INFORMATION TO USERS
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example:
• Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed.
• Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages.
• Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print.
Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography.
871Ü051
Simpson, Alfred Earl
WORKERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AT TWO SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS
The Ohio Slate University Ph.D. 1987
University Microfilms Intern Qtionei 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48 106
PLEASE NOTE:
in all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V
1. Glossy photographs or pages.
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______
3. Photographs with dark background_____
4. Illustrations are poor copy______
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy.
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page.
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages
8. Print exceeds margin requirements______
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in sp______in e
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print
11. Page(s)______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.
12. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages n um bered . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______
15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received______
16. Other ______
University Microfilms Internationai
WORKERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
AT TWO SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS
DISSERTATION
Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of
The Ohio State University
by
Alfred E. Simpson, B.S., M.A.
* * * *
The Ohio State University
1987
Dissertation Committee: Approved by
W. Umstattd P. Post M. Scott Adviser M. Wallace College of Education COPYRIGHT 1987 BY ALFRED E. SIMPSON ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author expresses sincere appreciation to Dr. William Umstattd for his insight and professional guidance throughout the research. Appreciation is extended also to the other members of my advisory committee, Drs. Paul Post, Michael Scott, and Michael Wallace for their timely suggestions and comments. A special thanks to Dr. Jay Helsel, California University of Pennsylvania for his untiring assistance. To my wife Sandra and son Alfred, Jr., for their support and encouragement while away from home attending school. Also to my brother. Dr. Willie Simpson and his wife Dora and son Scott, for their hospitality and understanding during the many weekends spent in their home in Dayton, Ohio. I would like to thank my typist, Cheryl Kolaczynski, for her expert and prompt services.
Finally I give a special thank you to those who participated in my study, particularly the Pittsburgh Press and Mr. Frank Dicks and his staff at the Washington Observer-Reporter.
A.E.S.
11 VITA
October 11, 1941 ...... Born--Hattiesburg, MS
1964 ...... B.S. Southern University Baton Rouge, LA
1964--1966...... Hemphill Printing Co.
1966--1976 ...... Instructor West Virginia State College
1973 ...... West Virginia University M.A.
1976--Present...... Associate Professor, California University of Pennsylvania
Fields of Study
Major Fields -- Graphic Communications
Educational Administration
ill TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements...... i
Vita...... il
List of Graphs...... vi
List of Tables...... vii
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION...... 1
Statement of the Problem...... 4 Statement of Objectives ...... 4 Need for the Study...... 5 Assumptions ...... 6 Definitions ...... 6 Delimitations ...... 7 Limitations ...... 7 Significance of the Study ...... 7 Research Hypotheses and Null Hypotheses ...... 8
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE...... 10
Section
1. Introduction...... 10 2. Historical Aspects of Technological Change in the Printing Industry ...... 16 The Beginning ...... 16 3. Historical Aspects of the Newspaper Publishing Industry ...... 22 4. Technological Changes in Composition ...... 24 5. The Beginning of a New Era...... 28 6. Futuristic Technologies for the Composing Room...... 30 7. Industry Leaders' Reflections on the Future--People and Technology ...... 39
i v TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D,
PAGE
8. Related Research Strategies ...... 45 9. S u m m a r y ...... 51
III. METHODOLOGY ...... 54
Introduction...... 54 The Descriptive Survey Research Method...... 54 Population...... 55 Development of the Research Instrument...... 57 Distribution of the Instrument and the Collection of Data...... 61 Analysis of Data...... 63
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA...... 66
Workers' Questionnaire Part I: Personal Profile...... 67 Section I To What Degree Have Technological C h a n g e : ...... 70 Section II To What Degree Do You Feel or Think Technological Change will:. . . 82 Section III With Respect to Technological Changes :...... 91 Management Questionnaire Part I: Personal Profile ...... 106 Section I To What Degree Have Technological Changes: 108 Section II To What Degree: ...... 113 Section III To What Degree Are Technological Changes :...... 117 Section IV To What Degree: ...... 121
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 129
S u m m a r y ...... 131 Conclus i ons 143 Concluding Remarks...... 147 Recommendations 149
Bibliography...... 159 APPENDICES PAGE
A. Workers' Questionnaire and Management Questionnaire ...... 165 B. Oral Script ...... 171 G. Graphie Arts Employees of America 173 D. Validation Checklist...... 192 E. Validation Consultants...... 194 F. Consent to Participate in Study Letters . . . 201 G. Request for Waiver of Consent ...... 206 H. Consent for Participation in Social & Behaviorial Research...... 208 I. Thank you Letters ...... 210 J. Statistical Data From Questionnaires...... 213 K. Cross Tabulations ...... 308
VI LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES PAGE
1. Will technological change reduce Number of Composing Room Workers...... 156
2. Are technological changes necessary?...... 156
3. Should employers seek out the most efficient way of doing business even if it means a reduction in the work force...... 156
4. Can automated/computerized machines perform at higher leverls of efficiency than humans . 156 # 5. Are technological changes beneficial for employers...... 156
6. Will technological changes create unemployment...... 157
7. Will technological changes create enough job opportunities to offset rises in unemployment...... 157
8. Technological changes strengthen former and present skill levels...... 157
9. Will technological changes reduce the need for highly skilled workers? ...... 157
10. Will technological changes reduce the need for highly skilled workers? ...... 158
11. To What degree have technological changes improved job satisfaction?...... 158
12. Would you want your son/daughter to prepare for a career in composition w o r k ? ...... 158
VI 1 LIST OF TABLES
TABLES PAGE
1. Summary of Personal Profile ...... 68
2. Group Summary of Section I for Composing Room Workers questions 27 thru 3 6 ...... 72
3. Group Summary of Section I for Composing Room Workers questions 37 thru 4 7 ...... 77
4. Group Summary of Section II for Composing Room Workers questions 48 thru 5 6 ...... 83
5. Group Summary of Section II for Composing Room Workers questions 57 thru 6 2 ...... 88
6. Group Summary of Section III for Composing Room Workers’ questions 63 thru 7 2 ...... 92
7. Group Summary of Section III for Composing Room Workers questions 73 thru 8 2 ...... 97
8. Group summary of Section I for Management questions 27 thru 3 5 ...... 109
9. Group Summary of Section II for Management questions 36 thru 42...... 114
10. Group Summary of Section III for Management questions 43 thru 47 ...... 119
11. Group Summary of Section IV for Management questions 48 thru 55 ...... 122
12. Cross tabulâtion--Skill Level ...... 137
13. Cross tabulation--Job Satisfaction...... 139
VI 1 1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The world has changed more in the past 200 years
than it had throughout all previous history (Naisbett,
1983). We live in a technologically oriented world, and we are increasingly becoming aware of the impact of technology
on people. For example, there are individuals who think
there is a price to pay for the proliferation of technology
regarded as "people displacing." Mechanization so changed
the face of agriculture, that only three percent of the
total United States labor force remains in farming today, compared to 70 percent in the 1800s. However, that three
percent feeds a large percentage of the world's population,
thanks to technology (Naisbett, 1983).
Author Jon Maslin says, "It is natural for man/woman
to use all the tools you give him/her to make his/her job
easier, to help him/her produce more, faster, and better"
(1982). Furthermore, Maslin describes the microprocessor
(the brain in robots/computers) this way: if you were one of
the thousands of slaves laboring over many years to build a
pyramid, and along came a machine that could perform all
your work without any signs of tiring, would you have been
1 pleased or sorry? The possibility of that happening was remote— yet what is happening today to us with the introduction of robots/computers makes the dreams of the slaves seem unremarkable (1982).
Additionally, Irving Bluestone, a retired United
Auto Worker's International vice president, contends that technological changes involving robots are coming: the question is how soon, and what they mean is an erosion in employment opportunities throughout the industry (Naisbett,
1983) .
The reason for this fear of technological change, more specifically the microprocessor, is because of its widespread applicability. Microprocessors can improve almost anything, anywhere. The use of the microprocessor is creating an industrial/social revolution which will rival the first industrial revolution. Colin Normal, author of a world watch institute paper on microelectronics wrote, "no technology in history has had such a broad range of applications in the work place." Newsweek magazine esti mates that "from 50 to 75 percent of all factory workers could be displaced by smart robots before the end of the century" (Naisbett, 1983).
In view of the technological innovations, the printing industry always has been technologically advanced compared to the rest of the manufacturing industries in this country. Industrial historians have called the Linotype machine (setting lines of type automatically, as opposed to handset types) the most complex mechanical device of the original industrial revolution. Thirty years ago, the second revolution was started with the creation of digital computers. The printing industry was one of the early users. Type was set on computerized devices when they contained vacuum tubes and magnetic beads of memory (Cergol,
1985). As this technology has evolved, so has implementation of the technology in printing. The edge of the frontier is represented currently by electronic image assembly systems, satellite transmission of pages, as well as a parade of electronic publishing systems.
No segment in the printing industry has taken more advantage of technological changes than the newspaper publishing segment. According to the Bureau of the Census, the newspaper industry has spent about one billion dollars a year on new capital expenditures since 1980, continuing a trend begun in the 1970s as more and more publishers began purchasing integrated systems to handle composing room, press room, and mailing room activities (U.S. Industrial
Outlook, 1986). As this occurred, however, the need for production personnel decreased (U.S. Industrial Outlook,
1986). The report indicated production workers accounted for 48 percent of total employment and 49 percent of total payroll in 1970. By 1983, their share of both total employment and payroll had dropped to 37 percent (U.S.
Industrial Outlook, 1986).
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Due to the current state of issues and confusion found in academic literature, the problem in this study was to determine workers' perception of the effect of technological changes as they relate to job opportunities, skill requirements, and job satisfaction for workers in two
Southwestern Pennsylvania newspaper publishers. This examination undertook a case study approach that involved a three-stage hierarchical method. The purpose was to integrate data from; (1) production workers; (2) department level supervisors; and (3) upper management. The population for the study was The Pittsburgh Press, a major newspaper publisher in Southwestern Pennsylvania, located in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and a small publisher, the
Washington Observer-Reporter, located approximately 30 miles south of Pittsburgh in Washington, Pennsylvania.
STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of this research were as follows : 1. Determine the effects of technological change in regards to job opportunities.
2. Determine the effects of technological change in regards to skill requirement.
3. Determine the effect of technological change in regards to job satisfaction.
NEED FOR THE STUDY
In an effort to contribute to our understanding of the nature of changes in the work place due to the introduction of new technology, a formal, systematic study was needed. There are important and far reaching
"employment opportunity" and "skill level" questions whose answers can best be obtained through an in-depth examination of the issues.
Considerable debate exists in the social science disciplines with important implications for educational research and policy communities. On the issues of general schooling and vocational preparation, the debate confronts the educational community with a dilemma. On the one hand, technological changes seem to demand increasing skill levels, rapidly calling for and upgrading of academic curricula and vocational preparation.
On the other hand, changes in labor practices seem to break down occupations into simpler components that appear to suggest a downgrading of general education and vocational preparation. This study examined those issues and provided information helpful in gaining a clearer understanding of the effects of technological change as perceived by two newspaper publishers.
ASSUMPTIONS
The study was conducted based on the following assumptions:
1. The Pittsburgh Press is typical of other newspaper publishers.
2. Those responding to the questionnaire will do so objectively and give accurate and honest information.
3. Valid and reliable information can be derived from the questionnaire in order to clarify issues of technological changes in the newspaper printing industry.
4. Those responding will have some knowledge of how technological changes have impacted the printing industry.
DEFINITIONS
Automation: The use of machines that control their own operation with little or no human help.
Skills: Attributes required of workers to perform their jobs adequately.
Hot-type: A term that defines techniques used to form symbols that will be printed by a relief printing process.
Cold-type: A term that defines techniques used to assemble symbols for photographic reproduction.
Phototypesetting : Cold-type composition process that creates images by projecting light through a negative and a lens and from mirrors onto light- sensitive material. DELIMITATIONS
The study was delimited to a survey of production workers, department heads, and management personnel in a major newspaper publisher, located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and a smaller newspaper publisher, the
Washington Observer-Reporter located in Washington,
Pennsylvania.
Specifically, the study included:
1. Composing room workers
2. Department level supervisors
3. Director of Employee Relations
4. Director of Industrial Relations
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of the study are as follows:
1. Proficiency levels
2. Apathy
3. Ability to work cooperatively with others
4. Resistance to change
5. Acceptance of change
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The study should be useful in the following ways 8
1. As perceived by the study group, it should provide data regarding future employment opportunities in the printing industry.
2. As perceived by the study group, it should provide data on the effects of technological changes on skill levels of skilled and semi-skilled workers in the printing industry.
3. As perceived by composing room workers, it should provide data on the effects of technological changes on workers' sense of job satisfaction.
4. It should provide data useful for curriculum revision in educational programs.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES (R) & NULL HYPOTHESES (0) H H (R)l Technological changes will contribute to H : reductions in job opportunities in the composing room printing industry.
(R)2 Technological changes will contribute to H : lowering former skill levels.
(R)3 Technological changes will contribute to a H : reduction of job satisfaction for composing room workers.
(0)1 There is no substantial difference among age H : groups of composing room workers with regard to skill levels.
(0)2 There is no substantial difference among age H : groups of composing room workers with regard to job satisfaction.
(0)3 There will be no substantial difference H ; between management and composing room workers with regard to technological changes creating sufficient job opportunities to offset rises in unemployment.
(0)4 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to skill levels.
(0)5 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to job satisfaction. (0)6 There will be no substantial difference H between management and department level supervisors with regard to job opportunities.
(0)7 There will be no substantial difference H between management and department level supervisors with regard to the use of technological changes to discipline production workers. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter will analyze major studies and others and discuss the effects of technological changes on the newspaper printing industry. Included in the review are nine sections that address the technological innovations that began with Johann Gutenberg's introduction of individual characters. The sections are as follows: (1)
Introduction; (2) Historical Aspects of Technological Change in the Printing Industry; (3) Historical Aspects of the
Newspaper Publishing Industry; (4) Technological Changes in
Composition; (5) The Beginning of a New Era; (6) Futuristic
Technologies for the Composing Room; (7) Industry Leaders'
Reflections on the Future--People and Technology; (8)
Related Research Strategies; and 9) Summary.
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
Technological innovations always have enjoyed an active relationship with people in the printing industry.
There are those who are convinced it was the printing
10 11 industry that manifested the implications and applications of computers to the degree that the foundation was laid for proliferation of industrial technological changes being embraced by the world today more so than ever before. When one considers the economic contributions of technological changes in the printing industry, it is difficult to deny that impact has been made. For example, it was common for there to be 500 handset compositors to compose the
"Pittsburgh Press'" Sunday newspaper in the late 1800s
(Swetnam, 1979). After the introduction of the first
"complex" Linotype industrial machine in 1884, a competent operator could set about 1,300 lines of straight composition in an eight-hour shift. Whereas that technological change may sound remarkable when compared to handset compositors, the Linotype machine is no competition for today's Video
Display Terminal technology (VDTs) which can set approximately 1,500 lines per minute, (Rosensweet, 1979).
Perhaps simplifying that scenario in a slightly different context, Adams and Faux (1982) assert:
Hand composition of foundry type can be set by a skilled compositor at the average rate of perhaps one (1) character per second (CPS). The line casting (Linotype) machines average about four (4) CPS. An expert typist on a good day can generate perhaps eight (8) CPS (100 words per minute). The common photo-composing machine for line composition (straight composition) can produce around 150 CPS, but special cathode ray tubes (CRT) machines can produce between 1,000 and 12,000 characters each second (p. 61). 12
Furthermore, Naisbett (1983) asserts the world has changed more in the past two hundred years than it has throughout all previous history. With machines capable of generating 12,000 characters per second today, the future for continued technological growth and its impact on workers is very uncertain.
For example, one of the spinoffs of changing technology is the growth of the service economy, such as fast-food chains. Robotic applications currently are being developed for use. In regards to employment opportunities and technological innovations within that service industry,
Milford (1985) reporting in the St. Paul Pioneer Press and
Dispatch reported the following:
A hamburger chain has cooked up an idea that goes far beyond a new sandwich or shake -- a six-armed robot that prepares meals to order, takes money, and makes change, even sweeps the floor and clears tables.
The robot's voice-activated eyes will look at customers when they order. Wearing the chain's uniform and a smile, it will sing if the food takes more than 15 seconds to arrive.
This marriage of fast food and high tech will come within a year at a major burger chain outlet in New York City, according to Peter Hughes, creator of the automated hamburger helper and president of Hughes International Inc., which has offices in this Baltimore suburb and in London.
Hughes won't reveal which international restaurant chain will be first to use his robot, but he said it will be sometime between December and February in one of the chain's midtown Manhattan outlets. 13
The robot will scurry around the U-shaped restaurant on a track. Its arms extend six to eight feet in all directions and function independently.
Market research is under way to determine whether the robotic plastic face and synthesized voice should be male or female.
Its mind is a computer programmed to detect overcooked hamburgers (and throw them away), scan floors and counter top for spills (and wipe them away), make change, and take instruction from customers (such as, "no pickles") in the order in which they sit on chairs equipped with electronic sensors.
If it's Christmas time, the robot will sing carols; on Independence Day, the national anthem; at other times, the hamburger chain's advertising j ingle.
The $100,000 robot would have a seven-year lifespan if used 24 hours a day as planned by the restaurant, said Hughes.
Only one human service engineer per shift would be needed to supervise the robot's work, and that person could be stationed at a central computer room from which any number of robots could be controlled, he said (March 30, 1985).
Robots in the printing industry are beginning to find a place. In the pressroom, the task of unloading and palletizing press signatures is monotonous, repetitive, and generally requires one or more persons per shift. In the bindery, machine unloading, palletizing, and packaging are currently performed manually and by fixed automation. A robot application could be defined to perform these tasks and reduce manning requirements (Cooper, 1982). 14
Graphie Arts News (1985) reported that Kyodo
Printing Company, Japan's third largest printer, has introduced the world's first robot in a printing plant. In doing so, there has been a reduction of four employees and an increase of 15 percent in production efficiency. This plant operates six presses to run weekly magazines 24 hours a day. Web sheets are fed to the machines at a speed of a roll per 15 minutes, enabling a bundle of signatures consisting of 250 copies to be delivered every 20 seconds.
In the past, bundles were put on pallets manually, but now
Kyodo Printing Company is using a robot to do the same job.
The robot incentive offers management significant economic alternatives. Analysis of the economics of robot installation usually falls into two categories: cost avoidance and cost savings. In American Printer, Cooper states :
Cost avoidance relates to situations where change in the process must occur and several alternatives are presented. These situations generally involve choices between manual methods, fixed automation, and robotics. Cost savings economics applies when the alternative is to do nothing. In these cases, potential economic gain, as measured by return on investment or pay-back period, usually has to meet an established level to be considered.
More than dollars and cents is taken into account when considering robot installation, however, and these variables often decide the case.
Increased productivity through robots is generally more the result of operating at a constant pace than of being capable of a faster operation than a 15
man/woman. For many tasks, a human can work more rapidly than a robot. A human's pace tends to vary and--particularly on repetitive tasks-- fatigue will eventually reduce the work rate. A robot, on the other hand, operates at a constant pace at all times and thus maintains an even level of quality.
Robots do not complain about poor working conditions. If properly maintained, problems such as noise, dust, fumes, heat, dirt, heavy loads, fast pace, and monotony will not adversely affect a robot. With humans, such conditions lead to strikes, slow-downs, poor workmanship, high labor turnover, and absenteeism.
On another level, robots don't require vacation pay, hospitalization, pension benefits, and matching social security withholdings. Nor are robots subject to OSHA inspections because of harmful or hazardous working conditions. Robots also don't suddenly call in to say they are sick or request a few days off (pp. 72H-72L) .
There are, however, individuals who think there is a price to pay for the proliferation of technology regarded as
"people displacing." Maslin (1982) contends it is natural
for man to use all the tools you give him to make his job
easier; to help him produce more, faster, and better. He
poses the question, "Should we be pleased or sorry regarding
technological changes?" That question is intriguing.
Besides its inevitable economic impact, technological change
has induced an incentive to rationalize the labor process
through the introduction of labor-saving and cost-effective
technologies. The next section spells out the thrust of
technological changes in the printing industry. 16
SECTION II
HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IN THE PRINTING INDUSTRY
In 1940, the world celebrated the five hundredth
anniversary of Gutenberg's invention of individual type
characters. The advancements since that time have been
anything but incredible. In a single century for example,
output has risen from a few hundred printed impressions a day on a hand press by one man to as much as 1500 printed
feet a minute on a machine operated by only four or five
persons (Baker, 1957 & Adams, Faux, 1980).
THE BEGINNING
About the middle of the fifteenth century, the demand for books increased steadily. In various countries,
men attempted to create new processes whereby production
rates would be more rapid than by the laborious manuscript
method. The most successful of these was Johann Gutenberg
of Germany (Polk, 1964).
Johann Gutenberg generally is regarded as the father
of printing, as printing is known today, in the Western
World. This is attributed mainly to his introduction of
individual type characters. These characters, unlike the
wooden blocks of entire pages the Chinese introduced in 17 approximately 770 A.D., were metal, movable, and reusable
(Marinaccio, 1959). Gutenberg's most notable work was his forty-two line Bible; a Bible with forty-two lines to the page. Furthermore, the effort to produce this work began in
1452 and was completed by 1455. Each page contained around
2,800 characters. Two pages were printed at the same time, so 5,600 pieces of type were needed to make each two-page printing. It was common practice for the next two pages to be composed during the press run, so at least 11,200 characters were needed just to begin printing. Working a normal wor day (twelve hours), two craftsmen took more than thirty-seven workdays to prepare the initial type. At this speed rate, over three years were needed to complete just two hundred copies (Adams, Faux, 1982).
These lines of type were set in a "composing stick," letter-by-letter, and justified (left and right margins vertically aligned) by inserting metal blanks. From the composing stick, groups of lines were transferred to a galley, proofs were pulled, and errors corrected (Baker,
1957, p. 3). Additionally,
After proofing, type was then made up into pages and was locked firmly in a metal frame on the "stone," thence carried to the press for printing. Because the form was composed of hand-cast types of varying age, its great unevenness required much "make-ready" before an even impression could be made. The printing done, the letters and spacing materials were redistributed to their proper places by hands that 18
flew so fast the eye could scarcely follow (Baker, 1957 p. 3).
Because of technological changes, it is rare to see handset composition today. This labor-intensive process has given way to modern techniques which can generate thousands of characters per second, and not have to be re-distributed as with individual pieces of type.
In the beginning, around 1450, work in the pressroom was more physically demanding than typesetting because pressure was required to squeeze the paper against the inked type to make an impression (Baker, 1957). Baker further describes the first press:
Two upright timbers supported two crossbeams. The upper beam was pierced by a great wooden screw set to press down upon "a platen," or a flat surface; the lower beam held a flat plate of wood or stone called the bed or coffin. The locked-up type was laid on the bed and daubed with ink by beating with a hair-stuffed leathern ball. A sheet of dampened paper was laid on the inked type and covered with a blanket to soften the impression.
By hand the platen was screwed down from above hard enough to squeeze the paper against the type. The platen was then screwed up, and the printed sheet pulled away and hung up to dry.
Presswork on both sides of the Atlantic was usually performed by two men with strong arms, backs, and legs--one beat the ink while the other screwed and pulled. Each man took a turn every hour beating or pulling. In small offices where a boy inked the type, the man was not likely to get relief except between jobs. The work was hazardous as well as back-breaking, for the wooden screw wobbled and sometimes broke, injuring the men. It was thus inevitable that this cumbrous, repetitive process would stimulate the imagination of inventors--first in Europe, then in the United 19
States— long before the gentler art of typesetting (p. 4).
The physical requirements of pressroom workers undoubtedly were prone for technological change. It was sometime after 1620 when the use of a lever motion was introduced (to reduce the need of physically strong men).
It is ironic, however, that these somewhat typical technological innovations were not accepted in sufficient numbers for a century and a half (Baker, 1957). It was only after the introduction of the steam engine that significant changes began to manifest themselves. Beyond that. Baker asserts :
Then came cast-iron platen presses that supported greater pressure than wooden frames, followed by a flatbed cylinder press in which a revolving cylinder carried the paper to the type bed, inked now by rollers. Early in the nineteenth century a steam-driven machine was devised in which the revolving cylinder brought the paper to a reciprocating bed of inked type that turned out 300 impressions an hour, as compared to a maximum of 250 on the hand press--the first successful model for the ubiquitous flatbed cylinders of today. Thus a machine had been born to supplant the printing press.
Additionally, for the London Times, inventor Friedrich Koenig built a two-cyllrier machine which produced the entire four-page issue of November 29, 1814, at a rate of 1,100 copies an hour— a most timely advance to meet the avid demand for news of Napoleon's escape from ELBA and his final defeat at Waterloo in June, 1815. Proprietor John Walter acclaimed the mechanism "the greatest improvement connected with printing, since the discovery of the art itself." Soon came a machine with four cylinders— two printing one way and two printing the other way— that turned out the four-page paper "at the astonishing rate of 4,320 an hour." The operation of this press 20
required four paper feeders and four boys to remove the sheets, aside from the pressmen and their helpers (p. 5).
The technological change at the London Times and its effect on workers' attitudes was not surprising. Walker, the publisher, secretly contracted with Koenig to build the high speed cylinder press for his paper's use. Adams and
Faux (1982) described the events surrounding Koenig's cylinder press this way:
The press had to be constructed in secret because the pressroom workers had learned of the new invention and were bitterly opposed to anything that might change their job. On the morning of November 29, 1814, the printers arrived in the pressroom to begin work as usual and were told they would have to wait because the foreign mail had not arrived on time and the composition was not yet ready. At 6 A.M. when the presses usually started. Walker walked into the room carrying the first copy of the day's edition that had been printed on the new press. He told the workers what had taken place and warned them not to become violent because the new press was under police protection. He then paid them a full day's wage and assigned them all to new jobs in the plant. With the new machine, the entire edition of the "Times" was printed in three hours rather than the ten it had taken with the old equipment (p. 429 )'.
After about thirty years later, another press manufacturer Robert Hoe, built the first rotary (all cylinders) press using stereotype plates. He called his creation, the patent type-revolving printing machine. The curved stereotype plates and the rotary-designed press gave rise to increased speed and size. For example, in 1863 Hoe was building presses with plate cylinders (that to which the 21 stereotype plate was attached) as massive as 15 feet in diameter (Adams, Faux, 1982). A typical press, in addition to the huge plate cylinder, had eight impression cylinders and required 15 operators. With these cylinders, eight separate pages could be printed with each rotation. With a steam-powered overhead belt to turn the big plate cylinder and fifteen fast-moving feeders and helpers, the press could turn out 16,000 impressions per hour (Adams, Faux, 1982).
These huge multi-cylinder rotary presses easily became commonplace within newspaper printing plants. Later, with the advent of web-fed (feeding from a continuous roll) presses, incredible speeds were possible. To clarify the achievements made by Hoe's machines over a 37 year period,
American Pressman (1946) lists the following developments:
1843 single-cylinder flatbed 1,200 papers per hour on one side
1853 double-cylinder flatbed 2,500-3,000 papers per hour on one side
1858 four-cylinder flatbed 8.000-10,000 papers per hour on one side
1863 eight-cylinder flatbed 16.000-22,000 papers per hour on one side
1880 double-web rotary 30,000 papers per hour on perfecting press both sides, cut, pasted, and folded
Beyond the 1880s came advancements in presses that have continued to the modern era. Included in these 22 innovations were electric motors, which eliminated the unslightly dust-collecting features of the steam engine.
Also, automatic sheet-feeding machines were developed to eliminate hand feeding when automatic feeders were adapted and attached to hand-fed machines. Production machines now are designed exclusively for use with automatic feeding
(Porter, 1980),
More recently, press innovations have caused the flat-bed cylinder presses to become obsolete. Two relatively new printing processes, offset lithography and gravure which are rotary (all cylinders) in design, dominate the printing industry today. Speed and versatility are the hallmarks of both processes, particularly offset lithography. New inks, electronic devices, and precision instruments are advancing the processes constantly, reducing the need for continuous inspection, and lowering production costs,
SECTION III
HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THE NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Newspaper production has been a labor-intensive process dependent on the services of skilled printing craftsmen. Because of this, there always has been an 23 incentive, by employers, to rationalize the production process through mechanization or other means in order to minimize their reliance on skilled labor (Wallace, et al.,
1986). Historically, the strength of the printing-craft unions (they exercised veto power for decades over technical innovations) and the lack of consolidation among newspaper capitalists, restricted the introduction of new technology into newspaper firms for years. Moreover, the characterization of newspaper publishing with its perishable product (news cannot be "placed on hold," work stoppages create an immediate loss of profits) and the restricted supply of competent workers (traditionally, apprenticeships take six years), newspaper employers have lacked control that other employers typically have. In addition,
Kalleberg, Wallace, (et al., 1986) state:
The strength of printing craftsmen is reflected both in the extensive array of institutionalized "job property rights" which have historically characterized their jobs and the legacy of craft unionism which dates back to 1852 when the National Typographical Union became the first recognized labor union in the United States. This combination of factors, along with the inherent obstacles to streamlining many traditional printing operations, has, until recently, limited the capacity of employers to rationalize the production process through technological innovations (p. 2).
Cost of supplies and labor increased greatly after
World War II, and newspaper publishers subsequently began to experience a "profit squeeze" despite an increase in 24 readership. This realization laid the groundwork for a transformation of an industrial structure that would have far reaching effects on the nature of work for printing craft union members. This profit squeeze was caused in part by the strongly institutionalized work arrangements in the printing trades, which constituted a virtual veto power by unions over the introduction of technologies that would displace large numbers of workers (Baker, 1957; Porter,
1954; Kelber, Schlesinger, 1967).
This squeeze on profits, which was reflected in the ratio of after-tax profits to sales in printing and publishing (SIC industry classification 27), fell steadily from 9.3 percent in 1946 to 2.7 percent in 1957 (Kalleberg,
Wallace, et al., 1986). This condition was aggravated further by labor expecting higher wages, which in turn, caused newspaper publishers to seek drastic measures in order to remain a viable business institution. Thus came the economic incentive to rationalize the labor process through the introduction of labor-saving technologies.
SECTION IV
TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES IN COMPOSITION
When examining the entire printing industry, the effects of technological changes are nowhere more evident than in the composing room. This was due mainly to the 25 thinking that composition is the most labor-intensive phase of the printing process. Historically, employers have restructured the labor process by centering on composing room operations. It has been common wisdom among publishers that if the composing room could be streamlined, the modernization of subsequent printing operations would follow. This assumption appears appropriate based on recent experience in the industry (Kalleberg, Wallace, et al.,
1986) .
From the time of Gutenberg to the early twentieth century, compositors have assembled type characters by hand. It probably was not long after the pages of
Gutenberg's Bible were dry that employers began thinking of ways to improve the speed of handset composition. Many
ideas were tried even to the point of suspending a composing stick around the printer's neck so type could be set with both hands (Adams, Faux, 1982).
By the late 1800s, a great deal of effort was
directed toward developing a mechanical process that could
facilitate the work of hand compositors and relieve
employers of their dependence on this group of highly
skilled workers. Dozens of prototypes for mechanical
typesetting machines were developed in the late 1800s, but
most of them proved impractical or too expensive. One such
device received financial backing and promotional support 26 from Mark Twain, who claimed the machine could do everything six men could do "except drink, swear, and go out on strike"
(Smith, 1980).
On July 3, 1886, the first truly automatic typesetting machine was demonstrated in the composing room of the New York Tribune. The device was designed by Ottmar
Mergenthaler. His invention, the Linotype machine, has been called one of the ten greatest inventions in the history of the human race. At first, the Linotype machine had some imperfections, although it did speed up composing room operations. Also, its adoption was resisted by the powerful
International Typographical Union (ITU) after some time, the
Linotype was accepted gradually in the composing room, but only after appropriate safeguards were made to guarantee printers' job rights and autonomy (Kelber, Schlesinger,
1967).
Moreover, the Linotype machine eventually ‘became very efficient and caused the composition work to become more routine. It did not, however, affect the craftsmanship level significantly because judgement in setting type, page makeup, and layout still prevailed. While the work physically was more exhausting than in hand composition, the operator still governed the pace and rhythm of his work
(Zimbalist, 1979). 27
With the guarantees of its members being the only source of future Linotype operators, the ITU accepted the new technology as the price to pay. However, within a ten year period of its production for commercial use in the
1890s, this new technology (Linotype) displaced over 10,000 skilled craftsmen (Kelber, Schlesinger, 1967). But, because of post World War II's initial prosperity and the general increase in demand for printed materials in subsequent years, employment eventually exceeded the levels it had achieved before the Linotype (Kalleberg, Wallace, et al.,
1986). Furthermore, the Linotype displaced workers and slowly phased out hand composition, it did not eliminate the need for traditional printing skills as previously alluded to (typesetting, page layout, etc.). Therefore, the "net effect" of this first significant introduction of technological change was negligible because the craftsmen still retained a large degree of autonomy and discretion in day-to-day performance of their tasks (Zimbalist, 1979). Due to the failure of the Linotype machine to achieve employers' ultimate aim, the elimination of dependence on basic printing skills, the Linotype is described best as an example of "simple mechanization" (Edwards, 1979). Thus, this was an effort which fell short of ultimate control of the labor process by employers (Kalleberg, Wallace, et al.,
1986). 28
SECTION V
THE BEGINNING OF A NEW ERA
The Linotype remained the most practical means of setting type for the first half of the twentieth century.
As profit margins (the ratio of profits to sales) declined steadily in the early postwar period after an all-time high
in 1946 (Raskins, 1978), the newspaper industry felt compelled to take drastic actions. Most firms viewed excessively high labor costs as a major contributor of economic woes. This acknowledgement gave rise to the
incorporation of a new form of technology, which had been developed in the 1930s but had not been applied systematically because of its expense and inefficiency.
This new technology was called "teletypesetting" (TTS). As this technology improved and profit margins continued to falter, the incentive to introduce TTS increased. The first
TTS machines produced a perforated tape which could be transmitted from shop-to-shop virtually bypassing the services of local compositors. This technology made it possible for employers to avoid duplicate typesetting in the case of classified advertising and syndicated news stories.
It also gave employers a mechanism for short-circuiting costly labor disputes by providing the option of having type set by TTS in a non-union shop across town or in another city altogether. Teletypesetting was adopted very rapidly: 29 the number of typesetting installations increased from 98 in
1964 to 663 in 1968 (Smith, 1980).
This technological threat of TTS to the craft nature of composing room occupations was updated in the 1960s with the application of computer-based technology. Around this same time, the advent of phototypesetting (cold type), found its way into composition. Incidently, this new innovation is referred to commonly as "cold type," (any two-dimensional material intended to be photographed); Linotype slugs and handset type are referred to as "hot type," (any three-dimensional materials used for generating images).
The two innovations, computer-based technology and phototypesetting, had devastating effects on composing room workers and their traditional status. It was possible for the operator merely to type unjustified manuscripts (no regard to end-of-line decisions) on a Video Display Terminal to produce an "unfinished" tape which was fed into a computer with appropriate justification codes. The computer produces a "finished" tape, perfectly justified and hyphenated, which can be used then on a variety of automatic typesetting devices (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1973).
Furthermore, with the introduction of photography
(phototypesetting) into the area of composition type can be set at speeds up to 12,000 characters per second (Adams, 30
Faux, 1982). This innovation gave rise to the development of a new age in the printing industry.
In addition, by accessing the computer via the Video
Display Terminal (VDT), the need for an intermediary step of producing perforated tapes is eliminated. This allows for direct input of typeset material by journalists, editors, and other personnel outside the composing room. The computer justifies and hyphenates the copy. Then, a high speed printing device reproduces the copy on photosensitized paper rather than casting metal slugs (Kalleberg, Wallace, et al., 1986). Many composing room workers are delegated now to "paste-up" jobs in which they paste column-width strips of copy on page-size mats. These are reproduced, photographically in the plateroom and transformed into plates for the press runs (Rogers, Friedman, 1980).
SECTION VI
FUTURISTIC TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE COMPOSING ROOM
What does the future hold for composing room workers? The American Newspaper Publishers' Association
Research Institute currently is developing several new approaches. One of these is Optical Character Recognition
(OCR). This technology uses electro-optical techniques to
"read" typewritten or handwritten copy, translate it into 31 characters programmed into the memory of a scanner, and then produce the page-ready copy of news articles (Kalleberg,
Wallace, et al,, 1986). Typical scanners can read nearly
2,500 characters per minute, and will misread no more than 1 out of every 20,000 characters (Adams and Faux, 1982). The realization of the total application of OCR may permit the conveying of copy directly to the computer-operated typesetting devices and bypassing composing room workers altogether.
Weltz, reporting in a 1986 printing journal, provides a scenario of the changes surrounding composition by incorporating the old with the new. He states:
Just when most of us thought we were getting used to the new technologies that have revolutionized typesetting in the past decade or so, here come more advances that threaten to turn our recently acquired "conventional" wisdom all topsy-turvy once more.
The first great change we witnessed in the hundred years since Mergenthaler put his Linotype machine to work in the composing room of the New York Herald Tribune was first-generation photocomposi tion, which began to see widespread use in the '70s.
This was followed by more sophisticated input systems, then highly powerful--and expensive-- front-end systems with extensively computerized capabilities for hyphenation and justification, esthetic refinements, pagination, and large memory capacit ies.
Digital switch More recently, an equally revolutionary change has been occurring. This stems from the switchover a few years ago from analog to digital methods of 32
imaging letterforms, as exemplified by such units as the Linotron 202, Compugraphic's 8600, or VariTyper's 6400.
Once graphic information has been reduced to binary form, it is capable of wondrous manipula tion by computers. Shapes can be condensed, extended, slanted, reversed, sized, and otherwise modified in ways limited only by a programmer's skill and imagination.
And it's not just type that can be digitized; now it's pictures, too. This means that, with proper equipment and software, it is possible to combine text and graphics into a complete digitally output page, even with process color.
The technology for doing this with reasonably affordable equipment is coming pretty soon. It will certainly affect the traditional roles of typesetters and other crafts, particularly with regard to prepress work for publications (pp. 42-47).
Perhaps the most significant new technology on the horizon to be a part of future composing rooms is pagination. Pagination is an image-generating system that uses a keyboard to generate complete pages. This includes halftone images which constituted the last hurdle for this system. With the capability of both text and pictures being arranged (page make-up) on a VDT, the composing room's future is nebulous. It seems logical for this operation to be a function of the newsroom or editorial office.
Several prototype[s] pagination systems are currently in use and industry leaders foresee the day in the near future when pagination will be as pervasive in the industry as VDTs are now (Janesch, 1981, pp. 5-9). 33
Zimbalist (1979), reporting on a printing trade system journal that appeared several years ago, stated:
The next five years will see that development of terminals for interactive composition and makeup of type, line art, and photographs into complete images on a display screen. As a visual page image is being put together on the screen, a digital page image will simultaneously be assembled on the computer.... As soon as complete page images can be produced in this way, there will be a strong impetus to bring the whole process of page creation into the publisher's office where it has always logically been.... Partial automation of the page production process has not radically altered traditional relation ships between publishers, printers, and their distribution channels. Complete automation will change these relationships completely and forever (p. 12).
Several typesetting manufacturers are commercializ
ing this new technology. In-Plant Reproductions (1986) reports on several typesetting systems with each having the ability to handle text (words) and pictures. In other words, they have complete page makeup capabilities. One of
these systems is the Autologic the APS-Microprocessor II
composition system with the APS-55/200 Page Image
Processor. It is the first plain-paper typesetting system
that produces quality typography on a laser printer. The
system can compose manuals, directories, proposals, and
other business documents. The APS-Microprocessor II has a
pagination feature that outputs complete pages straight from
the APS-55/200 on a laser printer at eight pages per
minute. One extremely significant point is that the system 34 can take input from any personal computer (PC), word processor, or data processing source, paginate it, and typeset it in fully composed pages, scaled to any point size from 5 to 50 points.
Another contemporary system reported in In-Plant
Reproductions is the Bedford Computer. This is a Meteor
3000 Pagination station based on the Motorola MC68000 with up to two megabytes of memory. The Meteor 3000 allows for area creation and manipulation, layout. The operator may divide a page into any number of regions or areas. By connecting areas so that they overflow into other areas, a page can be laid out and text flowed in from galley files prepared at any other workstation.
Camex has a system called the Camex SuperSetter. It is a typesetter/output system that can handle type and everything on a page without limitation. The SuperSetter offers integration of graphics and type via the BitCaster-- the SuperSetter's raster image processor that can convert input from several sources to common raster bits. The
BitCaster also has a touchscreen control panel that issues on-line commands to SuperSetter output devices.
Another state of the art electronic typesetting system is Eastman Kodak's, Kodak Ektaprint Electronic
Publishing System (KEEPS) office publishing system. This 35 system includes electronic text workstations, document composition stations, scanners, and a laser printer. The system's combination of bit-mapped high-resolution graphics workstations and innovation software provides on-screen composition of documents, exactly as they will appear in final form. Other options of this system include a text controller, a graphics scanner, a file server node, a 1200 bps telephone data modem and a printer for proofing copies.
To aid these and other typesetting systems in the publishing department (the trend clearly shows this), the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recognized that there was a requirement for publishers to have some standards for text description and processing. It commissioned a group to develop these standards. One standard that evolved was the Standard Generalized Markup
Language (SGML). This will become an international standard, (Adler, et al., 1985). It is designed to enhance the smooth transition of typesetting and page makeup from the traditional composition department to the publishing department whereby the editorial office and/or newsroom will become users of these new interactive pagination/composition systems.
The fears of technological change in regard to employment opportunities, skill levels, and job satisfaction seem to be justified to some degree. A recent Rand 36
Corporation study of 493 daily newspapers found that from about 1970 to 1983 there were 52 percent fewer workers in composing rooms (1985). It was shortly after 1970 when computerized photocomposition, a means of producing print on paper, began to sweep the industry. The number of newspaper composing room workers declined from about 14,500 to about
6,900 during the 13-year period. Of the 7,600 jobs lost,
52.7 percent were lost through attrition, 29.1 percent through buyouts, 10.9 percent through layoffs, and 7.3 percent through retraining for jobs in other parts of the plant (Chicago Tribune, 1984). The Bureau of Labor
Statistics (ELS) (1982) projects that composing room workers
likely will decrease by another 24 percent between 1978 and
1990. Furthermore, the ELS expects that the new technology will create some computer programmer and systems analyst
jobs, but these jobs will account for less than one percent of all employment in the industry by 1990.
The projections by the ELS may entice some people to
look lightly at the Bureau's dismal outlook and suggest that projections, to a large degree, are merely speculation.
Whereas that may be true, a study by Block (1984) suggests corroborating support for the ELS projections of one percent creation of new jobs in composing rooms by 1990. Block's
study, "The Myth of Reindustrialization," addresses issues 37 of technological change on employment needs throughout the entire economy. He asserts that:
Changes are already well under way in the electronics industry. An OECD survey of major electronic firms in the United States, Europe, and Japan found a general pattern of declining employment during the course of the 1970s. Increased demand was met by higher productivity and a decreasing global labor force. In West Germany between 1970 and 1979, production of office and data processing machines grew by 74.5 percent. During the same period, hourly productivity rose by a staggering 117.9 percent and hours of employment dropped by 19.9 percent. In the United States, manufacture of electronic components, office machines, and computers by all firms grew by only 266,900 jobs between 1970 and 1979, of which roughly half were production jobs. In contrast, in 1980 alone, three hundred thousand workers were laid off in the automobile industry, with many of those jobs expected to be permanently lost. The decade-long expansion of the electronics industry might barely be able to offset the decline in only one of the older industries (1984, p. 68).
In regards to new technologies and their effect on composition skill levels, there is evidence that suggests that traditional skill levels indeed are declining. In an assessment of the benefits of new technologies in the printing industry, one government report stated:
A secretary with average typing skills--with only a small amount of training--cai. type unfinished tape on an electric typewriter and feed the tape into a computer for processing. Consequently, skilled composing room craftsmen who have traditionally set type can be bypassed and the work can be completed faster and reportedly at lower cost (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1973:7). 38
Additionally, in a time-series study of composing room workers in the printing industry, Wallace and Kalleberg
(1982) found that relative skill levels, compared to other representative workers, had declined since 1931. They were attributed to the changing technological environment in the
industry.
The effects of significant declines in skill have contributed to workers losing their autonomy. This, in turn, has reduced overall levels of job satisfaction among printers.
Blauner (1954), Friedman (1961), and Woodward
(1958), among others, report that technological factors
impinge on just about every aspect of job satisfaction. And the literature of automation abounds with material describing the frustration of workers in automated shops and the fears of workers in shops about to introduce automation. Much of the frustration stems from boredom, monotony, routine, and disassociation from the final product as the skill of the craftsman is replaced by the machine
(Rogers, Friedman, 1980). In a 1941 study, Blauner (1954)
found that only 35 percent of composing room workers would
choose an occupation other than printing if they "were 15 years old and starting all over again." But, in a study by 39
Rogers and Friedman (1980) it was found that by 1976, 66 percent would choose another profession.
SECTION VII
INDUSTRY LEADERS * REFLECTIONS ON THE FUTURE— PEOPLE AND TECHNOLOGY
A 1980s forecast study by the Graphic Arts Technical
Foundation solicited responses from 19 industry leaders to express their thoughts about the future of printing trades particularly in regards to people and technology. It was suggested they consider the following:
1. The impact of technological change on people over the next ten years
2. Training and retraining needs
3. What skills will become obsolete
4. What skills or skill level will become necessary
5. The relationship of printing to the overall communications industry
6. The role of organized labor in the process of change and new technology
Responders were told they could address all, some, or none of the above as they wished, but to express their rational projections as well as instinctive hunches. Nine of the 19 leaders responded and their more pertinent comments are noted. (Graphic Arts Employers of America,
1983). Appendix (C) contains their complete responses.
Excerpts from those statements follow. 40
James Wilken, of Eastman Kodak, comments on the inevitable changes ahead. He feels many will be affected by new technology, but people will continue to be the key.
They will, however, require different skills and there may be fewer people required in some segments. The projected work-force needs over the next five years are estimated to be between 250,000 and 500,000 people.
Wilkens also feels the impact of new technology on printing as to whether it will continue to grow or decline is anyone's guess. History shows that printing continued to grow after the impact of radio and television, and it probably will continue to grow after the electronic impact settles down. In the future, it will become economically impractical to provide the general public with printed lists of things and keep them updated, i.e., classified ads, telephone books, credit card information, etc.
Herbert Morrow, Jr. of Editors Press, Inc., makes three observations regarding future ramifications in the printing trades. First, he feels successful management must involve all employees in the process of improving operations through incentive-suggestion systems, in problem-solving, and in decision-making. Second, automation and the increasing adaptation of robotics probably will lead to shorter work weeks and longer vacation periods. He projects further that fewer people will be required in the 41 manufacturing process. Third, computerized controls at nearly every step of the printing process will cause a rapid shift from craft concepts toward technical, engineering— even scientific--skills on the part of production personnel.
Wallace Stettinius of The William Byrd Press, Inc., feels, with the current and projected emphasis on electronics, the labor force will have to become more skilled in using high technology, requiring more theoretical education, as well as applied skills.
Frank Rolph of Ronalds-Federated LTD., projects the impact of technological change in the printing industries over the next ten years will be even greater than over the past ten years. He feels that fewer people will be turning out considerably more products than they do now. He further states that those who perform the computerized jobs are both fewer in number and require a much lower skill level. The place of the craft skill journeymen during the past 25 years, has been taken over by the computer technicians.
Their general computer training requires a much shorter period than that to which this industry has been accustomed. Additionally, Rolph feels the trend of printing being integrated in the overall communications industry will continue. The advantages of word processor generating copy 42 from the client's office right into the printing plant will be integrated at an accelerating rate.
James Pruitt of Harris Graphics Corporation, addresses the question, "How will technology impact people over the next ten years?" He suggests the workforce will have emanated from a school system where computers are a common tool. Blue- and white-collar workers alike will be comfortable with computer-aided controls: at least among young workers. He asserts that these people will come to expect manual, labor-free jobs, where the job of the workforce is to keep the machines and systems operating.
There will be fewer people commanding more production equipment. He outlines further that these people (the new workforce) in a production operation must be: (1) educated and trained; (2) skillful in a pinch (ability to react to unknown variables); and, (3) motivated to production success.
Jack Simich, Educational Director at the Graphic
Arts Technical Foundation, stresses the point that technological changes are influencing the need for new skills and knowledge. Electronics and computers will have significant impact as new technologies are introduced.
Replacement of people by automation, robotics, and computers, will have some effect, but not as great as other industries. Moreover, the recessionary times recently have 43 created a sobering effect on management procedures. Mainly, the economic streamlining of all aspects of plant operation,
including people. There will be more caution exercised in hiring, both in numbers and abilities. Today companies attempt to decrease their workforce. At one time, the number of employees may have been an impressive indication of size; But, this is giving way to an array of more sophisticated equipment and the latest processes and procedures.
John Little at Baldwin-Gegenheimer, regards techno
logical changes as inducing an overall change in printing, whereby there is less of a craft and more of a science. He alludes to two trends involving the press area. The first
is the increase in controls designed to close the loop, that
is, to read errors and automatically correct them. The second trend relates to the web pressman who is now doing his job away from the press by controlling all major
functions from a console. This trend is made possible
through the use of microprocessors, and carries with it the ability to provide a great deal of information to
management. This concerns time spent on make-ready, plate
changing, getting color up. On the other hand, web breaks
will all become increasingly significant because of
increased speed and productivity of presses. This will
represent down-time. 44
The implications of these trends will involve several concerns. They include purchase of more modern equipment, the retraining of present employees in new technology, and the recruitment of new employees familiar with the new technologies.
Brian Gill of Masters Printers of America/PIA, emphasizes that technological changes will break jobs down to their simplest components. The effect will be a reduction in the pride of craftsmanship. Further, any time you break jobs down into specific segments, you tend to create the type of assembly line that leads to a lack of identification with the product or services being produced.
The printing company of the future is not only going to look and smell different, but it is going to be peopled with more highly educated and more technologically oriented individuals. The challenge Gill feels is to take those new
"technocrats" and insure their integration intp the organization. A sense of feeling "part of" is at the core of being motivated to help perpetuate any organization.
Roy Anderson of American Newspaper Publishers
Association, feels technological change is not a new development created by the recent acceleration of processes to improve the printing products and services to customers.
It always has been a part of our business, but the 45 difference is that the adjustments are far more frequent.
This creates new demands for the workers. Additionally, a lifetime career in one occupation is a thing of the past and with these rapid changes, an unprepared worker will face obsolescence and despair as a final reward.
Moreover, change in the composing room is an example of how technology can be different and requires almost all new knowledge applied to past skills. This type of skill
loss means the need for immediate training in the new
field. However, Anderson feels the skill levels for printing will increase because of the competition and the requirements for new technology. The skills of maintaining sophisticated equipment for transmission and upgrading for
quality will require engineering types such as commercial
television has at the present time.
SECTION VIII
RELATED RESEARCH STRATEGIES
A review of the literature indicates that there have
been several sociologically based studies on the effects of
technological changes relating to the printing industry.
Most notably are: Rogers and Friedman's, "Printers Face
Automation;" Wallace and Kalleberg's, "Industrial
Transformation and the Decline of Craft: The Decomposition
of Skill in the Printing Industry, 1931--1978;" and 46
Kalleberg et al.; "The Eclipse of Craft: The Changing Face of Labor in the Newspaper Industry."
The research methods used have been of the descriptive type. Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (1979) state that :
Descriptive research studies are designed to obtain information concerning the current status of phenomena. They are directed toward determining the nature of a situation as it exists at the time of the study. The aim is to describe "what exists" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation (p. 295).
Good (1963) lists three primary purposes and uses of descriptive-survey studies. These include:
1. To secure evidence concerning an existing situation or current condition.
2. To identify standards or norms with which to compare present conditions, in order to plan the next step.
3. To determine how to take the next step (having determined where we are and where we wish to go) (p. 549).
Rogers' and Friedman's study (1980) involved the effect of the 1974 collective-bargaining agreement between the Publisher's Association of New York City and New York
Typographical Union Number Six. The study employed three separate but related research methods; informant interviews, participant observations, and a survey.
The survey part included data obtained from three
sources: working printers, retired printers, and the wives 47 within both groups. There were 408 working printers who were interviewed at the workplace with each interview taking
30 to 40 minutes. Retired printers were surveyed by mail, while the 200 wives were questioned by telephone. All data were analyzed through the use of simple statistical techniques such as frequencies and percentages.
The study dealt with the 1974 collective-bargaining agreement which had recently ended a decade-long veto by the printers over use by the publishers of processes that represented a revolution in typesetting and composition.
The primary focus of the research was on the individual at different points in the work-retirement cycle. The researchers explored the manner in which the printers and their union adjusted to a technological change that made obsolete almost all the skills they had spent their working lives perfecting; and also how the change stripped the union of the iron control it had long held over composing room practices.
Rogers and Friedman found that despite the fact that most of the printers were well advanced in age, they responded eagerly to the opportunities that the publishers made available to acquire the lesser skills required to set type by computer. Also, the skill level to make up newspaper pages and advertisement was reduced to a process 48 one step removed from cutting and pasting paper dolls. The printers' eagerness quickly vanished when the introduction of one step after another in new technology caused the need for printers to plummet at a much faster rate than they chose to retire even when management offered attractive bonuses and other incentives for early retirement. Printers could adapt to any aspect of change except total idleness.
For the union the long-term prospect is equally cheerless. Despite the resourcefulness its leaders have exhibited in trying to find new functions and services, the outlook inescapably is for obliteration of usefulness, thus wiping out an organization that is among the oldest and most respectedin U.S. labor.
Wallace and Kalleberg (1982) did a descriptive time-series analysis of data on the printing industry for the years 1931-1978. The data used in their empirical analyses consisted of annual time-series observations for the printing and publishing industry. Descriptive as well as inferential statistics were used in the study.
The thrust of their study dealt with the effect of technological change on printers' skill levels. Printers have been long considered the epitome of the skilled 49 blue-collar craftsmen. The complexity and variety of the work process, the state of technology in the industry, and the role of strong unions in maintaining shop-floor autonomy have been important factors in preserving high levels of skill, and thus power among printers. Recently, however, all this has been changing. The steady decline of industrial profit margins after World War II has led many large printing establishments to introduce more sophisticated printing technologies, particularly computerized typesetting processes, which have routinized work tasks and led to a decline of skill among printing craftsmen. Major findings from Wallace's and Kalleberg's time-series analysis were that skill levels in the industry have indeed declined and, that these declines are largely due to the shift to more capital-intensive printing techniques. Moreover, there was support for the view that social relations of production between employers and employees influence the nature of technology utilized in an
industry.
Yet another study by five sociologists called, "The
Eclipse of Craft: The Changing Face of Labor in the
Newspaper Industry," involved an in-depth analysis of data.
The result was a descriptive study delineating the impact of technological changes on labor and craft that has occurred
in the newspaper industry. Sociologists long have viewed 50 printing as "an anachronism in the age of large scale industrialization," where traditions of craftsmanship, pride in one's work, and control over the immediate work process remained immune to technological change.
Newspaper printing involves a craft occupational structure typically requiring four- to six-year apprenticeships to achieve satisfactory levels of proficiency. Additionally, the local character of newspaper markets and the perishable nature of the product (publishers cannot stockpile news) have traditionally limited the supply of competent labor to those in the immediate area with the necessary skills. For years this combination of a highly skilled labor force and a highly perishable commodity gave newspaper workers broad control over the labor processes and unparalleled power in labor-management negotiations.
However, the study found that soon after
World War II significant changes, spurred by a profit squeeze and technological innovations, began to manifest themselves in the industry. Control of the labor process now has been shifted from craft unions to newspaper publishers. The increasingly dualistic structure (the uneven consolidation of larger newspaper firms alongside smaller family owned enterprises) made technological modernization possible and ultimately facilitated this shift in managerial control. This has resulted in a decreasing 51 number of craft jobs and this, in turn, has caused a decline in the union's ability to be an effective labor negotiator.
The declining union strength, skill decomposition, and skill homogenization have eroded traditional craft jurisdictions leading to defensive craft union mergers. The union's adjustment to technological change continues to be unfolding and only time will tell if this nation's oldest union will survive.
