-;. :; ' ■ ' fc^í^v^-' .<í|

Agricultural Economic Report No.70

UTILIZATION and

COST of LABOR for

GINNING COTTON

U. S. Department of Agriculture Economic Researchi Service • Marketing Economics Division

CONTENTS

Summary and conclusions üi

Objectives and method of study t 1

Effects of plant layout and functions on gin labor requirements. , 2

Harvesting characteristics and their effects on gin labor requirements and costs « . . . 5

Effects of mechanized harvesting on ginning costs. «« 5

Effects of seasonal demand on gin employment practices 6

Effects of peaked harvest season on labor efficiency 7

Performance standards for gin plant labor 10

Standards for yard and suction crew « 11

Standards for conditioning and ginning crew 13

Standards for bale packaging crew 15

Standards for total crew o 17

Efficiency of labor utilization during peak of season 19

Number of men employed 19

Labor used per bale 21

Costs of labor per bale« „ 26

Literature cited , „ 31

Washington, D.C. April 1965

11

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Average charges paid by cotton producers for ginning cotton increased from $6.40 per bale in 1945-46 to $16.80 in 1963-64. The effect of this increase is equivalent to a reduction of more than 2 cents per pound in prices producers re- ceive for cotton, and closely parallels the year-to-year increases in ginning costs. Ginners are becoming increasingly concerned about their costs and are

seeking ways to reduce them.

Gin plant labor is one of the most costly inputs used by the ginning in- dustry. During the past 15 to 20 years, labor has accounted for 20 to 25 per- cent of the total cost of ginning in most areas of the Cotton Belt. Because of competition, gins have little control over wage rates; thus, to reduce labor costs they must strive to use labor more efficiently.

A study was made in 1962-63 to provide the industry with information and guides for improving the efficiency of labor utilization in gins. Labor per- formance standards based on work sampling data were developed and used for de- termining the m.onetary savings that could be realized from more efficient use of gin plant employees. Thirty-two gins were selected for this study; 9 were located in the West, 8 in the Texas High Plains, and 15 in the Midsouth. Seasonal volume, hourly capacity, and age and make of gin plant were the crite-

ria for selecting the plants.

Comparisons of input-output and cost-output functions for the peak operat- ing week with those for the entire season revealed that gin labor was ineffi- ciently used during the early and final weeks of the ginning season. Gins in the West used an average, of 59 man-minutes per bale during the peak vjeek, com- pared with an average of 99 man-minutes for the entire season. Plants in the High Plains used an average of 74 man-minutes per bale during the peak week; the average for the season was 167 man-minutes. In the Midsouth, the average number of man-minutes used per bale during the peak weetc was 73 and for the

entire season 110.

Based on prevailing wage rates in each area, average gin labor costs per bale for the peak week were less than those for the season by $1.30, $2.10, and $0.64 in the West, High Plains, and Midsouth, respectively. However, because of fixed cost comiriitments and producers' demands for timely service, ginning firms must have employees to run their plants during the entire harvesting period. Hence, to materially reduce the total cost of labor, these firms must use each employee's time more efficiently, and thus possibly employ fewer workers

Plant layout and functions limit the degree to which gin management can effectively utilize plant labor, and thus were considered in the development of labor performance standards. Many ginning establishments, including the gin building, office, and gin yard, require from 3 to 30 acres of land. Although a large proportion of total labor is utilized in or very near the gin building, the occasional and irregular need for workers to perform duties at remote dis- tances in the gin yard reduces the effectiveness of the total crew. Differences in requirements for physical dexterity and strength for various jobs also limit the effectiveness of management in organizing the labor force.

Ill

Including allowances for these limitations, results of this study suggest that 3 out of 4 gins had more employees in their day crews than they needed to operate efficiently during a peak day of the season. Based on performance standards, 5 of the 9 gins in the West had 1 to 2 more men than needed. All 9 plants used an average of 7.8 men, whereas only 7.3 men were required. In all 9 gins, average labor costs per bale could have been reduced 13 cents. In 5 of the plants, labor costs per bale could have been reduced by 21 to 44 cents.

The 8 plants in the Texas High Plains employed an average of 11.2 men, whereas only 8.7 men were needed. Three of these plants had an excess of 3 to 5 employees. With more efficient use of labor, potential reductions in labor costs per bale during a peak day would range from 9 to 63 cents and would aver- age 33 cents.

Based on labor performance standards, 12 of the 15 gins in the Midsouth had 1 to 4 employees more than needed. In these 12 plants, possible savings in costs per bale during a peak day would range from 9 to 70 cents, and in all 15 firms would average 22 cents.

It seems reasonable to assume that if savings can be attained during a peak day, similar savings could be realized for the entire season. If so average labor costs per bale for the 9 gins in the West would be reduced from $3.21 to $2.92. For gins in the High Plains, average labor costs per bale for the season would be reduced from $3.75 to $2.96, and for those in the Midsouth from $1.90 to $1.56. Such savings would lower the total cost of ginning per bale by about 2 to 5 percent.

IV

UTILIZATION AND COST OF LABOR FOR GINNING COTTON

By C. Curtis Cable, Jr., Zolon M. Looney, and Charles A. Wilmot, Agricultural Economists

Marketing Economics Division Economic Research Service

OBJECTIVES AND METHOD OF STUDY

Charges for ginning services have become a big item of cost to U.S. cotton producers. Since World War II, ginning charges have increased from an average of $6.40 per bale in 1945-46 to $16.80 in 1963-64 (3, 13). 1/ The effect of this increase is equivalent to a reduction of more than 2 cents per pound in the price producers receive for cotton. In the mid-1940's, ginning charges amounted to about 5 percent of the average value of a bale of cotton; in the past few years they have approximated 10 percent. The increase in these charges has closely followed the almost continuous year-to-year increase in ginning costs.

Many ginning firms are becoming increasingly concerned about their costs and are seeking ways to lower them. Increasing ginning volume and improving operating efficiency are two possibilities for reducing unit costs. Greater volumes would reduce fixed costs per bale for items such as depreciation, in- surance, and taxes. More efficient operation would lower the cost per bale for variable inputs such as labor, pov^er, and fuel.

Labor is one of the most costly inputs for cotton ginning firms. For the past 15 to 20 years, cost of labor has accounted for 20 to 25 percent of the total cost of ginning in most areas of the Cotton Belt (¿, 4, 5, 2> §.y 19)' This indicates that labor costs have increased at approximately the same rate as total costs during this period. The rise in labor costs has been due largely to steady increases in wage rates and little reduction in the man-hours required to gin a bale of cotton. Because of competition with other industries, ginning firms have little influence on the level of wage rates. Hence, to reduce labor costs, they must strive to use labor more efficiently.

The utilization and cost of labor for ginning cotton were studied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the 1962-63 ginning season. The purpose of this study was to obtain information that might help ginning firms lower their labor costs. Specific objectives were to: (1) analyze the effects of plant layout, plant functions, and characteristics of the harvesting season on gin labor requirements and costs; (2) develop labor performance standards for

1/ Underscored figures in parentheses refer to items in the Literature Cited, p. 33.

employees in typical gins during the peak of the season; (3) determine the quantity and cost of labor actually used in typical gins during the peak of the season; and (4) measure the savings in cost that could be realized from more efficient utilization of gin plant labor.

Thirty-two gins located in three major cotton-producing areas were selec- ted for intensive study. Nine of these firms were in the West, 8 in the Texas High Plains, and 15 in the Midsouth. Seasonal volume, hourly capacity, and age and make of plant were major criteria for selecting plants. For the 32 plants, seasonal volume ranged from less than 4,000 to more than 11,000 bales. The ginning capacity of the plants ranged from about 6 to almost IS bales per hour. A few of the plants had been in operation 10 or more years; for a few others, 1962-63 was their second ginning season. Plants with relatively large and small capacities erected by the major manufacturers of ginning equipment were included in the study.

Two major types of data were obtained from each gin: (1) output and cost records, and (2) work sampling data. Payroll records provided hours of labor and pay rates for each employee. With the help of the manager, the job of each plant employee was identified. By relating these data to output data, it was possible to develop labor input-output and cost-output functions.

Although cost records are excellent sources of data for analyzing varia- tions in average labor costs and efficiency of plants, they do not reveal de- tails of specific duties performed in gins. For example, these data do not indicate what portion of an employee's total time is lost because of delays or idleness, nor do they provide any specific indications as to how labor may be utilized more efficiently. For these reasons, detailed information on job activities of plant employees was obtained by the work sampling technique (_9, 11). This approach provided a procedure for randomly observing and recording the job activities of individual workers, and provided statistically reliable measures of the percentage of time spent by workers on various job assignments. Activities of each employee were observed 600 times, at half-minute intervals, during a peak day of operation. This revealed where and when idleness and de- lays occurred. Also, this technique provided a reliable measure of the total labor input actually required for specific jobs, or for a specific operation requiring 2 or more workers. Hence, these data were used in developing labor performance standards for gins located in the three study areas.

EFFECTS OF PLANT LAYOUT AND FUNCTIONS ON GIN LABOR REQUIREMENTS

The physical plant of modern ginning establishments usually consists of one or more gin buildings, an office,and a gin yard. The gin buildings, in- cluding the suction shed and the auxiliary facilities for handling cottonseed, trash, and waste lint, require only about 1 to 2 acres of land.

The gin yard is an integral part of the overall plant, since it serves as temporary sLorage for full and empty seed cotton trailers. Also, in the West, where rainfall is negligible during the ginning season, additional yard space is required for temporary storage of baled lint pending transport to a central

-2-

warehouse. During the peak of the season, the backlog of baled cotton at many gins in the West may exceed 1,000 bales. In other major producing areas, baled cotton is trucked directly to the warehouse. Many gin yards have fewer than 3 to 5 acres of land; others with 10 to 30 acres are common. The size of the gin yard is influenced by the number of gin batteries on the premises and their com- bined rate of ginning, potential seasonal volume, number of patrons, the antic- ipated backlog of seed cotton during the peak of the season, and many other factors. As many as 100 trailers loaded with seed cotton, each yielding 4 to 8 bales, and a large number of empty trailers may be parked on some gin yards.

Plant employees are concentrated in three major work centers: yard and suction, conditioning and ginning, and bale packaging. Simplified diagrams showing the flow of raw material, byproducts, trash, and final product through work centers of modern gins in the West, High Plains, and Midsouth are presented in figure 1. In all three areas, the flow begins with the pulling of a load of seed cotton from the gin yard to the suction shed attached to the gin building. From this point, the unloading of seed cotton and the flow of materials through the plant up to the final handling of the baled lint are similar in the Midsouth and the West. Five of the plants in the High Plains were equipped with a dual suction, and thus had two lines of seed cotton conditioning equipment. A dual suction increases the number of suction operators needed and also the probable need of another worker inside the gin building to oversee the additional clean- ing and drying equipment.

Trailers are usually moved to and from the gin suction by a medium-size, farm-type tractor. In general, it is the responsibility of the tractor driver to deliver loads of seed cotton to the suction shed in a predetermined order. In the West, this individual is usually responsible for moving baled lint to the bale yard and for handling the collection of waste lint and trash.

From the time seed cotton enters the suction pipe until cotton lint is compressed in the press box, the materials handling and processing functions are performed mechanically or by gravity. Labor is needed in the conditioning and ginning work center to operate, regulate, and service the gin machinery. A ginner and 1 or 2 helpers are employed to perform these tasks. In most firms, the ginner is responsible for the overall operation of the plant.

In the bale packaging work center, jobs such as pressing, wrapping, weigh- ing, and sampling require a varying number of employees. In newer plants, the press is turned mechanically; in older ones, it is turned by hand. Wrapping, handling, rolling the bale from the press box, and dressing the press for the next bale are primarily manual operations. After the bale has been weighed and sampled, 1 or 2 workers move it from the gin building. 1] In the West, bales are loaded onto a low-bed trailer with a capacity of about 5 to 7 bales. When loaded, it is pulled to the bale yard where the bales are temporarily stored. In the High Plains and Midsouth, bales are moved from the press box area in the gin building to the bale platform. The amount of labor required

II The amount of labor required to cut, roll, and identify a sample ob- tained manually is approximately the same as that required for handling and identifying mechanically drawn samples.

Typical Ginning Establishments, 1962-63

FLOW DIAGRAM OF RAW MATERIAL, BYPRODUCTS AND PRODUCT, BY AREA

iliii L_>,

H

D 1 Pipe

El k-i

MIDSOUTH

E2 —I—

E3

E4

X

Flow of seed cotton Flow of trash,seed,

and waste cotton ^ Flow of lint and baled cotton

A Trailers of seed cotton B Empty trailers from gin suction C Office and scales D Suction shed E Gin building El Drying and cleaning E2 Ginning E3 Lint cleaning E4 Packaging F Trash collection G Motes and waste lint

H Cotton seed collection

J Bale yard (the West only) K Bale platform (High Plains

and Midsouth areas)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 3427-65(1) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 1

for moving bales out of the gin building onto a platform or a conveyance was approximately the same in each area. However, additional labor is needed in the West to haul bales to the bale yard.

HARVESTING CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON GIN LABOR REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS

Because of customary arrangements for financing production and the cur- rently established system of merchandising and handling baled lint, many pro- ducers insist that their seed cotton be ginned as soon as possible after they deliver it to the gin yard. Thus, many important operating decisions are greatly influenced by the method of harvest, length of harvesting season, and the rate of harvesting.

Effects of Mechanized Harvesting on Ginning Costs

The rapid growth of mechanical harvesting has brought about pronounced changes in the type and number of machines installed in modern gins. Additional drying and cleaning equipment has been installed to clean the increased volume of roughly harvested cotton. Also, to keep pace with the accelerated rate of harvest, many gins have increased the capacity of existing plants or constructed new plants of greater capacity. These increased machinery requirements, coupled with the rise in the general price level, necessitated capital investments in gins as high as $350,000 to $400,000 in 19Ó2 (2). By contrast, plants erected in the 1940's cost approximately $50,000 to $100,000 (4, 5, ±, 8, 10).

Unlike many other types of processing industries, the large increase in capital investment for gins has not appreciably reduced the need for gin plant labor. Most of the recent technological advancements in ginning equipment have greatly increased the capacity of gin stands and complementary equipment. Although some progress has been made in automating the unloading of seed cotton and the packaging of lint, developments have not kept pace with the improvements in gin stands and cleaning equipment. Because of this, some gins have increased the number of their employees in order to handle the increase in hourly output of their new equipment. Thus, inputs of labor per bale have remained largely unchanged.

The increased use of capital, labor, and other inputs, and the general in- crease in unit cost of these items, have been the primary reasons for the in- crease in ginning costs during the past several years. In a study of ginning costs in the Texas High Plains, it was estimated that at a ginning rate of approximately 4 bales per hour, the cost of ginning 6,000 bales climbed from about $51,000 in 1946-47 to about $68,500 in 1948-49 (8). Findings of a 1962 study in the same area indicated that at the rate of o bales per hour, it cost about $83,000 to gin 6,000 bales (2). Although the physical efficiency of plants measured by output per hour increased 100 percent during the 16-year period, total costs increased about 63 percent. Increases in the total cost of ginning during the past 10 to 15 years in the West and Midsouth have been similar in size to the increase in the Texas High Plains (_1, ly á> Z» JL2» IZ) •

The cost of ginning per bale for 1962-63 averaged $15.57 for the 9 gins in the West, $16.23 for the 8 gins in the High Plains, and $14.12 for the 15 gins in the Midsouth (table 1). Plant labor was one of the major items of cost for each of the 32 firms. For gins in the High Plains, it was the most costly item, accounting for 24 percent of the average ginning costs per bale. It was the second most costly item for plants in the West, and the third most costly for those in the Midsouth. Depreciation and interest on investment combined was the most costly item for plants in both the Midsouth and the West. Bagging and ties were relatively costly items for firms in all 3 areas.

Table 1.--Average costs per bale of major inputs used for ginning cotton and the percentage these costs represent of total costs, in 3 study areas, 1962-63 season

Study areas

Major inputs West

Texas : High Plains

Midsouth

: Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

Gin plant labor 1/, 2/ : 3.21 20 3.75 24 1.90 14 Manager and office salaries 1/.\ 1.38 9 1.48 9 1.42 10 Bagging and ties : 2.85 18 2.35 14 2.60 18 Gin repairs 3/ : 1.03 7 1.40 8 1.10 8 Power and drier fuel 4/ : 1.22 8 1.Ó5 10 1.73 12 Gin and office supplies : .31 2 .16 1 .30 2 Plant and cotton insurance ....: .46 3 .76 5 .44 3 Taxes and licenses : .89 6 .49 3 .58 4 Interest and depreciation 5/...: 3.88 25 3.73 23 3.69 26 All other. : .34 2 .46 3 .36 3

Total : 15.57 100 16.23 100 14.12 100

1/ Includes salaries, wages, social security, compensation insurance, retire- ment, and other fringe benefits and bonuses.

2/ Includes plant labor used for repairing gins during the off season. ^/ Includes machinery parts and materials and non-gin labor. _4/ In some instances, includes very small amounts for office utilities. _5/ Plant and machinery were depreciated at an annual rate of 5 percent of

original investment; interest on investment was computed at the rate of 5 percent of one-half of original investment.

Effects of Seasonal Demand on Gin Employment Practices

Approximately 85 percent of the U.S. cotton crop is ginned between September 15 and January 15. About 13 percent is ginned before this 4-month period and the remainder after mid-January. For individual producing areas.

-6-

harvesting may be completed within a 6- to 8-week period. Because of this sea- sonal and short-term need for ginning services, it is uneconomical to maintain a complete crew on a year-round basis. In some instances, particularly for single-plant companies, the head ginner is the only full-time plant employee. For multiple-plant: companies, the gin superintendent and the head ginner for each gin are normally employed on a 12-month basis. In addition to being re- sponsible for the overall operation of the gin during the ginning season, these employees are in charge of making repairs and replacing worn or obsolete equip- ment during the off season.

Normally, year-round employees work a 40- or 48-hour week during the off season. During the ginning season, most head ginners work a regular 12-hour shift 7 days a week, and are paid on an hourly basis.

All other plant employees are hired on an hourly basis, usually all at the same rate of pay except for the head pressman, who may receive 10 to 25 cents more per hour. In addition to the day crew, which is employed for almost the entire ginning season, many ginning companies employ a night crew and operate two 12-hour shifts a day during the 3 to 5 weeks at the peak of harvest. The number of seasonal employees per shift depends on the rate of ginning, method of harvest, condition of seed cotton being delivered by producers, layout of gin buildings and gin yard, type of business organization, method of handling and storing baled lint at the gin, and many other factors.

Many firms have difficulty in hiring reliable seasonal employees with gin- ning experience. Because the work is seasonal, some employees quit to accept other jobs of longer duration. Others may quit before the end of the season and move on to the next seasonal job, sometimes without informing the manager. Thus, many gin managers prefer to have an extra employee to fill in when and where needed.

To counteract these employment problems, some ginning companies pay bo- nuses to employees based on the number of full consecutive ginning seasons they have been employed by the company. Other companies give bonuses, based on tota] bales ginned, to all employees who stay on the job for the entire season. Although such bonus plans are not applicable in all situations, and conceivably could limit the power of management in others, they have been very effective in reducing turnover of personnel in some plants. Also, managers of some plants where bonuses are paid feel that these inducements actually reduce the total cost of ginning because of reductions in downtime and the achievement of other efficiencies possible with a permanent and well-trained crev;.

Effects of Peaked Harvest Season on Labor Efficiency

Since it is customary for producers to deliver seed cotton to gins at least daily or as soon as they have a trailer load, the rate of receiving seed cotton at gins closely approximates the rate of harvesting. Thus, during the first 4 to 6 weeks of the ginning season, receipts of seed cotton at most gins are considerably less than the amount that can be ginned (fig. 2).

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WEEKLY RECEIPTS OF SEED COTTON

AND AVERAGE WEEKLY GINNING CAPACITY *

BALES OR EQUIVALENT Receipts of seed cot.on

2,000-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 WEEK OF HARVESTING-GINNING SEASON

A HYPOTHETICAL FÍRM WITH 1 AND 2 SHIFTS PER DAY AND GINNING APPROXIMATELY 9.000 BALES ANNUALLY.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 3428-65(1) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 2

For the first week or two of the season, many ginning companies maintain a skeleton day crew to gin the few loads of seed cotton received. At about the third or fourth week of the season, when receipts are still greatly below capacity, many companies put on a full day crew--primarily for two reasons. First, to have a capable crew available when actually needed later in the sea- son, some firms find it necessary to provide employees full-time employment for a week or two before they can be fully utilized. Second, many firms use this period for assigning responsibilities and jobs and for training new members of the crew so that they may function more efficiently during peak ginning periods.

At the peak of the harvesting season, more seed cotton is received at gins than one 12-hour shift can process. This necessitates the addition of a night crew to the labor force. Even with two shifts, for about 2 to 3 weeks, seed cotton receipts normally exceed plant output at optimum capacity (fig. 2). Hence, many firms must operate 24 hours a day for 3 to 5 weeks before the back- log is processed and the amount of incoming seed cotton falls below the ginninz capacity of one 12-hour shift.

The last 3 to 5 weeks of the ginning season are similar to the first 3 to 5 in that only a full or partial day crew is needed to process final deliveries of seed cotton. At practically all gins, these two periods are characterized by underemployment of plant labor. The day crew is on hand and is paid for a full 12-hour shift, but the volume of seed cotton received is insufficient to keep the plant operating the full 12 hours.

•8-

The effect of this underemployment on labor requirements and costs per bale was analyzed for the 32 firms included in this study. Average labor in- puts per bale used for the entire season were compared with labor inputs used per bale during the peak operating week of the season. For the entire season, gins in the West used an average of 99 man-minutes per bale, compared with 59 man-minutes during the peak week (fig. 3). Gins in the High Plains used an average of 167 man-minutes per bale for the season and 74 man-minutes during the peak week. In the Midsouth, the average number of minutes used during the entire season was 110 and during the peak week 73. Average labor costs per bale for the season exceeded the average for the peak week by $1.30 in the West, $2.10 in the High Plains, and $0.64 in the Midsouth.

Differences in average labor requirements and costs in the 3 areas for the season and the peak week were due to several factors. Wage rates in the West were considerably higher than those in the High Plains and Midsouth. Gins in the High Plains had, on an average, 3 more men per crew than the firms in the other 2 areas, which more than offset the higher wage rates of the West. For the year studied, adverse weather during harvest resulted in a longer season in the High Plains than in the Midsouth and West.

Comparisons of input-output and cost-output functions for the entire sea- son with those for the peak week revealed that gin labor was inefficiently usec" during the early and final weeks of the ginning season. However, because of

Gins in 3 Study Areas, T962-63

LABOR UNITS AND COSTS PER BALE FOR SEASON AND PEAK WEEK OF SEASON

MAN-MINUTES UNITS OF LABOR

150

100

50

Season Peolt ^¡sH week

WEST HIGH MIDSOUTH PLAINS

COST OF LABOR

DOLLARS

3

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ACRfCULTURE

WEST HIGH MIDSOUTH PLAINS

NEC. ERS 3429-65(1) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 3

-9-

..,,..^,i^„

fixed cost commitments, gins cannot ignore the volume ginned during these two periods, and must have employees to run their plants as long as seed cotton is harvested. Hence, to materially reduce labor costs per bale, these firms would have to explore thoroughly the prospects for utilizing each employee's time more efficiently throughout the season. The labor performance standards developed in the next section of this report provide guides wHicli may be useful to man- agers for this purpose.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR GIN PLANT LABOR

A standard is a model or an ideal established by authority or general con- sent, and based on experience or factual information. Once established, a stand- ard serves as a criterion for evaluating performance or value. Labor standards may be defined as quantitative ideals of labor productivity under good manage- ment and usual operating conditions. These standards may be expressed as out- put per worker per unit of time, or as the labor time required per unit of out- put. The latter, measured in man-minutes per bale, was used in this study for developing standards for specific tasks performed in cotton gins.

Labor standards should represent efficient levels of performance. Although most gin managers feel that they utilize their labor efficiently, actual meas- ured labor performance for specific tasks varied appreciably in the 32 firms chosen for study. Because of these wide variations, standards for each task were established at a level which, on the basis of the work sampling data, ap- peared to be reasonably efficient. It was assumed that a standard corresponding to the best actual performance of any one gin was not reasonable, since only a few firms could expect to attain and maintain this level of efficiency. A standard based on an average of actual performances in the plants studied was assumed to be too low, since an average reflects inefficient as well as efficient levels of performance.

Based on these assumptions, the development of standards for labor time re- quired per bale for each individual job was a two-step process. First, the midpoint between the average and peak levels of performance was determined. Second, this midpoint was adjusted, when necessary, so that the actual perform- ance level of about a fourth of the 32 firms equaled or exceeded the standard.

These derived standards for individual jobs were used to calculate the total man-minutes needed to perform all jobs at each of the three work centers. These totals represented minimum units of labor needed to perform the assigned jobs efficiently, assuming no delays or time for personal needs. However, there are unavoidable delays in gin plants, and time must be allotted for personal needs. Thus, the minimum number of man-minutes of labor needed for actual work was increased by one-third to obtain a performance standard for the total man- minutes needed per bale at each work center. 3_/

The number of employees needed in the crew at each work center was computed by dividing the performance standard by time required to gin one bale. For

_3/ It was assumed that unavoidable delays and personal needs accounted for one-fourth of the total labor expended per bale at a work center.

■10-

example, if 12 man-minutes of labor per bale were required at the bale packag- ing work center, and the plant was producing a bale every 6 minutes, 2 employ- ees working as a team could easily and efficiently perform all tasks at this work center.

Standards for Yard and Suction Crew

Standards for labor needed per bale were developed for the following specific jobs performed by yard and suction crews of plants in each of the three study areas: operating suction pipe, moving trailer loads of seed cotton to suction, moving empty trailers from suction, hauling baled cotton to bale yard (applicable only in the West), and performing miscellaneous duties. In the High Plains, one set of standards was developed for gins unloading seed cotton with one suction pipe, and a second set for gins unloading seed cotton with two suction pipes.

Total man-minutes needed to perform all jobs at the yard and suction work center ranged from 6.6 for plants in the Midsouth to 10.8 for dual-suction gins in the High Plains (table 2). The time allowance for unavoidable delay and personal needs increased man-minutes needed per bale to 8.8 for single-suction firms in the Midsouth, 10.0 for those in the West, and 12.4 for those in the High Plains. This allowance increased the man-minutes needed per bale to 14.4. More labor was needed to perform yard and suction jobs in the High Plains than in the other two areas primarily because of the greater quantity of seed cotton required to yield a 500-pound bale.

The number of employees needed to perform jobs in the yard and suction work center was computed for plants with assumed ginning rates ranging from 6 to 20 bales an hour. Theoretically, one man could perform all of the yard and suction jobs at gins in the West and Midsouth if only 6 bales were ginned per hour (table 3). However, it is not feasible for one man to operate the suction pipe and move full and empty trailers to and from the suction. Thus, a minimum of 2 employees is needed in the yard and suction crew of single-suction plants to maintain plant output, and a minimum of 3 workers is needed for dual-suction gins.

In the West, 2 men can efficiently perform the yard and suction jobs at plants ginning up to about 12 bales an hour, and 3 men are needed in plants ginning from about 12 to 18 bales an hour. In the Midsouth, 2 men are suffi- cient in plants ginning up to 14 bales an hour, and 3 men are needed in plants ginning from 14 to 20 bales an hour. For dual-suction plants, a minimum of 3 men is needed in plants ginning up to 12 bales an hour, and 4 are needed for plants ginning from 12 to 17 bales an hour.

In order that the work load be distributed equally among all members of the yard and suction crew, workers should exchange jobs regularly. For example, in plants requiring only 2 workers in this crew, 1 man can operate the suction pipe while the other man does the following jobs: (1) Moves empty trailer to gin yard, (2) moves full load of seed cotton to suction shed, (3) hauls bales to bale yard (at gins in the West), (4) checks trash and mote trailers and per- forms other miscellaneous jobs, (5) rests, and (6) mounts loaded trailer under the suction so that he can begin operating the suction pipe at the proper time. Similar job rotations can be worked out for crews of 3, 4, and 5 men.

-11-

Table 2.--Standards for labor inputs per bale needed for specific jobs in the yard and suction work center of cotton gins in 3 study areas, 1962-63

!7ffi!'SS*We'S-t'T»^pi-'

Texas High Plains

.-Ti-'Si-ngl-e— : ■■ suction : gins :

-Dual—' ■ suction gins

," Mid south

Operating suction

: Man- ; minutes

: 4.5 : .5 : .6

.9 1.0

Man- minutes

6.4 .6

1.4 1/ .9

Man- minutes

7.7 .7

1.5 1/ .9

Man- minutes

4.7 .7 .4

1/ .8

Moving up full trailers Moving out empty trailers Moving bales to bale yard Miscellaneous

All jobs ; 7.5 9.3 10.8 6.6

Allowance for delay and : personal needs 2/ : 2.5 3.1 3.6 2.2

Total : 10.0 12.4 14.4 8.8

y Not applicable in the High Plains and Midsouth. y It was assumed that 25 percent of the total labor inputs per bale could

reasonably be allowed for unavoidable delays and personal needs.

Table 3.--Standards for the number of men needed in the yard and suction crew of cotton gins in 3 study areas, by rate of ginning, 1962-63

Bales ginned per hour West

Texas High Plains

Single- suction ^ins

Dual- suction

Midsouth

6. ' 8.

10. . 12.

^ 14. . 16. 18.

' 20.

Numb( sr

1 .0 1 .3

1 .7 2 .0

2 3 2 7 3 0 3. 3

Number

1 .2 1 7

2. 1 2. 5

2. 9 3, 3 3. 7 4. 1

Number

3.4 3.8 4.3 4,8

Number

0.9 1.2

2,0 2.3

-12-

If fractional man-units could be hired, the relation of labor inputs to plant output could be represented graphically by a continous sloping line (fig- 4). Since this is not possible, the input-output relationship is more accurately illustrated by the discontinuous stair-step line. The shaded areas below the steps represent idle time, which is in excess of the 25-percent time allowance for delays and personal needs in the performance standards.

Standards for Conditioning and Ginning Crew

It was not possible to develop labor performance standards for the condi- tioning and ginning crew like those developed for crews at the other two work centers. Labor requirements for this crew are quite different from those for the other two crews. In both the yard and suction and bale packaging centers, labor activity and mechanical processes are interdependent, and must be effec- tively coordinated. These two centers are characterized by periods of worker activity followed by periods of necessary delay when workers are waiting for the completion of one or more mechanical processes.

In contrast, labor is continuously utilized in the conditioning and ginning work center. Drying and cleaning seed cotton, ginning and lint cleaning are mechanical processes, and workers should be present at all times for observing, regulating, and activating machinery. These jobs require little physical ex- ertion except during choke-ups or when malfunctioning of an automatic process occurs. Jobs such as activating gin stands, regulating temperatures, repairing, and operating the overflow pipe are easily discernible. However, the work sam- pling data revealed that jobs of this type require only about 10 percent of the total time expended by the conditioning and ginning crew.

A large portion of the total labor of this crew is utilized for observing machinery to assure proper operation and to detect the need for adjustments, repairs, and other changes in the automatic processes. In performing this par- ticular job, an experienced ginner not only uses his sense of sight but"also "listens for trouble." He may stand or sit at one location in the plant for 10 to 15 minutes at a time, appearing to be idle, but in actuality performing his job very satisfactorily. Thus, it was not possible to obtain accurate data for developing standards for this work center.

Other difficulties were encountered in analyzing labor needs at the condi- tioning and ginning work center. The quantity of labor needed in a gin is pri- marily dependent on the capacity of mechanical processing equipment. However, there are additional factors affecting the number of employees needed in the conditioning and ginning crew. Size of gin building, and the amount, age, and arrangement of gin machinery are other important criteria for judging the num- ber of employees needed in this work center. In recently constructed gins, ma- chinery is arranged so that it can be easily observed and readily accessible to employees. In addition, newer plants are characterized by automated, individ- ually powered machinery which can be controlled at a central panel. In con- trast, many older gins, which were adequate in size when built, have been almost literally filled with machinery in recent years. In some cases, part of the original machinery has been replaced or modernized. Thus, in these plants, jobs are much more difficult to perfonn than they are in newly erected plants.

•13-

Yard and Suction Crew ¡n Gin Plants, J962-63

RELATIONSHIP OF LABOR INPUTS TO HOURLY OUTPUT, BY AREA

NUMBER OF MEN

5 \- WEST

— Idle time in excess of delay time

0

6

777777

•y y/y/y" ::y

w\ \

y Standard for / man-units needed

Actual number

of men required

J L

5 -

HIGH PLAINS SINGLE-SUCTION PLANTS ^

3

2

rrrrrrvTTT,

y/.yyy

11111 ■ » 1 f jy

W y

yy y

J L

MIDSOUTH

■

, y

::::y ::y y __

- V.VA'

-

1

1 1

1

1

.

HIGH PLAINS DUAL-SUCTION PLANTS

'.v.v.y w :v::7

± J L 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

BALES GINNED PER HOUR

^ INCLUDING ALLOWANCE FOR DELAY TIME.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 3430-65 ( I ) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 4

■14-

Hence, it is conceivable that an older plant producing 8 bales an hour might require more men in the conditioning and ginning crew than a newer plant pro- ducing 12 bales an hour.

Another factor influencing labor requirements at this work center is volume of raw material required to produce a 500-pound bale. In general, the greater the volume of raw material, the greater the need for additional processing ma- chinery. This, in turn, increases labor requirements.

For these reasons, and because of the inability to obtain precise data for developing job standards, the number of men needed at the conditioning and gin- ning center in each study area was estimated. These estimates were arbitrarily based on the model number of workers in the crews of gins included in this study. On this basis, it is recommended that gins in the West and Midsouth use 2 em- ployees, and those in the High Plains use 3 employees in this work center.

Standards for Bale Packaging Crew

Standards for labor units needed per bale were developed for the following jobs performed by packaging crews in each of the three study areas: operating press, tying out bales, dressing press, weighing and recording, handling bales, bagging and ties, and performing miscellaneous duties. Two variables, the num- ber of bale ties used and whether or not the job of sampling was performed, were considered. Thus, four sets of performance standards were developed for each area.

Labor inputs needed for the performance of jobs in plants with flat bale presses (6 ties) and no sampling totaled 9.4 man-minutes per bale in each area (table 4). In plants with standard density presses (8 ties) and no sampling, 10.4 man-minutes of labor were needed per bale. These requirements were raised to 12.5 and 13.9 man-minutes, respectively, by adding the allowance for delays and personal needs. The job of sampling increased total labor inputs by about 1,8 man-minutes per bale in the West, 1.5 in the High Plains, and 0.7 in the Midsouth.

Although total labor inputs per bale for all packaging jobs, excluding sampling, were the same in all three areas, there were differences in the amount of labor needed for the performance of specific jobs. Labor inputs needed for operating the press in the West were about half those needed for performing this job in the other 2 areas. On the other hand, labor needed in the West for weighing bales and keeping records was about double that needed in the High Plains and Midsouth. Labor needed for tying out bales in the Midsouth was

. approximately two-thirds of that needed in the other 2 areas. These differences in standards suggest those jobs which could be more efficiently performed in each area.

The packaging crew in a modern gin should have a minimum of 2 employees. • Although it is physically possible for 1 man to perform the various jobs, if

given ample time, tying out bales, dressing the press, and handling bales can be done with less fatigue if performed by 2 or more individuals.

•15-

Table 4 --Standards for labor inputs per bale needed for specific jobs in the bale packaging work center of cotton gins in 3 study areas, 1962-63

Area and job

Inputs needed for bale packaging jobs in—

Gins sampling bales and using--

6 ties 8 ties

Gins not sampling bales and using-- 6 ties

M< in- minutes -

0 7 0 7 4 3 3 5 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1

4 4 1 6 1 4 1 3 1 0 1 0

8 ties

0.7 4.3 1,3 1.1 .4

1.6

1.0 10.7 11.7 9.4 10.4

3.6 3.9 3.1 3.5 14.3 15.6 12.5 13.9

West: ; Operating press : 0.7 Tying out bale : 3.5 Dressing press : 1.3 Weighing and records : 1.1 Handling bales : .4 Bagging and ties : 1.4 S amp 1 ing : 1,3 Miscellaneous : 1,0

All jobs Allowance for delay and

personal needs _!/ Total

High Plains: : Operating press t 1.3 Tying out bale : 3.9 Dressing press : 1.1 Weighing and records : .5 Handling bales : .8 Bagging and ties : .8 S amp ling : 1. l Miscellaneous : 1,0

All jobs Allowance for delay and

personal needs 1^/ Total

Midsouth: Operating press : 1.4 Tying out bale : 2.5 Dressing press : 1.1 Weighing and records : ,6 Handling bales : 1.1 Bagging and ties : 1.7 Sampling : .5 Miscellaneous : l. 0

All jobs Allowance for delay and

personal needs 1/ Total

1/ It was assumed that 25 percent of the total labor inputs per bale could reasonably be allowed for unavoidable delays and personal needs.

1.3 1.3 1.3 4.7 3.9 4.7 1.1 1.1 1.1

.5 .5 .5

.8 .8 .8 1.0 .8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0

10.5 11.5 9.4 10.4

3.5 3.8 3.1 3.5 14.0 15.3 12.5 13.9

1.4 1.4 1.4 3.3 2.5 3.3 1.1 1.1 1.1

.6 .6 .6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.7 1.9

.5 1.0 1.0 1.0

9.9 10.9 9.4 10.4

3.3 3.6 3.1 3.5 13.2 14.5 12.5 13.9

-16-

In plants with flat bale presses and no sampling, only 2 men are needed in the packaging crew for outputs up to about 9.5 bales an hour (fig. 5 and table 5). For outputs from about 15 to 19 bales per hour, a 4-man packaging crew is needed.

In plants with standard density presses and no sampling, 2 men can handle outputs up to about 8 bales an hour. For outputs of about 17 or more bales per hour, 5 men are needed. The job of sampling slightly increased the number of men needed in packaging crews of gins in all 3 study areas.

Standards for Total Crew

The total number of employees needed to operate present-day gins was de- rived from performance standards developed for the 3 major work centers. The number of men required in plants ginning up to about 9 bales an hour is equal to the total of the minimum number of workers required at each work center. In the West and Midsouth, plants with this ginning rate require 6 men, and in the High Plains 7 men (table 6). In plants ginning about 9 to 12 bales an hour, 7 men are required in the West and Midsouth, and 9 men in the High Plains.

Although standards for outputs ranging from 6 to 20 bales an hour are based on the reasonable time needed to perform all jobs plus allowances for delays and personal needs, hourly output has an appreciable effect on labor efficiency.

Bale Packaging Crew ¡n Gin Plants, 1962-63

RELATIONSHIP OF LABOR INPUTS TO HOURLY OUTPUT, BYNUM6ER0FTIES, ALL AREAS'"

NUMBER OF MEN

5

4

3

2

(6 TIES)

Idle time in excess of delay fime

1 v.-.v^

y^ Standard for /'' man-un its needed^

I I Actual number

of men required

L I '

(8 TIES)

—

•

':::::::.v ;.v.v.v/ -yyy y

W ::y

7

L \ 1 L_..., 1

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 BALES GINNED PER HR.

INCLUDING ALLOWANCE FOR DELAY TIME. ^ WITH NO SAMPLING.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEC. ERS 3431-65 ( 1 ) ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 5

-17-

Table 5.--Standards for the number of men needed in the bale packaging crew of cotton gins in 3 study areas, by rate of ginning, 1962-63

Area and bales

Men 1 needed in bale packaging crew in--

Gins sampling : Gins not Bampl ing -

ginned per hour bales and using-- ; bales and using--

6 ties , 8 ties 6 ties \ 8 ties

Number Number Number Number

West:

6. 1.4 1.9

2.4 2,9

3.3 3.8 4.3 4.8

1.6 2.1

2.6 3.1

3.6 4.2 4,7 5.2

1.2 1,7

2.1 2.5

2.9 3,3 3.8 4,2

1.4

8 1,9

10 2.3

12. 2.8

14. 3.2

16. 3.7

18 4.2

20 4.6

High Plains:

6. 1.4 1.9

1.5 2.0

1.2 1.7

1.4

8. ... : 1.9

10. 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.3

12. 2.8

3,3

3.1

3,6

2.5

2.9

2.8

14. • • a • • 3.2

16. 3.7 4.1 3.3 3.7

18. 4.2 4.6 3,8 4.2

20. t • • • • 4.7 5.1 4,2 4.6

Midsouth:

6. •••••••«... 1,3 1.4 1.2 1.4

8. : 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.9

10. 2,2 2.4 2.1 2,3

12. 2.6

3.1 3.5 4.0 4.4

2,9

3.4 3.9 4.4 4.8

2.5

2.9 3.3 3,8 4,2

2,8

14- 3.2

16 3.7

18. 4,2

20 4,6

-18-

Table 6.--Standards for number of men needed in the total crew of cotton gins in 3 study areas, by rate of ginning, 1962-63 season _1/

Bales ginned per hour West ■ Texas High Plains' Midsouth

6. 8.

10. 12.

14. 16. 18. 20.

Number

6 6

7 7

9 9

10 11

Numr 3er

7 7

9 9

2/ 11 11 11 11 13 11 13

Number

6 6

7 7

8 9 9

10

_!/ For single-suction plants using 6 bale ties, and using a mechanical sam- pler or cutting samples manually.

_2/ For dual-suction plants in the Texas High Plains.

For example, in the Midsouth, a 6-man crew is required to produce 6 bales an hour, but a 7-man crew can gin 12 bales an hour. Thus, an increase of 100 per- cent in output can be accomplished with a 17-percent increase in number of plant employees.

EFFICIENCY OF LABOR UTILIZATION DURING PEAK OF SEASON

The amount of labor actually used by each of the 32 firms during the peak day of the season was compared with the amount needed based on performance standards. This comparison provides a measure of the monetary savings that could be realized by more efficient utilization of gin plant labor. The number of em- ployees and units and costs of labor per bale were analyzed for crews at each of the three work centers and the entire plant.

Number of Men Employed

The day crew of 9 gins in the West had an average of 7.8 men (table 7). For individual plants, size of crew ranged from 7 to 9 men; however, no apparent relationship existed between size of crew actually employed and hourly rate of ginning. On the basis of performance standards, these 9 firms needed an aver- age of 7.3 men. Five of these firms, with ginning rates of less than 10.5 bales per hour, were actually using 1 to 2 men more than the number needed. In the other 4 plants, with ginning rates from 10.5 to 17.5 bales per hour, the number of employees was equal to or less than the number based on standards. This strongly suggests that efficient use of labor in gins is directly related to plant capacity.

-19-

Table 7.--Number of men actually employed compared with the standard number needed during a peak day in 3 major work centers and total plant of 9 gins in the West, by ginning rate, 1962-63

I ho o I

Work centers ; Bales Total plants

Yard and : Conditioning : Bale ; ginned suction : and ginning : packaging

Gin : ; : per Number : Standard: Number : Standard: Number : Standard Number : Standard:

actually: number : actually: number : actually: number actually: number : Difference hour employed: needed : employed: needed : employed: needed employed: needed :

A 1/ 2/......: 6.9 2 2 2 2 3 2 7 6 +1 B 1/ 2/ 8.9 3 2 2 2 4 3 9 7 +2

C ! 9.0 9.3

3 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 4

2 3

7 8

6 7

+1 D 1/ 2/ • +1 E ; 10.3

10.5

13.A 16.7

. 17.5

4 2

3 3 3

2 2

3 3 3

2 2

1 2 1

2 2

2 2 2

3 3

3 4 3

3 3

3 4 4

9 7

7 9 7

7 7

8 9 9

+2 F 2/ 0

G " -1 H 0 I -2

Average....: 2. 8 2.3 1.8 2.0 3.2 3.0 7.8 7.3 +0.5

V Used 8 bale ties. Six plants used 6 ties. II Used a mechanical sampler. Five plants were not sampling.

Three of the 8 plants in the High Plains used 9 men, 4 used 12 men, and 1 used 14 men in their day crews (table 8). The latter 5 plants unloaded seed cotton with dual-suction pipes, and employed about 2 more men in the yard and suction work center than firm.s which unloaded with one pipe. Also, these 5 firms used from 4 to 6 men at the Laie packaging work center, but only 3 to 4 men were used for packaging in the other 3 plants. Based on performance standards, each of the 8 plants in the High Plains were employing more men than needed. One plant had an excess of 5 men, 2 had an excess of 3 employees, and 4 plants had 2 more men than needed. On the average, these 8 plants were employing an excess of 2o5 men in their day crews. The number of employees in the packaging crew exceeded the number needed for all 8 plants, and in 6 plants the number of em- ployees in the yard and suction crew exceeded the required number.

Based on performance standards, the 15 plants in the Midsouth employed an average of 1.3 men more than the number needed (table 9). Three of these plants were using an excess of 3 to 4 men, while another 3 plants were using either fewer men or the required number of men. In most instances, the excess labor was employed at the bale packaging center.

Labor Used Per Bale

Plants in the West used an average of 45 man-minutes of labor per bale during a peak day, those in the High Plains used 71 man-minutes, and those in the Midsouth used 55 man-minutes (tables 10, 11, and 12), Approximately 33 per- cent of the total labor used per bale in each area was expended at the yard and suction work center, 40 percent at the bale packaging center, and 27 percent at the conditioning and ginning center.

In all three areas, total plant labor expended per bale declined as the rate of ginning increased. For example, in the West, average labor inputs for plants ginning 13 or more bales per hour were less than half the inputs used in plants ginning less than 9 bales an hour.

Similar input-output relationships existed for each work center. However, the ratio of inputs to outputs varied for individual plants. Plants in the High Plains ginning 9 to 13 bales per hour used an average of 17 man-minutes per bale in their conditioning and ginning work centers, but plants ginning less than 9 bales an hour used an average of 28 man-minutes per bale. In comparison, plants in both groups were using an average of 25 man-minutes of labor per bale at the yard and suction work center.

In gins in the West, an average of 79 percent of the total plant labor expended per bale was for the performance of major and miscellaneous duties in the three major work centers (fig. 6)« Another 21 percent was for delays and personal needs. In the other two areas, a total of 66 percent of total labor expended per bale was for performance of duties and 34 percent for delays and personal needs. For individual plants, actual delay time ranged from 2 to 16 man-minutes per bale in the West, from 12 to 42 man-minutes per bale in the High Plains, and from 7 to 30 man-minutes per bale in the Midsouth.

-21-

Table 8.—Number of men actually employed compared with the standard number needed during a peak day in 3 major work centers and total plant of 8 gins in the High Plains, by ginning rate, 1962-63 1/

Gin

Bales

ginned

per

hour

Work centers

Yard and suction

Conditioning and ginning

Bale packaging

Number : Standard: Number : Standard: Number : Standard actually: number : actually: number : actually: number employed: needed : employed: needed : employed: needed

Total plants

Number : Standard: actually: number : Difference employed: needed :

A 2/. B 2/ C 2/,

3/.

Average.

5.6 6.6 7.3

10.0 11.1 11.5

13.2 14.5

14 12 12

12 12

3.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 4.3 2.8 11.2

10 11

8.7

+2 +2 +2

+5 +3 +3

+2 +1

+2.5

y All 8 plants used 6 bale ties. 2/ Unloaded with a single suction. Five plants unloaded with 2 suctions simultaneously. 2/ Used a mechanical sampler. Six plants were not sampling.

Table 9.—Number of men actually employed compared with the standard number needed during a peak day in 3 major work centers and total plant of 15 gins in the Midsouth, by ginning rate, 1962-63 1/

Work centers Bales Total plants

Yard and Condition ing and Bale ginned suction ginning packaging

Gin : per

Numb er : Standard : Number : Standard Number : Standard Number : Standard:

hour actua lly: number : actually: number actually: number actually: numb er :Di fference

emplc yed: needed .employed: needed .employed: needed .employed: needed :

A 2/ :... 6.2 2 2 2 2 3 2 7 6 -»-1

B 2/ 6.5 2 2 2 2 3 2 7 6 + 1

C 2/ 6.5 2 2 1 2 4 2 7 6 + 1

D 7.0 3 2 2 2 3 2 8 6 +2 E 7.3 4 2 2 2 4 2 10 6 +4 F 7.5 2 2 2 2 3 2 7 6 +1 G 7.8 2 2 2 2 4 2 8 6 +2

H 2/ 9.2 2 2 3 2 3 2 8 6 +2 I 9.4 2 2 3 2 5 3 10 7 +3

J 9.7 2 2 2 2 3 3 7 7 0 K : 10.2 2 2 2 2 2 3 6 7 -1 L : 11.7 3 2 2 2 5 3 10 7 +3 M : 12.7 2 2 2 2 3 3 7 7 0 N : 12.8 3 2 1 2 4 3 8 7 + 1

0 : 14.9 3 3 2 2 5 4 10 9 +1

Average.... 2. 4 2.2 2.0 2.0 3.6 2.5 8.0 6. 7 +1.3

1/ All 15 plants used 6 bale ties. 2/ Were not sampling. Eleven plants were using a mechanical sampler or were cutting samples manually.

-22-

Table 10.--Man-minutes of labor per bale actually used compared with the standard man-minutes needed during a peak day in 3 major work centers and total plant of 9 gins in the West, by ginning rate, 1962-63

Gin

Bales

ginned

per

hour

Work centers

Yard and .suction

Man- minutes actually

used

Standard man-

minutes needed

Conditioning and

Man- minutes actually

used

Standard man-

minutes needed

Bale packaging

Man- minutes actually used

Standard man-

minutes needed

Total plant 1/

Man- minutes actually

used

Standard man-

minutes needed

Difference

A B

r,

2/ 2/

3/ : 3/ :

D F,

2/ 3/ :

F ■3/

a H : I :

Average.

6.9 8.9

9.0 9.3

10.3 10.5

13.4 16.7 17.5

17 20

20 13 23 11

13 11 10

17 13

13 13 12 11

13 11 10

17 13

13 13 12 11

5 7 4

17 13

13 13 12 11

9 7 7

26 27

13 26 18 17

13 14 10

17 20

13 19 18 17

13 14 14

61 60

47 52 53 39

31 32 24

16 13 11 11 18 16 45

52 47

40 45 41 39

35 32 31

40

+9 +13

+ 7 +7

+ 12 0

-4 0

-7

+5

1/ Discrepancies between entries for total plant and the sum of entries for the 3 work centers are due to rounding.

2/ Used 8 bale ties. Six plants used 6 ties. 2/ Used a mechanical sampler. Five plants were not sampling.

Table 11.—Man-minutes of laoor per bale actually used compared with the standard man-minutes needed during a peak day in 3 major work centers and total plant of 8 gins in the High Plains, by ginning rate 1962-63 1/ ^06,

Gin

A 3/.... B 3/ 4/. C 3/....

G H 4/.

Average.

Bales

ginned

per

hour

Work centers

Yard and suction

Man- Standard minutes man- actually minutes

used needed

Conditioning and

giving

Man- minutes actually used

Standard man-

minutes needed

Bale packaging

Man- minutes actually used

Standard man-

minutes needed

Total plant V

Man- minutes actually used

Standard man-

minutes needed

Difference

5.6 6.6 7.3

10.0 11.1 11.5

13.2 14.5

32 18 25

30 22 26

24 17

22 18 16

18 16 16

19 17

32 27 25

18 16 16

14 12

32 27 25

18 16 16

14 12

32 36 25

36 27 21

19 21

22 18 16

18 16 16

14 17

96 81 74

84 65 63

57 50

76 63 58

54 49 48

47 46

+20 +18 + 16

+30 +16 +15

+10 +4

24 18 20 20 27 17 71 55 + 16

1/ All 8 plants used 6 bale ties. 2/ Discrepancies between entries for total plaat and tbe sum of entries for the 3 work centers are due

to rounding.

3/ unloaded with a single suction. Five plants unloaded with 2 suctions simultaneously. 4/ Used a mechanical sampler. Six plants were not sampling.

-23-

Table 12.--Man-minutes of labor per bale actually used compared with the standard man-minutes needed dur- ing a peak day in 3 major work centers and total plant of 15 gins in the Midsouth, by ginning rate, 1962-63 1/ I

. Bales Work centers Total plant 2/

% — \ ginned

Yard and : suction

Conditioning and : ginning

Bale packaging

Gi" ; per

hour

; Man- ' minutes actually

used

Standard man-

,minutes ] needed

Man- 'minutes actually

used

Standard man-

minutes \ needed

Man- [minutes 'actually \ used

'Standard man-

[minutes needed

Man- minutes actually

used

'Standard]

.'"^^- i Difference minutes | needed |

A 3/ B 3/.. C 3/

6.2 ..: 6.5 ..: 6.5

19 18 19 26 33 16 15

13 13 12 12 15 9

14

12

19 18 19 17 16 16 15

13 13 12 12 10 9 9

12

19 18 9

17 17 16 15

20 19 12 12 10 9 9

8

19 18 19 17 17 16 15

13 13 12 12 10 9 9

8

29 28 37 26 33 24 31

20 32 19 12 26 14 19

20

19 18 19 17 16 16 15

13 19 19 18 15 14 14

16

67 64 65 69 83 56 61

52 64 43 36 51 32 42

40

58 55 56 52 49 48 46

39 45 43 42 36 32 33

36

f

f

+9 +9 +9

D. "~"

7.0 +17 E, 7.3 +34

r^. F. 7.5 +8 r 0. 7.8 +15

H I,

3/..0O... ..: 9.2 ..: 9.4

+13 +19

J, ..: 9.7 0 K .c! 10.2

..: 11.7

-6 L +15 M 0.: 12.7 0 N ..: 12.8 +9

0 ..: 14.9 +4

Average.. •. • 16 14 14 14 25 17 55 44 +11

1/ All 15 plants used 6 bale ties. 2/ Discrepancies between entries for total plant and the sum of entries for the 3 work centers are due to

rounding. 3/ Were not sampling. Eleven plants were using a mechanical sampler or were cutting samples manually.

Typical Ginning Csfob/i'shmenfs, J962-63

LABOR DISTRIBUTION PER BALE AT MAJOR WORK CENTERS, BY AREA

100

80

60

40

TOTAL PLANT CREW YARD AND SUCTION CREW

Major duties / \ Delay lime

Miscellaneous

Personal

CONDITIONING AND GINNING CREW

BALE PACKAGING CREW

WEST HIGH MIDSOUTH PLAINS

. OEPARTMEMT

WEST HIGH MIDSOUTH PLAINS

«EC. ERS Un-tii\l ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Figure 6

An average of roughly 34 to 37 percent of the total labor of yard and suc- tion crews in all three areas was utilized for operating the suction pipe. Another 11 or 12 percent was used for moving loads of seed cotton to the suc- tion shed and returning empty trailers to the gin yard. In the West, 10 per- cent of the labor of this crew was used for hauling baled lint to the bale yard. Delay time amounted to an average of 29, 46, and 42 percent of total man- minutes expended by yard and suction crews in the West, High Plains, and Mid- south, respectively. For individual plants, delay time at this work center ranged from about 1.5 to 12.3 man-minutes per bale.

In the West, performance of major duties accounted for an average of 80 percent of the labor expended by the conditioning and ginning crews; in the High Plains and Midsouth, performance of major duties accounted for 69 and 65 percent, respectively. Performance of miscellaneous duties accounted for another 19 to 28 percent. One percent was used for personal needs. In the West and High Plains, delay time for this crew was negligible, but in the Midsouth, it amounted to about 14 percent of the total labor expended.

Bale packaging crews in the West spent an average of 60 percent of their total work time in the performance of major duties, those in the High Plains 44 percent^and those in the Midsouth 52 percent. In the West, delay time amounted to 24 percent of total labor expended; in the High Plains it amounted to 45 percent, and in the Midsouth 38 percent.

.25-

By employing only the number of men needed based on performance standards, total man-minutes of labor expended per bale can be appreciably reduced in all three areas. For firms in the West, the amount of labor required averaged 11 percent less than the amount actually used. Labor inputs per bale based on per- formance standards, averaged 23 percent less than inputs actually used by firms in the High Plains and 20 percent less than inputs used by gins in the Midsouth.

Costs of Labor Per Bale

In all three areas, differences in labor costs per bale were not propor- tionate to differences in labor inputs, primarily because of variations in hourly wage rates. Employees in the yard and suction crev;s in the West received an average of $1.90 an hour, those in the conditioning and ginning crews $2.07, and employees in the bale packaging crew an average of $1.93 an hour, 4/ In the other two areas, employees in the yard and suction and bale packaging crews re- ceived an average of $1.25 an hour, and those in the conditioning and ginning crews $1.40 an hour.

On the basis of these average wage rates, total plant labor expended dur- ing a peak day cost an average of $1.45 per bale in the West, $1.55 in the High Plains, and $1.19 in the Midsouth (tables 13, 14, and 15). The cost of labor used at the yard and suction work center ranged from an average of 34 cents per bale in the Midsouth to 50 cents in the High Plains. The average cost of labor used at the conditioning and ginning center ranged from 34 to 49 cents per bale. For the bale packaging work center, labor costs ranged from 51 to 59 cents a bale.

Delay time during a peak day cost an average of 29 cents per bale in the West, 53 cents in the High Plains, and 39 cents per bale in the Midsouth. Approximately half of the cost in each area was accounted for by delays at the bale packaging center, and almost half by delays at the yard and suction center. In the West, delays accounted for 20 percent of the total cost per bale for plant labor; in the High Plains and Midsouth, they accounted for 34 and 33 per cent, respectively. For individual firms, the cost of delays per bale ranged from 7 to 45 cents in the West, 24 to 92 cents in the High Plains, and 22 to 64 cents per bale in the Midsouth.

The 9 plants in the West could have saved an average of 13 cents per bale during the peak of the season by employing only the number of men needed based on standards (table 13). This is roughly 9 percent of actual labor costs dur- ing a peak day. If savings of a similar proportion could have been realized for the entire season, average labor costs for these firms would have been reduced from $3.21 to $2.92 per bale. For the 5 firms that were using more men than required, savings in labor costs during the peak of the season averaged 30 cents per bale, which is about 17 percent of their total average labor costs.

