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