SECTION IX
SUMMARY
Technological change has played a dominant role in the printing industry since the middle of the fifteenth century, about the time when Gutenberg introduced individual type characters. The changes have been continuous and significant since that time in regard to improving efficiency and their impact on workers. Due to the critical nature of time involved in newspaper publishing it has been this segment of the industry that has taken the full blow of technological innovations. Specifically, the composition area has received the greatest attention because of its labor-intensive nature.
During the 1800s when type was composed by hand, the
Pittsburgh Press employed 500 men in order to set the
Sunday's edition. That was for the composition department 52 only. This high number was necessary because a proficient handset compositor could set about one character per second, fast for manual operations. However, due to technological changes, computers today are capable of generating up to
12,000 characters per second. The impact of this kind of technology has had devastating effects on workers.
Since the proliferation of computerized phototypesetting in the early 1970s, a dramatic reduction in composition workers has occurred. A Rand Corporation study of 493 daily newspapers found that from about 1970 to 1983 there were 52 percent fewer workers in composing rooms
(1985). Evidence suggests this trend will continue and that the new technology will generate an insignificant (less than one percent) number of new jobs.
The impact of technological change on skill levels
is another issue confronting workers in composition. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics (1973) stated: "A secretary with average typing skills, with a short training period, can use
in effect the technology and bypass highly skilled workers." The ELS states further: The work, because of new technology (phototypesetting) can be completed faster and reportedly at lower cost.
Another issue concerning the effects of technological change on workers is job satisfaction. Due to 53 new technology in composition, evidence indicates that there is much frustration stemming from boredom, monotony, and routine tasks.
A descriptive study of the effects of technological change is an appropriate means of gathering data in order to enhance our knowledge base. The impact of technological change is unrelenting, and therefore needs to be addressed. CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter outlines the methods and procedures to be followed in conducting the study. They include:
1. Identification of the study population.
2. Development of the research.instrument.
3. Validation of the research instrument.
4. Distribution of the evaluative instrument.
5. Collection of data.
6. Analysis of data.
THE DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY RESEARCH METHOD
Since there appeared to be little empirical evidence to advance our understanding of competing theoretical explanations on the effects of technological innovations on labor in the printing industry, a descriptive survey research method was utilized. This method provided for a formal and systematic approach for gathering, reporting, analyzing, interpreting, and summarizing data from the study sample. These results then could be used as a basis for professional judgements regarding school curricula at all
54 55 levels, skill development of workers, and job opportunities. The descriptive survey research method used to produce the above results utilized two questionnaires designed specifically for the study population.
According to Good and Scates (1954), the descriptive survey method includes induction, analysis, classification, enumeration, measurement, and evaulation. The word survey describes the gathering of data regarding current conditions. Best (1959) suggests that:
Descriptive research describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions of relationships that exist; practices that prevail; beliefs, points of view, or attitudes that are held; processes that are going on; effects that are being felt or trends that are developing (p. 102).
Good (1963) lists three primary purposes and uses of descriptive survey studies. These include:
1. Securing evidence concerning an existing situation or current condition.
2. Identifying standards or norms with which to compare present conditions, in order to plan the next step.
3. Determining how to take the next step (having determined where we are and where we wish to go).
Population
The population consisted of employees at two
Southwestern Pennsylvania newspaper publishers. They were 56 the Pittsburgh Press and the Washington Observer-Reporter.
More specificately, there were three groups that made up the study population: 1) composing room workers at both publishers; 2) department level supervisors at both publishers; and 3) a group of upper management personnel at the Pittsburgh Press. Upper management personnel surveyed were the Director of Industrial Relations and the Director of Employee Relations. The design was a three-stage hierarchical study. This approach made it possible for the data to be analyzed separately or in an integrated manner.
The Pittsburgh Press is a major publisher in Western
Pennsylvania. Approximately 2,000 people are employed by this publisher, which celebrated its 100 year anniversary in
1984. The composing room workers have experienced dramatic repercussions as a result of technological change. No one has been hired in the department in thirteen years. The number of composing room workers at this writing is 185.
This is down from 470 in 1974. Furthermore, as stated by both the Director of Employee Relations and the Director of
Industrial Relations, a further reduction in seven years will bring the number of composing room workers at the
Pittsburgh Press to 99 (1986).
The Washington Observer-Reporter, which makes up the other groups in the study, is a much smaller publisher. It has a circulation of approximately 37,000. Its history dates 57 back to 1808. Located in Washington, Pennsylvania, approxi mately 35 miles south of Pittsburgh, this newspaper publisher began as a family enterprise and remained that way for decades in "its 178 year" history of newspaper publishing. In a commemorative issue of this paper's history that appeared in its August 24, 1986 publication, it is interesting to note one particular paragraph that was relevent to this study.
In.1893, all eight members of the composing room staff were women working in a room 60 x 12 feet, well lighted by several windows facing south, each compositor had before her two cases, 2 x 3 feet, partitioned into numerous little compartments which held the type. Setting type was a tedious business, requiring "considerable skill, a knowledge of the English language, and a proficiency in spelling and grammar." Compositors also needed an inexhaustible supply of patience and a willingness to pay strict attention to their duties (p. D-1).
DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
The questionnaires were designed to satisfy the objectives of this study. They were used to survey composing room workers at two newspapers, department level supervisors at two newspaper publishers, and also upper management personnel at one of the publishers.
The questionnaires (see Appendix A) were distin guished by identifying one as Management Questionnaire; and the one intended for composing room workers was simply identified as Questionnaire. The Management Questionnaire 58 was designed in five parts: Part I, Personal Profile, was designed to obtain information about the background of the respondents; Section I included questions concerning the degree to which technological change had impacted on composing room workers from management and supervisors' perspectives; Section II included questions dealing with how the two groups felt toward technological change overall ;
Section III included questions dealing with the degree of
effectiveness of technological change; and Section IV dealt with general questions relating to the effects of
technological change.
The questionnaire designed for the composing room workers had four parts: Part I, Personal Profile, sought out
background information the same as the Management
Questionnaire; Section I included questions concerning the degree to which technological change had impacted on their
jobs; Section II included questions dealing with how workers
felt or thought that technological change would influence
their work environment; Section III included questions
dealing with the workers' perceptions of their printing
trade as a result of technological change.
In addition to the written questionnaire, upper
management at the Pittsburgh Press also took part in an
interview held at the newspaper. The questionnaire was
mailed in advance of the interview. Five questions (38, 40, 59
42, 48, 50) with instructions from the Management
Questionnaire were asterisked for discussion during the interview. The discussion provided for exchanges among the
Director of Employee Relations, the Director of Industrial
Relations, and the researcher. This forum provided for an in-depth treatment of key questions. However, for data analysis, only their checked responses from the questionnaire were included.
Validation of the questionnaires was accomplished by review and recommendation of:
1. Members of the Dissertation Committee.
a. Dr. William Umstattd, Associate Professor, College of Education: Theory and Practice, The Ohio State University.
b. Dr. Michael Scott, Assistant Professor, College of Education: Theory and Practice, The Ohio State University.
c. Dr. Michael Wallace, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology The Ohio State University.
d . Dr. Paul Post, Assistant Professor College of Education: Theory and Practice The Ohio State University.
2. Faculty members with expertise in research at California University of Pennsylvania.
a. Dr. Ronald Dreucci, Professor, Department of Industry and Technology, California University of Pennsylvania
b. Dr. Jay Helsel, Professor, Department of Industry and Technology, California University of Pennsylvania 60
c. Dr. Charles Schuler, Professor, Department of Industry and Technology, California University of Pennsylvania
3. Educational specialists with expertise in research at the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation.
a. Dr. Jack Simich, Director, Educational Services Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
b. J. Michael Steizon Training Specialist Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
c. Nelson R. Eldred, Manager Techno-Economic Forecasting Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Conferences were conducted with various members of the Dissertation Committee and with other selected validation consultants. All conferences were held on a
one-to-one basis. The purpose of the conferences was to study the questionnaires to determine if they would obtain sufficient data necessary to answer the research questions.
Special attention was given to structure, length, and sequence of questions. Questions were reviewed for context, clarity, objectivity, ease of response, and structure.
Consultants not on the Dissertation Committee were asked to
respond to a validation checklist (see Appendix J).
The validation process generated a variety of
changes and improvements. The first attempt at writing the
questionnaires was simply to list questions that the
researcher had little difficulty in writing. They covered a 61 wide range of effects of technology that resulted in a need to group several questions under specific sections. A major task beyond that was to identify the section that could serve as a preface for each question in that section. A great deal of time was spent in organizing and rewriting questions.
Due to the nature of the Graphic Arts Technical
Foundation, it was felt that validation consultations there should have the largest role in validating the instruments.
Several conferences resulted in the lengthening of each section of the questionnaires.
The final questionnaires were professionally typeset and printed. Both are shown in Appendix A.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE INSTRUMENT AND THE COLLECTION OF DATA
The two questionaires were administered in person at both newspaper publishers in late August of 1986. The questionnaire for the upper management personnel at the
Pittsburgh Press was mailed prior to an on-site interview.
They were retrieved at the conclusion of the interview.
At the Pittsburgh Press, approximately 145 questionnaires were distributed after an oral script was presented to composing room employees while they worked.
See Appendix B for script. This took place over three 62 shifts; beginning with the 7:00 a.m. shift and ending with the "lobster" shift, 10:00 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. Approximately
40 workers were either on vacation, sick, or simply took a day off. From the three shifts, 119 questionnaires including both management groups were completed and retrieved. Twenty-four completed questionnaires from those on vacation or sick at the time of administering the instrument were retrieved in October, 1986 by the researcher. The response rate for the workers was 72 percent.
The response rate was influenced by several factors:
1. Some workers were involved in critical time-oriented operations.
2. There were eight deaf mutes.
3. Oral script (see Appendix B) stating the voluntary nature of the survey.
4. The permission granted by the newspaper to do the survey during work hours.
The same procedure was used for distributing and collecting the data at the Washington Observer-Reporter. A
100 percent response rate was obtained from both groups (12 composing room workers and 3 department level supervisors).
This response rate was made possible because of a strong committment to the study by the head supervisor. The workers and supervisors took time from their tasks to complete the questionnaires. 63
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The questionnaires were designed for ease in responding and for ease in the tabulation of data. In nearly all questions, a simple response was required.
This made it easier for the researcher to tabulate the data
by the use of computer equipment.
The statistical package for the social sciences
(SPSS) was used to tabulate all data from the
questionnaires. All responses from each questionnaire were
keyboarded into the computer. The command, "statistics all"
produced a wide range of statistical data including
histograms. All responses to each question in both
questionnaires are presented in both text form and table/bar
graph form.
Those statistics common to descriptive-research
methods were utilized by the researcher for analysis. For
example, means, modes, mediums, standard deviations,
variance, and response percentages were used. An
explanation of these statistics follows: 64
TYPES AND USES OF DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Descriptive Statistic Uses
Counts, To break down and describe cate Percentages gorical or continuous data in a tabular (frequency distribution) form.
Mean Accurate measure of average if distribution is reasonably normal Arithmetic average.
Mode Value(s) or score(s) occurring most often in a distribution.
Median Accurate measure of average if distribution is not reasonably normal. One-half of the distri bution values are above the median, one-half below.
Standard Measures dispersion (spread) of Deviation scores or values around the mean score or value, in practical terms.
Var iance Describes dispersion (spread) of scores or values around the mean score or value, in theoretical terms.
Skewness A measure of normality of a dis tribution in terms of range of scores or values. Right or left curve shift measurement. 65
Descriptive Statistic Uses
Kurtos is A measure of normality of a dis tribution in terms of frequency of score or value occurrence. Flat or peaked curve measurement.
Standard A measure of statistical accuracy Error of with regard to a mean value from the Mean a distribution.
Range Measures entire width of a distribution, from lowest to highest score or value.
Additionally, several of the hypotheses of the study dealt with group differences. These necessitated the
Chi - Square Statistical Test. Chi - Square is the most popular of all non-parametric tests and was utilized in this study to test for differences between categorical variables. CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
The major objectives of this study were to ascertain
the effects of technological changes in regards to: (1) job
opportunities; (2) the decline of skills; and (3) job
satisfaction.
This chapter presents the data obtained from two
questionnaires (workers and management). The procedures for
presenting the data are to:
1. Identify the variable (question).
2. Identify the groups and their responses to each variable (in percentage).
3. Identify significant observations/relationships.
4. Identify (by providing additional data) those variables relating directly to the objectives and hypotheses of the study. A more in-depth treatment will be provided in Chapter V.
The questionnaire for composing room workers
consists of: Personal Profile; Section I (To what degree
have technological changes:); Section II (To what degree do you feel or think technological changes will:); and Section
III (With respect to technological changes:).
For the convenience of the reader, a copy of each
questionnaire is inserted in this chapter on pages 103-105 66 67 and 127-128 and also in Appendix A. The questionnaire for management consists of: Personal Profile; Section I (To what degree have technological changes:); Section II (To what degree do you:); Section III (To what degree are technological changes:); and Section IV (To what degree:).
PERSONAL PROFILE (PITTSBURGH PRESS & WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER COMPOSITION WORKERS)
l=Not Applicable (N/A) 2=None/no affect 4=Some Degree 3=Low Degree 5=High Degree
For the convenience of the reader, the researcher developed Tables in addition to the text form for quick examination of data in quantitative form. Both forms of data reporting essentially reflect the identical information.
Background Information ( See Table 1_ 68 ) NOTE: Some respondents elected not to mark some of the questions on the survey. This resulted iri missing data and subsquently some of the percentages do not equal 100% for each item.
The first question asked for the number of years in their current position. Table I shows of 134 printers 75% have been in composition for 21 or more years. Nineteen percent have been in composition for 16 to 20 years; 5%--ll to 15 years; 2%— 6 to 10 years. The mean value is 4.6. (See
Appendix J for all statistical data.) 68
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PERSONAL PROFILE
COPE VARIABLE LABELS PLANT 'PHYSICAL PLANT' YPOS 'YEARS IN THIS POSITION' YEMPLOY 'YEARS WITH THIS EMPLOYER' YTRADE 'YEARS IN THE PRINTINQ TRADE' t r a i n i n g 'SOURCE OF TRAINING AGE MAN SUPV SUPV WORKERS WORKERS TTL (PITT) (PITT) (HASH) (PITT) (HASH)
PLANT 'WASHINGTON OBSERVER' 3 12 15 'PITTSBURGH PRESS' 2 7 134 143 YPOS X ' 1 TO 5' 14 8 4 ' 6 TO 10' 14 33 2 8 11 '11 TO 15' 50 57 33 5 29 '16 TO 20' 14 19 17 10 '21 OR MORE' 50 33 75 67 45 YEMPLOY % 1 TO 5' ■ *■11 -TP. n ' ______52______12______12 _li£-I£L20!______22______30 so 2 2 '21 OR MORE'______50 71 100______62______52______Ê& YTRAPg.y 1 TO 5' 6 TO 10' * H TO 15' ' 16 TO 20'______U ______U ______25______12 '21 DR MORE'______100 86___ 100______SZ______Z5______22 TRAINING X 'HIGH SCHOOL' 14 7 4 'TRADE SCHOOL' 15 8 5 'COWWNITY COLLEGE' 33 8 8 'COLLEGE' 100 3 8 22 'UNION' 29 28 42 20 'ON-THE-JOB' 51 67 46 25 3 9 AGE « 'UNDER 20' '21 TO 30' '31 TO 40' 14 8 58 16 '41 TO 50' 43 33 35 8 24 '51 OR OLDER' 100 43 67 56 33 60 69
For the Washington Observer-Reporter, 67% of the composing room workers have been in their current position for 21 or more years. Seventeen percent have been in their current position for 16 to 20 years; 8%— 6 to 10 years; and
8%--l to 5 years.
The second question sought information on the number of years with their present employer. At the Pittsburgh
Press, 60% have been with their present employer for 21 or more years. Thirty percent have been with their employer for 16 to 20 years; and 10%--11 to 15 years. The mean value is 4.5.
The Washington Observer-Reporter has 50% with 21 or more years and 50% with 16 to 20 years with their current employer.
The third profile question sought information on the number of years in the printing trade. The Pittsburgh Press has 87% of workers who have been in the trade for 21 or more years. Eleven percent have 16 to 20 years in the trade.
The Washington Observer-Reporter revealed similar numbers. Seventy-five percent have 21 or more years and 25% have 16 to 20 years in the trade.
The fourth question was designed to ascertain how the workers were trained for their positions. At the 70
Pittsburgh Press, 46% were trained on-the-job; 28% were trained by the union; 15% were trained by trade schools; 3% trained in college; 7% in high school.
The Observer-Reporter revealed 42% were trained by the union, while 25% were trained on-the-job. Trade schools trained 8% of the composing room workers. Additionally, 8% were trained in community colleges and 8% in colleges.
The fifth question asked for their age. At the
"Press," 56% of the workers are 51 or older; 35% are 41 to
50 years old. Only 8% are 31 to 40 years old.
At the Observer-Reporter 33% are 51 or older; whereas 58% are 31 to 40 years old. Eight percent is 41 to
50 years old.
This is a clear indication that both plants have suspended hiring procedures.
Due to the statistical format for the computerization of the data, the next sequential question is number 27. Numbers were reassigned in the personal profile section and this necessitated the shift in the numbers.
SECTION I
This section dealt with the degree that technological changes had impacted on workers' jobs (See 71
Table 2 p. 72). The Appendix contains all statistical data, ranges, variance, missing values, etc. Note: data are analyzed by item number.
Questions 27 to 47 sought information dealing with the degree to which technological changes have impacted on composing room workers' jobs.
Question 27. At the "Press," 67% checked high degree; 21% checked some degree regarding their job being altered by technological change. Two percent checked low degree; 4% checked none/no affect; and 2% checked N/A. There is a mean value of 3.5. Standard deviation is .902. The median and mode are both 4.0. See Appendix J for statistical data for all questions.
At the Observer-Reporter, 33% checked high degree;
33% checked some degree; 8% checked low degree; 8% checked none/no affect; and 8% checked N/A, Mean value was 2.9; standard deviation was 1.3; median and mode was 3.0.
Question 28. At the "Press," 48% checked high degree and 38% checked some degree regarding their job made easier as a result of technological change; 6% checked low degree; 3% checked none/no affect; and 2% checked N/A. 72
TABLE 2 . conr. < I 1 N / A (2> NONE/NO AFFECT f3> LOU DEGREE
GROUP SUMMARY OF SECTION I FOR COMPOSING ROOM WORKERS
OUEST 1 ON PIT T/PRESS WASH INGTON/OBSERVEP s c a l e % % ? 7 1 ? 0 2 4 8 Z /. A lte re d y o u r job? 3 2 8 4 21 3 3 5 6 7 3 3 2 8 J 2 2 3 iÜ. Made your job caiici? 3 6 7 5 4 3 8 5 0 5 4 8 7 5 2 9 1 5 17 2 3 9 2 5 29. Made your job more difficult? 3 2 5 1 7 4 19 4 2 5 5 3 0 1 5 2 2 5 17 30. Positively affected your output? 3 1 3 4 2 0 3 3 24______S0_ 12-
31. Negatively affected your output? 3 2 ^ ^ 7 ~
J 6 ______12-
_22_ 20 32. Made your job more interesting?"^ 19 ______31______2 2 _ _24______12_ 17
33. Made your job boring? 3 ^ ^ 7 " JLS______2 2 _ 17 3 4 _Z ______2 2 ______17 34. Improved your job satisfaction? ______2 3 ______3 3 2 8 ______4 2 20 3 5 I______B______2 5_ 2 9 ______LZ_ 35. Reduced your job satisfaction? ^ ______2 1 18 ______4 2 _ 19 3 6
36. Im proved safety conditions? 3 ______1 7 _____ 4______J ÎB ______25_ 73
The Observer-Reporter indicated 50% checked some degree; 25% checked high degree; and 25% checked low degree.
Question 29 asks if technological change has made your job more difficult? The "Press” indicated that 39% checked none/no effect; 25% checked low degree; 19% checked some degree; 5% checked high degree; 5% checked N/A.
The Observer-Reporter showed 42% checked some degree; 25% checked none/no effect; 17% checked low degree; and 17% checked N/A.
Question 30. At the "Press," 28% checked some degree; 25% checked none/no affect; 24% checked high degree; 5% checked
N/A; and 13% checked low degree. Technological change appears to affect workers' output differently.
The Observer-Reporter showed 50% checking high degree; 33% checking some degree; and 17% checking none/no affect in regards to technological change positively affecting output.
Question 31 asked if technological change negatively affected your output. The "Press" had 33% checking none/no affect; 21% checked low degree; 16% checked some degree; 9% cheched high degree; 12%--N/A. 74
The Observer-Reporter showed 50% checking none/no affect; 17% checked low degree; 17% checked some degree; and
17% checked N/A.
Question 32 dealt with technological change making the job more interesting. The "Press" had 31% checked some degree;
24% checked high degree; 20% checked none/no affect; 19% checked low degree; 2% checked N/A. Group mean value was
2.6; variance 1.2; range was 4.0; median and mode were both
3.0.
The Observer-Reporter reported 42% checking low degree; 33% checking some degree; 17%--high degree; and
8%--none/no affect. Group mean was 2.6; variance .81; median 2.5; and mode 2.0.
Question 33 relates to technological change making the job boring. At the "Press," 29% checked none/no affect; 25% checked low degree; 18% checked some degree; 17% checked high degree; and 8% checked N/A. Range was 4.0; standard deviation was 1.2. It is clear that technological change has mixed effects on workers regarding boredom.
The Observer-Reporter showed 8% of the workers checking high degree; 33% checking some degree; 17%--low degree; 25%--none/no affect; and 17%— N/A. Range was 4.0 and variance 1.7. Group mean 1.9; mode 3.0; and median 2.0. 75
Question 34 dealt with workers' job satisfaction improving as a result of technological change. At the "Press," 28% checked some degree; 22% checked none/no affect. However,
20% checked high degree; 23% checked low degree; 5% checked
N/A.
The Observer-Reporter showed 42% checking some degree; 33% checking low degree; 17% checked none/no affect; and 8% checking N/A.
Question 35 relates to job satisfaction being reduced because of technological change. At the "Press," 29% checked none/no affect; 21% checked low degree; 18% checked some degree; 19% checked high degree; 8% checked N/A, Again, a mixed effect of technological change on job satisfaction, but there are significant numbers across the values.
The Observer-Reporter responses showed that 42% feel to some degree that technological change has reduced their job satisfaction; 17% checked none/no affect; 25%--N/A;
8%--low degree; and 8%--high degree.
Question 36 . At the "Press," 38% checked high degree; 23% checked some degree regarding improved safety condition due to technological change; 17%--low degree; 16%--none/no affect; 3% checked N/A. 76
At the Observer-Reporter, 50% checked some degree;
25% checked high degree; 8%--low degree; 8%— none/no affect; and 8% N/A. There is agreement from both large and small plants that technological change has improved safety conditions.
See Table 3 page 77 for questions 37 through 47,
Question 37. Regarding the impact of technological change on the increase in dangerous conditions, both the "Press"
(large plant) and the Observer-Reporter (small plant) show a low affect, as indicated in Table Ilb.
The "Press" revealed 43% checked none/no affect; 20% checked low degree; and only 8% checked high degree;
12%— some degree; 13%--N/A.
At the Observer-Reporter 42% responded to none/no affect; no one checked high degree; 25%— N/A; 17%--low degree; 17%— some degree.
Question 38. Has technological change made your job more healthful? The "Press" showed a spread throughout the value scale indicating mixed affects; 28% checked high degree; 25% checked some degree; 22% checked low degree; 18%--none/no affect; 3%— N/A.
The Observer-Reporter showed 33% checking some degree; 17%— low degree; 25% checking none/no affect; 77
TABLE 3
E! (1> N/ft <<) SOME DEGREE (S.D.) ( 2 ) NONE/NO AFFECT CS) HIGH DEGREE ( H .D .) ( 3 ) LOW DEGREE ( L .D .)
(WOUP SUMMARY OF SECTION I FOR COMPOSING ROOM WORKERS
STION PITT/PRESS WASHINGTON/OBSERVER P C A l e Ï % 31---- !------ts______2 5 . 43 37. Increased dangerous conditions? 3 22to . T t 12. 38 I______3______LZ_ IS______25. 38. Made your job more healthful? 3 7 7 ~ i 7 ______*______25______3 5 .2 3 . 39 I______e______i2_ 3 2 . 39. Made your job more detrimental ______23______3 3 ______S______13______3 3 ..33.
40. Made your jo b m ore physical? 3 11 3 3
25 J 5 _ 41. Made your jo b less physical? .,33 _ 2 5 .
42. Resulted in closer supervision 3 % from your immediate supervisor?.? ______12______25_ _10_ 43 I______12______1 2 . ______41______5 0 . 43. Resulted in less supervision from vour supervisor? ------15------12. 5______1 I ______8 -L. 44. Required m ore job skills? 3 i t ' ^ ______2______22______5B_
17 45. Required less job skills? 17 -25..
46. Required m ore knowledge? 3 ______g______it______4______24______42 33
47. Required less knowledge? — 3 ?? _12______1 Z _ 78
17%— N/A; and 8%--high degree. Both plants seem to suggest a trade off between possibly the heavy lead use with hot-type composition and looking at a VDT screen eight hours a day.
Question 39. Regarding technological change contributing to the detriment of workers' health, the "Press" revealed little affect. Thirty-nine percent checked none/no affect;
23% checked low degree; 13%--some degree; 8%--high degree;
8%--N/A.
The Observer-Reporter indicated slightly more affect; 33% checked low degree; 33% checked some degree;
8%— high degree; 8%--none/no affect; and 17%— N/A.
Question 40. At the "Press," 60% checked none/no affect; only 5% checked high degree; 6%--some degree; ll%--low degree; 13%--N/A. This is a clear distinction regarding less physical requirements associated with technological change.
At the Observer-Reporter a similar response was observed; 25% checked none/no affect; 33% checked low degree; 8%--some degree; and 33%--N/A.
Question 41. This question dealt with the opposite effect of question 40 (has technological change made your job less phys ical?). At the "Press," 45% checked high degree;
19%--some degree; 12%— low degree; 5%--N/A; and 5% missing; 79 and only 15% checked none/no affect. This substantiates the
findings in the preceding question.
The Observer-Reporter responded similarly with 33% checking some degree; 25% checking high degree; 25%--N/A;
8%--low degree. Only 8% checked none/no affect.
Question 42. This question dealt with technological change contributing to closer supervision from immediate supervisors. At the "Press," 40% checked none/no affect while only 10% checked high degree; 20%--low degree;
16%--some degree; 9%--N/A. The feeling is that technological change has not caused closer supervision.
The Observer-Reporter supported the "Press'" results with 58% checking none/no affect; no one checking high degree; 25% checking some degree; 8% checking low degree; and 8% checking N/A.
Question 43. The reverse of the preceding question was
asked. At the "Press," 41% checked none/no affect; 11%
checked high degree; 15% checked some degree; 19% checked
low degree; 10% checked N/A. Although opposite, both
questions 42 and 43 received strong responses at the none/no
affect value. This could mean there is no difference, the
level of supervision has not noticeably changed with or
without changes in technology. 80
The Observer-Reporter reported a similar position with 50% checking none/no affect; 17%— N/A; 8%--low degree;
17%--some degree; and 8%--high degree.
Question 44. At the "Press," 36% checked high degree; 27% checked some degree; 16%--low degree; 16%— none/no affect;
4%--N/A; and 2%--missing regarding technological changes requiring more job skills. Group mean was 2.8; standard deviation was 1.2; range was 4.0; mode was 4.0; and median was 3.0.
At the Observer-Reporter, 58% checked some degree.
No one checked high degree; 25%--low degree; and
17%--none/no affect. Range was 2.0; group mean was 2.4; mode and medium were 3.0.
Question 45. This question reversed the previous question.
At the "Press," 37% checked none/no affect; 20% checked low degree; 13% checked some degree; 13% checked high degree;
12%--N/A. It is interesting to note that each value contains significant responses. Group mean was 1.8; standard deviation was 1.2; range was 4.0; variance was 1.5; and both mode and median were 1.0.
The Observer-Reporter showed 42% checking none/no affect; 25% checking high degree; 17%--some degree; and
17%— N/A. Group mean was 1.9; standard deviation was 1.6; mode and median were 1.0. 81
Question 46. This question dealt with technological change requiring more knowledge. At the "Press," 44% checked high degree; 24% checked some degree; 9%— low degree;
10%--None/no affect; 2%--N/A.
The Observer-Reporter showed 42% checking some degree; 33% checking high degree; 17%--low degree; and
8%--N/A.
Question 47. This question reversed this previous question by asking does technological change require less knowledge.
At the "Press," 32% checked none/no affect. Only 10% checked high degree; 13%--some degree; 21%— low degree;
11%--N/A.
The Observer-Reporter showed 25% checking none/no affect; 17%--low degree; 17%--some degree; and 8%--high degree. However, 33% checked N/A. Questions 46 and 47 both seem to suggest that technological change does require more knowledge; however, at the "Press" there were 120 valid cases for question 46 and 117 valid cases for question 47 and the 33% checking N/A at the Observer-Reporter could suggest technological change affects are not evenly felt by workers. Or that technological change requires more knowledge for particular parts of their job and other parts require less knowledge than before. 82
SECTION II
This section dealt with how workers felt or thought that technological changes would influence their work environment (See Table 4 p. 83).
Question 48. This question dealt with workers' jobs being altered in the next five years. At the "Press," 62% checked high degree; 22%--some degree; 5% checked low degree;
5%— none/no affect; 5%— N/A. A clear indication that technological change will affect their jobs.
At the Observer-Reporter, 83% checked high degree;
8% checked some degree.
Question 49. At the "Press," 33% checked high degree; 32% checked some degree; 18%— low degree; 12%--none/no affect;
4%— N/A. Clearly these workers feel technological change will make their jobs easier.
At the Observer-Reporter, 42% checked high degree and 33% checked some degree; 8%— None/no affect; 8%--N/A.
Question 50. This question asked if technological change would make their jobs more difficult. At the "Press," 38% checked none/no affect; 16%--low degree; 20%— some degree;
10% checked high degree; 8%— N/A. This supports those responses in question 49 whereas the feeling is, jobs will become easier as a result of technological change. 83
TABLE 4
CODE Cl) N/A (2) NONE/NO AFFECT C3) LOW DEGREE (L.D.) (4) SOME DEGREE (S.D.) GROUP SUMMARY OF SECTION I I FOR COMPOSING ROOM WORKERS QUESTION PITT/PRESS WASHINGTON/OBSERVER scale % % 48 1 5 2 5 48. AI ter your job in the next five " 3 5 vears? 4 22 8 5 62 83 49 1 4 8 2 12 8 4V. MaKe your loo easier in me 3 18 4 32 33 5 33 42 50 1 8 25 2 38 42 50. MaXe your job more difficult? " 3 16 25 4 20 5 10 8 51 1 4 2 5 17 51. com puterize your worK tasks 3 10 4 22 17 5 56 67 52 1 6 17 2 7 8 Kepiacc you with a computer? 3 8 4 25 8 5 52 68 53 1 3 8 2 13 8 55. Reduce the need fo r highly skilled 3 17 17 workers? 4 19 17 5 43 SO 5 4 1 4 2 22 25 54. Strengthen your form er and 3 22 25 present skill level? 4 27 5 22 50 5 5 1 10 2 25 17 55. Thrcaien your job sccunty? 3 5 4 13 17 5 46 67 5 6 1 13 8 2 51 58 56. Create m ore job opportunities to 3 16 25 4 6 5 8 8 84 The Observer-Reporter workers reacted similarly with 42% checking none/no affect; 25%--N/A; 25%— low degree; and 8% checking high degree. Question 51. This was concerned with workers' perceptions of their work task becoming computerized. At the "Press," 56% checked high degree; 22%--some degree; 10%--low degree; 5% checking none/no affect; 4%— N/A. This clearly suggests a strong consensus. Group mean was 3.2; variance 1.1; mode and median were 4.0. The Observer-Reporter findings supported the workers at the "Press." Sixty-seven percent checked high degree; only 17% checked none/no affect; and 17%--some degree. Question 52. This question asked if workers felt they would be replaced with a computer. At the "Press," 52% checked high degree; 25% checked some degree; combining the two clearly suggests the workers feel that computers will eventually have strong negative effects on workers in future composing rooms. Only 8%--low degree; 7%--none/no affect; 6%--N/A. Group mean was 3.1; variance--l.4; range 4; and both mode and median were 4.0. Again, the Observer-Reporter workers responded positively with workers at the "Press" with 68% checking high degree; 8%--some degree; 8%--none/no affect; and 85 17%— N/A. Group mean was 3.0; variance 2.7; range 4.0; both mode and median were 4.0 Question 53. At the "Press," 43% checked high degree; 19%--some degree; 17%— low degree; 13% checked none/no affect; 3%--N/A; and 5% were missing regarding technological change reducing the need for highly skilled workers. Group mean was 2.9; variance 1.5; range 4.0; mode was 4.0; and median was 3.0. The Observer-Reporter responded in a like manner; 50% checked high degree; 17%--some degree; 17%--low degree; and 17% checked none/no affect; also 8% checked N/A. Group mean was 2.9; variance 1.9; range 4.0; mode was 4.0; and median was 3.5. Question 54. Will technological change strengthen your former and present skill level was asked, and at the "Press," significant numbers of responses were observed. Twenty-two percent checked high degree; 27% checked some degree; 22% checked low degree; and 22% checked none/no affect; 4%--N/A. There are obviously mixed feelings regarding this question. Group mean was 2.4; variance 1.4; range 4.0. Mode was 3.0 and median was 2.5. The Observer-Reporter indicated a different feeling in that 50% checked high degree; 25%--low degree; and 86 25%--none/no affect. Group mean was 2.8; variance 1.8; range 3.0. Mode was 4.0 and median was 3.0. Question 55. The threat of technological change on jobs was significant at the "Press" and the Observer-Reporter. At the "Press," 46% checked high degree; 13% checked some degree; 5%--low degree; however, 25% checked none/no affect; and 10%--N/A. Two percent was missing. Group mean was 2.6; variance 2.3; range 4.0. Mode was 4.0 and median was 3.0. It is interesting to note a stronger reaction from the Observer-Reporter workers; 67% checked high degree; 17%--some degree; and 17%--none/no affect. Group mean 3.3; variance 1.3; range 3.0. Mode 4.0 and median 4.0. The Pittsburgh Press' reaction to this question must be looked at with caution because they have been awarded job security for as long as he/she desires. This is mentioned here because 12 years ago the "Press" had 470 composing room workers. Today, there are 185; in 8 years the number will be reduced to 99 (Director of Employee Relations, 1986). Question 56. Will technological change create more job opportunities tooffset rises in unemployment? At the "Press," 51% checked none/no affect indicating significant disagreement. Eight percent checked high degree indicating they felt a sufficient number of new jobs would be created by technological change; 6%--some degree; 16%--low degree; 87 13%— N/A. Group mean was 1.4; variance 1.1; range 4.0. Mode and median both were 1.0. The Observer-Reporter felt much the same as the "Press ;" 58% checked none/no affect; 25%--low degree; 8%— high degree; and 8%— N/A. Group mean was 1.4; variance .992; range 4.0. Both mode and median 1.0. For questions 57 through 62 see Table 5 page 88. Question 57. Will technological change create unemployment? At the "Press," 48% checked high degree, meaning they expected greater unemployment as a result of technological change. Fourteen percent checked some degree and 18% checked none/no affect. Also 8%— low degree; 5%--N/A. Group mean was 2.9; variance 1.9; range 4.0. Both mode and median were 4.0. The Observer-Reporter showed similar feelings; 58% checked high degree; again indicating greater unemployment due to technological change. Also, 8%--some degree; 17%--low degree; 8% None/no affect; and 8%--N/A. Group mean was 3.0; variance 2.0; range 4.0. Both mode and median were 4.0. Question 58. At the "Press," 44% checked high degree; 15% checked some degree; 16%— low degree. Only 15% checked none/no affect despite the fact all workers have guaranteed 88 TABLE 5 CODE C l) N / A (2) NONE/NO AFFECT (3) LOW DEGREE CL.D.) (4) SOME DEGREE (S.D .) (5) HIGH DEGREE (H.D.) GROUP SUMMARY OF SECTION I I FOR COMPOSING ROOM WORKERS QUESTION PITT/PRESS WASHINGTON/OBSERVER s c a l e % % 5 7 1 5 a ______2______■ IB______8_ 57. Create unemployment? ______3 ______g ______1 7 14 48 58 58 _2 16. 58. Eliminate your present job in the 3 next five years? 4 1 5 2 5 44 58 59 59. Require you to have more 28 42 J ______14______25_ traditional composition skills for 4 20 the future? 28 60 60. Require you to possess a greater, knowledge o f the processes and . 3 14 procedures? 27 45 67 61 1 2_ 61. Reduce the number of composing room workers? ^ 8 83 62 1 __12 67 62. Increase the number o f 16 composing room employees? 17 89 jobs. Also 6%--N/A. Group mean was 2.8; variance 1.8; range 4.0. Mode was 4.0. Median was 3.0. At the Observer-Reporter, 58% checked high degree; 25% checked some degree; 8%--low degree; and 8%— none/no affect regarding technological change eliminating their jobs in the next five years. Group mean was 3.3; variance .97; range 3.0; both mode and median were 4.0. Question 59. At the "Press," 28% checked none/no affect; 7%— N/A; 14%--low degree; while 28% checked high degree; 20% checked some degree. An obvious mixed effect and/or perhaps unclear regarding the future of traditional composition skills. Group mean was 2.3; variance 1.8; range 4.0; mode was 1.0; median was 2.0. The Observer-Reporter showed significant responses for most of the values; 42% checked none/no affect; 33% checked high degree; and 25% checked low degree. Group mean was 2.3; variance 1.8; range 3.0. Mode was 1.0 and median was 2.0. Question 60. At the "Press," 45% checked high degree; 27% checked some degree; 14%--low degree; 9% none/no affect; 2%--N/A; and 5% missing regarding technological change requiring workers to possess a greater knowledge of the processes and procedures. 90 The Observer-Reporter workers responded similarly with 67% checking high degree; 25% checking some degree; 8% checking low degree. Question 61. The question, will technological change reduce the number of composing room workers, received very significant responses from both newspapers. At the "Press," 83% checked high degree; 8% checking some degree; 2%— low degree; 4%— none/no affect; 2%— N/A; and 2% missing cases. Group mean was 3.7; variance .67; range 4.0. Both mode and median were 4.0. At the Observer Reporter, 75% checked high degree; 25%--some degree (See Table 5). Group mean was 3.8; variance .21; range 1.0. Both mode and median were 4.0. A strong consensus in regards to reducing composing room workers. Question 62. This question reversed the previous question and asked would there be an increase in jobs for composing room workers. At the "Press," 57% checked none/no affect; 12%--N/A; 16%--low degree; 2%— some degree; while 9% checked high degree. This finding supports the previous question. Group mean was 1.4; variance 1.1; range 4.0. Both mode and median were 1.0. At the Observer-Reporter, a similar finding showed 67% checking none/no affect; 8%— low degree; and 17% 91 checking high degree. Group mean was 1.6; variance 1.5; range 3.0. Mode and Median were 1.0. SECTION III This section dealt mainly with workers' perceptions of their printing trade with respect to technological changes (See Table 6 p. 92). Question 63. Workers were asked if machines could perform at higher levels of efficiency. At the "Press," 49% checked high degree; 22% checked some degree; 15%--low degree; 7% checked none/no affect; 3%--N/A. The Observer-Reporter showed 67% checking high degree; 17% checking some degree; 8%--low degree; 8%— none/no affect. Question 64. This question was designed to answer questions of declining skill levels due to technological change. At the "Press," 39% checked high degree; 27% checked some degree; 11%— low degree; 21% checked none/no affect; 2%— N/A regarding the need for more traditional skills now than in the past. Group mean was 2.8; variance 1.5; range 4.0. Mode was 4.0 and median was 3.0. At the Observer-Reporter, 57% checked high degree and 17% checking some degree; 8%--low degree; and 8%--N/A. 92 TABLE 6 CODE < l ) N /A (2) NONE/NO AFFECT ( 3 ) LOU DEGREE ( L . D . ) < 4 ) SOME DEGREE ( S . D . ) ( 5 ) HIG H DEGREE ( H . D . ) GROUP SUMMARY OF SECTION I I I FOR COMPOSING ROOM WORKERS QUESTION PITT/PRESS UASHINGTON/GBSERVER scale % X _63___ !__ 2_____ 63. Can auiomaied/compuierized _15_ machines perform ai higher levels • _22_ of efficiency than humans? 64 _62_ 64. Did you need more traditional • _2i. skills 10 do your job in the past ' than you do now? _6Z_ 65 65. D o workers need m ore traditional JLZ- _52_ skills to function in a highly technological environment? ______66 _2L _25_ 6 6 . Do you otpect to be involved in — _13_ composition work during the next " _2S_ five years? _22_ 6 7 67. D o you think employers want to ■ see more technological changes? _25_ _Z2_ _5a_ -6.S- 6 8 . Do you think employers are 4 0 - 22- _12_ _12_ concerned about employees being _12_ replaced? ^ _25_ -17. 69. Should employers seek out t h ^ % most efficient way o f doing _ie_ 17_ 28 3 3 business, even if it means a 5 24 3 3 reduction in the work force? _7 2 02 1 5 B 2 8 8 70. A re technological changes 3 G beneficial for employers? 19 33 5 5 8 5 0 71 1 6 5 0 _ 21_ -33- beneficial for workers? _25_ _U_ 72. Should the pace o f technological. _l£_ - 1 7 changes be reduced? ------_22_ _L2_ _23_ _52_ 93 Group mean was 3.3; variance 1.5; range 4.0. Both mode and median were 4.0. Combining high degree and some degree at both newspapers, one could suggest there has been a reduction in requiring former skills while working in today's technological oriented composing rooms. Question 65. Do workers need more 'traditional skills to function in a highly technological environment? At the "Press," 31% checked high degree; 34% checked some degree; and 21% checked low degree; 10%--none/no affect; 3%--N/A. From the spread of responses, there is some disagreement regarding this question, or there are uneven effects of technological change among composing room workers. Group mean was 2.8; variance 1.2; range 4.0. Both mode and median were 3.0. At the Observer-Reporter, 50% checked low degree; 17%--none/no affect; 8%--N/A; and 25% checked high degree. The workers at this newspaper are indicating that traditional skills are losing their value. Group mean was 2.2; variance 1.6; range 4.0; mode and median both were 2.0. Question 66. This question dealt with workers' expecting to keep their jobs for the next five years. At the "Press," 49% checked high degree; 25% checked some degree. These responses must be taken with caution due to the job security 94 arrangement at the "Press." Also, 13%--lov degree; 10% none/no affect; 8% N/A. The Observer-Reporter showed 50% checking high degree and 33% checking some degree; 8%--low degree. Question 67. This question dealt with workers perception of employers' desire to see more technological changes. At the "Press," 79% checked high degree; only 5% checked none/no affect. Also, 10% checked some degree; 3% checked low degree; 2% checked N/A. The Observer-Reporter was slightly less in degree with 58% checking high degree; 25% checked some degree; 17% checked low degree. Question 68. This question was concerned with employees being replaced. It received similar responses from both newspapers. At the "Press," 40% checked none/no affect; 25% checked high degree, meaning 25% felt employers were concerned about employees being replaced. Also, 8%--N/A; 19% checked low degree; 8% checked some degree. At the Observer-Reporter, 50% checked none/no affect; 17% checked high degree. Also, 17%--low degree; 17%--some degree Question 69. This question dealt with employers seeking out the most efficient way of doing business even when a 95 reduction in the work force is likely. At the "Press," 24% checked high degree; 28% checked some degree; 18% checked low degree; and 19% checked none/no affect. Also, 5%— N/A. The spread of responses indicates that workers themselves are uncertain of what should be done even if it means losing their jobs. Group mean was 2.5; variance 1.5; range 4.0; mode andmedian were 3.0. At the Observer-Reporter the responses indicate a lack of consensus also; 33% checked high degree; 33% checked some degree; and 17% checked low degree; 8%— none/no affect; and 8%— N/A (See Table 6 p. 92). Group mean was 2.8; variance 1.7; range 4.0; both mode and median were 3.0. Question 70. The question. Are technological changes beneficial for employers?, was a strong yes by both newspapers. At the "Press," 58% checked high degree; 19% checked some degree; 8%— low degree; 8%— none/no affect; 5%— N/A. At the Observer-Reporter, 50% checked high degree and 33% checked some degree; 8%--none/no affect; and 8%--N/A (See Table 6 p . 