective comparison, no subjective
measures such as foreman’s evaluation or efficiency
ratings were used.
Of the present survey group, individual produc
tion records were available for 226 of the hernia cases
matched with 365 unimpaired workers on the same
jobs. As a group, workers with hernias were 1.5
percent more efficient, and averaged that much more
output per hour worked than their unimpaired co
workers.
This does not mean, of course, that every worker
with a hernia was a superior worker. Cases of very

good and very poor performance were found among
both the impaired and the unimpaired workers. In
general, however, the individual comparisons support
the group averages. About 49 percent of the workers
with hernias were as efficient as workers without
hernias. For these impaired workers relative effi
ciency ranged from 95 percent to 105 percent of the
average performance of unimpaired workers. About
29 percent exceeded the performance of the un
impaired workers with whom they were matched, by
5 percent or more; and in 22 percent of the cases the
performance was poorer by 5 percent or more.
Fully 78 percent of the hernia cases, then, had
individual production records as good as or better
than the unimpaired workers with whom they were
matched on the same jobs. The percentage of im
paired workers with poor performances was more
than offset by the percentage of workers with su
perior performances:
Output relative

Number o f
impaired workers

Under 9 5 .0 _____________________
95.0 and under 1 0 5 .0 _________________
105.0 and over___________________________

50
110
66

These findings deal only with those hernia cases
for whom output records were available. But there
were many others who were on production work for
which the basis of payment was group production.
Others worked on assembly lines where the pro
duction was paced by the speed of the entire line.
In these instances, the impaired worker must have
been able to hold his own in order to hold his job.
Quit Rate
Voluntary quits were made up of all the instances
in which the employee severed his connection with
the employer on his own volition. The quit rates
are shown as the number of such cases per 100 em
ployees in each group, i. e., the impaired and the un
impaired. It was possible to obtain these data for
1,805 of the hernia cases and 3,068 unimpaired
workers matched with them. The data were ob
tained by means of follow-up and show the quits
which occurred in a period of 6 months after the end
of the survey period. At the same time, data on
terminations were obtained to provide a total sepa
ration rate, but it is with voluntary quits that the
study is primarily concerned.
The quit rate was slightly higher for the hernia

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

cases than for the unimpaired group, 2.9 and 1.8,
respectively. Actually there were 53 quits among the
impaired and 55 among the unimpaired. Six persons
in each group quit for health reasons and one impaired
worker quit for family reasons. A variety of reasons
were lumped together under “ other ” and it is in
this category that most of the difference between the
groups is found; 26 impaired and 19 unimpaired fell
into this classification. Most common reasons in this
group were “ to accept other employment” and “ to
establish own business. ” These reasons were equally

common among the impaired and unimpaired
workers. It is probable that these impaired workers
had acquired industrial skills and experience which
enabled them to find jobs a little more readily than
they could before. The rates may be influenced too
by the fact that conditions were rather unstable dur
ing the period covered by the data. Reconversion
from wartime to peacetime production was under
way in many plants, and there was considerable
moving around among the working population in
general.

B. THE CAKDIAC CASES

B. The Cardiac Cases
Summary of Statistical Findings
The record of work performance of about 1,800
workers with cardiac impairments was very similar
to that of the 3,000 unimpaired workers matched
with them on the same jobs.
Differences in the measures of performance were,
for the most part, fractional. The cardiac cases had
slightly higher rates of absenteeism and disabling
work injuries and a slightly lower rate of nondisabling
work injuries. The voluntary quit rate also was
higher but hardly sufficiently so to be counted sig
nificant. The greatest difference occurred in the case
of work output, where the cardiac cases as a group
produced at a rate a little more than 2 percent
higher than the unimpaired workers on the same jobs.

The impaired male and female cases compared in
much the same way with the unimpaired workers
with whom they were matched. Although the level
of the rates for the male and female groups was sub
stantially different, the latter group was not large
enough (except for the output relative) to exercise a
very marked effect on the rates for this survey group
as a whole.
Based on the record it seems reasonable to con
clude that the workers with cardiac impairments,
properly placed, were not handicapped workers. As
a group they displayed about the same work char
acteristics as the unimpaired workers subject to the
same incentives and exposed to the same hazards
and were able to compete successfully with them.

T a b l e B - l .— W ork performance of cardiac cases and of matched unimpaired workers

Disabling injury
Absenteeism
frequency
rate1

Group

Nondisabling
injury
frequency
rate2

Frequency
rate3

Average days
of disability5

Time-lost
rate4

Quit
rate7

Output
relative6

Average performance
Total:
Impaired________________________ _ __
Unimpaired_________________________ ___

4.7
3.8

10.0
10.7

10.2
9.3

0.11
.09

14.0
12.9

102.4
100.0

4.4
2.7

Male:
Im paired______________________________
Unimpaired____________________________

4.2
3.4

10.5
11.2

11.3
10.5

.13
.11

14.2
13.1

101.9
100.0

3.4
2.1

Female:
Impaired_______________________________
Unimpaired____________________________

7.6
6.7

6.5
6.7

2.4
1.2

.01
(8)

7.0

102.8
100.0

7.6
5.2

1.0

Number of workers
Total:
Impaired______________________ ___
Unim paired___
________ __

_ _
_ _

Male:
Impaired
Unimpaired
Female:
Impaired
U nim paired_________

1 Number
2 Number
3 Number
4 Number
5 Number

_ _

1,840
3,055

1,820
3,025

1,840
3,055

1.840
3,055

236
329

836
1,376

1,557
2,613

1,541
2,590

1,557
2,613

114
169

638
1,085

283
442

279
435

283
442

122
160

198
291

of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
of injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
of days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.
of days of disability per disabling injury.

6 Percentage relationship o f production efficiency of impaired to that of matched
unimpaired.
7 Number of voluntary quits per 100 employees in the survey group.
8 Less than 0.01.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Composition of the Survey Group
All workers recorded as organic cardiac cases in
the medical files of the plants surveyed were included
in the study. Hypertensive heart disease cases were
included, but hypertension and potential heart dis
ease cases were excluded. An attempt was made to
classify the cases in accordance with the classifica
tions of organic heart disease devised by the Amer
ican Heart Association, but in only a few plants were
these classifications readily available from the med
ical records. In a few instances cases were recorded
as rheumatic heart disease, hypertensive heart dis
ease, etc., but they were scattered and too few in
number to permit conclusions as to their relative
significance in the group. As a consequence, all data
are shown for the entire group of cardiac impairments
without any more detailed break-down by type of
disease. Authorities state that the rheumatic type
constitute most of the employable cardiac cases, and
presumably the present survey group is made up
largely of such cases.7
It would have been desirable also to obtain data
on the duration of the impairment. Provision was
made for obtaining these data, but in the overwhelm
ing proportion of the cases the information was not
given in the plant records. The further investigation
which would have been required to develop the data
was not deemed practicable in the present study.
The cardiac impairment is one which the layman
generally associates with advanced age. But in the
present study over half the impaired workers in this
group were under the age of 45. This finding raises
an interesting question but one which the survey
cannot answer: Whether the nature of the impair
ment generally causes earlier withdrawal from the
labor market for reasons of health than is true of
workers generally or whether this kind of impair
ment — coupled with advancing age — raises a sub
stantial barrier to employment.
A rather high percentage of workers with cardiac
impairments were found in the lower age ranges in
comparison with the rest of the impaired workers
studied: 21 percent of the cardiac cases as against
only 12 percent in the remainder of the survey group
were under the age of 30; further, 52 percent of the
cardiac cases against 44 percent of the rest of the
survey group were under the age of 45. This tend
7 Selective P lacem ent o f the H a n d ica p p ed , W ar M a n p ow er C om m ission,
W ash in gton , revised 1945.

ency toward concentration in the lower age ranges
was noted in both the male and female groups.
T a b l e B - 2 .— Comparison of number and percentage distribution

of 1,840 cardiac cases and 9,188 other impaired workers studied,
by age group and by sex
Number of workers

Percent

Age group and sex
Cardiac
cases

Other
impaired

Cardiac
cases

Other
impaired

Total______________________________
Under 20 years___ _______ __ _
20 and under 25 years__________
25 and under 30 years_______ __
30 and under 35 years__________
35 and under 40 years__________
40 and under 45 years__________
45 and under 50 years__________
50 and under 55 years__________
55 and under 60 years__________
60 and under 65 years__________
65 years and over______________

1,840
33
134
210
211
164
200
186
203
236
173
90

9,188
46
377
691
906
1,020
1,038
1,126
1,359
1,307
915
403

100.0
1.8
7.3
11.4
11.5
8.9
10.9
10.0
11.1
12.8
9.4
4.9

100.0
.5
4.1
7.5
9.9
11.1
11.3
12.3
14.8
14.2
9.9
4.4

M a le s ________
______________
Under 20 y e a r s _______________
20 and under 25 years__________
25 and under 30 years____ _____
30 and under 35 years__________
35 and under 40 years__________
40 and under 45 years __ ______
45 and under 50 years______ __
50 and under 55 years, _
55 and under 60 years_____ __
60 and under 65 years___ ____
65 years and over______________

1,557
20
100
152
177
125
150
168
189
217
170
89

8,696
33
311
612
839
952
980
1,071
1,309
1,280
906
403

100.0
1.3
6.4
9.8
11.4
8.0
9.6
10.8
12.1
14.0
10.9
5.7

100.0
.4
3.6
7.0
9.6
11.0
11.3
12.3
15.1
14.7
10.4
4.6

Females, _____ _____ ________________
Under 20 years_____________
20 and under 25 years __ ______
25 and under 30 years _ _ _
30 and under 35 years. _
35 and under 40 years___ _ _
40 and under 45 years____
___
45 and under 50 years. _________
50 and under 55 years_________
55 and under 60 years. _________
60 and under 65 years__________
65 years and over______________

283
13
34
58
34
39
50
18
14
19
3
1

492
13
66
79
67
68
58
55
50
27
9
0

100.0
4.6
12.0
20.4
12.0
13.8
17.7
6.4
4.9
6.7
1.1
.4

100.0
2.6
13.4
16.1
13.6
13.8
11.8
11.2
10.2
5.5
1.8
0

The survey group consisted of 1,840 workers with
cardiac conditions matched with 3,055 unimpaired
workers on the same jobs — the second largest of the
10 impairment groups studied. 1,557 males were
matched with 2,613 unimpaired males, and 283 im
paired females were matched with 442 unimpaired
females. This was the largest female group included
in any of the impairment types surveyed. As both
groups were large enough to provide reasonably de
pendable results, separate performance figures have
been shown for the male and female cases.

Industry and Occupational Coverage
Workers with cardiac impairments are included
in the survey group from each of the 19 major in
dustry groups and from 104 of the 109 plants covered
by the study. Cardiac cases were found in 3 of the 5
plants not represented but could not be included be
cause unimpaired workers could not be matched with

B. THE CARDIAC CASES

them on the same jobs. The plant and industry
coverage obtained in this group indicates that cardiac
cases are adaptable to an extremely wide variety of
job requirements and that the job opportunities for
such workers are potentially very broad. In addition,
the work record is more impressive as it reflects per
formance under a variety of conditions in light and
heavy industries.
The jobs at which the cardiac cases studied were
employed are shown in the listing below. As was
true of the other impairment groups, most of the
cardiac cases were on processing or production jobs.
However, the proportion found in maintenance and
in inspection and testing work was perhaps a little
higher than was the case in the other impairment
groups.
The most significant feature of this listing of jobs

is the very broad range and variety of skills repre
sented. Only a small proportion— 5 percent of the
group — were found in unskilled custodial work, such
as gateman, porter, and similar occupations; this
probably was to be expected. Practically any skill
which does not involve excessive exertion or expo
sure to extreme dust and temperature conditions is
within the physical capacities of a person with the
most common — the rheumatic — type of cardiac
impairment, and the findings in this case lend fac
tual substance to what otherwise might be no more
than a reasonable inference.
It should be noted here, too, that the jobs listed
are only illustrative. Many cardiac cases could not
be matched with unimpaired workers; hence, many
other jobs on which these impaired persons were em
ployed could not be included in the study.

Jobs at which 1,840 Cardiac Cases of the survey group were found employed
[T itles used are those appearing in the U n ited States E m p lo y m e n t Service D ictio n a ry o f O ccu p ation a l T itles and are grou ped a n d n um bered a ccord in g t o
the classifications used b y the W a g e A n alysis B ran ch of the B ureau o f L a bor Statistics. T h is is n ot to b e in terp reted as a com plete listing o f jo b s at
w hich persons w ith cardiac im pairm ent can be e m p lo y e d ]

M ALE1

Laborer (printing and publishing)

2. Working Foremen

Laborer (railroad)

1. Maintenance

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Absorption-plant operator

Laborer (wire)

Chemist assistant II

Air-compressor operator

Laborer, process (boilermaking)

Darkroom man

Airplane mechanic
Automobile-mechanic helper

Laborer, process (forging)

Foreman (electrical equipment)

Laborer, process (machine shop)

Boiler operator I I

Laborer, process (petroleum refining)

Foreman (petroleum refining)
Glass polisher

Bricklayer I I

Lead-burner helper

Hammersmith

Bucker-up I I

Machinist I I

Inspector, machine shop

Cable splicer I

Machinist apprentice

Installation inspector

Carpenter, maintenance
Chauffeur II

Maintenance man, building

Laborer (railroad)
Pumpman X I I
Stillman I I

Electrician apprentice

Maintenance man, factory or mill
Maintenance mechanic II
M illman

Electrician, powerhouse

Oiler I

3. Processing

Engine-lathe operator

Oiler II

Fireman, low pressure
Fireman, stationary boiler
Flame-cutter operator

Painter I

Electrical repairman

Instrument repairman
Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Painter, sign
Pipe fitter
Pipe-fitter helper
Polymerization helper

Aircraft carburetor subassembler
Airplane woodworker
Airplane woodworker I I
Annealer
Annealer I I I

Laborer (ammunition)

Power house engineer

Anodic operator

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Refrigerator mechanic

Apprentice machinist

Laborer (boot and shoe)

Rigger I I I

Armament mechanic

Laborer (chemicals)

Salvage man I I

Assembler I

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Steam fitter

Automobile mechanic, motor I

Laborer (forging)

Structural-steel worker

Baker I

Laborer (iron and steel)

Tool-grinder operator

Ball-mill man

Laborer (machine shop)

T ool maker

Banbury mixer

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

Turbine operator

Band builder

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and

W ater filterer

Band-saw-straightener operator

Welder, acetylene

Barrel filler II

Welder, arc

Batch-still operator II

products)
Laborer (petroleum refining)

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
J o b s at w h ich 1 ,8 4 0 C a rd ia c C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

3. Processing — Continued

Forging-press operator
Forging-press operator I

Beater operator

— Continued

Laborer, process (machinery manufac
turing)

Form builder I

Laborer, process (m alt liquors)
Laborer, process (nonferrous metal alloys

Bed-las ter

Forming-press operator I

B elt sander

Friction-sawing machine operator

Bench assembler V

Furnace operator II

Laborer, process (paper and pulp)

Bench grinder

Furnace tender, heat treating

Laborer, process (phonograph)

Bending roll operator

Gager man V I I I

Laborer, process (plastic materials)

Blacksmith I I

Gear-generator operator

Laborer, process (rayon and allied

Blank horner

General assembler II

Box maker, wood I I I

Glass cutter

and products)

products)
Laborer, process (rubber goods)

Brake operator, machine I I

Glass grinder

Laborer, process (wire)

Buffer I

Glass polisher

Lapping-machine operator

Buffer, machine

Grinder

Burnisher II

H eat treater

Lay-out man (shop)
Lens molder II

Burrer, hand

Heater I I I

Lim e slaker I I I

Celluloid-roll man

Heater, forge

Line walker

Centerless-grinder operator

Heel-seat laster, machine

M achine molder, jarring

Chassis assembler II

Honing machine operator

Machine molder, rollover

Chipper, foundry

Incinerator man II

M achinist I I

Churn man II

Induction-furnace operator

Machinist, bench

Cigarette-making-machine operator

Induction-furnace operator helper

M ajor assembler I

Circular-sawing-machine operator

Jig-boring machine operator

Coding machine operator V

Job setter II

M ajor-assem bly installer
Marker

Coil assembler I V

K ettle operator

M c K a y stitcher

Compounder helper

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

M etal finisher, hand filing

Control man

Laborer (ammunition)

Milling-machine operator I I

Coremaker I

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Coremaker, machine I
Core paster

Laborer (bindery)

Milling-machine operator, automatic
M illm an

Laborer (foundry)

M old closer

Cupola tender helper

Laborer (furniture)

M old painter

Cutter, machine I

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Molder

Cutter, machine V
Cutter-off II
Cylindrical-grinder operator
D etail assembler II

Laborer
Laborer
Laborer
Laborer

Molder, squeeze
M ultiple-spin dle-drill-press operator

Developer I

Laborer (paper and pulp)

Die-casting-machine operator I I
D ie maker I I

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Nigger-hand-machine operator
Ovenman helper
Packer

Laborer (radio manufacturing)

Painter, aircraft

Die-setter I

Laborer (rubber goods)

Painter, spray I

Dipper I I

Laborer, process (aircraft manufacturing)

Do-all-saw operator
Dockman I I

Laborer, process (aluminum products)

Painter, spray II
Patternmaker X I

Laborer, process (ammunition)

Patternmaker apprentice, metal

Double-seamer, hand

Laborer, process (asbestos products)

Patternmaker, metal

Drophammer operator I I

Laborer, process (automobile manufac

Patternmaker, wood

Electric-motor assembler

(hardware)
(iron and steel)
(machinery manufacturing)
(m alt liquors)

turing)

Nailing-machine operator I

Pipe straightener

Electrician, airplane I

Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Planer operator II

Engine-lathe operator

Laborer, process (bakery products)

Platen-press man

Etcher, hand II

Laborer, process (chemicals)

Plater I

Experimental-body and minor assembler

Laborer, process (confectionery)

Pointer operator

Experimental mechanic

Laborer, process (cutlery tools)

Polisher

Facing mixer

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

Pourer, crane ladle

Fancy stitcher

Laborer, process (foundry)

Power-shear operator I

Film spooler

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Precipitator operator I I

Final assembler V II

Laborer, process (iron and steel)

Pressman

Fireman, still

Laborer, process (machine shop)

Pressman, paraffin plant

Floor assembler

Laborer, process (machine tools and

Process helper

accessories)

Puller-over, hand

B. THE CARDIAC CASES
J o b s at w h ich 1 ,8 4 0 C a rd ia c C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

— Continued

3* Processing — Continued

Tool maker

Tester I
Tool inspector

Puller-over-machine operator

Tool-maker apprentice
Treater I I

5. Recording and Control

Pumpman I

Treer, hand

Pumpman V II

Trimmer, hand

Punch-press operator I

Tube-bending-machine operator I

Checker

Punch-press operator I I

Tube drawer

Expediter I I

Pusher man I

Turret-lathe operator

Production clerk II

Radial-drill-press operator

Valve grinder II

Receiving clerk I I I

Radiator-core dipper

Valve repairman

Shipping clerk I

Radio-chassis aliner

Vamper I I

Stock chaser I I

Rewinder operator

Vertical-boring-mill operator

Stock supervisor

Riveter, aircraft

Vertical-turret-lathe operator

Timekeeper

Riveter, pneumatic I I I

Weigher-up

T ool clerk

Roller, bar mill

Welder, acetylene

Roller operator V

W elder, arc

Roller operator I X
Rolling-mill operator

Welder, combination
Welder, spot

Brakeman, yard I

Rubber compounder

W ire drawer I I I

Bucket-conveyor operator

Sandblaster I

W ood turner

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Sand mixer, hand
Saw filer, hand

6. Material Movement

Electric-truck operator

4. Inspection and Testing

Elevator operator, freight

Screw-machine operator, automatic

Balancing-machine operator

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Screw-machine operator, semiautomatic

Body-assembly inspector

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Seaming-machine operator IV

Casting inspector

Laborer (bakery products)

Shaper operator I

Checker I

Laborer (chemical)

Sheet catcher

Chemist, physical

Laborer (cutlery tools)

Sheet-metal worker I I

Cigarette-package examiner

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft

Core checker

Laborer (firearms)

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft II
Shredder operator II

Dynamometer tester, motor

Laborer (foundry)

Electrical inspector

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Engine tester

Laborer (hardware)

Slitting machine operator II

Experimental mechanic

Laborer (iron and steel)

Solderer I

Final-assembly inspector

Laborer (machine tool and accessories)

Sole assembler

Final-assembly inspector — fuselage

Saw filer, machine

Speed-lathe operator
Spinner V I

Follow-up man I I I

installation

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)
Laborer (m alt liquors)

Spinning-bath patrolman

Final tester I I
Gager IV

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and
products)

Straightener and parts fitter

Hot-forging inspector

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Stillman I I
Stillman helper

Inspector
Inspector I

Laborer (rayon and allied products)
Laborer (wire)

Still-operator helper

Inspector, chief III

Straightening-machine operator II
Straightening-press operator

Inspector, crude rubber

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Inspector, hammers and presses

Laborer, process (iron and steel)

Stranding-machme operator

Inspector (machine shop)

Subassembler

Inspector, raw materials

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal alloys
and products)

Subassembler II

Inspector and tester

Locomotive-crane operator

Subassembler I I I

Installation inspector

Truck driver, heavy

Surface-grinder operator

Instrument maker I

Sweater man

Laborer (fabricated plastic products)
Machinist

7. Custodial

Tacker V I I
Tailor I I

Paint-spray inspector

Fireman I I I

Tapper I II

Procurement inspector

Gateman I V

Tenter-frame operator

Pulp tester

Grounds keeper I

Tool dresser I

Radio repairman I

Janitor I

Tool grinder I

Salvage inspector I I

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Tool grinder operator

Tester

Laborer (automobile parts)

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
J o b s at w h ich 1 ,8 4 0 C a rd ia c C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

7. Custodial — Continued

Labeler, machine I I

— Continued

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Single-spindle-drill-press operator
Skiver, machine

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

Laborer (bakery products)

Still-operator helper

Porter I

Laborer (boot and shoe)

Porter I I

Laborer (glass products)

Stitcher, machine II (boot and shoe)
Stripper, machine

W atchm an I
FEMALE

1. Maintenance
Counterman, cafeteria

Laborer (printing and publishing)

Subassembler I I

Laborer (surgical appliances)

Thread grinder

Laborer, process (aircraft manufactur

Tool grinder operator

ing)
Laborer, process (ammunition)

T op stitcher I

Laborer, process (bakery products)

Vamper I I

Laborer, process (boot and shoe)

Y arn winder

Turret-lathe operator

Laborer, process (confectionery)

2. Working Foremen

Laborer, process (dental equipment)

Foreman (bakery products)

Laborer, process (garment manufactur-

Airplane inspector I
Casting inspector

3. Processing

ing)
Laborer, process (instruments and ap

4. Inspection and Testing

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

pliances)
Airplane woodworker I I
Assembler I I I

Laborer, process (machinery manufac

Assembler IV

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal alloys

Assemblyman helper II

Checker II
Engine tester

turing)

Film inspector

Gager I

and products)

Inspector (boot and shoe)
Inspector (hat and cap)

Bander and eellophaner, machine

Laborer, process (photographic appara

Inspector (machine shop)

Baster, hand

Laborer (printing)

Blank horner

tus)
Laborer, process (radio manufacturing)

Burrer, hand

Laborer, process (rayon and allied

Button-hole machine operator

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

products)

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Button-sewing machine operator

Laborer, process (rubber goods)

Cementer, hand I I (boot and shoe)

Laborer, process (surgical appliances)

Magnaflux inspector

Cigar packer

Laborer, process (tobacco)

Salvage inspector II

Cloth winder

M ajor assembler I

Coil assembler I

M ajor-assembly installer

Coil taper, machine
Coil winder I I

Milling-machine operator I I
M ounter V II I
Pipe-threading-machine operator

Laborer, process (radio manufacturing)

5. Recording and Control

Cutter, machine V

Presser, machine I

Parcel-post packer
Shipping checker
Shipping clerk I

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Profiling-machine operator II

Stock clerk I I

Detail electrical assembler

Riveting machine operator IV

T ool clerk

Dipper II

Rubber-press man

Do-all-saw operator
Double-seamer, hand

Sewing-machine

Electrician, airplane I

Sewing-machine operator (m en’s tailored

Cut-out stitcher

Engine-lathe operator
Exhaust operator

operator

(fabricated

6. Material Movement

products, n. e. c.)
Laborer (rayon and allied products)

garments)
Sewing-machine

operator,

shirts

and

7. Custodial

related products

3. P rocessin g

2. W orkin g F orem en

Single-spindle-drill-press operator
Splicer I I

Assembler

Foreman (automobile parts)

Straightener and parts fitter

Assembler I I I

Stripper, machine

Assemblyman helper I I

Subassembler II

Coil winder II

3. Processin g
Final assembler V II
Floor assembler

Subassembler I I I

Commutator assembler

Thrower II

Cutter, machine

Tongue and quarter stitcher

Field coil winder

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
Blind in One E ye

2. W ork in g F orem en
Foreman (bakery products)

3. P rocessin g

Final assembler

4. In sp ection an d T estin g
Casting inspector

Folder, machine I

Checker II

Folding-machine operator I I I

Core checker

Friction-sewing machine operator

Inspector (machine shop)

Glazing-machine operator

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Job setter I I

Laborer, process (phonograph)

Labeler
Laborer (electrical equipment)

Assembler
Bander and cellophaner, machine

5. R ecord in g a n d C on trol

Blank horner
Book finisher
Burrer, hand I
Chassis assembler I I
Cigar packer
Coating-machine operator I I I

Stock clerk II

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)
Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Sorter II

Laborer, process (bakery products)
Laborer, process (confectionery)

7. C u stodia l

Porter I

Laborer, process (instruments and
appliances)
Laborer, process (paper products)
Legally Blind

Floor assembler

3. Processing

Instrument maker I
Laborer (boot and shoe manufacturing)

Laborer (bakery products)

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Laborer (surgical appliances)

Laborer (glass products)

Laborer, process (bakery products)

Laborer (phonograph)
Laborer, process (bakery products)

Laborer, process (plexiglas)
Laborer, process (plumbing supplies)
Laborer, process (surgical appliances)

4. In sp e ctio n an d T estin g
Checker I I
Chemist (biologicals)

Partially Blind

Laborer, process (confectionery)
Laborer, process (cutlery tools)

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
Laborer, process (furniture)

Charwoman

Die maker I I

Folder, machine I

Laborer (hardware)

6. M aterial M ovem en t

Coil assembler IV
Electrician, airplane I
Electric-motor assembler

Laborer (furniture)
Laborer (glass products)

Baster, hand
Bead flipper, hand

Floor assembler
Folder I I I

Inspector (machine shop)
Laborer, process (automobile parts)

1. M ain ten an ce

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

Counter man, cafeteria

Laborer, process (garment manufactur-

Kitchen helper II

7. C u stodia l

ing)
Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Laborer, process (laundry)

Charwoman

Sewing-machine operator (laundry)

Locker room attendant II

Laborer, process (dental equipment)

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal alloys
and products)

Porter II

2. W orkin g F orem en

Laborer, process (rubber tire and tube
manufacturing)

Foreman (automobile parts)

C. THE VISION CASES

Placement Practices
In general, no special provisions were found in the
plants surveyed for the placement of the visually
impaired persons beyond the customary physical ex
amination and job analysis. A few plants, however,
had counselors and placement officers who had re
ceived some specialized training in job placement for
the visually impaired. When such specialized tech
niques were used they seemed to yield excellent
results. The need for such services, however, seemed
to depend largely upon conditions peculiar to individ
ual plants. It was equally true that where placement
of the visually impaired was handled through less
specialized channels, as was the case in most of the
plants surveyed, the impaired persons performed
well on their jobs.
The pre-employment physical examination, or at
least that part of it which dealt with vision testing,
was of the utmost importance in these cases. Where
defective vision is present, it is essential that the
medical and placement officers know the extent of
the defect as well as the nature of it. It is also im
portant to know the cause of the impairment —
whether it is progressive or arrested — in order to
know whether the kind of assignment contemplated
for the applicant might aggravate the impairment.
Careful placement has particular significance for the
visually impaired. Improperly placed, the impaired
person may cause injury to himself or to others, or
an aggravation of his impairment may result. As a
glaring example, the person with defective vision as
signed to operate an overhead crane would be a con
stant source of danger to himself and to others.
It was the general opinion of officials in most of
the plants studied that job evaluation was a very im
portant factor in proper placement of the person with
a visual impairment. Depending upon the nature of
the visual impairment, it may be necessary to guard
against such seemingly unrelated factors as nervous
tension as well as elements of physical exertion or
movement.
Formulated policies excluding visually impaired
persons were not common. Of the 109 firms studied,
only 16 had definite policies concerning vision cases;
but even in these plants the exclusions were not rig
idly enforced. A few firms felt that hiring of the
totally blind called for specialized kinds of work and
specialized facilities which they could not provide.
The rarity with which totally blind persons were

encountered in the survey, however, indicates clearly
that it is extremely difficult for the totally blind in
dividual to find a place in manufacturing industries.
Of the total survey group of 1,721 visually impaired
persons, there were only 34 who were totally blind
and only 25 who fell in the “ legally blind ” category.
Follow-up practices as well as original placement
as a rule were carried on in the same way for the vis
ually impaired as for persons with other types of
physical impairments. In general, and except for
special cases, no systematic follow-up was used be
yond the probationary period.
It was expected that job re-engineering would be
found most frequently in connection with the em
ployment of the visually impaired. This expectation
was not supported by actual findings. Job re-engi
neering was rare and was no more common for this
group than for other impairment types. Had job
re-engineering on an extensive scale been encoun
tered, it would have handicapped the study seriously
as it probably would have removed the complete
comparability between impaired and unimpaired
workers. In a few instances modifications so changed
the jobs that no unimpaired workers could be
matched with the impaired working on them. But
such cases were rare. For the most part, when
changes had been made at all, they were either of
such minor character that they did not change the
essentials of the job or the changes had been found
so desirable that they had been adopted for the un
impaired workers as well. The findings suggest the
conclusion that while some kinds of jobs might re
quire extensive modifications or re-engineering, there
are many other jobs which the visually impaired per
son can perform without the imposition of special
conditions.
There are, however, special problems in the em
ployment of visually impaired workers. Admittedly,
the more serious the impairment of vision, the more
necessary it is to consider the accessibility of the work
place. For the person who is totally blind there is the
problem of getting to and from the plant as well as
that of getting around in the plant. In several plants
totally blind workers used their Seeing Eye dogs to
guide them. In other cases, blind workers were able
to get about with no more than a little assistance from
the people working near them. It probably is not
advisable to require such workers to pass through a
crowded shop or among moving equipment.
Workers with partial blindness or otherwise im

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

paired vision appeared to offer no special problems in
this connection.

Work Performance
The visually impaired persons, placed on jobs for
which they were equipped with the requisite skills
and physical abilities, produced as well, were as reg
ular in their work attendance, and made a somewhat
better safety record than the unimpaired workers
subject to the same incentives and exposed to the
same hazards. The following paragraphs and table
C -l provide a summary of the performance records
of the visually impaired persons and the unimpaired
workers matched with them on identical jobs:
Absenteeism
An absence was defined as absence of 1 full day or
more on days on which the employee was scheduled
to work. Holidays, lay-offs, shut-downs, and regular
vacations were not counted as either scheduled days
or as absences. The rate of absenteeism was com
puted as days lost from work for every 100 scheduled
workdays. Data were available for 1,721 visually
impaired persons matched with 2,847 unimpaired
workers. Of this group, 1,513 were impaired males
and 208 were impaired females.
For the group as a whole the rates were 3.6 and
3.7 days per 100 scheduled workdays for the impaired
and unimpaired workers, respectively. The record
of the female workers tended to raise the group rates
slightly. The male impaired and unimpaired had an
identical rate of 3.3, while the impaired females had
a rate of 5.7 against 6.4 for the unimpaired females.
Although these group averages show the visually
impaired worker in a favorable light, a clearer pic
ture emerges from an analysis of individual perform
ances. The frequency distribution of individual
absenteeism rates shown in table C -4 reveals that
about 24 percent of the visually impaired and 23
percent of the matched unimpaired had no absences
at all during the periods studied; 70 percent of the
impaired and 71 percent of the unimpaired had ab
senteeism rates of 3.9 or less. Both groups contained
scattered cases with very high rates; 1.9 percent of
the impaired workers and 2.6 percent of the unim
paired workers had individual rates of 20.0 or higher.
The similarities between the two groups are striking.
A heavy concentration of cases at the lower end of
the range is evident in both groups. At the other end

of the distribution there was a scattering of very high
rates. Clearly, these extremely high rates were cases
of poor individual performance, and were not char
acteristic of either group.
T a b l e C - 4 .— Percentage distribution of visually impaired and

matched unimpaired workers, by absenteeism frequency rate 1
and by sex
Total

Female

Male

Frequency rate class
Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

23.4
16.2
13.9
10.2
7.7
5.3
13.9
6.8
2.5
.1

25.4
15.3
13.2
11.4
7.3
5.8
12.0
8.2
1.4
0

100.0

1,721

2,847

0______________ _______
0.1 and under 1.0_________
1.0 and under 2.0_________
2.0 and under 3.0_________
3.0 and under 4.0_________
4.0 and under 5.0_________
5.0 and under 10.0_______
10.0 and under 20.0____ __
20.0 and under 50.0______
50.0 and over__...................

23.7
14.7
13.2
11.3
7.4
6.1
12.8
8.9
1.9
0

Total..... ......... ..........
Number of workers.__ . . .

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

25.1
17.5
13.9
10.6
7.5
5.3
12.0
6.0
2.1
0

11.1
10.1
12.9
10.1
8.6
8.6
18.3
14.0
6.3
0

11.2
7.2
14.1
8.0
9.0
5.3
26.6
12.0
6.1
.5

100.0

1,513

2,472

208

375

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

An important aspect of absenteeism analysis is the
reasons for which workers absent themselves. For
instance, do various specific reasons for absence, such
as illness, transportation difficulties, etc., hold any
special significance for the visually impaired person?
An effort was made to determine reasons for absence
in each case. Unfortunately, for more than half the
cases reasons for absences were not recorded and in
such cases had to be listed as unknown. For those
cases in which a reason was obtainable, however, the
pattern of the rates attributable to specific reasons
is markedly similar in the two groups. The impaired
were absent about as often and for about the same
reasons as the unimpaired. However, it is possible
that this similarity might have disappeared if the
cases grouped in the “ unknown” category could
have been included in the analysis.
T able

C - 5 .— Absenteeism frequency rates 1 for visually im

paired and matched unimpaired workers, by reason for absence
and by sex
Total

Male

Female

Reason for absence
Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Total____________________

3.6

3.7

3.3

5.7

6.4

Illness. _________________
Personal business_________
Unknown________________

1.1
.3
2.2

1.4
.3
2.0

1.1
.3
1.9

1.2
.3
1.8

1.8
.7
3.2

2.4
.8
3.2

Number of w ork ers______

1,721

2,847

1,513

2,472

208

375

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

C. THE VISION CASES

Considered as a group, then, there was no sig
nificant difference between the visually impaired and
the matched unimpaired workers so far as regularity
of work attendance was concerned.

