Full text of Summary of Surveys of Job Refusals by Relief Clients Reported in Six Communities : March to June 1935, Series I, No. 15

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

MAR 2 - 1::JJ

Northwester n
Uni versity
1i--~ ~

lJQ CUMErHS
ROON

W O R K S

P R O G R E S S

A D M I

770l

r

I S T R A T I O N

Harry L. Hopkins, Administrat or
Corrington Gi 11,
Assistant Administrator

RESEARCH

How-':lrd B. Myers, Director,
Social Research Division

BULLETIN

sm.1MARY OF
SURVEYS OF JOB REFUSALS BY RELIEF CLIENTS
REPORTED I -J SIX COMMlI'.U TIE S
(MARCH TO JUNE . ~935)

December 12, 1935

Series I, No. 15

D1qitiz'"d by

Original from

NORTHWESTER'\J J'\J VERSI~

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
PREFACE

Assertions have been mede that relief rolls are needless ly
burdened with many persons who refuse opportunities to beTo test these statements, the
come ga infully employed.
Research Section of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration undertook a series of six studies during the summer of 1935 to secure evidence on the extent to which relief clients are refusing to accept private e~ployment.
The communities chosen for study were those in which reports of job refusals had been pa rticularly numerous. They
a
included two industrial cities, Baltimore and Buffalo;
non - indust rial city, Wash1ngton, D. C. ; a southern city
Memphis; a rural area, Alle gheny County, Virginia, and a
berry picking center, Hammonton, New Jersey. Thus the problem was stud ied in relation to varied occupational distribution and to seasonal as well as re gular employment.
To each community a special investigator was sent who made
contacts with the local E. R. A. office, with state and local employment office s, and with other agen cies or pe r sons
conversant with the problem of transferring persons from
relief rolls to private employment.
Field agents then interviewed individual cases in order to
discover the facts underlying ,Jc? ch reported refusal. Wherever possible, the validity of the ~xplanation offered for
failure to accept the job was checked.
Certain difficulties in this tyPe of inquiry were found to
vary greatly with the kind of population and with the adMoreministrative practices of the local relief agency.
over, the degree of justification fo r turning down a job
After elimination of all
is often a matter of judgment.
clear-cut cases, t here remained a considerable number regarding which definite conclusions were impossible. .Among
them were tnose based upon alleged disability, upon failure to receive noticesor misunderstanding of such notices,
and upon the unsatisfactory na.ture of a particular job.

Prepared uncle r
the supervision of
Henry B. Arthur, Assistan t Director
Division of Social Research

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

-i-

SUMMARY

The series of job refusal studies
as a whole reveal common -"u roblems in
six di verse cornmuni ties and lead to
certain fairly ~efinite conclusions.
One feature common to all of the
situations studied was a tendency
toward popular overstatement of the
number of cases in which relief clients had refused to accept
private
employment.
Out of 943 reports of
job refusals in five com.'11U!lities 1/
340, or more than one-third, applied
to individuals who either had never
received public assistance or who
had been closed from relief rolls before the reported refusal. The extent of the exaggeration due to this
faulty classification varied:
in
Buffalo, where such
overstatment
was most serious, 42 percent of the
~eported job refusals pertained to
-people not on relief rolls; in Memphis, only 5 percent of those charged with refusing jobs were not on
relief rolls.
In the six communities, some of
them with large relief loads,
only
603 relief clients were discovered
whose alleged job refusal could be
investigated,
The
investigations
showed that relief clients had no
prevalent aversion to work but that,
on the contrary, most of them were
anxious to find jobs.
In Hammonton
New Jersey, a careful check-up indicated not a single case of an adult relief client who had refused a
berry picking job. The number~ of
clearly
unjustified refusals
was
very small in every community ;
out
of the 603 re.lief clients studied in
the five communities only 20 fell in

1/

No numerical records were made of
the Hammonton, New Jersey, investigation.

t his ca tegory.
The highes t p roportion of unjustified refusals was six
percent in Allegheny County.
The re a sons given by relief cli ents for their refusal of employment
are often difficult
to
classify.
Even if the different reasons could
be clearly separated, there
would
still ba some overlapping
because
certain clients offer more than one
excuse for their refusal of a job .
Despite these difficulties, a survey
of the three broad classes of reasons is useful in showing the nature
of the problem.
1. Two hundred thirty-six relief
clients, or 39 percent of the 603 investigated, refused
jobs because
they were either already
employed,
because they were permanently or temporarily unemployable, or
because
they could not do the specific kind
of work offered them.
Most of the
refusals based on such claims seemed
reasonable although claims of physica l
disability were
particularly
numerous in Buffalo, where
nearly
one - fourth of all the clients gave
that excuse for refusing jobs. Doubt
attaches to the validity of some of
these claims since all of the cases
were regis te red as employable at the
New . York State Employment Service.
2. The second type includes clients who did not get jobs because of
defects in procedure of notification
and contact with emp loyer. This occurred in 160, or about 27 percent
of the 603 relief cases investigated.
The Buffalo and Washington studies,
with 30 percent and 37 percent respectively, revealed the highest percentages of refusals on such ground~
The practice in the six localities
is to regard all clients who fail to
answer a job notific~t ion as having

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

-ii-

r0fused jobs.
As a result, those
wno do not receive their notices or
w110 do not re spend promptly or who
do not realize their obligati on to
accept priVE.•te er:rployrn~nt are classed locally as cases of job refusals.
3. Tne third group--slightly more
than a sixth of the total--consists
of those clients whose refusal is based upon considerations attached to
the par ticular type of job offered.
This group is difficult to judge be cau::oe of its heterogeneous character.
It includes:
people unable to take
jobs because they could not make provision for the care of
small children, invalids and other dependents;
persons who refused jobs because the
employer was seeking to teke advantage of the desperate condition of
labor by offering sub-standard wages
or requiring abnormally long hours;
persons
unwilling
to je opardize
their union status by accepting subunion standards; and persons
who
misrepresented their own condition
in order to justify refusal of a particular job. The maj ority of refusals with a.n indeterminate- de gree of
justification would be found in this
group.
Out of the 108 cases giving as
their
excuse extenuating circumstances
of this type, 63 were in
Buffalo.
In comparison with
the
other cities the propo rtion of such
refusals in
Buffalo was very high
and suggests that a number of the refusals in that city were in fact unwarranted.

Some other refusals with doubtful
justification were
encountered in
all the studies.
The
number of
these was indeterminate but probably
small in relation to the number of
people· on relief and the number of
relief clients being placed successfully in private employment .
In
Buffalo, where it is possible to
trace t he outcome of all job notices
issued by the New York State Employment Service, 900 such notices were
sent out in May and June, 1935. More
than two-thirds of the relief
clients answered the job notices and
were ::ouccessfully placed.
Local administrators of relief
face extremely difficult problems .
On the one hand, it seems to be unavoidable that s ome employers wil 1
try to capitalize upon the desperate
s ituation of relief clients by offering wages which are obviously substandard. · On the other hand, relief
clients cannot be allowed to
maintain their relief status just because the conditions attached to direct or work relief
happen to be
ffiO re to their liking than the private jobs offered. The problem certainly is not one that can be solved
by sw~e~ing regulations from a central office, a lthough serious attention has been given to the development of relief procedures which will
minimize the opportunities for diversion of relief funds to people
who refuse jobs they should accept.
Abuses v1i thin these regulations a re
a subject for local vigilance and
fair troatment.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

RE L IEF

ADM I NI ST RATION

Division of Research, Statistics and Finance
Research Section
RESEARCH

June

D-12
13, 1935

BULLETIN

Subject:

ALLEGED REFUSAL BY RELIEF CLIENTS TO ACCEPT JOBS OFFERED

Source:

Report of the Study of Alleged Job Refusals by Relief Clients in
Baltimore, Maryland.

Su9ervisor of Study:

Edward J. Webster

I

In an effort to discover the basis for complain ts to the
effect
that relief clients refuse to work
even when jobs are offered to them,
a study was made in Baltimore, Maryland, to determine exactly how frequently and for what reasons persons
receiving public relief nduse to accept jobs in private employment.
The first point that emerged was
that, in flat co!ltradiction to the
volume of complaint, the total number actually reported to have refused jobs was very small and the reasons given for refusal were numerous
and varied.
It was possible, and
necessary, therefore, to take all
alleged refusals
reported for the
months of March and April
1935-a total of 195--and make a case study
of each. The sources of information
were the registration and complaint
files at the public employment office, the central file and district
office records of the locAl relief
administration,
the case worker on
the case involved, a call made at
the residence of the case by a special field worker, and many personal
interviews by the supervisor of the
study, as well as all related data
from the social service department
and the records of phynicians and
hospitals, when necessary. In addi-

tion to these, many of the leading
personnel men and employment agencies of the city were consulted, and
interested private citizens were invited to cooperate.
It should be
noted,
however, that from all of
these outside sources not a single
additional lead was secured.
While
it is by no means clai med that every
case in the city was discovered, all
t hat could be found were carefully
inve s ti ga ted.
A summa ry statement
important f i ndi ngs is

of
as

the more
follows:

1. The evidence gleaned indicates
that the rnany b r oad generalizations
about 11 job refusals"
to which the
public has been exposed have been based · u:r,,on e. few sporDd ic incid.ents
and much loose talk.
2. Of the 195 cases against which
the accusation of 11 job refusal" was
leveled in Ma rch and April, only 4
were clear cases of unjustified refusal.
In the remaining cases the
charges were unjustified or the re fusal was due to extenuating circumstances.
3. Of the total cases, 31 involved domestic servants among whom the
problem of 11 unemployabili ty 11 by rea-

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

-2-

son of family composition was found
to be acute. This group was also
peculiarly subj ect
to
low wage
scal e s which frequently sank below
the minimum subsist ence levels e stablished by the relief administration.
4 . Of the 164 cases
involving
othe~ occupations
(including the 4
adjudged to be "flat refusals")
65
were found to be pers ons who had
never been on the relief rolls or
who were at the time outside the jurisdiction of the relief authorities;
65 were either at wo rk or we r e pe rmanently or temporarily unemployable;
15 did not r e ceive the call or did
not get the job;
10 refused for extenuatory r e asons; and in 5
cases
the records were confused but po int~
ed toward the guiltlessness of the
client.

5 . On the whole, the notion that
"forcible measures should be introduced into the relief program to get
able bodied persons to work 11 is a
gross extravagance. The findings of
this study
warrant the statement
that for each man or woman who would
refuse a job which c ould r easonably
be accepted, there a r e hundreds who
would be willing and anxious to ac~
cept work if they could thereby 11 get
off relief 11.
II

.A.."'lalysis of the 195 cases of 11 job
r efusals" se cured from the public emnloyment office and the local relief
office shows that 31 were domestic
se rvants whose situation is so special and important as to warrant separate treatment .
The 164 cases remaining were classified as
follows
after study:

No t within the scope of the
study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not known as relief clients •.•.•
Once relief clients but now
inactive .. . ................. ..••
Livi ng in relief household
but not included in the r elief bud.get ••.•.. ... . . ..••.••...

