The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
mr
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
In this issue:
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
April 1980
Two articles about Frances Perkins
A look at the distribution of earned income
An evaluation of labor force statistics
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Ray Marshall, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year —
$18 domestic; $22.50 foreign.
Single copy $2.50.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-0818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402
Make checks payable to
Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through October 31, 1982. Second-class
postage paid at Riverdale, MD.,
and at additional mailing offices.
Library of Congress Catalog
Card Number 15-26485
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I — Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II — New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944-3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Alvin /. Marguhs
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596 -11 54
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: (404) 881 -4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: William E Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353 -18 80
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Bryan Richey
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
P hone:(214)767-6971
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and VIII — Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
April covers:
Commemorative stamp
honoring Frances Perkins,
the first woman to serve as a member
of a U.S. Presidential cabinet.
The stamp, issued on the 100th anniversary
of Frances Perkins' birth, was designed by
F. R. Petrie of Rutherford, N.J.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Regions IX and X — San Francisco: D. Bruce Hanchett
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556 -46 78
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
4
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
APRIL 1980
VOLUME 103, NUMBER 4
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
Peter Henle, Paul Ryscavage
3
The distribution of earnings among men and women, 1958-77
The trend toward an increasing disparity in earnings among men appeared to slow
in recent years, while the more unequal distribution among women remained stable
Robert L. Stein
11
National Commission’s recommendations on labor force statistics
Congressionally mandated panel finds the U.S. system of statistics on employment
fundamentally sound but recommends significant expansions and refinements of data
Joseph P. Goldberg
22
Frances Perkins, Isador Lubin, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics
As head of BLS, Isador Lubin worked closely with Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins
to meet the urgent need for data on Depression-era employment and unemployment
Henry P. Guzda
31
Frances Perkins’ interest in a new deal for blacks
The black-oriented programs of the Nation’s first female Cabinet member may seem
modest by today’s standards, but she made the welfare of blacks a priority of her agency
Virginia A. Chupp
36
Changes in unemployment insurance legislation during 1979
Concern for financing of unemployment insurance payments was evident last year;
changes generally involved extending disqualification periods and restricting eligibility
REPORTS
Benjamin W. Wolkinson
Beverly L. Johnson
Charles N. Weaver
Howard Davis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41
48
53
54
Arbitration and the rights of mentally handicapped workers
Marital and family characteristics of the labor force, March 1979
Workers ’ expectations about losing and replacing their jobs
Hours and earnings of nonsupervisory workers, 1968-78
DEPARTMENTS
2
41
50
53
57
59
61
64
69
Labor month in review
Communications
Special labor force reports— summaries
Research summaries
Significant decisions in labor cases
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
Labor M onth
In Review
FRANCES PERKINS. The 100th anni
versary o f the birth of Frances Perkins
is being marked this month by the is
suance o f a postage stamp bearing her
likeness and by the naming in her
honor of the building housing the U.S.
Department o f Labor. Several articles
and other features in this issue of the
Monthly Labor Review describe the
life and work of Frances Perkins. Her
important contributions also are re
counted in a Labor Department book
let marking the dedication o f the
Frances Perkins Building. Excerpts:
Questions for FDR. Before Frances
Perkins would accept the Cabinet ap
pointment as Secretary o f Labor, she
told President-elect Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, “I don’t want to say yes to
you unless you know what I’d like to
do and are willing to have me go ahead and try.”
She then read Roosevelt her list. It
contained much of what would
become the New Deal’s most impor
tant social welfare and labor legisla
tion: direct Federal aid to the States
for unemployment relief, public
works, maximum hours, minimum
wages, child labor laws, unemploy
ment insurance, social security, and a
revitalized public employment service.
“Are you sure you want these things
done?” she asked. “Because you don’t
want me for Secretary o f Labor if you
don’t.”
Roosevelt never hesitated. He was
convinced that the capable and strongminded woman in his study was the
most qualified person for the job.
“Yes,” he said. “HI back you.” With
that, Perkins immediately accepted the
post and served as Secretary o f Labor
the entire 12 years of the Roosevelt
Administration. She was the first
woman ever to serve as a Cabinet
member and she served longer than
any other Secretary o f Labor.
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Social security. The Social Security
Act o f 1935 was probably the most
enduring contribution Perkins made as
a Government official. As a member of
the Committee on Economic Security,
she worked tirelessly to create a prac
tical social security program which
could both pass the Congress and help
the people. She made hundreds of
speeches supporting social security.
Its enactment, on August 14, 1935,
helped change the economic and
social structure of American life. Her
belief that working people had a right
to benefits during unemployment and
in their old age was made the law of
the land by this act. Perkins’ determi
nation helped workers secure a more
equitable place on the social scale. Her
leadership, and the dedicated work of
many others, helped remove the threat
o f starvation, eviction, and destitution
from every worker’s doorstep.
Fair labor standards. If social security
was Frances Perkins’ pride, the Fair
Labor Standards Act must have been
her joy. She had long advocated mini
mum wage and maximum hour legis
lation. The collapse of labor standards
during the Depression made some type
o f Government action imperative.
Many among Roosevelt’s advisers were
uncertain of the constitutionality of
Federal labor standards legislation. To
lay the groundwork for Federal stand
ards she believed inevitable, Perkins
instructed the Labor Department to
work with State governments to create
a body o f consistent laws and stand
ards. She set up a Division of Labor
Standards and was the first Labor Sec
retary to show real interest and con
cern for State labor agencies. She
always tried to attend meetings with
state representatives and considered
these sessions very useful in develop
ing workers’ compensation and safety
and health standards.
During his 1936 campaign for reelection, Roosevelt promised to sup
port a Federal labor standards bill.
The measure passed the Senate but
died in the House Rules Committee.
Perkins and Roosevelt would not let
it rest in peace. Compromises were
made and pressure was applied. The
Fair Labor Standards Act finally be
came law on June 25,1938.
The role of States. The social legis
lation of the 1930’s forever changed
the position of the American worker
in society. While the Federal Govern
ment was often instrumental in creat
ing these laws and indispensable for
putting them into operation, Perkins
often advocated more involvement for
the individual States. She believed that
programs such as unemployment insur
ance should be administered by a
Federal-State system. At the National
Conference for Labor Legislation in
February 1934, she said: “The fund
amental power to make regulations
with regard to welfare . . . lies with the
sovereign States.” While many New
Dealers have been seen as “big govern
ment” people, Perkins rarely favored
the Federal Government dictating or
making policy for the States. The
closer decisionmaking was to the
people, the better Perkins liked it.
The Perkins legacy. Perkins, indeed,
had become an important historical
figure. Yet with all her accomplish
ments, she never lost the basic quali
ties that made her an extraordinary
person: her courage, her vibrant per
sonality, her gift for friendship, her
sense of propriety and privacy, and her
deep religious spirit. These qualities
formed the core ot her character and
they touched everyone she knew as
well as the millions of people un
known to her for whom she worked
throughout her life.
□
The distribution of earned income
among men and women, 1958-77
The trend toward greater earnings inequality
for men continued, but appeared to slow
in recent years; the more unequal distribution
for women remained stable, probably
reflecting limited occupational advances
P eter H en le
and
Pa u l R y scavag e
The distribution of income continues to be a lively topic
for public policy as well as academic debate. While few,
if any, officials have embraced income redistribution as
a goal of public policy, many legislative and administra
tive measures have, in fact, altered income distribution.
The extent of such redistribution often becomes a major
factor underlying the resolution of tax, welfare, and
other economic policy questions. As one example, the
1977 congressional rejection of practically all President
Carter’s proposals for tax reform reflected a quite dif
ferent attitude toward income distribution than the atti
tudes underlying the antipoverty programs of the
1960’s.
A 1972 article explored the distribution of earned in
come (wages, salaries, and self-employment earnings)
for men during 1958-70.1That study found “a slow but
persistent trend toward greater inequality” both for all
male earners and for those working full time year
round. Various possible explanations for such a trend
were discussed, including the changing age composition
of the population, the changing structural characteris
tics of jobs, and differential changes in the rates of com
pensation.
The current effort extends the earlier work in several
Peter Henle recently retired as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Evaluation, and Research, U.S. Department of Labor. Paul
Ryscavage is an economist in the Office of Current Employment
Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Views expressed in this article
are not necessarily those of the Department of Labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ways. First, the data have been carried forward to 1977.
This permits a broader perspective to test the trends
identified from 1958-70 data. Second, data for women
are included for the first time, allowing a comparison of
earnings distribution trends by sex. And third, more re
cent contributions to the literature are reviewed to de
termine whether they have added to the earlier analy
sis.2
As in the earlier case, this study utilizes the Gini
index as a shorthand method of describing the shape of
earnings distribution.3 Although it may have some sta
tistical limitations, it still seems a useful way to identify
the degree of equality at any one time and track chang
es in distribution over several years. The primary data
used here are annual earnings reported to the Census
Bureau by members of a nationwide sample of house
holds (Current Population Survey). The current data in
corporate various improvements in methodology, with
the result that the 1958-70 Gini indexes utilized in the
earlier article have been revised.4 Values are for money
income only, and no effort was made to include any es
timate for fringe benefits not reflected in earnings, such
as employer expenditures for health, welfare, and retire
ment plans. The article will focus first on the new and
revised data for men; a discussion of the new data for
women will follow.
Earnings distribution of men
The basic structure of the earnings distribution noted
in the 1972 article still holds. For example, the distribu3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Earnings Distribution by Sex
tion of wages and salaries is more equal than the distri
bution of all reported earnings. This follows from the
fact that the self-employed include major concentrations
at both the low and the high end of the distribution —
low-earning proprietors of small retail and service estab
lishments and high-earning professionals and busi
nessmen. In a somewhat similar way, the distribution
for year-round full-time workers is more equal than the
distribution for all workers, because the inclusion of the
part-time and part-year workers adds a large group of
low-income earners to the distribution.
The “slow but persistent” trend toward inequality,
previously noted for the years 1958-70, is still evident,
although a 20-year perspective yields somewhat different
insights. As shown in table 1, the trend towards in
equality for the most inclusive series (all earners) con
tinued steadily until 1977. A similar trend is evident for
all male wage and salary workers. For both series, the
1968-73 period appears to show the greatest shift to
ward inequality, with the trend somewhat less marked
before and after this period. For year-round full-time
workers, the figures indicate either no trend at all (all
earners) or a slightly more modest trend toward in
equality (wage and salary workers).
These data, of course, pertain to broad aggregates
Table 1. Gini indexes of all earnings and wages and
salaries among men, 1958-77
All earners
Item and year
Wage and salary earners
Total
Yearround
fulMime
Total
Yearround
full-time
Workers, 1977 (in thousands) . .
61,704
39,263
47,473
34,128
Median Income, 1977 .........
$11,037
$14,626
$12,439
$14,902
.399
.398
.411
.419
.410
.406
.406
.315
.318
.325
.329
.318
.310
.315
.406
.409
.410
.417
.423
.428
.431
.427
.429
.433
.434
.438
.439
.312
.315
.313
.306
.310
.311
.321
.314
.319
.315
.311
.317
.318
.327
.324
.337
.343
.336
.336
.336
.334
.342
.335
.337
.344
.350
.357
.365
.360
359
.361
.367
.371
.374
’ .254
’ .262
’ .275
’ .274
’ .270
’ .270
' .275
’ .276
’ .281
.274
.273
.272
.278
.281
.287
.283
.286
.281
.282
.284
.287
Gini index:
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1974
1975
1976
1977
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
’ Gini indexes for year-round full-time wage and salary workers, 1958-66, appeared in
the earlier article (see text footnote 1), and were not recomputed when changes were made
in the way the Gini indexes were calculated by the Census Bureau (see text footnote 4 for
information on these changes).
' = revised: The 1974 income data were revised because of changes in the procedures
used in collecting and processing the data. See text footnote 4 for more details.
NOTE: Data on earnings apply to all individuals with earnings in the specified year. Data
on wages and salaries apply to all individuals employed in March of the following year who
received wages or salaries in the specified year.
4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and all classes of earners. Perhaps more revealing are
the data for occupational and industry groups, shown
in table 2. The trend toward inequality among male
woiKers in specific occupations and industries is even
more evident. To assist in this analysis, a simple time
series regression of the annual Gini indexes was utilized;
the results are shown in tables 3 and 4.
Of the 10 major occupational groups, eight (manag
ers and farm laborers are the exception) show a distinct
trend toward inequality among all earners during 1958—
77. Among year-round full-time workers, managers and
farm laborers show a trend towards equality, profes
sional workers and nonfarm laborers show an uncertain
trend, but all the remaining occupational groups show a
trend towards inequality. Increasing inequality is pro
nounced among blue-collar groups such as craftworkers
and operatives. Clerical and sales (white-collar) occupa
tions show an equally distinct trend toward inequality
since 1958, but for clerical workers the annual data in
dicate less change during recent years.
When the data are grouped by industry, the results
are similar; but industry data are available only for
wage and salary workers. Moreover, for year-round full
time workers, data are available only from 1967, al
though these data were viewed along with the 1958-70
data available for the earlier article (based on an alloca
tion method no longer utilized by the Census Bureau).
As shown in table 4, industry data for all wage and
salary earners also display a definite trend toward in
equality. The trend is especially marked for construc
tion, manufacturing, transportation, trade, finance, most
of the service industries, and public administration. As
expected, data for all workers show a more definitive
trend than the results for year-round full-time workers.
Focusing on the latter group, both agriculture and min
ing show a trend toward equality. For the transporta
tion, retail trade, and finance groups and for public
administration, a statistically significant trend toward
inequality is clear, but for the remaining industries little
trend is indicated.
Earlier factors less significant
The 1972 article reviewed various postwar develop
ments that may have contributed to the trend towards
inequality of earnings. Three types of factors were ex
amined: changes in the personal characteristics of earn
ers that might affect their earnings ability, chiefly age
and schooling; changes in the characteristics of jobs
that might affect the earnings ability of the jobholders;
and changes in the rates of compensation in various oc
cupations and industries that might affect differently
jobs at various points in the earnings distribution.
The earlier analysis identified four specific develop
ments that may have contributed to the trend towards
inequality: the growing importance of voluntary part-
Table 2.
years
Gini indexes of earnings among men, by occupation (all earners) and industry (wage and salary earners), selected
Workers, 1977
(In thousands)
Median
income,
1977
1958
1970
1974
1974'
1975
1976
1977
Total, all earners.................................................
61,704
11,037
0.399
0.423
0429
0.433
0.434
0.438
0.439
Professional and technical ............................................
Salaried..................................................................
Farmers and farm managers ........................................
Managers .......................................................................
Salaried..................................................................
Clerical workers ............................................................
Salesworkers ................................................................
Craftworkers..................................................................
Operatives .....................................................................
Service workers..............................................................
Farm laborers ; ..............................................................
Nonfarm laborers............................................................
8,546
7,709
1,376
8,193
6,702
3,625
3,701
12,337
10,737
6,102
1,421
5,585
16,212
15,967
4,317
16,850
17,803
10,822
11,685
12,313
10,066
5,077
1,998
4,566
.353
.303
.531
.386
.318
.274
.433
.260
297
.375
.560
.419
.366
.327
.558
.379
.344
.346
.460
.275
.313
.467
.606
.496
.372
345
.608
.393
.372
.360
.464
.298
.340
.487
.602
.500
.380
.343
598
.361
.341
.355
.460
297
.341
.495
.574
.499
.381
.348
592
.369
.344
.359
.474
.309
.346
.499
.580
.494
.391
.358
.615
.367
.335
.361
.473
.312
.352
.498
.580
.517
.378
.347
.604
.368
.338
.363
.486
.321
.364
.511
.564
.499
Total, wage and salary earners ........................
47,473
12,439
0.327
0.350
0.359
0.361
0.367
0.371
0.374
Agriculture .....................................................................
Mining.............................................................................
Construction ..................................................................
Manufacturing ................................................................
Transportation, communication, and public utilities . . . .
Wholesale trade ............................................................
Retail tra d e .....................................................................
Finance...........................................................................
Business services .........................................................
Personal services .........................................................
Entertainment and recreation ........................................
Professional service.......................................................
Public administration .....................................................
1,041
643
4,038
14,126
4,344
2,454
6,696
2,078
1,808
742
487
5,750
3,268
5,488
15,096
11,622
13,451
15,082
14,249
7,735
14,662
10,046
5,564
8,556
12,374
15,434
.485
.274
.319
.294
.233
.325
.364
.347
.330
.463
.474
.381
.220
.494
.284
.335
300
.273
.348
.434
.362
.404
.463
.499
.405
.252
.449
.273
.331
298
.289
.368
.446
.406
.412
.517
.503
.392
.291
.455
.270
.336
298
.287
.355
.454
.401
.390
.503
.506
.405
.270
.476
.284
.363
.304
.287
.362
.446
.396
.439
.501
.478
.422
.281
468
284
.373
.316
.287
.352
.452
405
.434
.495
.507
.417
.247
.466
.281
.361
.313
.297
.367
.461
397
.426
.530
.504
.415
.263
Item
Gini indexes
OCCUPATION
INDUSTRY
r=revised: The 1974 income data were revised because of changes in the procedures used in collecting and processing the data. See text footnote 4 for more details.
time work; the increasing flow of young people into the
labor force, many of them with low earnings; the
changing occupational structure—more specifically the
growing importance of highly paid professional and
managerial personnel; and the pattern of increases in
earnings which, in many instances, has meant higher in
creases in rates of pay for the higher earning occupa
tions.
The result of these four developments in the 1958-70
period, it was concluded, was an increased proportion
of earners at the lowest and highest end of the income
scale.
These developments continued to operate during the
1970’s, but in several respects it would appear that they
were less significant, particularly in more recent years:
1. The rate at which young people have entered the
labor market has slowed dramatically, reflecting the re
duction in birth rates which took place beginning in the
late 1950’s. From 1958 to 1968, the number of young
men age 16 to 19 in the civilian labor force increased at
an annual rate of 4.2 percent. During 1968-73, the rate
rose to 4.9 percent before dropping to 1.7 percent in the
1973-77 period.
2. The increase in voluntary part-time earners
among men has also slowed considerably. From 1963
(the earliest year for which data are available) to 1973,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the annual rate of increase was 4.3 percent, slowing to
2.1 percent for 1973-77.
3.
Changes in the occupational mix from blue collar
to white collar also have not occurred with the same ra
pidity. For example, professional and technical occupa
tions accounted for 10.4 percent of male employees in
1958, increasing substantially to 14.0 percent in 1970,
but further increasing to only 14.6 percent in 1977.
Table 3. Regression results of Gini indexes for the
earnings of men, by occupation, 1958-77
All earners
Occupation
Total
.............
Professional and
technical workers . .
Farmers and farm
managers .............
Managers ..................
Clerical ......................
Salesworkers.............
Craftworkers.............
Operatives..................
Service workers.........
Farm laborers ...........
Nonfarm laborers . . . .
Trend
t statistic
coefficient
0.0020
’ 8.50
Full-time year-round earners
R2
0.810
Trend
t statistic
coefficient
-.0003
-1 359
R2
0.098
.0021
'6.79
.730
0006
22.111
.208
.0044
-.0016
.0046
.0020
.0030
.0032
0068
.0008
.0044
15.49
' -3.23
' 13.35
'4.15
18 54
'9 89
120 69
1.63
18.07
.640
.381
.913
.503
.811
852
.962
.135
.792
0040
-.0023
.0017
.0024
.0019
.0011
0014
- 0040
0008
’ 4.495
' -4.851
16 29
’ 4.33
’ 8 37
’ 3 38
’ 3.54
1 -5.41
22 48
.543
.581
.700
525
.805
402
424
633
.267
1Statistically significant at the 1-percent level.
2 Statistically significant at the 5-percent level.
5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Earnings Distribution by Sex
4.
Increases in earnings have also been less dramatic
among the higher paid occupations and industries. Dur
ing 1958-70, the only occupational groups with higher
than average earnings increases were both the profes
sional and the managerial groups. During 1970-77,
these groups showed below-average increases with
higher increases recorded by laborers, semiskilled work
ers, and salesworkers.
For these reasons, it does not appear surprising that
although the trend over the postwar period continues to
point toward greater inequality, the movement in that
direction has slowed in more recent years.
Special mention might be made of the two industries
— agriculture and mining—in which the data for men
show a trend toward greater equality. In both cases,
special factors seem to be at work. In agriculture, the
number of farmers and the farm work force continues
to decline slowly, with the drop concentrated among
the lower income farm group. Wages for farm laborers
have increased quite substantially, with the minimum
wage for agricultural workers rising more sharply than
the basic minimum, as farm production becomes in
creasingly mechanized. Thus, it seems likely that the
proportion of earners with low annual earnings has de
clined, helping to provide a more equal distribution.
In mining, which includes not only coal, metal, and
nonmetallic mining, but also oil and gas extraction, the
prosperity of both the coal mining and the oil and gas
segments of the industry has certainly helped to raise
earnings of workers in these industries. Because these
two prosperous segments account for two-thirds of all
mining employees, they may have been significant in
producing greater equality of earnings.
Table 4. Regression results of Gini indexes for wage and
salary income of men, by industry, 1958-77
Wage and salary earners
Industry
Total ...........
Agriculture, forestry,
and fisheries . . . .
Mining......................
Construction ...........
Manufacturing.........
Transportation, com
munications, and
public utilities . . . .
Wholesale trade . ..
Retail tra d e .............
Finance, Insurance,
and real estate ..
Business and repair
service ...............
Personal services ..
Entertainment and
recreational
services...............
Professional services
Public administration
Trend
t statistic
coefficient
.0024
R2
Full-time year-round earners
Trend
t statistic
coefficient
R2
1 10.04
.849
0.0011
16 30
- .0004
.0014
.0016
.0010
-.840
-1.768
’ 3.395
14.182
.038
.148
.390
.492
-.0023
-.0013
.0009
.0003
’ -2.990
2 -2.141
1.903
2 035
.3318
.2030
.1674
.1870
.0026
.0017
.0043
' 9.262
13.974
112.839
.827
.467
.902
.0015
.0010
.0016
’ 3.732
1.754
’ 3.971
.4362
.146
.467
.0027
16.070
.672
.0016
’ 3.310
.378
.0042
.0035
’ 6.109
13.184
.675
.360
.0016
.0018
1 825
1.364
.156
.094
.0020
.0025
.0026
1.353
’ 6.262
’ 5.604
092
.685
.636
.0010
.0001
.0045
.590
.231
2 2.580
’ Statistically significant at the 1-percent level.
2 Statistically significant at the 5-percent level.
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
0.688
.019
0029
.2687
Table 5. Gini indexes of all earnings and wages and
salaries among women, 1958-77
All earners
Item
Total
Yearround
fulkime
Wage and salary earners
Total
Yearround
fulkime
Workers, 1977 (In
thousands) ...............
46,194
19,238
34,503
17,736
Median Income, 1977. . .
$4,674
$8,618
$5,986
$8,733
.466
.470
.465
.480
.470
.468
.468
.264
.264
.257
.284
.277
.273
.270
.462
.463
.460
.476
.483
.475
.475
.478
.471
.470
.467
.469
.466
.276
.287
.279
.266
.272
.266
.268
.268
.271
.249
.258
.259
.260
389
.385
.384
.399
.393
.396
.391
.396
.392
.395
.390
.395
.402
.400
.403
.404
.395
.395
.400
.401
.399
.264
.256
.246
.255
.251
.252
.254
.252
.237
.245
.245'
.245
Gini index:
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1974’
1975
1976
1977
.................................
...................... ...........
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
r = revised: The 1974 income data were revised because of changes in the procedures
used in collecting and processing the income data. See text footnote 4 for more details.
NOTE: Data on earnings apply to all individuals with earnings in the specified year. Data
on wages and salaries apply to all individuals employed in March of the following year who
received wages or salaries in the specified year.
Earnings distribution of women
The earnings distribution of women is significantly dif
ferent from that of men. There are relatively more low
earners and fewer high earners among women, and as a
result the median earnings of women (table 5) is sub
stantially lower than the median earnings of men (table
1). Large earnings differences also exist between men
and women both as full-time year-round workers and as
wage and salary workers.
These earnings differences have been the subject of
much research in recent years, and a large literature has
developed.5 Researchers have pointed to a number of
factors responsible for the earnings gap: women are
more likely than men to work part time because of their
childbearing and childrearing responsibilities and be
cause of their greater chances of experiencing unemploy
ment; many women, because of their shorter work
histories, lack the necessary job skills, or human capi
tal, to compete successfully with men in the job market;
and women are more frequently discriminated against in
their attempts to move up the career ladder.
The basic structure of women’s earnings distribution
is somewhat more unequal than the earnings distribu
tion of men. This greater inequality can be traced to the
tendency among women — whether voluntarily or invol
untarily—to work only part time and part year. For ex
ample, in 1977, nearly 60 percent of all female earners
Table 6.
Distribution of all earnings among women, by occupation, 1977
Percent share of aggregate earnings
Workers
(In
thousands)
Median
income
Gini
index
.....................................................
46,194
$4,674
.466
1.9
Professional and technical w o rk e rs ..................
Salaried.....................................................
Farmers and farm managers ..........................
Managers ..........................................................
6,826
6,487
93
2,620
9,161
9,453
758
7,817
.376
.355
.666
.417
Occupational group
Tota
Middle
fifth
Fourth
fifth
Highest
fifth
Top 5
percent
7.5
16.4
27.0
47.3
16.8
2.8
3.3
1.4
2.6
11.2
12.0
3.9
10.5
19.9
20.2
6.5
17.9
26.5
26.4
15.4
25.0
39.6
38.1
72.7
44.1
13.7
12.6
30.0
17.1
Lowest
fifth
Second
fifth
Salaried.....................................................
2,214
8,391
.373
4.0
12.0
18.0
24.6
41.4
15.4
Clerical workers ..............................................
Salesworkers ...................................................
Craftworkers.....................................................
Operatives .......................................................
15,095
3,281
761
5,421
6,053
2,425
5,600
5,109
.383
.540
.434
.375
2.9
1.9
2.4
3.5
10.7
6.0
9.0
11.2
19.3
12.9
17.4
18.8
26.7
23.0
26.2
26.1
40.4
56.2
45.0
40.4
13.3
23.7
16.2
13.6
Service workers.................................................
Farm la borers...................................................
Nonfarm laborers..............................................
8,996
501
588
2,463
849
2,857
.490
.528
.504
2.1
2.4
1.6
6.8
7.1
5.1
14.7
11.8
14.4
26.0
22.3
29.6
50.4
56.5
49.3
18.2
22.2
16.5
'
worked less than year round, full time, compared to
only 36 percent of all male earners. The greater preva
lence of women who work full time and part time, off
and on during the year, produces a greater variation in
their earnings distribution relative to men.
The earnings of women who work year round in full
time jobs, however, are distributed more equally than
the comparable distributions for men. This may occur
because full-time year-round female earners tend to be
clustered in a few occupations, where the range of earn
ings is not very great. (For example, in 1977, 39 percent
of all female earners working full time, year round were
in clerical occupations, and the Gini index for women
in this occupation was only .204.)
The degree of earnings inequality varied considerably
by the occupations and industries in which women
worked. The most unequal earnings distributions for
women in 1977 were found in the service, sales, and un
skilled occupations (table 6). These occupations are ma
jor entry occupations for young women, and earnings
are generally low. Occupations with the most equality
Table 7.
—more equal than the overall distribution— were the
clerical, semiskilled, managerial, and professional occu
pations. Among the major industries in which female
wage and salary workers were employed in 1977, the
most unequal earnings distributions were in retail trade,
business and personal services, agriculture, forestry, and
fisheries, and entertainment and recreation services (ta
ble 7). The most equal distributions were observed in
manufacturing, finance, insurance, and real estate, trans
portation, communication, and public utilities, and pub
lic administration.
Evenly distributed gains
As shown earlier, there has been a trend toward
greater earnings inequality among men during 1958-77,
although it weakened to some extent during 1970-77.
An obvious question is what was happening to the
earnings distributions of women over these years.
In the aggregate, the distribution of women’s earn
ings remained about as unequal in the 1970’s as it was
in the 1960’s and in the late 1950’s. (See chart 1.) In
Distribution of wage and salary earnings among women, by industry, 1977
Percent share of aggregate wage and salary earnings
Workers
(In
thousands)
Median
income
Gini
index
Tota: .....................................................
34,503
$5,986
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries....................
Mining................................................................
Construction .....................................................
Manufacturing ...................................................
258
75
298
6,117
Transportation, communications, and public
utilities............................................................
Wholesale trade ..............................................
Retail tra d e .......................................................
Finance..............................................................
Business services ............................................
Personal services ............................................
Entertainment and recreational services...........
Professional services........................................
Public administration ........................................
Industry
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lowest
fifth
Second
fifth
Middle
fifth
Fourth
fifth
Highest
fifth
Top 5
percent
.399
3.1
10.3
18.0
26.1
42.4
14.6
2,781
9,408
6,748
6,947
.549
.329
.359
.314
1.7
7.0
4.4
5.6
5.9
13.6
11.8
13.7
12.5
17.6
18.8
18.9
24.4
21.6
25.3
24.7
55.6
40.1
39.7
37.1
26.0
24.1
14.2
12.4
1,349
815
6,444
2,676
844
9,047
7,337
3,664
7,319
5,429
.319
.352
.434
.317
.426
5.0
4.6
3.0
5.5
2.4
13.3
12.6
9.3
14.1
9.3
19.8
18.8
16.4
18.9
17.9
25.3
24.3
25.4
24.0
26.2
36.6
39.7
45.9
37.6
44.2
12.4
15.2
16.7
13.6
16.2
2,366
282
11,331
1,648
1,817
4,327
6,685
8,551
.532
.484
.383
.328
1.9
2.7
3.6
4.9
5.6
7.4
10.9
13.5
12.6
14.5
18.2
19.0
25.5
25.2
26.2
24.9
54.5
50.2
41.2
37.8
20.6
20.8
13.9
12.8
7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Earnings Distribution by Sex
other words, there was no positive or negative trend in
the Gini indexes over these 2 decades. (See table 5.)
Furthermore, the Gini indexes for those women with
steady year-round employment indicate neither a posi
tive nor a negative trend in earnings inequality since
1958.
Among women wage and salary earners, there was
some slight evidence of a movement towards greater
earnings inequality, especially between 1958 and 1970
(table 5). However, this trend was certainly not as
strong as that exhibited by men over the same period.
Somewhat more puzzling are the Gini indexes for the
full-time year-round wage and salary workers—a series
that only begins in 1967. According to these data, there
has been a gradual trend towards greater earnings
equality between 1967 and 1977, but here, too, the
trend is not a very strong one. So, the Gini indexes for
these aggregate earnings distributions of women indi
cate neither strong positive nor negative trends in earn
ings inequality.
The picture is also mixed when the earnings distri
butions of women in the various occupations and indus
tries are examined. In the clerical and sales occupations,
for example, earnings distributions have tended towards
greater inequality, and this applies even in the case of
full-time year-round workers (table 8). On the other
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
hand, there is an indication of a movement towards
greater equality in the earnings distributions of women
working full time, year round in professional, manageri
al, and service occupations. Among the industries in
which women are employed, a movement towards
greater earnings inequality was seen in manufacturing,
transportation, communication, and public utilities, re
tail trade, finance, insurance, and real estate, business
and personal services, and public administration (table
9). However, the wage and salary earnings distributions
for women who work full time, year round in these in
dustries provide little evidence of any trend toward ei
ther equality or inequality, except in the professional
service industry (toward equality) and in public admin
istration (toward inequality).
How is the lack of any significant trend in earnings
inequality for women reconciled with the general trend
towards inequality for men? Certainly, the number of
young, part-time female workers has grown rapidly in
the last 20 years, and an increasing number of women
have been employed in higher paying white-collar occu
pations. These factors should have created greater earn
ings variation, resulting in greater earnings inequality,
just as in the case of men. Although the data indicate a
trend toward earnings inequality for certain occupations
and industries, other sectors show an opposite trend,
with no overall trend evident.
A careful review of the women’s and men’s earnings
distributions in 1958 and 1977, although not providing
an answer to the above question, did produce some in
teresting statistics. The following tabulation shows the
earnings of men and women at various percentiles of
the distributions in 1958 and 1977:
Distribution percentiles
20th
Women:
1958 ..................
1977 ..................
Percent change
..
$
379
1,109
192.6
40th
60th
80th
$ 1,062 $ 2,152 $ 3,324
3,241
6,070
9,417
205.2
182.1
183.3
Men:
1958 ..................
1977 ..................
Percent change
..
$ 1,422
3,279
130.6
$ 3,342 $4,148 $6,141
8,699
13,279 18,832
160.0
185.7
206.7
Earnings for women at the 20th, 40th, 60th, and 80th
percentiles in 1977 were near or about 200 percent
higher than they were in 1958. In other words, earnings
growth was fairly uniform across the distribution.
Among men, however, a different picture emerges: earn
ings growth was much faster at the 80th percentile than
it was at the 20th. One possible explanation for these dif
ferent growth patterns and trends in inequality between
men and women may result from differences in occupa
tional patterns.
Despite their entry into many new occupations in re
cent years, women still tend to be clustered in a
relatively few occupations, primarily clerical and service
occupations, where opportunities for advancement are
typically limited and earnings increases have been tradi
tionally moderate. Men, however, are found in a variety
of occupations and tend to dominate professional and
managerial occupations where employment opportuni
Table 8. Regression results of Gini indexes for the
earnings of women by occupation, 1958-77
All earners
Item
Full-time year-round earners
Trend
t statistic
coefficient
R2
.0001
.570
.019
-.0004
•f
.0040
-.0022
.0027
.0029
0033
.0013
.0015
.0072
-.0002
-1.043
1.632
’ -2.978
18.808
’ 5.326
' 3.290
14.213
15.718
13.803
-.023
T o ta l....................
Professional and
technical workers . . . .
Farmers and farm
managers....................
Managers ......................
Clerical w o rkers.............
Salesworkers..................
Craftworkers ..................
Operatives......................
Service w o rkers.............
Farm laborers ...............
Nonfarm la borers...........
1Statistically significant at the 1-percent level.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Trend
t statistic
coefficient
R2
.141
-.0006
-1.669
.060
-.0014
1 -3.233
.381
.136
.343
.820
.625
.389
.511
.658
.460
.000
-.0233
-.0037
.0013
.0038
.0003
0001
- 0028
-.0290
-.0041
’ -3.333
’ -3.960
14.561
’ 7.193
.306
.361
1 -4.923
’ -5.239
-1.869
.395
.480
.550
.753
.006
008
.588
.618
.170
Table 9. Regression results of Gini indexes for wage and
salary income of women by industry, 1958 7 7 1
Item
T o ta l....................
Agriculture, forestry
and fisheries...............
Mining .............................
Construction....................
Manufacturing..................
Transportation, commu
nications, and public
utilities ........................
Wholesale tra d e .............
Retail trade ....................
Finance ...........................
Business services...........
Personal services...........
Entertainment and recreational services . . . .
Professional services. . . .
Public administration . . . .
All wage and salary earners
Full-time year-round earners
Trend
t statistic
coefficient
Trend
t statistic
coefficient
R2
0.0007
2 4.458
.525
-.0016
-.0039
-.0057
.0018
.0017
2 -3.376
-1.501
1.540
24.554
.388
.112
.116
.535
.0015
.0013
n
<4)
n
.0025
.0001
.0027
.0016
.0030
.0016
2 4.889
.120
210.172
2 4.316
26.307
2 3.309
.570
.001
.852
.509
.689
.378
.0022
.0010
.0006
-.0008
-.0007
-.0031
2.204
.623
.738
.713
-.589
-2.019
.351
041
.057
.054
.037
.312
.0023
.0006
.0039
1.899
1.665
27.272
.167
.134
.746
-.0035
.0030
( 4)
2 -6.666
2 5.723
( 4)
.840
.785
( 4)
n
3 -3.107
R2
.762
1.597
0.518
( 4)
( 4)
.061
.221
1The Gini indexes used in estimating the trends for full-time year-round workers were for
the years 1967-1977.
2 Statistically significant at the 1-percent level.
3 Statistically significant at the 5-percent level.
“ Trends were not estimated for these groups because of the lack of data.
ties have expanded rapidly and earnings growth has
been above average.
d i s c u s s i o n may necessarily appear incomplete be
cause changes in the distribution of earnings, no matter
how thoroughly analyzed, cannot be labeled “good” or
“bad.” No consensus has been reached on what consti
tutes an optimum distribution. Some may argue for a
more (or less) egalitarian society, but few, if any, have
ventured to set forth the outlines of a pattern of distri
bution to be used as a goal in public policy. The cur
rent state of knowledge, though imperfect, does
recognize the necessity of avoiding extremes: absolute
inequality would stifle all freedom, absolute equality
would produce a very dull society.
Because levels of earnings are affected by many fac
tors, including effort, skill, knowledge, inheritance, fam
ily status, and luck, it becomes difficult, if not
impossible, to single out the specific factors responsible
for any given change in earnings distribution. Even if
one wished to eliminate the element of “luck,” he or she
would be hard-pressed to know how to proceed. Yet
the extent to which wealth and income are widely or
narrowly distributed does reflect the nature of society
and its economic system. Greater attention to earnings
distribution data can yield more understanding of eco
nomic forces and the actions needed to effect change. □
T h is
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The authors would like to acknowledge the
contribution of Emmett Spiers, a statistician with the Census Bureau,
who developed the data used in this article.
9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Earnings Distribution by Sex
See Peter Henle, “Exploring the distribution of earned income,”
December 1972, pp. 16-27.
See Gian S. Sahota, “Theories of Personal Income Distribution: A
S u r v e y J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic L ite r a tu r e , March 1978, pp. 1-55; John
A. Brittain, I n h e rita n c e a n d th e I n e q u a lity o f M a te r ia l W ea lth (Wash
ington, D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1978); Christopher Jencks,
and others, W h o G e ts A h e a d : Th e E c o n o m ic D e te r m in a n ts o f S u cc e ss in
A m e r ic a (New York Basic Books, 1979); Stanley Lebergott, Th e
A m e r ic a n E c o n o m y : I n co m e, W ealth , a n d W a n t (Princeton, N.J.,
Princeton University Press, 1976); Sheldon Danziger and Eugene
Smolensky, “Income Inequality: Problems of Measurement and Inter
pretation,” in A m e r ic a n S o c ie ty I n k (Chicago, Rand-McNally, 1977).
Alice M. Rivlin, “Income Distribution — Can Economists Help?” P a
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w ,
p e r s a n d P r o c ee d in g s o f th e E ig h ty -S e v e n th A n n u a l M e e tin g o f th e
A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic A sso cia tio n , May 1975, pp. 1-15; Morton Paglin,
“The Measurement and Trend of Inequality: A Basic Revision,”
September 1975, pp. 598-609; Eric Nel
son, William R. Johnson, Sheldon Danziger, Robert Haveman, Eu
gene Smolensky, Joseph J. Minarik, C. John Kurien, and Morton
Paglin, “The Measurement and Trend of Inequality; Comments,”
A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R ev ie w , June 1977, pp. 497-531.
A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w ,
The Gini index (developed by an Italian statistician, Corrado Gini,
1884-1965), can best be described by the use of the following dia
gram:
If recipients are ranked according to their income along the horizontal
axis and their total income is placed on the vertical axis, Line A will
represent complete equality (10 percent of income recipients received
10 percent of income, etc.) Line B (Lorenz curve) may represent an
actual distribution which always falls below the diagonal. Gini index
is the ratio of the area between the two lines to the triangle below
Line A, and is always less than 1.0. The closer the Gini index is
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to zero, the more equal the distribution.
4The method used by the Bureau of the Census to calculate the
Gini indexes presented in this article differs slightly from the method
used by the Bureau to derive the Gini indexes that were analyzed in
an earlier article. Both methods used Pareto-linear interpolation and
integration procedures to obtain the income quantiles and Lorenz
Curves underlying the Gini indexes. The current scheme uses entirely
consistent methods, whereas the earlier scheme sometimes combined
Pareto and linear procedures in an inconsistent manner — moreover,
the current scheme uses Simpson’s rule for approximate integration in
calculating the Gini indexes themselves, whereas the earlier scheme
used the trapezoidal rule for approximate integration. For a more
complete description of the improved methodology, see Emmett
Spiers, “Estimation of Summary Measures of Income Size Distribu
tion from Grouped Data,” A m e r ic a n S ta tis tic a l A sso cia tio n , 1 9 7 7 P r o
c e e d in g s o f th e S o c ia l S ta tis tic s S e c tio n , Part 1, pp. 252-57.
In addition, procedures for collecting and processing the income
data were modified during the 1970-77 period, just as they were from
time to time in the earlier years. These changes have been described in
detail in the Census Bureau’s C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n R ep o r ts , Consumer
Income, P -6 0 series, and have generally involved the procedures used
in imputing income information for nonrespondents. Perhaps the most
significant changes occurring in the 1970-77 period were those result
ing in the revision of the 1974 income estimates. These revisions were
necessitated not only by changes in the imputation procedures but
also because of changes in the March CPS questions on income and
work experience, changes in the number and detail of tabulated in
come intervals, and the correction of several small errors found in the
previous processing system. Because of all these changes, the Census
Bureau decided to revise the 1974 income statistics; consequently, this
article contains 2 Gini indexes for the earnings distributions in 1974,
one based on the old processing system and another based on the new
system. For further information on the 1974 revision, see C u r re n t P o p
u la tio n R e p o r ts , Series P -6 0 , No. 105, “Money Income in 1975 of
Families and Persons in The United States,” Bureau of the Census,
1977.
5As an example of some of the research that has been done on the
earnings differences between men and women, see Jacob Mincer and
Solomon Polachek, “Family Investments in Human Capital: Earnings
of Women,” J o u r n a l o f P o litic a l E c o n o m y , March/April 1974, Pt. II;
Mary Corcoran, “The Structure of Female Wages,” T h e A m e r ic a n
E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , May 1978, pp. 165-78; Ronald Oaxaca, “Male-Fe
male Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets,” I n te r n a tio n a l E c o
n o m ic R e v ie w , October 1973, pp. 693-709; and Isabel V. Sawhill,
“The Economics of Discrimination Against Women: Some New Find
ings,” J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R eso u rces, Summer 1973, pp. 383-95.
National Commission recommends
changes in labor force statistics
The National Commission on Employment
and Unemployment Statistics finds the U.S. system
of employment and unemployment statistics
fundamentally sound, but recommends many significant
expansions and refinements of the data
R o b e r t L. S t e i n
How well does our system of employment and unem
ployment statistics serve the needs of users? Congress
raised that question in 1976, established a commission
to address it, and instructed the Secretary of Labor to
explore ways of implementing the commission’s
findings.
When it reported last September, the commission
concluded that U.S. labor force statistics are generally
sound, but called for improvements in a number of
areas. Last month, Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall
told Congress that he agrees with most of the commis
sion’s recommendations and already has implemented a
few of them. This article reports both on the commis
sion's recommendations and the Secretary’s response.
Earlier review— Gordon Committee
Since its inception in the 1940’s, the labor force sta
tistics program always has been the object of careful
scrutiny by the agencies of the Federal government.1
The statistical design and operation of the most com
prehensive part of the system—the household data
obtained through the monthly Current Population Sur
vey (CPS)—has been the responsibility of the Bureau of
the Census and the analytical responsibility since 1959
has been lodged in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. How
ever, because of the central role of employment and unRobert L. Stein is Assistant Commissioner, Office of Current Employ
ment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employment data in the formulation of Government
policy, the statistical procedures and the concepts and
definitions have been subject to periodic review by
interagency committees and by the Joint Economic
Committee of the Congress. Moreover, because the sta
tistics are so widely used in government and the private
sector, the statistical agencies have never introduced
major conceptual or methodological changes without
providing an opportunity for interested parties to review
and comment upon them.
The first presidential review committee was appointed
by President John F. Kennedy in response to wide
spread public criticism of and doubts about the accuracy
of the labor force data because unemployment remained
high during most of 1961, even though economic recov
ery was clearly under way. That 6-member review
group, known as the Gordon Committee because its
chairman was Professor Robert A. Gordon of the Uni
versity of California, delivered its report in 1962. Many
of its recommendations for improvements in concepts
and methods were implemented in a series of actions by
the BLS and the Census Bureau over the ensuing 5
years.2 Among the major changes were the following:
the sample for the survey was expanded by 50 percent;
the questionnaire was sharpened to minimize reliance
upon volunteered information; discouraged workers
were classified as not in the labor force but, for the first
time, were explicitly measured; other information on
persons not in the labor force was collected for
11
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Labor Force Data Proposals
the first time; the age cutoff for labor force de
finitions was raised from 14 years to 16 years; the de
finition of unemployment included for the first time a
specific indication of jobseeking methods used and of
the jobseekers’ current availability for work.
The Gordon Committee report resulted in many tech
nical changes in the way the statistics were compiled,
but did not basically alter their underlying conceptual
or methodological structure,3 and did not end the con
tinuing controversy about the definition of unemploy
ment. This controversy has many variations, but it
really comes down to one basic issue: should the Gov
ernment’s figures on unemployment reflect only those
persons with a strong attachment to the labor force
who suffer significant economic hardship when unem
ployed (for example, family heads), or should the Gov
ernment’s figures reflect all those seeking work plus
those who do not seek work because they believe none
is available and those who are on involuntary part time.
The Government’s present definition is clearly in the
middle of these extremes—it includes all those not
working who are currently seeking work (during the
last 4 weeks) and are available for work (regardless of
the strength of their labor force attachment or the de
gree of hardship involved), but it does not include
workers on involuntary part time or discouraged work
ers.
The Levitan Commission
Whenever unemployment rises, as it did twice in the
1970’s, the figures become subject to more intensive ex
amination and heightened controversy. The late Com
missioner of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin tried to
defuse this criticism by publicizing alternative unem
ployment measures4 and by calling for the creation of
another review commission inasmuch as 15 years had
passed since the Gordon Committee was appointed.
Another development that made conditions ripe for the
appointment of a new commission was emergence in the
1970’s of a new use for unemployment figures— that is,
as a basis for the allocation of funds to specific localities
for training and reemploying the unemployed. Because
the Current Population Survey (CPS), which provides
the data base for national estimates, was never designed
for this purpose, indirect estimation methods have had
to be used in conjunction with CPS benchmarks. Of
ficials in cities and States who believed their unemploy
ment problems were greater than indicated by the of
ficial statistics were increasingly critical of the State and
local unemployment data, and this criticism spilled over
onto the national monthly unemployment data.
As a result of these pressures, in October 1976, the
Congress enacted legislation (Section 13 of PL 94-444)
which mandated the appointment of a review commis
sion to examine “the procedures, concepts, and method
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ology involved in employment and unemployment
statistics and suggesting ways and means of improving
them.” The commission was appointed by President
Jimmy Carter in April 1978.
The 9-member commission, chaired by Sar Levitan of
George Washington University,5 deliberated for nearly
18 months and delivered its final report to the Congress
and Secretary of Labor Marshall, who is responsible for
its implementation, on Labor Day 1979. The Secretary
of Labor, as required by law, reported to Congress last
month as to his response to each of the commission’s
recommendations— whether he considers them desirable
and feasible and, if so, what steps he has taken or plans
to take to implement the recommendations.
The commission’s report, entitled, Counting the Labor
Force comprises more than 300 pages and represents a
distillation of extensive public hearings, the testimony
of a broad spectrum of users, the findings contained in
33 background papers sponsored by the commission,
and lengthy discussions among the commission mem
bers themselves.6
The commission concluded that the available data are
useful in appraising current labor market trends, partic
ularly at the national level. At the same time, the com
mission’s judgment was that the data could be
improved in several respects. In particular, the commis
sion noted that more information was needed on “the
qualitative dimensions of labor market experience” and
on the dynamics of labor market behavior. The commis
sion expressed a need for more comprehensive reporting
on the link between employment status, workers’ earn
ings, and family income. And it was critical of the ade
quacy of available data used as a basis for the
allocation of funds to States and areas. In this case, it
found that the statistical agencies of the Government
were in a difficult situation because the monthly data
needed to satisfy legislative requirements for thousands
of small areas can only be generated by estimation pro
cedures yielding data of doubtful quality.
The commission made nearly 90 recommendations for
changes in the entire system of U.S. employment and
unemployment statistics. (See exhibit 1.) Most of the
recommendations apply to BLS, but a sizable number
were also directed to the Census Bureau, and a smaller
number involved the Department of Labor’s Employ
ment and Training Administration, the Department of
Commerce’s Office of Federal Statistical Policy and
Standards, and the Department of Agriculture’s Eco
nomics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Services. A few of
the recommendations are directed to the Congress and
its legislation affecting the allocation of money under
the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act and
other programs.
Despite the large number of recommendations, a fair
assessment would be that this review commission, like
Exhibit 1.
Summary of recommendations of the National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
P rogram
a ffe c te d
A gency
a ffe c te d
Defining the labor force
Define discouraged workers to refleet job search in last 6 months,
current availability, and desire for
work.
CPS
BLS
Census
Continue to exclude discouraged
workers from the labor force
count, but collect data on them
monthly and tabulate separately.
CPS
BLS
Census
Count Armed Forces members
stationed in the United States as
employed for national statistics,
but do not include them in local
area statistics.
CPS
BLS
Census
Defense
Calculate employment/population
ratio using the Armed Forces in
both the numerator and denominator.
CPS
BLS
Define program participants in institutional training who are not
actively seeking work as not in
the labor force (rather than unemployed) and those in work experience programs as employed
(rather than unemployed).
CPS
BLS
Census
S t a tu s
Accepted.
CPS
BLS
Accepted.
Adding labor market
information
Collect information on volunteer
work every 3 years through a special supplement to the CPS.
CPS
Test the feasibility of collecting
information from unemployed
persons in the outgoing CPS rotation groups on their reservation
wage, earnings on prior job, and
type of job sought.
CPS
(,)Collect detailed labor market
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SIPP
Accepted,
BLS
depending
Census
ACTION on CPS
workload
and budget.
BLS
Census
Census
Accepted
for an annual supplement,
depending
on CPS
workload
and budget.
Part 1 ac-
P rogram
a ff e c te d
A gency
a ff e c te d
S t a tu s
CPS
HEW
BLS
cepted.
Part 2 rejected.
CPS
BLS
Census
Accepted
for an annual supplement,
depending
on CPS
workload
and budget.
CPS
BLS
Census
Accepted.
New questions being
tested.
Expand the CPS sample to produce more reliable monthly data
for blacks and Hispanics and annual estimates for Asian and Native Americans.
CPS
BLS
Census
Accepted,
depending
on budget.
Identify race and ethnicity in the
CPS in the same manner as in the
decennial census.
CPS
BLS
Census
Implemented.
Determine usual hours worked for
all employed persons and the reasons for working fewer hours.
CPS
BLS
Census
Accepted.
New questions being
tested.
Use a specific hours cutoff (35
hours of more versus less than 35
hours) to determine whether the
unemployed are seeking full- or
part-time work.
CPS
BLS
Census
Accepted.
New questions being
tested.
Improving data for consistently
defined rural areas should be a
consideration in the CPS redesign.
CPS
BLS
Census
Accepted,
subject to
solution of
technical
problems.
Measures of economic hardship
should include specific measures
for the rural population.
CPS
BLS
Census
Accepted
as part of
BLS annual
report, if
rural area
data can be
developed.
Extend the occupational employment statistics program to all
States on a regular basis.
OES
BLS
ETA
NOICC
Accepted,
depending
on budget.
information on the new survey of
Income and Program Participation (SIPP) sponsored by the BuAccepted.
New meth- reau of the Census and the Department of Health, Education
od being
and Welfare.(2) If SIPP does not
tested.
prove to be a suitable vehicle, expand the CPS questionnaire for
Accepted
on an inter- the outgoing rotation group to
collect more detailed information
im basis.
Final deci- on source of income.
sion subject to eval- Obtain monthly information on
whether employed respondents
uation of
have begun new jobs within the
new data.
past month, and if so, whether it
was through job changing, new
Accepted.
Data to be hires, or other method.
provided
by the Department
of Defense.
Ascertain each month the school
enrollment status of 16 to 24 year
Accepted.
olds, including whether attendance is on a full- or part-time
basis.
Linking employment status
with earnings and income
Publish an annual report on measures of economic hardship resulting from low wages, unemployment, and involuntary part-time
work.
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Labor Force Data Proposals
Exhibit 1.
Continued— Summary of the National Commission’s recommendations
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
P rogram
a ffe c te d
A gency
a ffe c te d
S t a tu s
P rogram
a ff e c te d
Have occupational projections for
the Nation, States, and areas systematically reviewed by the responsible agencies to analyze
forecast errors and improve future
projections. Provide a range of
forecasts based on alternate assumptions, as a guide to errors in
projections. Research should be
undertaken by the BLS on the response of occupational supply
and demand to market factors
such as wage changes.
OOS
Conduct pilot studies by State
employment security agencies to
determine feasibility and costs of
developing local occupational unemployment rates.
UnemBLS
ployment ETA
Insurance
OES
Accepted
in principie, but
technical
problems
are severe.
Collect occupational mobility
data in a special supplement to
the CPS to find out whether respondents changed occupations in
previous year and, if so, what
their occupations were.
CPS
Include question on occupation,
industry and place of residence 1
year ago on mid-decade and 1990
census.
BLS
NOICC
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
Parts 1
and 2 being implemented.
Part 3 accepted,
subject to
solution of
technical
problems.
A gency
a ff e c te d
Study occupational differential in
agriculture to develop more detailed and meaningful agricultural
occupational classifications for the
Standard Occupational Classification system.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
Accepted.
Explore the possibility of including labor turnover questions in
the quarterly agricultural establishment survey.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
Prior re- *
search and
testing required.
