ARE PUBLIC OPINION POLLS FAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR?
by Arthur Kornhauser
The p o s i t i v e values of p u b l i c opinion p o l l s are now widely recognized by
s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s . But the merits and the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f p o l l s need not
b l i n d us as t o t h e i r defects, To have genuine value i n the democratic
process, they must be r e a l l y " s c i e n t i f i c — which means more than u t i l i z i n g accurate sampling techniques and computing probable errors o f percentages. ''Science" i s objective and imp&vtial* There i s a well-founded
suspicion t h a t the p o l l r e s u l t s leave something to be desired i n t h i s
respect.
t ;
Nowhere i s the question more important than i n r e p o r t s o f p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s
on labor issues. Are the p o l l s cn labor balanced, adequate, unbiased? Do
they give the reader a f a i r picture?
This question breaks i n t o three subsidiary questions: ( l ) I s the choice
of subject-matter i n the p o l l s one-sr ded? A bad impression o f any i n s t i t u t i o n or group can be created i f one dwells on i t s negative and d i s approved features. (2) Are the p o l l questions worded s a t i s f a c t o r i l y or
are they loaded f o r or against labor? (3) Are p o l l r e s u l t s reported imp a r t i a l l y ? Do conclusions and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s always f o l l o w from the
f i n d i n g s and, i f not, do they lean preponderantly one way or the other?-*To answer these questions, we have examined a l l the p o l l m a t e r i a l dealing
w i t h labor i n the published r e p o r t s of the l e a d i n g opinion p o l l i n g agencies, from 19u0 t o 19U5 i n c l u s i v e . The questions are d i s t r i b u t e d among
the agencies as follows:
American I n s t i t u t e of Public Opinion
("Gallup P o l l " )
Fortune Survey
("Roper P o l l " )
Opinion Research Corporation
(Two reports i n "Factory Management
and Maintenance;" 19h4-U5)
Psychological Corporation
National Opinion Research Center..
Minnesota P o l l
Iowa P o l l
Total
60
32
17
11*
8
15
9
155*
•* Several questions are used repeatedly. Each o f these has
been counted only once. I f s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s i n wording
are considered as c o n s t i t u t i n g new questions, the above t o t a l
increases t o 172.
Other possible sources of bias i n the p o l l i n g procedure are omitted here
— those having t o do w i t h s e l e c t i o n o f sample, interviewer bias, s o c i a l
.influence o f the interviewing s i t u a t i o n , etc.
- 2 The Choice of Subject-Matter
F i r s t i s the question of b i a s i n the choice of subject-matter. T h i s can
be q u i c k l y and d e c i s i v e l y d e a l t with. The simple outstanding f a c t i s
t h a t the p o l l questions concentrate h e a v i l y on negative and v u l n e r a b l e
aspects of organized l a b o r . The most common themes have to do w i t h what
i s wrong w i t h unions, what r e s t r i c t i v e measures are required, what the
p u b l i c t h i n k s about wartime s t r i k e s , make-work r u l e s , undemocratic union
p r a c t i c e s , and s i m i l a r p o i n t s w i t h r e s p e c t to which l a b o r i s under attack.
By c o n t r a s t , the e s s e n t i a l f u n c t i o n s and p o s i t i v e accomplishments of unions
i n p r o t e c t i n g and improving the l o t of working people are only r a r e l y mentioned.
Of the \$S questions examined, only 8 d e a l w i t h p o s i t i v e or f a v o r a b l e
f e a t u r e s of unionism; 66 are n e u t r a l or doubtful; and 81 are concerned
with union f a u l t s , a c t i v i t i e s the p u b l i c condemns, or proposed r e s t r i c t i o n s upon unions,2 Three-fourths of a l l the American I n s t i t u t e of P u b l i c
d
Examples of questions c l a s s i f i e d i n t o the three groups follow.
P o s i t i v e or favorable i n r e s p e c t to subject-matter:
Which way do you think the workingman has the b e s t chance of making a
good l i v i n g — b y j o i n i n g a union or by t r y i n g to go ahead on h i s own?
(Opinion Research Corporation 19lia)
Do you think i t would be a good idea or a bad i d e a f o r workers i n a
company to have someone they e l e c t r e p r e s e n t them on the Board of D i r e c t o r s
or some management c o u n c i l ? (Fortune Survey 19u3)
During the p a s t few y e a r s , overtime pay i n c r e a s e d the earnings of many
workers. Now t h a t most workers are back on a UO-hour week, do you think
they should r e c e i v e pay i n c r e a s e s t o o f f s e t reductions i n t o t a l income?
(Minnesota 19U5)
N e u t r a l or doubtful:
What do you t h i n k i s the c h i e f argument a g a i n s t l a b o r unions?
What do you t h i n k i s the c h i e f argument i n favor of labor unions?
(AIPO 19lil)
Which of these statements comes c l o s e s t to expressing your f e e l i n g s :
Labor unions have done an e x c e l l e n t job f o r t h i s country, and they
should be given more power than t h e y now have.
Labor unions have made a number of mistakes, but on the whole they
have done much more good than harm and the p u b l i c should continue
t o support them.
Although l a b o r unions have done some good i n the past, they have gone
much too f a r and should be prevented by law from doing many of the
things they now do.
Labor unions are a bad thing f o r the country and should be done away
with' e n t i r e l y . (Fortune Survey 19hh)
Negative or unfavorable i n r e s p e c t to subject-matter:
Westbrook Pegler, the newspaper w r i t e r , claims t h a t many l a b o r union
l e a d e r s are r a c k e t e e r s . Do you agree or disagree with him? (AIPO 19lil)
- 3 -
Opinion questions, and about one-third o f the questions from the other
agencies, are i n the negative d i r e c t i o n . The p o l l s c e r t a i n l y do not
maintain an equitable balance i n t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n of questions; the
odds run s t r o n g l y against labor.