65
34
16

15

Either not s eeking work or
unable to accept t he job
offeretl •.... .... .........•.....•• 65
.Already employed wl:en the
call came. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 26
Leaving city for farm • •. .. ...... 1
Permanently unemployable ••..•••• 8
Temporarily un0mvloyable •••.•.•• 24
Partial di8 :Lbilit~.r or handicapped for the job offe r ed ••.. . • 6
Failure to receive call f or
job or succes sfully to contact employer ... .. . . ........ .. .•.. 15
Did not receive call .....•.•.•..• 9
Out of town when call came • •... •• 2
Error in issuing call ....•.. .. .•• 1
Error in answering call •.......•• 2
Error in employer 's report ••. ... • 1
Failure to accept jobs due
to extenuating circurns tances •.•.•• 10
Contagious disease in employer ' s home • .. •..... ........ . . • 1
Sickness at home .. ..... .. . ..... . • 2
Sole caretaker for invalid
at home ••........................ 1
Children at home .. .... .. .. • •. .. •• 1
Lacked transportation for
out-of-town job ••................ 1
Lacked to ols .... . ....... ..••...• • 1
Misunderstood n~ture of
work relief job •......... ...... .• 1
Labor trouble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 1
Unwilling to accept substandard wage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 1
Facts regarding alleged refusal unc e rtain •.......••.•...•.•• 5

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

-311 Flat 11

r efusE:.ls .. ...•.•.....•..•• , ...
Ignor ed j ob calls . . •.. . ... . ........ 3
"Through with work 11 • •••••• • •••••••• 1

Tot al .. . ... .. . . ........ ~ ......... 164

Not wi thiR th.$., sCtJpe 0f the study .
Of the 65 in this gr oup , 34 had, acc ording to th e
district r eco rds,
never been known as r elief clients.
They were pe rs ons who , f or s ome rea~on ci r other, J i J not c2~e t o acc ept
the employmen t offer ed but whos 9 refusal is ce rt ainly n o conce rn of the
r elief authorities .
Tho se who had
been on the r el ief r oll s in the past
but who were not r ecei ving aid
at
the time the jobs were off e red numbered 16 .
Fifteen individuals who
r efus ed jobs we r e l iving in relief
households but we r e not included in
the budget and hence thei r conduc t
is also no conce rn of the r eli ef administration.
Either not s eeK1ng wor k ~r unable
to accept the job offered . The willingne ss t o wo rk of 26 out of the 65
in this gr oup is amply attested by
the fact tha t they wer e t empo r &r i ly
engaged i n p rivat e employment when
j obs we r e offered .
(Not all j obs
arA s ecured through the employment
office nor ar e all t emporary j obs
promptly rep ort ed t o case workers . )
One worke r refused a job because the
family was on the eve of departure
for a farm in t he country .
Of the
eight who we r e pe rmanently unemployable, three wer e in hospitals for
the insane and t wo wer e in t uber cul osis sanit oria ( progno sis, 11 i ncur.aThree were deceased
when
ble11) .
the cal l for work came . Car eful investigations of the 24 r epo rt ed as
temporarily unemployable were made
and 19 cases were competently ce rtified to b e as represented eithe r by

physici a ns or by hos pital authoriti e s, rm d t h e n : s ee med t o be no r eason for doubt conc e rniDg the r em~ining 5 C[-'.S e s . In like TJr,n.11 8r, th er e
s eemJd to be no
doubt conce rning
thos e who wer e r e~orted as having
parti al disabilitie s which di s qu.e.l i fied them fo r the particular jobs
offered .
Failure t o r ece ive call for joq_
~su~c essf~lly to cont ac t emnloye r .
In vi ew of the facts that the employmen t office t hr ough which these
jobs pass ed has a t otal file
of
105,600 name s and an active li s t of
48,000 names , and that thousand s of
plac ements are made in the cours e of
a few months, not to menti on the t endency of r el ief clients to move with
relative frequency, this r eco rd of
only 15 failures ~romp tly t o r ecei ve
job calls is r emarkable .
Cf the 15
cases , 11 we r e r eadily verifi ed . The
r emaining 4 s eemed to be as r epr es ented.
Failure t o acc ept j ob s due t o extenuati ng circumstances . The cases
in this group involv e the que s tion ,
11 Is it s ome ti me s justifiable or nece ss ar;'/ for a wo rker t o refuse a j ob? 11
A mothe r wi th 4 small chil d r en failed to a c ce~t a j ob because there was
a c ontagio _1.S d isease in the empl oyer1 s home .
Two p ersons failed t o
accept t empo rary jobs becaus e of s e r i ous illness in their own homes .
A
daughter , 30 year s of age, could not
leave he r 75- year - old blind mothe r
in order t o accep t work. One mother
refu s ed t o accept a j ob and l eave
her t wo children 9 and 10 years of
age . (In this case , further r elief
was withheld b ecaus e she had a si st e r, not on r eli ef , who might have
b een able t o care f or the children . )
One worker s aid he had asked for and
1

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

-4-

was refused transportation for an
out-of-town job.
(His case was
"closed" and further relief is being
denied while the case is investiga ted.) Having had all of his tools
stolen, a carpenter was obliged to
remain on a work relief
job although he had been offered private
emplo yment.
.Another worker failed
to leave a work relief job and accept private emplo yment because
he
did not understand that his work relief job was 11 relief 11 • (Relief was
cut off in this case.)
In one case
a job was refused because a strike
was on in the plant.
One worker,
whose trade wage was $1.10 per hour,
refused to work for sixty-five centG
an hour at the trade.
(His relief
has been ~Qt off
while the case is
investigated.)
Facts regarding alleged refusal
uncertain.
In five cases workers
were charged
with having ·refused
jobs but conflicting and incomplete
records made it impo ssible satisfactorily to determine the facts. However, the weight of evidence would
seem to entitle the worker to the
benefit of the doubt in each of th~s~
caseG.
11 Flat 11

refusals. In only 4 cases
of the entire 164 originally reported was it discovered that workers
had flatly refused to accept jobs
clearly without justification. Three
ignored the job calls which they
were known to have received. Relief
was immediately withdrawn in each
case.
The fourth, having ignored a
call and announced that he
was
11 through with work 11 received no more
relief.

III

The 3ituation of the domestic servants included in the survey may now
be reviewed. Of the 31, 23 were Negro and 8 white;
all were females;
almost nine-tenths were under
40
years of age; and the educa tional acquirements were low,
(one in ten
never attended school and not one
completed high school. )
As to marital status, 13 were married, 6 single, 6 widowed, two deserted, and 4
'\lll.-narried mothers.
Twenty-four had
dependent children.
On analysis, their reasons for refusing jobs were:

Unable to provide transport at ion for out-of-town jobs ..... . 2
Failed to · secure jobs for
which they reported (evidently not acceptable to
employer) ........ . ............. . . 2
Unable to leave home for
out-of-town .job ......... . ........ 1
Needed at home to care for
sickness •. . .................•.... 3
Unable to accept 11 li ve in 11
jobs due to family responsibilities .... : .........•..... . .... 5
Unable to leave small children (three were unmarried
mothers) .............. . .......... 8
Accepted job l eaving after
first day because not as
represented ............... .. ..... 1
Had part-time job paying
more than the job offered .......• 1
Refused jobs primarily because of low wages .......· ........ 8
.An analysi s of the cases included
in the l a st category follow3:

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
-5-

1. A ·.vido':"' "'7i th a
te:1- '·":a:--o ld
daughter refused a job, the net wage
of wqich
would have been $2 . 60 a
week.
2. A two-day odd job at $1.20 per
day was refused because it was 11 over
loaded with washing".
(Tne usual
wage for such work is $1 . 50 to $2 . 00
a day.)
3. A_seventeen-yea r-old girl who recentl✓ had an operation for appendicitis ', who ha s a s erious he rni a , and
who is an incipient tube.cul ar; r efused a job requi ring that she do the
housework, the washing and ironing,
and care for two children at $5. 00 a
week.
4. The mother of three small children refused a p~rt-time night job
(estimated to require
thirty-five
· hours) paying $2.50 a week.
5 • .An unmarried
mother refused a
full time job netting $4.60 a week
because it would be insufficient to
support her and her four-ye ar-old
son.
6. A widow,
the mother of three
sm.;,11 children , refused a job paying
$5. 60 a week, on the ground that this
wage would not permit her to provide
for care of her children during working hours.
7. A recently deserted mother of
four small children could not accept
a temporary job at $1.00 a day.
8. A woman, who, unknown to the ~m-ployment office, was under trea tment
for _sYPhilis, refused a job at $8.00
a week because she formerly received
$25.00 a week.

tion to the at tendant circumstances
of each case, and adop ting
common
sens e a s the yard stick of sociAJ.
policy , how many of them could be
c alled employable? .As has been noted, 24 of them have dep endent children .
A l arge majority a re homemakers.. Even though they may once
have been prop erly classified as"domestics11, is it proper to so cla ssify them now?
The public employmen t
office recognizes this problem and,
were it not for the failure of some
of these women adequately to state
the facts when they register,
they
would be cl assified as 11 unemployableU
The second problem involved rel a tes to the abuses of "live in 11 requi rements. It is known that if a
domestic 11 lives in" the home of her
employer, in many cases she is practically forced to render 24-hour service. Even though these incidental
circumstances are waived, the fact
remains that in at least eleven of
the 31 cases under discussion, it
would have been impossible for the
worker to accept a 11 live-in 11 job.

Finally, the third p roblem . i.nvolved--and this is likewise inseparr ably related to relief policy -- is
wage3o
In a t l east one-half of the
31 cases studied the wage offered
was not only under the exceedingly
low standard obtained for this service, but it was also insufficient
to
meet
the minimum subsintence
needs of the households involved as
defined by the relief bureau. Whet:O..
The major significance of the data er workers should be permitted to acregarding these cases lies in the ex- cept such jobs, even under the pressure of dire need, is open toquestent to which they reveal conditions
in the field of domestic service.
tion on grounds of wise social policy;
they c ert ainly should not be
Those conditions directly affect relief clients and relief policy. The
comp.elled to accept them.
A number
first problem involved is that of em- of c as es were found in which the
prospective employer of a dome s tic
pl oyability.
Giving due considera-

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
-6announced one wage at the public employment
office and a ID\lch lower
rate to the applicant for the job.
Meanwhile, the whole situation has
been much aggravated
by reason of
the fact that many families who we re
unable to afford domestic servants
in the past are now offering $3 .00
or $4.00 a week or less for a maid,
expecting to get one, and
raising
complaint against the relief author-

ities when they do not.
That it is
difficult t o secure domestics for
some jobs offered is readily admitted;but that domestics in particular
need protection against low wages
and unfair conditi ons cannot be gainsaid.
Until reas onable
and just
standards are established and maintained, merely to affirm that 11 some
of them find more security in relief
than in work" is to beg the main
question.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

F E D E R A L E ME R G E N C Y R E L I E F A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Division of Research, Statistics and Finance
Research Section.

July 11,

D-13
1935

RESEARCH BULLETIN
Subject:

.ALLEGED F~FUS.AL OF PllIEF CLIENTS TO ACCEPT BEP2.Y PICKING JOBS

Source:

Report of the Study of .Alleged Refusal of Relief Clients to Accept
Raspberry Picking Jobs at Hammonton, New Jersey

Supervisor of Study:

Edward J. Webster

Critical Press Reuorts
The charge is repeatedly made in
press reports that relief clients a-rs
refusing berry picking jobs in the
Hammonton, New Jersey, area . Widely
conflicting acc ounts estimate labor
2,ijQQ
shortage r anging from 300 to
berry pi ukers (or much more than the
total number of seasonal workers in
the are a) ,crop loss of from $50,~0
to $400,000, and dai ly earnings of
from 75¢ to $3.
To determine the true facts inthe
the Federal Emergency
situation,
Relief Administration sent an investigator to the Hammonton area. He
observed conditi ons first hand and
interviewed scores of individuals,
administ r at ors,
including reli ef
growers, buyers,
county offici als,
and loc al
pickers, market agent s,
business men.
Facts Concerning Relief Clients
Careful check-up f &iled to disclose a single case of an adult relief client in the Hammonton area
All
refusing a berry picking job.
single able-bodied men were removed
from the relief rolls several weeks
ago and ab'lu.t ninety family cases
r epresenting nearly 49~ persons,were
closed in June.