In the post-1980 redesign of the
CPS, design 50 State samples to
improve the efficiency of the survey.
CPS
Census
BLS
Accepted.
Accepted,
depending
on budget.
Conduct intensified research and
analysis on bias in the CPS data
with an explicit timetable for publication of a set of total error estimates for prominent labor force
series.
CPS
Census
Underway
or
planned.
1985 and Census
1990 census
Will consider in
planning
process.
CPS
Census
Underway
or
planned.
Insure that the new Standard Occupational Classification codes are
broadly comparable with historical CPS occupational statistics.
CPS
BLS
Census
Implemented.
Use civilian codes for military
personnel in occupations with a
civilian counterpart and develop
new codes for other military occupations.
CPS
BLS
Defense
Accepted,
in principie, if data
can be provided by
Department of
Defense.
Investigate the role of sample rotation bias in estimates by studying a group of addresses for 16
months to determine the number
of new families moving into the
residences. Collect information on
the characteristics of those who
move out, those who move in, and
those who fail to cooperate initially, but subsequently participate in
the survey.
Assemble more information on
the characteristics of noninterviews to improve estimation procedures.
CPS
Census
Underway
or
planned.
Conduct a study to determine
whether the differential effects of
rotation group bias on the ratio
and composite estimate make use
of the composite estimate desirable. Explore alternate methods of
estimation.
CPS
Census
Underway
or
planned.
Include estimates of the “uncounted population” in the population
controls used for the national and
State labor force estimates; that is,
adjust the population totals for
the undercount.
CPS
LAUS
Census
BLS
Decision
must
await further developments.
Conduct a study of biases in the
measurement of labor force status
that arises from the use of proxy
respondents. The investigation
should be disaggregated for various groups in the labor force.
CPS
Census
Underway
or
planned.
BLS
Census
Test the feasibility of expanding
the BLS Labor Turnover Survey
to trade, service, and other industries and linking a few basic demographic characteristics with the
turnover data.
LTS
BLS
Accepted,
depending
on budget.
A job vacancy statistics program
is not recommended unless new
evidence shows that useful data
can be collected in a cost-effective
manner.
Job vacancy
statistics
BLS
Decision
depends, in
part, on
outcome of
BLS pilot
tests.
Consider a farm operator as selfemployed.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Accepted,
depending
on user reaction.
Current Population Survey
Exhibit 1.
Continued — Summary of the National Commission’s recommendations
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
Establish a separate national CPS
sample of approximately 10,000
households for a 2-year period to
collect detailed supplementary labor market information that cannot be collected in the regular
CPS.
P rogram
a ffe c te d
CPS
A gency
a ffe c te d
BLS
Census
S t a tu s
Accepted,
depending
on budget.
Nonagricultural Establishment
Survey
BLS
Expand the BLS-790 sample to
provide 508 published industry
series and current aggregate employment estimates for all Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas and remaining areas of
States.
CES
Complete documentation of the
BLS-790 program for use in
studying possible redesign of the
establishment survey.
CES
BLS
Expand research on methods used
to adjust for bias in the BLS-790
employment estimates.
CES
BLS
Study the quality and coverage of
the benchmark employment data
from unemployment insurance records.
CES
Benchmark the BLS-790 employment data annually.
Accepted
within
framework
of program
redesign.
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
P rogram
a ff e c te d
A gency
a ff e c te d
S t a tu s
Conduct research to determine if
any bias exists in reporting hours
and earnings. Publish an
expanded and more thorough
statement of imprecision and bias
for all estimates.
CES
BLS
Accepted
in principie. Technical problems being
addressed.
Test the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of collecting data on
work hours of nonproduction
workers through the BLS-790
program.
CES
BLS
Accepted
within
framework
of program
redesign.
Agricultural Establishment
Survey
Continue efforts to identify the
overlap of list and area samples of
employees through direct inspection of the social security list. The
feasibility of collecting employment identification numbers for
this purpose should be tested.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
Partly
implemented.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
Accepted,
depending
on budget.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
Accepted.
BLS
Restore the quarterly agricultural
establishment survey sample to its
Accepted
pre-October 1979 level.
within
framework
of program
redesign.
Institute a regular program of
field quality control checks.
Accepted.
CES
BLS
Accepted.
Include livestock series (SIC 0751)
in the Department of Agriculture
survey only.
Accepted,
with reservations.
Where sampling is inadequate,
delete certain industries from the
monthly tables in E m p lo y m e n t
a n d E a rn in g s, but publish them in
the annual bulletin.
CES
BLS
Rejected.
Preference
is to improve sampies.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
CES
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
Accepted.
Revise the Standard Industrial
Classification codes on a gradual
and continuing basis.
Reinstate BLS coverage of Standard Industrial Classifications 08
(forestry, hunting, fishing) and 09
(trapping).
Use payroll counts of all workers
without regard to occupation.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
Judgment
reserved
because of
technical
problems.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
Judgment
reserved
because of
technical
problems.
Quarterly ESCS
Farm
Employment Survey
Accepted.
Institute a formal continuing
quality control program for the
B LS-790 and E S-202 program.
CES
Evaluate the number of cells and
degree of sample stratification annually at the time of benchmark
revision to improve the accuracy
of hours and earnings statistics,
as well as employment statistics.
CES
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BLS
BLS
BLS
Accepted.
Accepted
in principie. Technical
problems
being addressed.
Accepted
Modify the Department of Agriwithin
framework culture’s sample design to permit
of program derivation of quarterly average
employment estimates. Monthly
redesign.
estimates should be published
where reliability standards permit.
Accepted
in princiPublish thorough documentation
pie. Techof the Department of Agriculnical
ture's quarterly agricultural esproblems
tablishment statistics program.
being addressed.
.
15
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Labor Force Data Proposals
Exhibit 1.
Continued— Summary of the National Commission’s recommendations
P rogram
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
a ffe c te d
A gency
a ff e c te d
S t a tu s
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
P rogram
a ff e c te d
Unemployment Insurance
Statistics
A gency
a ff e c te d
Longitudinal data
Improve data comparability
among States by analyzing differences in the qualifying requirements and duration provisions of
State unemployment insurance
laws that affect the insured unemployment rates.
UnemETA
ployment
insurance
Accepted.
Continue to collect the ES-203
data on characteristics of the insured unemployed through a Federal-State cooperative program.
E S-203
Accepted
in principie. Other
data
sources being explored.
Assign full responsibility for the
ES-203 program to the Employment and Training Administration.
ES-203
Fund a quality control program
to enhance the accuracy and timeliness of the E S - 203 through appropriations to the Unemployment Insurance Service.
ES-203
Analyze the characteristics of
claimants over the last 15 or 20
years.
E S-203
Reinstitute collection in the E S 203 reports of the basic characteristics of the insured unemployed
who exhaust their benefits.
ETA
ETA
ETA
ETA
Accepted
in principie. Other
data
sources being explored.
Accepted
in principie. Other
data
sources being explored.
Accepted
in principie. Other
data
sources being explored.
ES-203
ETA
Accepted
in principie. Other
data
sources being explored.
CPS
CES
BLS
Research
being conducted on
CPS-based
series. Establishment-based
series will
be continued at this
time.
Resume publication of gross flow
data, if current defects can be satisfactorily reduced. In the meantime, these data should be
published occasionally, with an
accompanying warning about
their reliability. Prepare monthy
gross flow data time series tapes
for public use.
CPS
BLS
Census
Accepted,
subject to
solution of
technical
problems.
Prepare public use tapes containing longitudinal CPS microdata.
CPS
Census
Accepted.
Pending further advances in regression or other methods of
seasonal adjustment, continue the
X - l l and BLS-SF methods for
seasonally adjusting labor force
data.
CPS
CES
BLS
Accepted.
Adjust unemployment rates and
other important current labor statistics on a concurrent basis.
CPS
BLS
Rejected.
Continue to revise adjusted historical data once a year.
CPS
BLS
Accepted.
Use the X - l l / A R 1 M A method
for seasonally adjusting major labor force series that are characterized by rapidly changing seasonality.
CPS
Census
BLS
Accepted.
Develop standard errors for
seasonally-adjusted data.
CPS
BLS
Accepted.
Expand the CPS to provide a
maximum expected 6.5-percent
coefficient of variation in the annual average estimates of unemployment for States and SMSA’s
with a population of 1 million or
more, 11 major central cities and
the corresponding remainder of
States and SMSA’s.
CPS
LAUS
Census
BLS
Accepted
in principie. Proposal modified to improve data
for 125
SMSA’s
within
same budgetary constraints.
Implementation depends on
budget.
To meet requirements for monthly
or quarterly State and sub-State
statistics, update immediately the
handbook procedures for estimating employment and unemployment. Update past CPS estimates
to the current month in ways that
LAUS
BLS
CES
Census
1985 census
Accepted,
subject to
solution of
technical
problems,
and budget.
Seasonal adjustment
State and local statistics
Comparing data from different
sources
V
Develop a spendable earnings series based on the new CPS quarterly earnings data (if the data
prove reliable) to replace the series based on establishment data.
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S t a tu s
Exhibit 1.
Continued— Summary of the National Commission’s recommendations
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
P rogram
a ffe c te d
A gency
a ffe c te d
S t a tu s
will minimize both the size of annual revisions to the estimates
and the distortion of monthly
movements. Along with
expanding the nonagricultural establishment survey to provide
current employment data for all
SMSA’s and the corresponding
remainder of States, collect labor
force information on small areas
in the mid-decade census, if the
expense is not excessive.
Review present statistical requirements pertaining to the allocation
of funds to States and localities,
including the frequency with
which statistics are mandated and
the use of allocation formulas that
place a premium on the accuracy
of estimates.
Grant al- Congress
Labor
location
Commerce
Avoid using monthly data for allocation of funds to States and localities. Use graduated allocation
formulas, when feasible.
Grant al- Congress
location
Accepted
in principie. Implementation
depends on
the Congress.
Accepted
in principie. Implementation
depends on
the Congress.
Administration and
presentation
Accepted.
The Office of Federal Statistical
Policy and Standards should be
consulted during the initial stages
of legislative formulation by any
department regarding potential
factors to be used in formula
grant allocations.
ComGrant
allocation merce
A statistical reliability note should
accompany all legislative proposals, submitted, including cost estimates for any new or expanded
data collection requirements.
Legislation
Commerce
ETA
BLS
Other
Accepted
with reservations.
Allow the BLS sole funding authority for the BLS-790, BLS-
FederalState
ETA
BLS
Funding
arrange-
NOTE: HEW = U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare.
GES = Occupational employment statistics.
ETA = Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Depart
ment of Labor.
NOICC = National Occupational Information Coordinating
Committee.
its predecessor the Gordon Committee, did not call for
a basic overhaul in any of the major statistical pro
grams or of the specific concepts, methods, or proce
dures in use. Its recommendations for changes in defi
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
R e c o m m e n d a tio n
P rogram
a ff e c te d
A gency
a ff e c te d
S t a tu s
1219, ES-202, Occupational Employment Statistics, and Local
Area Unemployment Statistics
programs.
programs
ments being negotiated by the
affected
agencies.
Provide funds so that the BLS can
establish a training program for
workers in Federal-State statistics
programs.
Federal- BLS
State programs
Accepted
with reservations.
Expand the BLS regional staff to
assist State and local agencies in
their statistical work.
Federal- BLS
State programs
Judgment
reserved.
Continue to insulate the BLS statistical program from partisan influence.
Various
BLS
Accepted.
The BLS advisory councils should
adopt a more active role.
Various
BLS
Accepted.
Establish a new advisory council
broadly representative of the data
user community.
Various
BLS
Rejected.
Prior to instituting major changes Various
affecting current statistical programs, the BLS should conduct
broad public information programs to describe the contemplated changes and solicit comments.
Where appropriate, advance notice
of planned changes should be
published in the Federal Register.
*
Review the Nation’s labor market Various
information system at least once
each decade.
BLS
Accepted.
BLS
ETA
Agriculture
Census
Accepted.
Various
BLS
Accepted.
Review the present array of alternative unemployment measures in
light of the conceptual issues addressed in the recommendations
of the National Commission of
Employment and Unemployment
Statistics.
OOS = Occupational outlook statistics.
LTS = Labor Turnover Survey.
ESCS = Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Services, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
LAUS = Local Area Unemployment Statistics.
CES = Current Employment Statistics.
nitions are minor. The commission considered but
rejected recommending the development of an annual
index of economic hardship, and instead called for the
publication of an annual report on this subject. It also
17
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Labor Force Data Proposals
considered and rejected the possibility of counting “dis
couraged workers” as unemployed. The major thrusts
of the recommendations were to call for: (1) the collec
tion, processing, analysis, and reporting of more data
about the employed, the unemployed, and persons not
in the labor force; (2) the expansion and strengthening
of samples now in use to provide more reliable area, de
mographic, industry, and occupational data; and (3) the
intensification of research into a number of long-term
methodological problems. Many of the commission’s
recommendations were, in effect, encouragement for the
statistical agencies to pursue efforts already under con
sideration or under way for data development and data
improvement. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the rec
ommendations of the commission should have consider
able impact on employment and unemployment
statistics programs over the next several years simply
because of the added weight and support provided by a
prestigious body to specific decisions and courses of ac
tion. Some of the major specific recommendations are
summarized in the following discussion. Except as not
ed, the Secretary of Labor endorsed these recommenda
tions.
Labor force definitions
The commission spent a great deal of time con
sidering possible changes in labor force definitions. For
example, it considered the desirability of introducing
cutoffs based on hours of work or hours of seeking
work as criteria for inclusion in the labor force; of rais
ing the age cutoff from 16 to 18; and tightening the def
inition of jobseeking by ruling out .some informal meth
ods. In the final analysis, it rejected all these courses of
action and left the basic definitions almost completely
intact.
Discouraged workers. The most controversial definitional
issue considered by the commission was that of discour
aged workers. The present statistical practice, rec
ommended by the Gordon Committee, defines discour
aged workers as persons who want to work but are not
seeking work because they believe none is available, and
classifies them as not in the labor force. Information is
compiled and published on the number and characteris
tics of discouraged workers on a quarterly basis. The
commission recommended monthly publication and a
change in the criteria for defining discouraged workers.
But, it urged continuing the practice of classifying them
as not in the labor force, rather than as unemployed.
The new criteria would involve determining whether a
person had sought work in the past 6 months, and
whether he or she was currently available for and want
ed work. Persons who meet these criteria would be de
fined as discouraged workers.
The Secretary of Labor accepted the change in the
18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
definition of discouraged workers, but indicated that the
final decision on their classification as “unemployed” or
“not in the labor force” should await the accumulation
and study of data under the new definition. In the
meantime, discouraged workers will continue to be
classified as “not in the labor force.”
At present, two versions of a specific set of questions
which would implement this commission proposal are
being tested in the Census Bureau’s 3,200-household
Methods Development Survey.” If this recommenda
tion is proven feasible, a change in the method of defin
ing discouraged workers, and monthly compilation and
reporting of the data, could go into effect in January
1983.
Armed Forces. One significant definitional change
recommended by the commission was to include mem
bers of the Armed Forces among the employed for pur
poses of national statistics (but not to include them in
local area statistics), and to include them in the numer
ator and denominator in calculating the employmentpopulation ratio.
This recommendation was accepted by the Secretary,
with the understanding that the decision might be
reconsidered if there should be a change in military per
sonnel policy (a shift from an all-volunteer armed serv
ices to a military draft). In implementing this defi
nitional change, data will continue to be obtained from
the Department of Defense, rather than through the
CPS.
Economic hardship
The commission deliberated extensively about the
merits of recommending the development of specific
measures of “labor market-related economic hardship.”
An early draft of the commission’s report, circulated in
January 1979 for public comment, contained a formula
tion of such measures synthesizing information on
weeks and hours worked and weeks looking for work in
the previous calendar year; workers’ annual earnings;
and the incomes of their families in relation to the pov
erty line, which in turn is adjusted for family size. The
draft report also contained an extensive discussion of
the conceptual and technical problems in developing
such measures. The commission’s final recommendation
was for BLS to develop an annual report in which data
would be provided and analyzed on three aspects of in
dividual labor market hardship—low wages, unemploy
ment, and insufficient participation in the labor force.
The commission recommended that these data, which
would pertain to individuals, should also be analyzed in
the context of family income and composition.
Secretary Marshall commented that this was poten
tially one of the commission’s most important recom
mendations because the annual report could enhance
public understanding of the relationship between em
ployment status and family income.
Additional information
The commission devoted a significant part of its re
port to a discussion of recommendations for the col
lection of new information on the labor market, and the
extension of coverage of existing programs. Of the 23
recommendations in chapters 6 and 7, 13 relate mainly
to the CPS. The more significant recommendations per
taining to the CPS are the following:
1. The sample should be expanded to strengthen the
reliability of data for racial and ethnic minorities. This
is one of the objectives of the Census Bureau and BLS
in planning for redesign of the CPS after completion of
the 1980 decennial census.
2. There should be some testing of the feasibility of
collecting monthly or quarterly information on the un
employed with respect to the lowest wage they will ac
cept (their reservation wage), earnings on prior jobs,
and the occupation being sought. This type of informa
tion has been collected in the CPS on an ad hoc basis
in the past, although nonresponse rates have been com
paratively high. Both the BLS and the Census Bureau
have a strong preference for an annual supplement to
the CPS as the best way to collect this type of informa
tion.
3. Monthly data should be collected on new jobs
obtained by the employed, and whether they were
obtained through a job change, a recall from layoff, en
try into the labor force, or some other method. (Again,
th e statistical agencies prefer an annual supplem ent to
collect this data.)
4. Monthly data should be obtained on the school
attendance of youth, and whether enrollment is full or
part time. Such information presently is available only
in October; in other months, proxy information is avail
able from a question on major activity during the sur
vey week, but this is a less satisfactory approach.
Questions on school enrollment are included in the
Methods Development Survey test panels.
5. Questions on usual hours of work, and reasons
for working fewer hours, should be asked of all workers
rather than only those working 1-34 hours as is done
presently. These are also being tested in the Methods
Development Survey.
6. Special supplementary inquiries should be con
ducted on occupational mobility and volunteer work.
Other programs which would be expanded by the
commission are the Occupational Employment Statistics
program which would cover all States, and the Labor
Turnover Survey which would cover all industries.
The commission recommended against the further de
velopment of a job vacancy statistics program “unless
new evidence is presented that useful data can be col
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
lected in a cost-effective manner.”
Recommendations which involve (1) extension of sam
ple coverage to additional population groups, States,
or industries, or (2) the addition of questions to the
CPS questionnaire, depend for their implementation on
the availability of resources—both staff and finan
cial—and on the resolution of some technical problems.
The only controversial recommendation is that on job
vacancy statistics. The commission recommended
against collection of such data; however, the Secretary
of Labor noted that a decision in this area must await
the results of BLS testing activities.
CPS methodology
There are two major recommendations relating to
sampling and estimation. The post-1980 redesign on the
CPS should be based on 50 State samples to improve
the efficiency of the survey. This has all along been one
of the basic planning assumptions of the Census Bureau
and BLS in the work on the redesign. The commission
also recommended that estimates of the “uncounted
population” be included in the population controls for
the national and State labor force estimates. This is a
very controversial recommendation because it affects the
data used for many different government programs, and
because estimation of the undercount below the national
level is fraught with problems. The Census Bureau
sponsored a special conference of academicians and pol
icymakers in February 1980 to discuss the issues raised
by the population undercount and the kinds of data
and methods that might be used to adjust the census
counts. A recommendation on this sensitive issue will
be made by the Census Bureau to the Department of
Commerce sometime during the next 12 months.
Other recommendations on methodology call upon
the Census Bureau to intensify its research efforts into
the various biases which have been long known to exist
in the CPS.
BLS nonagricultural establishment survey
The commission presented several technical recom
mendations designed to improve the accuracy of the
BLS industry employment statistics obtained through
the monthly establishment survey. The commission also
called for an expansion of survey coverage to additional
industries and to all Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (SMSA’s) and remaining areas of States. The lat
ter was considered useful in its own right as well as for
the purpose of improving the monthly employment esti
mates used in the calculation of the labor force and un
employment rates for local areas in the Local Area
Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program. The recom
mendations on improving the accuracy of these data are
being considered by BLS within the framework of a
19
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Labor Force Data Proposals
multi-year redesign of the program of industry employ
ment statistics.
Gross flow data. The commission considered gross flow
data to be extremely important in providing insight into
the dynamics of labor force behavior. The gross flow
data provide the user with estimates of the total number
entering the labor force (gross inflow), those leaving the
labor force (gross outflow) each month, as well as gross
shifts between employment and unemployment. These
data have received increasing use, though still limited
because they are known to be subject to several kinds
of biases which cannot be readily measured. The com
mission does not offer a solution to this problem but
urges the statistical agencies to reduce the defects in the
data to an acceptable level, and to begin publishing
them at least annually, with appropriate caveats.
Seasonal adjustment. The commission recommended
that the seasonal adjustment of major labor force series
be converted to the X - l l ARIMA method and that
the seasonal adjustment be on a concurrent basis.7 The
X - l l ARIMA method (which includes a provision for
forecasting the original series 1 year ahead) has been
found to be particularly effective for series whose sea
sonal patterns are changing, and for identifying turning
points in the business cycle. The concurrent method
would involve developing seasonal adjustment factors
for each month by using all the available data, includ
ing the current month, and then revising the entire se
ries at the end of each year. However, the concurrent
method would preclude the prior announcement of sea
sonal factors for future months. In January 1980, the
BLS shifted to the X - l l ARIMA method but not to
the concurrent method. There will be a recomputation
and prior announcement of factors every 6 months, but
revision of the entire series only once a year.
Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)
This program is discussed extensively in the commis
sion’s report. There are four basic recommendations:
• Expand the CPS sample substantially so that annual
benchmarks for States and 35 large SMSA’s will be
significantly improved.
•Update and improve the so-called “handbook proce
dure’’—a building-block approach to estimating unem
ployment by month by area, using unemployment insur
ance administrative data as its primary input.
•Collect labor force information in the mid-decade
census in order to improve local area unemployment es
timates.
•Have the Congress review and possibly modify the
statistical requirements imposed by various legislative
enactments.
The BLS and the Department of Labor endorsed the
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
commission’s proposal to interview a larger number of
households each month to obtain more reliable data for
States and metropolitan areas. However, the Depart
ment believes that it would be more desirable, within
the same budgetary framework, to improve the data for
the 125 largest SMSA’s (containing about 62 percent of
the Nation’s population), sacrificing some of the pro
posed improvement for the 35 largest SMSA’s. This al
ternative would provide for a much larger number of
metropolitan areas benchmarked to the CPS and should
lead to greater equity in the distribution of Federal
money. In addition, this proposal would provide annual
average data on the demographic characteristics of the
employed and unemployed in these areas, which should
be of substantial value in program planning and policy
analysis.
The sample expansion is being incorporated into the
planning for the CPS redesign. Implementation de
pends, of course, on the availability of financial re
sources.
The BLS is exploring the feasibility of various means
of improving the handbook procedure and has let a
contract with Mathematica Policy Research Corp. to
develop an improved handbook-type methodology, in
cluding an investigation of regression techniques as
recommended by the commission. However, it is too
early to tell what the results of this research will yield.
The fate of the other recommendations is also uncertain
at this time.
Other recommendations
Presentation o f data. The commission’s recommenda
tions in this area were not very extensive, calling for an
improvement in the explanatory note to the press re
lease (already implemented by BLS), and a review of
the U 1- U 7 alternative measures of unemployment.
These measures are being reviewed by BLS.
Administration. The commission made a variety of rec
ommendations, involving such issues as the statistical
requirements imposed by legislation, the funding of
Federal-State programs, the training of State personnel,
the utilization of advisory committees by the BLS, and
a comprehensive review of the labor force data system
at least once a decade. The commission offered a num
ber of constructive suggestions which could impact the
environment in which statistics are developed, but will
have little short-term effect on the data themselves.
R e a c t i o n s t o t h e o v e r a l l thrust of the commission’s
recommendations have been largely favorable, although
several agencies including BLS and the Census Bureau
have expressed disagreement with one or more of the
specific proposals. Implementation of many of the rec
ommendations will involve a lengthy process and, in
many cases, will depend on the availability of resources
and the ability to solve some very difficult technical
problems that have thus far defied solution. In any
event, there will be another progress report to the Con
gress on implementation of the commission’s proposals.
The law requires the Secretary of Labor to submit a fi
nal report within 2 years after the commission’s
final report (that is, on or before September 3, 1981)
detailing the actions taken with respect to the commis
sion’s recommendations.
□
FOOTNOTES
1See John E. Bregger, “A new Employment Statistics Review Com
mission,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , March 1977, pp. 14-20.
2President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemploy
ment Statistics, M e a s u r in g E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t (Wash
ington, 1962) and Robert L. Stein, “New Definitions for Employment
and Unemployment,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, February 1967, pp.
3-27.
3John E. Bregger, “Unemployment statistics and what they mean,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , November 1971, pp. 22-29.
“Julius Shiskin, “Employment and unemployment: the doughnut or
the hole?” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , February 1976, pp. 3-10.
5
National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statis
tics, C o u n tin g th e L a b o r F orce (Washington, Government Printing Of
fice, 1979), 312 pp. See also National Commission on Employment
and Unemployment Statistics, C o n c ep ts a n d D a ta N eed s, A p p e n d ix
V o lu m e I; D a ta C ollection , P ro cessin g a n d P r e se n ta tio n : N a tio n a l a n d
L o c a l, A p p e n d ix V o lu m e I I (forthcoming); and C o u n tin g th e L a b o r
F orce: R e a d in g s in L a b o r F orce S ta tistic s, A p p e n d ix V o lu m e III. For
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
transcripts of hearings conducted by the commission, see
P u b lic H e a r
in g s B e fo re th e N a tio n a l C o m m is sio n on E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y
m e n t S ta tistic s, V o lu m e s 1, 2, a n d 3 (U.S. Congress, Joint Economic
Committee, 95th Cong. 2d sess. 1979, Committee Print). See also, I n
te rim R e p o r t o f th e S e c r e ta r y o f L a b o r on th e R e c o m m e n d a tio n s o f th e
N a tio n a l C o m m is sio n on E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t S ta tistic s
(Department of Labor, 1980).
6 In addition to Chairman Levitan, the commission’s members were
Bernard E. Anderson, University of Pennsylvania; Glen G. Cain, Uni
versity of Wisconsin; Jack Carlson, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Mi
chael H. Moskow, ESMARK, Inc.; Rudolph A. Oswald, AFL-CIO;
Samuel L. Popkin, University of California at San Diego; Mitchell
Sviridoff, Ford Foundation; and Joan L. Wills, National Governors’
Association.
7This approach was recommended by Estela Dagum of Statistics
Canada based upon research and applications performed on labor
force series at that organization. Dagum served as a consultant to the
National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics.
21
Frances Perkins, Isador Lubin,
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics
As Commissioner of Labor Statistics,
Isador Lubin worked closely with
Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins
to meet the urgent need for data
stemming from the Great Depression
Jo
se ph
P. G
o l d b e r g
The memory of the first woman to be appointed to the
Presidential Cabinet is being signally honored this
month, with the designation of the Department of La
bor Building in Washington, D.C., as the “Frances
Perkins Building.” 1 Frances Perkins’ influence as Secre
tary of Labor was prominent in the New Deal program
seeking to create employment to cope with the Great
Depression, and with broad social legislation of lasting
influence—-the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Social
Security Act, and the Wagner Act. Upon assuming of
fice in the new administration of President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, Perkins made clear her concern with the
role of the Bureau of Labor Statistics by immediately
initiating a review of the Bureau’s statistics, and a
search for a Commissioner of Labor Statistics. Her
choice of Isador Lubin was an inspired one— resulting
in a relationship which extended to concerns beyond
the Bureau, and even the Department, for Lubin
also became a trusted confidant of President Roose
velt.
In the process, the Bureau of Labor Statistics made
its transition to a forward-looking agency, geared to the
requirements of a wartime, and later, to a growth econ
omy. This article deals with the Perkins-Lubin relationJoseph P. Goldberg is special assistant to the Commissioner of Labor
Statistics. This article is the first of a series in recognition of the cen
tennial of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which was established by
Congress in 1884. A centennial history of the Bureau is being pre
pared by Goldberg, with the assistance of William T. Moye.
22
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ship as it determined the role of the Commissioner of
Labor Statistics, and the development of the Bureau’s
programs.
Isador Lubin’s death in July 1978, at the age of 82,
terminated a long career, in which he had been Com
missioner of Labor Statistics for a period of 13 years,
from 1933 to 1946. He was the Bureau’s fifth Commis
sioner. When he assumed the post, it was with a clear
view, shared by Perkins, that he would seek to bring
the Bureau into a position compatible with its estab
lished reputation, and the economic and social needs of
the time. The New Deal concern with the status of
workers, encouragement of labor organization, and de
velopment of collective bargaining accentuated the need
for improved and modernized statistics and analyses of
socioeconomic conditions. Lubin, with the active sup
port of Perkins, and by his personality, experience, and
expertise in labor economics, and his facility for dealing
with and inspiring confidence in the varied groups with
which he dealt, provided the impetus for the Bureau’s
growth. This forward-looking adaptation has persisted
over the second-half century of the Bureau’s existence.
BLS in the 1920’s
Perkins and Lubin had dealt with Commissioner of
Labor Statistics Ethelbert Stewart during the 1920’s.
When Perkins was New York State Industrial Commis
sioner, her agency had cooperated with the Bureau in
the development and expansion of the Bureau’s employ-
ment series. Lubin, at the newly established Brookings
Institution, was a leading participant in the economic
advice and research provided by Brookings. He con
ducted studies of the effects of technological unemploy
ment, and of British experience in dealing with
unemployment. He was actively involved in the growing
Congressional awareness of the need to identify the
scope, characteristics, and ameliorative approaches to
growing unemployment. He was loaned by Brookings in
1928 and again in 1930 to serve as economic counsel to
Senate committees considering legislation to deal with
unemployment, and with the establishment of a nation
al economic council to aid in governmental economic
planning. He worked closely with Senators Robert M.
LaFollette, Jr. of Wisconsin, James Couzens of Michi
gan, and Robert Wagner of New York.2
Although BLS was recognized as a valuable and tech
nically capable institution by technical experts and
professional societies, the Bureau’s opportunities to
modernize and improve its work were restricted during
the 1920’s by appropriations which, though doubling in
the 25 years to 1930, had only kept pace with increases
in salaries and the cost of field work. Even when the
Congress called for improvements in the scope and cov
erage of employment statistics, the appropriations
followed late and were either threatened or eliminated.
Support for expansion in Federal statistical programs
in the 1920’s was determined by the influence associated
with farmers and businessmen in the prevailing econom
ic climate. During the administrations of Presidents
Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover,
the economic plight of farmers resulted in support for
expanded agricultural statistics, if more direct aid was
not received. As Secretary of Commerce for 8 years,
Hoover encouraged the provision for adequate statistics
to business, “because businessmen were making the
most important economic decisions.’’3
Stewart’s proposals for increased appropriations were
met with frequent Congressional reactions suggesting
reductions instead, in the interest of economy. Asking
for increases to base the semiannual cost-of-living index
on expanded and modernized expenditure patterns of
wage earners, he was pressed instead to justify the
greater costs involved in field visits, rather than mail
schedules, in the conduct of industry wage studies and
the pricing for the cost of living index.4
The analytical reports of the Bureau adapted to the
changing economic and social scene, continued during
the 1920’s, despite budgetary limitations. Wage and
hour studies of individual industries were scheduled at
5-year intervals, with such new industries as motor ve
hicles and airplanes, along with the previously initiated
studies of coal mining, meatpacking, and textiles. Pro
ductivity studies in individual industries were developed
during the 1920’s, reflecting interest in the impact of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
new technologies. Bureau work in industrial accidents
and hygiene continued to be prominent.
The continuing concern in the 1920’s over the state of
employment, and the absence of adequate unemploy
ment information, provided the Bureau with resources,
albeit limited and lagging, to expand its work in the
employment field. The study of employment and pay
rolls had begun in 1915, gaining momentum when the
downturn of 1921-22 resulted in awareness of the un
certainty of unemployment information. President Har
ding’s Conference on Unemployment in 1921, chaired
by Hoover, included a variety of unemployment esti
mates. The Department of Labor’s U.S. Employment
Service estimated unemployment at 3.5 million, while
BLS reported an employment shrinkage of 5.5 million.
With so many wide-ranging guesses, the conference
“merely voted to announce to the country that the
number unemployed was between 3.5 million and 5.5
million, numbers startling enough to challenge atten
tion.”5
The conference resulted in increased appropriations
to the Bureau to expand its coverage of manufacturing
industries, and continued study by the American Statis
tical Association’s Committee on Governmental Labor
Statistics. The committee’s recommendations called for
the BLS to be the coordinating center for the States and
any other Federal agencies gathering employment data.
BLS was called upon to expand its industrial coverage
from manufacturing and first class railroads, to include
mining, communications, building construction, whole
sale and retail trade, and agriculture.6
Unemployment increases
In 1928, concern with growing unemployment was
again prominent in Congress. Increased appropriations
permitted the Bureau to expand coverage to nonmanu
facturing industries. Both Stewart and Lubin were in
volved in the landmark Senate hearings in 1928-29,
chaired by Couzens on the bills introduced by Wagner,
covering comprehensive unemployment measures.
Ethelbert Stewart testified on the “shrinkage of em
ployment,” and, as he did over the years, stressed that
the Bureau’s employment index was not an unemploy
ment measure. Lubin, who had been involved in a
Brookings Institution study of the absorption of “dis
possessed” or discharged workers by industry, was
loaned to the Senate Committee as economic adviser.
Lubin’s analysis of the witnesses’ testimony and of
the Brookings study were important contributions to
the committee. The Brookings study, he pointed out,
had shown that most displaced workers have great diffi
culties in finding new lines of employment. Lubin sup
ported Stewart’s expression of the need for a census of
unemployment for benchmarking purposes, approved of
the efforts underway to expand the reporting sample,
23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Perkins, Lubin, and BLS
and agreed that coverage of part-time employment be
added. In a period of Federal laissez-faire in regard to
unemployment, Lubin’s assessment that “unemploy
ment is the result of industrial organization, and not of
individual character,” would receive catastrophic con
firmation in the forthcoming Great Depression.7
With the onset of the crash of 1929, and the atten
dant depression and unemployment, statistics became a
focus for approaches to the problems in the labor mar
ket. The continuing controversy over the extent of un
employment was reflected in the debate surrounding
Hoover’s press conference release in early 1930 an
nouncing an increase in employment. Perkins, New
York State Industrial Commissioner, responded that
these statistics were questionable. She noted that these
had not been attributed to the Bureau of Labor Statis
tics, whose estimates were viewed as honest and reliable
on the basis of long association. Further, the New York
State experience showed a decline in employment. Per
kins’ estimate was confirmed with the release of the of
ficial BLS report on employment.8
In the remaining period of Stewart’s stewardship, the
employment statistics remained a sore point. Secretary
of Labor Doak and Stewart differed in early 1932 on
the interpretation of the statistics. When newspapermen
checked with Stewart, Doak publicly rebuked the Com
missioner. Subsequently, at age 74, with 45 years of
government service, with more than a year remaining
for completion of his term, Stewart was not included by
President Hoover on the list of those for whom exten
sions were requested beyond mandatory retirement age.9
Charles E. Baldwin was named acting commissioner for
the balance of Stewart’s term.
The statistical ambience
The longtime experience of Perkins as New York
State Industrial Commissioner provided an awareness of
the role of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in economic
policy. She was equally aware of the need for obtaining
support to modernize that role to meet the requirements
of the social and economic policies required to cope
with the depression conditions of 1933. It was crucial to
her concerns that the new Commissioner meet the chal
lenge of changed requirements. The breadth of Lubin’s
interests and experience was known to her, and she
expected that he would provide broad economic and so
cial perspectives in dealing with the statistical programs
of the Bureau. As her biographer states: “When Perkins
offered him the post, she told him he had been chosen
because she thought he would remember that statistics
were not numbers but people coping or failing to cope
with the bufferings of life. She evidently stressed this
point to Roosevelt, for he later repeated it to Lubin.”10
The conjoint interests of Perkins and Lubin went to
both the improvement of the Departmental statistical
24
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
program and to ensuring the effective coordination of
the statistical programs of the Federal Government.
Upon her appointment, Perkins immediately invited the
president of the American Statistical Association to
confer and advise “regarding the methods, adequacy,
usefulness, and general program of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.” Immediately following his appointment as
Commissioner, Lubin became involved directly in both
the work of the Advisory Committee to Perkins, and in
the broader efforts toward establishing a central statisti
cal board. Lubin welcomed the advice and counsel of
this committee of technical experts. Its members includ
ed Ewan Clague and Aryness Joy, who later served to
gether as Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of
BLS. The review of the Bureau’s programs continued
for more than a year.
Lubin and Perkins agreed on the role of the Central
Statistical Board, in that it would ensure consistency in
approaches on the part of Government agencies, avoid
ance of duplication, and attainment of economies. But a
centralized statistical agency was opposed, for as Lubin
stated: “In terms of the usefulness of statistics, it proba
bly is cheaper in the long run, despite the additional
cost of duplicated overhead, to have smaller decen
tralized units collecting data which are of maximum
usefulness in formulating policies and solving problems,
than it would be to have a centralized and consolidated
statistical agency collecting data on a series of unrelated
subjects, which data do not have the realism necessary
to give them effective usefulness.” 11
Lubin’s role in the formation and functioning of the
Central Statistical Board was persistent, and he urged
Perkins to actively participate. He was among an unof
ficial committee which proposed its establishment to
members of the Roosevelt Cabinet, and then served on
it as the Department of Labor representative.12 He
obtained Perkins’ endorsement for a permanent Board.
The legislation subsequently made the Board the joint
responsibility of a Cabinet-level Central Statistical Com
mittee, consisting of the Secretaries of Labor, Com
merce, Treasury, and Agriculture. Lubin urged Perkins
to press with President Roosevelt her claim to be
chairperson. Perkins was designated chairperson of the
Cabinet-level Central Statistical Committee, with Lubin
serving as vice-chairperson of the Central Statistical
Board.
Lubin and Perkins were active in using the Board to
meet the threat of duplication by the statistical activities
of the National Recovery Administration (NRA) to the
longstanding activities of BLS and other established
agencies. Perkins wrote to Roosevelt and to Hugh
Johnson, Director of the NRA, citing the duplication as
resulting in refusals by some employers to continue to
submit reports to Government agencies. Attention was
called to investigations conducted by the Central Statis-
tical Board, and to a Board resolution calling for an
Executive Order rectifying the situation.13
Controversial order issued
The Administrator for Industrial Recovery responded
by issuing an order requiring industries under codes to
furnish data directly to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
and Federal and State agencies working in cooperation
with the Bureau. Some representatives of industry asso
ciations questioned the order, so Lubin met with trade
association executives to explain why the direct Govern
ment collection was necessary for uniform and timely
reporting.14 In meeting with representatives of State la
bor departments and interested Federal agencies on the
broad authority under the NRA order, Lubin cautioned
on the need for care in maintaining and improving
existing reporting relationships based on established
voluntarism and confidentiality. While “under this order
we have for the first time legal authority to secure these
data,” Lubin cautioned, “We don’t want to use that
power though, we would rather it would be a coopera
tive venture . . . . These data are confidential and not to
be used for enforcement purposes.”15
Perkins encouraged Lubin’s broader role including
his participation in economic meetings at the White
House. He prepared economic analyses for Perkins di
rectly, and for the Cabinet-level Central Statistical
Committee, of which she was chairperson. Lubin was
elected by the committee to serve as secretary, and to
prepare for the committee a periodic economic analysis
and report, which would also be abstracted for presen
tation to the National Emergency Council. Perkins
wrote Roosevelt, that the “value of this arrangement
would obviously be enhanced by Dr. Lubin’s member
ship in the National Emergency Council. May I recom
mend and request that you designate him?” 16
Lubin was soon called upon by the White House in a
variety of situations. He participated in the discussions
held by Roosevelt with business, labor, and government
policy officials in meeting the recession of 1937 and soon
after, Lubin was the first witness called at congressional
hearings on unemployment.17 In June 1938, when the
Temporary National Economic Commission was ap
proved by Joint Congressional Resolution, following a
Presidential message, a letter from the President called
on Lubin to cancel a commitment to lecture at the Sum
mer School of the University of California. Roosevelt re
quested, “In view of the passage of the Wage and Hour
Bill and of the Congressional resolution providing for an
investigation into monopoly conditions in American in
dustry, I think it would be helpful if you could arrange
to remain in Washington until such time as the Monop
oly Commission can formulate its agenda and the pre
liminary organization necessary for the administration of
the Wage and Hour Bill can be set in motion.” 18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The culmination of Lubin’s partial association with
the White House occurred in May 1941, when he was
appointed as special statistical assistant to President
Roosevelt.
Lubin as Commissioner
Lubin’s primary goal for the Bureau, with Perkins’
encouragement, was the development of a professional
ly-staffed organization prepared to meet the require
ments of the rapidly evolving New Deal policies af
fecting the status of workers. Not only were the
ongoing statistical activities of the Bureau, particularly
in employment and prices, to be improved and modern
ized; appropriate analytical treatment would be given
to these statistical reports. The Bureau’s programs in
the field of labor-management relations were to be
expanded to meet the requirements of new policies.
These goals were intensified by the many special activi
ties in which Lubin himself and the Bureau were in
volved, as social and economic concerns of the De
partment of Labor under Perkins were broadened to
meet the burst of New Deal legislative development.
The Bureau expanded substantially under Lubin’s di
rection, but the process was slow and uneven. When he
took over in 1933, the Bureau’s budget had just been
cut from $580,400 to $450,000, with the staff reduced
from 240 to 211, as part of overall economy measures.
Emergency funds compensated for part of a further re
duction the following year, with the staff increasing to
318. In succeeding years, the regular budget had more
increases than decreases, and was supplemented by
funds transferred from other agencies for special stud
ies. By 1940-41 the regular budget had increased to
about $1.1 million, and the staff to more than 800 (690
in Washington and 120 in the field).
The annual report for the Bureau initially bearing
Lubin’s imprimatur stressed that professionalization of
staff and interpretation and analysis were to go hand in
hand. The program needs in the price area were
expressed in terms of consumer information needed to
cope with the unwarranted increases allegedly due to
the National Industrial Recovery and Agricultural Ad
justment Acts. Employment data required expansion to
permit assessment of the effects of industrial revival.
Studies of industrial wages and hours required expan
sion and greater currency to meet the code-formulating
activities of the National Recovery Administration
(NRA). In summary, the report stated, “Not only must
raw data be improved but the Bureau must be enabled
more fully to analyze the material it now has, so that
evidence may be available as to where the recovery pro
gram is having the greatest effect and where it is falling
down. The Bureau is not at present in a financial posi
tion to employ the economic analysts necessary for such
interpretations.” 19
25
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Perkins, Lubin, and BLS
The need for improvising to meet the gargantuan de
mands of the emergency situation, and particularly of
the NRA, was stated by both Perkins and Lubin at ap
propriation hearings in December 1933. With BLS as
suming responsibility to provide information for the
codes, personnel were detailed from inside and outside
the Department. As Perkins stated, “The Bureau of La
bor Statistics has turned itself out . in order to get this
information and to make it available in a form that was
easily understood and readily used by people who had
the responsibility of taking some action.” Lubin added
that every labor group involved in any NRA code had
had to go to the Labor Department for information.
Lubin indicated the lengths to which ingenuity had
had to be applied to meet pressing needs, absent ade
quate resources: “I do not want to appear to boast, but
I think I am one of the few officials who have actually
gone out and borrowed people from other departments
of the Government and put them to work during their
spare time getting materials for which we would other
wise have to pay.”20
Efforts take effect
By mid-1935, it could be reported that improvements
in organization and working methods had proceeded ef
ficaciously. An industrial relations division had been
established, and a survey of employer-employee rela
tionships was underway. Statistical reporting had been
improved with more commodities and communities cov
ered in retail food reporting. The cost-of-living index, as
it was then called, had been placed on a quarterly basis,
from its former semiannual appearance, and reflected
improvements in weighting and food price coverage.
The monthly employment report continued to receive
improvements. Benchmark adjustments to the Census
of Manufactures were introduced for the first time—
with coverage now extended for 50 percent of the wage
earners of the country, including nearly complete cover
age for employment resulting from Federal appropria
tions. Efforts were being made to include in the regular
industry wage surveys such matters as age of workers,
length of service, annual earnings, occupational descrip
tions, and personnel policies. An investigation of the ex
penditures of employed wage earners in 1934 was
expanded during 1935-36 to a broad investigation in
which the Works Progress Administration, the Depart
ment of Agriculture, and the National Resources Com
mission collaborated with the BLS in the study of
consumer purchases, which presented consumption esti
mates for all segments of the population, both rural and
urban. These provided the basis for the introduction of
a comprehensively revised consumers’ price index in
1940.
By the recommendation of an advisory committee to
the President, an occupational outlook section was
26
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
established in the Bureau in 1939, but its initial intent
to provide career guidance was not to be effectuated un
til after the war. Instead, it was absorbed in projections
of manpower supply and needs for defense industries.
In this, Lubin’s specifications for the office and the
duties of its chief were anticipatory of the defense and
wartime role of this service.
Lubin was ever on the alert for capable staff. A. Ford
Hinrichs was brought in as chief economist, Sidney
Wilcox had already been employed as chief statistician,
and Aryness Joy joined the BLS staff as a senior econo
mist. Young economists seeking employment in govern
ment received ready encouragement from Lubin. He
was readily accessible to staff, and stimulated interest in
the expanding role of the Bureau. Before the American
Economic Association, he proselytyzed for the role of
government economists. He contrasted the limited and
circumscribed environment of the academic researcher
with the opportunities offered by “Federal economic re
search, with its ramifications into the political and so
ciological aspects of virtually every problem that comes
within the public eye, and has a great opportunity to
break down these barriers,” between economics, sociol
ogy, and political science.21
The burdens confronting the Bureau during the NRA
period slowed up the process of reorganization. Added
to this were the special tasks assigned to the Bureau,
and to Lubin himself by Perkins. For almost 3 years, as
chairman of a Labor Advisory Board to the Public
Works Administration (PWA), he dealt with questions
relating to the referral of union and nonunion workers
to construction projects, job opportunities for black
skilled workers in view of their exclusion from building
trade unions, observance of arbitration awards, and pre
determination of wages. A trying situation in which Sec
retary Ickes of the Interior Department was concerned
that black workers should be issued work permits
on certain PWA projects in Chicago, was personally
mediated by Lubin. He obtained agreement for black
employment of at least 13 percent of unskilled workers
and 3 percent of skilled workers, the proportions shown
in various crafts in the 1930 census.22 Criticized for
making a wage determination of 40 cents an hour for
unskilled labor in the South as excessive, Lubin re
sponded that Congress had mandated a standard of liv
ing of decency, not an “economic wage,” as contended
by the contractors.23
Lubin served as chairperson of a board to settle a
strike of citrus workers in Florida. The report of the
board called on Secretary Henry Wallace to have the
Department of Agriculture insist on inclusion of a code
for labor-management relations in the market agreement
approved for the citrus industry by the Agricultural
Adjustment Administration. The subsequent failure to
set such minimum labor conditions despite the urgency
of the situation, was noted by Lubin.24
Lubin was designated by Perkins as chairperson of a
departmental committee to look into the promotion of
U.S. membership in the International Labor Organiza
tion (ILO). Following U.S. entry into the ILO in Au
gust 1934, the United States was represented for the
first time at an ILO Governing Body meeting in Janu
ary 1935, with Lubin as the Government delegate. The
Bureau was given responsibility for the administrative
arrangements for the permanent Geneva representation,
including requests for appropriations in its budget.25
Lubin continued to attend these meetings, particularly
those involving planning for international instruments
on statistical standards and hours of work.26
The mutually supportive relations between Lubin and
Perkins were often explicitly recognized in stressful situ
ations. When a resolution of Congress called on the
Secretary of Labor to make a study of the economic
needs of migratory labor, which Lubin indicated the
Bureau would undertake, Perkins’ reaction was “I have
the feeling that everything that is difficult gets to you.”
Shortly thereafter, preparing suddenly to go on vaca
tion, Perkins not having had time to say goodbye to
Lubin, wrote: “I want to thank you sincerely for all
that you have done to make the work of the Depart
ment a success and to tell you how much it means to
me personally to realize the loyalty, interest, and integ
rity with which you are carrying on the work of your
Bureau.”27 In his turn, when the U.S. Employment Serv
ice was transferred from the Department of Labor to
the Federal Security Administration, with a like possi
bility for the Children’s Bureau, Lubin urged that “all
of us should use every means to keep constantly before
the President the fact that transfer is inimical to the in
terests of American labor . . . . ”28
External relationships
Lubin’s ability for effective relationships was crucial
to the workings of the Bureau in a period of substantial
changes in the role of government. His straightforward,
direct approach with representatives of labor organiza
tions, of major companies and trade associations, and
the press, made him influential in all these areas. This
was evident even as he analyzed the Bureau’s data, and
as he indicated his views on major economic issues.
Early in his administration, Lubin called a meeting of
labor union research staff members, to meet with the
BLS and the Advisory Committee to the Secretary of
Labor. Reporting on the committee’s statistical review,
and the rapid introduction of accommodating changes
by the Bureau, Lubin stated: “The ultimate purpose is
to provide statistics which will do for the wage earner
of this country what the Department of Agriculture is
doing for the farmer, that is, supply laboring people
with information as to what is happening in such detail
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
that they can make their own plans and develop their
own programs.” The institution of the Labor Informa
tion Service, in the form of a monthly bulletin was also
announced, for “the attention of local officers and the
intelligent members of locals, so that these people will
know what is happening. . . . in the country as a whole
as well as in his own particular industry.”29 Relations
with the trade union research staff members continued
on an informal basis until June 1940, when a formal
and continuing advisory relationship was established.
Salutary relationships with management, as extensive
ly as possible, had been an inherent requirement for the
Bureau’s conduct of its activities, particularly in wage
studies and employment data collection. Lubin contrib
uted greatly by maintaining personal relationships with
many corporate executives, in which he candidly ex
changed views on major issues. He was intimately in
volved in resolving issues which might threaten the
Bureau’s activities, and generally, his directness and
persuasiveness kept such occurrences minimal.
Sensitivities developed, but were overcome, over a
Bureau study on the delicate subject of company
unions, of interest to Perkins, Lubin, and Francis Bid
dle, chairperson of the National Labor Relations Board.
This study, in 1934, was intended to obtain a proper
picture of these organizations to meet the needs of the
two labor agencies. At an estimated cost of $15,000,
Perkins’ proposal for a joint study was accepted in
short order.30 David Saposs, who had just completed a
study on the subject for the Twentieth Century Fund,
was hired as director of the study. At an informal meet
ing of BLS with American Federation of Labor repre
sentatives, the latter expressed some uncertainties over
such a study, suggesting emphasis on the study of col
lective bargaining agreements, rather than what was
viewed as merely “an arm of management.”31
In September 1935, Lubin reported to Perkins on the
interest stimulated among union officials in the study,
and their requests to have the report issued as soon as
possible. “Somehow or other a rumor has been spread
that this bulletin may be suppressed.”32 The preliminary
report in the Monthly Labor Review stirred up a tempo
rary tempest.33 A communication from the National As
sociation of Manufacturers advised Lubin that some
member firms of the association, some of which had
participated in the survey, now felt that the conclusions
might be misleading as to the employee representation
plans. The opportunity to discuss the matter was of
fered, and immediately accepted by Lubin, who re
sponded: “If members of the NAM feel that our study
on company unions attempts to establish standards of
employee representation plans which may result in mis
leading conclusions as to their functions and operations,
I want very much to secure their full and unbiased
opinions.”34 Immediately thereafter, the Journal of Com27
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Perkins, Lubin, and BLS
merce was to report: “Although resentment in industri
al circles against the recent study on company unions
prepared by the BLS continues high, it now seems
doubtful an organized boycott will result.”35
The relations between the automobile industry and
BLS also underwent a period of difficulty. In January
1936, the Automobile Manufacturers Association ad
vised the Bureau that information for individual compa
nies in the industry would no longer be furnished
directly to the Bureau, and that individual plants would
not be identified, except by a code to make monthly
comparisons for individual plants. Lubin wrote the as
sociation that he viewed this “as a one-way proposition,
with the Bureau being placed in the position where it
can have only what the association says it should have
and not what it feels it needs for its own use. . . . I
frankly cannot continue in the uncomfortable position I
find myself in of warding off questions concerning our
automobile figures.” Lubin continued to press the mat
ter, and it was finally resolved in late 1937, when the
Manufacturers Committee of the Automobile Manufac
turers Association authorized the forwarding of individ
ual reports to the Bureau.36
Lubin was constantly concerned with the press’
understanding of the Bureau’s work, and with stressing
clarity and style in the presentation of Bureau data. A
critical editorial on the style of a Bureau press release
resulted in the formulation of principles to ensure effec
tive use of Bureau reports. These guidelines included:
“Ideally, (a) technically competent persons should al
ways be able to detect from the record any possible
shortcomings in our work, and (b) others who follow us
should be able to determine from the printed record ex
actly what we have done.”37
Economic analysis stressed
Lubin’s interests in labor economics in an institution
al setting, and in related areas such as industrial prices,
unemployment, and social security, were actively pur
sued throughout his direction of BLS. His emphasis on
analysis along with the improvement and extension of
the Bureau’s statistical programs was apparent in his
activities and public statements. He was called upon to
represent the Bureau, the Department of Labor, or
both, in a number of landmark Congressional hearings.
