The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Frances P erkins, Secretary
B U R E A U O F L A B O R ST A T IST IC S
Isador L ubin, Commissioner (on leave)
A . F . H inrichs, A ctin g Commissioner
+
W artim e Employment, Production,
and Conditions o f W ork
in Shipyards
For sale b y th e Superintendent o f D ocum ents, U . S. G overnm ent Printing Office
W ashington 25, D . C . - Price 10 cents
Contents
Em ploym ent:
Trend, 1 9 23 -4 4____________________________________________________________
Geographic distribution__________________________________________________
Em ploym ent of women------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------Labor turnover:
Private shipyards_________________________________________________________
United States navy yards_____________________________________________
Absence rates during the war_________________________________________________
Hours and earnings:
Average hours worked per week_________________________________________
Plant utilization___________________________________________________________
H ourly and weekly earnings_____________________________________________
Occupation and craft-class distribution, June1943_________________________
W age rates, June 1943_________________________________________________________
Craftsm en_________________________________________________________________
H elpers__________________________________________________
Other groups______________________________________________________________
Stabilization in wage rates and workingconditions__________________________
W age review, July 1943-----------------------------------------------------Atlantic coast-_______________________________________________________
G ulf coast____________________________________________________________
Great Lakes__________________________________________________________
Pacific coast_________________________________________________________
W age review, Decem ber 1944____________________________________________
Merchant vessel program, 1 9 4 2 -4 4 :
Tonnage delivered_______________________________________________
H istory of the program _________________________________________
M an-hour requirements and building tim e:
The Liberty ship_____________________________________________________
The Victory ship_____________________________________________________
M aritim e Commission shipyard em ployees’ suggestion program ______
The destroyer escort— m an-hour requirementsand building tim e----------------Frequency of industrial injuries in shipyards, 1943 and 1944---------------------Labor disputes in private shipyards, 1943 and 1944-------------------------------------Union agreem ents______________________________________________________________
Selected bibliography__________________________________________________________
(in)
Page
1
3
6
8
15
15
17
20
21
23
25
27
29
29
30
32
33
34
34
34
35
36
37
38
44
46
47
49
50
51
53
Letter of Transmittal
U nited States D epartment of L abor,
B ureau of L abor Statistics,
W ashington, D . C ., M a y 1 0 , 1 9 4 5 .
The Secretary of L abor :
I have the honor to transm it herewith a comprehensive report covering wartim e
em ploym ent and production trends and conditions of work in American shipyards.
This report was prepared in the Bureau’s Division of Construction and Public
Em ploym ent by Edward M . Gordon, Eleanor V . Kennedy, and Albert A . Belm an,
under the direction of Herman B . Byer. M iss Edna Fleckenstein com piled the
bibliography.
A . F . H inrichs , A ctin g C om m issioner .
H on. F rances P erkins ,
Secretary o f Labor.
(IV)
Bulletin 7S[o. 824 o f the
United States Bureau o f Labor Statistics
Wartime Employment, Production, and Conditions
of Work in Shipyards
Em ploym ent
Trend, 1923-44
There were 90,000 workers in all United States shipyards in Jan
uary 1923. Employment remained fairly constant during the next
8 years but started to decline in 1932. By April 1933 only 49,000
shipyard workers were employed. Under the authority of the
National Industrial Recovery Act, an appropriation of $238,000,000
was made in 1933 for the construction of naval vessels. With this
stimulus, employment in shipyards started to increase and rose
almost steadily for the next 6 years, except for an interruption in
1938. Additional appropriations were made within this period for
naval vessels, and a long-range merchant vessel program also was
begun.
By June 1940, the beginning of the Defense Program, shipyard
employment had increased to 168,000 and in December 1941 it stood
at 656,000. After the attack on Pearl Harbor employment sky
rocketed, more than doubling in 8 months and more than tripling in
18 months. Peak employment was reached in December 1943, just
2 years after the Nation’s entry into the war, when 1,723,000 workers
were employed in shipyards. Private shipyards reached peak employ
ment (nearly 1,400,000) in November 1943, while the peak for United
States navy yards (333,000) occurred earlier—in July 1943 (table 1).
After December 1943, total employment declined at the rate of an
average of 22,300 workers per month, so that by December 1944,
1,454,000 workers were employed, or 268,000 less than at the peak.
All but 7,000 of this decrease was in private shipyards, the remainder
in United States navy yards.
Even though employment declined steadily during 1944, deliveries
were greater than in 1943. The tonnage of new naval vessels delivered*
not including conversions, was approximately 30 percent greater; and
although the 1944 deliveries of merchant vessels were approximately
3,000,000 dead-weight tons (cargo-carrying capacity) less than in
1943, in number and actual weight of ships, 1944 deliveries were
slightly higher than in the previous year.1
A high level of employment by itself cannot insure the delivery of
scheduled vessels on time. Other factors such as changes in ship
model or in the types of vessels to be built will impede progress in
terms of tonnage delivered no matter how great the labor force.
* See p. 36.
( 1)
2
Such changes, in fact, sometimes mean the temporary lay-off of
workers until a yard is prepared for the new program, or the diverting
of labor from ship construction to the remodeling of ways and drydocks. This has been the case in yards that have recently changed
over from the construction of Liberty to Victory ships. Economies
made in man-hours and building-time requirements largely owing to
construction of numbers of the same vessel cannot continue when
major interruptions occur. The fact that shipyards have been able
so nearly to* meet Maritime Commission schedules since December
1943 in the face of declining employment is accounted for largely by
increased yard efficiency and labor productivity resulting from ex
perience gained in the exclusive construction of vessels of the same,
or similar, type.
T a b l e 1.— Total Em ploym ent on Construction and Repair o f Naval and Cargo Vessels,
January 1923-D ecem ber 1944
[In thousands]
Month
Pri
All vate
yards ship
yards
United
States All
navy yards
yards
Pri
vate
ship
yards
United
States All
navy yards
yards
1924
1923
Pri
vate
ship
yards
United
Pri
States All vate
navy yards ship
yards
yards
1925
1926
United
States
navy
yards
January.......................
February............ ........
March.........................
April........... ...............
M ay............................
June............................
90.9
89.3
93.6
93.1
90.2
90.1
68.5
68.4
73.2
73.2
70.9
71.3
22.4
20.9
20.4
19.9
19.3
18.8
81.7
83.9
82.8
81.2
74.9
74.6
62.3
64.4
63.2
61.5
55.1
54.7
19.4
19.5
19.6
19.7
19.8
19.9
77.4
79.2
80.4
81.6
79.5
76.9
56.4
58.0
59.1
60.1
57.9
55.1
21.0
21.2
21.3
21.5
21.6
21.8
77.7
79.7
80.4
79.3
79.0
78.5
56.2
58.2
58.6
57.1
56.9
56.5
21.5
21.5
21.8
22.2
22.1
22.0
July.............................
August_________- ___
September.................October.......................
November...................
December...................
87.8
84.6
82.6
83.8
84.9
83.3
68.9
65.6
63.5
64.6
65.7
64.0
18.9
19.0
19.1
19.2
19.2
19.3
73.5
69.5
69.1
70.5
71.5
73.7
53.4
50.3
48.7
50.0
50.8
52.8
20.1
19.2
20.4
20.5
20.7
20.9
77.3
75.3
73.0
71.3
72.3
74.9
55.5
53.5
51.2
49.4
50.4
53.0
21.8
21.8
21.8
21.9
21.9
21.9
78.6
78.0
79.0
79.2
82.1
86.7
56.4
55.7
56.6
57.2
61.0
65.6
22.2
22.3
22.4
22.0
21.1
21.1
1927
1928
1929
1930
January.......................
February___________
March______________
April...........................
M ay............................
June.............................
87.1
89.6
89.7
88.0
85.5
83.2
66.2
68.7
69.0
67.3
64.6
62.3
20.9
20.9
20.7
20.7
20.9
20.9
71.9
68.7
66.8
67.5
67.3
67.1
51.1
48.3
46.8
47.6
47.3
46.8
20.8
20.4
20.0
19.9
20.0
20.3
76.8
76.9
81.2
85.6
86.0
85.8
53.8
54.0
57.9
61.7
62.1
61.5
23.0
22.9
23.3
23.9
23.9
24.3
91.2
90.4
89.1
89.7
87.1
86.6
69.1
68.7
67.6
68.5
66.1
65.4
22.1
21.7
21.5
21.2
21.0
21.2
July.............................
August........................
September....... . .........
October.......................
November...................
December...................
79.6
77.5
74.9
73.7
72.9
73.4
58.3
55.7
53.7
52.8
52.1
52.8
21.3
21.8
21.2
20.9
20.8
20.6
67.3
67.2
67.6
68.4
70.5
74.8
45.9
44.8
44.9
45.7
47.3
51.6
21.4
22.4
22.7
22.7
23.2
23.2
86.5
84.8
85.0
84.4
86.8
89.1
61.5
60.2
60.6
60.7
63.5
66.2
25.0
24.6
24.4
23.7
23.3
22.9
83.9
84.4
83.8
81.3
77.6
77.8
62.5
62.8
62.3
60.4
56.5
56.6
21.4
21.6
21.5
20.9
21.1
21.2
1931
1932
1934
1933
January.......................
February.....................
March.........................
April...........................
M ay............................
June................. ..........
76.1
74.4
72.8
74.3
73.4
73.1
55.6
53.3
51.4
52.7
51.2
50.8
20.5
21.1
21.4
21.6
22.2
22.3
65.8
66.0
65.2
66.5
64.6
63.3
45.0
45.0
44.4
45.6
43.6
42.2
20.8
21.0
20.8
20.9
21.0
21.1
54.5
52.5
51.0
49.3
52.6
53.6
32.9
31.0
29.3
27.1
28.9
29.3
21.6
21.5
21.7
22.2
23.7
24.3
62.1
63.1
64.9
66.1
67.0
69.1
40.0
41.2
43.3
44.7
45.8
48.1
22.1
21.9
21.6
21.4
21.2
21.0
July.............................
August........................
September...................
October.......................
November...................
December....................
70.2
65.6
66.0
65.7
68.2
68.2
48.7
45.0
45.7
45.0
46.8
46.9
21.5
20.6
20.3
20.7
21.4
21.3
59.2
56.8
55.8
55.4
55.3
55.7
38.3
36.0
34.8
34.2
33.8
33.8
20.9
20.8
21.0
21.2
21.5
21.9
55.2
58.3
62.2
63.2
61.6
63.8
31.9
35.1
39.2
40.4
39.1
41.5
23.3
23.2
23.0
22.8
22.5
22.3
64.8
65.9
65.8
65.9
64.4
64.1
44.1
45.4
45.5
45.8
44.6
44.5
20.7
20.5
20.3
20.1
19.8
19.6
3
T a b l b 1.— Total Em ploym ent on Construction and Repair o f Naval and Cargo Vessels,
January 1923-D ecem ber 1944 — Continued
[In thousands]
Month
Pri
All vate
yards ship
yards
United
States All
navy yards
yards
Pri
vate
ship
yards
United
States All
navy yards
yards
United
States All
navy yards
yards
1937
1936
1935
Pri
vate
ship
yards
Pri
vate
ship
yards
United
States
navy
yards
1938
January.......................
February....................
March.........................
April............................
M ay.............................
June.............................
62.9
66.2
66.7
67.0
67.2
62.6
44.1
47.0
48.2
48.4
49.5
43.5
18.8
19.2
18.5
18.6
17.7
19.1
79.8
80.2
87.1
95.3
97.9
88.6
55.1
53.9
59.8
65.9
65.6
63.5
24.7
26.3
27.3
29.4
32.3
25.1
95.3
98.0
104.2
105.0
106.7
102.8
62.0
64.8
70.2
71.7
70.5
68.6
33.3
33.2
34.0
33.3
36.2
34.2
97.9
94.4
93.7
91.4
93.8
94.3
64.1
61.5
61.1
58.5
60.2
60.1
33.8
32.9
32.6
32.9
33.6
34.2
July.............................
August........................
September...................
October.......................
November...................
December...................
68.4
67.3
69.5
72.9
74.8
76.2
46.7
47.3
49.5
52.1
53.8
54.2
21.7
20.0
20.0
20.8
21.0
22.0
96.0
97.2
99.4
99.2
96.7
91.8
64.1
64.6
66.6
66.8
63.6
58.9
31.9
32.6
32.8
32.4
33.1
32.9
98.7
99.8
103.3
103.4
102.3
101.5
64.7
66.0
68.5
69.0
68.3
67.6
34.0 93.6
33.8 91.5
34.8 91.4
34.4 93.8
34.0 98.1
33.9 100.8
58.6
154.5
*54.9
*56.2
|59.0
161.4
35.0
37.0
36.5
37.6
39.1
39.4
Month
Total, Private United
all
ship States
navy
yards yards yards
Total
all
yards
Private
ship
yards
United
States
navy
yards
Total
all
yards
United
States
navy
yards
1941
1940
1939
Private
ship
yards
January.................................
February..............................
March.......... ........................
April.................................. —
M ay......................................
June.. ..................................
101.6
105.7
108.8
113.7
117.3
121.4
61.7
65.2
66.4
68.6
72.1
74.3
39.9
40.5
42.4
45.1
45.2
47.1
137.2
141.6
148.7
151.7
158.5
168.0
79.4
82.4
87.2
88.9
93.2
97.2
57.8
59.2
61.5
62.8
65.3
70.8
255.5
270.3
288.9
304.3
317.1
342.1
147.7
158.3
168.8
183.2
192.1
209.3
107.8
112.0
120.1
121.1
125.0
132.8
July.......................................
August..................................
September............................
October............... . ................
November-...........................
December.............................
119.6
120.1
127.6
131.8
132.7
138.5
73.6
71.8
76.2
79.0
78.5
82.3
46.0
48.3
51.4
52.8
54.2
56.2
177.3
190.3
201.5
215.5
230.4
242.3
102.5
109.2
114.3
119.2
124.2
134.9
74.8
81.1
87.2
96.3
106.2
107.4
380.0
410.1
425.5
468.7
505.8
556.1
233.9
258.9
274.3
307.7
331.8
366.4
146.1
151.2
151.2
161.0
174.0
189.7
1943
1942
January.................................
February...............................
March...................................
April.....................................
May......................................
June......................................
July.......................................
A u g u st...............................
September............................
October.................................
November.............................
December.............................
1944
396.0
458.9
518.5
•586.6
654.0
710.4
192.7
201.2
207.9
216.7
228.9
239.2
1,478.9
1,529.7
1,589.9
1,628.2
1,640.5
1,686.6
1,184.3
1,228.8
1,282.5
1,317.3
1,326.6
1,362.8
294.6
300.9
307.4
310.9
313.9
323.8
1,683.2
1,673.4
1,649.4
1,628.0
1,612.2
1,588.3
1,357.2
1,343.3
1,317.7
1,297.0
1,281.9
1,257.1
326.0
330.1
331.7
331.0
330.3
331.2
1,038.6
792.6
1,143.8
885.0
1,224.3
955.9
1,277.1 1,002.3
1,346.9 1,065.3
1,406.4 1,119.6
246.0
258.8
268.4
274.8
281.6
286.8
1,720.5
1,714.9
1,717.1
1 , 7 7 5 :3
1,721.7
1,722.5
1,387.4
1,381.9
1,387.9
1,389.6
1,397.7
1,396.4
333.1
333.0
329.2
325.7
324.0
326.1
1,562.3
1,527.9
1,499.3
1,475.9
1,468.9
1,454.4
1,236.1
1,204.1
1,177.5
1,155.4
1,147.3
1,135.1
326.2
323.8
321.8
320.5
321.6
319.3
588.7
660.1
726.4
803.3
882.9
949.6
Geographic Distribution
Prior to the expansion of the industry during the defense and war
periods, employment in shipyards was far greater along the Atlantic
seaboard than in any other region, with concentrations in the New
York, Philadelphia, Hampton Roads, Boston, and Baltimore areas.
In January 1940, nearly 78 percent of all shipyard workers were on
the Atlantic coast and 13 percent on the Pacific coast; the remaining
4
2
workers were scattered in Gulf, Great Lakes, and Inland yards.
In order to expand to war requirements it was necessary not only
to develop established shipbuilding areas, but also to create new ones
by building yards in some areas where shipbuilding had never before
been part of the industrial picture.
Although Atlantic coast yards still lead in number of workers, the
increase in employment in yards in all other regions has been pro
portionately much greater since 1940. Employment in Inland yards
during the period January 1940 to July 1944, when the employment
peak for the region was reached, increased more than 45 times— from
1,400 to 64,600 (table 2). From January 1940 to December 1943,
employment in Gulf yards increased from 7,200 to 238,800, or 33
times. Pacific coast yards reached peak employment in July 1943,
with 592,900 workers— 32 times the January 1940 total of 18,400.
In yards on the Atlantic coast the peak employment of 788,300
workers was reached in November 1943, and this was only somewhat
more than seven times the January 1940 figure of 106,700.
T able 2.— Total Em ploym ent on Construction and Repair o f Naval and Cargo Vessels,
b y Shipbuilding Regions, June and Decem ber 1 9 4 0 -4 2 and January 1943-D ecem ber
19441
[In thousands]
Year and month
Total, all North
regions Atlantic
South
Atlantic
Gulf
Pacific
Great
Lakes
Inland
1940: June...................................
December..........................
168.0
242.3
102.9
140.4
25.0
34.3
8.7
14.1
25.5
45.3
3.7
6.0
2.2
2.2
1941: June...................................
December..........................
342.1
556.1
192.9
276.5
48.5
66.8
19.7
40.4
70.4
155.9
8.0
12.8
2.6
3.7
1942: June..................................
December................... ......
949.6
1,406.4
382.7
522.8
104.1
139.0
104.7
168.0
319.0
497.7
31.5
46.9
7.6
32.0
1943: January.............................
February...........................
March...............................
April..................................
M ay..................................
June........ ..........................
July...................................
August...............................
September............. ..........
October.............................
November.........................
December.........................
1,478.9
1,529.7
1,589.9
1,628.2
1,640.5
1,686.6
1,720.5
1,714.9
1,717.1
1,715.3
1,721.7
1,722.5
544.2
565.9
585.6
600.1
605.5
614.3
624.0
630.0
634.3
634.4
634.5
629.6
141.8
145.0
148.7
152.1
155.5
158.1
158.2
153.1
152.1
152.7
153.8
154.2
180.8
190.6
199.3
209.0
216.8
226.8
231.6
231.3
232.0
232.9
235.5
238.8
525.2
536.3
558.0
565.4
558.9
579.4
592.9
587.8
582.7
577.5
579.8
580.7
49.9
53.0
57.6
59.4
60.3
63.1
65.8
66.1
66.4
66.6
65.9
65.6
37.0
38.9
40.7
42.2
43.5
44.9
48.0
46.6
49.6
51.2
52.2
53.6
1944: January.............................
February...........................
March...............................
April..................................
M ay..................................
June...................................
July...................................
August..............................
September.........................
October.............................
November.........................
December..........................
1,683.2
1,673.4
1,649.4
1,628.0
1,612.2
1,588.3
1,562.3
1,527.9
1,499.3
1,475.9
1,468.9
1,454.4
616.0
608.5
600.0
594.9
587.1
576.5
562.5
550.9
539.9
527.5
518.6
515.9
150.8
151.7
150.5
146.1
143.6
139.6
137.4
134.9
132.0
130.0
129.8
128.9
228.8
228.7
222.0
219.7
221.4
217.8
213.3
207.5
198.2
195.8
196.8
194.6
567.7
562.0
553.9
543.0
532.1
525.2
522.2
513.4
513.3
509.9
513.5
507.5
63.8
64.0
63.4
63.6
64.7
65.2
62.3
57.9
55.4
54.3
53.5
52.7
56.1
58.5
59.6
60.7
63.3
64.0
64.6
63.3
60.5
58.4
56.7
54.8
1 Covers employment in private shipyards and United States navy yards. For comparable data for
the period January 1940 to December 1942, see Employment in the Shipbuilding Industry, 1936-43, in
Monthly Labor Review, M ay 1944, pp. 951-966 (reprinted as Serial No. R. 1648).*
* The 3 coastal regions include all yards bordering on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Gulf of
Mexico. The dividing line between the Atlantic and Gulf regions is located a short distance north of the
Georgia-Florida State line. Yards bordering on Lakes Michigan, Superior, Huron, and Erie are included
in the Great Lakes region; while yards in the Ohio-Mississippi River Valley, excluding southern Louisiana
and Mississippi, are included in the Inland region.
5
From data presented in table 3, it can be seen that although there
were some very heavy concentrations of shipyard employment, nearly
every major labor-market area along our entire coastline, on the
Great Lakes, and on the larger rivers contributed to the shipbuilding
effort. In December 1943, the peak month for the industry, there
were 35 labor-market areas in which there were more than 5,000
T able 3.— Total Em ploym ent on Construction and R epair o f Naval and Cargo Vessels,
b y Shipbuilding Regions and Selected Labor-M arket Areas , Selected M onths, 1 9 4 1 -4 4 1
[In thousands]
1941
1942
1943
1944
Region and labor-market area
De
cem June March June
ber
All areas.....................................
566.1 949.6 1,589.9 1,686.6 1,717.1 1,722.5 1,649.4 1,588.3 1,499.3 1,454.4
Sep
De March June
tem cember
ber
Sep
De
tem
ber cember
North Atlantic region................ 276.5 382.7
Baltimore, M d........................ 27.0 46.8
Bath, Maine...........................
8.8
5.6
Boston - Hingham - Quincy,
Mass..................................... 47.1 58.8
Newark, N .J .......................... 29.5 38.6
New London-Groton, Conn..
6.9 12.3
New York, N. Y ....................
61.4 78.9
Philadelphia, Pa..................... 75.2 89.8
Portland, Maine.....................
8.5 19.7
Portsmouth, N. H .................. 10.6 15.6
Providence, R. I .....................
1.4
.3
Wilmington, Del....................
2.4
4.8 ’
All other areas........................
7.2
2.0
585.6
73.8
12.4
614.3
74.5
12.4
634.3
75.5
12.2
629.6
75.7
11.9
600.0
68.5
11.6
576.5
60.7
10.9
539.9
55.2
10.1
515.9
54.6
9.5
102.1
55.2
11.1
117.5
127.9
28.0
19.1
12.0
11.8
14.7
107.1
66.5
11.6
125.4
130.4
26.3
19.8
12.8
13.7
13.8
108.9
71.2
11.9
132.7
129.2
26.0
20.4
17.1
15.6
13.6
105.1
70.9
11.9
137.7
126.6
22.8
20.4
19.2
13.4
14.0
101.1
67.8
12.1
132.0
122.5
22.7
20.0
18.6
11.9
11.2
93.4
66.7
12.5
132.0
115.7
23.3
19.8
18.4
12.0
11.1
86.7
62.2
10.2
126.4
111.3
19.4
18.5
18.5
11.6
9.8
83.8
57.1
7.4
120.8
110.0
18.2
17.0
20.2
10.8
6.5
South Atlantic region................
Brunswick, Ga.......................
Charleston, S. C ..................—
Hampton Roads, Va..............
Savannah, Ga.........................
Wilmington, N. C .... .............
All other areas........................
66.8 104.1
.4
.1
12.9 18.7
49.0 69.1
2.9
.1
4.3 12.0
.4
1.0
148.7
7.8
26.2
76.1
16.1
20.9
1.6
158.1
12.4
28.1
75.3
20.4
20.4
1.5
152.1
14.3
28.6
71.7
20.0
16.1
1.4
154.2
15.6
27.3
72.9
21.5
15.6
1.3
150.5
15.3
28.4
70.5
19.6
15.5
1.2
139.6
14.7
28.1
64.3
17.5
14.0
1.0
132.0
14.3
26.3
60.4
16.8
13.3
.9
128.9
14.1
26.5
58.5
16.4
12.8
.6
Gulf region..............................—
Beaumont-Port ArthurOrange, Tex.........................
Houston, Tex........................ .
Jacksonville, Fla.....................
Mobile, Ala.............................
New Orleans, La..................
Panama City, Fla..................
Pascagoula, Miss....................
Tampa, Fla.............................
All other areas........................
40.4 104.7
199.3
226.8
232.0
238.8
222.0
217.8
198.2
194.6
16.4
17.7
2.0
27.9
23.0
.1
4.9
5.7
7.0
28.0
38.8
14.1
38.0
31.4
10.4
9.4
15.6
13.6
27.7
44.8
17.0
42.9
37.1
14.6
9.2
19.5
14.0
28.0
45.5
18.5
40.4
40.1
14.7
8.6
21.6
14.6
30.0
40.7
20.3
42.3
42.1
15.6
10.2
22.3
15.3
29.9
37.9
18.1
37.3
41.3
14.5
9.9
20.9
12.2
30.2
38.5
17.2
38.7
39.3
13.5
10.0
18.3
12.1
27.4
32.3
17.3
38.3
36.1
10.1
10.2
17.2
9.3
29.1
31.6
17.4
38.6
33.0
11.6
10.0
15.2
8.1
Pacific region.............................. 155.9 319.0
Los Angeles, Calif.................. 24.2 65.0
Portland, Oreg.-Vancouver,
19.3 44.9
Wash...................................
San Francisco, Calif............... 71.7 130.2
Seattle - Tacoma - Bremerton,
39.1 74.6
Wash...................................
4.3
All other areas........................
1.6
558.0
86.0
579.4
93.2
582.7
100.1
580.7
102.6
553.9
102.1
525.2
97.6
513.3
98.5
507.5
97.2
115.8
237.4
121.4
241.8
120.9
241.9
125.0
238.0
113.3
225.7
109.6
208.1
112.2
203.7
114.8
201.5
96.0
22.8
97.0
26.0
93.5
26.3
90.2
24.9
87.4
25.4
87.1
22.8
80.5
18.4
78.9
15.1
8.6
3.5
1.2
10.7
6.4
.0
3.3
3.2
3.5
Great Lakes region....................
Chicago, 111.............................
Duluth, Minn. - Superior,
Wis-------------------------------Manitowoc, Wis.....................
Sturgeon Bay, Wis.................
All other areas........................
12.8
.6
31.5
1.1
57.6
6.5
63.1
6.7
66.4
8.0
65.6
7.9
63.4
8.1
65.2
7.9
55.4
7.0
52.7
5.7
.5
2.5
1.1
8.1
4.4
5.8
3.2
17.0
8.8
7.2
5.5
29.6
10.8
7.0
6.0
32.6
11.8
6.9
6.2
33.5
12.3
6.8
6.6
32.0
12.9
7.0
6.5
28.9
12.7
7.1
6.2
31.3
12.3
4.8
5.4
25.9
13.2
4.3
5.3
24.2
Inland region........................ —
Evansville, Ind......................
Louisville, Ky.-Ind................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................
All other areas........................
3.7
.0
.5
1.4
1.8
7.6
1.1
.9
2.3
3.3
40.7
12.6
7.0
16.4
4.7
44.9
13.3
6.0
20.7
4.9
49.6
13.2
6.0
22.1
8.3
53.6
13.3
6.6
23.1
10.6
59.6
13.6
7.5
23.6
14.9
64.0
16.2
8.8
25.2
13.8
60.5
16.6
10.1
22.7
11.1
54.8
15.8
8.5
21.2
9.3
i Covers employment in private shipyards and United States navy yards.
646950—45--- 2
6
shipyard workers. One, the San Francisco area, had more than
200,000 workers; 6 had more than 100,000 workers— 3 in the North
Atlantic and 3 in the Pacific region. The largest concentrations were
on the Pacific coast. In December 1943, nearly a third of all workers
in the industry were in the four areas of greatest shipyard employment
on the Pacific coast (San Francisco, Pomand-Vancouver, Los Angeles,
and Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton), while only slightly over a fourth of
all workers were in the top four areas on the Atlantic coast (Phila
delphia, New York, Boston-Hingham-Quincy, and Hampton Roads).
Mobile, Ala., with only 42,300 workers, held the largest shipyardlabor concentration in the Gulf region in December 1943, while
Pittsburgh, Pa., with 23,100 shipyard workers, led all other Inland
and Great Lakes areas.
Employment of Women
One of the most important developments in the shipbuilding indus
try during recent years has been the phenomenal increase in the em
ployment of women wage earners. Although shipbuilding has always
been considered a man's industry, the urgent need for workers to meet
the greatly expanded wartime production program in a fast declining
labor market necessitated the recruitment and training of women.
Once on the job women quickly proved that they were capable and
were soon found on production work of almost every kind. In March
1942, only a half of 1 percent of piivate-shipyard wage earners were
women. B y November 1944 the proportion had increased to 11.5
percent (table 4), the number of women wage earners being approxi
mately 118,600. Although the peak in terms of actual female emT able 4.— Ratio o f W om en to Total W age Earners in Private Shipyards, b y Shipbuilding
Regions, January 1943-D ecem ber 1 9 4 4 1
Percent women form of total wage earners in—
Month and year
Total, all Atlantic
regions
coast
Gulf
coast
Pacific
coast
Great
Lakes
Inland
1943: January...............................................
February............................................
March.................................................
April....................................................
M ay....................................................
June....................................................
July.....................................................
August................................................
September..........................................
October...............................................
November...........................................
December...........................................
3.7
4.4
4.8
5.5
5.9
7.0
7.9
8.7
9.3
9.6
10.0
10.3
2.0
2.6
3.1
3.4
3.9
4.4
5.1
5.2
5.4
5.5
5.9
6.2
4.2
4.8
5.1
5.4
5.6
5.6
6.1
6.4
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
5.7
6.6
7.0
8.3
8.9
11.1
12.1
13.9
14.8
15.5
16.0
16.1
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.8
2.2
4.5
4.5
5.2
6.3
6.3
7.6
8.3
1.7
2.1
2.3
2.6
3.5
4.6
7.0
7.6
8.1
8.8
9.2
9.3
1944: January...............................................
February............................................
March.................................................
April....................................................
M ay....................................................
June....................................................
July.....................................................
August................................................
September..........................................
October...............................................
November..........................................
December...........................................
9.9
10.0
10.3
10.6
10.9
11.0
10.9
11.1
11.4
11.4
11.5
11.3
6.2
6.3
6.7
6.9
7.2
7.0
6.7
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.8
7.5
7.4
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.8
8.6
8.9
8.6
15.5
15.6
15.8
16.1
16.6
17.3
17.1
17.6
17.8
17.9
17.8
17.3
5.9
5.7
6.1
6.8
7.2
7.3
6.9
5.3
5.1
5.8
6.5
6.0
9.9
10.4
11.0
12.1
12.7
12.4
13.0
12.9
13.8
14.2
14.3
14.3
1 Excludes clerical personnel. Data by region not available prior to January 1943.
7
ployment was reached in December 1943 (129,500), the ratio of women
to total wage earners at that time was only 10.3 percent, indicating
that there was a greater proportional employment decrease for men
than for women.
Yards on the Pacific coast have been employing women more exten
sively than yards in any other shipbuilding region. In December
1944, they had little more than a third of all the wage earners in private
shipyards, but well over half of the women. Women made up 17.3
percent of their wage-earner force, as against 14.3 percent in the
Inland region and only from 6 to 9 percent in the other regions. The
distribution of women wage earners in private shipyards in December
1944, by shipbuilding regions, is as follows:
Percentage distribution
Female
A ll wage
wage
earners
earners
A ll regions_____________________________________
100. 0
100. 0
A tlantic coast__________________________________
G ulf coast______________________________________
Pacific coast___________________________________
Great Lakes___________________________________
Inland__________________________________________
37.
17.
35.
4.
4.
22. 7
13. 2
54. 9
2. 0
7. 2
3
5
9
8
5
The extent to which women have been employed in shipyards has
varied considerably according to the major type of work performed
in the yards. In December 1944 new-construction yards reported a
wage-earner force of nearly 13 percent women, whereas repair yards
reported but 3 percent. Nearly 15 percent of the wage earners in
private yards constructing merchant vessels were women in December
1944, as compared with a little over 10 percent in yards constructing
naval vessels. The difference between individual yards in the employ
ment of women has also been great. As late as December 1944,
almost half of the yards reporting employed no women wage earners,
whereas in some yards more than a fourth of the force were women.
It should be indicated, however, that the yards with no women on
production employed only about 5 percent of all wage earners; yards
with at least 15 percent women had over a fourth of the wage earners.
The proportion of women wage earners to the total increases almost
directly with the size of the yard (table 5).
T able 5.— Percentage Distribution o f W om en W age Earners in Private Shipyards, by
Size o f Yard , December 1944
Wage earners
Size of yard
Number
of yards
Women
Total
number
Number
Percent
All yards............... ......................................................................
330
1,008,591
113,773
11.3
Under 600 wage earners..............................................................
600 and under 1,000 wage earners...............................................
1,000 and under 2,000 wage earners.............................................
2,000 and under 3,000 wage earners.............................................
3,000 and under 6,000 wage earners............................................
6,000 and under 10,000 wage earners...........................................
10,000 and under 20,000 wage earners.........................................
20,000 wage earners and over......................................................
186
25
24
13
20
29
27
7
26,307
18,936
33,696
32,648
80,833
217,859
399,268
199,044
289
246
1,603
1,373
6,881
25,387
46,463
31,631
1.1
1.3
4.8
4.2
8.5
11.7
11.6
15.8
8
Labor Turnover
Private Shipyards
Labor turnover in private shipyards was not a serious problem
during the period immediately preceding the Defense Program,
January 1937-June 1940. Accessions were low, frequently lower
than separations, and usually no higher than the number necessary
for replacements. Total separations, which were composed chiefly
T able 6.— Labor-Turnover Rates (per 100 Em ployees) in Private Shipyards, January
1937-D ecem ber 1944 1
Separations
Month and year
Acces
sions
Total
Quits
Dis
charges
Lay-offs M ilitary2 Miscella
neous*
1937: Annual rate4....................
January________________ _
February--..........................
March___________________
April ___ __
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July__
August.................................
September...........................
October................................
November............................
December_____ ______ ___
47.3
3.7
4.2
5.9
2.6
6.2
4.2
4.8
3.6
4.5
2.9
2.1
2.6
53.6
3.0
5.5
3.5
3.7
6.9
3.9
3.5
4.3
5.2
4.9
3.0
6.2
16.0
.8
.9
2.1
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.2
1.7
1.8
1.3
.9
.6
2.7
.3
.5
.2
.3
.3
.2
.2
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
34.9
1.9
4.1
1.2
2.1
4.9
2.0
2.1
2.3
3.3
3.5
2.0
5.5
1938: Annual rate 4....................
January................................
February.............................
M a rch ................................
April..
M ay...............................
June......................................
July
August.................................
September_______________
October................................
November........... ................
December________ _______
42.4
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.1
4.4
3.3
2.4
2.2
3.8
5.0
6.3
6.5
45.1
2.5
3.6
3.0
5.6
3.3
4.2
4.3
5.9
5.4
2.8
1.7
2.8
9.3
.5
.5
.5
1.4
.9
.8
.6
.9
.9
.7
.9
.7
1.4
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.3
(«)
(6)
.1
.1
.3
(#)
34.4
1.8
3.0
2.4
4.1
2.3
3.1
3.7
5.0
4.4
2.0
.5
2.1
1939: Annual rate4....................
January................................
February. ...........................
March___________________
April____
M ay
June.....................................
July
August.................................
September......... ........... ......
October................................
November...........................
December.............................
62.6
4.7
6.2
4.8
5.1
5.3
5.5
7.3
5.4
6.6
4.8
4.1
2.8
31.1
2.0
2.4
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.0
4.0
5.0
2.9
3.0
1.7
1.8
9.0
.5
.7
.7
.7
.6
.6
.7
.8
1.3
1.0
.7
.7
1.7
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.2
.3
.1
.1
20.4
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.3
3.1
4.1
1.4
1.7
.9
1.0
1940: Annual rate4....................
January__________ _______
February________________
March..................................
April _
M a y .....................................
June......................................
July.
August. _
September...........................
October................................
November............................
December.............................
103.5
6.0
6.6
7.0
6.2
6.8
10.8
13.0
9.1
10.0
7.9
7.8
12.3
68.7
4.0
4.4
5.0
8.1
6.0
5.3
5.4
7.2
6.1
4.4
5.3
7.5
14.0
.7
.7
1.0
1.2
.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.9
3.6
.1
.1
.3
.3
.3
.3
.5
.4
.3
.4
.3
.3
48.9
3.1
3.5
3.6
6.5
4.7
3.9
3.7
5.4
4.1
2.4
*3.4
4.6
See footnotes a t end o f table.
2.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.7
9
T able 6.— Labor-Turnover Rates (per 100 Em ployees) in Private Shipyards, January
1937-D ecem ber 1 9 4 4 1— Continued
Separations
Month and year
Acces
sions
Total
Quits
Dis
charges
Lay-offs Military 2 Miscella
neous 3
1941: Annual rate4....................
January................................
February.............................
March..................................
April....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July......................................
August.................................
September............................
October................................
November............................
December............................
166.5
18.2
11.0
13.9
14.3
13.2
12.1
15.5
12.1
13.9
14.6
12.4
15.3
75.5
7.9
6.1
6.5
7.8
7.0
6.0
5.6
5.1
6.2
6.0
5.0
6.3
28.8
1.9
1.8
2.0
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.3
3.0
2.7
2.4
2.9
5.9
.4
.4
.4
.5
.5
.5
.6
.5
.6
.5
.4
.6
34.8
4.8
3.2
3.5
4.3
3.6
2.7
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.4
1.9
2.1
2.9
.3
.4
.3
.3
.3
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.5
3.1
.5
.3
.3
.2
.2
.3
.2
.2
.3
.2
.2
.2
1942: Annual rate4....................
January................................
February.............................
March..................................
April.....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July.................................. —
August.................................
September............................
October................................
November............................
December.............................
188.7
20.8
16.7
18.2
16.4
16.6
17.4
15.7
14.6
13.4
12.6
14.5
11.8
106.4
6.5
6.3
7.1
7.3
9.2
9.4
8.4
9.9
11.4
10.8
10.6
9.5
58.9
3.3
3.3
4.3
4.3
5.2
5.7
4.7
5.8
6.7
5.4
5.4
4.8
11.0
.7
.7
.7
.8
.9
.9
.8
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
13.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
.9
.8
1.1
.9
.7
16.5
.7
.6
.6
.7
.9
.9
1.1
1.6
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.0
6.4
.4
.4
.3
.2
.8
.5
.6
.5
.5
.6
.7
.9
1943: Annual rate4....................
January................................
February..............................
March......... ........................
April.....................................
M ay.......................... - ........
June.....................................
July......................................
August.................................
September............................
October................................
November............................
December.............................
132.7
14.3
13.0
13.7
12.2
11.2
11.9
10.8
10.7
10.6
9.0
8.7
6.6
119.3
10.9
9.7
10.9
9.9
9.4
9.3
10.5
11.3
10.5
9.7
8.3
8.9
78.1
7.0
5.9
7.1
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.9
7.7
7.3
6.2
5.3
5.9
18.7
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5
6.8
.5
.5
.5
.7
.5
.5
.7
.6
.4
.7
.6
.6
14.4
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.8
.8
1.3
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1944: Annual rate4....................
January................................
February............................
March...... ............................
April.....................................
M ay................. ........... ........
June.................... ...............
July.....................................
August.................................
September...........................
October................................
November................. .........
December.............................
93.0
8.0
7.0
7.7
7.3
8.0
8.5
7.3
8.1
7.9
8.4
8.5
6.3
114.2
9.4
8.5
9.3
8.9
9.9
10.4
9.3
10.8
10.3
9.5
8.9
9.0
74.4
6.1
5.5
5.9
5.7
6.3
6.7
5.9
6.9
7.1
6.4
5.9
6.0
22.2
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
9.9
.7
.6
.7
.6
.7
.9
.8
1.3
.9
1.0
.8
.9
7.4
.8
.7
.9
.9
1.0
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.3
.3
.3
.1
.1
.1
(8)
(5)
(8)
(6)
©
(8)
(8)
ffl
(8)
1 Net gains or losses reflected in turnover rates presented in tables 6 and 7 are not strictly comparable
with the trend in private shipyard employment from month to month as presented in table 1, because of
differences in the composition of the samples upon which the two series are based. Moreover, employment
figures for private shipyards are based on reports covering the midweek of the month, whereas labor-turn
over rates are based on reports covering the whole month. Labor-turnover rates prior to 1943 are for all
wage earners; after December 1942, for all employees.
2 Not reported 1937 to 1939; 1940 included with miscellaneous.
« Prior to 1940, miscellaneous separations, covering deaths, permanent disabilities, and retirements, were
included with quits.
* Annual rates are the sums of the monthly rates per 100 employees.
* Less than a tenth of 1 percent.
10
of lay-offs, were also low, never higher than 6.0 per 100 employees
except in the months of May and December 1937 and April 1940
(table 6). In these 3 months lay-offs were exceptionally high, thus
causing sharp increases in total separations. Quits, which during the
war have been the most important component of all separations,
ranged between 0.5 and 2.1 per 100 employees in most months from
January 1937 to June 1940 and accounted for less than 35 percent of
all separations.
Lay-offs, on the other hand, were considerably more important
than quits throughout the 3K-year period, usually comprising over
60 percent and sometimes almost 90 percent of all separations.
Lay-off rates ranged from 0.7 to 6.5 per 100 workers. The discharge
rates were much more constant than quits or lay-offs and were never
higher than 0.3 per 100 workers, except in February 1937 when the
rate was 0.5 percent.
The beginning of the National Defense Program in June 1940
necessitated the speedy and wholesale recruitment of workers, and
accessions increased sharply, the rate rising from 6.8 in M ay 1940
to a peak of 20.8 in January 1942. With the growing scarcity of the
labor supply and increased efficiency in production and labor utiliza
tion, accessions tapered off during 1942 and 1943 and* by 1944 had
dropped to between 6.3 and 8.5 per 100 employees. Although
accessions decreased they remained greater than separations until
August 1943. Accessions again exceeded separations in September
and November 1943 but during the months of October and December
and each month through December 1944, dropped below separations.
Total separations did not vary greatly between June 1940 and
April 1942, ranging from 4.4 to 7.9 per 100 employees. Immediately
following April, however, the separation rate increased and in Septem
ber 1942 was 11.4 per 100 employees. During 1943 and 1944, the
rate fluctuated between 8.3 and 11.3.
The composition of separations changed with the enlargement of the
shipbuilding program, and while lay-offs decreased in importance,
quits increased both in number and in proportion to total separations.
Quits in June 1940 averaged 1.0 per 100 employees and accounted for
about 19 percent of all separations. By August 1943 the quit rate
had reached 7.7 per 100 employees and accounted for 69 percent of all
separations. Throughout 1943 and 1944, the proportion of quits to
total separations remained between 60 and 70 percent. The high
quit rates during the war are, after all, the accompaniment of a greatly
expanded labor force, including those who would not ordinarily work
for hire except if free to quit.3
Lay-offs are those terminations initiated by the employer without
prejudice to the worker. During the war lay-offs have occurred for
such reasons as lack of contracts or materials, conversion of plant,
and release of temporary help. As the need for war materiel increased
and the recruitment of labor for war-time shipbuilding was intensified,
lay-offs decreased. During the period January 1941 to September 1943
the lay-off rate dropped from 4.8 to 0.4 per 100 workers and the
proportion of lay-offs to total separations decreased from more than
61 percent to less than 1 percent. As employment reached peak and
started to decline in the latter part of 1943 in private shipyards, lay
* Seep. 14.
11
offs increased slightly and in December 1944 were 0.9 per 100 em
ployees, about 10 percent of total separations. This change in trend
may be attributed largely to contract terminations and cut-backs.
Discharges prior to January 1942 tended to fluctuate less than other
separations and to be significantly lower than lay-offs and quits.
Beginning with January 1942, however, the discharge rate increased
gradually, till it reached 2.1 per 100 workers in June 1944 as compared
with 0.7 in early 1942. The rate was 1.8 in December 1944. The
proportion of discharges to total separations increased during this
period from nearly 11 percent to 20 percent.
T able 7.— Labor-Turnover Rates (p et 100 Em ployees) in Private Shipyards, b y Ship building Region , January 1943-D ecem ber 1944 1
Separations
Region, month, and year
Acces
sions
Total
Quits
Dis
charges
Lay
offs
Military
Miscel
laneous
Atlantic coast
1943: Annual rate*....................
January................................
February..............................
March..................................
April.....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July......................................
August.................................
September................... .—
October................................
November............................
December.............................
103.4
10.7
10.5
11.4
10.3
8.8
9.5
8.1
8.3
8.2
6.7
6.2
4.7
89.8
7.2
7.3
8.0
7.6
7.5
7.1
7.8
8.9
8.0
7.4
6.4
6.6
52.9
3.4
3.8
4.3
4.1
4.6
4.5
4.7
5.8
5.1
4.4
4.0
4.2
16.3,
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.2
5.1
.3
.6
.5
.6
.6
.3
.5
.3
.2
.5
.3
.4
14.8
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
.8
.7
1944: Annual rate*.....................
January................................
February..............................
March..................................
April.....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July......................................
August..................................
September............................
October................................
November............................
December.............................
62.0
5.9
4.8
5.2
5.3
5.0
5.5
4.5
5.2
4.8
5.3
6.0
4.5
86.9
7.2
6.1
7.2
6.6
7.8
8.6
7.1
7.6
7.7
7.5
6.4
7.1
55.0
4.7
3.8
4.2
4.1
4.7
5.1
4.4
5.1
5.2
4.5
4.3
4.9
16.7
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
8.1
.4
.4
.8
.4
.6
1.1
.6
.4
.7
1.3
.6
.8
6.9
.7
.6
.9
.8
1.1
.8
.6
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
139.6
12.4
11.2
12.4
10.3
10.3
11.6
13.1
13.8
12.4
10.9
9.1
12.1
91.6
7.8
7.6
8.4
6.6
6.6
7.8
9.2
9.6
8.3
6.2
5.2
8.3
25.7
1.9
1.7
2.1
1.7
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.0
7.2
.8
.3
.5
.6
.5
.5
.4
.8
.3
1.1
.5
.9
14.3
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
.9
.8
,
.1
.1
.1
(4) .1,
.1
.1
.1
.1
(4)
(4)
131.0
10.1
10.6
10.5
10.2
11.3
12.4
11.5
12.3
12.0
10.0
9.6
10.5
85.0
6.2
6.9
7.0
6.3
7.3
8.3
7.3
8.1
8.2
6.9
6.1
6.4
30.3
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.3
2.7
2.8
6.6
.6
.6
.3
.6
.5
.6
.6
.5
.6
.4
.4
.9
8.7
.9
.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
.8
.6
.6
.4
.4
.4
.1
.1
.1
.1
0.7
(8)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
(4)
Y
(*)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
<4)
Gulf coast
1943: Annual rate*....................
January................................
February..............................
March..................................
April.....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July......................................
August.................................
September...........................
October................................
November............................
December.............................
165.1
20.2
15.2
17.6
14.8
14.1
13.9
13.3
13.1
13.3
11.2
10.6
7.8
1944: Annual rate *.....................
January................................
February. ...........................
March..................................
April............................ .......
M ay.....................................
June......................................
July......................................
August..................................
September............................
October................................
November............................
December............................
115.4
11.1
8.8
10.0
9.7
10.9
10.2
9.4
9.1
8.5
9.6
10.8
7.3
See footn otes at end o f table.
.
.4
.4
(»)
(4)
(4
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
12
T able 7.— Labor-Turnover Rates (per 100 Em ployees) in Private Shipyards, b y Ship
building Region, January 1943-D ecem ber 1 9 4 4 1— Continued
Separations
Region, month, and year
sions
Total
Quits
Dis
charges
Lay
offs
Military
Miscel
laneous
P acific coast
1943: Annual rate *....................
January................................
February.................. *.........
M arch .................................
April.....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July......................................
August.................................
September...........................
October................................
November............................
December.............................
146.8
14.0
14.6
13.9
12.9
12.8
14.1
11.3
12.3
11.9
10.8
10.5
7.8
142.5
12.7
11.5
13.3
12.2
11.7
11.3
12.0
13.2
12.7
12.1
10.0
9.8
100.3
9.0
7.7
9.4
8.6
S.6
7.8
8.3
9.4
9.3
8.6
6.9
6.7
18.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.6
8.1
.5
.5
.7
.6
.5
.8
.9
.9
.6
.7
.7
.7
14.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.0
.9
.9
.9
.8
.8
1944: Annual rate *.....................
January................................
February.............................
March..................................
April.....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July......................................
August.................................
September...........................
October................................
November............................
December.............................
115.1
8.1
8.0
9.0
8.2
9.5
10.7
9.3
10.8
10.9
11.2
10.8
8.6
136.0
11.8
10.1
11.0
10.5
11.6
11.5
10.3
13.0
12.0
11.4
11.8
11.0
91.1
7.7
6.7
7.2
7.0
7.7
7.6
6.8
8.4
8.4
8.2
7.9
7.5
25.5
2.1
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.2
11.8
1.0
.8
.7
.7
.8
.8
.9
1.9
1.1
.8
1.3
1.0
7.4
.9
.7
1.0
.9
.9
.7
.5
.5
.4
.3
.3
.3
1943: Annual rate *-...................
January................................
February..______________
March..................................
April.....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July......................................
August.................................
September...........................
October................................
November...........................
December............................
128.7
9.6
12.3
14.6
12.4
11.8
13.5
9.6
10.2
10.4
7.8
8.2
8.3
105.6
7.7
8.5
9.8
10.5
7.3
7.6
9.5
9.2
9.7
9.2
7.9
8.7
66.1
4.4
5.2
6.3
5.8
4.6
4.9
6.3
6.4
6.6
5.1
5.1
5.4
10.6
.8
.6
.7
.8
.7
.9
1.4
1.1
.9
.9
.9
.9
14.4
.6
.6
1.1
2.5
.7
.8
.7
.9
1.4
2.3
1.2
1.6
13.1
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.3
1.0
.9
1.0
.7
.7
.8
.6
.7
1944: Annual rate*....................
January................................
February.............................
March..................................
April....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July......................................
August.................................
September...........................
October................................
November............................
December............................
84.1
8.8
6.9
6.8
6.7
7.0
8.2
5.4
6.9
6.9
7.3
7.2
6.0
107.4
6.0
5.8
8.7
9.0
8.3
9.5
9.0
15.2
9.9
9.2
7.9
8.9
63.7
3.8
3.8
5.9
6.2
5.3
5.7
5.4
6.2
5.9
4.9
5.1
5.5
11.5
1.0
.7
.7
.9
.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
.9
1.0
23.5
.4
.6
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.8
7.2
2.4
2.7
1.4
1.9
7.6
.7
.6
.9
.8
.9
.9
.6
.5
.4
.5
.4
.4
104.6
(8)
(«)
10.1
11.3
10.5
10.5
10.0
12.5
12.6
10.1
8.4
*6
76.0
(8)
46.9
(8)
12.9
(8)
(5)
.9
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.4
2.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
5.8
(6)
8.7
(*)
(8)
1.2
.8
.6
.9
.9
.7
.9
1.2
(3)
.4
.1
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
.1
.1
.1
0)
(*)
(4)
.2
.1
.1
(4
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Great Lakes
1.4
(3)
.1
.2
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
1.1
.1
.1
.1
(4)
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
Inland
1943: Annual rate *....................
January................................
February.............................
March..................................
April.....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
J u ly ...................................
August.................................
September...........................
October................................
November............................
December............................
See footnotes a t end o f talble.
(8)
6.6
6.9
5.2
7.9
7.7
9.1
8.4
8.6
9.6
6.0
00
3.7
3.3
2.7
4.2
5.2
5.8
6.0
6.0
5.9
4.1
(8)
0.5
1.5
.6
.7
.1
.1
.2
.1
1.7
.3
.9
.6
1.7
(8)
(8)
(4)
<4)
<4)
.3
.3
.3
.4
.1
.2
.1
13
T able 7.— Labor-Turnover Rates (per 100 Em ployees) in Private Shipyards, b y Ship
building Region, January 1943-D eeem ber 1944 1— Continued
Separations
Region, month, and year
Acces
sions
Total
Quits
Dis
charges
Lay
offs
Military
Miscel
laneous
Inland—Continued
1944: Annual rate2....................
January................................
February.............................
March..................................
April.....................................
M ay.....................................
June.....................................
July......................................
August— .............................
September......... - ................
October................................
November...........................
December............................
98.7
14.0
8.7
11.1
9.2
11.1
8.5
8.1
9.8
5.3
5.2
4.7
3.0
97.8
6.5
7.1
8.0
7.3
8.1
8.9
9.5
9.9
9.4
8.3
7.5
7.3
64.0
4.3
3.9
5.5
4.4
5.0
7.0
6.0
6.3
5.8
5.5
5.0
5.3
17.9
1.2
1.7
1.1
1.5
1.9
1.2
2.3
1.9
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.1
9.0
.4
.8
.5
.7
.3
.2
.8
1.2
1.9
1.0
.8
.4
6.5
.6
.6
.8
.7
.8
.5
.4
.5
.4
.4
.4
.4
0.4
(4)
(0
0)
0)
0)
0)
(0
(4)
.1
.1
.1
.1
1 Net gains or losses reflected in turnover rates, presented in tables 6 and 7, are not strictly comparable with
the trend in private shipyard employment from month to month as presented in table 1, because of differ
ences in the composition of the samples upon which the two series are based. Moreover, employment
figures for private shipyards are based on reports covering the midweek of the month, whereas labor turn
over rates are based on reports covering the whole month.
2Annual rates are the sums of the monthly rates per 100 employees.
3Miscellaneous separation rates combined with military separation rates in region break-down in January.
<Less than a tenth of 1 precent.
*Labor turnover rates are not available for yards in the Inland region for months prior to March 1943.
Although the Selective Service Act was passed in September 1940
and the first inductions were made in November, military separations
(including both selective-service withdrawals and voluntary enlist
ments) were not reported separately until January 1941, when the
rate was 0.3 per 100 workers. The military rate remained low
throughout most of 1941 but increased in 1942 and reached peak in
October, when it was 2.6 and accounted for more than 22 percent of all
separations. Beginning in November, separations to join the armed
forces declined steadily. B y December 1944 the military separation
rate was only 0.3 per 100 employees, and the proportion of military
separations to the total was about 3 percent.
Accession rates in yards on the Gulf coast were higher than in yards
of most other regions throughout 1943 and 1944, yet separations were
greater than accessions in August and September 1943 and in all
months of 1944 except January and November. Accession rates in
Pacific coast yards, although not as high in most months as those in
Gulf yards, were generally higher than in the yards of the other regions.
Furthermore, separation rates were higher on the Pacific coast than
in any of the other regions in most months, and were greater than
accessions practically every month from July 1943 to December 1944.
Although yards on the Atlantic coast had lower separation as well as
accession rates than yards in the other major regions, separations ex
ceeded accessions almost throughout the period August 1943 to
December 1944.
Quits accounted for from 61 to more than 73 percent of total sep
arations in all regions in December 1944. Lay-offs made up 5 to 11
percent of the total in all regions but the Great Lakes, where they
accounted for more than 21 percent. Discharges on the other hand
were lowest in the Great Lakes region (10.8) and most important
in yards on the Gulf coast (26.6). Discharges in other regions were
640950—46------ 8
14
from 15 to 20 percent of all separations. The proportion of militaryseparations to the total varied little from region to region, being
mostly between 3 and 5 percent.
Table 8 shows the important differences during 1943 and 1944 be
tween men’s and women’s turnover rates.
T a ble 8.— Labor-Turnover Rates (per 100 Em ployees) in Private Shipyards, b y S ex,
January 1943-D ecem ber 1944
Total accessions
Total separations
Quits
Year and month
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
1943: Annual rate1......................................
January.................................................
February...............................................
March....................................................
April......................................................
M ay.......................................................
June.......................................................
July........................................................
August____ - .........................................
September.............................................
October..................................................
November.............. ..............................
December..............................................
124.5
13.9
12.3
12.7
11.3
10.2
11.3
10.4
9.8
9.9
8.3
8.0
6.4
241.3
25.4
30.0
26.7
23.4
21.9
21.7
18.3
19.5
17.2
14.8
13.4
9.0
121.1
12.1
10.1
11.3
10.3
9.3
9.4
10.7
11.4
10.4
9.5
8.0
8.6
147.2
11.1
11.0
11.6
11.0
11.5
12.3
13.0
14.3
14.7
12.7'
11.6
12.4
77.9
7.8
6.3
7.4
6.4
6.1
6.0
7.0
7.6
7.0
5.9
4.9
5.5
104.7
7.8
6.3
7.5
7.9
8.8
9.3
8.6
10.2
11.2
9.5
8.3
9.3
1944: Annual rate1............................ .........
January.................................................
February...............................................
March....................................................
April......................................................
M ay.......................................................
June.......................................................
July........................................................
August...................................................
September......... ...................................
October..............................- ........- ........
November____________________ ____
December..............................................
88.9
7.8
6.7
7.0
6.7
7.5
8.0
6.7
7.4
7.5
8.1
8.7
6.8
139.3
12.2
10.9
12.6
11.9
12.8
13.5
11.3
12.8
12.4
12.1
10.6
6.2
111.6
9.0
8.2
9.0
8.5
9.8
10.1
9.0
10.3
10.2
9.5
8.9
9.1
147.8
13.8
11.0
11.3
11.2
11.8
13.1
11.8
13.4
13.1
12.6
12.4
12.3
70.2
5.5
5.1
5.6
5.3
5.9
6.2
5.8
6.5
6.7
6.0
5.8
5.8
107.6
10.1
8.0
8.3
8.0
8.8
9.4
8.5
9.7
10.0
9.5
8.6
8.7
i Annual rates are the sums of the monthly rates per 100 employees.
It is clear that the accession rate for women was significantly higher
than the rate for men through 1943 and for all months in 1944, except
December, indicating heavy recruiting of women in the shipyards.
In many months the women’s rates were more than twice the men’s.
Although the female accession rate decreased from a peak of 30.0 in
February 1943 to 12.2 in January 1944, the 1944 rates did not drop
below 10.6 except in December (6.2). Male accession rates during
1944, also lower than in 1943, remained relatively steady, ranging
from 8.7 to 6.7.
T o correspond with the higher accession rates, the quit rates for
women also were higher than for men. Furthermore, while quit
rates for men tended to decrease during 1943, the rates for women
increased. In 1944 men’s quit rates ranged from 5.1 to 6.7 and wo
men’s from 8.0 to 10.1. A variety of reasons may be given for women’s
higher quit rates; for example, (1) the purely mathematical one of the
heavier accession rate of women and consequently the greater proba
bility that more women workers will prove occupationally unad
justed, (2) the lesser adaptability of the women than of the men who
might apply for shipyard work, and (3) the pressure of home responsi
bilities. It should be recognized that one of the conditions which
made it possible to recruit so many people who normally do not work
for hire, was that they were also free to quit. A higher quit rate than
in peacetime is, therefore, the arithmetic corollary of an expanded
labor force.
15
United States Navy Yards
Both total accession and separation rates in United States navy
yards over the period March 1943 to December 1944 (the only period
for which data are available) have been lower than the rates in private
shipyards. Except for June 1943 when the rate was distorted because
of intensified recruiting in navy yards, accession rates ranged from
3.3 to 5.9 in navy yards as compared with 6.6 to 13.7 in private ship
yards; separation rates in navy yards ranged from 3.5 to 6.1 as against
8.3 to 11.3 in private shipyards. Separation rates in navy yards were
greater than accession rates in most months after August 1943. The
need for additional personnel on the repair of naval vessels because
of the intensified war with Japan in 1944, however, caused a gradual
rise in accession rates beginning in August* and in November and
December accession rates were higher than separation rates— 5.1 per
100 employees as against 4.8.
T able 9.— Total Accession and Separation Rates (per 100 Em ployees) in United States
N a vy Yards, M arch 1943-D ecem ber 1944 1
Total
acces
sions
Year and month
1943: Annual rata 2
Ma»*ch .
April
May __
June , . r
July
..
August
......
September
October.
November
December ,,
_ __
_
49.0
5.9
4.1
4.8
*7.3
5.8
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.1
3.3
Total
separa
tions
44.8
4.2
3.7
3.8
4.1
5.0
5.4
6.1
4.6
4.2
3.7
Year and month
1944r Annual rata *
January
Febmary
March
April_____ ___
_
May . . . . . .
.Tiina_
_ ...
.......
Tilly . . . . . . . . . . . .
August
.
..
__
Rapt.ambar
...
Ontnbar .
^_.
November.........................
December.........................
Total
acces
sions
56.8
4.6
4.2
4.5
4.2
4.5
5.7
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.7
5.1
5.1
Total
separa
tions
57.9
3.5
4.1
4.8
4.3
5.2
5.3
4.9
5.4
5.6
5.2
4.8
4.8
1 Data not available before March 1943.
* Annual rates are the sums of the monthly rates per 100 employees.
* High accession rate in this month indicates recruitment for new repair facilities.
Absence Rates D uring the W a r 3
Before the war absence from work was not considered of sufficient
importance even to measure. With the emphasis on production that
came with the war emergency, workers' absences began to receive at
least statistical attention. Absenteeism was given popular notice in
the fall of 1942, and as early as. the summer of that year its potentiali
ties as a production problem were being explored. At that time ship
yards began to conduct studies of absenteeism in an effort to determine
its causes and characteristics, and on the basis of their findings intro
duced various measures in an attempt to reduce absence. Federal
Government agencies also began to study the problem to assist labor
and management in minimizing loss of production time.
One of the facts revealed by studies of absenteeism was that workers
were away from the job most frequently'because of illness, difficulty in
securing housing, problems of transportation, need for time during
working hours to conduct personal business, and inclement weather.
Absences were most numerous over week ends (Saturday and Monday).
* For more detailed discussion of absenteeism in shipyards and analysis of trends, see Absenteeism in
Commercial Shipyards, 1942, in Monthly Labor Review, February 1943 (reprinted, with additional data,
as Bulletin No. 734); Effect of Unannounced Quits on Absenteeism in Shipbuilding, in Monthly Labor
Review, June 1943 (reprinted as Serial No. R. 1543); and Employment, Labor Turnover, and Absenteeism
in Private Shipyards, 1943, in Monthly Labor Review, June 1944 (reprinted as Serial No. R . 1655).
16
Various remedial measures were introduced. Absence-control
records were set up; appeals were made to the workers by speakers,
bulletin boards, and posters; “ presenteeism” contests were conducted;
workers were assisted in locating satisfactory homes and in obtaining
transportation; in-yard ration boards were established; workers were
assisted with tax and draft-board problems; and recreation centers
were built and operated. In addition, many yards introduced such
disciplinary measures as suspending employees for short-period ab
sences, and discharging workers who were chronic offenders. Govern
ment agencies also took steps to help reduce absenteeism. Premium
calendar days were abolished by a shipbuilding stabilization com
mittee agreement which provided that time and a half be paid, not for
Saturday and Sunday work, but for the worker’s sixth and seventh
workday in the week; yard cafeterias were opened; special busses were
sent to shipyards to alleviate transportation problems; Federal housing
projects were approved; etc.
T able 10.— Absence Rates in Private N ew Construction Shipyards, by Shipbuilding
Region , January 1943-D ecem ber 1944 1
[Midweek]
Absence rates in private shipyards
Month and year
Gulf
coast
All
regions
Atlantic
coast
Pacific
coast
1943: January..............................................
February............................................
March.................................. ..............
April.................. ................................
M ay....................................................
June....................................................
July.....................................................
August................................................
September..........................................
October...............................................
November..........................................
December...........................................
8.9
9.2
8.7
7.7
8.1
8.1
8.7
8.9
7.9
8.5
7.8
9.7
9.0
10.0
9.8
8.4
8.9
9.0
10.2
10.5
9.2
9.7
8.6
10.8
9.6
9.3
7.4
6.7
7.5
8.0
8.3
7.7
6.7
6.5
6.3
7.2
8.8
8.7
8.6
7.7
7.9
7.8
8.2
8.3
8.0
8.6
8.1
10.3
5.5
6.5
5.9
5.1
5.6
4.6
4.7
5.7
5.0
6.1
6.1
8.2
7.5
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.7
5.0
6.1
6.2
5.4
6.2
6.2
7.0
1944: January..............................................
February............................................
March.................................................
April...................................................
M ay....................................................
June....................................................
July.....................................................
August................................................
September........................................ .
October...............................................
November..........................................
December..........................................
2 8.9
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.1
8.3
8.4
8.5
9.0
8.2
8.5
8.1
2 10.1
10.7
10.1
10.2
8.9
8.8
9.1
9.7
3 10.9
8.9
9.3
8.2
28.0
7.4
8.3
7.7
7.1
8.0
8.1
8.0
8.1
7.6
7.2
6.9
9.0
8.0
8.3
8.1
8.3
8.6
8.7
8.4
8.6
8.6
9.1
8.9
5.7
6.4
6.7
6.6
6.2
6.6
6.0
6.1
5.7
6.1
6.7
7.3
6.1
7.0
6.6
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.3
6.2
6.0
6.3
8.0
Great
Lakes
Inland
1 The absence rate is the ratio, expressed in percent, of man-hours lost through absenteeism to the sum of
man-hours lost and man-hours actually worked. Absence rates are computed for ship construction yards
only. Rates are not available by region prior to January 1943. Rates for all yards together from April to
December 1942 are as follows: April, 7.2; May, 6.2; June, 7.3; July, 7.0; August, 7.7; September, 7.3; October,
7.7; November, 8.1; December, 8.3.
2 In computing these rates, figures covering the third week in January were used for the South Atlantic and
Gulf coast yards to avoid the distortion of the rates for the mid-week caused by the storm of January 10-15.
3 Increase in absence rate caused largely by inclement weather during the reported workweek.
Absence rates nevertheless rose dining 1942 and 1943 because the
measures taken to reduce absence were not sufficient to overcome the
problems of wartime working and living conditions that have affected
workers’ attendance. Absence rates ranged from 6.2 to 8.3 percent
from April to December 1942, and in 1943 they were generally be
tween 7.7 and 9.2. Because of an influenza epidemic and inclement
17
weather the rate rose to 9.7 percent in December 1943. Rates in 1944
were between 8.1 and 9.0 percent.
Except in December 1943, absence rates in private new construction
shipyards were well above those in most other war-important indus
tries each month from March 1943 to December 1944, the only period
for which comparable rates are available. Of the major shipbuilding
regions, highest absence rates were reported by yards on the Atlantic
coast and the lowest on the Gulf. Absence rates in the Inland and
Great Lakes regions tended to be lower than in any of the others.
H ours and Earnings
Average Hours Worked per Week
Average weekly hours worked, about 38 early in 1940, began to
rise significantly during that year and continued to rise until they
reached 49 in 1942. There was a slight drop toward the end of 1942
and little change in the following year. Average hours in 1944 ranged
from 45.7 in January to 49.3 in December (table 12). There was an
unusually short average workweek in January 1944, because of a
severe storm in the Gulf coast region which interrupted operations in
most of the yards in the area, and because of an order by the Maritime
Commission and the Navy Department that Sunday work be reduced
to a minimum. The order reducing Sunday work appears to have
affected only the Atlantic coast so far as the curtailment of wage
earners’ weekly hours of work is concerned.
T a b l e 11 .— Distribution o f W age Earners in Private Shipyards, b y Average H ours
W orked p er W eek and Shipbuilding Region , December 1944
All regions
Average hours worked
per week per wage earner
Gull coast
Pacific
coast
Great
Lakes
Inland
Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per Num Per
Number cent
ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent
1,008,591 100.0 377,200 100.0 174,823 100.0 362,174 100.0 37,073 100.0 57,321 100.0
T o ta l
Less than 40.0
40.0 to 41.9
Atlantic
coast
_
42.0 to 43.9..........................
44.0 to 45.9.........................
46.0 to 47.9.........................
48.0 to 49.9.........................
50.0 to 51.9.........................
52.0 to 53.9
54 0 t o 55.9
56.0 and o v e r _______
__
44,098
53,492
117,263
77,173
132,639
217,082
79,911
123,062
41,892
121,979
4.4
5.3
11.6
7.7
13.1
21.5
7.9
12.2
4.2
12.1
265
1,006
2,885
42,628
82,941
96,030
33,656
29,724
24,991
63,074
.1
.3
.8
11.3
22.0
25.4
8.9
7.9
6.6
16.7
253
650
306
12,972
17,408
25,429
22,810
46,041
13,393
35,561
.1
.4
.2
7.4
10.0
14.5
13.1
26.3
7.7
20.3
29,736
47,875
105,551
21,027
26,464
67,840
14,470
36,714
437
12,060
8.2 1,591
13.2 2,517
29.2 7,544
0
5.8
7.3 5,421
18.7 4,361
4.0
839
10.2 4,149
.1
23
3.3 10,628
4.3 12,253
6.8 1,444
20.3
977
0
546
405
14.6
11.7 23,422
2.3 8,136
11.2 6,434
.1 3,048
656
28.7
21.4
2.5
1.7
1.0
.7
40.9
14.2
11.2
5.3
1.1
Hours of work in repair yards are consistently higher than in yards
engaged in new construction. In December 1944 the average for
repair yards was 54.3 and for new construction yards, 48.1. Wage
earners in 138 yards engaged primarily in the construction of naval
vessels averaged 48.7 hours per week in December; in 42 yards con
structing merchant vessels, the average was 47.7 hours.
18
T a b l e 12.— Average W eekly H ours and H ourly and W eekly Earnings in Private Ship
yards , January 1935—December 1 9 4 4 1
Month
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
Average weekly hours
January...................................
February.................................
March.....................................
April........................................
M ay............ ...........................
June.........................................
31.7
31.8
32.0
32.1
33.4
32.4
34.6
34.9
35.9
36.2
36.7
36.7
35.9
35.5
38.0
37.9
37.5
37.6
36.4
36.2
37.1
36.4
37.0
37.3
37.5
37.6
37.9
37.6
38.9
38.5
38 2
37.1
39.0
38.5
39.5
39.2
42.0
42.8
44.0
42.8
43.9
45.4
48.1
48.6
48.4
49.0
48.6
48.4
47.1
46.7
46.9
47.7
47.8
47.7
* 45.7
46.2
46.6
47.3
48.1
47.4
July.........................................
August....................................
September...............................
October..................................
November................ ..............
December................................
32.6
32.8
32.9
33.5
32.7
34.3
35.9
35.4
35.0
36.2
35.8
35.0
36.9
38.2
35.8
37.3
36.9
37.9
37.0
35.9
36.5
36.9
34.5
37.5
37.6
38.1
37.4
38.3
37.9
38.2
39.3
40.3
40.9
41.7
38.5
42.6
44.8
44.4
44.8
45.4
42.9
46.0
48.2
47.6
47.0
47.6
48.0
47.7
47.9
47.6
47.6
47.9
48.3
47.1
47.1
47.8
47.6
49.1
48.8
49.3
Average hourly earnings
January................................... $0.74
February.................................
.74
March.....................................
.75
April.................................... .
.74
M ay........................................
.75
.74
June.........................................
July.........................................
August.....................................
September...............................
October...................................
November...............................
December................................
.73
.74
.76
.76
.76
.77
$0.76
.76
.75
.75
.75
.75
$0.78
.78
.79
.82
.81
.80
$0.84
.84
.83
.84
.83
.83
$0.84
.83
.84
.83
.82
.83
$0.85
.86
.86
.86
.86
.87
$0.89
.90
.89
.91
.93
.95
$1.09
1.09
1.08
1.08
1.09
1.09
.76
.76
.76
.77
.77
.79
.82
.82
.83
.83
.84
.85
.83
.84
.84
.83
.84
.85
.83
.83
.83
.84
.84
.85
.86
.86
.87
.88
.88
.90
1.01
1.04
1.04
1.06
1.07
1.06
1.14
1.19
1.25
1.21
1.26
1.22
$1.22 2 $1.31
1.22
1.32
1.32
1.25
1.25
1.33
1.26
1.33
1.32
1.26
1.26
1.28
1.34
1.31
1.36
1.32
1.33
1.34
1.37
1.38
1.41
1.38
Average weekly earnings
January...................................
February.................................
March.....................................
April........................................
M ay........................................
June.........................................
July.........................................
August.................... ...............
September...............................
October...................................
November...............................
December.............................
$23.57 $26.56 $28.40 $31.21 $31.60 $32.32 $37.69 $52.42 $57.24 2$59.67
23.61 26.49 27.47 31.15 31.65 31.53 38.71 53.38 57.16
60.83
24.48 27.03 29.99 31.22 31.78 33.68 39.30 52.28 58.46
61.46
23.86 27.60 31.06 31.57 31.22 33.25. .39.17 53.28 59.50
62.89
25.04 27.86 30.79 30.92 32.29 34.20 41.00 53.27 60.04
64.02
24.33 27.57 30.57 31.61 32.53 34.17 43.83 52.73 59.83
62.80
24.15
24.64
24.98
25.57
25.35
26.86
27.55
27.06
26.84
27.78
27.70
27.97
30.22
31.44
30.34
31.49
31.13
32.79
30.90
29.99
30.60
30.75
29.05
31.87
31.71
31.69
31.41
32.26
31.85
32.73
34.03
34.88
36.08
36.93
34.46
38.37
45.54
46.47
46.82
47.84
45.90
49.19
55.11
56.82
58.60
57.54
60.67
58.09
60.55
60.80
63.68
62.91
65.61
62.23
62.69
63.96
65.23
67.69
68.68
68.17
1 The average hours worked per week and average weekly and hourly earnings shown here are the figures
published by the Bureau in the monthly release entitled “ Employment and Pay Rolls."
2 Sunday work was reduced to a minimum in yards constructing vessels for the Navy and the Maritime
Commission.
Although the average hours worked per week by all wage earners
over a period of months do not vary much, the average weekly hours
worked in individual yards in any one month are much more widely dis
tributed. Analysis of average weekly hoursworkedin330 private ship
yards during December 1944 shows that in 123 yards employing almost
29 percent of all wage earners the average hours worked per wage
earner were 52 or more a week; 83 yards employing a fifth of all wage
earners averaged between 44 and 48 hours a week per wage earner;
and 78 yards with about a fifth of the wage earners averaged less
than 44 hours.
19
Average weekly hours in Pacific coast yards were lower than in the
other four regions but were more constant from month to month,
ranging only from 43.4 to 45.5 during the period January 1943 and
August 1944. The rise during the last 4 months of 1944 was occa
sioned by a sharp increase in Sunday work in several yards engaged
in urgent programs. (See table 13.)
T a b l e 13.— Average W eekly H ours and H ou rly and W eekly Earnings in Private Ship
yards , b y Shipbuilding Region , January 1943 to December 1944
[Midweek)
Atlantic
coast
Month and year
Gulf
coast
Pacific
coast
Great
Lakes
Inland
Average weekly hours
1943? January
February
.
._ _
___
M areh
. _
_ ___
April
________________________________________
M ay
June
.Tnly
A u gust
Septem ber
O etoher
_
_ _
N ov em b er
DfiCfimhpr
.
1944.* January 1
___ _ ____
F eb ru ary
M areh
_
_ _
A pril
_ _
__
M ay
....
........
.Tnnfi ____
... _ _
-Tnly
____
A u gu st _
S eptem ber. _
O etoher
N o v e m b e r __
.......
D ecem b er
_
__
_ _
_ ___
.
__ _
. ....
. . .
. ____ . . _ . . . _.
_
.
49.3
48.4
48.9
49.4
48.8
48.8
48.2
49.0
48.8
49.1
49.7
49.1
46.4
46.3
47.5
48.5
48.8
47.5
47.3
47.0
48.5
48.3
48.9
49.0
43.4
44.2
44.6
45.1
45.5
45.0
44.6
44.7
44.8
44.5
44.7
44.2
45.9
45.0
47.3
50.6
50.0
49.4
49.6
49.7
51.5
50.6
50.8
49.1
46.1
44.9
46.0
46.3
46.4
48.5
46.5
47.7
48.1
46.8
47.3
48.2
47.0
46.1
47.0
47.0
48.0
47.4
47.8
47.9
2 46.6
48.6
48.7
50.4
2 43.4
47.6
46.8
48.2
50.1
49.4
49.4
50.5
49.5
50.2
50.5
52.2
44.8
44.6
44.5
44.9
45.0
44.9
44.4
44.4
2 46.4
46.7
46.3
45.8
49.0
48.3
50.3
50.2
49.0
49.4
49.5
50.1
50.8
51.4
51.6
49.6
50.6
49.4
51.1
52.4
53.3
50.4
49.7
50.7
48.7
49.2
47.0
47.7
Average hourly earnings
1943; Jan uary
. ,,
F eb ru a ry .
M areh
A pril
________ ______________________________
M ay
___ . ... .
.Tuna
.
__
J u ly
____
_
. ... ___ _ _ . . . .
A ugust
S eptem ber 4
. . .
. __ . ___ _ _
O ptohar___
N ovpm h ar 4___
D ecem b er
_
_ ___
1944; Jan uary 1
__ .
Fp.hrnary
M a reh _ _ _ _ _ _
A p ril
___
_________
M ay
__ . . .
^ ... _
_________ ______
_
June _
J u ly
_
.. . .. . ____ . ...... ..
. .
August. n ____
September A __
, .
O etoher
_ _
.
__
_ _ .. _ ____
November*__ ^
. . .
December.............................................................
See footnotes a t end o f table.
$1.23
•1.26
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.24
1.29
1.28
1.33
1.34
1.38
1.34
$1.13
1.12
1.16
1.13
1.17
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.26
1.21
1.27
1.24
$1.35
1.35
1.35
1.37
1.38
1.37
1.40
1.38
1.42
1.40
1.49
1.42
$1.10
1.09
1.11
1.16
1.16
1.13
1.16
1.18
1.22
1.19
1.26
1.23
$1.14
1.13
1.15
1.19
1.20
1.19
1.22
1.22
1.26
1.23
1.21
1.25
1.29
1.31
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.33
1.31
1.33
1.38
1.40
1.44
1.42
1.21
1.22
1.21
1.21
1.23
1.23
1.22
1.22
1.23
1.26
1.26
1.27
1.43
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.42
1.43
2 1.48
1.48
1.51
1.47
1.21
1.21
1.23
1.26
1.27
1.27
1.25
1.27
1.30
1.32
1.33
1.30
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.29
1.29
1.28
1.28
1.29
1.27
1.29
1.28
1.30
20
T able 13.— Average W eekly Hours and H ou rly and W eekly Earnings in Private Ship•
yards , b y Shipbuilding Region , January 1943 to Decem ber 1944 — Continued
[Midweek]
Atlantic
coast
Month and year
Gulf
coast
Pacific
coast
Great
Lakes
Inland
Average weekly earnings
1943: January................................................................
February..............................................................
March...................................................................
April.....................................................................
May— .................................................................
June.......... ..........................................................
July......................................................................
August.................................................................
September *..........................................................
October.................................................................
November4..........................................................
December.............................................................
$60.57
61.09
59.90
61.44
61.19
60.59
62.25
62.65
64.89
65.56
68.68
65.83
$52.24
51.74
54.87
55.00
57.01
55.32
55.36
55.35
61.33
58.57
61.95
60.70
$58.61
59.57
60.31
61.57
62.67
61.67
62.54
61.56
63.78
62.03
66.60
62.84
$50.38
49.01
52.47
58.49
58.06
56.09
57.60
58.39
62.70
60.24
63.94
60.34
$52.47
50.96
53.00
54.92
55.52
57.83
56.81
57.94
60.61
57.79.
57.48
60.06
1944: January1..............................................................
February......... ....................................................
March...................................................................
April.................................... : ...............................
M ay......................................................................
June......................................................................
July..................................... ................................
August..................................................................
September4..........................................................
October.................................................................
November4..........................................................
December............................................................
60.65
60.40
61.69
62.01
63.99
62.98
62.74
63.89
64.06
68.11
69.89
71.56
2 52.53
58.13
56.63
58.50
61.37
60.78
60.48
61.69
60.94
63.13
63.82
66.53
64.24
63.45
63.02
63.81
63.87
64.00
63.03
63.25
368.66
69.17
69.75
67.27
59.44
58.31
62.00
63.54
62.24
62.53
61.85
63.58
65.90
67.64
68.67
64.63
63.89
62.08
64.46
67.55
68.80
64.76
63.63
65.51
61.76
63.54
60.20
61.88
1 Sunday work was reduced to a minimum in yards constructing vessels for the Navy and the Maritime
Commission.
2 Severe storm occurring during the reported workweek interrupted operations in most Gulf coast yards
in January, and in many Atlantic coast yards in September.
3 Figures reflect sharp increase in Sunday work in several yards engaged in urgent programs.
4 Figures are affected by occurrence of a holiday within the workweek reported by some yards.
Plant Utilization
The ratio of workers on the second shift to those on the first has
remained fairly constant since January 1943, ranging from 44.9 per
cent in January to 41.4 percent in July 1943. The ratio for December
1944 was 43.5 percent. The ratio of employment on the third shift
to that on the first, remained in the neighborhood of 20 percent
throughout 1943, but decreased from 19.2 percent in January 1944 to
12.3 percent in November (table 14).
In all major yards of the country during the war, Saturday has been
a regularly scheduled workday; and through 1943 and 1944 employ
ment on Saturday was more than nine-tenths of the average employ
ment on weekdays, that is, Monday through Friday. The Novem
ber and December 1943 ratios of Sunday employment to MondayFriday employment of 40.9 and 42.0 percent, respectively, gave way
to 9.4 in January 1944. This sharp cut was the direct result of an
order issued by the Maritime Commission that on January 1, 1944,
all shipyards constructing merchant vessels operate on a straight
6-day basis. Private yards constructing naval vessels also were
advised to limit Sunday work as much as possible. The rates of
Sunday employment in Maritime yards dropped from 61.2 to 4.7 per
cent between December 1943 and January 1944, whereas in private
yards constructing naval vessels the ratio decreased much less, from
21.0 to 14.5 percent. The ratio for all yards remained between 9.4
21
and 14.4 percent during the first 8 months of 1944, but in September
increased to 22.7 percent because Maritime yards engaged in urgent
programs had to begin or expand Sunday operations. Sunday work
continued high during the remainder of the year.
T a b le 14.— Plant Utilization in Private Yards Engaged in N ew Ship Construction ,
January 1943-D ecem ber 1944
[Midweek]
Ratio (in percent) of—
Year and month
Saturday to Sunday to
Monday- MondayFriday em Friday em
ployment ployment
Percent
of plant
utiliza
tion 1
Average weekly
hours
Second to
first-shift
employ
ment
Third to
first-shift
employ
ment
1943: January................
February..............
March..................
April.....................
M ay.....................
Ju ne............... —
July......................
August.................
September............
October................
Noveinber............
December............
44.9
41.9
41.7
42.1
42.0
41.7
41.4
42.1
42.6
42.6
43.7
44.0
20.3
.19.5
19.6
19.8
19.9
20.7
20.0
20.4
20.9
20.3
20.1
20.3
93.6
93.4
94.1
93.4
94.2
93.7
94.1
93.2
95.0
93.1
95.5
93.4
48.6
45.9
46.0
40.8
40.6
39.2
35.6
39.6
41.6
41.2
40.9
42.0
49.1
47.8
47.6
48.0
48.1
48.0
47.5
48.3
48.9
48.1
49.0
48.0
46.3
45.8
46.5
47.1
47.2
46.7
46.2
46.4
47.1
46.6
47.1
46.6
46.0
45.7
46.4
47.1
47.1
46.7
46.2
46.4
47.2
46.7
47.2
46.6
1944: January................
February..............
March..................
April.....................
M ay.....................
June.....................
July......................
August.................
September............
October................
November............
December............
44.0
44.7
44.0
44.3
43.2
43.6
43.2
43.3
43.3
42.9
43.0
43.5
19.2
18.2
17.7
16.7
15.1
14.9
13.6
13.5
12.6
12.4
12.3
12.6
92.8
91.7
93.8
93.8
94.3
93.9
94.4
94.2
93.2
93.2
93.8
94.9
3 9.4
9.7
12.1
13.3
14.3
9.6
11.3
14.4
22.7
23.8
29.0
25.6
45.0
45.8
45.3
45.7
45.9
45.1
44.9
45.2
45.5
46.0
46.9
46.2
45.0
45.4
45.7
46.2
47.1
46.4
46.5
46.9
46.8
47.8
47.6
48.1
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Produc
wage
tive wage All
earners
earners
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
1 Ratio, in percent, of production man-hours actually worked to the theoretical maximum weekly produo*
tion man-hours (168 times the production employment on the principal shift).
2 Sunday work ordered reduced to a minimum in yards constructing vessels for the Navy and Maritime
Commission.
3 Data not available.
Hourly and Weekly Earnings
There has been an almost steady rise in the average hourly and
weekly earnings of wage earners in private shipyards since 1935.
Hourly earnings were about 75 cents early in 1935 and 85 cents at the
beginning of 1940. By January 1942 they were $1.09 and in Janu
ary 1943, $1.22. The peak of $1.41 was reached in November 1944
(table 12). Although average hourly earnings in new construction
and in repair yards have usually been at about the same level since
June 1942, weekly earnings have been higher in repair yards because
of a longer workweek and a rate differential for repair work on the
Pacific coast (table 15).4 Average weekly earnings in all private ship
yards were $24 early in 1935 and reached $34 early in 1940. They
rose steeply after this as a result of the lengthening workweek, and
overtime pay and other premiums, and by early 1942 were $53, more
than twice the amount in 1935. In 1943, weekly earnings were
between $57 and $64 except in November, when the midweek for
<In the San Francisco area and yards north.
646950— 45------ 4
22
which reports were received included the Armistice Day holiday and
thus reflected overtime earnings ($66). In 1944 weekly earnings
fluctuated between $60 and $64 during the first 8 months and then
rose sharply, reaching a peak of $69 in November. This was the
result largely of longer hours of work and overtime pay. Weekly
earnings in repair yards averaged $75 and $76 in October and Novem
ber 1943; and in 1944 the weekly earnings ranged from $66 to $75, as
compared with a range of from $60 to $68, respectively, in new con
struction yards.
T a b le 15.— Average W eekly H ours and H ou rly and W eekly Earnings in Private N ew
Construction Yards and Repair Yards, June 1942-D ecem ber 1944
Average weekly
hours
Average hourly
earnings
Average weekly
earnings
Year and month
New
construc
tion yards
Repair
yards
New
construc
tion yards
Repair
yards
New
construc
tion yards
Repair
yards
1942: June....................................................
Ju ly.....................................................
August................................................
September..........................................
October................................................
N ovem ber--.......................................
December............................................
48.5
47.9
47.7
47.4
46.9
46.8
46.7
48.1
52.4
51.8
52.6
49.4
49.4
51.7
$1.10
1.18
1.21
1.29
1.23
1.27
1.25
$1.12
1.14
1.22
1.27
1.20
1.24
1.23
$53.35
56.09
57.25
60.94
57.63
59.56
58.56
$54.90
59.54
62.94
66.62
59.35
60.52
64.67
1943: January...............................................
February--.........................................
March.................................................
April....................................................
M ay....................................................
June....................................................
July.....................................................
August................................................
September...........................................
October...............................................
N ovem ber.-.......................................
December...........................................
46.0
45.7
46.4
47.1
47.1
46.7
46.2
46.4
47.1
46.7
47.2
46.6
52.7
51.9
52.5
52.9
52.3
51.6
52.1
53.0
52.0
53.4
54.2
53.3
1.25
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.28
1.28
1.31
1.29
1.35
1.33
1.39
1.35
1.24
1.29
1.25
1.26
1.24
1.25
1.29
1.27
1.28
1.38
1.39
1.31
57.44
57.59
58.26
59.44
60.52
59.76
60.44
60.02
63.55
61.67
65.49
62.87
64.53
66.44
65.70
66.54
64.98
64.78
67.30
67.34
66.68
74.60
76.18
69.94
1944: January...............................................
February--.........................................
March.................................................
April............... ....................................
M ay....................................................
June--................................................
July.....................................................
August................................................
September..........................................
October...............................................
November...........................................
December............................................
45.0
45.4
45.7
46.2
47.1
46.4
46.5
46.9
46.8
47.8
47.6
48.1
53.4
51.4
51.7
51.2
52.4
51.4
51.1
,51.3
51.0
52.5
52.5
54.3
1.32
1.33
1.33
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.33
1.34
1.38
1.39
1.41
1.40
1.31
1.31
1.30
1.29
1.31
1.32
1.29
1.29
1.32
1.39
1.43
1.36
59.58
60.45
60.73
61.90
63.14
62.46
61.98
62.99
64.80
66.59
67.26
67.53
70.27
66.96
67.20
65.99
68.46
67.72
66.17
66.36
67.31
73.05
74.86
74.05
Yards on the Pacific coast, with the lowest weekly horns, averaged
the highest hourly earnings throughout the period January 1943 to
December 1944 (table 13). Higher average hourly earnings in these
yards, as compared with the yards of other regions, are the result of a
reater proportion of workers classified as first-class craftsmen, higher
asic wage rates among other classes of workers, and the pay differ
ential for repair work. Atlantic coast yards ranked second only to
Pacific coast yards in average hourly earnings, partly because of the
utilization of incentive plans. Although hourly earnings in the
Inland and Great Lakes regions were lower than in the Pacific and
Atlantic coastal regions, weekly earnings were relatively high because
of the high?average weekly hours worked. Average weekly earnings,
in Great Lakes and Inland yards went as high as $69 in 1944.
g
23
Occupation and Craft-Class D istribution, June 1943 5
Data regarding employment and earnings in shipyards cannot be
evaluated adequately without reference to the occupational structure
and distribution of craft classes.
Over 50 percent of the labor force in each of the five shipbuilding
areas studied were craftsmen in June 1943— over 60 percent on the
Pacific coast. Helpers also represented a relatively high percentage
of the force in each region, ranging from 12 percent in Inland yards to
20 percent in the Great Lakes region. As indicated in table 16, the
greatest deviation from the average was shown on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts. The Pacific coast yards employed the highest per
centage of first-class craftsmen (48.7 percent) and supervisors (9.3
iercent) and the lowest percentage of other classes of craftsmen,
aborers, and apprentices. Atlantic coast yards, on the other hand,
showed the lowest percentage of first-class craftsmen (19.8 percent).
I
T a ble 16.— Percentage Distribution o f Private Shipyard W orkers, b y Class o f Workers
and Region , June 1943
Percent of workers in private shipyards
Class of workers
Craftsmen, first elafis 1
_ _ _
Crfi.ft.cmpn, other elasses _
■Helpers
.......
.
. . . . . . . . .
l aborers
. . .
. .. .
Apprentires and learners .. .
Supervisors.................................................
Other workers 9
Total
„
__ _
__ __
All re
gions
Atlantic
coast
Gulf
coast
Pacific
coast
Great
Lakes
Inland
33.7
23.3
16.1
5.1
4.9
7.2
9.7
19.8
33.9
16.3
5.4
7.5
5.3
11.8
32.3
21.2
13.9
9.2
11.8
5.8
5.8
48.7
13.3
16.4
3.2
.4
9.3
8.7
31.1
22.8
19.6
5.1
5.4
7.5
8.5
32.7
21.3
12.4
9.4
4.1
9.3
10.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
i Includes premium men.
9 Covers occupations considered as semiskilled and those not directly responsible for production work;
i. e., guards, truck drivers, crane followers, and rivet heaters.
Labor agreements entered into during the emergency by the Amer
ican Federation of Labor with the majority of Pacific coast yards
help explain the difference. The master contract on the west coast
provides for one class of craftsmen for helpers and laborers, and for
three classes of trainees. In Atlantic coast yards where the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, and the East Coast Alliance of Independ
ent Shipyard Unions predominate, there are generally at least three
classes of craftsmen, in addition to handymen, helpers, laborers, and
apprentices.
On the Gulf coast, yards having contracts with the C. I. 0 . list
classes similar to those on the Atlantic coast, whereas the A. F. of L.
contracts provide for one class of craftsmen, apprentices, helpers, and
laborers. The occupational structure of Great Lakes yards is less
uniform than in other regions though somewhat similar to the struc
ture in yards on the Atlantic coast. Individual Inland yards tend to
follow the pattern predominating in the nearest adjacent region.•
• This and the following section are based on detailed analysis of occupational wage-rate schedules for the
week ending June 18, 1943. submitted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics by about 71 percent of all private
shipyards with Federal contracts in continental United States and employing 92 percent of the wage earners.
For a more complete discussion of employment structure and base rates see Basic Wage Bates in Private
Shipyards, June 1943, in Monthly Labor Beview, August 1944, pp. 385-404 (reprinted as Serial No. B . 1679).
24
A complete picture of structural differences in the five regions in
volves not only analysis of the percentage employed at each grade
within each occupation but also the differences in the relative numbers
in each occupation. Table 17 shows the distribution of shipyard
workers for selected occupations, by region, in June 1943. Each
occupation is composed of all grades or classes, from superintendent
to helper.
T a b le 17.— Percentage Distribution o f Private Shipyard W orkers, by Region and
Occupation , June 1943
Percent of workers in private shipyards
Occupation
All re
gions
Anglesmiths___________________________
Blacksmiths__________ ______ _____ ____
Boilermakers__________________________
Burners_______________________________
Carpenters (shipwrights)...........................
Chippers and caulkers__________________
Coppersmiths_________________________
Crane operators, over 20 tons____________
Crane operators, 20 tons mid under______
■RlpntriniftTis
0.3
.3
2.3
3.8
6.1
2.8
.5
.7
.6
6.6
.1
......
Fumacemen___________________________
Atlantic
coast
0.2
.5
1.6
3.4
5.2
2.5
.5
.7
.4
6.2
.2
3.1
.1
1.0
5.7
.4
.3
9.0
.1
3.0
.1
.2
.5
7.2
7.1
Shipfitters_____________________________
Tool and die makers___________________
W elders_______________________________
All others________ ____ ________________
2.8
.4
3.0
11.0
.1
15.3
17.5
3.3
.6
3.3
9.0
.1
12.6
22.5
Total____________ _______________
100.0
100.0
.8
6.6
.4
.4
8.1
Joiners________________________________
Laborers______________________________
T,ftyftr-niif: Truvn
Loftsmen_____________________________
Machinists (inside and outside)_________
Molders______________ ________________
Painters______________________________
Patternmakers_________________________
Pipe coverers__________________________
Pipe fitters____________________________
Riggers_______________________________
Riveters______________________________
Shfifit.mfital w orkers
_
0)
Gulf
coast
Pacific
coast
0.4
.3
3.5
4.6
6.2
2.3
.5
.4
.8
6.3
0)
0.5
.2
2.8
4.3
7.4
3.3
.6
.6
.6
7.3
0)
2.9
.3
8.1
2.3
.1
3.0
13.0
.6
3.5
.3
.5
7.1
0)
0)
0)
3.0
7.2
2.9
.3
3.1
12.7
0)
.8
.2
6.6
\2
0.1
.3
2.4
2.5
3.9
2.9
®
.6
.6
4.3
0)
1.9
5.6
.2
.5
10.0
0)
4.1
.1
.3
8.2
0)
(0
17.5
13.7
1.1
.3
1.9
10.3
.1
13.8
20.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
16.4
9.4
Inland
0.2
.5
.6
3.1
5.6
3.0
0)
.2
9.8
1.1
.3
7.8
0)
Great
Lakes
.2
10.9
.3
.3
6.8
(0
(0
4.8
.2
5.3
.9
.1
1.0
8.1
(0
20.8
22.7
100.0
1 Less than a tenth of 1 percent.
3 No employees reported for this occupation.
Of the 26 occupations listed in table 17, the first 10 in order of their
numerical importance are welders, shipfitters, machinists, pipe fitters,
electricians, carpenters, laborers, burners, painters, and sheet-metal
workers.
Welders represented over 15 percent of all the wage earners in all
regions combined and numerically were the most important group in
each region. Differences in the types of vessels and methods of produc
tion that predominate, account for the range in the proportion of
welders employed. For example, yards on the Atlantic coast have had
long peacetime experience in building naval vessels, in addition to
tankers, freight boats, and passenger liners. The combination of
experience and available facilities has resulted in centralizing the
combat-vessel program on the Atlantic coast. Since many of the
parts of combat ships must be riveted—whereas cargo vessels, for
example, are in most cases almost entirely welded— there are pro
portionately fewer welders on the Atlantic coast than in any of the
25
other regions. Added to this are two further considerations: (1)
There are a greater number of repair yards in this region than in the
others, and many vessels requiring repair were built before welded
hulls were common; and (2) some Atlantic coast yards use a combina
tion riveted and welded hull on Liberty ships, as compared with the
almost entirely welded hull built elsewhere. All of these factors tend
to decrease the number of welders and, conversely, to increase the
number of riveters.
In the proportion of welders employed, west coast yards, widely
known for their all-welded construction of commercial vessels, rank
second only to the Inland yards, which are engaged primarily in the
construction of small boats and landing craft.
Among the most essential groups, in terms of efficient ship produc
tion, are the shipfitters, who are second in importance numerically
among all occupations. Skilled shipfitters should be capable not only
of lining up and assembling the structural and nonstructural parts of
a vessel but also of welding and making templates and lay-outs for
special forms that cannot be predetermined in the mold loft. On the
Pacific coast this occupational title includes over 5,000 San Francisco
Bay “ flangers.” According to the chief naval architect of one of the
larger yards in this area, the term “ flanger” is specifically differentiated
from “ flange turner.” The latter term applies to the worker who
forms angles on plates, whereas the former applies to one who lines
up parts on the platens or ways preparatory to welding.
Inland yards employed the smallest proportion of shipfitters. Since
the smaller landing craft made in these yards are produced by massproduction methods which require that most parts be interchangeable,
this lower proportion of shipfitters is to be expected, as well as the
higher-than-average proportion of laborers. Furthermore, because
these craft usually contain few or no structural parts of wood, Inland
yards reported the lowest proportion of carpenters.
In addition to the 10 occupations listed above, there are several that
are numerically important on a regional basis: Boilermakers on the
Gulf and Pacific coasts; chippers and caulkers on the Pacific coast
and Great Lakes; and riggers on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
The importance of these occupations results in part from purely
local practices as well as from the nature of the construction. For
example, the Atlantic and Pacific regions, in which more large vessels
are being constructed, employ a greater number of riggers than do the
regions specializing primarily in smaller vessels, since heavier loads
and a greater number of structural parts must be handled, lifted, and
put in place on combat, auxiliary combat, and larger commercial
vessels.
,
W age Rates Ju ne 1943
Approximately 60 percent of all the wage earners in private ship
yards in June 1943 were paid less and 10 percent were paid more than
the first-class mechanics, 6rate of $1.20 established by the zone stabiliza
tion agreements.64 Although the proportions of employees at specific
rates were comparatively uniform at rates of over $1.20 an hour,
there was some variance, especially on the Pacific coast, where there
6 Identified as “ standard skilled mechanics” in the Gulf and Pacific coast agreements.
See p. 30 for discussion of zone stabilization agreements. Wage-rate data in this section cover only yards
signatory to the agreements. These yards employed approximately 90 percent of all private-shipyard wage
earners in June 1943.
26
was concentration of employees at $1.30-$1.35 and $1.35-$1.40.
This was caused primarily by the fact that a separate labor contract
prevails in the San Francisco Bay area and northward to the Canadian
boundary, providing for a premium of 11.6 percent in all yards
engaged in repair and conversion.
While approximately three-fifths of the shipyard wage earners in all
regions combined were paid less than the rate of $1.20 in June 1943, on
the Atlantic coast the proportion was three-fourths, on the Great
Lakes almost two-thirds, but on the Pacific coast only about one-half.
Less than 10 percent of the wage earners in Pacific coast yards received
wage rates under $0.95, as compared with well over a third in the
Great Lakes yards, two-fifths in Inland yards, and about 45 percent
in yards on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
Actually, as a result of the American Federation of Labor masterqontract provisions on the Pacific coast, defining not only the occupa
tions to be paid the first-class rate but also the uniform rates for
laborers ($0.88), helpers ($0.95), trainees ($1.05, $1.10, and $1.15),
and practically all other production occupations,7 there were few
employees on the Pacific coast in June 1943 who received less than
the rate set for laborers ($0.88) and a substantial group who received
the rate paid to helpers ($0.95). In contrast, there was a concentra
tion of employees in Gulf yards in the $0.60-$0.65 range and also a
high proportion of workers paid between $0.75 and $0.80, reflecting
the large number of apprentices in that region.
T able 18.— Percentage Distribution o f Private Shipyai
W orkers, b y Region and Rate
o f P a y , June 1943
Percent of workers in private shipyards
Basic rate group
All
regions
Under $0.50..................................................
$0.50 and under $0.55...................................
$0.55 and under $0.60...................................
$0.60 and under $0.65...................................
$0.65 and under $0.70...................................
$0.70 and under $0.75...................................
$0.75 and under $0.80...................................
(0
0.1
.1
1.9
1.5
1.1
2.8
$0.80 and under $0.85...................................
$0.85 and under $0.90...................................
$0.90 and under $0.95...................................
$0.95 and under $1.00...................................
$1.00 and under $1.05...................................
$1.05 and under $1.10...................................
$1.10 and under $1.15.1................................
$1.15 and under $1.20...................................
7.5
7.2
5.0
11.5
5.5
7.6
5.9
1.8
$1.20..............................................................
$1.21 and under $1.25...................................
$1.25 and under $1.30...................................
$1.30 and under $1.35...................................
$1.35 and under $1.40......................... .........
$1.40 and under $1.45...................................
$1.45 and under $1.50...................................
$1.50 and over..............................................
30.2
.4
1.2
2.9
2.3
1.3
.9
1.3
Atlantic
coast
Gulf
coast
0)
(0
(0
Pacific
coast .
0.5
Inland
.8
.9
2.9
3.5
0.4
.5
.2
1.0
.3
1.8
5.0
.1
3.2
2.0
17.7
1.2
9.9
4.8
2.2
11.1
6.2
9.2
6.0
7.8
7.1
8.0
1.5
13.0
7.6
10.6
5.2
,9.1
.6
5.5
.2
44.0
.5
1.0
4.0
4.2
1.9
1.5
1.6
26.8
.3
1.2
3.0
1.1
1.0
.3
.8
30.3
.1
1.2
2.0
2.9
.7
1.6
.2
0.1
9.2
7.4
.6
13.8
0)
(0
0)
0.1
0)
.1
(0
14.7
11.8
7.9
7.6
10.3
5.8
7.9
1.7
6.6
4.8
3.7
5.1
2.9
5.7
2.3
.4
16.5
.4
1.6
1.5
1.0
1.1
.6
1.4
31.4
0)
.6
4.4
.3
.3
.3
.1
0.2
.2
1.8
1.4
2.1
2.5
Great
Lakes
0)
0)
Total..................................................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Average base rate........................................
$1.066
$1,008
$0,979
$1.151
$1,041
$1,035
1 Less
t See
than a tenth of 1 percent.
p. 33 for discussion of establishment since June 1943 of uniform rates in other regions.
27
The Atlantic coast also had many workers paid less than $0.80 an
hour. The largest groups below $1.20 were at the $0.80-$0.85,
$0.85-$0.90, and $1.00-$1.15 levels, which included, respectively, the
prevailing rates for laborers, helpers, and craftsmen other than first
class.
In comparing base rates by region, differences in the regional occu
pational structure must be kept in mind. Yards on the Atlantic
coast, as compared to yards in other regions, maintained a higher
percentage of craftsmen below the first class, close to the highest
percentage of helpers and apprentices, and the lowest percentage of
supervisory employees. (See table 16, p. 23.) Yards on the Gulf
coast also had a large percentage of apprentices and a comparatively
high percentage of helpers and of craftsmen below the first class.
The Pacific coast had the largest proportion of employees classified
as first-class craftsmen and, in addition, had a repair and conversion
work differential in the case of all employees in yards in the San
Francisco area and north.
Craftsmen
The average base rates for all regions combined ranged between
$1.10 and $1.20 an hour among the skilled and semiskilled craftsmen
(first and other classes) in 21 of the 26 occupations shown in table 17.
In only one case, that of pipe coverers, did the rate ($1,067) fall below
the minimum of the range, while in 3— crane operators (over 20 tons),
loftsmen, and patternmakers— the average rates were in excess of
$1.20. Skilled and semiskilled patternmakers received the highest
average rate, $1,374 per hour. (See table 19.)
On the Atlantic coast average rates for 17 of the occupations were
below $1.10, 7 were between $1.10 and $1.20, and only 2, crane oper
ators (over 20 tons) and patternmakers, averaged above $1.20 an hour.
In comparison, on the Pacific coast, the second largest shipbuilding
region, 11 occupations averaged between $1.10 and $1.20 and 13
averaged over $1.20. There were 2 for which there were not enough
men reported to compute a rate. In this region, patternmakers also
averaged the highest rate. Riggers on the Atlantic coast received the
lowest average rate among the skilled and semiskilled groups ($1,050),
while on the Pacific coast, furnacemen were the lowest-paid ($1,108).
Gulf coast yards reported 6 occupations below $1.10, 14 between
$1.10 and $1.20, and only 2 above $1.20. Rates are not shown for
4 of the 26 occupations. Employees working as coppersmiths aver
aged the lowest rate ($1,050) while loftsmen received the highest
($1,215). There was not a sufficiently large number of patternmakers
reported to warrant the presentation of a rate. Only 2 occupations
(layer-out men and riggers) in Great Lakes yards received below $1.10
an hour. In this region 18 occupations averaged between $1.10 and
$1.20, and 1 (patternmakers) received over $1.20. An average rate
is not shown for 4 occupations.
Boilermakers received the highest average base rate in Inland yards
($1.20). Five occupations received below $1.10 and 15 between $1.10
and $1.20. Rates are not shown for five occupations. The lowest
average rate paid to any group of skilled and semiskilled workers
was that of $0,915 to riveters.
28
T able 19.— Average B ase Rates p er H our fo r Specified Occupations in Shipyards, b y
Region , June 1943 1
Occupation and class
All re
gions
Atlantic
coast
Gulf
coast
Pacific
coast
Great
Lakes
Inland
All occupations1
2..........................................
$1,066
$1,008
$0,979
$1.151
$1,041
$1,035
Anglesmiths..........................—...................
Anglesmiths’ helpers......................... - - ___
Apprentices.................................... .........
Blacksmiths................................ - - .............
Blacksmiths’ helpers...................................
Boilermakers...............................................
Boilermakers’ helpers..................................
Burners.............................................. .........
Burners’ helpers........................................
1.140
.958
.815
1.113
.878
1.142
.896
1.140
.832
1.085
.873
.799
1.082
.847
1.059
.826
1.090
.812
1.187
.792
.790
1.074
.797
1.134
.727
1.104
.725
1.144
1.075
1.046
1.205
.973
1.203
.961
1.186
.952
1.158
0
.869
1.169
.906
1.139
.891
1.138
.944
1.127
0
.726
1.089
.847
1.200
.858
1.128
.839
Carpenters (shipwrights)...........................
Carpenters’ (shipwrights) helpers..............
Chippers and caulkers................................
Chippers and caulkers’ helpers..................
Coppersmiths..............................................
Coppersmiths’ helpers................................
Crane operators, 20 tons and under. .........
Crane operators’ helpers, 20 tons and under.
Crane operators, over 20 tons.....................
Crane operators’ helpers, over 20 tons.........
1.175
.924
1.115
.840
1.141
.880
1.150
.833
1.254
.896
1.096
.757
1.074
.799
1.131
.793
1.115
.831
1.217
0
1.181
.723
1.134
.719
1.050
.702
1.096
.800
1.181
.898
1.208
.952
1.169
.951
1.165
.952
1.224
0
1.330
0
1.149
.992
1.138
.861
0
0
1.156
.930
1.186
0
1.176
0
1.122
0
0
0
1.076
.894
1.191
0
Electricians..................................................
Electricians’ helpers............................. ......
Foremen.......................................................
Fumacemen.................................................
Fumacemen’s helpers.................................
Handymen, general.....................................
Helpers, general...........................................
Joiners..........................................................
Joiners’ helpers............................................
1.132
.877
1.512
1.103
.923
.944
.840
1.159
.879
1.066
.831
1.580
1.099
.929
.944
.827
1.137
.793
1.104
.711
1.302
(3)
.786
(4)
.721
1.184
(3)
1.189
.952
1.502
1.108
0
0
.969
1.193
.956
1.162
.890
1.438
0
.992
0
.812
1.190
0
1.162
.898
1.378
0
0
.936
.851
1.199
0
Laborers.......................................................
Layer-out men.............................................
Layer-out men’s helpers.............................
Leadermen...................................................
Learners......................... ...... .......................
Loftsmen.....................................................
Loftsmens’ helpers......................................
Machinists, outside and inside...................
Machinists’ helpers, outside and inside...
Molders............................. - - .......................
Molders’ helpers..........................................
.764
1.173
.800
1.336
.864
1.250
.894
1.132
.879
1.181
.844
.754
1.128
.850
1.328
.844
1.163
.785
1.087
.829
1.170
.844
.630
1.096
.713
1.258
.723
1.215
.709
1.103
.728
(3)
0
.887
1.321
.950
1.359
1.090
1.320
.952
1.208
.961
0
0
.780
.997
0
1.285
.927
1.162
.925
1.124
.847
0
0
.787
1.158
0
1.217
.756
1.123
0
1.108
.778
0
0
Painters.......................................................
Painters’ helpers..........................................
Patternmakers.................. ..........................
Patternmakers’ helpers...............................
Pipe coverers...............................................
Pipe coverers’ helpers.................... .............
Pipe fitters...................................................
Pipe fitters’ helpers.....................................
Riggers.........................................................
Riggers’ helpers...........................................
Riveters.......................................................
Riveters’ helpers..........................................
1.142
.862
1.374
.845
1.067
.900
1.131
.876
1.111
.780
1.166
.868
1.077
.833
1.331
0
1.063
.900
1.077
.823
1.050
.776
1.142
.824
1.170
.737
0
0
1.078
0
1.104
.720
1.124
.732
1.179
.750
1.202
.950
1.551
0
0
0
1.193
.957
1.169
.950
1.205
.950
1.124
.873
1.449
0
0
0
1.109
.839
1.068
.960
1.199
0
1.120
.850
0
0
1.134
0
1.157
.841
1.098
.827
.915
0
Sheet-metal workers................................ —
Sheet-metal workers’ helpers......................
Shipfitters......... ..........................................
Shipfitters’ helpers......................................
Supervisors5— ....... ....................................
Tool and die makers...................... .............
Tool and die makers’ helpers-...................
Welders........................................................
Welders’ helpers..........................................
1.117
.895
1.125
.879
1.610
1.152
.758
1.125
.865
1 077
.820
1.055
.822
1.588
1.062
.754
1.075
.805
1.103
.705
1.100
.710
1.503
0
0
1.095
.712
1.172
.954
1.188
.951
1.648
1.345
0
1.165
.953
1.165
.869
1.105
.899
1.555
0
1.117
.858
1.106
.865
1.417
0
01.130
.853
01.093
.774
1 All skilled classes (first, second, third, and other), improvers, handymen, Pacific coast trainees, and some
Gulf coast apprentices are included for each occupation without the designation “ helpers” , except appren
tices, foremen, laborers, learners, leadermen, and supervisors.
2 Includes all occupations and classes reported.
8 Number of workers too small to justify presentation of an average.
4 No employees reported for this class.
8 Covers superintendents, supervisors, and general foremen.
29
Helpers
Diversity of rates is as apparent in the case of helpers as for crafts
men. This class of wage earners received an average base rate of
over $0.80 an hour in 25 of the 27 occupations for which helpers were
listed, in all regions together. None received an average of less than
$0.75. In rates for different occupations, the range was from $0,758
for tool and die makers’ helpers to $0,958 for anglesmiths’ helpers.
In shipyards located on the Pacific, helpers in four occupations
averaged exactly $0.95 an hour, the rate established by the master
agreement. Twenty, or all helpers for which a rate is shown, received
$0.95 or more. •Only anglesmiths’ helpers received over $1 an horn.
On the Atlantic coast, furnacemen’s helpers averaged $0,929, while
tool and die makers’ helpers were at the bottom of the scale with
$0,754 an hour. Yards on the Gulf coast showed a difference of
$0,196 an hour between the extremes of the range— crane operators’
helpers (over 20 tons), $0,898, and coppersmiths’ helpers, $0,702.
Furnacemen’s helpers employed by Great Lakes yards received an
average base rate of $0,992 and topped the list in that region, whereas
general helpers at $0,812 were the lowest-paid workers in this class.
In Inland yards electricians’ and welders’ helpers, at $0,898 and
$0,774, respectively, were the occupations receiving the highest and
lowest base rates.
Other Groups
Rates paid to laborers by commercial shipyards in June 1943, like
rates paid to mechanics and helpers, had not been affected by any of
the zone agreements. On the Pacific coast, however, a rate of $0.88
an hour for laborers was provided for in the master contract. Conse
quently, the average rate for laborers on the Pacific coast, as of June
18, 1943, was $0,887. Base rates in the other regions, however,
varied as much for laborers as for other occupations. Gulf coast
yards paid the lowest rates, averaging $0,630, followed by Atlantic
coast and Great Lakes yards, with $0,754 and $0,780, respectively.
Inland yards paid laborers $0,787 an hour.
Rates paid to leadermen, foremen, and supervisors followed the
progression expected of supervisors with varying degrees of responsi
bility, ranging from $1,336 for leadermen to $1,610 for supervisors.
Learners— a classification which under present conditions allows
promotion eventually to a mechanic’s position—received average
base rates in most regions slightly above those paid to apprentices.
Apprentices are also in training eventually to achieve mechanics’
status. The training schedule, however, is more formalized and
thorough than that for learners and is designed to enable the partici
pant eventually to attain the status of an all-round mechanic in his
occupation. In most cases learners do not attain this competence
and therefore will probably not maintain the rate differential after
the war. Since the apprenticeship training period is lengthy (usually
3 or 4 years), progressive stages of advancement and corresponding
rates of pay have been formulated. In consequence, the average rate
is lower than that paid to learners— $0,815 as compared with $0,864.
30
Stabilization in W age Rates and W orking C onditions8
Partly because the industry expands more than most others during
time of war and as a result of experience gained during World War I,
the shipbuilding industry was the first in which an attempt toward
stabilization was made. The Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board
was established in 1917 during a period of chaos resulting from strikes,
caused among other things, by dissatisfaction over the lack of uni
formity in pay and other working conditions. Although the war
ended before the Board’s procedures were fullyfmatured, the experi
ence gained by the Board was invaluable fin |pointing [out^thef steps
to be taken to guard against a similar situation during the present
conflict.
As early as the summer of 1940 forward-looking representatives of
labor, management, and Government discussed the future of the ship
building industry in relation to wage crises, should the defense pro
gram be intensified and war be declared. The appointment of the
Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee, composed of representatives
of labor, management, the procurement agencies,9 and the National
Defense Advisory Commission, was announced on November 27,
1940.
The Committee differed from its predecessor during the last war,
in that management was represented, in addition to labor and the
interested procurement and administrative agencies. It was felt that
stabilized working conditions could best be established and main
tained only if those thoroughly familiar with the shipbuilding industry
were a party to all agreements. With the reorganization of the
Defense Advisory Commission, the Stabilization Committee was
included within the structure of the Commission’s successor, the
Office of Production Management, and subsequently within the War
Production Board.
The Committee set out to facilitate the establishment of standards
which would prevent disputes, instead of following the previously
accepted procedure of not interfering until a dispute had actually
arisen. By August 1941 labor, management, and the Government,
through zone conferences, had together evolved a system of zone
standards for four regions— the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts,
and the Great Lakes. Agreements were reached for each of the
regions on eight basic points: (1) The basic rate of pay for first-class
or standard skilled mechanics, (2) standard overtime provisions, (3)
second- and third-shift premiums, (4) outlawing limitation of pro
duction, (5) outlawing strikes or lockouts, (6) establishment of griev
ance machinery, (7) provision for a training program,10 and (8) the
duration of the agreement.
Definitions of “ skilled mechanics” and the establishment of uniform
zone rates for other than the first-class or standard mechanics were
omitted from the agreements and left to collective bargaining.11 The
original first-class mechanics’ rate established in the agreements
reached during 1941 for the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast, and the*•
• From material supplied by the Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee of the War Production Board.
• Composed of the Navy Department and Maritime Commission, and subsequently enlarged to include
the War Department.
i® Omitted from the Atlantic coast agreement.
u On the Pacific coast, the master agreement concluded by the A. F. of L. with a majority of yards
established rates for nearly all occupations.
31
Great Lakes region was $1.12 an hour. The Gulf coast rate was set
at $1.07 an hour.
Each of the zone standards contained a provision for automatic
wage adjustment of rates based on Bureau of Labor Statistics costof-living indexes. However, since the date for commencement and
the date for review differed from zone to zone, it appeared early in
1942 that adherence to these provisions would throw the regions
out of line with one another. The first national conference of the
shipbuilding industry—with representatives of labor, management,
and Government— was held in Chicago in April and M ay 1942, to
decide this issue.
The agreement reached at this conference and subsequently ratified
by the industry, established a single base rate for first-class craftsmen
($1.20) in the four shipbuilding zones. Future adjustments could
be made at regular periods after review; automatic cost-of-living
changes were abolished. Paul R. Porter, then chairman of the
Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee, remarked at that time that
“ the $1.20 rate which was established represented only about half of
the increase which many of the workers were entitled to under the
existing unexpired agreements. In the case, however, of some others,
it gave them somewhat more than would have been received at the
time, though less than would probably have come to them some
months later. On the whole, the Chicago amendments to zone
standards represented a large sacrifice by shipyard employees made
in support of the Presidents then newly amiounced program for
preventing inflation.,, 12
In conformity with the Presidents program to control the cost of
living, the zone agreements were further modified at Chicago in
April 1942 to encourage a 24-hour day, 7-day week production
schedule. Double pay for Sunday work on new construction was
abolished, and double pay was authorized only for the seventh work
day; rates for holidays and the sixth day worked were limited to
time and a half.
By the close of 1943 the zone standards were applied to nearly all
of the large private yards in the United States, though yards in the
Inland area and most small boat yards were not covered. Approxi
mately 90 percent of all wage earners in private shipyards were working
under conditions established by the agreement for their regions.
Though some major strikes occurred during the inception of the
program, and other minor labor disturbances have developed from
time to time, the basic purposes of the Committee— to effect the
maximum production with minimum disturbance in the industry—
have been achieved. There is also little doubt that, except for the
zone standards, the pressing need for skilled workers in a tight labor
market would have carried rates considerably above levels reached
at the time the Economic Stabilization Act was passed in October 1942.
Voluntary wage stabilization ceased at this point, and the second
phase of the program began. Executive Order 9250 established
jurisdiction over further wage adjustments in the National War
Labor Board. The Committee, however, was allowed to continue
such functions as were not inconsistent with the wage control of the
War Labor Board. The Board did consider delegating its powers to
u The excerpt is taken from an address made to the American Management Association, September 30,
1942.
32
the Committee, subject to Board review. However, a majority of
management members of the Committee felt that the voluntary
nature of the Committee’s authority in respect to other than rate
considerations would be destroyed by such action.
Early in 1943 the War Labor Board established a tripartite
Commission (labor, management, and public) to deal with shipyard
wage matters and appointed the head of the Shipbuilding Stabilization
Committee as chairman. Representatives of the United States Navy
Department and the United States Maritime Commission acted as
the other public members. The Shipbuilding Commission was re
organized 13 in August 1943, to replace the three public members
after protests by the labor members that the desire of the procurement
agency representatives to keep costs down would influence their
decisions.
Wage Review, July 1943
As the time for the annual wage review provided for by the
Chicago conference drew near, the Committee requested the War
Labor Board to assume initial jurisdiction. This was done and a
hearing was held in July 1943.
The I. U. M. S. W. A .1* requested a straight 9-percent increase to
compensate for cost-of-living increases; the Metal Trades Department
(A. F. of L.) did not specify the amount of increase winch they
desired. Both unions requested that job classifications and wage-rate
structures in the industry be reviewed and revised.
The former request was denied on the grounds that the workers in
the industry were among the highest paid in the country, that they
had already received jnore than the cost-of-living increase allowed
under the “ Little Steel” formula, and that existing wage levels pre
cluded any claim that increases were necessary to correct substandards
of living. The Board did, however, order a review of wage-rate
structures.
A t about the same time a Pacific coast zone conference was con
vened. The resulting agreements, approved by the National War
Labor Board on November 3, 1943, provided for increased rates for
some 30 occupations and classes on the Pacific coast. The new rates,
as approved, ranged from $1.35 for blacksmiths (heavy fire) to $0.88
for laborers (sweepers and cleaners). The previously established rate
of $0.88 an hour for production laborers was retained as a starting
rate and a maximum of $0.95 an hour was established for the occupa
tion. Labor and management estimated that though the increases
affected some 60,000 workers, the average base rate on the west
coast would be increased by less than 1 cent an hour. Increases in
rates to $1.20 an hour were approved for drillers and reamers, punch
and shear operators, holders-on, rivet heaters, riggers and plate
hangers, and slingers and hook tenders, on the basis of an agreement
by all parties that interchangeability of men in these occupations would
be allowed without restriction. Adjustments in rates for other occu
pations to which the interchangeability of work rule did not apply
were justified because of the change in duties brought about by new
methods of production. For example, the extensive change-over to
prefabricated parts weighing as much as 200 tons materially changed
the duties of yard teamsters.
is For further discussion leading to the reorganization see Monthly Labor Review, August 1944, pp.
403-404.
h The Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America (C. I. O.)
33
In pursuance of the July 30 order of the War Labor Board, the
Shipbuilding Commission requested the United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics in the late summer of 1943 to prepare detailed
tabulations of wage rates for all occupations in the shipbuilding
industry. From these data the Commission evolved tentative wagerate patterns for 41 of the major occupations on the Atlantic coast,
Gulf coast, and Great Lakes regions. The following table lists the
occupations designated as “ standard mechanics” in the three zones.
T able 20.— Occupations Designated as "Standard M echanics” b y the Shipbuilding
Com m ission o f the National W ar Labor Board
At Gulf Great
lantic coast
Lakes
coast
Occupation
A cetylen e p la n t operators _ .
A n glesm ith s. ...
_
_
. ,
B lack sm ith s _______
_ _
- .
B o a th u ild e r s ___
. __.
Boilermakers________________
Bricklayers or tile setters_____
Burners _ .
C arpenters _ ___
C aulkers ( w o o d ), _
......
C aulkers (m etal)
_
. , „
C em en t finishers__
Chippers_______________________
C h ipp ers and caulkers .
C o ld pressm en _
.
_
C om pressor operators.
C o p p e r s m it h s __
C rane operators__
D r ille r s ._ ___ __ _ _ ___
E lectricians
E ngineers (p ow erhou se)
G alvanixers_____ _
x
1X
2 X
1X
x
x
x
Insulators or pipe coverers____
Tron w orkers _
Joiners
____
___
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
TX
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
8x
x
X
X
X
x
Layer-out men______________
Machinists (outside and in
X
x
x
Maintenance men___________
X
X
X
X
x
M o ld e rs
..............
P ainters _ ..........
P ip e fit t e r s ____ _. ,
Riggers .
..... _ _
R iveters.
_ ...
_.
•X
X
X
side)
M illw righ ts
8 X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
. ...
*x
8 X
X
_
At Gulf Great
lantic coast
Lakes
coast
Occupation
X
X
' x
_
X
.........
X
.
Roll operators_______________
Sheet-metal workers_________
Shipfitters.
Shipw righ ts
_ _.
Straighteners
T a n k testers . _
T in sm ith s _
W elders
.
.
X
......
X
X
x
x
8X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 Other than heavy fire. 2 Other than heavy forger.
8 Except in Norfolk, Va.
* Types of cranes to which mechanic rates apply will be determined on an individual-case basis.
8 E x ce p t sou th o f B a ltim ore.
• E x ce p t in th e N e w Y o r k area, w here it is a p re m iu m trade.
1 Pipe fitters and plumbers.
8Includes tinsmiths.
Atlantic Coast
In addition, the Commission established patterns based on degree
of skill for semiskilled occupations on the Atlantic coast. Rates
were designated and were to be assigned to occupations on a case-tocase basis. Table 21 shows the newly established rates based on those
prevailing in the Atlantic region.
T able 21.— Rates Established b y the Shipbuilding Com m ission fo r Certain M ajor
Occupations on the Atlantic Coast
Rates
Rates approved by Commission
requested
South of
by the
New
New
Phila
Balti
Balti
I.U.M .S.W .A. England
York
delphia
more
(C. I. 0 .)
more
Class or grade
Standard mechanics:
_________ _
F irst c la s s ____
Secon d class.
________ . .
T h ir d class . ____
Handymen:8
F irst class _
S econd class.
Third class
Helpers:
$1.20
1.14
1.08
_
_ _ _
_________________
First class
Secon d class _
T h ir d class
„„
___
_____
Laborers...............................................
2.90
.90
$1.20
1.12
1.04
$1.20
J. 12
1.04
$1.20
1.12
1.04
$1.20
1.12
1.04
$1.20
1.12
1.04
.98
.92
.98
.92
.98
.92
.98
.92
.98
.92
.86
.88
.84
.88
.84
.88
.84
.84
.805
.805
.805
.805
.805
.80
.74
.68
.64
8 The union requested that this classification be eliminated, with all handymen doing third-class mechan
ics’ work, and requested a new classification with $0.98 minimum for certain semiskilled trades where em
ployees were not upgraded to skilled classifications.
2 Minimum.
34
The Commission also decided that existing premium classification
rates may be modified or a job may be reclassified as a premium trade
on a case-to-case basis. The effect of the new rates on incentive
systems was to be similarly decided, and adjustments made accord
ingly.
Gulf Coast
On September 8, 1944, the Shipbuilding Commission issued its
tentative conclusions for shipyards covered by the Gulf coast stand
ards. The basic hourly rates established for the major occupational
grades were as follows:
Mechanics:
First class-Second class
Third class-.
H andym en:
First class.Second class
Hourly
rate
$1.20
1. 10
1. 00
Helpers:
First class______
Second class
Laborers-------------------
Hourly
rate
$0. 75
.68
. 63
.90
.80
i Beginners’ rate, to be effective for 90 days.
The following were designated as premium occupations: Anglesmiths, blacksmiths (heavy forger), crane operators (gantry), loftsmen,
patternmakers, sign painters, and tool and die makers. Premium
pay is also to be received by employees doing specified types of weld
ing or burning, working with mineral wool or spun glass insulation,
or engaged in spray painting.
Various miscellaneous rates were established and uniform standards
for an apprentice up-grading program were developed.
Great Lakes
Basic rates of $1.12 and $1.04, in addition to the existing $1.20
rate for the first class, were established for “ standard skilled mechan
ics” in the Great Lakes region in M ay 1944. Two rates, $0.86 and
$0.93 per hour, were set for helpers, the latter rate to be paid only
in Detroit and Bay City, Mich., and Milwaukee, Wis., yards. Labor
ers were to receive $0.81 an hour except in the Detroit, Mich., Chicago,
111., and Manitowoc-Sturgeon Bay, Wis., areas, where the rates were
to be $0.90, $0.78, and $0.74, respectively.
Standards were also established for hiring-in rates, up-grading, and
incentive systems.
Pacific Coast
B y the spring of 1945, no change had taken place in the rates set
in November 1943 by the master agreement on the Pacific coast.
A t that time, a Nation-wide wage review for the summer of 1944 was
before the National War Labor Board. However, uniformity had
been accomplished on the west coast to a greater degree than seemed
likely in other regions.
35
Wage Review, December 1944
The hearing on a second review relating only to wages and working
conditions on the Atlantic coast was held on December 1, 1944, by
the Shipbuilding Commission of the War Labor Board, which was
given jurisdiction by the Shipbuilding Committee of the War Produc
tion Board, covering all issues except that pertaining to a general wage
increase. The wage issue is pending on a Nation-wide basis for
determination by the War Labor Board on the basis of a hearing held
on September 22, 1944.
Both the I. U. M. S. W. A. and the East Coast Alliance of Shipyard
Unions were represented. The A. F. of L. presented only wage
demands and therefore did not participate in the Commission’s
hearing. Eleven issues before the Commission for consideration
were as follows:
1. Equalization of the ratio of first-class mechanics to total wage
earners, as on the Pacific coast.
2. Up-grading and promotion standards equivalent to those on
the Gulf and Pacific coasts.
3. Severance pay or continuous-service bonus.
4. Night-shift premiums equivalent to those prevailing on the
Pacific coast.
5. Repair work differential such as exists on the Pacific coast.
6. Group insurance or sick leave.
7. Free hospitalization and wage payment for sickness or disat ility.
8. Elimination of North-South differential in Atlantic zone approvable rates.
9. Vacations based on annual earnings.
10. Overtime for Saturday and Sunday work as such.
11. Inclusion of the preceding issues in the Zone Standard Wage
Review.
A decision on these matters has not yet been issued and there is
some question as to whether the Commission or the Committee
should decide them, since they relate to other than wage issues.
No more apt conclusions concerning the results of shipbuilding
stabilization can be made than the statement by Paul R. Porter in
his chapter on the “ Shipbuilding Industry” in the forthcoming
Yearbook of American Labor.15 “ In several major respects the
shipbuilding industry, acting voluntarily, has served as a bellwether
for policies later established by the Government for all industries.
The limitation on wage advances voluntarily incorporated in the
zone standards in M ay 1942 were at least in part a basis for the man
datory wage controls provided for in Executive Order 9250. Shortly
before this, in September 1942, the President, in Executive Order
9240, accepted and applied to all war industries, the pattern developed
at a Pacific coast zone shipbuilding conference in January 1942 (and
extended to the whole shipbuilding industry at the National Ship
building Conference in Chicago in April) under which, in order to
further continuous operations, Saturdays and Sundays were abolished
as premium days (per se), and premiums were paid instead for the
sixth and seventh days in any workweek. Joint management-labor
u Dryden Press, Inc., New York. This Yearbook may be available by September 3,1945.
36
agreements in Pacific coast shipyards to control the migration of
workers were a forerunner of similar controls established by the
War Manpower Commission.
“ * * * the full, balanced story is that labor relations considered
as a whole were unusually satisfactory, that the pattern of voluntary
stabilization through collective bargaining agreements stood up well,
that through the tripartite Shipbuilding Stabilization Committee
and the Shipbuilding Commission of the War Labor Board both
labor and management shared with Government a responsible and
influential role in policy making and administration, and that the
production record was magnificent.”
,
M erchant Vessel Program 1 9 4 2 -4 4
Tonnage Delivered
When the full story of America’s wartime shipbuilding can be told,
much credit for the amazing records set must be given to the ship
yards that produced merchant vessels of all types, including Liberty
ships, Victory ships, regular “ C” -type cargo vessels, tankers, and the
many types of vessels converted to military use. Over 43K million
dead-weight tons of merchant ships of all types were delivered from
January 1942 to December 1944. Approximately 19^ million tons
were delivered in 1943 alone, more than twice the 8 million tons
delivered in 1942. In the peak production month of December 1943,
2,057,000 tons were delivered. Although deliveries in 1944 were 3
million dead-weight tons less than in 1943, the figure finally attained
(16}£ million dead-weight tons) actually represents a greater weight of
vessels. More than 22 percent of the total in 1944 were military
types which have a comparatively small dead weight (cargo-carrying
capacity). Measured in light displacement (the weight of water a
ship displaces when without cargo) the tonnage delivered in 1944
exceeds that of 1943 by 144,700 tons.
T able 22.—-Deliveries o f M aritim e Com m ission Vessels, January 1942—Decem ber 1944
[Source: U. S. Maritime Commission]
Dead-weight tons (in thousands)
Month
1942
1943
1944
Total, 12 months.................................................................
8,089.7
19,287.7
16,447.3
January.................................... ............... .........................
February.............................................................................
March....... .................................. ................................... .
April....................................................................................
197.6
289.6
291.6
401.6
1.007.7
1,236.5
1.513.2
1.603.3
1,211.0
1,381.5
1.549.1
1,600.4
M ay.....................................................................................
June................................................................... ...............
July....................................................................................
A ugu st..................................................................... .........
619.8
749.7
791.7
752.8
1.785.7
1.670.4
1.674.4
1.697.4
1.545.3
1.391.1
1,281.8
1.161.4
September........................... ...............................................
October................................................................................
November............ ................ .............................................
December............................................................................
1,016.0
889.8
892.5
1,197.2
1,662.9
1.681.5
1,698.2
2.056.5
1.187.2
1,333.0
1.434.3
1,371.2
37
History of the Program
In June 1941—before enemy action could deplete our shipping
pool— the United States Maritime Commission authorized the con
struction of over 300 Liberty ships, officially designated as the
EC2-S-C1. The vessel was specifically designed to enable the utili
zation of mass-productionjslnpyard methods. Standardization of
structural members, elimination of all but essential equipment, the
use of prefabricated parts, and the utilization of new materials not
only made large-scale production possible but materially reduced the
time necessary for the completion of each ship.
Although the Liberty ships were designed for general cargo pur
poses, emergencies have made it necessary to convert many to other
purposes, such as troop transport. In the over-all length of 441 feet
is installed a 9,000-horsepower steam reciprocating engine. The load
draft of 27 feet allows for sufficient fuel to provide for a cruising radius
of approximately 9,000 miles. While the dead-weight tonnage is
10,800, the ship’s net weight is 4,380 tons. A crew of approximately
50 men and 10 officers in addition to members of the gun crews and
their officers compose the personnel.
These “ ugly ducklings” have proven their worth. Not only have
they supplied the armed forces in all parts of the world with the nec
essary fighting materials but they have also shown that an adequate
vessel can be produced on a mass-production basis. Although such
methods were used to some extent during the last war, it was not until
this war that it was definitely proved that mass production of ships
could be successful. The feasibility of an all-welded cargo vessel
was proved with the Liberty ships also, most of which are of welded
and only some of riveted and welded construction. The Subcom
mittee on Ship Designs and Construction of the House Committee
on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, reported 16 that only 5 out of
2,570 Liberty’s have been lost as the result of structural failures.
The report further stated that some of the failures were beyond the
control of the yards that built the ships, such as unusual strains
brought about by operations in extremely cold waters.
Of the total of 43,800,000 tons of merchant ships delivered between
January 1942 and December 1944, Liberty ships made up nearly
27,000,000 tons, or 61.5 percent. More than 2,600 Liberty ships
will have been built by the end of the program, which should come in
1945. The delivery of 720 Liberty’s in 1944 brought the total at the
end of the year to 2,502.
With the end of the war in sight, and enemy submarines penned
up in the North Sea, thoughts of faster vessels and postwar trade
began to be considered in 1943. As a result, it was decided to build
a more intricate vessel— the Victory ship—which was designed to
provide a faster and better cargo ship for the transportation of war
materiel and troops and one more suited to postwar use. The first
Victory ship was launched on January 12, 1944, and was followed by
208 more in the year; about half of them were built for the military.
i* House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries (78th Cong., 2d sess.). Kept. No. 1685 (in
terim report pursuant to H. Res. 52), on Investigation of Plate Fractures on Welded Ships, June 20, 1944
(p. 6).
38
The Victory ship has an over-all length of 455 feet, a beam of 62
feet, and a loaded draft of 28 feet. It has a cruising range of 20,500
miles and a speed of 17 knots, as compared with the 10% knots of the
Liberty ship. The dead-weight tonnage of 10,850 tons is only 50 tons
greater than that of the Liberty ship. Three types of Victory ships
are being constructed. Inasmuch as the man-hour requirements vary
so much for the different types, each must be analyzed separately.
The VC2-S-AP2 and VC2-S-AP3 are both general cargo types.
The VC2-S-AP2 is turbine propelled, generating 8,500 horsepower as
on regular C -2 type cargo vessels. The VC2-S-AP3 has the same
type of turbine propulsion as the C -3 type cargo vessel, generating
10.000 horsepower. The VC2-S-AP5, although similar in exterior
design to the other types, is fitted out as a transport, and consequently
requires more man-hours to complete since facilities needed to ac
commodate troops must be added.
With the shift in emphasis from the emergency Liberty-ship
program of 1941-43, came not only the building of faster and more
complicated cargo vessels, but the conversion of cargo ships into
military types. For example, though 214 C-type vessels— general
cargo ships ranging from 412 to 459 feet—were delivered in^ 1944,
116, or more than half, had been built as, or converted to, military
types by the end of the year. In addition, the Maritime Commission
collaborated with the Navy Departmen t in the construction of combat
cargo and transport vessels. This program, in addition to an accel
erated tanker program, will continue to be pressed in 1945. Produc
tion of oceangoing tankers in 1944 (not counting those built as military
types) was 30 percent more than in 1943 and about 3% times the
number in 1942.
Man-Hour Requirements and Building Time
The Liberty Ship
The Liberty-ship program was concentrated in shipyards located
on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Gulf coast yards, however, also
participated but to a lesser degree.
B y October 31, 1944, each of 9 shipyards had delivered 100 or more
Liberty ships, and together they had delivered 2,104; each of 7 yards
had delivered less than 100 vessels and a total of 300. An average of
604.000 man-hours per vessel was required for the 2,404 vessels; in
yards delivering 100 or more, the average was 545,000 man-hours and
m yards delivering less than one hundred, 982,000 man-hours. The
maximum man-hour requirement for any one vessel was 3,159,000, the
minimum 219,000. (See table 23.)
39
Yard B showed the lowest man-hour requirements of any of the
yards— an average of 413,000 man-hours for each of 351 vessels.
Yard C was second with 438,000 man-hours for 330 vessels; yard C
also had the best record for any one ship, 219,000 man-hours. Yard
H, which delivered only 126 vessels showed an average of 478,000
hours per vessel, the lowest for any yard delivering less than 300
vessels.
All yards were able to make drastic cuts in the man-hours required
as more vessels were completed. Among the 4 yards which delivered
more than 300 vessels, yard B required 27.3 percent as many man
hours for the thirtieth group of 10 vessels as were required for the
first 10; yard D required 36.1 percent; yard C, 36.4 percent; and yard
A, 47.4 percent. Yard K, which had delivered 65 vessels, showed
the best improvement of all the yards for the first 50 vessels, requiring
only 36.5 percent as many man-hours for the fifth group of 10 vessels
as for the first group.
All yards required more than 1,000,000 man-hours for at least
1 ship, although in not all yards did the first vessel delivered require
the most man-hours. The average for the first 10 vessels in all yards
was 1,310,000. Thirteen yards had delivered more than 50 vessels,
and the average man-hours required for the fifth group of 10 vessels
was 661,090 or about half the average hours required for the first
10 vessels. Nine yards had delivered 100 or more vessels and re
quired an average of 540,000 hours for the tenth group of 10 vessels,
or 41.2 percent as many hours as were required for the first group.
The average for the twentieth group of vessels delivered by four yards
was 396,000 man-hours, and for the thirtieth group it was 384,000
or 29.3 percent of the average for the first 10 vessels.
The three yards that had delivered less than 50 vessels, delivered
20, 15, and 11 vessels, respectively, and then changed over to the
production of other types of ships. As would be expected, these
yards required a greater number of man-hours than any of the other
yards— 973,000 hours for 20 vessels in yard N, 1,384,000 hours for
15 vessels in yard O, and 2,261,000 hours for 11 vessels in yard P.
It is probable that the 219,000 man-hours required for one vessel
delivered by yard C will stand as the fewest number of man-hours
required to build a Liberty ship. None of the yards still building
Liberty ships have approached this figure and it is doubtful if any
of them will.
40
T able 23 .— Average M an-H ours Required To B uild E C -2 Cargo Vessels {Liberty Ships)
Delivered Through Oct. 3 1 ,1 9 4 4 , b y Yards 1
Average man-hours (in thousands) per vessel
Vessels in order of delivery dates
Yards having Yards having delivered 100 or more vessels
delivered—
Total,
all
Less
yards 100 or than
Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard
more
B
C
D
E
A
F
100
vessels vessels
604
545
982
566
413
438
559
700
723
Vessels Nos.—
1 to 10............................................ 1,310
11 to 20— .....................................
931
21 to 30...........................................
776
31 to 40...........................................
692
41 to 5 0 - .......................................
661
51 to 60..........................................
628
610
61 to 70.... ......................................
574
71 to 80..........................................
569
81 to 90..........................................
91 to 100.........................................
540
1,067
854
749
691
663
626
602
572
569
540
1,621
1,053
838
694
655
636
660
697
1,024
818
732
692
673
655
642
625
622
616
1,009
809
687
635
590
598
573
571
569
544
899
749
656
613
661
606
553
502
479
437
1,241
1,209
915
749
820
694
552
550
571
515
1,395
1,022
935
847
772
772
777
720
665
599
1,217
973
924
949
750
718
700
661
710
690
613
528
552
526
519
550
519
454
652
620
593
577
550
545
530
2 525
All vessels, average.............................
101 to 110—....................................
I ll to 120......................................
121 to 130. .....................................
131 to 140.......................................
141 to 150.......................................
151 to 160.......................................
161 to 170.......................................
171 to 180—....................................
181 to 190.......................................
191 to 200.......................................
524
488
485
490
475
473
454
421
402
396
524
488
485
490
475
473
454
421
402
396
608
593
581
567
559
549
537
527
517
515
493
456
379
331
321
319
314
311
313
301
418
401
377
392
402
385
368
361
348
348
510
494
498
487
501
492
458
420
413
421
201 to 210—...................................
211 to 22 0 .....................................
221 to 230.......................................
231 to 240______________ _______
241 to 250—.............. ....................
251 to 2 6 0 -...................................
261 to 270—....................................
271 to 28 0 ................................—
281 to 290—...................................
291 to 300—. ..................................
396
397
400
403
396
391
384
375
377
384
396
397
400
403
396
391
384
375
377
384
510
525
536
535
511
502
499
495
494
485
293
288
284
287
292
298
282
270
266
275
354
357
363
361
343
323
313
301
300
327
425
417
417
430
438
441
440
433
447
448
301 to 310.......................................
311 to 320_____ ' ........................
321 to 330—....................................
331 to 340—...................................
341 to 350—...................................
351 to 360—...................................
361 to 370.......................................
371 to 3 8 0 -...................................
381 to 39 0 .....................................
390
386
414
376
397
464
(5)
(«)
390
386
414
376
397
464
(5)
(«)
300
296
285
286
328
* 364
337
365
464
3 456
09
(9
494
496
493
466
466
474
479
442
•450
342 7
Man-hours per vessel:
Maximum..................................... 3,159
219
Minimum.....................................
1,596
219
3,159
529
1,199
409
1,164
247
1,095
219
1,532
406
1,596
406
1,529
525
Number of vessels delivered..............
2,104
300
384
351
330
306
186
173
See footnotes at end of table.
2,404
41
T able 23 .— Average M an-H ours Required To B uild E C -2 Cargo Vessels (Liberty Ships)
Delivered Through Oct. 31, 1944, b y Yards 1— Continued
Average man-hours (in thousands) per vessel—Continued
Vessels in order of delivery dates
All vpsspIs, avpragp
___ ..... ...
Vessels Nos.—
1 to 1ft
11 to 20.............................................
21 to 30............................................
31 to 40.............................................
41 to 60.............................................
51 to 60.............................................
fil to 7ft
71 to 80.............................................
si t o on
01 to Iftft
101 to
I ll to
121 to
131 to
110..........................................
120..........................................
130..........................................
140..........................................
Man-hours per vessel:
Maximum
.....
.M in im u m . ...
NTnmhp.r o f
v p s s p .Is
. . .
Yards having de
livered 100 or
more vessels—Con.
Yards having delivered less than 100 vessels
Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard
K
G
H
I
J
L
M
N
O
Yard
P
963
2,261
535
478
915
644
564
558
592
558
536
740 1,164 1,342 1,837 1,667 1,571 1,057 1,528 2,347
566
898 1,026 1,135 1,055 1,106
889 71,095 41,404
928
895
727
781
601
746
745
517
666
743
658
620
473
670
692
651
640
607
645
594 «570
452
707
577
422
700 7 601 4 553
660
450
418
403
430
409
392
390
395
414
398
470 8401
•562
722
867
897
891
973
648 8697
680
661
633
. . . _ . . . . . . 1,200 1,073 1,424 1,701 2,279 2,488 1,878 1,148
. . .
581
367
368
527
660
551
529
798
riplivp.rpd
_
138
126
1,384
110
72
65
61
56
20
1,714
950
3,159
1,404
15
11
i Excludes vessels of 1 shipyard which delivered only 2 EC-2 vessels; excludes all modified EC-2 vessels.
8 Average for 3 vessels.
•Average for 6 vessels.
41 vessel.
81 yard only.
•Average for 4 vessels.
7 Average for 5 vessels.
8 Average for 2 vessels.
•Average for 8 vessels.
The number of days between keel laying and delivery of Liberty
ships was reduced just as drastically as the man-hours (table 24).
The’ average time between keel laying and delivery for all 2,404 vessels
was 62 days. The greatest number of days for any 1 vessel was
required by yard F (333 days) and the fewest by yard C (21 days).
The average time for the 2,104 vessels delivered by the 9 yards that
delivered 100 or more vessels each was 57 days. The average for the
first vessel delivered in these 9 yards was 237 days, while the average
for the first 10 vessels was reduced to 205 days. The average for the
fifth group of 10 vessels was only 59 days and for the tenth group,
51 days. The 4 yards that had delivered as many as 200 vessels
required an average of 32 days for the twentieth group. Probably
because the yards were shifting to other types of vessels, these same
4 yards required more time (36 days) for the group of vessels Nos.
291 to 300.
Yard B had the best average, 41 days for 351 vessels, Yard C was
second with an average of 46 days for 330 vessels, and G was third
with an average of 48 days for 138 vessels. Yard A, which delivered
the greatest number of vessels (384), was nevertheless only fourth,
with an average of 55 days.
42
See footnotes at end of table.
43
T able 24 .— Average N um ber o f D a ys, from K eel L ayin g to D elivery, fo r E C -2 Cargo
Vessels (Liberty Ships) Delivered Through Oct. 31,1 9 4 4 , fry* Yards
-Continued
Average number of days per vessel—Continued
Yards having
delivered 100 or
more vessels—
Continued
Vessels in order of delivery dates
Yards having delivered less than 100 vessels
Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard
L
K
M
O
N
G
H
I
J
P
A]] vessels, average ,
First vessel
_ _ ....
.
Vessels Nos.—
1 tn in
___ _
11 to 20..............................................
91 tn an
31 to 4n
4.1 tn fin
fil tn fin
fi1 tn 7n
an
on
inn
in itn im
111 tn 12n
121 to 130 .......................................
71 tn
«1 tn
qi tn
131 tn 14n
Days per vessel:
M axim u m
M in im u m
... .. .
N u m b e r nf vessels delivered
.
_
_ _
_ ___
48
65
85
93
86
93
96
138
112
208
98
272
243
268
259
306
238
292
127
232
91
59
44
43
48
44
47
243
101
77
64
50
44
35
172
229
103
95
67
71
60 . 62
61
70
69
53
74
65
207
85
60
69
61
55
194
108
89
62
54
3 55
189
87
132
772
209
4 201
747
248
80
61
57
61
55
4 54
43
38
35
32
35
58
9 65
39
37
32
33
38
338
80
93
83
80
«58
99
29
304
30
253
44
297
49
269
44
332
50
257
49
292
71
173
60
299
125
138
126
110
72
65
61
56
20
15
11
i Excludes vessels of 1 shipyard which delivered only 2 EC-2 vessels; excludes all modified EC-2 vessels.
* Average for 3 vessels.
* Average for 6 vessels.
41 vessel.
* 1 yard only.
* Average for 4 vessels.
7 A verage for 5 vessels.
9Average for 2 vessels.
9 Average for 8 vessels.
Considerable interest has been evidenced as to why the average time
needed to build Liberty ships has varied so considerably between
yards. Actually no one reason alone can be cited as the controlling
one and any answer is complicated by the need for considering the
specific characteristics of each and every yard, its organization and
administration, and the exigencies of its development.
In general, however, the figures cited above have shown without a
doubt that among the most important factors affecting man-hour
requirements to build Liberty ships has been experience. The yards
which were the first to enter the field have had the time and experience
to develop additional time-saving techniques.
Experience alone would not be decisive in the absence of other
favorable circumstances, however. The yards reporting lowest man
hours per vessel were constructed on sites, generally waste land,
whichf permitted expansion and allowed room for the inclusion and
efficient arrangement of all necessary facilities at the location of the
yard. Fabricating shops and subassembly yards could be directly
connected with the ways upon which the final assembly job is done.
44
This close proximity of the essential components enabled the yards to
fabricate much larger sections than would have been possible had the
prefabricating facilities been at some distance either from the yard
or from the ways. Transportation problems were eliminated and
more efficient sequence planning was made possible through the
extensive use of prefabricated sections. The use of land facilities close
by made it possible to assemble the parts in large sections, thereby
decreasing the difficulties of final assembly. As a result, the ships
could be moved off the ways more quickly. While total man-hours per
vessel are the best indication of over-all efficiency, the number of days
required from the laying of the keel to delivery is a good indication
of one aspect of efficiency— sequence planning.
Another condition which contributed materially to the low man
hours in some yards was the size and carrying capacity of the cranes.
Eighty-ton lifts were used in these yards, as compared to the more
usual 20-ton cranes, and made possible the fabrication of entire deck
houses on land, even before the keel was laid down. Use of two .of
these monsters made possible the prefabrication of sections weighing
considerably over 80 tons.
One final point which helped achieve lower hours was the use of
all-welded construction as contrasted to the combined riveted and
welded method. Since the latter requires the punching, drilling, and
reaming of thousands of holes and a much finer lining-up job, the
man-hours per vessel are higher than in yards building a comparable
number of ships and using all-welded construction.
The Victory Ship
Although the Victory-ship program has been in existence less than
1 year, enough vessels (209) have been delivered to warrant a pre
liminary analysis of man-hour requirements and building time.
During the coming year approximately 300 more of these vessels will
be delivered by United States shipyards.
As of December 31, 1944, six shipyards had together delivered 30
AP2,s, 74 AP3’s, and 105 AP5’s. Man-hour requirements for 126 of
these vessels are shown in table 25. By October 31, 1944, 3 shipyards
had delivered 74 of the general cargo type vessels (VC2-S-AP3),
requiring an average of 850,000 hours per vessel. Yard C required
the maximum number of hours for any 1 vessel, 1,630,000 hours and,
although producing only 10 vessels, also required the fewest hours,
642,000. Yards A and B each produced 32 vessels. The average of
the last 2 vessels produced by yard A was 36.7 percent less than the
average of the first 5, as compared with a decrease of 25.5 percent for
yard B.
By October 31, 1944, 3 shipyards had delivered 36jof the V C 2 -S AP5 (transport) type. The average for the 36 was 1,526,000 man
hours or 79.5 percent more than the average for the 74 general cargo
type ships VC2-S-AP3. The maximum required for this type was
2,627,000 man-hours by yard E and the minimum was 1,011,000, by
yard D.
Although only 16 vessels of the general cargo type VC2-S-AP2
had been delivered, indications are that man-hour requirements for
this type may soon be nearly as low as for Liberty ships. In fact, the
average of 668,000 man-hours for the 16 vessels was lower than the
average for the first 769 Liberty vessels built by 10 different yards,
45
T a b le 25 ,— Average N um ber o f M an-H ours and o f D a ys, From K eel Laying to D elivery,
fo r Construction o f V ictory Ships Delivered Through Oct. 3 1 ,1 9 4 4 , by Yards
VC2-S-AP3 (general cargo)
Average man-hours (thousands)
Vessels In order of delivery dates
Average days (keel laying to
delivery)
Total,
all
yards
Yard
A
Yard
B
Yard
O
Total,
all
yards
All vessels, average.............................
850
866
811
926
103
Vessels Nos.—
1 to 5.............................................
6 to 10....................................................
1,100
846
841
788
735
711
1741
1,118
949
880
808
771
732
2 708
1,042
878
802
770
699
691
2 776
1,140
712
129
116
105
94
84
82
178
Maximum per vessel..........................
Minimum per vessel..... .....................
1,630
642
1,273
694
1,285
673
1,630
642
Number of vessels delivered..............
74
32
32
10
11 tn 1/5
1fitn 2 0
91 t o 25
9fi to an
an to as
Yard
A
Yard
B
Yard
O
108
84
149
120
159
139
99
2 90
107
96
95
81
67
65
*65
180
60
136
86
109
60
180
129
74
32
32
10
113
114
106
100
VC2-S-AP5 (transport)
Average man-hours (thousands)
Vessels in order of delivery dates
All vessels, average__________ _____
Vessels Nos.—
1 to 5
fitn in
11 to 15
i n t o 2n
____
Maximum per vessel______________
Minimum per vessel____ __________
■NTnmhftr o f vassals dalivarad
Average days (keel laying to
delivery)
Total,
all
yards
Yard
D
Yard
E
Yard
A
Total,
all
yards
1,526
1,429
1,662
1,596
138
130
147
151
1,689
1,876
1,457 2 1,364
148
141
(8)
138
141
133
1101
149
144
156
2137
Yard
D
Yard
E
Yard
A
1,792
1,811
1,456
1,426
1,288
(1
3)
2
11,094
<3>
2,029
2,627
1,011
1,011
2,627
1,395
1,887
1,339
167
88
155
88
151
140
167
133
19
10
7
36
19
10
7
36
(s)
VC2-S-AP2 (general cargo)
Vessels in order of delivery dates
Average man-hours
(thousands)
Total, all
yards
Yard C
Average days (keel laying
to delivery)
Y ardF
Total, all
yards
YardO
Y ardF
All vessels, average...............................
668
560
807
105
107
103
Vessels Nos.—
1 to 5...............................................
6 to 10..............................................
772
4 611
595
»517
849
2 704
112
4 95
114
1100*
109
*90
Maximum per vessel.............................
Minimum per vessel.............................
988
497
635
497
988
574
117
81
117
90
114
81
Number of vessels delivered................
16
9
7
16
9
7
1 Average for 4 vessels.
2 Average for 2 vessels.
21 yard only.
« Average for 6 vessels.
46
and was only 64,000 hours, or 10.6 percent greater than the average
for the 2,404 Liberty ships delivered by October 31,1944. The reason
for this is that the VC2-S-AP2 is practically a sister ship to the Lib
erty, being about the same weight and basically similar in design.
To be sure, many refinements in design have been incorporated in the
Victory, as well as a more powerful engine which increases its speed.
However, the fundamental resemblance which the general cargo
Victory bears to the Liberty has made it possible for yards to carry
over to the building of Victory’s the improved techniques developed
in the construction of Liberty ships at a time when building efficiency
on these ships was at its highest.
The number of days required to build^Victory ships ranged from
180 days required by yard C to produce an AP3 vessel to 60 days re
quired by yard B for the same type vessel. The average for the 74
AP3 type vessels was 103 days, as compared with 138 for the AP5
vessels and 105 for the AP2’s.
Maritime Commission Shipyard Employees’ Suggestion Program
On August 11, 1942, the United States Maritime Commission
approved a policy of awarding prizes to shipyard employees who make
important suggestions for promoting efficiency and curtailing waste—
thus also providing the individual worker with a real sense of his
stake in the war.
The program provides that employees be encouraged to suggest
methods for increasing efficiency, curtailing waste, and promoting
health, safety, housing, and transportation; and that for each sugges
tion accepted and put into practice the labor-management committee
of the yard is authorized to reward the worker with a minimum
consideration of $25 and a maximum of $100. Each yard partici
pating in the program is limited to a monthly total of $250 in cash,
or the equivalent in war bonds at issue value, after deduction of all
withholding taxes. A labor-management committee is not obliged
to make any awards if the quality of suggestions does not warrant.
If labor-management committees believe more meritorious sugges
tions have been made during a month than can be rewarded by the
total they are authorized to spend, they may forward the additional
suggestions to the Maritime Commission’s Shipyard Efficiency
Awards Committee in Washington with a recommendation as to the
amount of the award. This Committee, after reviewing the sugges
tion, may approve further awards of $25 to $100. Provision is also
made for certificates of merit for meritorious suggestions, and cita
tions for suggestions resulting in outstanding accomplishments.
All shipyard employees, except corporate officers, are eligible for
the awards authorized. The subject matter of suggestions is not
limited to increasing efficiency, curtailing waste, and promoting health,
safety, housing, and transportation—suggestions involving change
in design of vessels, however, are not included. Employees making
suggestions involving patentable devices surrender no right to pursue
applications for patents, but the Maritime Commission and its con
tractors and subcontractors may use such devices without payment
of any fees, licenses, royalties, or other expense for the duration of the
emergency and 6 months thereafter.
47
From the beginning of the program, August 11, 1942, to December
31, 1944, over 3,000 suggestions were reported. They resulted in a
saving of over 31 million man-hours and 44 million dollars— sufficient
time and money to build and pay for several additional Liberty ships.
The total amount in cash and bonds awarded during the period stated
was approximately $143,000.
Workers’ suggestions have ranged from the comparatively simple
to the highly technical. One of them is reproduced here to give an
idea of their quality.
L A B O R -M A N A G E M E N T C O M M I T T E E S U G G E S T IO N R E P O R T TO T H E
U N I T E D S T A T E S M A R I T I M E C O M M IS S IO N
N a m e o p y a r d : ____________________________________________________________________________
S u b m i t t e d b y : _____________________________________________________________________________
P r i z e a w a r d e d : ___________________________________________________________________________
M o n t h f o r w h i c h a w a r d w a s m a d e : _______________________________________________
S h o r t t i t l e o f S u g g e s t i o n : Pipe-cutting tool_____________________________ ______
P u r p o s e : T o cut a pipe into two parts, and bevel cuts at the same time.
D e s c r i p t i o n : A specially-made die with two cutting edges.
O l d m e t h o d : A die with only a straight cutting edge was used in the machine
N e w m e t h o d : A double-edge cutting die is used in the pipe-cutting machine.
R e s u l t s a n d s a v i n g : This has speeded up the work to such an extent that all
pipe necessary for the ships can be cut in one shift, making a saving of 432
man-hours per hull.
D a t e p u t i n t o o p e r a t i o n : _____________________________________________________________
Among the host of ideas were those for burning attachments,
unionmelt attachments, boiler-testing procedures, and a milling at
tachment for an air drill.
Important also, along with the saving in hours and dollars, is the
boost this program has given to employee morale. The fact that
individual workers have been given an opportunity to earn extra
money is, on the whole, rather insignificant. Much more important
is the fact that their ideas are being used for the purposes stated in
the policy of the program. This has given them a feeling of more
direct and vital participation in the war effort than they would
otherwise have experienced, in spite of their already great production
achievements as workers.
The D estroyer Escort
—M a n -H ou r
Requirements and B uilding
T im e
One of the most important parts of our naval construction program
during 1943 and early 1944 was the destroyer-escort program. The
speedy., hard-punching destroyer escort was developed for convoy duty
and for use in combating the submarine menace. Although in June
1944 the destroyer escort program was drastically curtailed and
many contracts canceled, a large number of these vessels have taken
their places with the fleet and have done a spendid job.
As of October 31, 1944, 10 private shipyards had together delivered
348 destroyer-escort vessels, for which man-hour requirements are
presented in table 26. The average number of man-hours required
for these 348 vessels was 873,000. The average for the first 3 vessels
delivered in all yards was 1,265,000 man-hours, as against an average
of 954,000 man-hours for the third group of 3 vessels, or 75.4 percent
48
of the hours required for the first group of 3. For the 6 yards that had
delivered 15 or more vessels, the average for the fifth group of 3 vessels
had been reduced to 878,000 man-hours. The average for the tenth
group, delivered by 4 yards, was still lower— 818,000 man-hours.
Only 2 yards had delivered as many as 75 vessels and the average
for this twenty-fifth group of 3 vessels was 618,000 man-hours, less
than half the average for the first 3.
Yard A, which had delivered 91 vessels— more than any of the
others—had the fourth lowest average of man-hours required (749,000);
yard E had the lowest average, 508,000 hours for 17 vessels; and yard
G was second with 538,000 hours for 12 vessels. Yard I had the highest
average, 1,329,000 hours for 12 vessels.
An average of 194 days from keel laying to delivery was required
for the 348 vessels. Yard G had the best record, with an average of 88
days for only 12 vessels; yard B was second with an average of 157
days, or four-fifths more for 75 vessels. Yard J was highest, with
an average of 405 days for 8 vessels.
T a b l e 26 .— Average M an-H ours Required fo r Construction o f D estroyer-Escort Vessels
Delivered Through Oct. 319 1944 , b y Yards
Average man-hours (in thousands) per vessel
Vessels in order of delivery dates Total,
Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard
all Yard Yard
E
B
C
F
D
G
H
I
J
yards A
All ve«R«ls, ftvprftgfi__
873
749
681 1,139 1,084
Vessels Nos.—
i to a
_ _ 1,265 1,129 1,519 2,141 1,346
4t.ofi
995 1,174 1,798 1,213
1,062
7 to 9
________
954
848 1,025 1,413 1,149
1ft to 15
___ 912
930 1,455 1,145
817
13 to IS
799
786 1,408 1,099
878
1ft to 18
___ 882
758 1,227 1,067
763
1ftt.o21
______
733 1,086 1,050
762
908
689 1,050 1,014
749
876
22 to 24...................................
?.Ktn 97
___ 824
655
988
921
730
2» to 3ft
_____ 818
921
677
732
943
31 to 33
34 to 36
_____
37 to 39...................................
40 to 42...................................
43 to 45...................................
46 to 48
49 to 51...................................
S5 to 54
55 to 57...................................
58 to 60....................................
777
828
937
916
822
673
689
668
677
668
627
780
753
726
697
649
677
668
670
684
61 to 63
64 to 66...................................
67 to 69....................................
70 to 72...................................
73 to 75....................................
76 to 78....................................
79 to 81....................................
82 to 84....................................
as to 87
aatoflft
91 to 93...................................
629
600
589
584
618
(3)
(3)
703
714
699
692
683
712
728
722
731
795
2 814
Man-hours per vessel:
Maximum .
Minimum
T
Number of vessels delivered.......
* Average for 2 vessels.
* 1 vessel.
* 1 yard only.
8
(3)
(3)
91
538
794 1,329
727 1,852
511 1,434
447 1,175
414
852
476
698
1453
563
546
507
537
687
740
871
876
960
1,539
1,327
1,264
1,186
1,149
886
1786
654
921
905
947
949
636
603 1,137 1,254
553 1,240 1,144
498 1,007 1,087
906
465
835
555
547
789
557
804
795
526
»
497 2 800
486
478
476
552
2,224 1,187 1,621 2,224 1,390
630
457
782
396
888
348
508 1,202
«*
75
61
45
963 2,180
396
666
17
15
595
487
12
951 1,714
654 1,166
12
12
1,266
786
8
49
T able 27.— Average N um ber o f D ays from K eel L aying to D elivery,for Destroyer-Escort
Vessels Delivered Through Oct. 3 1 ,1 9 4 4 , b y Yards
Average number of days per vessel
Vessels in order of delivery dates Total,
Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard Yard
all Yard Yard
F
B
C
D
E
Q
H
I
J
yards A
194
200
157
191
164
191
248
88
256
355
405
301
305
336
243
214
238
201
238
185
236
232
174
240
180
172
228
211 2 129
217
158
336
316
262
241
240
215
200
188
180
160
215
193
227
164
191
188
168
203
189
176
141 i 214
177
114
107
109
319
293
259
194
174
131
86
62
72
241
249
245
287
280
333
384
421
344
442
1442
99. tn 94
9Rt.n 97
ORto sn
266
269
242
225
200
194
199
176
157
161
SI tn
34 tn
37 tn
40 tn
43 tn
4fi tn
40 tn
50 tn
55 tn
5ft tn
144
148
162
179
177
143
138
135
143
147
200 3 124
157
188
151
202
187
138
183
131
121
162
109
158
147
120
104
166
177
100
140
126
133
194
151
145
146
138
158
165
113
119
162
197
244
All vessels, average......................
Vessels Nos. —
1 to 3.......................................
4 to 6.......................................
7 to 9.......................................
in tn 19.
13 tn is
I fitn 1ft
10 to 01
33
3fi
30
40
45
48
51
54
57
fiO
fil tn fi3
64 to 66 _ _______
67 tn fiO
70 tn 70
73 tn 75
7fi tn 7ft
70 tn 81
80 tn 84
85 tn 87
88 tn 00
01 tn 03
_
___
.
_______
__
143
159
164
167
186
(«)
(5)
(8)
(8)
(8)
(«)
177
183
187
187
189
185
177
167
151
159
4 163
Days per vessel:
103 4 162
134
140
146
182
Minimum..............................
25
283
116
284
25
322
100
208
101
242
153
318
166
129
57
228
228
263
263
290
290
Number of vessels delivered.......
348
91
75
61
45
17
15
12
12
12
8
First vessel
___
1Average for 2 vessels.
2 1 vessel in group delivered in 54 days.
81 vessel in group delivered in 25 days.
* 1 vessel.
81 yard only.
Frequency o f Industrial In ju ries in Shipyards
, 1943 and
1 9 4 4 17
Data are presented in table 28 showing the frequency rates of
industrial injuries in private shipyards and United States navy yards
for 1943 and the first 10 months of 1944. The rates as presented repre
sent the average number of industrial injuries per million man-hours
worked.
During 1943, the annual rate for all private shipyards was 31.2
injuries per million man-hours worked. Yards with Maritime Com
mission contracts had a rate of 32.6, as compared with 28.8 for private
shipyards with Navy Department contracts. The rate of 15.2 for
United States navy yards was lower than the rate for either group of
private yards.
During the first 10 months of 1944, the rates for all groups of yards
were much lower than the 1943 annual rate, and they have been de
17 From data supplied by the Industrial Hazards Division of the IT. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
50
creasing steadily since July. United States navy yards still had the
lowest rates, ranging from 11.2 in January to 15.2 in August. Private
shipyards with Navy contracts showed rates ranging from 18.5 in
October to 25.0 in May, while the rates in yards with Maritime Com
mission contracts were from 21.3 in September to 28.0 in May.
The 10-month rate for all private shipyards was 23.8. Though ship
building is in several aspects more hazardous than most other indus
tries and has, besides, undergone tremendous expansion and reorgani
zation during the war, the injury frequency rate in private shipyards
for the first 10 months of this year was lower than in 33 manufacturing
industries out of a total of 89 for which data are reported.
T a b l e 28.— Industrial In ju ry Frequency Rates fo r Private Shipyards and United States
N a vy Yards, Year 1943 and January-O ctober 1 9 4 4 1
[Source: Industrial Hazards Division of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics]
1943
Type of contract and
region
1944
Rate
An Jan- Jan Feb
nual uary- uary
ruary March April May June July
rate October
Au
gust
Sep
tem Octo
ber
ber
31.2
23.8
23.7
24.2
24.5
24.5
26.8
24.9
25.1
23.2
20.5
20.4
32.6
32.6
31.0
33.9
24.1
24.5
27.5
20.3
25.9
18.1
25.5
21.5
19.2
32.0
17.8
25.5
23.9
21.4
29.3
24.4
25.5
26.0
18.5
28.8
24.3
25.2
27.3
21.6
26.5
18.3
28.0
32.1
22.8
29.3
16.8
25.6
34.8
19.6
24.3
17.4
25.0
32.2
17.7
26.6
18.3
23.4
30.1
17.6
24.0
17.4
21.3
25.3
16.9
22.2
16.3
21.5
24.3
17.6
23.3
12.4
28.8
22.7
21.0
22.4
22.8
23.5
25.0
23.8
25.2
23.0
19.0
18.5
64.3
24.6
21.1
48.0
39.6
48.8
27.6
20.7
26.6
32.4
40.4
34.7
22.0
9.4
32.1
28.6
49.8
22.1
18.8
17.4
27.7
36.6
37.2
16.3
9.3
24.3
28.5
39.2
20.1
18.6
23.3
33.0
28.8
67.9
20.5
8.5
34.7
19.3
50.4
22.5
18.9
17.7
27.4
37.3
62.3
20.4
8.7
33.4
48.0
46.0
26.4
19.8
17.3
22.4
35.3
29.8
28.7
9.4
30.4
32.6
38.9
24.3
20.0
14.2
21.7
34.7
48.7
25.6
7.9
32.5
33.2
73.7
27.1
20.7
16.8
26.2
35.1
54.0
29.0
10.1
33.6
27.8
41.6
27.0
18.5
14.5
22.3
33.5
41.0
25.4
10.3
38.9
31.5
54.3
28.9
20.9
15.4
22.1
40.6
38.1
25.2
10.3
38.0
26.8
40.5
29.5
17.0
12.1
23.2
33.7
24.1
20.7
-9.3
42.1
13.5
56.0
18.4
17.6
12.9
26.6
29.9
24.2
18.9
8.9
8.7
12.4
57.7
13.4
15.0
13.6
18.6
47.5
United States navy
yards *........................... 15.2
13.2
11.2
12.4
11.9
13.4
13.2
13.5
13.4
15.2
14.8
14.4
Privato shipyards, total..
With U. S. Maritime
Commission con
tracts......................
Atlantic region *........
Gulf region................
Pacific region............
Great Lakes region...
With U. S. Navy De
partment contracts.
Naval District No.—
1..............................
3..............................
4________________
5..............................
6________________
7________________
8________________
9________________
11______________ _
12__ _____________
13............................
1Average number of industrial injuries per million man-hours worked. Rates for private shipyards are
computed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics and for navy yards, by the Navy Department.
2Includes yards located on the eastern coast of Florida.
* Government owned and operated.
Labor D isputes in Private Shipyards, 1943 and 1 9 4 4 18
In view of the large number of workers employed in shipyards,
relatively few days of work have been lost because of labor disputes.
There were 86 strikes and lockouts in private shipyards in 1943 and
63 during the first 6 months of 1944 (table 29). The 86 strikes in
1943 accounted for a loss of approximately 206,000 man-days, while
the 63rstrikes during the first 6 months of 1944 resulted in a loss of
is From data supplied by the Industrial Relations Division of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
51
nearly 127,000 man-days. The total of strike idleness in the 18month period was less than 0.06| percent* of|the][ available^working
time.
The greatest number of workers involved in a single stoppage in
1943 was approximately 17,000 at the Cramp Shipbuilding Co. in
Philadelphia, over the discharge of a union representative. The
greatest number of man-days lost in a single stoppage was about
25,500 at the Alabama Dry Dock Shipbuilding Co. (Mobile, Ala.)
because of a racial dispute. Within the first 6 months of 1944,
nearly 14,000 were out on strike at the Cramp Shipbuilding Co., with
a loss of over 40,000 man-days of labor on account of the discharge of
a group of spray painters. The dispute was later submitted to arbi
tration.
T able 29.— Strikes and Lockouts in Private Shipyards, 1943 and}January-June 1944
1943
January-June 19441
Kegion
Strikes and
lockouts
Man-days
idle
Strikes and
lockouts
Man-days
idle
A ll regions
86
205,861
63
126,940
N orth A tlantic
Ronth A tlan tia. _ ___
G u lf
Paoifio
G reat Lalras
I n la n d ____
37
1
23
11
11
3
96,479
230
77,212
10,522
21,187
231
25
3
15
4
9
7
64,142
4,444
34,471
5,914
16,468
1,501
___ .... . . .
_ _______
__
i Preliminary and subject to change.
U nion Agreem ents
Not only was shipbuilding among the first of American industries,19
but it also was among those in which American workers organized
early in the nineteenth century to improve working conditions.20
The first recorded strike among shipbuilders took place in 1817 at
Medford, Mass., in protest against the employer’s determination to
abolish the “ grog privilege” customary at that time (drinks being
furnished to workmen at different intervals during the day). In
1832, Boston shipwrights and caulkers asked overtime pay for all
horns worked over 10 per day, taking part in the more general strike
of building-trades workers for this limitation.^ Although the Boston
shipyard workers were defeated through a lockout, the system ad
vocated was adopted later in the ports of New York and Philadelphia
after a struggle by the workers there. The movement for the 10-hour
day won public support which culminated in a proclamation by Presi
dent Van Buren establishing a 10-hour day for all workers employed
in United States navy yards.21
At the beginning of the First World War, the International Brother
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America and
other metal-trades unions (A. F. of L.) were well established in a
number of yards. As the shipbuilding program expanded the union
gained strength, and became especially strong on the west coast.
m Weeden,
William B.: Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1789, vol. I, p. 167.
McNeill,rGeorge E., editor: The Labor Movement, 1887, p. 333.
Ibid., p. 94.
52
After the close of the war, with the resultant decrease in employment,
union strength faded. Following several disastrous strikes, open-shop
conditions prevailed in most yards.
The Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America
was organized in -1933 after the revival of the shipbuilding industry
in 1932. After two strikes the union became firmly intrenched at
the New York Shipbuilding Co., Camden, N. J. In 1936, after
organizing other Atlantic coast yards it joined the C. I. O. There
after it became the dominant east coast union. The A. F. of L.,
which had maintained its organization on the west coast, made rapid
strides there though the C. I. O. organized three of the major yards in
the Los Angeles area. In the Great Lakes and Gulf coast areas the
A. F. of L. dominates the field.
In 1940 it was estimated that 60 percent of the yards and 55 per
cent of the shipyard workers were operating under union agreements.
Most of this strength was concentrated along the Atlantic coast. The
percentage of all shipyard workers covered by union agreements rose
to 75 percent by 1942 and to over 92 percent by January 1944; practi
cally all of the wage earners in private shipyards were working under
some kind of union agreement.
The majority of shipyard workers are covered by three types of
union status— closed shop, union shop, and membership maintenance.22
In January 1944 about half of the employees under collective-bargain
ing agreements were covered by closed-shop provisions, and most of
the remaining were under union-shop and membership-maintenance
agreements.
Although bilateral written agreements are not made with ship
yards operated by the Federal Government, workers in the navy
yards are permitted to join unions and representatives of these unions
negotiate with appropriate Government officials regarding wage rates
and other matters pertaining to working conditions.
Nearly two-thirds of the workers in private shipyards under col
lective bargaining arrangements in October 1944 were covered by
agreements signed by the A. F. of L. Metal Trades Council— chiefly
the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and
Helpers of America. Almost a third were with the C. I. O. Industrial
Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America; and about 5
percent were working under agreements signed by independent
unions, most of which are affiliated with the East Coast Alliance of
Independent Shipyard Unions of America.23
22 Under closed-shop agreements all employees must be members of the union at the time of hiring and
must continue to be members in good standing throughout their period of employment. Under union-shop
agreements, employers may hire any applicant, but the workers must become union members as a condition
of continued employment. Maintenance-of-membership agreements contain clauses which provide that
all employees who remain members after a specified period, or who later voluntarily join the union, must
retain their membership for the duration of the agreeement as a condition of continued employment. *
23 From data supplied by the Industrial Relations Division of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Selected Bibliography 1
Employment
Volum e and Trend
St e p h e n , A. M u r r a y .
Full Employment in British Shipyards. (In Engineering, London, v. 158,
October 13-20, 1944, pp. 294-295, 304-305.)
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o p L a b o r , B u r e a u o p L a b o r S t a t is t ic s .
Employment in the Shipbuilding Industry, 1935-43. Prepared by Edward
M . Gordon. (In M onthly Labor Review, v. 58, M ay 1944, pp. 948-966.
Reprinted as Serial N o. R. 1648.)
Employment, Labor Turnover, and Absenteeism in Private Shipyards, 1943.
Prepared by Eleanor V . Kennedy. (In Monthly Labor Review, v. 58,
June 1944, pp. 1178-1187. Reprinted as Serial N o. R . 1665.)
Estimated Labor Requirements for the Shipbuilding Industry under the
National Defense Program. Mimeographed series compiled with refer
ence to requirements at specified dates, by the Division of Construction
and Public Employment, 1940-41.
Estimated Labor Requirements for the Shipbuilding Industry. Mimeo
graphed series compiled with reference to requirements at specified dates,
by the Division of Construction and Public Employment. March 15,
1942, to date. (Circulation of individual reports restricted during period
to which the estimates refer.)
Labor Requirements for Shipbuilding Industry under Defense Program. (In
M onthly Labor Review, v. 52, March 1941, pp. 5 7 1 -5 7 6 ; v. 55, June
1941, pp. 1375-1380.)
Turnover and Absenteeism
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o p L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s .
Absenteeism in Commercial Shipyards, 1942. Prepared by Eleanor V .
Kennedy. Bulletin N o. 734. 14 pp.
5 cents. (Reprinted from
M onthly Labor Review, v. 56, February 1943, with additional data.)
Effect of Unannounced Quits on Absenteeism in Shipbuilding. (In Monthly
Labor Review, v. 56, June 1943, pp. 1047-1048.)
Employment, Labor Turnover, and Absenteeism in Private Shipyards, 1943.
See under Volume and Trend, above.
Characteristics o f Labor Group
N orth ru p, H . E .
Negroes in a W ar Industry; the Case of Shipbuilding.
ness, v. 16, July 1943, pp. 160-172.)
(In Journal of Busi
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o p L a b o r , B u r e a u o p L a b o r S t a t is t ic s .
Characteristics of Recently-Hired Shipbuilding Labor. Prepared by Orrin
R . Mann. (In Monthly Labor Review, v. 52, M ay 1941, pp. 1142-1145.)
Characteristics of Shipbuilding Labor Hired during First 6 Months of 1941.
Prepared by Orrin R . M ann and S. F. Miller. (In M onthly Labor Review,
v. 54, February 1942 pp. 393-397.)
Industrial Sources of Shipbuilding Accession in the Pacific Northwest. (In
Monthly Labor Review, v. 55, October 1942, pp. 735-736.)
Sources of Labor Supply in W est Coast Shipyards and Aircraft-Parts Plants.
B y Toivo P. Kanninen. (In Monthly Labor Review, v. 55, November
1942, pp. 926-931.)
W om en in Shipyards
O p p e n h e im , B.
W om en Workers in the Shipyards. (In Marine Engineering, Philadelphia,
v. 48, April 1943, pp. 22 1-222, 224.)
1 Copies of BLS serial reprints are available without charge, as long as the supply lasts, from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Washington 25, D . C. Prices for Department of Labor bulletins which are in print are
indicated. Copies of these are obtainable only from the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 25, D . C. Single issues of the Monthly Labor Review are for sale by the
Superintendent of Documents; price 30 cents per copy.
(53)
54
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s .
Employment of Women in Shipyards, 1942. Prepared by Eleanor V .
Kennedy. (In M onthly Labor Review, v. 56, February 1943, pp. 277-282.)
-------- W o m e n ’ s B u r e a u .
Employing Wom en in Shipyards. Prepared by
Bulletin N o. 19 2-6. 1944. 83 pp: 10 cents.
Dorothy
K.
Newman.
Hours and Earnings
United States
S a y r e , R o b e r t A.
Earnings and Hours in Shipbuilding. (In Conference Board Management
Record, v. 4, January 1942, pp. 5-6 .)
U n it e d S t a t e s C o n g r e s s , H o u se o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s .
Expediting Maritime Commission Shipbuilding. Hearings, 76th Cong.,
3d sess., before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, on H .
R. 10380, a bill to expedite National Defense by suspending, during the
national emergency, provisions of law that prohibit more than 8 hours’
labor in any 1 day of persons engaged upon work covered by contracts of
United States Maritime Commission, and for other purposes, September 5,
1940. Washington 25, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1940.
19 pp.
U n it e d St a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r St a t is t ic s .
Basic Wage Rates in Private Shipyards, June 1943. Prepared by Albert A .
Belman. (In Monthly Labor Review, v. 59, August 1944, pp. 3 8 5-40 5.
Reprinted as Serial No. R . 1679.)
Earnings and Hours in Private Shipyards, 1936 and 1937. Prepared by
Jacob Perlman, Orrin R . Mann, and others. (In Monthly Labor Review,
v. 47, September 1938, pp. 500-517. Reprinted as Serial N o. R . 788.)
Hourly Earnings in Private Shipyards, Spring of 1942. Prepared by Willis
C. Quant. Bulletin N o. 727. 24 pp. 10 cents. (Reprinted from M onthly
Labor Review, v. 55, August 1942 and October 1942, with minor changes.)
Foreign Countries
E n g in e e r in g a n d N a t io n a l E m p l o y e r s ’ F e d e r a t io n , S h ip b u il d in g ^ E m p l o y e r s ’ F e d e r a t io n , a n d U n io n s ’ N e g o t ia t in g C o m m it t e e .
Report of Joint Investigation on Working Hours.
Press, Ltd., 1922. 92 pp.
London, Whitefriars
U n it e d St a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r St a t is t ic s .
Labor Conditions of Shipyard Workers in Sweden.
(In Monthly Labor
Review, v. 46, January 1938, pp. 9 8 -9 9 ; from report of William W . Cor
coran, United States Consul at Goteborg in collaboration with Knut
Lignell, September 30, 1937.) See also issue for June 1938, pp. 1444-1446,
which abstracts M r. Corcoran’s report on W age Scale for Shipyard and
M etal Workers in Sweden, 1938.
Shipbuilding Wages in France, 1938. (In Monthly Labor Review, v. 47,
July 1938, pp. 148-149.)
Wages in Foreign Countries, 1925 and 1926. (In Senate Document N o. 9,
71st Cong., 1st sess. Washington 25, U. S. Government Printing Office,
1929.) See statements presented by Hon. Samuel N . Shortridge on “ Ship
building,” pp. 252-253.
Wages in Shipbuilding Trades in the Netherlands, 1930 to 1936. (In Monthly
Labor Review, v. 45, November 1937, p. 1234.)
Health and Safety2
C a l i f o r n ia , I n d u s t r ia l A c c id e n t C o m m is s io n .
Shipbuilding Safety Orders Effective April 1, 1921.
Sacramento, State
Printing Office, 1921. 61 pp.
C o l l e n , M o r r i s F .; D y b d a h l , G e r h a r d t L .; and O ’ B r i e n , G e o r g e F .
A Study of Pneumonia in the Shipbuilding Industry. (In Journal of Indus
trial Hygiene and Toxicology, v. 26, January 1944, pp. 1-7.)
G r e a t B r it a in , H om e D e p a r t m e n t .
Report of the Committee on Accidents in Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing.
London, H . M . Stationery Office, 1924. 68 pp.*
* Other articles on this subject in the Monthly Labor Review appear in the issues for December 1943,
pp. 1151-1154; March 1944, pp. 531-533; and April 1944, pp. 761-763.
55
U n it e d St a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o p L a b o r , B u r e a u o p L a b o r St a t is t ic s .
Causes and Prevention of Injuries from Falls in Shipyards. Prepared by
Frank S. M cElroy and Arthur L. Svenson. {In Monthly Labor Review,
v. 57, October 1943, pp. 766-772. Reprinted as Serial N o. R . 1582.)
Causes of Accidents Involving Faulty Handling of Materials and Equipment
in Shipyards. Prepared by Frank S. M cElroy and Arthur L. Svenson.
{In M onthly Labor Review, v. 59, September 1944, pp. 533-537.
Re
printed as Serial N o. R . 1685.)
Industrial Injuries in Shipyards.
Prepared by Max D . Kossoris.
{In
Monthly Labor Review, v. 57, July 1943. pp. 5-8 .)
Shipyard Injuries and Their Causes, 1941. Prepared by Frank S. M cElroy
and George R . McCormack. Bulletin N o. 722. 34 pp. 10 cents. (Re
printed from Monthly Labor Review, v. 55, October 1942, with additional
data.)
Importance of Minor Injuries in Shipyards. Prepared by Frank S. M cElroy
and George R. McCormack. {In Monthly Labor Review, v. 59, August
1944, pp. 25 1-263. Reprinted as Serial^No. R.|1680.)
U n i t e d S t a t e s N a v y D e p a r t m e n t a n d U n i t e d S t a t e s M a r i t i m e C o m m i s s io n .
Minimum Requirements for Safety and Industrial Health in Contract Ship
yards. Washington 25, U . S. Government Printing Office, 1943. 35 pp.,
including forms.
Industrial Relations 3
General Discussions
D o u g l a s , P a u l H ., and W o l f e , F. E.
Labbr Administration in the Shipbuilding Industry during the W ar. {In
Journal of Political Economy, v. 27, Part I, March 1919, pp. 14 5-18 7;
Part II, M a y 1919, pp. 362-396.)
B u r n a p , C l e m e n t F.
Labor in Shipyards in the United States. Hanover, New Hampshire, Dart
mouth College. Thayer School of Engineering, Student Paper Series,
N o. 1, 1939. 26 pp .; bibliography.
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s .
History of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, 1917 to 1919. By
Willard E . Hotchkiss and Henry R . Seager. Bulletin N o. 283, “ Labor as
Affected by the W ar” series, 1921. 107 pp. 15 cents.
U n it e d S t a t e s O f f ic e o f P r o d u c t io n M a n a g e m e n t , L a b o r D iv i s i o n .
Ships for Freedom.
1941, 22 pp.
Washington 25, U . S. Government Printing Office,
Stabilization o f W orking Conditions
N a t io n a l G u il d s L e a g u e .
Workers, Control in Engineering and Shipbuilding; a Plan for Collective
Contract. By G. D . H . Cole. London, Labour Publishing Company, Ltd.,
1921, 14 pp.
U . S. D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r St a t is t ic s .
New Shipbuilding Stabilization Agreement. {In Monthly Labor Review, v.
55, July 1942, pp. 85 -8 6.)
U n it e d S t a t e s N a t io n a l R e c o v e r y A d m in is t r a t io n .
Code of Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Industry
as Approved July 2 6 ,1 9 3 3 , by President Roosevelt. Washington 25, U . S.
Government Printing Office, 1933, 12 pp.
History of the Code of Fair Competition for the Shipbuilding and Ship
Repairing Industry. B y J. Newton Whittelsey. Work Materials No. 70.
Washington, 1936. 515 pp.*
* Brief news items and comments appear in Business Week, The Nation, New Republic, Review of
Reviews, Time, and Fortune. For example, Business Week has the following articles: Blow Softened—
East Coast Shipbuilding Workers Win Increase, April 22, 1944, p. 104; Graveyard Goes—Midnight to
Dawn Shift Discontinued by Another West Coast Shipyard, August 19,1944, pp. 100-102; Jobs StabilizedWest Coast Agreement Approved by N W LB, November 13, 1943, p. 102; Kearny Precedent—Signal for
Drive by Union Along Whole Coast, September 27,1941, p. 66; No on Ship Pay—NW LB Declares Workers
Already Are above Little Steel Formula, August 14, 1943, p. 79; Shipyard Crisis—Strike that Has Tied
up Bulk of Naval Building on Pacific, May 17,1941, pp. 47-48; Sundayless Week—West Coast Shipyards
and Workers Agree on Formula for 168-Hour Schedule, January 31,1942, p. 66.
56
U . S. S h ip b u il d in g L a b o r A d ju s t m e n t B o a r d .
Decisions as to Wages, Hours and Other Conditions. Mimeographed and
issued with regard to shipyards of Delaware River and Baltimore, Febru
ary 14, 1918, 14 pp; North Atlantic and Huc^on River, April 6, 1918,
15 p p .; Pacific Coast, October 1, 1918, 23 pp. (printed); Great Lakes,
April 19, 1918, 10 p p .; Newport News Shipbuilding and D ry Dock Com
pany, March 7, 1918, 8 p p .; San Francisco Bay and Columbia River and
Puget Sound Districts, November 4, 1917, 16 p p .; and South Atlantic
Coast and Gulf, March 4, 1918. 9 pp.
Piece Rates for Riveting, Chipping and Caulking, Drilling, Reaming and
Countersinking. Fixed by the Board for steel shipyards of Atlantic Coast
and Gulf Districts, February 25, 1918, corrected to February 1, 1919.
Washington, 1920. 24 pp.
U . S . S h ip p in g B o a r d , D iv is io n o p I n d u s t r ia l R e l a t io n s .
Codification of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board Awards, Deci
sions, and Authorizations. Compiled by J. Caldwell Jenkins. Washing
ton 25, U . S. Government Printing Office, 1921. 341 pp.
Labor D isputes; Strikes
U . S. C o n g r e s s , H o u s e o p R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s .
Labor Practices of Employers of Labor in the Shipbuilding Industry. Hear
ings before subcommittee of Committee on Labor, House of Representa
tives, 74th Cong., 1st sess., on H . J. Res. 331, July 19, 25, 26, 29, August
6, 13, 20, 1935. Washington 25, U . S. Government Printing Office, 1935.
161 pp.
Citron Resolution Relating to Investigation of Labor Practices of Employers
of Labor in the Shipbuilding Industry. Hearings before subcommittee
of Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, 75th Cong., 1st
sess., on H . J. Res. 262. March 29, April 1, 2, 5, 7, 1937. Washington
25, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1937. 190 pp.
-------- S e n a t e .
W est Coast Shipbuilding Strike. (In Hearings before Special Joint Com m it
tee Investigating the National Defense Program, 77th Cong., 1st sess.,
pursuant to S. Res. 71. Part 4, pp. 1121-1265. Washington 25, U . S.
Government Printing Office, 1941.)
U n i t e d -S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o p L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s .
The Camden Shipbuilding Strike. (In Labor Information Bulletin, v. 2,
October 1935, pp. 1 0 -1 1 ; December 1935, p. 9.)
Union Agreem ents
T r a d e A g r e e m e n t s in t h e S h ip y a r d s .
(In Survey, v. 38, September 1, 1917, pp. 488-489.)
U n it e d St a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o p L a b o r , B u r e a u o p L a b o r S t a t is t ic s .
Union Agreements in Shipbuilding. (In M onthly Labor Review, v. 51,
September 1940, pp. 597-613.)
Working Agreements for Shipbuilding Industry. (In Monthly Labor
Review, v. 53, October 1941, pp. 880-881.
Working Agreements for W est Coast Shipbuilding Industry. (In Monthly
Labor Review, v. 52, M ay 1941, pp. 1162-1164.)
Production
H istory— General
B r it is h A s s o c ia t io n p o r t h e A d v a n c e m e n t o p S c ie n c e .
Britain in Depression. A record of British industries since 1929. London,
Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1935. See Shipbuilding, by H . M .
Hallsworth, pp. 245-258.
H u t c h i n s , J o h n G. B.
The American Maritime Industries and Public Policy, 1789-1914. Cam
bridge, M ass., Harvard University Press, 1941. 627 p p .; bibliography.
See pp. 583-606.
57
J a m e s , F. C y r i l .
Cyclical Fluctuations in the Shipping and Shipbuilding Industries. Phil
adelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1927. 99 pp.
K e l l y , R o y W i l l m a r t h , a n d A l l e n , F r e d e r i c k J.
The Shipbuilding Industry. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1918.
302 pp.
H istory— W artim e 4
G il b e r t , H o r a c e N .
The Expansion of Shipbuilding. (In Harvard Business Review, v . 22,
Winter 1942, pp. 156-170.)
S m i t h , J. R u s s e l l .
Influence of the Great W ar upon Shipping. N ew York, Oxford University
Press, 1919. 357 pp.
S h ip b u il d in g in W a r P e r io d s C o m p a r e d .
(In Marine Engineering, v. 48, January 1943, pp. 124-126.)
U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n g r e s s ,5 H o u s e o p R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
Emergency Cargo Ship Construction. Hearings before a subcommittee of
House Committee on Appropriations, 77th Cong., 1st sess., on H . J.
Res. 77. Washington 25, U . S. Government Printing Office, 1941. 25 pp.
U n it e d S t a t e s M a r it im e C o m m is s io n .
America Builds Ships. The Program of the .United States Maritime Com
mission. Washington, 1940. 64 pp. Lithographed.
U n it e d S t a t e s S h ip p in g B o a r d E m e r g e n c y F l e e t C o r p o r a t io n .
Building the Emergency Fleet. A Historical Narrative of the Problems and
Achievements of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Cor
poration. Prepared by W . C. M attox. Cleveland, Penton Publishing Co.,
1920. 279 pp.
Statistics
R e t a il C r e d it C o m p a n y .
Shipbuilding; History and Background.
September 1931, pp. 95-110.)
(In Industry Report, Atlanta, v. 6,
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o p C o m m e r c e , B u r e a u o p t h e C e n s u s .
Biennial Census of Manufactures. See also Ship and Boat Building, in
Census of Manufactures. Washington 25, U . S. Government Printing
Office.
Census of Shipbuilding (including boat building), 1916 and 1914. Pre
pared by Everett Spring. Washington 25, U . S. Government Printing
Office, 1919. 55 pp.*
* Many articles of general interest appear in the American Review of Reviews, the Atlantic, Harper’s
Magazine, Fortune, Newsweek, etc. A few of these are—
B oakh art, R .
We Build Ships. (In Atlantic, v. 171, April 1943, pp. 37-42.)
Our Industrial Victory, Ships for the Seven Seas. (In National Geographic Magazine, Sep
tember 1918, pp. 165-229.)
Ow e n , R .
Where the Clippers Were Bom—New England Craftsmen are Building Wooden Ships for the
Navy. (In New York Times Magazine, November 23, 1941, pp. 6-7 ff.)
Ross, I.
Here Come the Ships. (In Harper’s Magazine, v. 185, August 1942, pp. 322-328.)
« For testimony and findings by Congressional committees, refer to other hearings and reports, as follows:
78th C ongress, 1st Session .
Merchant Shipping, Part 23, pursuant to S. Res. 6, extending S. 71 of 77th Cong. (In Hearings
before Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program, January 12, March 2,
8, 27, 28, 30, April 3, 1944, pp. 9937-10283.)
76th C ongress, 1st Session .
West Coast Shipbuilding. Hearings re H. R. 1011, 2870, 3040, and 5787, before Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, April 6 and June 13,1939. 32 pp.
76th C o n g r e s s , 3d S e ssio n .
Expediting Naval Shipbuilding. Report No. 2257, by House Committee on Naval Affairs, 1940.
ShipEuilding and Shipping. Report No. 10, part 8, pursuant to S. Res. 71, by Senate Special
Committee Investigating^theJNational Defense Program, 1943. 76 pp.
65th C o n g r e s s , 2d S e ssio n .
Hearings Directing the Committee to Investigate all Matters Connected with the Building of
Merchant Vessels under Direction of U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, and
Report Its Findings to the Senate. Hearings on S. Res. 170, before Senate Committee on Com
merce, December 21,1917, to January 30, 1919. 85 pp.
68
U n it e d S t a t e s C e n s u s O f f ic e .
Report on the Shipbuilding Industry of the United States. Prepared by
Henry H all. 10th Census, 1880, vol. 8, 276 pp. Washington, 1884.
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s .
Employment in the Shipbuilding Industry, 1935-43. S ee under Volume
and Trend, p. 53.
W orlds
Sh ip p in g
O u tpu t for
1918.
(In
Pan American Magazine, v. 28,
April 1919, p. 344.)
A rea Studies
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s .
Impact of World W ar I on the Hampton Roads Area. Prepared by Caro
line B. Reeves. B LS Historical Studies N o. 69, Washington 1944. 63
pp. Mimeographed.
Industrial Area Statistical Summaries.
A mimeographed series compiled
by Post-W ar Division, Employment and Occupational Outlook Branch,
on war and prewar employment and industry, for use by local groups
formulating plans for the postwai period: Bath Shipbuilding Area,
Sagadahoc County, Maine, Summary N o. 1, June 1943, 13 p p .; Houston
Area, Harris County, Texas, Summary N o. 23, February 1944, 18 p p .;
Los Angeles Area, Los Angeles County, California, Summary N o. 9,
December 1943, 23 pp .; Manitowoc Area, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin,
Summary N o. 6, September 1943, 12 p p .; Pascagoula Shipbuilding Area,
Jackson County, Mississippi, Summary N o. 4, August 1943, 13 p p .;
Providence Area, Providence County, Rhode Island, Summary N o. 13,
January 1944, 13 p p .; Wilmington Area, New Hanover County, N orth
Carolina, Summary N o. 12, November 1943, 13 p p .; San Diego Area,
Summary N o. 20, August 1944, 52 pp.
M ethods and Standards
B a k e r , E l ij a h , 3 d .
Introduction to Steel Shipbuilding. New York, M cGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Inc., 1943. 242 pp.
F e r g u s o n , W i l l i a m B.
Shipbuilding Cost and Production Methods. N ew York, Cornell Maritime
Press, 1944. 232 pp.
K e n n e d y , W il l ia m M .
Industrial Management Principles in Shipyard Practice. (In Industrial
Management, v. 53, September 1917, pp. 803-817.)
R i n a l d o , P h i l i p S., a n d F i t t o n , H e r b e r t F .
Material Control in the Shipbuilding Industry. (In Harvard Business
Review, v. 8, October 1929, pp. 78-87.)
U n it e d S t a t e s S h ip p in g B o a r d E m e r g e n c y F l e e t C o r p o r a t io n .
The Building of a Wooden Ship. Prepared by Charles G . Davis. Phila
delphia, 1918. 127 pp.
Structural Steel for Ships. Standard Practice Recommended by American
Steelmakers. Philadelphia, 1918. 15 pp.
Worker Training
Em ergency Training , General
U n it e d S t a t e s F e d e r a l B o a r d f o r V o c a t io n a l E d u c a t io n .
Apprentice Training for Shipyard Trades. * Prepared by Benjamin H . Van
Oot. Bulletin N o. 160. Washington 25, U . S. Government Printing
Office, 1932. 37 pp.
Emergency Training in Shipbuilding; Evening and Part-Time Classes for
Shipyard Workers. Bulletin No. 3, Washington 25, U . S. Government
Printing Office, 1918. 71 pp.
U n it e d S t a t e s S h ip p in g B o a r d E m e r g e n c y F l e e t C o r p o r a t io n .
Emergency Training and Training Course for Shipyard Instructors.
pared by Charles R . Allen. Philadelphia, [1918]. 3 vols.
Pre
Opportunities in Shipbuilding for the Physically Handicapped. Philadelphia,
1919. 30 pp.
The Training of Shipyard Workers. Report on the Corporation’s work in
this line. Philadelphia, 1919. 88’ pp.
59
W a r P r o d u c t io n B o a r d .
An Introduction to Shipbuilding. Washington 25, U . S. Government Print
ing Office, 1942. 80 pp. (Reprint of 1941 edition, published by Bethlehem
Steel Co.)
Occupational M aterial
U n it e d S t a t e s S h ip p in g B o a r d E m e r g e n c y F l e e t C o r p o r a t io n .
Aids to Employment Managers and Interviewers on Shipyard Occupations
with Description of Such Occupations. Philadelphia, 1918. 147 pp.
U n i t e d S t a t e s W a r M a n p o w e r C o m m i s s io n , B u r e a u o f M a n p o w e r U t i l i z a
t io n .
Intra-industry Transfer and Upgrading Suggestions for Occupations in the
Shipbuilding Industry. Job Family Series N o. 1 -4 2 . Washington 25,
April 1943. 74 pp. Multilithed.
Occupations Related to Occupations in the Shipbuilding Industry. Job
Family Series N o. 1 -6 2 . Washington 25, June 1944. 42 pp.
U n it e d S t a t e s W a r P r o d u c t io n B o a r d .
Preliminary Job Descriptions for the Ship and Boat Building and Repair
Industry. Prepared by the Federal Security Agency, Social Security
Board. Washington 25, April 1943. Mimeographed. 360 pp.
Wom<en
C law so n , A ugusta H .
Shipyard Diary of a W om an Welder.
181 pp.
New York, Penguin Books, 1944.
G r e a t B r it a in , M in is t r y o f L a b o u r a n d N a t io n a l Se r v ic e .
Wom en in Shipbuilding.
London, 1943.
32 pp.
W i l k e n s o n , V . S.
From Housewife to Shipfitter.
1943, pp. 328-337.)
(In H arpers Magazine, v. 187, September
Individual Yards
B o n n i, R.
Training at the Prairie Shipyard of the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company.
(In Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, v. 33, November 1944,
pp. 35 8-361.)
Training Department in 'E ach Shipyard. (In Manual Training, v. 19,
December 1917, pp. 138-140.)
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r , D iv is io n o f L a b o r S t a n d a r d s , F e d e r a l
C o m m it t e e o n A p p r e n t ic e s h ip .
Report on Apprenticeship System of Manitowoc Shipbuilding Company.
1941. 10 pp. jMultilithed.
Report on Apprenticeship System of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry
Dock Company. Washington 25, December 1940. 23 pp. Multilithed.
U n it e d S t a t e s W a r M a n p o w e r C o m m is s io n .
Training to Make Ships. Dravo Neville Island Plan for Training.
Curran. Washington 25, 1944. 4 pp.
Report on Training at South Portland Shipbuilding Corporation.
ton 25, February 1943. 9 pp.
B y Mary
Washing
Other Sources o f Information
Handbooks; Glossaries
C o o k , C. W .
Steel Shipbuilder’s Handbook; an Encyclopedia of the Nam es of Parts, Tools,
Operations, Trades, Abbreviations, etc., used in the Building of Steel Ships.
New York, Longmans, Green and Company, 1918. 123 pp.
E d d i n g t o n , W a l t e r J.
Glossary of Shipbuilding and Outfitting Terms. New York, Cornell Maritime
Press, 1943. 435 pp.
C r iv e l l i, A l b e r t F .
Shipfitter’s Manual.
145 pp.
New York, Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1942.
60
P ease, F . F orrest.
Modern Shipbuilding Terms Defined and Illustrated.
Lippincott Co., 1918. 143 pp.
Philadelphia, J. B .
U n it e d S t a t e s N a v y D e p a r t m e n t .
Nomenclature of N aval Vessels.
Office, 1941. 52 pp.
Washington 25, U . S. Government Printing
U n it e d S t a t e s S h ip p in g B o a r d E m e r g e n c y F l e e t C o r p o r a t io n .
400 Shipyard Terms and Definitions.
Philadelphia, 1918.
30 pp.
Organizations and Trade Journals (partial list)
I n d u s t r ia l U n io n
C a m d e n , N . J.
of
M a r in e
and
S h ip b u il d in g
W orkers
of
A m e r ic a ,
Publishes annual proceedings (since 1934), an annual officers’ report, and
the journal Shipyard Worker.
I n t e r n a t io n a l B r o t h e r h o o d o f B o il e r m a k e r s , I r o n
H e l p e r s o f A m e r ic a , K a n sa s C i* y , K a n s .
S h ip B u il d e r s a n d
Publishes reports and The Boilermaker’s Journal.
M a r in e E n g in e e r in g a n d S h ip p in g R e v i e w .
Published monthly by Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation, Phila
delphia.
S h ip b u il d e r s C o u n c il o f A m e r ic a , N e w Y o r k C i t y .
Publishes annual reports (since 1937) and also the bimonthly illustrated
booklet Ships.
U n i t e d S t a t e s M a r i t i m e C o m m i s s io n , W a s h i n g t o n 25.
Publishes annual reports (since 1936).
U. S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING O F FICE : 1 9 4 5
@FedFRASER