Speaking of conditions throughout
.Atlantic County, Mr. L.B. Willits,
Assistant Director of Employment of
the New Jersey Labor Department,said
"In no case did we find either a fa,mily or an individual on reli ef who
preferred r elief to berry picking.
Every able-bodied single man in the
If
county has been cut off relief.
any families f ai l to report for work
in the Ha.'11111onton area, that is due
to circumstances over which the Relief Administration has no control."
The Atlantic County Relief Administration offered to ass ist the growers by attempting to recruit pickers among heads of households in
outlying parts of the county, if the
growers would provide daily trans po rt ati on from concentration points
to the job, since adequa te hous i:o:ig
The
was not provi ded in Hammonton.
Likewise,
offer was not accep ted.
the offer of the Relief Administrarliving
tion to provide adequate
quarters or transportation, was not
ac cepted. The Reli ef Administra tion
did not offer to recruit families,
which would haye meant forcing child
labor int• the berry fields.
Wages and Du.ration of Work
Berry picking wages were found to
bo definitely low and the peak sear-

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
_ ,g_

At the p reson of short durati on .
sent p revailing "p iece r ri tett of z½i
for picking a p i nt of berries (so~e
gro,,;-er s a re pay5.ng 3¢, either to compete for l abor or to compens ~t e fo r
poo r pickinc c onditions in th e i r fiel ds) , the to·p cs timates of dai l y earnings a r c 75¢ to $1 .25 for children
and $2 to $2 . 5~ for adults on a tP-nHowPve r, the weight of
hour basis .
worke rs ear n
opinion is tha t most
appr eci ably less than th e sums mentioned b ec aus e of the 1.Eiev en picl:ing
On
conditions and other f act ors .
the ba sis of known ave r ages for past
y ears, it is unlikel y t hat the dai l y
average for adults this y ear will be
more than $1 . 70 a day . :Becauso earnings a r e fr equent l y g iven in t erms
of the family l ab or unit , ther e is a
tendency to ov Grl ook the lo w individual da ily wage.
As for l a,bor sho r tage , wha,t appear ed to be the best i nformea. opi nion was that no more than 5CO ext r a
worke r s c oul d be used in the en t ire
ar ea for the peak of the c rop season
which woul d p rob ably pass in eight
After that time ther e
to t en days .
woul d be littl e dem2..nd for ou tside
l abor, although a few might find employment by r emaining through the
bl a ckberry se a son .
The experience of b erry pickers i:I: ·
this a rea in the r ecent past has not
been such a s to i nduce t hem to retu r n .
Small c rops in 1933 and 1934 p ro due ed
much dissatisfac tion, both with r espect to the amount of work available
Last y ear a
and the wage s r ec e ived.
numbe r of wage claims we r e pr esented
to th e Nati onal Empl oyment S:•rvic e
for collection and some work 2rs , ev en
among thos e c oming fro m Ponnsylvcmi a ,
we r e p ~id in lo c al county sc rip wh i ch
s old a t a disc ount as low a s 85 .

Living Conditions fo r Be rE.r · ?ickers
i_g__the. Hammon ton .Area .
The extrqmely bad livi ng co~ditio ~s to which be rry p icke rs ~r e expos ed is perhaps the great r: st c aus e
t yp i cal
'l'he
of dissatisfacti on .
11
building is a so-called. shan ty 11 • It
c on t a ins one l a rge b Gdroom in which
all meBbers cf the fa~i l y ~r e her ded
to goth Gr wi thou t r ogar d t o a{!.e or sex.
Some times
No bedding is fur n i sned.
tho shanty i nc l udes spaco for cooking
and eat i ng , but fr cqur:~tly tho worker s mus t cook and eat in t ho o~on. nesidc s sha~ties , old hous e s and bArns
On the whol e , th e housing
a r e used.
f al ls f ar b elo w any r ecognized .American standar d of d.ecency .
The Dis apnearinE L~b or Supply
The r a spbe rry c rop in H&~monton
first a ssumed imp ort ance about fifty
yea rs ago. At that time the r equi r ed
seas onal l abor supply wa s made up al most enti r ely of migr a tory ItaJ_ian
families, more than 85 pe r c en t of
v,hom c ame from Phil adel-phi a and ChesIn r ecen t y ears ,
ter, Pennsylvani a .
due in part to the f act tha t many of
th0se I talian families h ave found
thdr w~y i nt o other indust ri es and
in part t o changed immi gr a tion policto look
i e s , it h a s b een nec essary
1
sh , and
Poli
,
man
ir:.cr::J, .:3i:.-.51:· · to Ger
Negro families for berry pi cke rs.
although a few of the
Formerly,
gro wers hired their picke rs directly,
s ometimes emp l oying t he same f amili es
y ear aft er ye a r, most of the l abor
w::1s obta i necl through 11 -padr ones H (l abWi t h the gr adual disor as0n ts) .
appcnr a...'1c e of rni gr 2, to r y I t a liM f 2mili es , the padro ne syst em h a s r F>;p idly
broken down ~.nd fo r mor e than t en
ye a r s the difficulty of obtaining t he

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

770 1

- 9-

much pr eferr ed f -9.lllily l a bo r units,of
wh ich t he hu s b and, wif e , and chil dr an coul d al l wor:t i n t he fi eJ.ds , has
beco me st eadil;y g r eate r~ !-.~eP:-vrbil e ,
t he gro wers co:t1pl c::,i n tha t t he un1,1A.rri e d man who comu s to t h.-:,,,1 11 won I t
s t ay on tho jobfl an d t hat 11 i ne:xpe rienc eJ pi ck ers do mer e ha rm than g ood
a.11yway 11 •
It is int e r cst in~ to n ot e t hat due
to a rn.ireb er of f A.ctors, of which
change in l abor supply is an i mporta.~ t on e, t here ~as be en a stea dily
dec r easing volume i n th e r a s pb e rry
crop .
It is now only 40 pe rcen t a s
l a r ge a s it was t en ye ars ago and 2C
pe rc en t a s l a r ge a s i t was twen t yfiv e y ears ago.
Summa ry
The cha r g~ t hat r eli ef cli en ts in

the Hanmo:r.. ton P.r ea a r e r ef us i ng to
accep t b e :cry pick i : . .g j obs i s not supThe
temp ora ry
p or ted b y facts .
short ~ge of l2b or is n ot a t ,"111 2.s
r e:J r esented by r ec ent nevrn s tori e s .
Ac tually,
the l:'i tuat i on wh ich g.-g,ve
ris e to misl ee,d i ng and i naccur-'.1,t o
publicity was 0, demand for wo r k ,:; rs
durine t he eigh t to t on d ,q,ys of the
soa son 1 s p o ::ik p ro du c tion .
Po s sibly mor e s e rious t :1Pn mar c i nal
an d submar g i nal
w0,ce s an d the
p r a ctic e of forcing ch il d l abor into
t he b e rry ~atc he s, is th e qu e stion
of housi ng cond itions.
To co~pel
worke rs to a ce op t th:J s e cro wd ,3 d 0::1. eroo m sha c k s, wh ich with t heir l nck
of s an it a tion an d conv eni enc e s r ep r e s ent the worst hou sing of fifty
y ears ago, i nv i t e s encro a chment up on
f amily and ho me life to which no
work er s shoul d b e expos ed.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
-1 0.F EDER AL

EMERGENCY

RELIEF

ADMINISTRATION
D-14

Division of Resea rch, Statistics and Fina~ce
Res earch Section

August

6, 1935

RE S E AR C H B UL L E T I N
Subject:

ALLEGED REFUS.AL BY P.ELIEF CLIENTS TO ACCEPT JOBS OFFEP.ED

Sourc e :

Report of the Study of .Alleged Job Refus al s by Relief Clients in
Washington, D. C.

Supervisor of Study:

Edwar d J. Webst er

In Wa shington, D.C., 220 alleged
job r efus als for tho months of .April
and May 1935 were subj ected to careful analy sis. This number constitut es the total for which r eli abl e
i nformation c ould be secured.
In
the ab sence of l arge
industrial
plants wi th personnel officers, it
wa s impossible to obta in accura te
information from peopl e experienced
in direct , priva t e employment • .Among
householders seeking domest ic serv ants, heres ay compl aints,
which
could not be t i ed down to specific
r eli ef clients, could not , of cours e
be i nves ti gat ed.
The principal sources of i nformation for t his study , ther efore , wer e
the U. s. Employment Servic e r ecords ,
the local r el ief a dministra tion, and
special reports of r eli ef cas e wo r kers .
These sources constituted t he
only sou rces of accurate informa tion
and it is believed that th e cases
covered in t his report are typic al,
especially since al l employable persons on relief a re r egister ed with
the United St a tes Employment Service.
Additional data were secured by personal interviews with prospective
empl oye es as well as with the workers involved.
The outstanding fi ndings ,
which
appear to be c onc lus iv e , are a s follows:

1. The facts rev ealed that the indisc riminate an d sweepi ng criticism
of r elief clients on tho sc ore tha t
they refuse to work when given an
unopportunity to do po is wholly
warr an t ed.
2. Of 220 c ases which for var i ous
r eas ons wer e r epo rt ed in Ap ril and
May as job r efus als,only four could
with justic o be a ttribut ed to unwillingness to work. In tho r ema ining case s ei ther the char ges
were
ill-founded , work r elief r egul a tions
wore involv ed, or the r efus al was
acc ompani ed by extenuating circumstances which will be
desc ribed
l A.ter.
3. In sp ite of the pu.blici ty given
to th e char ge
that r eli ef clients
ar e r efusi ng to accep t wo r k in domestic service, only three persons
who could be definitely cl a ssified
in that occupation were f ound among
the all eged job r efus al cases r eported for t his study.
Each of these
declined work under extenuating ci rcumstance s.
The low number of domestic s ervic e
cases among the alleged job refus als may be due
in
part to the es t abli shed p olicy a t ·
the Public Employment Cente r cf filling only r esponsibl e job offers and
not attemp ting to supply worke r s for
jobs whe re wages and wo r king condi -

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
-11:-

tions are
clearly
unreasonable .
Available evidence i ndicates that
pre.ctically no well qualified domestic workers either on the relief
rolls or off the relief rolls are re-fusing jobs which offer f ai r wages
and tolerable working conditions. 1/
4. Of the 220 cases, sev enty-rive
were not on the active relief rolls
when jobs were offered; seventy were
either a t work or wer e per manently
or temporarily unemployable; fiftythree either did not receiv e the job
c all in time or did not get the job
when they r esponded to the c~ll;
twelve r efused b ecause of a ttendant
circumstances; and six cases involved defective records or conflicting
reports.
This left four cases in
which refusal appeared cl early unjustified.
5. On the basis of CQreful examinati on of tho data obt ~ined, it is
unmistakably evident that unwillingness on the part of clients to accept wo r k is a neeligibl e f actor in