Lubin would make statistical presentations that went to
the heart of the matter and would draw on his extensive
experience and perception to comment on the policy
questions involved. His ready, direct, and stimulating
responses raised no doubt about his objectivity and im
partiality. Nor was there ever any question regarding
his political independence as Commissioner.
Several basic themes were apparent in Lubin’s public
expressions during his commissionership. Shortly after
his appointment, while he was not in sympathy with the
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
price-fixing and production-restricting aspects of the
National Industrial Recovery Act, he found important
justification in it based on the single maxim, that the
welfare and profits of no private business shall interfere
with the welfare of the nation as a whole. . . . With
NRA setting the rules for industry, competition was
not eliminated, and “employers with a social conscience
are assured that they will no longer be compelled to
conform to the standards of competitors with blunted
social sensibilities,” Lubin said. Further, he saw the
greatest contribution of NIRA to social progress as ly
ing “in the guarantee it gives workers to organize and
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing.”38
Complementary was his view that underconsumption
resulting from inequitable distribution of income in the
1920’s had been a major contributory factor in the
Great Depression. These views were expressed in his
testimony at the hearings on the Fair Labor Standards
Bill in 1937 and in his extensive presentation in opening
the Temporary National Economic Committee hearings
in 1938.
Calling attention to the evidence of the consumer ex
penditure survey of 1936-37, that 54 percent of the 29
million families in the United States, had incomes below
$1,250 per year, Lubin said, “A more equitable distri
bution of income is more than an ethical problem. . . .
To me it is a problem of keeping the gears of the eco
nomic machine constantly in mesh.”39
Lubin and the Bureau staff were prominent in the
work of the Temporary National Economic Committee
(TNEC) from 1938 to 1941. Lubin was designated as
the Department of Labor representative, with A. Ford
Hinrichs as alternate. Lubin played a major role in
planning the work of the committee, and as analyst of
trends utilizing data and analyses prepared by the Bu
reau staff and occasional outside consultants. He made
recommendations to the committee as an expert labor
economist representing the Department of Labor.
Aryness Joy directed the Bureau’s staff work for the
TNEC, which included the preparation of monographs
reflecting analytical and case study approaches Lubin
had viewed as essential to the role of the Bureau.
The economic climate changed with the defense prep
arations underway after the start of World War II. The
TNEC hearings and Lubin’s periodic testimony in 1939
and 1940 reflected the new circumstances. But again,
the basic concerns in Lubin’s ideas were reformulated in
order to set long-term goals which drew on past experi
ence and continuing socioeconomic trends. In an inci
sive analysis of the factors affecting the productivity of
labor, he pointed out that the effects of technological
change would be moderated as the economy absorbed
more employees. Calling attention to the costs directly
borne by displaced workers, in contrast to the tax treat-
ment of obsolescence of machinery, he urged the com
mittee “to give consideration to the feasibility of a com
pulsory dismissal wage to be tied up in some way or
other with the unemployment insurance system.”40
Lubin, w ho. had been the leadoff witness at the
TNEC hearings in 1938, was also one of the final
witnesses appearing in March 1941. He was now an of
ficial of the Office of Production Management, as well
as a member of the TNEC and a representative of the
Department of Labor /Bureau of Labor Statistics. He
pointed to the major changes which had occurred be
tween 1932, and even between 1938, and 1941: “In
1941 we are strong. In 1932 our morale was pitifully
low. The assumption of responsibility for the welfare of
individual citizens by the Government in the intervening
years has been partly responsible for this change.” He
urged the TNEC to sift out the practical aspects of the
problems presented, to formulate a program to ensure
“that never again does a catastrophe occur like that
which overwhelmed us in the 1930’s. . . . ” —a program
fitting, “into our traditions of private enterprise and pri
vate ownership.”41
The war years
Lubin’s full-time direction of the Bureau came to an
end in June 1940, although he remained as Commis
sioner on leave until January 1946. On June 15, 1940,
Perkins announced that at the request of Sidney Hill
man of the National Defense Committee, Lubin had
been assigned to serve as an assistant to Hillman, but
was to retain his position as Commissioner. In a memo
randum to A. Ford Hinrichs, designated as Acting
Commissioner, Lubin stated, “In general you are autho
rized on your own responsibility and without reference
to me to represent the Bureau of Labor Statistics in any
matters which may arise and to make any decisions that
may be necessary either with reference to policy or in
ternal administration.” However, he would continue to
be available to Hinrichs “on all matters of fundamental
policy.”42
The next year, President Roosevelt called for Lubin’s
assignment to the White House. On May 12, 1941, Per
kins wrote to Roosevelt that: “I am very glad to com
ply with your request to assign to your office and for
your assistance Mr. Isador Lubin . . . while Mr. Lubin
will, I know, give you great assistance, his entire staff in
the Department of Labor will be at his disposal to as
sist him in the inquiries he will make for you.”43
There were continuing calls for advice from Lubin by
Perkins during the war years. She called upon him for
his views on coordinating the activities of the BLS with
those of the Bureau of Employment Security in the War
Manpower Administration. His response was to oppose
any intimation of the possibility of the transfer of any
work from BLS.44 He was also called upon for planning
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in connection with the ILO Conference in Philadelphia
in 1944.
Lubin’s White House assignments as economic and
statistical adviser were varied. Immediately, he was in
volved in analyzing the economic effects of shifts in pro
duction to lend-lease requirements, and in discussions
relating to economic stabilization. He went to London
temporarily to assist W. Averill Harriman, coordinator
of U.S. supplies to Britain. In March 1945, he was des
ignated associate U.S. representative on the Allied
Commission on Reparations, and spent much time ex
amining conditions abroad at the end of the war.45
Lubin resigns as Commissioner
Giving personal obligations as his reasons for leaving
public service, Lubin resigned in January 1946. (Perkins
had resigned as Secretary of Labor in 1945.) President
Harry S. Truman accepted his resignation as Commis
sioner of Labor Statistics, but stated that he would
continue to regard him “as a public servant whom I
shall feel free to call upon whenever the occasion war
rants. . . . For 13 years you have without hesitation giv
en of your time and energy to the service of your
government. You built up the Bureau of Labor Statis
tics into an institution that has commanded the respect
of all recognized leaders in the field of economics and
statistical science, as well as of labor and management
throughout the country.”46
Lubin expressed his own assessment of the role of the
Bureau on the occasion of the Bureau’s 70th anniversa
ry in 1954. He observed that the “Bureau’s data have
always played an important part in the formulation of
Federal policy,” reinforcing the constant recognition by
the Bureau of the need for continuing “improvements in
collection procedures and technical standards and in
willingness to have its work periodically reviewed.” But
he expressed concern for the need for continued empha
sis “of the considered analytical studies which have
marked its work in the past.”47
In 1966, Lubin wrote a eulogy for David Saposs, in
honor of his 80th birthday. The eulogy is equally appli
cable to Lubin: “Everything that he has undertaken to
do he has done with real distinction. His interest in the
various fields in which he has been engaged has not
been that of an intellectual. It has been the outgrowth
of a deep feeling for needs of mankind and the convic
tion that things could be improved in this world of
ours.”48
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1The centennial of the birth of Frances Perkins, appointed as Secre
tary of Labor by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, was ob
served on Apr. 10, 1980. She died in 1965.
2Lewis Lansky, I s a d o r L u b in : T h e I d e a s a n d C a re e r o f a N e w D e a l
29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Perkins, Lubin, and BLS
Economist, 1976, Case Western Reserve (microfilm), pp. 97-102. U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Manufacturing, Hearings on S6215,
E s ta b lis h m e n t o f a N a tio n a l E c o n o m ic C ou n cil, 72nd Congress, 1st Ses
sion, 1931, p. 736.
3Joseph W. Duncan and William C. Shelton, R e v o lu tio n in U n ite d
S ta te s G o v e r n m e n t S ta tistic s, 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 7 6 , U.S. Department of Com
merce, 1978, p. 137.
4 Stewart testimony, Department of Labor Appropriation hearings,
1928, January 1927, p. 27.
5 Ralph Hurlin and W. Berridge, E m p lo y m e n t S ta tis tic s f o r th e U n it
e d S ta tes , 1926, p. 30.
6 E m p lo y m e n t S ta tistic s, pp. 3-1 9 . Charles E. Baldwin, BLS Chief
Statistician, and Royal Meeker were among the members of the com
mittee with Mary Van Kleeck of the Russell Sage Foundation as
chairperson.
7Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Hearings on S. Res.
219, U n e m p lo y m e n t a n d S y s te m s f o r P re ve n tio n a n d R e lie f, 1928-29;
together with Senate Report 2072, 70th Congress, 1st Session, 1929,
pp. 179-187, 491-510.
8Public Papers of President Herbert Hoover, News Conference of
Jan. 21, 1930, p. 28; T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, Jan. 23, 1930, p. 11; Feb.
20, 1930, p. 24.
4 T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, July 3, 1932, p. 15.
10George Martin, M a d a m S e c re ta r y : F ra n ces P e r k in s (Houghton
Mifflin Co. Boston, 1976.) p. 303.
" Lubin to LaDame, Nov. 16, 1938 (Perkins’ Files, National Ar
chives).
17 DOL Appropriation Hearings, 1935, December 1933, p. 57; Dun
can and Shelton, R e v o lu tio n in U .S. G o v e r n m e n t S ta tistic s.
' Perkins to the President, Aug. 23, 1933; Perkins to Hugh
Johnson, Aug. 7, 1933; Resolution of the Central Statistical Board,
Aug. 14, 1933 (Perkins’ Files, National Archives).
14 Roscoe Edlund, Association of American Soap and Glycerine
Producers, Inc. to Isador Lubin, Mar. 22, 1934; Lubin to Edlund,
Apr. 4, 1934 (BLS Files, National Archives).
''Transcript of meeting May 19, 1934 (BLS Files, National Ar
chives).
'"Perkins to Roosevelt, Mar. 30, 1936 (Perkins’ Files, National Ar
chives).
1 T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, Nov. 9, 11, 14, 1937; Jan. 4, 5, 1938.
18 Roosevelt to Lubin, June 16, 1938 (BLS Files, National
Archives).
' D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r A n n u a l R e p o r t f o r Y ea r E n d in g J u n e 30,
1933, p. 41.
"Appropriation Hearings, 1935 Bill, held Dec. 13, 1933, pp. 11,
50.
1Isador Lubin, “Government Employment as a Professional Career
in Economics,” A m e ric a n E c o n o m ic R ev ie w , Vol. XXVII, No. 1, Sup
plement, March 1937.
22 Lubin to Frances Jay, Oct. 25, 1935 (BLS Files, National Ar
chives).
'Lubin to Turner W. Battle, Oct. 31, 1933 (BLS Files, National
Archives).
24 Lubin letters to Wallace, Mar. 26, Apr. 13 and 16, 1934 (BLS
Files, National Archives).
' Lubin to Perkins, Nov. 22, 1933 (BLS Files, National Archives):
T h e N e w Y ork T im es, Aug. 21, 1934; Jan. 30 and 31, 1935. This con
tinued for 12 years, until a separate Bureau of International Affairs
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
was established in the Department in 1946.
26 T h e N e w Y o r k T im es, Oct. 10, 1937, T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, Aug.
5, 1939.
‘ Perkins to Lubin, July 11, 1936; July 21, 1936 (BLS Files, Na
tional Archives).
28 Lubin to Perkins, May 5, 1939 (BLS Files, National Archives).
24 Minutes of meeting of labor union statisticians, Department of
Labor (mimeo), May 18, 1934.
“Perkins to Biddle, Jan. 10, 1935; Biddle to Perkins, Feb. 7, 1935
(Perkins’ Files, National Archives). Perkins commenting on a report
by the National Industrial Conference Board, which found greater
numbers of workers in company or independent unions than in the
AFL, said: “The significance of the report lies in the fact that no at
tempt has been made to define company unions. As you know, there
are thousands of little associations of workers in individual plants
throughout the country, any of which, since they are sponsored by
employers might be considered as company unions. If, however, one
is to define a company union as a collective bargaining unit, it is
doubtful whether we would find anywhere near the large number of
such organizations as is implied in the report of the NICB.”
31 Hinrichs to Lubin, Apr. 2, 1935 (BLS Files, National Archives).
32 Lubin to Perkins, Sept. 3, 1935 (BLS Files, National Archives).
33 “Extent and Characteristics of Company Unions: Preliminary Re
port,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1935, pp. 865-876.
34 Noel Sargent, Secretary, NAM to Lubin, Oct. 11, 1935; Lubin to
Sargent, Oct. 14, 1935 (BLS Files, National Archives).
3 J o u r n a l o f C o m m e rc e , Oct. 15, 1935.
36 Lubin to Andrew Court, Apr. 13, 1936; Lubin to Stephen
DuBrul, General Motors, Apr. 13, 1936. DuBrul, General Motors to
Lubin, July 28, 1937; Lubin to DuBrul, July 30, 1937. Court to
Lubin, Aug. 17, 1937; Lubin to Court, Aug. 21 and Sept. 11, 1937.
Lubin to W. J. Cronin, Dec. 2, 1937 (BLS Files, National Archives).
37 Lubin memo to Division Chiefs, Mar. 1, 1940 (BLS Files, Nation
al Archives).
38 Isador Lubin, Social Implications of NRA, P ro g ressive E d u c a tio n
J o u rn a l, Oct. 1933.
wTemporary National Economic Committee, Investigation of Con
centration of Economic Power, Dec. 1, 1938, p. 79; T h e N e w Y o rk
T im es, Dec. 21, 1938.
40 Ibid, Part 30, Technology and Concentration of Economic Power,
1940, pp. 17258-17263.
41 Ibid, F in a l R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n o f th e T .N .E .C ., Docu
ment No. 35, 77th Congress, 1st Session, Mar. 1941, pp. 517-538,
542, 551-554.
42 Lubin to Hinrichs, July 1, 1940 (BLS Files, National Archives).
43 Perkins to Roosevelt, May 12, 1941 (Perkins’ Files, National Ar
chives).
44 Lubin to Perkins, May 6, 1942 (Perkins’ Files, National Ar
chives).
4' Th e N e w Y o rk T im es, May 22, 1942; Sept. 4, 1942; Dec. 9, 1942;
Mar. 16, 1945.
46 T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, Jan. 26, 1946.
47 Isador Lubin, “The BLS Program — A Review and Some Sugges
tions,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , January 1955, pp. 31-33.
48Jack Barbash, “The Labor Movement: A Re-Examination: A
Conference in Honor of David J. Saposs,” The University of Wiscon
sin, 1966, p. iii.
Frances Perkins’ interest
in a new deal for blacks
The black-oriented programs of the Nation's
first female Cabinet member may seem modest
by today's standards; however, in her time
she was a pioneer, who made the welfare
of blacks a priority of the Department of Labor
H
e n r y
P. G
u z d a
As Secretary of Labor from 1933 to 1945, Frances Perkins^adhered to the principles of equality for all. A for
mer social worker, Perkins conceived the Department of
Labor to be the listening post for the Government, “the
place where the poor people of the Nation could come
with their complaints and obtain assistance.” 1
She made it quite clear that no one would be denied
assistance because of race, creed, or religion. Blacks, in
particular, needed help during the Depression, and Per
kins offered assistance, although critics claimed her pro
grams were simple tokenism. Yet, as one author stated,
“It was all tokenism, perhaps, but blacks hadn’t been
able to get even tokens in the past.”
By making social welfare the No. 1 priority of the
Department of Labor, Perkins ran afoul of traditional
values. Her appointment, by the nature of her sex, was
opposed by many labor leaders who viewed the Labor
Department as their own.
Of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s circle of advis
ers, Perkins was not the only member considered a
champion of black causes. Black leaders also turned to
Works Project Administrator Harry Hopkins and Sec
retary of Interior Harold Ickes. Together, this troika
would often pool its efforts to advance the social prog
ress of blacks, calling on Eleanor Roosevelt for addi
tional help.2
Henry P. Guzda is a historian in the U.S. Department of Labor.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
First experience— a lasting one
The social awakening of Frances Perkins began when,
as a student at Mount Holyoke College, she visited the
grimy factories that dotted the landscape of the Con
necticut River Valley. Another strong impact was Jacob
Riis’s exposé of urban slum life in How the Other Half
Lives.3 Riis’s descriptions and photographs seared Per
kins’ imagination, and throughout her life the impact of
that book remained.
As a young social worker, she dealt directly with
poor blacks for the first time when she secured a job
with the Philadelphia Research and Protective Associa
tion. Both immigrant and black girls traveled to
Philadelphia searching for employment in the booming
city. They were met at the boat piers or railroad termi
nals by unsavory agents who offered them lodging and
employment as prostitutes. The Philadelphia Protective
Association assigned Perkins and two black assistants
to meet the new arrivals and direct them to reputable
boardinghouses and employment agencies. Perkins was
instrumental in the closing down of several of the
disruptable agencies. City officials, drawing upon rec
ommendations from the Protective Association, eventu
ally required licensing for lodging houses.4
‘New deal’ or raw deal?
“Will the New Deal be a Square Deal for the
Negro?” asked Jesse Thomas, a field representative for
31
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Perkins'Interest in Helping Blacks
the National Urban League. Would President Roosevelt
simply pay lip service to blacks and ignore them after
the elections? Black leaders had every right to be skepti
cal about the “New Deal.” Roosevelt had served under
President Woodrow Wilson and Navy Secretary Jose
phus Daniels in the early 1900’s “with no visible dis
comfort,” and both men were segregationists. And, as
governor of New York, Roosevelt demonstrated little
interest in civil rights.
Civil rights leaders, however, had no doubts about
Perkins, his choice for Secretary of Labor. Oswald Gar
rison Villard, former executive secretary of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
said, “When I think of Frances Perkins’ point of view,
it seems to me that she will be an angel at the Cabinet
table. . . .”5 Will Alexander, a respected white civil
rights leader from the South, commented that Perkins
was committed to the principle that black Americans
had the right to all the opportunities enjoyed by other
Americans.6
If there were any doubts concerning Perkins’ position
on equal rights, they quickly dissipated. Soon after tak
ing office, the Secretary received complaints from some
Southern white employees that black clerical workers
were eating lunch in the “whites only” cafeteria. The
previous policy kept facilities segregated under the guise
that one was for blue-collar workers and manual labor
ers and one was for white-collar workers. Perkins re
plied that the black clerks were white-collar workers,
and therefore, violated no rules by eating where they
did. Shortly afterwards, she abolished dual facilities al
together.
One of the reasons behind this incident was the in
crease in employment of blacks at the department.
Previously, blacks, with few exceptions, worked as mes
sengers, custodians, and in similar positions. Between
1933 and 1936, however, the department added 129
black employees, many in clerical positions.
Perkins revived the U.S. Employment Service and
added 78 blacks there. She insisted that the U.S. Em
ployment Service treat all citizens with impartiality re
gardless of race, color, or creed. In States with a high
percentage of blacks in the population, she saw to it
that blacks were represented on the U.S. Employment
Service staff. The special Negro Placement Service in
the employment offices surveyed the conditions of
blacks and the prevailing racial attitudes of the local
community. U.S. Employment Service officials used the
data to determine the size and movement of the local
black population, and the available job opportunities.7
Progress came slowly, and while the number of appoint
ments and placements left much to be desired, it was a
beginning.
During the Depression, many employers fired black
workers, replacing them with whites. At the Labor De
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
partment, several black elevator operators told Secre
tary Perkins of their impending dismissal to create jobs
for unemployed whites. (Perkins knew some of the op
erators personally, because she used the public eleva
tors, rather than her private one.) She ordered the
building contractor to keep the black operators, arguing
that blacks had held those jobs since the 1920’s when
no one else wanted them.8
Integrating cafeterias and protecting the job security
of elevator operators were noble gestures, but they did
little to help the majority of black Americans. Blacks
suffered particularly hard during the Depression. The
National Urban League said that black unemployment
was 30 to 60 percent greater than white unemployment.
The Government did not systematically collect statistics
on joblessness for any group until about 1940, but the
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that in 1933, the
worst year of the Depression, about 25 to 35 percent of
the civilian labor force was out of work.
Black leaders petitioned their friends in Washington,
including Eleanor Roosevelt, Secretary of the Interior
Ickes, and Labor Secretary Perkins, to initiate special
programs for destitute black Americans. Ickes ap
pointed Clark Foreman, a white civil rights leader, as
Adviser for Negro Relations to the Interior Depart
ment; however, Foreman acted as adviser to the entire
executive branch.
At Foreman’s suggestion, Frances Perkins regarded
the welfare of the black worker as special to the Labor
Department: she appointed her own adviser for Negro
affairs, took steps to study the problems of black work
ers, and arranged for employment bureaus for blacks.
The Women’s Bureau gave special attention to black
women workers and, similarly, the Children’s Bureau
became concerned with black child labor.
Perkins once stated that one of the best ways to pro
tect the interest of the workers needing the most protec
tion was to “look, see, and report.”9 By publicizing the
facts of discrimination against blacks, she hoped to
stimulate reform. The Bureau of Labor Statistics report
ed the proceedings of an immense conference of civil
rights leaders and their recommendations on solving
black unemployment problems and also published the
findings of Robert Weaver, the highest ranking black in
the Government, which refuted the theories that the
overrepresentation of blacks on the relief roles was from
a lack of initiative or innate inferiority.
Other studies conducted by the Department of Labor
corroborated Weaver’s findings. With unemployment so
high, white workers accepted jobs which paid marginal
wages, often replacing black workers. The department
also found that very few blacks worked in the skilled
trades because union locals barred them and controlled
apprenticeship for entry into the trades. When the gov
ernment passed legislation beneficial to organized labor,
it often penalized those few blacks in the skilled trades
because the majority of a craft or class determined rep
resentation. In addition, Labor Department researchers
found that 25 percent of all employed blacks worked as
domestics and, as the Depression worsened and strained
everyone’s budget, were among the first to lose their
jobs.10
Division of Negro Labor. Black leaders had been urging
the Secretary of Labor to appoint an adviser to coordi
nate activities in the department that dealt with the spe
cial problems of Negro labor. Assistant Secretary
Edward McGrady represented Perkins at several confer
ences on Negro labor. She appointed another white,
George Arthur of the Rosenwald Foundation (a civil
rights organization), to the National Advisory Commit
tee of the U.S. Employment Service. Perkins also
established a committee, composed of the chiefs of the
Women’s Bureau, Children’s Bureau, and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, to study how the Government could
improve the health and welfare of blacks. These actions
did not appease civil rights groups; they wanted a mem
ber of their own race to represent them in the Depart
ment.
Early in 1934, Perkins appointed Lawrence Oxley, a
commissioner of conciliation for the department, as di
rector of the newly formed Division of Negro Labor.
The Division of Negro Labor functioned as Perkins’
personal advisory agency on the problems of black
workers. Oxley was responsible for coordinating the ac
tivities of the various bureaus which were concerned
with blacks, and representing the Secretary in all labor
affairs concerning blacks. The Division of Negro Labor
was a remnant of the Division of Negro Economics, set
up by Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson to handle
interracial manpower problems during World War I.
(Wilson had tried to make the Division of Negro Eco
nomics permanent, but Southern congressmen refused
to appropriate funds.) A major difference between the
two was that the Division of Negro Labor commission
er had some influence in alleviating unemployment of
blacks through use of the U.S. Employment Service.
(Oxley was made an adviser to the director of the U.S.
Employment Service.)
Public construction projects. A landmark program co
sponsored by the Departments of the Interior and La
bor provided employment for black workers in Public
Works Administration (PWA) projects. Local PWA ad
ministrators and U.S. Employment Service agents set
aside a percentage of funds to hire black workers on
public construction projects in areas predominantly
populated by blacks. (In the early 1970’s, such pro
grams—the Philadelphia Plan, for one— would be
hailed as a major innovation in the promotion of equal
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employment opportunity.)
Organized labor approached the arrangement with
less than enthusiasm. The Washington Building Trades
Council argued against using nonunion labor on public
construction projects. Lawrence Oxley countered that
few blacks belonged to unions and that despite the af
firmation of the American Federation of Labor to erase
the color line, many local trade organizations still de
barred blacks. The Department of Labor ordered U.S.
Employment Service agents to secure work permits for
unaffiliated black workers to ensure them representation
on construction projects. Several projects failed to meet
the obligation of such arrangements, but most sites
complied.
The blue eagle strikes
The National Recovery Administration (NRA)
brought hopes of a new era for most Americans. The
NRA suspended antitrust laws so that industries could
agree on “fair trade” codes intended to lessen competi
tion and raise wages; recognized labor’s right to bargain
for workers; and got employers to agree to a 35- to
40-hour workweek and to pay minimum wages of $12
to $15 a week. Establishments adhering to these codes
displayed a blue eagle, the NRA symbol.
Black Americans, at first, rallied around the blue ea
gle, little realizing that for some of them it was about to
become a bird of prey. The black press called the pro
gram “a lifesaver to the colored American.” New Deal
ers thought stimulation of the economy by consumer
purchasing power was a key to ending the Depression
and that the NRA would provide that stimulus.
In a short time, black leaders began to see the NRA
in less glowing tones. Southern employers were using
the codes to replace blacks with whites or were writing
new codes which allowed a regional differential by
which workers in the South would receive considerably
less than workers in the North. (Most of the time these
were racial, rather than geographical, differentials.)
Southern employers defended their discriminatory dif
ferentials, saying that blacks in the South traditionally
received lower wages because they were inefficient and
innately lazy, and that if there were no differentials,
they would have to replace their black workers with
white ones.
When Perkins testified before Congress on the Na
tional Recovery Administration, it was clear her sympa
thies were with the blacks. The purpose of the NRA,
she stated while testifying before a hearing on “fair
trade” codes in the iron and steel industry, was to re
vive the purchasing power of the wage earners. Supplied
with information gathered by Oxley, she argued that re
gional wage differentials should be dictated by the cost
of living. “The low rates for the Southern districts are
presumably based on the predominance of Negro labor
33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Perkins'Interest in Helping Blacks
in those districts,” she said, “but Negroes are also
consumers. Their cost of living is not lower than the
living costs of the whites; it is rather that they live dif
ferently on a lower standard.” 11 The codes for the steel
industry on a racial basis were denied, and instead a
geographical differential was adopted for all workers.
Southern employers appealed for special exemptions,
arguing that obsolete and inefficient plants would be
closed if they had to pay blacks at the same level as
whites. Perkins ordered an investigation into one of the
most publicized cases, that of the Southland Manufac
turing Co. The 300 blacks employed at the plant were
paid $9 a week. Company executives told the appeals
board that they could not operate if they had to pay
the extra $3 a week as prescribed in the codes. Howev
er, investigators found no legitimate reason for an ex
emption, and the board ordered Southland to pay
$6,100 in back wages. Three months later, Southland’s
parent company, Reliance Manufacturing, closed the
plant.
The NRA investigated the case. The president of Re
liance Manufacturing claimed that the plant had operat
ed in the red, “on account of the characteristics of the
people who have not had the experience and back
ground, and their racial characteristics.” 12
Perkins assigned Esther Peterson of the Women’s Bu
reau to work with Oxley on obtaining the facts on
Southland. They found that other Reliance Manufactur
ing plants had records no better than Southland, that
the Southland plant had a notoriously long record of
using convict labor, operating under sweatshop condi
tions, and employing blacks to keep out organized la
bor, and that the assertions of Negro inefficiency were
false. They also provided figures showing that the
Southland plant did not operate in the red and that it
made a profit.13 The NRA denied the exemptions for a
second time. Black leaders and Perkins breathed easier,
but 300 blacks had lost their jobs. And, in many areas
throughout the South, blacks lost their jobs because
employers refused to pay them the same wages as
whites.
Stepping stone for young men
One of the most disturbing problems of the De
pression was unemployed youth. After Roosevelt took
office, he sought to harness some of that young man
power and at the same time refurbish the Nation’s erod
ed and scarred landscapes. Frances Perkins testified in
favor of his plan before Congress. It passed, and the Ci
vilian Conservation Corps was born.
The administration of the corps was interdepartmen
tal. The Deparment of Labor selected the young men
for the program through the U.S. Employment Service;
the War Department fed, clothed, housed, and condi
tioned them; and the Agriculture and Interior Depart
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ments chose the work projects. The young men lived in
camps and planted trees in virtually every section of the
country. They received $1 a day, a good portion of
which went home to their parents.
Oscar De Priest, the only black congressman, had at
tached a rider to the bill which stated “that no discrim
ination shall be made on account of race, color, or
creed.” However, selection of young men for the corps
had barely started, when Perkins received complaints
from civil rights leaders that in many sections of the
South, U.S. Employment Service agents were excluding
blacks from the Civilian Conservation Corps.
Among the most flagrant discriminators were agen
cies in the State of Georgia. And, it was only after Per
kins threatened to suspend the program for the entire
State, that Georgia Governor Eugene Talmadge unen
thusiastically agreed to enroll blacks.
But Georgia violated the agreement frequently, and
U.S. Employment Service Director Edward Persons
wanted to suspend Civilian Conservation Corps activi
ties in the State. He drafted a letter to that effect, but
Perkins discouraged him from sending it to Talmadge.
She knew that the President needed the support of
Southern politicians for many of his programs and
would not embarrass Roosevelt if she could help it.14
The Department of Labor experienced similar dif
ficulties in other Southern States, though never so ma
jor as in Georgia. Persons succeeded in persuading
many areas to enroll blacks, although not as many as
he felt was justified. Alabama, for example, placed 776
Negroes, the highest number, while Mississippi, with
the largest population of blacks in the South, placed
only 46.
A critical point for the Civilian Conservation Corps
came in the summer of 1935 when unrest among white
communities over black camps reached a tender stage.
California, Arkansas, and, especially, Texas wanted a
halt in black placements. Civilian Conservation Corps
Director Robert Fechner told Persons that the situation
in Texas posed a special problem and that suspension of
black enrollment might be a good idea. Persons ada
mantly opposed suspension, and wrote to Perkins,
The CCC has never adequately fulfilled its opportunities for
the selection of colored enrollees. For us now to expressly
deny the right would be an indefensible procedure.
Perkins agreed that the black camps should not be sus
pended. However, President Roosevelt perused the re
ports submitted by both sides and termed the situation
“political dynamite,” 15 and the Department of Labor
bowed to political pressure.
Even the harshest critics of the New Deal admitted
that blacks benefited from the Civilian Conservation
Corps. Of the 2.5 million men enrolled during its 9
years of existence, 200,000 were black. Almost 87 per-
cent of the black enrollees participated in an education
program. And, while the education they received did
not open all the doors of opportunity, it was a forward
step.
Colorblind assistance
Perkins had lobbied long and hard for passage of the
Social Security Act of 1935 and was disappointed that
the Department of Labor did not administer all its pro
visions. The act grew out of the many changes in the
American experience. It set up bulwarks against new
kinds of economic insecurity which threatened Ameri
cans during the Depression. The act protected people
who were too young or too old or were physically
handicapped. It authorized Federal grants to enable
States to broaden and extend regular allowances for
needy mothers, the blind, and the aged. It also provided
grants for child welfare, crippled children, and physical
ly handicapped people with potential for useful work.
The provisions for child welfare were especially bene
ficial in rural areas of the South, where a good number
of the children were black.
T h e b l a c k -o r i e n t e d p r o g r a m s and policies initiated
under Perkins’ direction seem modest by today’s stand
ards. The fact that she would forgo her social beliefs to
protect the President from political embarrassment
might seem hypocritical. But, the programs she started
left a legacy for programs of the 1960’s and 1970’s. □
FOOTNOTES
' David Mac Eachron, “The Role of the U.S. Department of La
bor,” Ph. D. dissertation, 1953, p. 60.
2 Nancy Weiss, T h e N a tio n a l U rb a n L e a g u e (New York, Oxford
University Press, 1974), p. 272.
Jacob Riis, H o w th e O th e r H a l f L iv e s (New York, Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1890), p. 52.
4 George Martin, M a d a m S e c r e ta r y (Boston, Mass., Houghton Miff
lin Co., 1976), pp. 65-68.
5Oswald Garrison Villard, “Issues and Men: And a Woman,” N a
tion, Mar. 8, 1933, pp. 253-54.
6 Will W. Alexander, “A Strategy For Negro Labor,” O p p o rtu n ity ,
April 1934, p. 103.
7Correspondence from Lawrence Oxley to Albert Hinrichs, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Jan. 30, 1935, Hinrichs file; R e p o r t o f th e U S E S on
D ivisio n o f N e g ro L a b o r, Dec. 23, 1936, Oxley file; correspondence
from Edward Young, U.S. Employment Service, to Oxley, June 6,
1936; and correspondence from Oxley to Samuel Gompers, Jr., U.S.
Department of Labor, Apr. 28, 1936, National Archives and Records
Service, General Services Administration.
*Correspondence from Frances Perkins to Lawrence Oxley, Divi
sion of Negro Labor, Jan. 2, 1934, Oxley file, National Archives and
Records Service, General Services Administration.
7 Mac Eachron, “The Role of the U.S. Department of Labor,” p. 60.
10 “Washington Conference on the Economic Status of the Negro,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , July 1933, pp. 42-43; See also, “Relative Ef
ficiency of Negro and White Workers,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , Febru
ary 1935, pp. 335-38.
" T e s tim o n y o f F ra n ce s P e r k in s b e fo r e th e N R A on th e c o d e s f o r th e
iron a n d s te e l in d u str y , U.S. Department of Labor, 1933.
12 Raymond Wolters, N e g ro e s a n d th e G r e a t D e p re ssio n (Westport,
Conn., Greenwood Publishing Corp., 1970), pp. 125-27. Correspon
dence from Isador Lubin, Bureau of Labor Statistics to Oxley, Apr.
11, 1935, and from Oxley to Lubin, Dec. 5, 1934, Lubin file, National
Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration.
13Correspondence from Mary Anderson and Esther Peterson to
Oxley, Oct. 9, 1934, Oxley file, and from Labor Advisory Board to
Perkins, Oct. 23, 1934, Lubin file, National Archives and Records
Service, General Services Administration.
14John Salmond, T h e C iv ilia n C o n serv a tio n C o rp s (Durham, N.C.,
Duke University Press, 1964), pp. 90-100 and George Martin, M a d
a m S e c re ta r y , p. 297.
15 Salmond, T h e C iv ilia n C o n serv a tio n C orps, p. 98.
Establishing a reputation
When A1 Smith became Governor of New York in 1918,
he appointed Frances Perkins to the State Industrial Com
mission despite strong opposition from manufacturers' as
sociations. Smith’s confidence was quickly rewarded when,
in 1919, he sent her to mediate a violent strike of copper
mill workers in Rome, N.Y. On arriving, she found troops
patrolling the city’s streets. After talking with representa
tives of labor, business, and the community, Perkins ad
vised that a public hearing be held before the State
Industrial Commission. She firmly believed in the persua
sive power of public opinion, and the subsequent hearings
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
quickly led to direct negotiations and a settlement of the
strike. The workers gained higher wages and union recog
nition; Frances Perkins gained a reputation. Manufacturers
who had complained when Smith sent a woman to deal
with a labor problem sent word after the strike: “ Do us a
favor and ask the Governor where he got that woman.”
— G o r d o n B er g
“Champion of Labor Law in a
Tricorn Hat,” W o rk life, October
1976, p. 169.
35
Changes in unemployment insurance
legislation during 1979
Concern for financing of unemployment insurance
payments was evident in 1979; changes generally
involved extending disqualification periods,
restricting eligibility, and increasing tax rates
V i r g i n ia A. C h u p p
No major Federal unemployment insurance legislation
was enacted in 1979. However, Congress did extend the
National Commission on Unemployment Compensation
for an additional 6 months. The Commission, created
under the Unemployment Compensation Amendments
of 1976, is to examine the unemployment insurance pro
gram and make recommendations for changes. A report
is due by July 1.
Most of the amendments in unemployment compen
sation undertaken by State legislatures during the year
were designed to provide financial backing for pro
grams. Several notable trends emerge from a State-byState analysis of changes: increasing eligibility require
ments, tightening disqualifications, and revision of tax
schedules to produce additional income for unemploy
ment insurance funds.
Iowa, a claimant’s base-year wages must be 1-1/4 times
his or her high-quarter wage; in Maine, base-period
wages must double the State’s annual average weekly
wage; and in Montana, a claimant must have worked
20 weeks or more, averaging $50 weekly.
Maximum weekly benefits increased in only eight
States:
Benefits and requirements
Changes in eligibility and disqualifications provisions
tended to be toward more restrictive requirements for
claimants to meet in order to collect benefits. North
Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Nevada amended
their laws to require strictly duration disqualifications
for the three major causes: voluntarily leaving work
without good cause, refusal of suitable work, and dis
charge for misconduct. Under such a disqualification, a
claimant is denied benefits for the duration of the unem
ployment, and until he or she earns a specified amount
of wages in subsequent work. In addition, two States,
Maryland and North Dakota, now restrict good cause
for leaving work to that attributable to the work or the
employer, and no longer recognize good personal cause.
Fewer claimants may be eligible for benefits in 1980
because of the increased amount of high-quarter or
base-period wages needed to qualify. For example, Ari
zona, New Hampshire and South Dakota increased the
amount of high-quarter wages a claimant needs to qual
ify for benefits. In Arizona, $625 is needed ($725 in Au
gust), up from $375 last year; New Hampshire requires
$600 in two high quarters (formerly $300) and South
Dakota, $600 (formerly $400). To qualify for benefits in
Virginia A. Chupp is an unemployment insurance program specialist
in the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor.
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Arizona .....................
Mississippi ................
F lo r i d a ........................
M is s o u ri.....................
Nebraska ..................
New Hampshire . . . .
T e n n e sse e ...................
Virginia .....................
Old maximum
New maximum
$85
80
82
85
60
102
95
115
$90
90
95
105
106
114
100
122
In Iowa, Maine, and Montana, and definition of
“suitable work” now changes, by law, with the length
of a claimant’s unemployment. Previously, “suitable
work” was redefined by a procedure or regulation.
Generally, States are changing fraud from a penalty
specified in the State’s unemployment insurance law to
a criminal act, punishable under the State’s penal code.
Six States made such changes in 1979.
Following is a summary of some significant changes
in State unemployment insurance laws in 1979:
Arizona amended its benefit charging provisions so that
benefits paid subsequent to a labor dispute will not be
charged to a base-period employer, if the payment is a
result of the labor dispute.
Arkansas lifted the disqualification for quitting work to
attend school or become self-employed, although the in
dividual must continue to meet the able-to-work and
available-for-work requirements. The voluntary quit
disqualification no longer applies if the claimant had a
leave of absence because of pregnancy and was not
rehired after the termination of the pregnancy. Howev
er, pregnancy is among the nondisqualifying causes for
leaving work if the claimant made reasonable efforts to
preserve her job rights.
California changed the time for which temporary dis
ability insurance benefits can be paid on account of
pregnancy from a period of 3 weeks before and 3 weeks
after childbirth to any 6-week period during the preg
nancy.
Colorado will use average earnings in all industries cov
ered by the law, rather than selected ones, in computing
the State maximum weekly benefit amount. Full benefits
will be allowed if the worker quits because of harass
ment by the employer, not related to job performance.
Pension payments will not be deducted from the claim
ant’s weekly benefit if the pension payment is made in a
lump sum comprising only contributions made by the
claimant.
The following were added to the list of reasons for
disqualification or reduced award: excessive tardiness or
absenteeism; sleeping or loafing on the job; failure to
meet established job standards for reasons other than
inability to do the work; and voluntarily quitting work
for unknown reasons or for personal reasons.
A seasonal industry was redefined to include an in
dustry customarily operating for 25 (formerly 24) weeks
or less in a year.
Connecticut's claimants who received benefits to which
they were not entitled, even though not because of
fraud, are liable to repay those benefits or have them
deducted from future benefits. However, deductions
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
may not exceed half of an individual’s weekly benefit.
Because of experiences in the winter of 1979, the law
was amended so that employers are not charged for
benefits resulting from damage to a place of employ
ment caused by severe weather conditions. The maxi
mum disqualification for fraud was increased from 20 to
39 weeks following the offense.
Delaware's maximum tax rate increased from 3.0 to 5.0
percent of employer’s payroll. The period in which an
employer’s account must be chargeable before he or she
can qualify for other than the standard 2.7-percent rate
was reduced from 4 to 3 years.
Florida limited the maximum tax rate to 0.1 percent a
year. To be charged for benefits, an employer must pay
at least $100 (formerly $40) in base-period wages.
The disqualification period for the three major causes
was changed from the duration of the unemployment
and until the worker earns 10 times the weekly benefit
amount to duration plus earnings of 17 times the week
ly benefit. A disqualification was added for discharges
for gross misconduct if the worker was terminated for
violation of a criminal law punishable by imprisonment,
or for any dishonest act. The disqualification period
continues for up to 52 weeks or until the individual is
reemployed and earns 10 times the weekly benefit
amount. Also, disqualifying income now includes retire
ment payments made for service in the U.S. Armed
Forces.
Hawaii changed the penalty for fraud from a fine of up
to $200 or 30 days’ imprisonment, or both, to either a
misdemeanor or a felony under the State criminal code.
Idaho's provision denying benefits to school personnel
between school years or terms now applies only to
those wages earned for work performed for educational
institutions.
Indiana will deny benefits to temporary employees of
the General Assembly or of a legislative committee who
work between legislative sessions only.
Iowa has dramatically changed its benefit system. An
individual’s weekly benefit amount will be computed, in
steps, at 1/19 to 1/23 of the high-quarter wages up to
58 to 70 percent of the State average weekly wage,
depending on the number of dependents claimed by the
worker. In addition, the proportion of base-period
wages used to compute the duration of benefits was re
duced from one-half to one-third and maximum dura
tion was reduced from 39 to 26 weeks. Base-year wages
of 1-1/4 times the high-quarter wages are needed to
qualify for benefits, in addition to the previous require
ment of $400 in the highest quarter and $200 in a quar37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Changes in Unemployment Insurance
ter outside the high quarter.
The amount of benefit charges to a succeeding em
ployer’s account is limited to those based on wages
earned with that employer and, if the claimant remains
unemployed 10 weeks after those wage credits have
been charged, any benefits paid after the 10 weeks.
All three of the major causes of disqualifications were
amended. Disqualification for any of the three causes
now continues for the duration of the claimant’s unem
ployment and until he or she has earned wages in cov
ered work equal to 10 times the weekly benefit amount.
In addition, discharge for gross misconduct will result
in a cancellation of all wage credits earned prior to dis
charge.
Work is considered suitable if the weekly wage offered
bears the following relationship to the claimant’s highquarter weekly wage: (1) during the first 5 weeks of un
employment, 100 percent; (2) from the 6th through the
12th week; 75 percent; (3) from the 13th through the
18th week, 70 percent; (4) after the 18th week, 65 per
cent. However, no individual is required to accept a job
paying less than the Federal minimum wage.
Kansas increased the percentage of highest quarter earn
ings used to determine weekly benefits from 4 to 4.25
percent. The maximum contribution rate remains at 6.6
percent for 1980, but will increase to 3.8 percent for
1981 and 1982, and to 4.0 percent in 1983 and subse
quent years. In addition, a new maximum rate of up to
4.3 percent can be implemented under certain condi
tions.
Maine's claimants must meet these requirements to be
eligible for benefits: (1) wages must equal twice the
State’s annual average weekly wage in each of two
quarters in the base year, and (2) total base-year wages
must equal 7 times the State annual average weekly
wage.
The suitable work definition was amended to disre
gard prior earnings if an individual has been unem
ployed for 12 consecutive weeks and the work offered
pays wages at least equal to the State’s average weekly
wage. Services of certain musicians are excluded, if they
are performed under terms of a contract between the
musicians and the employer.
Maryland changed its voluntary leaving provision so
that only a cause directly attributable to or connected
with the work will be considered good cause for leaving
work. The period in which prosecution may be brought
for fraud in connection with the collection of benefits
was extended from 2 to 3 years. A claimant’s current
employer will not be charged for benefits paid for un
employment caused by a shutdown for retooling; in
stead, the employer causing the shutdown will be
charged.
38
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Michigan preserved an individual’s right to receive bene
fits during continuous involuntary disability if the
claimant submits a timely request for such preservation.
Benefits are not payable after 156 weeks after the begin
ning of the claimant’s benefit year.
Minnesota changed it disqualifications for voluntary
leaving and discharge for misconduct to exclude separa
tions because of completion of an apprenticeship pro
gram or terminations occurring after the employee gave
notice of intent to quit work. The latter continues only
through the week of the intended termination. Benefits
cannot be paid for any week in which the individual re
ceived a salary equal to his weekly benefit.
An individual will not be disqualified for any acts oc
curring after separation from employment. The penalty
for disqualification because of fraud will expire 104
weeks after the week in which the fraud determination
was made.
Benefits paid after an individual fails, without good
cause, to accept an offer of reemployment will not be
charged to the employer if the refusal was due to the
distance of the work from the claimant’s residence, seri
ous illness, or the claimant’s other employment at the
time of the offer.
Mississippi law was amended to increase the standard
and the maximum contribution rate from 2.7 to 4.0 per
cent and the minimum rate from 0 to 0.1 percent. Also
benefits will not be charged to an employer’s account if
paid after an employee is fired before a 90-day trial
work period because he or she is unable to perform the
work.
Service performed as a “sitter” at a hospital is ex
cluded from coverage if the “sitter” is employed by the
individual.
Missouri decreased slightly the percentage of highest
quarter earnings used to determine the weekly benefit
amount. The taxable wage base will increase from
$6,000 to $6,600 if, during the preceding year, the bal
ance in the unemployment compensation fund dropped
below $125 million. The maximum tax rate was in
creased from 4.1 to 6.0 percent, and the fund balance
triggers that determine the rate schedule were changed
from a percentage of payrolls to a cash balance require
ment.
The maximum period of disqualification for a miscon
duct discharge was increased from 8 to 16 weeks. An
individual will not be disqualified for voluntary leaving
if he or she retired pursuant to a contract between the
employer and a duly-elected union.
Montana claimants must have at least 20 weeks of work
at an average weekly wage of $50 to qualify for benefits,
effective July 1, 1980. At the same time, minimum
weekly benefits will change from $12 to an amount
equal to 15 percent of the State’s average weekly wage
and weekly benefits will be computed at 50 percent of
an individual’s average weekly wage, up to the maxi
mum which is currently computed at 60 percent of the
State’s average weekly wage. The period for which
benefits are payable was reduced from 12 to 8 weeks.
The taxable wage base increased from $6,000 to
$7,400 for 1979 and, beginning in 1980, will be re
computed annually at 75 percent of the State’s average
annual wage. The minimum contribution rate was de
creased from 0.5 to 0.2 percent, and the maximum rate
was increased from 3.1 to 4.4 percent.
The experience rating system, used to determine an
employer’s rate, was changed from a system which mea
sures the decline in an employer’s annual payroll to a
system which uses all factors— benefits, contributions,
and the employer’s payroll.
Excluded from coverage is casual labor not in the
course of the employer’s trade or business, unless the
quarterly wages paid are $50 or more and the service is
not done by a regular employee hired specifically for
those services.
The voluntary leaving disqualification will continue
for the duration of an individual’s unemployment and
until he or she earns 6 (formerly 4) times the weekly
benefit amount. The requirement which permitted re
qualification for benefits after 7 weeks of otherwise
compensable unemployment was repealed. However, the
law now permits purging the disqualification if the indi
vidual regularly attends an accredited school for at least
3 consecutive months.
Claimants discharged for misconduct will now be
disqualified for the duration of their unemployment and
until they earn 8 (formerly 6) times the weekly benefit
amount. Here, too, the alternative requirement permit
ting benefits to be paid after the claimant has served 8
otherwise compensable weeks of unemployment was re
pealed.
Suitable work was redefined: for the first 13 weeks of
unemployment, suitable work is that which meets the
criteria established by law and that which offers the
areawide prevailing wage for the claimant’s customary
occupation; after 13 weeks, suitable work will include
work that offers 75 percent of the prevailing wage.
The benefit charging provisions were amended to
specify that no employer’s account will be charged for
Federal-State extended benefits, or for benefits paid to
an individual who voluntarily left work without good
cause or was discharged for misconduct.
Nevada tightened disqualification for misconduct dis
charges from a variable period with no earnings re
quired to the duration of claimant’s unemployment and
until the claimant earns the weekly benefit amount in
each of 1 to 15 weeks.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
New Hampshire extended coverage to certain local gov
ernment employees and enacted legislation denying ben
efits to school personnel between terms, professional
athletes between seasons, and certain aliens. In addi
tion, a new disqualification applies to an individual who
leaves self-employment and will continue until the
claimant earns wages in each of 3 weeks equal to 120
percent of the weekly benefit amount.
The provision was repealed which prohibited applica
tion of the labor dispute disqualification if the stoppage
of work is due to a lockout or the employer’s failure to
live up to an employment contract. However, the labor
dispute disqualification will not apply if the claimant
became unemployed and entitled to benefits prior to the
dispute and his or her connection with the employer has
been totally severed.
Disqualification for disciplinary layoff now applies for
the life of the layoff. A lump sum payment (other than
accrued vacation pay) from an employer going out of
business now affects a claimant’s eligibility for benefits.
New Mexico decreased the maximum number of weeks
in a year that benefits can be paid from 30 to 26. The
circumstances under which a labor dispute disqualifica
tion will be imposed were changed from a work stop
page existing because of the dispute to a labor dispute
in progress at the claimant’s place of employment.
North Carolina amended its fraud penalty so that in
stead of a fine or jail or both, the individual is guilty of
a misdemeanor. Also, the time needed to qualify for ex
perience rating is no longer limited to 12 months.
North Dakota changed from a minimum weekly benefit
amount of $15 to a flexible minimum computed annual
ly in July at 18 percent of the State average weekly
wage. This change results in a flexible qualifying re
quirement because the State requires wages in two quar
ters and 40 times the weekly benefit amount to qualify
for benefits. Minimum duration of benefits was reduced
from 18 to 12 weeks and the computation of duration is
no longer based on the relationship of base-period
wages and weekly benefits but is based on the ratio of
base-year wages to high quarter wages.
The wage base is now computed at 70 percent of the
State’s average annual wage for the 12 months ending
June 30. Formerly, this computation occurred only if
the fund balance failed to meet a specified level and the
amount of the increase in the wage base was limited to
$100 in any year. The maximum contribution rate in
creased from 4.2 percent of the employer’s total payroll
to 6.0 percent and the minimum rate from 0.2 to 0.3
percent. The method of determining fund requirements
for triggering rate schedules was changed from a per
centage of payrolls to a multiple of the highest benefit
cost in 1 of the preceding 5 years.
39
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Changes in Unemployment Insurance
An individual’s weekly benefit will be reduced by half
the amount of the pension he or she receives if at least
half the cost of the pension was provided by a baseperiod or chargeable employer, and by the entire cost of
the pension if the pension was wholly financed by such
an employer.
Only a cause directly attributable to the employer is
considered a good reason for voluntarily leaving work.
In addition, the period of disqualification for voluntary
leaving was reduced from the duration of the claimant’s
unemployment and until he or she earned 10 times the
weekly benefit amount to duration plus 5 times the
weekly benefit amount.
The alternative requalifying requirement was deleted
for those claimants denied benefits because of one or
more of the three major causes of disqualifications.
Oregon law now specifies that individuals claiming bene
fits must submit information regarding qualifications,
training, and experience if requested to do so by the
State employment service.
Rhode Island's taxable wage base will be determined as
70 percent of the State’s average annual wage in cov
ered employment during the preceding year. In addi
tion, the minimum contribution rate was increased from
a range of 1.0-3.0 percent to 3.0 percent and the maxi
mum rate was increased from 4.0 percent to 6.0 per
cent. Employers are required to pay a balancing tax,
ranging from 0.7 percent to 1.5 percent, depending on
the tax schedule in effect in a year. In addition, the
maximum rate at which a new employer can be taxed
was increased from 2.7 percent to 4.2 percent.
South Dakota increased the maximum contribution rate
from 4.1 percent to 7.0 percent.
The amount needed to qualify for benefits was in
creased to 20 times (formerly 10) the weekly benefit
amount outside the highest quarter, and the minimum
amount of high-quarter wages required was increased to
$600 (formerly $400). The State further restricted condi
tions under which partial benefits will be paid by
changing the definition of partial unemployment to a
week in which the claimants earned less than half (for
merly 1-1/2 times) the weekly benefit amount and by
deducting three-quarters (formerly one-half) of a claim
ant’s part-time earnings from his or her weekly benefits.
The penalty for fraud was changed from a variable
period of 1 to 52 weeks to either a misdemeanor or a
felony under the State’s criminal code.
School employees will be denied benefits during
established, customary vacation or holiday periods.
D isqualification for th e th ree m a jo r causes w as
changed from a variable period to th e d u ratio n of th e
40
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
claimant’s unemployment and until he or she has been
reemployed in covered work for 6 weeks and has earned
wages in each of those weeks equal to the weekly benefit.
The criteria for determining whether a voluntary quit
was with good cause now include considerations of the
claimant’s health and the employer’s conduct. Disability
payments are no longer deductible.
Tennessee repealed the exclusion from the automatic de
nial of benefits to hourly paid nonprofessional school
personnel between school terms.
Utah will reduce a claimant’s weekly benefit by 100 per
cent (formerly 50 percent) of his or her weekly retire
ment benefits. The formula used to compute benefits for
a week of partial unemployment was changed so that
now the weekly benefit is reduced by the amount of
earnings in excess of 30 percent of the benefits. Former
ly, the amount disregarded was that in excess of 50 per
cent of the weekly benefit amount, or $12, whichever
was less.
A claimant is required to make an active effort to se
cure work. Disqualifications for the three major causes
were changed, so that now the claimant is ineligible for
the duration of his or her unemployment and until he
or she earns 6 times the weekly benefit amount in cov
ered work.
