A statistical study of construction productivity from 1917 to 1957. - Page 44 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 44 of 145 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
" W \
of 19 ^2 , and covered sixteen cities in ten states and the
District of Columbia. A total of 268 interviews were conducted
with representatives of labor, management and the
public. In each city an attempt was made to interview at
least two or more general contractors, a number of special
trade sub-contractors and local union representatives.
All interviews were conducted on an informal basis.
Certain basic questions were, of course, always posed to
each person interviewed, but the respondent was encouraged
to discuss any issues at length. The information obtained
was recorded by interviewer in detail as soon after the
interview as possible.
As can be seen from this description, it was not
possible to obtain statistical data to determine productivity
changes quantitatively, and the results are merely
a tabulation of industry opinion. The study reports that:
”. . . construction worker efficiency in building trades
has declined from the 1930’s to the late 19l|-0 ’ s ( N o t e
that this is individual worker efficiency not over-all
industry productivity), but that "there is no demonstrable
relationship between union working rules and the decline in'
worker efficiency that set in about 1930 as the decline
applied equally to non-union workers. j
■^William Haber, and Harold M. Levinson, Labor
Relations and Productivity in the Building Trades (Ann Arbor: Bureau of Industrial Relations, University of
Michigan, 1956), p. 2l5* . ... __ j
Object Description
Description
| Title | A statistical study of construction productivity from 1917 to 1957. - Page 44 |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | " W \ of 19 ^2 , and covered sixteen cities in ten states and the District of Columbia. A total of 268 interviews were conducted with representatives of labor, management and the public. In each city an attempt was made to interview at least two or more general contractors, a number of special trade sub-contractors and local union representatives. All interviews were conducted on an informal basis. Certain basic questions were, of course, always posed to each person interviewed, but the respondent was encouraged to discuss any issues at length. The information obtained was recorded by interviewer in detail as soon after the interview as possible. As can be seen from this description, it was not possible to obtain statistical data to determine productivity changes quantitatively, and the results are merely a tabulation of industry opinion. The study reports that: ”. . . construction worker efficiency in building trades has declined from the 1930’s to the late 19l|-0 ’ s ( N o t e that this is individual worker efficiency not over-all industry productivity), but that "there is no demonstrable relationship between union working rules and the decline in' worker efficiency that set in about 1930 as the decline applied equally to non-union workers. j ■^William Haber, and Harold M. Levinson, Labor Relations and Productivity in the Building Trades (Ann Arbor: Bureau of Industrial Relations, University of Michigan, 1956), p. 2l5* . ... __ j |
