The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
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 Frances Perkins, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Isador Lubin, Commissioner (on leave) A . F. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner + Effect o f Incentive Payments on H ou rly Earnings Bulletin J^o, 742 [R e p r in te d fr o m t h e M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , M a y 1 9 43 ] UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1943 For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, U . S. Governm ent Printing Office Washington, D. C. - Price 5 cents LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL U n it e d S tates D epartm ext of L abor , B u r e a u of L abor S tatistics , Washington} D. (7., May 24> 1943. The S ecretary of L abo r : I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on the effect of incentive payments on hourly earnings. Three manufacturing industries—machine manufacture, cotton-textile manufacture, and primary fabrication of nonferrous metals—are covered in this analysis of hourly earnings of time and incentive workers in identical occupa tions. Data of this kind are of value in wage negotiations and in the stabilization of wages. The report was prepared by Edith M. Olsen, under the supervision of Robert J. Myers and H. M. Douty, of the Bureau’s Division of Wage Analysis. A. F . H in r ic h s , Acting Commissioner. Hon. F rances P e r k in s , Secretary of Labor. CONTENTS Summary______________________ Scope of study-------------------------Nature of basic material___ Machinery manufacture________ Cotton-goods manufacture______ Fabrication of nonferrous metals. n Page 1 1 2 3 7 8 Bulletin 7s[o. 742 o f the U nited States Bureau o f Labor Statistics [Reprinted from the M onthly L abor R eview , May 1943.] EFFECT OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS ON HOURLY EARNINGS Sum m ary AN ANALYSIS of statistics on hourly earnings of time and incentive workers in identical occupations in three important industries— machinery manufacture, cotton-textile manufacture, and primary fabrication of nonferrous metals—reveals a definite and substantial margin in favor of the workers paid under incentive plans.1 The data on median earnings show that this advantage ranged from 12.1 per cent in the primary fabrication of nonferrous metals to 18.2 percent in the manufacture of machinery. These findings are of significance for wage negotiations and in the stabilization of wages. They imply the maintenance of substantially higher levels of production under incentive systems than under systems of time payment. The higher earnings of incentive workers may result from more intensive effort by the workers themselves, or from greater efficiency on the part of management, or from both of these influences. There are many kinds of incentive plans, ranging from simple piece-rate systems to complicated base-rate and bonus systems. Although the material available did not permit analysis by type of particular “ system,” it is probable that such analysis would reveal significant differences in the amount of earnings derived by workers under different methods of incentive pay, other things being equal. Fragmentary evidence available for individual industries suggests that the incentive-wage advantage is to be found in both union and nonunion establishments, in both the North and the South, and among woman workers as well as men. In roughly half of the occupations in which comparisons were made, incentive workers were earning, per hour, between 10 and 20 percent more than the time workers. Differences of less than 5 percent or more than 30 percent were but rarely encountered and appeared, in most cases, to reflect deficiencies in the statistical data available for analysis. Scope o f Study The primary object of most systems of incentive wages is to augment the productivity of labor. This is accomplished by establishing a more or less direct relationship between output and earnings, so that the application of greater energy, dexterity, or skill will be rewarded by an increase in pay. The incentive worker may be expected to work harder and more efficiently than the time worker, because the incentive payments permit him to benefit directly from a high level of production. How 1 See also Monthly Labor Review for July 1942: Incentive-Wage Plans and Collective Bargaining. (Reprinted, with additional data, as Bulletin No. 717.) 