Disqualification because of fraud continues for 13
weeks for the first week in which fraud is committed
plus 6 weeks for each week of commitment thereafter,
but not more than a total of 49 weeks of disqualifica
tion. In addition the claimant must pay back twice the
amount fraudulently received. Formerly, disqualification
continued for 52 weeks and until the fraudulently re
ceived benefits were repaid.
Virginia now denies benefits to part-time and substitute
school employees. In addition, the State extended the
between-terms denial during customary and established
vacation periods. Quitting work to accompany or join a
spouse in a new locality is no longer considered a good
cause for leaving work. Also, an individual is disquali
fied while incarcerated.
West Virginia increased the percentage of the State’s av
erage weekly wage used to compute the maximum
weekly benefit amount from two-thirds to 70 percent. A
claimant is required to have earned wages in two calen
dar quarters to be eligible for benefits.
To be considered available for work, an individual
must do what a reasonably prudent person in similar
circumstances would do to seek work. Employees on
vacation at the employer’s request now are not consid
ered unemployed and, thus, are ineligible for benefits. □
Arbitration and the rights of
mentally handicapped workers
B e n j a m in W . W o l k in s o n
and
D
a v id
Ba r to n
In the last few years, there has been a growing aware
ness of the vast extent and cost of mental illness at the
work site. It has been estimated, for example, that emo
tional problems are responsible for approximately 20 to
30 percent of employee absenteeism, that one-fourth of
any large work force is in serious need of help for psy
chological or social problems, and that at least 65 per
cent of all discharges result from personal factors rather
than technical incompetence.1
The widespread and frequent occurrence of mental
disability suggests that managers are often faced with
sensitive decisions about how to accommodate both the
needs of afflicted employees and the economic interests
of the firm. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 places new
constraints on organizations that receive Federal funds,
requiring them to accommodate physically or mentally
handicapped employees.2 Equally important but less
well appreciated are the rights and protections afforded
mentally disabled employees by the just-cause disciplin
ary provisions of collective bargaining agreements. As
this report will demonstrate, the industrial common law
that has evolved from grievance proceedings has
established definite restraints on management’s ability
to penalize workers afflicted by mental illness. Further
more, this industrial common law appears to impose on
employers some duty to accomodate the specific needs
of affected workers.
Protection of job rights
Between 1947 and 1978, there were 38 reported arbi
tration decisions involving the discharge or denial of re
instatement to employees with mental disabilities.3 In
only 10 of these cases was management’s decision up
held. Apparently, arbitrators impose a stiff evidentiary
Benjamin W. Wolkinson is associate professor of industrial relations
at the School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State Uni
versity. David Barton is Director of Labor Relations, Hurley Medical
Center, Flint, Michigan.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
burden on employers seeking to terminate a mentally
handicapped worker. Only when a mental disability ex
poses the employee or others to serious risks of injury
or harm or, alternatively, prevents the employee from
performing his duties was the discharge upheld. In 7 of
the 10 cases where termination was upheld, the arbitra
tor found that the employer had demonstrated through
competent medical testimony that the grievant could
not safely or successfully perform his or her job.4
In five of the approved terminations, there were addi
tional findings that the worker’s disability precluded the
performance of any job in the bargaining unit.5 One
case involved an employee with 16 years of service; fol
lowing brain surgery, he was no longer able to function
efficiently, and the company reluctantly terminated him.
The arbitrator concluded that the employer had acted
properly: it had consulted the union, had given the em
ployee additional time to recuperate, and had demon
strated that all other positions in the bargaining unit
entailed the same level of skill and difficulty.6 Several
other cases concerned employees diagnosed as psychotic
with histories of violent outbursts on the work floor,
and who posed a danger to customers, fellow employ
ees, and the employer’s property.7
Although employers may terminate a worker on the
basis of compelling evidence of disability, they cannot
discipline an employee solely because of previous con
finement or treatment for a diagnosed mental disability.
In one case,8 a firm was ordered to reinstate with back
pay a worker hospitalized and successfully treated for
mental illness. Similarly, a worker suspended pending a
psychiatric examination was awarded full back pay. As
a result, an employer’s authority to suspend a worker
pending the results of a mental examination may be
limited to cases where there is some basis to conclude
that the individual is suffering from a disability.9
Furthermore, an employee who has undergone mental
treatment may not be denied reinstatement because of
management’s unverified or unsubstantiated fears of
coworker or community disapproval. Thus, a successful
ly treated sexual psychopath was ordered reinstated in a
case where management fears of community disapproval
had not been verified.10Such fears were considered espe
cially misplaced because the grievant’s job did not re
quire contact with anyone other than coworkers.
41
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Communications
In some cases, the onset of mental illness may be
acute and noticeable. In other cases, it may be evi
denced only by subtle changes in behavior. Consider
able time may elapse before a recognizable pattern of
mental illness develops. Despite this inherent difficulty
in discerning either the nature or commencement of an
employee’s illness, arbitrators have generally maintained
that the firm is responsible to thoroughly investigate
and consider a worker’s emotional problem before im
posing discipline. This requirement is particularly rele
vant when dealing with a long-term employee who has
an otherwise satisfactory work record and whose behav
ior as a result of mental stress or breakdown is radically
or suddenly altered.
One firm discharged an employee who assaulted a su
pervisor during an argument over an open plant win
dow. The discharge was voided, however, because
management had failed to discover that the worker was
under medical treatment for hypersensitivity and that
prior to the incident had spent the previous night
searching for his missing son.11
At the same time, employees confronted by manage
ment for explanation of rule infractions may be obliged
to communicate the nature of their emotional problems
or mental disability where it has influenced the
questioned conduct. The dismissal of a mentally de
pressed employee for excessive absenteeism was upheld
in one case, because of the employee’s repeated refusal
to reveal to management the reasons for his absence,
which included treatment and hospitalization for his ill
ness.12 Without knowledge of mitigating factors, the ar
bitrator ruled, the employer had no alternative but to
exercise its normal disciplinary policy.
Under mental stress, some employees have suddenly
departed from the job, informing management that they
were quitting. When they subsequently sought reinstate
ment, their requests have often been denied on the
grounds that, by voluntarily quitting, they had termi
nated their seniority rights and employee status. Al
though recognizing that ordinarily employees lose
seniority and job rights by quitting, arbitrators have
made exceptions if, when “quitting,” the employee
lacked the necessary mental capacity to make a mean
ingful decision. For example, one arbitrator ruled that
management had acted “precipitiously and premature
ly” in terminating as a voluntary quit an employee who
during a screaming rage assaulted a supervisor and
abruptly quit after being denied a leave of absence.13Be
cause the employee’s action was not the result of a con
sidered judgment but rather an emotional outburst of a
sick man, the arbitrator found that management should
have placed the grievant on sick leave.
Seniority rights are also typically broken when an
employee has been absent without prior notice. Al
though dismissal for such conduct may be sanctioned
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
by past practice or authorized by agreement, arbitrators
have been reluctant to apply such standards to the men
tally disabled. Dismissals of mentally handicapped
workers for violating such reporting provisions have
usually been overturned on the grounds that their appli
cation is unfair and unreasonable.14
A duty to accommodate
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires organizations
that receive Federal funds to accommodate handicapped
persons; has a parallel responsibility been generated by
just-cause provisions of collective agreements? The na
ture of management’s required accommodation has gen
erally focused on two important questions: (1) when a
mentally disabled worker can no longer perform his
job, is management required to seek out and transfer
the employee to other jobs for which he or she can
qualify? and (2) where the evidence indicates that the
mentally ill employee cannot perform any job in the
bargaining unit, is management obliged to place the
worker on leave until he or she undergoes successful
treatment permitting reinstatement?
In many cases, the mentally disabled employee is un
able to perform any job, so that transfer is not an alter
native. This may occur with a psychotic employee
predisposed to violent outbursts. At other times, how
ever, the stress of a particular job may precipitate a
breakdown, and transfer to a different job may enable
the employee to return to employment. Whether em
ployers are obliged to accommodate a mentally ill em
ployee through job transfers is the subject of conflict
among arbitrators.
The strongest statement of management’s duty to ac
commodate appears in the following excerpt from a
1972 case:15
A rbitrators are reluctant to uphold a discharge for such
[emotional] disability unless the employer can show that
not only can the disabled employee no longer perform his
own job adequately, but that there is no other job available
that he can do. There is a degree of callousness involved in
turning out a senior employee because of disabilities (physi
cal or emotional) if he is capable of doing a less demanding
job satisfactorily.
The worker was ordered reinstated to a less demanding
job that he had previously performed without difficulty.
Other arbitrators have also indicated that employers
must do everything possible to enable the mentally
handicapped employee to adjust to normal work life, in
cluding transfer to other jobs.16 Supportive of this ap
proach is a case in which a discharge of an emotionally
unstable employee who handled explosives was voided.
Instead, the grievant was placed on suspension pending
a joint management-union review to determine whether
there were other jobs that the grievant could safely han
dle.17Similarly, in a 1964 case, a worker was ordered re-
instated to an available job which was least likely to
produce stress or irritation.18 Although these cases in
volved workers’ reinstatement because of management’s
failure to accommodate, it is also significant that in 5 of
the 10 cases where a worker’s dismissal was upheld, the
arbitrator determined that the grievant was unable to
perform any job in the facility.19
A small minority of arbitrators have been reluctant
to impose upon management the duty to consider a
mentally disabled employee for other less stressful jobs
once evidence indicates an inability to perform the most
recent job. For example, in a 1948 case, an arbitration
board ruled that in the absence of any express or im
plied provision in the agreement entitling employees to
transfer, management had full discretion to fill vacan
cies and maintain its policy of no interdepartmental
transfers.20As a result, an employee suffering from a se
rious disorder was barred from obtaining a position his
psychiatrist felt he could satisfactorily perform; he was
terminated for unsatisfactory performance in his current
position.
More recently, an arbitrator upheld the contention
that management is not obliged nor is an arbitrator
empowered to move a mentally handicapped employee
to other jobs. It was suggested in that case that such an
approach would be tantamount to the creation of a dis
ability retrogression clause in agreements.21 Signifi
cantly, however, this strict constructionist approach has
been taken by only a small number of arbitrators.
Just as arbitrators have been divided over the transfer
rights of a mentally disabled employee to a less strenu
ous job, they have also split over a firm’s obligation to
place a mentally ill worker on leave until recovery. In
some cases, dismissals have been upheld on evidence
that the worker is presently incapacitated and there is
reason to believe that additional treatment would not
be very helpful.22 For example, in one case, the grievant
had a history of mental illness and treatment, including
hospitalization and drug therapy. Nevertheless his con
dition deteriorated, and based on the likelihood of
worsening symptoms, the discharge was upheld.23
Some arbitrators, however, have ignored the issue of
future employability, upholding a dismissal solely on the
basis of the worker’s present mental condition.24 Thus,
no concern may be given to the possibility that the indi
vidual might be rehabilitated through professional treat
ment. Although hoping that a grievant would obtain
medical treatment, one arbitrator refused to require
management to give the employee the opportunity to
become rehabilitated before finalizing a dismissal.25
Other arbitrators, however, have been inclined to or
der reinstatement if prior to the hearing the grievant
had successfully undergone treatment and was re
employable. In cases where the grievant’s illness was
found to be in a state of remission,26 reinstatement has
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
been conditioned on continued receipt of medical treat
ment27or satisfactory completion of a trial period.28
Significantly, an increasing number of arbitrators
have ruled that a mentally ill employee’s inability to
perform his or her job or other jobs in the facility does
not constitute just cause for dismissal. The imposition
of the discharge penalty has been viewed as signifying
egregious fault on the part of the worker, and the ele
ment of fault has been considered inopposite when deal
ing with individuals who have no control over their
actions.29 Furthermore, there has been a growing senti
ment to treat mental illness like any other physical ill
ness or disability. This approach would give the
mentally ill employee the opportunity to seek treatment
and to be reemployed upon recovery. An arbitrator in a
1977 case strongly affirmed this view by placing on sick
leave a psychotic employee dismissed for an un
provoked assault upon a coworker:30
. . . [A] person’s mind is no less a part of his body than
any other portion of his anatomy. Simply stated, a person
who cannot be kept on the active payroll because his mind
is abnormal is, in fact, disabled from work and sick just as
a person who is unable to work due to a broken arm, undu
ly high blood pressure, or any other physical ailment, is
sick and disabled from work. Thus, there is no reasonable
basis for distinguishing between a disability due to a physi
cal illness and one due to a mental disorder.
Following this approach, many arbitrators have void
ed the discharge of employees proved to be mentally
incompetent to perform any job. Instead, they have
allowed management only to temporarily remove the
employee from the work site, with reinstatement rights
upon reasonable assurance from medical authorities that
the employee no longer constitutes a risk to himself or
others.31 Typically, the employee has been placed on
sick leave32 or, alternatively, on a medical leave of ab
sence without pay.33 Additionally, a dismissal may be
overturned if the amount of leave extended is viewed as
unreasonably deficient. Following a 3-month leave to
undergo psychiatric treatment, a worker was discharged
for dangerous horseplay conduct. The discharge was
overturned, however, because the amount of leave was
less than afforded other employees.34
In requiring employers to accommodate the mentally
ill employee, arbitrators have been keenly aware of the
tragic impact that dismissal may have on a worker’s fu
ture employment opportunity.35 Once stigmatized as
mentally incompetent, such employees may face perma
nent exclusion in the job market even after successful
treatment. Consequently, although recognizing manage
ment’s right to protect plant safety and efficiency, many
arbitrators have found that the proper balance between
such interests and employee job rights is better struck
through the mechanism of temporary removal rather
than outright dismissal.
43
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Communications
Appropriate medical evidence
A central issue in grievances involving the mentally
ill is the employee’s capacity to perform. Here arbitra
tors have typically relied on the expert opinion of quali
fied medical authorities. Thus, when medical experts
testified that the grievant was seriously ill and the prog
nosis for future rehabilitation was minimal, the dismiss
al was almost always upheld.36 Conversely, when
medical evidence indicated that the grievant’s condition
had improved and permitted satisfactory job perfor
mance, the dismissal was normally overturned.37 With
insufficient medical evidence upon which to evaluate the
grievant’s employability, arbitrators have directed the
parties to jointly select a competent psychiatrist to ex
amine the grievant and provide an opinion. For exam
ple, one arbitrator required an employer to allow a
worker to be reexamined before deciding the reinstate
ment issue, because it had been a year since the griev
ant’s last psychiatric examination.38
At times, arbitrators have been confronted with con
flicting medical opinions. As illustrated in the following
excerpt from a 1961 case,39 such conflict occurs more
frequently in mental disability cases as opposed to
physical handicap cases.
The resolution of such cases where actual physical disability
is involved is a clear-cut fact situation which is easily sub
ject to expert medical testimony and experiences resultant
from long years of medical knowledge of the various
disabilities. In the field of mental disability, a more nebu
lous and complex area of medical knowledge and experience
is involved. Two equally expert medical men can easily ar
rive at opposite conclusions on any given case because of
lack of concrete medical knowledge concerning mental ill
ness and the subjective nature of such illness.
Presented with conflicting medical reports, arbitrators
have used common sense notions in determining the
weight given particular testimony. For example, when
faced with conflicting medical evidence based on exami
nation of the grievant undertaken at two different times,
one arbitrator gave more consideration to the more re
cent opinion.40 Similarly, another arbitrator relied more
on a medical opinion based on a series of interviews
with, and psychological testing of, the worker as op
posed to a different judgment formed by one doctor af
ter a single meeting with the grievant.41 Alternatively,
an arbitrator has given more weight to a medical opin
ion corroborated by a second doctor rather than the
opinion of a single physician.42 At times, a conflict in
medical testimony has been settled in favor of the griev
ant because an adverse decision would result in dismiss
al.43
Arbitrators usually have not attempted to determine
whether one doctor is more qualified than another. In a
1972 case, the employer argued that its physician’s
44
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
opinion should be given more weight because he was a
diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatrists and
the union’s doctor was not. However, the arbitrator rea
soned that because the union’s physician practiced psy
chiatry he had all the legal and professional credentials
necessary.44 In another case, a medical opinion based on
the individual’s full file (work history, medical records)
combined with other physicians’ examinations was giv
en more consideration than the opinion of the doctor
who did not have this additional information.45 Similar
ly, the company doctor’s opinion was held to outweigh
that of an outside psychiatrist who had based much of
his opinion on a falsified work history supplied by the
grievant.46 Finally, when the medical evidence appears
evenly divided, the arbitrator may resolve the dilemma
by reinstating the grievant for a trial period. This solu
tion was used where the company doctor had
recommended dismissal because of his concern that re
mission of the grievant’s medical disorder was not likely
to last, but the employee’s psychiatrist had favored rein
statement because of the worker’s present satisfactory
condition and the possibility that the remission would
continue.47
Available remedies
In 11 cases where employees were suspended, dis
missed, or denied reinstatement, back pay and reinstate
ment were ordered. Outright unconditional reinstate
ment with back pay was usually ordered when
management failed to demonstrate that the grievant
posed a danger to safety or operating efficiency.48
When the grievant had been guilty of some impropri
ety, an employer’s back pay liability was often reduced.
For example, in a 1964 case, a worker was discharged
for carrying weapons onto his employer’s property.
Finding the employee’s conduct to be caused by mental
illness for which he was successfully treated, the arbitra
tor ordered the worker reinstated. However, because of
the misconduct, back pay was ordered only from the
date of the hearing.49 When no credible evidence sup
ported a suspension, the employer’s back pay liability
has run from the date of discharge to date of reinstate
ment.50 Employees who have been successfully treated
and subsequently denied reinstatement have received
back pay from the date of the employee’s request for re
instatement,51 or the company’s receipt of a psychiatric
report indicating the worker’s reemployability.52
Conditional reinstatement with back pay was ordered
in four cases. This remedy was implemented when the
individual still required treatment and there was some
doubt concerning his employability. With a conditional
reinstatement, special restrictions or requirements have
been imposed on the worker. In a pair of cases more
than 20 years apart, a worker was placed on a 6-month
trial period, during which management was permitted
to discharge the individual if unable to perform.53In an
other pair of cases, reinstatement was conditioned on
the worker receiving medication and seeing a psychia
trist periodically.54
Conditional reinstatement reflects the efforts of arbi
trators to accommodate both the job rights of the
employees and the legitimate business interests of the
firms. It suggests that although companies would prefer
to receive absolute assurances that the grievant can be
reemployed without problems, such assurances are diffi
cult to communicate and rarely provided. Moreover, the
absence of such iron-clad assurances is not an appropri
ate basis for the denial of reinstatement if competent
medical authorities are reasonably assured that with
continued treatment the grievant is employable. Em
ployer doubts are not dismissed, but are considered and
acted upon by conditioning reinstatement on the com
pletion of a probationary period or the grievant’s con
tinued treatment, or both. At times, back pay has been
denied because the discharge was considered reasonable
at the time the decision was made or because the em
ployer had acted in good faith and upon the advice and
recommendation of company doctors.55
A final remedial approach has been used in cases
where the grievant was presently unemployable. As dis
cussed earlier, a significant number of arbitrators have
viewed discharge as inappropriate, reasoning instead
that the grievant be placed on some type of leave (sick
leave if the worker is entitled or, alternatively, leave
without pay) until recovery. For example, in one case,
an employee with a 22-year record of satisfactory per
formance developed a serious manic depressive condi
tion with no clear prognosis for recovery. The grievant
was ordered placed on sick leave until recovery or until
he reached retirement age.56 Similarly, a psychotic indi
vidual was ordered placed on leave with a right to rein
statement upon evidence that he could be reemployed
without risk to himself or others.57 These cases appear
to reflect the view that mentally disabled employees
may be rehabilitated with proper care; and even though
it may not be the firm’s responsibility to provide for or
fund treatment, the individual should have the opportu
nity to obtain it without suffering permanent job loss.
When an arbitrator has voided the discharge of an indi
vidual judged unemployable, however, back pay has not
been awarded.58 Back pay has been an issue only when
an employable person has been denied the opportunity
to work.
Mitigating factors
In 10 of 27 dismissal cases where the grievance was
upheld, the employee’s previous satisfactory perfor
mance operated as a mitigating factor.59 For many arbi
trators, evidence of meritorious past performance may
suggest the individual’s capacity to function effective
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ly following successful treatment. Consequently, upon
recovery, such an individual has been reinstated. The
following excerpt from a 1964 case illustrates this per
spective:60
. . . [TJhis service record (9 years without discipline) clearly
entitles the grievant to an opportunity to show that he can
continue to serve the company in the same acceptable fash
ion as in the past . . . this long favorable past record obli
gates the company to afford such an opportunity to the
grievant.
The discharge of an employee with a long record of
satisfactory service has been nullified when management
failed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the
individual’s sudden incapacity to function.61 Moreover,
accommodation to the needs of mentally ill employees
has often been required when the employee has had
many years of meritorious service. In a pair of cases,62
the employers were ordered to find alternative jobs for
mentally handicapped employees with many years of se
niority.
At the same time, past performance alone has not
necessarily immunized the mentally ill employee from
dismissal. The dismissals of long-term employees have
been upheld where the individual was unable to perform
any job and the prognosis for recovery was poor.63 A
few arbitrators have upheld the dismissal of a long-term
employee solely on the basis of present unemployability,
without considering whether future treatment may be
beneficial. Thus, one arbitrator upheld a worker’s dis
missal, although noting that it was entirely probable
that the grievant’s mental disability was temporary.64
Another consideration that has influenced arbitrators’
decisions is an employer’s past practice. Where past
practice suggested that mentally ill individuals have
been afforded time off to obtain medical treatment, the
sudden dismissal of a mentally ill worker regardless of
his present unemployability has usually been over
turned.65 The case against dismissal under such circum
stances has also been strengthened by evidence that
others hospitalized for mental illness were reinstated
successfully.66
Past practice, however, has also been used to justify
an employer’s refusal to accommodate. In a 1948 case,
an employee being treated for mental illness had
sought transfer to a job his doctor had felt he could
better handle. Management’s rejection of the transfer
request was upheld because the contract implied that
the company could determine how vacancies would be
filled, and past practice showed no deviation from the
employer’s established policy of barring inter-departmental transfers.67
Yet a rigid policy of no accommodation has been
overtuned, notwithstanding past practice. Despite an
alleged policy of never reemploying individuals who
have been confined for mental illness, a firm was or45
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Communications
dered to reinstate an employee who had been success
fully treated and was able to resume work.68 Thus, the
policy of no reinstatement under any circumstances was
considered unreasonable and modified.
Emerging equity through arbitration
Mentally disabled employees pose unique and dif
ficult problems for those in the employment relation
ship. Employers must consider plant efficiency and safe
ty, unions must protect the job security of their
membership, and all parties face the difficulty of the un
certain and unpredictable nature of mental illness,
which makes diagnosis and prognosis problematic.
There is an apparent trend among arbitrators to view
discipline as an inappropriate mechanism by which to
compel the mentally ill employee to adhere to work
rules and production norms. Discipline is normally met
ed out to those who should have been aware and never
theless ignored, or who knowingly violated, reasonable
plant rules and policies. Given this framework, the dis
cipline of an employee whose mental illness deprived
him of the capacity to satisfy appropriate standards of
conduct is improper. As a result, the dismissal of men
tally ill employees for infractions such as excessive or
unreported absences, insubordination, or assault has
been increasingly viewed as a breach of contractual
just-cause provisions.
Although arbitrators have split over management’s
duty to accommodate, a growing number have required
firms to examine whether the employee could perform
other jobs in the bargaining unit. Even when there has
been no other job available, there was a reluctance to
uphold dismissal when there was some hope that
through treatment the mentally ill employee could be
come reemployable.
The expanded reach that many arbitrators have given
to the just-cause provisions of contracts parallels the
protections of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, requiring
employers to make a “reasonable accommodation” to
handicapped applicants and employees. This congruen
cy between Federal law and industrial jurisprudence
should facilitate the informal settlement of grievances of
the handicapped, an outcome favored by U.S. Depart
ment of Labor regulations enforcing the statute.69Under
regulations implementing Section 503 of the law, a com
plainant who works for a Federal contractor must first
attempt to resolve the issue through the employer’s
grievance procedure when one is available. Only when
no agreement satisfactory to the grievant has been
reached after 60 days may the Office of Federal Con
tract Compliance Programs begin an investigation.
The settlement of employment disputes involving
mental disability through grievance adjustments and ar
bitration provides the employee with a more expeditious
avenue of relief than would otherwise be available
through resort to the Government’s compliance process
under the 1973 statute. The remedies available under
Sections 503 and 504 include the withholding of prog
ress payments, termination of Federal contracts, and
debarment from the receipt of future contracts. Al
though these are powerful remedies, experience with
similar enforcement measures for antibias requirements
suggests that the likelihood of their implementation to
enforce rights of the handicapped is minimal.70 Further
more, although injunctive relief is available under Sec
tion 503,71 to date it has not been sought in any case.
Consequently, arbitration remains an important tool to
protect the employment opportunities of mentally dis
abled employees.
Recently, there have been significant questions raised
concerning the relevance of arbitration in areas which are
becoming increasingly subject to Federal regulation.72
A review of arbitration decisions involving the mentally
handicapped shows that, although overlap may exist be
tween external law and contractual adjudication, arbitra
tion serves as an important mechanism for preserving
workers’ rights. In an era of ever-increasing administra
tive backlogs and clogged court dockets, reliance on in
formal methods of dispute resolution is a healthy phe
nomenon that should be encouraged.
Q
FOOTNOTES
1Lawrence N. Loban, “Mental Health and Company Progress,”
December 1966, p. 29.
2The duty to make “reasonable accommodation” is the result of
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs regulations enforcing
Sec. 503 (a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The nature and duty of
a Federal contractor’s accommodation are defined in C.F.R. 6 0 741.6(d) (1977).
M a n a g e m e n t R eview ,
3These decisions represent all 34 dismissal cases published by the
Bureau of National Affairs in its L a b o r A r b itr a tio n series between
1947 and 1978 and 4 cases that were published by Commerce Clear
ing House in its L a b o r A r b itr a tio n A w a r d (A R B ) during that time.
4 Whitin Machine Works, 10 LA 707 (1948); Gulf Oil Corp., 34 LA
80 (1960); Maremont Automotive Products, Inc., 37 LA 175 (1961);
Hiller Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc., 37 LA 629 (1861); Fischer Scientific,
45 LA 559 (1965); U.S. Steel Corp., 46 LA 545 (1966); Cheyenne
46
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Pipeline Co., 59 LA 726 (1972). Three cases did not fall in the above
category: dismissal was upheld in Husky Oil Co., 65 LA 47 (1975),
because of the employee’s excessive absenteeism; in Wolpin Co., 69
LA 589 (1977), because of the employee’s violation of a probationary
period following an earlier dismissal; and Kellogg Co., 71 LA 494
(1978), because the employee was found to have voluntarily quit.
5Whitin Machine Works, 10 LA 707 (1948); Maremont Automo
tive Products, 37 LA 175 (1961); Hiller Chevrolet, 37 LA 629 (1961);
Fischer Scientific, 45 LA 559 (1965); and Cheyenne Pipeline Co., 59
LA 726 (1972).
6 Cheyenne Pipeline Co., 59 LA 726 (1972).
7 Hiller Chevrolet-Cadillac, 37 LA 629 (1961); Maremont Automo
tive Products, 37 LA 175 (1961); and Fischer Scientific, 45 LA 559
(1965).
8Alcas Cutlery Co., 38 LA 297, at 299 (1962).
’ Caterpillar Tractor Co., 36 LA 104 (1961). See also Jamestown
Telephone Co., 73-1 ARB 8229 (1973).
10 International Harvester Co., 24 LA 229, 231 (1955).
" Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp., 60 LA 17 (1972).
12Husky Oil Co., 65 LA 47, at 5 8 -5 9 (1975).
“ General Tire and Rubber Co., 51 LA 206, at 208 (1968). See also
Hervoss Corp., 70 LA 497 (1978), and Kellogg Corp., 71 LA 494
(1978).
14See, for example, Spavering Fibre Co., 21 LA 58 (1953); U.S.
Steel Corp., 41 LA 461 (1963); American Can Filler, 63 LA 1277
(1974); and Springday Co., 7 6-1 ARB (1 8295 (1976).
“ American Smelting and Refining Corp., 59 LA 722, 725 (1972).
16Whitin Machine Works, 10 LA 707, 712 (1948).
17Silas Mason Co., 59 LA 197 (1972).
18 Dayton Malleable Iron Co., 43 LA 959, 963 (1964).
14See footnote 5.
20 Package Machinery Corp., 10 LA 154, 156 (1948).
21 Commonwealth Gas Co., 7 6 -2 ARB ([ 8494 (1976).
2‘ See, for example, Maremont Automotive Products, Inc., 37 LA
175 (1961), and Cheyenne Publishing Corp., 59 LA 726 (1972).
2' Hiller Chevrolet-Cadillac, 37 LA 629 (1961).
24 See, for example, Whitin Machine Co., 10 LA 707 (1948).
25 Fisher Scientific, 45 LA 559, 560 (1965).
28 Dayton Malleable, 43 LA 959 (1964), National Steel Corp., 66
LA 533 (1976), Springday Corp., 76-1 ARB (] 8295 (1946).
27 Commonwealth Gas Co., 7 6 -2 ARB (] 8494 (1976).
28 National Steel Co., 66 LA 533, 539 (1976).
24See, for example, Consolidated Foods Corp., 58 LA 1285 (1972).
° B. F. Goodrich, 69 LA 922 (1977). See also General Telephone
Co. of Indiana, 61 LA 867 (1973), where arbitrator Julius Getman
ruled that an employer must provide disability pay to a worker absent
because of mental illness, under a contractual provision mandating
such pay for illness. Getman found no basis for distinguishing be
tween mental and physical illness, even though company practice may
have been to extend benefits only in cases of physical disability.
31 See, for example, Chrysler Corp., 26 LA 295 (1956); Foster
Wheeler Corp., 57 LA 1171 (1971); Consolidated Foods Corp., 58
LA 1285 (1972); Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co., 60 LA 17
(1972); John Mansville Perlite Corp., 67 LA 1255 (1977); B. F. Good
rich, 69 LA 922 (1977); and Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., 71 LA
161 (1978).
32 General Tire and Rubber Corp., 51 LA 206 (1968); Consolidated
Food Corp., 58 LA 1285 (1972); B. F. Goodrich, 69 LA 922 (1977);
and Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., 71 LA 161 (1978).
33John Mansville Perlite Corp., 67 LA 1255 (1977).
34 Foster Wheeler Corp., 57 LA 1171 (1971).
' John Mansville Perlite Corp., 67 LA 1255, at 1260 (1977). This
concern is very real. One study has shown that two-thirds of all dis
abled employees who were not reemployed by their company could
not achieve gainful employment in the succeeding 5 years. Conversely,
if rehired by the original firm, the employee was found to be “assured
of relative success in the future labor market”: A. J. Jaffee and others,
D is a b le d W o rk e rs in th e L a b o r M a r k e t, (New Jersey, Bedminster Press,
1964), pp. 73, 75-76.
36 See, for example, Hiller Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc., 37 LA 629
(1961), Fischer Scientific Corp., 45 LA 559 (1965), Cheyenne Pipeline
Co., 59 LA 726 (1972).
37 See, for example, Alcas Cutlery, 38 LA 297 (1962), U.S. Steel
Corp., 41 LA 461 (1963), Philco Corp., 43 LA 569 (1964).
U.S. Steel Corp., 46 LA 545, 549 (1966). See also General Elec
tric Co., 71 LA 161, 164 (1978), Hervoss Corp., 70 LA 497, 500
(1978).
34 Hiller Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc., 37 LA 629, at 632-633 (1961).
40 Union Camp Corp., 59 LA 127, at 133 (1972).
41 Maremont Automotive Products, Inc., 37 LA 175, at 176 (1961).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42 Union Camp Corp., 59 LA 127 (1972).
43 City of Hartford, 69 LA 303, 306 (1977).
44 Union Camp Corp., 59 LA 127 (1972). See, however, General
Electric Co., 71 LA 161, 164 (1978), where arbitrator James Stern did
not credit the grievant’s medical release as sufficient evidence of his
employability because the grievant’s doctor was not a psychiatrist.
45 Maremont Automotive Products, Inc., 37 LA 175, at 176 (1961).
48 U.S. Steel Corp. 46 LA 545, at 549 (1966).
47 National Steel Co. 66 LA 533, at 534-536 (1976).
48 See, for example, Caterpillar Tractor Co., 36 LA 104 (1961);
Alcas Cutlery, 38 LA 297 (1962); U.S. Steel Corp., 41 LA 460 (1963);
American Smelting and Refining Corp., 59 LA 722 (1972); Union
Camp Corp., 59 LA 127 (1972); Midwest Telephone Co., 7 6-1 ARB
8203 (1976); and Jamestown Telephone Co., 7 3-1 ARB 1] 8229
(1973).
49Philco Corp., 43 LA 568 (1964). See also Marion Power Shovel
Co., 69 LA 339 (1973).
“ Union Camp Corp., 59 LA 127 (1972); and Caterpillar Tractor
Co., 36 LA 104 (1961).
51 See American Smelting and Refining Corp., 59 LA 722 (1972).
52 See Alcas Cutlery Corp., 38 LA 297 (1962).
53 International Harvester Co., 24 LA 229 (1955), and National
Steel Co., 66 LA 533 (1976).
54 Dayton Malleable Iron Co., 43 LA 959 (1964), and Common
wealth Gas Co., 7 6 -2 ARB 8494 (1976).
” Commonwealth Gas Co., 7 6 -2 ARB 8494 (1976); International
Harvester Co., 24 LA 229 (1955); Dayton Malleable Iron Co., 43 LA
959 (1964); and National Steel Co., 66 LA 533 (1976).
56Consolidated Food Corp., 58 LA 1285, at 1289 (1972).
Chrysler Corp., 26 LA 295 (1956). See also cases listed in foot
note 31.
58 See footnote 31.
“ Foundry Equipment Co., 28 LA 333 (1957); U.S. Steel Corp., 41
LA 461 (1963); Dayton Malleable Iron Co., 43 LA 959 (1964); Gen
eral Tire and Rubber Co., 51 LA 206 (1968); Consolidated Food
Corp., 58 LA 1285 (1972); Silas Mason Co., 59 LA 197 (1972);
American Smelting and Refining Corp., 59 LA 722 (1972); Brown
and Williamson Tobacco Corp., 60 LA 17 (1972); John Mansville
Perlite Corp., 67 LA 1255 (1977); Marion Power Shovel Co., 69 LA
339 (1973).
60 Philco Corp., 43 LA 568 (1964).
61 Brown and Williamson Tobacco Co., 60 LA 17 (1972); General
Tire and Rubber Co., 51 LA 206 (1968).
Silas Mason Co., 59 LA 1972, at 200 (1972), and American
Smelting and Refining Corp., 59 LA 722, at 726 (1972).
63 Whitin Machine Works, 10 LA 707 (1948); Maremont Automo
tive Products, 37 LA 175 (1961); and Cheyenne Pipeline Co., 59 LA
726 (1972).
84 See footnote 41.
6 Foster Wheeler Corp., 57 LA 1171, at 1174 (1971).
66Philco Corp., 43 LA 568 (1964).
67 Package Machinery Corp., 10 LA 154 (1948).
68 Alcas Cutlery 38 LA 297 (1962).
64 41 C.F.R. Sec. 6 0 -7 4 1.28(c), (d), and (e), (1977).
°A s of June 15, 1977, the U.S. Department of Labor had debarred
only 13 companies since 1965 when the Executive Order mandating
affirmative action by Federal contractors was first issued. Statement,
Donald Elisburg, Assistant Secretary for Labor, in U.S. C o m m is sio n
on
C iv il R ig h ts,
T h e F e d e r a l C iv il R ig h ts E n fo r c e m e n t E f f o r t - 1 9 7 7
(Washington, D.C., 1977), p. 142.
71 41 C.F.R. Sec. 60-741.28(b) (1977).
2See, for example, David E. Feller, “The Impact of External Law
Upon Labor Arbitration,” in T h e F u tu r e o f L a b o r A r b itr a tio n in
A m e ric a , Benjamin Ana and others, eds. (New York, American Arbi
tration Association, 1976), pp. 83-113.
47
Special
Labor Force
Reports—Summaries
Marital and family characteristics
of the labor force, March 1979
B
e v e r l y
L . Jo
h n so n
The rising number of multi-earner families has been one
of the most important socioeconomic developments of
the 1970’s. In March 1979, a record 3 out of every 5
married-couple families reported having had at least
two members who were earners during the previous
year. Since 1970, the number of such families has in
creased by more than 3 million, reaching 28.4 million.1
(See table 1.)
Almost exclusively responsible for the rising number
of multi-earner families have been the steep annual in
creases in the number and proportion of working wives.
(See table 2.) Year after year, married women have con
tinued to record spectacular gains in labor force partici
pation. Since March 1970, the number of wives in the
work force has increased by one-third, rising from 18.4
million to nearly 24 million. More than half of this gain
(54 percent) was among wives 25 to 34 years old.
The labor force participation rate of married women
had risen to 49.4 percent by March 1979, an increase of
nearly 9 percentage points since 1970. (See table 3.) In
contrast, the participation rate of husbands has been in
a long-term decline. At 81.4 percent in March 1979, the
rate for husbands had dropped by more than 5 percent
age points since 1970—a reduction greater than that re
corded during the preceding 2 decades.
Continuing its upward trend, the rate for white wives
rose significantly over the year ending in March 1979,
reaching 48.5 percent. The participation rates for black
(59.7 percent) and Hispanic wives (46.3 percent) regis
tered no significant change from a year earlier but have
also risen considerably since the mid-1970’s. Reflecting
the higher labor force participation rate of black wives,
the proportion of black families with 2 earners or more
during 1978 was higher than that for white or Hispanic;
64.5 percent of black married-couple families, compared
with 59 percent of white and Hispanic families, had
more than one earner.
Beverly L. Johnson is a social science research analyst in the Office of
Current Employment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
There was little year-to-year change in the labor force
participation of husbands whether white, black, or His
panic. However, both the rates for white and black hus
bands have drifted down over the decade, to 81.5 and
80.0 percent. The rate for Hispanic husbands (87.4 per
cent) was at the same level in early 1979 as at mid
decade (when separate data for this ethnic group first
became available).
Family income
Working wives made substantial contributions to
their families’ economic welfare. In 1978, they contrib
uted about 26 percent to family income, a proportion
that varied considerably by the extent of their work ex
perience. When wives worked 50 to 52 weeks full time
they contributed an average of 40 percent to family in
come; when they worked full time 27 to 49 weeks, they
contributed about 30 percent; and when they worked
up to a half year full time or 1 to 52 weeks part time,
their share was approximately 11 percent. These pro
portions have remained relatively unchanged through
out the 1970’s. One factor accounting for this is that
there has been very little change in the occupational dis
tribution of wives; that is, they have not yet gained full
access to many of the high skill, high paying jobs. It is
largely because of this that the basic ratio of women’s
to men’s earnings has not changed much for years.2
The impact of wives’ earnings on family income is
clearly shown by the income differences between oneearner and multiple-earner families. In 1978, median
family income for white multi-earner families was
$23,300, 37 percent higher than families with one earn
er. For black families with two earners or more, median
family income was $19,500, 66 percent higher than that
of families with only one earner. Hispanic multi-earner
families had an average annual income of $17,900, 59
percent higher than that of families with only one earn
er. Because of this, married-couple families with multi
ple earners have an exceedingly low incidence of
poverty.3 For white families with more than one earner,
fewer than 2 percent were living below the poverty lev
el, compared with 6 percent of the families with only
one earner and 16 percent of those families with no
earners. For black and Hispanic multi-earner families,
only about 5.5 percent were living below the poverty
level. However, as among the white population, the
Table 1.
Number of earners in previous year, by type of family in March 1970 and March 1979 and by race, March 1979
All families
Item
March 1970
Number
(in thousands)
March 1979
Percent
distribution
Number
(in thousands)
Percent
distribution
White
Black
March 1979
March 1979
Number
(in thousands)
Percent
distribution
Number
(In thousands)
Percent
distribution
Families, total ........................................
51,237
Married-couple families, to ta l.............................
No e a rn e rs.................................................
1 earner .................................................
Husband o n ly ......................................
Wife o n ly ............................................
Other relative only .............................
2 earners or more .................................
Husband and wife1 ...........................
Husband and other, not w ife .............
Husband non-earner..........................
44,436
3,022
16,268
15,133
797
339
25,145
20,327
4,517
302
100.0
6.8
36.6
34.1
1.8
.8
56.6
45.7
10.2
.7
47,692
5,101
14,173
12,194
1,477
502
28,418
24,253
3,583
582
100.0
10.7
29.7
25.6
3.1
1.1
59.6
50.9
7.5
1.2
43,636
4,777
13,054
11,320
1,294
441
25,805
21,948
3,379
478
100.0
10.9
29.9
25.9
3.0
1.0
59.1
50.3
7.7
1.1
3,244
276
875
664
161
50
2,092
1,858
154
79
100.0
8.5
27.0
20.5
5.0
1.5
64.5
57.3
4.7
2.4
Other families, total ..........................................
Maintained by women2 .............................
No earners ............................................
1 earner .................................................
2 earners or more .................................
6,801
5,573
1,194
2,468
1,911
100.0
21.4
44.2
34.3
10,113
8,458
1,964
4,114
2,380
100.0
23.2
48.6
28.1
7,273
5,918
1,213
2,909
1,796
100.0
20.5
49.2
30.3
2,662
2,390
712
1,147
531
100.0
29.8
48.0
22.2
Maintained by men2 .................................
No earners ............................................
1 earner .................................................
2 earners or more .................................
1,239
121
520
598
100.0
9.7
41.9
48.2
1,655
189
746
719
100.0
11.4
45.1
43.4
1,355
151
602
602
100.0
11.1
44.4
44.4
272
35
131
105
100.0
12.9
48.2
38.6
57,804
1May also include sons, daughters, or other family members.
2 Maintained by divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married persons.
poverty rate among these minority groups was 4 times
higher for families with only one earner and 8 to 9
times higher for those married-couple families with no
earners in the home.
Married-couple families with children under 18 were
far more likely to have two earners or more than were
those families with no children — 63 percent, compared
with 51 percent in March 1978.4 This reflects both
greater economic pressures of families raising schooland preschool-age children, as well as the comparatively
higher concentration of older, often retired, husbands
and wives among families with no children. About 51
percent of wives with no children under 18 were age 55
and older, compared with only 2 percent of the married
mothers with children under 18.
Working mothers. The labor force commitment of all
mothers showed unusual strength in the 1970’s and by
March 1979, 16.6 million, or 54 percent, of the women
with children under 18 were working or looking for
work. (This compares with 12 million or 42 percent in
1970, and 8 million or 30 percent in 1960.) Most work
ing mothers were married but nearly 1 of 4 (23 percent)
was divorced, separated, widowed, or had never been
married. Partly reflecting the sharp decline in birth rates5
during the 1970’s, and consequently fewer children for
families to care for, the labor force participation rate of
married mothers zoomed upward—from 39.7 percent in
March 1970 to 51.8 percent. (See table 4.) Divorced
mothers remained far more likely than other mothers to
be working or looking for work — 79 percent did so in
March 1979.6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
50,910
5,906
NOTE: Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
The tremendous influx of mothers into the 1970’s
work force occurred both among those with school-age
as well as those with preschool-age children; in March
1979, 62 percent of mothers with children 6 to 17 years
old and 45 percent of those with children under age 6
were working or looking for work. Comparable rates
for 1970 were 52 and 32 percent.
Black mothers are still more likely than white or His
panic mothers to be in the labor force. However, the
sharpest increase in participation during the late 1970’s
has been registered by white mothers. As a result, the
difference in labor force participation between black and
white mothers has narrowed considerably. From March
1975 to 1979, the rate for white mothers rose from 46.0
Table 2. The civilian labor force, by sex and marital
status, March 1970 and 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
Civilian labor force
Sex and marital status
March 1970
March 1979
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Both sexes, total .............
81,693
100 0
101,579
100.0
Men, to ta l.....................................
Never m arried......................
Married, wife p resent...........
Married, wife absent.............
W idowed...............................
Divorced...............................
50,460
9,421
38,123
1,053
672
1,191
61.8
11.5
46.7
1.3
0.8
1.5
58,608
14,895
38,756
1,599
570
2,789
57.7
14.7
382
1.6
0.6
2.7
Women, total ...............................
Never m arried......................
Married, husband present . . .
Married, husband absent . . .
Widowed...............................
D ivorced...............................
31,233
6,965
18,377
1,422
2,545
1,927
38.2
8.5
22.5
1.7
3.1
2.4
42,971
11,006
23,832
1,808
2,358
3,967
42.3
10.8
235
1.8
2.3
3.9
49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Special Labor Reports— Summaries
Table 3. Civilian labor force participation rates of persons 16 years and over, by race, Hispanic origin, marital status, and
sex, March 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
White
All persons
Marital status and sex
Black
Hispanic
Number
Labor force
participation
rate
Number
Labor force
participation
rate
Number
Labor force
participation
rate
Number
Labor force
participation
rate
Both sexes, total ......................
101,579
63.2
89,507
63.5
10,144
60.4
4,795
63.6
M en.......................................................
Never m arried...............................
Married, wife present....................
Other marital status......................
Married, wife absent..................
W idowed...................................
D ivorced...................................
58,608
14,895
38,756
4,957
1,599
570
2,789
77.0
70.9
81.4
66.2
76.5
29.3
80.9
52,297
12,874
35,474
3,948
1,134
439
2,375
77.8
72.7
81.5
66.6
79.1
27.5
81.9
5,246
1,760
2,585
900
405
116
379
70.2
51.8 *
80.0
64.5
69.0
37.6
75.8
2,936
786
1,852
298
162
22
114
81.1
70.1
87.4
78.9
86.7
(’ )
84.9
Women .................................................
Never m arried...............................
Married, husband present.............
Other marital status......................
Married, husband absent .........
W idowed...................................
Divorced...................................
42,971
11,006
23,832
8,133
1,808
2,358
3,967
50.7
62.7
49.4
43.1
58.8
22.6
74.0
37,210
9,296
21,391
6,523
1,136
1,988
3,400
50.4
65.2
48.5
42.2
58.9
22.0
75.3
4,899
1,502
1,920
1,477
632
322
523
52.6
50.7
59.7
47.0
58.9
25.0
66.8
1,859
502
1,028
330
117
58
154
47.4
56.0
46.3
40.8
40.4
22.2
60.2
' Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000.
NOTE: Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
to 53.5 percent; for black mothers, it went from 56.0 to
61.3 percent; and for Hispanic mothers, the rate in
creased from 39.5 to 44.8 percent.
Children of working women. In March 1979, the number
of children under 18 whose mother was in the labor
force was 30.1 million, a gain of 4.6 million from 1970.
(See table 5.) A smaller proportion of white (49 per
cent) than of black children (61 percent) in two-parent
families had working mothers. However, when there
were no fathers in the home, white children were more
likely than black to have mothers in the labor force—
67 and 53 percent, respectively. Among Hispanic chil
dren, 43 percent of those in two-parent families had
Table 4. Labor force status of women 16 years and over, by marital status, and presence and age of youngest child,
March 1979
[Numbers In thousands]
With children under 18 years
Marital and labor force status
Total
No
children
under 18
years
6 to 17 years only
Under 6 years
Total
14 to 17
years, none
younger
6 to 13
years
Total
3 to 5
years, none
younger
Under 3
years
Total
Women, 16 years and over, to ta l......................
In labor force ............................................
Labor force participation rate ...............
Unemployment rate ......................
84,686
42,971
50.7
6.6
54,204
26,355
48.6
6.1
30,482
16,616
54.5
7.3
17,164
10,570
61.6
5.7
5,392
3,288
61.0
4.7
11,772
7,281
61.9
6.1
13,317
6,046
45.4
10.0
5,312
2,775
52.2
8.2
8,006
3,272
40.9
11.6
Never married ...................................................
In labor force ............................................
Labor force participation rate ...............
Unemployment rate ......................
17,564
11,006
62.7
9.7
16,651
10,513
63.1
9.2
913
493
54.0
20.7
300
190
63.4
19.0
21
10
279
180
64.5
20.0
613
303
49.4
21.8
228
121
53.0
17.2
385
182
47.2
25.0
Married, husband present .................................
In labor force ............................................
Labor force participation rate ...............
Unemployment rate ......................
48,239
23,832
49.4
5.1
23,474
10,974
46.7
3.7
24,765
12,858
51.9
6.2
13,655
8,064
59.1
4.9
4,333
2,534
58.5
3.9
9,323
5,529
59.3
5.3
11,110
4,795
43.2
8.5
4,227
2,089
49.4
7.2
6,883
2,706
39.3
9.5
Married, husband absent...................................
In labor force ............................................
Labor force participation rate . . . . . . . . .
Unemployment rate ......................
3,075
1,808
58.8
9.8
1,396
807
57.8
6.3
1,679
1,001
59.6
12.6
909
592
65.2
8.8
235
145
61.7
5.7
674
447
66.3
9.8
770
409
53.1
18.2
355
212
59.5
12.1
414
197
47.5
24.7
Widowed ............................................................
In labor force ............................................
Labor force participation rate ...............
Unemployment rate ......................
10,450
2,358
22.6
5.2
9,756
2,015
20.7
4.6
694
344
49.5
9.0
605
311
51.4
8.2
305
164
53.6
10.9
300
148
49.3
5.2
89
33
36.5
(’ )
66
27
(’ )
(’ )
23
6
(’ )
(’ )
Divorced ............................................................
In labor force ............................................
Labor force participation rate ...............
Unemployment rate ......................
5,359
3,967
74.0
6.1
2,928
2,047
69.9
4.8
2,431
1,920
79.0
7.6
1,694
1,412
83.4
6.5
498
435
87.4
6.4
1,196
977
81.7
6.6
736
508
68.9
10.4
436
327
749
8.4
300
181
60.3
14.0
1Rate not shown where base is less than 75,000.
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(')
NOTE: Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
working mothers, compared with 39 percent of those in
families maintained by the mother.
One-parent families
Among the most striking changes that occurred dur
ing the 1970’s was the sharp rise in the number of
working women who had the, principal responsibility for
the maintenance and welfare of their own families.
About 1 of every 9 women in the March 1979 labor
force (5 million) maintained her own family and was di
vorced, separated, widowed, or had never been married.
Mainly because of the rising incidence of marital break
up,7 the number of families maintained by women in
creased substantially over the decade, so that in March
1979 these families totaled 8.5 million, or 1 of every 7
families.
Children under 18 were present in about 5.3 million
families maintained by women. (See table 6.) In fact,
most of the over-the-decade gain in the number of fami
lies maintained by women occurred among families with
children. From March 1970 to 1979, the number of sin
gle-parent families maintained by women rose by 80
percent, while those maintained by men increased by
more than 70 percent.8
One-parent families are largely those of female house
holders and face economic difficulties rarely encountered
by families with male householders. In 1978, 42 of ev
ery 100 single-parent families maintained by the mother
had incomes below the poverty level, compared with 15
of every 100 maintained by the father and 6 of every
100 two-parent families.9
Accompanying the large increases in the numbers of
mothers maintaining their own families have been un
Table 5. Children under 18 years old, by age, type of
family, and labor force status of mother, March 1970 and
March 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
Item
Children total1 ..................
Mother in labor force . .
Mother not in labor force
Married-couple families . . . .
Mother in labor force . .
Mother not In labor force
Families maintained by
women2 ......................
Mother in labor force ..
Mother not in labor force
Families maintained by
men2 .............................
Total children
under 18
Children 6 to 17
Children under 6
March
1970
March
1979
March
1970
March
1979
March
1970
March
1979
65,755
25,544
39,550
58,399
21,982
36,417
58,537
30,105
27,503
47,786
24,063
23,724
46,149
19,954
25,627
40,479
17,035
23,444
41,556
22,940
17,849
33,347
18,161
15,186
19,606
5,590
13,923
17,920
4,947
12,973
16,981
7,166
9,654
14,439
5,902
8,538
6,695
3,562
3,133
9,822
6,043
3,779
5,102
2,919
2,183
7,442
4,779
2,663
1,593
643
950
2,380
1,264
1,116
661
929
568
768
93
161
' Children are defined as “ own” children of husband-wife families or of women or men
maintaining families. Included are never-married sons, daughters, stepchildren, and adopted
children. Excluded are other related children such as grandchildren, nieces, nephews, cous
ins, and unrelated children.
2 Includes only divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married persons.
NOTE:
Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 6. Labor force status of divorced, separated,
widowed, or never-married women and men maintaining
families, by presence and age of own children under 18,
March 1970 and March 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
March 1979
March 1970
Presence and age of
children1
Women maintaining
families ..........................
With children under 18
years ......................
With children 6 -1 7
years ..................
With children under 6
years ..................
With no children under
18 ..........................
Men2 maintaining families ..
With children under 18
years ......................
With children 6 -1 7
years ..................
With children under 6
years ..................
With no children under
18 ..........................
Labor force
Popu
partic
lation
ipation rate
Labor
force
Labor force
partic
ipation rate
8,456
5,033
59.5
Popu
lation
Labor
force
5,573
2,950
2,924
1,736
59.4
5,288
3,486
65.9
3,362
2,406
71.6
1,080
56.1
52.9
1,215
67.0
1,111
521
46.9
1,926
2,649
1,214
45.8
3,168
1,547
48.8
1,239
893
72.1
1,654
1,218
74.2
333
304
91.3
569
496
87.1
262
237
90.5
435
375
86.2
71
67
( 3)
134
121
90.3
906
589
65.0
1,085
722
66.5
1,813
1Children are defined as “ own” children of husband-wife families or of women or men
maintaining families. Included are never-married sons, daughters, stepchildren, and adopted
children. Excluded are other related children such as grandchildren, nieces, nephews, cous
ins, and unrelated children.