1} Bec ause the records a t the Public Employment Center, wher e all re-lief clients are requi red to register for work, are kep t p ri marily for
placement purposes r a ther than for
research purposes, it is impossible
to distinguish reli ef client plac ements from others during the peri od
of this study •. However, it is known
that a total of
3,414 placements
(day work and regular employmen t)
were made in domestic service by the
United States Employment Service in
.April and May
During tha t period, the number of
failures to accept jobs offered, be-cause of the distance of the job
from .the home of the p rospective em-

the p robl em of reli ef administration
in Washington, D. C.
The difficulty
lies, rathe~ in d~stributing a wholly inadequate amount of work among
the 16,500 employable persons now in
the relief population of Wa shington
who are registered for work.
For purposes of analysis, the 220
cases of alleged job refus el s were
classified as follows:
Not receiving reli ef a t time
job was off ered ••••••••..••••••••• 75
Not r eli ef clients ••••••••••••.• 6
Not active cas e s in either
.April or May •••••••••••••••••• 58
Cases closed after
.April 1 but p rior to job
c all ... ............................ 11

Either empl oyed or unemploy ab 1 e ............................ 70

Employed when job call came ••• 52

ployeo , bec ause of working conditions which ei ther could not
or
woul d not accep t (hours of
work,
11 living in 11 , etc.)
or because of a
wage r ~t e whi ch was deemed too low
for the required work, was only 243.
~ome of these , but by no meA.Ils
a
disproportionate number were undoubtedly r elief clients • .Although it is
not the function of the employment
office to determine whethe r a worker
ought to accept a job or not, it was
known tha t in practic~lly every ca se
where the distance from the home of
the worker did not make it impossible
for her rea sonably to accep t
the
work, t he jobs not ac cepted
were
clearly sub-standard
with respect
either to wages or working conditions or both.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
-12-

Perm.qnently unemployable ••••••• 4
Temporarily unemployable •••••• 14
Failure to contact employer
successfully or to secure
job . ........ .. •........... ....... . 53

Client reported call was not
received ••••••••••••••.....••• 16
Client out of town •••••••••••• 6
Delay in delivery of call •.••• 22
Responded to job call but
did not secure job ••••••••••.• 9
Fa ilure to accept job due to
attendant circumstances ••••••••••• 12
Lack ed necess a ry equipment •••• 2
Necdalto c a re for children
at home •....•.••.............. 3
Violation of N.Rc.A. code •••••• 1

Work believed to be in violation of law ••••••••••••••••• 1
Union relations i nvolved •••••• 2
Declined job on advice of
case worker ••............ . ...• 2

Declined full-time job for
subsistence ••••••••••••••.•••• 1
Facts regarding alleged job
refusals uncertain •••••••••••••••• 6
Clearly unjustified refus als •••••• 4
Refusal of sp ecific job ••••••• 2
Ignored job calls ••••••••••••• 2
Total •....•.••...•............... 220

Not receiving relief at time job
was off(ir'3d. Of the 75 in this grou.p,
six cou.1Q not be identified by the
local relief administration as having at any time been on the relief
rolls. Sixty-nine had formerly received relief 1 but were not on relief at the time the job was offered.

Either emoloyed or unemployable. -- · . _
The f ac t that fifty-two of this
group of seventy were employed a t
l east temporarily when job calls
were received is runple evidence of
the willingness of relief clients to
accept wo rk. Of this number t~entyfour were in p r ivate employmen t, and
twenty-eight we re empl oyed on workrelief projects .
A ba sic r equi r ement enforced as
efficiently as possible and as consistently as circumstances pc rmit ,is
that a client must l eave a work relief job to accept p riva te
employment. However, certa in det ails of
this requirement were not always
clear. For exampl e, in several cases
in which job calls came to clients
on their 11 work relief day 11 they postponed reporting to the
employment
office until the following day. But
becaus~ many placements must be ma de
immediately, the jobs for which they
were called wer e assigned to other
workers. It was discovered als o that
the phrasing of job calls was ~ometimes confusing to clients who were
asked to report 11 if not now employed".
Because they r egarded wo rk relief as
employme~t,these clients did not report. Occas:i.on2J.ly, failure to report wa s believed to be due to preference for a work relief job, as
was the case , for i nstance, with two
semi-professional women who were engaged in their regul a r occupation on
relief work when called for private
employ,i,ent a s domestics.
Of the
twenty-eight work relief cases in
the group, the circumstances a ttending seventeen were such that no action was taken.
In the r emaining
eleven, work authorization was cancelled and c ases were closed.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

??Cl

-13-

Of the p erman en tly unemployable
ther e were three:
one man 66 years
old whos e h ealth do es not p ermit
even li 6ht work; one active tubercul ar (prognosis, 11 incurable 11 ); and
one deceas ed. Of the t emporarily unemployable the r e were fourt e en : two
a dvanced pregnanci e s; four hospital
c a s es; five ill and certified; two
ill but not c ertified; and one in
jail.
Failure to r ec eiv e c all for job
or f a ilure succ es sfully to cont act
employ er. Examin a tion of the fiftyt hr ee c ases i n this gr oup r eve als,
with ·rew exc ep tions, conditions over
which neither the employmen t office
nor the reli ef administration had
control.
Sixteen cli ents r eported
tha t cal ls were not r ec eived.
The
st a tements of nine of the s e wer e acc ep t ed an d no action was t aken . The
sta tements of four were v erifi ed by
the t elegr aph comp any and no action
wa s t ak en.
The st a tements of t h ree
were not convincing and their work
relief authoriz a tion wa s canc ell ed.
Six clients were out of town wh en
c all s were sent. In t wenty-two cas es
due to u.~reported change s of address
deliv ery of job c al ls was so long
del ayed a s to pr ev ent pl ac ernentso
Nine
other
clients r eported a s
promp tly a s p os s ible~ they f ail ed to
secure work. In fOQr of these c a ses
the jobs ha d alre ady been as s i gned;
in one t h e cli ent wa s a sked to make
formal applica tion for t he job(which
h e did not subs equen tly r eceiv e ); in
three t he cli ent was r ejected a s not
qual ified; and in one the cli ent report ed a t the wrong pl ac e.
Faj lure to accept jobs due to a tt enda'1 t c ircumstanc es .
The circu.mstanc es su rrounding these twelv e c as es were a s follows: A de s ert ed wif e ,
the mother of two small children,

could not accep t a ,job and make the
nec essary p rovision for the children's care. The mother of two children, both of whom were ill at the
time , could not acc ep t work.
The
mother of five children of her own
and four step-children wa s obliged
to decline a job.
A tradesman refused to accept a forty-ni n e hour-er-week job
in violation of the N. F.. A.
code ( then in force).
Two ,Yorkers
wer e unable to report for wo r k beC8use they l acked
the necessary
tools and clothing.
One client, a
form er psychopath ic patient, refused
a two- day odd job on the a dvice of
his c as e worker , who believed it inadvisable for him to undertake the
work. One client r efused an ·odd job
on the advice of hi s ca s e worker, b ecaus e acc ep tance would have II spoiled
his chances for a por man ent job . 11 .An
export mechanic was s ent out on an
emer gency call, the de t ails of which
wer e-...mknown to th e employment office;
when he reached the address,he found
hi ms elf in a "wild gambling joint"
and, on being asked to repair wha t
he beli ev ed to be a stolen automobil e , he r 8fused th e job. Two union
trade smen, one of whom had b een a
member of h is union for thirty-one
years, r efQse d to j eopardize their
uni on sta tus and i ncur the risk of a
$100 .CO fin e for viol a ting rules
with r efer ence to non-union jobs and
non- u~i on wages . A woman forty years
of age r efu s ed to acc ep t a full-time
job as a domestic in a l ar ge family
for h er room and board.
Fact s r ega rdi ng all eged r efusru.
uncert~i n . In the ca s es of six clients who wer e chqrged with havi ng
r efus ed jobs, the f acts of the c a se
could not be ful ly es t abli sh ed , or
conflicti ng st a t emen ts r econcil ed.
Howev er, t hr ee of t he s e we r e clos ed
and t hr ; e we r e giv en t he benefi t of

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
- 14-

the doubt.
Clearly un,justified r cfusal·s . Of
the four c a.ses which may be regarded
as clearly unjustified refus als, one
women refused to acc ept p rivate employment in he r usual occupati on;one
man r efused a specific work relief
job; and two ignored job calls and
manifested no int er es t in work • .Ul
four cases wer e closed.
.Although only four cases were adjudged to be clearly unjustifi ed refusals,
pr esun~tiv e evidenc e was
sufficient in seventeen othe r cases
described ab ov e to justify acti on on
the ground tha t the cl ients involved
were not making a reasonabl e effo rt
to cooperate with the r elief administrators.
The work r eli ef author-

izations of eleven wer e cancelled
bec ause their pl eas of ignorance
concerning t he r equirement that rslief clients must, on call, leave
work r el ief jobs to accep t priva te
employment were not believed well
founded.
The work r elief authoriza tions of three other cli ents were
cancelled because their explanations
of f ai lure to r eport to work wer e
not acc ep t ed •by the r eli ef administrators.
.Although the established
f acts concerning thr ee clients wer e
not in themselv es conclusivet neverthel ess their indiff er ence to the
charge of having r efu sed jobs, toge th er with th eir uns a tisfactory r E..-lief case histories , was such as to
warr an t withholding furth er di r ect
r elief , and the ca s es wer e clos ed.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

77Cl
- 15 ':..:

F E DE R AL

E M E R G E N C Y R E L I E F _A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

Division cf Research, Statistics and Finance
Research Section

August

6,

];-15
1935

RE S E AR CH B UL L E T I N
Subject:

.ALLEGED REFUSAL J:?); RELIEF CLIENTS TO ACCEPT JOBS O]'FEBED, ALLEGHENY
COUNTY, VIRGINIA1f

Supervisor of Study:

Joel C. Hawkins

A study vms mad.a in Allegheny
County, Virginia, of all cases of
alleged refusal of employment by members 0f relief households during the
months of April, May,and June, 19 25.
Adequate analysis necessitated study
of each case by assembling data from
the National Reemployment Service Offices, the local Emergency Relief offices, the Public Welfare office,
from private employers and others,ns
well as from c~se workers and the relief clients. From all sources, 32
cases were discovered against which
definite charges of job refus~l had
been made.
Many of the le ading
citizens of the county and employment officers of local industrial
firms were interviewed, but no specific j~b refusa l case was reported
by ruiy of them, although
numerous
rumors were encountered.

A summary statement ~f the more
important findings follows:
1. The facts n.rnply demonstrate
that unwillingness to work is very
r arely the cnuse for relief clients
r efusing to accept jobs.

2. Of the 32 cases s~1died, there
werP .only two which could be cl early
classified ~s unjustifiable r efusal
of work.
Three cnses wer e not r eceiving reli ef when the job was offered.
In the r emaining cases, the
circumstances
attending
refusal

i=feemed to indicate that generA.lly it
was these, rather thl:'..Il unwillingness
to work, which led to the f ai lure to
take the j obs 0ffered.
3. The local relief administrati~n
is taking immediate action upon aJl
alleged job refus~l cases.
Of the
32 investigated, ten had been r e tained on the relief rolls, their refu sals have been considered warranted,
and fourteen had been closed in response to the generA.l administrative
orde r that all r elief cli ents discove r ed r e:using jobs should b e dismissed from the r elief rolls, while
five ot he rs we r e r eceiving no r elief
n.lthough their cnses were still open
for further investign.tion.
Three
cases were not 3Ctually r elief cases
at all.
4 . The study indicates thnt the
normal ch~nnels for
investignti on
~nd removal from relief or persons
r efus ing
jobs are providing
,an
effe ctive and , if anything , Move rdiligent s~fegu~rd
ng~inst
such
abuses as ~re cl~imed to exist.

1/

An add it ion3l note co1:.. cerning
nlleged job r afus~ls in Winchester,
Frederick County, Vi r r.;inia ,is included ~t the end ~f t his r eport .