T a b l e C - 6 .— Percentage distribution of visually impaired and

matched unimpaired workers, by frequency rate 1 of nondis
abling injury and by sex
Female

Male

Total
Frequency rate class

Nondisabling Injury Experience
Data on nondisabling injuries, i. e., work injuries
which did not result in any permanent impairment
or loss of time beyond the day or shift on which the
injury occurred, were available for 1,696 visually im
paired persons matched with 2,809 unimpaired work
ers on the same jobs. This group was composed of
1,490 visually impaired males matched with 2,439
unimpaired males and 206 impaired females matched
with 370 unimpaired females.
The frequency rate of nondisabling injuries was
computed for the groups on a base of 10,000 exposurehours. The rate was fractionally higher for the im
paired than for the unimpaired workers, 9.6 against
8.8, respectively. There was a rather sizable differ
ence in the frequency rates between the male and
female groups, the females having the lower rate. For
the male cases the rates were 10.0 and 9.0 for the im
paired and unimpaired workers, and for the female
cases, 6.1 and 7.8 for the impaired and unimpaired.
The lower injury experience among the female cases,
however, did not affect the group rates materially.
For the group as a whole, the variation in the rates
indicates that the visually impaired workers expe
rienced about 1 more nondisabling injury in each
12.000 hours of work (or 1 more injury for each 6
workers per year) than unimpaired workers on the
same jobs. Considering the kinds of injuries involved
here — minor cuts, abrasions, bumps, scratches, etc.
— the difference does not seem to be significant.
The frequency distributions of the individual rates
for the two groups computed on a 1,000-hour base
further emphasize the similarity of the injury expe
riences. About 53 percent of the visually impaired
and 51 percent of the unimpaired had no minor in
juries at all during the periods studied; 70 percent
of the workers in each group experienced less than 1
such injury per 1,000 hours; and about 90 percent of
the impaired and unimpaired had less than 3 per
1.000 exposure-hours. However, there was a scat
tering of cases (1.1 percent of the impaired and 1.0
percent of the unimpaired) with excessively high rates
of 10 or more per 1,000 hours. While these excessive
rates were present in both groups, they were infre
quent and clearly were not group characteristics.

Impaired

0____________________
0.1 and under 1.0________
1.0 and under 3.0________
3.0 and under 5 . 0 _______
5.0 and under 10.0_______
10.0 and over___________ _
Total_____________
Number of workers_______

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

50.5
18.8
21.7
4.9
3.0
1.1

60.1
18.0
17.9
2.0
1.5
.5

56.5
20.0
15.9
5.4
1.9
.3

100.0

1,490

2,439

206

370

52.8
17.5
20.3
5.0
3.3
1.1

51.4
18.9
20.9
5.0
2.8

1.0

51.6
17.4
20.6
5.5
3.7
1.2

100.0

1,696

2,809

1 Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.

It was realized that while over-all rates of injury
might be similar, there nevertheless might be a
proneness on the part of visually impaired persons
toward certain specific kinds of injury. If such were
the case, it would be an important consideration in
the placement of these workers. At each plant
studied, information on nature of injury was recorded.
The rates attributable to these various kinds of injury
were computed on the 10,000 exposure-hour base and
the differences between the impaired and unimpaired
workers were found to be only fractional in all cases.
This, of course, reflects group experience and not in
dividual experience. It was equally true of both the
impaired and unimpaired workers that there were
certain individuals who experienced a very high in
cidence of certain kinds of injury. It is possible that
a greater emphasis on periodic follow-up than was
found in a majority of the plants included in the
study would have reduced these extreme cases, with
a consequent improvement in the over-all rates for
the impaired and unimpaired workers alike. As al
ready indicated, however, the differences between
impaired and unimpaired were only slight.
Cuts and abrasions accounted for fully two-thirds
of all the injuries in each group. Eye injuries were
next most common, and about equally so, among
both impaired and unimpaired workers. The pattern
is strikingly similar throughout. The evidence in
dicates clearly that the injuries experienced were
related to the hazards of the job and not to the im
pairments which characterized one of the groups.
(See table C-7.)
First-aid records also indicated the number of re
dressings required per injury. As practice varied
widely between plants with respect to giving or re-

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

T able

C - 7 .— Frequency rates1 of nondisabling injury for

visually impaired and matched unimpaired workers, by nature
of injury and by sex
Female

Male

Total
Nature of injury
Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Total__________ _________

9.6

8.8

10.0

9.0

6.1

7.8

Burns and scalds_________
Cuts and abrasions_______
Eye injuries.........................
Strains and sprains_______
Other____________ _______

.5
6.6
1.4
.5
.6

.4
6.0
1.6
.5
.3

.5
6.9
1.5
.5
.6

.4
6.3
1.6
.4
.3

.6
3.5
.8
.4
.8

.7
5.0

Number of workers_______

1,696

2,809

1,490

2,439

206

370

1.0
.6
.5

1 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.

quiring redressings, the averages for the two groups
are valid only for comparison purposes. It cannot be
said that they represent the actual severity of the
nondisabling injuries in each group. However, the
visually impaired group and the unimpaired group
each averaged 0.9 redressings per injury. There can
be little question, on this basis of measurement, that
there was no significant difference in the severity of
the injuries in the two groups.
The opinion has sometimes been advanced that
physically impaired persons have a tendency toward
excessive illness, or that such persons tend a little
toward hypochondria. The absenteeism record made
by the visually impaired of the survey group refutes
that idea: sickness absenteeism was no more pro
nounced among them than among the unimpaired
workers matched with them. Data were obtained on
the number of visits to the dispensary because of
nonindustrial illness or injury, i. e., dispensary visits
for causes not related to the worker’s employment.
Company policies again varied widely in the extent
to which such use of medical facilities was encouraged.
However, while these policies varied widely among
plants, they were the same for impaired and unim
paired workers within the same plant. During the
periods studied, the visually impaired workers aver
aged 1.2 such visits per person while the matched un
impaired had an average of 1.3. The visually impaired
workers clearly made no greater demands on a plant’s
medical facilities than did unimpaired workers.
In brief, the visually impaired workers as a group
were no different from unimpaired workers of the
same age, experience, etc., working on identical jobs.
Nondisabling injuries were experienced in about the
same frequency in the two groups and were of about
the same severity. Even the kinds of injuries were

the same and occurred in about the same proportion.
Finally, the demands of the visually impaired per
sons because of nonindustrial injury or illness were
no greater than the same demands made by unim
paired workers.

Disabling Injury Experience
Frequency. For the purpose of this study a disabling
injury was defined as one which resulted in permanent
impairment or in the loss of time of at least one full
day beyond the day or shift on which the injury oc
curred. Frequency rates were computed on the
standard base of a million exposure-hours.
The survey group for which data were available
consisted of 1,699 visually impaired persons and
2,825 unimpaired workers. 1,495 impaired males
were matched with 2,454 unimpaired males, and 204
impaired females were matched with 371 unimpaired
females.
The impaired as a group had a somewhat better
disabling injury experience than the unimpaired, with
a frequency rate of 8.8 against 10.6. The impaired
females experienced no disabling injuries at all dur
ing the periods studied. The unimpaired females
matched with them did not have the same perfect
record but their rate, 1.0, was very low. How sig
nificant the difference is between the groups of im
paired and unimpaired workers is difficult to say. A
difference of about two injuries per million exposurehours is not great although it is conceivable that two
injuries of sufficient severity could make a sizable
difference in compensation costs. In any case, how
ever, the impaired workers had the better safety
record.
Probably as important as the frequency rate in
the case of these impaired workers is the fact that
none of the injuries resulted in additional permanent
impairment to bring about permanent total dis
ability. It was also confirmed in each plant that there
had been no such injury among visually impaired
workers outside the survey group.
The experience of this fairly large group indicates
that there is no foundation in fact for the frequently
held belief that the visually impaired person is an
accident hazard to himself or to his fellow workers.
However, there is no question that proper placement
is an extremely important factor. Only one of the
visually impaired workers experienced a disabling
injury which was directly traceable to the impair-

C. THE VISION CASES

ment; and then only because he had been put on a
job from which he was restricted. The foreman, ap
parently through an oversight, assigned the man to
a job he was not supposed to perform. Other in
stances were found in which a causal relationship
might have existed, but the evidence was very super
ficial. For example, a visually impaired [worker
mounted a low scaffold which broke down. Possibly
the defect in the scaffold might have been apparent
to one with good sight. On the other hand, an iden
tical injury was experienced by an unimpaired
worker in the same plant.
Inquiry was also made to determine whether any
injuries among the unimpaired workers, either within
or outside the survey group, were attributable to the
lack of vision of an impaired fellow worker. Not a
single instance of this kind was found.
The nature of the injuries experienced in the two
groups was also fairly similar. Eight of the impaired
and 14 of the unimpaired had suffered contusions of
the upper or lower extremities, accounting for about
30 percent of all injuries in each group. Fractures of
legs and hands were more common among the im
paired; about 15 percent as against 10 percent for
the unimpaired. Strains and sprains showed the re
verse situation in which such injuries accounted for
about 10 percent among the impaired and 15 percent
among the unimpaired. The remaining injuries con
sisted of a variety of burns, cuts, infections, etc. The
number of injuries in the two groups combined is
hardly large enough to support conclusions. On the
whole, however, there seems to be sufficient similarity
in the injuries to indicate that their nature was re
lated to the job hazards and not to the visual impair
ments which characterized one of the groups,

Time Lost. It is conceivable that the time lost as
a result of disabling injuries by visually impaired
workers might have been very much greater even
though the frequency rate was lower. Although the
visually impaired might be more cautious, their inju
ries nevertheless could be more severe. As measures
of injury severity the average days lost were com
puted as a group rate per 100 scheduled workdays as
well as in terms of the average number of days lost
per injury.
The time-lost rate for the impaired group was
somewhat lower than for the matched unimpaired
group, 0.10 and 0.14 days per 100 scheduled work
days, respectively. For the impaired workers the

average period of disability per injury was 14.1 days,
as against 17.3 days for the unimpaired group. Not
only did the visually impaired tend to experience
somewhat fewer injuries than unimpaired workers
on the same jobs, but their injuries tended to be some
what less severe.
As injury severity is largely a matter of chance,
the important fact which emerges out of these com
parisons is that, given proper placement, visually
impaired workers as a group certainly were no worse
than their unimpaired co-workers as far as injury ex
perience was concerned.
Output Relative
Individual production data were available for only
108 visually impaired persons. These were matched
with 198 unimpaired workers on the same jobs. Of
this group, 73 impaired males were matched with 129
unimpaired males, and 35 impaired females were
matched with 69 unimpaired females. The number
of cases is small for the group as a whole and too
small to warrant showing performance figures by sex.
As a group, the visually impaired persons turned
in a very creditable performance. Their average out
put was 1.9 percent better than that of the group of
matched unimpaired workers. Although there were
substantial variations in the individual l*ates, the
visually impaired also fared well in this respect as is
shown by the following comparison, in which the
average performance of the entire unimpaired group
is used as a base of 100.
Number of
Out-put relative

impaired workers

Under 9 5 .0 ______________________________________
95.0 and under 105.0____ _____________________

28
49

105.0 and over___ _____________________________

25.9 percent of these workers had an efficiency rela
tive of 95.0 or less, 45.4 percent had a relative between
95.0 and 105.0, and 28.7 percent had a relative of
105.0 or higher. If it is assumed that an efficiency
relative between 95.0 and 105.0 represents about
equal performance, 74.1 percent of the visually im
paired produced as well as or better than the unim
paired workers with whom they were matched. Nearly
29 percent were substantially superior.
In evaluating this performance it must be borne
in mind that it represents only those cases for which
quantitative measures of individual production were
available. Although this group is small the compar
ison is entirely objective, and there is no reason to

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

believe that it is not true for the group as a whole.
Subjective evaluations — such as foreman’s opinions,
efficiency ratings, etc. — are not weighted into the
findings.
It was somewhat disappointing that data were not
available for a larger group, as a fairly sizable num
ber of these workers were on production work on as
sembly lines or on group piecework. While measured
production for individuals was not obtainable in these
cases, the facts of their employment strengthen the
findings shown above. On assembly line and group
incentive work each individual must keep up with
the speed of the line or the group. Therefore, the
fact that a considerable number of the visually im
paired were found to be so employed indicates that
they were able to keep pace with their unimpaired
co-workers.
Quit Rate
Data for the computation of quit rates were ob
tainable for 872 of the visually impaired group and
for 1,444 unimpaired workers matched with them.
This group was composed of 690 visually impaired
males matched with 1,135 unimpaired males, and 172
impaired females matched with 309 unimpaired fe
males. The rates are based on the number of persons
per 100 in each group who had voluntarily left the
employ of the company 6 months after the end of the
survey period.
Among the female workers the voluntary quits
were very high, particularly among the impaired,
where the rate was 9.3 against 5.5 for the unimpaired.
The quit rates for the impaired and unimpaired male

workers were very similar, 3.2 and 2.8, respectively.
The effect of the high quit rates for the female work
ers on the group rates was pronounced. About twice
as many impaired workers as unimpaired workers
quit for health reasons, and more than twice as many
quit because they moved out of the community.
These two reasons accounted for most of the dif
ference in the rates for the two groups. The reasons
listed as “ other” were varied, the most common one
being “ to take other position.” This was equally
true of the impaired and unimpaired workers.
The higher rate for the impaired workers is prob
ably accounted for in part by the fact that some of
these people had taken jobs during the war and had
withdrawn from the labor market after the war was
over. This may be especially true of the female work
ers. Also, as is indicated by the number who took
other positions, many of these impaired workers ac
quired industrial skills and experience which in
creased the range of their employment opportunities.
A third factor, which affected both groups, was the
fact that the data covered a period shortly after the
end of the war when there was considerable moving
around among the working population in general.
Terminations showed a substantially higher rate
for the impaired workers, 4.3 against 2.8 for the un
impaired. These terminations were mostly for re
duction in force. The impaired, generally the last to
be hired, were the first to be affected by reductions
in force.
In general, however, while the impaired female
workers had a very high quit rate, that for the male
workers was not substantially higher than for the
unimpaired workers matched with them.

D. THE OHTHOPEDIC CASES

D. The Orthopedic Cases
Summary of Statistical Findings
The orthopedically impaired persons made a favor
able record of work performance in comparison with
the unimpaired workers matched with them on iden
tical jobs.
As a group the impaired workers produced at a
slightly higher rate, as indicated by the higher output
relative. The work injury experience also was a little
better among the impaired workers as is shown by
the slightly lower frequency rates of nondisabling and
disabling work injuries. The impaired workers had a
fractionally but not significantly higher absence rate.
It was only with respect to the quit rate that the im
paired workers failed to match the performance of
their unimpaired fellow workers. Unfortunately, the
reasons for the quits could not be obtained in a suf
ficiently large number of these cases to provide a sat
isfactory analysis.
T able D - l .—

W ork

p erfo rm a n ce o f w o rk ers w ith serio u s or

th op ed ic i m p a ir m e n ts a n d o f m atched u n im p a ir e d w ork ers

Number of workers

Average performance

Factor
Unimpaired

Impaired

1,522

2 463

3.8

3.4

1,482

2,402

9.4

10.0

1,499
1,499
0
121
632

2,439
2,439
0
193
1,019

5.9
.07
15.8
101.3
5.7

8.9
.10
13.9
100.0
2.9

Impaired
Absenteeism frequency rate1-----Nondisabling injury:
Frequency rate2 ________
Disabling injury:
Frequency rate3___________
Time-lost rate 4____________
Average days of disability 5_ _
Output relative6_______________
Quit rate7___________ — --------

Unimpaired

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
2 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
3 Number of injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
4 Number of days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.
6 Number of days of disability per disabling injury
« Percentage relationship of production efficiency of impaired to that of matched
unimpaired workers.
7 Number of voluntary quits per 100 employees in the survey group.

The most significant feature of these comparisons
is the marked similarity of the performance of the
two groups of workers. Subject to the same incen
tives and exposed to the same hazards, their records
776106° — 4 8 — 5

of work performance revealed only fractional dif
ferences. On the basis of this record, it seems reason
able to conclude that the orthopedically impaired
persons constituted a group of competent workers
who, properly placed, were fully capable of holding
their own in competition with unimpaired workers
on the same jobs.

Composition of the Survey Group
The types of orthopedic impairment included in
the definitions adopted for the study fell within three
major classifications: First, cases in which some
member or major portion of a member of the body
was lost through amputation; second, cases in which
there was severe loss of use of a member even though
the member itself was retained; and third, cases of
back deformity which severely restricted the use of
the back in such movements as walking, stooping,
crouching, bending, etc. An additional classification,
multiple orthopedics, included cases in which a per
son had two of the major orthopedic impairments
mentioned above, each in itself severe enough to fall
within the adopted definitions.
Amputation cases were easily defined, and infor
mation was readily obtainable from company medi
cal records. Where an arm, leg, hand, or foot had
been amputated, there was no question as to dis
ability. In the case of loss of use, however, the im
pairment was one of degree. In such cases the deter
mination to include the worker in the study was
based upon whether the loss of use of an important
body member amounted to 50 percent or more. For
the most part, if not indicated on the medical record,
the plant physician was able to specify the extent of
the impairment. In doubtful cases, the employee was
not included in the survey group. The same pro
cedure was followed for back deformity, with its
attendant limitations on the use of the back. In this
way, it was possible to restrict the impaired group to

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

cases which constituted serious impairment and posed
real problems of job placement.
Although the layman tends to think of impaired
workers primarily as persons with orthopedic im
pairments, the survey indicates that this concept
probably is in error. The 1,522 orthopedic cases con
stituted only about 13.8 percent of the survey group.
Three other types of impairments — hernia, cardiac,
and vision — were encountered more frequently.
Furthermore, only one third of the orthopedic cases
were amputees.
With only 80 exceptions, the orthopedic workers
studied were male. The instances of female ortho
pedic employment were so few, in fact, that no sepa
rate data are shown for them.
Indicating perhaps a greater difficulty of older
workers with orthopedic impairments to find em
ployment, the age distribution of this group tended
to be somewhat lower than that for the impaired
group as a whole. About 70 percent of the orthopedic
group were below 50 years of age, as against 56 per
cent of the rest of the impaired workers.
When arranged by 5-year intervals, the age group
containing the largest number of orthopedic impair
ment cases was the one from 30 to 35 years. By
contrast, the 5-year class containing the heaviest
proportion of the other impaired workers in the en
tire survey was from 55 to 60 years.
Interestingly, however, the oldest impaired worker
included in the entire survey was a man who had lost
the use of one arm many years ago but who neverthe
less was actively employed at the age of 87.
T able

amputations accounted for only one third of the total,
with 484 cases. Hand amputations were the most
common and were found in 183 cases. Amputations
of one leg were nearly as frequent, with 176 cases. In
7 cases both legs had been amputated and in 2 both
arms had been lost. The loss of use of one or more
members of the body accounted for 761 cases, exactly
50 percent of all the orthopedic cases studied. Back
deformities and multiple impairment cases accounted
for the rest.
Inasmuch as the various types of orthopedic im
pairments present different placement problems, it
would have been desirable to present performance
data for each specific type. An examination of the
following table, however, will make it apparent that
while there are significant numbers of cases compris
ing some of the subgroups, there are many instances
in which the available number of observations is too
small to support conclusions.
T a b l e D ~ 3 .— Distribution of orthopedically impaired workers,

by type of impairment
Number
of
workers

Type of impairment

Number
of
workers

1,522

Total................ ....................... ..
Amputation cases____________
One hand________________
Two hands______________
One arm________________
Two arms_______________
One foot_ ______________
Two feet _ _ .._ . _
One leg. _
Two legs
. ..

484
183
5
72
2
38
1
176
7

Loss of use cases____________
One hand_______________
Two hands____________
One arm______ ____ ____
Two arms____
One foot______ ______
Two feet_____ ____ __
One leg___________
Two legs.

Baek deformity eases

214

Multiple eases

761
114

174
9
51
19
335
51
63

D - 2 .— Comparison of number and percentage distri

bution of 1,522 orthopedic cases and 9,506 other impaired
workers studied, by age group
Number of workers

Percent

Age group
Orthopedic
cases

Other
impaired

Orthopedic
cases

Other
impaired

Total....................... .............. ........

1,522

9,506

100.0

Under 20 years...............................
20 and under 25 years__________
25 and under 30 years__________
30 and under 35 years__________
35 and under 40 years__________
40 and under 45 years__________
45 and under 50 years__________
50 and under 55 years__________
55 and under 60 years______ __
60 and under 65 years______ __
65 years and over______________

10
106
166
226
211
164
178
189
139
94
39

69
405
735
891
973
1,074
1,134
1,373
1,404
994
454

.7
6.9
10.9
14.9
13.8
10.8
11.7
12.4
9.2
6.1
2.6

.7
4.3
7.7
9.4
10.2
11.3
11.9
14.4
14.8
10.5
4.8

The detailed break-down of the orthopedic cases
shown in table D -3 indicates the wide variety of spe
cific impairments in this group. As already indicated,

In the individual case the cause of the impairment,
the length of time the individual has had to adjust to
it, and the prosthetic aid he uses may exercise a con
siderable influence on the quality of his work per
formance. An attempt was made to obtain data on
cause, duration of impairment, and prosthetic aid
used in each case. Unfortunately, information on
these points was not available in a great many cases.
Information on cause of the impairment was obtained
for 743 workers, on duration of impairment for 439,
and on prosthetic aid for 125. While in some instances
information on all 3 points was available for the same
case, in others only cause and aid were given, and in
some the only available reference indicated the pros
thetic aid used.
Among the 743 cases for which cause was given,
119 impairments had resulted from work injuries.

D. THE ORTHOPEDIC CASES

On other causes, however, the records were vague or
incomplete. As the records of the cooperating firms
as a rule did not provide this information, the only
other alternative was to interview the persons who
constituted the survey group. This, however, was
not considered feasible on this study. In 33 cases, the
cause given was arthritis, and in 104 the cause was
stated to be polio. The impairment cause in an ad
ditional 69 cases was given merely as “ illness. ”
Duration of the impairment was recorded in only
654 cases; 439 workers were listed as having acquired
the impairment in adulthood, 175 in childhood, and
in 40 cases the impairment had been present since
birth.
In only 125 cases was it reported that a prosthetic
aid, such as artificial limb or brace, was being used by
the worker.
Unfortunately, the data available with respect to
the whole general subject of cause and duration of the
impairment and the prosthetic aid used, if any, are
too fragmentary to be of much assistance in the anal
ysis of the work performance of these workers.

Industry and Occupational Coverage
The orthopedic cases were not concentrated in any
particular industry. A fairly sizable number were en
countered in every one of the 19 major industry
groups represented in the survey.
The occupations in which persons with orthopedic
impairments were found employed are shown in the
listing on pp. 6(M38. The two facts which stand out
immediately are the great variety of jobs and the
concentration of these jobs in the processing or pro
duction operations.
Perhaps the most significant fact brought out by
an examination of various jobs in which these workers

were employed is the great range and variety of skill
requirements represented. There is strong evidence
here that the person with an orthopedic impairment
was fully capable either of exercising skills he had
acquired before the impairment, or of learning new
ones in keeping with the physical abilities he had re
tained. Further evidence of this is the fact that so
few of the orthopedic cases studied were found in the
unskilled custodial group. It seems almost trite to
point out that the skill a worker has acquired with
his hands is not affected by loss of a leg, yet where
arbitrary exclusion policies are in force, it may well
be that a worker is prevented from using the skill h e1
has in his hands for the reason that he has lost a leg.
It is obvious too from the occupations listed
that industry had not found it necessary to set up
any particular set of conditions or to handpick cer
tain obvious jobs for the orthopedically impaired
person. The data suggest that, except for extreme
cases, an orthopedic impairment left more abilities
than it took away. A man who has lost an arm
was not necessarily incapable of performing jobs
that required the use of two hands. Nor, for that
matter, did the survey indicate that the worker who
had lost a leg necessarily had to be confined to sed
entary occupations. Many cases were encountered
in which the individual who had lost a member, or
the use of a member, was able to neutralize, or at
least minimize, the disability by use of a prosthetic
aid. Men who had lost a hand were found engaged in
machine operations or in handling materials; and
workers who had lost a leg were engaged in work re
quiring considerable walking and moving about.
It must be borne in mind that the jobs listed are
merely illustrative. Many impaired workers em
ployed on other jobs could not be included in the
study and consequently those jobs do not appear in
the listing.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Jobs at which 1,522 Orthopedic Cases of the survey group were found employed

{[Titles used are those appearing in the U n ited States E m p lo y m e n t Service D ictio n a ry o f O ccu p ation a l T itles and are grou p ed and n u m bered a cco rd in g t o the
classifications used b y the W age A nalysis B ran ch o f the B u reau o f L a bor Statistics. T h is is not to be interpreted as a co m p lete listing of jo b s a t w h ich
persons w ith this im pairm ent can b e e m p lo y e d ]

M ALE
Amputee

—

One Hand

Laborer (iron and steel)

Tallym an I I I

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

Tool clerk

Laborer, process (foundry)
Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

1 . M a in te n a n c e

6 . M a te r ia l M o v e m e n t

Laborer, process (paper and pulp)
Machinist II

Brakeman, yard I

Automobile mechanic

Machinist, bench

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Bricklayer II

M ash-tub man

Electric-truck operator

Carpenter

Milhng-machine operator II

Elevator operator, freight

Electrical-instrument repairman

Molding-machine tender

Hot-metal-crane operator

Electrical repairman

Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Fireman, stationary boiler

Offset-press man

Laborer (automobile parts)

Laborer (pulp and paper)

Painter, spray I I

Laborer (cutlery tools)

Machinist I I

Panel trimmer

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Maintenance mechanic I I

Patternmaker X I

Millwright

Patternmaker, metal

Laborer (firearms)
Laborer (foundry)

Oiler I

Polisher

Laborer (m alt liquors)

Pipe-fitter helper

Power-shear operator I

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and

R oll polisher

Punch-press operator I

Tube cleaner

Radial-drill-press operator

Welder, combination

Radiator-core assembler
Roller operator I X

2 . W o r k in g F o r e m e n

products)
Laborer (surgical appliances)
7 . C u sto d ia l

Rubber compounder
Sandblaster-shotblast tumbler operator

Gateman I V

Foreman (asbestos products)

Sand mixer, hand

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Foreman (nonferrous metal alloys and

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft

Laborer (automobile parts)

Still-operator helper

Laborer (felt goods)

Straightening-press operator

Laborer (machine parts)

Stranding-machine operator

Porter I

Subassembler

Porter I I

Subassembler I I I

W atchman I

products)
Turret-lathe operator

3 . P ro cessin g
Automobile mechanic, motor I

Surface grinder

Beater operator

Tankroom man I V
Tire bagger

Bench grinder
Box maker
Buffer I I I

Tool designer

Compound mixer I I
Control man

Turret-lathe operator
Vertical-boring-mill operator

Cutter, machine V

Vertical-turret-lathe operator

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Wire drawer I I I

3 . P ro cessin g
Cylinder-machine operator
Form builder I
5.

R e c o r d in g a n d C o n tr o l

Shipping clerk I
4 . In s p e c tio n a n d T e s tin g

Die setter I
Drophammer operator II

Inspector, crude rubber

Engine-lathe operator

Inspector (machine shop)

External-grinder operator I

Torsion tester

7 . C u sto d ia l
Porter I I

Final assembler V II
Floor assembler

Two Hands

—

Tube drawer

Desk assembler
Die maker I I

Amputee

—

One A rm

5 . R e co rd in g a n d C o n tro l

Forming-press operator I

M a in te n a n c e

Hardener II

Follow-up man I I I

H eat treater I I

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Machinist I I

Induction-furnace operator helper

Laborer, process (iron and steel)

Maintenance mechanic I I

Insulating-machine operator I

Production clerk I I

Oiler I

Job setter I I

Production planner

Sheet-metal worker II

Laborer (automobile parts)

Receiving checker I I

Tool-grinder operator

Laborer (foundry)

Stock clerk I I

Welder, combination

D. THE ORTHOPEDIC CASES
J o b s at w h ich 1 , 5 2 2 O rth o p ed ic C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued
Amputee

—

One Arm — Continued

3. Processing

Amputee

—

— Continued

One Foot

Amputee

—

One Leg

1. Maintenance

Carpenter

Electrical repairman

Brake operator, machine I I

Machinist II

Dipper I I
Heater, forge

Maintenance mechanic I I
Pipe fitter

Laborer^ foundry)

Tool-grinder operator

Laborer (iron and steel)
Laborer (rayon and allied products)
Maintenance mechanic II
Oiler I

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)
Laborer, process (leather manufacturing)
Laborer, process (rubber goods)
Machinist, bench

Painter I

3. Processing

Tool-grinder operator

Assembler

3. Processing

Burrer, hand

Offset-press man

Final assembler

Riveter, pneumatic I I I
Shaper operator I

Assembler

Floor assembler
Jigger-brim-pouncing-machine operator

Subassembler

Job setter I I

Switchroom man

Laborer, process (leather manufacturing)
Milling-machine operator II

4. Inspection and Testing

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Casting inspector

Subassembler I I I

Final-assembly inspector
Inspector I

Circular-sawing-machine operator
Core paster

Tool maker

Cutter-off II

Inspector (fabric plastic products)

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Inspector (machine shop)

5. Recording and Control
M aterial clerk
Production clerk I I

Burrer, hand

Churn man II

Tool-grinder operator
Wireman I I I

Installation inspector

Broaching-machine operator
Buffer I
Centerless-grinder operator
Chipper, foundry

Subassembler
Electrical inspector I I

Battery assembler
Bench assembler V

4. Inspection and Testing

D ie maker I I

Casting inspector

Die-m aker apprentice
Electrician

Inspector (machine shop)

Electric-motor repairman

Radio repairman I

Engine-lathe operator

Raw-material inspector II

Final assembler
Forming-press operator I

Receiving checker I I
Stock-control clerk

5. Recording and Control

Tool clerk

6. Material Movement

Production clerk II

Gear-hobber operator
General assembler I I
Germination worker
Glass polisher

Stock clerk I I

Hat-brim-curler, hand

Follow-up man I I I
Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

6. Material Movement

Laborer,
m ent)

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Dispatcher, locomotive

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Laborer, process (chemicals)

Laborer (machine tools and accessories)

Fireman, industrial locomotive

Laborer, process (cutlery tools)

Elevator operator, freight

Laborer (iron and steel)

process

(agricultural

equip

Laborer, process (foundry)
Laborer, process (iron and steel)

7. Custodial

Laborer, process (m alt liquors)

7. Custodial

Janitor I
Porter I

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al
loys and products)

W atchm an I

Porter I I

Laborer, process (rubber goods)
Laborer, process (rubber tire and tube

Amputee

—

Amputee

Two Arm s

—

Two Feet

manufacturing)
Lapping-machine operator

4. Inspection and testing

Material Movement

Inspector, hammers and presses

Laborer (foundry)

Machinist, bench
Milling-machine operator I I

Milling-machine operator, automatic

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
J o b s at w h ich 1 ,5 2 2 O rth op ed ic C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r o u p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued
Amputee — One Leg — Continued

3. Processing — Continued
Molding-machine tender
Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Painter, spray I
Paper slitter
Pull-over-machine operator
Punch-press operator I
Punch-press operator, automatic
Radial-drill-press operator
Repairman V
Screw-machine operator, automatic
Screw-machine operator, semiautomatic
Sheet-metal worker, aircraft
Shredder operator I I
Single-spindle-drill-press operator

6. Material Movement

3. Processing

Bucket-conveyor operator

Annealer

Diesel-dinkey operator

Bag-making-machine operator

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Bench grinder

Elevator operator, freight

Boring-machine operator, vertical

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Chipper, foundry

Laborer (fabric plastic products)

Churn man II

Laborer (paper and pulp)

Circular-sawing-machine operator
Core paster

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Laborer, process (rayon and allied prod
ucts)

Glass grinder
Insulation-machine operator I

Gateman IV

Laborer (foundry)

Jig-boring-machine operator
Janitor I

Laborer (m alt liquors)

W atchm an I

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Amputee — Two Legs

3. Processing

Laborer, process (tire and tube manufac
turing)

Burrer, hand

Lehr man

Subassembler I I I

Tool maker
Tumbler operator I I
Turret-lathe operator
Vertical-boring-mill operator
Weigher-up
Welder, acetylene
Welder, combination

Laborer, process (automobile parts)
Laborer, process (malt liquors)

Straightening-press operator

Tool-grinder operator

Forging-press operator

7. Custodial

Straightener, hand

Switch adjuster

Electrician apprentice
Engine-lathe operator

Truck driver, heavy

Straightener and parts-fitter

Subassembler

— Continued

Engine-lathe operator

Machine-molder, squeeze

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Machinist II

Punch-press operator I

Machinist, bench

Tool-grinder operator

M ake-up man V
Milling-machine operator I I

4. Inspection and Testing

Molder
Pointer operator

Inspector (machine shop)

W ood handler, inside
Loss of Use of One Hand

Planter I
Plunger
Punch-press operator I
Saw filer, machine

4. Inspection and Testing
Balancer I
Gager I
Hardness inspector
Inspector, chief I
Inspector, hammers and presses
Inspector (machine shop)
Inspector, material test
Laborer, process (fabric plastic products)
Salvage inspector
Tool inspector

1. Maintenance

Screw-machine operator, semiautomatic
Shaper operator I

“Blacksmith II
Carpenter

Stillman
Subassembler

Electrical repairman

Tool-grinder operator

Instrument repairman

T ool maker

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Turret-lathe operator

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

Welder, combination

Laborer (petroleum refining)
Laborer, process (nonferrous metal
alloys and products)
Machinist I I
Maintenance mechanic I I
Millwright

5. Recording and Control

Painter I
Pipe fitter

Chemist assistant I I

Tool-grinder operator

Production clerk I I

Welder, combination

4. Inspection and Testing
Casting inspector II
Checker
Inspector I
Inspector (machine shop)
Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)
Salvage inspector II

Production planner
Shipping clerk I

2. Working Foremen

5. Recording and Control

Absorption-plant foreman

Checker

Stock clerk I I
Tool clerk

D. THE ORTHOPEDIC CASES
J o b s at w h ich 1 > 5 2 2 O rth o p ed ic C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p l o y e d

M A L E — Continued
Loss of Use of One Hand — Continued

5. Recording and Control — Con
tinued
Production clerk II
Timekeeper
T ool clerk

Milling-machine operator, automatic

Laborer (tobacco)
Laborer, process (machine shop)
Machinist I I

Mixing-machine operator I
Molder, bench

Maintenance mechanic I I

Pumpman V I I

Milling-machine operator I I

Punch-press operator I

Pipe-fitter helper

Punch-press operator I I

Power-house engineer

Rubber pressman

Sheet-metal worker I I

Saw-filer, hand

Tool-grinder operator

Saw-filer, machine

Welder, combination

Screw-machine operator, automatic

Weigher-up

Shaper operator I

6. Material Movement

2. Working Foremen

Crane operator, portable

Foreman (cutlery tools)

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Forming-press operator I I

Elevator operator, freight

Tin plater I I I

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft
Single-spindle-drill-press operator
Slitting-machine operator
Slitting-machine operator II
Straightening-machine operator I I
Stranding-maehine operator

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (iron and steel)
Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

— Continued

Subassembler I (aircraft manufacturing)
Subassembler I I

3. Processing

Swinging-cut-off-saw operator

Laborer (malt liquors)

Buffer I

Tankroom man IV

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and

Chipper, foundry

Tool-grinder operator

products)
Loader operator I I I

7. Custodial

Coil-machine operator

Tool maker

Compositor I

Tube drawer

Core-oven tender
Cutter-off I

Turret-lathe operator
Vertical-boring-mill operator

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Vertical-turret-lathe operator

Gateman IV

Developer I

Welder, arc

Porter II

Die maker I I

Welder, combination

Die-maker apprentice I

W ireman V I

W atchm an I

Evaporator operator I.
Loss of Use of Two Hands

Experimental mechanic

4. Inspection and Testing

Floor assembler

1. Maintenance

Forming-press operator I

Checker

Furnace tender, heat treating

Core checker
Inspector (machine shop)