2 Includes a few male members of the Armed Forces living off post or with their families
on post.
3 Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000.
NOTE: Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
precedented gains in the number who are working. In
March 1979, 65.9 percent of mothers maintaining their
own families were in the labor force, compared with
59.4 percent in 1970. As might be expected, the labor
force participation rates of mothers in one-parent fami
lies varied by the age of the youngest child, with those
having school-age children being far more likely than
those with their youngest child under 6 years to be in
the labor force— 72 percent, compared with 56 percent.
Women who are divorced, separated, or widowed often
experience substantial declines in their family income.
In 1978, the median income of families maintained by
the mother was only 34 percent that of two-parent fam
ilies. However, when the single parent was a father, the
rate jumped to 71 percent.
Several factors contributed to these income differ
ences. First, families maintained by the mother are far
more likely to have no earners in the home than are
other families. Approximately 28 percent of families
maintained by mothers, compared with 9 percent of
those maintained by fathers and only 1.6 percent of
two-parent families, had no earners in the home. Sec
ond, single-parent families maintained by the mother
were less apt to have 2 earners or more— only 19 per
cent had 2 earners or more, compared with 28 percent
of one-parent families maintained by the father and 64
percent of two-parent families. Furthermore, a very high
51
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Special Labor Reports— Summaries
proportion of mothers in single-parent families had not
completed high school— 4 out of 10 in March 1979—
and low educational levels are usually associated with
low labor force participation, high unemployment, and
low pay.
Even when the mother was in the labor force, family
income was likely to be considerably lower than that of
either two-parent families with working mothers or sin
gle-parent families maintained by working fathers. Av
erage income in 1978 of single-parent families with
working mothers ($8,900) was only 40 percent that of
two-parent families with working mothers ($22,200) and
54 percent that of one-parent families maintained by
working fathers.
□
FOOTNOTES
' This report is the latest from an annual series based primarily on
information from supplementary questions in the March Current Pop
ulation Survey. The most recent report on this subject, containing
data for March 1978, was published in the M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w ,
April 1979, and reprinted as Special Labor Force Report No. 219.
The data in this report relate to the noninstitutional population 16
years and over, including those male members of the Armed Forces
living off post or with their families on post (824,000 in March 1979).
Sampling variability may be relatively large in cases where numbers
are small, and small differences between estimates or percentages
should be interpreted with caution.
2Janet L. Norwood and Elizabeth Waldman, W o m en in th e L a b o r
F orce: S o m e N e w D a ta Series, Bureau of Labor Statistics Report 575.
Also see, T h e E a rn in g s G a p B etw e e n W o m en a n d M en , U.S. Depart
ment of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Women’s Bureau, 1979.
3Families are classified as being above or below the low income lev
el according to the poverty index adopted by a Federal interagency
committee in 1969. The poverty thresholds are updated every year to
reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Thus, the poverty
threshold for a nonfarm family of four was $6,662 in 1978, 7.6 per
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cent higher than the comparable 1977 cutoff of $6,191. For further
details, see C h a r a c te r istic s o f th e P o p u la tio n b e lo w th e P o v e r ty L e v e l:
1 977, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, Series P -6 0 ,
No. 119 (Bureau of the Census) 1979, p. 206.
4 Latest data available from special computer run for March 1978.
5The birth rate declined from 18.4 per thousand population in 1970
to 15.3 per thousand in 1978. See M o n th ly V ita l S ta tis tic s R ep o rts, Vol.
27, No. 13, August 13, 1979 and Vol. 23, No. 13, May 30, 1975, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Ser
vice.
6 For a detailed discussion on working mothers during the 1970’s,
see Elizabeth Waldman and others, “Working mothers in the 1970’s:
a look at the statistics,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , October 1979, pp.
39-49.
M o n th ly V ita l S ta tistic s,
Vol. 27, No. 13, p. 10.
8 Beverly L. Johnson, S in g le -P a r e n t F a m ilies, a speech presented to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conference on Outlook of the
80’s, Released 10:45, November 7, 1979.
9 C o n s u m e r I n c o m e R ep o rt,
Series P -6 0 , No. 120, November 1979.
f
Research
Summaries
Workers’ expectations about
losing and replacing their jobs
C harles N. W eaver
How secure do workers feel about keeping their jobs?
How confident are they that they could find another
job?
Two recent nationwide surveys indicate a high degree
of confidence on both counts, despite relatively high un
employment. In 1977 and in 1978, only a few of the
workers surveyed feared the loss of their jobs, and a
majority thought they could find comparable work
without much difficulty. (In 1977, the national unem
ployment rate was 7 percent and in 1978, 6 percent.)
The results indicate considerable variations, however,
among various categories of full-time workers. Certain
workers, including blacks, those with less education,
lower earnings, and lower skilled jobs, tended to experi
ence greater insecurity of employment. They were more
likely to fear the loss of their jobs or of being laid off
within the next 12 months and were more likely to an
ticipate difficulty in finding a comparable job. Similarly,
workers with more education, higher earnings, and
higher skilled jobs typically experienced a greater sense
of security in their present jobs and were more likely to
believe that finding a comparable job would be easy.
The data were taken from the 1977 and 1978 General
Social Surveys conducted by the National Opinion Re
search Center at the University of Chicago, with funds
from the National Science Foundation.1 Expectations
about losing one’s job and about finding another job
were measured by responses to the following ques
tions:
Thinking about the next 12 months, how likely do you
think it is that you will lose your job or be laid off— very
likely, fairly likely, not too likely, or not at all likely?
About how easy would it be for you to find a job with an
other employer with approximately the same income and
fringe benefits you have now? Would you say very easy,
somewhat easy, or not easy at all?
Charles N. Weaver is a professor at the School of Business and Ad
ministration, St. Mary’s University, San Antonio, Texas.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
/
n o oi
,
a
When both sets of expectations are considered, sever
al important dimensions of worker attitudes toward job
security become apparent (table 1). For instance, blacks
were not only almost twice as likely as whites to expect
to lose their jobs or be laid off within the next 12
months, but were also significantly less likely than
whites to believe that finding another job would be
easy. Additionally, older workers were less likely to ex
pect that they would lose their jobs or be laid off within
the next 12 months (probably due to seniority), but
they were more likely to believe that it would be dif
ficult to find a job with similar earnings and fringe bene
fits.
Table 1. Workers who expect to lose their jobs and
those who think they could find another job without much
trouble
[In percent]
Expect to lose job
Could find another job
7.7
59.2
Male .............................
Female ........................
7.7
7.7
60.5
57.6
Race:
W h ite .............................
B la c k .............................
7.0
13.2
60.2
50.3
1 8 - 2 9 ...........................
30-39 ...........................
40-49 ...........................
50-59 ...........................
60 and over ..................
11.1
8.5
5.2
4.5
3.4
67.9
62.3
59.5
46.7
24.4
Education:
Grade school ...............
High school ..................
Some college-...............
College degree.............
Graduate work .............
9.0
8.8
9.0
2.7
1.3
48.8
56.9
68.4
62.2
72.3
White-collar workers:
Professional-technical ..
Administrative-managerial
Salesworkers ...............
Clerical workers ...........
3.2
5.4
3.8
8.0
67.4
65.4
58.9
61.4
Blue-collar workers:
Craftworkers ...............
Operatives....................
Laborers ......................
Service workers ...........
9.3
13.7
15.1
8.2
63.1
45.8
41.1
54.0
Personal income:
Less than $5,000 .........
$5,000-$6,999 .............
$7,000-$9,999 .............
$10,000-$14,999 .........
$15,000-$19,999 .........
$20,000 and over .........
12.7
8.1
9.5
7.4
6.8
1.0
65.1
59.9
57.2
55.2
55.8
63.8
Characteristics
Overall .................................
Sex:
Age:
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Research Summaries
Workers with elementary school, high school, or
some college education were much more likely than
those with a college or graduate school education to be
lieve they would lose their jobs or be laid off within the
next 12 months, and workers with an elementary school
or high school education were less likely than those
with higher education to believe that it would be easy
to find a similar job.
In contrast to blue-collar workers, white-collar work
ers were only half as likely to believe they would lose
their jobs or be laid off within the next 12 months, and
were significantly more likely to believe that finding an
other job would be easy. However, expectations of los
ing and finding employment varied considerably within
the white- and blue-collar occupational categories. Pro
fessional-technical and administrative-managerial work
ers had the lowest expectations about losing their jobs
or being laid off, and had the most confidence about
finding another job. On the other hand, salesworkers
also had low expectations about losing their jobs or be
ing laid off but were least confident (among white-collar
workers) about finding another job. And, compared
with other white-collar workers, clerical workers had
the highest expectations about losing their jobs or being
laid off but had moderately high expectations about the
ease of finding another job. Among blue-collar workers,
operatives and laborers felt most insecure about their
jobs, and were most skeptical about finding a similar
job. Service workers were the least concerned about
blue-collar workers losing their jobs but did not believe
that finding a similar job would be easy. Craftworkers
had moderately high expectations about losing their
jobs, but had the highest expectations (among blue-col
lar workers) that finding another job would be easy.
Workers whose annual salaries were less than $5,000
had the highest expectations that they would lose their
jobs or be laid off within the next 12 months, but they
also had the highest expectations that it would be easy
to find a similar job with another employer. Workers in
the highest salary category, over $20,000, had the low
est expectations that they would lose their jobs or be
laid off and had highest expectations that it would be
easy to find a similar job. Workers whose salaries
ranged in categories between $5,000 and $20,000 had
approximately the same expectations about both losing
their jobs and about finding similar jobs with other em
ployers.
Knowing the characteristics of workers who expect to
lose their jobs and of those who believe that they could
easily find other jobs should be important for the fol
lowing reasons. Because job security and job satisfac
tion are correlated,2 those interested in improving
morale should benefit from having knowledge of the
conditions under which worker expectations about los
ing their jobs are most intense. And, because unemploy
54
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment is correlated with jobseeker discouragement,3those
interested in increasing employment should benefit from
having knowledge of the conditions associated with
fluctuations in worker expectations about finding anoth
er job. Furthermore, having knowledge of the condi
tions associated with both of these sets of expectations
for the same workers should increase understanding of
the attitudes of workers toward their overall employ
ment security.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1Only persons age 18 and older who reported in the face-to-face in
terviews that they were employed full-time (35 hours or more per
week) were included in this study, and the two groups were pooled
into a single sample of 1,463 for analysis.
2 F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, R. O. Peterson, and D. F. Capwell, J o b
(Pittsburgh Psychological
Service of Pittsburgh, 1957).
A ttitu d e s : R e v ie w o f R e s e a rc h a n d O p in io n
3Carol M. Ondeck, “Discouraged workers’ • link to jobless rate
reaffirmed,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , October 1978, pp. 40-42.
Hours and earnings of production
or nonsupervisory workers, 1968-78
How ard D
a v is
Average hourly earnings of production or nonsuper
visory employees on private, nonagricultural payrolls in
creased between 1968 and 1978 at an annual rate of 7.2
percent.1 Average weekly hours dropped by 2 hours,
from 37.8 to 35.8.
All industry divisions exhibited hourly declines ex
cept mining, as shown in table 1. Rising from a low of
41.9 hours in 1974 and 1975, mining reached a decadehigh of 43.4 hours in 1977 and remained the same in
1978 under the stimulus of strong gains in coal mining
and oil and gas extraction. The largest 11-year drops
occurred in retail trade ( —3.7 hours), services ( —1.9
hours), and wholesale trade ( —1.3 hours). Average
weekly hours did not increase in any of these three in
dustries after 1969. This was also true for hours in the
finance, insurance, and real estate industry, although
the total decline was only 0.6 of an hour.
A general cyclical pattern appears in mining, manu
facturing, construction, and transportation and public
utilities. Decreases in the number of hours in these in
dustries occurred after the peak of economic expansion
and either stopped descending or increased within the
year following the recession low.2
The persisting decline of hours in trade and services
Howard Davis is an economist in the Office of Employment Structure
and Trends, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
is related to the marked increase in part-time employ
ment in these sectors. The average workweek for the
private sector would have been 37.4 in 1978, rather
than 35.8 hours, if the number of hours in each indus
try division in 1968 had been the same in 1978. The
general decline within the various divisions would have
reduced the average workweek by only 0.4 of an hour
as a result of changes in compositional employment.
The drop in hours paid for in the retail trade and serv
ice divisions amounted to 83 percent of the remaining
decrease of 1.6 hours. Thus, much of the apparent long
term decline in weekly hours in the private sector is due
to the pronounced shift of employment toward these
rapidly expanding divisions.
As in the case of hours, divergences exist in the tem
po of average hourly earning increases among industry
divisions over the 11-year period. And for any given
year, there is considerable variance among the year-toyear changes. While the overall pace of increase in aver
age hourly earnings was 7.2 percent per year, the annu
al rate of change for individual industry divisions
ranged from a high of 8.6 percent for mining to a low
of 6.0 percent for the finance, insurance, and real estate
industry. As shown in table 2, average hourly earnings
in mining rose from 118 percent of the overall average
for 1968 to nearly 135 percent in 1978, while earnings
in retail trade dipped from 76 to 74 percent of the over
all average. Nevertheless, the rankings among the indus
try divisions evidenced considerable stability over the
11-year period.
Earnings in mining exhibited the largest relative im
provement, while those in finance, insurance, and real
estate posted the largest slippage. In retail trade, earn
ings eased off slightly, remaining the lowest among the
industry divisions. Average hourly earnings in the trans
portation and public utility industry also increased sig
nificantly, rising from 120 percent to almost 133 per
Table 1. Average weekly hours and average hourly
earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on
private nonagricultural payrolls, 1968 and 1978
Industry division
T o ta l...........
Mining ....................
Construction...........
Durable goods,
manufacturing . ..
Nondurable goods,
manufacturing . . ,
Transportation and
public utilities . . .
Wholesale trade . . ,
Retail trade ...........
Finance, insurance,
and real estate . ,
Services ...............
Average
hourly
earnings
Annual rate
of growth
Change in
hours
Hours
1968
1978
1968 78
1968
1978
1968 78
S2.85
3.35
4.41
$5 69
7.67
8.65
7.2
8.6
7.0
37.8
426
37.3
35.8
43.4
36.9
-2.0
+ 8
- .4
3.19
6.58
7.5
41.4
41.1
- .3
2.74
5.53
7.3
39.8
39.4
- .4
3.42
3.05
21.6
7.55
5.88
4.19
8.2
6.8
6.9
40.6
40.1
34.7
40.0
38.8
31.0
- .6
-1.3
-3.7
2.75
2.42
4.90
4.99
6.0
7.5
37.0
34.7
36.4
32.8
- .6
-1.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Average hourly earnings, by industry division, as
percent of total private nonagricultural payrolls, 1968 and
1978
Industry division
Mining .................................................
Construction........................................
Durable goods, manufacturing ...........
Nondurable goods, manufacturing
Transportation and public utilities . . . .
Wholesale trade .................................
Retail trade ........................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate ..
Services..............................................
1968
Rank
1978
Rank
117.5
154.7
111.9
96.1
120.0
107.0
75.8
96.5
84.9
7
9
6
3
8
5
1
4
2
134.8
152.0
115.6
97.2
132.7
103.3
73.6
86.1
87.7
8
9
6
4
7
5
1
2
3
cent of the overall average.
The slow pace of earnings growth in retail trade
doubtlessly reflects the increase in the number of parttime workers, who are generally paid about the mini
mum wage. Voluntary part-time employment amounted
to 26.1 percent in retail trade in 1968; by 1978, the pro
portion was 29.4 percent. The trend of yearly increase
in average hourly earnings picked up slightly in manu
facturing and trade after the cyclical peak in 1973, re
flecting the discontinuation of wage and price controls
on May 1, 1974. The annual rate of growth in durable
manufacturing jumped from 6.4 in 1968-73 to 8.6 per
cent in 1974-78 and in nondurable manufacturing from
6.2 to 8.4 percent. In wholesale trade, earnings rose 5.9
percent and 7.6 percent. Similarly, in retail trade, the
annual pace jumped from 6.2 to 7.6 percent.
Construction, in contrast, was the only industry divi
sion displaying a slowing in the annual rate of increase
of earnings. After 1971 and the imposition of wage con
trols, the pace slowed to 6.1 percent compared with the
8.9 percent prevailing from 1968 through 1971. Howev
er, the tempo of increases in these 3 years was sharply
above those in any of the other divisions.
Pronounced jumps in earnings occurred in the trans
portation and public utility industry in 1971, and in
mining in 1972. In both cases, the increases were the
aftereffect of strikes by railroad workers and coal min
ers. Earnings in mining rose again, and with vigor, in
1974, 1975, and 1978. These wage increases followed
strike activity in 1974 (after economic controls were lift
ed), and again in 1978. Coal mining and construction
accounted for a significant proportion (41 percent) of
the workers involved in walkouts, and of all days lost
to strikes in 1974 (35 percent). There was a 25.5-percent
increase in mining earnings over the years 1974 and
1975. This is the largest consecutive 2-year increase re
corded in any industry between 1968-78.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ----------
1
Hours referred to are paid but not necessarily worked, for exam
ple, paid holidays.
55
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Research Summaries
2The cyclical peaks and troughs are as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Occupational earnings
in auto dealer repair shops
Average straight-time earnings of journeymen mechan
ics in auto dealer repair shops ranged from $7.42 in
Memphis to over $10 an hour in Houston, San
Francisco-Oakland, and Detroit, among 23 areas sur
veyed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in June 1978.
Earnings for lubricators, usually the lowest-paid group
of workers among eight occupations studied in repair
and ’ parts departments, ranged from $3.38 in
Philadelphia to $7.52 in Los Angeles-Long Beach.
Painters ($6.24-$14.34) and body repairers ($7.72$11.53) generally had the highest average hourly earn
ings among the surveyed jobs. Other groups surveyed
and their salary ranges were: service mechanics ($4.80$9.44), new-car get-ready workers ($4.01-$7.54), parts
clerks ($4.76-$8.82), and service salesworkers ($5.61 —
$
10. 01).
Earnings in San Francisco-Oakland, Houston, and
Detroit were typically among the highest reported;
those in Boston, Memphis, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh
were generally among the lowest. The following tabula
tion illustrates the pay level relationships for the 23
areas studied (New York average equals 100), based on
the combined averages for six of the repair shop occu
pations which were common to all areas:
Area
Relative pay level
San Francisco-O akland .....................................
H o u s to n ..................................................................
D e tr o it.....................................................................
Chicago, Los Angeles-Long Beach ................
D allas-F t. Worth, D enver-Boulder, St. Louis
Miami, M inneapolis-St. Paul, New York . . .
Atlanta, Kansas City, Nassau-Suffolk,
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
125-129
120-124
115-119
110-114
105-109
100-104
Portland, W ash in g to n .....................................
Birmingham, Indianapolis, Milwaukee ...........
Boston, Memphis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh . .
95-99
90-94
85-89
Also, hourly earnings relationships between occupa
tions varied widely by area. For instance, in Kansas
City, body repairers averaged 28 percent more than lu
bricators; in Detroit and Houston, they averaged about
75 percent more; and in Chicago, Philadelphia, Pitts
burgh, Portland, and Washington, D.C., they earned
more than twice as much.
Workers paid on an incentive basis accounted for
about one-half of the production workers in the survey
and nearly always averaged higher earnings than their
time-rated counterparts. The prevalence of incentive pay
also contributed to the wide dispersion of individual
earnings within the same job and area. Auto body re
pairers and painters were most frequently paid on the
basis of a flat rate percentage, receiving a stipulated
proportion (usually 40 to 50 percent) of the labor cost
charged to the customer; parts clerks and service
salesworkers were virtually always on commission; and
incentive workers in the four remaining occupations
usually were under flat-rate-hours systems, in which pay
is computed by multiplying the number of hours prede
termined for each task by an established rate.
Both holidays and vacations with pay were provided
for most workers in nearly all areas. Life, hospitaliza
tion, surgical, basic medical, and major medical insur
ance plans were provided to nine-tenths or more of the
production workers in most areas. Retirement pension
plans covered at least one-half the workers in only 10 of
the 23 areas studied.
Individual reports for each of the areas in the sur
vey were issued earlier and are available upon request
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or any of its re
gional offices. A comprehensive bulletin, Industry Wage
Survey: Auto Dealer Repair Shops, June 1978, is avail
able.
□
Significant Decisions
In Labor Cases
Safety first
Overruling two of the three appeals courts which have
considered the issue, the Supreme Court recently ap
proved a Labor Department regulation supplementing
the explicit procedures of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 in order to fulfill the purposes of
that act. Because OSHA was designed to protect work
ers and to require employers to eliminate work
place hazards, the Court upheld a regulation giving
workers the right to refuse to perform hazardous jobs if
they reasonably believe there is no other way to avoid
risk of serious injury or death. However, the Court also
made clear that employers had no obligation to pay
workers for the time that they have refused to work.
( Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall.')
Following the death caused by a worker’s stepping
onto a wire mesh guard 20 feet above a factory floor,
the Whirlpool Corp. issued a directive forbidding work
ers from standing on the mesh. Twelve days later, two
workers were ordered onto the mesh (which they had
already reported to OSHA, after their employer refused
to repair it at their request) but refused to step on it.
They were reprimanded and sent home without pay.
In the Supreme Court, both sides agreed that these
workers’ actions were covered by a Labor Department
regulation providing:
[A]s a general matter, there is no right afforded by the
act which would entitle employees to walk off the job be
cause of potential unsafe conditions at the workplace. . . .
However, . . . if the employee, with no reasonable alterna
tive, refuses in good faith to expose himself to the danger
ous condition, he would be protected against subsequent
discrimination. The condition causing the employee’s appre
hension of death or injury must be . . . reasonable . . .
In this case, the district court ruled that the regula
tion was invalid because it was not authorized by the
OSHA statute. Although the Fifth and Tenth Circuits
had ruled the same way in two similar cases,2 the Sixth
Circuit reversed.3
In upholding the Sixth Circuit’s decision, the Su
preme Court held that the Labor Department regula
tion “clearly conforms to the fundamental objective of
“Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” is written by Gregory J.
Mounts of the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w staff.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the Act — to prevent occupational deaths and serious
illnesses.” Although OSHA does not mention a right to
refuse to work under unsafe conditions, Justice Potter
Stewart’s opinion for a unanimous Court reasoned that
the Secretary of Labor had the power to find such an
implied right in the law because Congress had intended
to prevent injuries and to require employers to elimi
nate dangers in the workplace:
The regulation thus on its face appears to further the
overriding purpose of the Act, and rationally to comple
ment its remedial scheme. In the absence of some contrary
indication in the legislative history, the Secretary’s regula
tion must, therefore, be upheld, particularly when it is re
membered that safety legislation is to be liberally construed
to effectuate the congressional purpose.
Following a review of the legislative history, Stewart
concluded that in rejecting earlier versions of the
OSHA legislation granting workers and the Labor De
partment other specified rights, the Congress had not
meant to prevent workers from refusing to perform
hazardous jobs when they had no reasonable alterna
tive. Similar rights have been found under the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act Amendments of 1977 and
under the NLRA and the Labor Management Relations
Act.4
The collegial bargain
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the faculty at
Yeshiva University is not entitled to the collective
bargaining rights provided “employees” under the Na
tional Labor Relations Act. In a close 5-to-4 decision,
the Court rejected the assertion of the National Labor
Relations Board that, within the authority structure of
such academic institutions, faculty members are profes
sional workers whose interests are separate from those
of the institution. Instead, the Court found that Yeshiva’s faculty acts in a managerial capacity “by taking or
recommending discretionary actions that effectively con
trol or implement employer policy.” Thus, the Court
concluded that the establishment of collective bargain
ing for most of the Yeshiva faculty would lead to a di
vision of loyalty that Congress had sought to prevent.
(NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ.5)
In reaching its verdict, the Court established two cru
cial elements to support its interpretation of the mana
gerial exclusion. First, Justice Lewis Powell’s majority
57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Significant Decisions in Labor Cases
opinion concluded that the Yeshiva faculty exercise au
thority which “in any other context” unquestionably
would be managerial:
. . . Their authority in academic matters is absolute. They
decide what courses will be offered, when they will be
scheduled, and to whom they will be taught. They debate
and determine teaching methods, grading policies, and ma
triculation standards. They effectively decide which students
will be admitted, retained, and graduated. On occasion their
views have determined the size of the student body, the tu
ition to be charged, and the location of a school. When one
considers the functions of a university, it is difficult to
imagine decisions more managerial than these. To the ex
tent the industrial analogy applies, the faculty determines
within each school the product to be produced, the terms
upon which it will be offered, and the customers who will
be served.
In addition, the Court noted that the faculty members
also play a predominant role in faculty hiring, tenure,
sabbaticals, termination, and promotion. Thus, the Ye
shiva faculty’s functions represent the range of charac
teristics that make faculty jobs managerial in scope,
rather than purely professional. At the other end of the
scale, Powell noted that professors who merely “deter
mine the content of their own courses, evaluate their
own students, and supervise their own research” would
not be subject to the managerial exclusion. Moreover,
he suggested that the structure and operation of a
school’s faculty could provide a rational line— such as
tenure—for distinguishing those who properly could be
included in a bargaining unit. Powell even speculated
that the Board might be able to make such distinctions
among the Yeshiva faculty.
The second important element in Powell’s majority
opinion explicitly rejected the Board’s argument that
the Yeshiva faculty’s role in decisionmaking is not man
agerial because it involves only the exercise of “indepen
dent professional judgment” in academic governance.
Powell noted that the Board had implicitly rejected this
criterion when it applied the managerial exclusion to
certain professionals in other cases,6 and he explained
why it would be particularly inappropriate in a collegial
setting:
. . . [T]he Board’s approach would undermine the goal it
purports to serve: To ensure that employees who exercise
discretionary authority on behalf of the employer will not
divide their loyalty between employer and union. In arguing
that a faculty member exercising independent judgment acts
primarily in his own interest and therefore does not repre
sent the interest of his employer, the Board assumes that
the professional interests of the faculty and the interests of
the institution are distinct, separable entities with which a
faculty member could not simultaneously be aligned. The
Court of Appeals found no justification for this distinction,
58
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and we perceive none. In fact, the faculty’s professional in
terests— as applied to governance at a university like Yeshi
va— cannot be separated from those of the institution. . . .
Faculty members enhance their own standing and fulfill
their professional mission by ensuring that the university’s
objectives are met. But there can be no doubt that the
quest for academic excellence and institutional distinction is
a “policy” to which the administration expects the faculty
to adhere, whether it be defined as a professional or an in
stitutional goal. It is fruitless to ask whether an employee is
‘expected to conform’ to one goal or another when the two
are essentially the same.
Justice William Brennan, joined by Justices White,
Blackmun, and Marshall, dissented from the Court’s
opinion. Not only did the majority exceed the Court’s
limited role in reviewing Board decisions, he wrote, but
it reversed a reasonable policy conclusion resulting from
an exhaustive analysis by the Board.
Brennan specifically objected to the majority’s rea
soning that the interests of the university and those of
the faculty are inseparable. The congruence of their in
terests in certain academic and professional areas does
abrogate the faculty’s right to collective bargaining on
issues where some conflict exists, he observed:
. . . The very fact that Yeshiva’s faculty has voted for the
union . . . indicates that the faculty does not perceive its in
terests to be aligned with those of management. Indeed, on
the precise topics which are specified as mandatory subjects
of collective bargaining— wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment— the interests of teacher and
administrator are often diametrically opposed.
--------' W h ir lp o o l
1980).
C orp.
F O O T N O T E S ---------
v. M a rs h a ll,
48 U.S.L.W. 4189 (U.S., Feb. 26,
2 M a r s h a ll v. D a n ie l C o n stru ctio n C o., 563 F.2d 707 (5th Cir., 1977),
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , March 1979, p. 61; and M a r s h a ll v. C e r ti
f i e d W e ld in g C orp., CCH OSHD 23,257 (10th Cir., 1978).
see
3M a r s h a ll v. W h irlp o o l C o rp ., 593
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , June 1979, pp.
F.2d 715 (6th Cir., 1979), see
44-45.
4According to the Court, the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of
OSHA in this area “conforms to the interpretation that Congress
clearly wished the courts to give the parallel antidiscrimination
provision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of
1977, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 801 e t s e q ." In addition, Sec. 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 157, provides employees a pro
tected right to strike over safety issues. Similarly, Sec. 502 of the La
bor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 143, provides that
“the quitting of labor by an employee or employees in good faith be
cause of abnormally dangerous conditions for work . . . [shall
not] be deemed a strike.” The effect of this section is to create an ex
ception to a no-strike obligation in a collective bargaining contract.
5N L R B v. Y esh iva U niv., 48 U.S.L.W. 4175 (U.S., Feb. 20, 1980).
6 U n iv e rs ity o f C h ic a g o L ib ra r y , 205 N.L.R.B. 220 (1973), enforced
506 F.2d 1402 (7th Cir., 1974); and S u tte r C o m m u n ity H o s p ita ls o f
S a c r a m e n to , 227 N.L.R.B. 181 (1976).
M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
T h is lis t o f c o lle c t iv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n ts e x p ir in g in M a y is b a se d o n c o n tr a c ts o n f ile in th e B u
r e a u ’s O ff ic e o f W a g e s an d I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s . T h e lis t in c lu d e s a g r e e m e n t s c o v e r in g 1 ,0 0 0 w o r k e r s
or m ore.
N um ber of
In d u stry
U n io n '
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.:
Detroit Chapter, 3 agreements (Michigan) ................................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Detroit Chapter and 2 others (M ic h ig a n )...................................................
Detroit Chapter and 1 other (M ich ig an )......................................................
C o n stru c tio n ................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Detroit Chapter and 2 others (M ic h ig a n )...................................................
Florida East Coast and Southern Florida Chapters ................................
Idaho Branch (In te rsta te ).................................................................................
C o n stru c tio n ................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Inland Empire Chapter, 3 agreements (Washington and I d a h o ) ...........
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Ohio State Building Chapter, 2 agreements (Ohio and Kentucky) . . .
Oregon-Columbia Chapter (Oregon and W ash in g to n )..............................
Seattle and Tacoma C h a p te r s .........................................................................
Allied Employers, Inc. (W a sh in g to n )............. >■..................................................
American Enka Corp. (Enka, N .C . ) ......................................................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Retail t r a d e ...................................
C h e m ic a ls......................................
Operating Engineers; Carpenters; and
Teamsters (Ind.)
Bricklayers ................................................
Bricklayers; Plasterers; and Cement
Masons
Iron W o rk e rs ..............................................
Operating Engineers ................................
Laborers; Cement Masons; Carpenters;
Operating Engineers; and Teamsters
(Ind.)
Carpenters; Laborers; and Operating
Engineers
Laborers; and C arp en ters........................
L a b o r e r s ......................................................
Teamsters ( I n d .) ........................................
Food and Commercial Workers ...........
Textile Workers ........................................
4,400
25,000
1,200
1,700
1,500
Builders Association of Chicago (I llin o is )...........................................................
Boston Edison Co. (M a ssac h u setts)......................................................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Utilities ........................................
Bricklayers ................................................
Utility Workers ........................................
3,300
1,900
Calumet Builders Association, 2 agreements (Indiana and Michigan) . . . .
Champion International Corp., Champion Paper Division (Pasadena, Tex.)
C o n stru c tio n ................................
Paper .............................................
Carpenters; and Iron Workers .............
P ap e rw o rk e rs..............................................
3,850
1,250
Detroit Mason Contractors Association ..............................................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Bricklayers
................................................
1,600
Eastbay M otor Car Dearlers, Inc. (C alifo rn ia)...................................................
Retail t r a d e ...................................
1,200
Erwin Mills (Durham, N .C .) ...................................................................................
T e x tile s...........................................
Painters; Machinists; Automobile
Salesmen; and Teamsters (Ind.)
Textile Workers ........................................
G ardner-Denver Co. (Quincy, 111.).............................................................................
Gimbel Brothers, Inc. (Interstate) ........................................................................
R u b b e r...........................................
Retail t r a d e ...................................
1,100
4,750
Great Lakes Fabricators and Erectors, 2 agreements (Interstate)
................
C o n stru c tio n ................................
M ac h in ists...................................................
Retail, Wholesale, and Department
Store
Operating Engineers; and Iron Workers
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (T e x a s )...........................................................
Hudson Pulp and Paper Corp. (Plataka, F l a . ) ...................................................
Utilities ........................................
P a p e r ..............................................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
P ap e rw o rk e rs..............................................
3,300
1,350
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. (In te rsta te )...........................................
Kerr-M cGee Nuclear Corp. (Grants, N .M .) ......................................................
Kroehler M anufacturing Co. (In te rsta te )..............................................................
Primary metals ...........................
C h em ica ls......................................
Furniture ......................................
Steelworkers ..............................................
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers . . .
Upholsterers ..............................................
10,000
1,100
1,900
Mechanical Contractors Association, 3 agreements (Interstate) ...................
M etropolitan Detroit Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association,
Inc. (Michigan)
Michigan Road Builders Association (M ic h ig a n )..............................................
M otor Wheel Corp. (Lansing, M ic h .) ...................................................................
C o n stru c tio n ........................
C o n stru c tio n ................................
P lu m b e rs ......................................................
P lu m b e rs ......................................................
4,850
1,900
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Operating Engineers ................................
Allied Industrial Workers .....................
4,500
2,600
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Utilities ........................................
Utilities ........................................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Steelworkers ..............................................
3,500
2,300
1,250
7,300
1,300
7,300
3,500
E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a t i o n
National Electrical C ontractors Association:
Detroit Southern Michigan Chapter ...........................................................
Milwaukee Chapter (W is c o n s in )...................................................................
Puget Sound Chapter (W ash in g to n )..............................................................
St. Louis Chapter (Missouri) ........................................... .............................
Westchester-Fairfield Chapter (New Y o r k ) ................................................
Niagara Mohawk Corp. (New Y o r k ) ...................................................................
Nothern Indiana Public Service Co. (Hammond, Ind.) ...................................
w orkers
14,000
3,300
3,000
2,200
1,300
4,750
10,500
1,200
4,800
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
59
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Continued— Major Agreements Expiring N ext Month
E m p lo y e r a n d l o c a t i o n
N u m b er of
U n io n 1
In d u str y
w orkers
Ohio Contractors Association ( O h io ) ...................................................................
Omaha Building Contractors Employers Association (Nebraska) ................
Ormet Corp. (Hannibal, Ohio) ..............................................................................
O utboard Marine Corp., Gale Products and 1 other (Galesburg, 111.) . . . .
C o n stru c tio n ................................
C o n stru c tio n ................................
C a rp e n te rs ...................................................
L a b o r e r s ......................................................
M achinery......................................
M ac h in ists...................................................
1,250
5,000
1,800
1,800
Painting and Decorating C ontractors of America, and 1 other (Washington)
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. (Interstate) ...................................................
Paris M anufacturing Co., Holley C arburetor Division (Paris, T e n n .) ...........
Potlatch Corp., M aster Agreement ( I d a h o ) .........................................................
Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (New Jersey) ...........................................
M achinery......................................
Utilities ........................................
M achinery......................................
Lumber ........................................
Utilities ........................................
P a in te rs ........................................................
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers . . .
Auto Workers ( I n d .) ................................
W oodw orkers..............................................
Electrical W orkers (IBEW) ...................
1,500
1,150
1,200
2,400
4,100
Retail W orking Agreement (W ashington)2 .........................................................
Reynolds Metals Co., 2 agreements (I n te r s ta te )................................................
Robertshaw Controls Co., Controls Division (Long Beach, Calif.) .............
Retail t r a d e ...................................
Primary metal ..............................
In stru m e n ts...................................
Food and Commercial Workers ...........
Aluminum Workers; and Steelworkers .
Auto W orkers ( I n d . ) ................................
1,700
10,600
1,500
Sacramento and Vicinity Hotel, Restaurant and Tavern Owners
Independent Agreement (California)
San Francisco Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (C a lifo rn ia).............
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association of Milwaukee,
Inc. (Wisconsin)
Simpson Timber Co. (W ashington) ......................................................................
St. Joe Minerals Corp., Zinc Smelting Division (P ennsylvania).....................
Steel Fabricators Association of Southern California, Inc.................................
Sundstrand Corp. (Rockford and Belvidere, 111.) ..............................................
Hotels
...........................................
Hotel and Restaurant ..............................
1,200
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
C o n stru c tio n ................................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Sheet Metal W o rk e rs ................................
1,000
1,250
Lumber ........................................
Primary metals ...........................
Fabricated metal products . . . .
Transportation equipment . . . .
W oodw orkers..............................................
Steelworkers ..............................................
Iron W o rk e rs ..............................................
Auto Workers ( I n d . ) ................................
1,200
1,300
1,000
1,200
Tecumseh Products Co., Factory Agreement (Marion, O h io ) ........................
Texas International Airlines (Interstate)’ ...........................................................
M achinery......................................
Auto Workers ( I n d . ) ................................
1,750
1,000
Union Camp Corp. (Savannah, Ga.)
P a p e r ..............................................
P ap e rw o rk e rs..............................................
1,600
Ventilating and Air Conditioning C ontractors’ Association and 1 other
(Illinois)
C o n s tru c tio n ................................
Sheet Metal W o rk e rs ................................
4,500
Weyerhaeuser Co., 4 agreements (Washington and O re g o n )...........................
Wheaton Industries, Production and M aintenance Department
(Millville, N.J.)
Wisconsin Power and Light Co. (Madison, W is .) ..............................................
Lumber ........................................ W oodw orkers..............................................
Stone, clay and glass products . Glass Bottle B lo w ers................................
7,850
2,000
Utilities
...................
1,500
Yellow Cab Co., and Checker Taxi Co., Inc. (Chicago, 111.)...........................
T r a n s i t ...........................................
S e a fa re rs ......................................................
2,000
...................................................................
'Affiliated with A F L -C IO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
’ Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
........................................
Electrical Workers (IBEW)
’Information is from newspaper reports.
Developments in
Industrial Relations
AFL-CIO invites Teamsters to reaffiliate
At its winter meeting, the Executive Council of the
A FL-C IO affirmed its support of the revised anti-in
flation program, extended an invitation to independent
unions to join its ranks, and cleared the way for women
to sit on its presently all-male council by lifting an eligi
bility restriction.
The anti-inflation program resulted from the 1979 na
tional accord between the Carter Administration and
organized labor. (See Monthly Labor Review, March
1980, p. 55.) The council stressed that if this voluntary
program failed, it would press for mandatory controls
on wages and prices. Prior to the national accord,
which gave labor a greater voice in anti-inflation efforts,
the A FL-C IO had opposed a voluntary plan, contend
ing that it was more stringent for labor than business.
The council established a committee to negotiate a
possible reaffiliation of the Teamsters union, which was
expelled from the A FL-C IO in 1957 on charges of cor
ruption. Federation President Lane Kirkland, who
heads the 5-member committee, said that he has already
had some discussions with Teamsters President Frank
Fitzsimmons on the matter and is satisfied that the
Teamsters are “a bona fide trade union that has been
working in the best interest of its members.”
Committees were not created to negotiate with the
Auto Workers and Mine Workers unions on affiliation,
but Kirkland noted that both unions (and the Team
sters) were now participating in weekly meetings on leg
islative goals at the AFL-CIO. Auto Workers Presi
dent Douglas Fraser said he favored reaffiliation and
that negotiations might start after the union’s conven
tion in June. The Auto Workers left the A FL-C IO in
1968, and the Mine Workers were never an affiliate.
The council moved to open its ranks to women and
minority group members by waiving the requirement
that only presidents and secretary-treasurers of unions
are eligible for membership. The all-male 35-member
council currently has one black member, Frederick
O’Neal, president of the Actors and Artistes union. The
council has never had a female member.
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee
Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on in
formation from secondary sources.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
^
at
_Ln/'
In other matters, the council decided to take a more
active and direct role in organizing workers by
establishing a unit to exchange information among af
filiates on organizing tactics and techniques. Previously,
the Federation generally limited its role to settling juris
dictional disputes among member unions. The change
apparently resulted from the council’s concern that
unions represent a decreasing percentage of the Nation’s
workforce, despite some growth in the absolute number
of workers they represent.
United States rejoining the ILO
The United States announced it will rejoin the Inter
national Labor Organization, ending a 2-year absence
because “the organization had become increasingly antiAmerican and pro-Soviet.” (See Monthly Labor Review,
December 1977, p. 2.) A Cabinet-level committee moni
toring the organization found that a majority of ILO
members “have successfully . . . returned the ILO to its
original purposes.” The committee unanimously recom
mended that the United States return to the organiza
tion and work with other ILO members to ensure that
the “true potential of the organization is realized.”
The ILO was founded in 1919 to improve working
conditions and labor standards and to promote human
rights. Its members include representatives of labor,
management, and government.
Tobacco settlements
Members of the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco
Workers union approved 3-year wage and benefit con
tracts with Philip Morris, Liggett & Myers, Inc., and
the American Tobacco Co.
The Philip Morris accord, which covered 8,500 work
ers in Richmond, Va., and Louisville, Ky., was negoti
ated according to the provisions of a 9-year “Long
Term Agreement” (patterned after the Experimental
Negotiating Agreement that controls bargaining in the
steel industry) signed in May 1979. The Long Term
Agreement prohibits strikes and lockouts; requires the
company to give 18 months’ notice of plant closings;
provides for binding arbitration of issues that arise in
the wage and benefit bargaining to be conducted at
3-year intervals; guarantees that the wage increases to
61
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Developments in Industrial Relations
be negotiated will be at least 3 percent a year; provides
for quarterly wage escalator adjustments of 1 cent an
hour for each 0.3-point movement in the BLS
Consumer Price Index, with the escalator allowance to
be automatically incorporated into base wage rates on
February 1 of each year; provides for $300 bonus pay
ments in May of each year; and makes a number of
changes in the retirement plan, including a provision
permitting an employee retiring at age 55 or later to re
ceive the larger of a benefit computed according to the
existing formula, or a benefit rate of $14 a month for
each year of service for retirement from May 1979
through January 1980, $15 for retirement from Febru
ary 1, 1980, through January 1981, and $16 for retire
ment on February 1, 1981, or later. The agreement also
established an Income Protection Program under which
laid-off employees will continue to receive their pay for
a period ranging from 13 weeks for those with 1 but
less than 2 years service to 52 weeks for those with 20
years or more. Also, laid-off workers will receive an ad
ditional week’s pay for each year of service.
The 1980 Philip Morris “basic” agreement raised the
3-percent guaranteed minimum wage increases to 48
cents an hour on February 1, 1980, and 43 cents on
February 1 of 1981 and 1982. There also were inequity
adjustments for certain job classifications. The $1.34an-hour cost-of-living allowance was incorporated into
base rates, and the parties calculated that employees
will receive 68, 70, and 72 cents in escalator adjust
ments in the respective contract years, based on as
sumed CPI rises of 9, 8.5, and 8 percent.
Other provisions include 4 weeks of paid vacation
after 12 years of service (formerly 13), 5 weeks after 20
years (formerly- 22), 6 weeks after 29 years (formerly
30), and the addition of a seventh week after 34 years; a
twelfth annual paid holiday; various improvements in
insurance benefits, such as $50,000 major medical cov
erage per individual (formerly $20,000), establishment
of a vision care plan, with the company paying the full
cost for employees and 75 percent for dependents, and
sickness and accident benefits equal to 50 percent of
base rate earnings up to $170 (formerly $115) a week.
Liggett & Myers and the American Tobacco Co. did
not negotiate Long Term Agreements in 1979, but the
American Tobacco contract generally provided for the
same wage and benefit terms—except for the Income
Protection Plan—as the Philip Morris agreements.
The Liggett & Myers accord differed in a number of
areas. The wage terms consisted of an initial 48-cent in
crease and 25 cents “cost of living payments” on July 1
of 1981 and 1982 and on October 1, 1982. There was
no provision for automatic quarterly escalator adjust
ments triggered by movement of the CPI. Also, there
was no change in retirement benefits, paid holidays, or
in the vacation schedule.
62
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Steel workers accept reduced incentive pay
Employees of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.’s tube
and sheet mill in Allenport, Pa., accepted a company
proposal to reduce incentive pay over a 30-month peri
od. The company said that the 10-step process would
ultimately lower incentive earnings to a level “slightly
above” the steel industry average. The plant has about
2,000 production and maintenance employees, 92 per
cent of whom are eligible for incentive pay. Despite the
concession, Wheeling-Pittsburgh did not guarantee
Steelworkers Local 1187 that the plant would remain
open.
When Wheeling-Pittsburgh raised the issue in early
December, it said that average incentive pay at the
plant was 33 percent higher than at its competitors. The
company also claimed that the competitors’ employees
were more productive, despite their lower incentive pay.
This development occurred shortly after plant clos
ings and contract concessions involving 13,000 employ
ees of United States Steel Corp. (See Monthly Labor
Review, March 1980, p. 56.)
In a later development on the U.S. Steel closings,
Steelworkers’ locals in the Youngstown, Ohio, area filed
suit in Federal District Court in Cleveland seeking to
prevent the company from shutting down its McDonald
Works in Youngstown. The locals contended that U.S.
Steel had violated a verbal agreement to keep the works
open as along as they were profitable and asked the
court for access to the corporation’s financial records to
prove that the plants are profitable.
In another effort to avert the scheduled closing, the
local unions were attempting to gain support for their
proposal to purchase and modernize the mill. However,
U.S. Steel said that it was dismantling the mill because
it was obsolete. Also, doubts about the purchase plan
were expressed by some members of the local industry
development agency that is responsible for advising the
U.S. Department of Commerce which projects should
receive Federal loan guarantees.
Airline cuts managerial salaries
Trans World Airlines, which lost $56.4 million in the
fourth quarter of 1979, cut the salaries of 800 manage
ment employees earning $35,000 or more. President Ed
Meyer said that while the cut won’t “save the airline,”
it is an indication of the seriousness of the situation and
also serves to emphasize “how much we need a turn
around.” He indicated that during the last 12 months
the airline reduced employment from 36,000 to 34,000
to curtail costs. The salaries will be restored to their
original levels— retroactive to the date of the cut—
when the airline operates at a profit over a 12-month
period.
Small oil refineries yield to union demands
Four auto parts manufacturers settle
Twelve small oil refineries settled with locals of the
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, but the union con
tinued to strike the major oil companies and some other
small refineries. The settlements covered about 1,700
workers out of the 60,000 that struck 100 companies
when the parties were unable to reach agreement under
a reopening provision of the contracts negotiated in
1979.
The settlements— which met the revised demands of
the union—generally provided for a total wage increase
of 5 percent plus 55 cents an hour, but not less than a
combined total of $1 an hour, retroactive to January
1980 (the 5-percent portion was already scheduled for
January 1980 under the 1979 settlement); a $125-amonth employer payment for medical insurance for
families and a lesser amount for single employees; and
establishment of dental coverage financed by employer
payments of $20 a month for families and a lesser
amount for single employees. There also were improve
ments in vacation benefits. At some companies, the new
schedule provides for 5 weeks after 15 years of service,
6 weeks after 20 years, and 7 weeks after 25 years.
Previously, the schedules generally provided for a maxi
mum of 5 weeks of vacation after 20 years of service.
The refineries that had not settled generally objected
to the health insurance and dental plan proposals, con
tending that they would be very costly, particularly be
cause the companies would be required to assume any
premium increases needed to maintain the uniform set
of benefits specified in the union proposal.
At its peak, the strike involved refineries processing
about 70 percent of the Nation’s petroleum needs.
However, the companies’ white-collar employees contin
ued to maintain operations by working extended sched
ules. According to the American Petroleum Institute,
all U.S. refineries operated at 84.6 percent of capacity
for the week that ended January 11; for the week that
ended on January 25, output had declined to 80.5 per
cent of capacity, the “lowest in a long time,” according
to an official of the institute.
There was some progress in the Auto Workers nego
tiations with automobile parts manufacturers, as the
union settled with four firms on contracts patterned af
ter the 3-year General Motors Corp. contract. (See
Monthly Labor Review, November 1979, pp. 58-59.)
The accord with the Budd Co. ended a 2-week strike
and covered 10,000 workers at seven plants in three
States. The other agreements, reached without strikes,
were with Rockwell International Corp.’s Automotive
Group for 7,000 workers at 10 facilities in six States;
with Champion Spark Plug Co. for 5,000 workers in
three States and Canada; and with Kelsey-Hayes Co.
for 1,500 workers in Michigan. The Kelsey-Hayes con
tract provided for the permanent withholding of 26
cents from wage escalator adjustments, compared with
14 cents at General Motors. The union agreed to the
larger diversion because of higher pension costs to
Kelsey-Hayes resulting from a higher ratio of retired to
active employees.
The Auto Workers continued a strike against Interna
tional Harvester Co. One of the major unresolved
points was a company demand for more flexibility in
mandating overtime work for employees to attain parity
with Caterpillar Tractor Co. and Deere & Co., which
had settled earlier.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wood shavings— suspected carcinogen at GM
General Motors Corp. will underwrite medical evalu
ations and cancer tests for 1,800 wood-model makers.
The Michigan Cancer Foundation, in a preliminary
study of 1,073 employees who make wood models of
cars, found 39 cases of cancer— a high rate, compared
with 26 cases that could be expected in such a group.
Robert Weincek, the company’s medical director, said
the employees work with no known carcinogens, al
though wood shavings are suspect. Some of the wood
workers have asserted that the cancers resulted from
exposure to chemicals.
63
Book Reviews
A woman in a man’s job
Frances Perkins: “That Woman in FDR's Cabinet/ ” By
Lillian Holmen Mohr. Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.,
North River Press, Inc., 1979. 328 pp., bibliogra
phy. $14.95.
This is a superb brief biography of Frances Perkins,
first woman ever to be a member of a U.S. President’s
Cabinet. “That woman in FDR’s Cabinet” served as
Secretary of Labor for 12 years between 1933 and 1945.
During the Great Depression of the 1930’s, when unem
ployment was crucial, the role of the Secretary of Labor
was particularly important. Madam Secretary faced
problems not unlike those of today—job opportunities,
job safety, and fair labor standards. Strikingly different,
however, was the issue of deflation, for at that time the
government reinflated the economy in order to drive up
prices and wages. Frances Perkins was a great Secretary
of Labor who made the Department a seed bed of so
cial progress. She was a prime mover in winning social
security for the elderly, unemployment insurance, aboli
tion of oppressive child labor, minimum wage laws (25
cents an hour), the right to bargain collectively, and
other progressive programs.
Lillian Holmen Mohr writes well and in a popular
style. To some extent, Mohr tells the story the same
way that Frances Perkins would have told it. And
Frances Perkins had a way with words. But, the rela
tively simple language which makes the book interesting
to an average reader should not hide the fact of very
impressive research from a wide variety of sources.
Frances Perkins hated being praised because she was
a woman in what was then considered a man’s job. Of
ten, when asked whether her sex made a difference, she
replied, “only in climbing trees.” She preferred winning
recognition on the basis of her work. She was an intelli
gent and experienced person, well equipped for the posi
tion of Secretary of Labor to which she had been
appointed.
Mohr does a good job in compressing Frances Per
kins’ 85 years of life into less than 300 pages. Born
Fannie Caralie Perkins on April 10, 1880, she went to
Mount Holyoke College at a time that not many wom
en went to college. She distinguished herself as a social
worker, reformer, chairman of the Industrial Board in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
New York State, and head of the State Labor Depart
ment. Perhaps Mohr makes too much of Perkins’ activi
ty in the cause of women’s rights and in consumer
protection (or perhaps this reviewer is revealing his own
prejudices). However, the several references to the dis
tinguished Alice Hamilton, Charlotte Perkins Gilman,
and other important women are fascinating.
The book is relatively free of errors, though there are
a few, such as calling Assistant Secretary of Labor Ed
ward McGrady Under Secretary before such a post
existed, and getting the date of the Homestead strike
wrong on page 167 and right on page 240.
In 1976, George Martin wrote a splendid biography:
Madam Secretary: Frances Perkins. It is a much longer
book. It was a major historical and biographical contri
bution. Mohr’s new book is much shorter but equally
interesting and useful. The small publishing house with
no promotion and the $14.95 price are likely to deprive
Mohr’s biography of the wide audience it deserves.
Hopefully, some publisher will put out a reasonably
priced paperback edition.
— Jo
n a t h a n
G
r o ssm a n
Historian
U.S. Department of Labor
English for doctoral candidates
A Popularized Version of 21 Doctoral Dissertations. (Pre
pared by Lawrence R. Klein and Susan Ghozeil.)
Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Employ
ment and Training Administration, 1979. 113 pp.
(R&D Monograph 70.) $3.50, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington 20402.
The wall of Lawrence R. Klein’s office, while he was
editor of this journal, bore this quotation attributed to
H. G. Wells: “No passion in the world, no love or hate,
is equal to the passion to alter someone else’s draft.”
Klein practiced that passion for 22 years at the Monthly
Labor Review. This little volume proves that his ardor
has not cooled.
The book is the third prepared by Klein, now ad
junct professor of economics at the University of Arizo
na, designed to make available to a broad audience
findings from dissertations in the social and behavioral
sciences.
Over the past 15 years, the U.S. Department of La
bor’s Employment and Training Administration has fi
nancially supported more than 500 such dissertations,
many of which, as Klein puts it, may result in a journal
article or two, if the authors are lucky, “and then blush
unseen and waste their substance in the desert air of a
library, and perhaps become footnotes in somebody
else’s dissertation.” Klein and Howard Rosen, director
of research for the Employment and Training Adminis
tration, were convinced that the years of work and
thought that had gone into these dissertations could be
useful to nonacademics if the documents could be trans
lated into readable and understandable English. Klein’s
first two efforts went part way in that direction, cutting
the dissertations down to about 2,500 words, but leav
ing in much of the original language. For the present
volume, Klein and his coauthor, Susan Ghozeil, have
rewritten 21 dissertations into relatively simple lan
guage, without jargon and without mathematical equa
tions.
To get a sense of the kind of service the authors have
rendered, contemplate this sentence from one of the dis
sertations they considered for the book:
Extrapolating from cross-sectional data, we infer that
transformations in the clustering of roles occur during the
careers of engineers and scientists, with progressively great
er involvement in teaching in evidence as they move
through the career sequence; increasingly less involvement
in both basic and applied research; and increasingly greater
likelihood of administrative, managerial, and supervisory
duties occurring in the middle stages of the career.
And the translation offered by the authors:
As scientists and engineers get older, they are more likely
to teach and less likely to do research, but their roles as su
pervisors most often come in the middle stages of their ca
reers.
The 21 dissertations summarized in this volume
include studies of job search, unemployment insurance,
labor market segmentation, the dual labor market, con
struction industry wages, the 4-day workweek, and
stresses on and off the job. One of the topics that may
be of particular interest at the moment is an economic
analysis of conscription vs. all-volunteer armed forces in
peacetime. Aside from an occasional penchant for an
over-cute title or phrase, the authors do an excellent job
of communicating the results of the Ph. D.s’ research.
But the authors go beyond that, commenting critical
ly on the state of the Ph. D. dissertation today. The
quality of writing and the gradual abandonment of ver
bal for mathematical symbols, they say, are but a symp
tom of a larger problem with the dissertation and its
potential usefulness.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The doctoral thesis should be the capstone of formal aca
demic training, the measure and very symbol of learning in
a classical sense. It should be the mark of the broadly edu
cated person. Yet the outstanding features are its narrow
ness, its frequent purblind avoidance of interdisciplinary
interest and lack of literary grace or niceties, its seeming
disinterest in the relationship of theme to broad movements
of history and social development. In short, it is barren of
the philosophy that gives substance and grandeur to the
symbol Ph.D. Has the title become a cliche, divorced from
both meaning and significance, the shining ideal tarnished
by the dross of specialization? Is today’s Ph.D .— let’s say
in economics— truly educated or just a finely trained and
sharply honed specialist-technician who is skilled in mathe
matical statistics, regression analysis, and the accepted tru
isms of the market?
Ph. D. candidates and their advisers need to ponder
these questions. They also should examine the good
writing in this book and emulate it.
— H en ry Lo w enstern
Editor-in-Chief
Monthly Labor Review
Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources
Duncan, Marvin, “The Agricultural Outlook: Can Recent In
come Gains Be Maintained?” Economic Review, Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City, December 1979, pp. 1625.
Verleger, Philip K., Jr., “The U.S. Petroleum Crisis of 1979,”
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 1979, pp. 46376.
Williams, Craig L., “Soil Conservation and Water Pollution
Control: The Muddy Record of the United States De
partment of Agriculture,” Boston College Environmental
Affairs Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 365-421.
Economic and social statistics
Clogg, Clifford C., Measuring Underemployment: Demographic
Indicators for the United States. New York, Academic
Press, Inc., 1979, 279 pp. $21.50.
Hans, Brems, Inflation, Interest, and Growth: A Synthesis. Lex
ington, Mass., D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington Books,
1980, 169 pp. $17.95.
Levy, Robert, “Whatever Happened to Metrics?” Dun's Re
view, January 1980, beginning on p. 48.
National Commission on Employment and Unemployment
Statistics, Counting the Labor Force: Readings in Labor
Force Statistics, Appendix Vol. III. By Diane Werneke.
Washington, National Commission on Employment and
Unemployment Statistics, 1980, 396 pp.
National Science Foundation, Science Indicators 1978: Report
of the National Science Board, 1979. Washington, Nation
al Science Foundation, National Science Board, 1979, 263
pp. Stock No. 038-000-00416-6. $6, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington 20402.
65
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Book Reviews
“The Metropolitan Statistical Area Classification,” Statistical
Reporter, December 1979, pp. 33-45.
Yugoslavia, Federal Statistical Office, Statistical Pocket-Book
of Yugoslavia, 1979. 25th ed. Belgrade, Yugoslavia, Fed
eral Statistical Office, 1979, 255 pp.
Economic growth and development
Hicks, John, Causality in Economics. New York, Basic Books,
Inc., Publishers, 1979, 124 pp. $8.95.
Kamrany, Nake M. and Richard H. Day, eds., Economic Is
sues of the Eighties. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Uni
versity Press, 1979, 286 pp. $20, cloth; $6.95, paper.
Kozlowski, Paul J. with Phyllis R. Buskirk, Business Condi
tions in Michigan Metropolitan Areas. Kalamazoo, Mich.,
The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research,
1979, 182 pp. $4.50, paper.
Liu, Ben-Chieh, “ Economic Growth and Quality of Life: A
Comparative Indicator Analysis Between China (Taiwan),
U.S.A. and Other Developed Countries,” The American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, January 1980, pp. 1 -
Friedman, Milton, “Problems of Cross-Examination in Labor
Arbitration,” The Arbitration Journal, December 1979,
pp. 6-11.
Heintz, Duane H., “ Medical Malpractice Arbitration: A Via
ble Alternative,” The Arbitration Journal, December
1979, pp. 12-18.
Leap, Terry and Irving Kovarsky, “The Age Discrimination
in Employment Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation
Act: A Proposed Consolidation,” Labor Law Journal,
January 1980, pp. 13-26.
Martin, Benjamin and Everett M. Kassalow, eds., Labor Rela
tions in Advanced Industrial Societies: Issues and Prob
lems. Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, 1980, 206 pp. $10.
Marshall, F. Ray, Allan G. King, Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., La
bor Economics: Wages, Employment, and Trade Unionism.
4th ed. Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1980,
594 pp. $18.95.
“ Methodology in Economics Symposium Issue: Part I,” Jour
nal of Economic Issues, December 1979, pp. 869-1037.
Mitchell, Daniel, J. B. and John Clapp, Legal Constraints on
Teenage Employment: A New Look at Child Labor and
School Leaving Laws. Los Angeles, University of Califor
nia, Institute of Industrial Relations, 1979, 197 pp.
(Monograph Series, 22.) $7.50, paper.
Nolting, Louvan E. and Murray Feshbach, “ R&D Employ
ment in the U.S.S.R.,” Science, Feb. 1, 1980, pp. 4 9 3 503.
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, “What Do You Do When the Su
preme Court Is Wrong?” The Public Interest, Fall 1979,
pp. 3-24.
Education
Samoff, Bernard, “ NLRB Priority and Injunctions for Dis
criminatory Discharges,” Labor Law Journal, January
1980, pp. 54-61.
21 .
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, Edu
cation and Youth Employment in Belgium, by Henri
Janne (112 pp.); Education and Youth Employment in the
Federal Republic of Germany, By Klaus von Dohnanyi
(102 pp.); Education and Youth Employment in Great
Britain, by Stuart M adure (145 pp.); Education and
Youth Employment in Japan, by Hidetoshi Kato (70 pp.);
Education and Youth Employment in Less Developed
Countries: Mexico, by Alberto Hernandez Medina and
Carlos Muñoz Izquierdo; South Asia, by Manzoor Ahmed
(115 pp.); Education and Youth Employment in Poland,
by Barbara Liberska (83 pp.); Youth Education and Un
employment Problems: An International Perspective, by
Margaret S. Gordon with a chapter by Martin Trow.
Berkeley, Calif., Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in
Higher Education. 1979. Copies are available from Mar
garet S. Gordon, Institute of Industrial Relations, Uni
versity of California, Berkeley, Calif., 94720. $1 per book
for shipping costs.
Great Britain, Department of Employment Gazette, “ Educa
tion and Training in the 80s: A Personal View,” by Ron
Johnson, Employment Gazette, November 1979, pp. 1093
-96.
Industrial relations
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Pro
posals to Revise the Lobbying Law. Washington, American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1980, 52
pp. (AEI Legislative Analysis, 11, 96th Cong., 2d sess.)
Bennett, James T. and Manuel H. Johnson, Pushbutton Union
ism. Fairfax, Va., George Mason University, Contempo
rary Economics and Business Association, 1980, 26 pp.
66
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Servais, Jean Michel, Inviolability of Trade Union Premises
and Communications. Geneva, International Labor Orga
nization, 1980, 42 pp. Distributed in the United States by
Washington Branch of ILO.
Shawe, Earle K., “Preparation of the Arbitration Hearing,”
Labor Law Journal, January 1980, pp. 46-53.
The Japan Institute of Labor, Labor and the Economy Illus
trated. Tokyo, The Japan Institute of Labor, 1980, 28 pp.
(Japanese Industrial Relations Series, 4.)
Industry and government organization
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
Telecommunications Law Reform. Washington, 1980, 64
pp. (AEI Legislative Analysis, 12, 96th Cong., 2d sess.)
Economic Council of Canada, Responsible Regulation: An In
terim Report by the Economic Council of Canada; Synopsis
and Recommendations from Responsible Regulation. Hull,
Quebec, Economic Council of Canada, 1979, 127 and 33
pp. $7.25, each, Canada; $8.70, each, other countries.
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Center,
Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec.
Green, Mark and others, The Case for a Corporate Democracy
Act of 1980. Washington, Americans Concerned About
Corporate Power, 1979, 127 pp., bibliography.
Mashaw, Jerry L., “ Regulation, Logic, and Ideology,” Regu
lation, November-December 1979, pp. 44-51.
Shenefield, John H., “Government Enterprise— A New Fron
tier for Regulatory Reformers,” Regulation, NovemberDecember 1979, pp. 16-18.
International economics
Coldrick, A. P. and Philip Jones, T h e I n te rn a tio n a l D ire c to ry
o f th e T ra d e U nion M o v e m e n t: A C o m p reh en sive G u id e to
T ra d e Union C o n d itio n s a n d I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s in E ach
C o u n try. New York, Facts on File, Inc., 1979, 1,365 pp.
$55.
Danzig, Selig M., “What We Need to Know About Perfor
mance Appraisals,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , February 1980,
pp. 20-24.
Fragner, Berwyn N., “Affirmative Action Through Hiring and
Promotion: How Fast a Rate?” P ersonn el, November-December 1979, pp. 67-71.
Destier, I. M., M a k in g F oreign E c o n o m ic P olicy. Washington,
The Brookings Institution, 1980, 244 pp. $11.95, cloth;
$4.95, paper.
Gandz, Jeffrey, “ Resolving Conflict: A Guide for the Industri
al Relations Manager,” P ersonn el, November-December
1979, pp. 22-32.
Haendel, Dan, F oreign I n v e stm e n ts a n d th e M a n a g e m e n t o f
P o litic a l R isk . Boulder, Colo., Westview Press, 1979, 206
pp. $18.50.
Genua, Robert L., T he E m p lo y e r's G u id e to In terview in g :
S tra te g y a n d T a ctics f o r P ic k in g a W inner. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979, 180 pp.
Martin, Benjamin and Everett M. Kassalow, eds., L a b o r R e la
Ginsburg, Sigmund G., “The Business Executive in Govern
ment: Look Before You Leap,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview ,
February 1980, pp. 64-66.
tio n s in A d v a n c e d I n d u s tr ia l S ocieties: Issu es a n d P ro b
lem s. Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, 1980, 206 pp.
“The Middle East, 1980,” C u rre n t H isto ry, January 1980, pp.
1-41.
U.S. Bureau of International Labor Affairs, C o u n try L a b o r
P rofile: F rance. By Thomas D. Bowie. Washington, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Af
fairs, 1979, 8 pp. 60 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
------ — C o u n try L a b o r P rofile: Tunisia. By Burnie Merson.
Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Inter
national Labor Affairs, 1980, 6 pp. 60 cents, Superinten
dent of Documents, Washington 20402.
Labor and economic history
“ Fortune’s Fiftieth Anniversary Issue: The Best as Prologue—
A Fabulous 50 Years; The Depression; The War; Postwar
Prosperity; New Strains on the System: A Time of Test
ing,” F ortune, Feb. 11, 1980, 248 pp.
Rodgers, Daniel T., The W ork E th ic in I n d u s tr ia l A m erica ,
1 8 5 0 - 1 9 2 0 . Chicago, The University of Chicago Press,
1979, 300 pp. $5.95, paper.
Labor force
Korns, Alexander, “The Difference Between the Payroll and
Household Measures of Employment, 1975-79,” S u rv ey
o f C u rre n t B usiness, December 1979, pp. 45-49.
Glover, Robert W. and others, S te p p in g Up: P la c in g M in o r ity
W om en in to M a n a g e r ia l a n d P ro fessio n a l Jobs. Salt Lake
City, Utah, Olympus Publishing Co., 1979, 105 pp., bibli
ography.
Greenlaw, Paul S. and Diana L. Foderaro, “Some Further Im
plications of the Pregnancy Discrimination A ct,” P e r
so n n e l Jou rn al, January 1980, pp. 36-43.
Halcomb, Ruth, “Mentors and the Successful Woman,”
A cro ss th e B oard, February 1980, pp. 13-18.
Hanan, Mack, F a st-G ro w th M a n a g e m e n t: H o w to Im p ro v e
P ro fits w ith E n tre p re n e u ria l S trategies.
New York,
AMACOM, A division of American Management Asso
ciations, 1979, 145 pp. $14.95.
Hunsaker, Philip L., “Organizational Growth: The Implica
tions for Human Resources,” P ersonn el, NovemberDecember 1979, pp. 12-21.
Lynch, Dudley, “The Case for Disorderly Conduct: How to
Get the Most Out of Managerial Brainpower,” M a n a g e
m e n t R eview , February 1980, pp. 14-19.
Perham, John, “Top Management Views the 1980s,” D u n 's
R eview , January 1980, beginning on p. 68.
Schick, Melvin E., “The ‘Refined’ Performance Evaluation
Monitoring System: Best of Both Worlds,” P erso n n el
Jou rn al, January 1980, pp. 47-50.
Lloyd, Cynthia B. and Beth T. Niemi, T h e E co n o m ics o f S e x
D ifferen tia ls. New York, Columbia University Press,
1979, 355 pp., bibliography. $16.50.
Smith, Martin R., Q u alitysen se: O rg a n iza tio n a l A p p ro a ch es to
Im p ro v in g P ro d u c t Q u a lity a n d Service. New York,
AMACOM, A Division of American Management Asso
ciations, 1979, 194 pp. $16.95.
Maurer, Harry, N o t W orkin g: A n O r a l H is to r y o f th e U n em
p lo ye d . New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980,
297 pp. $12.95.
Szilagyi, Andrew D., “ Keeping Employee Turnover Under
Control,” P ersonn el, November-December 1979, pp. 4 2 52.
Management and organization theory
Baron, Alma S., “Communication Skills for the Woman Man
ager— A Practice Seminar,” P erso n n el Jou rn al, January
1980, pp. 55-58.
Berenbeim, Ronald, N on u n ion C o m p la in t S y ste m s: A C o rporate
A p p ra isa l. New York, The Conference Board, Inc., 1980,
50 pp., bibliography. (Conference Board Report, 770.)
$5, members; $15, nonmembers.
Budde, James F., M e a su rin g P erfo rm a n c e in H u m a n S ervice
S y ste m s: P lan n in g, O rg a n iza tio n a n d C ontrol. New York,
AMACOM, A division of American Management Asso
ciations, 1979, 207 pp., bibliography. $14.95.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Thierauf, Robert J., M a n a g e m e n t A u d itin g : A Q u estio n n a ire
A pproach . New York, AMACOM, A division of Ameri
can Management Associations, 1980, 239 pp., bibliogra
phy. $19.95.
Toedtman, James C , “A Decade of Rapid Change: The
Outlook for Human Resources Management in the ’80s,”
P erso n n el Jou rn al, January 1980, pp. 29-35.
Monetary and fiscal policy
Brownlee, Oswald H., T a x in g th e I n c o m e f r o m U.S. C o rp o ra
tion I n v e stm e n ts A b ro a d . Washington, American Enter
prise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1979, 34 pp.,
bibliography. (AEI Studies, 264.) $3.25, paper.
67
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Book Reviews
Cacy, J. A. and Glenn H. Miller, Jr., “ Review and Outlook:
A New Approach to Solving Old Problems,” Economic
Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, December
1979, pp. 3-15.
Chamot, Dennis and Joan M. Baggett, eds., Silicon, Satellites
and Robots: The Impacts of Technological Change on the
Workplace. Washington, Department for Professional
Employees, A F L -C IO , 1979, 52 pp.
Courchene, T. J., P. Fortin, G. R. Sparks, and W. R. White,
“ Monetary Policy in Canada: A Symposium,” The Cana
dian Journal of Economics, November 1979, pp. 590646.
Clark, Peter K., “Issues in the Analysis of Capital Formation
and Productivity G rowth,” Brookings Papers on Economic
Activity, 2, 1979, pp. 423-45.
Froyen, Richard, “Systematic Monetary Policy and Short-run
Real Income Determination,” Journal of Economics and
Business, Fall 1979, pp. 14-22.
Gambs, Carl M., “Federal Reserve Intermediate Targets:
Money or the Monetary Base?” Economic Review, Feder
al Reserve Bank of Kansas City, January 1980, pp. 3-15.
Guffey, Roger, “Conduct of U.S. Monetary Policy: Recent
Problems and Issues,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve
Bank of Kansas City, December 1979, pp. 26-29.
Hettich, Walter, “A theory of partial tax reform,” The Cana
dian Journal of Economics, November 1979, pp. 692712.
Jaffee, Dwight M. and Kenneth T. Rosen, “Mortgage Credit
Availability and Residential Construction,” Brookings Pa
pers on Economic Activity, 2, 1979, pp. 333-86.
Pechman, Joseph A., ed., What Should Be Taxed: Income or
Expenditure? Washington, The Brookings Institution,
1980, 332 pp. $14.95, cloth; $5.95, paper.
Rymes, T. K., “Money, efficiency, and knowledge,” The Ca
nadian Journal of Economics, November 1979, pp. 575—
89.
Ture, Norman B., “The Value Added Tax: Fact& and Fan
cies,” Management Review, February 1980, pp. 8-13.
Gordon, Robert J., “The ‘End-of-Expansion’ Phenomenon in
Short-Run Productivity Behavior,” Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, 2, 1979, pp. 447-61.
Norsworthy, J. R., Michael J. Harper, Kent Kunze, “The
Slowdown in Productivity Growth: Analysis of Some
Contributing Factors,” Brookings Papers on Economic Ac
tivity, 2, 1979, pp. 387-421.
Social institutions and social change
Binkin, Martin and Irene Kyriakopoulos, Youth or Experi
ence? Manning the Modern Military. Washington, The
Brookings Institution, 1979, 84 pp. $2.95, paper.
Sowell, Thomas, Knowledge and Decisions. New York, Basic
Books, Inc., 1980, 422 pp. $18.50.
Toby, Jackson, “Crime in American Public Schools,” The
Public Interest, Winter 1980, pp. 18-42.
Welfare programs and social insurance
Keyfitz, Nathan, “Why Social Security is in Trouble,” The
Public Interest, Winter 1980, pp. 102-19.
“Pension Plan Financial Management in Today’s W orld,”
Hay Huggins Bulletin, January 1980, 4 pp.
“Pension Plan Termination: Quo Vadis?” Pension World, De
cember 1979, pp. 64-65.
Prices and living conditions
“Sixth Annual Survey of State Retirement Systems,” Pension
World, November 1979, pp. 57-63.
Dewald, William G., “Fast vs. Gradual Policies for Control
ling Inflation,” Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank
of Kansas City, January 1980, pp. 16-25.
Taft, Julia Vadala, David S. North, David A. Ford, Refugee
Resettlement in the U.S.: Time for a New Focus. Washing
ton, New TransCentury Foundation, 1979, 222 pp.
Hershman, Arlene, “Why Recessions Don’t Cure Inflation,”
Dun's Review, January 1980, beginning on p. 56.
Worker training and development
Productivity and technological change
Mirengoff, William and others, CETA: Assessment of Public
Service Employment Programs. Washington, National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Com
mittee on Evaluation of Employment and Training Pro
grams, 1980, 197 pp.
Barks, Joseph V., “Getting a Big Payback from Those You
Pay,” Iron Age, Jan. 28, 1980, pp. 28-31. (Reprint 3456.)
Single copy, free; additional copies, 50 cents.
The National Urban Coalition, Understanding CETA: A
Community Guide. Washington, The National Urban Co
alition, 1979, 32 pp.
Mayer, Henry C. and Edward J. O’Boyle, “Inflation: A Moral
and Economic Erosive,” The Louisiana Economy, Louisi
ana Tech University, Vol. XIII, No. 1, 1979, pp. 1-8.
68
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Current
Labor Statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
....................................................................................................................................
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
..........................................................................
Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Employment status of noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-79 ................................................................
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted .......................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ...............................................................................................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ...............................................................................................................
Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Employment by industry, 1950-79 .......................................................................................................................................
Employment by State .......................................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group ................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ........................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1976 to date .........................................................................................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group ...................................................................................
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1948-79 ..........................................................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ........................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ......................................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division .......................................................................................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Gross and spendable weekly earnings in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date ........................................................
Unemployment insurance data. Definitions and notes
71
71
72
73
74
75
75
75
76
77
77
78
79
80
80
81
82
83
84
84
85
86
87
87
..........................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Indexes, 1967-79 ..........................., ............................................................................ .............................
Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items ...........................................................
Consumer Price Index, cross classification of region and population size class ...........................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected areas ....................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ..................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity grouping ...............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ...............................................................................................................
Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries .....................................................................................................
88
89
89
95
96
97
98
100
100
100
Price data. Definitions and notes
Productivity data. Definitions and notes
31.
32.
33.
34.
70
.......................................................................................
........................................................................................
21. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
70
Indexes
Annual
Indexes
Percent
.......................................................................................................................
of productivity and related data, 1950-79
percent change in productivity and related data, 1969-79 ................................................................................
of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs ........................................................................................
change in productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs ..........................................................................
Labor-management data. Definitions and notes
35. Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units ................................................................................
36. Effective wage rate adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units .............................................
37. Work stoppages, 1947 to date ...............................................................................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
103
103
104
104
105
106
106
107
107
69
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section of the R e view presents the principal statistical se
ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi
nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually
found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to
consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov
er of this issue of the R eview . Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
S e a s o n a l a d ju stm e n t. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buyiog
periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short
term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated
on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com
puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev
eral preceding years. For a technical discussion of the method used to
make seasonal adjustments, see “Appendix A. The BLS Seasonal Fac
tor Method,” B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bul
letin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1976), pp. 272-78, and X - l l
V a ria n t o f th e C en su s M e th o d 11 S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t P ro g ra m , Techni
cal Paper No. 15 (Bureau of the Census, 1967). Seasonally adjusted la
bor force data in tables 2 - 7 were last revised in the February 1980 is
sue of the R e v ie w to reflect the preceding year’s experience. Beginning
in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifications in the
seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data
are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X - l l /
ARIMA, which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of
the standard X -ll method. A detailed description of the procedure
appears in T h e X - l l A R I M A S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t M e th o d by Estela
Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, September
1979).
The second change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated
for use during the first 6 months of the year, rather than for the entire
year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-December peri
od. Revisions of historical data continue to be made only at the end of
each calendar year. Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll
data in tables 11, 13, 16, and 18 was last introduced in the November
1979 issue of the R eview . New seasonal factors for productivity data in
tables 33 and 34 are usually introduced in the September issue. Sea
sonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month
and from quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer
and Producer Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes
are not published for the U.S. average All Items CPI. Only seasonally
adjusted percent changes are available for this series.
A d ju s t m e n ts fo r p r ic e c h a n g e s . Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information
published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. The H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis
tic s 1978, Bulletin 2000, provides more detailed data and greater his
torical coverage for most of the statistical series presented in the
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w . More information from the household and es
tablishment surveys is provided in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, a
monthly publication of the Bureau, and in two comprehensive data
books issued annually— E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d S ta te s and
E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, S ta te s a n d A rea s. More detailed informa
tion on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining appears in
the monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e ve lo p m e n ts . More detailed
price information is published each month in the periodicals, the C P I
D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P ric e s a n d P r ic e In d e x es.
A v a ila b ilit y o f in fo r m a tio n .
Symbols
p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series,
preliminary figures are issued based on representative
but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generally this revision reflects the availability
of later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Title and frequency
(monthly except where indicated)
Employment situation...................................... ...........................
Producer Price Indexes................................................................
Consumer Price Index ................................................................
Real earnings ............................................................................
Major collective bargaining settlements (quarterly) ........................
Productivity and costs (quarterly):
Nonfarm business and manufacturing ......................................
Nonfinancial corporations ........................................................
Work stoppages..........................................................................
Labor turnover in manufacturing ..................................................
70
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Release
date
Period
covered
April 4
April 4
April 22
April 22
April 25
March
March
March
March
1st quarter
April 25
1st quarter
April 29
April 30
March
March
Release
date
Period
covered
May 2
May 9
May 23
May 23
April
April
April
April
May 28
May 28
May 30
1st quarter
April
April
MLR table
number
1-11
26-30
22-25
14-20
35-36
31-34
31-34
37
12-13
EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the
Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews
conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 65,000
households beginning in January 1980, selected to represent the
U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are
interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the
sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months.
those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not
working while attending school, those unable to work because of
longterm illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of
personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle.
The n o n in stitH tio n a l p o p u la tio n comprises all persons 16 years of age
and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions,
sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy.
are those employed at least 35 hours a week;
are those who work fewer hours. Workers on parttime schedules for economic reasons (such as slack work, terminating
or starting a job during the week, material shortages, or inability to
find full-time work) are among those counted as being on full-time
status, under the assumption that they would be working full time if
conditions permitted. The survey classifies unemployed persons in
full-time or part-time status by their reported preferences for full-time
or part-time work.
F u ll-t im e w o r k e r s
p a r t-tim e w o r k e r s
Definitions
E m p lo y e d p e r so n s are (1 ) those who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise
and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs
because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A
person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
U n e m p lo y e d p e r so n s are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and
had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new
jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed.
The u n e m p lo y m e n t r a te represents the number unemployed as a
percent of the civilian labor force.
The c iv ilia n la b o r fo r c e consists of all employed or unemployed
persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the to ta l la b o r
fo r c e includes military personnel. Persons n o t in th e la b o r fo r c e are
1.
Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census,
adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These
adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of E m p lo y m e n t
a n d E a rn in g s.
Data in tables 2 - 7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1979.
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-79
[Numbers in thousands]
Total labor force
Year
Total non
institutional
population
Civilian labor force
Employed
Number
Percent of
population
Total
Total
Unemployed
Agriculture
Nonagricultural
industries
Number
Percent of
labor
force
Not in
labor force
1950
1955
1960
1964
1965
..................................................
..............................................
..........................................
......................................
..........................................................
106.645
112.732
119,759
127,224
129,236
63,858
68,072
72,142
75,830
77,178
59.9
60.4
60.2
59.6
59.7
62,208
65,023
69,628
73,091
74,455
58,918
62,170
65,778
69,305
71,088
7,160
6,450
5,458
4,523
4,361
51,758
55,722
60,318
64,782
66,726
3,288
2,852
3,852
3,786
3,366
5.3
4.4
5.5
5.2
4.5
42,787
44,660
47,617
51,394
52,058
1966
1967
1968
1969.
1970
..............................................
..............................................
......................................................
..................................................
..........................................
131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841
140,182
78,893
80,793
82,272
84,240
85,903
60.1
60.6
60.7
61,1
61.3
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
82,715
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
78,627
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
3,462
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
75,165
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4,088
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,280
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..........................................
............................................................
............................................................
......................................
............................................................
142,596
145,775
148,263
150,827
153,449
86,929
88,991
91,040
93,240
94,793
61.0
61.0
61.4
61.8
61.8
84,113
86,542
88,714
91,011
92,613
79,120
81,702
84,409
83,935
84,783
3,387
3,472
3,452
3,492
3,380
75,732
78,230
80,957
82,443
81,403
4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7,830
5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5
55,666
56,785
57,222
57,587
58,655
1976
1977
1978
1979
............................................................
......................................................
....................................................
............................................................
156,048
158,559
161,058
163,620
96,917
99,534
102,537
104,996
62,1
62.8
63.7
64.2
94,773
97,401
100,420
102,908
87,485
90,546
94,373
96,945
3,297
3,244
3,342
3,297
84,188
87,302
91,031
93,648
7,288
6,855
6,047
5,963
7.7
7.0
6.0
5.8
59,130
59,025
58,521
58,623
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
71
M O N T H L Y L A B O R R E V IE W A pril 1980 • C u r r e n t L a b o r S t a t is ti c s : H o u s e h o l d D a t a
2.
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1980
1979
Annual Average
Employment status
Jan.
Feb. r
1978
1979
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
161,058
102,537
158,941
100,420
94,373
3,342
91,031
6.047
6.0
58,521
163,620
104,996
161,532
102,908
96,945
3,297
93,648
5,963
5.8
58,623
162,633
104,473
160,539
102,379
96,496
3,307
93,189
5,883
5.7
58,160
162,909
104,595
160,819
102,505
96,623
3,320
93,303
5,882
5.7
58,314
163,008
104,280
160,926
102,198
96,254
3,215
93,039
5,944
5.8
58,728
163,260
104,476
161,182
102,398
96,495
3,246
93,249
5,903
5.8
58,784
163,469
104,552
161,393
102,476
96,652
3,243
93,409
5,824
5.7
58,917
163,685
105,475
161,604
103,093
97,184
3,267
93,917
5,909
5.7
58,511
163,891
105,218
161,801
103,128
97,004
3,315
93,689
6,124
5.9
58,673
164,106
105,586
162,013
103,494
97,504
3.364
94,140
5,990
5.8
58,519
164,468
105,688
162,375
103,595
97,474
3,294
94,180
6,121
5.9
58,780
164,682
105,744
162,589
103,652
97,608
3,385
94,223
6,044
5.8
58,937
164,898
106,088
162,809
103,999
97,912
3,359
94,553
6,087
5.9
58,810
165,101
106,310
163,020
104,229
97,804
3,270
94,534
6,425
6.2
58,791
165,298
106,346
163,211
104,260
97,953
3,326
94,626
6,307
6.0
58,951
67,006
53,464
51,212
2,361
48,852
2,252
4.2
13,541
68,293
54,486
52,264
2,350
49,913
2,223
4.1
13,807
67,816
54,349
52,211
2,329
49,882
2,138
3.9
13,467
67,939
54,315
52,151
2,350
49,801
2,164
4.0
13,624
67,997
54,239
52,049
2,295
49,754
2,190
4.0
13,758
68,123
54,288
52,158
2,301
49,857
2,130
3.9
13,835
68,227
54,370
52,201
2,305
49,896
2,169
4.0
13,857
68,319
54,579
52,325
2,327
49,998
2,254
4.1
13,740
68,417
54,597
52,311
2,375
49,936
2,286
4.2
13,820
68,522
54,735
52,453
2,377
50,076
2,282
4.2
13,787
68,697
54,760
52,443
2,371
50,072
2,317
4.2
13,937
68,804
54,709
52,374
2,438
49,936
2,335
4.3
14,095
68,940
54,781
52,478
2,427
50,051
2,303
4.2
14,159
69,047
54,855
52,279
2,387
49,892
2,577
4.7
14,192
69,140
55,038
52,531
2,435
50,096
2,507
4.6
14,102
75,489
37,416
35,180
586
34,593
2,236
6.0
38,073
76,860
38,910
36,698
591
36,107
2,213
5.7
37,949
76,332
38,399
36,197
593
35,604
2,202
5.7
37,933
76,476
38,574
36,362
595
35,767
2,212
5.7
37,902
76,532
38,415
36,216
572
35,644
2,199
5.7
38,117
76,670
38,619
36,411
577
35,834
2,208
5.7
38,051
76,784
38,653
36,457
583
35,874
2,196
5.7
38,131
76,897
39,033
36,873
585
36,288
2,160
5.5
37.864
77,006
39,304
37,000
600
36,400
2,304
5.9
37,702
77,124
39,239
37,075
628
36,447
2,164
5.5
37,885
77,308
39,362
37,112
572
36,540
2,250
5.7
37,946
77,426
39,445
37,248
612
36,636
2,197
5.6
37,981
77,542
39,659
37,402
582
36,820
2,257
5.7
37,883
77,656
39,878
37,574
540
37,034
2,304
5.8
37,778
77,766
39,857
37,604
567
37,037
2,254
5.7
37,909
16,447
9,540
7,981
395
7,586
1,559
16.3
6,907
16,379
9,512
7,984
356
7,628
1,528
16.1
6,867
16,391
9,631
8,088
385
7,703
1,543
16.0
6,760
16,404
9,616
8,110
375
7,735
1,506
15.7
6,788
16,397
9,544
7,989
348
7,641
1,555
16.3
6,853
16,389
9,491
7,926
368
7,558
1,565
16.5
6,898
16,381
9,453
7,994
355
7,639
1,459
15.4
6,928
16,387
9,481
7,986
355
7,631
1,495
15.8
6,906
16,377
9,227
7,693
340
7,353
1,534
16.6
7,150
16,367
9,520
7,976
359
7,617
1.544
16.2
6,847
16,370
9,473
7,919
351
7,568
1,554
16.4
6,897
16,360
9,498
7,986
335
7,651
1,512
15.9
6,862
16,326
9,559
8,032
350
7,682
1,527
16.0
6,767
16,317
9,497
7,952
344
7,608
1,545
16.3
6,820
16,305
9,365
7,818
325
7,493
1,547
16.5
6,940
139,580
88,456
83,836
4,620
5.2
51,124
141,614
90,602
86,025
4,577
5.1
51,011
140,825
90,250
85,786
4,464
4.9
50,430
141,063
90,260
85,754
4,506
5.0
50,648
141,123
89,996
85,497
4,499
5.0
51,200
141,331
90,120
85,632
4,488
5.0
51,313
141,492
90,215
85,775
4,440
4.9
51,213
141,661
90,659
86,120
4,539
5.0
51,107
141,822
90,759
85,976
4,783
5.3
51,161
141,981
91,082
86,425
4,657
5.1
50,900
142,296
91,147
86,454
4,693
5.1
51,149
142,461
91,242
86,571
4,671
5.1
51,219
142,645
91,579
86,894
4,685
5.1
51,066
19,361
11,964
10,537
1,427
11.9
7,397
19,918
12,306
10,920
1,386
11.3
7,612
19,714
12,177
10,746
1,431
11.8
7,486
19,755
12,238
10,860
1,378
11.3
7,504
19,802
12,191
10,767
1,424
11.7
7,627
19,850
12,219
10,816
1,403
11.5
7,674
19,901
12,260
10,887
1,373
11.2
7,629
19,943
12,386
11,023
1,363
11.0
7,579
19,979
12,343
10,982
1,361
11.0
7,639
20,032
12,404
11,063
1,341
108
7,264
20,079
12,512
11,076
1,436
11.5
7,567
20,128
12,391
11,044
1,347
10.9
7,737
20,163
12,432
11,024
1,408
11.3
7,731
TOTAL
Total noninstitutional population1 ..........................
T o t a l labor force
......................................
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ................................
Employed ......................................
Agriculture ..............................
Nonagricultural industries ........
Unemployed ..................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Not in labor force ..................................
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population' ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Both sexes, 16 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
White
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not In labor force ........................................
142,806 142,951
91,852 91,977
86,895 87,081
4,957
4,896
5.4
5.3
50,954 50,975
Black and other
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not In labor force ........................................
1As in table 1, population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
NOTE: The data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979.
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20,214
12,453
10,979
1,474
11.8
7,761
20,261
12,362
10,937
1,424
11.5
7,899
3.
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[ In thousands]
Annual average
1979
Selected categories
1980
1978
1979
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
94,373
55,491
38,882
38.688
21,881
96,945
56,499
40,446
39,090
22,724
96,496
56.476
40,020
39,291
22.522
96,623
56,449
40,174
39,193
22,605
96,254
56,294
39,960
38,910
22,376
96,495
56,372
40,123
39,045
22,547
96,652
56,477
40,175
39,079
22,664
97,184
56,570
40,614
39,176
22,908
97,004
56,408
40,596
39,180
22,869
97,504
56,714
40,790
39,198
22,937
97,474
56,629
40.845
39,124
22,919
97,608
56,580
41,028
38,845
22,940
97,912
56,734
41,178
38.924
23.027
97,804
56,486
41,318
38,749
23,111
97,953
56,732
41,221
38,955
23,178
47,205
14,245
49,342
15,050
48,836
14,950
48,996
15,012
49,061
15,091
49,136
15.100
49,192
15,010
49,536
15,057
49,663
15,068
49,816
15,141
49,738
15,057
49,912
15,131
49,911
15,272
50,313
15.337
50,448
15,444
10,105
5,951
16.904
31,531
12,386
10,875
3,541
4,729
12,839
2,798
10,516
6,163
17,613
32,066
12,880
10,909
3,612
4,665
12,834
2.703
10,379
6,090
17.417
32,176
12,898
10,901
3,602
4,775
12,804
2.746
10,392
6,055
17,537
32,041
12,792
10,991
3,569
4,689
12.847
2,774
10,398
6.084
17,488
31,705
12.703
10,770
3,564
4,668
12.907
2,659
10,427
6,101
17,508
31,904
12,820
10,755
3.644
4,685
12,772
2,628
10,534
6,103
17,545
31,992
12,944
10,804
3,605
4,639
12,805
2,679
10,612
6,163
17,704
32,051
12,876
10.884
3,627
4,664
12,766
2.678
10,698
6,145
17.752
31,849
12.761
10,909
3.604
4,575
12,621
2,707
10,659
6,181
17,835
32,209
12,993
10,964
3,617
4.635
12,859
2,722
10,639
6,261
17,781
32,205
13,001
10,967
3,593
4,644
12,937
2,695
10,617
6,362
17,802
32,110
12,925
10,963
3,628
4,594
12,899
2,718
10,535
6,346
17,758
32,302
13.041
11,0423,635
4,584
12,970
2,694
10,608
6.452
17.915
31.882
12,814
10.678
3,616
4,774
12,979
2,660
10.971
6.185
17,848
31,754
12,728
10,661
3,571
4.795
13.080
2,764
1.419
1,607
316
1.413
1,580
304
1,425
1,558
334
1,415
1,583
314
1,379
1,553
291
1,424
1,519
283
1.423
1,539
291
1,419
1,558
291
1,384
1,614
310
1.399
1.642
325
1,381
1.602
313
1,475
1,622
310
1,451
1,596
310
1,428
1.554
293
1,417
1,648
283
84,253
15,289
68.966
1,363
67,603
6,305
■ 472
86,540
15,369
71,171
1,240
69,931
6,652
455
86,192
15,322
70,870
1.328
69,542
6.591
455
86,439
15,281
71,158
1.262
69,896
6,542
446
86,105
15,359
70,746
1,172
69,574
6.463
465
86,232
15,616
70,616
1,195
69,421
6,608
460
86,309
15,318
70,991
1.235
69,756
6,629
474
86,454
15.393
71,061
1,219
69,842
6,752
519
86,421
15,279
71,142
1,211
69,931
6,689
450
86.912
15.407
71,505
1,313
70,192
6,731
449
86,982
15,423
71.559
1,261
70,298
6,812
430
87,020
15,358
71,662
1,211
70.451
6,781
417
87,384
15,397
71,987
1.228
70,759
6,737
409
87,578
15.414
72,163
1,132
71,031
6,752
379
87,419
15,540
71,879
1,178
70.702
6.899
397
85,693
70,543
3,216
1,249
1,967
11,934
88,133
72,647
3.281
1,325
1,956
12,205
87,543
72,212
3,176
1.246
1,930
12,155
87,847
72,529
3,211
1,254
1.957
12.107
86,608
71,659
3,279
1,287
1,992
11,670
87,785
72,496
3,283
1,273
2,010
12,006
87,749
72,243
3,284
1,322
1.962
12,222
88,769
72,915
3.274
1.334
1.940
12,580
88,855
73.053
3,298
1,401
1,897
12,504
88,723
73.159
3,167
1,273
1,894
12,397
88,638
73,204
3,315
1.354
1,961
12.119
88,617
72,997
3,392
1.413
1,979
12,228
89.180
73,137
3,519
1,491
2.028
12,524
89,454
73,223
3,513
1,549
1,964
12,718
88.985
73,110
3,406
1.380
2,026
12,469
CHARACTERISTIC
Total employed, 16 years and over ......................
M e n ......................................
Women..............................................
Married men, spouse present ....................
Married women, spouse present ................
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers..................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ............................................
Salesworkers................................................
Clerical workers............................................
Blue-collar workers............................
.Craft and kindred workers ..........................
Operatives, except transport..........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers....................................
Service workers..................................
Farmworkers ........................
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Self-employed workers............................
Unpaid family workers ..........................
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Government ..........................................
Private industries....................................
Private households..........................
Other industries ..............................
Self-employed workers......................
Unpaid family workers ................
PERSONS AT WORK 1
Nonagricultural industries..............
Full-time schedules ............................
Part time for economic reasons......................
Usually work full time......................
Usually work part tim e............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons................
Excludes persons with a job but not at work during the survey period for such reasons as
vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: The data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979
73
M O N T H L Y L A B O R R E V IE W A pril 1980 • C u r r e n t L a b o r S t a t is ti c s : H o u s e h o l d D a t a
4.
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
1930
1979
Annual average
Employment status
1978
1979
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Total, 16 years and over......................................
Men, 20 years and over................................
Women, 20 years and over ..........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ............................
6.0
4.2
6.0
16.3
5.8
4.1
5.7
16.1
5.7
3.9
5.7
16.0
5.7
4.0
5.7
15.7
5.8
4.0
5.7
16.3
5.8
3.9
5.7
16.5
5.7
4.0
5.7
15.4
5.7
4.1
5.5
15.8
5.9
4.2
5.9
16.6
5.8
4.2
5.5
16.2
5.9
4.2
5.7
16.4
5.8
4.3
5.6
15.9
5.9
4.2
5.7
16.0
6.2
4.7
5.8
16.3
6.0
4.6
5.7
16.5
White, total ..................................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................
5.2
3.7
5.2
13.9
5.1
3.6
5.0
13.9
4.9
3.4
5.0
13.6
5.0
3.4
5.0
13.6
5.0
3.5
5.0
13.9
5.0
3.4
5.0
14.2
4.9
3.5
4.9
13.2
5.0
3.6
4.8
13.8
5.3
3.7
5.2
14.8
5.1
3.7
4.8
14.3
5.1
3.7
5.0
14.1
5.1
3.7
4.9
13.9
5.1
3.7
5.0
13.9
5.4
4.1
5.1
14.0
5.3
4.0
5.2
13.8
Black and other, total....................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................
11.9
8.6
10.6
36.3
11.3
8.4
10.1
33.5
11.8
8.6
10.4
34,9
11.3
8.7
10.0
31.5
11.7
8.6
10.5
34.3
11.5
8.4
10.0
36.1
11.2
8.1
10.4
33.5
11.0
8.4
10.0
31.5
11.0
8.1
10.3
32.6
10.8
8.0
9.8
32.3
11.5
8.6
10.2
35.1
10.9
8.4
9.5
32.8
11.3
8.6
10.0
34.3
11.8
9.6
10.0
34.6
11.5
9.2
9.0
37.9
Married men, spouse present........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who head families............................
Full-time workers..........................................
Part-time workers ........................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................
Labor force time lost1 ..................................
2.8
5.5
8.5
5.5
9.0
1.4
6.5
2.7
5.1
8.3
5.3
8.7
1.2
6.3
2.6
5.3
8.3
5.2
8.8
1.2
6.2
2.6
5.2
8.2
5.2
9.0
1.3
6.2
2.7
5.2
8.3
5.3
8.7
1.2
6.4
2.5
5.2
8.6
5.2
9.3
1.2
6.3
2.7
5.1
9.0
5.2
8.6
1.1
6.3
2.8
4.9
8.1
5.3
8.3
1.0
6.4
2.9
5.3
7.9
5.4
8.8
1.1
6.4
2.9
4.8
7.7
5.3
8.4
1.1
6.2
2.9
5.2
8.4
5.4
8.9
1.2
6.4
2.9
4.8
8.4
5.4
8.3
1.1
6.4
2.8
5.0
8.4
5.4
8.5
1.2
6.4
3.4
5.2
9.2
5.7
8.7
1.3
6.7
3.1
5.4
8.5
5.6
8.9
1.2
6.6
3.5
2.6
3.3
2.4
3.4
2.4
3.3
2.2
3.3
2.3
3.2
2.1
3.4
2.5
3.3
2.5
3.5
2.5
3.3
2.4
3.4
2.7
3.2
2.4
3.3
2.3
3.4
2.2
3.4
2.3
2.1
4.1
4.9
6.9
4.6
8.1
5.2
10.7
7.4
3.8
2.1
3.9
4.6
6.9
4.5
8.4
5.4
10.8
7.1
3.8
2.0
4.2
4.7
6.5
4.5
7.8
5.0
9.7
7.3
3.4
2.1
4.1
4.8
6.6
4.5
7.8
5.2
10.2
7.3
3.3
2.3
4.0
4.5
6.9
4.4
8.5
5.9
10.6
7.3
3.4
2.2
4.0
4.5
6.8
4.2
8.2
5.4
11.1
7.2
3.6
2.1
4.4
4.6
6.6
4.3
7.7
5.7
10.6
7.2
3.2
2.0
3.5
4.5
6.8
4.4
8.3
5.1
11.0
7.1
4.2
2.3
4.0
4.9
7.3
4.7
8.9
6.2
11.3
7.1
3.9
2.2
3.8
4.5
7.1
4.3
9.0
6.1
11.0
6.7
4.1
2.2
3.8
4.7
7.2
4.6
9.1
5.6
1.0.7
6.8
4.3
1.9
3.7
4.4
7.5
4.9
9.0
5.2
12.2
6.6
4.5
2.0
3.8
4.6
7.2
4.4
9.0
5.0
12.2
6.6
4.3
1.9
4.4
4.8
8.0
4.9
9.9
6.9
12.3
6.9
4.4
2.2
4.5
4.7
7.7
4.8
9.2
6.7
12.0
6.9
3.9
5.9
10.6
5.5
4.9
6.3
3.7
6.9
5.1
3.9
8.8
5.7
10.2
5.5
5.0
6.4
3.7
6.5
4,9
3.7
9.1
5.6
10.9
4.9
4.2
5.9
3.2
6.5
4.8
3.8
8.6
5.6
10.1
5.2
4.4
6.4
3.9
6.3
4.8
4.1
8.0
5.7
10.5
5.3
4.7
6.3
3.0
6.6
4.8
3.7
8.7
5.7
10.0
5.4
4.4
6.9
3.6
6.4
4.9
3.6
9.3
5.6
10.0
5.4
4.9
6.3
3.1
6.7
4.7
3.6
7.8
5.7
10.0
5.7
5.4
6.2
3.8
6.3
4.9
3.6
9.7
6.0
10.1
5.9
5.4
6.8
3.7
6.5
5.2
3.7
9.9
5.8
9.6
6.0
5.3
7.1
4.0
6.4
4.7
3.3
10.0
5.9
9.9
6.0
5.5
6.8
3.8
6.4
4.9
4.0
9.9
5.8
10.2
5.9
5.6
6.3
4.2
6.5
4.6
3.6
10.1
5.8
10.3
5.9
5,5
6.4
4.1
6.4
4.7
3.6
9.4
6.2
10.8
6.7
6.7
6.8
4.4
6.6
4.6
3.8
10.3
6.0
10.5
6.4
6.3
6.7
4.4
6.4
4.6
4.0
9.2
CHARACTERISTIC
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers ..........................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
Salesworkers ..............................................
Clerical workers ..........................................
Blue-collar workers ............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport ........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers ........................................
Service workers..................................................
Farmworkers......................................................
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers2
Construction ................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Durable goods ......................................
Nondurable goods..................................
Transportation and public utilities ..................
Wholesale and retail trade............................
Finance and service industries ......................
Government workers ..........................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers ..................
' Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.
74
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 Includes mining, not shown separately,
NOTE: The data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979.
5.
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted
Annual average
Sex and age
1979
1980
1978
1979
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Total, 16 years and over......................................
16 to 19 years ............................................
16 to 17 years ......................................
18 to 19 years ................................
20 to 24 years ............................................
25 years and over ........................................
25 to 54 years ......................................
55 years and over..................................
6.0
16.3
19.3
14.2
9.5
4.0
4.2
3.2
5.8
16.1
18.1
14.6
9.0
3.9
4.1
3.0
5.7
16.0
18.5
14.3
8.6
3.9
4.1
3.0
5.7
15.7
18.5
13.5
8.8
3.9
4,1
3.1
5.8
16.3
18.7
14.3
8.6
4.0
4.2
3.1
5.8
16.5
18.9
15.0
8.9
3.9
4.0
3.1
5.7
15.4
17.5
14.4
8.9
3.9
4.1
2.9
5.7
15.8
17.3
14.5
9.1
3.9
4.0
3.2
5.9
16.6
18.5
15.4
9.3
4.0
4.2
3.1
5.8
16.2
16.9
15.6
9.2
3.9
4.1
2.9
5.9
16.4
18.4
15.0
9.6
4.0
4.2
3.0
5.8
15.9
17.3
14.7
8.8
4.0
4.3
2.7
5.9
16.0
18.0
14.5
9.8
3.8
4.1
2.7
6.2
16.3
190
14.0
10.1
4.2
4.4
3.5
6.0
16.5
18.7
15.1
9.5
4.1
4.5
2.8
Men, 16 years and over................................
16 to 19 years ......................................
16 to 17 years................................
18 to 19 years................................
20 to 24 years ......................................
25 years and over..................................
25 to 54 years................................
55 years and over ..........................
5.2
15.7
19.2
13.2
9,1
3.3
3.4
3.1
5.1
15.8
17.9
14.2
8.6
3.3
3.4
2.9
5.0
16.1
19.2
14.2
8.1
3.2
3.3
2.8
5.0
15.8
18.9
13.6
8.3
3.2
3.3
2.8
5.1
16.0
17.9
14.1
8.0
3.3
3.3
3.0
5.0
16.1
18.9
14.0
8.2
3.1
3.2
2.8
4.9
14.5
16.8
14.0
8.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
5.1
15.4
16.1
14.8
8.8
3.3
3.4
3.3
5.2
16.3
18.0
15.1
8.8
3.4
3.5
3.1
5.2
16.1
16.7
15.3
8.8
3.3
3.6
28
5.2
15.7
17.1
14.4
* 9.5
3.4
3.5
2.8
5.2
15.8
17.8
14.0
8.4
3.5
3.8
2.6
5.2
15.6
17.9
13.6
9.4
3.2
3.4
2.6
5.7
16.2
. 19.0
13.9
10.4
3.7
3.8
3.5
5.5
15.6
18.0
14.1
9.9
3.6
3.8
2.6
Women, 16 years and over ..........................
16 to 19 years ..................................
16 to 17 years................................
18 to 19 years................................
20 to 24 years ......................................
25 years and over ..................................
25 to 54 years................................
55 years and over ..........................
7.2
17.0
19.5
15.3
10.1
5.1
5.4
3.3
6.8
16.4
18.3
15.0
9.6
4.8
5.2
3.2
6.8
15.9
17.7
14.5
9.3
5.0
5.4
3.3
6.8
15.5
18.0
133
9.5
4.9
5.3
3.6
6.9
16.6
19.6
14.5
9.4
4.9
5.3
3.2
6.9
16.9
18.8
16.0
9.7
4.9
5.2
3.6
6.8
16.5
18.3
149
9.7
4.8
5.2
2.8
6.6
16.2
18.6
14.2
9.4
4.7
5.0
3.1
7.0
17.0
19.0
15.7
9.8
4.9
5.3
3.2
6.6
16.4
17.2
15.9
9.6
4.6
5.0
29
6.9
17.2
19.8
15.6
9.7
4.9
5.2
3.4
6.6
• 16.1
16.7
15.5
9.3
4.7
5.0
2.9
6.8
16.4
18.0
15.5
10.2
4.7
5.1
2.9
6.8
16.3
19.1
14.2
9.8
4.9
5.2
3.4
6.8
17.6
19.5
16.2
9.1
4.9
5.4
3.0
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
6.
j
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1979
Reason for unemployment
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
1980
Feb.
*
NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Lost astjob ................................................
On layoff ..............................................
Other job losers ..............................................
Left last jo b ................................................
Reentered labor force ..........................
Seeking first jo b ................................
2,475
779
1,696
828
1,766
858
2,457
791
1,666
864
1,766
808
2,520
839
1,681
847
1,778
800
2,356
725
1,631
940
1,767
824
2,449
816
1,633
857
1,753
781
2,526
797
1,729
846
1,762
726
2,680
915
1,765
875
1,788
745
2,632
855
1,777
825
1,760
801
2,731
929
1,802
835
1,762
804
2,729
987
1,742
845
1,698
736
2,728
944
1,784
800
1,771
858
2,988
1,019
1,969
779
1,797
811
2,907
1,031
1,876
813
1,784
827
100.0
41.8
13.1
28.6
14.0
298
14.5
10C.0
41.7
13.4
28.3
14.7
30.0
13.7
100.0
42.4
14.1
28.3
14.2
29,9
13.5
100,0
40.0
12.3
27.7
16.0
30.0
14.0
100.0
41.9
14.0
280
14.7
30.0
13.4
100.0
43.1
13.6
295
14.4
30.1
12.4
100.0
44.0
15.0
29.0
14.4
29.4
12.2
100.0
43.7
14.2
29.5
13.7
29.2
13.3
100.0
44.5
15.2
29.4
13.6
28.7
13.1
100.0
45.4
16.4
29.0
14.1
28.3
12.3
100,0
44.3
15.3
29.0
13.0
28.8
13.9
100.0
46.9
16.0
30.9
12.2
28.2
12.7
100.0
45.9
16.3
296
12.8
28.2
13.1
2.4
.8
1.7
.8
2.4
.8
1.7
.8
2.5
.8
1.7
.8
2.3
.9
1.7
8
2.4
.8
1.7
.8
2.5
.8
1.7
.7
2.6
.8
1.7
.7
2.5
.8
1.7
.8
2.6
.8
1.7
8
2.6
8
1.6
.7
2.6
.8
1.7
.8
2.9
.7
1.7
■8
2.8
,8
1.7
.8
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed ..........................