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
- 16 -

The classification of the 32 cases af ter study was as f ollows !
Net r eceiving r elief at time
jrb was off e r ed •.••..•.....••••..• 3
Tempo r a rily unemp l oyable or
already empl oyed . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . . • . 2
Failure t o contact employ"' r
succes sfully or to secure
and ho 1 d j ob ..•.... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Re po rt e d at jo b sit e but not
ass i gne d t o wo r k ••............. 1
Rej~cted f or the j ob a ft e r a
try- out .............. . . . . . . . . . . 1
Discharged becau i.; e he was unsatisfacto ry afte r one day's
,vo rk ......................... . . 1

Re jP cted because he was a
r e li ef client ••••.•••..•••••.•• 1
Att endant ci r cum ~t ances claimed
as r eason f or failu r e tc accept
j ob,,,, ........ ·................... 17

Fai lure to r each shar ecro pping agr ee ment !·•·····•··· 1
Exces ~ively l~ng hours
on j ob .............. ......... ~. 1

Misunde r s tanding cf r e lief
administ r ativ~ pr ocedur e .•..•• 1
I nade qua t e wage s • . . . . . . . . . . . . • 2
Needed t o care for depe ndent at ho me • • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 3
Una.b l "" to a ccept out- of-t own
j ob .......... "•••···•···· ..... 1

Unabl e to accept odd j ob when
it was off e r ed ••••.•........•.
Work too hard •••.... , .... ···~·
Char ge of unfai r tr eatmen t
u nder inve stiga ti on ..•......••
Spec ial conditions i n the
pulpwood industry ••.........•.

1
1
1
5

Fac ts r egar ding all ege d r ef usals unce rt ain .••••.•.••••...•.. 4
Unj us tifi e d r efusals •••....•.....• 2

Not r ecisivi~elief at time j ob
was c-ffe r ed . A lab or er who r efus e d
a j ob for a r oad building contract or
was e rroneous ly r epo rt ed as a r elief
client ~y the "'mplcyment 0ffi ce .
.Anothe r case wa s :::l osed about eight
week s .·p ri~r to the r epo rt e d j ob r ef usal. A thi r d non-reli ef case was
that of a young woman wh0 l iYe i in
h e r methe r 1 s home but was net in cluded in the r~li ef household budge t
ani wa s not r ecei ving r e lie f.
Temuo r ~ri~x._ unempl oyable er a lr eady
emp lnyed . Because of tempo r a ry illne ss , whi ch was ce rtif ied
by a physician , r1. r oad construction
lab or er could not accept wor k . When
asked to do a day 1 s pl owing , anothe r
client was f ound t o be busy ,..,n nume r.Jus ~dd jobs . His case was cl osed .
Failure t o contact employe r succe s sfully or to ho ld job . One labore rcor.t ended that he r epo.rt e d p r omp t ly at a P. W,A. r~ ad const ructi on j0b
but that he was n0t given wo r k . Howeve r, he .was accepted l ate r . .Anothe r cl i ent was given a try- out as
a st e am shove l ope rator and was
f ound unsatisfacto r y . A skille d mechanic accep ted wo rk as a pick and.
shove l man , but was dis charged a ft e r
the fir s t day because he was unabl e
t o do the wo r }:: . Upo n r epo r ting f or
a two- day odd j ob , anothe r client
was t old by the empl oy e r, 11 I will
not have anybody who was on r elief
wo r king f or me 11 •
Att endant ci r cumstan~~s cl ai m~d
:=i.s r e.~son ~or f -'1.i lure t o accept j obs .
On inve s tigation it was e stabl ished
that the heud of a l a r ge hcusebol d
"lvho was rt:po rt e d t 0 hn.ve r e fus ed a
j ob had f ai l e d to accep t Q
sha r ecr opping off er, th~ condi ti ons of
which :1.nvo l ved sn much
insecur ity
that its accep t ance did n~t app ear
t o be j ustified , Befo r e the ln cal

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
- 17 relief ad.ministration had opportunity to pass judgment upon the case,
the offe r was wi thdra.wn by the landlord. No actio~ was tr.Jcen.
Because he objected to a 13-hour
shift as ni :~ht watchman , for which
he received ten hours 1 pay, a worke r
left his job. His case was closed.
Due to his musunderstanding of
local relief administrative p rocedure, a client refused a two-day job.
Explanations having been made, this
client has since accepted all w~ rk
offe r ed.
Because they considered the wage
too low, a man and. his wife refus ed
joint employ~ent out of town--he to
tend a
filling station and she to
cook in a r es taurant--at a
tctal
wage of five dollars for a seven- day
week. The case was closed .
A client r €fused to accept a temporary job sowimg wheat at one dollar a day. The case was closed.
A client r efused. a 11 live-i n 11 domestic job because she was needed at
home to care for a tubercular invalid sister aJlQ her two smell cnildren, who were on relief.
No action
was taken.
A 11 live-in11 job at gene ral housework and the care of two children,
wage $3 .50 pe:r week, was refused by
a client whose pr esence was re qui red
at home during part of the dr-i.y to
assist her semi- invalid mother . This
household rece ived onl;y· supplem-sntal
reli ef , and the client was able to
accept occasional odd jobs by
the
day . No action was taken.

A seventeen year old girl in a r elief household refused work as a domestic at $2 . 50 and board per v1eek
because her nether needed her at
home . ~he cas~ was closed.
mother c,f a seventeen year
old girl would not permit her t~ accept an out- of-town job. No action
was tn..1<:en. This gi rl has since secured occn.sional odd jobs which contribute to the household income.
T:1e

A wo rk relief client r efused a
one- day odd job because the wo rk
which he as doing in his own garden
could not be postponed . The case
was closed.
A laborer who was offered a job
on road construction said he was unable to de the work . This st a tement
was questioned and, pending further
investigation, all further relief
was withhel d.
Charging that he had be en unfairly treat ed in the pnst , a client refused to accept work on a P.W.A.r11ad
construction job. Because a contraversial question wf hours is involved, the case is rece iving further investigation.
Sneci al conditions in the pulpwood ind.ustry . As a matter of policy
shortly nf tE:r the t)~oeni ng of the season, the local r el i ef administration
removed from its rolls all empl oyable persons
in the
communities
wher0 it was believed work would be
hr.d cutting pulpwood. Prior to the
adoption cf this policy, howeve r,
five cases VJere subject ed to individual ac tion, and we r e closed.
In
these fiv e pnr~icular
cases , each

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

- 18 -

worker
subsequently
found some
source of income(for a short time at
least) . but their experience in 1his
respect cannot be considered typ~cal
of all the cases removed from rel;i.ef:
~

~ne client said he would not
work for the man who offered him employment because there would 11 be no
pay until the job was finished". His
case was closed and ,after some weeks
of unemployment, he secured temporary work on a P.W.A. job.
1.

2. Because the wage offered was
only $1.50 a day and transportation
for ten hours of cutting, a client
refused to accept it .
He is now
farming, having been selected for
rehabilitation.
3. The stumpage on which one cli·. ent was offered a job was so located that a horse would have been
needed to deliver the wood at a loading point.
He had no horse.
The
case was closed and the wo rker found
tempo r ary employment at a wood....cu.tting job where no horse was needed.
4. Because the contractor offering the job was "slow pay" due to
his failure to deliver wood to the
mill promptly, a client refused to
work for him.
This client,
when
visited , was found picking huckleberries which he said at least yielded a "cash" income.
5. Poor
and widely scattered
stumpage, requ1r1ng the use of a
horse which he did not have, together with the fact that he feared
fr om experience that 11 pay would not
be certain", prompted another client
to refuse a wood-cutting job,
His
case was closed;
he later accepted
another wood-cutting job, which had
three more days to run at the time
he was interviewed.

Facts concerning alleged refusals
uncertain.. In three instances, discrepant
reports
and
defective
records made it impossible to settle
the cases immediately and they were
continued -open for investigation. No
decision had been reached when this
study was completed.
In a fourth instance, although
there was much disagreement among
the repo rts concerning jobs said to
have been refused, the cas e was closed and the client soon secured work .
Unjustified refusals.
Because a
client would not work for the foreman to whom he was assigned on an
E.R .A. job, relief was discontinued.
Another client who refused to report for work on a P.W. A. road construction job was immediately cut
off relief.

Recent press stories have charged
that relief clients at Winchester,
Frederick County,
Virginia,
hav e
publicly declared their unwillingne:s
to accept jobs as long as relief is
forthcoming. Upon the completion of
the Allegheny County study, inquiry
concerning the Frederick . County situation was ma.de through Mr. W. A.
Smith , Administrator of the Virginia
E.R.A., who reported that conditions
with respect to relief there differed in no essential respect from
those in the former county.
The
recent publicity concerning the Winchester relief clients grew out of
an incident in the re-employment office where a newspaper correspondent
heard two men refuse proffered jobs
at 45¢ an hour. -.Although they were
in fact non-relief registrants, the
newspaper correspondent
rr.istakenly
supposed they were relief clients

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

77(1

- 19 -

and wrote his ~tory accordingly. The
~anager of the employment offic e declares that he has experienced no
difficulty in placing relief cl ients
for whom j obs have been a vailable,
and a careful check made by the
state relief adffiinistrato rs
dis-

closes only two cases of job refusals within the last six months ,
which cases were immediately closed.
During the same period , two applicants were denied relief because they
refused to accept jobs.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

FEDERAL

-20EMERGENCY RELIEF

7701
AD MINISTR ATION
D-16

Division of Research, Statistics and Finance
Research Section
RESEARCH
Suoject:

August 14, 1935

BULLETIN

ALLEGED RENSAL BY RELIEF CLIENTS TO ACCEPT JOBS OFFERED IN MEW.PHIS
TENNESSEE

Supervisor of Study:

Armin H. Sterner

In order to obtain a picture of
the i nc ide nce of job refusals in Memphis, Tennessee, a study was mP..de of
all such cases r eport ed during the
months of April and May .
Similar
studies were r ecently made in Baltimore, Md., Hammonton, N.J., Washington, D.C., and Allegheny County, Va.
Sources of infor~ation included the
records of the National Reemployment
Service, the central and district
files of the Local Emergency Relief
Administrat ion and of h0spi tals when
necessary, as well as pe r s onal interviews with case workers, employe r s,
and reli ef clients.
Summary )f Significant Findings
1. The investigation of alleged
job refusals in Memphis, Tennessee,
confirms the findings of p r evious
studies in more northerly communi t - •
ies: ~hat the number of ::learly unjustified refusals t o accept ;•Iork is
very small. Out of a total of over
11,000 ,'l'o r k::ers on r elief in Memphis ,
it was possible to locate only 39 instances of alleg~d refusals to accept work, and the investigation of
these revealed only two where no
reasonable explanations were offere d.
The remr.dnr1.er, clfter a car0ful consideration of circumstance s, a1~ ear
no t to have been due to unwillingness to work .
2. Eleven of tha 39 cases r epre sent domestic servants; ten of these

cases were Negroes.
Placement procedure for such clients is so haphazard that it is practically impossible to make an adequate check
upon a ll rumors and allegations of
job r efusal.
It is not unusual for
a dome stic wor ke r to make a house- to
house canvass in r esidential
districts to offer his or her services
at very low remuneration.
Despite
complete absence of standards in the
domestic servi ce field, there seems
to be,
with the exception of one
case of unjustified refusal, a genuine willingness on the part of the
reli ef clients to accept any job for
almcst ~ny wabe in order to derive
some mea~s of supr, ort
from
other
sources than the Reli ef Office. Tbe
cli ents intervi ewed frequently asked
the interviewer to assist th lm in
se8uring jobs.
The r ,:;maining 28 cases, only
ona of which represented a clear
case of unjustified r e fusal, w3re in
occupations ether than domestic s -,r -vice. Thirteen were either not employable at the time or, due to attendant circumstances, were
unable
to accep t a job when the call f or
work came; anot ner group of ei ght
cases did not r ecei ve the call,
or
we!'e unable successfull:y to contact
the e~ployer. In four c~ses not all
the facts co:1cerning jco refusals
could be ascertained, but a vailabl e
evidence seemed to fav or the client.
Two cli ents were not on relief when
3.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

- 21-

the job

~~s

~ffered.