Locomotive repairman, Diesel

Gager V I I I

3. Processing

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (foundry)

Job setter I I

Circular-sawing-machine operator

Laborer (m alt liquors)

Film spooler

Laborer,
ment)

Laborer (m alt liquors)
Subassembler II
Upholsterer I I
Loss of Use of One Arm

process

(agricultural

equip

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)
Laborer, process (bakery products)
Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al
loys and products)

1. Maintenance

Laborer, process (photographic appara

Bricklayer, refractory brick

tus)
Laborer, process (radio manufacturing)

Pyrometer man II
Radio repairman I

5. Recording and Control
Checker
Expediter I I
Production clerk I I
Shipping clerk I
Stock clerk I I
Tool clerk

6. Material Movement

Electrical repairman

Laborer, process (rubber tire and tube
manufacturing)

Brakeman, yard I

Fireman, stationary boiler

Laborer, process (wire)

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Floor assembler

Ladle man I I
Lapping-machine operator

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (foundry)

Carpenter

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)
Laborer (building)

Machinist I I

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Laborer (electrical equipment)
Laborer (iron and steel)

Machinist, bench
M ajor assembler I

Laborer (iron and steel)
Laborer (leather products)

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Milling-machine operator II

Laborer (m alt liquors)

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
J o b s at w h ich 1 , 5 2 2 O rth op ed ic C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued
Loss of Use of One Arm — Continued

— Continued

General assembler I I

Punch-press operator I

Glass cutter

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft

Hardener I I

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Job setter I I

Tool maker

6. Material Movement — Continued

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Treater helper

Laborer (paper and pulp)

Laborer, process (foundry)

Laborer (wire)

Laborer, process (m alt liquors)

Trailer-truck driver

Machinist I I

Hardness inspector

Truck-crane operator

Machinist, bench

Tester helper

Laborer (iron and steel)

4. Inspection and Testing

Milling-machine operator, automatic

7. Custodial

Painter, aircraft
Painter, spray I I

Gateman IV

Punch-press operator I

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

Shaper operator I

Porter I

Stillman helper

Porter I I

Tool-grinder operator
Tool maker

Loss of Use of Two Arm s

6. Material Movement
Electric-bridge-crane operator
Laborer (glass manufacturing)

7. Custodial
Porter I

Turret-lathe operator
Wire drawer I I I

Loss of Use of One Leg

1. Maintenance
4. Inspection and Testing
Laborer (machine shop)

1. Maintenance

Machinist I I

Casting inspector

Boilermaker
Boiler-operator helper

2. Working Foremen

Inspector, machine shop
Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)
Tool inspector

Structural steel worker

5. Recording and Control
Final assembler V I I

Laborer, process (machine shop)
Laborer, process (nonferrous metal

6. Material Movement

Single-spindle-drill-press operator
Subassembler I

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Turret-lathe operator

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Loss of Use of One Foot

Fireman, stationary boiler
Laborer (tobacco)

Stock clerk II

Laborer, process (machine shop)

Carpenter, flask
Electrical repairman

3. Processing

Job setter II

Carpenter

Elevator operator, freight

alloys and products)
Machinist II
Maintenance man
Maintenance mechanic
Millwright

Laborer (bakery products)

Oiler I

Laborer (foundry)

Painter I

Laborer (wire)

Painter, spray I

1. Maintenance

Pipe fitter

7. Custodial

Plumber

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Porter I

Laborer (iron and steel)
Laborer (petroleum refining)

Sheet-metal worker

Porter II

Structural-steel worker

Electrical repairman

Power-house engineer

Saw filer, machine

W elder, combination
Loss of Use of Two Feet

Welder helper, acetylene

Sheet-metal worker helper

1. Maintenance

2. Working Foremen

Electrical repairman

Developer I

3. Processing
Bench grinder
Box maker, wood I I I

3. Processing

Inspector (machine shop)

Cigarette-packing-machine operator
Cylindrical-grinder operator

Coil assembler IV

3. Processing

Die maker II
Electrician, airplane I
Electric-motor assembler
Furnace operator I I

Glass polisher

Die maker II
Laborer, process (nonferrous metal
alloys and products)
Machinist II

Aircraft-carburetor subassembler
Arbor-press operator
Assembler IV

D. THE ORTHOPEDIC CASES
J o b s at w h ich 1 , 5 2 2 O rth o p ed ic C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued
Loss of Use of One Leg — Continued

— Continued

Laborer, process (wire)

W elder, butt

Lapping-machine operator
Lay-out man (machine shop)

Welder, combination
W ire drawer I I I

Lehr man

Machinist I I

Processing — Continued

Machinist apprentice

4. Inspection and Testing

Assembler, office machines

Machinist bench

Automobile machanic, motor I
Babbiter I I

M etal finisher, hand fifing

Body-assembly inspector

Milling-machine operator I I

Casting inspector

Balancer I

Milling-machine operator, automatic

Chemist, organic

Body maker I I I

Molder

Deflector operator

Box maker, wood I I I

M older apprentice

Dynamometer tester, motor

Brazer

Molder, floor

Experimental mechanic

Broaehing-maehine operator

M otorm an I

Final-assembly inspector

Buffer I
Burrer, hand

Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Painter, spray I I

Inspector and tester

Churn man II

Planer operator I I

Inspector (machine shop)

Cigarette-packing-machine operator

Plexiglas former

Inspector (rubber goods)

Circular-sawing-machine operator

Plunger

Installation inspector

Coil winder I

Pointer operator

Instrument maker I

Core maker I

Polisher

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Core paster

Power-shear operator I

Tester I
T ool inspector

Inspector I

Cutter, machine I

Pressman

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Punch-press operator I

Die-casting-machine operator I I

Punch-press operator I I

Die-maker apprentice I
Drawer builder

Radial-drill-press operator
Reaming-machine operator I

Engine-lathe operator

Recovery operator

Experimental mechanic

Rewinder operator

Final assembler V II

Rubber pressman

Floor assembler

Sandblaster I

Furnace tender, heat treating

Scrap-drop craneman

Glass cutter

Screw-machine operator, automatic

Glass grinder

Screw-machine operator, semiautomatic

Glass polisher

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft

Heat treater I I I

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Internal-grinder operator

Slitting-machine operator V I

Electric-monorail-crane operator

Instrument maker I
Job setter I I

Sorter
Spinner V I

Electric-truck operator
Elevator operator, freight

Laborer (foundry)
Laborer (glass products)

Sticker

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)
Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

5. Recording and Control
Follow-up man I I I
Receiving checker I I
Stock clerk I I
Timekeeper
T ool clerk

6. Material Movement

Laborer (machine tools and accessories)

Still-operator helper
Straightener, hand

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and

Stuffer, machine

Laborer (foundry)
Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Subassembler I

Laborer (malt liquors)

Subassembler I I
Subassembler I I I

Laborer (mattress and bedspring manu
facturing)

Switch adjuster

Laborer (paper and pulp)

Template maker IV

Laborer (plastic materials)

Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Tool-grinder operator

Laborer (wire)

Laborer, process (chemicals)

Tool hardener

Trailer-truck driver

Laborer, process (firearms)

Tool maker

Truck-driver, light

Laborer, process (foundry)

Tool-maker apprentice

products)
Laborer,

process

(agricultural

equip

ment)
Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Laborer, process (furniture)

Tube drawer

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Turret-lathe operator

Laborer, process (m alt liquors)

Vertical-turret-lathe operator

Laborer, process (paper and pulp)

Washer

Gateman IV

Laborer, process (radio manufacturing)

Watchcase-vulcanizer tender

Porter I I

Laborer, process (rayon and allied prod

Welder, arc

W atchm an I

ucts)

7. Custodial

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
J o b s at w h ich 1 ,5 2 2 O rth op ed ic C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued

7. Custodial

— Continued

Gear-hobber operator
General assembler I I

Porter II

Glass cutter

Loss of Use of Two Legs

Glass grinder
Back Deformity

1. Maintenance
Carpenter
Electrician helper

1. Maintenance

Glass polisher
Induction-furnace operator
Insulating-machine operator I
Job setter I I

Fireman, stationary boiler

Laborer (furniture)

Instrument repairman

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Laborer (iron and steel)

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Assembler (office machines)

Laborer (iron and steel)

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

Bench assembler V

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Laborer, process (foundry)

Burrer, hand

Machinist I I

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

3. Processing

Chipper, foundry

Maintenance man, factory or mill

Laborer, process (m alt liquors)

Coil-machine operator

Maintenance mechanic II

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al

Electrical adjuster

Millwright

File cutter
Fireman, still

Sheet-metal worker I I

Ladle man I I

W ater tender I I I

Lehr man

Jigger-brim-pouncing-machine operator

Welder, combination

turing)

Machinist I I
Machinist, bench

Job setter I I
Laborer, process (automobile manufac

loys and products)

Milling-machine operator II

2. Working Foremen

Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Painter, spray II

Laborer, process (rubber goods)

Glass grinder

Laborer, process (tobacco products)

Teaser II

Pumpman V I I

Tinplater I I I

Presser, machine I
Pressman

3. Processing

Radial-drill-press operator

Punch-press operator I
Repairman V
Saw filer, machine
Shaper operator I
Single-spindle-drill-press operator
Straightener I I I
Subassembler I
Subassembler I I
Tool-grinder operator
Tool maker
Welder, spot

Inspection and Testing

Patternmaker-apprentice, metal

Punch-press operator 1
Recovery operator
Aircraft mechanic

Riveter, pneumatic I I I

Automobile mechanic, motor I

Sandblaster I

Bench assembler V
Box maker, wood III

Scorer I

Broaching-machine operator

Screw-machine operator, semiautomatic
Sheet-metal worker, aircraft
Side-laster machine

Buffer I
Burrer, hand

Single-spindle-drill-press operator
Spreader I

Centerless-grinder operator

Straightener, hand

Brakeman, automobile

Charging-machine operator I

Subassembler I

Cigarette-making-machine operator

Subassembler I I I

Body-assembly inspector

Cigarette-packing-machine operator

Deflector operator

Switchroom man

Circular-sawing-machine operator

Hardness inspector

Tapping-machine operator I

Coremaker, machine I

Inspector I

Tool-grinder operator

Cylinder-block repairman

Inspector (machine shop)

Tool maker

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Tool inspector

Trimmer, hand V I I I

Dental ceramist

Turret-lathe operator

Desk assembler

W arm -in boy

Die-casting machine operator

W elder, combination

Die maker II

Welder, spot

Production clerk I I

Electrician apprentice

Wire drawer I I I

Shipping checker I I

Electric-motor assembler

Tool clerk

Engine-lathe operator

5. Recording and Control

Experimental-body-and-minor assembler

6. Material Movement

4. Inspection and Testing

Filling-machine operator I
Final assembler V I I

Casting inspector

Diesel-dinkey operator

Floor assembler

Core checker

Laborer (cutlery tools)

Forming-press operator I

Deflector operator

D. THE ORTHOPEDIC CASES
J o b s at w h ich 1 ,5 2 2 O rth op ed ic C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r o u p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued
Back Deformity— Continued

4. Inspection and Testing — Con
tinued

3. Processing

— Continued

Custodial

Chipper, foundry

Gateman IV

Cutter-off I I

Porter I I

Desk assembler
Electric-motor assembler
FEM ALE

Filter cleaner
Gear matcher
Inspector (machine shop)
Installation inspector
Laborer (electrical equipment)
Laborer, process (fabricated plastic
products)

5. Recording and Control

Glass grinder
Amputee — Two Hands

Glass polisher
Laborer (foundry)
Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)
Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Recording and Control

Stock clerk I I

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
Laborer, process (m alt liquors)

Amputee — One Arm

Expediter II

Lathe operator, automatic I

Laborer (machine tools and accessories)

Machinist apprentice

5. Recording and Control

Laborer (petroleum refining)
Production clerk I I

Milling-machine operator V I
Paper slitter

Stock clerk II

Shipping clerk I

Pulpit man II

Stock clerk I I

Shaper operator I

6. Material Movement

Tool clerk

Sheet-metal-fabricating-machine
operator

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

6. Material Movement

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft I I
Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Brakeman, yard I

Still-operator helper

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Tool designer

Elevator operator, freight

Tool-grinder operator

Industrial locomotive operator

Welder, combination

7. Custodial
Rest-room attendant

Amputee — One Leg

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (bakery products)
Laborer (glass manufacturing)
Laborer (machine tools and accessories)
Laborer (machinery manufacturing)
Laborer (m alt liquors)
Laborer (rayon and allied products)
Laborer (wire)

4. Inspection and Testing

3. Processing

Airplane inspector I

Profiling-machine operator I I

Body-assembly inspector
Casting inspector
Inspector (machine shop)
Tool inspector

4. Inspection and Testing
Laborer, process (cutlery tools)

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Loss of Use of One Hand

5. Recording and Control
7. Custodial
Porter I I

Clerk, general
Production clerk I I

Rest-room attendant
W atchman I

Shipping checker

Multiple Orthopedic

1. Maintenance

Laborer, process (aircraft manufacturing)

6. Material Movement

4. Inspection and Testing

Electric-truck operator

Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Fireman, portable boiler

W eaver IV

Floor assembler

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Maintenance mechanic II

Laborer (iron and steel)

Millwright

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Painter I

Laborer (wire)

3. Processing

5. Recording and Control
Stock clerk I I

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

J o b s at w h ich 1 ,5 2 2 O rth op ed ic C a s es o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

FEMALE — Continued
Loss of Use of Two Hands

Inspection and Testing

Inspector (machine shops)

— Continued

Sewing-machine
operator
products, n. e. c.)

(fabricated

Sewing-machine operator (m en’s tailored
garments)

Loss of Use of One Leg

Processing

W elder, filament

Laborer, process (aircraft manufactur-

3. Processing

7. Custodial

tag)
Laborer, process (garment manufactur-

Bench grinder

Charwoman

Bench hand X I

mg)

Cake wrapper

Back Deformity

Cementer, hand II
Coil assembler I V
Loss of Use of One Arm

Coil taper, machine
Final assembler V II

1. Maintenance
Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

3. Processing
Instrument maker I
Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
Sewer, hand I II
Sewing-machine operator (shirts and re

Instrument maker II

3. Processing
Bander and cellophaner, machine
Baser II

Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Floor assembler

Laborer, process (confectionery)

Laborer (bindery)

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
Sewer, hand I II

Laborer, process (confectionery)
M ajor assembler I

Sewing-machine operator (shirts and re

Rotor-core assembler

lated products)
Solderer I

Sewing-machine operator (m en’s tailored
garments)
Stripper, machine

4. Inspection and Testing

Subassembler I I I

Complete-and-final-assembly inspector

Yarn winder

Final assembly inspector, fusilage instal

4. Inspection and Testing

Inspector (machine shop)

lated products)

lation

Inspector (machine shop)
Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Tester I

Tire inspector II

5. Recording and Control
Stock clerk I I

6. Material Movement

X -r a y inspector
Laborer (rayon and allied products)

6. Material Movement
Multiple Orthopedic
Laborer (rayon and allied products)
Sorter II

3. Processing

7. Custodial

Raster, hand

Loss of Use of One Foot

Processing

Armature winder I

Laborer, process (dental equipment)
Charwoman
Porter II
Loss of Use of Two Legs

Loss of Use of Two Feet

Processing

Baser I I

Processing

Laborer, process (confectionery)

4. Inspection and Testing
Inspector (machine shop)

5. Recording and Control
Stock-control clerk

D. THE ORTHOPEDIC CASES

Placement Practices
In general, the pre-employment physical exami
nation was found to be relatively unimportant in the
case of the person with an orthopedic impairment
because the impairment usually was visible and could
be evaluated readily. A placement officer is not
likely to put such an applicant on a job which he
obviously is incapable of performing. However, the
physical examination may make a considerable con
tribution to proper placement by revealing the cause
of the impairment, such as arthritis, varicosity, etc.,
which results in a limitation of the use of a body
member. This information may prevent placing the
applicant in working conditions which might ag
gravate the impairment.
In 10 of the 109 plants surveyed, it was a matter
of company policy to prohibit the hiring of orthopedic
cases coming within the definitions used in this study.
Yet, orthopedically impaired workers were found em
ployed in each of these 10 plants. Apparently, these
were persons who had acquired the impairment after
being employed by the company and either had con
tinued on in their jobs or had moved to other jobs
which their residual abilities permitted them to per
form. In several other plants the policy was to exclude
persons with orthopedic impairments unless they pos
sessed some particular skill which was urgently needed
at the moment. In all cases, however, the exclusion
rules were relaxed to permit the hiring of disabled
veterans.
The placement of a person with an orthopedic
impairment tends to be simple in its essential prin
ciples. The application of these principles, however,
may be quite complex. The impairment or limitation
is usually visible and the matching of the abilities of
the individual to the requirements of the job is not
difficult. Flexibility in applying the rules, however,
is the most necessary requirement. To say that an
applicant who has lost a leg cannot do a job that re
quires standing or walking, may or may not be true.
An instance encountered during the survey will il
lustrate the point. A man who had lost a leg in a plant
accident asked to be trained for a certain job. It
was believed that the man could acquire the skill
but the job required constant standing and moving.
However, as the employee had asked for it, the man
agement decided to let him try. He was taught the
job and had been performing it successfully for sev
eral years at the time of the survey. In another case

a man who had lost a hand was found handling steel
drums. He used a hook in place of the hand and
had no trouble at all in keeping up with his fellow
workers.
These instances are cited not to prove that a man
with one leg should be put on jobs requiring standing
and moving or that a man with one hand should be
assigned to jobs handling heavy materials, but to
emphasize the fact that placement of the orthopedi
cally impaired person was found to be an individual
matter. It is necessary to consider the job in terms
of all the abilities and attributes of the individual
applying for it and not exclusively in terms of the
physical impairment.
The use of prosthetic aids was found to open many
jobs to the man with an orthopedic impairment. For
example, the worker who had lost an arm was not
necessarily excluded from a job requiring the use of
two arms. An artificial limb enabled many such
workers to do the same work they had always done,
or to learn new jobs even though these required the
use of two arms or two hands. Because of the many
and complicated ways in which persons with ortho
pedic impairments were found to adjust to different
requirements, job analysis and evaluation of job re
quirements are extremely important placement tools
in these cases.

Work Performance
The group of persons with serious orthopedic im
pairments compared favorably with their matched
unimpaired workers on the same jobs. Table D - l
and the following paragraphs summarize the find
ings of the study of this group with respect to the five
major factors of work performance for which data
were obtained.
Absenteeism
An absence was defined as absence from the job
on days on which the employee was scheduled to
work. Lay-offs, vacations, etc., were not counted
either as days absent or as days scheduled to work.
The average rate of absenteeism, computed as days
lost per 100 scheduled workdays, was 3.8 for the
1,522 orthopedic cases against 3.4 for the 2,463 un
impaired workers matched with them. These rates
are the same as those for the survey group as a whole.
The slight difference in the rates indicates that,

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

as a group, the orthopedically impaired worker might
be expected to have about 1 day more of absence
than the unimpaired in each 250 scheduled workdays.
If two applicants presented themselves at the em
ployment office and it was known that one of them
would be absent 1 more day than the other in each
250 days of scheduled work, it is doubtful whether
this fact in itself would determine which applicant
got the job. While the level of the rates as such is not
a consideration in this study, the fact is that the fa
vorable level of the rates also tends to minimize the
difference between the two groups.
* The frequency distribution of the individual rates
for the impaired and unimpaired workers (table D -4)
provides further evidence of the similarity of the per
formance of the two groups. There is a very high
concentration in the lower range with a scattering
among the very high frequencies. Nearly one quarter
of each group had no absences at all during the period
studied, and about 70 percent of the impaired and 73
percent of the unimpaired had absenteeism rates of
3.9 or less. Isolated instances of very poor perform
ance occurred in both groups. Two of the ortho
pedic cases and four of the unimpaired workers had
extremely poor rates of 50.0 or higher. Such in
stances, however, can be expected in any large group
of workers.
T able

D - 4 .— Percentage distribution of 1,522 orthopedically

impaired workers and 2,463 unimpaired workers, by absenteeism
frequency rate 1
Absenteeism frequency rate class
_______ _____ ______________________________
0
0.1 and under 1.0----------------------------------------------1.0 and under 2.0___________ ______ — ---------------2.0 and under 3.0--------------------------------------------------3.0 and under 4.0------ ---------------------------------- --------4.0 and under 5.0_________________________________
5.0 and under 10.0------------------------ -----------------------10.0 and under 20.0_______________________________
20.0 and under 50.0_______________________________
50.0 and over_____________________________________
Total..... .................................... - ..................... -

Impaired

Unimpaired

22.2
15.0
12.6
11.4
8.0
5.4
14.9
8.0
2.4
.1

23.7
16.7
12.6
11.6
6.9
6.6
13.0
7.1
1.6
.2

100.0

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

Unfortunately, no reason was obtainable for well
over half the total number of absences recorded. To
the extent to which such reasons were obtainable,
however, the rates attributable to various causes for
absence as shown in table D -5 were very similar for
the impaired and unimpaired workers. Personal busi
ness accounted for a rate of 0.3 in each group; and
illness, the most frequent cause of absence, yielded a
rate of 1.2 for the impaired against 1.0 for the unim
paired. It is, of course, impossible to say how the

comparisons would have been affected had it been
possible to obtain the reasons for absences in the
large groups recorded as unknown. However, within
the limits of the known facts, there does not seem to
be any material difference between the orthopedically
impaired and the unimpaired workers matched with
them as to the reasons why they absented themselves
on scheduled workdays.
T able

D - 5 .— Absenteeism frequency rates 1 for 1,522 ortho

pedically impaired workers and 2,463 unimpaired workers, by
reason for absence
Reason for absence

Impaired

Unimpaired

Total____________________________________________

3.8

3.4

Illness_______ __ __________________________ ______
Personal business_________________________________
Unknown__________________________ _______ ___

1.2
.3
2.3

1.0
.3
2.1

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

Nondisabling Injury Experience
A nondisabling injury was defined as one which did
not result in a permanent impairment or in loss of
time beyond the day or shift on which the injury
occurred. The group injury experience was expressed
as a rate reflecting the number of injuries per 10,000
exposure-hours. The individual rates were computed
on a 1,000-hour base. Data for this factor in work
performance were available for 1,482 orthopedic cases
matched with 2,402 unimpaired workers.
The difference between the two groups was frac
tional, with a small advantage on the side of the im
paired workers. The rates of minor work injuries
were 9.4 and 10.0 per 10,000 exposure-hours for the
impaired and unimpaired, respectively. The differ
ence indicates that the impaired, as a group, might
be expected to experience about 1 less nondisabling
injury than the unimpaired in each 15,000 hours of
work. Considering that this represents typically the
single treatment antiseptic-and-adhesive-tape type
of injury with no lost time, the difference does not
seem to be significant.
Because group averages might not be truly repre
sentative of the group experience, frequency distri
butions were developed. The patterns of the two
frequency distributions shown in table D -6 are nearly
identical in the two groups. 55 percent of the im
paired and 53 percent of the unimpaired had no inju
ries at all during the periods studied. 95 percent in
each group had a rate of 4.9 or less. Exactly 0.2 per
cent in each group were in the extremely high bracket,

D. THE ORTHOPEDIC CASES

with a rate of 20.0 or more. It seems reasonable to
conclude on this evidence that the nondisabling in
jury experience was the same for the orthopedically
impaired workers and for the unimpaired workers
exposed to the same hazards. There was no evidence
of accident proneness on the part of the worker with
an orthopedic impairment.
T able

D - 6 .— Percentage distribution of 1,482 orthopedically

impaired workers and

2,402 unimpaired

workers, by frequency

rate 1 of nondisabling injury
Frequency rate class

Impaired

Unimpaired

____________ _____________________
0 _ _ ___
0.1 and under 1.0_________________________________
1.0 and under 2.0________ _____ _____ _____ ______
2.0 and under 3.0__________________________ ______
3.0 and under 5.0-------------------------------------------------5.0 and under 1 0 .0 ----------------- --------------------------10.0 and under 20.0---------------- --------- --------------------20.0 and over________________ _____ _______________

54.9
15.3
13.8
6.7
4.4
3.7
.2

52.5
16.0
14.3
6.7
5.4
4.3
.6
.2

Total_____________________ _______ ________

100.0

1.0

1 Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.

Nor did the orthopedically impaired differ from
the unimpaired as to the nature of injuries. The rates
attributable to various kinds of injury, shown in
table D -7, have very similar patterns for the two
groups of workers. Considering the fact that the fig
ures shown here reflect the experience of a sizable
number of cases, it seems clear that the injuries ex
perienced were related to the hazards of the jobs.
There appears to have been no tendency on the part
of the person with an orthopedic impairment toward
some particular kind of injury.
T able

D - 7 .— Nondisabling injury frequency rates1for 1,482

orthopedically impaired workers and 2,402 unimpaired workers,
by nature of injury
Nature of injury

Impaired

Unimpaired

10.0

Total_____________

9.4

Burns and scalds __
Cuts and abrasions.
Eye injuries_______
Strains and sprains.
Other_____________

6.4
1.4
.5
.5

6.8
1.7
.4
.5

obtained largely at the discretion of the employee.
However, while the practices varied among plants,
they were the same for the impaired and unimpaired
in each plant. Thus, while the redressings per injury
are some measure of the severity, they are so only on
a comparative basis between the two groups.
The impaired and unimpaired groups alike aver
aged 0.8 redressings per injury, indicating that injuries
of orthopedically impaired workers were no more
severe than those of the unimpaired workers matched
with them.
In brief, the nondisabling injury experience in the
two matched groups of workers was practically iden
tical with respect to frequency, severity, and nature
of injury. In the light of this record, it seems reason
able to conclude that the injury experience was related
to the hazards of the jobs and not to the orthopedic
impairments which characterized one of the groups.
The dispensary records yielded an additional fact
of considerable interest — visits for reasons other
than work injuries. These were visits to the dispen
sary occasioned by causes not related to the workers
employment, such as illness, home accidents, etc.
Again, plant practices varied widely with respect to
treatment of such non-work-connected injury or ill
ness. Some plants encouraged, others discouraged,
such use of plant medical facilities. However, the
significant consideration here is not the actual de
mands made on such facilities but the comparison of
the demands made by the impaired and unimpaired
workers under the same conditions. In this respect
again there was no difference between the two groups.
The orthopedically impaired group and the matched
unimpaired group each averaged 1.3 such visits per
person. The opinion sometimes encountered that the
orthopedically impaired worker tends to make ex
cessive demands upon the medical facilities of the
plant, clearly is not supported by the recorded ex
perience of 1,482 such workers compared with 2,402
unimpaired co-workers.

1 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.

Disabling Injury Experience
The number of redressings required per injury pro
vides some indication of the severity of first-aid in
juries. In the present study it was found that
practices concerning redressings varied widely among
plants. In some instances intensive follow-up was
made to be sure that the employee reported for re
dressings on each injury until released by the com
pany physician. In other plants redressings were

Frequency. This kind of injury was defined as one
which resulted in a permanent impairment or in time
loss of at least one full day beyond the day or shift on
which the injury occurred.
Data on disabling work injuries were obtained for
1,499 orthopedically impaired persons matched with
2,439 unimpaired workers. The orthopedic cases had

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

a substantially better disabling injury record than the
unimpaired workers matched with them and exposed
to the same hazards. Computed on the standard base
of a million exposure-hours, the rates for the impaired
and unimpaired groups were 5.9 and 8.9, respectively.
As was true of nondisabling work injuries, the sim
ilarity in the nature of the disabling injuries was very
pronounced. Contusions of the lower extremities
were the most common and accounted for about onethird of all the injuries in both groups. Two of the
impaired cases suffered fractures, as did three of the
unimpaired. All five cases involved fractures of the
toes. The only amputations, however, were recorded
among the unimpaired workers; there were five of
these, all amputations of fingers. With this exception
the pattern of injuries in the two groups was prac
tically identical. Again, the conclusion seems war
ranted that the injuries were attributable to the job
hazards and not to any accident proneness of the im
paired workers. The significance of these figures lies
in the fact that the workers of the two groups were
working on the same jobs and consequently were ex
posed to identical hazards.

Time Lost The time lost by each group as a result
of disabling injuries was computed as a rate per 100
scheduled workdays. The rates for the two groups
were small, 0.07 and 0.10 days per 100 scheduled days
for the impaired and unimpaired groups, respectively.
On this basis of comparison, the severity of disabling
injuries was about the same for impaired and unim
paired workers.
A slightly different approach to the time-lost factor
is the average time lost per injury. Again, the dif
ference between the two groups was small, 15.8 and
13.9 days per injury for the impaired and unimpaired
groups, respectively. Orthopedically impaired work
ers experienced a total of 15 disabling injuries with a
total time loss of 237 days. Included in this group
was one case — a contusion of the foot — which re
sulted in a time loss of 96 days. This single case raised
the average from 10 days to nearly 16 days. Among
the unimpaired there were 36 disabling injuries, among
which was also one very high case — a foot frac
ture with a time loss of 87 days. If, for the sake
of a better comparison the extreme case is removed
from each group, the averages become 10 days per
injury for the impaired and 13 days per injury for the
unimpaired workers. Either way, the difference does
not seem to be large enough to indicate any signif

icant difference in the severity of the injuries in the
two groups.
A careful examination of accident records, supple
mented by discussion with the safety director or other
responsible plant official, showed that in no case was
the injury of an orthopedically impaired person at
tributed to his impairment. None of the injuries
experienced by the orthopedically impaired workers
resulted in any additional permanent disability severe
enough to result in total permanent disability. Nor
were any of the injuries among the unimpaired re
corded as caused or contributed to by a fellow work
er’s impairment. Furthermore, no instance of this
type was discovered for any impaired workers not
included in the group.
In brief, the person with an orthopedic impairment,
if reasonably placed, was found to be neither a hazard
to himself nor to others. On the contrary, he expe
rienced a somewhat better accident record than did
unimpaired workers exposed to the same hazards.

Output Relative
Of the 1,522 orthopedically impaired workers who
comprised the survey group, individual production
data were available for only 121. Matched with these
impaired workers were 193 unimpaired workers on
the same jobs and subject to the same incentives. As
a group, the orthopedic cases were about 1 percent
more efficient, with an output relative of 101.3 as
against 100.0 for the unimpaired workers with whom
they were matched. Although the group of 121 ortho
pedic cases was not as large as was desirable, it will
be noted that the output relative is nearly identical
with that for the 895 cases of the total survey group
for whom production data were available.
Not all of the orthopedic workers studied produced
at a better rate than did the unimpaired workers
matched with them. It would not be reasonable to
expect that they should. However, even on an indi
vidual comparison basis, the impaired workers made
a favorable record, as the following tabulation indi
cates:
Output relative

Number of
impaired workers

Under 9 5 .0 ___________________________________

95.0 and under 105 .0 _________________________

105.0 and over________________________________

If an output relative between 95.0 and 105.0 can
be taken to represent satisfactory performance, 74

D. THE ORTHOPEDIC CASES

percent of the impaired workers produced at a rate
equal to or better than the unimpaired workers with
whom they were matched on the same jobs. Only
26 percent were less efficient than the unimpaired
workers with whom they were compared, while, on
the other hand, 34 percent were substantially better.
Incentive work was not restricted to any one or a
few types of orthopedic impairment. Among the 121
cases for whom data were available, 14 of the 18 spe
cific kinds of orthopedic impairments were repre
sented.
The evidence here indicates that the existence of
orthopedic impairments did not prevent workers from
keeping up an adequate production pace, provided
they were reasonably placed. For the firms repre
sented in this study, the employment of the orthopedically impaired on incentive work did not result
in any lag in production schedules. On the contrary,
the records indicate that the effect was slightly in the
other direction.
In evaluating the ability of these orthopedically
impaired workers to keep up with production sched
ules, there are two additional factors which must be
taken into consideration. First, the small number of
cases for which data were available does not indicate
that orthopedic cases were not widely used on pro
duction work. Many cases had to be excluded be
cause they could not be matched with the unimpaired
workers on the same jobs. Second, only those who
were on individual incentive work could be used.
Orthopedic cases working on group incentive systems
and on assembly lines could not be included. How
ever, on group incentive work the impaired worker
had to keep up with the group in order to hold the
job, and on assembly line operations the work was
paced by the speed of the line. Hence, the fact of
their employment on these jobs is evidence that the
orthopedically impaired workers so employed were
able to meet the production pace of the unimpaired
workers on the same jobs.

Quit Rate
Data on job separations were obtainable for 632
orthopedically impaired workers matched with 1,019
unimpaired workers.
Data for the computation of the separation rates
were obtained by means of follow-up and consisted
of the number of persons of the survey group, im776106° — 48 — 6

paired and unimpaired, who were no longer in the
employ of the company 6 months after the end of the
period used for the study. Thus, if the survey period
covered the period January 1 through December 31,
1945, the data on separations covered the 6-month
period January 1 through June 30, 1946. The rates
were computed as the number of workers no longer
employed per 100 workers in the survey group.
The total separation rate is made up of two factors,
the terminations (lay-offs, discharges, etc.), over
which an employee has no control, and the voluntary
quits, where the action is initiated by the em
ployee.
For the purpose of comparing the stability on the
job of these groups of impaired and unimpaired work
ers, it is the quit rate which is of principal interest.
In the present survey group the orthopedically im
paired workers had a substantially higher quit rate,
5.7 as against 2.9 for the unimpaired workers. The
difference in the quit rates amounts to 2.8 and is
accounted for in part by the fact that the number of
quits was higher for the impaired for health reasons
and because a somewhat larger number of these em
ployees moved out of the community. These two
reasons accounted for 1.2 of the 2.8 difference. The
other sizable difference occurred in the cases where
the reason for quits was unknown. Unfortunately,
this category accounts for more than half the dif
ference between the two groups. It is possible that
part of this group may have taken jobs during the
war and then, when the emergency had passed, may
have withdrawn from the labor force. Profiting from
the opportunities offered by wartime employment
many impaired persons acquired industrial skills and
experience for which there was a ready market, and
many undoubtedly quit to take other or better jobs.
These factors probably influenced the rates for the
impaired persons, especially during 1945 and 1946
when there was considerable shifting around among
the working population in general. Miscellaneous
reasons for quits classified as “ other” made up a
large category for both the impaired and the unim
paired, the principal reason listed for both groups
being “ to start own business. ”
Terminations primarily as a result of reduction in
force ran 6.3 per hundred for the orthopedically im
paired as against 4.3 for the matched unimpaired
workers. This is not surprising since in general the
impaired were the last to be hired and, as a result of
lower seniority rating, were among the first to be laid
off when reductions in force became necessary.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

E. The Hearing Cases
Summary of Statistical Findings
In most respects the performance of the workers
with impaired hearing compared favorably with that
of the unimpaired workers with whom they were
matched. The two groups were about equally regular
in their work attendance and had about the same
nondisabling work injury experience. Contrary to
the findings for most of the other impairment groups,
the frequency of disabling injury was higher for the
workers with impaired hearing than for the unim
paired workers on the same jobs. The severity of
the injuries as measured by the resultant time loss,
however, was substantially less. The rate of voluntary
quits was also substantially lower for the hearing
cases. Observations on measured individual pro
duction were not available on a group sufficiently
large to permit showing comparative performance
data.
Nearly 20 percent of the hearing cases were fe

males, and the performance of this group exerted a
fairly marked influence on the performance of the
survey group as a whole. The female cases had a
somewhat higher incidence of both disabling and
nondisabling injuries than was characteristic of the
female cases in other impairment groups, but the
absenteeism rate was about the same.
On the whole, the workers with impaired hearing
acquitted themselves creditably. Properly placed,
the impairment did not seem to constitute a handicap
and their work performance, except for the incidence
of disabling work injuries, was about the same as that
of the unimpaired workers matched with them on the
same jobs.