Doubtless some j u s t i f i c a t i o n can be found f o r t h i s preponderantly a n t i union emphasis by reference t o "popular i n t e r e s t * and "news value." I t
i s none the l e s s important t o recognise the on«-sidedness and to seek t o
correct i t . I f news and e d i t o r i a l content generally r e f l e c t a similar'
bias, t h a t simply means t h a t the- problem i s one t h a t extends f a r beyond
our immediate i n q u i r y .
1
I n any case, the p o l l s a i d and abet the process of d i r e c t i n g p u b l i c
a t t e n t i o n p e r s i s t e n t l y t c the negative side of organized labor. Avoidance
of t h i s bias would, properly seem a s p e c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of those who
o s t e n s i b l y represent a s c j j ^ t i f i c approach to areas of public controversy.
Nor i s the "popular i n t e r e s t " argument too compelling. Compared t o many
of the questions a c t u a l l y used, one can r e a d i l y suggest others o f equal
appeal which would b r i n g out favorable and approved points about labor,
thus serving t o balance the p i c t u r e . Why no questions, f o r example, on
l a b o r s decisive support of President Roosevelt and h i s program of social
l e g i s l a t i o n ? why only a r a r e reference t o what organized labor has done
1
• To make more jobs, some unions r e q u i r e employers t o h i r e more persons
than are a c t u a l l y needed t o do the work. Would you favor or oppose having a law passed which would stop t h i s practice? (AIPO 19U5)
Do you t h i n k t h a t most union dues are higher than necessary, or most
of them are about r i g h t , or most o f them are not high enough? (Fortune
Survey 19U0)
Do you t h i n k t h a t the s o l d i e r s , when they come home, should have t o
j o i n a union i n order t o get or hold a job? (Psychological Corporation J9hh)
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the questions which are asked repeatedly
(notably by the American I n s t i t u t e o f Public Opinion) are almost a l l ones
i n the unfavorable category. They thus serve t o r e i t e r a t e and reenforce
i n the public* s t h i n k i n g p o i n t s against unions which are already condemned.
The time o f asking c e r t a i n questions i s also an influence t o be noted
i n c l a s s i f y i n g some subject-matter as negative. For example, i n the midst
of the coal miners continuous and h e a v i l y p u b l i c i z e d t h r e a t s to t i e up
the i n d u s t r y i n 19U3, Dr, Gallup asked: "Has your a t t i t u d e toward labor
unions changed i n any way'during the l a s t year? ( I f Yes) Are you more i n
favor or less i n favor of labor-unions than you were a year ago?" Almost
a l l who said they had changed were "less i n favor" of unions. The question
was not repeated at any other time when changes more favorable t o labor
might have occurred.
1
- h f o r i t s own members? Why nothing on l a b o r s f i g h t f o r s t r i c t p r i c e cont r o l ? Or, more broadly, on whether unions help protect the i n t e r e s t s o f
the common people; whether they serve as a u s e f u l counterweight t o the
power of b i g business.
1
The Wording of Questions
Our second question asks whether the wording of the p o l l questions i s
s a t i s f a c t o r y . The answer i s t h a t four d i s t u r b i n g types of bias or misleading influence manifest themselves. W i t h scarcely an exception, they
operate i n a d i r e c t i o n unfavorable t o l a b o r . More than h a l f of a l l the
questions examined are open t o c r i t i c i s m i n one or more o f these four
ways,
A few i l l u s t r a t i o n s w i l l s u f f i c e t o i n d i c a t e the nature and seriousness
of these question f a u l t s .
1. F i r s t are the questions which o f f e r a choice between a recognized e v i l
and one p a r t i c u l a r proposed remedy — u s u a l l y "a law." N a t u r a l l y respondents choose the p r o f f e r e d remedy, i n t h e absence of suggested a l t e r n a t i v e
means t o the same end. I t so happens t h a t the p r o f f e r e d s o l u t i o n i s
n e a r l y always one opposed by organized l a b o r .
A leading example, used repeatedly by Dr. Gallup's organization, i s t h i s :
Should Congress pass a law f o r b i d d i n g s t r i k e s i n war i n d u s t r i e s
u n t i l the war i s over, or should the workers i n war i n d u s t r i e s
continue- t o have the r i g h t t o go on s t r i k e ?
This question f o l l o w s the formula: a choice between the e v i l of wartime
s t r i k e s and the proposed remedy o f a law. M a j o r i t i e s of 69 percent t o
86 percent voted f o r "a law."
©
I f the question had asked whether the War Labor Board should crack down
on a l l s t r i k e s i n war i n d u s t r i e s , there i s l i t t l e doubt t h a t a high percentage of responses would have favored t h a t s o l u t i o n , instead of new
l e g i s l a t i o n . I f the question had mentioned a c t i o n by Army a u t h o r i t i e s
as the only s p e c i f i e d a l t e r n a t i v e t o s t r i k e s , then the r e s u l t s would
become a "plug" f o r greater m i l i t a r y c o n t r o l over war i n d u s t r y . I f
stronger measures by the unions themselves t o prevent s t r i k e s were o f f e r e d ,
then a m a j o r i t y o f votes would probably have supported t h i s voluntary cont r o l of s t r i k e s by organized labor i t s e l f — the very a n t i t h e s i s of a n t i s t r i k e laws. I n a word, a question of t h i s kind can o b t a i n evidence o f
apparent public support f o r any one of a wide range o f c o n t r o l measures,
by mentioning only the one and s e t t i n g i t over against a condition t h a t
most people agree i s bad. I f only one horse i s entered i n a race, i t i s
d i f f i c u l t f o r him t o lose.
I n the present instance, the published r e s u l t s l e d t o the spurious conc l u s i o n t h a t the p u b l i c overwhelmingly favored new l e g i s l a t i o n as the
remedy. The r e p o r t s thus supported the hand o f the groups campaigning
f o r a n t i - s t r i k e laws.
- 5 Constructively, the remedy may be found i n the f o l l o w i n g suggestions.
There are r e a l l y two questions being asked: (a) Are s t r i k e s i n war indust r i e s being c o n t r o l l e d w e l l enough, or are f u r t h e r measures needed t o stop
strikes? (b) (Asked of those who say f u r t h e r measures are need) What
measures do you t h i n k would be best? Or: How do you t h i n k the s t r i k e s
should be prevented?
Only the "a" question i s worth asking the general p u b l i c . The f i n d i n g s
on i t w i l l express the d i r e c t i o n of popular sentiment. Question "b" i s
a matter of t e c h n i c a l means, on which extremely few persons have any
clear views or bases f o r judgment. I f i t i s t o be asked, then the various
a l t e r n a t i v e means should be stated as adequately c.3 possible rather than
expecting people to t h i n k of the d i f f e r e n t ways themselves.
What the o r i g i n a l form of question does i s t o mako b e l i e v e t h a t people are
v o t i n g on the alternative measures when, i n r e a l i t y , most of them are simply
expressing a general o p p o s i t i o n t o s t r i k e s i n wartime. Many are v o t i n g not
s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r a new law but against s t r i k e s . Yet the r e s u l t s are presented as i f they show the percentage"of the p u b l i c d e f i n i t e l y supporting
new l e g i s l a t i o n .
Other questions of t h i s same type ask about l e g i s l a t i o n t o r e q u i r e union,
f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t i n g , t o outlaw make-work p r a c t i c e s , t o r e q u i r e a U8-hour
week f o r war workers, t o govern union e l e c t i o n s , t o provide f o r compulsory
a r b i t r a t i o n , and t o i n s t i t u t e s t r i c t e r c o n t r o l and r e g u l a t i o n of labor
unions generally. Most of the examples of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r f a u l t comes from
the American I n s t i t u t e of Public Opinion, although i t occurs — somewhat
l e s s ' f r e q u e n t l y — among the questions o f other p o l l i n g agencies.
2 • A second type of bias arises from'the use o f questions on t e c h n i c a l
and s p e c i f i c points which respondents, through lack of f a j r i l i a r i t y w i t h
the p a r t i c u l a r issues, a c t u a l l y answer i n terms of t-heir general sentiments.
The p o l l * secures r e p l i e s t h a t appear t o be answer3 t o the specialized quest i o n but r e a l l y are not. And again the answers that are e l i c i t e d run
counter bo the p o s i t i o n o f the unions.3
The point under attack here i s not t h a t p o l l questions seek a t t i t u d e s on
matters where people l a c k information. I t i s o f t e n h i g h l y important t o
3 There i s no necessary reason, of course, why the s p e c i f i c answers which
r e f l e c t general sentiments must show an a n t i - l a b o r b i a s rather than a prolabor b i a s . This goes back t o the choice o f subject-matter and t h e type
of a t t i t u d e s t h a t are tapped. I f a question asked whether dishwashers,
cotton p i c k e r s , or other "underdog" groups t o whom one's sympathies go out
should be provided f r e e medical care or s p e c i a l l y short hours, the p l a y o f
sentiment would probably lead t o spuriously .gro-iabor responses. But quest i o n s l i k e - t h i s are not asked. The ones t h a t are a c t u a l l y asked, and which
manifest- the f a u l t under consideration, b r i n g -valuer 'into play which operate
predominantly i n the a n t i - l a b o r d i r e c t i o n .
-6-
gauge these uninformed f e e l i n g s . The e r r o r l i e s i n the use o f s p e c i f i c
question content t o tap general a t t i t u d e s . Bias i s introduced b y the
pretense t h a t the respondents possess i n f o r m a t i o n on the p a r t i c u l a r matt e r s when, i n f a c t , they have no such knowledge.
To some extent, t h i s type o f bias i s seen i n the questions already c i t e d .
Compulsory a r b i t r a t i o n and n o - s t r i k e laws, f o r example, seem l i k e desirable
solutions t o many housewives, farmers, and other average Americans who lack
knowledge o f what these measures e n t a i l — t h e i r p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s and
drawbacks — and what possible a l t e r n a t i v e s e x i s t . I n the absence o f such
knowledge, the normal tendency i s t o answer on the basis o f general f e e l ings — i n t h i s case, f e e l i n g s against s t r i k e s i n wartime.
But there are many a d d i t i o n a l instances. One example i s a Fortune Survey
question j u s t a f t e r P e a r l Harbor which asked:
Would you be w i l l i n g t o r a i s e the number o f working hours t o
50 a week w i t h pay on a s t r a i g h t h o u r l y basis (no extra overtime pay) f o r the d u r a t i o n o f the emergency?
I n those opening days o f the war, what red-blooded American, n o t stopping
t o i n q u i r e about actual wage conditions and e q u a l i t y o f s a c r i f i c e , would dare
say "No"? I n f a c t , only 11 percent d i d ; 80 percent said "Yes" — 50 hours
and no overtime pay.
There i s no reason why t h i s should not seem a proper answer t o persons
uninformed as t o the current f a c t s regarding hours and overtime pay, the
important differences among i n d u s t r i e s , t h e reasons f o r overtime pay, and
the d r a s t i c unsettlement o f i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s which would r e s u l t from
the proposed change, w i t h i t s increase i n earnings f o r some and decrease
f o r others. To make matters worse, t h i s double-barrelled form o f question
must i n e v i t a b l y confuse many respondents i n the way i t combine's the two
issues, t h a t o f a longer working week and t h a t o f overtime pay. A person
who measn simply t o express approval f o r long wartime work weeks, and perhaps f o r l i m i t i n g excessive earnings, i s pushed by the form o f the question
i n t o a p o s i t i o n o f seemingly condemning w i d e l y e x i s t i n g overtime pay agreements. Many respondents would surely be astonished t o learn t h a t they had
vote,d f o r a pay cut f o r m i l l i o n s of workers
c
Another p o l l dealt w i t h the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f paying workers on a piecework
basis. I s t h a t too complex and t e c h n i c a l an issue f o r the public? The
American I n s t i t u t e o f Public Opinion thought not; they undertook t o explain
the system i n one sentence (November, 19li3) and found t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f
people were f o r the. adoption of piecework i n a l l war p l a n t s . Since the
one-sentence d e s c r i p t i o n sounds simple and m a t t e r - o f - f a c t ("workers are
p a i d f o r what they a c t u a l l y t u r n out") and since i t contains no h i n t o f
labor's case against oiecework, the r e s u l t s are not s u r p r i s i n g .
Another i l l u s t r a t i o n from Fortune, i n 1 9 l j l , i s t h i s :
How many labor leaders i n your community do you t h i n k do a good
job i n representing labor? Are f a i r i n dealing w i t h employers?
Are honest i n handling union funds?
- 7 -
But how can the p u b l i c answer t h i s s o r t o f question except i n terms o f
general prejudice? How many persons have genuine knowledge as a basis
f o r these s p e c i f i c value judgments? As a matter o f f a c t , more than 50
percent honestly gave the "Don't know" answer. The other r e p l i e s , preponderantly i n an unfavorable d i r e c t i o n , seem t o be t e s t i f y i n g n e g a t i v e l y
on the d e f i n i t e matters named i n the question and on the basis of i m p l i e d
personal knowledge about the labor leaders i n t h a t community. The susp i c i o n remains strong, however, t h a t t h e definiteness i s an a r t i f a c t ; what *
i s revealed i s simply an unfavorable popular stereotype o f the labor leader.
The published f i n d i n g s tend t o strengthen t h a t stereotype i n the mind o f
the reader.
Other examples deal w i t h the closed shop issue, check-off o f union dues,
demands f o r 30 percent increase i n h o u r l y rates, u n i o n i z a t i o n of foremen,
and the r i g h t o f government employees t o j o i n unions. I n a l l these cases,
the questions are such as t o lead many persons u n f a m i l i a r w i t h the issues
to give answers opposed t o those o f organized labor.
3* Another set o f question biases a r i s e s from hidden assumptions, ambig u i t i e s , and o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s . An answer unfavorable t o unions i s
i m p l i c i t I n the frame o f reference of t h e question, without t h i s being
c l e a r l y apparent.
For example, a number o f questions by t h e d i f f e r e n t p o l l i n g agencies were
concerned w i t h whether organized l a b o r was doing i t s p a r t i n helping t h e
n a t i o n a l defense program. The i m p l i c i t assumption runs through those
questions t h a t labor unions are, or should be, responsible f o r production
i n the same way t h a t business management i s . Two Gallup questions i n 19iil
i l l u s t r a t e the p o i n t :
Do you t h i n k labor union leaders a r e helping the n a t i o n a l defense
production program as much as they should? (Same question regardi n g i n d u s t r i a l leaders
Which do you t h i n k i s t r y i n g harder t o help n a t i o n a l defense production — labor union leaders or i n d u s t r i a l leaders?
Overwhelming m a j o r i t i e s r e p l y t h a t labor union leaders are not doing as
much as they should and t h a t they are not t r y i n g as hard as i n d u s t r i a l
leaders. Union leadership i s u n p a t r i o t i c , i t would seem.
But i s t h i s f a i r ? A f t e r a l l , the f u n c t i o n o f business managers i s t o get
out production. That i s n o t the f u n c t i o n of the union leader. Why should
questions make him appear responsible f o r matters over which i n d u s t r y gives
him no a u t h o r i t y , save i n a negative role? I f labor i s t o be compared w i t h
management i n regard t o production e f f o r t , should not t h e comparison s p e c i f y
the working man himself r a t h e r than h i s union leader?^
National Opinion Research Center asked separately about workers and
labor l e a d e r s . The question reads: '\Do you f e e l that as a whole the people
i n charge of f a c t o r i e s — t h e e x e c u t i v e s — a r e doing a l l they could r i g h t now
t o help win the war? How about the workers i n the f a c t o r i e s ? How about
the leaders of unions? How about the fanners?" I n August 19lt3, t h e f o l l o w i n g percentages o f a f f i r m a t i v e answers are reported: Farmers 91 percent^
executives 75 percent; f a c t o r y workers 71 percent; labor union leaders 29
percent.
- 8 o
A Fortune p o l l i n 19U2 i n q u i r e d whether the union or the management was
most to blame f o r s e v e r a l s p e c i f i e d s t r i k e s . A P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporation
survey i n the same year asked a s i m i l a r , more g e n e r a l question about who
" i s most r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s t r i k e s or disagreements which slow up war production: the employers, l a b o r union l e a d e r s , workers themselves, government bureaus and o f f i c i a l s . " I t would seem evident what the answers to
these questions would be. By the nature of the case, the union i s the
p a r t y t h a t t a k e s a c t i o n i n going on s t r i k e and a c c o r d i n g l y i s viewed a s
more blameworthy. Few men on the s t r e e t can be expected to p h i l o s o p h i z e
about i n d i r e c t and remote causes. Y e t the questions c a r r y an a i r of imp a r t i a l i n q u i r y and consequently the f i n d i n g t h a t unions are considered
most to blame goes down as another b l a c k mark a g a i n s t them.
Another i n s t a n c e o f unstated assumptions i s the simple question:
Do you t h i n k the government should put a c e i l i n g over wages?
(AIPO, 19U2)
When people answer i n the a f f i r m a t i v e , many of them must take i t f o r
granted t h a t p r i c e s are l i k e w i s e c o n t r o l l e d . Perhaps a l s o p r o f i t s .
S i n c e these accompanying measures are not mentioned, however, the publ i s h e d p o l l r e p o r t s only t h a t a c e i l i n g on wages i s favored. S t a t e d
b a l d l y , w i t h no i f s , ands, or buts, the p r o p o s i t i o n i s s u b j e c t to grave
misinterpretation.
A question on p i c k e t i n g asked i n a Fortune Survey i n 19^0 reads:
Do you regard p i c k e t i n g a s a good or bad method of p r o t e s t ?
A n a t i o n a l sample of working people answers by a d e f i n i t e m a j o r i t y t h a t
p i c k e t i n g i s a "bad method of p r o t e s t . " But t o a l a r g e s e c t i o n o f labor,
p i c k e t i n g i s not to be evaluated a s a "method of p r o t e s t " ; i t i s not a
device simply to win the sympathy of passers-by, as the Fortune d i s c u s s i o n
i m p l i e s . P i c k e t i n g i s a weapon f o r keeping a p l a n t shut down, a means
for preventing s t r i k e - b r e a k e r s and f a i n t - h e a r t e d employees from defeating
the s t r i k e . The question, as i t i s asked, d i v e r t s a t t e n t i o n from t h i s
major f u n c t i o n and tends to suggest two or three p l a c a r d c a r r i e r s pacing
i n f r o n t of a r e t a i l s t o r e . Very d i f f e r e n t r e p l i e s might be expected
from l a b o r i f the question asked about p i c k e t i n g as a method f o r s t r i k e r s
to use i n keeping a s t r u c k company from working.
A question used i n 19kh and 19hS by N a t i o n a l Opinion Research Center and
a l s o by the Minnesota P o l l a s k s :
During peacetime, who do you t h i n k should decide what I s the
lowest wage an employer can pay — the employer himself, the
government, or a l a b o r union?
The union i s voted f o r l e a s t often. But i s n ' t the question nonsense? I t
-simply ignores the r o l e both of market f o r c e s and of c o l l e c t i v e bargaining
and b l i t h e l y i m p l i e s t h a t businessman or l a b o r union can s e t the wage r a t e
a t w i l l . I f a problem i s posed i n e s s e n t i a l l y f a l s e terms, the answers
cannot prove v e r y e n l i g h t e n i n g .
- 9 A f i n a l example comes from a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporation survey among worki n g people. The question i s :
Do you t h i n k t h a t workers should be forced t o s t a y i n a union i f
they want to r e s i g n or get out?
N a t u r a l l y the vote i s a g a i n s t " f o r c i n g " workers t o remain i n a union
a g a i n s t t h e i r w i l l . T h i s i s l a b e l e d a question on "union maintenance"
and i s so i n t e r p r e t e d . But the q u e s t i o n l e a v e s out everything t h a t i s
important and d i s t i n c t i v e about maintenance agreements and becomes a
mere c a r i c a t u r e of these p l a n s . The r e s u l t s s u r e l y would be d i f f e r e n t i f
the question made c l e a r the circumstances and the safeguards surrounding
the enforced continuation of union membership.
U. The remaining type o f b i a s to be noted i s the use of suggestive or
s l a n t e d phraseology, or of wording t h a t makes i t e s p e c i a l l y easy f o r the
respondent to accept the i d e a asked aboutl where t h i s occurs, i t i s almost
without exception i n a d i r e c t i o n unfavorable to union l a b o r .
One
of Dr. G a l l u p s questions, f o r example, i n q u i r e s : .
1
Would you l i k e to see labor unions change t h e i r way
things? (AIPO, 19U3)
of handling
The i m p l i c a t i o n i s strong t h a t an a f f i r m a t i v e , r e p l y i s expected. At the
v e r y l e a s t , the question should go on to mention the a l t e r n a t i v e answer:
"or do you t h i n k they are a l l r i g h t the way they .are?" More d r a s t i c
change would be r e q u i r e d , however, t o o b t a i n f a i r and f u l l y meaningful
r e s u l t s . The question as i t stands, together with a follow-up which a s k s
what changes are d e s i r e d , seems bound to b r i n g out the bad p o i n t s about
unions.
A question by the Iowa P o l l l a t e i n 19U5 a s k s :
How do you f e e l about the s t r i k e s t h a t are t a k i n g place a l l over
the United S t a t e s ? Do you t h i n k t h e s e s t r i k e s are r i g h t or wrong?
The emphasis on the prevalence of s t r i k e s can s c a r c e l y encourage respondents to voice approval or even to r e s e r v e judgment. 72 percent s a i d the
s t r i k e s are "wrong."
Another Iowa P o l l question i n 19h$ asked:
Do you t h i n k P r e s i d e n t Truman d i d the r i g h t t h i n g i n having the
Navy take over strike-bound o i l companies?
The p r e s t i g e of the P r e s i d e n t and the Navy on one s i d e ; "strike-bound"
companies on the other. The choice i s simple — e s p e c i a l l y i f many who
answered knew almost nothing about the i s s u e , as i s undoubtedly the case.
The vote i s a f f i r m a t i v e by 7h percent t o 5 percent.
I n an American I n s t i t u t e of P u b l i c Opinion question i n
the p r e s t i g e
of Henry Ford's name cannot have been without i n f l u e n c e . I t reads:
- 10 Henry Ford says he w i l l r e f u s e to recognize l a b o r unions i n h i s
p l a n t s . Do you agree or d i s a g r e e w i t h t h i s viewpoint?
I n t e r e s t i n g l y , 58 percent agreed and only 29 percent disagreed, even
though the p o l l s through t h i s same p e r i o d show d e c i s i v e m a j o r i t i e s s a y ing "Yes" to the d i r e c t question: "Are you i n f a v o r of l a b o r unions?"
Were they i n f a v o r of unions except i n F o r d p l a n t s ? Was i t the b e l i e f
t h a t Ford must be r i g h t ? I n any event, I have searched i n v a i n f o r a
corresponding question a l i t t l e l a t e r which might have read: "Henry Ford
has signed,a c l o s e d shop c o n t r a c t w i t h a l a b o r union. Do you agree or d i s agree w i t h t h i s a c t i o n ? "
A P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporation question i n 19it2 i n q u i r e d :
Do you t h i n k i t i s f a i r to keep p r i c e s down without a l s o keeping
hourly wage r a t e s down ( t o where they are now)?
With a q u e s t i o n i n t h i s form, one could almost r e p l a c e the content w i t h
a b s t r a c t symbols and s t i l l expect a vote t h a t " I t a i n ' t f a i r . " "Do you
t h i n k i t I s f a i r to do x without a l s o doing y ? " The p a t t e r n c a l l s tempti n g l y f o r a r e p l y t h a t what i s f a i r i n one r e s p e c t i s a l s o f a i r i n the
other. The c r i t i c a l respondent would have to ask: F a i r to whom? For
how long a period? With what assumptions about p r o d u c t i v i t y , p r o f i t s ,
take-home earnings, and so on? The question makes the expected answer
too easy f o r the respondent.
A Fortune q u e s t i o n to working people i n c l u d e s an item asking them how many
unions "are run w i t h absolute honesty."
Absolute honesty seems l i k e a
p r e t t y high standard to employ, even i f the question were about b u s i n e s s
f i r m s i n s t e a d o f unions. I t p r a c t i c a l l y i n s u r e s an unfavorable vote.
Nevertheless, the r e s u l t s l e a d Fortune t o conclude t h a t "labor i s i n c l i n e d
to suspect the honesty.. .with which unions are operated."
I n summary, the f a c t s regarding q u e s t i o n b i a s are these: Of the e n t i r e
155 questions s t u d i e d , only four appear to have a pro-labor b i a s ; 80 t o
90 are s l a n t e d i n an a n t i - l a b o r d i r e c t i o n ; the remaining 60 to 70 are
f a i r and balanced.5
Preceding pages contain numerous examples of questions b i a s e d i n an a n t i l a b o r d i r e c t i o n . The four questions c l a s s i f i e d a s pro—labor i n t h e i r b i a s
are:
Do you agree or disagree with P r e s i d e n t Truman s statement t h a t b u s i n e s s
as a whole can a f f o r d to r a i s e wages without r a i s i n g p r i c e s ?
(Iowa
P o l l 19hS)
(Asked union members only) From your personal viewpoint, what have l a b o r
unions done t h a t i s of most b e n e f i t to you? (Opinion Research Corporat i o n 19UW
(Asked farmers) Suppose i n f i v e or s i x y e a r s i t became c l e a r t h a t Congress was going to be dominated e i t h e r by l a b o r or by b i g business
i n t e r e s t s , and farmers couldn't do anything about i t except throw
t h e i r support one way or the other, which would you want farmers to
support? (Fortune Survey
19h3)
1
- 11 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n and Reporting of R e s u l t s
The t h i r d aspect of the p o l l s t o be considered has t o do w i t h the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g o f r e s u l t s ,
A few i l l u s t r a t i o n s w i l l i n d i c a t e t h a t
there a r e some s e r i o u s s l i p s i n t h i s r e s p e c t . And once again, the e r r o r s
run c o n s i s t e n t l y i n a d i r e c t i o n unfavorable t o l a b o r .
A f i r s t example i s t h a t of the Gallup p o l l i n 19u2 which reported a two to
one vote of d i s a p p r o v a l of "the government's p o l i c y w i t h regard t o l a b o r
union r e g u l a t i o n " — a d e f i n i t e b l a c k eye f o r New Deal labor p o l i c y . The
sub-headline o f the r e l e a s e announces: " P u b l i c Disapproves Government
P o l i c y Toward Labor Unions."
But t h e percentages a r e not a t a l l w h i they appear t o be and the headlined
conclusion i s e n t i r e l y u n j u s t i f i e d .
The percentages a r e not based on the
whole population sample. I n s t e a d , they r e p r e s e n t the views o f a s p e c i a l l y
s e l e c t e d group o f people who had a l r e a d y d e c l a r e d themselves concerned
about the need f o r greater r e g u l a t i o n o f unions (on a previous q u e s t i o n ) .
Few readers can have f a i l e d t o be m i s l e d by t h i s r e p o r t .
As you know, both b i g b u s i n e s s and l a b o r w i l l probably have something to
say about what laws a r e passed i n t h i s country. But during t h e next
year or two, which one would you l i k e to see have the most t o say —
b i g b u s i n e s s or labor? ( N a t i o n a l Opinion Research Center 19U5)
The l a s t two questions a r e c l a s s i f i e d a s pro-labor i n b i a s because they
c o n t r a s t not " l a b o r " and " b u s i n e s s , " nor "labor o r g a n i z a t i o n s " and " b i g
b u s i n e s s , " but "labor" and " b i g b u s i n e s s " ( o r " b i g business i n t e r e s t s " ) .
I l l u s t r a t i o n s of f a i r ' o r n e u t r a l wording are:these*'What i s your opinion o f John L . Lewis? (AIPO 19U3)
(Asked f a c t o r y workers) Who would you s a y i s the more i n t e r e s t e d i n the
personal w e l f a r e of t h e workingman—the heads o f your company or t h e
union heads? (Opinion Research Corporation 19kh)
(Asked working people) I f t h e r e were no l a b o r unions i n t h e country a t
a l l , do you f e e l you p e r s o n a l l y would be earning more or l e s s money
than you now do? Have a b e t t e r or worse chance f o r promotion than
you now have? (Fortune Survey 19^3)
How do you p e r s o n a l l y f e e l about unions? (Minnesota P o l l 19h$)
I t i s t o be noted t h a t the present c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n terms o f b i a s i s not
i d e n t i c a l w i t h the e a r l i e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by favorableness o f subject-matter.
The f i r s t two of the pro-labor questions are a t the same time 4n the favorable category i n content, b u t the l a s t two are n e u t r a l as to subject-matter.
S i m i l a r l y , among t h e examples of '!fair" questions j u s t quoted, the f i r s t of
the four i l l u s t r a t i o n s i s unfavorable i n choice o f subject-matter (8?# give
unfavorable o p i n i o n s ) , the second and t h i r d a r e f a v o r a b l e (hl% s a i d "union
heads," 2% .said "company heads"), and the f o u r t h i s n e u t r a l .
- 12 -
F a i l u r e to warn the reader against unrepresentative samples occurs i n
other cases, also. Most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h i s i s t r u e i n c e r t a i n t e c h n i c a l
or d i f f i c u l t questions where l a r g e numbers are unable to r e p l y . Since
the persons who do answer come d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y from the higher educ a t i o n a l l e v e l s , which means also from the more prosperous, the f i n d i n g s
p o r t r a y the views not of the whole p o p u l a t i o n but more heavily o f the
classes l e a s t l i k e l y t o favor unions.
For example, a Gallup question on the "Connally-Smith Act" showed 67 percent f o r i t — 67 percent, t h a t i s , o f the one-third c f people able t o
answer. fcThe responses most c e r t a i n l y come from a sample which markedly
over-represents the upper education, upper income brackets.
This same b i a s i n g influence must be present i n a Fortune p o l l which asked
whether the union or the management was more to blame f o r s p e c i f i e d s t r i k e s ,
l i k e t h a t a t Allis-Chalmers and t h a t i n the captive coal mines. From 59
percent t o 82 percent were unable t o answer. Not u n n a t u r a l l y , a great prop o r t i o n of those who d i d r e p l y blamed the unions.
A t the height of the clamor over war p l a n t absenteeism, a Gallup question
asked:
What do you think should be done w i t h workers i n war f a c t o r i e s
who are r e g u l a r l y absent from work w i t h o u t good excuse?
The question e x p l i c i t l y t u r n s a t t e n t i o n away from a l l causes o f absence
except assumed w i l l f u l neglect o f duty by working people. However, the
headline misleadingly r e f e r s t o absentees i n general. I t declares: "Most
American People Have L i t t l e Patience With War Plant Absentees," The quest i o n asked about inexcusable absentees; the r e s u l t s are blazoned f o r t h as
t r u e o f a l l absentees. Throughout the t e x t , no warning i s sounded t h a t
the condemnation p e r t a i n s not t o absentees as a whole but t o those who,
by d e f i n i t i o n , are w i t h o u t good excuse.
From time t o time, Fortune has used a f o u r - p o i n t scale of statements representing f e e l i n g s toward unions. The respondent chooses one o f the four
views, ranging from a decidedly pro-union p o s i t i o n t o one t h a t i s d e f i n i t e l y
anti-union. The moderately a n t i - u n i o n statement which i s most often endorsed
and the moderately pro-union statement which ranks second could e a s i l y be
re-worded i n a way to s h i f t the percentages toward greater approval o f
unionism. Any such statements which a r b i t r a r i l y represent d i f f e r e n t degrees
of an a t t i t u d e are bound to make the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses seem more
favorable or less favorable, depending on the s p e c i f i c content of the
scale statements. Yet the Fortune r e p o r t states wholly without j u s t i f i c a t i o n : "An evenly balanced s t a t e o f o p i n i o n would bo r e f l e c t e d i f the
answers had come out i n a p a t t e r n of IG-4O-I1O-IO." Based on t h i s unwarranted assumption, the higher percentages i n an unfavorable d i r e c t i o n are
i n t e r p r e t e d as meaning t h a t responses are "skewed against unions."
Another Fortune Survey asked working people:
Would you say t h a t your wages are good, only f a i r , or poor?
(January 19ii3)
- 13 -
Forty percent say "good," f i f t y - t w o percent "only f a i r , " e i g h t percent
"poor." Fortune i n t e r p r e t s these r e s u l t s i n the statement t h a t "a f a i r
wage i s a f a i r wage, even i f i t i s n ' t c a l l e d good, and w i t h so few of
the workers declaring t h a t they are p o o r l y paid, i t would seem t h a t most
United States laborers are g e t t i n g about a l l t h a t they expect or demand."
I t i s hardly necessary t o p o i n t out the astonishing change of d e f i n i t i o n
i n midstream t h a t has occurred here. Surely saying t h a t my wage i s not
good but "only f a i r " i s a f a r c r y from saying t h a t I receive "a f a i r wage."
Conclusions
P u t t i n g together a l l the evidence, one cannot escape the conclusion t h a t
the. labor p o l l m a t e r i a l i s biased. I t contains many v a r i e t i e s of b i a s ,
but they a l l p o i n t i n the same d i r e c t i o n . They are not random e r r o r s .
Search as one w i l l , he can discover scarcely any instances of pro-labor
loading. I n the choice of t o p i c s , i n the wording o f questions, and i n
the r e p o r t i n g o f r e s u l t s , unionism f a i l s t o receive balanced and impart i a l treatment. The p o l l s , taken as a whole, are c l e a r l y not f a i r t o organized labor.
I f b i g business and other groups opposed t o unions were accorded p a r a l l e l
treatment, the m a t e r i a l on labor would be more defensible. P o l l s on labor
would o f t e n look very d i f f e r e n t i f corresponding a t t i t u d e s toward business
were reported a t the same time. But few, indeed, are the questions t o
b r i n g out these f a u l t s of business. No dearth of questions on unions'
i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h wartime production, b u t not one on management's hoarding
of labor or i t s s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d delays i n accepting government contracts.
Questions on whether labor leaders are "absolutely" honest, but not whether
businessmen are; on unions' blame f o r s t r i k e s but not on employers' blame
f o r substandard wages or f o r unsafe conditions i n coal mines. One could
go on. The contrast i s s t r i k i n g . Even when an occasional p o l l touches
the sensitive spots of b i g business, the question and the r e p o r t are m i l d
and cautious i n tone compared t o those on labor.
Suggestions f o r Improving the S i t u a t i o n
I s there a way out on a l l this? Can the sources o f bias be removed or
overcome? Are genuinely non-partisan p o l l s possible on l a b o r issues and
s i m i l a r c o n t r o v e r s i a l problems?
On the- t e c h n i c a l side, one may s a f e l y give an a f f i r m a t i v e answer. I t ' i s
a matter o f mustering the r e q u i s i t e technical, competence and adopting the
necessary safeguards t o do the job o b j e c t i v e l y . Much more a t t e n t i o n must
be given t o such f a u l t s as have been noted i n t h i s paper. Painstaking
(and time-consuming) work on questions and r e p o r t s can eliminate a l a r g e
parti o f the b i a s . D e l i b e r a t e e f f o r t can be made t o balance bias i n one
d i r e c t i o n by f o r m u l a t i n g other questions w i t h an opposite b i a s . P o l l i n g
agencies can valuably u t i l i z e " d e v i l ' s advocates"; t h a t i s , they can submit, proposed questions and reports t o c r i t i c a l review by representatives
of views a n t i t h e t i c a l t o t h e i r own. They may need t o make more use of
- 1U free-answer and follow-up questions by w e l l t r a i n e d i n t e r v i e w e r s . At
times, o b j e c t i v e l y formulated a t t i t u d e scales may be necessary — though
I t h i n k few p r a c t i c i o n e r s w i l l f i n d Dr. McNemar's^ recent argument conv i n c i n g t o the e f f e c t t h a t a l l single-question p o l l i n g should be abandoned
i n favor of scales. We can s t i l l advance a long way i n the b e t t e r use of
s i n g l e questions and sets of r e l a t e d single questions bearing on the same
t o p i c . I n these and many other procedural d e t a i l s , immense improvements
can s t i l l be made. But even now, given the necessary w i l l , the t e c h n i c a l
job o f avoiding bias can be reasonably w e l l handled.
But t h e r e are other more formidable hurdles. The gravest o f these are
the social-economic pressures upon the opinion p o l l i n g agencies and,
c l o s e l y associated, the personal s o c i a l outlook of the agency s t a f f s .
Commercial and quasi-commercial opinion gauging services have a "market"
t o s a t i s f y — newspaper and magazine publishers, subscribers, doners, b u s i ness c l i e n t s . The same forces p l a y upon them t h a t operate to bias r e p o r t ing of labor news generally. Moreover, the l a r g e s t and most i n f l u e n t i a l
p o l l i n g organizations are themselves sizable business operations. They
have achieved success p a r t l y because the men who b u i l t them and who run
them are e f f e c t i v e executives whose own views are acceptable to the b u s i ness world. How f a r these influences w i l l p e r s i s t e n t l y stand i n the way
of balanced i n q u i r y and r e p o r t i n g of opinions about labor must be l e f t
f o r the f u t u r e to answer.
On the hopeful side stands the f a c t t h a t the p o l l leaders are not only
successful executives; they are, at the same time, men of professional
standing, f u l l y aware of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and concerned w i t h r e t a i n ing the esteem of t h e i r l i b e r a l s c i e n t i f i c colleagues as w e l l as of the
business community. I n f a c t , a professional committee has r e c e n t l y been
created to maintain high standards i n opinion measurement work. I n view
of t h i s professional s p i r i t , perhaps one may hope t h a t such evidence of
p a r t i a l i t y as i s contained i n these pages w i l l not be ignored.
But whether the leading opinion p o l l s do a more unbiased job or not, organized labor's own i n t e r e s t s may w e l l d i c t a t e t h a t i t , too, enter upon
p u b l i c opinion research — p a r t l y to help guide i t s own p o l i c i e s i n terms
of i t s f i n d i n g s and p a r t l y t o o b t a i n ammunition w i t h which to answer and
o f f s e t the misleading p o l l m a t e r i a l employed against the unions.
I n a d d i t i o n , there can be no question t h a t we u r g e n t l y need research cent e r s devoted to thoroughgoing, continuing a t t i t u d e studies i n the labor
r e l a t i o n s f i e l d , under the r e l a t i v e l y non-partisan auspices of leading
u n i v e r s i t i e s and perhaps o f government. Happily, important moves are
beginning along these l i n e s i n several u n i v e r s i t i e s .
° McNemar, Quinn. "Opinion-Attitude Methodology," Psychological B u l l e t i n ,
19U6, 1*3, 289-37U.