4 . In the opinion of the interviewer st the clients seemed to have
a genuine desire 11 to get another job
call", "get off r elief", and bec ome
self-supporting once mor e .
A detailed analysis of the 28 ca-

ses of alleg ➔ d job r efusals o t he r
than in domestic service follows .
Placement procedur es among domestic
se rvants differ so ma.r kedl y f r om the
mo r e usual methods that the probl em
of domestic servants is t r eated sepa rately below .
Not on reli ef at time job
was offere d .. ...• ... .... •... ....... 2
Failure t o contac t employer
successfully or to secur e and
hold job . .. . ... . . ... . . .......... •• . 8
Did not recei ve call •..• . .. ..• l
Err or in answer ing call .. . .• .. 1
Unable to contact employer ••• • 2
J ob filled when client call ed . 3
Discnarged as incompetent
wo rk e r . .. . .. . ...... . .. . . . .... . 1
Either em:r,loyed or un -:;mployabla ...• 7
Alr8ady employed when call
camc3• ••• • •• • ••• •• •• • •••••• • •.• 1

Permanently unemployable • . .•.• 1
Temporari13r unemployable . . •..• 3
Partial disability or han di capped for the job offe r e d .••. 2
Failur e to Rccept job due to
a ttenJ.ffr. . ~ "!.ircc1P1stances •.• • .••..••• 5
Misu.ndorstcod natur o of work
relief ::.t1~lations . . . . .. . *···· l
Unwillir:~ to accept sub- sta n<iar -1_ wage . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
! nab1 e to maintain ~epar ate
fiom0 f or children under medi c1.l car •~.... .. ...... . ........ l

77 Jl

Facts regardin~ aller,ed r 8fusal unce r tain ••• •.. • . ..... ..••••• 4
Unjustifi ed r efusal. ••. .. . ... . • •••• 1

TOTAL . . ...... ...... . . . . ........... . 28
Not on r e li Gf ?. t time job was off-:erea . The two persons in t hi s cate gor y were working at the time jobs
we re of f ered and had pr e vi ously been
r emo ved f r :)rn the r e l ief r olls .
Fai l u r e t o contact ~loyer succ essf ully or to secur e and hold job .
In three instances in t h is gr oup of
eight cases, clients r eported to employers anrt were to l d the job had
alreaoy been filled . On being called
to chop cotton, one 1"l or ker was t..·a.nspor ted to a plantation t o w~ich h 3
had not bee n assignee. ;
although h-3
1
actmilly 'vor rnd there thi s was n0 t
known to t he r elief agency , a.nd he
was r eport ed to have r s fus e d a ciob .
One wo r kl; r d.id not r e ceive tho notification to repo rt fo r wo r k on a
constr ucti on job .
Two app:.ican ts
fo r commission sal esman ' s jobs made
se ver al at t ~'ffipts to see t he empl oye r
who , hov1e ver, coi.:l d not be r eached .
A male cook 71'1.0 actually began ·wor k
at his ne w job was discharged the
same clay because of being t 00 slo·:v-.
I n none of the se eight all egod caseR
was there an actual job refusa l .
:Either empl cyed or unemp l oyable ._
Thre e cases in t h i s group of sev8n
were unab l e to accep t employment b ecause of illness at the time th~ job
was offer9d .
Rospi tal records ancl.
indivi iua ls consulted attested to
t tese cb.i"-'1s. An ot her clie,1 t affl:k:ted with partial par&lysis of t ~e
lower extremities was r:..0 t physically
able t o p t;; r -form gny kine~ o!' manual
',';'O r k:: . A man s ~ve'1 ty ye3,rs of a ge
rep ort -, d fo r ~·.r or::-C with a constructi0n company; his duti e s consiste d

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

77(1

-2 2-

of carrying material along narrow
girders, which work he actually performe_d for seven hours; ho could not
go on, hoTiever, on account of a sever e he art ailment,and his physician
advised him against any hard labor.
Of the remaining two cases in this
group,one was working part- time when
the job call came and he did not
wish to give up his permanent pa rttime job for a temporary out-of-town
job. The other declined an out-ofto ,.1n farm laborer• s job because of
advanced age and unwillingness to
live apart fr om his wife.
Failure to accept job due to attendant circumstances. This group of
six cases includes three
pe rs ons,
with dependents,
who c ould not see
their way clear to accept jobs as
salesmen on a straight commission basis without leads being furnished
for the selling of such commodities
as elect ri c r e frigerators,electrical
appliances, and novelty advertising.
Ear.h person stated that
earnings
would not only be very low, but that
any earni ngs at all would be problematical. One person, a union
meat
cutter, was offered a job in his
trade at half the union wage; accep tance of this job would have meant
dismissal from the union and would
have jeopardized chances for futur e
employment .
Another wo r ke r ignore~
a job call from the National Reempl0yment Service because of his imp ression that only wor k relief jobs
were handled by the agency .
He
stated that since he already had a
work relief job which suited him
there would be no need to change. A
farm laborer would not accept a job
in his usual occupation in a malaria
infested region because it would not
yield sufficient income to care for
his children who had contracte d ma-

laria and who we r e under
treatme_nt in Memphis.

medical

Facts regarding alleged refusals
uncertain . The four cases represented workers charged. with having refused temp orary jobs with construction companies. Information conce rning these cases was f r agmentary and
conflicting and it was not possible
to determine facts completely.Available evidence, -howeve r, seems to excuse the r e fusals since jobs offered
were tempo r a ry out- of- town job s .
Unjustified refu sal . This worke r
was offered a job chopp ing cotton.
He claimed as his reason for r efusal
that he was a 11 city Negro 11 and
had
never done farm work before .
Action taken by Relief Agency because of re fusals. In fi ftee n instances of r eported j ob refusals,
after proper consideration of facts
in each case, no action was taken by
the Relief Agency and these per sons
r emained r elief r ecipients .
The
fact that job calls had been issued
by the N.R .S. had not, in 11 instances, been communicated t o the Relief
~gency and consequently no action
had been taken .
In two cases persons wer e droppe d f r om the r e lief
rolls,
one f or r e fusing a cotton
chopping job, and the othe r who had
accepted and actu~lly worked at hi s
job was thus disciplined unjustifiably since the Relie f Agency ·underst ood that he bad r efus~d a job,
whereas in fact be had in error repo rt ed to and wor ked for another emp l oyer.
Because of the pre sent overcrowded condition of the domestic servant
labor market, particularly in Southern cities with large Negro popula-

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

- 23-

tions,and the widely varying wor king conditions offered in this
sort of employment, it would
not
be surprising to find considerable
numbers of job refusals here . Socalled 11 live-in 11 servants are,from
the point of vi ew of the employe rs
usually considered most desir able .
This c l ass of employment, however,
prese nts widefy varying hours a::id
conditions of wo rk. Moreover II li ving- in11 is necessarily difficult
for worke r s with family r esponsibilities of thei r own.
It is not
uncommon that servants, after de voting t welve hours to their daily
r outine, ar e call ed upon to extend
their wo r king hours , on the occasion of social gatherings in the
home of th8 employe r, without additional r emune ration. Wage s paid
for a full- time maid doing general
housework , and sometimes cooking
also, r ange fr om $2 . 50 to $3 . 50 a
week, the first figure, acco r ding
to the Shelby County case wo rk supervisor, representing the customary wage paid .
The small number
of cases in this group does not
necessarily indicate the total number of job refusals which
might
have occurred since unorganized
employment procedures make it impossible to locate or to investigate all cases.
But it is felt
that the investigation does indicate that domestic servants ar e
with few ex~eptions willing to wo r k .
The fo llowing reasons
r efusals we r e found :

for

job

Report of job refusal
erroneous •....................... 1
Job fill ed when client call e d •.•• 4
· Not acceptable to
employer ••. ..................... . 1

Unable to accept 11 live-in 11
job because of family
r e sponsibi liti es •••••...•....••••• 2
Refused because of no regul ar wages ......................... ~ •• 1
Facts concerning case
unce rtain . .....................•. . 1
Unjustified r efusal •••••••.••••••• l
Of the eleven cases which r epresent wo r kers classified as domestic
servants, ten colo r ed and one white ,
eight we r e females and three we r e
males. Only thre e of t hese had finished e l ementar y school.
Seven of
the eight f emale wo r ke rs wer e separat od or widowed; five of them had
dependent children.
In the first case, t he cli cn t,who
was still in b od from a r e cent confinement, stated that s he had been
offered no job during the past year,
but that she had refused a mai d 's
job in May 1934 because of a similar
condition .
Due to failure of employers to report to the Employment
Office, four clients had b een sent
to apply for jobs which we r e already
fille a . One empl oye r r e fused to accept the se rvices of a mai d because
the wages she could offe r we re insufficient to maintain the applicant's dependent childr en, and because the lack of servants' quarters
made it impossibl e f or t he applican t
to 11 live in 11 , an
arrange ment which
w0uld ha ve be en ne cessar y for her to
hold th,3 job.
Two othe r cases r eport Ld that it had bee n necessary
for them to refuse jobs because no
provision coul d be made for the care
of their small chi l dren .
servant
The one case of a wnite
was t ha t of a middle-aged, expe rienced housekeeper. She refused a full-

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701
-24-

time job w~ich provided only room,
board, clothing, and pocket money
f or incidentals, because it offered
no regular wage s. It was impossible
to ascertain t he facts i~ ona case,
becaus3 of the reluctance of the cli~nt t o give any informati on ;
this
r elu.cta~1ce was aprare ~tly
due to
mental defici ency and the case worker r eported tria t the client c ould
not have secured t he ,j ob because of

her lo':i mP-n tnli t y.
Only one case r epr8sented un ju s tifia-bl e r c:- fusal. This clieri.t stated
that t he address ~hich
h1d
be 8n
given her was a vacant l 0t . A check
up revealed t hat this WP.s no t true.
The r eport of the case worker was
that t his client was unreliable and
irresponsible and not i nterested in
o"btaL1ing wor k .

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7249

-25-

F E D E R A L E ME R G E

r CY RE L I E F AD~ I N I S T R A T I ON

Di vision of Resec:rch, Statistics and Finr.ncP
Research Secti on

Novembe r 7, 1935

RESEARCH BULLETIN
Subject:

.ALLEGED REFUSAL BY RELIEF CLIENT S TO ACCEPT JOBS OFFEREj) IN
Bu.FFALO, YEW YORK.