92). Question 71. The question. Are technological changes beneficial for workers?, was regarded by both newspapers as not beneficial. At the "Press," 24% checked none/no affect; 96 31% checked low degree; and 25% checked some degree. Only 11% checked high degree; 6% checked N/A. The Observer-Reporter had 50% checking none/no affect and 33% checking low degree. Also, 8% checked some degree and 8% checked high degree. Question 72. This question asked. Should the pace of technological changes be reduced?. At the "Press,” there was no significant difference among the various values. Twenty-six percent checked high degree; 23% checked some degree, and 20% checked low degree. Also, 16% checked none/no affect; 9% checked N/A. The Observer-Reporter workers indicate somewhat more definity with 50% checking some degree; 17%--high degree. Also, 17%— low degree and 17%— none/no affect. See table 7 page 97 for questions 73 through 82. Question 73. Should the pace of technological changes be increased? At the "Press," 29% checked none/no affect; 25% checked low degree. This indicates, when combined, a significant number feels that the pace of technological changes should be reduced. However, 16% indicated the pace should be increased; this group responded to high degree; 15%--some degree; 8%— N/A. 97 TABLE 7 CODE ( l ) N /A (7> NONC/NO A rrE C T <3) LOW DEGREE (L.D .) (4) SOME DEGREE ( S . D . ) (5) HIGH DEGREE (H.D.) GROUP SUMMARY o r SECTION I I I FOR COMPOSING ROOM WORKERS QUESTION PITT/PRESS WASHINGTON/OBSERVER s c A le X X -73__ 1______e______73. Should (be pace o f icchnological 3 _ _ _ 29 changes be incteascd? ------^ ------2 | _ ------2 - ______fi_ — 25_____ I______2______ 74. D o employers signilicantiy b e n e f i t 3 g from technological changes? _3 ______12______17 ______5______Z2______6 7 7 5 I______6 ______75. D o workers significantly benefit — 2 ------2J------2 5 _ from technological changes? — J ------§ 7 ------______5______13______12_ 76 1______2______a_ 76. A re technological changes ------2------2— ------B_ naxssar^l ^ iS âl~ _az______33_ - 7 7 ______77. Should nitorrvation be used to do -2 ______12. monotonous, routine, and ^ unhealthy tasks? ______2 ______25______5 0 7 8 _____ 1______2 ______SL 78. D o you feel as im portant in y o u r 2 ______32______17 position today as you did when —J^ ^ you entered? ______5 ______22______1 7 7 9 I ______79. D o workers need to be retrained? "§ ------1------g * 2° 1° 6 7 ______ÊZ_ s o 1 80. Should new employees have a working knowledge of computers? ______2 6 _ 5 Z ______g±_ 81. W ould you want your ? i i 5 0 son/daughter to prepare for a 3 ------2 2 _ _17_ career in composition work? — , " 7 % 8 2 _____ I______K_ 82. If you were 15 and starting over. _ 2 ______2 2 - would you choose another — ^ occupation? 5 3 5 -20 98 At the Observer-Reporter, the reaction was more clearly no^ to increasing the technological pace. Fifty percent checked none/no affect; 25% checked low degree. Also, 17% checked some degree and 8% checked high degree. Question 74. Do employers significantly benefit from technological changes? At the "Press,” 72% said yes by checking high degree; 19% checked some degree; 3%--low degree; 2%--none/no affect; and 2%--N/A. The benefit of technological change to employers is clear even from the workers' views. The same view is observed at the Observer-Reporter; 67% checked high degree, only one person or 8% checked low degree. Also, 17%--some degree. Question 75. This question was altered slightly to ask if workers benefited significantly from technological changes. At the "Press," all values were checked with significant percentages. Twenty-one percent checked none/no affect; 27% checked low degree; 31% checked some degree; 13% checked high degree; 6% checked N/A. Workers appear to be clear concerning technological benefits to employers, but are less than clear regarding their benefits from technological changes. 99 At the Observer-Reporter, 50% checked some degree; 25% checked none/no affect and 17% checked high degree. Also, 8% checked low degree. A lack of consensus appears to be apparent. Question 76. Are technological changes necessary? At the "Press," 37% checked high degree; 43% checked some degree; 10%--low degree; 2%--N/A. Only 2% checked none/no affect. This is a clear indication that workers feel technological changes are necessary. The same feelings were indicated by workers at the Observer-Reporter; 33% checked high degree and 42% checked some degree; 8%--low degree; 8%--none/no affect; and 8%--N/A. Question 77. Should automation be used to do monotonous, routine, and unhealthy task? At the "Press," 55% checked high degree; 20% checked some degree; 12%--low degree; 2%--N/A. Only 10% checked none/no affect. Similar findings were observed at the Observer-Reporter; 50% checked high degree and 25% checked some degree. Eighteen percent indicated no. (low degree) to the question. 100 Question 78. This question dealt with how workers felt about their importance today in lieu of technological changes over the years. At the "Press," 30% checked none/no affect; 28% checked low degree; 18% checked some degree; and 22% checked high degree. Also, 2%--N/A. This seems to indicate workers are affected unevenly by technological change. Group mean was 2.3; variance 1.4; range 4.0. Mode 1.0 and median 2.0. At the Observer-Reporter, 50% checked low degree and 17% checked high degree. Also, 8% checked some degree; 17% checked none/no affect; and 8% checked N/A. Group mean was 2.0; variance 1.4; range 4.0. Both mode and median were 2.0. With all percentages considered, it suggests that workers do not feel as important today as when they entered the trade . Question 79. Do workers need to be retrained? At the "Press," 57% checked high degree and 24% checked some degree. Also, 6% checked low degree; 2% checked none/no affect. The Observer-Reporter substantiated the "Press'" feelings; 67% checked high degree and 17% checked some degree. Also, 8% checked low degree and 8% checked none/no affect. 101 Question 80. Should new employees have a working knowledge of computers? At the "Press,” 57% checked high degree; 26% checked some degree. Only 5% checked none/no affect. Also, 8% checked low degree; 2% checked N/A. Again, the Observer-Reporter concurred; 84% checked high degree; 8% checked some degree; and 8% checked none/no affect. Question 81. Would you want your son/daughter to prepare for a career in composition work? At the "Press," 41% checked none/no affect; 22% checked low degree. These responses are answering njo to the question. However, 16% answered yes. Also, 8% checked some degree; 11% checked N/A. At the Observer-Reporter, 50% checked none/no affect meaning ng^, while only 8% answered yes ; 17% checked some degree; 17% checked low degree; and 8% checked N/A. Question 82. If you were 15 and starting over, would you choose another occupation? At the "Press," 55% checked high degree; 8%--some degree; 6%--low degree; 22% checked none/no affect. It is 102 interesting to note 8% checked N/A. Group mean was 2.8; variance 2.3; range 4.0. Both mode and median were 4.0. Similarly, findings were indicated at the Observer-Reporter. Fifty-eight percent checked high degree; 8%--some degree; 8%--low degree; while 17% checked none/no affect. Group mean was 3.2; variance 1.6; range 3.0. Both mode and median were 4.0. Over one-half of composing room workers at both plants would choose another profession if they could start over . Questionnaire Potilion (Job Title):. The following questions are concerned with various aspects of your job and work responsibility. For each question, mark your resjronse by checking the value that most nearly represents your feelings based on For pcfionil profile, check the appropriate Item. the fo llo w in g scale. Number of year: in I hi: poiition: N/A.NOTAPPLICAULE 1. 1 to 5 o . NONE/NO AFFECT 2 . 6 to 10 1. L O W D E G R E E 3. 11 to IS 2 . SOME DEGREE 4. 16 to 20 3 . HIGH DEGREE 5. 21 o r m ore Please respond with a check V . for every item. Those that do not apply to you should be marked N/A. Number of year: with present employer: 6. I to 5 7. 6 to 1 0 8. I I to 15 TO WHAT DEGREE HAVE TECHNOIXJGICAl, CHANGES: .9 . 16 to 2 0 N /A , 0 1,2,3 10. 2 1 o r m ore 27. Altered your job? 28. M ade y o u j jo b easier? Number of years in printing trade: 29. M ade yo ur jo b m ore d ifficult? 1 to 5 11. 30. Positively affected your output? 12. 6 to 1 0 31. Negatively affected your output? . 13. U to IS 32. Made your job more interesting? 14. 16 to 2 0 33. Made your job boring? . 15. 2 1 o r ii.ore 34. Improved your job satisfaction? 35. Reduced your job satisfaction? H ow were you trained fo r this position? 36. Improved safety conditions? . 16. High School 37. Increased dangerous conditions? . 17. Trade School 38. Made your job more healthful? . 18. Community College 39. Made your job more detrimental . 19. College to your health? . 20. U n io n . 21. O n-the job 40. Made your job more physical? 41. M ade your jo b less physical? W hat IS your present age? 22. U nder 211 42. Resulted in closer supervision 23. 2 1 to 1 0 from your immediate supervisor? .24. 31 to 40 43. Resulted in less supervision from 25. 41 to 50 your supervisor? 26. 51 Or older O 44. Required more job skills? W 45. Required less job skills? Queslionnaire Quesliunnaiic N /A, 0 , I 46. Required more knowledge? Please respond w ith a check _ for every item. Those that do nut apply to you should be marked N/A. 47. Required less knowledge? Please respond with a check for every item lliose llial do not apply loyou should be marked N/A. W IT H RESPECT T O T E C H N O IÆ G IC A L CHANGES: SI-.CTIQN II TO W llAT DEGREK DO YOU FEEL OR THINK TECHNOEOGICAL N/A. 0 1 2 3 CHANGES WILL: 63. Can automated/computerized N/A 0,1,2 3 machines perform at higher levels 48. A lle r your job in (he next five of efficiency than humans? years? 64. Did you need more traditional 49. Make your jo b easier in the skills to do your jo b in the past future? than you do now? 5b. Make your job m ore difficult? 65. Do workers need more traditional 51. Com puterize your w ork tasks? skills to function in a lughly 52. Replace you w ith a com puter? technological environment? 53. Reduce tlic need for highly skilled 6 6 . Do you expect to be involved in workers? composition work during the next 54. Strengthen your former and five years? present skill level? 67. Do you think employers want to 55. IT ireaten your jo b security? see more technological changes? 56. Create more jo b opportunities to 6 8 . D o you th in k employers are offset rises in unemployment? concerned about employees being 5? Create unemployment? replaced? 58. E lim inate your present jo b in the 69. Should employers seek out the next five years? most efficient way of doing 59. Require you to have more business, even if it means a traditional composition skills for reduction in the work force? the future? 70. Are technological changes 60. Require you to possess a greater beneficial for employers? knowledge of tfie processes and 71. Are technological changes procedures? beneficial for workers? 61. Reduce the num ber o f composing 72. Should the nace of technological room workers? changes be reduced? 62. Increase the num ber of 73. Should the pace of technological composing room employees? changes be increased? Queslionnaire N/A, 0 , 1 74. D o employers signilicantly bencRl from technological changes? 75. D o w orkers signihcanlly benefit from technological changes? 76. A re technological changes necessary? 77. S houlil autom ation be user! to do monotonous, routine, and unhealthy tasks? 78. D o you feel as im portant in your position today as you did when you entered? 79. D o w orkers need to be retrained? 80. Should new employees have a working knowledge of computers? 81. W ould you want your son/daughter to prepare for a career it, com position w ork? 82. If you were 15 and starting over, would you choose another occupation? O tn 106 MANAGEMENT PERSONAL PROFILE Management Questionnaire In the analysis of data, the groups will be identified as follows: [1] Press ' Upper Management (Directors of Industrial Relations and Employee Relations); [2 3 Press' Supervisors (Department Level Supervisors); and [3] Observer-Reporter Supervisors (Department Level Supervisors). The first section referred to personal data Table 1, page 6 8 . For the convenience of the reader a copy of the Management Questionnaire will be found on pages 127 and 128. Years in this position Press' Upper Management has 50% with 11 to 15 years, and 50% with 21 or more years. Press' Supervisors have 14% with 1 to 5 years; 14% with 6 to 10 years; 51% with 11 to 15 years; and 14% with 16 to 20 years in their current position. Observer-Reporter Supervisors have 33% with 6 to 15 years; 33% with 11 to 15 years; and 33% with 21 or more years in their current position. Years with this employer Press' Upper Management has 50% with 11 to 15 years and 50% with 21 or more years. 107 Press' Supervisors have 29% with 16 to 20 years and 71% with 21 or more years. Observer-Reporter Supervisors have 100% with 21 or more years. Years in Printing Trade Press' Upper Management has 100% with 21 or more years. Press' Supervisors have 14% with 16 to 20 years and 86% with 21 or more years. Observer-Reporter Supervisors have 100% with 21 or more years. How were you Trained for this Position? Press' Upper Management--100% received their train ing in college. Press' Supervisors--14% high school; 29 union; 57% on the job. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--33% community college and 67% on the job. What is your Present Age? Press' Upper Management--100% 51 or older. 108 Press' Supervisors--14% 31 to 40; 43% 41 to 50; 43% 51 or older. Observer-Reporter Supervisors— 33% 41 to 50 and 67% 51 or older. The use of the computer for data analysis necessitated a change in the numbering sequence. The next sequential question on the questionnaire was question 27 which was part of Section I. SECTION I This section dealt mainly with questions concerning the degree that technological changes have impacted on composing room workers from management and supervisors' perspectives (See Table 8 p. 109). All questions in Section I are prefaced with. To What Degree Have Technological Changes ; Question 27. Assisted in increasing composition output? Press' Upper Management--100% checked high degree. Press' Supervisors— 57% checked high degree; 29% checked some degree; and 14% checked N/A. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--100% checked high degree. 109 TABLE 8 CODE ( 1 ) N /A (2) NONE/NO AFFECT (3 ) LOW DEGREE ( L . D . > (4 ) SOME DEGREE ( S . D . > (5) HIGH DEGREE (H.D.) GROUP SUMMARY OF SE C TIO N I FOR MANAGEMENT QUESTION MANAGEMENT SUPV. SUPV. (PITT) (PITT) (WASH) s c a l e % % 14 2 7 2 1 27. Assisted in increasing composition 3 4 2 9 s 100 5 7 100 20 1 ...... 2 M cipeu inaKC juDS saiei / 3 5 0 14 3 3 4 5 0 2 9 5 5 7 6 7 20 1 2 14 29. Helped make jobs m ore healthful? 3 5 0 14 4 5 0 3 3 5 71 6 7 3 0 1 . . . 2 JU. Caused w ork to be less physical? 3 SO 2 9 4 3 3 5 5 0 71 6 7 31 1 2 5 0 20 3 5 0 2 9 3 3 supervision from immediate 4 4 3 3 3 supervisors? 5 3 2 1 14 2 100 14 32. Helped make jobs more satisfying 3 4 3 6 7 4 14 3 3 5 14 3 3 1 14 2 100 2 9 3 3 33. Contributed to increasing ...... 3 6 7 traditinnal skill l«/rl? -, , 4 4 3 5 14 3 4 1 2 43 34. Cum ribuied to lowering — 3 14 3 3 n-adiiional skill level/ 4 5 0 5 50 29 6 7 35 1 67 2 4 3 35. C untfibuicd to absenteeism? 3 5 0 14 4 5 50 4 3 110 Question 28. Helped make jobs safer? Press' Upper Management--50% checked some degree; 50% checked low degree. Press' Supervisors--57% checked high degree; 29% checked some degree; and 14% checked low degree Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked high degree and 33% checked low degree. Both groups of Supervisors seem to agree that jobs are safer due to technological changes. Question 29. Helped make jobs more healthful? Press' Upper Management--50% checked some degree; 50% checked low degree. Press' Supervisors--71% checked high degree; 14% checked low degree; and 14% checked none/no affect. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked high degree and 33% checked some degree. Both groups of Supervisors felt technological changes have helped make jobs more healthful. Question 30. Caused work to be less physical? Press' Upper Management--50% checked high degree and 50% checked low degree. Ill Press' Supervisors--71% checked high degree and 29% checked low degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--G7% checked high degree and 33% checked some degree. There is significant agreement with both groups of Supervisors. Question 31. Resulted in or allowed for closer supervision for immediate supervisors? Press' Upper Management— 50% checked low degree and 50% checked none/no affect. Press' Supervisors--43% checked some degree; 29% checked low degree; and 28% checked none/no affect. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--33% checked some degree; 33% checked low degree; 33% missing. All responses suggest technological changes have not resulted in closer supervision from immediate supervisors. Question 32. Helped make jobs more satisfying? Press' Upper Management--100% checked none/no affect. Press' Supervisors--43% checked low degree; all remaining values received 14% responses (14% checked high 112 degree; 14% checked some degree; 14% checked none/no affect; and 14% checked N/A). Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked low degree and 33% checked some degree. All groups are clearly indicating that technological changes do not make jobs more satisfying. Question 33. Contributed ^ increasing traditional skill level? Press' Upper Management--100% none/no affect. Press' Supervisors--43% checked some degree; 29% checked none/no affect; 14% checked N/A; and 14% checked high degree. Observer-Reporter--67% checked low degree and 33% checked none/no affect. Question 34. Contributed W lowering traditional skill levels? Press' Upper Management--50% checked high degree and 50% checked some degree. Press' Supervisors--43% checked none/no affect and 29% checked high degree; 14% checked low degree; and 14% missing. 113 Observer-Reporter Supervisor— 67% checked high degree; 33% checked low degree. It appears from the two questions that technological changes tend to contribute to lowering traditional skills. Question 35. Contributed to absenteeism? Press' Upper Management— 50% checked high degree and 50% checked low degree. Press' Supervisors— 43% checked high degree and 43% checked none/no affect; 14% checked low degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked N/A and 33% missing. • SECTION II This section dealt mainly with how the groups felt toward technological changes overall (See Table 9 p. 114). All questions in this section are prefaced with. To What Degree Do You ; Question 36. Feel technological changes will make job tasks easier in printing composition? Press’ Upper Management--50% checked high degree and 50% checked some degree. 114 TABLE 9 CODE C l ) N / A (2 ) NONE/NO AFFECT (3) LOW DEGREE CL.D.) (4) SOME DEGREE CS.D.) (5) HIGH DEGREE CH.D.) GROUP SUMMARY OF SECTION II FOR MANAGEMENT QUESTION MANAGEMENT SUPV. SUPV. (PITT) (PITT) (WASH) s c a l e y. % 3 6 1 5 0 4 3 5 0 5 7 1 0 0 3 7 1 2 4 3 37, W ant lo see m ore lechnologicaj g ...... 2 9 changes? 4 5 0 2 9 3 3 5 5 0 6 7 3 8 1 2 9 2 9 ,V ...... 4 1 0 0 2 9 1 0 0 3 9 1 2 1 4 3 9 . Benefii from lechiiological ^ — " 1 4 6 7 changes? 4 5 7 3 3 5 1 0 0 4 0 1 40. Feel technological changes create 2 5 0 5 7 6 7 2 9 3 3 5 0 1 4 ■ ' 5 4 1 1 2 9 1 4 5 0 5 0 5 7 1 0 0 4 2 1 1 4 6 7 2 4 3 3 3 42. Use technological changes 1 0 g " ------5 0 2 9 discipline workers? 5 0 ______1 4 115 Press' Supervisors--57% checked high degree and 43% checked some degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors— 100% checked high degree. A strong indication by all groups that technological changes will make job tasks easier. Question 37. Want to see more technological changes? Press' Upper Management--50% checked high degree and 50% checked some degree. Press' Supervisors— 43% checked none/no affect; 29% checked low degree; and 29% checked some degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked high degree and 33% checked some degree. Question 38. Use technological changes to reduce the need for highly skilled employees? Press' Upper Management--100% checked high degree. Press' Supervisors--29% checked high degree; 29% checked low degree; and 29% checked none/no affect. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--100% checked high degree. 116 Strong indications that the need for highly skilled workers is diminishing. Question 39. Benefit from technological changes? Press' Upper Management--100% checked high degree. Press' Supervisors--57% checked some degree; 14% checked low degree; 14% checked none/no affect; 14% missing. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked low degree and 33% checked some degree. Upper Management indicated a very positive benefit, while supervisors suggest a moderate benefit. Question 40. Feel technological changes create enough job opportunities to offset rises in unemployment? Press' Upper Management--50% checked some degree and 50% checked none/no affect. Press' Supervisors--57% checked none/no affect; 29% checked low degree; 14% some degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked none/no affect and 33% checked low degree. All groups indicated technological changes will not create sufficient job opportunities to offset rises in unemployment. 117 Question 41. Feel there will be a reduction in job opportunities in composition due to technological changes? Press' Upper Management--50% checked high degree and 50% checked some degree. Press' Supervisors--57% checked high degree; 29% checked none/no affect; 14% checked low degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors— 100% checked high degree. All groups are indicating from very strong to moderate the chances of technological changes reducing job opportunities. Question 42. Use technological changes to discipline workers? Press' Upper Management--50% checked high degree and 50% checked low degree. Press' Supervisors--43% checked none/no affect; 29% checked low degree; 14% checked N/A; and 14% checked high degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked N/A; and 33% checked none/no affect. SECTION III This section dealt with Managements' perceptions of 118 the effectiveness of technological changes (See Table 10 p. 119). The question that prefaced each question was. To What Degree Are Technological Changes : Question 43. Good for employers? Press' Upper Management--50% checked high degree and 50% checked some degree. Press' Supervisors--57% checked some degree and 43% checked high degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--100% checked high degree. All groups indicated significant effectiveness of technological changes for employers. Question 44. Good for workers? Press' Upper Management--100% checked some degree. Press' Supervisors--57% checked low degree; 29% checked some degree; and 14% checked none/no affect. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--33% checked none/no affect; 33% checked low degree; and 33% checked some degree. 119 TABLE 10 CODE C l ) N / A (2) NONE/NO AFFECT (3) LOW DEGREE CL.D.) (4) SOME DEGREE CS.D.) C5) HIGH DEGREE CH.D.) GROUP SUMMARY OF SECTION I I I FOR MANAGEMENT QUESTION MANAGEMENT SUPV. SUPV. CPITT) CPITT) CWASH) s c a l e % % 4 3 1______ 43. Good for employers? 4 50 50 5 50 43 lOO 44 1 2 14 33 44. G ood for workers? 3 57 33 4 100 29 33 5 45 1 2 45. Good fo r business?less.' 3 4 50 14 67 5 50 J6 33 46 1 2 46. Necessary? 3 4 72 5 100 29 100 47 1 2 14 iob security? 3 43 4 50 5 5 0 43 lOO 120 All groups indicated a low to moderate effectiveness of technological change for workers. Question 45. Good for business? Press' Upper Management--50% checked high degree and 50% checked some degree. Press' Supervisors— 86% checked high degree and 14% checked some degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked some degree and 33% checked high degree. All groups suggest a strong to very strong positive effect of technological changes for business. Question 46. Necessary? Press' Upper Management--100% checked high degree. Press' Supervisors--72% checked some degree and 29% checked high degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--100% checked high degree. 121 All groups clearly indicated the need for technological change. Question 47. Threatening to job security? Press' Upper Management— 50% checked high degree and 50% checked some degree. Press' Supervisors--43% checked high degree; 43% checked low degree; and 14% checked none/no affect. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--100% checked high degree. All groups from strong to very strong indicate technological changes do threaten job security. SECTION IV This section dealt with general questions relating to the effects of technological changes (See Table 11 p. 1 2 2 ). The question that prefaced this section was, To^ What Degree ; Question 48. Should employers be responsible for retraining workers affected by technological changes? Press' Upper Management— 100% checked some degree. 122 TABLE 11 CODE (1) N/A (4) SOME DEGREE CS.D.) (2) NONE/NO AFFECT (5) HIGH DEGREE CH.D- ) (3) LOW DEGREE CL.D.> GROUP SUMMARY OF SECTION IV FOR MANAGEMENT QUESTION MANAGEMENT SUPV. SUPV. (PITT) (PITT) (WASH) scale % % 1 48. Should employers be responsible ■ 33 for retraining workers affected by" 100 technological changes? too 33 _ 49__ 49. Should employers seek out the ___ 14 most efficient way o f doing ------43 33 business even i f it means a ------29 reduction in the work force? gp 33 29 50. Should the nace o f technological" 100 33 changes be reduced? 29 33 29 51 29 51. Should the race o f technological . 50 57 33 changes be increased? 50 14 67 52 52. A re form er/traditional skills — 50 29 14 33 needed to function in a highly - 50 29 33 technological environment? “ 29 S3" 53. Can automated systems be 14 designed to do complex tasks in . printing composition? 100 71 54 54. Can automated/computerized 14 machines perform at higher levels- 50 14 of efficiency than humans? — 100 55 29 55. W ould you advise your 67 son/daughter to prepare for a - 29 33 career in composition work? * 123 Press' Supervisors--100% checked high degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--33% checked high degree; 33% checked some degree; and 33% low degree. Question 49. Should employers seek out the most efficient way of doing business even if it means a reduction in the work force? Press' Upper Management--100% checked high degree Press' Supervisors--43% checked some degree; 29% checked high degree; 14% checked low degree; and 14% checked none/no affect. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked high degree and 33% checked some degree. All groups indicate businesses should seek out the most efficient way to conduct business. Question 50. Should the pace of technological changes be reduced? Press' Upper Management--100% checked low degree. Press' Supervisors--29% checked high degree; 29% checked some degree; 29% checked none/no affect; and 14% checked low degree. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--33% checked some 124 degree; 33% checked none/no affect; and 33% checked N/A. Upper Management indicates the pace of technological changes should not be reduced; both Supervisor groups indicate a lack of consensus. Quest ion 51. Should the pace of technological changes be increased? Press' Upper Management— 50% checked some degree and 50% checked low degree. Press' Supervisors--57% checked low degree; 29% checked none/no affect, and 14% checked high degree. Observer-Reporter--67% checked high degree and 33% checked low degree. Question 52. Are former/traditional skills needed to function in a highly technological environment? Press' Upper Management--50% checked some degree and 50% checked none/no affect. Press' Supervisors--29% checked high degree; 29% checked some degree; 14% checked low degree; and 29% checked none/no affect. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--33% checked some degree; 33% checked low degree; and 33% checked N/A. 125 There appears to be a mixed effect or uncertainty among all groups. Question 53. Can automated systems be designed to do complex tasks in printing composition? Press' Upper Management--100% checked high degree. Press' Supervisors--71% checked high degree; 14% checked some degree; and 14% checked none/no affect, Observer-Reporter Supervisors--100% checked high degree. These responses are very strong indications that automated systems can be designed to perform complex tasks. Question 54. Can automated/computerized machines perform at higher levels of efficiency than humans? Press' Upper Management--50% checked high degree and 50% checked some degree. Press' Supervisors--71% checked high degree; 14% checked some degree; and 14% none/no affect. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--100% checked high degree. These are very strong indications that automated/computerized systems can perform at higher levels 126 of efficiency than humans. Question 55. Would you advise your son/daughter to prepare for a career in composition work? Press' Upper Management--100% checked none/no affect. Press' Supervisors--43% checked none/no affect; 29% checked low degree; and 29% checked N/A. Observer-Reporter Supervisors--67% checked none/no affect and 33% checked low degree. Very clear indications that the future for composing room workers is not encouraging. Mtnigement Queilionnaire Management Quejlionnnite Position (Job Tille):_ W hat is your present age? 22. U nder 20 23. 2110 30 .24. 31 to 40 25. 41 to 50 For personal profile, check ______the appropriate item. 26. 51 Or older Number of years in this position: 1. I to 5 2. 6 to 10 .3. I I to IS 4 16 to 20 l3ie following questions are concerned with various aspects of your job and 5. 21 o r more work responsibility. For each question, mark your response by checkin* tlie value that most nearly represents your feelings based on the following scale. Number of years with present employer: N/A-NOTAPPUCABI.E 6. I to S 0 • NONE/NO AFFTCT 7. 6 to 10 1 ■ L O W D EG R EE 8. I I to 15 9. 1610 20 2 «SOME DEGREE 10. 21 or more 3 • IIIG il DEGREE Please respond with a check sX to every item. Those that do not Number of years in printing trade: apply to you should be marked N/A. 11. I to 5 ,12. 6 to 10 SECTION I . 13 I I to 15 14. 16 to 20 TO W llAT DECREE HAVE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES: 15. 21 or m ore N /A, 0 . 1 2 3 Mow were you trained for this position? 27. Assisted in increasing composition . 16. High School output? . 17. Trade School . t8. Community College 28. Helped make jobs safer? . 19. College 29. Helped make jobs more healthful? . 20. U nio n 30. Caused w ork to be less physical? .21. On the job 31. Resulted in or allowed for closer supervision from Immediate supervisors? 32. Helped make jobs more satisfying 33. Contributed to increasing traditional skill level? Is) Management Uueshonnaiie Maii;igenienl Qucslioniiairc N/A. 0,1, 2.3 I’Icjse respond with a check , for every Item. Those that do 34. C on lrib u lcd lo lowering I not apply to you should lie marked N/A. Iradilional skill level? SECTION 111 35. C om lb lied lo absenteeism? h t TO W llAT DEGKEE AKE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES: N/A. 0 1 2 3 43 G ood fo r employers? I’ leasc respond w illi a check / lor every ileni. I hose llial do not apply lo you should be marked N/A. 44. G ood for workers? 45. G ood fo r business? Si:CTIQN II 46 Necessary? 47. Ttirealenlng to job security? TO W llAT DEC III-1 DO YOU: SECTION IV TO WHAT DEGREE; 36. Feel lechiiological changes will N/A make jo b tasks easier In printing 48 Should employers be responsible 0 1 2 3 composition? for retraining workers affected by 37. W ant lo see m ore technological technological changes? changes? 49. Should employers seek o ut the 38 Use technological changes lo most efficient way o f doing reduce the need for highly skilled business even if it means a employees? reduction In the work force? 39. Iknefil from technological 50. Should the nace o f technological changes? changes be reduced? 40. Feel leclinological changes create 51 Should the |ig£{ of technological enough job opportunities to olfsci changes be increased? rises In unemjiloyment? 52 Are former/tradillonal skills 4 1. Feel there will be a reduction in needed to function in a highly job opportunities In composition lechiiological enviionmeiit? due to technological change? 53 Can autom ated systems lie 42. Use technological changes to designed to do complex tasks In discipline woikeis? printing composition? 54. Can automated/computerized mai hiries perform at higher levels ol elflciency than humans? 55 W ould you advise your son/daughter to prepare for a career in composition work? to 00 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Primary purpose of this study was to focus on the consequences of technological changes as they relate to job opportunities, skill requirements, and job satisfaction. More specifically, the study addressed the following : RESEARCH HYPOTHESES (R) & NULL HYPOTHESES (0) H H (R)l Technological changes will contribute to H : reductions in job opportunities in the composing room printing industry. (R)2 Technological changes will contribute to H : lowering former skill levels. (R)3 Technological changes will contribute to a H : reduction of job satisfaction for composing room workers. (0)1 There is no substantial difference among age H : groups of composing room workers with regard to skill levels. (0)2 There is no substantial difference among age H : groups of composing room workers with regard to job satisfaction. (0)3 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and composing room workers with regard to technological changes creating 129 130 sufficient job opportunities to offset rises in unemployment. (0)4 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to skill levels. (0)5 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to job satisfaction. (0)6 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to job opportunities. (0)7 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to the use of technological changes to discipline production workers. The data for this study were collected from two questionnaires which were delivered and retrieved iji person to approximately 160 individuals in the total population of 202. The total number of respondents was 158. This number reflects those individuals who elected to complete the questionnaire; those who elected not to complete the questionnaire; and those individuals who completed and did not elect to complete the questionnaire upon returning from vacation, a day off, or sick at the time the questionnaires were administered. The population which consisted of personnel at the Pittsburgh Press and the Washington Observer-Reporter was made up of five groups. These groups were identified as follows: at the Pittsburgh Press, (1) upper management 131 (Director of Industrial Relations, Director of Employee Relations); (2) department level supervisors; and (3) composing room workers; at the Washington Observer-Reporter; (4) department level supervisors; and (5) composing room workers. The two questionnaires were designed for; (1) composing room workers and for (2 ) upper management and department level supervisors. Composing room workers' questionnaire consisted of four parts: Personal Profile and three sections dealing with workers' perceptions of the impact of technological changes. The second questionnaire, called Management Questionnaire, consisted of five parts: Personal Profile and four sections dealing with the impact of technological changes from the perception of non-production workers. Data obtained from the questionnaires were reported in Chapter IV and used for answering the Research Hypotheses and Null Hypotheses, and also to provide a basis for the summary, conclusions, and recommendations in Chapter V. See Appendix J for all statistical data. SUMMARY Personal Profile This part of the questionnaires was designed to obtain information about the background and current position of each respondent. Data pertaining to number of years in 132 the printing trade, years in present position, years with present employer, how they were trained, and their present age, were obtained (See Table 1 page 68). Research Hypotheses (R) & Null Hypotheses (0) H H (R)l Technological changes will contribute to H : reductions in job opportunities in the composing room printing industry. The data obtained showed all groups, constituting the sample, clearly indicated that technological changes will reduce the number of composing room job opportunities. Each group had a mean value from 2.9 to 4. Specifically, with four (4) meaning high degree, upper management at the Pittsburgh Press checked 3.5; supervisors at the "Press" checked 2.9; supervisors at the Washington Observer-Reporter checked 4.0; composing room workers at the Pittsburgh Press checked 3.7; and composing room workers at the Observer-Reporter checked 3.8 (See Figures #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on page 156). Additionally, a similar question asked as to whether technological changes create unemployment. Strong indications were observed from all groups again. All responses were at and above three with one at four (the highest degree). The group means for each group were as follows: the Pittsburgh Press' upper management 3.5; supervisors at the Pittsburgh Press 2.8; supervisors at the 133 Observer-Reporter 4.0; workers at the Pittsburgh Press 2.8; and workers at the Observer-Reporter 3.0. From the data obtained from other similar questions in both questionnaires, there is consensus regarding the loss of job opportunities in composition work in the printing industry (See Figure #6 on page 157). (R}2 Technological changes will contribute to H : lowering former skill levels. The data obtained reflected a lack of consensus among composing room woifkers at both newspaper publishers. At the Pittsburgh Press, workers were asked if technological changes required more skills; 36% checked high degree; 27% checked some degree 16% checked low degree; and 16% checked none/no affect. Fifty-eight percent checked some degree at the Observer-Reporter. No one checked high degree. The group mean at the "Press" was 2.8. The group mean at the Observer-Reporter was 2.4 (See Figures #8 and #9 on page 157). The lack of agreement could be due to mixed effects on skill levels. A similar question asked if technological changes required less job skills. Composing room workers at the Pittsburgh Press checked the following: 37% checked none/no affect; 20% checked low degree; 13% checked some degree; and 13% checked high degree. At the Observer-Reporter composing 134 room workers checked the following: 42% checked none/no affect and 25% checked high degree. The group mean at the Press was 1.8--the group mean at the Observer-Reporter was 1.9, The responses from the total sample regarding the degree that technological changes strengthen former and present skill levels were as follows: the group mean for upper management at the Pittsburgh Press was 1.0; Pittsburgh Press supervisors' mean was 2.2; supervisors at the Observer-Reporter had a mean of 1.6; composing room workers at the Pittsburgh Press had a mean of 2.5; and composing room workers at the Observer-Reporter had a group mean of 2.8 (See Figure #8 on page 157). Overall, the majority of workers indicate that their skill level has not necessarily been lowered, however, there are good indications among the ranks of composing, room workers that skill levels are changing. When a comparison is made of the total population, the result is that technological changes do contribute to a lowering of former and present skill levels. It is interesting to note that production workers at both plants are consistent in their perception of skill levels. Management tended to feel skill levels are declining. 135 (R)3 Technological changes will contribute to a H ; reduction of job satisfaction for composing room workers. To address this Research Hypothesis the total population responded to the question: To what degree have technological changes improved job satisfaction? The group means are as follows: Pittsburgh Press' upper management -- 1.0; Pittsburgh Press' supervisors — 2.0; Observer-Reporter — 2.3; Pittsburgh Press' composing room workers -- 2.4; and Observer-Reporter composing room workers -- 2.0 (See Figure #11 on page 158). This reflects little effect on improving job satisfaction. Responding to a similar question: To what degree have technological changes made your job more interesting, the Pittsburgh Press' composing room workers had a group mean of 2.6. Workers at the Observer-Reporter had a group mean of 2.6 also. This does not indicate a strong trend towards improved job satisfaction, but it nevertheless does not indicate adverse effects of technological changes. The group mean for this question was 2.6. Another question that was asked pertaining to job satisfaction; To what degree have technological changes reduced your job satisfaction? The Pittsburgh Press' composing room workers indicated a mixed effect; 29% checked none/no affect; 21% 136 checked low degree; 19% checked high degree; and 18% checked some degree. The group mean was 2.1. The net effect from the data reflected a slight improvement rather than a reduction in job satisfaction at the Pittsburgh Press. See Figure #11 on page 158. (0)1 There is no substantial difference among age H : groups of composing room workers with regard to skill levels. A Chi - Square test of age groups with Question 44 asking the degree that technological changes have required more job skills revealed overall, that there is an increase * in skill level. Table 12, page 137, shows further that 55 percent of composing room workers are 51 or older, 32% are 41 to 50, and only 13% are 31 to 40. With 82 percent of the workers 41 and older, the significance of this question is lost to some degree. However, the question: To what degree do technological changes require more job skills?, can perhaps best be answered by the older groups. The table also shows that 38 percent of the 31 to 40 year old workers felt that technological changes do not require more job skills. Thirty-five percent of the age group 41 to 50 felt that technological changes d2 require more job skills. With the larger group, 55 percent of the workers in the 51 to older category also felt that TABLE 12 CROSSTAB ACC 0 N 0 r "at *04 INCREASED TRADITIONAL SKILL LEVEL PACE 1 or 1 044 COUNT EXP VAL RESIDUAL NONE/MU LU* DECK SOME DEC HIGH DEC RUN STO RES AFFECT EE REE REE TOTAL ADJ RES I 1 4 II TO uiSr JR.VI II.II 32.21 2 9 .2 1 14.01 •n.2 • l.U 46 41 TO 12.2% 20.01 1 2 .6 1 ii •0.4 ! 5 27 79 51 OR OLDER If is i i 55.2% ..... ii... __-0.I__i ,..A. COLUMN *' 24 * 41 * 141 TOTAL i j % 14.0% i6^i% 10.1% 12?!% IOU.0% CHl'SOUARE D.r. SIGNIFICANCE M1M_E.F. CELLS ■ITH_E.F.< 5 #*»*****###» 9.01170 0 0.2770 0,629 5 or 15 I 11.1%) W -J 138 technological changes ^ require more job skills; 34% checked high degree. It is interesting to note the differences in that those who have not been in the trade as long as the older groups feel that technological changes do not require more job skills. It seems more appropriate from the researcher's view that the older group of employees would have a clearer advantage in knowing the effects of technological changes on skill levels. The statistical data showed a Chi - Square value of 9.83170; at the .05 level with eight degrees of freedom, therefore, the Null Hypothesis is accepted. (0)2 There is no substantial difference among the H : age groups of composing room workers with regard to job satisfaction. A Chi - Square test was done with age groups and job satisfaction and the data reflected a lack of consensus among all groups (See Table 13 on page 139). Thirty-three percent of workers (31 to 40) felt to some degree that technological changes had made their job more satisfying; 22% said technology had not made their job more satisfying; 28% checked low degree. With only 11% checking high degree, most of the workers in this age group dg_ hot feel that technological changes have improved their job satisfaction. The 41 to 50 group, which comprised 34% of the sample, was more positive toward technological change and TABLE 13 CNUSSIAUULAIION ACC BI 034 MADEn U JOB MURE SATISFXIWC PAGE 1 OF Ui4 COUNf EXP VAL RUN PCT Eg; NUNE/flU LON DECK SOME DEC HIGH DEC ROM AEKtCr EE ^ REE ^ REE ^ TOTAL ADJ RES AGE 1 2 II 31 TO 40 .9 3,« 3.4 12.7% ?i:!î îlili Û 1 * ir :i ii -0.9 3 « 10 17 10 41 41 TO 50 2.4 10.1 14.5 9.1 33.1% 6.34 16.74 ;ô i b 4 35.44 20.8% 42.94 26.74 21.64 39.54 37.04 2.14 5.64 7.04 12.04 7.04 .6 -2.1 -i.i 2.5 .9 .4 -0.7 -0.5 .6 .3 .5 -0.9 -0.8 1.0 .4 20 76 51 OH OLDER 53.5% .l;h is!i. liai 10.04 :s:i’ '■il* i -i0,0 • 0.6 •1.1_ • mmfm I* :5 COLUMN 7 JO ib 43 27 142 TOTAL 4,9% 21.14 24.6% 30.3% 19.0% 1 0 0 .0% CHl-SOUARC O.F. SIGNIFICANCE CELLS WITH E.F.< 5 3.03472 i 0.9322 6 OF IS ( 40.0%) W VO 140 their job satisfaction. Thirty-five percent checked some degree and 21% checked high degree. The group, 51 and older, comprised the largest percentages of all age groups with 54 percent. This group was clearly mixed regarding technological effects on job satisfaction; 20% checked high degree; 26% checked some degree; 26% checked low degree; and 24% checked none/no affect. Incidently, determining the effects of technology on job satisfaction it seems logical to place more weight on this group's perceptions because of their long-term association with technological changes. The Chi - Square statistical test revealed a Chi - Square value of 3.03472; at the .05 level with eight degrees of freedom, the Null Hypothesis is therefore accepted. (0)3 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and composing room workers with regard to technological changes creating sufficient job opportunities to offset rises in unemployment. There is a very strong consensus among all groups that technological changes will not create enough job opportunities to offset rises in unemployment (see Figure #7 on page 157). Only one group, the Pittsburgh Press' management, checked low degree. All other groups were less in their degree. Clearly there is consensus on this 141 hypothesis. Therefore, the Research Hypothesis is accepted. See Appendix J for statistical data. (0)4 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to skill levels. Figure §9, page 157, shows all management and department level supervisors' groups with very similar feelings. Supervisors at the "Press” felt to a low degree that technological changes required more job skills. Their group mean was 2.1 with 4 being highest degree. Upper management felt technological changes ^ not require more job skills. Washington's supervisors also felt technological changes do not contribute to increasing skill level. Their group mean was 1.7. With value label 2 being low degree, and that was the highest value checked, it is clear that the three groups are in agreement. (See Page 309) The Chi - Square statistical test revealed a Chi - Square value of 11.5428; at the .05 level with eight degrees of freedom, therefore, the Null Hypothesis is accepted. (See also Figures DIO on page 158 and D8 on page 157. ) (0)5 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to job satisfaction. As shown in Figure Dll, page 158, all groups were in agreement in that technological changes have not improved 142 job satisfaction. Washington supervisors responded to the highest value with a group mean of 2.3; "Press'" management mean was 1.0, slightly above low degree. The three groups essentially said that technology does not improve job satisfaction. (See Appendix K p. 310) The Chi - Square statistical test revealed a Chi - Square value of 9.1428; at the .05 level with eight degrees of freedom, therefore, the Null Hypothesis of no difference is accepted. (Also see Figure #12 on page 158.) (0)6 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to job opportuni ties. (See Appendix K p. 311) Figure #1, page 156, shows all groups in strong agreement regarding the reduction of composing room jobs due to technological changes. All group means are at and above three (some degree) with Washington supervisors at the highest point. A related question asked; Will technological changes create unemployment? A strong consensus was noted again. All group means were at and above the value three (some degree), and one group was at value four (See Figure #6 on page 157). 