Job losers................................
On layoff ......................................
Other job losers ......................
Job leavers ..............................
Reentrants ......................................
New entrants................................
UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF
THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers............................
Job leavers....................................
Reentrants ..................................
New entrants..........................................
7.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Weeks of unemployment
Annual average
1978
Less than 5 weeks................................
5 to 14 weeks ............................................
15 weeks and over ............................................
15 to 26 weeks............................................
27 weeks and over ................................
Average (mean) duration, in weeks......................
2,793
1,875
1,379
746
633
11.9
1979
2,869
1,892
1,202
684
518
10.8
1979
1980
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
2,779
1,877
1,239
700
539
11.3
2,769
1,860
1,291
729
562
11.8
2,876
1,884
1,223
687
536
11.0
2,823
1,919
1,212
705
507
10.9
2,880
1,808
1,152
656
496
10.5
2,820
1,934
1,067
615
452
10.1
3,168
1,738
1,185
658
527
10.7
2,778
2,035
1,152
644
508
10.7
2,955
1,963
1,195
678
517
10.5
2,919
1,869
1,191
660
531
10.6
2,916
1,966
1,230
711
519
10.5
3,184
1,907
1,334
795
539
10.5
2,995
2,081
1,286
790
496
10.7
NOTE: The data in these tables have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
75
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS
E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun
tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat
ing State agencies by 162,000 establishments representing all
industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling
probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab
lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others
not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the
survey because they are excluded from establishment records.
This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures
between the household ancl establishment surveys.
L a b o r t u r n o v e r d a t a in this section are compiled from per
sonnel records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies.
A sample of 40,000 establishments represents all industries in
the manufacturing and mining sectors of the economy.
Bureau of Labor Statistics computes spendable earnings from gross
weekly earnings for only two illustrative cases: (1) a worker with no
dependents and (2) a married worker with three dependents.
H o u r s represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. O v e r tim e h o u rs represent the por
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.
L a b o r tu r n o v e r is the movement of all wage and salary workers
from one employment status to another. A c c e s s io n r a te s indicate the
average number of persons added to a payroll in a given period per
100 employees; s e p a r a tio n r a te s indicate the average number dropped
from a payroll per 100 employees. Although month-to-month changes
in employment can be calculated from the labor turnover data, the re
sults are not comparable with employment data from the employment
and payroll survey. The labor turnover survey measures changes dur
ing the calendar month while the employment and payroll survey
measures changes from midmonth to midmonth.
Notes on the data
Definitions
E m p lo y e d p e r so n s
day and sick pay)
12th of the month.
cent of all persons
ment which reports
are all persons who received pay (including holi
for any part of the payroll period including the
Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per
in the labor force) are counted in each establish
them.
P r o d u c tio n w o r k e r s in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 14-20 in
clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction
workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta
tion and public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in finance, in
surance, and real estate, and in service industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
E a r n in g s are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
payments. R e a l e a r n in g s are earnings adjusted to eliminate the effects
of price change. The H o u r ly E a r n in g s I n d e x is calculated from aver
age hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types
of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments:
fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector
for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries. S p e n d a b le e a r n in g s are earnings from which estimat
ed social security and Federal income taxes have been deducted. The
76
j
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the re
lease of September 1979 data, published in the November 1979 issue of
the R ev ie w . Consequently, data published in the R e v ie w prior to that
issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Complete compa
rable historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published
in a Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from
April 1977 through June 1979 and seasonally adjusted data from Jan
uary 1974 through June 1979) and in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n it
e d S ta tes , 1 9 0 9 - 7 8 , BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
Data on recalls were shown for the first time in tables 12 and 13 in
the January 1978 issue of the R eview . For a detailed discussion of the
recalls series, along with historical data, see “New Series on Recalls
from the Labor Turnover Survey,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, Decem
ber 1977, pp. 10-19.
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur
veys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , December 1969, pp. 9-2 0 . See also
B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1976).
The formulas used to construct the spendable average weekly earn
ings series reflect the latest provisions of the Federal income tax and
social security tax laws. For the spendable average weekly earnings
formulas for the years 1978-80, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s,
March 1980, pp. 10-11. Real earnings data are adjusted using the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W).
8.
Employment by industry, 1950-79
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
Total
Mining
Construc
tion
Manufac
turing
Trans
portation
and
public
utilities
Whole
sale
and
retail
trade
Wholesale
trade
Retail
trade
Government
Finance,
insur
ance,
and real
estate
Services
Total
Federal
State
and local
1950
45,197
901
2,364
15,241
4,034
9,386
2,635
6,751
1,888
5,357
6,026
1,928
4,098
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
47,819
48,793
50,202
48,990
50,641
929
898
866
791
792
2,637
2,668
2,659
2,646
2,839
16,393
16,632
17,549
16,314
16,882
4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141
9,742
10,004
10,247
10,235
10,535
2,727
2,812
2,854
2,867
2,926
7,015
7,192
7,393
7,368
7,610
1,956
2,035
2,111
2,200
2,298
5,547
5,699
5,835
5,969
6,240
6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914
2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2.187
4,087
4,188
4,340
4,563
4,727
1956
1957
1958
1959’
1960
52,369
52,853
51,324
53,268
54,189
822
828
751
732
712
3,039
2,962
2,817
3,004
2,926
17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796
4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004
10,858
10,886
10,750
11,127
11,391
3,018
3,028
2,980
3,082
3,143
7,840
7,858
7,770
8,045
8,248
2,389
2,438
2,481
2,549
2,629
6,497
6,708
6,765
7,087
7,378
7,278
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353
2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270
5,069
5,399
5,648
5,850
6,083
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
53,999
55,549
56,653
58,283
60,765
672
650
635
634
632
2,859
2,948
3,010
3,097
3,232
16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18,062
3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4,036
11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716
3,133
3,198
3,248
3,337
3,466
8.204
8,368
8,530
8,823
9,250
2,688
2,754
2,830
2,911
2,977
7,620
7,982
8,277
8,660
9,036
8,594
8,890
9,225
9,596
10,074
2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378
6,315
6,550
6,868
7,248
7,696
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880
627
613
606
619
623
3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588
19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367
4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515
13,245
13,606
14,099
14,705
15,040
3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993
9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047
3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645
9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548
10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554
2,564
2,719
2,737
2.758
2,731
8,220
8,672
9.102
9,437
9,823
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945
609
628
642
697
752
3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525
18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323
4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542
15,352
15,949
16,607
16,987
17,060
4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415
11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645
3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165
11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892
12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686
2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748
10,185
10,649
11,068
11,446
11,937
1976 .
1977
1978 .
1979 .
79,382
82,423
86,446
89,482
779
813
851
957
3,576
3,851
4,271
4,644
18,997
19,682
20,476
20,972
4,582
4,713
4,927
5,154
17,755
18,516
19,499
20,137
4,546
4,708
4,957
5,170
13,209
13,808
14,542
14,966
4,271
4,467
4,727
4,963
14,551
15,303
16,220
17,043
14,871
15,079
15,476
15,612
2,733
2,727
2.753
2,773
12,138
12,352
12,723
12,839
'Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
9.
Employment by State
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
State
Jan. 1979
Dec. 1979
Jan. 1980”
Alabama1 ............
Alaska..................
Arizona ' ..............
Arkansas' ............
California’ ............
1,339.8
152.7
937.9
722.0
9,380.4
1,378.2
157.7
1,010.7
757.8
9,886.9
1,360.8
NA
997.2
745.3
9,726.2
Colorado' ............
Connecticut ..........
Delaware’ ............
District of Columbia ’
Florida'................
1,171.7
1,366.9
247.6
601.5
3,307,9
1,254.9
1,431.5
261.8
624.1
3,511.2
Georgia' ..............
Hawaii..................
Idaho....................
Illinois ' ................
Indiana'................
2,075.7
3835
325.3
4,679.3
2,210.0
Iowa ’ ..................
Kansas’ ..............
Kentucky’ ............
Louisiana' ............
Maine ' ................
Maryland..............
Massachusetts
Michigan1 ............
Minnesota ............
Mississippi ’ ..........
Missouri’ ..............
State
Jan. 1979
Dec. 1979
Jan. 1980”
Montana..................................................
Nebraska'........................................
Nevada’ ..................................
New Hampshire ..............................
New Jersey ..............................
2689
604.8
359.9
3632
2,951.4
288.7
632.3
394.7
386.9
3,064.5
278 1
616.3
387.1
NA
2,993.9
1,237.0
1,402,7
253.2
611.0
3,508.6
New Mexico' ......................................
New York1 ......................................
North Carolina ’ ............................
North Dakota ......................................
Ohio1 ........................................................
446.2
6,992.8
2,326.0
230.6
4,393.4
476.3
7,271.6
2.4328
247.3
4,534.3
469.0
7,087.9
2,404.6
240.2
4,415.3
2,147.3
407.4
339.8
4,976.9
2,2626
2,121.8
405.2
330.7
4,674.8
2,208.7
Oklahoma' ..............................................
Oregon' ............................................
Pennsylvania' ....................................
Rhode Island' ......................................
South Carolina' ..................................................
1,047.8
1,005.0
4,695.6
3895
1,144.9
1,122.1
1,065.2
4.882.5
4047
1,197.6
1,105.8
1,046.4
4,789.5
391.7
1,184.1
1,098.6
914.2
1,211.5
1,471.7
398.1
1,141.8
967.6
1,262 5
1,525.8
418.7
1.116.4
944.9
1.236 4
1,512.1
406.7
South Dakota......................................
Tennessee' ..................................
Texas1 ......................................
Utah ........................................
.
Vermont......................................
230.6
1,731.2
5,406.6
530.6
191.2
239.8
1,810.6
5,754,9
574.3
202.7
233.6
1,775.6
5,725.2
561.1
199.1
1,580.8
2,519.5
3,611.3
1,683.0
818.4
1,941.6
1,645.8
2,6256
3,626.3
1,790.1
850.3
2,0140
1,604.0
2,578.6
3,507.8
NA
835.9
1,963.5
Virginia................................
Washington' ..................................
West Virginia' ............................
Wisconsin'..............................
Wyoming ..........................................
2,052.9
1,496.6
6266
1,872.4
185.8
2,128.1
1,616.0
659.7
2,011.7
212.5
2,098.0
1.589.0
633.6
1,952.3
2090
1Revised series; not strictly comparable with previously published data.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
77
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1980
1979
Annual average
Industry division and group
TOTAL
MINING ............................................................
CONSTRUCTION
1978
1979
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.p
Feb.p
86,446
89,482
87,331
88,207
88,820
89,671
90,541
89,618
89,673
90,211
90,678
90,902
91,009
89,225
89,301
986
980
982
984
984
985
987
851
957
915
926
932
944
968
976
4,271
4,644
3,957
4,226
4,413
4,662
4,881
4,993
5,048
4,984
4,976
4,879
4,711
4,350
4,287
21,192
15,172
21,094
15,082
20,966
14,954
20,902
14,891
20,692
14,654
20,658
14,649
MANUFACTURING
Production workers ......................................
20,476
14,714
20,972
15,010
20,775
14,908
20,887
14,993
20,907
15,002
20,988
15,061
21,234
15,240
20,965
14,946
20,996
14,960
Durable goods
Production workers ......................................
12,246
8,786
12,690
9,053
12,579
9,018
12,664
9,081
12,697
9,105
12,739
9,129
12,877
9,223
12,712
9,031
12,598
8,907
12,805
9,116
12,737
9,058
12,661
8,983
12,649
8,971
12,524
8,810
12,528
8,825
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ....................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
Machinery, except electrical..........................
Electric and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
752.4
491.1
698.0
1,212.7
1,673.4
2,319.2
1,999.5
1,991.7
653.5
454.0
758.4
487.3
710.8
1,243.9
1,727.2
2,462.5
2,108.7
2,048.3
690.4
452.4
737.7
495.2
680.6
1,244.8
1,715.6
2,446.4
2,071.0
2,062.7
680.2
444.8
745.5
491.8
697.2
1,251.1
1,719.8
2,459.5
2,082.6
2,083.9
683.2
449.0
748.8
487.8
706.6
1,259.0
1,723.7
2,468.0
2,086.1
2,082.2
686.5
448.0
763.8
483.9
718.6
1,258.6
1,727.8
2,463.6
2,095.2
2,091.8
686.5
448.9
783.2
484.2
733.1
1,274.3
1,749.0
2,491.2
2,128.2
2,077.9
698.8
457.4
776.8
475.5
727.1
1,260.7
1,715.7
2,485.1
2,111.7
2,027.7
692.9
438.6
780.0
483.5
728.2
1,244.5
1,716.1
2,467.1
2,089.5
1,933.2
695.3
460.6
776.3
485.3
723.6
1,244.3
1,735.3
2,496.4
2,136.1
2,051.0
692.7
463.8
771.3
487.6
721.0
1,225.1
1,738.3
2,447.2
2,143.7
2,040.9
695.4
466.9
748.9
488.7
712.9
1,216.7
1,738.2
2,440.9
2,146.3
2,009.7
695.9
462.8
729.2
486.9
699.6
1,204.4
1,730.4
2,455.8
2,153.1
2,043.4
699.8
446.4
704.2
484.0
679.9
1,199.7
1,702.5
2,507.2
2,144.9
1,965.0
699.2
436.9
698.1
480.0
676.3
1,199.2
1,703.0
2,509.9
2,138.9
1,985.5
700.3
437.1
8,230
5,928
8,283
5,957
8,196
5,890
8,223
5,912
8,210
5,897
8,249
5,932
8,357
6,017
8,253
5,915
8,398
6,053
8,387
6,056
8,357
6,024
8,305
5,971
8,253
5,920
8,168
5,844
8,130
5,824
1,721.2
69.6
900.2
1,332.5
700.9
1,193.1
1,096.3
208.7
751.9
255.6
1,716.3
66.2
891.9
1,313.1
714.1
1,242.9
1,112.7
213.8
767.5
243.8
1,658.1
66.4
896.4
1,320.6
703.4
1,225.7
1,099.7
206.4
773.8
245.1
1,666.9
64.4
894.4
1,326.6
708.8
1,229.5
1,103.9
208.3
774.4
245.7
1,657.3
62.5
890.4
1,323.7
710.8
1,231.0
1,106.7
210.8
772.0
245.1
1,669.6
61.9
892.5
1,327.5
712.7
1,234.7
1,110.9
212.9
777.0
249.2
1,716.6
62.1
900.4
1,333.1
724.6
1,243.4
1,126.6
216.8
779.4
253.7
1,737.8
62.1
875.5
1,278.7
719.6
1,245.8
1,123.0
218.0
767.4
224.7
1,810.0
69.0
890.4
1,308.9
723.3
1,245.4
1,121.2
218.3
765.8
245.8
1,814.1
72.2
888.9
1,309.1
718.5
1,246.1
1,114.9
218.1
762.0
243.1
1,766.8
71.9
889.8
1,317.0
717.7
1,254.5
1,115.0
218.1
762.6
243.1
1,725.0
64.8
893.9
1,306.2
715.9
1,265.6
1,115.2
217.2
757.6
243.2
1,695.9
66.7
893.5
1,292.0
714.0
1,272.0
1,115.6
214.9
747.5
240.7
1,650.1
65.0
886.7
1,282.3
712.2
1,266.9
1,113.1
213.3
742.4
235.8
1,639.1
63.9
888.3
1,300.7
710.2
1,275.2
1,111.9
163.6
738.1
239.4
4,927
5,154
5,028
5,060
4,989
5,125
5,231
5,200
5,210
5,242
5,244
5,255
5,254
5,144
5,130
19,499
20,137
19,548
19,690
19,957
20,119
20,222
20,118
20,137
20,260
20,314
20,580
20,932
20,192
20,025
5,211
5,208
5,211
5,206
5,235
5,251
5,234
5,206
5,215
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures ................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products ................
Printing and publishing..................................
Chemicals and allied products ......................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
4,957
5,170
5,067
5,098
5,112
5,146
14,542
14,966
14,481
14,592
14,845
14,973
15,011
14,910
14,926
15,054
15,079
15,329
15,698
14,986
14,810
4,727
4,963
4,845
4,870
4,900
4,936
5,003
5,032
5,053
5,002
5,013
5,029
5,041
5,042
5,046
SERVICES
16,220
17,043
16,545
16,749
16,897
17,039
17,239
17,314
17,312
17,225
17,292
17,281
17,270
17,084
17,247
GOVERNMENT
Federal........................................................
State and local ............................................
15,476
2,753
12,723
15,612
2,773
12,839
15,718
2,738
12,980
15,799
2,740
13,059
15,825
2,750
13,075
15,858
2,773
13,085
15,763
2,824
12,939
15,020
2,838
12,182
14,931
2,844
12,087
15,326
2,751
12,575
15,763
2,756
13,007
15,928
2,760
13,168
15,915
2,770
13,145
15,736
2,763
12,973
15,921
2,771
13,150
WHOLESALE TRADE
RETAIL TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands]
1979
Industry division and group
1980
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.p
Feb.p
88,700
89,039
89,036
89,398
89,626
89,713
89,762
89,803
89,982
90,100
90,241
90,590
90,731
937
940
940
944
949
956
968
973
979
983
991
1,003
1,010
4,486
4,614
4,559
4,648
4,662
4,688
4,674
4,671
4,694
4,714
4,783
4,893
4,861
21,025
15,128
21,073
15,153
21,066
15,134
21,059
15,112
21,063
15,096
21,079
15,090
20,957
14,956
20,949
14,957
20,899
14,894
20,836
14,829
20,881
14,865
20,882
14,824
20,900
14,862
12,715
9,138
12,751
9,158
12,752
9,146
12,739
9,119
12,760
9,123
12,786
9,124
12,714
9,044
12,737
9,066
12,650
8,972
12,587
8,908
12,615
8,931
12,600
8,875
12,659
8,939
768
496
712
1,256
1,733
2,437
2,079
2,094
682
458
769
493
718
1,259
1,732
2,450
2,093
2,094
685
458
761
490
714
1,260
1,732
2,466
2,101
2,084
689
455
762
487
715
1,254
1,730
2,471
2,106
2,077
688
449
757
485
715
1,257
1,737
2,484
2,124
2,057
693
451
753
488
711
1,256
1,730
2,500
2,131
2,073
694
450
752
484
710
1,245
1,714
2,492
2,092
2,079
695
451
758
480
708
1,236
1,716
2,496
2,117
2,086
692
448
760
482
709
1,226
1,723
2,455
2,125
2,025
696
449
751
483
704
1,223
1,726
2,438
2,125
1,994
694
449
740
483
706
1,208
1,725
2.444
2,140
2,019
698
452
732
484
707
1,206
1,711
2,497
2,149
1,959
701
454
727
480
707
1,210
1,720
2,500
2,147
2,016
702
450
8,310
5,990
8,322
5,995
8,314
5,988
8,320
5,993
8,303
5,973
8,293
5,966
8,243
5,912
8,212
5,891
8,249
5,922
8,249
5,921
8,266
5,934
8,282
5,949
8,241
5,923
1,729
68
899
1,327
711
1,229
1,108
212
779
248
1,736
69
897
1,324
716
1,232
1,108
213
780
247
1,728
69
892
1,325
717
1,234
1,111
213
781
244
1,725
70
893
1,324
714
1,236
1,114
213
784
247
1,720
69
892
1,312
715
1,242
1,119
212
775
247
1,707
68
892
1,324
718
1,250
1,116
212
777
229
1,696
64
886
1,302
717
1,247
1,111
213
764
243
1,691
65
884
1,294
714
1,245
1,110
215
751
243
1,707
65
887
1,299
715
1,252
1,113
217
751
243
1,710
60
889
1,292
714
1,262
1,114
217
749
242
1,715
62
893
1,297
713
1,263
1,119
217
745
242
1,706
64
890
1,307
718
1,271
1,122
219
745
240
1,709
65
891
1,307
717
1,279
1,120
168
743
242
5,094
5,116
5,024
5,130
5,190
5,169
5,194
5,180
5,218
5,229
5,223
5,206
5,198
20,016
20,054
20,088
20,129
20,116
20,122
20,126
20,169
20,243
20,308
20,254
20,396
20,505
5,118
5,134
5,138
5,156
5,180
5,182
5,185
5,190
5,209
5,235
5,218
5,243
5,268
14,898
14,920
14,950
14,973
14,936
14,940
14,941
14,979
15,034
15,073
15,036
15,153
15,237
4,88 4
4,899
4,915
4,936
4,958
4,972
5,003
4,997
5,018
5,039
5,056
5,083
5,087
SERVICES
16,763
16,833
16,880
16,954
17,051
17,092
17,141
17,191
17,257
17,298
17,357
17,415
17,474
GOVERNMENT
Federal................................................................
State and local ............................................
15,495
2,757
12,738
15,510
2,757
12,753
15,564
2,758
12,806
15,598
2,770
12,828
15,637
2,788
12,849
15,635
2,785
12,850
15,699
2,813
12,886
15,673
2,762
12,911
15,674
2,770
12,904
15,693
2,771
12,922
15,696
2,771
12,925
15,712
2,791
12,921
15,696
2,791
12,905
TOTAL
MINING
............................
CONSTRUCTION
MANUFACTURING
Production workers..............................................................
Durable goods
Production workers................................................
Lumber and wood products ........................................................
Furniture and fixtures..............................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ........................................
Primary metal industries......................................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................................................
Machinery, except electrical............................................................
Electric and electronic equipment....................................................
Transportation equipment..............................................
Instruments and related products ..............................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ......................................
Nondurable goods
Production workers........................................................
Food and kindred products..................................................
Tobacco manufactures ................................................................
Textile mill products................................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................................................
Paper and allied products ..................................................
Printing and publishing............................
Chemicals and allied products ............................
Petroleum and coal products ........................................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ..............
Leather and leather products ..................................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
WHOLESALE TRADE
RETAIL TRADE
F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R EA L E S T A T E
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
79
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
12.
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Annual
Jan.
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
4.3
4.4
4.3
5.3
5.4
4.9
4.6
4.9
4.4
3.9
4.3
4.1
3.1
3.3
2.9
2.4
2.4
2.2
3.0
3.3
3.1
4.0
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.0
3.5
3.1
2.2
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.5
.9
.8
.9
1.0
.9
.9
.8
.7
.8
.6
.6
.7
.6
.5
.5
.6
.5
.5
4.3
4.1
4.3
5.1
5.3
5.7
4.9
4.8
4.7
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.5
1.9
2.1
2.0
3.1
3.5
3.3
2.8
3.1
2.7
1.9
2.3
2.1
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.0
.8
1.3
1.1
.8
1.1
1.1
.9
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.7
Total accessions
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.8
4.0
p3.8
3.7
3.2
3.4
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
3.9
4.6
4.7
4.7
2.8
3.1
2.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
p2.4
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.9
2.9
3.5
3.6
3.6
.9
.8
.7
.8
.8
.8
4.9
4.9
4.8
New hires
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
3.7
3.9
3.8
Recalls
1977
1978
1979
1980
1.2
1.0
.9
p1.1
.9
.7
.7
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.1
.8
.7
1.3
.7
.7
.8
.7
.7
Total separations
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
3.9
3.6
3.8
p4.1
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.5
3.8
3.9
3.5
3.7
3.8
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.1
3.2
Quits
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.8
p 1.6
1.8
2.1
2.0
Layoffs
1977
1978
1979
1980
13.
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.4
.9
.8
1.7
1.2
1.1
p 1.6
1.1
.9
1.1
.8
.7
.8
.8
.7
.7
.9
.8
.9
1.0
.9
.8
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group
[Per 100 employees]
Separation rates
Accession rates
Layoffs
Quits
Total
Recalls
New hires
Total
Major industry group
Jan.
1979
Dec.
1979
Jan.
1980 p
Jan.
1979
Dec.
1979
Jan.
1980 p
Jan.
1979
Dec.
1979
Jan.
1980»
Jan.
1979
Dec.
1979
Jan.
1980»
Jan.
1979
Dec.
1979
Jan.
1980»
Jan.
1979
Dec.
1979
Jan.
1980»
MANUFACTURING
Seasonally adjusted..............
4.0
4.3
2.2
4.0
3.8
4.1
2.8
3.3
1.5
3.0
2.4
2.9
0.9
0.5
1.1
3.8
4.1
3.5
4.0
4.1
4.2
1.8
2.3
1.1
1.9
1.6
2.0
1.1
.9
1.7
1.2
1.6
1.3
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products..........
Furniture and fixtures ..................
Stone, clay, and glass products . . .
Primary metal industries ..............
Fabricated metal products............
Machinery, except electrical..........
Electric and electronic equipment ..
Transportation equipment ............
Instruments and related products ..
Miscellaneous manufacturing........
3.8
5.1
5.5
3.7
2.9
4.0
3.3
3.6
3.7
2.9
5.6
1.9
2.4
2.5
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.6
1.8
2.2
3.5
5.2
4.6
3.7
3.0
4.0
2.8
3.0
2.7
4.1
4.9
2.4
1.8
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.1
2.4
3.5
1.3
1.7
1.8
1.2
.7
1.5
1.3
1.4
.7
1.5
1.7
2.1
3.2
3.6
1.9
1.2
2.5
2.0
2.1
.7
.8
,4
1.1
.8
.8
.4
.6
1.0
.3
2.0
.5
.6
.6
.5
.9
.5
.3
.3
.6
.1
.5
1.0
1.7
.7
1.6
1.5
1.2
.5
.5
3.5
5.9
5.2
4.9
2.5
3.9
2.5
3.2
3.2
2.5
5.8
3.2
6.0
3.5
4.8
3.3
3.4
1.9
2.2
3.5
1.9
6.5
3.9
6.0
5.0
5.0
3.2
4.4
2.7
3.3
1.6
3.0
3.3
1.7
.9
1.8
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.4
2.5
.9
1.8
1.6
1.1
.5
1.1
.7
.9
.5
.9
1.4
1.4
2.6
2.5
1.4
.7
1.6
1.2
1.4
.9
1.8
.8
2.3
.6
1.1
.4
.7
1.1
.3
2.1
1.6
3.3
1.2
3.0
2.0
1.6
.6
.6
2.4
.5
4.4
1.6
2.6
1.4
2.7
1.6
2.0
.7
1.0
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products ..........
Tobacco manufacturers................
Textile mill products ....................
Apparel and other products...........
Paper and allied products ............
Printing and publishing..................
Chemicals and allied products . . . .
Petroleum and coal products........
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products......................
Leather and leather products........
4.3
5.3
2.4
4.5
6.2
2.6
3.6
1.7
2.0
2.6
3.4
4.2
2.4
3.1
1.7
2.7
1.1
1.2
4.2
4.8
1.8
2.3
1.2
1.8
1.9
1.0
2.1
.8
1.0
2.7
2.9
.7
1.0
2.6
.3
1.1
.5
.5
.2
.1
4.0
6.1
3.0
3.4
5.4
2.6
2.9
1.3
2.1
1.4
2.0
.5
1.6
1.8
.7
1.6
.5
.5
2.6
3.0
1.0
1.8
.7
.7
1.3
2.4
3.6
.8
2.2
.8
.8
.4
.5
1.9
3.4
1.9
1.1
3.0
1.3
.7
.4
1.2
1.6
2.6
4.6
5.9
2.8
3.3
1.7
2.3
2.1
2.6
.7
2.7
3.0
1.2
1.9
.7
.7
2.0
2.4
.8
2.7
1.0
.5
.3
.2
4.3
5.9
5.3
4.5
6.0
2.7
3.4
1.7
2.0
4.4
6.0
3.6
4.0
1.5
2.8
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.6
.8
.7
2.2
.7
.5
.3
.2
1.3
1.6
4.7
6.9
2.7
3.4
1.6
1.7
3.0
3.4
.9
3.4
3.8
1.8
2.9
1.3
1.7
5.1
6.9
2.7
3.8
4.5
7.0
3.8
4.3
1.6
2.5
2.7
4.2
1.0
2.1
.8
1.0
1.5
2.6
4.4
6.5
4.4
5.9
5.2
7.4
2.4
3.7
1.6
2.4
1.9
3.2
.9
1.8
2.1
2.8
2.2
3.1
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3.1
5.4
2.5
3.1
.3
2.0
2.7
6.3
1.6
2.1
.4
3.3
.9
2.2
1.0
.8
.4
.6
14.
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1948-79
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]
Year
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Total private
1948 ..................
1949 ..................
1950 ..................
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Mining
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Construction
Average
hourly
earnings
Manufacturin9
$49.00
50.24
53.13
40,0
39.4
39.8
$1.225
1.275
1.335
$65.56
62.33
67.16
39.4
36.3
37.9
$1.664
1.717
1.772
$65.27
67.56
69.68
38.1
37.7
37.4
$1.713
1.792
1.863
$53.12
53.88
58.32
40.0
39.1
40.5
$1.328
1.378
1.440
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
57.86
60.65
63.76
64.52
67.72
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
74.11
77.59
83.03
82.60
89.54
38.4
386
38.8
38.6
40.7
1.93
2.01
2.14
2.14
2.20
76.96
82.86
86.41
88.91
90.90
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
2.02
2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45
63.34
66.75
70.47
70.49
75.30
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.64
1.74
1.78
1.85
1956 ..................
1957 ..................
1958 ..................
1959' ................
1960 ..................
70.74
73.33
75.08
78.78
80.67
39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6
1.80
1.89
1.95
2.02
2.09
95.06
9825
96.08
103.68
105.04
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2.33
2.45
2.47
2.56
2.60
96.38
100.27
103.78
108.41
112.67
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2.57
2.71
2.82
2.93
3.07
78.78
81.19
82.32
88.26
89.72
40,4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.04
2.10
2.19
2.26
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
2.14
2.22
228
2.36
2.46
106.92
110.70
114.40
117.74
123.52
40.5
41.0
41.6
41.9
42.3
2.64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92
118.08
122.47
127.19
132.06
138.38
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
3.20
3.31
3.41
3.55
3.70
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2.32
2.39
2.45
2.53
2.61
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1
2.56
2.68
2.85
3.04
3.23
130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7
3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85
146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45
37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3
3.89
4,11
4.41
4.79
5.24
112.19
114,49
122.51
129.51
133.33
41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8
2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1
3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4,53
172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31
42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9
4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95
211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08
37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4
5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5
3.57
3.82
4.09
442
4.83
1976
1977
1978
1979
..................
..................
..................
..................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
36.1
36.0
35.8
39.7
4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
273.90
301.20
332.11
364.64
42.4
43.4
43.3
43.0
6.46
6.94
7.67
8.48
283.73
295.65
318.32
341.69
36.8
36.5
36.8
36.9
7.71
8.10
8.65
9.26
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
5.22
5.68
6.17
6.69
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
Transportation and public
utilities
Finance, insurance, and
real estate
wnoiesaie ana retail trade
1948 ..................
1949 ..................
1950 ..................
-
Services
$40.80
42 93
44.55
40.4
40 5
40.5
$1 010
1 060
1 100
$45 48
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
47,79
49,20
51.35
53.33
55.16
40.5
40.0
39.5
39 5
39.4
1 18
1 23
1.30
1 35
1.40
1956 ..................
1957 ..................
1958 ..................
1959’ ................
1960 ..................
57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66.01
39.1
38 7
38.6
38 8
38.6
1 47
1 54
1.60
1 66
1 71
65 68
67 53
70 12
72 74
75 14
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
$118.78
125.14
41.1
41.3
$2.89
3.03
67.41
69.91
72.01
74.66
76.91
38.3
38 2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1 76
1 83
1 89
1,97
2.04
77 12
80 94
84 38
85.79
88.91
36 9
37 3
37 5
37.3
37.2
2 25
2.30
2.39
$70.03
73.60
36.1
35.9
$1 94
2.05
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
128.13
130.82
138.85
147.74
155.93
41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5
3.11
3.23
3.42
3.63
385
79.39
82.35
87.00
91.39
96.02
37.1
36.6
36.1
35.7
35.3
2.14
2.25
2.41
2.56. '
2.72
92.13
95.72
101.75
108.70
112.67
37.3
37,1
37.0
37.1
36.7
2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.07
77.04
80.38
83.97
90.57
96 66
35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34,4
2.17
229
2.42
261
2.81
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233 44
40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7
4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5.88
101.09
106.45
111.76
119.02
126.45
35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
33.9
288
3.05
3.23
3.48
373
117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19
36.6
366
36.6
36.5
36.5
322
336
3.53
3.77
4.06
103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134,67
33.9
339
33.8
33.6
33.5
3.04
3.27
3.47
375
402
1976
1977
1978
1979
..................
..................
................
..................
256.71
27890
302.80
326.38
398
39.9
40.0
399
6.45
6.99
757
8.18
133.79
142.52
153 64
164.96
33.7
333
32.9
32.6
3.97
4.28
4.67
506
155.43
165.26
178.36
191.66
36.4
36.4
364
36.3
4.27
4.54
4.90
5.28
143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
33.3
33.0
328
32.7
4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
37 9
$1 200
50 52
37 7
1 340
54.67
57 08
59 57
62 04
63 92
37 7
37 8
37 7
37 6
37 6
1 45
1 51
1 58
1 70
36 9
1 78
37 1
37 3
37 2
1 89
2 09
1Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning In 1959.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
81
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual Average
1980
1979
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE
MINING..............................................................
1978
1979
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
35.8
35.7
35.4
35.7
35.1
35.5
35.9
36.0
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.6
35.9
35.1
35.1
43.3
43.0
42.6
42.9
42.6
42.8
43.3
41.7
43.1
43.5
43.7
43.7
43.9
43.2
43.0
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.p
Feb.p
CONSTRUCTION
36.8
36.9
35.4
37.0
35.5
37.2
37.9
37.7
38.0
37.9
37.6
36.5
37.1
349
35.5
MANUFACTURING ............................................
Overtime hours......................................
40.4
3.6
40.2
3.3
40.2
3.5
40.6
3.6
38.9
2.5
40.1
3.3
40.4
3.4
39.9
3.2
40.0
3.3
40.3
3.6
40.3
3.4
40.4
3.4
40.9
3.4
39.8
3.0
39.7
2.9
Durable goods
Overtime hours......................................
41.1
3.8
40.8
3.5
41.1
3.9
41.4
3.9
39.3
2.6
40.8
3.6
41.0
3.6
40.4
3.4
40.4
3.4
40.8
3.6
40.8
3.5
40.8
3.5
41.6
3.5
40.4
3.1
40.3
3.0
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
39.8
39.3
41.6
41.8
41.0
39.5
38.6
41.5
41.4
40,8
39.0
38.1
40,6
42,1
40.9
39.7
39.0
41.8
41.9
41.3
39.1
37.5
41.1
41.7
38.8
39.6
38.2
41.9
41.4
40.7
40.2
38.8
42.1
41.6
41.0
39.4
38.0
41.5
41,3
40.3
39.9
38.6
41.7
40.8
40.5
40.1
39.0
41.7
41.3
40.8
39.8
39.3
41.7
40.9
41.0
38.8
39.2
41.7
40.7
41.0
39.2
39.9
41.8
40,9
41.9
38.4
38.5
40.1
40.6
40.6
38.3
38.3
39.9
40.5
40.4
Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
42.0
40.3
42.2
40.9
38.8
41.8
40.3
41.2
40.8
38.9
42.5
40.5
42.1
41.0
38.6
42.6
40.7
42.3
41.3
39.2
40.3
38.8
37.9
40.0
37.6
41.7
40.2
41.6
40.8
38.5
42.0
40.5
41.3
40.7
39.0
41.2
39.6
40.9
40.3
38.7
41.3
39.7
40.5
40.3
38.9
41.9
40.5
40.7
40.7
39.3
41.6
40.3
41.3
40.8
39.3
41.9
40.9
40.8
41.4
39.6
42.8
41.3
42.6
41.6
39.7
41.4
40.3
40.4
41.1
39.0
41.4
40.1
40.7
40.7
39.2
Nondurable goods
Overtime hours......................................
39.4
3.2
39.3
3.1
38.9
30
39.3
3.1
38.2
2.5
39.1
2.9
39.4
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.4
3.2
39.6
3.5
39.4
3.2
39.6
3.3
39.9
3.2
39.0
2.9
38.8
2.8
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................
39.7
381
40.4
35.6
42.9
39.9
38.0
40.3
352
42.6
39.2
36.2
399
34.9
42.2
39.6
38.1
40.4
35.4
42.6
390
37.6
38.6
33.9
41.6
39.6
38.9
40.1
35.1
42.4
39.8
39.0
40.6
35.6
42.8
40.1
36.1
39.9
35.4
42.5
40.3
37.6
40.3
35.6
42.6
40.6
39.1
40.8
35.4
42.7 .
40.0
38.8
40.8
35.5
42.6
40.2
39.0
41.3
356
42.9
40.3
395
41.5
35.9
43.5
39.4
37.4
40.9
35.2
42,6
38.9
36.1
40.9
35.3
42.1
Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................
37.6
41.9
43.6
40.9
37.1
37.5
41.8
43.8
40.5
36.5
37.3
41.7
42.7
41.2
35.9
37.7
41.9
43.8
41.4
35.9
36.8
41.9
43.9
39.4
35.3
37.3
41.8
43.7
40.5
36.4
37.4
41.8
43,4
40.7
37.1
37.4
41.7
44.1
40.2
36.9
37.9
41.8
43.6
40.0
36.6
37.9
41.8
44.7
40.5
36.8
37.5
41.7
44.1
40.5
36.5
37.9
42.1
44.8
40.3
36.8
38.1
42.2
43.4
40.7
37.3
37.3
41.6
36.0
40.3
36.9
37.0
41.5
41.9
39.6
36.9
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
40.0
39.9
39.9
39.8
39.0
396
40.0
40.0
40.3
39.9
39.9
40.2
40.0
39.3
39.3
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
329
32.6
32.1
32.4
32.5
32.4
32.9
33.3
33.2
32.7
32.5
32.4
32.9
31.8
31.8
WHOLESALE TRADE
388
38.8
38.4
38.9
38.6
38.9
39.0
39.0
38.9
388
38.9
389
39.1
38.4
38.3
RETAIL TRADE
31.0
30.7
30.1
30.3
30.6
30.4
31.0
31.5
31.4
30.7
30.4
30.4
31.0
29.7
29.7
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE
36.4
36.3
36.4
36.3
36.4
36.1
36.2
36.4
36.2
36.3
363
36.4
36.4
36.3
36.3
32.8
32.7
32.4
32.6
32.5
32.5
32.9
33.3
33.2
32.7
32.6
32.6
32.8
32.5
32.5
SERVICES
82
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1979
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE
1980
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.p
Feb.p
35.7
35.9
35.3
35.7
35.6
35.6
35.6
35.7
35.6
35.7
35.7
35.6
35.4
MINING
43.1
43.1
42.9
42.8
43.0
41.6
43.2
43.1
43.1
43.2
43.9
44.2
43.5
CONSTRUCTION
36.6
37.1
35.5
37.1
37.2
36.8
37.2
37.5
36.6
36.8
37.1
37.4
36.7
MANUFACTURING
Overtime hours............................................
40.6
3.7
40.6
3.7
39.1
2.7
40.2
3.5
40.1
3.4
40.2
3.3
40.1
3.2
40.2
3.2
40.2
3.2
40.1
3.3
40.2
3.2
40.3
3.2
40.1
3.1
Durable goods
Overtime hours............................................
41.4
4.1
41.4
4.0
39.5
2.7
40.9
3.8
40.7
3.6
40.7
3.5
40.7
3.3
40,7
3.3
40.8
3.3
40.6
3.4
40.7
3.3
40.9
3.3
40.6
3.1
Lumber and wood products ................................
Furniture and fixtures..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..........................
Primary metal industries......................................
Fabricated metal products ..................................
39.6
38.8
41.6
42.2
41.3
40.0
39.1
42.0
42.0
41.3
39.1
38.1
41.2
41.8
39.1
39.4
38.5
41.7
41.4
40.7
39.4
38.5
41.6
41.2
40.7
39.3
38.4
41.4
41.3
40.8
39.5
38.3
41.3
41.0
40.6
39.7
38.6
41.5
41.0
40.7
39.4
38.8
41.3
41.1
40.9
38.9
38.9
41.5
40.7
40.7
39.0
39.0
41.6
40,6
41.0
39.8
39.1
41.3
40.7
40.9
38.9
39.0
40.8
40.6
40.8
Machinery, except electrical................................
Electric and electronic equipment........................
Transportation equipment....................................
Instruments and related products ........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..............................
42.5
40.7
42.7
41.2
39.0
42.4
40.7
42.3
41.2
39.0
40.5
39.0
37.9
40.3
37.6
42.0
40.4
41.5
40.8
38.6
42.0
40.3
40.8
40.6
38.9
41.9
40.2
40.9
40.7
39.3
41.6
39.8
41.7
40.5
39.1
41.9
40.3
40.6
40.6
39.1
41.6
40.3
41.3
40.7
39.1
41.6
40.6
40.6
41.0
39.1
41.6
40.5
41.0
40.8
39.2
41.6
40.5
41.3
41.6
39.4
41.4
40.3
41.2
40.9
39.6
Nondurable goods
Overtime hours............................................
39.3
3.2
39.4
3.3
38.6
2.7
39.2
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.2
3.0
39.3
3.1
39.3
3.0
39.4
3.2
39.4
3.1
39.5
3.1
39.3
3.0
Food and kindred products..................................
Tobacco manufactures ......................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products ......................
Paper and allied products ..................................
39.8
36.9
40.1
35.4
42.7
40.0
38.0
40.3
35.4
42.8
39.6
37.6
38.8
34.2
41.8
39.8
38.9
40.0
35.2
42.6
39.8
37.6
40.1
35.2
42.5
39.8
38.5
40.1
35.5
42.5
39.7
38.0
40.1
35.3
426
40.0
38.6
40.6
35.3
42.4
39.9
38.3
40.8
35.3
42.6
40.0
37.8
41.1
35.3
42.7
39.9
38.8
41.0
35.6
42.9
39.9
38.5
41.7
35.9
42.8
39.5
36.8
41.2
35.8
42.6
Printing and publishing......................................
Chemicals and allied products ............................
Petroleum and coal products . ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ........
Leather and leather products ..............................
37.7
42.0
43.6
41.2
364
37.7
41.9
44.0
41,3
36.3
37.1
41.7
43.9
39.7
35.6
37.4
41.9
43.7
40.9
36.1
37.4
41.7
43.3
40.7
36.4
37.5
41.9
43.6
40.6
36.6
37,7
42.0
43.7
40.2
36.5
37.5
41.7
44,1
40.3
37.0
37.4
41.7
43.7
40.3
36.5
37.6
41.9
44.4
40.0
36.7
37.4
41.7
43.5
39.9
36.9
37.9
41.9
36.5
40.6
37.4
37.4
41.8
42.8
39.6
37.4
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
40.0
40.0
39.2
39.8
39.8
39.7
39.9
39.9
39.9
40.2
39.8
39.7
39.4
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
32.5
32.7
328
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.6
32.7
32.6
32.4
32.2
WHOLESALE TRADE
38.7
39.0
38.7
39.0
38.8
388
38.7
38.7
388
38.9
38.9
38.7
38.6
RETAIL TRADE
30.6
30.7
30.9
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.5
30.7
30.6
30.7
30.6
30.4
30.2
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE
36.4
36.4
36.5
36.1
SERVICES
32.6
32.8
32.7
32.7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
I
36.2
36.3
36.1
36.4
36.2
36.5
36.4
36.2
36.3
32.7
328
32.7
327
32.6
32.7
32.9
32.7
32.7
83
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
17.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1979
Annual average
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE..................................................
1980
1978
1979
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.p
Feb.»
$5.69
$6,16
$6.00
$6.02
$6.03
$6.09
$6.12
$6.16
$6.19
$6.31
$6.32
$6.35
$6.39
$6.42
$6.46
MINING......................................................................
7.67
8.48
8.21
8.27
8.54
8.45
8.49
8.52
8.48
8.57
8.57
8.70
8.73
8.87
8.91
CONSTRUCTION
8.65
9.26
9.02
8.97
9.02
9.14
9.13
9.24
9.32
9.51
9.49
9.50
9.57
9.49
9.63
..................................................
6.17
6.69
6.52
6.56
6.54
6.63
6.66
6.71
6.69
6.80
6.82
6.86
6.97
6.95
6.98
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products ............................
Furniture and fixtures......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................
Primary metal industries..................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................
6.58
5.60
4.68
6.32
8.20
6.34
7.12
6.08
5.06
6.84
8.97
6.82
6.96
5.83
4.93
6.58
8.75
6.65
6.99
5.84
4.95
6.64
8.75
6.72
6.95
5.90
4.94
6.73
8.92
6.62
7.07
5.97
4.97
6.78
8.83
6.77
7.11
6.16
5.05
6.85
8.91
6.81
7.15
6.23
5.04
6.89
9.04
6.80
7.12
6.23
5.10
6.90
9.10
6.83
7.24
6.32
5.18
6.98
9.16
6.93
7.25
6.24
5.20
7.00
9.10
6.96
7.29
6.23
5.23
7.07
9.26
6.99
7.41
6.25
5.27
7.10
9.28
7.12
7.37
6.20
5.26
7.06
926
706
7.44
6.36
5.29
7.11
9.35
7.12
Machinery, except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ....................
Transportation equipment................................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................
6.77
5.82
7.91
5.71
4.69
7.33
6.31
8.53
6.17
5.04
7.16
6.13
8.35
6.02
4.95
7.19
6.16
8.42
6.04
4.95
7.10
6.11
8.26
6.03
4.96
7.25
6.21
8.56
6.11
5.00
7.34
6.25
8.53
6.11
4.99
7.35
6.27
8.55
6.16
5.03
7.35
6.36
8.44
6.14
5.04
7.48
6.46
8.59
6.21
5.07
7.45
6.48
8.67
6.32
5.12
7.51
6.51
8.68
6.39
5.15
7.65
6.64
8.90
6.49
5.22
7.64
6.66
8.77
6.57
5.30
7.67
6.71
8.83
6.62
5.31
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products..............................
Tobacco manufactures....................................
Textile mill products........................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................
Paper and allied products................................
5.53
580
6.13
4.30
3.94
6.52
6.00
6.27
6.69
4.66
4.24
7.12
5.82
6.10
6.53
4.51
4.17
6.83
5.85
6.12
6.64
4.52
4.19
6.88
5.90
6.19
6.80
4.48
4.19
6.92
5.91
6.22
6.83
4.52
4.20
6.96
5.94
6.22
6.82
4.54
4.21
7.05
6.03
6.28
6.83
4.65
4.23
7.17
6.04
6.28
6.59
4.77
4.21
7.22
6.11
6.33
6.54
4.82
4.28
7.32
6.14
6.36
6.43
4.83
4.32
7.34
6.21
6.51
7.01
4.86
4.32
7.42
6.26
6.56
7.04
4.87
4.39
7.48
6.28
6.63
7.06
4.90
4.44
7.46
6.27
6.66
7.14
4.91
4.43
7.47
Printing and publishing....................................
Chemicals and allied products ........................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . . .
Leather and leather products ..........................
6.50
7.01
8.63
5.52
3.89
6.91
7.59
9.37
5.96
4.23
6.73
7.32
9.10
5.84
4.14
6.77
7.36
9.31
5.86
4.17
6.72
7.50
9.44
5.82
4.18
6.83
7.47
9.39
5.90
4.18
6.88
7.53
9.32
5.91
4.19
6.90
7.60
9.39
5.95
4.19
6.94
7.65
9.35
5.94
4.22
7.04
7.73
9.51
6.03
4.29
7.06
7.82
9.49
6.12
4.31
7.09
7.87
9.57
6.14
4.34
7.17
7.91
9.49
6.21
436
7.21
7.94
9.54
6.25
4.45
7.21
7.95
9.53
6.24
4.46
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
7.57
8.18
7.92
7.90
7.88
7.94
8.03
8.23
8.32
8.45
8.45
8.52
8.55
8.54
8.57
MANUFACTURING
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ..........................
4.67
5.06
4.97
4.98
5.00
5.00
5.02
5.05
5.06
5.13
5.15
5.18
5.18
5.34
5.36
WHOLESALE TRADE
5.88
6.39
6.21
6.23
6.30
6.29
6.34
6.39
6.41
6.51
6.51
6.57
6.68
6.72
6.75
4.47
4.49
4.49
4.50
4.51
4.52
458
4.59
4.62
4.61
4.77
4.78
RETAIL TRADE
4.20
4.53
4.47
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..................................................................
4.90
5.28
5.19
5.16
5.23
5.22
5.22
5.29
5.29
5.38
5.37
5.42
5.49
5.57
5.61
SERVICES
4.99
5.36
5.27
5.26
5.29
5.27
5.27
5.29
5.30
5.45
5.48
5.54
5.60
5.65
5.68
18.
Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division
[Seasonally adjusted data: 1967 = 100]
1979
1980
Percent change
Industry
TOTAL PRIVATE (in current dollars)
Mining..........................................
Construction ................................
Manufacturing ..............................
Transportation and public utilities . . .
Wholesale and retail trade ............
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services ......................................
TOTAL PRIVATE (in constant dollars)
1Not available.
84
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.p
Feb.P
Jan. 1980
to
Feb. 1980
Feb. 1979
to
Feb. 1980
224.0
225.2
226.8
227.5
229.0
230.9
232.2
234.3
234.9
237.3
239.5
240.3
242.2
0.8
8.1
253.7
216.7
227.2
241.7
218.1
204.2
222.2
256.1
216.5
228.7
243.1
219.4
204.8
223.3
264.1
218.1
231.0
241.7
2209
207.5
225.0
262.7
220.4
232.3
243.7
221.0
207.0
224.3
264.9
220.4
233.9
246.4
222.6
208.0
225.7
266.9
222.1
235.4
251.3
223.8
210.8
227.0
2656
223.1
236.9
252.6
225.4
211.5
228.4
266.1
224.4
238.7
255.6
227.0
214.4
231.5
2680
224.0
240.0
255.8
227.4
213,1
232.3
271.6
225.8
242.1
258.9
229.5
216.2
234.7
273.2
227.6
244.3
260.7
231.3
218.5
237.7
274.2
225.4
244.9
260.5
234.5
219.5
238.1
275.5
230.7
247.3
262.0
235.4
220.9
239.2
.5
2.3
1.0
.6
.4
.6
.5
8.6
6.5
8.9
8.4
8.0
8.1
7.7
107.8
107.3
107.0
106.3
105.8
105.6
105.1
104.9
104.1
104.1
103.8
102.7
(’ )
(’ )
19.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average
1979
1980
Industry division and group
1978
TOTAL PRIVATE......................................
1979
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.p
Feb.p
$203.70
$219.91
$212.40
$214.91
$211.65
$216.20
$219.71
$221.76
$222.84
$225.90
$225.62
$226.06
332.11
364 64
349.75
354.78
363.80
361.66
367.62
355.28
365.49
372.80
374.51
380.19
CONSTRUCTION
318.32
341.69
319.31
331.89
320.21
340.01
346.03
348.35
354.16
360.43
356.82
346.75
355.05
331.20
341.87
MANUFACTURING ............................................
249.27
268.94
262.10
266.34
254.41
265.86
269.06
267.73
267.60
274.04
274.85
277.14
285.07
276.61
277.11
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
270.44
222.88
183.92
262.91
342.76
259.94
290.50
240.16
195.32
283.86
371.36
278.26
286.06
227.37
187.83
267.15
368.38
271.99
289.39
231.85
193.05
277.55
366.63
277.54
273.14
230.69
185.25
276.60
371.96
25686
288.46
236.41
189.85
284.08
365.56
275.54
291.51
247.63
195.94
288.39
370.66
279.21
288.86
245.46
191.52
285.94
373.35
274.04
287.65
248.58
196.86
287.73
371.28
276.62
295.39
253.43
202.02
291.07
378.31
282.74
295.80
248.35
204.36
291.90
372.19
285.36
297.43
241.72
205.02
294.82
376.88
286.59
308.26
245.00
210.27
296.78
379.55
298.33
297.75
238.08
202.51
283.11
375.96
286.64
299.83
243.59
202.61
283.69
378.68
287.65
Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment ..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
284.34
234.55
333.80
233.54
181.97
306.39
254.29
351.44
251.74
196.06
304.30
248.27
351.54
246.82
191.07
306.29
250.71
356.17
249.45
194.04
286.13
237.07
313.05
241.20
186.50
302.33
249.64
356.10
249.29
192.50
308.28
253.13
352.29
248.68
194.61
302.82
248.29
349.70
248.25
194.66
303.56
252.49
341.82
247.44
196.06
313.41
261.63
349.61
252.75
199.25
309.92
261.14
358.07
257.86
201.22
314.67
266.26
354.14
264.55
203.94
327.42
274.23
379.14
269.98
207.23
316.30
268.40
354.31
270.03
206.70
317.54
269.07
359.38
269.43
208.15
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................