Prepared by;

Dori~ 0Rro t he rs and A. Ross Eckl e r

Summar;y:
A detailed investigation of 2E 2
relief clients r epo rted to have r efused non-relief jobs in Buffalo,
New York, during May and June 1935 ,
r eveal ed a con~idorably higher proportion of unjustified or doubtful
cases than had been found in earlier
studies where the percentage
was
very low.
While in many instanc e s the re
were excellent rea sons for refusal
(as when the worker had accepted
private employment, but was sti l l on
relief until his first pay day) ,
there were a number at t he othe r end
of the scale (where a relief status
was preferred to private employwent) .
It is impossible to s e t up cle ~r-cut
categories of justified or unjustified refusals, especially where the
doubt is gre c.:,test and where plausible p r e tex ts ar e devis ed t o cove r up
deliberate efforts to take advantage
of relief agen~ies.
Ther efo r e , the
analysis called for a sorting pr ocess which would s egr egat e t he blamel es s cases and leave those wnere
justificati9n wa s in doub t.
'l1h<:: m9s t

acN:;,table reas ::m f or
refusing work wou.1 d seom to be t l1e.t
bas ed upon inabil.i ty of t be 1:orlrer
to accept t:t e job. Such inability
ma_y ·be the r •.: s11l t of other
".)T i vate
employment, of physical disability
er tem:porary u..~employability, or of
failure to meet the requirements of
the employer. Ninety-two of the Bu.:-

f ~lo ca ses , or 35 p ercent, fell in
this category . Ho'\l'ever , the :najority
of thes e 92 consisted 0f pe rso ns
claiming s ome degr ee of disability.
The r e were 56 individuals, or ne ~rly
one-fourth of the 262 under conside ration, who asserted that they were
~hysically unabl e to do the specifi c
kind of wo rk offered. Asserted physical inability to accep t a job thus
account ed for a much larger propo rtion of the refusals than was found
in the job refusal studi e s conducted
in Washington, D. C., and Baltimore,
Marylancl:J . All of the 262 cas e s
~ere r egistered with the New York
State Erupl oyment Servic e and were
r egarded as e mployable so that doubt
a~taches t o t ~e validity of mRny of
t :. . e claims.
?robably the most striki ng featur e of the Buffalo inquiry is the
large number of cases i nvolving some
degree of proc ed,.1ral f :iilure or misunders t anding . There v:ar e 80 cases ,
or a.bout 31 pe r cent of the t otal,
where the .ssserted failure of t he
cli ent to ~et t he n0tice,his failure

'i/

It sho .: . l d be noted t hat the Buffalo N.Y. S. S .S. pla~ ~d 638 reli ef
~lien ts i:'.". pri ve.te err.J:i.o;:,rrnent in Ma;yand Jt~~e 1935 .
The tot a l nur,o er of
r el ief cl:en ts serve i was theref ore
'.100 .
Only sligh tly :7to re than six
percent of t he s e refused jobs specific~lly becaus e of phys ical disability .
1

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

-26to act pr omptly , or his
ignorance
either of the difference
between
P . W.A. and wo rk relief, or of the
E.R. B. policy requiring accentance
of P.W.A. or other non-relief jobs
accounted. for the r efusal . The large
proportion of foreign-born in the
populatio n of :au.ffalo is p robably a
factor in explaining the considerable number of cases involving some
kind of misunderstanding. Even after
allowance for this , the pro~ortion
of such cases seems unduly high . The
responsibility for this situation is
doubtless attrib1.1table in part
to
the indifference of r el ief clients,
in part to the failure of the agencies to establish r outines and forms
of notification which minimize the
chances for misunderstanc'Ling, and in
part to the infrequence of disciplinary measures which might deter clients from turning down p rivat e employment .

the nature of the particular job offered. Comparison with findings in
similar studies conQucted in Bclt i more, Md., and Washington, D. C.,
sugges ts that this propo rtion i s
high and that the group probably
contained a number of r efus a ls which
were ac tually u:::iwarrant ed .

The third main group to be considered covers those cases in which
refusal was based upon a considerati on of the type of job offered. A
definite statement regarding this
class is not possible, because it is
a heterogeneous gr oup including such
extremes as: (1) the individual who
turns down a job offered by an employer seeking to take advantage of
the present desperate condition of
labor ( a type of case rarel;;-· found
in the Buffalo survpy); and (2) the
individual who int~ntionally misrepresents his qualifications in or der
to justify his refusal of a particular job.

In some respects the Buffalo findings resembled those of other cities:
the cases investigated did not reveal a p revalent aversion to work on
the part of re l ief cli ents . Moreover
as in the ear lier studies , the number of r e fusals origina lly r eported
was considerably swelled by cases
involving worke r s not on
relief .
Nevertheless , the fact remains that
workers on relief in Buffalo were
ta.kins greater liberties than elsewhere in weighing the r elative a.dvonta6es of a relief status as against an offeted non-relief job. If
work relief jobs are too frequently
found to be more attractive than opportunities offered in private employment , stricter wo rk r elief procedures would seem to b e called for .

Sixty-three of the 262 Buffa.lo
refusals were reported to turn upon

Finally, there were eic;ht persons
who based their re fu sal of p r ivate
emplojinent solely upon pr~ference
for their wo rk relief jobs . This
constitutes a small pe r centage of
the total numbe r but it must not be
interpreted as including all those
whose refusals were based to some
extent upon this kind of preference .
The lack of ingenui ty or imagination
shown in the use of so transparent
an excuse might be taken as evidence
of l ack of understanding of official
r egulations rather than of intended
wrongdoing.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

77(, 1

- '2 7-

SURVEY OF REPORTED REY-lJSALS BY RELIEF CLIEN·r s TO ACCEPT NON-RELIEF J OBS
OFFERED BY THE NEW YORK STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
IN BUFF.ALO , NE',V YORK, DURING MAY AND JUlJE 1935
The investigation of job refusal s
in Buffalo was r est ricted to those
r epo rted by the New York State Employment Service , since this was the
only agency with which the Emergency
Relief Bur eau had a cooperat~ve arr angement f or pl P.cement wo r kll. There
was obtained f r om the records of the
N.Y. S.E.S. a li~~ of al l the repo rte d job r efusals~ by relief clients
during ,the months of May and Ju.~e
1935 .

The study covered 457 cases , a
considerably l Rr ge r number than was
includ.:c; i.1. in any of the five p r evious
Of these
surveys of this t ype':i/ •
case s , 195 were f ound. to be out side
the limits of the study . One nundred
and fifty we r e former r elief cli en ts
whose cases had been closed before
the date of job notification , c?..nd.
hence we r e not sub j ect to the charge
that they preferred r el i ef to p ri-

The forty-five
vate employment.
others included a va riety of special
situa tions mentioned in the taoulaA number of tnem we r e
tion below .
not on the reli ef rolls of ttG Buffalo City Eme r gency Reli ef Bureau ,
while the r e co r ds ,,;hich showed othe rs a s having r efused jobs i n Mc..y or
June we re e rroneous . After the tli:nination of these 195 cases, there
r emained. 262 r elief cli ents from
whom we r e secured eXDl anat i ons r r:;garding r efusal to Rccep t private
employment.
The follo wing t P.bul a ti on shov;s ,
in swnmary form, the fncts r eg;ffdi nf:
the 457 case s . Some blurrin~ of ~ 3t ail is inavi t R.ble in this at tem:-' t
nt cl ~ssifica ti on but it is not b0lieved t ~~t this defect is so r ious .
I

Repo rt ed r efus~ls ............... 457

l/

:Buffalo, wi t h a population of
app roxima tely 625 , 000 , ha d a r eli~f
population of about 120 , 000 to 130 ,000 during the period of the study;
128 , 032 pe rsons ( 34, 591 cases) on
Ap ril 30th; 124, 519 pE:rs ons ( 33 , 374
ca s e s) on May 30th ; ~nd 118 , 436 pe rsons( 33 ,182 c.:.ses ) on Ju..rw 30 , J.9 35 ,
'?,} Jo b r efus e.ls as de; fi m,d in this
study include case:.:; i :!1 Wh::!.cn 1nQ1viduals failed to a;.:;.sv;e r .q, summons of
the N. Y.S .E.S. as well as those in
which individt:.als refused a specific
job in pri va.te employment.
3/ See Rese a rch :S~ll e tins on : Baltimwre, Mel . (D- 12) , Hammonton , N. J .
( D-1 3) , ifoshington D. C. ( D-1 4) , Alle gheny Co 1.mty, Va . ( D-15) , ,3nd Me!'Tlphi"s , Tenn . (D- lt) .

Not on r eli ef or not a ctual
Ma:,,- or June r efus e.ls of

non-rE; l it:f jobs .•••••........ 195
For ~e rly relief cli ents;
case s clo se d a t ti~ e of
job notification ....... . .. 150
F,cirrm:.,r l:,r reli ef cli ent s ;
dtce~sed at ti me of
2
job notification ..........
Oth~r s not r e ce iving
r elief from Buffalo City

E.R. 3 .... ........... ..... .

l fl

PJ a c~ments ( er ro ne o~s ly
8
r v0ort ed c,.s r ,:; fu sals).....
J obs o:fa r Gd i n April
( r t.po rt e d ns !l'::w r efusals) . 10
7
'.7o r l: r -..livi' jotc off E> r ed,.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

7701

II

Relief clie~ts at time of
j ob notification . . .......... . 262
Alr 0 ady employer, 0r rejected
cy emp~_oye r :
Working at :p rhra te
employment ... .......... .. . . 27
Rejected by employer . .. .. .. 4
Temporar y U."1employabili ty. .. 5
Asse rt ed physic,;i,l d.isabili ty ... . . . ... .... . .. . ..... 56
Procedural and ad~inistrative difficulties:
All eged failurP to r ecei ve
.j.'Jb n0t ice . . .. ... .......... 42
Mi sunce rs ta!,dings of work
r Plief policy .. .. .. .. .... . . 26
Delay in applying for job .. 11
Failur e t o contac t ri[ht
sm:ployer . .. .... . .. . ..... .. . 1
Refusals based U[Vi!l nat ure
of spec ific job :
Denial of qualif ica. ti on
for the j ob 0ffered . . . .. ... 8
Lack of to ols . .... ... .... .. 1
Refusal of j "bs because
0f dur3ti on, l ocation,
or pay. • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Refusal of j'Jbs 0ut of
trade or profe3sion .....•.• 34
Re f usal of ref err2 l because of p r evious trouble
v,i t:.1 enployc:;r .... . . . . . . . . . • 2
Prefe rr ed wor~ r el i ef jobs .. 8
Facts indeterminate ......... 19
Pri or to consideration of the details of the table, menti'Jn should
be :.lade of two factors bearir.g upo,1
an interpretation 0f the datP. ! Fir st ,
refusal, as defi~ed in the N. Y. S .b.S.
rec ords , may be : (a) failure to r espond to a notic~ fr om tr.e e~pl~yment of fice (eve~ thou 5 h the call
might not have lead to a r efe r ral) ;
(b) refusal of a refe rral to a job;

or (c) refusnl of a job afte r r efe ral . Second, a hi~h ~ropc rtion of the
refusals pert1.ined to P . W. A. jobs ; about 63 percent of the 262 refu sals
by r elief cl ients we r e of t his type .
The first section of t he tabl e
p r ese nts information r P,garding those
wto we re not ~i t hin t he sccp9 of the
study as defined . l,:ost " f them we1·e
closed cases at t he timq of joo notificatio~ . I n additinn, the r e were
eigilt pl9..cements which llf!d been erronec'J.s ly r ero rt e d as r ,, fusals a nd
ten r efusals which had been r eco rded
in May whe r eas t he j0b actually had
Ther 2 we r e
be en offered in April .
1 8 individual s wh ~ wG r e not r oceiving r e lief fr om the Buffalo City
Of the
Emergency Relief Bureau .
other 9 cases , 2 were deceased, and
7 were offered wo r k r elief jobs
rather than private j 0bs .
A t ho rough anal.ysi s was unde r taken of the 262 r emaining cases . Fr ~m
t he r eco ros of t he N. Y. S. E . S . 3~d
the E . F.. . B . , data we r e securP,d r elating to the job offered :1.nd t he r eaSuppl ement~r y
son for the refus~l .
inf or~ation was derived f r om intervi ews with the clients and with the
em1--loye r s rep ort ea to have offered
The oroade r asp ects of
the j obs .
the p r ob l em we r e studied by means nf
consultation with l eading in~1striali sts , 1:,er sonnel m,, n; civic and labc-r
leaders , p rominen t social work~rs ,
and key persons in vari ous nationality gr oup s .