143 The Chi - Square statistical . test revealed a Chi - Square value of 7.8214; at the .05 level with six degrees of freedom, therefore, the Null Hypothesis stating no substantial difference is accepted. (Also see Figures #1, #2, and #3 on page 156.) (0)7 There will be no substantial difference H : between management and department level supervisors with regard to the use of technological changes to discipline production workers. Both groups of department level supervisors felt very strongly that technological changes were not used to discipline workers. Their group means were; Pittsburgh 1.6 and Washington .33. Upper management at the Pittsburgh Press felt there was some degree of disciplining with the use of technological innovations. Their group mean was 3.0. See Appendix J for details concerning Question 42 from the Management Questionnaire. No significant difference was observed for this hypothesis at the ,05 level of significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted. CONCLUSIONS These conclusions were drawn from data obtained from the two questionnaires and follow the seven Research Hypotheses and Null Hypotheses. 144 1. (R)l Job opportunities in composing rooms indeed H : are shrinking. Evidence is plentiful regarding this matter. All groups surveyed reached strong consensus. 2. (R)2 Technologies 1 effects on skill levels are not H : as predictable as some believe. The result seems to be a mixed effect. Some skill levels have been lowered while others have increased. With both publishers having suspended hiring for all practical purposes, the result is a workforce that has been involved in the printing trade for a substantial number of years. Subsequently, these workers have been exposed to technological changes quite extensively and yet there is a lack of consensus concerning skill levels influenced by technology. It is this researcher's view that workers with the most years in the trade would have the greatest credibility in determining technological effects. 3. (R)3 Job satisfaction has been affected by H : technological change, but does not appear to be overly significant in either direction. A lack of consensus suggests some tasks 145 generated by new technology are challenging while others are not. However, the question; If you were 15 and starting over, would you choose another occupation?, drew strong responses. Nearly 60 percent of all composing room workers indicated they would choose another profession. This high response could suggest a problem with their job satisfaction and/or job opportunities. 4. (0)1 No significant difference was observed in two H : of the age groups, 41 to 50 and 51 and older. However, the age group 31 to 40 did differ, but not significantly. All but 13 percent of composing room workers are at least 41 years old. Those with the most experience think their skill levels have increased slightly. However, due to hiring practices of late and the subsequent absence or small percentage of younger workers, valid conclusions are difficult to arrive at. 5. (0)2 Job satisfaction has been attainable for some H : workers and elusive for others among all age groups. The group, 51 and older, which comprised the bulk of workers, and has the most experience with technological change. 146 was practically equal in their responses to each value. 6. (0)3 There is consensus among all groups that new H : technology does not create the number of jobs necessary to offset jobs lost by changes in technology. 7. (0)4 Management and supervisors are in agreement H : that technological changes do not generate an increase in skill levels. Although the difference was insignificant, upper manage ment felt technological changes apparently reduced the need for highly skilled workers. 8. (0)5 Management and department level supervisors H : feel that technological changes do not promote job satisfaction among composing room workers. Upper management felt this to be more true than the supervisors. 9. (0)6 All groups involved in the study practically H : were unanimous concerning the effects of new technology on job opportunities. It is interesting to note that the groups also felt that technological changes are necessary, and they should be incorporated even when the changes will cause a reduction in the 147 workforce (See Figures #1 thru #5 on page 156). Job opportunities indeed are compro mised in the midst of rising technology. 10. (0)7 Technological changes are used by management H : to discipline the workforce when applicable. When skill levels are reduced by the use of new technology, replacement of once highly skilled workers is feasible. Although department level supervisors disagreed with management in regards to the use of technology, it is this researcher's view that the supervisors did not realize the full implications of the question. CONCLUDING REMARKS Technological change has proven to have two salient characteristics; (1) improved efficiency and (2) reduced labor costs. The old adage that no one can stop progress (the result of technological change) is true, however, when progress is linked to a reduction in the employment of people, it is only a matter of time before serious repercussions are manifested. When new technology can generate more, faster, better, and lower priced products, it is difficult and impractical to resist technological 148 change. As this change continues to be attractive to employers, the problem will only exacerbate for employees today, and intensify for employees in the future. Without rethinking the current trend for progress that involves less people, the social implications can have unconscionable consequences. No one can stop progress, nor should they. The solution is not to impede growth, but rather to become pro-active and creative in finding ways to utilize society's greatest resource which is, people. In the manner that "industrial technologists" have worked to re-shape the workplace, a need today exists for "social technologists" to work in concert with industrial technologists to explore ways that involve people. This joint effort would be utilized to continue our trend towards technological change and progress, but to embrace the ideology of change involving the inclusion of people rather than the exclusion of people. Moreover, job satisfaction appears to be compromised with the advancements of technology. The consistency of fully automated systems makes it feasible for management to select inanimate apparatuses when appropriate, to perform many tasks that humans traditionally have performed. And, if automated systems can be designed to do complex tasks, as the study indicated, then what remains for workers (who 149 remain) may be very unchallenging and boring job tasks. Job satisfaction is an inveterate quality that needs nourishment. Human beings relegated to mundane tasks likely will experience extreme difficulty remaining viable entities in society. The need to explore ways that involve people in the workplace is paramount. It therefore is imperative that consciousness for the human element become a working partner with technological growth with the result being total growth in society as opposed to truncated growth patterns. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations were based on the data obtained from responses to the Questionnaires and follow the ten Research and Null Hypotheses. 1. (R)l Retraining opportunities. H Workers should be given the opportunity to be retrained for those jobs that result from technological change. Current employees should have first priority when new positions are opened. Younger workers at risk should be encouraged and supported to further their education for a possible career change. 150 Additionally, workers in general should recommit themselves to strong, sound work ethics in an attempt to slow-down the pace of technological change. Technological change initially is a very costly adventure. The attitude of workers could serve to decelerate the speed to incorporate the technology regarded as "people displacing." As reflected in the study, new technology does not creat sufficient jobs to offset rises in unemployment. Therefore workers, unions, and others should become "pro-active" in attempting to combat the push for technology that affects large numbers of workers. Because management must compete in order to survive, the efforts to slow down the pace of technology cannot be isolated. It must have global implications." The effort must start somewhere if workers expect to remain a viable entity in the workplace. Note: Both newspapers should be commended for their efforts to refrain from laying off employees. 151 2. (R)2 To the extent that workers are not clear H : regarding the effects of technological change on their skill levels, there needs to be a study that can focus more sharply on this issue. This is important since skill levels can influence: 1) salaries; 2) replacement considerations; 3) job satisfaction; and 4) workers' sense of importance. Educationally, clarification of this issue is very significant. School curricula, particularly vocational and technical schools need a sense of direction for skill levels. Universities can best serve its students by developing curricula that prepare well-rounded students who are flexible/ adaptive in the rapidly changing technologically driven world. 3. (R)3 Job satisfaction may be adversely affected by H : technological change. Those workers adversely affected should perhaps prepare themselves to accept technological change more smoothly because these changes invariably are a natural part of the work environment. Union representatives should 152 remain active in pursuing a quality work life for their members. 4. (0)1 Since skill levels often determine the status H : of workers, the union could serve its members well to determine if skills levels indeed are declining or increasing. This determination can prove to be significant in negotiations with management in future contract talks. A more detailed study could further clarify this issue. Note: The need to determine skill levels by age must be waived due to the absence of significant age groups (only 13 percent of composing room workers are less than 41 years old ) . 5. (0)2 There were significant numbers of workers H : across all age groups who responded both positively and negatively regarding job satisfaction. Management needs to determine the direction that job satisfaction is headed and respond accordingly if it wants to maximize the efforts of its workers. V This issue is equally important for the union as well. The union should seek out ways to 153 ascertain from its members, what if any, direction job satisfaction is headed and therefore react accordingly. This issue could impact on the viability of the union in terms of membership, union, dues, etc. 6. (0)3 More attention should be given to the H : creation of more jobs. Technological change has resulted in fewer jobs. Along with industrial technologists, who have revolution- ized the workplace with highly automated systems, there needs to be "social technologists" as well. Social technologists are people concerned about the value of human beings and their place in the industrial setting. There should be some degree of coordination among industrial manufacturers, management, and workers that promotes growth for all. Incentives stemming from the federal or state level to generate new technology that involves more workers not less, should be incorporated in future planning strategies. Educationally, school curricula should address issues of job possibilities in view of technological change. Jobs that can be 154 computerized/roboticized should be looked at very closely by educators. This is particularly true for vocational and technical schools. 7. (0)4 Since there is some disagreement among all H : groups in the study concerning skill levels, there needs to be further study of this issue. Management's view of workers' skill levels should be similar to the views of supervisors and composing room workers because salary structure, replacement options, etc., are germane to fair contract negotiations. 8. (0)5 Management and department level supervisors H : should work in concert to promote job satisfaction. This could result in different job assignments, job variations within the composing room, and involvement of workers in decisions that affect their work tasks. Note: This researcher is not suggesting that these considerations are necessarily ignored. (0)6 See recommendations for (0)3. This issue is H : very clear among all groups studied. Finding 155 new ways to utilize our greatest resource, which is people, must be a high priority item. The aim of technological change should continue to be to improve efficiency but with the inclusion of people, not the exclusion of people. 10. (0)7 Technological changes should not be used for H : disciplinary reasons if both groups are to prosper and remain viable. Workers should accept the responsibility that management should feel obligated to make a profit. Conversely, management should be well aware of the integral role that satisfied employees can play in achieving the most carefully developed goals and objectives. Only through cooperative efforts on both sides can positive growth occur. 156 FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 VALUI tAAn.1 ■OVB/aO ATTSCT VALUS LAStL: A/A LOW ocean aoas/ac atpsct •OKS Dcoass LOW otcait ■lOH OCOilt i.wif nrnvrc Mina OtCAlC ialatlantHlf «f «n •eoup» te th# qu«»tlen: Will ticMielefIcel «keeq## «edwc# &h# eueOar al coapeatM lun#hi(. among all gtoupi leependlng te Ch# see# «erkete? •|u«atlen: Ai# tachnoieglcal cbangaa McaaaaryT m m Werfeera ir ittt FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 VALUt LABU.: ooac/«o ArrtCT Low OSCtCt WALVt UiBSLt a/A •OKS DKCati aoas/HO Acricr ■lOM DSCatS LOW OKCaCC •OMS OKoass aiOM DCGStC ••lacteuhtp emon* a il qtewp# ptctelnlny te ta# qw«etlee: SAeulO employer# etek eut th# M*t etllc#nt wey el deini bealmte# evon 11 1C aeana a ••dwctlen la tM watt ■alatl#aahlp a#eng ail qreep# peitalnlng ta the leccef qiMttlen} Cam autemaced/caeipwtas lied macKina» p«i lacs ac fclfhat laval# af elflelemcy CM» A wma ma? J ^ - 1 4 MK •«pecviaeta SMpatvUer Werter# wactet# Nam fwpacviaeca •wpatviaor wocktt» woiket# iritc ) (Plttj IMathi ( fit tl (Waab} iritci iritt) (Waehl (Oltt) (wa»M FIGURE 5 VALUS LASIL t B/A WOn/VO APTSCT LOW 3SCASS •alatlamakip #1 ail qteup# leapendlng te the gyeotlan: Axe technelaqlcal cnamqea beivellclal le* empleye:#? 157 FIGURE 7 FIGURE 6 VALUS LASCLi «/A VALUI LAUtI W/A *0Kt/«0 A/rtCT #0M/#0 ATFBCr 10» OCCKtt LW DCOBKl •OKS OSOaKB • OKS DBOSU MIOR MCUBS MtOS MCSn «r aU t«»p«n4in^ to tho qoootleoi «111 toehnolofIcol chooyoo cttoto wnoi^loywfitT i l I I I J b l I ■ ■ MR Stipocvlooto •opor*!»#: «orkoro «oihoia •opocvitoto is itti irik ti («oibi ip itti iMotRi (•ut) FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 «/A VALUS LAACLi VALUS LABSLi «OKS/KO ATTSCT •OVt^ ATTSCT LOV DBOtSS LOV Dcoeci •OMS DSOSSS •OfS OBOSSS HIOM OSOSBS RICO ososts anobl» OMMf o il yioopo tafordlRf tM «oyroo tMt lolottoAohlp oC oil yreupo coipcnOtny te th# qucotlon: cochiioloylcalol eMnyofl otroRython ItcMt «M prooomt oklll «111 taehneleylcol cMrny## raOuc* th# m#0 Cet hlfhly iklllad weck#ro7 P#yr## 3 «#(k#t# «#rk«r# MB Itipttvllflt* lup«cvliet tfockot# IS lttl l«##h) tP lttl (Mit) («••ni 158 FIGURE 10 VALUt LAttL) «/A mmi/m àrrtct LOV BCOAU tOKt OIOAtt «ION MOIKS •! #1) #wp# r«ap«ftâjnf ta th# «w«#tl#a: VIII t«eAn#l#vle«l ch#a$## :#d#f# th#m # 4 f«r highly •klll#4 mth#(#> ü Ma #«##ivl##i# gvMivl##: MiAct» («UtI (Plckl IMabl («Itti (H##h> FIGURE 11 VALUt LAIKLt «/A LOV#0#t/«0 Mcatt ATfKCT H i a DCOitZ «•lAtiOMhIp #! a il tf#up» ic*p«n4ln« t« tht 4 u«atlen; Ta what Mv# t#cKA#l»9lcal changes Asm* l#p;ov#4 je» satlsfactlss? Mit «apatvlsots lupatvtsor Vetker» Vctttr# (Pittt (Plttl (Vskhi ipitt» «v##hi FIGURE 12 V'XUI LA»KLi «/A «0#t/«0 A^rtCT LOV otoact lORt ocoatc NIOM Mcaii a#lstlsn#hlp #f a il grsup# tt#pon4lng te th# gueiilen: VeulO yew want ysur •on/4«u«htci te pi#ps:e 1er • cst«#i in CMipealtlen . ,ik? Degrai . 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 Mm «wp#cvls#r# lupcrvisoi Verker# Vetiert (Plttl (Pltti IMshi (Plttl (Vseht BIBLIOGRAPHY 159 160 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Michael J, and Faux, David D. (1982). Printing Technology. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Breton Publishers. Adler, Sharon, Davis, Williams, Jr., and Waldt, Dale. (1985, August). Facing up to Growing Problems of Interfacing. In-Plant Reproductions. pp. 18-22. American Printer. (1982, June). Graphic Arts Robots in the Pressroom: Shapes of Things to Come. pp. 72H-72L. Ary, Donald, Jacobs, Lucy C., and Razavieh, Asg Har. (1979). Introduction to Research in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Baker, Elizabeth. (1957). Printers and Technology. New York: Columbia University Press. Best, John W. (1959). Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Blauner, Robert. (1964). Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and His Industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Block, Fred. (1984). The Myth of Reindustrialization. Socialist Review. No. 73. Braverman, Harry. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press. Bright, James R. (1958). Does Automation Raise Skill Requirement? Harvard Business Review. 36:85-98. Busto, Virgil J. (1982, November). Roots of Automation. High Volume Printing: pp. 20-24. Cergol, Bob. (1985, February). Computer Technology Trends in the Graphic Arts. American Printer. Dennis, Ervin A., and Jenkins, John D. (1975). Comprehen sive Graphic Arts. Indianapolis, Indiana: Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc. Edson, D. (1984). Bin-Picking Robots Punch In. High Technology. Edwards, Richard. (1979 ). Contested Terrain : The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth 161 Century. New York: Basic Books. Good, Carter J. (1963). Introduction to Educational Research. New York: Appleton-Century -- Crofts, Inc. Good, Carter, Scales, Douglas E. (1954). Methods of Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Inc. Graphic Arts News. The First Printer's Robot in the World. (1985, April). Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 5. Graphic Arts Employers of America. (1983, April). Forecast 1980s. Graphics Arts Technical Foundation. In-Plant Reproduction. (1986, April). Typesetting Review, p. 48. Janesch, Alan. (1981). Pagination: The Dream Machine is Real. Presstime. Kalleberg, Arne L ., Wallace, Michael, Loscocco, Karyn A., Leicht, Kevin T., Ehm, Hans' Helmut. (1986). The Eclipse of Craft : The Changing Face of Labor in the Newspaper Industry. New York: Plenum Press. Kelbar, Harry, and Schlesinger, Carl. (1967). Union Printers and Controlled Automation. New York : Free Press . Lee, C ., and Zemice, R . (1983). Retraining America: Solutions or Sugar Pills? Training. Lipset, Seymour M., Trow, Martin, and Coleman, James. (1956). Union Democracy. New York: Free Press. Marinaccio, Anthony. (1959). Exploring the Graphic Arts. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. Maslin, Jon. (1982). How the Microprocessor is Changing Your Life. British Printer. Milford, Barbara. (1985, March). Robot to Take Whopper Handle. St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch. Naisbitt, John. (1984). Megatrends. New York: Warner. Ouchi, W. (1982). Theory New York: Avon. Polk, Ralph, and Polk, Edwin. (1964). The Practice of Printing. Peoria, Illinois: Charles A. Bennett. Porter, A.S. (1980). Lithographic Presswork. Pittsburgh: Graphic Arts Technical Foundation. 162 Porter, Arthur R. (1954). Job Property Rights ; A Study of the Job Controls of the International Typographical Union. New York: King's Crown. Raskin, A.H. (1978, October). The Big Squeeze on Labor Unions. Atlantic Monthly. pp. 41-48. Rogers, Theresa, and Friedman, Natalie. (1980). Printers Face Automation. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath. Rosensweet, Alvin. (1979, February). Modern Technology and the Newspaper . Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Spenner, Kenneth. (1979). Temporal Changes in Work Content. American Sociological Review. 44:968-75. Spenner, Kenneth. (1985). The Upgrading and Downgrading of Occupations: Issues, Evidence, and Implications for Education. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 125-54. Skinner, Wickham. (1979). The Impact of Changing Technology on the Working Environment. Clark Kear and Jerome M. Roston (Eds.), Work in America : The Decade Ahead. New York: D. Van Nostrand. Southern Graphics. (1982, September). Automation Coming to the Bindery. Swetnam, George. (1979). Pittsburgh's Oldest Union. Pittsburgh Press. Toff 1er, Alvin. (1984 ). The Third Wave. New York: Bantam. U.S. Industrial Outlook. (1986). Printing and Publishing. Newspaper, Current Situation. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1982). The Impact of Technology on Labor in Five Industries. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Bulletin 2137. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1973). Outlook for Technology and Manpower in Printing and Publishing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Bulletin 1774. Wallace, Michael, and Kalleberg, Arne L. (1982). Industrial Transformation and the Decline of Craft: The Decomposition of Skill in the Printing Industry, 1931-1978. Amer lean Sociological Review. 163 Warren, James. (1985, April). Technological Changes Smooth at Newspapers. Chicago Tribune. Weltz, Richard N. (1986, April). Changing the Face of Type. In-Plant Reproductions. pp. 42-47. Zimbalist, Andrew., (1979). Case Studies on the Labor Process. New York: Review Press. APPENDICES 164 APPENDIX 165 APPENDIX A Management Queitionnaire Management Questionnaire Petition (Job Title):_ W hat is yo ur present age? .22. Under 20 .23. 21 to 30 .24. 31 to 40 For personal profile, check. . the appropriate item. .25. 41 to 50 .2 6 . 51 Or older Number of years in this position: 1. I to 5 2. 6 to 10 3. I I to 15 4. 16 to 20 The follow ing questions are concerned w ith various aspects o f your jo b and .5 . 21 o r m ore work responsibility. For each question, mark your response by checking the value that most nearly represents your feelings based on the following scale. Number o f years with present employer: N/A-NOTAPPUCABLE .6. I to 5 0 « N O N E /N O AFFECT 7. 6 to 10 8. I I to 15 1> LOW DEGREE 9. 16 to 20 2 ■ S O M E DEG REE .10 . 21 o r more 3 > HIGH DEGREE Please respond w ith a check y / to eveiy item. Those that do not Number o f years In printing trade: apply to you should be marked N/A. 11. lto5 12 . 6 to 10 SEcmm .13. 11 to 15 14. 16 to 20 TO WHAT DEGREE HAVE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES: 15. 21 o r more N/A, • . I 2 3 H ow were you trained fo r this position? 27. 16. H ig h School output? 17. Trade School 18. C om m unity College 28. 19. College 29. 20. U nion 30. 21. O n the job 31. supervision from immediate supervisors? 32. Helped make Jobs m ore satis 33. C ontributed to Increasing traditional skill level? H m(TV APPENDIX A Management (juestionnaire Management Queslioniiaiie N/A, 1 ,3 Please respond w ith a check . for every item. Those that do 34. C ontributed to lowering not apply to you should be marked N/A. traditional skill level? SECTION 111 33. Contributed to absenteeism? TO WIIAT DEGREE ARE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES; N/A. • 1 2 3 I ’lease respond w ith a checit / for every item. Those that do 43. G ood fo r employers? not appl>' to you should be marked N /A . 44. G ood fo r workers? 45. Good fo r business? SKCTION II 46. Necessary? 47. Threatening to job security? TO W IIAT DEGREE DO YOU: N/A, SECTION IV TO W H A T DEGREE: 36. Feel technological changes will m ake ;nb tasks easier In p rin tin g 48. Should employers be responsible N/A, 0 1 2 3 composition? for retraining workers affected by 37. W ant to see more technological technological changes? changes? 49. Should employers seek out the 38. Use technological changes to most etficient way of doing reduce the need for highly skilled business even if it means a employees? reduction in the work force? 39. Benefit from technological 50. Should the nace o f technological changes? changes be reduced? 40. Feel technological changes create 51. Should the pace o f technological enough job opportunities to offset changes be increased? rises in unemployment? 52. A re form er/traditional skills 41. Feel there will be a reduction in needed to function in a highly job opportunities in composition technological environment? due to technological change? 53. Can automated systems be 42. Use technological changes to designed to do complex tasks in discipline workers? printing composition? 54. Can automated/computeriaed machines perform at lugher levels of efficiency than humans? 55. W ould you advise your son/daughter to prepare for a career In composition work? m 'j APPENDIX A Questionnaire Potition (Job TiUe):_ The following queslioni arc concerned with various aspccis of your job and PERSONAL PROnLE work respoiisiliilily. For each question, mark your response by checkina the value that most nearly represents your feelings based on For penonai profile, check the appropriate Item. the follow ing scale. Number of yean in this poiition: N/A. NOTAPPiJCABIf 1. l t o 3 o . MONI-VNO AFFECT I 6 to 10 1> L O W DEGREE 3. 11 to 15 2. SOME DEGREE 4. 16 to 20 3 . HIGH DEGREE 5. 21 o r more Please respond with a check x ____ for every item. Those that do not apply to you should tie marked N/A. Number of yean with preaent employer: 6. 1 to 5 SEC TIO N 1 7. 6 to 10 8. 11 to 15 TO WIIAT DECREE IIAVETECIINOLOGICAl. CIIANGM: 9. 16 to 20 N/A , 0 1,2,3 10. 21 o r more 27. Altered your job? 28. Made your job easier? Number of yean in printing trade: 29. M ade your job more difficult? II. I to 5 30. Positively affected your output? .12. 6 to 10 31. Negatively affected your output? 13. I I to IS 32. M ade your job m ore interesting? . 14. 16 to 20 15. 21 o r more 33. M ade your Job Ixiring? 34. Improved your job satisfaction? 35. Reduced your job satisfaction? How were you trained for this position? 36. Improved safety conditions? . 16. H igh School 37. Increased dangerous conditions? . 17. Trade School 38. Made your job more healthful? . 18. Community College 39. M ade your job more detrim ental . 19. College to your health? . 20. U nio n .2 1 . O n the jo b 40. M ade your job more physical? 41. M ade your job less physical? W hat IS your present age? 42 Resulted in closer supervision 22. U nder 20 23. 21 to 30 from your immediate supervisor? .24. 31 to 40 43. Resulted in less supervision from 25. 41 to 50 your supervisor? .26. 51 Or older 44. Required more jo b skills? 05 45. Required less job skills? oo APPENDIX A Quolioniuire Quesliunnuire N/A, 46. Required more knowledge? Please respond w ith a ch eck ___ . for every item. Those that do not apply to you should be marked N/A. 47. Required le u knowledge? Please respond with a check for every item. Those that do SECT IO N I I I not apply to you should be marked N/A. WI TH RESPECT TO TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES: SKCTION II TO WHAT DKGRE£ DO YOU FEEL OR THINK TECIINOIXIGICAL N/A. # 1 2 3 CHANGES W ILL 63. Can automated/computerized N/A, 0,1,2 3 machines perform at higher levels 48. Alter your job in the nest five o f efficiency than humans? years? 64. Did you need more traditional 49. M ake your jo b easier in the skills to do your job in the past future? than you do now? 50. Make your job more difficult? 65. Do woiken need mure linditional 51. Com puterize your w ork tasks? skills to function in a highly 52. Replace you with a computer? technological environment? 53. Reduce the treed for highly skilled 66. Do you expect to be involved in workers? com position w ork d uring the next 54. Strengthen your former and five years? present skill level? 67. D o you th ink employers want to 55. Threaten your jo b security? see more technological changes? 56. Create more job opportunities to 68. D o you th ink employers are offset rises in unemployment? concerned about employees being 57. Create unemployment? replaced? Î 1 Eliminate your present job in tfie 69. Should employers seek o u t the next five years? most efficient way o f doing 59. Require you to have m ote business, even if it means a traditional composition skills for reduction in the work force? the future? 7(1. Are technological changes 60. Require you to possess a greater beneficial for employers? knowledge o f the processes and 71. A rc technological changes procedures? beneficial for workers? 61. Reduce the number of composing 72. Should the pace of technological room workers? changes be reduced? 62. Increase tfie num ber o f 73. Should the pace o f technological composing room employees? changes be increased? OS CO APPENDIX A Questionnaire N/A, 9 , t 74.1)0 employer: significintly benefit from technological chanyes? 75. D o w o rk e r: significantly benefit front technological changea? 76l Are technological change: rrecessary? 77. Should autom ation be U K d to do monotonoua. routine, and unhealthy laaka? 78. D o you feel a : im portant In your position today a: you did when you entered? 79. D o w orkers need to be retrained? 80. Should new employees have a working knowledge of computers? 81. W ould you want your Mtn/daughter to prepare fo r a career in com position work? 82. If you were IS and starting over, would you choose another occupation? -J o APPENDIX B 171 172 APPENDIX B ORAL SCRIPT NARRATED TO GROUP OF WORKERS My name is Alfred Simpson. I am a professor at California University of Pennsylvania. I teach graphic conmunications, which includes teaching future composing room workers about their chosen field and their future in it. I am also a Ph.D. candidate at the Ohio State University. I am studying the effects of technological change in the newspaper printing industry. The Pittsburgh Press, one of the major newspapers in this country, has been chosen for the study. Your cooperation in this study will greatly be appreciated. I am interested in getting your opinion about the impact of technological change on composing room workers and their future at this newspaper. You will have a questionnaire that should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. There are three sections with instructions on the marks you are to make. I encourage you to respond for the benefit of my study. However, your oarticipation is strictly confidential and voluntary. You do not sign your name to anything. Even then, if you do not wish to participate, just return the blank questionnaire to me. Thank you for your cooperation. APPENDIX C 173 174 APPENDIX C APPOroiX 7 THE RTHJRE — PEOPLE AND TECHNOLOGY (Circulated in April 1963, ty the Graphic Arts Qnployers of America— G AE) Several months ago, GAE asked 19 industry leaders to express their thou^ts regarding the future, particularly as it relates to people and technology. Oiose invited to respond were asked to provide comments in "free form style." It was suggested they consider the following; 1 . '3he impact of technological change on people over the next ten years 2. Training and retraining needs 3. What skills will become obsolete 4. What skills or skill level will become necessary 5. The relationship of printing to the overall communications industry 6. The role of organized labor in the process of change and new technology All "invitees" were told they could address all, some or none of the above as they wished, but to express their rational projections as well as instinctive hunches. To ensure uninhibited response, we made no attempt to edit comments, but sent all responses to all participants once submitted to give each an idea of what others felt, ^ch was then asked to edit their own comments and resubmit them for final publication. The few changes made were limited to format, typographical and quantitative modification. Responses of nine leaders follow. 1. JAMES A. VUKIflS — EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, ROCHESTER, NEW YORK "I heard somec-ie say the other day that 'the trouble wiLh the future is, it ain’t what it used to be.' I guess that suggests that change is the only thing that's ''ertain. . .but I'll do my best to give an opinion with perspective. "I believe that to speak of tomorrow is to speak of today. Much of what tomorrow will bring to printing will result from the experiments of and experiences of other aegnaits of the printing and communications industry. What will affect us most during the next 5-10 years will be the developments and broader application of existing technologies. And most of these are directed at increasing productivity by minimizing or eliminating steps within the basic reproduction process. The primary instrument of change will be the computer, particularly in the prepress stage of the process. This is the area affected most, primarily because of the increased use of color and the introduction of color scanners. I expect the printing press, as we know it today, to be with us as far as we can see into the future. The only computer-compatible technology on the horizon is ink jet printing. Rl^t now, ink jet has several technical challenges to overcome before it can become a viable printing alternative. 175 APPENDIX C T do believe, however, that the role of the press will he altered by the technology that la already well established. That is electrophotographic technology represented by copier duplicators. The poatpress area may remain mudi the same but I believe it will be better organized and along with the press, computer controlled. Look for the next major change to occur in the poatpress area. "How will all of this impact on people? What skills become necessary? What is management's role? "Let's look at the people side first. As I said before, 'ttiings are changing and many jobs will be affected^by new technology in the years ahead but people will still be the kev." They will re^p|ir= Aiffmront. skills and there may be fewer people required in some segnents. The projected work force needs over the next 5 years is estimated to be between 250,000 and 500,000 people. This is based on a 5!< to 10< turnover on the work force. Hie types of jobs will change. Here is a partial list of some of the new skills that will be required. o Prepress Color Proofing Operator 0 Color Scanner Operator o Operator of Integrated Scanner-Ccmpoeer 0 Electronics aigineer 0 Mechanical Engineer o Computer Programner o Input Typist 0 Typographic Technician o Output Operator o Key Liner (Paste-up) Electronic o Computer Specialist/Systems Analyst o Direct Input Operator o Supervisor 0 Sales Personnel o General Management 0 Press )Relative little change, althou^ expect 0 Post Press )more automation and organization. "Where do we find these new people and who is going to retrain current employees' "There are about 44 four-year colleges and 85 two-year colleges that offer graphic communications courses in technical and management areas. We hope that they are staying current with the changes. Other sources are union schools and professional trade associations. Manufacturers continue to play a major role in training people to use new technology, especially new equipment. The truth is that everyone expects someone else to do the training. If that attitude continues, it could be very costly for the graphic arts industry as a whole. "The impact of new technology on printing as to whether it will continue to grow or decline is anyone's guess. History shows that printing continued to grow after the impact of radio and TV, and it will probably continue to grow after the electronic impact settles down. It will change, however. In the future it will become economically impractical to nrovide the general public with printed lists of things and keep them APPENDIX C updated, i.e., classified ads, telephone books, credit card information, stock market results, etc. 13iis information will be available at home or at the library throu^ÿi electronic means with hard copy available upon demand. The more traditional segments will continue and possibly grow. Greeting cards, packaging, catalogs, magazines, books, newspaper, just to name"a few. "How do you manage in these changing times? First, you have to believe that things will change. In order for companies to survive, they will have to increase productivity and reduce costs. This includes waste management, quality assurance programs, and the most important of all. maximizing ROI. . .Return On Individuals. What I mean is working harder to improve our communications skills. Creating environments that allow individual motivation to occur. The energies required to manage in the future are going to be tremendous. The responsibility of management, union and nonunion leaders alike will be to evaluate new developments with attitudes that are discerning, informed, and open to innovation, remembering that people will be the key in turning the challenges of today into the opportunités of tomorrow." 2. HERBERT MORROW, JR. — H)ITC«S PRESS, INC., HYATTRVTT.T.t:, MARYLAND "Successful management of printing companies in the future must involve all employees in the process of improving operations throu^ incentive suggestion systems, in problem-solving and even in decision-making to some degree. Whether unionized plant perscmnel move into a closer relationship with management is open to question; if more of a partnership is to be established, mudi of the traditional manning, rigid work rules and many of the jurisdictional boundaries will have to be greatly modified and some sacrosanct concepts will have to be abandoned by both management and labor. t "Automation and the increasing adaptation of robotics will probably lead to shorter workweeks, longer vacation periods, and other time off whether unions bargain for them or not. In any event, fewer people will be required in the manufacturing process as we know it now. Most union philosophy has tended to be on the negative (adversarial) side in the past and mana^ment has responded in like fashion. Craftemen have been reluctant learners for the most part. These attributes must be altered considerably if any partnership for progress is to be formed between forward-looking, sound management and plant personnel. "Computerized controls at nearly every step of the printing process will cause a rapid shift from craft concepts toward technical, engineering — even scientific — skills on the part of production personnel. This will be especially true in the creative portion of the process — putting a job together from 'pieces.' Prepress technology involving color separations, stripping, platemaking and the like, including electronic page make-up from stored data may mean that the printer will exercise little — certainly less — control over prepress operations. "Press equipment will become much more versatile, the machinery will be less massive, and complete in-line production — plates to press to binding to packing or to mailing — will become a widespread reality." 177 APPENDIX C 5. WALLACE STBTTINIUS — THE WILLIAM BÏRD PRESS, INC., RICHMOND, VIRGINIA "There have been numerous forçasts of technology changes and their impact on the industry and its work force. Any manager who is not aware of these forecasts and has not carefully studied them and related them to their own business is inviting disaster over the long term. "The general conclusion one can draw from all that is considered is that a wide range of technological developments will shape the printing industry during the next ten years, the moat notable of which will be based on electronics. As a result, the labor force will have to become much more skilled in using higji technology, requiring more theoretical education, as well as applied skills. "Management will have to grow increasingly sophisticated in understanding the new technologies in order to properly evaluate and select the best options, apply them innovâtively to their situations, and operate them efficiently. "None of the above is new — it is merely a continuation of the trends that we have been seeing for a number of years and which have been widely recognized. "As for impact of specific jobs, we see great changes coming in page makeup, stripping, and platemaking in the near future. These workers will have to be retrained to use much more sophisticated electronic tools. "Our advice to labor is no different to management. % e era of adversarial negotiations must be buried. "Each must gat beyond a view of their own self interest, and recognize that they can meet their own needs over the long run only by maintaining a prosperous company which depends on meeting customer's needs. "The question of printing's role in communications is impossible to answer in limited space. Clearly it will be redefined, and one cc" only generalize as to how. We think there is a strong future for the printed word, but how it is created, stored, and distributed will change. The changes will vary widely with specific products. 4. fRAJK M. ROLPH — RCNAHîS-îTDSîATED LTD., MCNTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA "The impact of technological change in the printing industries over the next ten years will be even greater than over the past ten years. I believe that fewer people will be turning out considerably more products than now. "Most of the technological change so far has been in the front end of the printing process — that is in typesetting, color separations, page makeup and stripping.' Computerizing of these operations has certainly reduced the number of craftsmen so engaged and this replacement is bound to continue. 178 APPENDIX C "Those who do the computerized jobs are both fewer in number and require a nu(A lower skill level.. Age and attrition have taken care of many skilled craftsmen, and will continue to do so. Bor others retraining is increasingly provided. A number inevitably leave the printing industry altogether. "We can expect to see further reductions in the number of operators of printing presses and bindery equipment. In a way, this area has remained labor intensive compared with the front-end stages in the printing process. Accordingly, more attention to technical development will doubtless be focused on these final stages of production. "The place of journeymen, of the craft skills of the past 25 years, is certainly being taken by the computer technician, with general computer training requiring a much shorter period than we’ve been accustomed to in the industry. "There is clearly a marked change in the way people participate in the process. Tiieir skill level may be less but their knowledge of computer technology makes it relatively easy to train an operator for the master console that controls the running of four different presses. "And that operator of the future is as likely to be a womian as a man. Mind you, there will always be some manual jobs and people around a plant— but as is in other manufsuzturing industries, they will be far fewer than before. "The trend of printing being integrated in the overall communications industry will continue. The advantages of word processors generating copy from the client's office ri^t into the printing plant will be taken up at an accelerating rate. "Industry forecasts indicate that printing will continue to occupy the share of market it has traditionally held, and will match the rate of general economic growth on this continent — when it resumes. "A challenge that I believe we in the printing Industries must prepare for is that we must recognize the world is much smaller than it was 20 years ago, that trade barriers will be under pressure to be further reduced so that we in North America have to watch our ability to compete. We see enough examples around of imports crippling domestic industries. We can't — and must not — develop protectionist attitudes any more than any other industry can. "More and more books and other printing products are being imported into North America — at lower prices and better quality. "It becomes imperative then for representatives of graphic arts employers and the unions to sit down together and spend more time resolving the problems of the new technolo^. The sooner we all make up our minds to this, the better for all of us — owners and employees alike. Thanks to the recession, most of us are experiencing the need to rationalize our operations and maximize cur cost effectiveness. The lessons of this difficult period mav stand us in good stead for the future. 179 APPENDIX 5 . JAMES E. PRUITT — HARRIS GRAPHICS CORPORATION, MELBOURNE, FLORIDA "In looking at the future for the printing industry. I'd like to touch on the electronics challenge to the printed word and technology as it will relate to the work force. "First, let's nsk the question, will electronics supplant the printed word in the foreseeable future, and my answer is that this is not likely to happen. Ibr example, it costs approximately S5-00 to print and deliver a white page telephone book in a large metropolitan city. To do this electronically today would cost S500 for the initial installation of the home equipment plus something over $100 annual cost for line, computer, and maintenance services. Granted, electronics costs are coming down about each year; therefore, in ten years, the fixed cost per home will come down to about $15 . Ibe annual costs (constant $) may be halved in that same period so that in ten years the printed $5 converted to an electronic directory would still cost between $50 and $50/year and therefore would not economically compete. "Why have I chosen the phone book white pages for this analysis? It is because the phone book is the easiest, most straightforward item to convert from printing to electronics. It is completely utilitarian and is not subject to the emotional questions of attractiveness, portability or convenience. In other words. It should be the first place where electronics will threaten printing. If the numbers shown above are close to being right, the economics will not allow it. FIGURE A-V-I Telephone Directories Printed vs Electronic Costs (Annual Costs/Constant $) COST/YEAR/ 160 HOUSEHOLD 80 (LOG SCALE) PRINTED TELEPHONE BOOK COST 1982 1989 1986 1988 1990 1992 180 APPENDIX C "Althou^ wo have not yet done the calculations, we believe that a similar analysis for the classified section In a daily newspaper — another utilitarian medium— would show a similar result. In this case, the printed delivery occurs once per day rather than once per year and printing coats are much hiÿier. However, on-line access time may be mudi greater, with the net result that electronics cannot compete economically with printing. "How will technology impact people over the next ten years? The workforce will have emanated from a school system where computers are a common tool. Blue and white collar workers, alike (if you can find the difference), will be comfortable with computer-aided controls, at least among the younger workers. These people will come to expect manual- labor-free jobs, where the job of the workforce is to keep the machines amd systems operating. %ere will be fewer people commanding more ■ production equipment. The investment in installed base will be high. Ccxisequently, the impact of downtime will be extreme. This will call for high reliability, redundancy, diagnostics, and a sense of urgency in the workforce. The economics equation will depend upon full-time operation. "The people in sudi a production operation must be: 0 Educated and trained. Techical training and computer familiarity will be required. Some technical specialists for troubleshooting and maintenance will become necessary. o Skillful in a pinch. They must be capable of interpreting and reacting to process variations which exceed programmed assumptions. They must be willing to act decisively. 