4/ Compensation insurance and fringe benefits, which had only a negligible effect on labor costs, were included as a part of the total wages received by employees.

-26-

Table 13.--Costs' per bale of' labor ' actually usiîid compared with cust;^ ot L^^.DOI nteeaea QUL^^U^ a v<icit<. i^t^y ^w 3 major work centers and total plant of 9 gins in the West, by ginning rate, 1962-63

i

I

Bales -

ginned

per

hour

Work centers Total plant

Yard and suction

Conditioning and ginning

Bale packaging

Gin Labor actually

used

Labor

: needed

Labor actually

used

Labor

. needed

Labor actually

used

Labor

. needed

Labor actually

used

Labor

needed Di .fference

A 1/ 1/ B 1/ 2/

C

Bales

6.9 8.9

9.0 9.3

10.3 10.5

• 13.4 16.7

. 17.5

Cents

55 64

63 41 74 36

42 34 33

Cents

55 42

42 41 37 36

42 34 33

Cents

60 46

46 45 40 39

16 25 12

Cents

60 46

46 45 40 39

31 25 24

Cents

84 87

43 83 56 55

43 46 33

Cents

56 65

43 62 56 55

43 46 44

Cents

199 197

152 169 170 130

101 105 78

Cents

171 153

131 148 133 130

116 105 101

Cents

+28 +44

+21 D 1/ 2/ o E •

+21 +37

F 2/ • 0

G. -15 H " 0 I -23

Average..,. 49 40 37 40 59 52 145 132 +13

1/ Used 8 bale ties. Six plants used 6 ties. 2/ Used a mechanical sampler. Five plants were not sampling.

ro CO I

Table 14.--Costs per bale of labor actually used compared with costs of labor needed during a peak day in 3 major work centers and total plant of 8 gins in the High Plains, by ginning rate, 1962-63 1/

Gin

A 2/.... B 2/ 3/. C 2/

D. E. F.

G.... H 3/.

Average.

Bales

ginned

per

hour

Work centers

Yard and suction

Labor actually

used

Labor

needed

Conditioning and ginning

Labor actually used

Labor

needed

Bale packaging

Labor actually

used

Labor

needed

Total plant

Labor actually

used

Labor

needed Difference

Bales

5.6 6.6 7.3

10.0 II.1 11.5

13.2 14.5

Cents

67 38 51

62 45 54

Cents

45 38 34

37 34 32

Cents

78 66 60

44 39 38

Cents

78 66 60

44 39 38

Cents

67 76 51

75 56 43

Cents

45 38 34

37 34 32

Cents Cents Cents

49 35

39 35

34 30

34 30

39 43

29 34

212 168 +44 180 142 +38 162 128 +34

181 118 +63 140 107 +33 135 102 +33

122 102 +20 108 99 +9

50 37 49 49 56 36 155 122 +33

_1/ All 8 plants used 6 bale ties. 2/ Unloaded with a single suction. Five plants unloaded with 2 suctions simultaneously. 3/ Used a mechanical sampler. Six plants were not sampling.

Table 15.—Cost per bale of labor actually used compared with costs of labor needed during a peak day in 3 major work centers and total plant of 15 gins in the Midsouth, by ginning rate, 1962-63 \l

f

: Bales Work c( ïnters

Total plai ; Yard and ,Cond i t ioning and Bale

It

. ginned ; suction ginn ing packaging Gin

, per Labor : Labor Labor : Labor Labor Labor Labor : Labor

'' hour actually actually actually actually Difference used needed used needed used needed used needed

Bales Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents

A 2/ 6.2 40 40 47 47 60 40 147 127 +20 B 2/ 6.5 38 38 45 45 58 38 141 121 +20 C 2/ 6.5 38 38 22 45 77 38 137 121 + 16 D 7.0 53 36 42 42 53 36 148 114 +34 E 7.3 69 34 40 40 69 34 178 108 + 70 F.. ' 7.5 33 33 39 39 50 33 122 105 +17 G 7.8 32 32 37 37 64 32 133 101 +32

H 2/ • 9.2 27 27 47 32 41 27 115 86 +29 I.. • 9.4 26 26 46 31 66 40 138 97 +41 J .■ 9.7 26 26 30 30 39 39 95 95 0 K 10.2 24 24 29 29 24 37 77 90 -13 L 11.7 32 21 25 25 53 32 110 78 +32 M • 12.7 20 20 23 23 30 30 73 73 0 N 12.8 29 20 23 23 39 29 91 72 +19

0 • 14.9 25 25 19 19 42 33 86 77 +9

Average....: 34 29 34 34 51 34 119 97 +22

y All 15 plants used 6 bale ties. II Were not samplingo Eleven plants were using a mechanical sampler or were cutting samples manually.

Eliminating excess labor could have reduced labor costs by ó3 cents a bale for one of the 8 firms in the High Plains, and from 33 to 44 cents a bale for 5 other firms (table 14)„ For all 8 plants, an average of 33 cents a bale could have been saved by hiring only the required number of employees. A saving of this magnitude is equal to approximately 21 percent of the average cost of labor actually used by these plants during a peak day of the season. Thus, if their average labor costs for the season were reduced by the same proportion, costs for this item would decline from $3.75 to $2.96 a bale. This reduction of 79 cents in average labor costs per bale amounted to about 5 percent of the average total cost of ginning per bale.

One of the 15 plants in the Midsouth could have reduced its labor costs per bale during a peak day by 70 cents (table 15). Seven other firms could have saved 20 to 41 cents per bale. For all 15 firms, more efficient use of labor would have resulted in an average reduction in labor costs per bale of 22 cents, which is approximately 18 percent of actual costs. Comparable savings for the entire season would have reduced average labor costs per bale from $1.90 to $1.56.

-30-

LITERATURE CITED

(1) Cable, C. Curtis, Jro,and Looney, Zolon M. 1957. Effects and Costs of Cleaning Lint in Arkansas Cotton Gins. Ark.

Agr. Exptc Sta. Bui. 595, Dec.

(2) Campbell, John D. 1964. Costs of Ginning Cotton by Cooperatives at Single-Gin and Two-Gin

Plants, California and Texas, 1962. U.S. Dept. Agr. Mktg. Res.

Rpt. 640, Jan.

(3) Fortenberry, A. J. 1956. Charges for Ginning Cotton. U.S. Dept. Agr. Mktg. Res. Rpt. 120,

June.

(4) Fortenberry, William H.,and Looney, Zolon M. 1952. Cotton Ginning Efficiency and Costs in the Rio Grande and Pecos

Valleys, Seasons of 1949-50 and 1950-51. U.S. Dept. Agr., Prod. 6c Mktg. Adm. , Oct. (Processed)

(5) Hudson, James F.,and Montgomery, Robert A. 1951. Quality of Ginning Services in Relation to Cost of Ginning in

South Louisiana, 1948 and 1949. La. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 450,

March.

(6) Lafferty, D. G. 1964. Cost Relationships in Hi-Capacity Cotton Gins. Southern

Cooperative Series Bui. 88, Jan.

(7) Looney, Zolon M..and Franklin, William E., Jr. 1948. Cost and Quality of Cotton Ginning Services in California, Season

1946-47. U.S. Dept. Agr., Prod. 6: Mktg, Adm., Oct. (Processed)

(8) Looney, Zolon M.,and Franklin, William E., Jr. 1950. Evaluation of Cotton Ginning Costs and Quality, High Plains Area

of Texas, 1946 through 1948. U.S. Dept. Agr., Prod. ::¿. Mktg. Adm., July (Processed)

(9) Malcolm, D. G.,and Sammet, L. L„ 1954. "Work Sampling Applications ," Jour. of Indust. Engin., May.

(10) Roberts, Arthur L.,and Looney, Zolon M. 1947. Cost and Quality of Cotton Ginning Services, Yazoo-Mississippi

Delta, Season 1945-46. U.S. Dept. Agr., Prod. 5c Mktg. Adm., Aug. (Processed)

(11) Sammet, L. L„,and Hassler, J. B. 1951. Use of the Ratio-Delay Method in Processing Plant Operations. Agr.

Econ. ReSo, Oct.

(12) St. Clair, James S.,and Roberts, Arthur L. 1956. Quality and Cost of Ginning Upland Cotton in Arizona. Ariz. Agr.

Expt. Sta. Bui. 277, Sept.

(13) United States Department of Agriculture -Honr 1964. Charges for Ginning Cotton, Costs of Selected Services inciaenu

to Marketing, and Related Inforrr.ation, Season 1963-64. Econ.

Res. Serv. and Agr. Mktg. Serv., May.

-31-