The main divisions of Se c tion II
of t:1-:• tabulation reveal b.road c3.tego ri0 s of r ~asons ~ive~ fo r the r efusal of jobs offered . The arrange went is s0mewhat arb itr ary but is
p resur.ably in r ough accordance with
t he p robable justifiabi l ity of the
A br ief dereasnns for refu sal .
scr iption of the seve r al classes

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

-29-

will serve to clarify the plan by
which t he job refus?.ls were tabul a tThe general concl,1si(ms · exed.
pressed in t he sur:::nary rest upon a
detailed conside r atio n of the va rious facto r s affecti ng each s ituati on but it is obviously i mr,c ssi ble
t o p re s ent a ll t r.~ data that we r e
assemble d .
Work ing at pri vate employmen t.
The cases of ei ght c lie nts we r e
cl osed on r eceipt of t hei r first pa.y
&.nd 19 ethe r s were r ecei vi ng suppl P-mentar y aid f or insufficient i ncome .
Most 0f the 27 c li 8nts were ~robably
j us ti fied in r efusinp; t he new j oos .
At any rat P , t hes e pe r sons we r e
v.·o r king f or at l east a p:1:- t of the
time and we r e thus dumon strat ing
thei r willingness to a~cep t ga inful
emp l oyment. Ne vert h8 ~es s, t he r e was
evide nce i n a few cases t hat wo r v.e r s
were sa ti sfi ed with pa rt-t i ·;H'~ or inadequately pa i d .jobs ano ·:,er e c ompar ati vely i nd iffe r ent t o ~ppo rtilnities t o r ender t hemse lves P.C0~03 i cally indep ende~ t.
Despite
Rejected by enpl-:ye r.
conflicting st~ t e,ents by officials
of t he a~encies , ~y cli ~nts , aL~ by
p l acement men con~e cted with P. W.A.,
which mflke it diff:cu.lt t o e v~l -,J ::: t,:
t he me r its of b .e fo,:r cac:ec; i n
wi1ich em!)loyers wr---r ~ repo r tl3d t 0 be
u::1.wil ~ Ll,·': t o ac ce:· t P. pa rticul ar apr,l ica:r. t, st ill it s eems likely th?:.
mo s t of the se ~o r kers did r eport f~r
work an'i we r e not a t fault in tne ir
failur e to be placed .
Temp0rary unemployab il it:, . TUR
g r oup of f ive consist S:d of t ·.r e::
clients who we r e in p ri son a t t he
time the job notice was sent and of
t wo ot he rs who were unable t o accept
wo r k because of illness i n t he fami ly.

disabilit y .
phys ical
Asse rt ed
Si nce all of t hes e pe r son s were r egist e r ed at the N.Y.S. E . S . and r e -gar ded as emp loyable, it is r athe r
s,:rp!'ising to fi nd that 56 pe rs ons
r eL1sed j obs because of a c)v :=i.r:.ce,'. age
or some degree of physical di sabi l ity . An attemp t was made by t he i nvest i~a t or to ascertain t he me ri ts
of t bese clai ms where ver po ssibl e .
In 2~ caseP such inquiries yi eld9d
fairly sRt i sfac t cr v pr cof of phys i Ch.l disa'bi.li :,y , s1.l.ffic.iP-nt t o r ule
01.1 t t ,1.e r,art icular job off er ed . The
r Pmai n ing membe r s of t his gr oup were
·c1nao l ,s t o fur nish i::onclus i v9 :rr o::> f
of t he ir good f~ith in r efus i ng p riva te 2mploym9nt and t he r e was Qcuttl ess a cer ta in amo 1.1nt of malinge r ing
Such a con(li ti on i ~
among them .
l ike l y to persis t ur..til car eful me di cal e xR~i I'-ati~ns ere gi ven all rPlief cl i ents who r e fus e jobs because
of as s ert ed physical disab ility .

Fria r tn a considerati on of t he
next lar ge gr o1.1p of r efusals---those
inv0l.-i ng p r ocedural or ad.!:iini s tra ti ve diffi culti e s---men ti on ma y be
made of ce rta in special fac t or s i n
t he ?,,_ffalo situation. 'l he fir st of
t n~se i s the lar ge pro po rt i cn of
f or ei~n- bo r n in t he populati on . The
city i ncl ude:: lci.r ge gr oups of Fo l es
a!1d Italians, some ')f whom ar e 1mable to r e~d or speak Engl ish . Secon0_1 it is apparent ·t hat insi;.fi'iciPnt effor t has been expended iu
acqua i nting peopl e .in Buf fal o wi t h
( a) t he di stinction bet·,,e-:;,n work r el ief and j ob s wi t h P , W.A. or in private i ndus tr,f a!ld ~b) t he b . R. B.
po licy requ i ring t h2 acceptance of
P .W.A . or ot he r non-re li ef j obs ,
The r e i s evidenc e t ha t some of t he
clients f ai l ed t o r ealize that t hei r
wor k r elief jobs w0re not pe r manen t

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

77 . l
forms of employment.
Third, th~
method of notification used by the
N.Y.S.E.S. was not sufficiently specific to remove the danger of misunderstanding. Notices sent by m-3.il
contained the following statement:
"This card is not a notice or a promise of employment; it is only a request to call for further interview 11 •
Notices sent by telephone or through
policemen were apparently no more
effe ctive than the printed form. Finally, insufficient expla~ation and
emphasis was give n those phases of
E.R.B. policy which
-orornisen. to
those gi ving up work relief jobs in
favor of private employment: (a) priori ~y rating for return to work re lief in case of loss of private employment and (b) supplementa.tion of
private earnings when insufficient
to provide for budgetary needs .

Deley in 2n~lyingJor _j_{?b. Eleven
client s were too late in making applica tion for jobs--mosi of them on
P.W.A. projects.
Some of these individuals st~ted they did not realize that according to E.R.B. policy,
they would be excused from work · rt, lief duties to answer calls for private job s .
Denial of qualification for job
offered. Eight clients claimed they
were not qualified for the jobs offered. Efforts made by the investigator to appraise the
validity · of
these excuses led to the conclusion
that there were at least three clients who were not justified in their
refusal of private employment on
this bas is.
Rafusal of job because of duration, location, or pay .
Among the
18 people who refused jobs because
of such fact ors as pay or duration,
there were at lea st 11 who prefArred
the rela tive pe r:r.anency of vrork relief jobs.
Priority rating for return to work relief was promised to
those who accep t private employment ,
but there is so:ne question as t..l the
-p romptness with wni ch such re turns
can be in fact accomplished .

.Alleged failure to receive .job
notice.
Incorrect addresses and
temporary absences account for a
number of the failures to receive
job· notification, but t he re were a lso a number of cases where the no ticas were inefficiently handled or
where the excuse of failure to get
the notice was used unjustifiably .
.An investigation of the 42 cases revealed 17 in which the explanation
was substantiated, 2nd 25 for which
Befusal of job out of tr~de or
:p roof wa.s unavailable.
profession. There was a 8omparatively large number of relief cl ient .s
M_isunderstandings of work relief who were employed as skilled work.er.s
noli cy .
It is likely that meny of or as fore men on work relief who re tl.e 26 who refused jobs because of fused to consider jobs either as l a misundsrstandings actually did fail borers on. P .W.A. projects or as
to understand the difference between ,;o.rorkmen for private em:ploye rs. A
P.W . .A. and work relief jobs er were few of these were union members, al unaware of the E.R.B. ruling requir- though most of tham were in a rrears
i~g acceptance of P.W.A. or other on th-3ir di.;-s::; , ' rt r'"ay bo noted that
privrte employment.
Nevertheless, here, as a l se-dherc, t he re we-re un it appeured that there were a nu.~ber doubtedly a feTT cases of refusa l
of individuals who found it conven- which were att ributab le to lack of
ient to profess ignorance in order understanding of the ne ce ss ity of
to be able to retiin their nork re- the transfer from work relief to
lief status.
private employment. Moreover, income

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

- 31-

(at prevailing wage r ates) in some
cases· was as large for two d~ys of
work relief as the earnings of a
full week at private employment in
the less skilled occupation.
Refusal of r eferral bec ause of
previous trouble wi th employer . The
two people included in this group
can at least be charged with lack of
agr essive initiative.
Preferr ed work r elief jobs. Preference for work r elief was the s ol e
reas on given for the acti on of the
eight cli ents who fell in this group.
_4,s i ndicated at various poin ts above,
this number by no means r e~resents
the aggregate of the pe ople who se
action wa s rea lly ba sed upon a prefer ence of t his sort .
The final
Fac ts indeterminate .
19 job refusals could not be dPfinitely classified on the ba sis of the
f acts available .
A few of tn e clients coul d not be reached , while in
other cases co nflicting stat ements
and confusing r cc o1·ds obscured the
ac tual reas on f or r efusal.
It is evident from the survey
tha t has been mad.e of tho various
cl asses of re as ons for r efusal to
accep t pr ivate employment t hat sufficient doubt is atta ched to man:r of
the categori es to j ustify an investigation by E.R. B. of every r efus al
f all ing therein. Among the most impo rt ant ca tegories for which such
investigation is warra.i~ted are those
covering physical disability, f ailure to get notices or to understa~d
the requirement of ac cep tance of
priva te employment, and r efusals
based upon the natur e of a particul ar job.
Whether a· syskmatic check of al l
refus als had ·been made in accordance

wi th the stated ~o1icy of the E. R. B.
could not be determined from available informat ion.
Some of the case
workers pr esumably made inquiries
into refus als and f ai l ed to record
the results.
For 65 cases th e.re were r ecords
showing that a check of the r easo ns
for r efus al had been unde r taken . Th0
acc ompanying t abl e shows the ac tions
taken by the agency f ol lowin~ the
check-up .
Stopped aid. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . 2
Remove1 from work r eli ef and
put on home r eli ef .. . . . . . . . . . . • 8
Removed from wo r k relief lllld
subsequently r einstated ........ 2
.Aid continued with ,,.,arning . ..• , • • 7
Physic ~l examina tion g iven, or
r eferrea to hosp ital .. .... ...•. 5
Clien t s questioned, or sent
back to N. Y.S . E.S .•..•......... 24
Report mad0 by E.R. 3 . to
1~. Y. S • ::E~• S • • . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . . . •

Held f or dscision of committee
to be app oint ed................
Cli ents r e t a ined on l ighte r
wo rk r eli ef jobs ...............
No action taken because of
illness of cli 8nt 1 s wif e ••..•..
Other j ob s obta ined and no
disciplinary action taken ••••••

9

1
2
1
4

Since the r eport s made on th ese
65 cases do not apr,ly to any specifi ed po r tion of the r efusals they
affo r d no bas is for judging the de-:gre e to which illegitimate us e was
made of any particular type of excuse .
It may be noted that th~ relief status of only twelve persons
-- tho3e in th~ first t hr ee classes-was alt er ed followin€' the check-up .
The f act that about two-t~i r ds of
the c ~~ses wer e merely gi ven a war ni ng or were r ef erred back tc tbe
N, Y.S.E , S. sug 0 ~s : s that the disci:plir.ar~,. effect must have been dtrd.11.

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

Digitized by

Original from

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY