Abstract
It is, perhaps, heresy to quarrel with an old adage. In line, however, with a current bit of philosophy that it is as expedient to be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, this paper will take issue not with one old adage, but with two. There is a proverb that to be makes one conspicuous. Another holds that are always guilty. We wish to take ground, that neither of these is of necessity true. As it is an economic axiom that no progress can be made until there is a definition of terms, it is necessary, before going further, to understand that the absent under discussion are industrial absent. And by the industrial absent are meant-Jones, machinist, who does not come to work on Monday morning and Smith who loses half a day on Wednesday. By absence we do not mean labor turnover or unemployment. Absence is unquestionably a factor in labor turnover, but for our purpose terms are by no means synonyms. Turnover is broader term. It is said that a man's, or firm's, pocketbook is a vital organ. It would seem then that anything connected with apportionment or outlay of purse's contents would be known to its owner. But there are practically no figures obtainable on exact cost of industrial absences. Moreover, as one firm admits, most estimates in this connection are not estimates at all; they are simply wild guesses. Closer estimates, however, may be made in an indirect way. For instance L. Bamberger Company of Newark estimates that they have to employ 5 per cent more people than is absolutely necessary because of factor of absence. The Dennison Manufacturing Company figures average wage loss to be forty-two cents a week to each female factory worker, and forty-nine cents a week to each male factory worker, these figures based on average weekly wage being paid at time study was made. The total wage loss is $50,000 a year. A concern in Detroit is spending $50,000 a month 140
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call