0 Motivated to production success. They must be measured by the relative sucess of the production output and not by the man hours or machine hours of inmt. "If we realize that we are all employees (with a 'few* owner exceptions), then it should not be hard to deal with each other as members of the same team. It then becomes reasonable to expect that everyone does his/her share and shares proportionally in the results. "Does this mean incentives for everyone? I think it might. I think it - probably means incentives based on results. We need pay systems that respond to the business unit's degree of success. There may be a need for more than one layer of incentive. For example, a general manager might be rewarded only on the results of the unit as a whole. An engineer mi^t receive some fixed income, some reward for unit performance, and some incentive for engineering group performance. Similarly, a production worker's pay cculd be comprised of fixed, unit, and group performance components. Incentives, based on individual performance, might be appropriate, but these axe difficult to administer fairly. They are also difficult to justify, since individual performance is in reality worth very little unless it affects the group's results. Some would argue against incentives for the * masses’ since they need the regularity of a fixed income to make ends meet. 181 APPENDIX C With our advanced economic standing we may be past that point and more able to take advantage of incentives. The proportion of incentive could be small at first and gradually increased. In a world of international competition it seems desirable that all employees should accept some of the risk of company performance, and similarly, share in the rewards of success." 6. JACK SI MICH — GRAPHIC ARTS TECHNICAL POUNDATICW, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA "Graphic communications is a family of industries that contribute to the transferring of an image onto paper, metal, wood or other substrates. It includes segments of such industries as commercial printing, publishing, packaging, newspapers, metal decorating, etc. It involves suppliers and manufacturers of materials and equipment needed for the various reproduction processes. Graphic communications is a large industry composed of some 4 5,0 00 printing plants, 1 3,000 quick printers, and 45,000 in-plant operations. When one looks at the graphic communications industry, it represents perhaps a minimum of 100,000 plants that are involved in the reproduction process. Graphic communications is a vast industry which is experiencing, as are many other industries, technological changes. These changes are influencing the need for new skills and knowledge. "As new technologies are introduced, there continues to be a need for qualified people from other disciplines such as electronics and computers. More and more decision-making in mana^ment, production planning, scheduling, estimating, etc., will be computer-assisted. With changes happening so rapidly, there is also the need to retrain. Our industry is composed of many smaller companies, thus, our industry has not been a leader in training and educating its people. Most of the training is done on the job. When there is a need for replacing an individual, our industry has tended to pirate rather than train or retrain. A problem that seems to be rising, and which can become somewhat of a dilemma, is the lack of qualified people for technical/training representative positions. The development of new equipment which utilizes the latest technology in electronics, micro computers, and lasers, requires specialized training for the new operators. Manufacturers have difficulty in finding competent trainers who understand both the traditional printing operations and the new applied technology. It is quite common for owners of new equipment to not know its fhll capability because of the lack of adequate training. "The need for training and retraining during the next decade will not decrease but rather increase as new technologies dictate. The prevailing philosophy of training and retraining, as far as the industry is concerned, will not change drastically. The industry advocates updating and. staying abreast of technology; however, the time provided to do so on a formalized training basis is, unfortunately, not considered high priority. Generally, it becomes h i ^ priority when there is a critical problem or when there is not a skilled person to operate new sophisticated equipment in an efficient and productive manner. Larger companies will continue to incorporate formal training programs in their plants. On-the-job training will continue to prevail in medium-sized and small plants. Those companies that do not have 182 APPENDIX C formalized training programs will dtfjSenH more heavily upon outside sources for update training. "Replacement of people by automation, robotics, computers, will have some effect, but not as great as other industries. Perhaps more of a consequence would be the shifting of people rather than replacing people. The shifting will be from the hi^ intensive hand-operations as obviously the technological developments will be directed toward those areas where we still use hand-operations. For example, we anticipate more emphasis in the development of equipment to ease the tremendous amount of hands-on operations in the image or film assembly areas. People having these skills will still be needed, but some of them may be employing these skills in another way, such as operating equipment which requires the understanding of the stripping process. It is interesting to note that scanners have created a need for dot etching skills which have been on a downward trend. This not to be interpreted as reverting to old procedures, but rather the economical use of people and equipment. "It is anticipated that our industry will remain segmented with a few large companies, a number of medium-sized companies, and many small plants. "Diere will be a tendency for smaller compeuiies to specialize. They will find their niche. Larger plants will continue to be the pioneers, investing in more sophisticated electronic equipment, while smaller companies will find it more economical to use improved methods which may not require high capital investment. % e medium-sized firm will be required to wei^, perhaps even more carefully than before, the economics of whether to implement the new sophisticated, hiÿi-cost technologies or concentrate on developing and/or updating procedures, processes, and affordable equipment. "The recessionary times we have been experiencing has created a sobering effect on mana^ment procedures, which has a tremendous influence on economically streamlining all aspects of plant operations, including people. There will be more caution exercised in hiring, toth in numbers and abilities. In the past, firms may have had a few extra people, but this is now the exception. Companies will attempt to decrease their workforce. At one time, the number of employees may have been an impressive indication of size: This is giving way to an array of more sophisticated equipment and latest processes and procedures. "Although there will be more careful scrutinization and assessment of people needs, just the sheer number of establishments create a need for people. If, each year, one person from all of the graphic arts industry segments left the industry or retired, there would be a need for 100,000 new people. Assuming that-one half of the firms do not replace the person, we would still be seeking 50,000 people. In a deep recession, this number would most likely decrease, but not as drastically as other industries. "There may be a continuing shifting of companies from one geographical area to another. When this occurs, is creates an imbalance of personpower; that is, one geographical area may have people with graphic arts experience who eire unemployed, while in another part of the country there may be the hiring of people who have no graphic arts understanding. 183 APPENDIX C The mobility pattern of our society has changed due to economic strains, and this will have a continuing effect on employment needs of our Industry. "Graphic communications is considered to be an 'information' industry. Experts indicate that our country must shift from an industrial/ manufacturing nation to an information/technology nation. Ve anticipate printing will be closely related to the overall communications, but it will be imperative that companies be prepared to meet the communication challenges and changes." 7. JCHN D. HTTLE — BAIDWIN-GEDENHEIMER, STAMPCRD, CONNECTICUT "As far as the press is concerned, two major trends are obvious. The first is the increase in controls desigied to close the loop, i.e., to read errors and automatically correct them. This, Incidentally, is part of an overall change in regarding printing as less of a craft and more of a science. "The second trend is that the web pressman is now doing his job away from the press, controlling all major functions from a console. This is particularly obvious at web installations, but the trend is also on the larger sheetfed installations. Apart from mounting the plate, there is now very little need for the pressmen to work in the press except in emergencies. The setting of fountain keys, filling of the fountain, maintenance of ink/water balance, maintenance of color to color, lateral and print-to-cut reregister, blanket cleaning, etc. can be either automatic or remotely controlled from the press console. "This trend, made possible throu^ the use of microprocessors, carries with it the ability to provide a great deal of information to management. With the greatly Increased speed and productivity of presses, management needs to identify exactly what is happening at the press in terms of time spent on makere^, plate changing, getting color up, web breaks, etc. "Printing management is becoming increasingly aware of the importance of accurate data in effectively running presses, and, by extension, the printing plant. Accurate, timely information on inventory, schedules, consumption of utilités, production speeds, good copy, waste, etc. allows management to closely monitor day-to-day operations as well as improve efficiency. As any reduction in costs directly affects the bottom line, relatively small improvements in these areas have a very large effect on profitability. "With the expected increases in competition, it is anticipated that there will be great pressure on printers for increased productivity and that major em^asis will be placed in this area by management in the next five years. "This will involve the purchase of more modem equipment, the retraining of present employees in new technology, the recruitment of new empoyees familiar with new technologies, and quite possibly, a change in the traditional uni on/management postures." 184 APPENDIX C 8. BRIAR Gin, — MASTER PRINTERS OP AMERICA/PIA, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA "There is no question in my mind about the extent of technological change in our industry. With that change there will be a tendency to break jobs down to their simplest components. This pigeonholing. I'm afraid,will move us away from the pride of being a 'craftsman,' an 'artisan' if you will, to becoming a technician and I would suggest that this is as mudi a philosophical change as a practical one. Any time you break jobs down into specific segnents, you tend to create the type of assembly line that leads to a lack of identification with the product or service being produced. One of the real challenges to the management of our industry as we move inevitably towards increased technological involvement will be to ensure that our employees know and understand wherein their contribution to the final product lies. We must insure that pride of workmanship and a sense of being part of the whole is not lost. Tertainly, the employee being attracted to today's marketplace is a more aware, somewhat more hedonistic person that in the past. This certainly suggests some other challenges. We are desperately going to need the participation of all employees and somehow must motivate them to share their talents and expertise with us so that we can snzcceed in the transition, which seems to go on into infinity, as we grapple with the changes in how we produce our products. "In attempting to address the issue of the role of organized labor in the process of change to new technology, I suppose we must look to history. If the transition can be made without disturbing the security of the employee or necessitating dramatic changes in the employee's behavior, then certainly the unions wcwld not address the issue adversarily. This, however, cannot be the case. I do not like answering questions by asking other questions, but I have difficulty conceiving of what the motivation would be for a union to assist a company in making the changes necessary even to survive. The very political structure of individual unions is forced to deal with near instant gratification. They are dealing with the livelihood of employees currently working on the jobs and althœ^ the ideal aim would be the perpetuation of some jobs, even if they are different, the fact is they are beholden not to Aiture employees but to those currently on the payroll. The newspaper industry is a prime erajnple of the type of featherbedding created by what I wcxild term protectionist bar^ning. "The successful manager, more and more, is going to have to be willing to share part of the decision-making process with lower levels within the organization. This, it seems to me, is where the need to remain union free becomes paramount. Participation is going to be necessary to remain competitive and thereby to survive. That means that tomorow's manager is going to have to feel more secure in his/her ability and more trusting towards internal company relationships. "I don't believe that Quality Circles is THE answer, but a greater sense of participation is going to be essential. APPENDIX C 285 "The printing company of the future is not only going to lode different and smell different, but it is going to be peopled with more hi^ily educated and more technologically oriented individuals. Our challenge is going to be to take those new technocrats and insure their integration into the organization. A sense of feeling ’part of' is at the core of being motivated to help perpetuate any organization." 9. ROY W. ANDERSON — AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATICN, RESTON, VIRGINIA "In 1981, the International Association for Newspaper and Media Technology Congress met to deal with the challenge of jobs in tommorow’s newspapers. The theme of the congress was described in this motto: 'Newspapers are made by people — not by compiters and machines.* "Good newspapers are made by good people, people who know their jobs and like their work. These people have a ri^t to know if their jobs will change or disappear — or if they will stay as they are. A decade ago this motto applied to the changing scene in the production department and primarily in composition and platemaking. As it does today this motto also will apply tomorrow to almost all the jobs because of the electronic publishing era. "New sales techniques, dianging distribution opportunities, and even the writing styles of editorial people are described in new titles such as telecommunication manager, H)P specialist, graphic desigier, marketing research, maintenance engineer, and advertising sales manager. In the center of these changes and new positions are the perscmnel or human resource planners who must create the new balance between technical, economic, and social possibilities for the future enterprise involoved in the new technology. "The newspaper business is not unique. The often-quoted John Naisbitt has emjiiasized the rapid changes ahead means you cannot expect to remain in the same job or profession for life, even if it is an information occupation. The leading company in higji technology recognizes this change by spending annual $500 million in employee training and education to upgrade skills. This amount is approximately two percent of total sales and almost 505^ of the net profit for 1961. "Specifically, the specialist of yesterday and today is rapidly becoming obsolete to the generalist who can adapt to a $400 billion information business of the future. "Today, because of this h i ^ technology explosion, there are well over 200 research firms and think tanks specializing in providing information to government, corporations, and other areas of concern as to alternate futures for a broad range of subjects or a single issue. The importance of this service is the assistance it gives to the decision-making function which sets the course of newspapers as to the reader, the advertiser and what the employee — top to bottom — may be doing and what is needed to do it on the newspaper of the future. 186 APPENDIX C "In a recent article in Buainesa Week magazine a comparison of the growth of personal computers was made from 1976 to a projected 1986 as a market research study. In the 10-year period sales will have grown from scratch to $21 billion. The worldwide figire for 1962 will be $6.1 billion and more than 150 companies are involved in the production of this equipment with an additional 300 expected to enter the market. 2 ach has a goal of low-cost production, marketing or distributing at a scale large enou^ to survive the development of an ever-growing software package and new technology to compete with the giants of the information industry. "The sane growth has produced dramatic changes in the newspaper business with the introduction of the VDT terminals in the late 60s and early 70s. The result has been an increase from 23 VDT terminals in 1970 to 21,698 in 1980. The growth continues aa more applications are designed for newspaper use. New technology changes today have involved the production processes in platemaking, presses, distribution and, more recently, the transmission of news, advertising and full pages by satellite. 'newspapers sudi as The Vail Street Journal, PSA Today and The New York Times can be transmitted to printing plants wherever the market is for these new products. "The newspaper business for tomorrow will require a total reprogramming of the way newspapers are produced. Tor example, ttie start-up of USA Today has created a change in almost every city where it has appeared as a competitor. The use of hiÿi quality offset printing has changed the appearance of many of the involved newspapers. Printing schedules are being adjusted because of the early morning appearance of USA Today in thousands of new modernistic racks located throughout the targeted city. "Readers today are confronted with the best ideas each of the media can create for their attention. Newspaper publishers and their organiza tions are challenged to produce comparable results as each of the workers adjust to the new business situations. "The USA Today project is only a step into the future. Worldwide, speed of light image transfer has only begun and the best ideas are still to be thought of and actualized. On January 31 , 1963, The Wall Street Journal published its first issue of The Va^ Street Journ^- Europe, extending its financial newspaper to a third continent. To understand our times and deal with the issues that confront us— all of 'US— whether in America, Europe or Asia— we need to understand that we live in one world,’ The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial marking the new publication. "With new technology the same information can be made available by electronic publishing and the television set in the home, or on a personal computer, which becomes the image transfer vehicle of the future. The growing field of telecommunications and the changing printing processes then are the new directions of the newspaper business and other printed publications. APPENDIX C 187 "Many publications such as newspapers will maintain the same form for years to come but we are already seeing magazines, books, directories, and others change as those experienced with new technology adapt to new and better designed information transfer systems. "The changes will be evolutionary and current developments in press design, newsprint manufacturing, ink quality, distribution methods, computerized typesetting, and electronic publishing are examples of this progress. The key to this evolutionary change will be the hi^ly trained and skilled practitioners of human resource management. "Technological change is not a new development created by the recent acceleration of processes to improve the printing and services to our customers. It has always been a part of our business, but the difference is that the adjustments are far more frequent and this creates new demands for the worker. A lifetime career in one occupation is a thing of the past and with these rapid changes an unprepared worker will face obsolescence and despair as a final reward. The next 10 years have already started as competition has changed and improved many skills and removed others which have failed to improve productivity. Resistance to change and misdirected attitudes are a form of self- destruct mechanisms which are national problems in our industries today. "The future training and retraining needs of the newspaper business will be directly affected by the strategic planning process of each newspaper. The effective manager will go beyond capital decisions in planning and determine the correct training program to fulfill the needs of the worker involved in change. One of the examples of this typw of program in the past has been the conversion from hot metal to cold type. Many programs were disapjpxjinting when the trainee and the manager failed to recognize the need for this growth. Without a belief and commitment, the best designed training programs fail. The answer for the future is practical and meaningful training and retraining as the changes take place. The IBMs and TOWs are examples of continuous training and building of human resources which develop expanding training cycles, and the word 'retraining' is almost passe in these organizations. The progressive newspaper will recognize the importance of continuous training And the alert craftsman will supply the energy and commitment whether he be machinist, electrician, auto mechanic, or anyone else connected with the newspaper business. "The change in the composing room is an example of how technology can be different and requires almost all new knowledge applied to past skills. This type of skill loss means the need for immediate learning and knowledge in the new field. But more important is the fact that even the learning skills need improvement— such things as listening, reading for comprehension, belief in the ability to learn, confidence, success ful experiences, practice, and finally the results which create the road to achievement. "The skill levels for printing will increase because of the competition and the requirements for new technology. The skills of maintaining sophisticated equipment for transmission and upgrading for quality will require engineering types such as commercial television has at the present time. 188 APPENDIX C information Wainesa. These large companies with their strong resources and ability to use strategic planning will strive for excellence in electronic publishing. Ihis means that newspapers will have to set hi^er goals of excellence to compete. ."The printing industry and the newspaper business are the mass media for communications today. Despite huge database gaina in compiter storage, the newspaper and printed materials represent a great accumulation of knowledge and are relatively permanent. Printed products have the advantage of speed of access at the present time and this information can be moved from one place to another and quickly referred to for current communication. The combined benefits of electronic publishing and high-speed printing production will supply information to readers in different ways. The combined package will improve quality, maintain portability, create for advertisers increased opportunities, and deliver information rapidly, such as stock and bond prices, late-breaking news and up-to-date sports. Printing will, as in the past, be a key and major part of ai 1 communications because it is permanent, it defines and it is the basis for the human memory process because of its use and recall. "Earlier, human resource management was mentioned as a key to evolutionary change in the printing industry and the newspaper business. Labor and management cooperating in planning and structuring the future is the only answer to change and the implementation of new technology. The record of companies in any industry where people work and build together is proof that there is only one choice for organized labor in the long run. Growth is the product of contribution, and contribution can only be positive to a successful organization. "Work rules, past practices and contract clauses vrtiich have been built up during the years will change to protect the growth of the enterprise and the opportunity for building new ^ills in obsolete workers. The restrictions which prevented employees to transfer and learn will become a thing of the pest to maintain competition and provide the skills expansion of indi\ Lduals. "The lessons of the recession which have reduced expenses to bring down the break-even point will last just as the depression of the 30s affected managerial thinking for years. The trend to consolidate jobs, minimize cost of production capacity and facilities, build efficiency in newspaper operations such as the efforts in USA Tod^ are examples of the future business. Today we find that rezponsiole orgmized labor has a choice in making the necessary changes for the future. It plays on the same team as stated by Peter Drucker and becomes an achieving workforce. It exerts it in cooperation. As a responsible workforce it can create a stringent discipline and get desired results. If it elects to be an adversary it forecasts its destiny as it attempts to compete with organizations which have successful teams which create high standards and improving performance. "labor leader Glen Watts of the Communications Workers of America said we must strive to guarantee for our members the opportunity for training APPENDIX C "Labor leader Glen Watts of the Communications Workers of America said we must strive to guarantee for our members the opportunity for training and maintenance of skills needed to ensure challenging, rewarding employment for all workers throu^out their working lives. He cited industries which at one time were the backbone of the nation are current ly in financial decline and have drastically distorted the traditional bargaining cycle. We find these industries in a downturn which has sapped the resources and created a pool of workers who have lost their jobs permanently and are without skills to find new employment in other industries. "The CWA with their committee of the future and strategic planning process is providing a number of suggestions which they feel are the answer to the needs of the American worker in years to come. With the merging of the printing industry into the electronic processes, including telecommunications, we may begin to feel the impact of this organization's thinking in our future labor relations. The CWA has a number of programs beyond economic gains in which they have a growing interest. Concerns involving quality of worklife include areas such as mental and physical stress, fracturing jobs, the effect of reducing skill requirements on workers and the new health and safety problems which may result from the new technology. "The major concern is whether employer and employee can solve these problems or whether government will be a growing factor in the new technology problems of tomorrow. For example. Governor Pierre S. DuPont of Delaware, in recognizing the next decade, said there has to be a major drive to retrain Americans in new fields. The one skill per generation is a thing of the past and there has to be a retooling of the workforce and a national employment policy to protect the current and future American worker. He called for a $3 billion a year effort including retraining, counseling, a transition program and unemployment insurance to bridge the gap. Today we find unemployment and training solution at the cutting edge of federal and state thinking about the future. The question will come up again and again as to whether a private sector business, such as newspapers and commercial printing, will need this t 3 ^ of assistance as we move into the exploding opportunity of new technology. "In the newspaper business the experiences in Buffalo, Boston and New York show a trend which may involve other newspapers with increasing competition. First and foremost there will be a greater readiness of unions and employers to build and develop joint programs for increasing productivity, reducing waste, improving quality and developing a business relationship for future growth and stability. "The aging workforce will create new training demands for employers because of the drain of pension and social security programs. The negative implications of early retirement, such as reduced real income and longer life span, will create a need for poeitve second career training. This may involve locating within the company or outplacement to other growing organizations. The hi^er costs of buyouts with a complete loss on investment is analogous to buying an asset for produc tion and then placing it in storage. 190 APPENDIX C "The Vail Street Jaimal recently reported a study by Charles D. Spencer ft Associates in r ê ^ d to early retirement. The study emphasized the aging workforce issue when only 4,100 workers out of a total ctf 13,400 accepted early retirement at the 26 companies surveyed for the report. The moat frequently offered inducement was a monüüy supplement until full retire ment benefits were available. This report is just another example of workers who are not looking for retirement nor obsolescence but the opportunity for the fulfillment of work. "Creative management in the successful organization will turn around the aging and displaced workforce with technology and robotics to build an organizational structure whidi will utilize this group effectively in their positions in the same way executive personnel can be transferred and upgraded during their working careers. "The New York News may be a model of what can be done if the concepts of financial and cost information sharing, profit-sharing, participative management and labor cooperation are enthusiastically maintained by the involved parties. Building this type of trust level of the involved parties will create a growing and consistent relationship instead of the misunderstanding of goals and extreme economic conditions which can destroy the critical balance of the best intended efforts of labor and management. "Edward Cornish, president of the World Future Society, emphasized in a recent article that the future does not just happen to us; we ourselves create it by what we can do and what we fail to do. It is we who are making tomorrow and what tomorrow will be. "Arthur Clarke, author of the book '2001', once wrote that the important thing to predict is not what the new technology will be but what will happen to people because of the new tecduiolo^. "The newspaper business finds itself in the unusual role of being influenced more than at any time in history by the new technology. In this position it reports what is happening to people because of the new technology. At the same time it is experiencing the changes of communi cations resulting from changes in peoples' activities, values, cultural rituals, and social and learning patterns. In yesterday's world the newspaper reported the changes which created today's world. Today newspapers influence decisions whidi will contribute even more to tomorrow's world as it changes because of new technology demands and results. "The opportunities are unlimited for managers with vision. Only those who abdicate their strategic responsibilities for short-term results will lose the advantage of long-term technological superiority and the chance to share in tomorrow's world. "Finally new technology will mean changes in organizational technologies requiring highly motivated, creative, and innovative woikers. The employees of this generation will have specialized and complex knowledge. Supervision of employees will go beyond the happy and contented theory, the carrot on the stick aproach, or just asking for a dependable worker. 191 a p p e n d i x c behavior. The changes provide great and endless opportunities to build individual and organizational values when we recognize that the news paper organization is no better than the individual it employs." APPENDIX 192 193 APPENDIX D VALIDATION CHECKLIST Please respond to each of the following questions after you have carefully reviewed the questionnaire. Peel free to use the reverse side of the sheet if you need additional space for comments. Are the instructions for responding to each part of the questionnaire clearly stated? YES ( ) NO ( ) Do all questions appear to be objec tively written? YES ( ) NO ( ) Are the questions organized in a logical sequence? YES ( ) NO ( ) Is the questionnaire longer than is practical for this type of study? YES ( ) NO ( ) Does the content of the questionnaire appear to be of sufficient signifi cance to warrant the respondent's time and effort in completing it? YES ( ) NO ( ) Comments : Name : Date : Professional Title: APPENDIX 194 195 APPENDIX E VALIDATION CHECKLIST Please respond to each of the following questions after you have carefully reviewed the questionnaire. Feel free to use the reverse side of the sheet if you need additional space for comments. Are the instructions for responding to each part of the questionnaire clearly stated? YES ( NO ( ) Do all questions appear to be objec tively written? YES ( NO ( ) Are the questions organized in a logical sequence? YES (i^) NO ( ) Is the questionnaire longer than is practical for this type of study? YES ( ) NO (»^) Does the content of the questionnaire appear to be of sufficient signifi cance to warrant the respondent's time and effort in completing it? YES (;/) NO ( ) Comments ; Recommendations regarding additions, changes, e tc ., were presented and discussed with Mr. A1 Simpson. Name : Date; ^ / n /PL — ' ]— c \ . — Professional Title : ,, ■ X^r G- ______- APPENDIX E VALIDATION CHECKLIST Please respond to each of the following questions after you have carefully reviewed the questionnaire. Feel free to use the reverse side of the sheet if you need additional space for comments. Are the instructions for responding to each part of the questionnaire clearly stated? YES (tXj NO ( ) Do all questions appear to be objec tively written? YES (i/) NO ( ) Are the questions organized in a logical sequence? YES (i/1 NO ( ) Is the questionnaire longer than is practical for this type of study? YES ( ) NO (t 1 Does the content of the questionnaire appear to be of sufficient signifi cance to warrant the respondent's time and effort in completing it? YES (^ ) NO ( ) Comments ; Recommendations regarding additions. chmn^pR. err., mptp presented and discussed with Mr. A1 Simpson. ______ Name : I ' Date: 2j /y /A Professional Title: I, \ ‘:>r- c ! ;i / 197 APPENDIX E VALIDATION CHECKLIST Please respond to each of the following questions after you have carefully reviewed the questionnaire. Feel free to use the reverse side of the sheet if you need additional space for comments. Are the instructions for responding to each part of the questionnaire clearly stated? YES ( Do all questions appear to be objec tively written? YES (u ) NO ( ) Are the questions organized in a logical sequence? YES (u ) NO ( ) Is the questionnaire longer than is practical for this type of study? YES { ) NO ( t- ') Does the content of the questionnaire appear to be of sufficient signifi cance to warrant the respondent's time and effort in completing it? YES (i. ) NO ( ) Comments; Recommendations regarding additions, changes, etc., were presented and discussed with Mr. A1 Simpson. Name : — Date : Professional Title: r, 198 APPENDIX E VALIDATION CHECKLIST Please respond to each of the following questions after you have carefully reviewed the questionnaire. Feel free to use the reverse side of the sheet if you need additional space for comments. Are the instructions for responding to each part of the questionnaire clearly stated? %TS (l/) NO ( ) Do all questions appear to be objec- . tively written? YES ( r ) NO ( ) Are the questions organized in a logical sequence? YES (v^) NO ( ) Is the questionnaire longer than is . practical for this type of study? YES ( ) NO ( w ) Does the content of the questionnaire appear to be of sufficient signifi cance to warrant the respondent's time and effort in completing it? YES ( NO ( ) Comments: A w AtTTA Name: Date: Professional Title : 1=’gc^fe.-av«e. i ioOo^reja<- (LBTb 199 APPENDIX E VALIDATION CHECKLIST Please respond to each of the following'questions after you have carefully reviewed the questionnaire. Feel free to use the reverse side of the sheet if you need additional space for comments. Are the instructions for responding to each part of the questionnaire clearly stated? YES ( ) NO ( ) Do all questions appear to be objec tively written? YES ( ) NO ( ) Are the questions organized in a logical sequence? YES ( j NO ( ) Is the questionnaire longer than is practical for this type of study? YES ( ) NO ( ) Does the content of the questionnaire appear to be of sufficient signifi cance to warrant the respondent's time and effort in completing it? YES ( ) NO ( ) Comments ; Name : ______■ Date : Professional Title: 200 APPENDIX E VALIDATION CHECKLIST Please respond to each of the following questions after you have carefully reviewed the questionnaire. Feel free to use the reverse side of the sheet if you need additional space for comments. Are the instructions for responding to each part of the questionnaire clearly stated? YES ( ) NO ( ) Do all questions appear to be objec tively written? YES (x ) NO ( ) Are the questions organized in n logical sequence? YES (u ) N O ( ) Is the questionnaire longer than is practical for this type of study? YES ( ) NO (/ ) Does the content of the questionnaire appear to be of sufficient signifi cance to warrant the respondent's time and effort in completing it? YES (v ) N O ( ) Comments : Name : k Date: , Lc. I * ~ V '—;- Professional Title: " APPENDIX 201 202 APPENDIX F PITTSBURGH PRESS juiy 7 , i986 COMPANY Mr. A1 Simpson 3 58 H un ting C reek Road Canonsburg, PA 15317 Dear Mr. Simpson: Based on your outline to me of your dissertation study regarding "The Affects of Technological Change in a Newsprinting Industry", we w ill be w illing to work with you in preparation of needed material. Mr. James Wolf, Director of Industrial Relations and I w ill try to meet with you per your schedule. Please let me know as f a r ahead as you can. S in c e r e ly , Dean Stuart D£ : jm 203 APPENDIX F CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY of Pennsylvania California, Pennsylvania 15419 Indutfrw l Aits & Technology DvpartnicnC (412) 938 4088 July 8,1986 Mr. Frank Dicks Supervisor, Composition Department Observer Reporter 122 South Main Street Washington, PA 15301 Dear Mr. Dicks: In regards to our telephone agreement on Tuesday, July 8,1 would like to officially request your cooperation in allowing me to conduct a field test of ray questionnaire at the Observer Reporter. My dissertation, "The Effects of Technological Change in the Newspaper Industry”, can only succeed by involving firms, such as yours, that are directly affected by technological change. I sincerely thank you for allowing me to field test my instniment at the Observed Reporter. Sincerely, / / AlffM Simpson ^ y. Please Sign on the Appropriate Line '7'fl'Fé Will Participate in Field Test Signature Date _Will Not Participate in Field Test Signature Date AS/'sb 204 APPENDIX F m m . CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY of Pennsylvania California, Pennsylvania 15419 Inchntm l A iti & Tectookgy OepajtmraC (412) 03ft>4086 July 9. 1986 Dr. Jack Sinich Director of Educational Programs Graphic Arts Technical Foundation 4615 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3796 Dear Dr. Siaich: In regards to our telephone conversation, Monday, July 7, I would like to officially request your cooperation, as well as your staff, in the validation of my research instrument. It is the opinion of my advisor, and I concur wholeheartedly, that the Educational Department at GATF would have the greatest credibility for validation purposes. I would like to give special thanks in advance for your coopera tion, I welcome your comments and suggestions for purposes of strengthening what I hope will be an effective tool for gathering significant data. Very truly you Atfred Simpson AS:keb P.S. Please respond to the appropriate line and return. Thank you. will cooperate with study. will not cooperate with study. Si gnature bate 205 APPENDIX F CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY of Pennsylvania California, Pennsylvania 15419 [nduftrial A n i & Technology Department (412) 038-4086 July 10,1986 Mr. James O’Brian Composing Rcxim Department Pittsburgh Press 34 Boulevard of the Allies Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Dear Mr. O’Briam I would like to oSicially thank you and Mr. Casatka for permitting me to conduct my study (The Effects of Technological Changes on the Newspaper Printing Industry) at the Pittsburgh Press. The effectiveness olthe study can only be achieved by having a publisher, such as T h e Press", to provide data addressing the issue of changes induced by technological innovations. For purposes of satisfying my dissertation committee would you please sign on the appropriate line. Again, thank you very much. Sincerely, 7/ljJf^L Will Participate in Study ignature .Will Not Participate in Study Signature Date AS/sb APPENDIX 206 207 APPENDIX G REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CONSENT This study involves the use of an unsigned questionnaire. Respondents may choose to participate or not to participate. The researcher will dis tribute and collect questionnaires personally. He has permission from the newspapers to conduct his research. William D. Umstattd A l ^ d E. Simpson^ Principal Investigator Graduate Researcher August 5, 1986 APPENDIX H 208 209 APPENDIX H THE OHIO STATE UNTVEBSnY Protocol No. ______ CONSENT FOR PARTICTPAIION IH SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH I conMnc CO parcicipaclsg In (or mj child'* particlpacion In) raaearch encicled: ______or hia/har auchorizcd rapraaentatlva haa (Principal Inraatigacor) azplained eh* purpoa* of cba atudy, ch* procaduraa to b* followad, and the *%pact ed duration of my (my child's) participation. Poaaibla benefits of the study have been described as have alternative procedures, if such procedures are applicable and available. I aclmowledge that I have had the opportunity to obtain additional Information regarding the study and that any questions I have raised have been answered to my full satisfaction. Further, I understand that I am (my child is) free to with draw consent at any time and to discontinue perticipation in the study without prejudice to me (my child). The information obtained from me (my child) will remain confidential unless I specifically agree otherwise by placing my initials hsre . Finally, I acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the consent form. I sign it freely and voluntarily. A copy haa been given to me. Decs: Signed: (Participant) Signed: Signed: (Principal Investigator or his/ (Person Authorized to Consent her Authorized Representative) for Participant - If Required) Uitnese: RS-027 (.Veo. l’i-81}— To i# iiaed only in oormaation \jith social and bshavioral rssearah. APPENDIX 210 2 1 1 APPENDIX I September 12, 1986 Mr. Frank Dicks Supervisor, Composition Department Observer-Pepor t er 122 South Main Street Washington, PA 15301 Dear r rank : I am writing this letter to acknowledge a very "special thanks" for all your help and cooperation in regards to my study. You and your staff's participation will add an i :iportant dimension to my finnings respective to technological change. When I complete the data analysis and the report, I will f.rake sure to share with you and your staff a copy of the results. Again, thank you very much for allowing me to include the übserver-Peporter in the study, it will play an integral part. Very truly yours. Alfred Simpson, Associate Professor 2 1 2 APPENDIX I September 12, 1986 Mr. Dean Stuart Director of Employee Pelotions The Pittsburgh Press P.O. Pov; 566 34 Blvd. of the Allies Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Dear ‘^r, Stuart: I am writing this letter to acknowledge a special "^‘'anl- y :u" ^ sr ts'-ing time to be a part of my study (Effects of Techncl oqi cal Change') . Your contributions will add immeasurably to the clarity of the complete perspective regarding changes induced by te c h n o logy. :Jhen the data analysis and the report are complete, I will forward a copy to you, and Mr. Wolf, for review. Again, thank ysi.i very much for participating in '•he study. Very truly yours, Alfred Simpson, Associate Professor APPENDIX 213 214 APPEND I Washington Observer-Reportez KPÛS ILAKi il» inia f’jbli'iui» VALIU c u n VALUb VAbbV HAUUb KHbuUbNCl PtHCtNi PtKCtNl P b K C b r » r 1 rü b 1 1 b. J b.3 b. J e>ru IV / l b. j b. j 1 0 . 7 lo ru 2v 4 2 lo. 1 10. / 3J. J 21 UK MUKb 5 y 00.7 00. / luv.u rulAL 12 lüu.u lUV.U CÜUl»i V ALUC. ur»b binbUL> buUALb AHRKUXiMAiLtl .^U UCCUKKbNCbb 1 l.UU + #$$# 1 j.UU U j.UÜ l 4.UU U 3.UU 1 ...... 1 ...... i...... 1. U Z 4 O IV MiblUüHAM rKbtiUbhCX MbAN 4.20U blU bxo .3*2 MbUlAI» b.uuu rtÜDE b.UUU ôru ubv 1.357 VAhlAnCb l.b41 KUftTOSIS 2.404 s b K U k l 1.232 SxbwübSS -1.bbl S E SMON .0 37 KANÜb 4.VUU MlftlMUM l.OUO MAXIMUM b.UUU 6 Ü M bl.OOÜ VAUlU C A O b O 12 Miàüikü CAabb U The Pittsburgh Press rPCi Years In T ni s Position VALI: CU'* VALU: C43EL V1 L 3 ~RE C'j En CY :ÎC rMT = rC CENT PERCENT 6 10 10 2 1 . 5 1 . 5 1. 5 11 13 15 3 6 A . 3 4.5 6.0 1 o 13 20 2 5 l ï . 7 1 E. S 2 4. B 21 3P more lO'O 7 - . 6 75.2 100.C 1 .7 ■••.rsiiN-j T : T A C 134 l û 0 . 0 10 0.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYXoLL EDUALS A? 2 2.00 * - 3.0 0 ::: 2 5 -.00 lOC 5.0 0 ,.i. 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 30 10: nI3TÜ SRAM PR E M E A N 4 . = 77 3T0 f4: .0 5) 'lEo: i'M 5.000 MO Of 5.0:0 3T3 :=v .= 54 V:R::;CE .402 KÜRT03I3 . 5 ? 5 3 = < U ■ T .-17 3NE.NE35 •2. lAl 3 : 3\E* .^10 RAN 35 3.000 V. : K : .-1U 2.000 Hm k IMu M 5. 00 0 SUM 622. COO VALID Cases 133 '1:3 3 I NO CAS ES 1 APPENDIX J 215 The Washington Observer-Reporter jc-Akij wilt) I n i Ü t-MKoJitK VALXU CUM VALÜL LAbtL VALiUt h'KtuUtNCl Kt.KCbrtX KtKCtNT KLKCChX Id XU io hu.u bJ.U bu.u ^1 UK MUKL bO . U bu.u Xuu.u XulAo 12 iUU.O XUU.U CUUN'l V HüUh, JNC blMKUb du UhLS AKKkJXXMAi d LX . 2U UCCUKKbNCbb D 4 . UU o 3 . UO ,X...... X...... X, ,.X 2 4 o XU nXbXuUhAM Xhc.uUt.hCl MCAN 4.5UU SXU fchh MEDIAN 4,bUU HUOt 4.UUU SXO UbV :522 VARIANCE .273 KUKXO SiS "2.444 S t KUMX 1.232 bhbWNbSS .UÜU S t SKbw .oil KAhUb X.UÜU MiNXMUN 4.UUU MAXXMUM 5.UUU bUM b4.UUU VALID CASES 12 MXSSXnC CASbS The Pittsburgh Press YcMPLOY Yerrs with Tiis csicioysr valid Cum VAL'JE LAicL VlL-i ;n : Y - : P C E r.