Composition of the Survey Group
The hearing group included three specific impair
ments : (1) the totally deaf, defined as an 0/20 classi
fication or 50 decibel loss; (2) the hard of hearing,

T a b l e E - l .— W ork performance of workers with hearing impairments, and of matched unimpaired workers

Croup

Absenteeism
frequency
rate1

Nondisabling
injury
frequency
rate2

Disabling injury
Frequency
rate3

Time-lost
rate 4

Average days
of disability 5

Output
relative6

Quit
rate 7

Average performance
Total:
Impaired____________________ __ ________ ___________
Unimpaired_________ _____ _______ _____ _ _____ ______
Male:
Impaired_______ ___ _________
__________
Unimpaired_________________
_____ —
-- -- --Female:
Impaired_____________________ ____________
_____
Unimpaired-------------------- ------------------------ ---------------

3.4
3.9

11.4
11.0

8.1
4.6

3.0
3.4

n T
11.4

5.1

0.08
.06
—- — ----------.09
.07

5.4
6.6

11.5
9.3

6.1
2.1

.04
(9)

■■
■■ -■

13.4
17.0
------

2.8
4.7

(8)
(8)
—

■

12.3
17.8

(8)
(8)

9.0
1.0

(8)
(8)

(8)
f8)

272
430

Number of workers
Total:
Impaired______ . . .
________________________ __
Unimpaired_______ _______ - ____________ _ _ ___ _____ _______
Male:
Impaired___________________________ _____________________ U nim paired ___ _____ ____________________________ __ _______ _______
Female:
Impaired_____________________________________________ ________ ________
Unim paired ______________ ____________________ __ _________ __
1 Number
2 Number
3 Number
4 Number
6 Number

of
of
of
of
of

days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.
days of disability per disabling injury.

595
937

568
892

588
930

588
930
-T "

r-.-,

494
753

470
716

487
746

(8)
(8)

101
184

98
176

101
184

(8)
(8)

E. THE HEARING CASES

defined as 10/20 classification or a loss of 30 decibels
but less than 50 decibels in the better ear; and (3)
the deaf-mute. The readings used were those taken
without use of hearing aid because it was found early
in the study that employees usually were classified
in that way on plant medical records. This impair
ment group yielded a total of 595 cases, making it
fifth in size among the 10 impairment groups studied.
T able

E - 2 .— Distribution of 595 hearing cases, by type of
impairment and by sex
Male

Total

Impairment group

Female

Total________ _______ ______ ____________

595

494

101

Totally deaf __________________________
Hard of hearing___________ __ _________
Deaf-mute_______________ __ __________

92
313
190

61
275
158

31
38
32

The hard of hearing were encountered most fre
quently and accounted for 313 cases in this survey
group. The deaf mutes provided 190 cases. Only a
comparatively few totally deaf workers were found,
T a b l e E - 3 .— Comparison of number and percentage distribution

of 595 hearing cases and 10,433 other impaired workers, by age
group and by sex
Number of workers

Percent

Age group
Hearing
cases

Other
impaired

Hearing
cases

_ Other
impaired

Total______________________________
Under 20 years________________
20 and under 25 years__________
25 and under 30 years____ _____
30 and under 35 years___ _ __
35 and under 40 years
40 and under 45 years_________
45 and under 50 years_ _ _ _
50 and under 55 years _ _ _ _
55 and under 60 years ____ __
60 and under 65 years__________
65 years and over______________

595
5
50
82
80
63
79
67
55
51
38
25

10,433
74
461
819
1,037
1,121
1,159
1,245
1,507
1,492
1,050
468

100.0
.8
8.4
13.8
13.4
10.6
13.3
11.3
9.2
8.6
6.4
4.2

100.0
.7
4.4
7.9
9.9
10.8
11.1
11.9
14.4
14.3
10.1
4.5

Males__________ __________________
Under 20 years___ ______
20 and under 25 years__________
25 and under 30 years_____ ____
30 and under 35 years_____ i_ _
35 and under 40 years__________
40 and under 45 years__________
45 and under 50 years__________
50 and under 55 years__________
55 and under 60 years__________
60 and under 65 y e a r s _________
65 years and over______________

494
3
32
65
67
52
61
54
48
50
37
25

9,759
50
379
699
949
1,025
1,069
1,185
1,450
1,447
1,039
467

100.0
.6
6.5
13.2
13.6
10.5
12.3
10.9
9.7
10.1
7.5
5.1

100.0
.5
3.9
7.2
9.7
10.5
11.0
12.1
14.9
14.8
10.6
4.8

Females___________________________
Under 20 years________________
20 and under 25 years__________
25 and under 30 y e a r s . _______
30 and under 35 years_________
35 and under 40 years_________
40 and under 45 years_________
45 and under 50 years_________
50 and under 55 years_________
55 and under 60 years_______ __
60 and under 65 years_________
65 years and over_____________

101
2
18
17
13
11
18
13
7
1

674
24
82
120
88
96
90
60
57
45
11

100.0
2.0
17.8
16.8
12.9
10.9
17.8
12.9
6.9

100.0
3.6
12.2
17.8
13.1
14.2
13.4
8.9
8.5
6.7
1.6
(0

i Less than 0.05.

1
0

1.0
1.0
0

92 in all. Because of the comparatively small total
number of cases in the group, performance data are
not shown separately by specific type of impairment.
With respect to age characteristics, the group
showed a fairly heavy concentration in the lower age
ranges: 47 percent, or nearly one-half, were under the
age of 40. Among the remainder of the impaired
workers only 34 percent, or about one-third, were in
this age range. 28 percent of the hearing cases and
43 percent of the rest of the impaired workers were
50 years of age or older. The largest single group, 82
cases, fell within the age range from 25 to 30 years.
The concentration of the female workers in the lower
age ranges was even more pronounced. Slightly over
91 percent of the females, as against 68 percent of the
males, were under the age of 50. It is not apparent
from the material at hand why the hearing cases
should have displayed this deviation from the gen
eral pattern.

Industry and Occupational Coverage
Workers with impaired hearing were found in each
of the major industry groups covered by the study.
The cases on which performance data were obtained
are not concentrated in any one or a few of the indus
tries, and small numbers of these cases were encoun
tered in almost every plant. This broad plant and
industry coverage indicates that the person with im
paired hearing can be employed in a great variety of
industrial activities. Also, the performance figures
shown in the report reflect the performance of these
workers under a wide variety of employment condi
tions. It is generally known that certain industries
employ relatively large numbers of persons with im
paired hearing in certain operations where noise is
very objectionable to persons with good hearing.
Unfortunately, however, it was impossible to obtain
the performance records for these cases.
The specific jobs at which the impaired workers of
this group were employed during the periods studied
are shown in the listing on pp. 76-79. For the most
part, the impaired persons were utilized in processing
or producing operations. Maintenance work, mate
rial movement, and inspection and testing accounted
for only a relatively small proportion of the group.
Not only were these workers concentrated in the
processing operations, but the range and variety of
skills represented in those operations were very wide.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

In general, the tendency seemed to be toward the
higher skilled jobs. This is not surprising, as the im
paired person frequently must be able to exercise
some special skill in order to gain employment. How
ever, the low skilled jobs — the process laborers,
maintenance laborers, etc. — were also represented.
But very few, less than 5 percent of the group studied,
were found in custodial occupations, such as janitor
and porter.
The tabulation indicates clearly the wide variety
of industrial occupations which the person with seri

ously impaired hearing is capable of performing.
While it is illustrative of the point, it is by no means
to be interpreted as a complete list of suitable occu
pations. Many jobs on which impaired persons were
found to be employed were not recorded because, for
one reason or another, the qualifications of the survey
could not be met. A complete list of all jobs filled by
workers with impaired hearing and encountered in
the survey would have resulted in a much larger tab
ulation but still would not have been exhaustive or
complete.

Jobs at which 595 Hearing Cases of the survey group were found employed
[T itles used are those appearing in the U n ite d States E m p lo y m e n t Service D ictio n a ry of O ccup ational T itles an d are g rou p ed and n um bered a cco rd in g to
the classifications used b y the W a g e A n alysis B ran ch o f the B u reau o f L a b or Statistics. T h is is not to b e interp reted as a com plete listing o f jo b s a t
w hich persons w ith hearing im pairm ents can b e e m p lo y e d ]

M ALE

Straightener, hand

Pipe fitter

Subassembler I I I

Plumber

Switch adjuster

Plumber apprentice

Template maker IV

Power-shear operator I

1. Maintenance

Tinner, automatic
Tool-grinder I

Pumpman I

Electrical repairman

Tool-grinder operator

Stationary engineer

Machinist II

Welder, combination

Switchboard operator I I I

Totally Deaf

Maintenance mechanic II

Sheet-metal worker II

Welder, combination

Oiler I

5. Recording and Control

3. Processing

Production clerk II

2. Working Foremen

Stock clerk II
Airplane woodworker II
Band-sawing-machine operator

6. Material Movement

Inspector (machine shop)
Stillman II

Coil winder II
Detail assembler II
Die maker I I
Drop-hammer operator I I

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (bakery products)

3. Processing

Laborer (leather products)

Engine-lathe operator

Tractor operator

Airplane woodworker II
Assembler

Electrician, airplane I

7. Custodial

Automobile mechanic, motor I
Battery-charger placer

File cutter
Final assembler V II

Porter II

Boring-machine operator, automatic
Box maker, wood I I I

Electrical assembler II

Box tender I

Form builder I
Laborer (iron and steel)

Hard of Hearing

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys
Laborer,

process

Buffer, machine

and

products)

1. Maintenance
(agricultural

Brake operator, machine II
Burrer, hand
Calender operator I

equip
Boilermaker

Centerless-grinder operator

Laborer, process (cutlery tools)

Carpenter

Chassis assembler II

Laborer, process (rayon and allied prod-

Electrical repairman
Instrument man IV

Circular-sawing-machine operator
Coil winder II

Lurer

Laborer (ammunition)

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Machinist, bench

Laborer (boot and shoe)

Dental ceramist

M ajor assembler I

Laborer (malt liquors)

Detail assembler II

M ajor-assem bly installer

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Milling-machine operator

Machinist II

Die-casting-machine operator I I
Die maker II

Repairman V

Maintenance mechanic II

Dipper II

Riveter, aircraft

Millwright

Electric-motor assembler

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Oiler I

Engine-lathe operator

Slieking-lathe operator

Painter I

Final assembler V II

ment)

ducts)

E. THE HEARING CASES
J o b s at w h ich 5 9 5 H e a r in g C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued

Hard of Hearing — Continued

3. Processing — Continued

Punch-press operator I

— Continued

Custodial

Radial-drill-press operator
Reactor operator I

Gateman IV

Rotor assembler

Janitor I

Saw setter I I

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

Sheet-metal-fabric-machine operator

Porter I

Sheet-metal worker I I

Porter II

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft

W atchm an I

Floor assembler

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft II

Form builder I
Forming-press operator

Single-spindle-drill-press operator
Sorter

Friction-sawing-machine operator

Spinner V I

Furnace operator I I

Sprayer V I

Furnace tender, heat treating

Spreader I

Deaf-M ute

1, Maintenance

Gear-hobber operator

Stillman, beer

Carpenter

Heater III

Stock maker

Maintenance mechanic I I

Heater, forge

Subassembler

Instrument maker I

Subassembler I I

Insulating-machine operator I

Subassembler I I I

Job setter II

Tool-grinder operator

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Tool maker

Laborer (automobile parts)

Topm an V

M illm an
Painter I
Pipe fitter

Processing

Laborer (m alt liquors)

Topping-off operator

Assembler

Laborer, process (aircraft manufactur-

Turret-lathe operator

ing)
Laborer, process (automobile manufac

Upholsterer I I

Boring-machine operator, automatic
Box tender

Washer

Brake operator, machine II

4. Inspection and Testing

Centerless-grinder operator
Chipper, foundry

Air-box tester

Cigarette-packing-machine operator
Commutator assembler

turing)
Laborer, process (foundry)
Laborer, process (garment manufacturing)
Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)
Laborer, process (iron and steel)
Laborer, process (machine shop)
Laborer, process (machine tools and ac

Burrer, hand

Final-assembly inspector
Final tester II
Inspector (machine shop)

cessories)
Laborer, process (malt liquors)

Coremaker, machine I
Cylindrical-grinder operator
Dental ceramist
Die cutter I

5. Recording and Control

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al

Die maker I I
Die-maker apprentice

loys and products)
Laborer, process (plastic materials)

Shipping checker
Stock chaser II

Laborer, process (rayon and allied prod
ucts)

Tool clerk

Engine-lathe operator
File cutter

6. Material Movement

Final assembler V II

M ajor assembly installer

Distributor I

Folding-machine operator V I
Forming-press operator I

Milling-machine operator II

Electric-truck operator

Furnace tender, heat treating

Milling-machine operator, automatic

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Gear-hobber operator

Molder

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Gear-tooth rounder

Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator

Laborer (bakery products)

General assembler II

Stock clerk I I

Final assembler

Laborer, process (wire)
Machine adjuster I I I

Die setter I
Embosser V

Machinist II

Painter, spray I

Laborer (button manufacturing)

Hardener II

Paper slitter

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Instrument maker I

Plater I

Laborer (iron and steel)

Jet man

Pointer operator

Laborer (malt liquors)

Job setter II

Polisher

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Laborer (bindery)

Press cutter

Laborer (plastic materials)

Laborer (photographic apparatus)

Pressman

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Pressman, paraffin plant

Laborer (wire)

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Pumpman V II

Teamster

Laborer, process (bakery products)

Pumpman helper

Truck-crane operator

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
J o b s at w h ich 5 9 5 H e a r in g C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued

6. Material Movement

— Continued

Cementer, hand II
Coil assembler IV

Deaf M ute — Continued

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Final assembler V I I

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Floor assembler

Laborer (foundry)

Grid operator

3. Processing — Continued

Laborer (iron and steel)

Laborer (rubber goods)

Laborer (plumbing supplies)

Laborer, process (bakery products)

Laborer, process (foundry)

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Laborer, process (iron and steel)
Laborer, process (machine shop)
Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al

7. Custodial

loys and products)
Lapping-machine operator
Machine adjuster I I I

Laborer (photographic apparatus)
Porter II

ing)
Laborer, process (tobacco products)
M ounter V I I I
Painter, spray I I
Sewer, hand III

M ake-up man V
Milling-machine operator I I

FEMALE

Molder, floor

Sewing-machine operator (shirts and re
lated products)
Slitting-machine operator

Molding-machine tender

Totally Deaf

M otor stamper
Offset-press man

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
Laborer, process (garment manufactur

Subassembler
Thrower II

I. Maintenance

Yarn winder

Glass worker

4. Inspection and Testing

3. Processing

Body-assembly inspector
Casting inspector

Painter, aircraft
Painter, spray I
Paper slitter
Plater I
Plunger
Powderer
Punch-press operator I I

Assembler II

Radial-drill-press operator

Bander-and-cellophaner, machine

Saw setter II

Battery assembler

Sheet-metal worker II

Blank horner

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft

Burrer, hand

Inspector I
Inspector (printing)

5. Recording and Control

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Final assembler V II

Stock clerk I I

Slicking-lathe operator
Sole-leather-cutting-machine operator
Straightener, hand

Floor assembler

Tool clerk

Laborer, process (baking products)
Laborer, process (confectionery)

6. Material Movement

Straightening-press operator

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

Stranding-machine operator

Laborer, process (garment manufactur
ing)

Subassembler
Subassembler I I I
Surface grinder
Switch adjuster

Distributor I
Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Laborer, process (radio manufacturing)
Riveter, aircraft
Deaf-M ute

Riveting-machine operator IV

Tool-maker apprentice

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Turret-lathe operator

Solderer I

Vertical-turret-lathe operator

Stripper, machine

Welder, spot

Subassembler

1. Maintenance
Glassblower, laboratory apparatus

Switch adjuster

3. Processing
4. Inspection and Testing

4. Inspection and Testing

Balancer I

Inspection (machine shop)

Baser II

Inspector (machine shop)

Tester I

Burrer, hand

Assembler I I I

Final assembler V II

Tester I
Hard of Hearing

5. Recording and Control

Laborer (pulp and paper)
Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Processing

Laborer, process (bakery products)
Laborer, process (confectionery)

Expediter I I
Production clerk II

Battery assembler

Laborer, process (dental equipment)

Shipping checker

Burrer, hand

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

E. THE HEARING CASES
J o b s at w h ich 5 9 5 H e a r in g C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

F E M A L E — Continued
Deaf-Mute — Continued

3. Processing — Continued

Major-assembly installer

Subassembler

M ounter V I I I

Subassembler I I I

Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Punch-press operator I

Thrower I I

Riveter, aircraft
Sewing-machine operator (shirts and re

Laborer, process (garment manufactur-

Placement Practices
In locating a job for the person with impaired hear
ing, the conditions under which the work is to be
performed frequently are as important as the require
ments of the job itself. In the case of the totally deaf,
the problem sometimes is simplified. Obviously if
the person cannot hear, he cannot be placed where
sound signals are used or where his own safety or the
safety of others may depend upon warning signals.
On the other hand, depending upon the nature of the
hearing impairment, the noisiest kind of surroundings
may not affect him. In fact, the loss of hearing may
be an advantage. This is equally true for the deafmute. A serious problem, of course, is that of com
munication between the person who is totally deaf
or the deaf-mute and his fellow workers or super
visors. This is a problem of rehabilitation. Lip read
ing, sign language, written communication, etc., pro
vide means to clear this obstacle. Placement of the
hard of hearing may frequently be a more complex
problem. In the case of the totally deaf, the place
ment officer is dealing with a definite and clearly
defined condition. In the case of the hard of hearing,
the loss of hearing acuity is a matter of degree. The
use of a hearing aid may minimize the condition.
In many cases, too, it may be difficult to determine
how important hearing is in the requirements of a job.
Just how much loss of hearing acuity may the indi
vidual have before he is hampered in performing the
duties of a particular job? To interpret the require
ment too strictly may result in depriving an other
wise qualified person of the chance at the job; to
interpret it too freely may result in placing the indi
vidual in a spot where he is almost sure to be a failure.
For the person with impaired hearing the portion
of the pre-employment physical examination which
tests his hearing acuity is of course the essential con
sideration. The remainder is in a sense negative in

4. Inspection and Testing

lated products)
Solderer I

mg)

— Continued

Inspector (printing)

that it merely establishes the presence or absence of
other physical impairments of sufficient significance
to require consideration in the job placement.
Either the examination or the case history will indi
cate whether the impairment of the hearing arises
from causes which may be aggravated by certain
conditions, such as a damp environment for a ca
tarrhal type. It must be borne in mind that the
physical examination contemplated here is directed
toward the objective of job placement and differs
from that directed toward rehabilitation, which the
impaired person may already have undergone.
In most of the plants studied the hearing tests were
the conventional ones, conducted by speaking to the
patient in a whisper from certain distances or by de
termining at what distance the patient could no longer
hear the ticking of a watch. In only a very few cases
was the audiometer used and the loss of hearing acu
ity expressed in terms of decibels.
In general, the hearing cases were not seriously
affected by exclusion policies. Only 3 of the plants
studied had a definite policy refusing employment to
applicants who had defective hearing. Under these
conditions it would have been reasonable to expect
that the hearing cases would constitute a large seg
ment of the survey group. On the contrary, however,
it was fifth in size among the 10 impairment groups
included in the study, There are a number of possible
explanations for this seeming contradiction. It may
be more difficult for the person with impaired hearing
to obtain employment than is indicated by the mere
absence of exclusion policies. Furthermore, work in
juries resulting in the loss of hearing are not common;
and one would not expect to find many persons who
had acquired the impairment as a result of work in
jury and were therefore kept on in the employ of the
company.
No special techniques in the placement of persons
with impaired hearing were encountered. The same

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

techniques were used with respect to these persons as
were used with other impaired workers.
In none of the plants studied was any job re
engineering encountered for the workers with hearing
defects. Although minor job modifications were
made in some instances, it apparently had not been
necessary to engage in any extensive job changes in
order to utilize such workers.

Work Performance
Data were obtained on work performance of 595
persons with impaired hearing matched with 937 un
impaired workers on the same jobs. The two groups
were compared with respect to absenteeism, work
injuries, output, and voluntary separations, i. e., quits.
The findings are detailed in the following paragraphs
and in table E - l. The paucity of individual produc
tion data for this impairment group precludes any
discussion of that phase of the comparison.
Absenteeism
Attendance records were available for all members
of the survey group. For the purpose of the study an
absence was defined as lasting at least one full day
when the employee was scheduled to work. Lay-offs,
shut-downs, regular vacations, etc., were not counted
either as absences or as days scheduled to work. The
rate of absenteeism for individuals and for the several
groups was computed as the number of days absent
per 100 scheduled workdays.
Considered as a group, the persons with hearing
impairments were slightly more regular in their work
attendance than were the unimpaired workers
matched with them. The impaired and matched un
impaired workers, lost 3.4 and 3.9 days, respectively,
per 100 scheduled workdays.
There was a substantial difference between the
rates of male and female groups, among both the im
paired and the unimpaired. The 101 impaired females
had an absence rate of 5.4 as against a rate of 6.6 for
the unimpaired females matched with them. On the
other hand, the 494 impaired males had a rate of 3.0
as against 3.4 for the matched unimpaired males.
The number of females involved and the higher level
of their rates were sufficient to exercise measurable
effects on the group rates.
According to these rates, the impaired lost about
1 day less than the unimpaired in each 200 scheduled

workdays. Although this is not a significant differ
ence, it does indicate that the persons with hearing
impairments were at least as regular in their work
attendance as the unimpaired workers.
While these group averages are informative, it is
of some interest to consider comparisons of individual
performances. A frequency distribution of the indi
vidual rates is shown in table E-4. About 22 percent
of the impaired and 21 percent of the matched unim
paired had no absences at all during the survey period;
69 percent of the impaired and 66 percent of the un
impaired had individual rates of 3.9 or less. As was
to be expected, individuals in both groups had un
favorable attendance records: 1.7 percent of the
impaired and 2.2 percent of the unimpaired had rates
of 20.0 or higher. These were scattered cases, how
ever, and not characteristic of either group.
While the distributions for the male and female
workers differed considerably, the patterns for the
impaired and unimpaired males and for the im
paired and unimpaired females were similar. For ex
ample, about 24 percent of the males, impaired and
unimpaired, had no absences. Among the females, a
very much smaller group, 14 percent of the impaired
and 7 percent of the unimpaired, had a like experi
ence. The higher absenteeism rates of the female
workers in both groups correspond with results ob
tained in other absenteeism surveys.
T a b l e E -4 . — Percentage distribution of hearing cases and
matched unimpaired workers, by absenteeism frequency rate 1

and by sex
Total

Male

Female

Absenteeism
frequency rate class
Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

0________________________
0.1 and under 1 . 0 _ ______
1.0 and under 2.0________
2.0 and under 3.0_________
3.0 and under 4.0________
4.0 and under 7.0________
7.0 and under 10.0
10.0 and under 20.0______
20.0 and over____________

21.9
13.3
15.5
10.4
8.2
14.5
8.5
6.0
1.7

20.8
11.7
14.6
10.6
8.4
15.6
7.7
8.4
2.2

23.8
14.8
16.9
10.5
8.9
12.3
6.8
4.4
1.6

24.1
13.3
16.2
11.0
8.2
13.0
5.4
6.7
2.1

13.9
5.9
8.9
9.9
5.0
24.7
15.8
13.9
2.0

7.1
5.4
8.2
8.7
9.2
26.1
17.4
15.2
2.7

Total. ......................

100.0

Number of workers_______

595

937

494

753

101

184

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

Where the necessary information was available,
the cause or reason for each absence was recorded.
It was hoped to determine by this means whether
any specific reason or reasons for absence had par
ticular significance for workers with impaired hearing.

E. THE HEARING CASES

Unfortunately, the reason could be obtained for only
about 40 percent of the absences recorded. However,
the rates attributable to the various reasons were
nearly identical in the two groups, as shown in table
E-5. Although these rates are based on compara
tively small groups, it seems reasonable to infer that
whatever factors may have caused absences, the pres
ence of a hearing impairment did not tend to empha
size any one or any combination of them.
T able

E - 5 .— Absenteeism frequency rates 1 for hearing cases

and matched unimpaired workers, by reason for absence and by
sex
Male

Total

Female

Reason for absence
Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Total........... .........................

3.4

3.9

3.0

3.4

5.4

6.6

Illness............. ................. ..
Personal business_________
Unknown________________

.9
.4
2.1

1.0
.5
2.4

.8
.3
1.9

.9
.4
2.1

1.5
.9
3.0

1.4
1.3
3.9

Number of workers_______

595

937

494

753

101

184

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

So far as absenteeism is concerned, then, it may
be said that the workers with impaired hearing com
pared favorably with the unimpaired workers under
the same conditions of employment. In fact, as a
group, they were slightly more regular in their w'ork
attendance. Although there were individual cases of
poor performance, the proportion of such cases was
small and about the same in both groups.

The differences in the rates for the various com
ponents of the survey group were fractional. The
impaired had a rate of 11.4 as against 11.0 for the un
impaired. For the males alone the rates were iden
tical, 11.4 for both groups of workers. The small group
of female workers with impaired hearing, however,
had a rate of 11.5 as against the substantially lower
rate of 9.3 for the unimpaired females. The reason
for this difference was not apparent. For the group
as a whole, however, there appears to be no material
difference in the nondisabling injury experience be
tween the persons with impaired hearing and the un
impaired workers on the same jobs.
The similarity of the pattern of the frequency dis
tribution of the individual rates shown in table E -6
supports the inference from the group rates that the
nondisabling injury experience was about the same
for workers with hearing defects and the unimpaired
workers exposed to identical hazards. No injuries at
all were reported for 45 percent of the impaired group
and 46 percent of the unimpaired during the periods
studied. About 80 percent of the impaired and 81
percent of the unimpaired had less than 2 minor in
juries per 1,000 exposure-hours. It was inevitable, of
course, that a small number of the workers in each
group should have had very unfavorable experiences:
0.2 percent of the workers in both the impaired and
unimpaired groups experienced excessively high rates
of 20.0 or more. However, these were isolated cases
of poor individual performance, not group character
istics.

Nondisabling Injury Experience
T able

A nondisabling injury was defined as a work injury
which did not result in any permanent impairment or
in the loss of at least one full day beyond the day or
shift on which the injury occurred. In computing the
frequency rates two different bases were used. For
the groups and subgroups the rates were computed on
a base of 10,000 exposure-hours. The individual rates
used for the frequency distribution were computed on
a base of 1,000 exposure-hours.
Data on nondisabling injuries were obtained for
568 persons with impaired hearing and for the 892
unimpaired workers matched with them. This num
ber differs from the number studied on absenteeism
because in some instances injury records were not
available. In the group analyzed were 470 impaired
males matched with 716 unimpaired males, and 98
impaired females matched with 176 unimpaired fe
males.

E - 6 .— Percentage distribution of hearing cases and

matched unimpaired workers, by frequency rate 1 of nondis
abling injury and by sex
Total

Male

Female

Frequency rate class
Impaired

0 _ _ _ _ .................... .............................
0.1 and under 1.0_________
1.0 and under 2.0_________
2.0 and under 5.0_________
5.0 and under 10.0________
10.0 and under 20.0 _ ..
20.0 and ov e r......................
Total....... ............. ..
Number of workers,...........

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

45.1
18.7
16.0
15.0
3.9
1.1
.2

46.4
19.4
15.4
14.6
3.6
.4
.2

43.8
19.4
16.8
15.4
3.3
1.1
.2

44.0
20.1
15.4
15.8
4.0
.4
.3

52.1
15.3
12.2
13.3
6.1

1.0
0

55.7
16.5
15.3
9.6
2.3
.6
0

100.0

568

892

470

716

176

1 Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.

In an attempt to determine whether the person
with impaired hearing wTas prone to incur any kind of
nondisabling injury which might be attributed spe
cifically to the impairment, data on the kind of in

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

juries experienced in the two groups were examined.
It was found that the patterns for impaired and un
impaired were nearly identical, and that no partic
ular kind of injury could be attributed to the hearing
defects. As shown in table E-7, minor cuts and abra
sions predominated and held about the same relative
importance in both groups. The similarity is the
same for the other kinds of injuries. The data seem
to justify the conclusion that the injuries were re
lated to the hazards of the job and not to the impair
ments which characterized one of the groups.
T able

E - 7 .— Frequency rates 1 of nondisabling injuries for

hearing cases and matched unimpaired workers, by nature of
injury and by sex
Male

Total

Female

Nature of injury
Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Impaired

Unim
paired

Total..... ............... ...............

11.4

11.0

11.4

11.5

9.3

Burns and scalds________
Cuts and abrasions_______
Eye injuries______________
Strains and sprains_______
Dermatitis________ ______
Other
............................

.4
8.3
1.5
.5
.1
.6

.4
7.9
1.8
.5
.1
.3

.3
8.3
1.7
.4
.1
.6

.3
8.2
1.9
.5
.1
.4

.8
8.4
.8
1.2
.2
.1

.5
6.8
1.2
.5
.1
.2

Number of w orkers---------

568

892~

470

716

176

1 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.

In order to determine whether there was any ma
terial difference in the severity of the nondisabling
injuries in the two groups, data on the number of re
dressings required were obtained. Although policies
with regard to requiring redressings varied among
companies, the policies were the same for impaired
and unimpaired workers in the same plant. The
number of redressings for nondisabling injuries aver
aged 0.8 per injury for the hearing cases and 0.9 for
the unimpaired workers. Measured in this way there
clearly was no difference in the severity of the non
disabling injuries in the two groups.
An effort was also made to determine the compar
ative demand of impaired and unimpaired workers
on medical facilities for illness or injury not connected
with employment. Again, company policies differed
with regard to the use of such facilities for disabilities
not related to the work. However, a comparison is
valid because the policy in any given plant was the
same for both impaired and unimpaired workers.
Based upon dispensary records, the hearing cases
averaged 1.6 nonindustrial visits per person as against
1.5 such visits for the unimpaired workers during the
periods studied. It is obvious that the employment
of persons with hearing impairments did not increase

demands upon existing medical facilities because of
nonindustrial illness or injury.
Disabling Injury Experience
Frequency. A disabling injury was defined as a workconnected injury which resulted in permanent im
pairment or in the loss of at least one full day beyond
the day or shift on which the injury occurred. The
frequency rate is expressed as the number of such
injuries per million exposure-hours.
Data on disabling injuries were available for 588
hearing cases matched with 930 unimpaired workers.
The group was composed of 487 impaired males
matched with 746 unimpaired males, and 101 im
paired females matched with 184 unimpaired females.
Although workers with impaired hearing had as
good a record of nondisabling injuries as the unim
paired workers matched with them, they had a less
favorable disabling injury experience. The frequency
rates were 8.1 and 4.6, respectively, for the impaired
and unimpaired groups. The male and female im
paired groups each had a substantially higher rate
than the unimpaired workers matched with them.
The total number of injuries on which these rates
were based, however, was small for each group — 8
for the impaired and 9 for the unimpaired.
A very important consideration is whether the in
juries experienced by the impaired workers were in
any way caused or contributed to by the impairment.
Accident reports were examined in each case. In no
instance was the impairment recorded by the plant
as the cause of the injury to an impaired worker.
Furthermore, none of the injuries among the unim
paired workers in the survey were attributed to a
fellow worker’s impairment. At each plant discus
sions with responsible company officials substantiated
the findings made from the records. Finally, while
records were not examined for workers outside the
survey group, plant management was questioned as
to whether there had been any instances during the
survey period in which a disabling injury was attrib
utable to a hearing impairment. No such cases were
found.
Time Lost. An indicator of the severity of disabling
injuries is the time lost as the result of such injuries.
This time loss was measured in two ways: (1) As the
number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays for
the group and (2) as the average time lost per injury
in each group.

E. THE HEARING CASES

The impaired workers had a rate of 0.08 day lost
per 100 scheduled workdays as against 0.06 day for
the unimpaired group. However, the impaired work
ers averaged only 13.4 days of lost time per injury
against 17.0 days for the unimpaired. The rates and
the averages were influenced by one extreme case in
each group. One hearing case had an injury resulting
in a time loss of 46 days while all others ranged from
1 day to 27 days. One injury among the unimpaired
resulted in a time loss of 69 days, whereas the remain
ing injuries ranged from 1 day to 33 days.
In summary, the disabling work injuries were more
frequent among the hearing cases than among the
unimpaired workers matched with them; their in
juries, however, tended to be less severe. Most im
portant, company records did not indicate that any
of the injuries were caused or contributed to by the
hearing impairment.

Output Relative
Measured individual production data were avail
able for only 67 of the persons with impaired hearing
matched with 102 unimpaired workers on the same
jobs. Of this group, 51 of the impaired were male and
16 were female. A group of this size does not provide
enough observations to yield dependable results.
While these observations are included in the over-all
total for the impaired survey group, no comparative
figures are shown for the hearing cases alone.

Quit Rate
Data on job separations were obtainable for 272

of the hearing cases and 430 matched unimpaired
workers.
The data were obtained by means of follow-up
contacts and consisted of the number of persons in
the survey group who were no longer in the employ
of the company 6 months after the end of the period
used for the study. Rates are computed as the num
ber of workers no longer employed per 100 workers
included in the survey group.
The separation rate is made up of two factors —
terminations (lay-offs, discharges, etc.) over which
the employee has no control, and voluntary quits
where the action is initiated by the employee. As an
indication of stability on the job, it is the quit rate
which is of principal interest.
The hearing cases had a somewhat lower quit rate
than the unimpaired workers matched with them, 2.8
and 4.7, respectively. Male and female impaired
workers both had lower quit rates than their matched
unimpaired workers. For the male workers alone the
rates were 2.7 and 5.7 for the impaired and unim
paired groups, respectively.
Termination rates were higher for the impaired
than for the unimpaired workers. For the group as a
whole the rates were 3.4 and 1.8, respectively. Ter
minations were principally for purposes of reduction
in force, and the impaired, being in general the last
to be hired, were among the first to be laid off.
The rates are probably influenced by the fact that
the period was one during which there was consider
able moving around among the working population
in general. Although the group for which data were
available is small, there is some indication that the
workers with impaired hearing tended to be a little
more stable on the job.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

F. The Multiple Impairment Cases
Summary of Statistical Findings
The record of work performance of 587 workers
with multiple impairments compared very favorably
with that of 919 unimpaired workers matched with
them on the same jobs. Differences were small but
for the most part were in favor of the impaired work
ers.
The impaired group had a somewhat better injury
experience than did the unimpaired workers, as indi
cated by the lower frequency rates of disabling and
nondisabling injuries. The time lost as the result of
disabling injuries, however, was about the same when
measured as a rate based on scheduled workdays in
the respective groups but was a little higher in terms
of the number of days lost per injury. The impaired
workers tended to be a little more stable on the job,
as shown by the lower rate of voluntary quits, but
were not quite as regular in their work attendance, as
shown by the higher rate of absenteeism. Measured
individual production was not available for a group
sufficiently large to permit showing comparative out
put on the job for this survey group.
T able F -l . — W ork performance of workers with multiple
impairments and of matched unimpaired workers
Number of workers

Average performance

were not handicapped workers. Unquestionably*
proper job placement made a major contribution to
this result; but the record indicates clearly that when
properly placed the workers with multiple impair
ments were able to compete successfully with unim
paired workers on the same jobs.

Composition of the Survey Group
This group was composed of those persons who had
two or more physical impairments, each in itself se
vere enough to fall within the definitions adopted for
the study and with whom unimpaired workers could
be matched, on the same jobs. The double orthopedic
cases were not classified with this group but were in
cluded with the orthopedic group. As shown in table
F -2 this multiple impairment group is made up of a
small number of cases in each of a large number of
impairment combinations. Some cases were found in
29 different impairment combinations. The largest
single group was 120 persons who had both a hernia
and a cardiac condition. The number of cases was too
small to permit showing performance figures sepaately for the various impairment combinations. The
number of cases in the group as a whole, however, was
unexpectedly large. With 587 cases, it is the sixth

Factor
Impaired

Unimpaired

Impaired

Unimpaired

919

4.3

3.3

T able F-2. — Number of impaired workers, by type of multiple
impairment

Absenteeism frequency rate1-----Nondisabling injury:
Frequency rate2___________
Disabling injury:
Frequency rate8___________
Time-lost rate4______ _____
Average days of disability 5_
Output relative 6_______________
Quit rate 8_____________________

587
583

915

10.0

11.4

586
586

918
918

(7)
320

(7)
531

7.3
.14
24.8
(7)
1.5

9.4
.15
20.2
(7)
2.8

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
2 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
3 Number of injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
4 Number of days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.
6 Number of days of disability per disabling injury.
6 Percentage relationship of production efficiency of impaired to that of matched
unimpaired.
2 Data available for too few cases to permit showing performance data.
8 Number of voluntary quits per 100 employees in the survey group.

In the light of the performance records, it seems
reasonable to conclude that the impaired persons

Type of impairment

Total_______________ _____ _
Orthopedic-Vision_____________
Orthopedic-Hearing___________
Orthopedic-Hernia____________
Orthopedic-Cardiac____________
Orthopedic-Ex-tuberculous_____
Orthopedic-Peptic ulcer________
Orthopedic-Diabetic__________
Vision-Hearing________________
Vision-Hernia________________
Vision-Cardiac________________
Vision-Ex-tuberculous_____ __ _
Vision-Peptic ulcer____________
Vision-Diabetic. ______ ________
Vision-Epileptic_______________

Number
of
workers

Type of impairment

Number
of
workers

587
28
11
75
21
9
5
3
16
78
52
12
6
4
1

Hearing-Hernia
Hearing-Cardiac _
Hearing-Ex-tubercul ous
Hearing-Peptic ulcer
Hernia-Cardiac
Hernia-Ex-tuberculous
Hernia-Peptic ulcer
Hernia-Diabetic_______ __ .
Hernia-Epileptic
Cardiac-Ex-tuberculous
Cardiac-Peptic ulcer____
Cardiac-Diabetic
Cardiac-Epileptic_____ _____
Ex-tuberculous-Peptic ulcer___
Peptic ulcer-Diabetic

27
13
3
5
120
29
18
9
2
22
9
4
1
2
2

F. THE MULTIPLE IMPAIRMENT CASES

largest among the 10 impairment groups studied.
Only 12 of the multiple impairment cases were female,
and consequently no break-down of the performance
figures by sex has been prepared.
The multiple impairment cases tended somewhat
toward the higher age brackets in comparison with
the rest of the impaired workers studied. Only about
7 percent of the multiple cases as against 14 percent
of the other impaired workers were under 30 years of
age. In addition, nearly 45 percent of the multiple
cases but only 27 percent of the other impaired were
55 years or older. This tendency toward the higher
age levels perhaps is natural, as the fact of the exist
ence of a second impairment would tend to bias the
group in this direction.
T a b l e F -3 .— Comparison of number and percentage distribution

of 587 multiple impairment cases and 10,441 other impaired
workers studied, by age group
Percent

Number of workers
Age group
Multiple
cases

Other
impaired

Multiple
cases

T o t a l _____________________ _______

587

10,441

100.0

Under 20 y e a r s _______________
20 and under 25 years______________
25 and under 30 years______________
30 and under 35 years---------------------35 and under 40 years---------------------40 and under 45 years-------------------45 and under 50 years---------------------50 and under 55 years---------------------55 and under 60 y e a r s -------------------60 and under 65 years--------------------65 years and over_____________ _____

1
10
33
42
46
45
61
88
121
99
41

78
501
868
1,075
1,138
1,193
1,251
1,474
1,422
989
452

.2
1.7
5.6
7.2
7.8
7.7
10.3
15.0
20.6
16.9
7.0

.8
4.8
8.3
10.3
10.9
11.4
12.0
14.1
13.6
9.5
4.3

Other
impaired

Industry and Occupational Coverage
Multiple impairment cases were found in each of
the 19 industry groups and in 92 of the 109 plants
covered by the study. In most of the 17 plants not
represented in the survey group, multiple impair
ment cases were encountered; but they could not be
matched with unimpaired workers on the same jobs
and consequently had to be excluded. The signifi
cance of this wide plant and industry distribution is
that employment opportunities are potentially broad.
These workers were not found exclusively in plants
which had specialized programs for their employ
ment.
The jobs at which the multiple impairment cases
were employed are shown in the following listing.
The occupational pattern is substantially the same
as that found in the other impairment groups, w7ith
perhaps a little less concentration in the processing
and producing operations and a slightly higher per
centage in the custodial and unskilled jobs. On the
whole, however, the range and variety of skill re
quirements represented by these jobs is very wide.
These workers were found in jobs ranging from man
ual labor to the highly skilled machinist classifications.
In analyzing this list of occupations, it must be borne
in mind that many other jobs on which workers with
multiple impairments were employed are not shown
because the impaired worker could not be included
in the study.

Jobs at which 587 Multiple Impairment Cases of the survey group were found employed
[T itle s used are those appearing in the U n ite d States E m p lo y m e n t Service D ictio n a ry o f O ccu p ation a l T itles and are grouped an d n u m bered acco rd in g to
the classifications used b y the W age A n alysis B ran ch o f the B ureau o f L a bor Statistics. T h is is n o t to b e interp reted as a com plete listing o f jo b s a t
w hich persons w ith m ultiple im pairm ents can b e e m p lo y e d ]

Loss of One Hand and Hernia

M ALE

Loss of One Hand and Cardiac

1. Maintenance

3. Processing

5. Recording and Control

Riveter, hydraulic

Power-shear operator I

T ool clerk

3. Processing

Loss of One Hand and Blind in One E y e

Loss of One Hand and Partially Blind

5. Recording and Control

Milling-machine operator I I
Checker

3. Processing
Laborer (petroleum refining)

6. Material Movement
Electric-bridge-crane operator

Loss of One Arm and Blind in One E ye

6. Material Movement
7.

C u s to d ia l

1. Maintenance

Laborer (rubber tire and tube manufac
turing)

Laborer (machine shop)

Electrical repairman

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
J o b s at w h ich 5 8 7 M u l t i p l e I m p a i r m e n t C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued

Loss of One Leg and Partially Blind

— Continued

Loss of Use of One Leg and Diabetic

1, Maintenance

3. Processing

Pipe-fitter helper

Deflector operator

Laborer, process (wire)

5. Recording and Control

Loss of One Hand and Blind in One E ye

Checker

3. Processing

Loss of One Arm and Partially Blind

Inspection and Testing

Loss of One A rm and Hard of Hearing
Cylindrical-grinder operator

1. Maintenance
Steam-fitter-apprentice

Loss of One Leg and Hard of Hearing

7. Custodial
3. Processing
Porter II

7. Custodial

Buffer
Loss of Use of One Hand and Partially

Porter LI

7. Custodial
Porter I

Blind

3. Processing

Loss of One A rm and Hernia
Barrel filler II

5. Recording and Control
Timekeeper

6. Material Movement

Loss of One Leg and Hernia

1. Maintenance
Machinist II
Tool-grinder operator

Loss of Use of One Hand and Hernia

1. Maintenance
Laborer (boot and shoe manufacturing)

Laborer, foundry

3. Processing
7. Custodial

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Airplane woodworker II

Gateman IV

Gear-shaper operator

Porter I I

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
M ajor assembler I

Pipe fitter
Loss of Use of One Hand and Cardiac

3. Processing
Box maker, wood I I I

Loss of One Foot and Hernia

1. Maintenance

4. Inspection and Testing
Body-assembly inspector

Loss o f Use of One Hand and
Ex-Tuberculous

Inspector and tester

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

3. Processing

5. Recording and Control

Centerless-grinder operator

Stock chaser II

Machinist, bench

Stock-control clerk

5. Recording and Control

6. Material Movement

3. Processing

Stock clerk I I

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

7. Custodial

Porter I I

Laborer (machine shop)

Loss of One Leg and Blind in One E ye

3. Processing
Lapping-machine operator
Loss of Use of Two Hands and Hernia

Material Movement

4. Inspection and Testing
Loss of Use of Two Hands and
Casting inspector

Loss of One Leg and Ex-Tuberculous

Peptic Ulcer

6. Material Movement

3. Processing

Elevator operator, freight

Single-spindle-drill press operator

Subassembler I I

F. THE MULTIPLE IMPAIRMENT CASES
J o b s at w h ich 5 8 7 M u l t i p l e I m p a i r m e n t C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued
Loss of Use of One Arm and Blind in

Loss of Use of One A rm and Cardiac

— Continued

5. Recording and Control

1. Maintenance

Laborer, process (aluminum products)

Boilermaker

6. Material Movement

3. Processing

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

7• Custodial

4: Inspection and Testing

Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

One Eye

3. Processing
Subassembler I I I

Recording and Control

Receiving clerk III

Inspector, chief I II
Loss of Use of One Leg and Partially Blind

Tool clerk
Loss of Use of One Arm and
Loss of Use of One A rm and Partially
Blind

7. Custodial

Ex-Tuberculous
Porter I

I. Maintenance

3. Processing

Pipe fitter

Rubber pressman

6. Material Movement

Porter I I

Loss of Use of One Leg and Totally Deaf

3. Processing
Electric-bridge-crane operator
Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Loss o f Use of One A rm and Deaf-M ute
Loss of Use of One Arm and Peptic Ulcer

4. Inspection and Testing

Loss of Use of One Leg and Hard of

3. Processing

Hearing

H o t forging inspector

Loss of Use of One Arm and Hernia

1. Maintenance
Electrical repairman

Sheet-metal worker I I (aircraft)

1. Maintenance

7. Custodial

Pumpman I

Porter II
Loss of Use of One Leg and Hernia
Loss of Use of One A rm and Diabetic

Oiler I

1. Maintenance

I. Maintenance

Electrical repairman

Fireman, stationary boiler

2. Working Foremen

3. Processing
Do-all-saw operator
Glass polisher
Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al
loys and products)
Stranding-machine operator

Foreman (electrical equipment)
Loss of Use of Two Arm s and Hernia

3. Processing

3. Processing
Centerless-grinder operator

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

4. Inspection and Testing
7. Custodial
Inspector (machine shop)
Magnetic inspector

5. Recording and Control
Laborer (malt liquors)

Custodial

Porter I

Loss of Use of One Foot and Hernia

Final assembler V I I
Floor assembler
Laborer (radio manufacturing)
Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Template maker IV

4. Inspection and Testing

3. Processing

Inspector (machine shop)

Planer operator II

5. Recording and Control

Punch-press operator I
Porter I I

Shaper operator I

Tool clerk

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

J o b s at w hich 5 8 7 M u l t i p l e I m p a i r m e n t C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued
Loss of Use of One Leg and Hernia —

Custodial

Porter I I

— Continued

6. Material Movement
Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Continued
Back Deformity and Ex-Tuberculous

7. Custodial

Back Deformity and Hard of Hearing

3. Processing
Elevator operator, passenger

1, Maintenance

Porter I I

Subassembler I I I

M achinist II

6. Material Movement

Loss of Use of One Leg and Cardiac

4. Inspection and Testing
1. Maintenance

Tractor operator

Laborer, process (m alt liquors)
Back Deformity and Peptic Ulcer

Machinist II

5. Recording and Control
3. Processing

3. Processing
Receiving clerk I I
Floor assembler

Gager V I I I
Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Turret-lathe operator

Back Deformity and Hernia

Blind in One E ye and Totally Deaf

Universal-grinder operator

1. Maintenance
5. Recording and Control
Electrical repairman
Shipping clerk I
Loss of Use of One Leg and

Machinist II

3. Processing

3. Processing
Machinist, bench

5. Recording and Control
Receiving checker

Ex-Tuberculous
Dryer operator

3. Processing

Glass cutter

Blind in One E y e and Hard of Hearing

Jobsetter I I
Subassembler I I I
Loss of Use of One Leg and Diabetic

6. Material Movement

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

1. Maintenance

4. Inspection and Testing

Mechanic I I

Final-assembly inspector

5. Recording and Control

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Elevator operator, freight

5. Recording and Control
Loss of Use of Two Legs and Hernia

Shipping checker

1. Maintenance

Production clerk II
Stock clerk
Blind in One E ye and Hernia

1. Maintenance
Back Deformity and Cardiac

Oiler I

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys

1. Maintenance
Back Deformity and Blind in One E y e

products)
Mechanic I I

Machinist I I

Millwright

3. Processing

Millman

Painter I

Cabinet maker I

3. Processing

W ater tender I I I
Tufting-machine operator

3. Processing
Do-all-saw operator

Back Deformity and Partially Blind

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Burrer, hand

Punch-press operator I

Centerless-grinder operator
Chipper foundry

1. Maintenance
5.

Recording and Control

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Die maker II
Engine-lathe operator

Carpenter
Store clerk I I

Final assembler V I I

and

F. THE MULTIPLE IMPAIRMENT CASES
J o b s at w h ich 5 8 7 M u l t i p l e I m p a i r m e n t C a s e s o f the s u rv ey g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued

Sheet-metal worker II

— Continued

Material Movement

Tool maker
Blind in One E ye and Hernia —

Tube drawer

Laborer (m alt liquors)

5. Recording and Control

7. Custodial

Shipping checker

Porter I

Continued

3. Processing — Continued
Floor assembler

Glass grinder

Custodial

Heater I I I

Partially Blind and Hernia

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Porter I I

1. Maintenance

Laborer (malt liquors)
Laborer (petroleum refining)

Blind in One E ye and Peptic Ulcer
Carpenter

Laborer, process (automobile manufac

3. Processing

turing)

Laborer (petroleum refining)
Mechanic I I

Laborer, process (phonograph)
Punch-press operator I

Laborer, process (radio manufacturing)

Millwright

Subassembler I

Turret-lathe operator

Painter I

(automobile manufac

Pipe-fitter helper

turing)
Turret-lathe operator

4. Inspection and Testing

Inspector I

2. Working Foremen
Foreman (chemical)
Inspector I

Blind in One E ye and Epileptic

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

3. Processing
6. Material Movement

6. Material Movement

Barrel filler I I
Laborer (pulp and paper)

Elevator operator, freight
Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Legally Blind and Hernia

Laborer (electrical equipment)
Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

1. Maintenance

Box maker, wood I I I
Fireman, still
Floor assembler
Form builder I
Heater I I I
Laborer (malt liquors)

7. Custodial

Fireman, stationary boiler

Laborer, process (aircraft manufactur

W atchm an I
Legally Blind and Peptic Ulcer
Blind in One E y e and Cardiac

Laborer, process (petroleum refining)
Machinist II

Boilermaker

Milling-machine operator I I
Molder, floor
Paper cutter I

Legally Blind and Hard of Hearing

Millwright

2. Working Foremen
Foreman (electrical equipment)

ing)
Laborer, process (malt liquor)

1. Maintenance
1. Maintenance
Friction-sawing-machine operator
Machinist I I

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Patternmaker, metal
Pressman, paraffin plant

1, Maintenance

Pumpman helper

Boilermaker

4. Inspection and Testing

Mechanic II
Pipe fitter

Magnaflux inspector

3. Processing

5. Recording and Control

Engine-lathe operator

Blast furnace blower

Tool clerk

Floor assembler

Laborer, process (iron and steel)

Labeler, machine I I

Stillman helper

Laborer, process (automobile manufac

Subassembler I I I

3. Processing
Balancer I

Laborer (bakery products)

turing)
Laborer, process (iron and steel)

5. Recording and Control

776106° — 48 — 7

Laborer (chemicals)
Laborer (m alt liquors)

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al
loys and products)

6. Material Movement

Stock clerk I I

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
J o b s at w h ich 5 8 7 M u l t i p l e I m p a i r m e n t C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued

Pipe fitter

— Continued

3. Processing

Sheet-metal worker II
Bolt-threading-machine operator

Partially Blind and Hernia — Continued

6. Material Movement
7.

Porter I

H ot-m etal crane operator

Job setter I I

Laborer (iron and steel)

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Porter II
W atchman I

Burrer, hand
Final assembler V I I

Custodial

Punch-press operator I
Partially Blind and Peptic Ulcer

Riveter, aircraft
Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Partially Blind and Cardiac

1. Maintenance

Subassembler I

(automobile

manufac

turing)

1, Maintenance

Pipe-fitter helper

Electrical repairman

3. Processing

4. Inspection and Testing
Electrical inspector II

Fireman, stationary
Laborer (iron and steel)

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Installation inspector

Laborer (petroleum refining)
Partially Blind and Diabetic

Machinist II
Mechanic II
Oiler I
Pipe-fitter helper
Sheet-metal worker I I

3. Processing
Chipper, foundry
Fireman, still
Glass polisher
Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)
Laborer, process (petroleum refining)

1. Maintenance

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Oiler I

7. Custodial

Riveter, hydraulic
Porter I I

3. Processing
Machinist I I

Pressman, paraffin plant
Rubber compounder

Hard of Hearing and Ex-Tuberculous

5. Recording and Control

3. Processing

Stock clerk II

Engine-lathe operator

Molder, bench
Painter, spray I

6. Material Movement

Milling-machine operator II
Totally Deaf and Hernia

3. Processing

Hard of Hearing and Peptic Ulcer

Subassembler I II
Universal-grinder operator

Engine-lathe operator

1. Maintenance

Punch-press operator I

5. Recording and Control

Machinist I I

7. Custodial
Tool clerk

Painter I
Welder, combination

W atchman I

6. Material Movement

5. Recording and Control
Totally Deaf and Cardiac

Laborer (iron and steel)
Laborer (machine shop)

Tool clerk

1. Maintenance

Laborer (m alt liquors)
Machinist II

Deaf-Mute and Hernia

7. Custodial
Totally Deaf and Ex-Tuberculous

3. Processing

Gateman IV
Porter I

4. Inspection and Testing

W atchm an I

Broaching-machine operator
Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al

Porter I I
Inspector (machine shop)

loys and products)
Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator

Partially Blind and Ex-Tuberculous

Hard of Hearing and Hernia

Radial-drill-press operator

1. Maintenance

4. Inspection and Testing

Laborer (iron and steel)

Boilermaker

Hardness inspector

F. THE MULTIPLE IMPAIRMENT CASES
J o b s at w h ich 5 8 7 M u l t i p l e I m p a i r m e n t C a s es o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al

M A L E — Continued

Boilermaker helper I I
Electrical repairman

loys and products)
Deaf-M ute and Hernia — Continued

— Continued

Loader V II I

Millwright

M ajor assembler I

Oiler I

Milling-machine operator I I

Custodial

Milling machine operator, automatic

3. Processing

Power-shear operator I

Laborer (foundry)

Hernia and Cardiac

1. Maintenance

Punch-press operator I

Engine-lathe operator

Radial-drill-press operator

Floor assembler

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft

Gear-hobber operator

Single-spindle-drill press operator
Sorter

Instrument maker I

Still-operator helper

Jobsetter I I
Laborer, process (foundry)

Stopper maker I I
Blacksmith II
Carpenter

Subassembler I
turing)

Internal-grinder operator

(automobile

manufac

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)
Laborer, process (petroleum refining)

Carpenter helper

Subassembler I I

Fireman, stationary boiler

Surface-grinder operator

Milling-machine operator I I
Plunger

Laborer (forging)

Tool-grinder operator

Screw-machine operator, semiautomatic

Laborer (railroad transportation)

Tool maker

Tool-grinder operator

Machinist II

Turret-lathe operator

Welder, spot

Mechanic I I
Millwright

4. Inspection and Testing

Pipe fitter
Sheet-metal worker I I

Inspector (machine shop)

Steam fitter

Sheet-metal inspector I
Tank tester I

5. Recording and Control
Laborer, process (iron and steel)
T ool clerk

6. Material Movement

2. Working Foremen
5. Recording and Control
Foreman, turret-lathe operator
Checker
Stock clerk I I

Brakeman, yard I
Industrial-locomotive operator
Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

3. Processing

Tool clerk

7. Custodial

Airplane woodworker I I

6. Material Movement

Gateman IV

Assembler I II

W atchm an, crossing

Baker I

Brakeman, yard I

Brush hand
Buffer I

Electric-bridge-crane operator
Laborer (bakery products)

Burrer, hand
Chemical operator I I I

Laborer (iron and steel)
Laborer (machinery manufacturing)

Cylindrical-grinder operator

Laborer (machine tools and accessories)

Dividing-machine operator

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and

Electrician, airplane I

products)

Hernia and Peptic Ulcer

!• Maintenance
Instrument repairman

Engine-lathe operator

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Machinist II
M illman

Filter operator V

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Pipe-fitter helper

Final assembler V I I

Welder, combination

Floor assembler

7. Custodial

Foil-rolling-machine operator
Glassblower, laboratory apparatus
Internal-grinder operator

Porter I

Laborer (foundry)

Porter I I

Laborer, process (foundry)
Hernia and Ex-Tuberculous

Laborer, process (glass products)
Laborer, process (iron and steel)
accessories)

(machine

Die-casting-machine operator I I
Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

process

Cylindrical-grinder operator
Floor assembler

Laborer (iron and steel)

Laborer,

3. Processing

Elevator operator, passenger

tools

Laborer, process (leather manufacturing)
M ajor assembler I

1. Maintenance

Milling-machine operator I I
Planer operator I I

Boilermaker

Plater I

and

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
J o b s at w h ich 5 S 7 M u l t i p l e I m p a i r m e n t C a s e s o f the s u r v e y g r ou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

M A L E — Continued

Glass grinder

— Continued

Ex-Tuberculous and Peptic Ulcer

Job setter I I
Hernia and Peptic Ulcer — Continued

Milhng-machine operator II

3. Processing

Radial-drill-press operator

3. Processing — Continued

Sandblaster I

Vertical-boring-mill operator

Tool grinder I
Presser, machine I
Tool maker

6. Material Movement
4. Inspection and Testing

Treater I I

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Inspector I

4. Inspection and Testing

Inspector (machine shop)

Body-assembly inspector

7. Custodial

5. Recording and Control

Gateman IV

Diabetic and Epileptic

6. Material Movement
Laborer (petroleum refining)

Porter I
Stock clerk II

Porter II

7. Custodial

Police officer
Cardiac and Peptic Ulcer

Gateman IV
Porter II

FEM ALE

1. Maintenance
Hernia and Diabetic

Instrument repairman
Machinist II

1. Maintenance

Mechanic I I
Welder, combination

Lead burner
Machinist II

Loss of Use of One Leg and Cardiac

4. Inspection and Testing
Inspector (optical goods)

3. Processing

M illm an (woodworking)

Loss of Use of One Hand and Partially
Gear-shaper operator

3. Processing

Treater II

Engine-lathe operator

5. Recording and Control

Blind

3. Processing

Laborer, process (malt liquors)

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
T ool clerk

5. Recording and Control
7. Custodial

Loss of Use of One Arm and Blind

T ool clerk

in One Eye
Porter I

6. Material Movement

W atchm an I

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

3. Processing
Sewing-machine operator (shirts and re

Cardiac and Diabetic

lated products)

7. Custodial
1. Maintenance
Loss of Use of One Leg and Hard

Porter I I

of Hearing

Carpenter
Cardiac and Ex-Tuberculous

3. Processing

Die maker I I

Laborer, process (boot and shoe)

1. Maintenance
Machinist I I

Induction-furnace operator

Machinist apprentice

Straightener, hand
Loss of Use of One Leg and

Pipe fitter

Ex-Tuberculous

3. Processing

Cardiac and Epileptic

3. Processing
Brake operator, machine I I

6. Material Movement
Assembler

Film spooler
Floor assembler

Laborer (paper and pulp)

Floor assembler

F. THE MULTIPLE IMPAIRMENT CASES
J o b s at w h ich 5 8 7 M u l t i p l e Im p a ir m e n t C a s es o f the s u r v e y g rou p w ere f o u n d e m p lo y e d

Blind in One E ye and Cardiac

M A L E — Continued
Loss of Use of Two Legs and Cardiac

4. Inspection and Testing

— Continued

Totally Deaf and Cardiac

3. Processing

Cigar packer

Floor assembler

Inspector (machine shop)
Partially

Blind in One E ye and Totally Deaf

and Cardiac

Cardiac and Ex-Tuberculous

3. Processing

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

Stripper, machine

Placement Practices
The medical examination was found to be very im
portant for cases of multiple impairment. For ex
ample, in the combination of orthopedic and hernia
the first impairment might be visible but the second
would not. The existence of the second might not be
disclosed in the absence of physical examination, with
the resultant danger of work assignment which would
aggravate the condition.
Placement of cases of multiple impairment nat
urally is complicated by the requirements of two im
pairments. The job which is suitable for a man with
only one arm might be entirely out of the question
if he happens also to have a diabetic or cardiac con
dition. None of the plants studied, however, seemed
to have any special arrangements for placement of
multiple impairment cases. The regular techniques
were used , and it seem ed to be merely a matter of
considering a few more factors.

Work Performance

Absenteeism is expressed as a rate reflecting the num
ber of days absent per 100 scheduled workdays.
Data for this factor of work performance were
available for 587 multiple impairment cases and for
919 matched unimpaired workers. As a group the
impaired workers were a little less regular in their
work attendance, with an average rate of absenteeism
of 4.3 as against 3.3 for the unimpaired group.
The individual rates of absenteeism are shown as
a frequency distribution in table F-4. About the
same proportion, 24 percent, of the workers in each
group had no absences during the periods studied.
Among the impaired workers, however, there was a
slightly higher percentage of cases in the higher fre
quencies. For example, 3.8 percent of the impaired
group as against only 2.1 percent of the unimpaired
had excessively high rates of 20.0 or higher. It seems
that while in general the two groups showed no sub
stantial difference in regularity of attendance, the
individuals with very poor records are slightly more
numerous in the impaired group.
T able

F -4 .— Percentage distribution of 587 multiple impair

ment cases and 919 unimpaired workers, by absenteeism fre

The comparison of the work performance of the
workers with multiple impairments and the unim
paired workers with whom they were matched is
summarized in table F - l and the following para
graphs.
Absenteeism
An absence was defined as a full* day or more away
from the job on days on which the employee was
scheduled to work. Lay-offs, vacations, etc., were
not counted as either absences or as scheduled days.

quency rate 1
Absenteeism frequency rate class

Impaired

Unimpaired

0_______________ ___________ ________ _ _ . _
0.1 and under 1.0_________ _______________________
1.0 and under 2.0--------------------------- ----------- ----------2.0 and under 3.0_________________________________
3.0 and under 5.0-------------------------------------------------5.0 and under 10.0_________________ _____________
10.0 and under 20.0----------------------- ------------ --------20.0 and over_____________________________________

24.2
12.6
14.7
9.2
13.0
12.2
10.3
3.8

24.6
17.1
15.0
9.2
13.3
12.2
6.5
2.1

Total............................................ .........................

100.0

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

Wherever possible, the reason for the absence was
recorded. Unfortunately, company records provided

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

this information for only about half the absences, and
the rest bad to be recorded as “ unknown. ” The rates
attributable to various reasons for absence are shown
in table F -5, and it is apparent that absence because
of illness accounted for most of the difference between
the two groups of workers. Although the data were
fragmentary, there was some indication that a greater
incidence of illness absenteeism among the diabetic
and the peptic ulcer cases accounted for much of the
higher absenteeism rate among the multiple impair
ment cases.
T able

F - 5 .— Absenteeism frequency rates1 for 5 87 multiple

impairment cases and 919 unimpaired workers, by reason for
absence
Reason for absence

Impaired

Unimpaired

Total____________________________________________

4.3

3.3

Illness___________________ _________ _______
_____
Personal business_____ __ ____________ _____ __ _
Unknown__________ _______ _____ _________________

2.1
.4
1.8

1.3
.3
1.7

A frequency distribution of the individual rates
shows that 51 percent of the impaired and 48 percent
of the unimpaired experienced no nondisabling in
juries during the periods studied. In the higher fre
quencies there were scattered cases of poor perform
ance in both groups; 1.5 percent of the impaired
and 1.1 percent of the unimpaired had excessively
high rates of 10.0 or higher.
Information as to the nature of the injuries was
obtained in order to determine whether the impaired
workers displayed any proneness to some particular
kind of injury. The group rates based on 10,000 ex
posure-hours and attributable to various types of in
jury are shown in table F-7. The similarity of the
pattern of the rates in the two groups is very marked.
It seems reasonable to infer from this similarity of
pattern that the injuries were attributable to the job
hazards, not to the impairments which characterized
one of the groups.
T a b l e F - 7 .— Frequency rates1 o f nondisabling injury for 5 8 8

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

multiple impairment cases and 9 15 unimpaired workers, by
nature of injury

Nondisabling Injury Experience
Nature of injury

A nondisabling injury was defined as a work-con
nected injury which did not result in a permanent
impairment or in any loss of time beyond the day or
shift on which the injury occurred. The frequency
of such injuries is expressed as a rate based on 10,000
exposure-hours for the group and on 1,000 exposurehours for each individual.
Data were available for 583 of the multiple impair
ment cases and the 915 unimpaired workers matched
with them. As a group the impaired workers had the
lower frequency rate, 10.0 as against 11.4 for the un
impaired workers. The variation here can hardly be
considered a significant difference, but it does show
that the impaired workers were no more prone to this
type of injury than unimpaired workers exposed to
the same hazards.
T able

F - 6 .— Percentage distribution o f 5 88 multiple impair

ment cases and 915 unimpaired workers, by frequency rate1 of
nondisabling injury
Frequency rate class

Impaired

Unimpaired

0_____ ________ ______ ____________________________
0.1 and under 1.0________________________ ________
1.0 and under 2.0_________ ___________________ __
2.0 and under 3.0____________________ _______ _____
3.0 and under 5.0___________ __
_ ___ ________
5.0 and under 10.0__________ __ ___ __ _________
10.0 and over________________________ _____________

51.0
19.4
13.6
6.3
5.5
27
1.5

47.8
21.8
13.6
6.9
5.7
3.1
1.1

Total.................... ............. ....................................

100.0

1 Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.

Total__________ _____
Burns and scalds____________________ _____________
Cuts and abrasions_____________________________ _
Eye injuries___________________________ _______ _
Strains and sprains__________________ _____________
Other__________________ ________ ___________ _____

Impaired

Unimpaired

10.0

11.4

.5
7.6
1.4
.3
.2

.6
8.6
1.5
.4
.3

1 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.

In an effort to obtain some measure of the relative
severity of these nondisabling injuries in the two
groups, data on redressings wore also recorded. Prac
tices varied between plants with respect to encourag
ing or requiring redressings, but the conditions were
the same for both the impaired and the unimpaired
in any given plant. There was no material difference
in the average number of redressings required in the
two groups. The impaired averaged 1.0 and the un
impaired 0.9 redressings per injury. It would seem
reasonable to conclude, therefore, that there was no
material difference in the severity of these injuries in
the two groups.
In brief, the nondisabling injury experience was
nearly identical among the impaired persons of this
survey group and the unimpaired workers matched
with them. There was clearly no proneness on the
part of the impaired worker toward either greater
frequency or greater severity of nondisabling injury.
A final consideration in connection with the med
ical record was nonindustrial use of medical facilities.

F. THE MULTIPLE IMPAIRMENT CASES

Such use was defined as a dispensary visit for illness
or injury not connected with the worker’s employ
ment. Again, policies varied widely between com
panies but were the same for the impaired and
unimpaired workers in the same company. The fre
quency of nonindustrial visits was nearly identical in
the two groups. The impaired averaged 1.9 and the
unimpaired 1.7 such visits per person during the pe
riods studied.

Disabling Injury Experience
Frequency. A disabling injury was defined as one
which resulted in a permanent impairment or in a
time loss of at least one full day beyond the day or
shift on which the injury occurred. The frequency of
injury was expressed as a rate reflecting the number
of such injuries per million hours worked.
The impaired workers had a somewhat better rec
ord in this respect than did the unimpaired workers
exposed to the same hazards. For the impaired, the
rate was 7.3 and for the unimpaired 9.4. This might
or might not represent a considerable difference, de
pending upon the severity of the injuries and the re
sultant compensation claims.
Various materials such as accident reports, cause
analysis studies, etc., available in the files of cooper
ating firms were examined in connection with the
disabling injuries recorded. None of the injuries
among the impaired workers of this survey group were
indicated as having been caused or contributed to by
the worker’s impairment. Similarly, none of the in
juries experienced by unimpaired workers of the sur
vey group were related in any way to a fellow work
er’s impairment. This subject of causal relationship
between impairment and injury was discussed with
responsible officials at each plant studied. In each
case the opinions of these officials and the findings of
the study were in accord. These impaired persons,
properly placed on the job, w'ere not a hazard either
to themselves or to their fellow workers. The record
demonstrated in fact that, in general, the impaired
workers as a group experienced a slightly lower in
cidence of disabling injury than did the unimpaired
workers exposed to the same hazards.
Time Lost. An important consideration with respect
to disabling injury experience is the severity of the
injuries. In this survey group the severity of the in
juries is indicated in two ways: as a group rate (days

lost per 100 scheduled workdays) and as the number
of days lost per injury.
In both the impaired and the unimpaired groups,
the time lost per injury was rather high. For the im
paired the average was 24.8 days and for the unim
paired 20.2 days per injury. This average, of course,
is based on only a small number of observations.
There were only 8 disabling injuries in the impaired
group and 16 in the unimpaired group. In each group
there was an extreme case which influenced the aver
age sharply. Among the impaired, 1 injury resulted
in 53 days of lost time, and in the unimpaired group
1 case resulted in a time loss of 91 days. If the aver
ages were computed eliminating these two cases, they
would be nearly identical, 20 days and 19 days per
injury for the impaired and unimpaired, respectively.
Output Relative
Measured individual production data were obtain
able for only 43 of the impaired workers and 64 unim
paired workers matched with them. These data have
been included in computing the output relative for
the total survey group, but the number of observa
tions was considered too small to permit showing an
output relative for the multiple impairment cases
separately.
Although comparatively few of these workers were
on individual incentive jobs, it was noted that others
wTere working on group incentive or on assembly lines.
On group incentive, the impaired worker would have
to be able to contribute his share of the work or the
earnings of the group would suffer accordingly. Sim
ilarly, on assembly line work the speed of work was
generally paced by the line. Under both sets of con
ditions, the fact of their employment indicated that
the multiple impairment cases were able to hold up
their end of the job.
Quit Rate
The quit rate reflects the number of voluntary quits
per 100 employees during the 6 months following the
end of the survey period. Data were obtained by
means of follow-up on 320 of the multiple impairment
group and 531 unimpaired workers matched with
them.
These impaired workers were somewhat more stable
on the job, with a quit rate of 1.5 as against 2.8 for
the unimpaired. Two impaired and two unimpaired
workers quit for reasons of health. None of the im

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

paired as against two of the unimpaired quit because
of dissatisfaction with the job. One of the impaired
and eight of the unimpaired quit for reasons listed as
“ other, ” principal of which were “ to take other job ”
and “ to start own business.”
Terminations were very much higher for the im
paired workers, with a rate of 7.2 as against 3.4 for

the unimpaired. In these separations, however, the
initiative did not lie with the employee. Reduction
in force was the principal cause for terminations. It
was to be expected that the impaired would have the
higher rate because, being in general the last to be
hired, their lesser seniority would place them among
the first to be laid off.

G. THE EX-TUBERCULOUS CASES

G. The Ex-Tuberculous Cases
Summary of Statistical Findings
The work performance record of about 500 extuberculous cases compared favorably with that of
about 900 unimpaired workers matched with them
on the same jobs.
That the impaired and unimpaired workers were
about equally regular in their work attendance and
had about the same nondisabling injury experience
is indicated by the similar group rates for these two
factors. In the case of disabling work injury, however,
the ex-tuberculous cases made a substantially better
record than did the unimpaired workers exposed to
the same hazards. In addition, the ex-tuberculous
cases were somewhat more stable on the job, as in
dicated by the lower voluntary quit rate. Data with
which to measure relative output was not available
for a sufficiently large number of cases to permit
showing performance figures.
T able G - l .— W ork performance of ex-tuberculous cases and of
matched unimpaired workers
Number of workers

Average performance

Factor
Impaired
Absenteeism frequency rate1____
Nondisabling injury:
Frequency rate 2___________
Disabling injury:
Frequency rate 3___________
Time-lost rate 4____________
Average days of disability 6_
Output6_______________________
Quit rate 8_____________________

Unimpaired

Impaired

Unimpaired

513

910

3.7

3.5

507

902

15.2

14.2

512
512

909
909

(7)
200

(7)
383

5.9
.05
11.7
(7)
.5

10.3
.09
11.4
(7)
2.6

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
2 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-houw.
3 Number of injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
4 Number of days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.
6 Number of days of disability per disabling injury.
6 Percentage relationship of production efficiency of impaired to that of matched
unimpaired.
7 Data available for too few cases to permit showing performance figures.
8 Number of voluntary quits per 100 employees m the survey group.

On the whole, the outstanding feature of the find
ings was the similarity between the two groups of
impaired and unimpaired workers. Differences were
present but they were minor except with respect to
disabling work injuries, where the ex-tuberculous

cases made a substantially better record. In light of
the comparative records of the two groups, it seems
reasonable to conclude that the ex-tuberculous cases
were normal workers who, properly placed, were able
to compete successfully with unimpaired workers on
the same jobs.

Composition of the Survey Group
All workers who were specifically designated in the
medical records as arrested pulmonary tuberculous
cases and with whom unimpaired workers could be
matched on the same jobs were included in the study.
An effort was made to classify each case as minimal,
moderate, or far advanced, but information on this
point was available from company records in only a
very few instances. It was necessary, therefore, to
dispense with classification and to show performance
figures for the arrested tuberculosis cases as a single
group.
The 513 arrested tuberculosis cases showed a heav
ier concentration in the middle age brackets, in com
parison with the 10,515 impaired workers comprising
the rest of the survey group. About 11 percent of the
ex-tuberculous cases as against 14 percent of the
other impaired workers were under the age of 30,
T able G-2.— Comparison of number and percentage distribu
tion of 513 ex-tuberculous cases and 10,515 other impaired
workers studied, by age group
Number of workers

Percent

Age group
Ex-tuber
culous

Other
impaired

Ex-tuber
culous

Total__________ __________ ________

513

10,515

100.0

Under 20 years......................................
20 and under 25 years______________
25 and under 30 years______________
30 and under 35 years---------------------45 and under 40 years______________
30 and under 45 years---------------------45 and under 50 years______________
50 and under 55 years---------------------55 and under 60 years---------------------60 and under 65 years---------------------65 years and over_______________

2
14
40
65
65
98
72
76
52
24
5

77
497
861
1,052
1,119
1,140
1,240
1,486
1,491
1,064
488

.4
2.7
7.8
12.7
12.7
19.1
14.0
14.8
10.1
4.7
1.0

.7
4.7
8.2
10.0
10.7
10.8
11.8
14.1
14.2
10.1
4.7

Other
impaired

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

while only 16 percent of the ex-tuberculous as against
nearly 30 percent of the rest of the impaired workers
were 55 years of age or older. It may be that the
rather long period of time usually required to arrest
tuberculosis may result in raising slightly the age at
wdiich these impaired persons enter upon active em
ployment when the illness is contracted in early years.
The group is too small to support definite conclu
sions, but it is possible too that the person with ar
rested tuberculosis may tend to withdraw from the
labor market at a slightly earlier age than is charac
teristic of other types of physical impairment.
The number of cases of arrested tuberculosis en
countered in the study was smaller than had been
expected. In the 109 plants there were 513 such cases
with whom unimpaired workers could be matched
on the same jobs making this impairment group
seventh in point of size among the 10 impairments
studied. The survey group was composed of 483 im
paired males matched with 858 unimpaired males
and 30 impaired females matched with 52 unimpaired
females. The female cases constituted too small a
group to permit showing performance figures sepa
rately for them. Their presence did not affect mate
rially the performance figures for the group as a
whole.

Industry and Occupational Coverage
The ex-tuberculous cases were widely distributed
among the various industry classifications. The sur
vey group contains some representation from 17 of
the 19 major industry groups and from 82 of the 109

plants covered by the study.
The fact that a large number of plants and indus
tries are represented in the survey group is an impor
tant consideration in evaluating the findings. The
performance figures do not show results attained
under some special or ideal set of conditions but are a
composite of performance records under widely dif
fering conditions of employment.
The jobs at which the impaired persons of this sur
vey group were employed are shown in the following
listing. Work in the processing or production op
erations accounted for a majority of the workers
studied, with a lesser representation in jobs in main
tenance and material movement.
The range of skills represented by these jobs is very
broad, extending from common labor to highly skilled
machinist work. The jobs involving some skill and
training were the most common, and it is signif
icant that only about 5 percent of the cases studied
were employed on the unskilled custodial jobs, such
as janitor, porter, etc. This tendency toward the
more-skilled jobs may have been the result of two
forces: First, the person with arrested tuberculosis
either was able to continue to exercise skills he had
acquired before the impairment or was able to acquire
new ones readily; and, second, job opportunities
were probably greater for those who had a skill to sell
than for those who did not. It must be borne in mind,
however, that this listing of jobs is merely a token list.
Because of the requirement of matching with unim
paired workers on the same jobs, many ex-tuber
culous cases could not be included in the study and
consequently their occupations are not recorded.

Jobs at which 518 Ex-Tuberculous Cases of the survey group were found employed
[T itle s used are those app earin g in the U n ite d States E m p lo ym e n t Service D ictio n a ry o f O ccu p ation a l T itles a n d are grou p ed an d num bered a c co rd in g t o
th e classifications used b y the W a ge A nalysis B ran ch of the B u rea u o f L a b o r Statistics. T h is is n o t to be in terp reted as a com plete listing o f jo b s at
w hich persons w ith this im p airm ent can b e e m p lo y e d ]

M ALE

1. Maintenance

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Steam-fitter apprentice

Laborer (railroad transportation)

Truck mechanic

Laborer, process (machine shop)

W ater tender III

Boilermaker

Lead burner

Welder, acetylene

Bricklayer, refractory brick

Machinist I I

Carpenter

Machinist apprentice

Electrical repairman

Maintenance mechanic I I

Fireman, stationary boiler

Millwright

Foreman (nonferrous metal alloys and
products)
Inspector (machine shop)

2. Working Foremen

Floor assembler I

Oiler I

Hostler, inside

Painter I

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Pipe fitter

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Pipe-fitter helper

Aircraft mechanic

Laborer (building)

Rigger I I I
Sheet-metal worker I I

Airplane woodworker I I

Laborer (iron and steel)

3. Processing

Bending-roll operator

G. THE EX-TUBERCULOUS CASES
Jobs at which 513 Ex-Tuberculous Cases of the survey group were found employed — Continued

M A L E — Continued

3. Processing — Continued

Laborer, process (machinery manufac
turing)

Final assembly inspector, fuselage

Ladle liner

Gater I V

installation

Lathe operator, automatic I

Inspector I

Lehr man

Inspector, chief I I I

Leverman, table

Inspector (machine)

Machine molder, jarring

Inspector and tester

Boring-machine operator

Machine molder, squeeze

Machinist I I

Boxmaker, wood I II

Machinist I I

Radio repairman I

Buffer I

Machinist, bench

Tester I

Bulldozer operator

M ajor-assem bly installer

T ool inspector

Burrer, hand

Marker

Charging-machine operator I

Milling-machine operator II

Chassis assembler I I

Molder

5. Recording and Control
Laborer, process (iron and steel)

Chipper, foundry

Molding machine tender

Cigarette-making-machine operator

Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator

M aterial clerk

Circular-sawing-machine operator

Ovenman helper

Production clerk I I

Circle-shear operator I

Painter, spray I

Receiving clerk I I I

Coremaker I

Patternmaker X I

Shipping checker

Crankshaft plugger

Patternmaker, wood

Shipping clerk I

Crusher man IV

Planer operator I I

Cupola tender

Plunger

Stock clerk I I
T ool clerk

Cut-off-saw operator

Power-shear operator I

Cyanide-furnace operator

Presser, machine I

Cylindrical-grinder operator
Detailer II

Punch-press operator I

Die maker I I
Dockman II

Radiator-core assembler
Rewinder operator

Dough mixer

Riveter, aircraft

Electrical adjuster

Riveter, pneumatic I I I

Electrician, airplane I

Roller operator V

Engine-lathe operator

Sandblaster

Radial-drill-press operator

Experimental mechanic

Screw-machine operator, automatic

Facing mixer

Second helper I I

Final assembler V I I

Sheet-metal worker, aircraft

Flame-cutter operator

Shredder operator I I

Floor assembler I I
Forging-press operator
Forming-press operator I

Single-spindle-drill-press operator
Soaker-cleaner operator
Still-operator helper

Gatherer

Subassembler

Gear-generator operator
Gear-hobber operator

Subassembler II

H eat treater II

Subassembler I I I
Surface-grinder operator

Heater, forge
Horizontal-boring-and-milling machine

Template maker IV
Tool-grinder operator

6. Material Movement
Brakeman, yard I
Electric-bridge-crane operator
Electric truck operator
Fireman, industrial locomotive
Fireman, portable boiler
Follow-up man I I I
Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)
Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (bakery products)
Laborer (foundry)
Laborer (iron and steel)
Laborer (machinery manufacturing)
Laborer (m alt liquors)
Locomotive-crane operator
Truck-crane operator

7. Custodial
Gateman
Laborer (automobile parts)

T ool maker

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Internal-grinder operator

Tool-maker apprentice

Police officer

Job setter II

Trimming-press operator I I

Porter I

Laborer (foundry)

Turret-lathe operator

Porter II

Laborer (iron and steel)

Vertical-boring-mill operator

W atchm an I

Laborer, process (automobile manufac

Vertical-turret-lathe operator

operator

turing)

Welder, acetylene

Laborer, process (automobile parts)

Wireman V I

Laborer, process (cutlery tools)

Yarn winder

Laborer, process (foundry)

4. Inspection and Testing

FEM ALE

3. Processing

Laborer, process (iron and steel)

Assorter V I

Airplane woodworker
Assembler I II

Laborer, process (machine tools and ac

Balancer I

Box maker I

Checker

Burrer, hand

Laborer, process (hardware)

cessories)

100

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Jobs at which 518 Ex-Tuberculous Cases of the survey group were found employed — Continued

F E M A L E — Continued

30, Processing — Continued
Cigar packer

Laborer (surgical appliances)

4. Inspection and Testing

Laborer, process (foundry)
Laborer,

Coil winder I I

Stripper, machine

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
process

(tobacco

products
Cigarette-package examiner

manufacturing)

Inspector (machine shop)

Cutter, machine I

Painter, aircraft

Detail assembler I I

Sewing-machine operator (textile)

Final assembler V II

Sewing-machine operator (men’s tailored

Instrument maker I
Laborer (radio manufacturing)

Stitcher, machine (boot and shoe)

Placement Practices
For the person with arrested tuberculosis the pre
employment physical examination is extremely im
portant. So too are the periodic physical check-ups
which are provided in many plants or are available
to the employee from outside sources. From the
standpoint of proper placement, the degree of the ar
rested case and the general appraisal of physical abil
ities are essential.
Proper placement of the person with arrested tu
berculosis requires the exercise of careful analysis and
good judgment on the part of the placement officer.
Certain types of dust conditions, humidity, and tem
perature extremes are generally avoided in placing
these cases. In general, too, jobs which may produce
excessive general fatigue or great mental strain are
also avoided. The placement officer, however, has to
consider the environmental and physical requirement
factors against a variety of others, such as the skills
the applicant possesses, how long the case has been
arrested, and the general physical capacities of the
individual. The problems posed for the placement
officer by the extreme variety of environmental and
job requirement conditions to which the individual
case may be adaptable are further indicated by the
preceding job listing.
Only 7 of the 109 plants studied had exclusion pol
icies affecting ex-tuberculous cases. In some plants
persons with arrested tuberculosis were excluded
from certain departments because of environmental
conditions not suitable for their employment. These
policies, however, were directed at protecting the im
paired person against employment under conditions
which might aggravate the impairment, not at ex
cluding him from employment in the plant.
Apparently no need for job re-engineering to pro
vide for employment of these cases had been encoun

6. Material Movement

garments)
Distributor I

tered in the plants studied. For this impairment
changes might have been directed toward either the
environmental conditions or the work methods, but
no such instances were encountered in the study.

Work Performance
The ex-tuberculous cases, as a group, turned in a
record of performance which compared favorably
with that of the unimpaired workers matched with
them on the same jobs.
Data were available for a sufficiently large group
to permit showing performance for four of the five
factors under consideration in the study. The num
ber of cases for which production data were obtain
able were too few to permit showing an output
relative. Table G -l and the following paragraphs
summarize the findings.
Absenteeism
For the purpose of this study, an absence was de
fined as absence of one full day or more on days on
which the employee was scheduled to work. Vaca
tions, lay-offs, shut-downs, etc., were not counted as
either days absent or as scheduled workdays. Ab
senteeism was computed as a rate reflecting the num
ber of such absences per 100 scheduled workdays.
The 513 impaired workers of the survey group had
a fractionally higher rate than the 910 unimpaired
workers with whom they were matched, 3.7 and 3.5,
respectively. The variation in these rates indicates
that the impaired workers as a group might be ex
pected to be absent from their work about one more
day than unimpaired workers in each 500 scheduled
workdays. This does not seem to constitute a signifi
cant difference, and it probably should be said that
as a group the impaired and unimpaired workers were
about equally regular in their work attendance.

101

G. THE EX-TUBERCULOUS CASES

The individual rates for workers in the two groups
are compared by means of a frequency distribution
in table G-3. This comparison bears out the simi
larity of performance indicated by the group averages.
About 20 percent in both groups had no absences at
all during the periods studied. There were 63 percent
of the impaired and 67 percent of the unimpaired who
had rates of less than 3 days per 100 scheduled days.
In both groups there were individual instances of
very poor work attendance: 1.2 percent of the im
paired and 0.8 percent of the unimpaired had exces
sive rates of 30.0 or higher. While these were scat
tered individual cases, not group characteristics, their
presence accounts for the slightly higher rate among
the impaired workers.
Both the group averages and the comparison of
individual rates point toward the similarity of the
performance of the two groups of workers. Clearly,
there was no greater tendency toward excessive ab
senteeism on the part of the arrested tuberculosis
cases than was apparent among the unimpaired work
ers matched with them.
T able G—3.— Percentage distribution of 513 ex-tuberculous
cases and 901 unimpaired workers, by absenteeism frequency
rate 1
Absenteeism frequency rate class

Impaired

Unimpaired

0_______________ ___________ ____________ ________
0.1 and under 1.0____ ________ ____________________
1.0 and under 2.0....... ................... ................... ......... .
2.0 and under 3.0------------------- ----------- ------------------3.0 and under 5.0_________________________________
5.0 and under 10.0............. ..................... ....... ........... .
10.0 and under 20.0_______________________________
20.0 and under 30.0..................... ......... .........................
30.0 and over______ ______________________________

19.7
16.6
15.4
11.3
12.5
12.9
8.6
1.8
1.2

20.5
16.6
18.2
11.4
11.5
12.9
7.2
.9
.8

Total................ ......................................... ...........

100.0

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

An effort was made to determine the reason for
each absence. Unfortunately, in many cases com
pany records did not provide this information and
the reason for more than half the absences had to be
recorded as unknown. However, for the cases in
which reason for absence was given, the similarity
between the two groups is marked. Table G -4 shows
that the rates attributable to illness were identical
and those attributable to personal business were very
nearly the same in the two groups. While the number
of absences for which the reason was unknown is too
large to permit conclusions, there is some indication
that the impaired and unimpaired not only had about
the same rates of absenteeism but were absent for
about the same reasons.

T able G-4. — Absenteeism frequency rates1 for 513 ex-tuber
culous cases and 910 unimpaired workers, by reason for absence
Reason for absence

Impaired

Unimpaired

__________________________________________

3.7

3.5

________________________ _____
Til t>Piss
Personal business_________________________________
Unknown------------ ----------------------- - - - - - - ---------

1.1
.3
2.3

1.1
.4
2.0

Total

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

Nondisabling Injury Experience
A nondisabling injury was defined as a work-con
nected injury which did not result in a permanent
impairment or in any lost time beyond the day or
shift on which the injury occurred. The group injury
experience is expressed as a rate reflecting the num
ber of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours. The indi
vidual rates were computed on a 1,000-hour base.
Data for this factor were available for 507 of the ar
rested tuberculosis cases matched with 902 unim
paired workers on the same jobs.
Among the impaired workers the rate was 15.2 and
among the unimpaired workers 14.2 injuries per
10.000 exposure-hours. This variation in the rates
indicates that the impaired workers experienced one
more nondisabling injury than the matched unim
paired workers in each 10,000 hours of work. Con
sidering that these are typically the iodine-andadhesive-tape type of injury, this difference does not
seem significant.
While the averages indicate a very similar group
experience, they may or may not be an accurate re
flection of the individual experience. In order to com
pare this individual experience, the injury frequency
rate for each individual was computed on a base of
1.000 exposure-hours and the rates are shown as a
frequency distribution in table G-5. The nearly iden
tical pattern of the rates in the two groups is further
evidence of the similarity of the experience. Nearly
half the workers in each group had no nondisabling
injuries during the periods studied. The concentra
tion was heavy in the lower frequencies, with 82
percent of the impaired and 81 percent of the unim
paired having a frequency of 1.9 or less per 1,000
exposure-hours. The experience, however, was not
uniformly good. In each group there were scattered
examples of poor performance. About 3 percent of
the impaired and 2 percent of the unimpaired had
very high rates of 10.0 or higher.

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

102

‘T able G -5. — Percentage distribution of 507 ex-tuberculous
<cases and 902 unimpaired workers, by frequency rate 1 of non
disabling injury
Frequency rate class

Impaired

Unimpaired

ft
0.1 and under 1.0_________________________________
1.0 and under 2.0_________________________________
2.0 and under 3.0_________________________________
3.0 and under 5.0______ ______ ____________________
5.0 and under 10.0_____________________ ______ __ _
10.0 and over------------- ------------------ -----------------------

48.1
20.5
13.4
3.9
5.3
5.8
3.0

48.6
21.6
10.8
6.1
6.2
4.8
1.9

Total......................................................................

100.0

1 Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.

An effort was made to determine whether there was
any difference in the nature of the injuries expe
rienced by the two groups of workers. Very satisfac
tory data of this kind were obtainable, as the nature
of the injury was a matter of record in nearly all cases.
The frequency rates for the two groups, by nature of
injury, are shown in table G-6, and the similarity of
these rates is marked. It was the slightly higher in
cidence of minor cuts and abrasions which account
for the slightly higher group frequency rate for the
impaired workers. However, no noticeable proneness
on the part of the ex-tuberculous cases toward injury
of any particular nature is indicated. The similarity
of the rates seems to justify a conclusion that the in
juries experienced were related to the hazards of the
jobs and not to the impairment which characterized
one of the groups.
T able G-6. — Frequency rates 1 of nondisabling injury for 507
ex-tuberculous cases and 902 unimpaired workers, by nature of
injury
Unimpaired

Impaired

Nature of injury
Total................ ................................... ............... ......... ..

15.2

14.2

Burns and scalds

.6
11.9
2.1
.3

10.3
2.4
.4

. .. ..

Cuts and abrasions_______________________________
Eye injuries
_______________________________
Strains and sprains_____ __________________________
Other____________________________________________

1 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.

A rough indication of the severity of the nondis
abling injuries is provided by the number of redress
ings required per injury. Policies varied widely among
companies. In some plants employees were required
to report for redressings, in others redressings were
obtained at the option of the employee. However, in
each plant the policies were the same for both the
impaired and the unimpaired workers. The ex-tuber
culous cases averaged 1.0 and the unimpaired workers
0.9 redressings per injury. Measured in this way
there was clearly no difference in the severity of the

nondisabling injuries in the two groups.
A final consideration in connection with the med
ical record was a comparison of the demands made
on plant medical facilities by impaired and unim
paired workers for nonindustrial purposes. Nonin
dustrial visits were defined as visits to the dispensary
for illness or injury not related to the workers’ em
ployment. Again policies varied among plants in the
extent to which such use of medical facilities was
encouraged or discouraged. But in any given plant
the policy was the same for both impaired and unim
paired workers. The ex-tuberculous cases made some
what fewer nonindustrial visits than did the unim
paired workers matched with them. The impaired
averaged 1.7 and the unimpaired 2.3 such visits per
person.
In summary, the medical record showed that the
ex-tuberculous cases and the unimpaired workers
matched with them on the same jobs had very similar
nondisabling injury experience both as to frequency
and nature of injury. There was no difference in the
severity of such injuries as measured by the redress
ings required; and dispensary visits of a nonindus
trial nature were somewhat less common among the
impaired workers.

Disabling Injury Experience
Frequency. A disabling injury was defined as one
which resulted in a permanent impairment or in a loss
of one full day or more beyond the day or shift on
which the injury occurred. The frequency rate was
computed on the conventional base of one million
exposure-hours.
Data on this factor were available for 512 of the
impaired and 909 of the unimpaired workers of the
survey group. The experience of the workers with
arrested tuberculosis was substantially better than
that of the unimpaired workers matched with them
on the same jobs. The rate for the impaired group
was 5.9 and for the matched unimpaired 10.3 injuries
per million exposure-hours. This difference of about
four injuries per million exposure-hours seems sig
nificant when considered in terms of the effect four
disabling injuries might have on compensation and
insurance costs.
For the entire survey group there were only 6 dis
abling injuries among the impaired workers and 22
among the unimpaired workers. So far as the limited
number of cases will permit comparison, the injuries

G. THE EX-TUBERCULOUS CASES

were about the same. Contusions of the upper and
lower extremities were fairly common, and in each
group there was 1 case of amputation of a part of a
hand. There were no fractures among the impaired
although this type of injury accounted for 5 cases
among the unimpaired. Among the unimpaired, too,
there was 1 case of strain resulting in a hernia.
In each case of disabling injury, accident reports
and cause studies in the company’s files were con
sulted and the cases were discussed with responsible
company officials. The purpose of this was to deter
mine whether the impairment might have in any way
caused or contributed to an injury experienced by an
impaired worker. In no instance was such a causal
relationship indicated in this impaired group. Sim
ilarly, none of the injuries among the unimpaired
was attributed to a fellow worker’s impairment.
The experience of this group indicates that these
impaired workers, properly placed on the job, worked
safely and did not constitute a hazard either to them
selves or to their fellow workers. There is no readily
apparent reason why the injury experience of the extuberculous cases should have been so much better
than that of the unimpaired workers exposed to the
same hazards. Careful placement certainly played a
major part in the fact that there were no instances of
aggravation of the impairment in the survey group.
Because the group is of only moderate size, there is
probably some room for coincidence but it is hardly
likely that coincidence could account for all of the
difference.
Time Lost. The frequency of disabling injury is one
important consideration; the time lost as the result
of such injury is a second. In terms of a rate based
on 100 scheduled days the impaired workers tended
to lose slightly less time because of disabling injuries
than the unimpaired workers matched with them.
The rates were 0.05 and 0.09 day per hundred sched
uled days for the impaired and unimpaired, respec
tively. Another measure, time lost per injury, is also
available; among the impaired the injuries experi
enced resulted in an average time loss of 11.7 days and
among the unimpaired a loss of 11.4 days, a difference
of 0.3 day per injury.
In brief, the arrested tuberculosis cases had a very
favorable disabling injury experience in every respect.
The frequency rate was substantially lower than for
the unimpaired exposed to the same hazards, and the
time lost as the result of such injuries was about the
same in both groups.

103

Output Relative
Measured individual production data were avail
able for only 52 of the ex-tuberculous cases and 81
matched unimpaired workers on the same jobs. This
group was not large enough to permit showing per
formance data. The data collected, however, has been
included in computing the output relative for the
total survey group.
It should be noted in this connection that there
were a fairly large number of ex-tuberculous cases
employed on assembly line operations and on group
piecework. Although individual performance data
could not be obtained for these cases, the fact of their
employment is significant. On the assembly line op
erations the speed of the work was controlled by the
speed of the line and each worker had to keep up with
the line. Similarly, on group incentive each member
of the group or team has to produce his share or por
tion of the job or the earnings of the group will suffer.
Apparently these impaired workers were able to meet
the production requirements in those cases or they
could not have held their jobs.
Quit Rate
Data on voluntary quits among the employees of
the survey group were obtained by means of follow
up, and the rates reflect the number of quits per 100
employees in the 6 months following the end of the
survey period. These data were obtainable for 200
of the ex-tuberculous cases and 383 unimpaired work
ers matched with them.
The voluntary quit rate was very substantially
lower for these impaired workers, 0.5 per hundred as
against 2.6 per hundred for the unimpaired. All of
the quits among the impaired were due to dissatis
faction with the job. Among the unimpaired most of
the quits were classified as “ other” and included a
variety of reasons such as “ to take other job, ” “ start
ing own business,” etc. Actually, the quantity of
data and the number of cases are too small to sup
port generalizations, but the 200 ex-tuberculous cases
for whom data could be studied were evidently very
stable on the job.
Terminations in this group were much higher for
the impaired than for the unimpaired workers, 2.5
and 1.5, respectively. These terminations were for the
most part the result of reductions in force and it is
probable that the impaired being, in general, the last
to be hired had the least seniority and consequently
were among the first to be laid off.

104

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

II. The Peptic Ulcer Cases
Summary of Statistical Findings
The peptic ulcer cases did not, in general, perform
quite as well as the unimpaired workers with whom
they were matched on the same jobs. The nondis
abling injury experience was about the same in the
two groups, but disabling injuries were somewhat
more common among these impaired workers than
among the unimpaired workers exposed to the same
hazards. The peptic ulcer cases were considerably
less regular in their work attendance than the matched
unimpaired workers. The difference in the absentee
ism rates was due largely to a higher incidence of
absence because of illness among the peptic ulcer
cases. The voluntary quit rate was also much higher
for the impaired workers of the group. Measured in
dividual production data for computation of an out
put relative were not available for a group large
enough to permit showing performance figures.

diagnosis had been confirmed by X-ray or other ap
proved laboratory test. Persons listed as peptic ulcer
cases but without confirmation by test could not be
included in the survey group either as impaired or as
unimpaired workers. This impairment is one of the
three which were added on recommendation of the
advisory committee about 3 months after the study
was begun.
In spite of the fact that the impairment was not
included at the beginning of the study, a fairly siz
able number of cases were recorded. As finally con
stituted, this survey group consisted of 428 peptic
ulcer cases matched with 806 unimpaired workers,
making it eighth in point of size among the 10 impair
ments studied. Only 14 of the peptic ulcer cases were
female and consequently no break-down was made of
performance figures by sex.
T a b l e H - 2 .— Comparison of number and percentage distribu

tion of 1+28 peptic ulcer cases and 10,600 other impaired workers
T able

H - l .— W ork performance of peptic ulcer cases and of
matched unimpaired workers

studied, by age groups
Number of workers

Number of workers

Average performance

Peptic
ulcer cases

Factor
Impaired
Absenteeism frequency rate1___
Nondisabling injury:
Frequency rate 2___________
Disabling injury:
Frequency rate3___________
Time-lost rate4____________
Average days of disability 5_
Output relative5______ __
___
Quit rate8....... ............... .
.......

Unimpaired

Impaired

Unimpaired

428

806

5.4

2.9

424

799

11.0

11.1

428
428

806
806

(7)
195

(7)
357

10.7
.10
11.6
(7)
4.6

8.7
.12
18.0
(7)
2.0

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
2 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
3 Number of injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
4 Number of days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.
5 Number of days of disability per disabling injury.
6 Percentage relationship of production efficiency of impaired to that of matched
unimpaired.
7 Data available for too few cases to permit showing performance figures.
s Number of voluntary quits per 100 employees in the survey group.

Composition of the Survey Group
Persons shown on the medical records of the com
pany as peptic ulcer cases were eligible for inclusion
in the survey group as impaired workers only if the

Percent

Age group
Other
impaired

Peptic
ulcer cases

Other
impaired

Total__________________ ______ _

428

10,600

100.0

Under 20 years________________
20 and under 25 years_________
25 and under 30 years _ _______
30 and under 35 years_____ ____
35 and under 40 years____
40 and under 45 years____ ___
45 and under 50 years______
_
50 and under 55 years_____ __
55 and under 60 years __________
60 and under 65 years______ __
65 years and over_____________

0
21
55
54
68
57
54
59
34
23
3

79
490
846
1,063
1,116
1,181
1,258
1,503
1,509
1,065
490

0
4.9
12.9
12.6
15.9
13.3
12.6
13.8
7.9
5.4
.7

.7
4.6
8.0
10.0
10.5
11.1
11.9
14.2
14.3
10.1
4.0

The peptic ulcer cases showed a very marked con
centration in the lower and middle age ranges in com
parison with the rest of the impaired workers. About
60 percent of the peptic ulcer cases were under the
age of 45 years as compared with 45 percent of the
remainder of the impaired group. Further, 55 per
cent of these cases as against only 40 percent of
the rest of the impaired workers fell within the 20-

105

H. THE PEPTIC ULCER CASES

year age range from 25 to 45 years. In the upper age
ranges the number of peptic ulcer cases decreased
rapidly. Only 6 percent of these cases as against 15
percent of the other impaired workers were 60 years
of age or older. The present study cannot explain
these age groupings. It may be that the incidence
of the impairment is less in the higher age ranges;
also, the person with this impairment may tend to
withdraw from the labor market at an earlier age.

Industry and Occupational Coverage
Peptic ulcer cases were encountered in compar
atively small numbers in individual plants but were
widely distributed; 18 of the 19 industry groups and
70 plants are represented in the survey group. In
about half of the plants not represented some peptic
ulcer cases were employed but could not be matched
with unimpaired workers for inclusion in the study.
The wide distribution of these impaired workers is
significant for two reasons. In the first place, it indi

cates that employment opportunities are potentially
fairly broad for persons with this impairment; and
secondly, the record reflects performance under a
variety of conditions and not in some one or a few
plants with specialized programs for employment of
peptic ulcer cases.
The following listing shows the jobs at which the
impaired workers of the survey group were em
ployed. The occupational pattern is much the same
as that found in the other impairment groups — a
concentration in the processing or producing oper
ations, a secondary concentration in maintenance
work, and a scattering of custodial jobs. The variety
of skill requirements represented by these jobs is very
broad, ranging from unskilled labor to the highly
skilled machinist classifications. It should be noted
in this connection that this listing of occupations is
merely illustrative of some of the jobs which can be
performed by peptic ulcer cases. Many impaired
workers could not be included in the study, conse
quently their jobs are not recorded.

Jobs at which 4 28 Peptic Ulcer Cases of the survey group were found employed
[T itles used are those appearing in th e U nited States E m p lo y m e n t Service D ictio n a ry o f O ccup ational T itles and are grou ped and num bered a ccord in g t o
the classifications used b y the W age A nalysis B ran ch o f the B u reau of L a b o r Statistics. T h is is not to be interpreted as a co m p lete listing of job s at
w hich persons w ith p e p tic ulcer im pairm ent can be e m p lo y e d ]

1. Maintenance
Asbestos worker, general

Painter I

Charging-machine operator I

Pipe fitter

Cigarette-making-machine operator

Pipe-fitter helper

Cigarette-packing-machine operator

Boilermaker

Plumber

Circular-sawing-machine operator

Boilermaker helper II

Riveter, hydraulic

Boiler operator

Rodman II

Cloth-shrinking-machine operator
Control man

Bucker-up II
Carpenter, maintenance

Welder, combination

Control man I I I

Cook Y

2. Working Foremen

Coremaker I
Cutter, hand I X

Batch-still operator II

Cylindrical-grinder operator
Dockman I I

Compounder II
Floor assembler

Electrical assembler I I
Electrician, airplane I

Electrical repairman
Engine-lathe operator
Extruder operator I I
Fireman, stationary boiler

Electric-motor assembler

Flame-cutter operator
H od carrier

3. Processing

Engine-lathe operator
Extruder operator II

Instrument man IV
Instrument repairman

Acid-retort operator

Final assembler V II

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Air-compressor operator

Floor assembler

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)

Annealer

Form builder

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and

Annealer I I I

Forming-press operator

Assembler I I I

Forming-press operator I

Laborer (paper and pulp)

Banbury mixer

Friction-sawing-machine operator

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Bookbinder

Gager V II I

Laborer (rayon and allied products)

Boring-machine operator, automatic

Gear-hobber operator

Laborer, process (petroleum refining)

Brush hand

Glass grinder

Machinist II

Buffer I

Hardener II
Horizontal-boring-and-milling-

products)

Machinist apprentice

Burrer, hand

Maintenance mechanic I I

Buttonhole-machine operator

Millwright

Centerless-grinder operator

776106°—48—8

machine operator
Induction-furnace operator

106

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Jobs at which J+28 Peptic Ulcer Cases of the survey group were found employed — Continued

3. Processing — Continued
Induction-furnace operator helper
Instrument maker II
Internal-grinder operator
Job setter I I
Labeler, machine I I
Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and
products)
Laborer, process (ammunition)
Laborer, process (asbestos products)
Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)
Laborer, process (automobile parts)
Laborer, process (cutlery tools)
Laborer, process (dairy products)
Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)
Laborer, process (malt liquors)
Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al
loys and products)
Laborer, process (phonograph manufac
turing)
Laborer, process (rayon and allied prod
ucts)
Laborer, process (tobacco)
Laborer, process (wire manufacturing)
Lehr man

Profiling-machine operator I I

Engine tester

Pumpman V II

Experimental mechanic

Pumpman helper

Inspector (machine shop)

Radial-drill-press operator

Machinist I I

Saw filer, hand

Test driver I I

Screw-machine operator, semiautomatic

Tester I

Seaming-machine operator IV
Sewing-machine operator (m en’s tailored
Sheeter operator

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Shipping checker

Spinner V I "

Stock clerk II

Spreader I

Tool clerk

Sticker

6. Material Movement

Stillman I I
Stillman helper

Electric-bridge-crane operator

Still-operator helper

Electric-truck operator

Straightener, hand

Laborer (bakery products)

Subassembler I

Laborer (chemicals)

Subassembler I I I
Surface-grinder operator

Machine adjuster I I I
Machine molder, jarring
Machinist, bench
Marker
Milling-machine operator II
Molder, finish
Molder, floor
Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Ovenman helper
Planer operator I I
Plater I

Thread-mill-machine operator

products)

Tire builder, drum

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Tool dresser I

Laborer (plastic materials)

Tool grinder I

Laborer (plumbing supplies)

Tool-grinder operator

Laborer (tobacco)
Laborer (wire)

Treater helper

Laborer, process (ammunition)

Tube cleaner

Laborer, process (tobacco)

Tube drawer

Tractor operator

Tumbler operator I I
Turret-lathe operator
Turret-lathe operator, automatic
Waterproofing-machine operator
Welder, arc
Wire drawer I I I
W ireman V I

Truck driver
Yardm an I

7. Custodial
Fire marshal
Gateman IV

4. Inspection and Testing

Janitor I

Body-assembly inspector

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)
Porter II

Cloth examiner, hand II

W atchm an I

Placement Practices
As in the other organic impairment cases, the phys
ical examination is very important in cases of peptic
ulcer. If reliance is placed upon the statements of the
applicant, there is the chance that he may not have
accurate knowledge of his condition or may tend to
understate the case. Improper placement may result
in poor performance and possible aggravation of the
impairment.
Comparatively few of the plants studied had ex

Laborer (m alt liquors)
Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and

Thrower II

Pointer operator
Polisher
Presser, machine I

Laborer (glass manufacturing)
Laborer (machine tools and accessories)

Sweater man

Tool maker

Loader V I I

5. Recording and Control

garments)

clusion policies prohibiting the employment of peptic
ulcer cases, yet this group is eighth in point of size
among the 10 impairment groups studied. It may be
that the incidence of this impairment among the
working population is comparatively low. It may
also be that employment opportunities are not as
great for persons with this impairment, as indicated
by the absence of specific exclusion policies.
No specialized methods or techniques for placement
of peptic ulcer cases were encountered in the plants
studied. In most instances special consideration was

107

H. THE PEPTIC ULCER CASES

given to environmental conditions when placing these
workers. In general, the environmental conditions
were considered as important in these cases as the
physical requirements of the job. Among the factors
considered in making the placement were working
speed, odors which might cause gastric upset, eating
facilities, etc., depending upon severity of the case
and the general physical equipment of the applicant.
It was noted that no special follow-up practices
were in effect for these peptic ulcer cases, nor were
there any instances in which job re-engineering had
been necessary for them.

Work Performance
Data were obtainable for a fairly large group of
peptic ulcer cases although not as large as would be
desirable to support definite conclusions. The find
ings of the study of this group are summarized in
table H - l and in the following paragraphs:
Absenteeism
This measure is based on the number of days ab
sent for personal reasons on days on which the em
ployee was scheduled to work. Vacations, lay-offs,
etc., were not counted either as days absent or as
days scheduled to work. The rate represents the
number of days absent per 100 scheduled workdays.
The 428 peptic ulcer cases were not as regular in
their work attendance as the 806 unimpaired workers
with whom they were matched. The average rates
of absenteeism for the two groups were 5.4 and 2.9
for the impaired and unimpaired, respectively. In
some operations this difference in performance might
well be significant.
The absenteeism rate was also computed for each
individual of the survey group, and these individual
rates are shown in a frequency distribution in table
H-3. The comparison of the individual rates sup
ports the comparison drawn from the group averages.
Only 17 percent of the impaired as against 27 percent
of the matched unimpaired had no absences at all
during the periods studied. Only about 60 percent of
the impaired had rates of 3.9 or less, while 78 percent
of the unimpaired were in this group. It should be
noted here that coincidence may be playing a part in
this case. While the peptic ulcer cases had the poor
est attendance record of the several impaired groups,
the unimpaired workers matched with them had the
best record of any of the several unimpaired groups.

This tends to accentuate but does not account for the
difference. There were also more instances among the
peptic ulcer cases of very high absenteeism: 3.7 per
cent of these impaired workers as against 1.4 percent
of their matched unimpaired workers had rates of
20.0 or higher.
T

a b l e

H - 3 .— Percentage distribution of 428 'peptic ulcer cases

and 806 unimpaired workers, by absenteeism frequency rate 1
Absenteeism frequency rate class

Impaired

0________________________________________________
0.1 and under 1.0_________________ ___ __________
1.0 and under 2.0_____ _________________
_ ___ _
2.0 and under 3.0_____ _______ ___ __ _ _ _____ __
3.0 and under 4.0__ _ _______ __
_________
4.0 and under 5.0_____ __ _______ ________ ________
5.0 and under 7.0___________ ________ _____________
7.0 and under 10.0________________________________
10.0 and under 20.0------------------------------------ ------20.0 and over_____________________________________
Total______________________________________

Unimpaired

16.5
14.7
8.4
12.1
8.2
8.0
6.5
9.1
12.8
3.7

27.3
16.7
15.8
11.8
6.3
6.1
6.1
3.8
4.7
1.4

100.0

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

Information on reason for absence was obtained
wherever possible. In this particular survey group
fairly good coverage was obtained, a reason for ab
sence was available for well over half of all the ab
sences recorded. The rates attributable to various
reasons for absence are shown in table H -4. It is at
once apparent that absence because of illness is the
factor which accounts for the higher absenteeism rate
among the peptic ulcer cases.
T

a b l e

H - 4 .— Absenteeism frequency rates 1 for 428 peptic ulcer

cases and 806 unimpaired workers, by reason for absence
Reason for absence

Impaired

Unimpaired

Total________________ ________ ___________________

5.4

Illness___________________________________________________ __

3.1

Personal business____________________ ______ __ __
Unknown_______________________ ____ _____________

.9
.3

1.9

1.7

2.9

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

In brief, the peptic ulcer cases tended toward a
higher rate of absenteeism than unimpaired workers
matched with them on the same jobs, and the dif
ference is accounted for by a higher incidence of ab
sence because of illness. It was not possible to deter
mine how much of this illness absenteeism among the
peptic ulcer cases was attributable to the impairment,
but it seems reasonable to believe that a substantial
part of it was.
Nondisabling Injury Experience
A nondisabling injury was defined as one which did
not result in a permanent impairment or in any loss
of time beyond the day or shift on which it occurred.

108

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

The experience of the group shown in table H -l is
expressed as a rate based on 10,000 exposure-hours.
Individual rates used to establish the frequency dis
tribution in table H -5 are based on 1,000 exposurehours. Data on this factor were available for 424 of
the peptic ulcer cases and their 799 matched unim
paired workers.
As a group the impaired workers had about the
same nondisabling injury experience as did the un
impaired workers exposed to the same hazards. The
group rates were 11.0 and 11.1 per 10,000 exposurehours for the impaired and unimpaired groups, re
spectively. The difference in injury experience rep
resented by these rates is not significant.
Comparison of the individual rates by means of
a frequency distribution further emphasizes the sim
ilarity of the injury experience. 39 percent of the
impaired workers and 44 percent of the unimpaired
had no injuries at all during the periods studied. The
overwhelming majority in both groups had a moder
ate injury experience, with 82 percent of the workers
in each group showing a frequency rate of less than
2 per 1,000 exposure-hours. As would be expected
there were some instances of poor performance in
both groups: about 1 percent of the impaired and 2
percent of the unimpaired had excessively high rates
of 10.0 or higher.
T a b l e H - 5 .— Percentage distribution of 4®4 peptic ulcer cases

and 799 unimpaired workers, by frequency rate 1 of nondis
abling injury
Frequency rate class

Impaired

Unimpaired

_________ _______ ____________________________
0
0.1 and under 1.0_________ _______________________
1.0 and under 2.0__________________________ ______
2.0 and under 5.0___________________________ . . . 5.0 and under 10.0______________________________ 10.0 and over_____________________________________

39.2
25.0
17.9
13.9
3.1
.9

44.2
21.2
16.6
12.7
3.5
1.8

Total______________________________________

100.0

1 Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.

For each of the nondisabling injuries the nature of
the injury was also recorded. The rate attributable
to the various kinds of injury show a practically
identical pattern in the two groups. The peptic ulcer
cases did not show any proneness toward injury of
some particular nature. In light of the similarity of
the experience it seems reasonable to conclude that
the injuries were attributable to the hazards of the
jobs, not to the impairments which characterized
one of the groups.

T a b l e H - 6 .— Frequency rates 1 of nondisabling injury for 4%4

'peptic ulcer cases and 799 unimpaired workers, by nature o f
injury
Nature of injury

Impaired

Unimpaired

Total__________________ _________________________

11.0

11.1

Burns and scalds____________ _____________________
Cuts and abrasions____________ ___ ____________
Eye injuries._______ _____ _________ . . . _____. . .
Strains and sprains_______________________________
Other____ __ ______________________ ___________

.7
7.4
2.1
.6
.2

.6
7.4
2.1
.5
.5

1 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.

An effort was made to determine whether there
was any difference in the severity of the nondis
abling injuries in the two groups. While not entirely
satisfactory, a rough indication can be found in the
number of redressings required for such injuries.
Practices in requiring or encouraging redressings
varied widely among companies but impaired and
unimpaired were affected alike in each company.
The difference again is negligible and the similarity
pronounced. Among the impaired group the average
was 0.8 redressings per nondisabling injury and
among the matched unimpaired, 1.1 redressings per
injury.
So far as this type of injury is concerned, the pep
tic ulcer cases and the matched unimpaired workers
had a practically identical experience. Injuries of
the same nature were experienced with the same
frequency and were of about equal severity in the
two groups.
A final consideration in connection with the medi
cal record was use of medical facilities for nonindus
trial purposes, i.e., visits to the dispensary occa
sioned by causes not related to the workers’ employ
ment. Again, company policies varied with regard
to such use of medical facilities as well as to the
extent of the medical facilities maintained. How
ever, in each plant the conditions as they affected
the impaired and unimpaired were the same. The
peptic ulcer cases made somewhat greater use of
plant medical facilities than did their matched unim
paired workers. During the periods studied the
impaired workers of this survey group averaged 3.7
nonindustrial visits per person while the matched
unimpaired averaged 2.9 such visits per person.
This seems to be of a pattern with the higher inci
dence of illness absenteeism among the peptic ulcer
cases.

3. THE PEPTIC ULCER CASES

Disabling Injury Experience
Frequency. A disabling injury was defined as one
which resulted in a permanent impairment or in a
time loss of one full day or more beyond the day or
.shift on which the injury occurred, and the frequency
rate was computed on the conventional base of one
million exposure-hours. Data were available for 428
peptic ulcer cases and 806 unimpaired workers
matched with them.
The frequency rate was higher for the impaired
group than for the matched unimpaired workers,
10.7 and 8.7, respectively. In this instance the few
female impaired workers exercised a marked influ
ence on the group rate. For the 414 impaired males
and their 778 matched unimpaired workers, the fre
quency rates were 9.7 and 9.0. For the larger group
of male workers, then, the difference in the dis
abling injury rate was hardly significant.
The number of injuries experienced were too few
to establish any sort of a pattern in either group.
Among the peptic ulcer cases the nature of the in
juries varied widely and there was no proneness
indicated toward any particular kind of injury.
Materials available in company files, such as acci
dent reports, accident cause analyses, etc., were
examined for each of the injuries recorded for the
survey group to determine whether the accident was
caused or contributed to by the existence of the im
pairment. This aspect of the study was also dis
cussed with the safety director or other responsible
company officials. In none of the injuries recorded
for this survey group was there a causal relationship
indicated between the injury and the worker’s im
pairment or the impairment of a fellow worker. So
far as this survey group is concerned, the existence
of the impairment was not considered an accident
factor, and the peptic ulcer cases were not a hazard
either to themselves or to their fellow workers.
Time Lost. Given the fairly close similarity in the
Injury frequency rates, it was possible that the* time
lost as a result of such injury might have been dis
proportionately higher among the impaired workers
because of either slower recovery or greater severity.
Expressed as a rate, the time lost amounted to 0.10
and 0.12 days per 100 scheduled days for the im
paired and unimpaired, respectively. On a per in
jury basis the difference was even more pronounced.

109

Among the peptic ulcer cases the time lost averaged
11.6 days per injury, while among the matched un
impaired the time lost averaged 18.0 days per injury.
This might be a substantial difference when con
sidered in terms of compensation and insurance costs.
Output Relative
In the present survey group such data were avail
able for only 33 of the peptic ulcer cases and their 58
matched unimpaired workers. While these data were
included in computing the output relative for the
entire survey group, the number of peptic ulcer cases
was considered too small to warrant showing sepa
rate performance figures.
Quit Rate
An attempt was made to measure the relative sta
bility on the job of impaired and matched unim
paired workers by determining the number of
voluntary quits in each group during the 6 months
following the end of the survey period. These data
were obtained by means of follow-up but unfortu
nately cover only a comparatively small group —
195 of the peptic ulcer cases and 357 matched
unimpaired workers. The rate reflects the number
of quits per 100 employees.
The quit rate was substantially higher for the
peptic ulcer cases, 4.6 as against 2.0 for the matched
unimpaired workers. Two of the impaired workers
constituted the only quits because of health reasons.
For two of the impaired and one of the unimpaired
no reason was obtainable. The largest number, 3 of
the impaired and 5 of the unimpaired, quit to accept
other jobs or to start business of their own. Alto
gether there were 9 quits among the peptic ulcer
cases and 7 among the matched unimpaired workers.
In addition to the fact that the group covered is
small, the time period which had to be used was an
unsettled one. Postwar readjustments were under
way in many places with resultant reductions in
force and changes in personnel requirements. Some
of the workers too had taken wartime employment
and after the emergency had passed either withdrew
from the labor force or returned to former occupa
tions. Even considering these factors, however, the
peptic ulcer cases were indicated as being somewhat
less stable on the job.

110

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

I. The Diabetic Cases
Summary of Statistical Findings
The diabetic cases as a group did not make quite
as good a record of work performance as did the un
impaired workers with whom they were matched.
Specifically, they were a little less regular in their
work attendance and experienced a somewhat higher
incidence of work injuries than the unimpaired work
ers on the same jobs. Data on individual production
and voluntary quits were available for too few cases
to permit showing separate performance figures for
this group.
The findings are subject to qualification because
of the small number of observations on which they
are based and are presented primarily as a matter of
interest.

the same jobs. Workers listed as diabetic cases on the
medical record but not confirmed by test could not
be included in the study either as impaired or as
unimpaired workers.
There was a marked concentration of the diabetic
cases in the older age groups. Only 8 percent of the
diabetic cases as against 14 percent of the other im
paired workers were under the age of 30. More than
50 percent of the diabetic cases fell within the 15year range from 45 to 60 years. Also, about 37 per
cent of the diabetic cases but only 28 percent of the
other impaired workers were 55 years of age or older.
T a b l e 1 -2 . — Comparison of number and percentage distribution

144 diabetic cases and 10,884

Number of workers

T a b l e 1 -1 .— Work performance of diabetic cases and of matched

unimpaired workers
Number of workers

Age group

Absenteeism frequency rate1___
Nondisabling injury:
Frequency rate2___________
Disabling injury:
Frequency rate3___________
Time-lost rate4 ________ __
Average days of disability5
Output relative5_______________
Quit rate 3_____________________

Unimpaired

Impaired

Unimpaired

144

244

4.4

3.1

143

243

7.8

7.4

144
144

244
244

(7)
(7)

15.6
.11
9.3
(7)
(7)

12.9
.07
7.2
(7)
(7)

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
2 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
3 Number of injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
4 Number of days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.
5 Number of days of disability per disabling injury.
6 Percentage relationship of production efficiency of impaired to that of matched
unimpaired.
7 Data available for too few cases to permit showing performance figures.
8 Number of voluntary quits per 100 employees in the survey group.

Composition of the Survey Group
Eligible for inclusion in the survey group were all
workers carried on the medical records of the com
pany as diabetic cases and for whom the diagnosis
had been confirmed by glucose tolerance test. The
survey group is made up of all such impaired workers
with whom unimpaired workers could be matched on

Diabetic
cases

Other
impaired

Percent
Diabetic
cases

Other
impaired

Average performance

Factor
Impaired

other impaired workers studied,

by age group

Total__________________________

144

10,884

100.0

Under 20 years________________
20 and under 25 years__________
25 and under 30 years__________
30 and under 35 years _________
35 and under 40 years__________
40 and under 45 years__________
45 and under 50 years__________
50 and under 55 years'__________
55 and under 60 years__________
60 and under 65 years__________
65 years and over______________

1
3
7
12
11
12
25
20
30
18
5

78
508
894
1,105
1,173
1,226
1,287
1,542
1,513
1,070
488

.7
2.1
4.9
8.3
7.6
8.3
17.4
13.9
20.8
12.5
3.5

.7
4.7
8.2
10.1
10.8*
11.3
11.8
14.2:
13.9
9.8
4.5

A total of 144 diabetic cases were encountered
which could be matched with unimpaired workers,
making this group ninth in size among the 10 im
pairments studied. Only 8 of the diabetic cases were
females, consequently no performance figures by sex
are shown.
This impairment was one of the three added on
recommendation of the advisory committee after the
study was already under way. Consequently, if any
of these cases were present in the first 10 plants
studied they were not picked up. However, this
fact alone would not account for the very small
number of cases encountered.

111

I. THE DIABETIC CASES

Industry and Occupational Coverage
Although the cases were few in total, they repre
sent 15 of the 19 major industry groups and 45 of the
99 plants studied subsequent to the addition of this
impairment group. In some of the plants not repre
sented, diabetic cases were employed but could not
be included in the study because they could not be
matched with unimpaired workers.
The jobs at which these impaired workers were
employed are listed below. As was true of the

other impairment groups studied, the concentration
was heaviest in the processing or producing opera
tions. Also, the range and variety of skill require
ments represented by these jobs is very broad. It
was to be expected that the more-skilled jobs would
be fairly common because this group tended toward
the higher age brackets. It is possible, too, that the
impairment developed toward middle life after skills
had been acquired, although information on duration
of impairment was not obtainable from company
records in any significant number of cases.

Jobs at which 144 Diabetic Cases of the survey group were found employed
[T itles used are those appearing in the U n ited States E m p lo y m e n t Service D ictio n a ry o f O ccu p ation a l T itles and are grou ped and n u m bered a cco rd in g to
the classifications used b y the W a g e A nalysis B ran ch of the B ureau of L a bor Statistics. T h is is n o t t o be interp reted as a com p lete listing o f jo b s at
w hich persons w ith diabetic im pairm ent can be e m p lo y e d ]

1. Maintenance

4. Inspection and Testing

General assembler I I
Job setter I I

Bricklayer II
Carpenter
Compositor I
Electrical repairman
Electrician, powerhouse
Flame-cutter operator
Glass blower, laboratory apparatus
Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (rayon and allied products)
Machinist II
Maintenance mechanic I I
Oiler I
Pipe-fitter helper
Sheet-metal worker II
T ool maker
W ater filterer

Laborer (furniture)

Checker I

Laborer (m alt liquors)

Experimental mechanic
Gager I

Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys

and

•products)

Inspector (machine shop)

Laborer, process (aluminum products)

Inspector and tester

Laborer, process (automobile manufac

Laborer, process (fabricated plastic prod
ucts)

turing)
Laborer, process (bakery products)
Laborer, process (electrical equipment)
Laborer, process (glass manufacturing)

5. Recording and Control

Laborer, process (plastic material)

Checker

Laborer, process (plumbing supplies)

Laborer (machine tools and accessories)

Laborer, process (wire)
Line walker
Machinist apprentice

6. Material Movement

Milling-machine operator, automatic

3. Processing

Power-shear operator I
Pumpman V I I

Anodic operator
Automobile mechanic, motor I

Pumpman helper
Punch-press operator I

Bench grinder

Saw filer, machine

Box maker, wood I I I

Screw-machine operator, semiautomatic

Brakeman, automobile

Sewing-machine operator (shirts and re

Burrer, hand
Cigarette-packing-machine operator

Stillman I I

Cylinder-press man

Still-operator helper

Desk assembler

Straightener, hand

Die-casting-machine operator II

Subassembler

Die maker II

Surface-grinder operator

Drier operator

Template maker IV

Engine-lathe operator

Tool-grinder operator

lated products)

Distributor I
Electric-bridge-crane operator
Laborer (ammunition)
Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (glass manufacturing)
Laborer (machinery manufacturing)
Laborer (machine tools and accessories)
Laborer (m alt liquors)
Laborer (nonferrous metal alloys and
products)
Laborer (wire)
Truck driver, heavy

7. Custodial

Fireman, still

Tool maker

Gateman IV

Final assembler V I I

Treater I I

Laborer (aircraft manufacturing)

Floor assembler

Vertical-boring-mill operator

Porter I

Forming-press operator I

Welder, spot

Porter I I

Furnace tender, heat treating

Wire drawer I I I

W atchman I

112

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Placement Practices
The physical examination generally was con
sidered important in these cases in order to deter
mine whether there was any involvement of such a
nature as to require reduced activity. Particularly
where the case had a history of visual, cardiac, or
other impairment, it was necessary for the placement
officer to have an inventory of the applicant's physi
cal abilities in order to make proper work assignment.
Special provisions for employment of diabetic cases
were not encountered in the present study. Assign
ments were made by the same placement officers who
handled other impaired workers, and the same clear
ance of transfers, etc., was required.
The diabetic cases were not the subject of exclusion
policies in many plants. In only eight of the plants
studied was there an exclusion policy prohibiting em
ployment of diabetic cases; but, nevertheless, very
few of these cases were encountered. There are a
number of reasons which may serve to account for
this seeming contradiction: (1) The incidence of this
impairment may be relatively low in comparison
with the others studied; (2) because of the nature of
the treatment these cases may not ordinarily seek
factory employment; or (3) they may not be as read
ily accepted for employment as the absence of formal
exclusion policies would seem to indicate.

Work Performance
The findings relating to the comparative work per
formance of the diabetic cases and the unimpaired
workers matched with them on the same jobs are
summarized in table 1-1 and the following para
graphs. It must be borne in mind that these results
are based on a comparatively small number of obser
vations and consequently are influenced by extreme
cases. For that reason, only limited reliance should
be placed on findings for this impairment group.
Absenteeism
An absence was defined as absence of a full day
or more on days on which the employee was scheduled
to work. Regular vacations, lay-offs, shut-downs,
etc., were not counted either as days absent or as days
scheduled to work. The absenteeism rate reflects the
number of days of such absence per 100 scheduled
workdays.

Data were available for 144 diabetic cases and for
244 unimpaired workers matched with them. As a
group the impaired workers were not as regular in
their work attendance as the unimpaired workers.
Respectively, the rates were 4.4 and 3.1 per 100
scheduled workdays. This difference, while not ex
treme, does mark a tendency toward greater absen
teeism on the part of the diabetic cases as a group.
The individual rates of absenteeism, computed in
the same way as the group rates, are compared by
means of a frequency distribution in table 1-3. About
24 percent of the diabetic cases and 26 percent of the
unimpaired workers had no absences at all during the
period studied; 55 percent of the impaired and 57
percent of the unimpaired had rates of 1.9 or less.
Thus, slightly more than half of each group fell within
the low frequency classes. It is in the extremely high
rates that the difference in the performance of the
two groups is apparent: 15 percent of the impaired
as against only 8 percent of the unimpaired had ex
cessively high frequency rates of 10.0 or more. While
the major portion of the workers in each group were
about equally regular in their work attendance, ex
treme cases were more common among the impaired
workers and raised the group rate of the impaired
over that of the unimpaired.
T a b l e 1 -3 .— Percentage distribution of 144 diabetic cases and

244 unimpaired

workers, by absenteeism frequency rate 1

Absenteeism frequency rate class
0________________________________________________
0.1 and under 1.0__________________________ ______
1.0 and under 2.0_______ ________ __ _____________
2.0 and under 4.0_____________________ _________ __
___ ___
4.0 and under 7 . 0 ___________________
7.0 and under 10.0 __ ________________________ _
10.0 and under 20.0____________________
_______
20.0 and over_____________________________ _____
Total__________________ _______ ___________

Impaired

Unimpaired

23.5
16.6
14.6
12.5
11.2
6.3
11.1
4.2

26.3
16.5
14.0
18.0
9.3
7.8
6.1
2.0

100.0

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

Wherever the data were available, the reason was
recorded for each absence. Unfortunately, reason for
absence was available from the records for only a
little more than half the absences reported. However,
where the reason was known, the diabetic cases
showed an absence rate because of illness twice as
high as that of the unimpaired workers. On the other
hand, absences because of personal business were
much less frequent among the impaired workers. It
seems reasonable to conclude that illness of the em
ployee accounted for the higher group absenteeism
rate among the impaired workers and probably for a
substantial number of the extremely high individual

113

I. THE DIABETIC CASES

rates. It could not be determined from the material
at hand how much of the illness absenteeism among
the impaired workers was related to the impairment,
although opinion expressed by several plant physi
cians indicated that much of it was.
T a b l e 1 -4 .— Absenteeism frequency rates 1for 144 diabetic cases

and

244 unimpaired workers,

by reason for absence

Reason for absence

Impaired

Unimpaired

Total______________ ______ _______________________

4.4

3.1

Illness___________________________________________
Personal business_________________________________
Unknown_______________________ _______ _____ ____

2.6
.1
1.7

1.3
.4
1.4

The nature of the injury was recorded in each case
and the rates attributable to the various kinds of in
jury in each group are shown in table 1-6. In general,
the pattern of the rates in the two groups is fairly
similar. Cuts and abrasions, experienced most fre
quently in both groups, had a somewhat higher rate
among the impaired workers. There is a possibility
that, because of the ever-present and serious danger
of infection which accompanies diabetes, workers
with this impairment would be more conscientious in
reporting even the most minor injuries for immediate
treatment. This factor might bear an influence on
these rates.

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
T able

1 -6 .— Nondisabling injury frequency rates 1 for 143

diabetic cases and 243 unimpaired workers, by nature of injury

Nondisabling Injury Experience

Nature of injury

A nondisabling injury was defined as one which did
not result in a permanent impairment or in any loss
of time beyond the day or shift on which the injury
occurred. The frequency rate was computed for the
group as the number of injuries per 10,000 exposurehours and for each individual as the number of in
juries per 1,000 exposure-hours.
The nondisabling injury experience was about the
same in the two groups. The impaired had a rate of
7.8 as against 7.4 for the unimpaired. Considering
that these were minor injuries without any resultant
loss of time, the difference was not considered sig
nificant.
Comparison of the individual rates supports the
similarity of experience indicated by the group rates:
51 percent of the impaired and 56 percent of the un
impaired experienced no injuries at all during the
period studied; 86 percent of the impaired and 87
percent of the unimpaired had rates of 1.9 or lower
per 1,000 exposure-hours. Extreme cases were very
few in both groups. Ouly 2.8 percent of the impaired
and 1.6 percent of the unimpaired had rates of 5.0 or
higher.
T a b l e 1 -5 .— Percentage distribution of 143 diabetic cases and

243 unimpaired workers, by frequency rate 1 of nondisabling
injury
Frequency rate class
0_____ ___________________________________________
0.1 and under 1.0-------- ------- ----------------- ------------1.0 and under 2.0__________ _____ _____ ___________
2.0 and under 5.0_______________________________ _
5.0 and under 10.0 _ - __________________ ______
10.0 and over_____________________________________
Total_____________ _________ ________ ______
1 Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.

Impaired

Unimpaired

51.0
22.4
12.6
11.2
2.8
0

56.5
19.3
11.5
11.1
.8
.8

100.0

Total_______________________

Burns and scalds_______________________ _____ _____
Cuts and abrasions_______________________ ________
Eye injuries____________ __________ __ ___________
Strains and sprains________________
___
___ __
Other____________________________ _______ ________

Impaired

Unimpaired

7.8

7.4

.4
5.7
1.2
.4
.1

.2
5.0
1.6
.4
.2

1 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.

As a measure of the severity of the nondisabling
injuries, data on the number of redressings were taken
in each case where available. Policies of course varied
widely between plants with respect to encouraging or
requiring redressings but were the same for impaired
and unimpaired workers in any given plant. As in
dicated by this measure, the severity was slightly
greater among the diabetic cases, where the redress
ings averaged 1.3 per injury as against 0.8 per injury
among the unimpaired. This finding, too, may be
conditioned by the nature of the impairment and the
realization on the part of the impaired worker of the
necessity for complete care of even the most minor
injury.
A final consideration in connection with the med
ical record was nonindustrial use of plant medical
facilities. A nonindustrial visit was defined as a dis
pensary visit for illness or injury not related to the
worker’s employment. Such visits were more fre
quent among the impaired workers, with an average
of 1.7 as against an average of 0.8 per person among
the unimpaired. Again, it seems reasonable to believe
that some substantial part of these visits were at
tributable to the existence of the impairment.
In brief, the medical and nondisabling injury rec
ords for the two groups of workers were fairly similar.
Nondisabling injuries had about the same frequency

114

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

and were similar in nature. The injuries among the
impaired either tended to be a little more severe or,
perhaps because of the impairment, required a little
longer period of attention. The record indicated that
the diabetic cases tended to make a somewhat greater
but not excessive number of nonindustrial visits to
the dispensary.

by the amount of time lost was slightly greater for
the diabetic cases. As a rate, the impaired lost 0.11
and the unimpaired 0.07 days per 100 scheduled
workdays. On a per injury basis, the impaired aver
aged 9.3 and the unimpaired 7.2 days of time loss per
injury. Again, however, since the data reflect only 4
injuries in each group the findings are hardly reliable.

Disabling Injury Experience

Output Relative

Frequency. A disabling work injury was defined as
one which resulted in a permanent impairment or in
a time loss of at least one full day beyond the day or
shift on which the injury occurred. The rate is com
puted on the conventional base to reflect the number
of injuries per million exposure-hours. With the
present small group, the million-hour base may tend
to inflate the rate somewhat, as the impaired workers
had a total of less than half a million exposure-hours
and the unimpaired just over a million.
As a group the impaired workers had a substan
tially higher rate than the unimpaired, 15.6 and 12.9,
respectively. Actually, there were four disabling in
juries among the impaired and four among the un
impaired workers. This number is obviously too small
to provide basis for analysis. It should be noted,
however, that none of the injuries among the im
paired involved infection, a serious possibility in dia
betic cases.
Time Lost

The severity of the injuries as measured

Measured individual output data were available
for only five of the diabetic cases matched with seven
unimpaired workers on the same jobs. While these
data have been included in computing the output rel
ative for the total survey group, no separate perform
ance figures are shown for the diabetic cases.
It should be noted that some of the diabetic cases
were employed on group piecework. Although no in
dividual production data could be obtained for these
workers, they must have been able to keep up with
the pace of the group in order to hold their jobs.
Quit Rate
Data with which to compute a rate of voluntary
quits were not obtainable for a sufficiently large num
ber of the diabetic cases to permit showing separate
performance figures for this group. The data, how
ever, have been included in computing the quit rate
for the total survey group.

115

J. THE EPILEPTIC CASES

J. The Epileptic Cases
Summary of Statistical Findings
The epileptic cases did not make quite as good a
record of work performance as the unimpaired work
ers matched with them. Specifically, regularity of
work attendance, as measured by the absenteeism
frequency rate, was about the same; and the inci
dence of nondisabling and disabling work injuries was
slightly higher among the impaired workers. How
ever, the differences in the various performance rates
are, for the most part, too small to be considered sig
nificant. Data on measured individual production
and voluntary quits were not available for a suffi
ciently large number of the epileptic cases to permit
showing performance figures.
The findings for this group are of only limited re
liability because of the small number of observations
available, and performance data are shown primarily
as a matter of interest.

workers could be matched on the same jobs were in
cluded in the survey group. Wherever possible, the
cases were classified as petit mal or grand mal, but
this information was available from the records in
very few instances.
The age pattern of the epileptic cases was very
similar to that of the remainder of the impaired
worker group. The epileptic cases tended slightly to
ward the higher age groups, but the tendency was not
pronounced.
Only 4 of the 134 epileptic cases studied were fe
males, and consequently no break-down of the per
formance figures by sex is shown.
T able J-2.— Comparison of number and percentage distribution
of 134 epileptic cases and 10,894 other impaired workers studied,
by age group
Number of workers

Percent

Age group
Epileptic
cases

Other
impaired

Epileptic
cases

Other
impaired

T able J -l. — W ork 'performance of epileptic cases and of
matched unimpaired workers
Number of workers

Total_____________ _____ _______

Average performance

Factor
Unimpaired

Impaired

Unimpaired

134

208

3.7

3.6

134

208

5.5

4.0

134
134

208
208

(7)
(7)

8.3
.02
3.0
(7)
(7)

7.6
.13
22.8
(7)
(7)

Impaired
Absenteeism frequency rate1___
Nondisabling injury:
Frequency rate2___________
Disabling injury:
Frequency rate3___________
Time-lost rate4____________
Average days of disability 5_
Output relative6_______________
♦Quit rate8_____________________

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.
2 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.
3 Number of injuries per 1,000,000 exposure-hours.
4 Number of days lost for disabling injury per 100 scheduled workdays.
5 Number of days of disability per disabling injury.
6 Percentage relationship of production efficiency of impaired to that of matched
^unimpaired.
7 Data available for too few cases to permit showing performance figures.
3 Number of voluntary quits per 100 employees in the survey group.

Composition of the Survey Group
All persons who were listed in the company medical
records as epileptic cases and with whom unimpaired

Under 20 years. .......... ..... ...........
20 and under 25 years__________
25 and under 30 years_____ __ _
30 and under 35 years____________
35 and under 40 y e a r s ________
40 and under 45 years__________
45 and under 50 years__________
50 and under 55 years__________
55 and under 60 y e a r s ___________
60 and under 65 years__________
65 years and over______________

134

10,894

100.0

1
9
7
9
16
18
14
18
23
15
4

78
502
894
1,108
1,168
1,220
1,298
1,544
1,520
1,073
489

.8
6.7
5.2
6.7
11.9
13.4
10.5
13.4
17.2
11.2
3.0

.7
4.6
8.2
10.2
10.7
11.2
11.9
14.2
14.0
9.8
4.5

Industry and Occupational Coverage
The epileptic cases were less widely dispersed on
an industry basis than any of the other impairment
groups studied. Only 12 of the 19 major industry
groups covered by the study are represented in the
epileptic group.
This is one of the 3 impairment groups added on
recommendation of the advisory committee after the
study had begun. Consequently, any epileptic cases
in the first 10 plants studied would not have been

116

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

picked up. However, only 29 of the 99 plants studied
after inclusion of this impairment are represented in
the survey group. In a few of the plants not repre
sented, epileptics were employed but could not be
matched with unimpaired workers. The number of
such instances was not very great, however, and
comparatively few epileptic cases were encountered
throughout the study.

The jobs at which the epileptic cases were em
ployed are listed below. The concentration in
the processing or producing operations was fairly
heavy, with a secondary concentration in main
tenance work. The variety of skill requirements
among the jobs listed was broad, ranging from un
skilled labor to the highly skilled machinist classi
fications.