5 3 1 4 8 4 ° — 43 1 2 EFFECT OF INCENTIVE PAY ON EARNINGS ever, if the installation of an incentive system is accompanied by increased management efficiency, such as the introduction of up-todate machinery, improved productive processes, and better supervision and training, this may account for some of the increased individual production of incentive workers. The result of these efficiencies may be that workers can increase their production and earnings without commensurate increases in actual work effort. How much advantage in earnings incentive workers should enjoy as a result of their special efforts has been the subject of much dis cussion among production managers and of many controversies be tween employers and unions. In recent months it has become apparent that this is also an important question of public policy. In scores of wage disputes in war industries Federal arbitrators have been required to make definite monetary allowance for the extra effort induced by incentive payment. During the first 6 months of wage stabilization it was repeatedly necessary to determine whether the lower wages of workers paid at hourly rates constituted “inequalities” and justified wage increases. The Executive Order of April 8, 1943, specifically mentioned the payment of incentive wages as one of the circumstances under which wage adjustments might be authorized. There are many varieties of incentive devices, ranging from the straight piece rates common in the needle trades to elaborate structures of base rates and bonuses. Some of these systems are designed to stimulate only a moderate increase in the intensity of effort, whereas others are intended to induce the very maximum of sustained produc tivity. Even the same “system,” moreover, may be interpreted very differently in individual establishments. In the light of these facts it is not surprising that the earnings of different groups of incentive workers vary widely. Most of the published material contrasting time and incentive earnings relates to the experience of individual companies. This material is typically of the “before and after” variety; that is, it reports changes in earnings in particular establishments following the installation of wage incentives. The significance of such information, although often considerable, is impaired somewhat by its selective character. The material presented in the present brief article, although deficient in certain respects, has the advantage of covering a large number of establishments within each industry. NATURE OF BASIC MATERIAL The material available for the present analysis consists of average hourly earnings of time and incentive workers in selected occupations in three important industries; namely, machinery manufacture, cotton textiles, and the primaiy fabrication of nonferrous metals. The three industries covered differ widely with respect to product, processes, general level of wages, and dominant type of incentive system. Both time work and incentive payments are common in all of these industries, many of the individual occupations being paid on a time basis in one plant and on an incentive basis in another. All of the basic material used in this analysis was collected in con nection with regular wage surveys in the respective industries. For present purposes, however, it has been subjected to additional sifting and checking in order to increase the comparability of the respective EFFECT OF INCENTIVE PAY ON EARNINGS 3 groups of workers.2 Thus, several distinctive industry branches in which one method of wage payment predominates have been excluded from the analysis. Many plants employing a particular method of payment have also been excluded because they were not balanced by similar plants using the alternative method. As a result of such selection, the plants represented by incentive workers and those represented by time workers are believed to be reasonably comparable with respect to type of product, geographic location, and size. It seems improbable that other differences in the types of plant represented introduce any substantial bias into the comparisons of hourly earnings. The workers included within the individual occupations are believed to be closely comparable. All occupational classifications were determined by the Bureau’s trained field representatives on the basis of written job descriptions. A number of doubtful occupations and some that are represented by relatively few workers have been omitted. Not all plants are represented in each occupation, however, and this fact accounts in part for the difference in the results obtained for various occupations in the same industry. All average hourly earnings presented exclude premium payments for overtime and for work on late shifts. For time workers, therefore, the figures are equivalent to straight-time hourly rates. The averages presented for incentive workers represent actual straight-time earnings, including all incentive payments and production bonuses, during one representative pay-roll period. Although these earnings are thus typically based on a period of only 1 or 2 weeks, the grouping of numerous workers employed in different plants should minimize the influence of fortuitous factors. M achinery M anufacture Of the three industries for which data are presented in the following pages, the most suitable for purposes of a wage comparison of this type is the manufacture of machinery.3 About 135 plants are covered in this comparison, most of them situated in the East North Central, Middle Atlantic, and New England States. Although these plants engage in the manufacture of various types of industrial and electrical machinery and equipment, many of their occupations are identical and draw upon the same body of workers. Elaborate and complex “systems” designed to stimulate a high intensity of effort are commonly found in this industry, together with numerous simpler incentive devices, including straight piece rates. The earnings data represent primarily the summer and fall of 1942. Average hourly earnings, by method of wage payment, for 42 occu pational groups in the machinery industry are presented in table 1. The averages shown represent the earnings of male workers unless otherwise indicated. In addition to the averages shown for all plants combined, separate figures are given for union and nonunion plants. This segregation has appeared desirable because of opposition to incentive payment by some of the unions with membership in this broad industry, and the consequent danger that the incentive workers represented would be largely nonunion.4 2 The material available for the machinery industry permitted much more careful selection and control than that for cotton textiles and for nonferrous metals. No special effort has been made to assure accurate representation of wage levels in the respective industries. Persons interested in the level of wages should refer to the original(studies cited below. 2 For information regarding the nature of the original study of this industry, see U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin No. 720; Earnings in the Manufacture of Industrial Machinery, 1942. 4 Many of the companies with union agreements, however, paid on an incentive basis. This method of payment is particularly common in the manufacture of electrical machinery and equipment. T a b l e 1 .— Com parison o f Straight-Tim e Average H ourly Earnings o f Incentive and Tim e W orkers in Selected Occupations in Union and Nonunion Plants in M achinery M anufacturing Industries, 1942 Union plants Total Occupation Assemblers, bench, class A... .................................. Assemblers, bench, class B ..................................... Assemblers, bench, class O, male............................ Assemblers, bench, class 0 , female......................... Boring-mill operators, class A ................................. Boring-mill operators, class B ................................. Broaching-machine operators.................................. Buffers and polishers.............................................. Burrers, class B ....................................................... Casting cleaners...................................................... Craters, class B ....................................................... Drill-press operators, class A .................................. Drill-press operators, class B .................................. Drill-press operators, class 0 .................................. Gear cutters.............................. .............................. Heat treaters, class A__.......................................... Heat treaters, class B__.......................................... Lathe operators, engine, class A ............................. Lathe operators, engine, class B ............................. Lathe operators, turret, class A.............................. Lathe operators, turret, class B.............................. Metal-saw operators................................................ Milling-machine operators, class A ......................... Milling-machine operators, class B ......................... Packers, male.......................................................... Packers, female—..................................................... Painters, spray........................................................ Planer operators...................................................... Platers..................................................................... Power-shear operators............................................. Sandblast operators..................... -......................... 667 920 1,825 2,988 359 204 33 180 92 217 146 292 518 437 84 238 168 586 525 535 619 117 429 482 528 311 290 292 88 56 .69 $0,996 .835 .705 .560 1.040 .805 .819 .770 .769 .681 .776 .914 .804 .698 1.044 .954 .850 1.074 .809 1.018 .782 .747 1.009 .768 .710 .576 .830 .989 .783 .856 .795 345 1,445 1,447 2,508 253 156 77 289 66 176 106 381 770 856 69 44 88 431 433 531 506 65 453 497 164 128 244 192 49 127 56 $1,068 .985 .819 .716 1.229 .958 .940 1.016 .918 .832 .934 1.080 .950 .833 1.081 1.200 1.090 1.149 .946 1.120 .926 .877 1.128 .961 .981 .643 1.066 1.087 1.056 .960 1.004 7.2 18.0 16.2 27.9 18.2 11.0 14.8 32.0 19.4 22.2 20.4 18.2 18.2 19.4 3.5 25.8 28.2 7.0 16.9 10.0 18.4 17.4 11.8 25.1 38.2 11.6 28.4 9.9 34.9 12.2 26.3 403 648 1,587 2,112 222 125 (*) 94 (*) 196 132 174 390 276 (3) 163 (*) 425 340 352 415 80 263 312 353 179 152 225 <3) 41 (*) $1,098 .884 .724 .575 1.132 .815 (3) .881 (*) .689 .779 1.018 .835 .740 (3) 1.022 <») 1.125 .827 1.101 .802 .800 1.129 .817 .753 .593 .892 1.044 <*) .893 <*) Incentive pay Percent Time payment ment by which incen tive earn Num Aver Num Aver ings age age of ber of exceed ber work hourly work hourly earn earn time ers ers earn ings ings ings 278 1,235 1,285 2,081 241 134 (*) 181 (3) 104 71 326 674 696 (>) 30 (3) 304 349 433 399 39 301 391 147 107 209 177 (3) 103 (*) $1,090 1.005 .827 .745 1.229 .947 (3) 1.076 (3) .821 .911 1.100 .971 .875 (*) 1.189 (3) 1.138 .975 1.126 .952 .951 1.147 .978 1.010 .663 1.104 1.110 <>) 1.000 <*) 10.7 13.7 14.2 29.6 8.6 16.2 <3) 22.1 (*) 19.2 16.9 8.1 16.3 18.2 (>) 16.3 <*) 1.2 17.9 2.3 18.7 18.9 1.6 19.7 34.1 11.8 23.8 6.3 (*) 12.0 (*) 264 272 238 876 137 79 (3) 86 (3) 21 14 118 128 161 (3) 75 (») 161 185 183 204 37 166 170 175 132 138 67 (>) 15 (*) $0,840 .717 .579 .525 .891 .790 (3) .649 (3) .605 .747 .760 .709 .627 (*) .807 (*) .940 .774 .857 .741 .634 .820 .677 .622 .553 .762 .804 (*) .755 (*) Incentive pay Percent ment by which incen tive earn Num Aver ings age ber of exceed work hourly earn time ers earn ings ings 67 210 162 427 12 22 (*) 108 (3) 72 35 55 96 160 (*) 14 (*) 127 84 98 107 26 152 106 17 21 35 15 (3) 24 (*) $0,977 .867 .757 .573 1.238 1.027 (3) .916 (3) .848 .982 .961 .801 .650 (3) 1.223 (3) 1.176 .822 1.095 .831 .765 1.092 .896 .731 .543 .843 .822 (•) .789 (*) 16.3 20.9 30.7 9.1 39.0 30.0 (*) 41.1 (’) 40.2 31.5 26.5 13.0 3.7 (*) 51.6 (3) 25.1 6.2 27.8 12.2 20.7 33.2 32.4 17.5 i 1.8 10.6 2.2 (*) 4.5 C3) EFFECT OF INCENTIVE PAY ON EARNINGS Incentive pay Percent Time payment ment by which incen tive Num Aver Num Aver earn Num Aver ings age age age ber of hourly ber of hourly exceed ber of hourly work earn work earn time work earn ers ers ers earn ings ings ings ings Time payment Nonunion plants 8 crew-machine operators, class A ................. ......... Screw-machine operators, class B________ _____ Screw-machine operators, class 0 . ............. ............ Shaper operators.................. ................................. Testers, class B ....................................................... Testers, class 0 , female........................................... Thread-milling-machine operators......................... Welders, hand, class A........................................... Welders, hand, class B ........................................... Welders, machine................................................... Winders, class 0 , female........................................ 1 Incentive earnings less than time earnings. 195 266 115 125 289 200 29 186 201 156 166 1.132 .917 .706 .910 .843 .568 .894 1. Oil .767 .767 .662 9.1 12.5 24.5 10.6 27.4 14.8 16.2 21.4 32.2 30.3 19.8 172 228 63 « (*) 120 (») 93 90 124 131 1.165 .931 .757 (3) (>) .591 (’) 1.068 .769 .793 .699 252 214 207 0) (>) 22 (*) 278 227 129 401 1.249 1.050 .893 (’) (») .754 (») 1.242 1.058 1.023 .858 7.2 12.8 18.0 (*) (’) 27.6 (>) 16.3 37.6 29.0 22.8 23 38 52 (3) (*) 80 (») 93 111 32 35 3 Number of plants and/or workers insufficient to justify comparison. .887 .829 .644 (’) C») .534 (J) .954 .766 .669 .523 30 37 21 (*) (>) 29 (*) 82 66 40 130 1.121 .928 .746 (*) 0) .574 (J) 1.175 .863 .923 .591 26.4 11.9 15.8 (i) (i) 7.5 (*) 23.2 12.7 38.0 13.0 EFFECT OF INCENTIVE PAY ON EARNINGS 1.235 1.032 .879 1.006 1.074 .652 1.039 1.227 1.014 .999 .793 Ox EFFECT OF INCENTIVE PAY ON EARNINGS 6 It is apparent from this table that the average hourly earnings of incentive workers in all plants combined were higher in every case than those of time workers. The differences ranged from 3.5 percent for male gear cutters to 38.2 percent for male packers; the median difference was 18.2 percent. The averages for union plants were consistently higher than those for nonunion plants, but each group taken separately showed a pronounced excess of incentive earnings over time rates. The median differences in favor of the incentive workers amounted to 16.6 percent for union plants and 20.8 percent for nonunion plants. Considering the influence of the unions in raising the wages of the lower paid workers, this indication of a greater spread between time and incentive earnings in nonunion plants is not surprising. Definite establishment of this point, however, will require confirmation from analysis of additional data. In view of the fact that the various occupations were found in the same group of plants, the wide range of earnings differences is deserv ing of comment. Although more than two-thirds of the occupations, taking union and nonunion plants together, showed a margin of 10 to 30 percent in favor of incentive workers, no single 5-percent interval included as many as one-third of the occupations. It is apparent from the following tabulation that the spread was, in general, somewhat greater for the union plants and nonunion plants taken separately. N um ber of occupations 1 N onU nion u nion p la n ts p lan ts A ll p la n ts All occupations 1_________________________________________ 42 33 33 Incentive earnings less than time-work earnings__________ __ Incentive earnings more than time-work earnings by— 0.0-4.9 percent______________________________________ 1 5.0- 9.9 percent______________________________________ 4 10.0- 14.9 percent________ 9 15.0- 19.9 percent__________________________________ 12 20.0- 24.9 percent__________________________________ 4 25.0- 29.9 percent__________________________________ 7 30.0- 34.9 percent__________________________________ 4 35.0- 39.9 percent__________________________________ 1 40.0 percent and over_______________________________ __ 1 1 3 3 3 6 3 3 4 4 5 12 3 3 1 1 __ 5 2 3 1 Male and female workers in the same occupation have been counted as separate groups. I t is, of course, to be expected that the excess of incentive over time earnings will vary by occupation. The worker’s ability to influence production, for example, is much greater in performing some processes than in others. Individual or organized restriction of out put may affect production in certain jobs. The employer himself may discourage work at top speed in some occupations, in order to limit spoilage or for other reasons. In the present case, however, deficiencies in the statistical data undoubtedly contribute to the wide range of margins in earnings. I t has been mentioned that some of the occupations were found in only part of the plants, and it is probable that the conditions found in a few large companies have unduly influenced some of the comparisons. Such factors are believed to account for the two cases in which earn ings of time workers slightly exceed those of incentive workers, and for several of the extreme differences noted. 7 EFFECT OF INCENTIVE PAY ON EARNINGS Cotton-Goods M anufacture The Bureau’s survey of wages in the cotton-goods industry in September 1940 6 covered mills manufacturing yarn, thread, and broad woven fabrics from cotton or spun rayon. The 251 mills included in that survey employed approximately one-fifth of the workers in the industry and represented all important cotton-goodsproducing areas in the United States. Approximately 42 percent of the workers studied were employed under some form of incentivewage plan, as compared with 58 percent on time rates. A very large proportion of the incentive workers received straight piece rates, although a “piece-time” plan, combining some features of both piece and time payment, was sometimes applied to spinners, twister tenders, and battery hands. Complicated bonus systems were rarely found. A comparison of time and incentive earnings in selected occupations in this low-wage industry is presented in table 2. In view of the wide difference in earnings between northern and southern mills it has seemed unwise to combine the data for the North and South, and these therefore appear separately in the table. There has been little union opposition to incentive payment in this industry and the combining of the data for union and nonunion establishments is not believed to result in any appreciable bias. T a ble 2.— Straight-Tim e Average H ourly Earnings o f Incentive and Tim e W orkers in Selected Occupations, Southern and Northern Cotton-Textile M ills , September 1940 Southern mills Sex and occupation Male workers: Comber tenders............... Creelers............. ............. Doffers— _____ _______ Drawing-frame tenders__ Lap-machine tenders___ Loom fixers..... ....... ....... Slubber tenders............... Speeder tenders.............. Spinners, frame....... ....... Twister tenders............... Warp-tying machine tenders.......... ............. Warper tenders............... Winders, spoolers, and reelers......................... Female workers: Creelers........................... Doffers... ......................... Drawers-in, hand______ Drawing-frame tenders__ Spinners, frame............... Twister tenders............... Warper tenders............... Weavers, plain loom....... Winders, spoolers, and reelers______________ Northern mills Per Time pay Incentive cent ment payment by which incen tive Num Aver Num Aver Num Aver Num Aver earn ber ber age ber age age age ber ings of hourly of hourly of hourly of hourly work work earn work earn exceed earn earn work time ers ings earn ers ings ings ers ings ers ings Per cent by which incen tive earn ings exceed time earn ings Time pay ment Incentive payment 110 $0,344 120 .344 1,793 .349 597 .336 110 .339 1,903 .528 123 .347 256 .342 16 .338 652 .341 74 $0,389 .414 53 .412 2,096 .404 410 .432 90 544 .573 .413 998 2,264 .401 .437 119 .423 348 13.1 20.4 18.1 20.2 27.4 8.5 19.0 17.3 29.3 24.1 25 $0,447 (0 0) .453 135 .408 92 .425 39 .737 645 0) 0) (0 0) 121 .450 0) (9 71 $0,455 0) 0) 317 .503 58 .450 58 .446 111 .743 0) (9 (9 0) 74 .539 <9 0) 1.8 0) 11.0 10.3 4.9 .8 (l) (9 19.8 (9 36 0) .570 (9 28 (9 .673 (9 18.1 (9 (0 (9 (9 0) (9 .431 .445 .486 .424 .445 .417 .461 0) 12.5 21.3 10.0 14.0 6.0 4.8 6.7 0) .424 11.0 242 316 .471 .373 81 57 .544 .481 15.5 29.0 100 .337 113 .370 9.8 274 0) 177 139 1,789 111 204 159 .339 0) .353 .325 .336 .330 .356 .376 57 (0 274 71 2,558 122 51 1.827 .398 0) .441 .356 .380 .376 .408 .430 17.4 (0 24.9 9.5 13.1 13.9 14.6 14.4 38 88 56 77 256 60 59 0) .383 .367 .442 .372 .420 .398 .432 V) 33 127 109 47 540 70 54 (9 1,684 .334 3,889 .370 10.8 131 .382 886 1 Number of plants and/or workers insufficient to justify comparison. 6 See IT. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Serial No. R. 1414; Hours and Earnings in Manufacture of Cotton Goods, September 1940 and April 1941. 8 EFFECT OF INCENTIVE PAY ON EARNINGS It is evident from table 2 that in this industry, as in the manu facture of machinery, incentive workers enjoyed appreciably higher earnings than time workers. In each of the occupational classes and in each region the earnings of incentive workers were higher. In the South the differences ranged from 8.5 percent for male loom fixers to 29.3 percent for male frame spinners, the median figure being 17.3 percent. In the North, for which fewer comparisons are possible, the range was from 0.8 percent for male loom fixers to 21.3 percent for female doffers, while the median was 10.3 percent. Counting as separate groups the male and female workers in the same occupation, it may be seen from the accompanying statement that differences of 10 to 15 percent were more common, both in the South and in the North, than those in any other 5 percent class. Sixsevenths of the occupational groups in the South and three-fifths of those in the North showed a margin in earnings of between 10 and 30 percent. N um ber o f occu p ation s1 South N orth All occupations 1.................................................................... 21 15 Incentive earnings more than time-work earnings by— 0.0-4.9 percent___________________________________ 5.09.9 percent______________________________ 10.014.9 percent____________________________ 15.019.9 p e rce n t____________________________ 20.024.9 percent_____________________________ 25.029.9 percent____________________________ __ 3 6 5 4 3 4 2 6 2 1 i Male and female workers in the same occupation have been counted as separate groups. Fabrication o f N onferrous M etals The materials available for the comparison of time and incentive earnings in the nonferrous-metals industry are those obtained from the Bureau’s wage survey of August 1941.7 That survey covered the following six branches of the nonferrous-metals fabricating industry: Alloying, rolling and drawing of copper, brass, and bronze; alloying, rolling and drawing of other nonferrous metals; foundries; secondary smelters; machined products; and die casting. The large majority of the 273 production units studied were in the eastern and east central parts of the United States. Approximately two-thirds of the workers covered were in plants operating under union agreements. Slightly more than 70 percent of the workers in the plants surveyed were paid straight hourly or daily rates. About one-twelfth of the workers, concentrated largely in the die-casting branch, were employed on a piece-work basis. Most of the incentive workers, however, were paid under a bonus plan by which they received, in addition to guar anteed daily rates, bonus payments for production in excess of a fixed standard of performance. The comparisons shown in table 3 cover data for 28 occupations selected from the six branches of the industry. These are the only occupations in which a sufficient number of both time and incentive workers were found to justify a comparison of earnings. Moreover, the data unfortunately do not permit segregation either by region or by union and nonunion plants. Regional variations, particularly, are believed to disturb somewhat the comparability of the data. 7 See Monthly Labor Review, August 1942: Earnings in Primary Fabrication of Nonferrous Metals, 1941. 9 EFFECT OF INCENTIVE PAY ON EARNINGS Nevertheless, the comparisons shown in table 3 seem reasonably consistent and, as a supplement to the data for other industries, are believed to be of value. The apparent wage advantage of time work ers over incentive workers in two occupations—packers and turretlathe operators—results from comparisons of doubtful validity and may be discounted. Castings cleaners and filers paid on an incentive basis earned 31.2 percent and 43.7 percent more, respectively, than those paid on a time basis. The median difference in favor oi incen tive workers was 12.1 percent. T a b l e 3.— Straight-Tim e Average H ou rly Earnings o f Incentive and T im e Workers in Selected Occupations, in N onferrous-M etals Fabrication, August 1941 Time payment Incentive payment Per cent by which incentive Number Average Number Average earnings exceed of hourly of hourly time workers earnings workers earnings earnings Occupation Break-down and mn-down rollers _ _ _ Casting cleaners........ .................-________________ Chippers____________________ _____ __________ Coremakers______ ___________ _________ _____ Crane operators....................... ........................ ......... Diemakers________ ________________ __________ Filers— . ........ .......................................................... Foremen, process____ _________________________ Fumacemen...................................................... ....... Helpers__________________________________ Gas and oil fnmaee operators Grinding-machine operators.................... ......... ....... Inspectors, final_____ _________________________ Inspectors, rough........ ............ .......... ............. ......... Loaders and unloaders ____ . Packers______________________________________ Picklers_____________________________________ Polishers.________________ ________ ___________ Rod-straightener operators______________________ H elpers_________________________________ Rollers’ helpers_______________________________ Saw operators________________________________ Shear operators ....... Helpers.____ _____________________________ Tractor drivers______ ___________ _____________ Tumbler operators____________________________ Turret-lathe operators....................................... ....... Weighers....................................................... ............ 60 134 35 204 237 217 67 258 43 14 45 257 215 134 183 235 79 40 54 18 263 175 48 64 23 18 65 101 $1,037 .571 .720 .891 .838 1.172 .595 1.064 .948 .831 .806 .767 .798 .790 .705 .752 .799 .814 .832 .770 .747 .794 .825 .790 .777 .791 .857 .818 211 134 52 147 479 85 135 162 78 31 53 190 183 96 151 180 191 65 72 52 442 318 90 76 30 18 163 53 $1.196 .749 .890 .939 .943 1.210 .855 1.092 1.081 1.029 .880 .786 .817 .839 .908 .726 .909 1.013 .918 .823 .869 .904 .910 .837 .889 .871 .805 .914 16.3 31.2 23.6 5.4 12.5 3.2 43.7 2.6 14.0 23.8 9.2 2.5 2.4 6.2 28.8 i 3.5 13.8 24.5 10.3 6.9 16.3 13.9 10.3 6.0 14.4 10.1 16.1 11.7 1 Incentive earnings less than time earnings. It is apparent from the accompanying tabulation that in this indus try, as in cotton textiles, the 10- to 15-percent interval included more of the occupational averages than any other 5-percent class. Slightly more than half of the occupations showed an excess of incentive over time earnings between 10 and 30 percent. N um ber o f occupations All occupations___________________ __________________________ 28 Incentive earnings less than time-work earnings--------------------Incentive earnings more than time-work earnings by— 0.0-4.9 percent------------ ------------------------------------------- — 5.0- 9.9 percent_______ _____ ___________________ ________ 10.0- 14.9 percent---------------------15.0- 19.9 percent_________ ____________________________ 20.0- 24.9 percent_____________________________ 25.0- 29.9 percent_____________________ 30.0- 34.9 percent_________________ 35.0 percent and over_______ ___________________________ 2 4 5 9 2 3 1 1 1 VICTORY BUY U N IT E D STA TES W AR BONDS AND STAMPS
@FedFRASER