- T PEPCEtiT PE PC ENT 11 to 15 3 1 5 3.7 :.E 9. : 16 to 20 A - 0 29.5 30.1 3P.E 21 or more > 5 0 £9.7 6C.2 lOC.C * .7 MISSING T : T - L 13- 10 0.0 1 0 0. C COUNT VALUE CNE SYMiÛL ECUiLS APPROXIMATELY 2.0 0 CCCUPPENCES 13 i.o: «<0 I . h r. O '.c St s. :!< St : : : : j.t sc : f s': j : : : st s.: s!: : 0 10: hliTOjKaM pae.JENCY X:AN ECA 5T0 EP: MEDIAL 5.000 ''.ODE i.oo: STÛ O'EV .670 V-PImNCE . - - 5 < Ü P T 0 S I 5 - 0 . 1 f 1 5 E XL'PT .-17 EKEkLESS - 1.011 5 = 5 K E w .210 PAME 2.00: I rj I •• J " E . : 3 c v.i Ai MUM 5.000 SUM iss.oc; VALID CASES MiS5i\S 216 APPENDIX J The Washington Observer-Reporter ÏIKADt. ÏC-Ahù i N lut HKllIiiWk iKMUt. VALIU CUM VALUt LAbtL VALUE KKEUUENCï KEKCEk X' KfckCENT K E K C bN Ï Ib fO /U 4 2b.u 2b.U 2b.U 21 UK HUKt 3 /b.U /b.U lUO.U lui AL 12 lUU.U luu.u CuUM V AbUE JltC. blMbUL EUüALb APPK JXiMA’l'ELl .2 U UCCu k k En CES j q.uu y 3 .00 . 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 , , . 1 4 A b lu MibluLKAM EhbUUthCX MEAN 4.7b0 bfl) EKK .131 MEDIAN b.OUU MODE b.uuu SrO UEV .4b2 VARIANCE ,2üb KURIOblS •ü.J2b S E KUKl' 1.232 bEEMNEbb '1.327 6 E SKE* .bj/ KAWUE 1 .000 MINIMUM A.UUO MAXIMUM b.uuu bUM b 7 .uuu VALID CASES 12 MissiNü Cases The Pittsburgh Press YTRûDE Yezrs In Tie °r.inTing TrîC? VALID CU« VILl E LA=EL V A L E F K 1 . L E N C Y -: = CEkT =Ek CEM R-.-RCENT ’ 16 to 2û 4 1 5 11.2 11.4 11.4 ■ 21 or more 5 117 37.3 6 6.6 100.Û 2 1.5 MISSING total 134 10 0.0 100.0 COUNT Value 5NE SYMsC-l ECu ALS Âr-R UkIMATELY h.00 0CCuRRElïCES 15 A. 00 117 5. oc 0 4 ; - 0 1A 0 a 3 0 2 00 Mis?:SRAM FREOU E \ L Y ME * N - A.dôo s T’O cR • 0 t r MEOIan 5. 000 'MOOr ST; Dfv .319 VARIANCE .101 XURT0SI5 4.126 S c KU4T .419 SKEWNE s s -2.463 S E SKEW .211 RA'.SE 1 . C 0 0 MINIMUM 4. 000 MAXIMUM 5.000 SU'-* 3-5.0 0 0 VALID CASES 132 : S S : r. S L A 3 E s APPENDIX J 217 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER VALXU CUM VALUL UAt)E.li V AUUb XKEUUENCï t'EKEe.wï RtKCtUl PERCENT IKAOt bCMUUL i X e. A y.x 9.1 CÜMMUIvJii LULULUb i X b. J v.x Xb.j CÜliLc.l>b 4 X b. j V. X r i , i UNIUN b b 41. i 4b«b 12. / ÜN“lht”JUD b i Zb.u 2> ,i xuu.u . 1 b.j_ MX6SXNÜ XUXAU X2 xuu.u XUU.U CuuM VHUUC. JUt blMBJb bUUALb APRK JAXMA'X'tUX .XO üCCOMKe.NCEti l j.UU X j.UU X y.uu b s.ou i b.UU X 2 j 4 b nXbXÜUKAH XKEUULNCï MEAN 4. 121 bxu ekk .3U4 MEUlAN b.OUU MÜUE 5.UUU ÜXU UEV X.272 VARIANCE l.blb KURTUSlb .yuj S E KUKT 1.279 5NEWNE&S -l.lbU S E 3KEk . boX KANÜE 4.UUUMINIMUM 2 . UUU MAXIMUM b. UUU bUM 5 2 . UUU VALXU CAbEÀ XX MX6ÜXNÜ CAÜEJ X The Pittsburgh Press VALIC CUM VALU: Li::L V A L U : fRE.UENCY = ERCENT =E5CENT percent -ii;n Scnool 1 6.7 6. e 6 . 8 Trêds icpooi 2C lA. 5 15.0 21 . S C o 11 î ÿ a 3.0 3.0 24.e Union : îÈ 2 5.4 2E.6 53.4 2n-%ne-j:b : 46.5 -6.6 102.0 . 1 . 7 M15 S : N S total 1 3A 100.0 10 0.0 ; ÛUNT value CNE S Y Me Cl EQUALS APPRC XIMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCE 2 I û 0 2. :■ C' "*.00 •-.i'-AV J : E . û 0 62 0 . 0 0 :L 0 6 i: A * V ::: ;; 15 50 45 60 75 -li TCSram ;::.U5 •:C Y M ^ A N — * 7 A "* S T 2 : A ; . 1 >. 7 ME 01 an E. C 0 : MOÛc STU 0E V 1.C32 VAPIAkCE 2.672 KURT05Ii 216 S E X'JAT .-17 Sx Ew NE 55 -1.153 S : S X E A .210 A i N- À E 5.02C MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 6.202 SU.M b2 7.:c: VAL 12 CASEE APPENDIX J 218 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE r'KbUUENCl Pe HCe n I' PEKCE41' PbKCENl XI iU 40 X / bb.x bb.x bu.J 41 iU bU 4 1 U.X b.X bt>. 7 bl UK u LUEK b 4 XX.X XX.X iOU.U lUlAL IX luu.u lUU.U CUUNi k AUUb JNL aiMBUU LUUAUS At'HKJXlMAibLI .i!U UCCUKKbtkCbS / j.UU 1 4.UU 4 3.UU ...... i...... I. ,.i Z 4 b 10 HXblUUKAM FKEUUbhCY M6AN J.7SÜ Ü10 bKK .279 MEDIAN i.OOU 4UDL j.UUU Si'u U&k .96b VAhlAlkCE .9X2 KUKXUblS ■1 . «M» b b MUKl 1.2X2 BKEMNbBÜ .b91 S b SKkK .oil K M N U b 2.UUU MINIMUM X.UUU MAXIMUM 5.UUU BUM 4b.UUU VALID CASbb 12 MibblNÜ CABEb The Pittsburgh Press 1G = V A L : : CUM VALUE l a b e l V A L .J E •P'jEu E'. =5=CELT =E?CELT = ESCEM 31 to A3 : • E 5.3 8.3 41 to 50 55.1 35.3 A3 .6 51 or oicer 75 55.0 55.4 100.0 .7 v-SSI^G T L T - L 13A 100.0 ICO. C COUNT value CNE 5YM50L ECUAL5 APPROXIMATELY l.EC OCCURRENCES 11 3.0 0 a 7 A . 0 0 7 5 i • 0 I 1: 3 0 75 — I S T G '-J R u -M ^ n E 0 u E N C Y mean A. *5 1 ETC .L:f M E : A N 5.000 MÛOE 5.000 ÎTO OEv .5 AT v a r i a n c e . Al 8 AUST05I3 -0.309 S r x U "T .*17 34EXL:3 3 • 0 . ? 5 * 5 E i s E X .CIO R A 0 ; : . u 0 0 MINI /J V 3.00 0 MAXI MU -I 5.000 S U T r. . '0 0 0 vAl IO CASES 133 MliSINo CASE) APPENDIX J 219 The Washington Observer -Reporter U2 I v a l i d CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE fKEUUEMCX PEKCEUI p e k Cen x PEKCEn I NA U 1 6.3 9.1 9.1 NUNE/NU ACfECi 1 1 B.3 9.1 lb.2 LUH UbOKEE 1 ". 3 9.1 2 7.3 Sj m e u e l h e e 3 4 33.3 30 . 4 03.0 HIGH UEGKEE 4 4 33.3 30 . 4 lUU.U . 1 B.3 MISSING XU I Al 12 lUU.U lUU.U Cuuwl VALUE UNE Ù&MBUL EUUALS AKPKUXlMA1 ELI .iu UCCUKKe NCES ,UU ***$»*++** 1.ÜU 2.UU j.UU 4.UU . 1. ■1 HiùiÜÜKAM EKEÜüENCt MKAN 2.bl* SiU EKK .4UU MEUlAN J.ÜUÜ MODE j.UUU SlU UEV l.J2d VAKIANCE 1.704 KUKTUSiS .t>b2 S t KUKl 1.279 SKEWNESS "1.104 S E SKEW • ubl kanUE 4.U0U MINIMUM .UÜO MAXIMUM 4. UUU Sum 31,UUU VALID CASES 11 M1SS1NÙ CASES The Pittsburgh Press J27 valid CUM VALUE LA EEL VALUE -'•EOUENCV PE5CENT PESCEUT =EÎCENT NA 0 3 2.2 2.3 2.3 None/No Affect 1 S 3.7 3.9 £. 2 Low Degree 2 3 2.2 2.3 3.3 Some Degree 5 2 b 20.9 21.7 30.2 4lgn Degree 6 9 C 37.2 9 9.: ICC.3 • E 3.7 MI 5 SINS total 13- 100.D 100. 0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYM9DL ECUAL5 A:PR CXIMATELY 2.00 CCCUPSENCES E .33 : 1.3: -.1 ...... 3 3.3 3 2 3 3 . Dû i.‘V » 9 0 -. 3 : 0 2 * 3 * 0 =3 — * ::t :S w i: * * V - A: - * l: X...... I...... I...... ^...... i...... I 3 2 0 AO 60 EC 100 41 S T C‘ S A Ü M P A E C UENG Y MEAN 2.327 sr; .0 7r "E::-N -.000 MODE -.0 3: STD D : V .902 VARIANCE .; : A XUSTÛSÎ5 S.eTo J = KUAT . A 2 3 SKE-NESS -2.333 5 £ SKEW .213 2ÙNGE A . 0 0 u MINIMU" .000 MAXIMUM A . ODD SUM - j 3 . C 0 C VALID CASES 12 9 MIS SINS Cases s APPENDIX J 2 20 The Washington Observer-Reporter J VAUXU , CUM VAUUE UASEL VAUUE EKEUUe NCI KEKCe NI PEKCEN1 PEKCENl UJn UEGKEE i s 25.V 25.Ü 25.U SJME UEGKEE i D 5U.U 5U.U V5.Ü rtlGH UEGKEE 4 i 25.U 25.U luu.u lUlAU luu.o lUU.U CUUHl VAUUL JliC. blMbJU &UUALS ARHH JAlHAltLl .^U UC'CUHKC.NCtS i ^. uu Ü j.uu i 4.UU .1...... i ...... i. 4 0 lU hi6£UClKAM fKLUUbhCr MCAN j.UUU 51U t.KK .2 ii MEUlAN j.UUU j.uuu üiU UC.V . /jy VAKIANCE . 545 KURIU61Ü "U.dbo 6 c ruKi l.jjZ SAEwNESS .UUU S t ùKtn .t>J / KttldOt j.UUU MINIMUM z.uuu MAXIMUM 4. uuu S um jo.uuu VALIU CASES 1 j MISSING CASES The Pittsburgh Press .28 VALID CUM ViLuE Li3cL VALUS = ^ e ; J = N c Y = Î A C f N T 2=:L=ET Pr?C5NT MA ;V 1 . 5 1.5 1 .5 Mone/Mo Affect 2 4 3 . 0 3.1 i.6 Lorn 3e;ree t.O 6.2 10. 5 Same Decree 5 5 1 3? .1 3 9.2 50.0 -11 5h Degree 2. -s.3 50.0 100.C • - 3.0 MISSING TCTai 13- 100.0 100.c ! jrcT VALU: SYMzCL cCUAl S AA3 RDXIMATcLY 1.50 GCCURPÏNC . 0 D 1.00 0 0.00 al 3.00 u W >. w V Xc X: 6 5 A . 0 0 ..I...... • X • * * * *....I...... 1 5 3 0 4 5 60 75 *-I STOOP am PREvU: N: Y MS AM 3 .321 ST: .0 74 :0I* M 3. 500 MODS - . 00 0 S T ■_ J z n VA;Ia m C : 71 ? MUk TGSIS 3. 2 5 3 S = .422 S VALID C. 130 •’ I s s CA3SS APPENDIX J 221 The Washington Observer-Reporter Ü VALiU CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE EKEUUENL'l PERCENT PERCENT PEKCENl NA U 2 ib,? lb.7 10.7 NUNE/NU AtfELI 1 j 2b. u /b.U 41. ? LU" UEu KEE 2 2 lb. ? lb. / bb.j bUME UELk EE J b 41. ?_ __41./_ luu.u lux AL W lUU.U luu.u L'uui«r V ALUt. UHc. biMoJL LUUALb ARHKUAlHAltLt . iU uCCUKKLMCt.5 i. . Uu i 1. uu i z.uu b J.UU 1 2 j 4 5 miblUÜRAM FREUUENCï MLAN l.bjj blU ERR .i4b MEUlAN 2.UUU MOUL i , UUU SfU UEV 1.193 VARIANCE 1.424 KUHlUbib • 1 . 4 4 0 b E RURX 1./J2 bKEWNEbb -U.392 S E Skkm .bj? k a n LE 3.UUU MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM j.OUU buM 22.UUU VALIO CASL6 1 j AibblML CAbEb U The Pittsburgh Press 32 9 VALID CUM vALU: LA5:L 7 E w D r N C Y =:AC:N7 ==SCEN7 =:PC:N7 NÙ j 7 5.2 5.6 5.6 None/No Affect 1 S 2 36.3 6 1.3 66 . S Louj Degree 2 3 4 25.A 27.0 73.2 5-0me Degree  19.6 20.6 9 6.6 High Degree 7 5.2 5.6 130.0 • : 6.0 MI SSI NO 7 07 A L 1 3 a 100.0 100.0 CDO.vT VALU: ON: S VMaDL : Du a l s APs* DXI.MATELY 1.20 CCCUSS:NC: 7 . d; 1 . J 0 2.02 C 5 j . 0 0 ),* i: M:ÛN i . 79 . . rU MrOIAX 2 . 000 'CO: 1 . D-D j DTD Dry 1 . 1 A VASIAMC: 1.029 XOÀT0SÏ j - 0 . 5 : A i : • •.2s S ^ " t \ E 5 S .626 5 D 5K:k .21: : A D : A . 0 0 Û MINIMUM . 000 MAXIMUM A . J 0 0 SUM 2S.2ÛD VALID APPENDIX J 222 The Washington Observer-Reporter UJU V A L iU CUM VAbUt bwoLL VALUE KKEu UENCH PEKCENl PEKCENl PEKCENl NÜNL/UU «ettCT 1 i lb./ ib,/ lb.7 SÜMt UtijKtt j 4 JJ,J JJ.J bU.U CllliH ULbKLL A D bu.u bu.u luu.u iUlAU 1^ lUU.U luu.u CCJUNl VALUE JNc. blMbUL cuUALb APPk UXIHAIELI .^U UCCUKKENCES i 1 .UU ********** Ü j.UU H j.UU ******************* ...... i...... i U % 4 b * 10 MiSlUGKAM FKEUUENCX MEAN j.lb/ Slu EKK .j/Z MEUiAN J.bOU MOUE 4.UUU SlU UEV 1.11b VARIANCE 1.2*2 KUKiUSiS . /o2 b E e UKI 1.212 L e E n NESS -I.JIU 5 E SEE" .01/ KANLE i.UUU MiNiNUM l.OUO MAXIMUM 4 . UUU SUM lU .O U O VALiU CASES 12 MissiNL C a s e s The Pittsburgh Press 03 0 VALID C'jv Vm Lu : Ld==L V A L . : = - E . U E N C Y = EAC ENT PEPCEN'T PERCENT NA c - 4 . 5 4.7 4 . 7 None/No Affect 1 5- 23.4 26.5 31 . 5 Lou Degree 7 1 7 12.7 13.4 44 . 9 Some Degree 3 33 26.4 2 9; 9 74.4 -Kign Degree w 32 25.9 25.2 100.0 • 7 5.2 MISSING total 134 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE CL EDuals app p D X : M A T ELY .SO CCCUPLENC 0 . 0 0 i A 1.00 i 7 2.00 36 3.00 i;< V *:< Ï.Î V - t M Ï? 5|t « ».t « )Ï': rt »:t O M « :: :: Jt M >;t Ijt O i.t i;t u it if it ifttljl »!c Ix i;c 32 4.00 1 6 2 4 -1ST: ; 4 A M c = = D -J E •iCY MfAN ». ... 4 1 STj 3 As .112 •■'E Cl an 3 . 0 0 C MODE 3.00 0 STD .Ev 1.2:6 VARIANCE KUtTOSlS -1.233 3 = X U n T .427 SxE"N=S5 -6:ill S c SK E rt .213 P ANSI u. : 0 0 MINIMUM .00 0 MAXIMUM 4 * 0 0 0 SUM 310 .000 valid cases 12 7 APPENDIX J 223 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER UJl VAblL) LOH VAbUt LiADtli VAbUc KMLUULNCX KLMCkhi l-tKLt.Nl HtKCtNl NA U i lb. / Ib.V lb.7 rtUwt/NO ActbCl' i b bo. U bo.o bb . 7 LUw UbbHtt I i lb. ; lb. I Mj.j 6UAL UtbKt-t. j I lb. I lb. I 100.0 iUlAb a 100.0 100.0 CUUNl VAbOt Ji«L bIMbJb LuuAbb AkTKUllMAltbl ,/U UCCUKKtNCtb I ,00 ♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦ 0 1.00 1 Z.OO **+,,,»*+* i 1.00 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦ 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 0 ^ 4 b b 10 m b l U L H A M ‘■'KtUOLhCS MtAN 1.111 Slu tkK .^14 MbUlAn 1.00Ü düot 1.000 bl'O UtW .40b VAKlANCt .470 KUKIJbla ■0.104 b t MKi i.jlz bkbwNtbS .bb* S t SKLn .bl? KANOt i.OOO MINIMUM .000 MAXIMOM 1.000 bOM lb.000 VALiU LAbtb 1^ MXbblnL LaSEI 0 The Pittsburgh Press 331 VALID CUM VALU: LA5:L VALLE =RE:u ENCy =EMCENT =ESCENT PERCENT NA Û 1 = 11.5 15.1 13.1 None/No Affect 1 -4 i2.c 3c.l 4?. 2 Lorn Degree 2 2: 20.5 23.0 72.1 Some Degree 3 2 2 16.4 lE.O 90. 2 .-iign Degree 4 J : 5.0 5.5 100.0 1 2 9.0 MISSING - total 154 10 0.0 100.0 COUNT value one SYM5DL EÔUALS iP=S CXIMATELY 1.00 CCCU7AENC 16 .lu ■■■ 4 4 1.3C C c Π3.00 ObkwM il M M >1 J.1 V V 0 ii vo w !t 12 4.00 , I...... 1C 2 0 3 0 4 0 -I STOOP AM FREOU EL'C Y MEAN 1.73. )T: : A . . 1 G c M : _ i - J 2.000 MOD: 1.oCj ST: :E V 1.1:7 variance 1.410 i^uSTOSIS — 0.767 S = k UAT .*.56 SKEWNESS . 370 S : Skew .215 SAN 0 E 4 . 0 0 C MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM -.00 0 SUM 214.000 valid Cases 1:2 -i : s SING CASES 12 APPENDIX J 224 The Washington Observer-Reporter JiZ VALiU CUM VAuUb LAoEL v a l u e f KEUUE n CI PEKCENl PEKCENl Pt-KLtNi NUNE/NU AfrtCr 1 1 b. j b. J B. J LU m UEUkbE I 3 41.7 41.7 bU.U bUML UbûMbb j 4 jj. j jj.j bi. J HIGH UEGKLE 4 I lb. / lb. ? luu.u lUlAL 12 1ÜU.U lUU.U Cuun 1 VAUUE JNH. blMOUU EwUALà At'PhUXXMAiC.U 1 .lU ÜCCUHNENCES 1 l.UU ********** 3 j.UU ************************************************** 4 j.UU **************************************** I 4.UU ******************** !...... i ...... 1 ...... I ...... I U i j j 4 b MXalUkkAM KKEÛUENC1 MEAN j.OOj üfu UKK .jbU MEUlAN j.bUU MUDt j.UUU EiU UEV .yuu VAKIANCE .*11 KUKlUùlO "U.4j/ b e. NUKI l.jjj bEUMNEbb .lb2 S E S K r. M .bj? KANÜE 3.UUÜ MINIMUM l.OUO MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM jl.UOU VALIU CAbEb X^ MlbblNL CAbES The Pittsburgh Press valid CU.M VALu: LABEL value ;;::uEECY = E 5 C E T PERCENT PE RCEN'1 0 2 1.5 1.6 1. 6 Nore/^0 Affect 1 27 20.1 21.1 22.7 Loui Degree 2 26 19.4 20.3 63.0 Some Degree 3 41 30.6 32.0 75.0 Migh Degree u 5 2 2 3.5 25.C 10 0.0 • 6 4.5 '•.IS 51 NO . total ... 1-34 100.0 100.0 count VALUE ONE STM6 DL ECU'ALS APPP 1.00 3CCL0&ENC: .0 ; 27 1.00 26 2.10 -1 3.00 :.i u V >;< W < 6 — V » V 32 4.00 . . . T . . I. , .1 0 1 - U 60 50 - T iT0.A; i"1 pp'EcJ M E A fy 2.57: STD EA- .100 5.000 V2DE 3.000 STD O'E V 1.127 VARIANCE 1.255 Ku PTCSIS -1.070 S i N U P T .425 SKEwNESi - 0•2 6 2 5 E SKEW .216 PANSE 4.000 .000 MA Xl'fUM 6 # 0 0 0 SUN 330.000 VALIO CA3:i 12: : s s 1N s C A S E S 6 APPENDIX J THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPOR"## J j j VAuiU CUM VALUE LAbEL VALUE Kk e u u e n c i t'EKCEwi PEKCENl PEKCENl NA U 2 10.7 10.7 10. 7 NjNt/NU AfftCl 1 3 2b.U 2b.U 41.7 LÜH UEu KEL 2 2 lb. / 10.7 bb.3 SOME UEÜMEE 3 4 3 3.3 33.3 »1. / rilGn Ueukee 4 1 b.3 luu.u lUf AL 12 1UU.Ü lUU.U Cüuwl V HüUC. jnc. aiMoJL EuuAuS APHk JXiMA 1 LUk .IU ÜLLUKKLnCLÜ z .UU 3 1.UU i 2.UU 4 j.UU 1 4.UU ***$*$**# I ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... I ...... 1 U 1 2 3 4 b MiblUÜKAM eKLUULNCI ME a w i.yu/ Slu LKh .3/% MEUJ.AÜ 2.UUU MODE 3.uuu SIU UEV 1.311 VAKIAMCE 1.72U KUrtXUÜlb "l.lWb b E EUHi 1.232 SKEWNESS -U.ilU S £ 5 h£* .037 KANÜE 4.QUO MINIMUM .UOU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 23.UUU VAUiU c a s e s 1 2 MISSING Cases The Pittsburgh Press :33 valid Cow VALUE LABEL value RAEDUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 0 1C 7.5 7.7 7.7 None/No Affect 39 29. 1 30.0 37.7 Lo Q) Degree D 34 25.4 26.2 6 3. S 5o*ne Degrso 3 34 17.9 IE.5 52. 3 -iigh Oeg'-ee t. 23 17.2 17.7 100.C • L 3.0 MI S SI NC- TOTaL 134 100.0 100.0 CDUNT VALUE ONE SYMECL EDUALS A = = h3X IMATrLY .BO OCCURRENCES 10 . j 0 39 1.0: A " D. 00 I - 3.00 11 )1 w X* >X V At K U » " At >,t t.; i.c ).t At ).t vW VW U** 4.00 At f t : t A: A; a'. : : * a :J At J? X= t J * :.t 3 a : « .g S: - . I 3 16 24 32 4 0 "I s t d ;RAM 4 P E iJENCY • '1: At. 2.0E5 STD Eli .10: MEDIAN 2.000 '■DDE 1. GÇ O j t : dev 1.227 variance 1.504 KuRTGôIô 1.029 S c KURT .-22 SKcwNESS .16 9 S E SKEW .212 RANGE 4.0DC MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4. ODD Sum 271.000 val; Ct.Sc s 1 ? 0 S 4 APPENDIX J 226 The Washington Observer-Reporter VALIU CUM VALUL liAObL VMLUb iKbUUbivCl PbKCbNi PbKCbNl PbKCbNi n A U 1 b. j 6. j b.3 NUNt/NJ Afft-tl 1 2 lo. / lo. ? 2b.U ÜÜM ULükLL 2 4 J j. j j j. j bb.j àUML Ut-ÜKtt j 3 41 . ? 41. / luu.u lUlAU 12 lUU.U lUU.U CUUM VMUut. UWb bkMuuL bUUALb APKhUXiMAfbLX .lU UCCUKH£NC£S 1 ,UU ********** / l.UU ******************** 4 ^.uu **************************************** b j.UU ******************************♦♦•♦**************** i ...... 1 ...... !...... 1 ...... i ...... 1 0 1 2 i 4 b hiblUüKAM FHLUULNCl MEAh Z.Ubj biU bKK .260 NbUlAM 2.UUU MUDt j.uuu biu UbV .yyo VAKlAI»Ct .yv2 KUKiUbiS -U.U14 b b bÜKl 1.2J2 bXbHNtbb -U.0b4 S £ SKbn .bj? KANÜb j.UOU MINIMUM .UÜU MAXIMUM j.uuu bUM 2b.UOU VALIU CAbbb 12 MlbblNU CAàbb The Pittsburgh Press valid CUM VALU: LABEL V A L E E f E;JENCY P : f C : N T percent PERCENT NA 3 6 4.5 ** * 6 4.6 None/NiO Affect 1 2 9 21.6 26.7 Lodi Deî'-ee 31 23.1is:; 50.4 Borne Degree i 2 8.4 2 9.0 79 . 4 Mign Degree 27 2 0.1 20.6 10 0.0 2.2 MISSING TOTAL 13- 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE BYM.2L EOL'Al B APPk cximate LY .30 OCCURRENCES : : 2 f S:.::: 13 il O 00 V i :: - :: V: :X ; : -r : î :: X: :: :: O :::4 " 33 - t If IfIf if II XI11 ic o If : ) --.c i l If If If If it If i t 1,: i t y w ),î :.t J ? >;t i t # V :.c * X t « * « i t * * W i t M .2 7 i t If if i t o i t if i t if If ifit it it it it it it it it it :t it it it * it i: i t * s: it ...... ; ...... I ...... : ...... I ...... 3 16 2 4 2 2 -iBT:-c.ia« ‘"?e;l':ncy MEAN - .3 : 7 ST, E . 1 3 median 2.000 ■"DDE 5.ÜD0 STO :EV 1.174 VA3:ance 1.378 XuSTûSIB -0.3 30 B E X U '■ T .— 3.0 BXEWNEBB -0.193 S E SKEk .212 L i N E 4.00 c MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4 • ù 0 0 BUM 313.200 VALID CAS:5 APPENDIX J 221 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER vAUiU CUM VALUE uAeEL VAUUE fKEUUEwCk KEKCENl PEKCENl PEKCENl NA U j jS.U 2S.U jS.U NÜNE/MU Ai r Ed 1 I 10. / Id . / 41. / LU* UEUKEE 1 B . j B. j SU.U SUHE UEÜKEE j 0 41./ 41./ VI. / HIGH UEGKEE 4 1 B. j 0, J luu.u lUlAL 11 luu.u lUU.U LUUwl VAUUC JNt bXMoUL EUUALb APeKJAlMAXbLiK .iU UCCUKKENCES i , UU I l.UU 1 j.UU 5 j.UU **$$**$*$* 1 4.UU- ********** 1 ..I...... I...... I#.....I V i j j 4 miSlUuKAM EKEJUENCX MtAN. i.bU/ El'U EkK .41/ m e LiIAn j.bUU MJDE j.uuu Sl'U UEV 1.44 j VAKIANCE j.Ubi KÜKIUÜib '1.S/Ü E E KUKT i.jjj SKEn NESS •U.204 S E SKE m . E j } KanUE 4.UOU MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM 4. UUU SUM 2Ü.UUU VALIU CASES 1 i MISSING CASES The Pittsburgh Press C35 valid CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE F=’f CUENCY PERCENT PEP CENT PEPCENT NA 0 1 1 c . 2 ; . E 8.6 None/No Affect 1 39 2 9.1 30.E 29.1 Low Degree 2 28 20.9 21.9 6 0.9 Some -Deg'-e 3 3 2 4 17.9 19.E 79.7 Mign Degree 4 2 o 19.4 20.5 1:0.0 E -.5 M-: S SIM- TOTAL 134 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMEOL EIL'ALS APPr,CXIMATELY .EC DCCUPPENCES 11 . D : 39 1. 0 •: 2 5 2. j 0 2- 3. Où u i.< 0 V V V -< V V ft I fft ft ft ).t :f ;:t:,tsf j;t j.tu H. 30 ftftftftftf:*:-:; J Ë 16 24 32 -0 HISTCOk AM -«ECU rNCY MEAN 2.117 3Tj EPA .113 MEDI At. 2.30 0 MODE 1.0C3 3 TO DEV 1 . 2 9 a VAPIANCE 1. 64 E KUSTOSIS 1.1-7 7 3EKUPT .42= SKEWNESS .119 S E SKEW .21- 9AN3E -.03: MINIMUM .330 MAXIMUM -.303 SUM 2 71.000 v a l i d CAiES 1 2 : ■ I S ; I 3 0:3:5 E APPENDIX J 228 The Washington Observer-Reporter u j b V AU lU CUM VAUUt UAGLL V AU Ut K K t U U t n C l P t K C t N l K t h C b N l P tK C tN X NA U 1 b . j b . j b . j NUNt/NU A fftC l 1 1 b . j b . j l e . / UUn U U Ù K Lt j 1 b . j b . j 2 5 . 0 5UM& UtliKCC. j o 5 U .U 5 0 . U / 5 . U Hluh U&GKtL 4 j 2 5 . U 2 5 . U lU U .U l u i AU 1 / lU U .U l u u . u CUUiVl vAuuc. J N L S I M D J U tUUAUS HPKKJAlMAitUt . ÜU ULCUKKtNCtS ***** . uu ***** j.UUi. uu ***** j.UU 4.UU ...... 1...... i. j 4 o lu MiülUühAM tKbUULMC* MLAN 4./SU üi'U LKK muUXAn j.uuu NüOt j.uuu 5 l u ütv 1 . 2 1 5 VAKlANCt 1 .47/ KÜKIUÜiS i. jj/ 6 t XUk X l.jjj 6Kt#NtSS •1.253 s e SKk* .t>j / •KANG£ 4 . u u u MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM 4.uuu SUM jj.OUU VAUlU CAStS MiSSlNÜ CAStS The Pittsburgh Press viLi : :ij«. VALUE LA5EL value rSEOuENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT ■Ni C u 5.0 3. 1 2.1 None/No Affect 21 15.7 16.2 19.2 Lou/ Degree 36.9 Some Oegree 1 if 60.5 High Degree 51 3-;.i 3 5.2 100.0 4 3.0 MISSING T-jTAL 134 100.0 • 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SY.ME.CL EQUALS APPK CXIMATELY 1.20 OCCURRENCES i, --A if lA : : O O : : « v : : : : lï O i f:: i f* i f i : i : 31 3.Où u m-w <;t •;< if i.t o « o » >> ix v ï< >x « >x o i;i >» 51 33 A ï: Xx jX .-'î :x a V :X S-’ X= =X * X: * ï: V i fx't S: O i f i f î f ï:X f:S i fO i f i f i f* i a f -.«***... .i...... l...... X...... I...« . .1 ; 12 24 .36 6c -ISTCOSAM FDÇÙUENCY 6'3 AN 2. =0 3 =T3 =4. .10 = -■■£31 AN 3 . 3 0 0 MÙ3 = 4 . 0 3 3 STj j=v 1.210 VARIANCE 1 . 4 6 4 X U S T Û 5 I 6 -û.6 6 6 i r KUAT . 4 2 x: S<£WN£55 -0. 594 5 £ SXCrJ .212 RANG: . 0 '3 G MINIMUM . 000 MAXIMUM 4 . 0 0 3 SUM 3 64 . 0 0 0 v a l : CAS: S MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 229 The Washington Observer-Reporter Uj/ VALiU CUM VAbUt LAobL VALUE Ek e u u e n C i PEKCENl PEKCENl PEKCENl NA 0 j 2b.U 2b.0 2b.0 NUNt/ N J Af r C.C J 1 b 41.7 41.7 00. / LiUh UbbkLL i j lo. / lo./ t) j. j SÜML UbUKLb j i lo. / lo./ luu.u lui Al luu.o luu.U CUUM VALUE UNE ÜÏMOUL EUUALÜ APHKUXIMAiEL1 .lU UCCUKKENCES i . Uu b l . U U + * + I j.UU 44444,*4*4$4$4***4*4 L ...... i...... i...... i U 1 j i 4 b HXSl'UCKAM EKEUUENCX MEAN l.jbu ùlU E k K .jub MEUiAN I.UUU MUOE i.UUU biU UEV l.Ubb VARIANCE 1.114 AUKlublL *U.t>J7 S E KUKi l.jjj SKEWNESS .b2j S E SKE n .Oj/ KANLE j.OUU MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM j.uuu SUM lb,000 VALID CASES 1 j MiSSiNL C a s e s The Pittsburgh Press 357 VALID CUM value LA3eL VALUE C2EDUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 17 12.7 13.3 1-3.3 None/No AfTect 1 5Ê 43.3 4 5.3 58.6 Loui Degree 2 27 20.1 5one 0egree 21.1 79.7 3 1 6 11.9 12.5 92.2 High Degree - 10 7.3 7.3 100.0 • i 4 . 5 MI 5 SIN-3 TCTAL 131 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE DNc SYM3CL E3UALS APPROXIMATELY 1.20 OCCURRENCE : 7 . j ; 5 0 1 . DO 0 7 I. d; 16 V iii V *■ J ; ;; V X« W L > ■ 10 - J 12 24 3 6 . 4 5 50 HIST C;-4A« C5=C ÜENCY MEAN 1 , i 6 i jT: . C H c "EDI AN 1. 0C0 MDD£ 1.000 STD DEV 1.114 VAR I XUSTGilâ ANCE 1.240 - 0 . 2 3 0 S É X U A T .425 SKEk NESS .6-2 S È SK:N .21- 5 Û N D £ -.000- MINI MUM .000 MAXIMUM A.OOO SUM 200.000 VALID 1 : : : i s : \ ■: a SES r APPENDIX J 230 The Washington Observer-Reporter u jW VALIU CUM VALUL LAOLL VALUL hKEUUENC* PERCENT PEKCENl PERCENT NA U 2 Xo. / 10.7 lb.7 NUNE/NU AffbCI 1 i 20.U 20.U 41.7 LU h UECKE a i I lb. / lb. / 00.j bUME UbLKbc i 4 J j. J jj. J 01.7 nXUn UC.UKC.E. 4 1 0.3 0. j luu.u i'Ul AL 12 l U U . U lUU.U CUUni V A but. Juc JlMbJb EwUALb AHHk JAiMAiEL I .10 ü CCUKKENCEÜ I . uu i l.UU ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦*♦♦♦♦»♦•♦** i j.UU 4 j.UU 1 4.UU 1...... 1...... i...... 1...... 1...... X u 1 j J 4 b HXEXULKAM EKEUUENCl MÜAM i.%i/ OiU EKK .j/% NEUXAM j.uuu MODE j.uuu SiU UEV X.jlX VAKIANCE X.72U KUKTU6I6 •X.lbb Ü E KUKX X.jjj SKEn n ESS -U.XXU S E SKEm .Di/ KANLE 4.UUU MINIMUM .UOU MAXIMUM 4.UUU EUM 2j.uuu VALXb CAEEb 12 MlbElivL CAbEb The Pittsburgh Press C38 VALID CUM VALUc LA3ÊL VALUE FR:lUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 0 4 3.0 3. 1 3.1 None/No Affect 21.7 Loui Dejree i Ic ÏIÙ Sl:l 65.0 Some Degree 3 24.6 2E.6 70.5 iigh Degree 3Ê 3E.6 2 3. p ICO. 0 . 5 3.7 MIS SINS TOTAL 136 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE SYMEOL EiUAbS APPROXIMATELY .80 CCCURRENC 4 . Ù C ;’x 26 : x 0 :'.t ::: X: ::: : : : : :.t : : : : :? : : : : : : j Û 215' :: : : : : X' Xx X- : : : : v V — :.x :? : : : : :|t. : : : * * : : x i: 33 l.’oc- V x;t V :: v >!< : x Xr x]: x): O 0 ‘ 3.t Xx>'A^ :% 3S -.DO :x V ix :X V ::: O :: O î,: i? O 0 O ...... :...... I...... I...... ,.i...... I 1 1 E 1= 26 3 2 60 -'ISTOD-RAM p REOUENCY MEAN i67 ST. =R: . 1 C4 MEDIAN 3. CCO MODE ,co ST: : E V VARIANCE 1.3S9 AURTOSI5 -1 .021 S E N U R T ' l i l i SKEWNESS ■0.322 S c SKEW range 6.GCC •' INI M U M .000 MAXIMUM 6:o53 SUM 3 3 5 . Ü 0 0 VALIC CASES 13 MijSlNS CASES APPENDIX J 231 The Washlnaton Observer-Heoorter VALIU CUM VAUUb LADbL » ALUb fKbuubnCk PbKtbNl' PbKCbNl PbKCbNl NA u i Ib. / lb.7 lb.7 wUNb/NU AffbCl I 1 b.3 b.3 /b.U LUM UbüKbb / 4 33,3 33.3 bb.3 6uMb UbGttbb j 4 33.3 33.3 91. 7 MiüM Ubühbb 4 1 b.3 b.3 luu.u i'Ul A L 1/ luu.u luu.u C u u N 1 VMbut JNb ùXibJU bUUALb AKHhjAliHibLit ,JU JttUKKbNCbb / X l.UO 4 4 j.UU ,*4*,*,*,,**$,*,,,,*+$,,,,**,,*,$,,**,,* 1 4.UU ,*$*$**$$* i i J i i i HlSi'ÜÜKAM fKbwlUtNCï HbAN ^.UÜJ t»iU bKK .Jbb MbUiAN .i.UUÜ MUDb /.UUU SiU Ubv 1./4U VARIANCE l.bJb KUKlUSiS ■U.J44 S b KUKl' l,2i2 ÜKbNNbSS -U.b/d S b SbbN •UJ7 KANÜE 4.UUU MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM 4.UÜU SUM 2b.UUU VALIU CASbS 1/ MiüSlKU CASbS The Pittsburgh Press 339 VALID CUM VALUE LA==L VALUE FREQUENCY = ERC cNT =ERCENT ==RCENT NA 11 5.2 S. S 3.9 Non e/N O Affect 1 52 39.5 42.3 51 .2 Low Degree 31 23.1 25.2 76.4 5-oflie Degree 3 1 : 13.4 14.E 91 . 1 High Degree 4 1 1 9 . 2 5.5 100.0 . 1 1 5 . 2 MI 5 SIND TjT = L 13* 100.0 10 0.0 COUNT VALUE SYM3CL equals APB RCXIMATELY 1.20 ■OCCURRENCES 11 . 3 3 Ô 2 l.OC 31 :. 0 0 16 3 • 0 0 »;t ».« W «;< i'i & ( i t I.c i.t if i.< i.t it 11 4. 00 • ? *1» «C* ^ 5,« .|* »i» »,* 12 2*. 36 i.8 60 uiçT.n.'sûM -AEDU-'JCY HE AN 1. 72-. 5T- E5- .ICC 1.000 HODE 1. 0 0 Ù STD DEV 1.13- VARIANCE 1.21 = AU3TG315 •Ù.-37 5 = KUkT . M ? 3- SKEk'NcSS .56 5 S = SACK .216 ran DE 4.000 minimum .000 MAXIMUM H. 0 0 0 SUM 212.000 VALID CASES 123 L-s=: 1 1 APPENDIX J 232 The Washington Observer-Reporter J4U VALIU Cum VALUE LAbuL VALUE EhEUUENCl PEKCENl PEKCtNX PEKCENl NA U 4 jj. j j j . J j j . j iVÜNL/NÜ AlCECl 1 j 2b.U 2b.U bb.j LUN Ue G k Ee 2 4 Jj. j jj. j VI.7 SUMt UEUKtE j 1 b. j «. j lUU.U lUlAL 12 luu.u lUU.U CUUNl WKkUL une. bIMbUL bUUALü At'HKUXlMAle.UI . iU UCCUKhk.NCL6 4 .UU ++»**+$**+******#*,+***$$**$*»**#$#$$*** J l.UU ♦»♦♦♦*♦»♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦»»♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ 4 1 j.UU ,$$$*,$*** i...... 1...... X...... 1...... 1...... X U 1 2 i 4 b hXÜfüGKAM fr'KtUUtKCX MKAN l.lo/ bill LKK .2*7 MtiOXAN 1.ÜUU rtuot .UUU blU UtV l.UiU HAKXAn CL X.Ubl KÜKlU^lb "1.142 b c. NUKi 1.2J2 bKt-nnbbb .211 S t SNtx .bj? KANÜL j.uuu MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM j.uuu bUM 14.UUU VAUXU CAbUb 12 MXbblNG CAbEb The Pittsburgh Press .QAO VALID Cum VALU: LA3EL value E A 'J : N C Y PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NÛ n 1 7 12.7 13.4 13.4 None/No Af fe c t i 51 to.*. 63.5 77.2 Lou Degree 15 11.2 11.8 5.7. 0 Some Degree j 6.0 6.3 = 5.3 Higri Degree u 5 4.5 4. 7 100.0 7 5.2 MISSING TOTAL 134 100.0 •100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMEOL EDUALS A? PROXIMATELY 2.0 0 OCCURRENCES 1 7 . D3 n 1. d : 1 5 A • V - Ô j . 0 0 u m MK" 6 A. DO T...... • . . T 0 :o AÜ 60 EC 100 -1ST OGRAM cp =wUENC Y M f A N 1.25: ST: :A: MEDi-N 1.000 ^DD = 1 . Û 0 0 STD JEv . 7 E I. V A E I A r, C E . r73 XU3TDSZS 1.757 S E m JA T .-27 SKEWNESS 1.374 S = SKEW .215 RANGE 4.ODD MINIMUM . 000 MAXIMUM A . DOO SUM 157.COC valid cases 1:7 MIS SINS CASES 7 APPENDIX J 233 The Washington Observer-Reporter J41 VALIU CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE Ek e u u e n C i PEKCENl PEKCENl PEKCENl n A U j 2b.U 2b. U 2b.U NUNE/NU AEtbCJ 1 i d. j 0. j jj.j LUn UELKe E 2 1 0. j 0. j 41 . / SOME UELKEE j 4 jj.j jj.j /b.U rilGn u e L k e e 4 j 2b.u 2b.U luu.u I'Ul A L 12 lUU.U luu.u CUON i VMLOC. J'lb Ü140UU buUMbS AHPk UXIMA IbUk .lU ULCUKKENCEb J . UU 1 l.UU 1 Ü, UU 4 j.UU j 4.0U .1...... 1...... 1, 1 i i II151UUKAM KKEUUbMCl mEan j^/ou aiu EKK . 4US MC.U1AN j.uuu HUUE j.uuu 61U UbV l.bUj VAKIANCE 2.000 KUK1US16 "1.4 jo S E MUKI 1.2 jj SKEh NESS -U.4b7 S E SKbM . t> j / KAm GE 4.UUU MINIMUM .UOU MAXIMUM 4.uuu SUM 27.UUU VAUlU CASbS 12 M1SS1NÜ CASES The Pittsburgh Press 041 VALIO . Cum VALUE LA=:L V A L J E PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 6 4.5 4.7 4.7 None/No Affect 2 0 14.7 15.6 2C.3 LOO) Degree 16 11.9 12.£ 32.S Some Degree 3 25 15.4 20.3 53.1 Migh Degree 60 44,c 4 6.7 100.0 - 6 4.5 MISSIN3 TOTAL 134 10 0.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE ÛNE SYMEOL ECuALS APPROXIMATELY 1.20 OCCURRENCES c . 30 2 0 1.3: 1 6 26 3.00 *f‘ •f' n* •f‘ •>» X - f i t 6 0 *.00 V 47 X-. Ü 41X: ït ft - 4: x : » 4: x : 4: E: 4: * 4 :4 : :X V 4 : A: S: r t 47 * S: Xt S: Xc I...... 12 24 36 4g 60 -IS TGSRAm PPESUENCY mean 2. E T 1 ST: cPP .113 m e d i a ;.- 3.000 MODE 4 .000 ST: ■; Ev 1.2E1 variance 1.641 AuRTOS IS —0.o07 4 C X U AT .42 5 SKEaNESS -0.757 S E SKE. .214 RAN u Z 4.000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM .00 0 SU-- 370.000 V A L I : C A i 1 ; 10 ; S 1 N J 0 APPENDIX J 234 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER j VALIU CUM VALUb LAbbL VALUC. r'KtuUtnCl PbKLtNl PbHCbNl PbhCbNl NA U 1 b. j b. j b. j NUNb/NU ArhfcLl 1 / Sb. j bb.j bb . 7 LU* ULUKLb 2 1 b. j b. j /b.U SUMt Ut.LKC.t. j j 2b.u 2b.U iUU.U lUl AL. 1 2 lUU.U lUU.U CUUftl kWLUc UKt. alMbUU LUUAL6 AKKMüXimAILLI ,^U UCCUKKe,MCb6 i .UU ♦♦♦♦♦ I i.uu *******$******$***********,*,***#** 1 ^.uu ***** j j.UU ♦♦♦♦♦*♦*******♦ 1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1 V 2 4 0 b iU MI6IÜÜKAM KKbUULNCl MKAN I.5UU blU C.KK .2tiV nbUlAtk i.UUU HUUt I.UUU biU UbV I.UUU VAKIAn CL l.UUU AUKiUüiù -U./04 b L AUhl I.2J2 bbbHNhbb .Cibb S t Shtm .0j7 KANGl j.UOU MINIMUM .UOO maximum j.UUU SUM lb.UUU VALIU CAbbb 12 MISSINL CASbS The Pittsburgh Press 342 VALID CUM VALUE LABEL value =>::JENCY =EPCENT PERCENT CEP[ EM NA 1 2 9.0 3.4 Ç.4 None/No Affect 54 90.3 42.2 Loui Degree 51.6 i 7 2Û.1 21.1 72 . 7 Sotte Degree 16.4 17.2 High Degree 69.6 - 13 9.7 10.2 100.C - . 5 MI33IND T C' T u L 134 100. 0 100.0 COUNT VALUc ONE SYMBOL Ew L'ALS APPR CXIMATELY 1.20 CCCL'PPSNC I 3 0 3 3 - ■ 7 22 j.UU 13 4.JC , .1 12 2 4 3 6 46 60 -IST'JC-iAM =SSiUrMCy M r A N 1. 76; STD ESA •’ E 01 A f. 1. 000 XJOE 1 . C 0 V STD I : V 1.163 variance 1.330 KiiSTOSii - Ü . o 9 2 5 = KJ-'T . - C 3 SKcWî^ESS . 503 Î c SKEW . 21 4 P ANGE -.000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM -.003 SUM 2 26.00: VALIO CAS: 5 12: : ; s I s c APPENDIX J 235 The Washington Observer-Reporter U4 J VAUlU CUM VAliUb bAbLL VALUE. 6 n l u u l n C i PtkCtu'l PtKCtNl PbKCtMl MA U X lb. / lb. / lb.7 MUNt/rtU AOtLl 1 0 5U.U 5U.U bb. 7 UU* üLUktr- I 1 b. j b. j 76.u 6UML DtUKtt. j X lb. / lb. 7 *1.7 ttlüri ut-UKtti. 4 1 b.j_ b. j luu.u iUi AL IX luu.u lUU.U CU u im X V HLUL JKC. àllDüU LuUALii) AKKhUXinAILUl .XU UCL'UNKLMCbb i . UU D l . U U 1 j.UU ***** j.UU ********** 1 4.UU ***** 1...... 1. >.I U i lU nIbiUUKAM fHtuUbkCI NbAM l.bUU 6IU C.hh . JbS MtUlAN i.UUU MUDt 1 .UUU blu UtV 1.24j VARIANCE 1.645 kUkrusib •u.uyi 6 b KUK’i 1.2jX SktHNbSS .*6% 5 t SKtK .OJ/ KANUt 4.UUU MINIMUM .UUU maximum 4. uuu SUM lb.UUU VAUIO CAStS IX MlSSlnU CAStS The Pittsburgh Press j43 VALID CUM VALUE LAbEL VALUE .-k ECUEn C Y P = ent =£RCENT PERCENT WA 0 1 3 S.7 10.1 10.1 None/No Affect 1 5 5 41.0 42. 6 52.7 Lo IK Degree 2 25 lb.7 19.4 72.1 Some Degree = £•0 14.9 15.5 E7.6 mien Decree 4 1: 11.2 11. E 9 5.2 r 1 . E 10 0.0 • 5 . 7 MISSING total 134 10 0.0 100.c COUNT VALUE ON-E SYMECL EvUA'.S A0 = ;JXIMATELY 1.20 DCCUR = £n C£S 1 À . 0 0 5 5 1.00 E5 £.00 EO 5 . 0 0 15 A.DC Û 5.0 0 0 E. 00 C 7.00 0 = .00 1 ? . 0 0 . . I . i: 46 rISTCOa. 1 rfEOUENCY ME a n STD £At. .11 = MEDIAN 1. 00 0 MODE STD DEV VAA I A-iCE 1 . = 0 S KU^TDSIS = : X l' - ' S X E N E S S 1. - rl S c S X E K S A 'V S = M : M M J . 0 0 3 MA A I M J M SU“ 5 5 4.000 APPENDIX J 236 The Washington Observer-Reoorter U44 V AbiU Com VAbUb bAObb VAbUb r KbUUbwCI PbKtbNl PbKCbN'i PbKCbNI NUhb/MU AftbCi 1 2 lb./ lb. / lb.7 bL)M UbbKtb 2 3 2S.V 2b.u 41.7 ÜUMb bbbKbb j / bd.j bd.j 1UU.Ü iUlAb iz lUV.b 1UU.Ü CUUUi VAbUb JNL blAbUb bWUAbS APFKUAlMAltbl ,2U üCCUKKtNCbS 2 1 . OU j 2.UU / 3.ou .i...... 1...... 1, . .1 / 4 b lU hlbl'UGKAN KKbUUbNCï MEAN 2.417 SiU LkK .2/y nbUlAN i.UOu MUUb 3.000 SIL) UbV . /% j VAkiANCb .b/y KUKlUbib -U.4b4 6 b &Uki i./j/ bAbMNL5b -b.Vbo S b SKb*. . a s 1 KAhbb /.ÜUU AiWlMUM i.UUU m a x i m u m 3.000 bUM /y.uuu VAblU CAbbb 12 Mib&lNb, CAbbb The Pittsburgh Press Q44 VALID VALUE LABEL value CREIUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 0 5 3.7 3.E 3.5 None/No Affect 1 22 16.4 16.7 20.5 Loui üEQ'-es 21 15.7 15.5 36.4 Borne Degree ?. 36 2 6.5 27. 3 62.6 High Degree - «E 25.5 3 6.4 100.0 . 2 1 . 5 MISSING TCTAL 13« 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EOUALS APPROXIMATELY 1.00 DCCUPSENCE .30 X: Ï: * 22 :: * :: 0 :> : : ::: ::: 21 i:j§ i'r ii: ::: i; - : “ Â6 3.3Ü 4é 4.00 L ...... a ...... I...... I...... I...... X ) ID 20 30 <-0 50 mis todpa m fpeiuency MEAN 2.75 3 STD E«'r ED: Ar. 3.000 , MODE 4.00 0 STD OEV 1 ! 2 1 c variance 1.4E3 AU«T0SI5 -0.615 i c . ■. 1 5 SKEWNESS — 0.505 S E SKEW .211 R A V : «.COO MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM <..000 SUM 3««.00C valid cases 1 30 OASES APPENDIX J 237 The Washington Observer-Reoorter U4t> VALIU CUM VALUE LABEL v a l u e e hbUUENCl PEKCEn I PERCENT PERCENT KA 0 2 lb./ 10.7 10.7 n u n e / n u ArebL'i i b 41./ 41. / bb.3 S U M E U E u k e e j 2 10. / lb.7 7b.U H l L n UELKE e 4 i 2b.u 2b.u lUU.O iUlAL 12 lUU.U 1UU.Ü CUUft 1 V AL.UL UUE bIrtUULi C.UUAL6 AKHKUAlMwlLLI .lU uCCUKKtnCES i . uu b l.UO *»*»$» »»*$»»$*»»**»$*+**** u Z.UU i j.UV **+$$*+*$**#****+$## i 4.UÜ ***$***$*$*****$****#**# 1...... i...... I...... X...... 1...... ,.l U 1 j j 4 b nibluuKAM eKEuue.nCt MEAn i.yi/ biu e.KK .4b2 MbUiAii i.Uuu MJOfc l.UUU 6LÜ UbV i.bb4 VAKlANCb ^.44/ KUKIUSIS -1.6/u 5 E KUKl - 1.23/ bbbkNEbb .334 S E ÜKE# .b37 KAbUb 4.UUU MINIMUM .UUÜ MAXIMUM 4.UUU bUM 23.UOÜ VALIU CASbb 12 MlbblNU CAbbb The Pittsburgh Press :o4 5 VALID CUM VALUE LASrL VALUE fAE.UENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT N 0 It 11.9 12.E 12.5 None/No Affect 1 50 37.5 35.1 51.6 L oui Degree 2 27 • 20.1 21.1 72.7 -Some -Oegree 3 17 12.7 15.5 35. 9 flign Degree 1 5 15.4 14.1 10 0.0 4.5 MISSING total 15- 100.0 —1-0 0.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMECL ECUALS AbAk DXIMATELY 1.00 OCCURRENCE 1 = .DO 3 1 . j C 2 7 2.0 0 17 3.0G -»;t O W ** W >1V WOOL ),i « M V >.< 16 H . DO iX iJ H ' X* *.* * !i *.1V 1,1 1.* V Î.1 1,1 • «••••J**** .....I...... I 0 10 2 Ü 50 40 50 -il ÎT DGRAM ceeiU ENCY MEAN 1.775 5TD . . 1 1 0 median 1.000 MDD£_ _ 1.000 3TD DEV 1.244 VARIANCE 1. 547 4UKTU5I5 “O.Ô03 5 C < U r T . 4 2 5 SKE"NESS . -91 5 c SKEk . 2 1 4 RANGE 4 . 0 0 0 MINIMUM .00 0 MAXIMUM A.000 SUM 227.000 valid CA5E 5 llr MIS SINS CA SES t APPENDIX J 238 u4o The Washington Observer-Reporter VAbiU CUM VAbUb LAt>hb VMLUt thfcUUfcNCi HbkCbNi HfcKCtNi PfcKCbNÏ NA 0 X U. J 0.3 y. j bO« UtoKht 2 2 10. / 10. / jb.u ÜUNt UbUKbc 3 0 4X. / 41. / 00. / rliÜM ubbKbb 4 4 33.3 33.3 iuu.o XUX Ab 12 luu.u lUU.U CUUNi VAbUL UNO OlMOUb bUUAbb APHKUXlMAX’bbl .XU UCCUKKbNCbS 1 . OU u X . 0 0 / z.uu ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦ 5 j.uo *#$+#$$$$*******#***$*$##»+$**#»*$»*#******$+*$*#* 4 4.00 $***$$****#*$#**#***$*$$$*$###******** i...... X ...... 1...... 1...... 1...... X U X 2 J 4 b MX01UÜKAM KKbuUbNCX MbAN 2.yi/ 0X0 bKK .jjO MbOXAN j.UUU MUOt j.uuu OXo Obv X.Xbb VAKXAnCb X.3bo KUKTU61Ü 2.'/ox 6 b bUKX 1.2 32 SbbWNbKS -1.4o9 S t SNbn .03/ KANbb 4.U0U MINIMUM .OUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU OUM ib.UUU VALXO CAObO X 2 MXOOXNÜ CAObS The Pittsburgh Press 346 valid CUM VALUE L-3EL value - : E 2 u E N C Y 'ESC ENT = EK CENT PERCENT NA 0 2 1 . 6 1.7 1.7 None/NO Affect 1 1 4 1.0 . 4 11.7 15.3 L oui De gree 2 12 9.0 10.0 23.5 Soflie Degrze 3 35 24.6 27.5 50. S nigh Degree 4 5 9 •*4,0 49.2 100.0 • 14 10.4 MIS SIN 3 TOTAL 134 100.0 -100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMjOl EDUALS AFPRGxIMATSLY 1.20 DCCU55=NC . 0 J :. o: i 4. 2.00 3 3 3. OG « w >,i WÜ WW: w i f i ■,« f y - f -f i f i y&wy t v y 59 i. 00 9 y -f :: -- 1 ; l! ...... 24...... 36 -ilSTOGJi'-l PfEOUTNCY 60 MEAN 3 . 1 : : STD =R: .10: MEDIA', 3.000 «DDE 4 . J 0 0 STD : V _ 1.0 9c V A SI L r. C E 1.207 KURTGSIS .072 S E A u K T . 4 i c SKEWNESS — 1.069 S E SKEW . 2 2 1 SAN SE *.0 00 "I M M'JM . 00 0 «AXIMUM 4.000 SUM 3 73.000 v a lid cases 12 0 MiSSINj V : C C J 1 - APPENDIX J 239 The Washington Observer-Reporter I VAbiU CUM VALUb LAbbL VALUL f hbvJObrtC 1 P b h C b M PbKCbNl PtKCtni NA u 4 33,3 33.3 Ji.i NUNt/NJ Ablt-Cl 1 3 2b.u 2b.u he.3 LUn L)bl>Hc.b 2 2 10./ 10.7 7b.0 SuMt UbCKbb j 2 lo. / lo. / *1.7 nlUH UbUKbb 4 _ 1 0.3 0.3 luu.u lUlAU lj luu.u luu.u CUUhi VAUUc. JNC. àlMbJU LUUAUa AHKKüAiMMibUl . 1U UCCUKKuMCbS 4 J 1.00 ♦♦f*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦»»•♦♦♦♦♦ Z 2,VU 2 1 4.UU *****»$*** 1...... i...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1 u 1 2 i 4 . b nibluUhAM t-ktuUbMCl MtAN 1.41/ biU bhh .bbe MbUlAN l.UUU MÜUh .UUU bXU UbV 1.37* VAKlANCb 1.9U2 KURlUSlb ■ U ; « 2 b b b KUKl' 1.23Z bbbWnbSb .b*2 S t SKC" .63/ KANCb 4.UUU MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU bUM IV.UUU VALID CA6bb 12 MlablNU CMbbb The Pittsburgh Press 04 7 valid C'JM VALUE LABEL VALUE ^AELUENCY PERCENT P E A C E N'T PERCENT Mfi 0 1 5 11.2 12. E 12.5 None/No Affect 1 4 3 32.1 3£. Î 4 9.5 Lou) Degree 2D. 9 23.9 73. 5 Some Degree 3 1 E 13.4 15.4 Efe. 9 Mi gh Degree 1 5 9.7 11.1 100.0 . 1 7 12.7 MISSINC- TUTAL 134 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE SYMBOL Ew UAl S APPk ; X I M A T £LY 1.00 CCCUKRENC 1 n . DC i! DO 16 5. ÙC : I >.i If V r.t >,t 13 — .00 , .1. 13 20 ; 40 i:;T:-..AAM EAE.UE\Cf MEAN 1.752 ST: .111 2.000 MODE 1 . ODD STD :Ev l . l r c y A ; ; A \ c r 1.429 KoRTOSlS -0.721 S Z X.Ü4 T SnEwNESS .431 S £ SKEW *2,2.'* PA') Sc H . J o V MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 2 0 5 .0 0 C v a l i d c a s e s 1 1 7 ■■■ I i S 1 •. .■ L 1 7 APPENDIX J 240 The Washington Observer-Reporter U4b VALIU CUM VALiUt LADLL VALUb t KbuubwC! PbKCENl HLKCbNl HtKCbNf SÜML ULÜhLb i 1 b. j y.i V.l rliCiM ULÜMLL 4 1 U DA . j VU. y lUU.V , 1 «. J MlualNU lUlAL 12 luu.u lUU.U CUUNl VALUb jKb ÜÏMbüU bUuAUU AHPKUXlnAl'bUl .^U UCCUKKENCES 1 j.uv 1 u *.uv ...... 1... U 2 4 D B lu MiaiUUKAM EKbUUbNCl MEAN i.yuy SlU EKK .uvi MEUIAn 4.U0U nupt 4. UUU ElU UEV .jU2 VARIANCE .UVl KUklJiilii 11.UUU Ü E AUKl 1.2/V ÜNbMNbbô -3.31/ S t v>Nc.n . DO 1 KANUb 1 .UUU MINIMUM j.UUU MAXIMUM 4. UUU UUM 43. UUU VAliiU CAübb 11 MlSUlNU CA6ES 1 The Pittsburgh Press @48 va li d CU'M ■ 2^LU5 L^dEL VALUE CAE.uENCY =EACENT 2=;CENT PERCENT NA 0 - 4.5 4.5 4.5 None/No Af"fe:"t 1 7 5.2 5.3 9.E Law Degree 2 6 4.5 4.5 14.4 Some 0 egres 3 3 0 22.4 2 2.7 37 . 1 rii gh Degree 4 61.3 62.5 10 0.0 • 2 1.5 MIS SIN S TOTAL 1 3 A 100.0 100.0 COUNT value ONE SYMBOL E2U-LS APPS OKlMATELY 2.2 0 OCCURRENCE à .00 7 1.00 6 2.02 3 0 3. 00 W A V V V O W H U »,< M :. 0 20 4 0 60 cO 100 rIST ÜC-PA4 =s e ;u EnCY mean 3.34 1 STD E : :: .0 35 MEDIAN 4.000 MODE *» • D 0 0 STD J E V 1.0 3 0 VAS'ANCE 1.1 EE X-UR-TOSIi 3.531 S E X Ur T .rlS SKEWNESS -1.E2 8 S £ SXEw .211 SAN3E •..000 MINI MUM .000 MA XIMUM 4.D0D SUM 441.000 valid CAS; 1 3 2 MISS:NO DA SES 2 APPENDIX J 241 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER kJ4V VALIU CUM VALUb LiAhC.Li VAUUb t RbUUbNC1 RbKCbiVl' PbkL'bNl KbKCbNX NA u 1 b. j .1 V.l NUI«b/l*U AtVbCi 1 1 b . j 9.1 lb.2 bUMb UbUhbt j 4 jj.j jo .4 34.b rtlüM ULLKt-b 4 b 41./ 4b .b luu.u • 1 b.j MlbblNL lUl AL 12 luu.u lUU .0 Cuum 1 VALUb jUb binnuu bUUALb ARH KUAlHAIbLt .lu 1uCCUKKbNCbb 1 . uu »*»******* 1 1 . uu 0 r.uu 4 J.uu 5 4.UU 1. U 1 2 j 4 b tilSIUUKAh PRbUUbhCX MbAN j.UUU biU C.RK .4Ub MbUiAh j.UUU MUUb 4. UUU SiU UbV 1.342 VAKlANCb l.UUU KURTUbiS l.bUb b b k u k X 1.2/ÿ bbbWNbSS - i . b l b S t S h t m .bbl K AUUb 4.UUU MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM 4.UU0 bUM jj.UUU VALiU CAbLb ii The Pittsburgh Press Q4 9 VALID CU% VALU: LA5:L VALL'c <=-5 Du ENC t =cACENT PERCENT DESCENT N A 3 3.7 3. 5 3. None/No Affect 9 15. Loui Degree It ir.i 34. Some Degree -• 32.E 50 . - total 134 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMcOL EÛUALS APPROXIMATELY 1.00 OCCURRENCE 5 .00 i;: :t i 6 : i u V 24 0 t i:;c %: ::: : : 4 3 - 3 . 0 0 - »:< # *.( V O O <; :< ::: tic w O 4 V 4 4 4»]0 «.î X: O * V V '*X* ^ sit* I...... I ...... I...... !...... I .1 0 10 20 30 4C)...... 50 - I5T0C-SAM =c = ;.MENCY ^EAN 3.795 ST: iSr .ICC M E : IA 'J 3.000 MDDE <•.000 STD DEV 1.1 — - variance 1.305 KURTÜSiâ - 0 . 3 9 3 S E It Ur T . —1? S4ELNESS -0.707 S c SKEW .211 SAn GE 4.000 Ml'MlMJM .00 0 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 365. CGC valid CA3E3 132 I S S I ^ CASES APPENDIX J 242 The Washington Observer-Reporter VALXU Cum VALUb LAbbL VALUb I'KbUUbNCk PbKCbNJ FbKCbNi' PbKCtNl NA U i 2b.U 2b.u 2b.u NUNb/hu AffbCl' 1 b 41 . / 41. / DO. / LiUn UbLKbb 2 i 2b.u 2b.u 41. / rtXLM UbLKbb t 1 e . i 0. j lUU.O iUlAL 12 luu.u luu.u Cuural VAUUL JIMK, blMoUb LUUAbS APRKUXiMAi&U: ,1U UtCUKKbNCtb i 0 1.00 i j.OU u j.uu 1 4.UÜ i...... I ...... i ...... I...... X...... X 0 1 j j 4 b MXüXUvMAM KK&UULNLX HtAN l.^bU blU bKK MbUXAN X.UUU rtUUL l.UUU bXU UbV X.XJb VAKXANCb x.j%b KUHlUüiS 2.11b b b KUKX 1.2X2 bKbwNbbb I.IVX S Ï. SKb'M . b i l KANUiC 4.UUU MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM Ib.UUU VALIU CAbbb 12 MXbbXNL LASbb The Pittsburgh Press 350 VALID CU" VSLUr LX55L VALLE ENCY PERCENT =ESCENT BE4DENT NA 0 1 0 _7.5 8.1 : . 1 None/No Affect 1 51 -'i . 1 41.1 49.2 Low Degree 2 22 16.4 17.7 6 6. 5 Sane Degree 3 27 20 . 1 21.8 = 4.7 Hign Degree 4 14 10.4 11.3 100.c 1C 7 . 5 4ÎS5IN3 TOTAL 134 ICO.O 10 0.0 COUNT value ONE SYMs Cl 1.20 DCCUP2ENCES 10 . 3 0 51 1.3: 22 2.0 3 27 3.00 :,3UijL v 0 14 4. 00 —•i-x*a-6^av**^^5r I...... I.. . . I. 0 12 A Ô 60 “'IS' mean 1.371 ST: c?- .10 6 XEDlA'j 2.000 MODE 1.0 : ; STD DEV 1.1:2 Vi?IANCE 1.365 XUk TOSIE - . 3 0 6 S E K U4 7 .*61 5K;«NE5 5 .374 5 E SKEW .217 k A V 3 E *.000 MINIM'JV .000 MAXIMUM 4.003 S'JM 232.000 v alid Cases 12- : s s : J L,. 1 : APPENDIX J 243 The Washington Observer-Reporter VAuXU * Cum VALUE LABEL VALUE r'KEuuENC J PEKCENX' PEKCENX PEKCENX NUNE/NU AXfEtX X j lb. / lb. / Xb. / bUME UEUKEE j j Xo. / Xb. / jj.j KXGh ueukee 4 B OB./ OB./ XUU.U XUl h L X j XUU.U XUU.U CUUNl VAUUE JNL L!4bUu EUU*Ua APyhUAiMAiELl ..^U UCCu k k ENCES i. 1 . uu 0 MEAN j.jjj bXD EKK .jjj MEDXAN 4.UUU MUDE 4.UUU aXU UEV x.lbh VAKXANCE X.jjj KUKlJbib i.jt>4 6 E KUKi X.jjj aNENMEÜÜ -X.bjB 5 E 6 N & * . O i l ' KANUE j.UUU HXNXHUn l.UUU MAAlMUn 4.UUU LUM 4U.UUU VALID CALEL Xj MXàSXNU CAOEÜ U The Pittsburgh Press ■ '■351 VALID CUM VALUE LAEEL VALUE ; E -V C Y ; EN T = EH CE NT ' E H C E N ' ' NA 0 3.7 3.3 3.9 None/No Affect 1 t 4.5 -.7 6.5 Loui Degree 2 1 3 9.7 10. 1 18.6 Some' Degre e 3 0 22.w 23.3 41.9 High Degree 4 7; 5?.0 5 5.1 lOD.C • 3 3.7 MISSING total 134 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMECL ECL'ALS APPROXIMATELY 1.5C CCCU PP ENG E S 0 1 .0 c 13  . 0 0 30 3. 0 0 >.t V >1 \s ijt J.X if. s;c : : 75 -.00 0 * # 0 * 0 * ï: It V S A-' A! :j A: il u El C :i * it it A: At v it S: it w it • •••••* . T 1 1 5 30 45 50 75 -1ST DC-A AM AO:LL' 'NC Y HE AN A . C 7 1 STj :3: .05: ''E'li^j 4.COO MODE 4.00 0 STD :E V 1.073 V A --1 A MCE 1.152 KUHTOâlâ 1 . 7 : 4 5 = KU-T .423 SXzmNcSS -1.563 5 E Sn EW .213 S A N 0 E -.000 MIM mjm .220 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM -22.000 valid CASEE 1 25 APPENDIX J 244 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER ub j V ALAU CUM VALUL LAbbL VALUb r KbuUbNCi PbKCbN'l PtKCbNI PbKCbN'l NA U/ Xb. / 10. / Xb. / HUNt/HU Atrc-Cl i 1 d.i 0. J 2b.u SUMt UbLKbb j 1 0 . j 0. j ii.i HXGb UbLKbb 4 0 00.7 bo, / XUU.U X'UXML 1/ iUU.U lUU.U CUUKi VAL.UL Ji4h àlMoUb &UUALÜ H fFKUX i M H i LL JT ULCUKKhwCtb i. 1 l.uv) ***** u Z.UU I j.uu ***** 0 4.UU ♦*♦**♦*♦*♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦**•**♦♦♦♦*♦**♦•♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦ X...... X...... j...... -ieecee«ooeXofleooo6Qej U / 4 b Ü lU miùiUüKAM KMbuUkNCl MLAh j.UUU blU tKK .47/ MtUlAN 4.UUU NUOt 4.UUU SXU ULV l.bbx VAhXANLt. 1 , 1 2 1 KUHIüSiH -U.Ukj j t AUkX X , 2 i 2 bAfcMWtbü -I.JUB H t SNtA ,0j/ MAhÜk 4.UUU MXNXMUM ,UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU Sun ib.UUU VALXU CASLS 1 2 MiSSXNL CASbS The Pittsburgh Press <152 VALID CUM VALU: LAilL VALuE rCUrN'C Y PE PC ENT ?E P C E N T PERCENT NA 0 E o.C 6.2 None/No Affect 1 9 6.7 7.0 13.2 Loin Degree 2 10 7.5 7. 3 2C.9 StJ-me Degree 3 33 2“ .6 25.6 4 6.5 Mign Ü egre a „ = 9 51.5 53.5 10 0.0 . 5 3.7 MI SSI NO •TOTAL 13h 100.0 10 0.0 COUNT VALUE 5 Y Mr CL ECUa l S app sO XlMiTELY 1.50 CCCU33ENCES . 00 1. oc 1 0 C.ÙÙ 33 3.00 V M *X *> I,; :.t #: >,t 31 :i: 69 4.00 9;!‘ x= S: X: X: : : * S it * ::: X: * I ...... ,. I 0 1 5 33 .4 5 75 -ISTO 6-AM - P E ■.* Ü r N C Y MEAN 3.132 ST: EPA . 1 C 6 " E 3 -.030 MODE -.00 J ST^ OEV 1.201 V A: KUSTOili .902 3 z NUP T .-23 SN E 3 £ SK£W .213 P AN-SE -.000 "IN . 300 MAXIMUM -.003 SUM — 0 — . 0 0 0 V- l ID c a s e s CASE: APPENDIX J 245 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER Ub j WALiU cun VALUh UAO&L VAL.UC. t-htuütwcx HtKttNf FfcKCLNl KkWCbhi NA 0 1 B . j B . j B.J NOWb/hu AetfcCI 1 1 B . j B . j Jo. 7 L/Um UtliKtb j j 1 0 . ; l o . ; jj.j SUMt, ubUKtb j j 1 0 . / l o . ; bu.u HlkM ULÜKL& 4 u b u . u b u . u luu.u l U l A b 1 j lU U .U l u u . u CUUlM 1 « AbUC. Ol«lbJL LUuAbb AHHKUAlhM 1'b.bl .ZU UCLUKMCACcB . UU ***$ + I.VU ***** j.uu ********** j.uu ********** 4 .U U ,1...... 1...... 1. ooQ.eel.ee.eeeoel / 4 o B lU nlilOoKrtn EKt.joc.wCi MEAN j.ai / bib C.KK .jWB MEDIAN j.auu MUDE 4.UUU b l U UC.V l.j/V VAKIANCE i.UUj KUKIUSlb .1 jU b E KUKl 1. jjj Sk E m n e SS -1.07j S E SEE" .oj7 KANÜE 4.UUU MINIMUM .OUU MAXIMUM 4 . UUU SUM js.uuo VALIU CASC.S 1 j nlSSlwb CASES The Pittsburgh Press Ù53 • valid CUM VALUE LABEL V-LUc EAECUEn CY 3=RCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 0 3. C E. 1 3 . 1 None/No Affec t 1 IE ,13. A 1 4. 1 17.2 Lou Degree ■> - 17.2 13.0 35.2 Some Degree 3 2É 19.A 2 0.3 55.5 -tigh Degree A 5 7 -2.E A A. 5 10-0.0 6 t,. 5 M I S SIM- — — — TDTu L 134 103.Û 1 0 0 . 0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMECL EiuAL 5 APP RCXIMATE L Y 1.20 OCCURRENCE Ü .30 1 s 1.03 23 ... 0 0 26 3.30 L M 0 12 2*. 3o 45 60 -:STC"S=>AM APrv L'ENCY me an 2 . : 3 1 S T: : r .107 E DI AN 3. 003 MODE A * 0 0 0 ST: DEV 1.2 12 VAR lANCE 1.4-5 KU-RT0SI5 - 0 . 7 3 6 3 c KU"T .*,25 SKE WNcSS - 0 . 7 0 4 5 E SKEW ;2lA RANGE -.003 MIN IMUM .000 MAXIMUM -.000 SUM 37 0.COO valid cases 1 2 ? m i s s :':; cases e 246 APPENDIX J THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER Jb4 V A L IU Cun VALUE uAbEL VALUE CMEUUENCt PEKLEImX KEKCENX f&KCENi NUNt/Nu At->bCl i j 2b.V 25.U 25.U uUm UEÜKEL Z 3 25.U Z5.U 5U.U rilLM LiEIjKe.c. 4 o 5V.U 5U.U luu.u iUlAU lUU.U XUU.U CUUn 1 vAuUC. JWE 51 4bUL UUUAUL AK HKUa X M A XEU X . /U UCCUNKENCuS j 1 . UU J 2 . UU u j . u u o X ...... 1 ...... X...... X ...... X ...... X u 2 4 o b XU HiblUOKAn fKc.uUe.Nd " MEAN 2./5U 51U EKK .542 MC.UXAN j.UUU MUUt 4 . UUU 51U UEV 1 . 5 5 / VAKX a n Cc. X .B 4X NUKlJblb 2.UUU 5 5 EUKl 1.2 52 aK5#N555 -U.240 S E LEEn .OJ/ KANLE j.UUU hXNXMUM X.UUU MAAXMOM 4.UUU 5UN jj.UUU VALIU CALEL 12 NX55XhG CA5E5 U The Pittsburgh Press 354 VALID CU" VALUE LA5=L ViLui F^EiUENCY =Ek C:NT = ERG ENT PERCENT Ni Ü 3.7 3. E 3. 5 None/No if feet 30 22.4 23.1 26.9 LOT Degree 22.4 23.1 30. 0 StiTe-Degree 26.5 27.7 77.7 nign Degree 21.6 22.3 100.0 3 • w •fISSINO TOT! 134 100.0 100.0 CDUNT VALUE ONE SYMECL EDl'Al S APPROXIMATELY .80 OCCURRENCES 5 . 0 0 iO :. 0 ' 3 0 2.00 36 j • '0 0 4.0: if if if il if ii if i: if if :: * & # * * * * if if . T , I . .1 0 c 1 : 24 32 4 0 — I S T A M r 4 E ME AN 2.-13 ST: : A .10 3 MED:AN 2.300 MUDE 3 . ■- .■ 2 ST: :: V I.lEC VARIANCE 1.552 KURYOSIi — 1.063 S 2 XU ET .-2 2 SXcXNcSS -C.lcE 5 E SKEW .212 PAN'S: -.000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4 . J 0 0 SUM 31-.DOC VALID C-ScS 1 3 J J C A 3 E J - APPENDIX J 247 The Washington Observer-Reporter VALXU C U M VALUt LAbbL V A U u b f'KtuUfcNCï P b K C b N i P b K C b N l P b K C b N X NUNb/NU AttbCl 1 2 X o . / xo. / Xb. / ÙUAC, ui.i»>M=r. J 2 X o . / X o . / j j . j MXUn ubuKbb 4 d 00,1 O b . / XUU.U XUXAL X2 XUU.U XUU.U Cuut» 1 W KLUL UNL üfMBUL bUUAUU AK PK U A X M H I'tL If ./U uCCUKKbNCbS i.VU ‘ ♦ * V 4.UU i j.uu a • i . U U .X...... X...... X. ,.l 2 4 b lU HXbfUUKAM FKbUUbNCr MbAN j.jjj ÜXU LKK . j j j MbUXAw 4.UUU MUat 4 . UUU àXU UbV l.lbb VAKlANCb X.jjj KUKlUbXS 1 . jt>4 6 L KUKl 1 . 2 j'2 SKbWNbSS - 1.0 jo 5 b ÜNL* . D j / K AnUb j.U U U MINIMUM X.UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 4U.UUU VALXO CASbS 12 MlSSlNU CASbS The Pittsburgh Press 05 5 • VALUE LABEL &2c:UENCY ?EPC5\T =5RCENT cëPCîNT » i r M IT 12.7 13.0 =3.4 =1 “ =.= 46.6 1 0 0 . 0 i 2.2 Missive TCT ù l 1=4 100.0 100.0 COUNT V 4 L J 6 2N£ SrVbCL =;uiL5 :;pR:XIMAT:LY 1.50 OCCURRENCES 13 5 = 7 * Q ... Î.Î i 7 i • 0 0 I.O.: Ù a M At •f. if. if A'C 0 61 4 . 0 0 I...... I...... I...... I ...... I...... I 1: 30 45 '60 75 -U = T]GRau c:5:'U = NCY MEAN 0 . o 1 1 S T 0 5 R P .13: ■•■ 5 :1 i 'j 3.000 MODE 4.oeo STS ;. = v 1.512 vr^iri.ce 2.2:6 AuR T OS 15 :■ = Au-T .-20 SKEwMSS - 0 . 4 6 6 S E SKEW .412 4â,%u= 4.000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4.uvO SUM 342.COC VALIC CASES 131 APPENDIX J 248 The Washington Observer-Reporter VALXU CUM VALUb LAobL VALUb t KbUUbWCl KbKCbM' PbKL'bVl KbKCbNi NA U 1 b.j 0. j o.i NUNb/bU AhCbCX i / 50.j 50 . j 00.7 LiUn ubüKcb j J 25.U 25 .U 91. / HXÜM Ubijhte. 4 1 0 . j 0. j XUU.U XUXAL 11 1ÜU.U lUU .u CUUn 1 VALUb UNb SIMbuL bUUALS AKHk JXXMAIbLt 2U UCCUKKbNCbS I . UU / X . UU J j.uu V j.uu 1 4.UU ***** X...... u j 4 5 8 XU hXSlULKAM bKbUUbtvCV MbAw 1.41/ Siu bKK MbUlAN l.UUU MUUb 1 . UUU bXU UbV .avo VAKlAuCb .992 KUKTÜSXS j.b^b 6 b KUhl 1.2 jj SKbWNbSS 1.590 6 b SKbn . b j? KANÜb 4.UUU MINIMUM . UUU MAAXMÜM 4.UUU SUM 1 / .UUU VALXU CAbLL X/ MlbbXNL CAbbS The Pittsburgh Press i5 6 VALID CUM VALU: LABEL VALuc =;::U ENCY RcRCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 0 1 5 13.4 14.3 14.3 None/No Affect 1 50.7 54.0 68.3 Loj) Uegree 2 22 16.4 17.5 35.7 Some ûeg-ee 6.0 6.3 92. 1 nign Degree 1C 7.5 7.9 1 : c. 0 5 6.0 MISSING ...... - TCTAL 134 ICO.C 10 0.