Jobs at which 184 Epileptic Cases of the survey group were found employed
[T itle s used are those appearing in the U n ited States E m p lo ym e n t Service D ictio n a ry o f O ccu p ation a l T itles a n d are grou p ed an d n u m bered a ccord in g t o
the classifications used b y the W a g e A n alysis B ran ch of the B u reau o f L a b or Statistics. T h is is n o t t o be interpreted as a com p le te listing o f jo b s atw hich persons w ith epilep tic im pairm ent can be e m p lo y e d ]

1. Maintenance

4. Inspection and Testing

Heater, forge
Honing-machine

operator,

semiauto

matic
Laborer (petroleum refining)

Balancer I
Checker

Electrician, powerhouse

Laborer, process (automobile manufac
turing)

Core checker

Laborer (building)

Laborer, process (chemical)

Inspector I

Laborer (electrical equipment)

Laborer, process (electrical equipment)

Inspector, chief I

Laborer (foundry)

Laborer, process (machinery parts)

Inspector, machine shop

Laborer (petroleum refining)

Laborer, process (nonferrous metal al

Inspector, raw materials

Carpenter
Electrical repairman
Electrical instrument repairman

Machinist I I

Laborer, process (fabricated plastic

loys and products)

products)

Oiler I

Ladleman I I

Pipe-fitter helper

L ay-out man, machine shop

Plumber

Loader Y I I
Machinist II

Tool maker

Machinist, bench

Welder, combination

Mechanical engineer II
Molder, bench

Automobile mechanic, motor I
Buffer I

Tester I

5. Recording and Control

Plumber apprentice

3. Processing

Casting inspector

Chemist assistant II

M otor adjuster
Multiple-spindle-drill-press operator
Pourer, crane ladle

Shipping checker
Stock clerk I I
Tool clerk

6. Material Movement

Chipper, foundry

Power-press operator I
Punch-press operator I

Coremaker, machine I

Sand^linger operator

Core-oven tender

Screw-machine operator, automatic

Laborer (glass manufacturing)

Core paster
Cylindrical grinder operator

Single-spindle-drill-press operator

Laborer (machine tools and accessories)
Laborer (wire)

Centerless grinder operator

Die maker II

Swinging-cut-off-saw operator
Tool maker

Engine lathe operator

Topping-off operator

Feller, hand

Turret lathe operator

Floor assembler

Welder, arc

Laborer (automobile manufacturing)
Laborer (foundry)

Laborer, process (foundry)

7. Custodial

Furnace tender, heat treating

W ireman V II

Fireman I I I

Glass polisher

Yarn winder

Porter II

Placement Practices
In the plants in which epileptic cases were em
ployed, the placement practices were the same for
these cases as for other impaired workers. With the
inventory of physical abilities supplied by the pre
employment physical examination, the history of the

case, and the job requirements the placement officer
made the assignments; and the customary review of
transfers, follow-up, etc., were practiced. With re
spect to the epileptic cases, the environmental con
ditions were given considerable emphasis. Place
ments had to be made with consideration for the
possibility of seizure during working hours. In the

117

J. THE EPILEPTIC CASES

event of such seizure, certain types of machine opera
tions, the presence of moving equipment, or work
above ground level might prove to be extremely
hazardous for these cases.
It is probable that the epileptic case might have
the physical capacity to perform any job for which he
had the requisite skill. The determination of place
ment in these cases revolves primarily around a
contingency. What will be the results if the worker
has a seizure on the job? This factor complicates the
placement problem for these cases.
The nature of the seizures and the time of their
occurrence are also matters to be considered in these
cases. During the study a number of plant physi
cians expressed the opinion that recent developments
and discoveries in methods of treatment and medica
tion may make significant strides in controlling the
seizures and consequently increase the employability
of persons with this impairment.
Admittedly, the problem of safe placement for
these cases presents serious difficulties at present.
An additional obstacle to employment of epileptic
cases is the reaction on the part of other employees
when the impaired person has a seizure during work
ing hours. Instances were encountered in the study
in which plants had attempted to use epileptic cases
but had discontinued the practice because of unfav
orable reaction on the part of the other workers.
Definite exclusion policies prohibiting the employ
ment of epileptic cases were encountered in 32 plants.
Exclusion policies were encountered more frequently
for only one impairment, hernia, excluded in 33
plants. However, in number of actually employed
cases, hernia was highest and epilepsy lowest among
the 10 impairments studied.

Work Performance
The elements of work performance for the epileptic
cases and the unimpaired workers matched with
them are summarized in table J - l and the following
paragraphs.
Absenteeism
An absence was defined as absence of a full day
or more on days on which the employee was sched
uled to work. Lay-offs, shut-downs, and regular
vacations were not included as either days absent or
days scheduled to work. The rates reflect the num
ber of days absent per 100 scheduled workdays.

As a group the epileptic cases and the unimpaired
workers matched with them were about equally
regular in their work attendance. Rates for the two
groups were 3.7 and 3.6 for the impaired and unim
paired, respectively.
Comparison of the individual rates by means of the
frequency distribution in table J-3 bears out the
similarity of performance indicated by the group
rates. Seventeen percent of the epileptic cases and
18 percent of the unimpaired had no absences during
the periods studied. More than half of each group,
55 percent of the impaired and 52 percent of the un
impaired, had nominal absence rates of 1.9 or lower.
A number of the workers in each group, 3 percent of
the epileptic cases and 2 percent of the unimpaired,
had excessively high rates of 20.0 or higher. These
isolated instances of poor performance would be
expected in any sizable group of workers and dupli
cate the experience in the other impairment groups
studied.
T able J-3.— Percentage distribution of 184 epileptic cases and
208 unimpaired workers, by absenteeism frequency rate 1
Absenteeism frequency rate class

Impaired

Unimpaired

0__________________________
0.1 and under 1.0_ _______________________________
1.0 and under 2,0_________ _______________________
2.0 and under 3.0_________________________________
3.0 and under 5.0_________________________________
5.0 and under 7.0____________ _______ _______ _____
7.0 and under 10.0_______________________________
10.0 and under 20.0__________________________ ___
20.0 and over______________ ______________________

17.2
17.2
21.0
16.4
4.4
9.0
2.9
8.9
3.0

18 3
21.6
12.0
16.3
12.5
6.3
5.7
5.3
2.0

Total_____________ _____ ___________________

100.0

i Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

An effort was made to determine whether epileptic
cases tended toward higher rates of absenteeism for
specific reasons. Unfortunately, adequate informa
tion on this point was not available from company
records. No reason for absence was given for more
than half the total absences recorded. In the portion
for which the reason was given, however, there seems
to be no material difference between the impaired
and unimpaired groups.
T able J-4.— Absenteeism frequency rates 1 for 184 epileptic
cases and 208 unimpaired workers, by reason for absence
Reason for absence

Impaired

Unimpaired

Total____ ________________ _________

3.7

3.6

Illness__________________________
Personal business. _________ _____ ______
_
Unknown_____
____________________ __ __ _

1.4
.2
2.1

1.3
ll
2.2

1 Number of days lost per 100 scheduled workdays.

118

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Nondisabling Injury Experience

T able

J - 6 .— Nondisabling injury frequency rates1 for 134

epileptic cases and 208 unimpaired workers, by nature of injury

A nondisabling injury was defined as a work-con
nected injury which did not result in any loss of time
beyond the day or shift on which the injury oc
curred. The rates for the groups reflect the number of
such injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours. The rate for
each individual was computed for purposes of the
frequency distribution on a base of 1,000 exposurehours.
As a group the epileptic cases experienced a slightly
higher incidence of nondisabling injuries than the
matched unimpaired workers. The rates for the two
groups were 5.5 and 4.0, respectively. The difference
is small and considering the type of injury involved
is probably not significant.
Compared on an individual basis, the similarity of
the experience in the two groups was even more
marked: 63 percent of the impaired and 71 percent
of the unimpaired had no injuries during the period
studied; 92 percent of the epileptic cases and 93
percent of the unimpaired workers had very favor
able rates of 1.9 or lower. It was the slightly larger
number of epileptic cases with rates of 5.0 or higher—
2.2 percent as against 0.5 percent of the unimpaired—
which influenced the group averages.
T able J - 5 .— Percentage distribution of 134 epileptic cases and
208 unimpaired workers, by frequency rate 1 of nondisabling
injury
Frequency rate class

Impaired

Unimpaired

0____ ________________ ____________________________
0.1 and under 1.0___________ _____________________
1.0 and under 2.0_____ __________ _______________
2.0 and under 5.0___________________ ________ _____
5.0 and under 10.0____________ ___________________
10.0 and over_____________________________ ______ _

62.7
15.7
13.4
6.0
1.5
.7

70.6
11.5
11.1
6.3
.5
0

Total......................................................................

1CO.O

100.0

i Number of injuries per 1,000 exposure-hours.

Data were obtained on nature of injury, and the
rates attributable to the various kinds of injuries in
the two groups are shown in table J-6. The pattern
of the rates in the two groups is very similar, and the
epileptic cases did not show any marked proneness
toward injury of any particular nature. It seems rea
sonable to infer from this that the injuries exper
ienced were attributable to the hazards of the jobs
rather than to the impairment which characterized
one of the groups.

Nature of injury
Total

_ _ _

...

Burns and scalds_________________________________
Cuts and abrasions_______________________________
Eye injuries---------------------------------------------------------Strains and sprains___________________________ ____
Other_____________________________ _______ _______

Impaired

Unimpaired

5.5

4.0

.2
3.2
1.4
.3
.4

.4
2.3
.9
.1
.3

1 Number of injuries per 10,000 exposure-hours.

An attempt was made to measure the severity of
the injuries in terms of the number of redressings re
quired. Policies with respect to encouraging or re
quiring redressings varied among companies but were
the same for impaired and unimpaired workers in
any given company. Measured in this way, the in
juries were, if anything, a little less severe among the
epileptic cases. In this group the nondisabling in
juries averaged 1.6 redressings as against 1.9 per
injury for the matched unimpaired workers.
A final consideration with respect to the medical
record was the use made of plant medical facilities for
nonindustrial illness or injury. This use was defined
as dispensary visits for treatment of illness or injury
not related to the worker’s employment. Again, pol
icies on this point varied among plants but were the
same for impaired and unimpaired workers in the
same plant. The epileptic cases made somewhat the
greater use of plant medical facilities. Visits per per
son during the periods studied averaged 1.1 for the
epileptic cases as against 0.7 for the matched unim
paired.
Disabling Injury Experience
Frequency. A disabling injury was defined as a workconnected injury which resulted in a permanent im
pairment or in a time loss of at least one full day
beyond the day or shift on which the injury occurred.
The frequency rate reflects the number of injuries per
million exposure-hours. Use of this base may tend to
inflate the rate because exposure-hours for the 134
epileptic cases totaled only about a quarter of a
million.
The frequency rate was slightly higher for the ep
ileptic cases, 8.3 as against 7.6 for the unimpaired
group. This difference of less than one injury per
million exposure-hours does not appear significant.

J. THE EPILEPTIC CASES

The number of injuries was not sufficient to provide
a comparison between the two groups with respect to
the nature of the injuries experienced. The impaired
group experienced two injuries and the unimpaired
group three, during the periods studied.
In connection with each disabling injury the ac
cident reports and cause studies in the company files
were examined in an effort to determine whether the
injury was in any way caused or contributed to by
the existing impairment. This subject was also dis
cussed with the safety man and other responsible
company officials. Neither of the injuries experienced
by the epileptic cases were in any way attributable
to the impairment. Similarly, none of the injuries
experienced by the unimpaired workers were caused
or contributed to by a fellow worker’s impairment.
Time Lost. As a measure of the severity of the dis
abling injuries, the time lost has been computed as a
rate showing the days lost per 100 scheduled work
days and also as the number of days lost per injury.
The time-lost rate was 0.02 days and 0.13 days per
hundred scheduled workdays for the impaired and
unimpaired groups, respectively. On a per injury

119

basis, the epileptic cases averaged a time loss of 3.0
days per injury and the unimpaired 22.8 days per
injury. The number of injuries in both groups, how
ever, is too small to support definite conclusions.

Output Relative
Measured individual production data were ob
tainable for only four of the epileptic cases and seven
unimpaired workers matched with them. These data
are included in the computation of the output rela
tive for the total impaired and unimpaired groups,
but no performance figures are shown separately for
the epileptic cases.

Quit Rate
The quit rate was intended to show the number of
voluntary quits per hundred employees of the survey
group during the 6 months following the end of the
survey period. These data were obtainable for only
23 of the epileptic cases, too few to permit showing
separate performance figures for this group.

120

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Appendix
Scope and Method of the Study
r The study posed a considerable number of problems
because of the complexity of the data and the num
ber of factors which had to be measured. It was
found possible, however, to provide reliable measures
by means of standard statistical techniques. As will
be apparent from the following description of the
method used, the solutions to these problems hinged
essentially upon the adaptation of these methods to
the practical considerations of the nature of the in
formation readily available in the records of cooper
ating plants. Basically, the objective of the study
was to compare, over the same period of time, the
work performance of impaired workers with that of
unimpaired workers on the same jobs. The two
groups were matched with respect to such elements
as age, experience, and working conditions, so as to
rule out as many extraneous factors as possible, and
to reduce the difference between the two groups to
only one important factor: The existence of a serious
physical impairment. The comparisons could be
expressed best in terms of averages, frequency dis
tributions, and similar common measures of five
factors in work performance: Absenteeism, minor
work injuries, disabling injuries, production effi
ciency, and separations.
Definition o f Impaired Worker
Fundamental to the undertaking of this study of
the performance of impaired workers was a definition
of exactly what types and degrees of disabilities
should constitute the impairments to be studied.
At the outset it was decided by agreement between
the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Veterans
Administration that the study should be limited to
physical impairments. It was not considered feasible
to include mental disabilities.
The first requisite was that the concept of the
“ impaired worker” should be sufficiently restrictive
to exclude any minor disabilities. If the study was
to provide the much needed objective findings on the

performance of impaired workers, it was essential
that definitions be so strict as to eliminate all im
pairments that did not require special job placement
considerations. A second requirement was that the
impairments studied must be those recognized by
industry. The definitions would have to fit the
usages and terminology common to the medical de
partments of industrial plants.
Tentative definitions of a group of impairments
were drawn, and were tested for data collection in
several plants. With this experience as a back
ground, an advisory committee, composed in part of
practicing industrial physicians recommended by the
American Medical Association, was consulted. With
the assistance of this committee the scope and
method of the study were reviewed carefully and in
great detail. The definitions of impairment were
revised. Because of their fundamental importance,
these definitions are given here in detail:
Orthopedic:
(а) Loss of a member or members of the body
(arm, hand, leg, or foot).
(б) Loss of a part of a hand (a thumb and one
finger, or two phalanges of each of three
fingers) or loss of part of a foot (all toes or
any part of the front portion of the foot).
(c) Loss of use or severely restricted use of —
(1) An arm or leg comparable to (a)
above, or
(2) A hand or foot comparable to (b)
above.
(d) Deformities or abnormalities of the spine
which severely restrict movement and use
of the back in bending, stooping, lifting,
crouching, etc.
Vision:
(а) Totally blind, meaning loss of both eyes or
complete loss of light perception in both
eyes.
(б) Blind, one eye, meaning loss of one eye or

APPENDIX

complete loss of light perception in one
eye.
(c) “ Legally” blind. Legal blindness for this
purpose was based on the Social Security
Board's definition as 20/200 Snellen or
less corrected in the better eye.
(d) “ Partially” blind. This classification in
cluded persons whose vision was more
than 20/200 but less than 20/50 corrected
in the better eye.
(e) Restricted field. For the purpose of this
study, the restriction of the visual field
had to amount to 50 percent or more.
Hearing:
(а) Deaf. Complete loss of hearing in both ears
without use of hearing aid. A loss of 50
decibels or 0/20 classification placed the
person in this category.
(б) Hard of Hearing. Persons who had not
more than 50 percent of hearing in the
better ear without use of hearing aid.
Fifty percent loss of hearing was defined
as 10/20 hearing when 20/20 was con
sidered normal hearing. If the medical
records expressed the loss of hearing acuity
in terms of decibels, a hearing loss of 30
decibels or more (but less than 50) placed
the person within the definition.
(c) Deaf-Mutes.
Hernia: Those who had an existing hernia condition
such as umbilical, inguinal, post-operative, etc.
The definition excluded —
(a) Employees who had had a successful
herniotomy;
(5) Employees who had only an incipient,
potential, or incomplete hernia; and,
(c) Those who had only enlarged or relaxed
rings.
Cardiac: Those persons who were recorded by the
company doctor as definite organic cardiac cases,
including cases of hypertensive heart disease. How
ever, hypertension cases where there was no de
terioration or enlargement of the heart and cases
of potential heart disease were excluded.
Ex-Tuberculous: All persons recorded by the com
pany doctors as having arrested pulmonary
tuberculosis.
Peptic Ulcer: These cases were included if the record
776106°— 48 — 9

121

showed that the diagnosis was confirmed by X-ray
or other approved laboratory methods.
Diabetic: Cases recorded in this category were taken
if the diagnosis had been confirmed by a glucose
tolerance test.
Epileptic: Both grand mal and petit mal were in
cluded.
Multiple Impairment: All cases in which the indi
vidual had two or more impairments each severe
enough in itself to come within the adopted
definitions.
In order to yield statistically valid findings in each
of the impairment groups, the total number of im
paired workers to be studied was set at 10,000.
Upon completion of the survey, however, it was
found that even this figure did not yield adequate
data for some of the impairment types.
Work Performance Factors Studied
The primary purpose of the study was to establish
on a factual and objective basis a comparison of the
work performance of impaired workers with matched
unimpaired workers on the same jobs. But, “ work
performance” has many phases and many aspects.
It was necessary at the outset to select certain factors
in work performance which would lend themselves to
objective quantitative measurement, for which data
could reasonably be expected to be available in com
pany records, and which would have practical sig
nificance in the placement of impaired persons in
useful jobs. Because of the likelihood that such data
could be found more frequently in manufacturing
plants, the survey was limited to manufacturing in
dustries.
Interviews with plant and personnel managers,
Federal, State, and local rehabilitation and placement
agencies, trade associations, unions, and various asso
ciations of the impaired resulted in the selection of
five major factors to be studied. These factors were
discussed with the advisory committee and it was
agreed that the work performance of the impaired
worker should be compared with that of the matched
unimpaired workers with respect to —
(a) Production efficiency, based entirely on
quantitative measurements of individual output.
All subjective measures such as foreman's evalua
tion, efficiency ratings, etc., were to be excluded.
(b) Absenteeism, defined as scheduled workdays

122

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

lost for personal reasons. Because of the limita
tions of industrial records, absences of less than a
full day were to be disregarded.
(c) Nondisabling injuries, defined as work in
juries which did not result in a permanent im
pairment or any loss of time beyond the day or
shift on which the injury occurred; in other words,
first-aid cases.
(d) Disabling injuries, defined as work injuries
which resulted in loss of time of one full day or
more beyond the day or shift on which the accident
occurred, or which resulted in permanent impair
ment even if no time was lost.
(e) Job separations, meaning the voluntary and
involuntary terminations in the two groups within
a fixed period of time. These data were to be ob
tained on return visits to plants which had been
surveyed earlier with respect to the other four
performance factors.
Supplementary information such as reasons for
absence, number of redressings for nondisabling in
juries, nonindustrial medical visits, medical facilities,
job placement practices, job re-engineering, etc., was
also provided for.
Selection of Plants
There is no central source which provides informa
tion as to which plants employ seriously impaired
workers. It was necessary to resort to a number of
methods to find such plants.
Early in 1944 a mail questionnaire survey on the
subject of impaired workers had been made and about
450 usable returns from that many plants were tab
ulated.1 This source provided some leads as to plants
employing sizable numbers of impaired workers.
Some assistance in this connection also was obtained
from various trade associations, rehabilitation serv
ices, the United States Employment Service, and
the Veterans Employment Service in the various
large industrial centers. Field representatives of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics were sent to various cities
in all parts of the country, and the selection of plants
was made after utilizing all available sources of in
formation in the community. For the most part, the
question as to whether or not a given plant could be
included in the study could be determined only after
interviews with the company officials.
1 T h e results o f this opin io n su rve y w ere published in the M o n th ly
L a b or R ev iew for O ctob e r 1944.

Given willingness on the part of plant management
to cooperate, the inclusion of a plant in the study de
pended upon three considerations:
1. Employment of a number of physically im
paired workers sufficiently large to justify the
expenditure of time necessary to search records and
record the data for the study. The minimum limit
was set at 20 such workers.
2. The existence of pre- or post-employment
physical examination records adequate for a selec
tion of impaired persons within the definitions of
impairment, and for the selection of unimpaired
workers to constitute the control group.
3. The existence of records of absences, injuries,
and production in such form that the time required
for the assembling of the data would not be pro
hibitive.
It was necessary that all of these requirements be
fulfilled in each plant included in the study. The first
and third were necessary as a practical matter of cost
and the limited time available for the data collection.
The second was necessary if positive accuracy in the
selection of impaired and unimpaired workers was to
be maintained. In order to use the limited field staff
most effectively, effort was concentrated for the most
part in the large industrial centers. As far as pos
sible, however, coverage was sought in every large
center throughout the country. As a result the sur
vey was conducted in 16 States, from Massachusetts
to California, and as far south as Georgia.
A conscientious effort was made to select plants in
all fields of manufacturing industry so as to obtain a
fair indication of the actual employment of impaired
workers and the variety of occupations at which they
worked. As a result, the industries surveyed include
19 of the 20 major industry groups recognized by the
Standard Industrial Classification. The lumber and
timber basic products group had to be omitted be
cause of the practical consideration of expense.
Selection of the Survey Group
Through discussion with company officials, a
period of relatively stable operation was selected
for study in each plant. This period ranged from
6 to 18 months, depending on the particular circum
stances. Data were collected for each employee of
the survey group for a period of at least 6 months
and wherever possible, for a full year.

APPENDIX

By reference to medical records or other sources
available at the plant, a record was made of each
impaired worker who had been employed for 6
months or more during the selected period. Identify
ing information such as name, clock number, sex, age,
shift, impairment, cause and duration of the impair
ment, etc., were entered on prepared work sheets for
each impaired worker. The impaired workers in
clerical, administrative, and supervisory jobs were
eliminated at the outset. As many as possible of the
remaining impaired workers were then matched with
from one to three unimpaired workers to make up the
survey group. It will be observed that these records
gave no clues as to the performance of the workers in
either group, so that it was not possible to exert any
bias.
The matching operation set up a control group of
unimpaired workers subject to the same incentives
and exposed to the same hazards as the impaired
workers with whom they were matched. Ideally, the
comparison of work performance should be made be
tween workers identical in every respect except for
the existence of the impairment. In practice, how
ever, this ideal comparison is impossible. However,
as many variables as could be controlled were elimi
nated by matching the impaired worker with one or
more unimpaired workers of the same sex, on the
same shift, of closely similar age, with about the
same length of experience, and working on the same
job in the same department of the same plant. Thus,
at least the physical facts and conditions of employ
ment were the same in both groups. Where possible,
three unimpaired workers were matched in this way
with each impaired worker. Where three comparable
unimpaired workers could not be obtained, two or
one were used. Thus, the survey group consisted of a
number of cells, each of which was composed of one
impaired worker and from one to three unimpaired
workers.
Collection o f the Data
The data from which the measures or rates for the
several performance factors were computed were
taken in their entirety from original sources — the
records of cooperating firms. The study was made
during 1946 and 1947 and the periods studied ranged
from 1945 through early 1947. The data were tran
scribed from company records — such as pay roll,
attendance,, medical visits, personnel, etc. — to pre

123

pared work sheets by trained field personnel of the
Bureau. (Samples of the work sheets are attached as
exhibits I through VI at the end of this section.)
Supplemental information relating to placement and
safety practices, job re-engineering, job requirements,
etc., were obtained by interviews with company
officials and first-hand observation in the plant.
The work sheets for each impaired worker and his
matched unimpaired workers were assembled into
cells by the field representatives and sent to the
Bureau’s Washington office for editing, coding, and
tabulation.
Data for job separation rates (Exhibit VII) were
obtained by follow-up contact with the company
about 6 months after the end of the survey period.
This method, however, made it impossible to obtain
such data from plants studied within the last 4 or 5
months of the survey.
Office Processing of the Data
The data received from the field agents were first
edited and reviewed to be sure that (1) impairments
listed were clearly within the adopted definitions and
(2) the impaired and unimpaired were properly
matched as to sex, age, job, and the other prescribed
limitations.
Plant schedules were given a code designation for
industry from the Standard Industrial Classifica
tion. Each impaired worker’s job was coded accord
ing to the U. S. Employment Service Dictionary of
Occupational Titles and the jobs were classified ac
cording to the patterns used by the Wage Analysis
Division of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thus,
each schedule was related to three standard classi
fications in common use in the Bureau: the industry,
to the Standard Industrial Classification; and the
impaired worker’s occupation to the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles and to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics wage analysis pattern. As the matched
impaired and unimpaired workers had to be on the
same jobs, the same job code applied for each of the
impaired and unimpaired workers comprising a
single cell.
The number of days scheduled to work was com
puted for each impaired and unimpaired worker from
the operating schedule of the plant during the survey
period. Deductions were made for observed holidays,
shut-downs, and lay-offs so that scheduled days rep
resented the number of days the employee was ex

124

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

pected to be at his place of work. The scheduled days
of work provided the base on which absence rates
were computed.
The scheduled days less absences, multiplied by the
hours worked each day, provided the exposure-hours
for the computation of nondisabling and disabling
injury frequency rates.
The absences for each individual were accumulated
to a total for the survey period and, where available,
with subtotals for the number of absences attrib
utable to the various reasons for absence. Similarly,
the data for nondisabling injuries by nature of injury,
number of redressings, number of nonindustrial med
ical visits, and number of disabling injuries were
summarized for each individual of the survey group.
All of these data were transcribed to a specially
designed code sheet from which I. B. M. cards could
be punched for machine tabulation. At this point a
weighting factor was applied to the data for the un
impaired workers to equalize the 1 to 1, 1 to 2, and
1 to 3 matchings. A sample of this form is attached
to this section as Exhibit VIII.
After the data for any one plant had been tabulated
and analyzed, a confidential report of the findings was
prepared and submitted to the plant management.
The objective was to make the data available to the
management of cooperating plants for their imme
diate information and administrative use. Judging
from the replies, this somewhat unusual procedure
was well received by management.
Weighting
As already explained, each impaired worker was
matched with from 1 to 3 unimpaired workers, de
pending upon the number of comparable unimpaired
workers available. This matching process resulted
in uneven cells, some of which consisted of 1 impaired
worker matched with 1 unimpaired worker, some of
1 impaired matched with 2 unimpaired, and some of 1
impaired matched with 3 unimpaired.
In combining the data of these cells for group aver
ages and rates, it was obvious that the results for the
unimpaired workers would be influenced by the per
formance in those cells in which the matching was on
a 1 to 2 or 1 to 3 basis. It was necessary, therefore,
to apply a weighting factor to the data for the unim
paired workers which would neutralize any excessive
influence on the part of these units.
Since the survey group was composed of cells in

which the unimpaired were variously 1,2, or 3 persons,
the least common multiple was 6. The numerical
data for the unimpaired workers was therefore
multiplied by 6 in the cells of 1 impaired and 1 un
impaired, by 3 in the cells of 1 impaired and 2 unim
paired, and by 2 in cells of 1 impaired and 3 unim
paired. Thus, while the rates for individuals and unit
would not be affected, the data when combined
would be relieved of any excessive influence from the
units in which the number of unimpaired workers
exceeded 1. Although tests made with weighted and
unweighted data in the early stages of the study did
not show appreciable differences, it was believed best
to take the probability into account at the outset.
The data as prepared for machine tabulation were
weighted. Thus, it was possible to prepare final tab
ulations from the punch cards and eliminate the ne
cessity for testing and weighting the data in the final
stages of analysis.
Presentation of the Data
The form and organization of the final report were
aimed at simplicity and greatest utility. While the
broad concept of impaired and unimpaired workers
is of wide interest, the practical day-to-day problems
of rehabilitation and placement require findings in
terms of specific impairments. Consequently, tables
were prepared not only for the group as a whole, but
for each of the types of impairment covered by the
definitions. It was frequently found, however, that
some of the detailed data represented too few cases
to be valid statistically.
As various organizations concerned with the wel
fare of persons with specified impairments would
undoubtedly wish to utilize the section of the report
dealing with their individual specialties, the data for
each impairment type was presented as a complete
unit capable of standing by itself. This determination
was further influenced by the consideration that
placement officials — whether governmental or pri
vate — would want ready recourse to data organized
along impairment lines in their dealing with individ
ual impaired workers. Considerations of industry
and occupation were believed to be of minor impor
tance. As pointed out throughout the report, the
problem of utilizing a seriously impaired worker is
one of matching his abilities to the requirements of a
job, regardless of what that job may be called or in
what industry it is found.

125

APPENDIX

EMPLO Y E E RECORD
(Worksheet A)
1. Name________ ______________________________________________________
2. Clock No.________________ 3. Dept._____________________4. Shift
5. Occupation_______________________________________________________

6. Age_____________________7. Sex______________________8. Cell No.
9. Impairment:_____________________________________________________

10. Cause of Impairment:
(a) Congenital________
(b) Illness______________(c) Work Injury.
(d) Other Injury_________ (e) Other Cause_________ (f) Unknown_____
11. Duration of Impairment:
(a) From Birth__________________ (b) Acqui r e d in Childhood________
(c) Acquired in Adulthood____________________
12. Rehabilitation:______________________________________ ______________________

13.
15.
16.
17.

Date placed on present job:_____________ .14. Date entered plant:.
Rate of pay on present job:_____________
Yes ___________
No
Is employee a veteran of World W a r II?
What special aids, job revision, etc., are required?_

Exhibit I

to
os

ABSENTEEISM
(Worksheet B)

1. Cell N um b e r ______ ___________
R e c o r d of A b sence

2. Period:

From______________ Thru

Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
1

July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
4. Code for Cause of
1.
2.
3.
5.

Comments:

Absence:
Own Illness
Fam i l y Illness
Personal Business

4. Trans.
5.

Diff i c u l t i e s

8.
9. U n k n o w n

Exhibit II

M E D I C A L VISI T S
(Worksheet C)
1. Cell Number_______ _______

2. Period:

F r o m . ___________ Thru

3. R e c o r d of Medical Visits

Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
1

a.
b.
c.
d.

Burns and Scalds
Cuts and Abrasions
Eye Injuries
Strains and Sprains

July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
4. Type of Visit:
1. Welfare
2. R e d r e s s i n g for Nondisabling Injury
3. N o n d i s a b l i n g Injury
4. D i s a b l i n g Injury
5. Comments:

e.
f.
g.
h.

D i s l o cations a n d Fractures
Ampu t a t i o n s
D ermatitis
Infections
hExhibit III
m

128

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

D I SABLIN G ACCID E N T R E C O R D
(Worksheet D)
1. Cell No._________________
2. Dept._____________________3. Date.
4. Occupation_______________________________________________________
5.

Nature of Injury and B ody Part Affected

Resultant Type of Disability.

Cause of Accident

(a) Days Lost______________________ ____________________________________________ _
(b)
Date of 1st Full D ay Absent____ Date of Last Full D a y of Disability.
9. Was Accident Attributable to Worker's Impairment?__________________________

Exhibit IV
OCCUPATIONAL DATA
(Worksheet E)
1. J ob Title_____________________________________ 2. Dept.
3. Description of Duties________________________________

4.
5.
6.
7.

Machines Used
_____________________________________________________________
Han d Tools Used________________________________ ,
_________________________________
Skill Demands: over 2 yr.__________ 6 mo. to 2 yr.__________ u n d e r 6 mo.____
Physical Requirements:
(a) standing____ (b) sitting_____(c) stooping___ _ ( d ) m o ving____ (e) lifting.
8. Working Conditions:
(a) Condition of Floors:
Wet_______Dry_____ Greasy______ Rough_______Housekeeping: Good _____ Bad__

(b) Atmosphere:
Dusty___________ Humid___________ Dry _________ Fumes___________ Clean
(c) Moving Equipment:
Overhead_______ ._____________ Floor Level_________ ._______ None_______ .
______
(d) Illumination:
Dim___________________
Good_______________________ G l a r e ----------------9. Cell Number Applicable__________________________________________________________
10.

Comments___________________________________________ ,__________________________ _

Exhibit V

129

APPENDIX

U. S. BUREA U OF L A B O R S TATISTICS
Impaired Worker Study
(Worksheet F)
1 . Name of Company_____________ .________________________
2 . Business Affiliation________________________________
3. Authorizing Official (full name, title, address)
4. Scheduled Plant (name and address)_________________________
5. Furnishing Officials (full names, titles, and addresses)

6. Products of S c heduled Plant
7. Employment:
Ave. monthly for per.

sched. - Total________ Unimpaired_
Male

Impaired,
F e male

Orthopedic
Vision
Hearing
H e rnia
Cardiac
Diabetic
Epileptic
Gastric U lcer
Other
Placement:
(a) Labor Recruitment,
(b)

Pre-Employment Physical Examination:
(1) Scope_____________________________

(2)

Exclusions,

(3) Comments,

Exhibit VI

130

PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

(Worksheet F— Continued)
(C)

Indue t i on________
(1) Interviews

(2) Tests.

(3)

Training Programs

(d) Job Analysis
(e)

Placement and Transfer

(f)

Job Follow-up.

(g)

J ob Reengineering for Impaired

(h)

Plans for Veterans.

9. Work Schedule (schedule period b y dept, or occupational group)
(a) Days/wk.
(b) H r s . / d a y
(c) H o l i d a y s Observed

10.

Company Policies
(a) Saf e t y Programs.
(b) Safe t y Department Organization.

APPENDIX

(c)

(d)

(Worksheet F— Continued)
First Aid Program____________________________
Location__________________________________
Doctor on duty___________________________
R e gistered nurses________________________
Technician________________________________
Other attendants
Physical equipment
Workmen's Compensation
(1) Company attitude.

(2) Insurance coverage.
(3) Waivers.
11.

General
(a) Records used.
(b) Selection of sample.
(c)

Special features to be covered in plant report.

(d)

Plant report to be addressed to.

(e ) Comments.

131

Job Separations

Poor
atten.

Other

Unsuited for
work

Red. in force j

Work conn,
disab.

Nonwork
conn, disab.

Other

Unknown

Trans.
(9)

Remarks:

Break
rules

(8)

Deceased

(7)

Moved

Family rea
sons

Health
(6)

Military service

(5)

Unknown

(4)

Unimpaired

Impaired

End of survey period
(3)

Terminations

Other

(2)

Voluntary quits

Dissatisfied

(1)

Line No.

Page No.

Survey
list

Date checKeu:

(10)

(ID

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

Disc, for cause

—

Exhibit VII

☆

U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 9 4 8 - 776106

PHYSICALLY IMPAIKED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

(Form G)
Company:____________________________________________________________________________________

R
'PlA'ffT-

~py>js*c*.L
~T?*$

0 e t « y > ‘i //• v

h i

R
0
7>
U.
C
JT

»A

TiyTF

(3 * O -'aJ
/«

(src)

'l n // it u<

M t* IS *4

$
£E

/ftf*r*o J/ 1J>-l7J

■*=•/*-r j
a#' J r j *. *7
-

■~

...

I
...

.... -

\
C 0^

£ f f l C l E N C y
A jvJ)
A V s e ifr T tis n

Stlf*/*\«d.

Hit.
ft* /c.

*/■

X>*y i

~ffe tm h -ttie

« ■ M *2- **

-7
Jcr/ilC.

TostJ^j___

Hi*,-**-

1/erifitKluat^

—i

c
A
K
2>

-y>Mjrr~
/

.*■

-yfL

> j

yt
l»*
.c £ 7
0
/

...

.1*■ 31

7¥».*"7*7?

ULJJL

r> r :i

...
...

....

...
...

...

—

A/ON D I S A B L I N G

INJURIES

£Ay*s*r*'fte-

(p.oy

A
R
-P

hi
r

xs
A

7 JL

- - -

/■* rt
- ~

...
...

.. .

7/ 7,7 /#

-- -

“

...

1^ I

...

JCNJ

....

3> I S A ' B L l J f G -

l£ S

A^flarl
Tt.mri

1
-■

/* */ S3.

.. .

titi*

...

- ■■

/ »■ jL
0

y ? u » -t ~

-7^

H - 2> - J . 1

VafM*■

”

-rzr.l
*•a
^•r>«

N1
S3keJLmU4L
jU y

•/
> JT

> r j

77/*/

A*st~

•/

zrv - r j

G
A

R
I?
jzzt

~
...

-p / a .* .* -

*■
h\
jF 6

*a
IT

/j ■O' SSI s i

7/ 7 J 74 S7 ^7 7 7 # »

...
-

...

■-

...

3.HA). Sche.tLu.fe.

—

~tr*
EXHIBIT
(Face p. 132.)