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMECL EUUAl S APPROXIMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCE 15 .00 à 5 1.00 12 O.OD ■ 8 i . -j 0 10 4.00 Vis . * . . . T 0 15 30 4 3 .6 0 75 rISTOGRA M <=A ECU ENCY ■MiAN 1 . - 9 7 STj ERR .095 •■'EDIAf. 1. C 0 c ,M:D= 1 .00 0 STD DEv I .OCT variance 1.137 AURTCSIi . 724 S : XURT # ^ 2 d SKEn NESS 1.078 S £ SK£W .216 RANGE 4 .000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 176 .00 0 VALID C-ScS 10 = MISS INj : A S = i i A P P E N D I X J 249 The Washington Observer -Reporter Ub7 V Al IU cum VALUk LAbbL VALUb f KbUULNCI PbKCbN 1 KbKCbN'l KbKCcNl NA u 1 b.j b.j b.j NUNb/NU AbbtCr 1 1 b.j b.j lo. / LU" DbLhbb I lb. / lb. / jj.j 6UMb UbLKbb j 1 B.J b.j 41. / HIGh UbLKbb 4 / Sb.j Sb.j luu.u l ut AL 11 luu.u IUU.U CUUN 1 VALUb U'.c. blMuUL bUUALb AKk KUA 1 A A I'bL )( . lU UCCUKKLNCbS i . UU ♦ ♦ » ♦ ♦ I I.UU i I.UU ********** 1 j.uu ***** / 4.UU U I 4 b b lU mSl'ULKAM EKbUUbNCl MEAN j.UUU SiU bKK .4Ud MbUlAN 4.UUU MODE 4. UUU SID DbV 1.414 VAKlANCb I.UUU KURTUSIS .141 S b KUKl l.Ij2 SKbWNbSS -I.IS/ S E SKE* .SJ7 KANLE 4.OUU m i n i m u m .UUU MAXIMUM 4.UÜU SUM jb.OUU VALID CASbS II MiSSlNL CASbS u The Pittsburgh Press 357 valid Cu" VALUE LA3EL v a l u e A<:OUENCY GERCENT A E P C E -J T PE5C ENT NA 0 7 3.2 5.C 5 . 5 None/No Affect 1 23 16.7 1 3. E 2 3.- Lou Degree 2 1 1 6.2 6.7 34 . 1 Some 'Degre a 3 1 4 14.2 15.1 49.3 Kign Degree ** 5 A 47.3 3 0.; 1:0.0 • 6.0 •^ISSI'.'O t o t a l 134 100.Û 10 0.0 C2UNT VALU: ONE SYM50L EÛLAl S A??k CXIMATELY 1.5 0 OCCUPP =NC35 7 .10 I: 1 . 00 11 i . 0 0 19 : . Ù Ù V w *.t i;t i;< 0 :;c 04 4.00 0 13 30 45 'e Ô 75 HliT •;:.AA'i r:Eiu E M r MEAN :.:57 5 I J . i J L : A \ 4.000 MODE 4.000 STO OEV 1.372 va; iA-;c 1. ' r 3 KUSTGSIS "0.3 7* s = KU;T .42: S K E « N E 5 i -0.736 S E SKEW .115 «ANÛE <..000 M I M M U '* .000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 360.COC v a l i d CASS 125 MI s s IN APPENDIX J 250 The Washington Observer-Reporter U5M VALIU CUM VALUb LAbbL VALUb KkbUUbNCl PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NONK/hU AKf'tCT 1 1 b.j b.j b.j LOW UbLKbb z 1 b.j b.j 10.7 SUMb UbLKkb j j 2b.U 2b.U 41.7 rilLH UbtiKLb 4 1 bb.j bb.j IUU.U XUl AL 12 IUU.U 1UU.Û CUUNi VALUE ONE SXMbUL buUALS APRhÜAIMAXbLX .20 OCCURRENCES 1 i.UU ***** 1 j.uu ***** j j.uu *************** 7 4.Ü0 *********************************** ...... I...... 1...... 1...... 1 2 4 0 10 HISTOGRAM EREuUbNCY MEAN j.jjj SXU EKK .2d4 MEUIAN 4.OUU MODE 4.UU0 SIU UEV . Vbb VARIANCE .*7U Kuarj&is l,7Uj S t .KUk'X 1,232 SKbaNESS -1.49* S E SKEW .037 RANGE 3.Ü00 MINIMUM 1.UÜ0 MAXIMUM 4.ÜÜ0 SUM 40.00U VALIU CASbS 12 MISSING CASbS The Pittsburgh Press -058 VALID Cum VALUE LA3ÊL VALUE ere quenc y PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 0 8 6.0 6.2 6.2 Nono/No Affect 1 22 1 6 . 4 1 6 . 9 2 3 . 1 Low Degree 2 21 1 5 . 7 16.2 3 9 . 2 S o m e — 9-egre-e a 20 ■ 14 . 9 15.4 . -■ 5 4 . 6 Mi;h Oegree 4 5 9 4 4 . 0 4 5 . 4 100.0 4 3.0 MISSING -T-JT-A-t- 1 3 4 - • 1 0 0 . 0 • - • 10 0 . -0- COUNT VALUE ONE s y m bol equals APPROXIMATELY 1.20 OCCURRENCES 8 .00 ******* 22 1.00 ****************** 21 2.0 0 ****************** --2-0- 3.00 ---**********■***** M* ... 59 4.00 ************************************************* I ...... I . . . . . I ...... I ...... I 0 12 24 36 ,46 60 -- - ■ 4IST-0C-9AM FREQUENCY MEAN 2.769 5T0 =RA .113 MEDIAN 3 . 0 0 0 M03E . 0 0 0 STO OEV 1.3k^ v a r i a n c e 1.907 KUS-T-0SÎ-5 - 1 . 0 0 9 -5 = -KU4 T .422 SKEWNESS -0.619 S E SKEW .212 range 4 . 0 0 0 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4 . 0 0 0 SUM 360.000 VALIO CASES 13 0 MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 251 The Washington Observer-Reporter üby VALIU CUM VALUb LAbbL VALUb KhbUUbNCÏ KEkCbNT NONE/Nü AfFbCf 1 5 41. ; 41..; LUn Ubükbb 2 j 2b.u n:l ot>. / HIGH UEÜHLb 4 4 jj.j i i . s iuo.o lUlAL 12 lUU.U lUU.J CUUNl VALUE UNE SïMbJL buUALL ARpKUX 1 MA lEL 11 .lu uCCUMKENCbS 5 1 . U U j j . u u U j.Uu 4.UU 'iMiaïUÜRAM FHEÜUENCli i' MEAN j.ibu 61U EXK MbUlAN j.UUU MUOb l.UUU SIU UbV 1. jS7 VAKlANCb 1.W41 ÜUKfUÜlà -1.7/1 S b A U K 1 ï . 2 i i SRbNNc.âS .sue S E SKbn . O J / r A n GE j.UUU MINIMUM i.uuu MAXIMUM 4.UUÜ SUM 27.UUÜ VALID CASbS 12 MISSING CASbS The Pittsburgh Press 0 5 9 VALID CUM VALUE LAâEL VALUE rPEIUENCY percent PERCENT PERCENT NA C ■3 0.7 8.9 6.9 Nonc/No Affect 1 3 : 2 8.4 29.2 3 6 . 2 Lo j Degree 1 3 14.2 1 4 . 6 50.3 Some Degree 27 20.1 20. 8 71. 8 High Degree 5 7 27.8 2S.E 10 :. C . 3.0 MISSING total 134 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYM30L EQUALS APPROXIMATE LY .30 dcc urrenc 9 .00 38 1 . 00 1 3 2.00 - 2 ? 3 . 0-0 37 4 . 0 0 :...... I...... I...... I...... I , . . I 3 3 18 24 '52 40 “ISTOC-^AM F; = OUENCY MEAN i . A ~ O STD 83, .11' MEDIAN 2 . 000 MODE 1.000 STD OEV 1.348 VARIANCE 1.809 XURT05I5 -1.388 S c KUk 7 .422 SKEnNESS -0.11? S E SKEW .212 RANGE 4 . 0 0 0 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 108.000 VALID CASE 5 130 M I S S I N -• .4 5 8: APPENDIX J 252 The Washington Observer-Reporter, U6U VALlU CUM VALUE LAbEL VALUb EKEUUENCX HbHCEwl EEKCENl EEKCEMX LOW UEGKEE i b.j d. j U. J SOME UELKbb i js.u Zb.U jj.j HIGH UEGKEE 4 00,1 b o , I luu.u XUl AL IUU.U luu.u CUUNI VALUE UNE SXHbUL EUUALS AREk UA1MAlELX .20 UCCUKKENCES 1 2.UU ♦♦♦♦♦ j j.uu ♦»♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ e 4.UU 1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... i...... 1 0 2 4 O b 10 HISIOGKAM FKEUUENCX MEAN j.bbj SID ERR ,193 MEDIAN 4.000 MODE 4.0UU SIU UEV .bbV VAKlANCb ,447 KUKTUblS l.jbb S E KUKl 1.2j2 s k e w n e s s -1.4bS S E SKE" .bi/ r a n g e 2.000 MINIMUM 2.UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 43.OUU VALID CASES 12 MISSING CASES The Pittsburgh Press I 260 VALID CUM VALUE LAsEL VALUE FRECUENCY = ER C E M PERCENT PERCENT -NA 0 2 1.5 1.6 1.6 ■ None/No Affect 1 12 9.0 9.4 10.9 Lsiu Degree 2 1? 14.2 14.3 25.3 ■S^ine Degree 5 3 5 26.1 27.3 53.1 High Degree w 6 0 -4.; -6.9 100.0 • 6 -.5 MISSING TûTa L 124 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE ON: SYMiOL ECUALS APPR CXIm a t e l Y 1.20 CCCURREmc 2 .00 12 19 2 I o5 is 3.0Û If If'.fill « ti >:c ;,c ) c J.! ;■( ),t if :,t : : v n if 60 -.00 if if if O V — O 1 12 - 4 2 6 4 S 61 -IS TO SRAM FREC-U En C Y MEAN J • J c ; STj £4? .0 9- MEDIA 3. coo H : D c 4.000 STD SEv 1.065 VARIANCE 1.134 KUSTG5IÎ • Û. 0 1 j S : K'JAT .4^3 SKcwNESS -C .96 8 S E SKEW .214 SANS: -.000 minimum .000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 39 5.000 ■ VALID CASES 12S HiSliNO L A 2 ; APPENDIX J 253 The Washington Observer-Reporter Obi VAU iU CUM VAblic. bAoLb VALUE. EhtU UE.NC l HtKCt.Nl' H tK C L N l' H t K C t N l SÜHt ÜLÜKLL j!b.u jlb.U 2b.U rllbh uLkKCL /a. u /a.u luu.u i U 1 MU 1 Z 1 uu. u lUU.U CUUNJ i/ALUt UNE. bl'IDÜU tuUAUb AHHKUAIMA J tb 1 .20 uCCUKKtNCtS J J.JO y 4.ÜU .1...... i ...... i. , . i 2 4 0 lu nlbiubKAM EKtUUUhCl MEAN i./bU bru bKK . 1 J1 MbÜiAN 4 . UUU MODt 4.UÜÜ S ru UbV , 4 b 2 VAKlANCb .2 ü b KUKIUbIS -U.j^o b b KUKl 1 . 2 3 2 btbNNbbb " 1 . 3 2 7 S E bKb* . t> J / K AiVOE. 1 . UUU MINIMUM 3.UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 4 b . UOU /AblD CAbbb 12 MlbblNG CAbbb •The Pittsburgh Press :61 V.L:: C 'J V v a l u ; LAicL ViL-'r ■ ; ^ C ; T = ; • c : N T NA 1 . 5 1. ; Nona/No At'fect 3.7 Low Devras ;-5 7.5 Some Oe;-ee Hign Zagrse 1 I 1 : E . : 1 : c. : 1. ; '-3 3.'.: TOTAL 1 3 - 10 0.0 1 0 0 . C COUNT v a l u ; ln; symsjl ecuAuS ah3a-:ximatsly a .oq occurrences . .10 3 2 . JU 11 3 . 0 0 111 4 . 0 0 ... I 1=0 2 0 0 : 5 ■'■■-■•R MEAN S. = E7 ST. ER: MODE -.000 S T : 0 £ y . ■= 1 r v a l i d c a s e s 1 3 2 APPENDIX J 254 The Washington Observer-Reporter Ut)/ VAUiU CUM VALUE LABEL v a l u e Fk e u u e n C i PEKCENI PEk Ce n I PEKCENI NONE/NU AFfECT 1 0 00 . > U . l 1 2 . 1 LU# Do GKEE 2 1 B.J U.l B1. a nlLn De Lk Ee 4 i lo. / 1 B . 2 lUU.U • i B.J MiOSlNU lüi AU 12 lUU.V luu.u CUUNl » Alüc, ÜNt SXMOUL EUUALS AFKKUAIMAIELX .2U UCCUKKENCE5 B 1 .uu 1 2.UU U J.uu 2 4.UU 1 . U i 4 0 o ÎU nlOl'UOKAM FKEUUENCX MEAN 1.0 jo SIU EKK . Jo4 MOUIAN l.OUU MODE 1 .UUU SIU UEk l.JUo VAKIAn CE 1.400 KUKXüülâ 1. JOB S E AUKI' 1.2?9 SAERNESS i./UO S E ÜKE» .001 RANÜE J.UÜÜ MINIMUM l.UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM lU.UUU VALID CASES 11 MISSINU CASES The Pittsburgh Press :62 VALID CL'M _ V^LUE LiôEL VALUE ; r N C Y = E S C E N 7 PERCENT PERCENT NA 16 11.D 12.5 12.5 None/No Affect 76 56.7 5 9.- 71.9 Loui Degree 7 2 1 15.7 16.- 56.3 So'ite Degree 5 : 2.2 2.3 90.6 Kigti Degree - 6 . C 1 0 C . C - • 5 MIS SINS - TOTAL 1Ô4 100 .0 10 0. 0 COUNT value ONE SfHEDL 5 4?P? X : M A T ELY 2.00 OCCURRENCE 1 C 7 = "â S. DO V 12 4.DO -f T ...... 0 2 û 6 0 ?C ICO -1ST! C33.;,,J ENC Y McAN l.cc7 ET: ■13- M DDE i. 3 c ;■ s T ; VAt I AI. CE 1.100 tuRTDâia 1 • •• 1 3 3 3 _XU- T .-26 SX E"NES S 1.336 S c SKEW .214 g A ND E .00 0 MIN I MUM .000 MA XIMUM 4.ÜDD SUM 1 7 5 . C 3 C valid casés 1:3 'lis S I "J C A APPENDIX J 255 The Washington Observer-Reporter Jb3 VALIU CUM VALUb LAbbL VALUb rKbUUbNCt HbKCbrti KbKCENl PEKCENI MONb/NU At- V bC l 1 1 b.j b.j b.j LU" UbüKbb 2 i b.j b.j lo. 7 SUMb ubUkbb j 2 10. / I 0.1 jj.j rilGri UbLKbb 4 0 DO . / OD . / IUU.U iUi AL 1 2 IUU.U lUU.J CUUNi y ALUb JNb SlMbUL buUAuS AKKKUAiMAibLl ,20 UCCUKKbNCbS 1 l . u v ***** 1 I , U U ***** j.uu y 4.UÜ .1...... I...... ,.i 2 4 0 10 MiSfUGKAM KribuUbNCï MtAw j.4i / S I u bKK . 20U MbUlAK 4.UUU MOUb 4 . OUU S iU UbV VAKlANCb .yu2 KUKXUSIS 2.220 S b KLKi 1.232 SKbMNbSS - 1./12 S E SKE m «ojf KAivLb j.UUU MINIMUM l.UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 41.UOU VALID CASES 12 MiSslNL CASbS The Pittsburgh Press 363 valid CUM r VALU: LASEL value =S:2UEn CY = :AC ENT =E5CENT PERCENT 'MA 0 3 3.1 5.1 None/No Affect 1 7 6.‘ 7 7.0 10.2 Louj Degree 2 0 14 . S 15.6 25.5 -Some Degree 3 29 21 .6 22.7 4Ç.4 High Degree 4 44 . 2 51.5 130.0 • 5 4 • ÿ MISSING total 13- 100 .0 100.0 COUNT VALUE Cn E stmscl e Ou ALS AP35CXIK, ATELY 1.50 DCCUASENC 4 . 00 7 1.00 20 2 .00 26 5 . 0 0 ; Jj 0 ;i » :.t :.t 66 - . 0 0 0 15 j 0 4 5 60 7 «I STO G P A M r S : 2UENC Y mean 3.125 ST:, : A - . : 5 : ME::: 4.000 MODE 4.000 ST: ZzM 1 . 1 : VA:: ANC E 1.225 itURTOSIS . 406 S :: KÜ4 T . 4 : : SKEWN ESS -1.133 S E SKEW .214 S AN 35 -.0 0 c MIN : 4UM .030 m a x imum 4.000 SUM 4 0 0 * 0 V Ü VALID CASES 125 M i i I J w - i ; J APPENDIX J 256 The Washington Observer-Reporter VALXU C u m VALUb LAbbL *ALUt VhbUUtNCX RbKCbNT PbKCt.Vl PbftCENf HA U 1 B.i b.j LUn UbGKbb I 1 b.j lo.y SUMb UbLKbb j I ib. / jj.j rtlGrI UbGKLL 4 b Ob.y bb. 7 xuu.o lUlAL 12 1ÜU.U 1ÜÜ.Ü CUUNX VALUE, UNb SiHbuL bUUALS APPKUXX M A X'bL ( .2U UCCUKKE n CES 1 . UU u 1 , UU X 2.UU *** + f 2 j.uu Ü 4.ÜÜ "I i Ï' lu bXSi'ULKAM IKbUUbNCY m e a n j.jjj SXU tKK .job MbUXAw 4.UOU MUUb 4.UUU SXU UC.V 1.2jX VAKXAWCb X.51S KUKXUSXS 4.7bb S b KUkl 1.2j2 SKEWNESS •2.171 S E SKbH .bi7 KANGb 4.000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4,U00 SUM 40.UUU VALXO CASbS 12 MISSING CASbS The Pittsburgh Press VALID CUM VALU: LASEL VALuE COECUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT .NA 0 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 None/No Affect 1 Do 20.5 21. 1 22.6 Loui Degree 2 15 11.2 11.3 33.3 Sowé—Decree 3 36 27.1 60.9 -High Degree 4 5235:1 35.1 130.0 . 1 .7 .MISSING TOTAL 134 100.0 100.0 COUNT value SYMEDL EQUALS APPR DXI.MATELY 1.20 GCCURRENC .00 2Ô O O O ::: : ! IS r.: : : Ï: v ;; 36 3.00 V M V X x ~ x x x x v ¥ x x x x x x x 52 k.OO :...... I...... I...... :...... I----- .1 ) i: 2*. 36 -46 60 “I5TQG=AX POEOUENCf Me AN 2.3 12 5 TO :q: MEDIAN 3.000 .MODE -.000 STD DEV 1 VARIANCE 1.457 KU*iOSI5 -1.063 6 = K (J r T .-17 SKEWNESS -0.576 S E SKEW .210 range 4.000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 37-.COO VALID CASES 133 MI:SING CASE, APPENDIX J 257 The Washington Observer-•Reporter UbS VALID CUM VALUE LASEL VALUE EKEUUEw CX RERCENl PERCENT p e r c e n t NA U I U. j b.j b.j NÜNE/NU AXfECi i j lb, f lb. / 2S.U LUn DEGREE 2 b bU.U bU.U /b.u HIGH DEGREE 4 j 2S.U 2b.U IUU.U iUlAL 12 luu.u IUU.U CUUNl VAUUL Jrtt tiXMUULi EUUALS ARR KUXIM A 1 ELi X jU OCCURRENCES 1 .uu ♦♦♦♦♦ 2 i.UU ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ o j.uu +*$+$$***$*++*******$**+****+* u j.uu J 4.UU ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦ I*####*###!#####*#*#!##**##*##!*#####" #I####..##.I U 2 4 t> a 10 HisX'UUhAn Kk EUUEn CX NfcAN j . l u ; S iU EKK .jbO MkUiAN j.UUU MUDt j . U U U S IU U l V I.jo/ VARIANCE I.OÙO KURTUSIS •O.it/O S E KUKi l.jjj s k e w n e s s . j?4 S E SKEW .01/ KANUE 4.UOU MINIMUM .UUU MAXIMUM 4.UÜÜ SUM jb.OUU VALIU CASES 12 MISSING CASES The Pittsburgh Press 065 VALID CUM v a l u e LA3EL VALuE FJE'IUENCY FERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 0 4 3.0 3.0 3 . 0 None/No Affect 1 3 9.7 9.6 12.9 Coin Degree z 2 6 20.9 21.2 34.1 Some-Oegre e 5 4 e 34 . 3 34 .fc 40.9 Migh Degree , 1 30.c 31.1 ICO.O • 2 1.5 4:5 31NG T'JTàt 134 10 0.0 ICO.C COUNT VALUE SY'MGL EQUALS APPR OXIMATELY 1.00 OCCURRENCE A .00 13 1.00 26 3 I 00 r — :;e J,( J< i.< lit lit V M M «Kt WMWLOavwwAwOO# 41 4.00 1 : 2 0 5 0 ' 4 0 50 MIST O'SPAM =PEOU ENCY ■MEAN 2.611 Ë A r .034 MEDIAN 3 .000 MODE 3.0 0 0 1.076 VA:IA-.C6 1.162 KUR-Î-0SI5- —0.210 KU- T . 4 1 7 3KE.NE55 -0.690 ■ S £ SKEW .211 G E 4 . v-t 0 0 minimum . 000 MAXIMUM 4. 000 SUM 371.000 VALID CASES 132 113 S APPENDIX J 258 The Washington Observer-Reporter Job VALIUCUM VALUtr UAbc.L VALUE. E ht,UUt.rvCY H E K C b u l Pt - n C E N l PERCENT LU m U E C K l L j I ti. j ti.l V.l SUML UEUMLti 3 4 33 . 3 3 b . 4 45.5 m e n Uc-onLc. 4 D S U . U 5 4 . S IUU.U • 1 0.3 m s s i N L 1 U J MU 1 j luu.u luu.u C U u n J VAUUC. U IK C. S X hciuu C.UUAUS AKPkUXIMAI&L: . ju UCCUKRENCES I j.uu ***** 4 6 I...... u j 4 b ti lU MibiuukMh pHtuu&mCx M&Ah i) i L) t.h B ./U) Mc.ui An 4.UUU MUÜL 4 . UUU 6 1U Ut V . o ti b VAKlANCt .47j l^UKUSi S . U B 1 Ù t rUK1 l.z/y SrbMNhSS -u.yj% S t ShL* . UD 1 KkauL 4.UUU MINIMUM j.UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM jb.UJu VALIU CASES II HISSIUU CASES The Pittsburgh Press C6o VI l ID c l m VALu: L-biL V-L.r ;::.Jb\CY A = ;C5\T AE5CHNT =E;C:M :■ 1 : 7. 3 7. : 7.3 'one/Mo -ftecT 1 1 - 1C. 5 1?.0 Lo ji Denrée ; 17 1C.? So-ne Decree j-.: iigh Zez'Tse . 7 ••' :?si\ c- 1:- lec.o 10 . 0 COUNT '—LJZ ON? Sx -'.-Ou zCUAL.- LAO--;xi-iiTELr l.ZC OCCUACÇNCES 1C • J J 1 (. i . j . 17 w • J . -1 s T c : ■ - r .Ur u Y «- i K 31. 1 - - '10 0 E V - - . - . I. _ 1 . ti 7 iU-TGSlS — J . 3 1 3 3 : \ i_ - .-17 SkE-NESS -0.3 30 5 E 5&CW .010 A A N *. : . INI Mir-i .000 MAXI MUM M.jCO 3 L -1 VAl I: CA5r i 133 APPENDIX J 259 The Washington Observer-Reporter jb ; V A U I U C u m VAtOb LiABbb VALUE. m t u u t N C ï HbhCt.i»r H t K C b w r P t K C b N l LUn UbüKbÜ i I LO, I lo. / Id. 7 aUML UtÜKtt J i /b.u /b.u 41.7 Hiljn Ubbnt.B 4 I bo.j bd.j luu.u lui Au 1/ luu.u luu.u CUUN i VALUE. UNb biMOUL buUALb AHHKUA IMM 1 bLï ,./U UCCUHKblvCtS / /.uu ♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ j j.uu ♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦ / 4.UU ♦♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦ I.... I ...... I ...... I ...... I ...... I u / 4 O b 1U MlbfuUKAM tKbUUbNC» MCAN 1.41/ biu bKK .//% MbUlAN 4.UUU AUUt 4.UUU blU UbV .7yj VAKlANCt .O/y KUKiUbib •U.40'« b b KUKI l./j/ ùKbNHbbb -U.ybb 6 b 6KhN .Oj/ KANLb /.UUU MINIMUM /.UUU MAXIMUM 4 . U U U L U M 41.UUU VALIU CAbbb 1/ MiSblNL CAbbb U The Pittsburgh Press C 6 7 V A L : ; VALU: LA5ÊL =:J:N_Y “3?LfNT =3P l ?'jT ; 3NT NA 1 . ? 1 . 5 None/No Affect Z> • >. Lo JJ Dsçr ae 3.0 3 . 3 5o TOTAL i; 100.Ù 10Ù. COUNT V ALu C ;N: 5 TMr, 3l i 0 JALS -pa; XI VAT 3L Y - :p 3mCcS 1 5 j.'jO " 1 0 6 — .00 A : : ": . . 1 ' V : J i 6 w 130 2 '0 C r I "j 7 3 3 3 A '4 - - 3 J r I*. C Y '4 6 A N ► . 'J 0 ■4005 J 7 : V .-0 0 AU«TDili 3.70 3 3 6 K U - T SXc.N:S) ; . : A 1 S = Sn£W .011 3AN0É 4 ; K ; u 'J .000 MAXIMUM SUM A 7 : v a l i d CAScS 13. A P P E N D I X J 260 The Washington Observer-Reporter VALIU CUM VALUb LAobb V A L U b kKbUUbNCl PbKCbNl HtKCbN'l KbKCbNI NONb/Nu AbfbCl 1 0 SU.U bU.U SU.U LUm U b L K b b j j l o . / l o . / 0 0 . 7 SUMb UbChbb J j 10. / l o . / B j . j Hit>M U b L K t t 4 2 10./ 10.7 IUU.U lUl AL 12 l U U . U luu.u CUUrtl VAuUc. Juc. âlMDUU buUAb^ AKKkuXiMAltL* . 2U UCCUKKbNCtS 0 1 j.uu $+***,**$, 1 j.uu ♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦ 2 A.UU ♦♦♦*♦*»♦»* 1...... i...... 1...... 1...... 1...... I U 2 4 t> B ■ lU H16ÏÜÜKAM KKfcUUtNCÏ MCAh j.UUU SIU LKK .J4b Ml UXAN l.bOU MÜUL X.UUU SIU USV X.jUb VAKlANCb 1.4Sb KUKi'UÜllJ 'X.usv s k, buKi l.jjj sh&MhbSb «740 5 e ÜKt» .oj? kANÜb j.UUU MINIMUM l.UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 24.UUU VALlU CASbS 12 M1SS1NÜ CASbS The Pittsburgh Press C66 v-l ;: CL'W VALUE LABEL V ^ L w- = = ?::UENCY = cAC ENT 3EA2ENT 0= SCENT NA 0 9 B.7 6. e 6.3 None/No Affect 1 BH AÜ . 3 4C. 9 -7.7 Lcuj Oe;ree 2 26 19.4 19.7 67.- Sctie Degree 3 1C- 7.3 7.6 73.0 High Degree w 33 24.6 23.0 10 0.0 • 2 1.6 HZSSINO TCTcL 134 100.0 10 0.0 - COUNT VALuE C'.E SY'fECL ecuals A = = R:xi",iTELY 1.23 OCCURRENCES l.:C • C g C . j 0 : : : : : i 0 3.00 î.t 33 ** • J U ».* *!• • L' 1C 2*- 3 6 60 C 2 r. A -.1 MEAN .'7. r . i - ■> ,2:0 MODE . . U ,. w ST . V--'I-LCE , 7 70 4URTÛS2S -l.iSS i c • i "J jte.LESS . Alj S E SKEW .211 RAN :00 "IM MU’-' ,0:0 MA XIMU" 4.3C0 SUM vAL:: CASES APPENDIX J THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER Jot VAOXU CUM VAUUl UAbtL V AUUb t KbuubNUk PbKCbM'l PbKCbNX PbKCbNl MA u X b.J «. J B. 3 rtUAt/NU Afr'LCl X 1 b. i o . i Xb. 1 Lil)" LILUKll 2 2 lb. / 1 0 . / 33.3 bUMt UtGhbt i 4 j j . J 33.3 Ob, 1 rtXün ü l Gk l L 4 4 j j . j _ 33.3 XUU.O XulAU 12 100.u 100, 0 C Ü U N 1 VALUC. UAL Ù1MOUL LUUALa AKKMuXlMAiLL: . 1 U UCCUKKtNL'Lb 1 1 i.UU ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ i j.UU 4 j.UV ♦«»♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦•*»♦♦»♦♦*♦»♦»»♦♦»*♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦♦» 4 4.UU ***$,$*#$****** $#*#**$**********#**$*** 1... X...... 1...... X...... X...... X U 1 2 j 4 b hXbl'UUHAM rKLUÜLNCl MtAN 2. /bu bxu LKh , i H HbUXAN J.UUÜ HUDt J.ÜUU SlU UtV l.ZW* l/AHXAhCL X.bb9 K U K Ï U 5 1 5 .j74 b t MUkX X.jjZ SMtwNtbS -U.yVb S t SKKw .bjf KAAÜÜ 4.UUU MXNXMUM .UUO maximum 4.UÜU bUM Xi.OOU VALXU CAStb li MXSbiAÙ CAbbb The Pittsburgh Press :6 9 VALID ;uw VALUE LXSEL V-LUE = E;CEMT PS;C = NT =r?C5K'T NA 7 Î.2 5. Î 0.5 None/No Affect 2 : : 3 . » 2 0.5 25.0 Low ÛS s r e e 17.? 1 5. = AA.9 Soms Degree 2 9.9 74.3 High Degree 2 5.2 IOC.G 7 13 s : K‘ : total 13» lOC.O 100. G COUNT value ONE SYMEOl .80 CCCu7?5UC8S 7 . 0 0 25 24 ::35 S 3 3.00 »;< O lA V :( < ».'• î.’ï 0 Vc ; 32 4.0 0 . . I A : iL : 40 HIST ,c;v =i?LU5UCY MEAN 2.49: its : : .10? McOIAE 3.000 >■10 3 8 5.00 0 3T0 O' : V 1.-27 V A : I A C 5 1.505 VALID CAS:5 1 2 7 ••113SINS C-: 262 APPENDIX J THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER J / u VALXU CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE E k e u u e h C 1 PEKCEn I PEKCENI PEKCENI NA V 1 U. i e.3 b. j iVÜNL/I.U Al- V Ed 1 1 b . 3 0,3 lb. 7 SÜME LcLnEE j 4 3 3.3 33.3 SU.U rllGh LEUKEC. t 0 bu.u bU.U iUU.U lUiAL 1 2 luu.u iUU.U CUUNX VALUE UI,C. bXMUUL EUUALS A HPk UX i M A I EL X .^U u CCUKKEm CES 1 . UU ***** 1 l . U U * * * * * Ü Z.UU 4 j.UU ******************** b 4.ÜU ****************************** i...... I.e...... I...... I...... I...... i U ^ 4 O B 1Ü MibiUÜKAM EKÉUUENCï HtAN j.Udj Si U EKK .j79 MEUIAU i.SOU nUDl 4.UUU Sit> LEV l.JIl vAhlAlnCE I.7^U KUHÏUS1S j.uiz S E KUKi 1.232 SKEnntbS -l.b32 S E SKEW .bit HANSE 4.UUU MINIMUM .UÜU MAXIMUM 4.UÜU SUM 37.ÜUU VALIL CASES MlSblNS CASES The Pittsburgh Press :7o VALI: CUM VALUE Li=:L V A L L = : rCUELC Y = e :c = .nt =E5CEMT 5=EC ENT ;vm i 4 . : 4.6 4 . 6 None/No Affect i 1 Ô 7.5 7. 7 12.3 Lorn Degree 2 1 1 a.2 E. E 20.8 Seme Oegre e : 26 19.4 -20.0 40.fi Migh Degree * 77 57.5 5 9.2 10 0.0 • 4 3.0 MI SSI NO TOTAL 134 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SYMEOL EOu ALS a c a a c x i m a Tcly 2.00 DCCU=5ENCES . J . ■•■■■■• 1 11 2.00 2 6  • 0 0 v : t --,I a 77 ... I _'J ** C ; a o 100 ''1ST-; 'M - = r7t'-:vC f Mr if» 21 5 .1:2 ■•'rOIi!; , COO M JDr 02: i : : r V l.Itr Vi: lAf.C = 1 . 3t A KUA73SIi Oil S : K U : T .422 rK-WNIii _ 1,436 S Î Sk rW 212 A A ,\ 0 : 4.4:0 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM •jOO S U M 4 1 •). 0 0 0 VALIO Ci SrI : 3 3 APPENDIX J 263 The Washington Observer-Reporter j7l VALID CUM VALUL LAStL kALUt X HtUUtNCl PtkCtNi PtkCtNl PtHCtNl hOht/WU AfPtCl 1 0 SU.U SÜ .U SU.U L>Uh litSKtt z 4 jj.j a . j bi, j SUMt UtUhtt j 1 a.S 0 . i 91. 7 rtlSH ULÜKtt A i 0 . j 0.i luu.u 1 u J HL 1/ luu.u 1UU .U CUÜNl V AL^Ut jivt SlMbUii tUUAtS APkkJXlMAittl 10 UCCuKKtNCtS Cl 1 . uv A /.ÜV 1 j.uu ♦ ♦♦♦» 1 4.UU + *4 4 * 1...... l... 0 I 4 0 w lU HXSl'ÜCkAM PKtUUtNCl At AN 1.7SU Slu tkn .2 7 9 MbÜlAN l.SUU HUUt 1 . 0 0 0 S i u UtV .90S VAklANCt .912 KUkiUSiS 1 , ‘è o o s t tUKX 1.2S2 SktNNtSS 1.119 S t Skt* . O i l kAivCt j.UÜU MINIMUM l.UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 21 .UÜU >fALlL) CAit-S The Pittsburgh Press Û71 VALID CUM VALUE UAsEL VAL^E A^E.UENCY =’E4CENT 4EACENT AE2CENT NA 6.0 6.2 6.2 None/No Affect 1 32 23.9 24,5 31.0 Lou) De gree : 41 30 . 6 31.5 62.S Some Degree 3 3 3 2-.r> 26.6 36.4 gn Degree 1 : 11.2 11.6 100.0 3.7 MIS SINS T C T-L 13 4 1C 0.0 10 0.0 COUNT v a l u e C\E SY":DL EOLAlS A4 PADXIMaTEl Y l.OC OCCURRENCE 3 .00 ::: I • D 0 A1 2. DC 33 3.0 0 «: V X X Vj X X X X :r x X X X X X x x xxxxxxxxxxx 13 4.00 0 10 20 3 0 4 0 EC ■41 s T 0 n t M = E lUENC Y MEAN 2. 11 o ITD EA- .0 9: S E 01 A\ 2.000 MOD: :. COD )TD :E. 1.10: VARIANCE 1.213 MUSTÛÎI5 -Û . 73 9 S z \U- T •*.£.: SKcnNESS .0 16 5 c SKEW .215 < A N D E w . C 0 0 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 6.000 SUM 273.OCC VALID CASES 12 9 -'IS SI "NO C A > : J 3 APPENDIX J 264 The Washington Observer-Reporter u/j VALXU CUM VALUL LAOLL VALUL X HLLULNC'X H L h t L N l PLkC LN 'i PLKCLNI NÜNL/NU AXtLCr X 2 lb. / 10.7 lb. y LU" ULLHC.L 2 2 lb. 1 lb./ jj.j SUML ULuKtL J o bU . U bu.u bj.j rtXüri U e-Lk l l 4 2 ib. / 1 0 . / luu.u XUXAL 12 luu.u IUU.U CUUM V ALUc JUL SXMuuL. LUUAL.S At^HKÜXXMAlLLÏ .ÜU UCCUNKLMCKS 2 1 . UU i j.UU 0 j . u u 1 4 . UU I...... X...... X...... X...... X...... I U j 4 b M lu HXSIUOKAM KKLUULNC* MLAN Z . o o / b il> Lhr> .XBA MfcUlAw j.U U U MUUt j.uuu a XU Ucv .Vtfb vmkXanCL .%7U KUKiUilb "U.juU S K. AUKX X./jj SNtMALbS -U.bb* i> L SAL" . O j y HANUh j . u u u MXNXMUM l.U O U MAXIMUM 4 .U U U S um j ^ . u u u VALlU CASLb 12 MXSbXUU CASLS The Pittsburgh Press 572 valid Ou" V6LUÊ L&3CL VALUE f-c.UEN:Y = E»C3MT p e ;CE‘;7 Pr = C ENT NA C 1 : 5.0 9.A 9. - None/No Affect 1 22 13.- 17.3 23.3 Low Degree : 7 20.1 21.3 AE.D Some Degree 31 2 3.1 2 -.- 72. A -iigh Degree 3: 2 :.1 2 7.3 1 0 0 . C T 5.2 MISSING TOTAL 15A 10 0 . C 10 0.0 COUNT VALU: ONE STM::'L EQUALS APPA OXIMATELY .80 CCCU'SeNCES 12 .00 a: i: ::t 0 :: :::: :: 2 2 I.'j O ;.i r,:.-: ;a cl 2.00 A.: x '!■ 0 :> ; : • : i i 3.00 j.t : ; v Ü X ;,i ■.>. at :,t a,: ;.t a ; : t y a t ; t a: y y y y y a^ ; 11 c y.: y 3 3 ... 00 ^ y X: y y y y a;; y y y y : : y y y y ait A: y y y y y y ;,t : : y y y : : y y y y y y y y : - 0 - I 3 T ; A u ^ c ï ; : u M3 AU 2.-33 jT2 cA: ■.000 MODE -.00 0 3 TO O.EV : .313 va ;! ANC E 1 ! 7 2  NU^TGSiS -1.03 2 s c K J n T .-2 7 bKErtUESS -0.55- S E SrEw .215 A AUGE -.000 MINIMUM .00 0 MAXIMUM -.0 00 SUM 2 V 5 . 0 0 Ü VALID CASiS 127 m ;s o ::vo ca SES 7 APPENDIX J 265 The Washington Observer-Reporter J7 j VAUIO CUM VAliOb LAbbL V M b U L r MbOObhCl PbKtc.Nl P b k t b N X P b K C E M NÜNE/NÜ AEEbCl 1 0 6 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 OU m U b O K L b I 3 / 6 . 0 J b . O / 6 . Ü 6UMb UEoKbt 3 l b . / lb . / 8 1 . 7 rilOh t)c.oKE.E. 4 1 8 . 3 8 . 3 1 0 0 . 0 l U l M U 1Ü 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 CuuN 1 JNL ÙI^oJl C.UUAL5 ApRKJAiMAlbtt ,/i} UCCUKKbuCES 1 . VALIO CA6E6 iZ M 1 6 6 1 N U CA6b6 The Pittsburgh Press :7: VALID C u m v:LUc L: 3: L - M ; ; ’J 5 \ , A?5C:NT P: NA 7.5 2.1 None/No Affect 0 9 29.1 31.5 39 ! 5 Looj Degree A*- 25.1 27.* 5 5.9 Some Degree 3 1 *.9 15.1 5 3.1 mign Degree 1 Ï 15.7 Ic.9 1:0.G i : 7.3 M:S SIN S T-DTuL 13* 100.0 100.0 CGUNT VALUE 5YMDCL ElOALS DXiMATzcY .50 :CCU?C:NC:5 ? ? j - J. ; :■ ■■ 2 G 3 . 0 C' =■ - . 0 0 ^ 0 1 . :* 32 *0 -1ST j ; A £ ..t ■ ? : A 1 J5NC 1 vi AN • J D - ST: : A . .11. M : : : A •. : . D 0 0 ADD: Î.GOD i T : 1.2:1 /a t ; ii.C £ 1 . A - 7 KunTDSIS - V • 730 \ u " T .-gl S<£»N£SS • 25A S ; 5 N : W . 7 \AN j : * . 0 0 C MINIMUM .0 00 MAXIMUM .GOO SL'A 2 51 . 00 0 VILID 1 :■ . i i I ’ APPENDIX J 266 The Washington Observer-Reporter J /4 VAbi U C U M VALUc üAOLL V Ab U b K K b U U b N C l M b K C t N l PfcKCbN'I P b K C b N l UU " U b U K b t Z 1 b. J y.i V.l SUMfc, U L G K t t J I I d ./ i b . 2 HlGii L/buMbe. 4 0 bo. / U . t IUU.U • 1 ». J MISSING XUl Ab \i IUU.U IUU.U C U U N 1 VAbUb UN 6 SXMoUb C.UUAL6 APPKUXlMATbLÏ .*!U UCCUkKbNCbS i j . U U ***** / 0 I...... u I 4 6 U lu HiblUUKAM KKbUULNCt MtAN i ,b i o 61U cKn MbUlAn 4.UUU HJDt 4.UUU SiU ULV .6/4 VAKIAWUt . 466 KUKiÜâib /«Oil à L K'JKl 1.ü/ÿ SkLwhbSS -I.UUU S t SRLm • ooi K A >« G c. 2.ÜUÜ MINIMUM Ü.ÜUÜ MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 4Ü.UUU VALIU CASbS 11 MISSING CASbS The Pittsburgh Press :74 VA LID Cum VALUE LA5EL value =AEIUENCY =EACENT ?Ea CENT aEhCENT NA 0 3 2.2 2.3 2.3 None/No Affect 1 2 1.5 1.5 3 . £ Lox' Degree 2 H 2.0 3.1 6.9 Sone Degree 3 25 16.7 19. 1 36.0 -li gn Degree 57 72.- 7A.O 100.0 • 3 2.2 MIS SINC- - - TOTAL 13 4 100.0 lOO.-O COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EÂUALS approximately 2 .00 lCCu SkENC 3 . : D ■ 1 . D 0 k 2 . J 0 2= 3.00 ?7 4.0 0 . .. « « ...... 0 20 AO 6 0 • EÛ 10, h i s t : -RAH - A i O u E C Y MEAN 3.611 ST. so; . 1,7. : 0:1 -.0 00 MODE -.Olj STD _,EV . ; 1 r VARIA N C E .670 NürTûoIi Ô.0Î1 S = NUAT .420 S «. E n NESS -2.75A S £ Sn Ea .212 a ANSE 4.00C minimum .0 00 maximum 4.000 SUM 4 7 3.000 valid cases 131 •••IS SIN 3 CAS ES 3 APPENDIX J 267 The Washington Observer-Reporter W / 5 « ALl U Curt VAliUL L.AUC.Ü VALUL tKLUULwC» HtKCtnl HLhCtNl WtKCthI NUNL/NU Mh'1-t.Cl 1 i js.u ZS.U jS.U uUm Ut-liht-t t 1 b. i b . j jj.j iÜMt OtohC-t i 0 SU.U SU . U bj.j HlUn ULbhr.L 4 t lo . ; lo. / IUU.U iUiAL \i l u u . u iUU.U CUUN 1 VALUL UNL slrtoüL l u UALS AfHrtUAlMAÏbLl .2U UCCUKKbMCLb i l . U U »***»***#***+$* 1 . UU 0 j.UU 1 4.UU ********** U 2 4 b b ' hlSruCKAN KKbUUbNCX rtLAh Z.Soj SIu bhK .jlj HbUlAN j . ÜUU rtUUL j.UuU SIU ULV 1.U64 VAKlANCb 1.174 KUKlUSlS -U.y/4 S b IVUhl 1.2j2 SbbnnbSS -U.blj S b SKbm . 0j / KANGb j.UOU MINIMUM l.UUU ma x imum 4.UUU sun jl.UUU VALiU CASl S 12 MiSSlhU CASl S U The Pittsburgh Press i75 V A L X 2 CUM V^LuE L"3:L V A L u E EEECUENCY A> : P C E N T = ERCE\'T PE?C = 7 E . 2 None/No 2f+?ct 2: 2 0.9 2É ! Loaj D é gr se : A . Some De^i-ee - 2 31.5 A E . mi5h Decree IE 15.- 13.7 100. 3 2.2 •■'IS ill. T D T > L 13 A 10 0.0 100.0 CCUNT VALUE One SYM5C I EIUiLS APPPCXIMATE L Y 1 . C 0 CCCURAE 7 . : 1 .0 ; i c L . j Ç *• Î 0 . 0 0 :.t : ( l.t . c I* IX IX IX IX IX I.: I t IX 0 xt IXIX XIIX XIXIXIXIXIX XX XXI X HI X I X XX XXI X XIIXIX IX XXIX XX IE A.j 0 I...... :. 0 10 2 0 30 X. 0 -1 ÎTCSAiM cA.rUuENCY 0 « iM 1.^75 X T : 0 A . :s 7 me: lA'i 2.000 MEDE Ô.JÛÛ 5 TO OEV 1 . 1 1 : V - p I A,CE 1.232 NUSTOSiS -0.775 S E KUAT . — X C S K c " 'v : 5 S -C.157 S E SKEW .212 A A N E A.000 MIN I MUM . 0 0 0 ma x i m u m -.000 S'J« 2 9 5.000 VALIO CASES 131 "• 1 S S I X s EASES 5 APPENDIX J 268 u / o THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER V A L ID CUM VALUE Lm HEL V a l u e hREUUENC t REKCElvJ PERCENl REKCENI NA u 1 b . j B . j b . j NUNE/NU Afr'ECr 1 1 b. J b . j l b . / LUw UEUKEE 2 I b. J b . j 2 b .U SUME U E LK Ee J 0 4 1 . / 4 1 . / b b . 1 MIL h Ue U k EE 4 4 J j . j j j . j IUU.U lU lA U 12 IUU.U IUU.U C u u IX1 V MUUE JliC. S tK O J L EUUALS AfHRUA1 h a 1 EL 1 . lU OCCURRENCES 1 . UU ********** 1 l . U U 1 2 . U U b J.UU 4 4 .U U 1 ...... 1 . . . U 1 2 j 4 b MiüïuUkAM KKtUUh-NCY MEAW j.üjj 6i u LKK « J o b MLUiAN J.UÜU j.uuu tilJ Ubv l . Z b l VARIABLE l . b U b K U K T Ü ù li) 1 . U7o Ü c. AUKi l.ZiZ SNEmnESS -1.2iy S t SKC* .oil M AmGc. 4 .U U U MINIMUM .U U u MAXIMUM 4.U U U SUM J 4 .Ü U U VALID CASES MiSSlNÜ CASES The Pittsburgh Press 376 VALID CUM VALU: L6=:L VALu: -3 E Lu En CY PERCENT = :RCEN'T PERCENT N A 2 3 2.2 2.3 2.3 None/No Affect 1 3 2.2 2.2 4.7 L OU) Degree 13 9.7 1C.2 14.6 Some Degree : EE -3.3 4 3.3 60.2 rtign Degree . 3 ; 3 7.3 3 9.1 99.2 - 1 . 7 • 1 100.0 • : 4.3 VISSSNS TOTAL 13- 10 0.0 100.Ô COUNT VALUE •; N E SY4ECL EDUALS A 0 O A ■: X I M i T E LV 1 . 2 G CCCUPPENC 1 . 0 0 1 3 : . V 0 i,t >,c j::.f 3 6 3. D ■; «.DC 'ô 3.DO 1 2 - 3 3 4 = ...... ; ■' 1 S T 2 P A “ * r . J E N C Y MEAN 3.133 S T D - . r .0:1 TEC: An 3.000 MOD: 3 . Û 0 j ST: } E V .,1- v a ;i a n CE .336 KURTOSIS 2.74. S E K J - T .423 S K E A\ES5 -1.C91 S : SKEW .21- A N G r t.co :• MINI i.' 1 . 000 M A X ; *•; J M S u APPENDIX J 269 The Washington Observer-Reporter u / / v a l i u CUM VALUE LAnbL VALUE KKEUUEm Ll PEKCENI PEKCENI PtKCfcNl LU# UbGKtc. 2 2 lo. / lu.2 SOME Ue Gh EE j j 2 S .U 2 / . J 4b. ï) tllG il u e Gk e e 4 0 b u . u b 4 . b lUU.O • 1 0 . j m i s s i n g ■J Ul AL 1 2 lU U .U luu.u CUUn 1 VALUE UNE alMoUL E u UALS A P k h U X lM H j ELI .2 U 1 2 2 . UU j j.UU 0 4 . UU i...... 1 . . , .1 U 2 4 o U lü MlSfÜUhAM KkbUUbNCï HtAw j.j04 iiU bKK .244 MbUiAb 4.UUU MObt 4.UUU 6iu UbV .wuy VAhlAnCb .ObS KUKfUSlù ■U./04 S c. AUKl 1.2 7% aRbMAbüS -U.d47 6 b ÙKL VALiU CASbÜ li MISSING CASES The Pittsburgh Press Û77 VALIO CUM VALU: LASzL value ==::U:NCY = :kCENT =E = CE\'T PERCENT NA ■ 0 ■> 1.5 1.5 1.3 None/No Affect 1 13 3.7 9.9 11.5 Lou) Ds;ree 1 = 11.3 ::.z 23.7 Sons Degree ? 37 3 0 Al 3 0.6 A4. -Il gn Degree 73 5 .5 5 3.7 100.0 • 3 3.2 MI 5 5 I N TOTüL 154 100.0 ICO.O COUNT value iUz SYM;CL EOUALS a p =a CXI4ATELY 1.50 CCCUC9ENCES 2 . 00 13 i . OO 1 c A . ù C 5.00 Î,c i,t M V ( ».* *.î *< : : : : : : 73 4.00 5 î V V V * : : X: nî ::: A: 7 T 0 13 30 A3 • t 3 75 “I i70S=A4 r^E.J -'.CY M ' A N .1 = 1 M E - : A -.00 0 *j]z .000 3TÔ ÔEv 1.0:3 VA:IuUCE 1.13 5 KüÂTCiiâ . 1 %4 i f NLHT .*.30 S X r K N : S S -1.130 i : SKEW .212 f A N 3 : 4.000 MINIMUM .000 maximum . 000 SUM -13.000 VALIO CASE S 131 IS Si', s LA APPENDIX J 270 J I e The Washington Observer-Reporter VALID CUM VAbUb bMObb Vm LUL l-'KbUUbuC > KLKCbN1 HL K C b M RbkCLNX MA U 1 «. j M. j *. j n UNL/n U At r bC 1 1 2 lo./ Id ./ 2b.U LU * UbUMbb / 0 bu.u bU.U /b.U sLiMb ULUrtbb j 1 B . j B. j Bj.j rllUn ULLKbb <* 2 lo. / 10. / IUU.U lUlAL 1 / luu.u IUU.U C u u n J » AbUt J N t 6 >MdlILi tUUAtb ArKKUXlMAi&ul , 2U UCCUKKtt*ttô 1 . uo ***** i.uv u UO 1 j.UU ***** «, UU .1...... i...... 1. / 4 b °°Iu HlbiUühArt thkUULNC* MLAh j.UBj bl'U t-Kh . j jo MbbXAi* 2.UÜU HUDt 2.UUU üiu Ufcv l.lob VAMiAwCL i.ibo KUKiJSiS . jyu 6 t k U K i l./j2 SAb*mbSs .22b S t SKG" .b-i'l HANUb 4.UUU MINIMUM .ÜOU MAXIMUM 4. UUU SUM 2b.UUU VALID CASLS 1 / MXSSiNU CASLS The Pittsburgh Press :'7 3 VALIO Cum VALU: LAScL VALU: r-i » b E N 0 Y PEiCcNT PERCENT PERCENT NA -, : 1 . 5 1. : 1.5 None /No- Affect i A U 2 "A . 9 3 0.5 32.1 Low Decree 3 3 u E • A 2 El. 1 Some je;ree 21 15.7 lE.C 77.1 Mign Decree 3 0 2 2 . A 2 2.3 10 0.0 • 3 2 . 2 MISSING total 15*. 10U.Û 10 0.0 CCUNT VALUE GNS SfMEOL ECU Al S APS r o x :mately .60 cCCURRENCES . 3: -0 1.0: 3 5 L.o: i 1 : . 0 -0 »,< i.f XI 1,1 V XIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXIXI XI tf XI V XI >.l Xl 30 H . 00 Xl:;:x-|:,IXI:A c 1: 2 *♦ 32 -0 -isTor.A A .1 = A E -0UENC Y y=AN s - .102 AN I.IOC v.OO: 1.000 3 TO ;• E V 1.172 VA:: A N CE 1.373 tURT-Ooli -1.237 S E n UAT .*•2 0 Skew NESS .’*.5 S : SKEhl .212 RANGE A.000 MINI MU" . 000 MA x;MUM A. 000 SUM 2iS.CQC VALIO CASES 131 ss:'.^ case; APPENDIX J 271 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER vj /y VALID CUM VALUh LAoKL V A L U t K h tu U L N C i H t H C t N I P t K C t N Ï P th C fc N I rtONt/NU AtttCi 1 1 d . j 8 . J W. j liU n UkUKLk 2 1 8 . j U . i l o . / SUMt UtOKtt J 2 l o . / 1 0 . / j j . j rilljh U H j h t t 4 8 bo./ OO. / IUU.U iU iW L 12 IU U .U luu.u CuUN ]• VALUL JNC. û IMd Ul tUUALS AHHKÜXlWAIt.LÏ ,2U UCCUKKfcNCtS 1 1 . UU ♦ 4 » ♦ ♦ i j.UU 4 4 4 4 4 I j.UU 4444444444 8 4. UU .i...... 1 ...... 1, 2 4 b 10 hiüiUÜKAM KKtUÜbMCï MLAN j.<*l / bi U C.MK . 2 D 8 MtUlAN 4.UUU 4. UUU blU UtV ,'i'ib VAnlANCb .ÙV2 KUKIUÜ16 b t NUKi 1.2 32 S N tN N tS b -1./12 S £ i>K£M . O j / KAhUt j.uuu MINIMUM l.UUU MAXIMUM 4 . UUU SUM 41.UUU VALiU CASt-b 12 nlbblNU CAbtS The Pittsburgh Press Q 7 9 VALID CUM V-LUE LA3EL VVLUE rAOCUrNCf ’ E C' C E N T PERCENT = E PCEN'T None/No Affect 1 2 1. 5 1.5 Louj Degree r. C 5.1 i:i Some Degree 3 2 23.Î 2-.C 31 . E rigr Degree 9 0 ?7.2 = •3.2 100.0 I 5 51 \ D TOTAL 139 ICC.j 10 0.0 COUNT VALUE :'JE SYMiOL EOL'ALS APPROXIMATELY 2.00 OCCURRENCES 1 . 3 0 2. ;; i. J : . . . .1...... i , ..I 90 =0 EC ICC >157. 'A« rPECUENCY MEAN 3.391 STD :RP .0:9 "EDI AN 9.000 MODE - . u 0 j STD DEV . = 7 = V A ? I A L C L .9:7 k.u RTCSa = 2 . :77 5 •- < U - T .9 15 S R E ». E 5 5 -1.950 5 E 5k E. .211 R A % 3. c ■:> 0 ■* I N I •■•ii.i " 1 . 0 j C M A xlMUM 9.ÙC0 = U M 9 7 ■. . 0 u C valid CA5=5 13 2 = s IN cA 5 ; J C APPENDIX J 272 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER UBU VALiU CUM VALUL LAoLL VALUE EKbuUtNCY PbKCbM PbKCtNl PtKCbNX NÜNt/NU ArtLCl 1 1 B. j U.i U.i àU«t Ut-LKc-k. j 1 B . j B . i Ib .7 HiLri ULLhLb 4 i U B j . j Bj.j lUu.u 1 U 1 H U 12 luu.u luu.u CUUM VHUUC. Ui«c. blMDUL UUUALb APh'KUAi^iAi'tLt .2U u CCUHKLNCLS i 1,00 ♦♦♦♦♦ u ^. uo 1 j.UU ***** l u <*.0 0 *************t*********************************.**^ 1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1 U i! 4 0 U lu MibfUGkAM fktUULNCSI «CAN J.uo/ 61U LhK .2)0 MLUiAM 4.UUO AJOt 4.UUU 6lU UtV ,bBb VAKlAhCb ./BB AUNiUüiÜ B.BB3 6 t AUKl l.jUZ SKfcviNtüS -j.UAb 6 L ShL* .a i l kAklc. . j.uuu MiWlMUM l.UUU MAAiHUM 4.UUU SUM 44.UUO VALIU CAStS 1 j MISSING CASES The Pittsburgh Press ; s o VALID CU'* VALU: LAd :L VALU: :::U:NCY =:iC£NT =;RC:IjT PERCENT Ni n 2.2 2.3 Nona/No Affect 7 5.2 3 . 6 7 . 7 LOW Degree 9 : . 7 6. 9 1 6 . c 5 one Degree 23.1 26.9 61.5 -igh Degree ; 7 3 f. 5 10 0.0 3 . Û '.IS 5 1 N G Tl-TlL 136 10 0.0 100.0 • COUNT VALUE ONE SVMrOL EOUALS APPROXIMATELY 2.00 OCCURRENCES 3 7 i:5! 9 t . L G 33 3.00 ... V *o.* 1.1»^ :: 75 -.00 : :ï ; : r; v: : : : I Ï! S: :i : : ; t V :X S: i: K X: — : ...... I ...... I ...... I . , . .1 2 0 -0 6 0 100 HISTUC-PA- ppEvUEN'CY MEAN ST: . U 5 MEDIAN 6.300 MODc 6 . J .J .. ST: jev .3:3 *AR:ANÇ= .5 73 AUSTOSIS 2.353 5 : X L' r T . - 3 2 SxEwNESS —1.666 S £ SKEW .21: RANGE -.OCC MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM -.000 SUM - 3 - . C 0 0 valid CASES 1 3 ■IS SIN- APPENDIX J 273 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER VJO 1 VAbiU CUM VALUb bMt)c.Li V Abut fKtbUbMC i Hb-KLtwl PtKLtNX PfcKLb.Nl MA V 1 b.J y.j » . j ML)Mb/uU At- t- fcC 1 1 0 bu.u bU.O ba.j bU* UbbKbb i i io./ lo./ /b.U bJMt btÜKfct i i lo./ 10./ VI. / tllbtl bbbrtbb 4 i b.j y.j IUU.U iUl Ab 12 luu.u lUU.O L'UJia 1 V Abu L JIMC. O I 1b Jb tUUAbO AKKMUAlhAjbbl .ZU UCCuKKbMCfcS 1 . UU ***** b 1 . UU i j.UU ********** i j.UU **$******* 1 4.ÜÜ ***** u 2 4 0 y lU MiüiUbhAM t-Kc.UUb.MLi' NtAN i . OO / O i U LKK .jjj MC.U1AM l.UUU HOÛE i.UUU 6i U UEV l.lbb VAhlANCbl l.iij KURI'OSIS u.Ubb S t KUKT 1,232 SKbwNblSS ,1b 1 S b SKt/M .6 j? KANGb. 4.U0U MINIMUM .UUU m a x i m u m 4. UUU SUM 20.UUO VALiU CAÜt.6 1É miSOiNb CASbS U The Pittsburgh Press ûàl VALID CUM VALUE LArcl V - L U f =Z:2U:\CY AELCENT AfACENT PERCENT \ A 1 : 11.9 12.3 12.3 None/No Affect 5 5 41.C -2.3 54.6 LOU) Degree 2 2 '9 2 1.6 22.3 76.9 Some -Degree 3 4.7 6.9 93.5 -lign Degree ;i IE.7 16.2 1-00.0 5 . C- 4%SS:\G TOTAL la* 1 C- Ü . 0 10 0.0 COUNT VALUE L\: S Y Mf;L Eduals a a? A ■: X I '• A T H L Y 1.20 CCC'U59ENCE3 . j: I s 1. J 0 i 9 2.00 ■9 5.00 j;c ».r :.f :,c j.t Î.C ),C j,t El . J c T T 0 12 2 A 3 3 4 s 6 0 -I >T-0 -G A a M t uE\C Y M ; ai, 1.725 iTj 5'- .lie V 5 0 : - •) 1 . 0 0 0 MOOS 1. j 0 0 A T J 0 V 1.2:1 V-: : A) , C 3 1. 566 NuATDSiS — 0 . o Ü Ô a r \ J-T .-2i S K E »< N- 6 5 i . 6 11 S r SK:X .2 12 A a N G 5 - . 2 0 C M I M M J V. .003 MAKlMUM - . OC Û SU." 2 2 H . 0 -0 u VALID C-Sr i 1 5 0 : J J IL ■- : ASET APPENDIX J 274 THE WASHINGTON OBSERVER-REPORTER VALiU CUM VALUL UASLL Vm Lul LKLUULNC j PcrtCLul 1-l KCLNT KLKCLMl NJNL/rtU AtfLCX 1 2 10. / Id.2 Id.2 LU* UcCKcL 2 1 0 . J 9.1 2 7 . J SUMc UL.UKLC j 1 b . J 9.1 jo.4 HILH Uc Uk l c 4 / Sd.j oj.O IUU.U 1 0 . j MiSSlhL XU'l al 12 IUU.U IUU.U C ü U M V AliUC. J N C OlMcJb CUUAua AH^KUAlMAiLLI ./U u CCü k k c n Ccü I 1 . UU i z.uu ***** 1 j . U U ***** 7 4 .U U ,l . 1 ...... 1. , .1 2 4 0 10 nijlUÙKAM KKtLUULNL't MfcAN j.ioj j1U LKk .ill MCUlAM 4.UUU rtuut; 4. UUU jiu UCV 1.2SU VAKIAm CL 1.S04 KUKlUSiS 'U. jfl / 6 e. KUKl 1.279 SN£n N£SS -1.102 S £ SKbm .ool KANUt j.uuu MINIMUM l.UUU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM ib.UUU VALIU c a l c s 1 1 nlsSlSb CASLS The Pittsburgh Press is 2 valid CUM VALUS LiÔSL VALU: -âeiuenc f = E 9 C E N T PERCENT PERCENT Uk 0 11 0.2 ? . 5 9 . 5 None/No Affect 2 : 21.0 2 2 . ?• 50. : Loin De gree : t. 0 6. 2 36. 9 Some Degree ? c : . 7 6.9 ■ A3. E mign Degree 7 3 0 4.5 56.2 130. 0 . '• 3. Û M : s s : N 0 total ISA i 0 Û . Ü 10 0.0 COUNT value ONE S YME'Dl ECu a l S aPPS DXIMAT ELV 1.50 CCCURREn CE 1 1 . J c 2 j7 1 . DO If 1.» ).i x: : : rs 73 T - J 0 If 50 A 5 = 0 75 -1ST 0 9 A M A : EluENCY X E A N 2.603 ST: :RA .132 MEDIAN A.000 'UDE -. DCO ST: _Ev 1 . E 0 1 variance 2. 25A KURTÛSIS -1.257 i E K U A T )K=WNES5 -0.671 5 E SKEW .212 - W o C -.300 minimum . COO MAXIMUM •..003 SUM 3 : - . : 0 0 VALID CASES 1 ? : APPENDIX J T?OS t # îr i Psïition Director. 0* Employee Relations A 275 Director or ThcUstrial Relations VALID CUM VALUE LA3EL VALUSFREDUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 15 3 1 50.0 50.0 50.0 ïï • sr» 5 1 50.0 50.0 100.0 t o t a l 2 100.0 100.Ô COUNT VALU: ONE STMiCL EOUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 3.00 5.00 ...I...... 1.. ,.I 4 5 MISTOÛRAM FREQUENCY MEAN STO ERR 1.000 MEDIAN 4.000 J*W£- S:333 STO OEV I.A-IA VARIANCE 2.000 AAN3E 2.000 MINIMUM 3.000 MAXIMUM 5.000 SUM 8.000 VALIO CASES MISSINO CASES ÏFJS 1LAM6 IN iwià FUSIIIÜH ^ Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM mVALUS LABEL VALUE ! FKEUUENCl...i PERCENTji PEKCENIJ. PERCENTjB TOTAL 7 lUU.O 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE STMBOL EOUALS APPKOXIMa TELT .10 UCCUKHËNCEtt 1 1.00 1 2.00 •»••«*•♦•» 4 1.00 •«•*•«••«••«««••*•••••««»»*««««•*•»*•«*» 1 N.OO *»»»♦•♦•«♦ 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 h i s t o s r a n freouenc t m e a n 2.714 STO ERR .360 MEDIAN 3.OU0 MODE 3.000 sru OEV .051 VARIANCE .005 KÜRIÜSIS 1.245 S £ NUK’T 1.5*7 SAEn NESS -O.b o a S E 5NE« .704 KAn l E 3.000 MINIMUM l.UOU MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 19.U00 VALID CASES 7 MlSSlNÜ CASES 0 Department Level Supervisors TPJS iEAh S in Inis PUS1T1ÜN (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALlU CUM VALUt LABEL VAuUE Fk Eu UENCT PERCENT PERCENT PEKCENI 6 TO 10 2 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 11 ID 15 3 1 33.3 33.3 66.7 21 OK MUKc. 5 1 33.3 33.3 100.0 TUTAL i 100.0 100.u CuUNT VALUE ONE STMBUL EUUALS APPNUXIMAIELI .10 UCCUKKENCES 1 2.U0 •****••«•« 1 J.oO ♦»*•»•♦•»• 0 4.00 1 1...... 1... 0 1 2 3 4 5 HISTOGRAM FREOUENCt MEAN 3.333 STD ERR .882 MEUIAN 3.000 MODE 2.000 STD UEv 1.528 v a r i a n c e 2.333 SKEn n ESS .0 35 S E s a Em 1.225 RANGE 3.000 MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM 5.000 SUM 10.000 VALID CASES MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 276 YEMPLOY Y#fr9 dith This :mol@y#r Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID UUM value LA3EL v a l u e (=« = aUîNCT ? a « C £ M PERCENT PERCENT to 15 3 50.0 50.0 n or nor # 3 50.0 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 CCUNT v a l u e ONE Sf^ECL EOUALS APOR : X IN AT EL t ,10 OCCUARENCES 3.003. 00 I...... I.. h i s t o g r a m FREOUENCT 4EAN 000 STO ERR 1.030 MEDIAN 4.000 *J3c 3.000 STO OEV I.AIA v a r i a n c e 2.030 RANGE 2.000 m i n i m u m 3.000 MAXIMUM 5.000 »U1 3.033 v a l i d c a s e s MISSING CASES Department Level Supervisors Tl MHLUI IbAxS MlfM IHIS EMPLUYEK (The Pittsburgh Press) CUM VALUE LABl L v a l u e ENEUUENCl PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 16 IJ 20 2Ü.6 2».6 21 OR muht 71.4 100.U TOTAL lUO.O îôo.o COUNT v a l u e ONE SIMItOL EUUALS APPRGXIMATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 4.U0 ••«»*««•*««•••«•«««• 5,00 1 ...... 5 i- rtlSrUGRAM PREOUENCI MEAN 4.714 STO ERR MEDIAN 5.000 MODb 5 . 0 0 0 sro OEV :iSI VARIANCE KUHTUSIS •0.V40 S E KURT 1.5*7 SKENNESS S E SNEa .7V4 r a n g e l.UOU MINIMUM 4.000 MAXIMUM 5 . UUO S um 33.QUO VALID CASbS MISSING CASES TEm p l u i (Ea r s «1TN Tnls EMPLOIER Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) v a l i d CUM VALUE LABEL v a l u e FREOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 21 OR m u r e 5 1 0 0 . U luO.O 100.0 luTAL 1ÜU.U "ÎÛÔTÛ" COUNT MIDPOINT ONE STMBOL EUUALS APPROXIMATELT .10 occurrences 3 5 •••««•<*••••««••*•*»••••«•***« l....t....I....4....|....4....1, n ISTOCRAH FREOUENCT MEAN 5 . 0 0 0 STD ERR MEDIAN 5.000 MODE 5.U Ü U SID UEV :8S8 VARIANCE .000 r a n g e .UUO m i n i m u m 5.000 MAXIMUM 5.000 SUM 1 5 . UUU VALID CASES MISSING CASES APPENDIX J ïTRAOe ,a. Director of Employee Relations 4 Director of Industrial Relations 277 v a l i d CUM VALU: LASéL VALU: FAfCUENCY SSBCENT PESCENT PESCENT 21 or »or« a" 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL 2 loo.o 100.0 count MIDPOINT ONE SYMECL EiuALS APPROXIMATELY .10 DCCUSRENCES 2 5 1 2 3 MliTOGSAM PSEÛOENCY mean STD ESA .000 m e d i a n 5.000 MODE STD DEV .000 VASIANC: .000 SANOE a C C 0 mIMmjn p .000 MAXIMUM 5.000 >UM 10.000 v a l i d c a s e s MISSING CASES ITKAUt YtARa IN r«E RHlNriNG TRADE ^^grpTtt^burgh^PreSsr^'"" CUN VALUE LABEL VALUE FNEUUtNCX PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 16 ro 2U 14.3 21 OR MOKE 100.0 lUTAL "ÎÔÔTÔ '10073’ CUUN I VALUE 3Nt SYHbOt EUUALS APPKOXIMAXLLY .20 OCCURRENCES 4.WO $$$#« 5.00 $#$$##$#$#$*$$$$$$#$$**$$$$$$$ ..1 i i i i * ■ lu HiSrULKAN FKEUUENCT MEAN STO ERR MEDIAN 5.000 NODE STO UEV VAKlANCE .143 KURTUSIS SKENn ESS -2.646 3 E SKEW gA&cE"" liltl MINIMUM 4.UOO MAXIMUM 5.000 SUM 35.000 VALIU CASES MiSSlNU CASES Department Level Supervisors YIKAOL YEARS 1M IME PRINIINC THAÜE (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM v a l u e l a b e l VALUE FREOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 21 OK MUKE 5 lUO.O 100.U 100.0 TOTAL 1U0.Ô lou.o COUNT MIDPOINT ONE STMBUL e q u a l s APPROXIMATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 3 5 HIs TUCHAM FREOUENCT Me Ao 5.0UU sru ERR .000 MEDIAN 5.U0Ü MODE 5. OÙU sru UEV .000 v a r i a n c e RANGE .000 MINIMUM 5.000 MAXIMUM 5:8%g SUM 15.000 VALID CASES MISSING CASES 278 raâiNiNS Dl«Ft?F^P^mpl^yee Relations « Director o£ Industrial Relations VALIO CUM VALU: LABcL VitUE F« c w UENCY ?:SC£NT BERCENT RERCENT Ca11#3# 4 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTlL 2 100.0 lôo.o” COJM MIOBJINT ONE SYMjOL EOUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 2 ..... 1 2 3 HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY MEAN 4.000 STO ERR .000 MEDIAN 4.000 MOOE. 4.000 STO OEV .000 v a r i a n c e .000 RANic . 000 MINIMUM 4.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 >UM 5.000 VALIO Ca s e s MISSING CASES 0 IMAINING Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE f r e u u e n c y PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT HlGri SCHÜUL 1 1 UNION b 2 !S:( !!:( 42:9 ON-TME-JUb b 4 57.1 57.1 100.0 ...... TOTAL luU.U lOW.U COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EUUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 1 «»*•••*•*» U 8 0 3.00kS u 4. OU 2 5.00 4 6.U0 1...... !.. U 1 2 3 4 5 MiSTOGRAM KNEUUENCY MEAN 5.UOO sru ERR .690 MEDIAN 6.000 MJOÊ 6 . UUU STO UEV VARIANCE AUkTüSIS s.520 S E KÜKT SKEMNESS A'AU s E SKEn . TVA RANGE MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 6.000 SUM 3S:000 v a l i d c a s e s 7 MISSING c a s e s 0 Department Level Supervisors TRAINING (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALIU CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREUUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT COMMUNITY CULLECe 3 1 33.3 13.3 33.3 J N » I M t »JOB b 2 66.7 66.7 100.0 TOIAL 100.0 100.0 COUNTVALUE ONb SYMBOL EOUALS APPKOXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 3.00 **«*#**#«* e.OO •«•«•***•**«*«««««*« Ô } i...... HISIUCRAM FREOUENCt MEAN 5.000 STO ERR 1.000 MEDIAN 6.000 MOOE 6, UOU SIU OEV 1.732 v a r i a n c e 3.000 SKENNESS -1.732 S E SKEM 1.225 RANGE 3.000 MINIMUM 3.000 MAXIMUM 6.000 SUM IS.OUO VALIU CASES 3 MISSING CASES 0 APPENDIX J 279 Director ot Employee Relations t Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUM VALU: LÎ3;L VALU: rssîucNCr ’sRCENT S:RC=NT PERCENT 5i or oletr 3 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL 2 100.0 103.0 COUNT «AIOOOIM STMÎ3L ïiUALS A?»S3XIMATc LT .10 OCCURRcNCSS 1 5 0 i 2 3 4 s MISTOGRAM FREÎ UËNCT NclN r.ÛOO STO :SS .300 MEDIAN 5.000 NOOs 5.030 STO 3:V .000 VARIANCE .000 ^ANOr .033 m i n i m u m 5.000 MAXIMUM 5.000 SUM 13.303 VAL:3 CASc s 2 MISSING CASES 0 mit Department Level supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) v a l i d VALUE LAbEL VALUE FREUUEhCI PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT il ru 40 j 1 14.1 14.1 41 lü bü 4 1 42.0 42.9 51 UN OLUER 5 J 42.V 42.9 luu.u .... TUIAL lOu.O IUU.U COUNT VALUE ONE STMbUL EOUALS ARPKOXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 1 i.OO •••*«*•««« i 4.00 J 5.00 1...... 1 . . 0 1 2 1 4 5 HiSrOCKAM FREUUENCr MEAN 4.20b sru e n n m e d i a n 4.UOU MÜOe 4.UUO SIU UEV VARIANCE .571 AUMiUSiS -u.lbü s E KURI SRe m NESS -0.595 S E SKt» .744 k a n l e 2.000 m i n i m u m J.OUU MAAiMU» 5.000 S um 10.UUO v a l i d CASEb 7 MISSING CASES U Department Level Supervisors AUE (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM v a l u e LAbEL VALUE FREOUENCI PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT 41 ro 50 4 1 11.1 11.1 11.1 51 UK OLUEH 5 2 56.7 66.7 100.0 TUIAL 1 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE UNE SIMbOL EUUALS APPRÜX1MATEL1 .iU OCCURRENCES 1 4.00 4444444V4* 2 5.00 •«•••••*••«<******•« 0 1 2 1 4 5 HiSrOGKAM FREuUENCT SÊAe 4.567 STU ENH MEDIAN 5.000 MODE 5,000 510 OEV l577 v a r i a n c e .111 s k e m n e s s «1 .; 12 S E SKEb RANGE l.UOU HlNiNüH 4.OUU MAAiMUM 5^000 SUM 14.000 VALiU CAStS MiüoimC CASEâ APPENDIX J 280 Director of Employee Relations & 3Z7 Director of Industrial Relations VALID CUM VALU: L15:L VALU: r»£CU:NCY PERCENT p e r c e n t PERCENT Migh 3«gr»# A 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- t o t a l 100.0 100.0 CCUNT M:o»oiNT ON: SVMJCL EOUALS approximately .10 OCCURRENCES 2 & uaxicutf suouuodOAcouoou 3 4 5 HISTOSRAM FRfOU ENCT NsSN A.00: STO EÎA MEDIAN 4.000 NC3£ A.000 STO 0:V v a r i a n c e .000 SANi: . 000 m i n i m u m A.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUN Ê.000 VALIO CASES 2 MIS SINS CA5:S 0 U27 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUE, LAetL v a l u e rfiEOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA u 14.3 14.3 14.3 SUME OtCKEt 3 i 2S.a 2».» 42.V HICM OtühEE 4 4 S7.1 b/.l lOU.O ...... TUIAL 100.0 lUU.O COuNt VALUE ONE SIMSOL EUUALS APPKüXlNAÏELl .10 UCCUKRENCES 1 «OU u l.uO u 2.00 2 3.OU * i ...... I.. U 1 2 3 4 b ttlSIuUNAn rRtUUbNCI MEAN J. 143 SIU ERR .bb3 MEUIAN 4.UUO Muoe 4.UUU SIU UEV 1 .464 v a r i a n c e 2.143 AUKIUSIS 4. 73S S E AUMI 1 .bS7 SKEm .vESS -2.122 S £ S a En .7*4 k ANLe 4.U00 MINIMUM .OUU MAAIMUM 4.UOU SUM 22.UOU VALID CAStS 1 m i s s i n o c a s e s U j 2; Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALIU CUM VALUE LAotL VALUE KHEUUENCI PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT Hiurt utLhet 4 3 IUU.U IUU.U luo.o luIAL 3 luu.u IUU.U COUNI MlUfJlNI ONE SIMSUL EUUALS APHKOXIMATELI .10 OCCURRENCES i 4 H1SIÜUHAM KREUUENCI MEAN 4.UUO SIU e RK .OOU m e d i a n 4.UOU MUOE 4.000 SID OEV .000 VARIANCE .000 RANSE .UUO MINIMUM 4.0U0 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 12.0U0 y*Lio CAStS WlSSlNÜ CAStS A P P E N D I X J 281 Director of Employee Relations A ■52 3 Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUM VtLU: l 4 î :L v a l u e ESE5UENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT LO« 2 1 50.0 50.0 50.0 Son* 0*;r*$ 3 1 50.0 50.0 100.0 .. t o t a l 100.0 100.0 c g u n t VALUE C\E STMECL EJUALS APPROXIMATELT .10 0CCURRENCES 1 2.30 1 3.30 .....I...... I. 0 1 2 3 A ...... 5 m IST-C-JPAM F9 = CllENCY MoiNl 2 . S 3 3 5TJ .500 MEDIAN 2.500 "03c 2.000 STO OEV .707 v a r i a n c e .500 1.003 MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM S. 300 wiL:o CASES 2 MISSING CASES 0 32* Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID Cu n VALUL LABEL v a l u e KREUUENO PERCENT p e r c e n t p e r c e n t LÜ* DECREE 2 1 14.3 14.3 SünE UECh EE J 2 28.6 2a.B 42%9 MIC" UECkcE 4 4 57.1 57.1 IUU.U ...... TOTAL lUU.O lOU.O COUNT VALUE ONE âkMbüL EUUALS APPROXIMATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 1 2.UU « « • a v a v a a a 2 J.UU •••«aavaaaaaaaaaa»** A l.UU 0 1 2 J 4 5 M16TUCRAM (REUUENCT AEAN J.42V STU EKH MEDIAN 4.UOU AÜUE 4.UUO STU UEV • M i VARIANCE .619 KUKTOSIS . 2 / J S E AUNT 1.5#; SKEb n ESS «1.115 Ô E SKEa . If* m An LE 2.UUU MINIMUM 2.UUO NAXIAUA 4.ÜUU SUM 24.U00 VALlU CAÔE6 1 MlSslNL CASES 0 Department Level Supervisors J2V (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALIU CUM VALUE l a b e l v a l u e INEUUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT L0< DECREE 2 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 rilCH UECk e e 4 2 66.7 66.7 lUO.O TUIAL J IUU.U IUU.U COUNT VALUE ONE SVMBUL EUUALS APPROXIMATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 2.00 i 4.UU «•avfvvvvaavtavaavaa U 1 2 J 4 5 MlSTuüMAM EREUUENCT MEAN 3.JJJ SIU ERR .657 m e d i a n 4.OUU MUUE A.UUU STU UEV 1.155 v a r i a n c e 1.333 SKEaNESS -1.;J2 S E SNEa 1.225 RANGE 2.OUU MINIMUM 2.3UU MAAiMUM 4.UUO SUM 10.OOU VALID CAEE6 i MISSING Ca s e s o APPENDIX J 282 Director of Employee Relations c ;2 ) Director of Industrial Relations v a l i d :uM VJLU: Li 3:L VALUE FREwUESCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT Loo Sojrot 2 i 50.0 50.0 50.0 Son* * 0 3 1 50.0 50.0 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 C:'JNT VALU: 2n E STNo CL EJUALS ApoROXlMATcLY .iO OCCURRENCES 1 2 .DO aouaftoüosa 1 3.00 aAQWOtKOO*# 0 1 2 3 4 ...... 5 iISTC3«a.M FSëOUïMCr 2.500 STO ERR .500 m e d i a n 2.500 XOOê 2.003 STO OEV .707 v a r i a n c e .500 1.000 NINIHUN 2.000 m a x i m u m 3.000 SJ>< 5.000 ^:L:: Lijii 2 NISSIVO CASES 0 U29 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUf LAdbU VALUE FREUUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NUNC/NU AfFtCT 1 1 14.3 14.3 14.3 LOm oeCWbL 2 1 14.3 14.3 2V.6 HlSri JECHtt i 71.4 71.4 lUU.u lulAL 7 100.0 IUU.U COUNT VALUL ONE SINbUL EUUALS APPHDXiMAIELY .10 OCCURRENCES i 1 .UU I 2.U0 0 3.OU s 4.ÜU 0 1 2 3 4 5 HISTUCk AN FRbUUENCt MEAN i .200 STD tKK .474 MEDIAN 4.UOU NOOt 4.UUU STU ULV 1.254 VARIANCE 1.571 KURTUSIS S E KUHT 1.587 SKENNESS -1.45U S £ Sk £« k A n L k 3.UOU m i n i m u m l.OUU MAAINUk 4.UUO SUM 23.000 VALiO CASKS 7 MiSSiNU CASES U Jit Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) v a l i d CUM •ALUK LAeLL v a l u e FREUUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT SUNK ULutiLt. 3 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 rtiCs UKu Rk l 4 2 OS.7 66.7 lUO.U TUTAL 3 lOu.U 100.0 CUUNT v a l u e UNO STMHUL EUUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 UCCURRENCES 1 l.UU «*»*«$$*$$ 2 4.UU U 1 2 Î 4 5 HISTUGRa n FREUUENCY N£AN 3.00 / STU ERR m e d i a n 4.000 NUDE i.UUU STU OEV v a r i a n c e .333 SKEiNbSS 1. 732 S E SKEm .•III RANGE l.QUO N lNlM U M 3. UUU MAAiMUM 4.OOU SUM 11.OUU «Aslu c a s k s 3 MISsiNU CASES 0 APPENDIX J 283 ;30 Director of Employee Relations & Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUM C3JNT ViLJr Zr^i SVMiCL EOUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 0CCURRENCES 1 2.00 1 *.00 3333303030 T...... T . _ 0 1 2 3 4 5 KISTOJRAM FRcOUENCV ST3 £RS 1 .COO MEDIAN 3.000 .;!5k sro OÉV 1 .4l4 v a r i a n c e 2.000 ÎJS3: 2.000 MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 0.000 ViLiC C1SÎS 2 MISSING CASES 0 JJU Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM /*LUt LAbLL v a l u e FREQUENCY PERCENT p e r c e n t PERCENT LO# OeSREc. 2 2 28.6 HiUM UEGKEE 4 S ?î:ï lOO.u TOTAL 7 100.U 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE STMb UL EQUALS APPHOXIHATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 2 2.U0 b «.UU U 1 2 j 4 b HlSTUGHAM f r e u u e n c y MEAN 1.42V sru e r n m e d i a n NODE 4.000 SIU OEV v a r i a n c e KÜHI0S1S U. *40 S E AUKf SKE#NESS S E SKE" .7*4 RANGE 2 I000 MINIMUM 2.000 MAAIMU# 4.OOU Sum 24.0U0 VALID CAGES ; MISSING CASES 0 ÜJO Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM VALUE LAbEu VALUE FHEOUENCT PERCENT PEKCE.VT PERCENT SUME UEÜKEÊ 1 1 11.1 11.1 11.1 rilSH DEGREE 4 2 S B .7 S B.7 luu.u TOTAL 1 lUU.u luO.u CUUN I VALUE UNE SIMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 UCCURRENCES Î.UÜ *< »«••(««« i 4.00 0 1 2 1 4 b h i s t o g r a m KHEUUENCl • c a n J.D67 STU ERR .111 MEDIAN 4.U0U HUOb 4.UUU SID DEV .S77 VARIANCE .111 1.712 S E SKE# 1.22b MANGe l.UUU MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 4.UOU SUM 11.UOU «Atlü CAbtS AiSalNU Ca :>LS ' APPENDIX J 284 Director of Employee Relations t : j 2 Director of Industrial Relations vi'.iD :UM ':LU: Li3=L WaL'Jc «R=:UEN:Y SjRCcNT PESCENT PERCENT N3n«/N3 itf#ct 1 iOO.3 iOO.3 100.0 TCTAL iÔÔ.Ô 100.Ô CCUNT sCCPCINT CNE SYS30L ECU4LS APPSOX ISaTEl Y .10 OCCURRENCES 2 ..... 1 2 3 rtlSTOÎRAH rRcSUENCY SE Jf. STj ERA .000 median 1.000 sCCE STO OEV .000 VARIANCE .000 SiNÛE MINIMUM 1.030 MAXIMUM I.000 Jj-S VALIO CASES MISSING CASES Mil Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUE LAbEL v a l u e FKEUUENCT p e r c e n t PERCENT PEKCENI NA 0 t 14, j 14,3 NONE/NU AFEl CT 1 % 14. J 14,3 LUa DtChEb 2 j 42.y 42,y SOME ObCHEE j 1 14. J 14. J Kb.7 NiCrt uELKEE 4 1 14.J 14. J lUO.U TOTAL 7 100,0 lUU.O COUNT VALUE ONE STMbUL EUUALS APPKUXINATELT .1010 UCCURRENCES1 1 .UU «***««••»« 1 l.UU i 2.00 1 J.OO 1 A.00 •i S I' HiSruCRAN FREOUENCT MEAN 2.000 STD ERR MEDIAN 2. UUO MOOE 2.U00 SIU UEv v a r i a n c e I.*67 KUHTOSIS .312 S E KURT iim SKENNESS .UOU S E SKE. .704 r a n g e 4.000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 14.000 v a l i d c a s e s MISSING CASES 032 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM VALUE LAbEL VALUE FKEUUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT LO. OEUHEE 2 2 66.7 66.7 SOME UEGKC.E J 1 JJ.J 53:] 100.0 1ÜIAL IUU.U lOU. U COUNT VALUE ONE STNbOL EUUALS APPROAiMAXELT .lU UCCURRENCES 2.U0 3.OU 1...... 1...... i ...... 1 2 HISTUGh AM FKEUUENCT mean 2.333 STU ERR MEDIAN 2.UUU MUOE 2 . UUU sTU OEv v a r i a n c e .JJJ SKE.NESS 1 . /32 S E Sa K. 1.225 r a n g e 1 .uOU MINIMUM 2. Ouu MAXIMUM J.UOU SUM 7.000 valid c ases MISSING C a s e s APPENDIX J 285 333 Director o£ Employee Relations t Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUM V4LJ: t-iîîL ViLue FiEwUENCr PcRCcNT PzUCHNT PERCENT ,Mone/N3 lft»ct 1 2 100.0 130.0 130.0 t o t a l "i 100.0 100.0 3N5 STMs CL c 3u a l s apbrcximatclt .10 :c:CUPRcNCcS : ; 0 1 3 A 5 MIST CÜRAM FRcCU ENCT '«:1N 1.303 STO £!S .000 MEDIAN 1.000 433c 1.003 ST3 3:V .000 V45IANCE .000 ?4Ni: .003 m IM m u m 1.000 MAXIMUM 1.000 iu4 3.033 VILIO CiSci 2 MISSING CASES C UJl Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALIO CUM VALUL LAâLL v a l u e FMEUUENCT PERCENT PERCENT p e r c e n t "A U 14.3 14.3 eONE/wu AKFtCr i SÙ4L OCUKLL i 3 ÎI-.I Hi? RILH ULLk LL 4 1 14.3 14.3 luu.u ...... TOIAL 100.0 100.0 couNt v a l u e On e SIMBOL EOUALS APPNOXIMAfELI .10 OCCURRENCES 1 .UO 2 t.OU #»«##**««*#$*#«*#$## 0 2.U0 J i.UO 1 4.00 0 1 3 3 4 5 HIStOSRAM FREOUENCT "LAN 2.H i sru EMM .053 MEUIAN 3.ouu MUOE i.üÜU SIO UEV I .404 Va r i a n c e KUMIOblb -l.ïil S L KUNI 1.5*7 SAEMNESS S t Sa Ca .7V4 MAn UE 4.000 MINIMUM "isll MAAIMUM 4,UOU SUN 15.000 VALlU CASLS ; MISSING CASES Ü Uii Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALlU c u m VALUL label VALUL FKEUUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT a UAE/Au AFFECT 1 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 UUM Oe OKLL 2 2 B6.7 6B.7 100.u rUfAL 3 IUU.U luu.u C u u M VALUE ONE STMBUL EUUALS AFRKUAIMAILLT .lu UCCUKKENCES 1 1 . OU 2 2 . UU «i»»»*»*»##,,#««»*$, 0 1 2 3 4 5 HlsrUGRAM FREUULNCT Me a n l.bbi SIU EKK MEUIAN 2.UOU MUOE 2.UUU SIO OEV VAKlANCE .333 SMe m n e SS «1.7 12 S £ SME, 1.225 RANGE 1 .UOU MINIMUM 1.ÜUU MAAIMUM 2.U0Ü SUM 5.UUU KALlu "IbblNG CAbbS APPENDIX J ;3* Director of Employee Relations « 286 Director of Industrial Relations v a l i d ViLJï L6 3-L VALU: FSeiuiNCY »:3C:NT P£eSCENT >e5^ent Sa*# ]*3r** 3 30.0 50.0 50.0 •'150 3*3re» 50.0 50.0 100.0 total 100.0 100.0 CCj s t VALJ: CN= 5»A3Cl EQUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 3.00 *.00 1...... I...... Z..... 0 1 2 3 m ISTOGRAM rREOUENCY AcAN 3.500 STO ERR .300 MEDIAN 3.500 MjOc 3.000 sio oav .707 v a r i a n c e .500 3iVi£ 1.000 minimum 3.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUA 7.00 0 valid Cases MISSINS c a s e s 034 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUN YALUt u As El vALUb FMbwUbwCX PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT MÜNË/NU AYFtCT 3 42.9 bO.O LQ# UECkcIE be.7 HIGn ULGKEE I \t:i li;l iuo.o 1 14.3 MISSING TOTAL lOU.U "ÎÔÔIÔ* CUUNT VALUE ONE SIMbOL EQUALS APPKOXINATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 3 l.UO »»#«##«****#*###*****«###*#*#* 1 2.Ou 0 3.ÜU 2 4.U0 •i i 5- K1STÜGRAN FREUUENCY MEAN 2.10/ sru tRft .601 MEDIAN 1.5U0 MODE 1.UÙ0 SIU UbV 1.472 VARIANCE 2.io7 KUKTOSiS •2.052 S t KURT 1.741 SKEWNESS .711 S E SKE# .445 KAn u E J.UOU MINIMUM l.OUO MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 13.000 VALID CASES HISSING CASES U34 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALIU cum VALUE uAbEL VALUE FKEUUENCt PERCENT PEnCENl PERCENT LCiM DEGh EE 33.3 33.3 33.3 nlGH u e G n EE 60.7 60. 7 luu.u ruiAL luu.O luv. u CUUN 1 VALUE ONE SYNbUL EQUALS APPROA1MAlELÏ .lU OCCURRENCES 2.UU »#•♦*»«•»# 4.UU I*###****#*##*##***# 0 { 2...... HISTUGHAM FREQUENCY m e a n 3.333 SIU ERR .667 MEDIAN 4.U00 MOOE 4.UU0 STD DEV v a r i a n c e 1.333 SKE'NESS •1.732 S E SKEW I'M RANGE 2.000 MINIMUM 2.SOU MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 10.000 VALID CASES m is s in g cases APPENDIX J 287 :35 Director of Employee Relations s Director of Industrial Relations ViLlO CUH /iL'J: L43:L ViLJ: i=5;3U:NCT PfBCfNT PERCENT PERCENT uo< 3*g'«* 30.0 50.0 "tign 50.0 13; 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE STN3CL EQUALS APP3OX I MAT ELT .10 OCCURRENCES 2.00 4.03 0I...... I...... I...... I...... 1 2 3 HISTOGRAM FR c SUENCT NEiN 3.000 STO e rr 1.000 m e d i a n 3.000 NCOE 2.000 STO OEV l.AlM v a r i a n c e 2.000 RiNiE 2. 300 MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM A. 000 SUN 6.000 VALIO CASES MISSING CAGES U35 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUE LABEL v a l u e FREOUENCI p e r c e n t p e r c e n t PERCENT NONE/MU AFFECT L0« DECREE i 5?:? MICH UECKEE 4 .M. J l l L luu.o rUlAL 1UU.Ô ÎÜÔ.Ô CUUNT Va l u e ONb s i m d u l e u u a l s approximately .lU OCCURRENCES 3 1.00 1 2.UU 0 j.uu 3 A. 00 i i Ô HlSTOCRAN FKEOUENCY i- MEAN 2.429 STO ERR MEDIAN MODE l.UOO sru DEV 1.512 VARIANCE 3:32: KUMIUSIS •2.04 7 5 E NUKT 1.5B7 SKE b n ESS .190 S E SKE* . 794 KANCE 3.Ü0U MINIMUM I .uou MAXIMUM 4.U00 S um 17.000 VALID CASES MISSINC CASES 035 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Repotter) VALIU CUM v a l u e LAbEL VALUE FREOUbNCY PERCENT PERCE41 PERCENT 0 lUU.O 100.Ü .JliL MISSING rUTAL 1UÜ.U 100.0 COUNT NloPulNT UNE SYMBOL EUUALS APPROXIMATELY ,10 UCCUr Re n CES 2 0 i- Ï i I" HISIUCRAM FREOUENCI MEAN .000 sru ERR .OUU MEDIAN .UOU MUOE .000 SID DEV .OOU v a r i a n c e .000 NANCE .000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM .000 S um .UOU •ALIU CASbS MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 288 ;36 Director of Employee Relations C Director of Industrial Relations v a l i d eux VALU: LiîEL VALU: fücJUENCT »:SC:«7 PiSCfNT PîUCENT Ion» I t s r * » 50.0 50.0 50.0 -Il ;h 3»sr»» 50.0 50.0 100.0 t o t a l 100.0 100.0 ;;uNT valus ON: SrM3CL SÎUALS APPÏC* I MAT EL V .10 DCCUBSENCES 4..003.00 aaaaauaaas X...... 1...... I..... 0 1 2 3 HISTOOSAM FBEJuENCr '4:AN ÂTO EPS . 500 MEDIAN 3.500 '*D3£ STD OEV .707 v a r i a n c e .500 PANGs 1.300 MINIMUM 3.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 jJH 7.000 vALi: CASES MISSINS CASES Uie Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) CUN VALUE LASEL VALUE FKEUUEnCK PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT SlOMt UbCkcL 42.V lilUtt ubGHbê. ..lIlL luo.u lUTAL "lûûlô tuu. u CUUNT VALUE ONE SIMbOL EUUALS APPHUXlHATtLI .lU UCCURRENCES J.QÛ ••••««*««•••«*»•««*•••*•••«*«* 4.00 A «4*#$$* 1 1 1 1. 1 2 3 NlSrUCHAM fREWUENCI MEAN i.S7l sru ERR m e d i a n 4 . UOu MODE 4.UU0 STÛ UEV VARIANCE .260 AUKIUAIS ■2.SUU S E MUhX Æ SKE r n ESS -U.374 S E 5KE« .7i4 RANGE MINIMUM 3.UU0 MAXIMUM 4.UUV SUM VALID CASES MlSSlNL CASES sib Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM VALUE LAd EL VALUE EREUUENCl PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT MlGri OELk e e 4 3 100.U luu.u lUO.O ...... TOTAL lUU.U lUU. 0 CUUNT MluPulNT ONE SIMBuL EUUALS APPROXIMa IELI .lU UCCURRENCES 3 4 44V4f4A*4*4$**4A***0$*«|$*,*MA i i i' h i s t o g r a m TREUUENCt MEAN 4.0U0 SIU ERR .000 m e d i a n 4 .uou MOOE 4.000 SIU UEV .000 v a r i a n c e . uou RANGE .uuo SUM 12.000 m i n i m u m 4,OOU MAXIMUM 4.000 •ALIU c a s e s m i s s i n g c a s e s APPENDIX J 289 337 Director of Employee Relations c Director of Industrial Relations VALID CUM ':LU: Ll3sL VwLU: MRECUENCY »:RC:N7 PERCENT PERCENT is#* 3*;p*t 3 1 50.0 50.0 50.0 tigh 3»gr»« 4 1 50.0 50.0 100.0 -- t o t a l 100.0 130.0 :2UNT VALUE ON: STM3CL EOUAUS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 1 3.30 ooAaas»*## 1 A.00 009û9vd4»« T...... T . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 nlSTOlRAH FAEOUENCV 3. 500 STO cR2 .500 MEDIAN 3.500 3.000 STO OEV .707 v a r i a n c e .500 aiNS: 1.300 MINIMUM 3.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 7.000 ViLl3 CASES MISSINS CASES 0 Ui7 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) v a l i d CUM VAUUc. LAbLU v a l u e 3REUUENCI p e r c e n t p e r c e n t PERCENT HUat/NO AKFtCI 1 J LU» UCUMbt 2 2 6U»E ObûHôL 3 2 j j : : 100.0 ...... TOTAL 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALUE UNE SlMSUL EUUALS APPRUXIMATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 1 1,00 2 2.00 2 3.00 0 1 2 3 4 6 HlSrUGRAM f r e o u e n o m e a n l.tlsl SIU ERR .340 m e d i a n 2.000 NÜDL l.UUU SIO DEV v a r i a n c e .81U AUKIUblS -s.»!/ 5 E KURT lll»7 SKEMNESS .353 & t Shb» ,li* HAn Le MINIMUM l.UOO MAAlMUA J.UÜU Sum 13^000 VALIU CASl S 7 MISSING CASES 0 937 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM VALUC LAUEL VALUE FKEUUENCT PERCENT PERCENT p e r c e n t SOME DEGREE 3 SIGH DEGREE 4 i 66:7 idd:u ruTAL i lOu.u 100.0 CUUNT VALUE UNE SIMBUL EUUALS approximately .10 OCCURRENCES 1 3.00 2 4.00 •••«•••«**»•••****«* 0 1 2 3 4 ...... 5 HiSTUCRAM FREUUENCI MEAN 3.067 SID ERR MEDIAN 4.000 MUOE SIO UEV :iVi v a r i a n c e .333 SAENNESS S E SAE» 1.225 RANGE 1.000 MINIMUM i.OoO MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 11.000 v a l i d CALbb i MISSING CASES 0 290 A P P E N D I X J :33 Director of Employee Relations < Director of Industrial Relations v a l i d :u«i v a l u ; LA3ÉL VALUS ?»c3u£NCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT - COUNT MIDPOINT ONE STMaCL cSUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 2 I.I....*.#..I..« # * # «..I 0 1 2 3 5 rtlSTOGRAM f r e q u e n c y NEAN 4.000 STO ERR .000 MEOIAN N03E 4.000 STO OEV .000 v a r i a n c e \§88 RANGE .000 MINIMUM 4.000 m a x i m u m 4.000 SUX 0.030 VAl IO c a s e s MISSING CASES 33* Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALUE LABEL VALUE FAbOUeNCX PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NONE/NO a f f e c t LUa UEuKEE i if iîlî SOME d e g r e e i 1 i?;î NIGH DECREE 4 2 il:l ilo’.o ...... l ï l L TOTAL "ÎÔÔTÔ* ’ lôôTû” CUUNT VALUE 3NC SXHBOL EQUALS APPHOXIMATEL: .10 occurrences 2 l.OU #$#$#$$###$#$#$#*##$ 2 2.U0 1 J.UU 2 4.UU 2 J HISTOOKAH FNEOUENCY MEAN 2.42V sru EKR MEOIAN 2.UOU MUOE 1 . UUU sru UEV r . V A VARIANCE MUk Iu SIS "I.TIS S E KUMI SKEMNESS S E Sa E* . 7V4 RANGE j Io o o MINIMUM l.UUO MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 17.OUU VALID CASES MISSING CASES Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM v a l u e LAbEL VALUE rHEUUEHCX PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT rtlGri DECREE 4 i 100.0 1UU.U_ lUU.O ...... luTAL 1Ù0.U looTo COUNT MiuPUl.vl o n e siMbUL Eu u a l s appnoxxmatelx .10 UCCUHRENCES J 4 " i & i nlSIUGKAM Î... KREQUENCY Mt An 4.UU0 SIU ERR .UOU MEDIAN 4.UUO MUOE 4.UUU SIO UEV .000 VARIANCE .000 RANGE .UUU MINIMUM 4.U00 MAXIMUM 4.000 Su m 12.UUO VALIU CASES MISSImG CASES APPENDIX J 291 339 Director of Employee Relations c Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUH VJLUc L49ÉL v a l u e F R E 3 U E N C T PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT High 0«gr*« 4 2 ioo .0 100.0 100.0 -- TOTAL 100.0 100 . Ô COUNT HIOPOI n T o n e STH30L E3UALS APPROXIHATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 2 4 anoawwauaa##»*#**#*» ...... 1 2 3 HISTOGRAH FRcSUENCT H cA N 4 . 0 0 3 STO c R B .000 HEOIAN 4.000 H 0 3 : 4 . 0 0 0 S TO O EV . 0 0 0 v a r i a n c e . 3 0 0 S A N I f . 0 0 0 m i n i m u m 4.000 MAXIMUM 4.300 SUM 3 . 0 3 0 VALIO CASES 2 MISSINC 039 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT N O N E /N O AFFtCr LOa DECREE - è fill SOME DECREE i 0 0 , 7 lou.u - J î i i . MISSING TOTAL "ÎÔÔTÔ" "ÎÔÛIÛ" COURTVALUE ONE STMUUL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 1 1 . 0 0 1 2 . 0 0 4 3 . 0 0 ...... k...... 1...... 1. h i s t o g r a m f r e q u e n c y m e a n 2 . S O U SID E r r MEDIAN 3 ^ .UOU MUOE 3 . D u o S T u U E V VARIANCE . 7 0 0 AU m IJSIS 1 . 4 2 9 S E R U R f SKEanbSS -l.bi? S E S A E a . 0 4 5 KAMGa. 2 1 OOU MINIMUM l . U O O MAXIMUM 3 . U 0 U S u m l b . 0 0 0 VALID CASES 6 MISSING CASES Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PEHCENT LUa OELREE 2 6 6 . 7 SOME UECREE 3 i « : î 3S:I 100.0 lUTAL 3 100.0 100.0 COUNT v a l u e ONE SYMUUL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 2.00 ••«••«•a************ 3.00 *a»»a»a*a* i i I' HisruGKAM f r e u u e n c y MEAN 2 . 3 3 3 S I U E k R MEDIAN 2.000 MODE 2.000 sru uEv liV. v a r i a n c e . 3 3 3 S K E a N E S S 1 . 7 32 a E S a E m 1 . 2 2 5 range 1 .000 MINIMUM 2 . 0 U Ü MAXIMUM 3 . 0 0 0 SUM 7 . 0 0 0 VALID CALES MlSSlnC CASES APPENDIX J 292 9«0 Director ot Employee Relations t Director o£ Industrial Relations VALID CUM v a l u e LA3;L v a l u e FRc OUENCT PEaCcNT PERCENT PERCENT Non«/No Affect 1 50.0 50.0 50.0 S o b * D * g r * * 3 50.0 50.0 100.0 t o t a l 100.0 100.0 COUNT v a l u e ONE STNSOL EOUALS APPROXIHATELT .10 occurrences 1.90 3.00 aaeaeauBa* I ...... I. 0 1 h i s t o g r a m FREQUENCT N=iN STO ERR 1.000 MEDIAN, 2.000 MOOc STO OEV 1 . 4 1 4 v a r i a n c e 2.000 *ANGE I.000 MINIMUM 1.000 m a x i m u m 3.000 SUN <•. 000 v a l i d CASES MISSING CASES JtO Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUE LAbEL. FREQUENCY PERCENT p e r c e n t NONE/AO Arrtct 4 57.1 57.1 LO* DEGREE 2 2B.6 28.b SUME DEGREE i I 14.3 14.3 100.Ü lUlAL 7 100.0 100.Ô’ COUNT VALUE ONE SIMBOL EOUALS APPROXIMATELI .10 OCCURRENCES **************************»****a******** I I;k ********,*,,,*,*,*,, •} i }• HlsrOSRAH FREUUENCy m e a n 1 . S 7 1 STD ERR MEDIAN MOOE l.UUU SID OEV VARIANCE AURTOSIS .^71 5 E KURT ,il!î SKEBNESS 1. lib S E SAEa . 7V4 MANGE 2.000 MINIMUM l.UOO MAXIMUM A.UUU Sum 11,000 VALID CASES MISSING CASES U40 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALIU CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREOUENCI PERCENT p e r c e n t p e r c e n t MUNE/NU A* FECI 2 O b . 7 LOm DEGREE 1 Jill. .JÛ. luu.o TUIAL l O O . U IUO.O COUNT VALUE ONE SIMBUL EUUALS APPRÜXINATELI .10 OCCURRENCES ******************** i:8ü ********** i t i i - * HISTUCk AM f r e u u e n c i MEAN 1 . 3 1 3 SIU ERR MEUIAN MODE 1.000 sru UEV IS77 v a r i a n c e SKEMNESS 1 . 7 3 2 S E SKE* RANGE l.OUO MINIMUM i.Ouu MAXIMUM kuoo SUM A. uuo v a l i d cases missing c a s e s 293 APPENDIX J Director of Employee Relatione t Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUM ViLU: LiScL VuLUË FREQUENCY «ERCENT RERCENT PERCENT So## 3#gr## 50.0 50.0 SO.O High 3*gr** 50.0 50.0 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 lÔÔ.O COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 3.00 ##»#####** A.00 attaa#«tteas I...... I...... I...... I.... 0 1 -2 —. . . . 3 ...... 5 h i s t o g r a m FREQUENCY mean 3.500 STO ERR .500 m e d i a n 3. 500 M33E 3.000 ST3 OEV .TOT v a r i a n c e .500 RANQE 1.000 MINIMUM 3.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM T.300 VALIO CASES MISSING CASES U41 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUK LABtL v a l u e FREOUENCI PERCENT PERCENT p e r c e n t NONE/NO AFFECT LO# DEGREE J «l5 HIGH d e g r e e 4 . J i i L 100.0 TOTAL "ÎÔÔTÔ" .ÎÔÔ.Ô J l l L COUNT VALUE ONE s y m b o l e u u a l s APPROXIMATELY 110 OCCURRENCES 2 1.00 #####$$#$*#*,$#$$$#$ 1 2.UU ##$##$$### 0 3.00 4 4.00 •t i J- HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY MEAN 2.MET STD ERR m e d i a n MODE 4.000 SIU UEV VARIANCE AUHTÜS1S -2.234 S E KURI SKEMNESS S E SKE# .7V4 MANGE lisil MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 4.UOO S um 20.000 VALID CASES MISSING CASES U41 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) v a l i d CUM VALUE LABEL v a l u e FKEUUEHCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT HIGH DEGREE 4 3 100.0 100.0 100.0 ...... TOTAL îoôTô 100.Û CUUNt MIDPOINT ONE s y m b o l e u u a l s APPROXIMATELY .lU OCCURRENCES i 4 1...... 1....4....1....4....1. u 1 2 3 h i s t o g r a m f r e q u e n c y MEAN 4.000 SIU ERR .uoo MEDIAN 4.0U0 MOJE 4.UUU SIU UEV .uuo v a r i a n c e .uOu MANGE .UUU MINIMUM 4.uoo MAXIMUM 4.UOU S um 12.UUU VXLIU CASES MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 294 :<>2 Director of Employee Relations t Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUM VALUE HEEL VALU: FRfCuENCT =:RC:NT PERCENT PERCENT Lon Otgrt* 2 i SO.O 50.0 50.0 ■iigh D»gr»» 4 1 50.0 50.0 100.0 TOTAL 2 'ÎÔÔTÔ ÎÔÔ7Ô” COUNT VALUE ONc StM30L EQUALS APPROXIMATELY ,10 OCCURRENCES 2.00 eadotiï(«i«9 VALIO CASES MISSING CASES U42 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) CUN VALUE LAbEL . VALUE FKEOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA U WÜNE/NO AKFECT 1 «îlb LU# UEUHEE 2 niUH Ul Gk e E 4 ili!14. J_ îS:S luO.O¥ lUlAL ÎÔÔ7Û 100.u CUUNT VALUE JHt SYmWUL LUUAL6 APPHUXlMATCLX .10 OCCURRENCES 1 #####»##$# 1 1:88 2 2,ou #$*######$###$*»###$ U A,00 1 «.00 ««AMOAeAeç 1 1. U 1 HISTOGRAM FREOUENCI MEAN I.ill sru EKR .«HI MEDIAN 1.000 MuJt I.OOU STO DEV v a r i a n c e A U K i U & l S l.i«> S b RURI Sa E b n ESS {:îiîl G C SAL# . 7V« RANGE 4.000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM «.UUU SUM 11.UUO Va l i d CAitS MISSING CASES U42 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) v a l i d CUM VALUE LAbEL VALUE FREOUENCI PERCENT PERCENT p e r c e n t NA NJNE/HÜ AFfECI b 6.7 J i ' l Ills luo.u TUTAL lOu.u 100.0 COUNT VALUE ONE SiMbUL EuUALS APPROXIMATELI .10 OCCURRENCES ,00 ««•«*••»•*«•«««««•«» 1.00 0...... l’” '... 2...... HISTOGRAM FREOUENCI m e a n .111 SIO err MUOE MEUIAN .OUU sru DEV • M i v a r i a n c e :85!? SAEm n ESS 1.712 S E SAEa MINIMUM .000 1.22S r a n g e l.UOO MAXIMUM 1.000 S u m 1.000 VALID CASES MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 043 Dlxectoi of Employee Relations i 295 Director of industrial Relations VALID CUM /ALU: LAdSL VALUc FRfaUENCr »:R:=NT PERCENT PERCENT So## O e g r # # 50.0 50.0 50.0 High Otgr## 50.0 50.0 100.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 COUNT v a l u e CNE SVMSOL EOUALS iPPROXIMATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 1 3.00 1 A.00 I0 ...... I. 1 MlSTOSRAM FREOUENCT 4:AN 3.500 STD ERR .500 m e d i a n 3. 500 MOOE 5.030 STO OcV .707 v a r i a n c e .500 RANGE 1.000 MINIMUM 3.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 7.000 VALl: CASES MISSING CASES UAi Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUN VAUUk LAâkL- VALUb FREUUENCI PEHCENT PERCENT PERCENT SUMk DkCKkk ST.i nlGH OkCrikk IUO.O .JliL ..M. TOTAL "lÔoTÔ "ÎÔÔTÔ" COUNT VALUE ONE STHBOL EQUALS APPROXIHATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 4 3.00 «>•*«••*•«««««««•*••**««*•«•«•*•»•»••**• i 4.DU t i HISTUCRAM FREOUENCTÎ i i* MfcAn 3.4^v SIO ERR .aux m e d i a n NODc. 3.QUO sru UEV .S3S VARIANCE XUKIUSlS •a.MOO S E KURT a 1.5V7 SKENNESS S £ Si5k> .794 MANGE 1.000 MINIMUM 3^000 MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 24.0U0 VALID CASES MISSING CASES 04 3 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALUE LAbEL v a l u e FKEUUENCT PEHCENT PERCENT PERCENT h ig h UECKEE 4 3 luu.u lOU.U IUO.O lUIAL 3 lUO.U lUU.U CUUNI MIUPJINI JNE ST4SJL EQUALS APPEUXlMAIELI .10 UCCURRENCES 3 4 I....*....I....4...... I, U 1 2 3 i HISTOGRAM FKEUUENCT - • Î MEAN 4.UOO SIU ERR .UUU MODE MEDIAN 4.UUU 4. UUU SIU uEV .UOU VARIANCE .UOO r a n g e .UUO MINIMUM 4.UOO MAXIMUM 4.DUO S u m la.ouu v a l i d Ca s e s MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 296 Director of Employee Relations s Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUH VALUE LAScL VALUE FREOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT S»#* Degre# 3 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL 2 100.0 100.0 COUNT HIOPOINT ONE STHSOL EOUALS APPROXIHATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 2 3 . . 1 2 3 NISTOSRAN FREOUENCT h e a n 3.000 STO ERR .000 HEOIAN 3.000 HOOE 3.000 STO OEV .000 VARIANCE . 000 RANiE .000 HINIMUH 3.000 HAXiHUH 3.000 SUN 6.000 VALIO CASES HISSING CASES Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUL LASLL v a l u e FREOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT nunc/nd «rrtcT LUi UEURbt: i i iUî iî'J SUMb lOLGHcE J 2 20.b 2H.b IUO.O ^ TUTAL ; 100.0 100.0 CUUNT v a l u e u n e STMUUL e u u a l s APPROXIMATELI .10 OCCURRENCES 1 1.00 4 2 i'To ...... Ï Ï k Ï i HISTOGRAM FREOUENCT i MEAN 2.143 STO ERR .261 MEDIAN 2.000 MUOb 2.000 STO OEV .600 VARIANCE .476 AUHlUalS .J3o S E KURT 1.SM7 SKE n NESS «0.174 S E SFEa .794 r a n g e 2.000 MINIMUM 1.000 MAXlHUH 3.000 SUM 15.000 VALID CASES 7 MISSING CASES 0 0 4 4 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM V A L U E L A b EL FREUUENCI PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT N U N E / N U a f f e c t 1 33.3 33.3 33.3 L U * D E G R E E 1 33.3 33.3 66. 7 S O M E Oe G rc-E 1 33.3 33.3 luO.O TUIAL 3 100.0 100.0 CUUNT VALUE ONE SIMBUL EOUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 UCCURRENCES 1 1 \'To 1 3 . 0 0 "i...... 2...... i' HISTOGRAM FREOUENCT MEAN 2.OUU STD ERR .577 MODE m e d i a n 2.000 1 . uou SIU UEV v a r i a n c e l.OOU SAE m NESS .000 5 E SKE, l.iSS RANGE 2.000 MINIMUM 1.900 MAXIMUM 3.000 S um 6,000 VALID CASES MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 3*5 Director of Employee Relations A Director of industrial Relations 297 VALIO CUM VALU: UA35L VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT So.»» D»3i-*# 3 50.0 50.0 50.0 *ign 3#gr#« * ..... 50.0 50.0 100.0 t o t a l 2 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALU: ON: STM30L e q u a l s APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 1 3,0 0 1 * . 30 T______T _ . 0 1 2 3 * 5 HISTOGRAM FREOUlENCY M:AN 3.503 STO ERR ,500 MEOIAN 3,500 MOOc 3,303 STO OEV .707 v a r i a n c e ,500 RANG: 1,300 MINIMUM 3,000 MAXIMUM *.000 SUN 7.000 MISSING CASES 0 Ü4S Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALIO CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREOUENCX PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT SOME DECREE 3 HIGH DECREE 4 J Ï V J ihiil TOTAL lOU.U IUO.O CUUNT VALUE ONE SIRBOL EQUALS APPROXIMAIELX .30 OCCURRENCES 1 3.00 $#*$« 6 4.OU U 2 4 b R 10 NiSTUGRAM EREUUENCX MEAN J.RS7 STD ERN MEDIAN 4.OOU MODE 4.OUU SIU OEV VARIANCE ,143 KURTDSIS 7.OOU 5 E RUNT SKEMNESS >3.646 S E SAE* .794 RANGE MINIMUM 3.UOU MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM J:s88 v a l i d c a s e s 7 MISSING CASES 0 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM VALUE l a b e l VALUE KREUUENCX p e r c e n t PERCENT PERCENT SOME DEGREE 3 2 66,7 66,7 66.7 HIGH DELk EE 4 1 33,3 33.3 100.U ...... TUTAL 100.U luu.o COUNT VALUE ONE SIMBOL EUUALS APPROXIMATELY .lU OCCURRENCES 2 3.00 1 4.ÙU **«»*»•*«« I...... J,, 1 2 HXSruGKAM fRtdUbNCl MEAN 3.333 STD ERR MbUiAM MODE 3.OUU STD UEV v a r i a n c e ':SSS SKEMNESS 1. 732 S C S k E m ■ill! RANGL MINIMUM 3.0Ù0 MAXIMUM 4 . uu o SUM luluou v a l i d CASES 3 MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 298 346 Director of Employee Relations c Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUH VALU: LAJ'L VALUE FRE3UENCT »E»CENT PERCENT PERCENT High 0#gr*e 4 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 t o t a l 2 100.0 100.0 COUNT MIDPOINT ONE STMbCL EQUALS APPROXIHATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 2 4 1 2 3 h i s t o g r a m FREQUENCY Mf AN 4.003 STO ERR .000 m e d i a n 4.000 MDD: . . 003 STD OEV .000 v a r i a n c e . 000 RANG: .000 m i n i m u m 4.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 iUM 6.003 VALID CASES 2 MISSING CASES 046 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUN VALUb LAs LL fKEOUENCT PERCENT PbHCbNTVALUb PERCENT SUNK DtCHEb 21.4 HIGH OCCNi:b lilt 2UI6 lOU.O TUTAL 7 IUO.O lOU.O COUNT VALUb OWE SYMBOL EUUALS APPKOXINATELY .10 OCCURRENCES J,00 $##$$$$*$$$#$$$#####$$#$$»$#»##$$$$#$$#$$#$*$$$$$# ! 4.00 $$##$$$#$$###$#####$ i i 5 HISruCKAn KREUUENCX i i -i MEAN J.2N6 STD ERR .144 MEDIAN J.OUO NJOb STO OEV VARIANCE KURI061S S E KURT ll*87 SKENNRSS S C dbL« RANGE NINIMUM 3.uuoIliis MAXIMUM aIoud SUN 23IOOO vALiu CASES HISSING CASES U46 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALIU CUH VALUE LABEL VALUE KREOUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT HIGH UECKEE 4 à 100.0 lUV.O IUO.O ...... l U T A u 100.U "ÎÛÔTÔ" cuuNi MIUPjINT JNE s y m b o l bUOALS APPHUXINATELI .10 DLCURRENCES t 4 *«$*«««#*$#»«*$»$*******#$$*$# à i i }• HISTUGHAM KREUUENCX MEAN 4.000 sru ERR .000 MEDIAN 4.UUO MUOE 4.UUU S T D D EV .000 VARIANCE .UUU r a n g e .UuO MINIMUM 4.000 MAXIMUM SUM 12.000 4.000 VALID CASES MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 299 347 Director of Employee Relations t Director of Industrial Relations v a l i d CUM VALU! LA3!L VALUE FREOUENCI PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT Son* 0«;r** 3 1 50.0 5 0.0 50.0 Iigh 3*gr** 4 1 50.0 50.0 100.0 t o t a l 2 100.0 100.0 CCUST VALUE ONE STM30L EOUALS approximately .10 OCCURRENCES 1 3.30 1 •>.30 T ...... I.. 0 1 ' — — -2 •- ■— 3 ' - *4 5 mISTOGRAH FREOUENCT MSih 3.500 STO ERR .500 MEOIAN 3. 500 M33c 3.000 STO OEV .707 .v a r i a n c e .500 SANGi 1.000 MINIMUM 3.000 m a x i m u m 4.000 SUM 7.000 v a l i d c a s e 5 2 MISSING CASES 0 34 7 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALIU CUM VALUl LABEL VALUE FREOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NÛSE/NU AFFECT LU* UEUHEE i ït'J rtlGH DEGREE 4 i iî:J42.» 42.» 100.0 TUIAL 7 lOU.U IUO.O CUUN r VALUE U n E SIMBUL EUUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCUKKENCES 1 J i:ü8 0 1.00 i 4.U0 U I 2 J *' 4 HISTOGRAM FREOUENCT ... I m e a n 2.714 sru ERR .474 MEOIAN MUDE 2.0U0 STD DEV 1.254 VARIANCE (:§!? AURIUSIS 2.071 S E XUKI 1.5N7 SKENNESS .029 5 E SKLN . 704 m a n g e J.OOU MINIMUM l.OUO MAXIMUM 4.OUU SUM 19.OOU v a l i d c a s e s 7 MISSING CASES 0 347 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter ) VALID CUM VALUE l a b e l VALUE FREOUENCI PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT HlCrt UEGKEE 4 3 100.U 100.0 100,0 TUTAL 3 100.0 100.0 COUNT NlOPUlNT JNt SIMBUL EQUALS APPRUXIMATELT .10 OCCURRENCES i 4 5 hlsrUGRAM FREUUENCI MEAN 4.UUO STD ERR .000 MEOIAN 4.000 MODE 4.UUU SiU UEV .UOU VARIANCE .000 m a n g e .u u o m i n i m u m 4.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM W . b u O VALID Ca s l :^ «ISâlNL CAStb APPENDIX J 300 :*a Director of Employee Relations t Director of Industrial Relations v a l i d CUM ViLUr Li3cL ViLUr FRcOUENCr PERCENT p e r c e n t PERCENT So<* Oe;r** 3 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 t o t a l 2 100.0 100.0 :OUNT MIDPOINT ONE SYM3CL EOUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 occurrences 3 1 2 3 4 h i s t o g r a m f r e q u e n c y MEAN 3.003 STD cRR .000 MEDIAN 3.000 MODE 3.000 STO OEV .000 v a r i a n c e .000 r a n d s .000 MINIMUM 3.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 6.000 v a l i d CASES MISSING CASES 0 U46 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT p e r c e n t PERCENT MICH DECKEE 4 7 100.0 100.0 100.0 t o t a l lOU.U lOU.O CUUNT MIDPOINT ONE SYMBOL EUUALS APPROXIMATELY .20 OCCURRENCES 7 . 4 1.4..4... 0 2 4 b •iJ HISTOURAM FKEUUENCT MEAN 4.000 STD EKR MEUIAN 4.OOU NUDE 4.000 SIO UEV :§gg VARIANCE .000 KANCE ,000 MINIMUM 4.000 MAXIMUM 4.UOU SUM 2N.000 VALIU CASES MISSING CASES Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-ReporterI VALID CUN v a l u e L A B E L VALUE FREUUENCI PERCENT p e r c e n t p e r c e n t LOa DECKEE 2 33.3 SUME UtCktE i bb . 7 MICH UC.CKEE 4 . J l i L 100.0 lUlAL J iuo.o IÜU.U CUUNI VALUE ONE SIMBUL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY ,10 OCCURRENCES 1 2.U0 •»»«(*««»« 1 3.OU 1 4.00 •fHISTUGHAM iFREUUENCI i- MEAN i.OUU STD EKR .S/7 MEOIAN l.OOU NUDE l.UOO STU DEV 1.000 VARIANCE 1.000 Sn Er m ESS .000 S A SAEa 1.22S range 2.OOU MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM 4,UUO SUM V.UUO VALID CASES m i s s i n g c a s e s APPENDIX J 301 Director of Employee Relations c Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUH VALU: LA3EL VALUE FREOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT -iigh Otjr»» t 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 - TOTAL 100.0 ”10070” COUNT HIOPOINT ON: 5TH50L EQUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 2 4 »»*#**»»«»#*####***# 1 2 4 i h i s t o g r a m f r e q u e n c y, 3 H: AN A. 000 STO ERR MEDIAN 4.000 MODE 4.000 STO DEV :888 VARIANCE .000 RANG: . 000 m i n i m u m 4.000 m a x i m u m 4.000 SUM 3.000 v a l i d c a s e s 2 MISSING CASES Q49 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREOUENCI PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NÜNL/NO AFFEdl LOM DECREE i SOME DEGREE 3 1 m ilil Ilil h i g h DECREE 4 2 2B.6_ 26.6 100.0 ...... TUTAL lUO.U " IÔÔ7Ô COUNT VALUE LUE s y m b o l EUUALS APPROXIMATELI .10 OCCURRENCES 1 **«••••••« 3 j.uu 2 t.Uu U 1 2 J 4 5 HISTOGRAM FREOUENCI MEAN 2.«67 STD EKR .404 MEUIAN j.uou MiODt. l.OOU sro DEV 1.U69 v a r i a n c e NUKrusis .ioi S E MURT 1.6H7 SKENNESS S E Saem .744 MANGE l.UUU MINIMUM I.OUU MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 20.000 VAUiU CASLS MISSINS CASES 044 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM VALUE LAbEL VALUE FREUUENCI PERCENT PERCENT p e r c e n t SOME OeCKEt 3J. J 31.3 HIGH OEGk EE I 66.7 ii'J luu.u ...... TUIAL luu.o lou.u COUNTVALUE ONE SIMBOL EUUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 1 l.OU •••*•««»*« 2 4.OU •«A***************** i 1 i i” ' HISTOGRAM FREOUENCI MEAN 1. d 6 7 sru ERR MEDIAN MOOE 4.OUU sro UEV VARIANCE ‘:SÏS SMn n n ESS -1.712 S E SKEM .;Sil RANGE 1 .000 MINIMUM l.OOU MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 11.000 VALID CASES 1 m i s s i n g c a s e s APPENDIX J 302 n o Olzector of Employee Relations & Director of Industrial Relations v a l i d CUM v a l u e LASc L VALU: FREOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT Loa D*gr«* 2 2 1OÔ.0 100.o' 100.0 TOTAL 2 100.Ô 10Ô7Ô' COUNT MIDPOINT ONE STMS3L EOuALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES Î 2 aeeeeeeeoe»»»**»»#»» . __ -. ■ 1 2 3 h i s t o g r a m FREOUENCT MEIN 2.009 STO ERR .003 m e d i a n 2.000 MCDE 2.003 STD DEV .000 v a r i a n c e .000 RANGE .000 MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM 2.000 iUM N.OOO v a l i d CASES 2 HISSING U50 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUN VALUL LASLL VALUE FKEUUENCT PEHCENT PERCENT PERCENT NONt/NO AFFECT 1 LOA UEGHEE 2 ?J:5 SUME UEGHEE J 2V.b lii! HIGH UEGh El 4 2v.t> 100.0 TOTAL 7 100.0 100.0 CUUNT VALUE ONE STMUOL EOUALS APPKOXINATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 2 l.UO (•**«««••««•»•••*»** 1 2.00 *>«»••»•«* 2 A.00 •••»*•••••••»••♦•**• 2 4.00 ♦*♦»♦♦»•••»•*•»**•*• I ...... 1...... 1 I. 1 2 J HISTOGRAM FREOUENCT MEAN 2.S71 sru ERR MEDIAN 3.000 MOUE l.UOO sru OEV VARIANCE XUHIUSIS -1.715 S E KURT iiill SKEMNESS S E SXk* .704 r a n g e 3.000 MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 4,UOO SUN 18.000 VALID CASES m i s s i n g c a s e s USU Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALIU CUM VALUE LAbEL VALUE FKEUUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA 0 I 33.3 33.3 33.3 NUNE/NU AFFECI 1 1 33.3 33.3 66.7 SUME UEGKEE 3 1 33.3 33.3 100.U TOTAL 3 IUO.O IUO.O CUUNT VALUE ONE SIMbOL EOUALS APPROXIMATELI .10 OCCURRENCES 1 ,00 »•*♦•♦«•»* 1 l.OU •»*♦*»*•** V 2.00 1 3.Ou I...... 1...... 1...... 1...... I...... 1 0 1 2 3 4 6 h i s i 'u c h a m f r e u u e n c i MEAN 1.333 sru ERR .802 MEDIAN 1.000 MUOE ,000 sro De v 1.528 VARIANCE 2.333 Sk Em NEs S ,935 S E S k Em 1.225 RANGE 3.000 MINIMUM ,OUO MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 4.000 VALlU c a s e s 3 MISSING CASES U APPENDIX J 303 551 Director of Employee Relations t Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUM If ALUS 1.45c!. v a l u e FREOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT lo« Digrt» 50.0 50.0 50.0 So»» 3#9r#* 50.0 50.0 iOO.O t o t a l 2 100.0 100.0 CCUNT VALUE ONE STH3CL EOUALS APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 2.00 3.00 I...... I. 0 1 HISTOGRAM FREOUENCT 4M 2.500 STD ERR .500 MEDIAN 2.500 M33Î 2.000 STO OEV .707 v a r i a n c e . 500 54NGc 1.000 MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 5.000 VALIO CASES MISSING CASES 051 Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID v a l u e L A B E L . VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PENDENT NONË/NÜ AFFECT LOm d e g r e e B5l7 HIGH DECREE I .....I. .JiiL ..fill. 100.0 luIAL 7 1ÜU.0 iou.o COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY .lU 1OCCURRENCES 2 l.OU «»»»»»»»»»••«»»*»»»» 4 2.OU 0 3.OU 1 4.u0 •«»»»••**» 0 1 2 3 4 ...... Î h i s t o g r a m f r e q u e n c y MEAN 2.UUO STD ERR .37* MEDIAN 2.UOO MODE 2 .000 STU DEV l.OUO VARIANCE l.UOO KUKIOSIS 3 .OUO S E KURT 1.SV7 SKEMNESS 1.400 S E SKEM . 794 r a n g e 3.000 NINIMUN I.OUU MAXIMUM 4.UOU SUM 14.UUO VALIO CASES 7 MiSSlNC CASES 0 0)1 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) CUN VALUE LAULL VALUE rREOUENO PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT L0» DL'CMEL 33.3 33.3 NiSN DECKLE I bb.7 J s l? . iOU.O iOIAL i lOU.O luu.u COUNT VALUE UNE SYMBOL EOUALS APPROXIMATELY ,10 OCCURRENCES 2.0U ».».»♦»•»» 4.UU ...«.*»*«»»».»»»»«*» 1...... i ...... 1...... i, 0 1 2 3 HISIUCRAM FKbUUbhCY MEAN 3 . 3 33 SID ERR MEDIAN 4 . UUO NUOL 4.UUU SID UEV VARIANCE 1.333 SKEMNESS • 1 . 7 3 2 S E SKEm i i l H RANGE 2.UOU MINIMUM 2 . UUO MAXIMUM 4.OUO Su m 10.000 VALID CASLS MISSING CASES 304 APPENDIX J ;52 Director of Employee Relations k Director of Industrial Relations VALIO C u m VALU: LAJ'L VALU: RRECUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT Nona/No Affact 1 I 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5o»t Oagraa 3 1 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 t o t a l 2 100.0 100.0 COUNT v a l u e O N : S T M 3 0 L e q u a l s APPROXIMATELV .10 O C C U R R E N C i 1 1.00 aasaaBavOu 1 3 . CD aBB«*B«aoa I ...... I.. 0 I 2 3 4 h i s t o g r a m F R : C U ENcr REIN 2.000 STO ÊRR 1 . 0 0 0 MEOIAN 2.000 N 0 3 Ê 1.30D STO OcV 1 . 4 1 4 VARIANCE 2.000 RANGE 2.000 MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 3 . 0 0 0 SUN 4 . 0 0 0 ViLia CIS:5 tISSIMS CASES Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUE LAPEL, VALUE FKEUUENCTPERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NUNE/NO AFFECT 1 2 28.6 28.6 LOa DEURl E 2 1 14. J 14.3 SORE DECREE i 2 2b.6 28.6 11:1 RICH d e c r e e 4 2 28.6 28.6 100.0 .... t o t a l "îûoTû "lôôrô* COUNT VALUE JNE STMbOL EUUALS APPROXINATELX ,10 OCCURMENCES 2 I . UU •«•*a«a«a*4*a«*a*aa4 1 2.UU 1 l.UO 2 4.OU •iHISTOGRAM FREOUENCTJ i* NEAR Ù.b'l STU EKR MEDIAN J.OUU NUDE 1 .UÜV SIO OEV VARIANCE K U R I U S I S -I, lit) S E KURT i:l!l SKEMNESS S E S N E a .794 r a n g e J.OOU MINIMUM NAAINUN 4.UUU SUN le.ooo VALID CASES MISSING CASES Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALUb LAb EL VALUE FKEUUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NA LUa DEGREE 0 1 JJ.J JJ.J JJ.J SOME d e g r e e J _ 1 j j Ij j j Ij lUOlo total s lub.u lOv.u CUUNT v a l u e o n e s i m u u l e u u a l s apprdximatelt ,10 occurrences 1 .00 •••*a«a«a» 0 1.UO 1 2.DU1,00 »*»»*♦#*♦»»♦♦»»««♦•• i i i j - i I HISTOGRAM FREOUENCT MEAN NuOt SKEMNESS NININUM ::iii a s - l i i I » ' a VALID CASES 1 MISSING CASES 0 APPENDIX J 305 C53 Director of Employee Relations « Director of Industrial Relations VALID CUM VALU: LA3£L VALUE FREOUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT rtign 3#gr#* 4 1 foo.'o ' 100.0 ’ 100.0 t o t a l 2 1 0 0 . Ô ÏÔÔ.Ô COUNT MIDPOINT ONE STM30L EOUALÔ APPROXIMATELY .10 OCCURRENCES 2 4 I....*....I....*....I....4 ....I....' ...I....4....I 0 1 2 3 4 5 m ISTOCRAH FREOUENCT MEAN 4 .000 STO ERR .000 MEOIAN 4.000 MOOE 4 .000 STO OEV .0 0 0 v a r i a n c e . 000 RANGE . 000 m i n i m u m 4.000 m a x i m u m 4.000 ÂÜ.N s . 0 0 0 VALIO CASES MISSINC CASES Department Level Supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUE. LAbLL VALUE FRtUUENCY PEHCENT PERCENT PERCENT SOMENONË/NO OlCmEE Arrtci HlCrt DEGREE I .„.j. .Jill. .JiiL .i-ii t o t a l 7 10Ù.O IUO.O CUUNT VALUE o n e STMBUL e u u a l s APPRDXIMATELI .10 UCCURRENCES • 1 1.00 **•*•«*«*» 0 2.00 1 3.00 s 4.00 M***************»»*****»»**»*»**»*»*•«*••»*•••••«• è Ï i i i i HISTUCRAM FREOUENCT MEAN 3.429 STO ERR ,429 MEDIAN 4,000 MUOE 4.OUU STO DEV 1.134 VAKIAn CE 1.2H0 KURIOsIS 4.SHU S E KURT 1.S07 SKEMNESS -X.ISH S E SFE« .794 r a n g e 3.000 MINIMUM l.OOU MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 34.000 VALID CASES 7 MISSING CASES 0 OSl Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALIU CUM VALUE l a b e l VALUE FHEUUENCT PERCENT PERCENT PEKCCKT HIGH DEGHEE 4 3 100.u 100 0 100.0 ...... TUTAL "lOÔTÔ" "ÎÔÔTÔ" CJUNI MIDPOINT JNE SIMHJL e u u a l s APPKOXINATELT .10 OCCURRENCES 3 4 V4444M44444MM4MMMMMM444MMMMMM» \ 5.... HISTUGHAM.... iFREOUENCT.... i' MEAN 4. OUU SIU ERR .000 m e d i a n 4.000 MODE 4 . U U Ü STD UEV .000 VARIANCE ,OuO HArtGE . U U O MINIMUM 4.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 SUM 1 2.Quo VALID CASES MISSING CASES APPENDIX J 306 354 Director of Employee Relations « Director of Industrial Relations V A L I D CUM VALU: LA3:L VALU: MS:SU:NCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT SoMM 3*gr»« 3 1 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 nign 3*gr## 4 1 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 - t o t a l 100.0 100.0 COUNT VALU: O S : S T M i O L E O U A L S approximately . 1 0 C:CCURRENCES 1 3 . 0 0 1 4 . 0 0 W A# T ...... I _ _ 0 1 2 3 t 5 -iISTOCRAM FRECUESCr M cA N 3 . 5 0 0 S TD ERR . 5 0 0 m e d i a n 3 . 5 0 0 MODE 3 . 0 0 0 S T O O EV . 7 0 7 v a r i a n c e . 5 0 0 R A N S e 1 . 0 0 0 m i n i m u m 3 . 0 0 0 MAXIMUM 4 . 0 0 0 SUM 7 . 0 0 0 v a l i d C A S E S 2 MISSINC CASES 0 3 S 4 Department Level supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALID CUM VALUE l a b e l v a l u e FREOUENCI PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NONE/NO AfPECT 1 4 . 3 SOME decree i \ lî:i 2 8 . b N I S N DECREE 4 5 / I . 4 7 1 . 4 IOU.O ...... TUTAL IOU.O IUO.O COUNT VALUE ONE SIMBOL equals APPROXIMATELI , 1 U OCCURRENCES 1 l . O U 0 2 . 0 0 1 3 . 0 0 s 4 . 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 HISTOGRAM rREOUENCI MEAN 3 . 4 2 9 SID ERN MEDIAN MODE 4 . OUO S T O UEV VARIANCE KURIUSIS 4 . 5 8 0 5 E KURT iiill SKENNESS i i i f i S E S n E n . 7 9 4 RANGE 3 . 0 0 0 MINIMUM l . O O U MAXIMUM 4.UUU SUM 34.uou VALID CASES 7 MISSINC CASES 0 U 3 4 Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALIU CUM VALUE LABEL v a l u e FREUUENCI PERCENT p e r c e n t PERCENT HIS h D E C R E E 4 3 100.0 100.0 1 0 0 . 0 IOIAL iuo.o 100.0 COUNI MIDKUINI ONE SIMSOL EUUALS APPROXIMATELI .10 OCCURRENCES i 4 •A*****»*»*»***»****»**»***»*» i i J j- KiSrOSRAN FNEUUENCI MEAN «.OUU STD ERR .000 MEDIAN 4 . UUU M U 3 E 4 . UUU SIU UEI .000 VAKIANCE .O O U m a n s e . uUO MINIMUM 4 . 0 0 0 MAXIMUM SUM I/.UUO 4 . 0 0 0 VALID CASES MISSINS CASES APPENDIX J 307 Q3S Director of Employee Relations t Director of Industrial Relations VALIO CUM V:LU: LJ3EL VALUE 'REiUcNCT SERtiwT PERCENT percent Son«/N3 1 2 100.0 10 0.0 100.0 t o t a l 2 îôo.o 1ÔÔ7Ô’ COUNT MlOPOINT ONE STM3DL EOUALS ARPR3XIMAT ELV .10 OCCURRENCES 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 S h i s t o g r a m FREOUENCT M:A\ 1.003 STO ERR .000 m e d i a n 1.000 MOOE 1.000 STC 0:V .000 v a r i a n c e .000 RANOc .000 m i n i m u m 1.000 m a x i m u m 1.000 SUM 2.003 VALIO CASES 2 MISSING CASES 0 Department Level supervisors (The Pittsburgh Press) VALIU CUN VALUb LAbEL v a l u e FREUUENCI PERCENT PERCF.NI PERCENT NA 0 2 28.6 28.6 NUNE/NU AFFECT 1 1 42.9 42.9 LU, OECKEb 2 2 28.6 28.6 IOU.O #***»*# TOTAL 7 IOU.O 100.0 CUUNT VALUE ONE SIMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELI .10 OCCURRENCES 2 .00 21 2.00l.OU 0 1 2 1 4 5 NISTUGRAM FREOUENCI mean l.OUO STD ERR .309 MEDIAN 1.000 NOUb l.UuO sru UEV .816 VARIANCE .66? MUNTUL16 -1.200 5 k AURT 1.587 SKEMNESS .000 5 b SAb, .It* RANGE 2.000 MINIMUM .000 MAXIMUM 2.0OÜ SUM 7.000 VALID CASES 1 MISSING CASES 0 uss Department Level Supervisors (Washington Observer-Reporter) VALID CUM VALUE LABEL VALUE FREUUENCI PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT NONE/MU AFFbCr LOa DbCHEE i Ï SS:3 53:1 i^olu TUTAL 3 100.0 IOU.O CUUNI VALUb ONE SIMBUL EUUALS APPROXIMATELI .10 OCCURRENCES 2 1.00 a«•*»«•••»«*«•»••«•» 1 2.00 vaaaaaaaa* 0 1 2 1 4 b h i s t o g r a m FREOUENCI MEAN 1 .111 STU ERR .111 MEDIAN MODE 1.000 STD UEV .577 VARIANCE ‘ :Si°3 SAEaNbSS 1 .712 5 E SKEM 1.225 RANGE l.OUO MINIMUM l.OUO MAXIMUM 2.000 SUM 4.000 VALID CALLi MlSSlND CkStH APPENDIX K 308 APPENDIX u 1. A ! I fi V - - Kp M Ah u I ri KM I ! :t I »;V u « * I a . s m îRAhiTFnwai, .SKIM, roiiM I Fxr vAi. WMW Pff rut, p r r TU I IT r HFSIU'IAI. NA N M I K / O U I.IM 0F.f;p III CM U P C vSri) MKS Ah h h.n h r PKh OKK TITAI, AD.I Pl-S 0 1 7 3 4 Nl'tJS 1 .00 0 7 • ) n (I ? MANAr;»- MF N r . ; .H . 1 .7 Kilt,(11 • Ol .04 .Of lo.o't .Ot .04. .Of .ot 1 n .0 t .(J*v .Of - o. ; i w -0.3 - o . S -0. 7 -0. 4 1.1 -0 , h -0. ; -0.4 - o . S ! .R •0. 7 • O.'l -o. s ?.(i'i 0 1 ? 0 0 I SilMI-PVI.SiIP . * 1.1 .4 .4 . 3 ?s.o% .Ot n , 3% hf>, 7 k ,0f .Of .Ok 70. Of 1 0 0 . Of .Of .Ok .Ok 4. At Ih. 7f .Of .Of -0. % -0. 4 1.4 - O . H -0. 3 - 0. 4 - 0 . 7 7.1 -0 . V - 0 . 4 - O. h - 0 . 3 7.7 -1 .7 -•I , h I, 0(1 1 7 0 3 ! 7 IlNldN H F P .O 7.0 1.7 1 .H . *• Sfl n M . U 7 II, ht .(If 4 7. Of 14. 3f 1 0 0 . 0 1 10 . Of .Of IOO.Of 1 on,Of 0. n Ih. /f .Of 74, Of H. If . 1 - 0 . 0 - 1.7 1 . 3 .4 - 0 . 4 -1 . 1 .9 .4 .p -1.1 -1.4 1.7 .o r U M M N 1 4 7 3 1 *9 Tin At, H. 3t 11 . 77. Ih. 7^ 7 4. Of H. 3f I Oil.(IT HI-SDIIAhF: P.I-, < 1 ': 41 h 1 TA irf.- '4 i Cl* M.^ t 1 .S'ÎVHli 0, ! 7 -»H 0 . 1 0 7 14 113 W o kO APPENDIX K ^ n II I. \ r I fi N UK ------M A ^ r I I I m:| MY fl i? H^f.PUl MftKP Jfms MOPh RATiriKV INC: PACK 1 OF I CMiiM r kXM va|. iviU PTT c'fJI. i'( r T u r p r r kKSHMIftl. nA on Jh /fjn M1W MFi;w s'l^F o n ; HI OH fiFi; MOW r>ro pi-.s Al- )• KC »• FP PF»- HFK niTAi, rto,i pvr; n I 7 4 4 I .01) M 7 0 0 0 ? .5 .R . 4 .7 16. n .0 1 400,0% .0% .0% .0% .0? hO. 7 % .0% .0% .0% . o i 40.7% .0% .0% .0% - 0 .9 1.5 -O.R -O. 4 - 0 .2 -1), 1 7.4 - 0 .0 - 0 .5 -0 , 4 -0 .5 7.7 -4 .4 -0 .7 - 0 .5 Z.OO 0 0 7 4 0 mipKpv I Mip . 4 .« 1 . 4 .5 . 4 7 5 .n t .0 4 .0% 55.7% 44. 4% .0% .07 .0% 40.0% 50.0% .0% .0% .0% 16.7% H. 4% .0% - 0 . 4 -O.H .H .5 - 0 , 4 -0 .5 - 0 .0 . ; .7 - 0 .5 -0.1» -1 .7 1.0 .0 -0.1, 4.1)1) 1 I 4 ' 1 4 7 IINMIN MKP .6 4 .H 7.0 1.7 .5 . 47 14. 4fe 4 4.4% 17.0% 4 1.4% 14. 4% 1 0 0 .Ot 4 1. 4% 50.0% 50, 0% 4o n . 0% H. 44 H. 4% 75.0% H, 4t H. 4% .4 -O.H .4 -0 .7 .4 .5 -O.H .0 - 0 .7 .5 .0 - 1 .0 . 1 - 0 . 4 .o t 4 s 7 4 I 7 TMiAr 4. 41 75.01 44.7% 45. /% H. 4% 400.0% MI-SDMDPK U.K. S 1 ^ 0 II- 1 P/« 4('l '• 1 M1 P .k . CKI.I.S 0 . 4 40rt I). 4 7 15 l)F W H O ro (tu'uul) /I iu / I / ‘* I *0 kUdH'f I ?.l "M tt *h It "4 1 •IV.LUi ( I H 1 t ( hkll'UIJ h'u- /"I- l.“ I " 1 t •(»- H'U- f," h" I "H~ W"0- k* h " I* 'it 10' tt 'b 1 / • y 1 tU'Hb %n" to'iKi I 40*001 ll'/s $u' tt '< 1 to'oz i't « • y • Z ' I d:-lM NUINII V (1 1 (. IK)'& fr' 1 H'O- y I."0- / • S'O- s'o- l *0- u* 1 t'U* 1 "0- s'o- %0'St to' to' 4o" to* to" to" %0*lM) I to* to* to* *U'Sd O'Z t * 1 • s' rtUS-r AHâlilllS I I 0 0 0 (JÜ'Z S'u- t 'Z y "o- • t "0- F'H- u'/ b'O- 4"0- 1 "w- H" f"0- t "(•• %l 'H tt 'h to" to" ts'zi t o ' o o \ to" to" to* of, to'us to* 40" f ' I Z' Z" I • Z 1 : u 0 DO' I w 1 z 1 U'.iH r«iv y 4M n;4M 4:1 Jj 4.1.1V s’.-iM uiy MUM ÎJ4U lu III •J.4H :4MUb MÎUU Mll'l I'fi/.INUN iVltdlSJM J J H U \ l i.)d 'HU JJrl M(IM 'IVA ,1X4 J unuj t iO I 3DVd S3)lINIUHUddlJ HUP N1 NfJlL.JfHUH It'H AH miliiyuu IhNwHHVHïh S'UrtNVH N U 1 J V 'I M Vt V 1. ^ XIQNaddV