217.88
230.26
233.55
173.72
140.26
279.71
235.80
250.17
254.22
187.80
149.25
303.31
226.40
239.12
236.39
179.50
145.53
288.23
229.91
242.35
252.98
182.61
148.33
293.09
22538
241.41
255.68
172.93
142.04
287.87
231.08
246.31
265.69
181.25
147.42
295.10
234.04
247.56
265.98
184.32
149.88
302.74
236.38
251.83
246.56
185.54
149.74
304.73
237.98
253.08
247.78
192.23
149.88
307.57
241.96
257.00
255.71
196.66
151.51
312.56
241.92
254.40
249.48
197.06
153.36
312.68
245.92
261.70
273.39
200.72
153.79
318.32
249.77
264.37
278.08
202.11
157.60
325.38
244.92
261.22
264.04
200.41
156.29
317.80
243.28
259.07
257.75
200.82
156.38
314.49
Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products........................................
Leather and leather products ........................
244.40
293.72
376.27
259.13
31726
410.41
251.03
305.24
38857
255.23
308.38
407.78
247.30
314.25
414.42
254.76
312.25
410.34
257.31
314.75
404.49
258.06
316.92
414.10
263.03
319.77
407.66
266.82
323.11
425.10
264.75
326.09
418.51
268.71
331.33
428.74
273.18
333.80
411.87
268.93
330.30
343.44
266.77
329.93
399.31
225.77
144.32
241.38
154.40
240.61
148.63
242.60
149.70
229.31
147.55
238.95
152.15
240.54
155.45
239.19
154.61
237.60
154.45
244.22
157.87
247.86
157.32
247,44
159.71
252.75
162.63
251.88
164.21
247.10
164.57
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
302.80
32638
316.01
314.42
307.32
314.42
321.20
329.20
335 30
337.16
337.16
342.50
342.00
335.62
336.80
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
153.64
164.96
159.54
161.35
162.50
162.00
165.16
168.17
167.99
167.75
167.38
167.83
170.42
169.81
170.45
WHOLESALE TRADE
228.14
247.93
238.46
242.35
243.18
244,68
247.26
249.21
249.35
252.59
253.24
255.57
261.19
258.05
258.53
RETAIL TRADE
130.20
139.07
134.55
135.44
137.39
136.50
139.50
142.07
141.93
140.61
139.54
140.45
142.91
141.67
141.97
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
178.36
191.66
188.92
187.31
190.37
188.44
188.96
192.56
191.50
195.29
194.93
197.29
199.84
202.19
203.64
SERVICES
163.67
175.27
170.75
171.48
171.93
171.28
173.38
176.16
175.96
178.22
178.65
180.60
183.68
183.63
184.60
MINING
............................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$229,40 $225.34
383.25
383.18
$226.75
383.13
85
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
20.
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date
[Averages for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Private nonagricultural workers
Year and month
Gross average
weekly earnings
Manufacturing workers
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Gross average
weekly earnings
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Current
dollars
1967 '
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
$80.67
$90.95
$65.59
$73.95
$72.96
$82.25
$89.72
$101.15
$72.57
$81.82
$80.11
$90.32
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
92.19
94.82
96.47
98.31
101.01
67.08
69.56
, 71.05
75.04
79.32
74.87
76.78
77.48
80.78
83.94
74.48
76.99
78.56
82.57
86.63
83.13
84.98
85.67
88.88
91.67
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
103.06
106.58
108.21
110.84
113.79
74.60
77.86
79.51
84.40
89.08
83.26
85.94
86.71
90.85
94.26
82.18
85.53
87.25
92.18
96.78
91.72
94.40
95.15
99.22
102.41
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
..........................................
..........................................
........................................
..........................................
..........................................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
101.67
101.84
103.39
104.38
103.04
81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
96.21
83.63
83.38
83.21
82.84
82.73
88.66
90.86
95.28
99.99
104.90
91.21
90.86
91.44
91.07
90.20
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
115.42
114.49
117.57
117.95
114.64
91.45
92.97
97.70
101.90
106.32
94.08
92.97
93.76
92.81
91.42
99.33
100.93
106.75
111.44
115.58
102.19
100.93
102 45
101.49
99.38
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
104.95
109.26
109.23
104.78
101.45
103.80
112.19
117.51
124.37
132.49
85.57
89.54
88.29
84.20
82.19
112.43
121.68
127.38
134.61
145.65
92.69
97.11
95.70
91.14
90.35
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
117.43
123.47
125.06
119.70
118.36
114.97
125.34
132.57
140.19
151.61
94.78
100.03
99.60
94.92
94.05
124.24
135.57
143.50
151.56
166.29
102.42
108.20
107.81
102.61
103.16
1976
1977
1978
1979
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
102.90
104.13
104.30
101.02
143.30
155.19
165.39
178.00
84.05
85.50
84.69
81.76
155.87
169.93
180.71
194.82
91.42
93.63
92.53
89.49
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
122.77
126.12
127.63
123.54
167.83
183.80
197.40
212.43
98.43
101.27
101.08
97.58
181.32
200.06
214.87
232.07
106.35
110.23
110.02
106.60
1979: February..........................
March ..............................
212.40
214.91
102.56
102.68
172.53
174.35
83.31
83.30
188.98
190.93
91.25
91.22
262.10
266.34
126.56
127.25
207.69
210.65
100.28
100.65
220.89
230.10
109.56
109.94
April ................................
May ................................
June ................................
211.65
216.20
219.71
99.93
100.89
101.30
171.98
175.29
177.85
81.20
81.80
82.00
188.39
191.93
194.67
88.95
89.56
89.75
254.41
265.86
269.06
120.12
124.06
124.05
202.32
210.04
212.51
95.52
98.14
97.98
221.05
229.74
232.17
104.37
107.20
107.04
July..................................
August ............................
September ......................
221.76
222.84
225.90
101.08
100.60
100.98
179.35
180.13
182.36
81.75
81.32
81.52
196.26
197.11
199.42
89.45
88.99
89.15
267.73
267.60
274.04
122.03
120.81
122.50
211.61
211.52
215.89
96.45
95.49
96.51
231.16
231.06
235.94
105.36
104.32
105.47
October............................
November........................
December........................
225.62
226 06
229.40
100.01
99.32
99.74
182.16
182,48
184.84
80.74
80.18
80.37
199.21
199.54
202 08
88.30
87.67
87.86
27485
277.14
285.07
121.83
121.77
123.94
216.44
217.99
223.38
95.94
95.78
97.12
236.56
238.30
244.31
104.86
104.70
106.22
1980. January0 ..........................
February0 ........................
225.34
226.75
96.59
<’ )
181.96
182.98
77.99
(’ )
199.00
200.07
85.30
(’ )
276.61
277.11
118.56
(’ )
217.64
217.97
93.29
(’ )
237.89
238.27
101.97
(’ )
1960 ..........................................
'Not available.
NOTE: The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in price level
as measured by the Bureau's Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
86
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
These series are described in "The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Cal
culation", Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force, February 1969, pp.
6-13, See also “ Spendable Earnings Formulas, 1978-80" Employment and Earnings, March 1980,
pp. 10-11.
U NEM PLO YM ENT INSURANCE DATA
U n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly by
the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De
partment of Labor from records of State and Federal unem
ployment insurance claims filed and benefits paid. Railroad
unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Rail
road Retirement Board.
ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about onethird of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. I n i
tia l c la im s are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance
programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv
ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The
r a te o f in s u r e d u n e m p lo y m e n t expresses the number of insured unem
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.
Definitions
An a p p lic a tio n for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be
ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap
plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. N u m
b er o f p a y m e n ts are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The a v e r a g e a m o u n t o f b e n e fit p a y m e n t is an average for all com
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set
tlement of underpayments. However, to t a l b e n e f it s paid have been
adjusted.
Data for a ll p r o g r a m s represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under the State, Ex-Servicemen, and UCFE programs,
and the Railroad Insurance Act.
Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs
for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of
at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem
21.
Unemployment Insurance and employment service operations
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1979
Item
All programs:
Insured unemployment......................
State unemployment insurance
program:1
Initial claims2 ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Rate of insured unemployment ..........
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment..................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3
Initial claims' ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Initial claims......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ............................
Number of payments ........................
Average amount of benefit
payment........................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Employment service:5
New applications and renewals
Jan.
Mar.
Feb.
Apr.
May
1980
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
3,198
3,209
2,921
2,610
2,230
2,119
2,429
2,377
2,164
2,236
2,559
3,047
2,421
1,576
1,396
1,589
1,309
1,400
1,978
1,545
1,219
1,641
1,826
2,246
3,037
3.9
3,053
4.0
2,750
3.6
2,440
3.1
2,078
2.6
1,991
2.5
2,300
2.8
2,245
2.7
2,024
2.4
2,057
2.4
2,384
2.8
2,864
3.4
11,371
10,762
11,105
8,956
8,442
7,197
7,889
8,830
6,993
7,638
8,151
9,149
$88.28
$972,820
$90.31
$915,146
$90.28
$975,641
$89.25
$777,699
$88.37
$725,229
$87.25
$610,269
$86.40
$665,687
$88.56
$767,025
$89.07
$606,095
$90.59
$673,965
$92.23
$731,273
$94.52
$841,643
24
21
21
20
20
24
28
28
23
26
24
24
54
53
52
48
45
45
51
52
52
52
54
56
262
$24,425
219
$20,489
241
$22,794
207
$19,617
214
$20,440
193
$18,623
216
$20,965
234
$23,861
211
$19,634
236
$23,325
232
$23,143
233
$23,083
21
13
12
12
12
13
16
13
13
18
15
15
Jan.
3,740
3,537
4.1
60
37
35
33
27
24
23
2.5
25
25
28
29
31
158
$14,222
133
$12,256
143
$13,168
112
$10,345
106
$9,330
91
$8,341
96
$8,802
107
$9,829
91
$8,453
109
$10,093
118
$11,088
117
$11,120
8
6
5
3
3
9
15
8
13
11
10
11
22
26
50
24
50
23
23
18
40
10
29
8
19
11
20
12
26
21
32
18
51
20
36
19
41
40
80
$200.80
$9,634
$200.54
$9,871
$204.72
$10,538
$195.55
$7,276
$177.39
$5,681
$183.13
$3,314
$190.10
$3,699
$195.61
$3,767
$189.08
$5,747
$189.61
$8,003
$183.38
$6,462
$197.22
$8,085
$199.01
$14,967
8,059
1,991
9,180
2,291
10,452
2,616
11,907
3,051
13,186
3,482
14,479
3,935
5,630
1,414
'Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
2 Includes Interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June
.
34
4 Includes the Virgin Islands. Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.
5Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1 - September 30).
NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico included. Dashes indicate data not available.
87
PRICE DATA
P r i c e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).
Definitions
The C o n s u m e r P r ic e I n d e x is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser
vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new CPI for All Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the
new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri
al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the
unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali
ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi
sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000
housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country.
All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi
tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it mea
sures only price change, which is just one of several important factors
affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the
level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
P r o d u c e r P r ic e I n d e x e s measure average changes in prices received
in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities
in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in
dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations
per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com
modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial
transactions in primary markets in the United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or
semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure
organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In
dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit
ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.
88
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari
ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com
modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in
dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura
bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite
groupings.
P r ic e in d e x e s fo r th e o u tp u t o f s e le c t e d SIC in d u s tr ie s measure av
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la ssifica tio n M a n u a l 1 9 7 2
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notes on the data
Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the R ev ie w , regional CPI’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri
ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 24.)
For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
CPI, see F a cts A b o u t th e R e v is e d C o n s u m e r P ric e I n d e x , a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also T h e
C o n s u m e r P ric e I n d e x : C o n c ep ts a n d C o n te n t O v e r th e Years. Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stan
dards of living, see the family budget data published in the H a n d b o o k
o f L a b o r S ta tistic s, 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P ric e s a n d P rice
In d e x es, both monthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val
ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963
values of shipments were used as weights.
For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer,
producer, and industry price indexes, see B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s
f o r S u rv e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the mea
surement of producer price change,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April
1978, pp. 7-1 5 . For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , August
1965, pp. 974-82.
22.
Consumer Price index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-79
[1967 = 100]
Food and
beverages
All items
Year
Index
1967
1968
1969
1970
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Apparel and
upkeep
Housing
Index
Percent
change
Transportation
Percent
change
Index
Index
Percent
change
Medical care
Index
Other goods
and services
Entertainment
Percent
change
Percent
change
Index
Index
Percent
change
..................
..................
..................
..................
100.0
104 2
109.8
116.3
4.2
5.4
5.9
100.0
103.6
108.8
114.7
3.6
5.0
5.4
100.0
104.0
110.4
118.2
4.0
6.2
7.1
100.0
105.4
111.5
116.1
5.4
5.8
4.1
100.0
103.2
107.2
112.7
3.2
3.9
5.1
100.0
106.1
113.4
120.6
6.1
6.9
6.3
100.0
105.7
111.0
116.7
5.7
5.0
5.1
100.0
105.2
110.4
116.8
5.2
4.9
5.8
1971..................
1972 ..................
1973 ..................
1974 ..................
1975 ..................
121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2
4.3
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1
118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1
3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4
123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5
4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6
119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3
3.2
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5
118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6
5.2
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4
128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6
6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3
12.0
122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2
5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
8.9
122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9
4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4
1976
1977
1978
1979
170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
..................
..................
..................
..................
23. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1979
1980
1979
1980
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
All items......................................................................................
204.7
221.1
223.4
225.4
227.5
229.9
233.2
204.7
221,5
223.7
225.6
227.6
230.0
233.3
Food ano beverages ....................................................................
Housing........................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep......................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................
Medical care ................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................
Other goods and services..............................................................
218.3
213.1
160.7
193.9
230.7
182.3
190.5
230.2
231.5
166.3
219.6
241.8
190.2
197.0
231.0
234.6
169.8
221.4
243.7
191.1
201.7
232.1
237.7
171.0
222.7
245.9
192.0
202.3
233.1
240.8
171.7
224.9
248.0
192.8
202.9
235.5
243.6
172.2
227.7
250.7
193.4
204.0
237.5
247.3
171.0
233.5
253.9
195.3
206.3
218.3
212.8
161.1
194.5
230.2
182.1
190.3
230.4
231.5
166.2
220.7
242.6
188.9
197.2
231.2
234.5
169.3
222.4
244.7
190.2
200.6
232.3
237.7
170.8
223.4
247.2
191.4
201.4
233.1
240.7
171.3
225.7
249.1
192.0
202.0
235.7
243.6
171.4
228.3
251.7
192.3
203.0
237.8
247.3
169.8
234.1
254.9
193.9
206.0
Commodities................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ....................................
Nondurables less food and beverages..................................
Durables............................................................................
195 8
183.0
182.3
182.0
212.2
200.9
208.8
193.6
214.1
203.3
213.2
194.5
215.6
204.9
214.9
196.0
217.4
206.9
216.6
198.4
219.4
208.8
219.0
199.8
222.4
212.0
224.6
201.3
195.9
183.0
182.8
181.7
212.6
201.3
210.5
192.9
214.4
203.5
214.8
193.5
215.8
205.0
216.6
194.8
217.4
206.9
218.1
1969
219.4
208.7
220.5
198.2
222.3
212.0
226.3
199 6
Services ......................................................................................
Rent, residential..................................................................
Household services less rent ..............................................
Transportation services........................................................
Medical care services..........................................................
Other services....................................................................
221.1
23 7.6
24 0.7
2 4 3.6
24 6.2
2 4 9.3
253.1
2 2 1.0
23 7.9
2 4 1.0
24 4.0
24 6.7
24 9.6
2 5 3.6
170.3
247.5
204.3
248.3
192.8
177.5
272.8
214.9
260.6
200.5
179.0
276.7
216.6
262.8
204.7
181.4
280.7
218.5
265.3
205.7
182.1
284.6
221.5
267.6
206.5
182.9
289.2
224.2
270.7
207.1
184.1
295.1
226.8
274.4
209.0
170.3
247.7
204.9
247.4
193.2
177.3
274.1
215.3
261.2
201.2
178.9
278.2
216.8
263.8
204.9
181.2
282.3
218.6
266.8
206.4
181.9
286.3
221.5
268.8
207.3
182.7
291.1
224.0
271.8
207.4
183.9
297.2
226.6
275.6
209.3
All items less food ........................................................................
All items less mortgage interest costs ............................................
Commodities less food..................................................................
Nondurables less food ..................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel................................................
Nondurables ................................................................................
Services less rent ........................................................................
Services less medical care............................................................
Domestically produced farm foods ................................................
Selected beef cuts........................................................................
Energy ........................................................................................
All items less energy ....................................................................
All items less food and energy ............................................
Commodities less food and energy....................................
Energy commodities ........................................................
Services less energy........................................................
199 8
200.3
181.9
180.3
193.7
201.0
230.4
216.8
213.3
2291
231.5
202.9
197.0
177.3
2264
219.7
216.9
214.7
199.5
205,4
228.3
220.4
248.8
233.6
223.5
253.0
296.3
215.4
209,4
186 8
314.5
235.4
219.6
216.7
201.8
209.6
232.7
223.1
252.1
236.7
223.7
255.3
304.3
217.3
211.5
188.2
325.3
238.4
221.8
218.3
203.4
211.3
234.8
224.5
255.1
239.6
224.1
257.3
307.5
219.2
213.6
189.6
329.0
241.3
224.1
219.8
205.4
212.9
236.8
225.8
258.2
242.3
224.5
256.5
307.8
221.4
216.1
191.4
332.5
244.6
226.4
221.7
207.2
215.2
240.1
228.2
261.6
245.3
227.5
263.2
313.7
2236
218.1
192.6
340.0
247.6
229.9
224.3
210.4
220.5
248.6
232.0
266.1
249.2
229.2
265.7
3279
225.9
220.6
193.7
361.5
251.6
199.7
200.4
181.9
180.8
193.9
201.4
230.3
216.8
213.3
231.4
231.8
202.9
196.8
177.2
226.9
219.6
217.3
215.3
199.9
207.0
229.7
221.3
249.2
233.9
223.4
255.5
2988
215.3
2090
186.4
315.8
235.7
219.8
217.2
202.0
211.0
234.2
223.9
252.6
236.9
223.6
258.0
307.0
217.0
211.0
187.5
326.5
238.7
222.0
218.7
203.5
212.9
236.3
225.3
255.7
239.9
224.0
259.1
310.2
218.8
213.0
188.7
330.2
241.7
224.2
220.1
205.4
214.4
238.2
226.5
258.8
242.6
224,4
259.2
310.7
221.0
215.4
190.4
333.8
245.1
226.4
222.0
207.1
216.7
241.5
229.0
262.1
245.5
227.5
265.2
317.0
223.0
217.3
191.4
341.5
248.0
230.0
224.7
210.3
222.1
250.2
232.9
266.7
249.5
229.0
268.1
331.5
225.3
219.6
192.4
362.8
252.2
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ....................
$0,489
$0,452
$0,448
$0,444
$0,440
$0,435
$0,429
$0 489
$0,451
$0,447
$0,443
$0,439
$0,435
$0,429
Special Indexes:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
89
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average
[1967 =100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
FOOD AND BEVERAGES
1980
1979
1980
1979
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
218.3
230.2
231.0
232.1
233.1
235.5
237.5
218.3
230.4
231.2
232.3
243.8
223.9
236.5
237.3
238.3
233.1
235.7
237.8
239.1
241.8
244.0
Food ..................................................................................................
223.9
236.3
237.1
238.2
239.1
241.7
Food at home ......................................................................................
Cereals and bakery products................................ , .......................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100)....................
Cereal (12/77 - 100) ......................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Bakery products (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
White bread......................................................................
Other breads (12/77 - 100) ............................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100)..................
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) ........................
Cookies (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Crackers and bread and cracker products (12/77 = 100) ..
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . ..
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products
and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 100) ..........
223.1
210.0
112.6
113.0
112,1
112.9
110.6
184.7
111.0
111.8
108.9
110.6
106.5
108.3
233.9
223.7
118.5
122.5
118.0
115.7
118.3
198.4
118.6
118.1
116.6
115.6
114.7
117.5
234.7
225.6
120.0
123.4
118.8
118.6
119.2
200.7
119.6
119.0
116.7
115.9
114.8
118.8
235.4
227.0
120.8
124.0
119.2
120.4
119.9
202.5
120.5
119.4
117.6
116.6
115.0
118.9
236.0
228.7
121.1
122.8
119.7
121.6
121.0
204.5
121.3
121.2
119.4
117.1
114.5
119.9
238.7
231.6
122.9
123.8
122.8
122.2
122.4
207.4
123.3
123.1
120.3
117.8
116.2
121.5
240.6
234.2
125.0
125.7
123.7
126.4
123.5
208.6
123.8
124.8
121.7
119.7
117.5
122.2
222.9
210.9
112.8
114.1
112.2
112.3
111.2
185.3
112.7
111.5
109.5
111.7
106.9
110.1
233.5
224.1
119.0
123.3
118.5
115.8
118.5
198.0
120.8
117.7
116.3
117.2
114.9
119.3
234.2
226.6
120.6
125.1
118.7
119.1
119.7
200.5
122.5
118.6
116.8
117.8
114.9
121.6
234.8
227.9
121.4
125.0
119.3
120.8
120.3
202.3
123.8
118.7
118.1
118.3
115.0.
120.7
235.4
229.7
122.1
124.6
119.9
122.7
121.3
203.9
124.2
120.8
119.1
118.4
116.1
121.9
238.3
232.3
123.8
125.1
122.9
123.9
122.7
206.6
126.0
122.3
120.1
119.6
116.3
123.4
240.1
234.7
126.1
126.9
124.2
127.9
123.6
207.4
126.9
123.1
120.8
121.5
118.4
124.1
111.9
120.8
121.7
122.5
123.7
124.8
125.7
111.0
117.1
118.6
118.8
120.8
121.4
122.5
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs..........................................................
Meats, poultry, and fis h ............................................................
Meats ..............................................................................
Beef and veal................................................................
Ground beef other than canned ..................................
Chuck roast ..............................................................
Round roast ..............................................................
Round steak ..............................................................
Si'ioir steak ..............................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ............................
Pork..............................................................................
Bacon ........................................................................
Pork chops ................................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 = 100)........................
Sausage ....................................................................
Canned ham ..............................................................
Other pork (12/77 - 100)..........................................
Other meats..................................................................
Frankfurters ..............................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) ............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100)................................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100)........................
Poultry ............................................................................
Fresh whole chicken ..................................................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100) ............
Other poultry (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Fish and seafood ..............................................................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)......................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)........
Eggs..........................................................................
223.3
227.0
230.2
235.8
231.0
236.0
230.3
235.9
230.2
235.2
235.5
239.8
238.0
243.0
223.3
226.9
229.6
235.3
230.5
235.4
229.7
235.3
230.0
235.0
235.1
239.2
237.5
242.5
2 2 7.6
2 3 7.8
238.1
2386
23 7.4
2 4 2.3
244.1
2 2 7.5
2 3 7.6
2 3 7.7
238.1
2 3 7.3
24 1.8
24 3.7
227.7
235.7
233.3
206.2
214.2
219.6
130.3
226.7
221.2
213.7
110.2
275.9
235.0
125.0
223.7
218.8
122.9
117.0
121.3
181.2
179.8
114.9
121.3
290.4
108.4
111.9
180.4
251.9
260.3
257.5
222.2
238.1
247.5
145.0
207.4
192.5
195.3
96.4
263.8
221.1
118.3
243.5
241.9
134.3
122.7
137.6
177.1
171.3
112.1
123.0
306.5
112.7
119.2
161.8
254.2
261.4
261.0
229.2
239.2
251.0
145.6
206.5
194.0
198.1
95.2
258.4
216.6
117,4
240.2
235.9
133.2
121.6
135.6
174.8
169.9
111.8
119.2
309.7
113.9
120.4
170.7
256.2
263.4
263.3
230.3
242.2
250.4
147.1
204.3
190.5
195.1
94.8
257.6
218.2
115.2
240.7
236.8
134.2
120.3
137.7
170.3
159.7
110.1
120.3
311.5
115.2
120.7
161.3
255.5
264.2
263.1
229.1
241.9
247.0
146.3
201.0
1863
188.8
95.9
254.5
2148
112.9
242.0
238.9
133.4
121.6
138.3
171.6
166.7
110.8
115.9
312.2
116.8
120.1
170.1
262.2
271.2
268.1
238.1
247.5
250.8
150.2
205.0
193.6
187.8
102.5
256.5
218.9
112.6
243.0
239.3
134.4
121.5
140.0
176.2
175.2
112.3
116.9
312.6
117.1
120.2
185.9
264.6
271.4
274.7
241.9
249.8
250.9
151.8
206.4
194.5
192.1
99.1
256.6
220.8
116.2
243.2
239.0
134.1
121.2
141.6
187.8
191.1
120.7
119.3
316.7
118.5
121.9
178.2
229.8
237.5
241.0
208.4
214.2
219.0
130.9
226.0
222.6
212.7
109.3
273.9
235.6
123.8
220.8
216.6
120.8
115.1
121.6
179.5
176.4
115.5
119.8
288.5
107.8
111.2
181.2
254.1
261.9
264.0
225.9
235.4
247.3
146.0
207.6
195.0
196.2
94.9
263.2
218.9
118.4
239.9
242.6
129.7
120.8
137.9
174.3
166.7
111.1
122.1
301.4
111.5
116.9
160.5
256.4
263.5
267.9
231.0
235.7
253.9
146.6
206.1
195.6
196.1
94.3
258.4
215.3
117.5
236.6
236.1
129.5
119.0
136.9
172.8
165.8
110.9
119.8
304.4
113.5
117.5
170.5
257.5
265.8
268.3
233.0
239.4
249.6
147.0
204.7
194.4
194.9
94.0
258.1
215.8
115.1
238.0
237.7
130.7
118.8
138.8
168.3
157.7
108.4
119.8
306.5
114.5
118.1
160.3
257.7
266.0
273.1
232.7
239.7
247.4
146.6
201.5
188.7
188.1
95.4
255.8
214.6
112.7
238.5
237.2
130.4
119.5
139.8
170.1
163.3
110.7
116.0
307.5
116.0
117.8
169.6
263.7
273.0
274.2
240.5
246.2
253.5
149.9
205.6
195.8
189.1
100.9
258.3
219.1
112.7
239.5
238.7
130.8
119.4
141.7
173.9
169.8
111.8
117.4
309.1
116.5
118.5
186.6
266.7
272.7
283.6
245.1
249.4
253.5
151.9
206.8
195.3
194.8
96.5
260.3
219.3
116.2
239.3
239.5
130.5
118.7
142.5
184.3
183.8
118.7
120.1
315.4
118.4
121.2
177.0
Dairy Products ........................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ................................
Fresh whole milk............................................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ....................
Processed dairy products (12/77 = 100)............................
Butter............................................................................
Cheese (12/77 = 100)..................................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100)................
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) ..............................
198.4
111.8
183.5
110.9
112.7
195.8
112.9
111.8
110.1
2086
117.7
192.8
117.4
118.2
203.0
118.4
1178
115.4
211.3
119.0
195.4
118.1
120.1
209.9
120.1
120.1
115.5
213.3
120.3
197.6
119.2
1209
213.3
121.0
120.4
116.4
216.0
121.9
200.4
120.6
122.3
214.4
122.7
121.4
117.8
216.9
122.7
201.2
122.0
122.5
214.0
122.6
122.6
117.9
218.4
123.2
202.3
122.1
123.8
216.9
123.5
124.0
119.8
198.7
111.7
183.1
111.1
113.2
197.0
112.9
113.1
110.8
208.9
117.9
193.0
117.7
118.4
205.7
118.4
118.1
115.4
212.0
119.5
195.6
119.3
120.5
212.3
120.2
120.7
115.6
214.0
120.4
197.4
119.8
121.7
216.6
121.1
121.9
116.9
216.3
121.8
199.7
121.1
123.0
217.1
122.5
123.4
118.2
217.4
122.6
200.9
122.2
123.3
216.6
122.7
124.3
118.3
218.9
123.2
201.8
122.8
124.5
219.8
123.6
125.6
120.4
Fruits and vegetables ..............................................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables................................................
Fresh fruits....................................................................
Apples ......................................................................
Bananas ....................................................................
Oranges ....................................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100) ................................
Fresh vegetables ..........................................................
Potatoes ......................................................................
Lettuce......................................................................
Tomatoes ..................................................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100) ........................
221 6
224.3
209.1
205.8
179.2
2504
104.1
2386
191.4
342.0
218.7
124.3
237.8
247.5
286.9
275.2
202.3
316.2
157.5
210.7
211.4
235.7
187.0
113.8
231.8
234.7
271.6
244.7
210.3
312.3
147.1
200.3
199.3
219.6
178.5
109.5
232.0
235.5
260.4
212.7
206.6
3067
143.9
212.2
191.1
262.9
194.4
114.0
229.5
230.1
242.7
207.2
209.0
293.9
127.5
218.4
195.7
244.2
225.3
119.1
230.2
230.1
234.9
221.8
225.2
256.7
121.1
225.7
207.0
227.5
227.9
128.0
229.8
227.2
233.6
230.4
221.9
236.2
122.5
221.2
203.8
197.6
216.7
132.0
219.6
221.6
205.6
202.0
177.3
242.6
103.0
236.2
193.1
335.7
216.8
122.7
237.0
247.9
288.9
275.9
202.5
298.6
163.5
211.0
212.1
240.3
185.6
113.3
229.6
232.9
271.2
243.1
208.4
291.8
152.3
198.4
193.4
222.9
179.2
108.0
230.2
233.6
260.6
212.9
199.7
290.3
149.7
209.4
183.8
264.2
194.1
112.5
226.7
226.7
238.3
207.7
206.5
283.3
125.7
216.4
191.7
239.0
225.4
118.9
228.3
228.5
233.3
220.2
222.0
249.5
121.6
224.2
199.6
231.3
224.8
128.1
227.2
224.9
232.7
230.1
219.5
231.3
122.7
217.9
200.9
193.2
213.2
130.5
Processed fruits and vegetables ........................................
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100)......................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100) ..................
Fruit juices and other than frozen (12/77 = 100)..........
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 100)........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100) ............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
220.7
114.4
113.1
111.5
118.6
107.4
107.0
229.2
119.7
115.5
117.9
125.0
110.7
109.7
230.6
120.6
116.3
119.3
125.5
111.2
109.8
230.1
120.4
116.3
119.8
124.6
110.9
110.2
231.0
121.2
116.6
122.1
124.2
110.9
110.2
232.3
121.8
116.8
123.6
124.2
111.7
110.6
234.7
122.9
117.2
125.1
125.3
113.0
111.9
219.3
114.3
112.6
112.1
118.1
106.5
106.8
226.9
119.0
114.4
118.2
123.8
109.5
109.9
227.9
119.8
114.9
119.7
123.9
109.9
109.4
228.3
120.3
115.2
120.7
124.0
109.8
110.2
228.6
121.1
115.7
122.4
124.0
109.4
109.6
230.0
121.3
115.9
123.4
123.5
110.5
110.8
231.8
122.4
116.5
124.5
124.8
111.2
111.4
90
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1979
1980
1979
1980
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Fruits and vegetables— Continued
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) . . .
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77=100)............
Other foods at hom e......................................................................
Sugar and sweets..........................................................................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77=100) ....................................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77=100)......................
Other sweets (12/77=100) ..............................................
Fats and oils (12/77-100) ......................................................
Margarine ........................................................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77=100) ..........
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77=100) ..............
Nonalcoholic beverages ..........................................................
Cola drinks, excluding diet c o la ..........................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77=100)............
Roasted coffee ................................................................
Freeze dried and instant coffee..........................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77=100)..........................
Other prepared foods ..............................................................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77=100)..........................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77=100)..................................
Snacks (12/77-100)........................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77=100)............
Other condiments (12/77-100) ........................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77-100) ......................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) ..
111.0
105.8
260.0
268.2
112.7
113.2
108.8
218.1
233.6
108.9
112.6
345.4
230.1
111.6
363.0
340.2
111.2
200.1
108.2
112.2
109.6
112.5
109.2
111.2
111.8
113.9
109.7
272.8
281.0
119.4
115.6
114.6
228.9
240.3
114.0
119.7
361.8
239.2
116.2
411.7
349.5
114.2
210.5
113.2
120.7
115.7
115.9
115.2
116.3
116.8
114.7
110.1
276.0
282.0
119.7
115.9
115.3
231.5
245.5
114.6
120.6
367.7
242.7
117.9
425.9
359.9
114.0
212.6
113.1
123.1
118.4
117.4
115.9
116.8
116.7
113.6
109.9
278.0
283.1
119.9
119.0
115.9
231.9
244.4
115.1
121.1
372.1
246.4
118.5
432.4
366.5
114.8
213.4
113.4
123.1
119.6
118.8
115.8
117.2
116.7
113,4
110.0
279.6
283.2
120.1
116.2
116.4
232.3
246.2
115.1
121.0
374.3
247.5
118.4
438.1
370.2
115.7
215.3
114.3
124.5
120.4
118.9
116.8
119.0
1177
114.4
110.9
281.1
284.6
120.1
117.2
117.5
233.0
247.7
115.7
121.1
375.4
247.2
118.7
4407
374.3
116.3
217.4
115.9
125.6
121.3
120.1
119.5
118.9
118.6
114.5
112.9
283.5
289.8
121.3
122.2
118.7
233.9
248.3
115.3
121.9
378.5
249.5
119.9
443.2
378.2
116.8
218.8
116.5
126.0
121.8
121.4
120.8
119.6
119.4
109.9
104.6
259.4
267.6
112.6
113.1
107.9
219.1
234.1
109.0
113.3
344.3
228.4
109.5
362.6
340.2
109.9
199.9
107.9
111.4
110.5
112.0
109.7
111.3
110.9
112.0
108.1
271.8
279.9
c 119.0
115.5
113.6
2289
239.8
114.0
119.6
360.0
236.9
114.2
406.1
349.4
113.0
210.4
113.3
118.7
116.4
115.4
116.2
116.3
116.7
112.6
108.7
274.7
281.2
119.3
116.4
114.0
230.7
242.8
114.5
120.4
365.0
240.1
115.7
418.2
358.9
112.7
212.4
113.3
121.1
119.0
116.3
117.5
116.3
116.7
111.9
108.5
276.5
282.2
119.6
116.9
114.8
231.9
244.9
114.6
121.0
368.2
242.0
116.1
424.4
365.3
113.5
213.4
113.3
122.0
120.6
117.6
117.0
116.7
116.9
111.8
108.1
278.3
281.9
119.8
116.2
114.6
232.8
246.7
115.0
121.3
370.7
243.6
115.6
430.8
369.3
114.8
215.7
114.8
122.9
121.7
118.2
118.5
118.6
118.0
113.0
109.1
279.9
284.1
119.9
117.6
116.6
233.7
247.8
115.8
121.5
372.3
243.4
116.4
435.3
372.9
115.5
217.2
116.3
123.9
122.2
119.0
120.2
118.7
118.6
112.7
110.4
2826
289.6
121.2
122.7
117.5
234.9
248.8
116.1
122.3
375.6
246.5
116.4
440.1
376.8
116.2
219.1
116.8
125.1
122.8
121.1
121.4
119.7
119.5
Food away from home..........................................................................
Lunch (12/77-100) ......................................................................
Dinner (12/77-100) ......................................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77=100)............................................
230.2
112.3
111.6
110.9
246.5
120.3
119.8
117.8
247.6
120.7
120.3
118.6
249.6
121.3
121.6
119.5
251.3
122.3
122 4
120.2
253.4
123.3
123.4
121.4
256.1
124.6
124.8
122.5
230.6
112.4
111.7
111.2
248.3
121.3
120.5
119.1
249.3
121.7
120.9
119.9
251.3
122.2
122.4
120.5
252.7
123.2
123.0
120.9
255.1
124.0
124.2
122.5
258.0
125.7
125.6
123.7
Alcoholic beverages ..........................................................................
166.0
173.3
174.2
176.0
177.4
178.0
179.3
166.1
173.6
174.9
176.9
178.0
178.7
179.7
Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77=100)............................................
Beer and a le ..................................................................................
Whiskey ........................................................................................
Wine..............................................................................................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77=100)..........................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77=100)................................
107.8
160.8
124.4
187.0
104.2
110.6
112.7
170.6
128.4
196.0
105.4
114.6
113.3
172.3
129.0
195.2
105.5
115.1
114.6
175.1
129.4
198.0
105.9
115.9
115.6
176.9
130.7
198.1
107.0
116.4
116.0
177.8
130.8
199.1
106.9
116.8
116.8
179.0
131.6
201.6
107.1
118.0
108.5
161.5
125.2
191.1
103.3
107.8
113.4
170.3
129.9
199.4
105.1
112.8
114.3
171.8
130.4
202.7
105.3
113.4
115.7
175.2
131.0
202.5
105.9
114.2
116.5
176.9
131.9
201.5
106.2
114.9
117.0
177.6
132.0
204.0
106.4
115.2
117.6
178.8
132.9
203.8
106.4
115.9
FOOD AND BEVERAGES-Continued
Food— Continued
Food at home— Continued
MOUSING............................................................................................
213.1
231.5
234.6
237.7
240.8
243.6
247.3
212.8
231.5
234.5
237.7
240.7
243.6
247.3
Shelter................................................................................................
222.8
243.9
247.4
251.5
255.9
259.4
264.0
222.9
244.5
248.2
252.4
256.9
260.4
265.1
Rent, residential....................................................................................
170.3
177.5
179.0
181.4
182.1
182.9
184.1
170.3
177.3
178.9
181.2
181.9
182.7
183.9
Other rental costs ................................................................................
Lodging while out of town................................................................
Tenants' insurance (12/77=100) ....................................................
221.3
230.4
104.5
238.2
251.2
112.0
239.3
251.8
113.7
241.6
254.2
114.1
243.1
256.2
114.6
244.9
258.4
115.1
251.1
267.0
116.2
221.2
229.8
104,6
237.6
249.5
112.6
238.6
249.9
114.1
241.3
253.0
114.7
242.6
254.6
115.0
244.4
256.9
115.5
251.1
266.1
116.8
Homeownership....................................................................................
Home purchase..............................................................................
Financing, taxes, and insurance ......................................................
Property insurance ..................................................................
Property taxes ........................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t............................................
Mortgage interest rates......................................................
Maintenance and repairs ................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ..............................................
Maintenance and repair commodities ........................................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77=100) ................................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77=100)............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77=100)....................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77=100) ..........
241.6
208.1
276.6
293.0
179.9
328.2
155.1
245.2
265.1
198.7
267.6
226.9
316.4
314.6
183.1
387.2
167.7
259.7
281.8
208.1
271.9
229.8
323.0
316.7
184.7
396.7
169.7
262.5
284.4
211.5
276.7
233.4
330.5
319.9
185.1
408.1
172.0
264.7
287.0
212.5
282.4
237.3
340.1
320.8
185.1
423.1
175.4
266.4
288.8
214.0
286.9
239.9
348.3
323.1
186.0
435.3
178.3
268.3
290.4
216.6
292.5
242.1
359.8
327.7
186.7
452.8
183.7
270.6
293.2
217.6
242.0
207.9
277.9
292.6
181.3
328.0
155.2
244,5
265.0
198.4
268.9
227.0
318.7
314.2
184.6
387.4
167.8
260.8
284.2
209.0
273.3
230.0
325.6
318.5
186.1
397.1
169.7
263.4
287.2
2108
278.3
233.6
333.5
321.9
186.5
408.8
172.0
265.3
289.4
211.9
284.1
237.7
343.5
322.6
186.6
424.2
175.6
266.5
290.3
213.6
288.7
240.2
351.6
324.5
187.4
436.1
178.4
268.9
292.8
215.8
294.6
242.3
363.4
328.8
188.2
453.7
183.8
271.9
295.9
218.4
109.1
108.7
114.3
113.7
117.0
115.2
117.4
116.0
118.8
115.5
121.6
115.4
122.5
115.9
109.1
109.4
115.0
114.8
116.1
115.7
116.6
116.2
118.1
117.2
120.3
118.1
122.2
118.6
105.3
107.2
110.8
111.1
111.9
112.9
112.8
113.3
113.4
113.8
114.7
114.3
114.7
115.4
105.7
104.9
111.5
110.3
112.6
111.2
113 8
111.9
114.0
112.2
114.5
112.3
117.0
113.2
Fuel and other utilities........................................................................
221.5
247.2
251.2
252.9
252.0
255.1
258.6
221.7
247.7
251.7
253.4
252.4
255.7
259.2
Fuels ..................................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..........................................................
Fuel o il....................................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ........................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ..............................................................
Electricity................................................................................
Utility (piped! gas ....................................................................
256.3
3164
318.8
99.7
239.5
204.0
282.8
299.7
438.6
458.2
109.3
266.5
229.2
309.7
306.6
461.6
482.5
114.4
270.1
230.6
317.5
310.3
470.8
491.2
118.5
272.5
228.7
329.1
307.0
477.4
497.2
121.7
267.3
221.5
328.9
311.8
488.0
507.3
126.0
270.8
224.7
332.6
318.0
514.0
534.4
132.7
273.0
226.6
335.1
256.3
316.6
319.0
99.7
239.5
204.3
281.7
299.8
439.0
458.5
109.4
266.5
299.7
308.5
306.6
462.5
483.3
114.6
269.9
231.1
315.8
310.1
471.7
491.9
118.8
272.2
228.8
327.4
306.9
478.2
497.7
122.2
267.1
221.5
327.8
311.8
489.0
508.1
126.6
270.7
224.9
331.1
318.1
515.1
534.9
133.7
273.0
226.8
333.8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
91
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
1980
1979
1980
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
159.0
132.5
100.6
98.7
100.9
239.3
159.8
132.5
100.5
98.5
101.5
244.6
159.8
132.4
100.4
98.4
101.4
245.3
158.8
131.2
98.7
98.4
101.7
245.6
161.0
133.3
101.8
98.4
101.5
247.1
161.9
134.3
103.2
98.4
101.5
247.2
161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.8
250.0
159.1
132.5
100.7
98.8
100.9
239.6
159.8
132.5
100.6
98.5
101.4
244.6
159.8
132.4
100.5
98.4
101.3
245.5
158.9
131.3
98.8
98.4
101.5
245.8
160 9
133.3
101.8
98.4
101.3
247.2
161.8
134.2
103.2
98.4
101.3
247.3
161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.6
250.5
HOUSING-Continued
Fuel and other utilities—Continued
Other utilities and public services ............................................................
Telephone services ..........................................................................
Local charges (12/77 = 100) . ................................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 =100) ..............................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ....................................................
Household furnishings and operations ................................................
184.8
191.2
192.2
193.3
195.1
195.8
1969
183.6
1898
190.6
191.7
193.2
193.9
194,9
Housefurnishings ....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings....................................................................
Household linens (12/77 - 100) ................................................
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and’sewing materials (12/77 = 100) .
Furniture and bedding ......................................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Sofas (12/77 - 100) ................................................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Other furniture (12/77 - 100)....................................................
Appliances including TV and sound equipment....................................
Television and sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Television ................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 - 100) ........................................
Household appliances................................................................
Refrigerators and home freezer............................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Other household appliances (12/77 - 100)..........................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 = 100)................................
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Floor and window coverings, infants’ laundry
cleaning and outdoor equipment (12/77 - 100) ......................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) .
158.9
167.1
101.1
107.3
171.6
109.3
103.0
103.1
109.5
133.9
103.8
102.9
105.6
152.1
150.2
107.4
107.1
163.2
172.8
103.6
112.0
177.1
114.0
106.3
104 9
112.7
135.8
104.3
102.8
106.8
155.5
154.6
110.7
108.6
164.1
175.3
106.7
112.0
178.3
114.8
107.1
105.1
113.9
136.2
104.7
102.9
107.5
155.8
154.1
110.9
109.1
165.2
177.8
107.7
114.2
180.0
116.4
107.3
106.2
115.0
136.9
104.9
103.4
107.4
156.9
155.3
112.1
109.8
166.6
178.9
108 8
114.4
182.2
117.7
107.9
107.7
116.8
137.5
105.0
103.6
107.4
158.2
156.0
113.1
1108
166.9
178.6
108.3
114.6
182 8
118.3
108.2
108.1
117.1
137.5
105.3
103.6
107.8
157.9
156.7
113.6
109.9
167.6
176.7
105.4
115.1
184 0
119.1
108.2
108.9
118.1
137.8
105.3
103.7
107.8
158.5
156.7
114.1
110.5
158.5
168.5
102.4
108.1
171.1
107.8
104.1
103 8
108.6
133.3
102.9
101.9
104.8
151.9
152.7
107.0
106.0
163.0
173.0
103.7
112.7
177.3
112.7
108.2
106.1
112.5
135.5
104.0
101.9
106.7
155.1
157.9
110.2
107.1
163.5
174.9
106.3
112.2
178.5
113.0
108.6
106.7
114.2
135.7
104.4
101.9
107.4
155.2
156.5
111.2
107.2
164.4
177.2
107.4
114.1
180.3
114.8
109.6
107.5
114.7
135.7
104.1
102.0
106.9
155.6
157 9
111.3
107.2
165.5
178.4
108.3
114.5
182.1
115.9
111.7
108.6
115.3
136.2
104.4
102.4
107.1
156.2
158.1
112.2
107.6
165.9
177.3
107.2
114.4
182.7
116.0
111.6
109.2
115.9
136.9
104.8
102.2
108.0
157.1
159.0
112.8
108.2
166.5
175.3
106.0
113.2
183.6
116.8
110.6
109.4
117.8
137.2
104.9
102.2
108.2
157.7
159.4
113.8
108.6
108.5
108.5
108.6
109.0
109.7
108 6
110.0
107.2
107.7
107.7'
106.9
107.1
108.1
109.2
105.4
106.5
108.8
110.7
109.7
110.9
110.7
111.2
112.1
112.4
111.4
113.0
111.1
114.6
104.6
106.2
106.4
110.6
106.8
110.3
107.6
110.8
108.2
111.6
108.3
111.8
107.8
113.3
106.0
103.0
109.5
107.1
111.1
108.0
109.8
108.6
111.1
110.0
111.7
110.1
113.1
111.6
102.5
103.8
105.9
106.7
105.8
107.0
105.5
107.1
107.7
108.2
107.4
107.3
108 9
109.4
109.5
105.4
115.1
108.5
114.7
107.6
115.4
108.5
116.8
109.0
117.2
110.3
119.9
110.6
108.7
106.7
113.9
111.5
114.5
109.5
114.7
111.0
115.2
111.1
115.2
112.5
117.3
113.0
Housekeeping supplies............................................................................
Soaps and detergents ......................................................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) ..
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100) ..............
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 100)..........................................
215.9
209.0
108.0
112.5
105.7
109.5
107.0
223.4
212.5
112.0
116.2
109.5
112.9
113.8
224.1
215.1
112.3
116.4
109.9
113.3
112.7
224.8
217.9
113.7
117.2
109.5
114.3
110.0
228.3
220.6
114.1
119.2
111.3
115.6
113.8
229.2
221.2
114.7
120.5
111.9
116.9
112.5
231.1
224.1
116.1
120.6
111.6
117.7
114.4
214.9
207.6
107.4
112,4
104.7
108.0
107.2
221.6
210.9
111.9
116.3
108.5
111.3
111.3
222.6
214.5
112.4
117.1
108.3
111.6
109.9
223.9
216.3
113.5
117.9
108.6
112.7
108.8
226.7
218.2
113.7
119.6
109.2
114.1
113.2
227.2
219.7
114.5
120.9
109.3
114.7
109.9
228.8
222.2
115.6
121.8
109.0
115.0
111.3
Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage ..........................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) ....................................
239.6
257.3
251.6
257.3
253.4
257.3
254.6
257.3
256.6
257.3
258.1
257.3
260.0
257.3
238.5
257.2
250.4
257.2
252.1
257.2
2539
257.2
2559
257.2
257.5
257.2
259.2
257.2
1094
106.4
117.3
1107
118.1
111.7
118.8
112.3
120.4
112.9
121.2
113.4
122 9
114.0
109.9
105.5
117.7
110.3
118.6
111.1
119.7
112.1
121.2
112.9
122.3
113.4
123.3
114,4
APPAREL AND UPKEEP........................................................................
160.7
166.3
169.8
171.0
171.7
172 2
171.0
161.1
166.2
169.3
170.8
171.3
171.4
169.8
Apparel commodities............................................................................
155.8
160.6
164.2
165.2
165.9
166.1
164.3
156.4
160.7
163.9
165.3
165.7
165.7
163.6
Apparel commodities less footwear....................................................
Men's and boys’ ..............................................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ......................
Coats and jackets (12/77 = 100)........................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100) ....................
Shirts (12/77 = 100) ..........................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ....................
Boys’ (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100) ..............
Furnishings (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 =100) ........
Women’s and girls' ..........................................................................
Women’s (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Coats and jackets ..............................................................
Dresses ..............................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100)................
Suits (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Girls (12/77 = 100) ..................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 100)..................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 = 100)..............................................
153.6
157.4
997
97.7
95.3
104.8
101.5
98.6
99.9
93.2
105.8
102.9
146.9
98.0
158.0
156.9
97.1
102.7
88.9
96.1
92.8
95.6
157.7
159.6
100.6
97.1
95.5
109.3
103.2
98.1
103.3
101.1
107.9
103.1
151.3
100.7
170.4
162.8
96.3
106.2
89.8
100.5
100.8
98.3
161.5
162.7
102.7
100.0
96.5
110.6
107.2
99.0
104.8
102.7
109.4
104.5
155.9
103.9
174.1
171.1
99.8
106.2
96.7
102.4
102.8
100.9
162.3
164.2
103.5
101.6
97.8
109.9
108.5
99.5
106.3
103.9
110.8
106.5
155.5
103.4
173.9
167.2
99.6
106 6
97.1
103.6
102.8
102.5
162.9
165.4
104.3
101.2
98.1
112.4
109.7
100.5
106.6
103.2
111.5
107.4
155.1
103.0
173.3
164,3
99.2
108.1
95.2
103.9
102 2
103.6
163.0
165.4
104.3
100.9
98.0
112.3
110.5
100.4
106.6
102.4
111.9
107.8
154.6
102.8
170.0
165.3
96.6
108.2
95.8
102.8
100.3
102.6
161.1
162.8
102.6
98.8
95.5
112.2
108.6
982
105.6
99.3
111.5
108.2
151.5
100.8
166.4
161.3
96.1
108.6
91.0
100.5
97.5
99.9
154.3
158.1
100.3
96.6
98.4
104.1
101.5
100.7
99.5
92.9
105.6
102.3
147.2
98.5
159.2
158.1
96.0
103.4
91.0
95.2
92.1
94.7
157.9
161.1
101.9
96.2
99.2
107.0
104.9
101.9
102.7
100.3
107.0
102.9
150.5
100.4
173.1
152.8
97.7
107.0
91.0
98.8
95.9
997
161.2
163.2
103.2
98.3
99.1
108.6
107.1
102.5
103.9
102.0
108.8
103.5
154.4
103.0
175.7
158.5
100.4
107.4
98.1
101.1
98.5
102.1
162.4
164.4
103.8
99.1
99.5
109.1
108.3
102.8
105.3
103.8
110.1
104.7
154.8
103.3
174.1
159.1
100.4
107,9
99.9
101.5
97,9
103.5
162.7
165.3
104.5
98.7
99.7
110.0
109.4
104.0
105.6
103.4
109.7
105 8
154.5
103.0
172.4
156.8
100.7
108.9
97.5
101.7
97,5
104.3
162.6
165.0
104.2
968
99.1
109.9
111.5
103.4
105.8
103.1
110.2
106.2
153.5
102.3
167.9
155.7
99.5
109.3
98.1
101.4
97.7
102.9
160.2
162.4
102.3
94.9
95.6
109.3
108.3
102.2
104.7
99.8
109.7
106.6
149.9
1001
165.0
150.0
97.1
109.1
94.0
97.9
91.9
998
102 5
1041
105.7
106.7
107.2
107.3
106.7
101.0
101.8
103.5
103.9
104.2
1044
104.4
92
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1980
1979
1980
1979
Jan.
Aug.
Sept
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Apparel commodities less footwear—Continued
Infants' and toddlers’ ......................................................................
Other apparel commodities ............................................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 - 100) ............................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 = 100) ........................................
215.9
161.9
98.7
107.2
221.2
169.8
102.3
113.0
223.4
172.6
102.3
115.6
224.8
175.5
102.2
118.3
226.3
177.8
100.8
121.0
227.1
180.9
102.4
123.1
224.9
184.4
103.2
126.1
215.6
165.0
98.7
110.4
224.2
170.2
96.8
116.1
226.0
174.9
100.4
118.9
228.7
178.7
100.8
122.3
228.7
179.8
99.7
123.8
230.5
182.9
100.8
126.2
229.1
185.5
101.2
128.4
Footwear..............................................................................................
Men’s (12/77 - 100) ....................................................................
Boys’ and girls’ (12/77 = 100) ......................................................
Womens’ (12/77 = 100)................................................................
168.7
106.5
106.1
104.8
177.5
114.5
112.0
108.1
180.1
115.0
111.6
112.0
182.6
116.7
113.0
113.5
183.8
117.7
114.0
113.9
184.3
117.3
115.8
113.8
183.7
117.8
117.3
111.6
168.0
106.7
105.9
103.5
176.9
115.2
111.4
106.5
179.4
116.3
111.6
109.6
181.9
118.0
113.0
111.1
183.2
119.1
114.5
111.2
183.8
119.4
114.7
111.8
183.3
119.3
116.9
109.4
Apparel services ................................................................................
Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)............
Other apparel services (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
194.6
112.6
107.4
207.7
122.1
111.9
210.2
123.6
113.0
212.5
125.2
114.0
214.2
126.3
114.7
216.6
127.1
117.0
220.7
129.3
119.6
194.1
112.4
107.8
206.7
121.8
111.5
208.7
123.2
112.3
210.8
124.7
112.9
212.0
125.7
113.3
213.4
126.6
113.7
216.9
129.0
115.1
APPAREL AND UPKEEP - Continued
Apparel commodities — Continued
TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................
193.9
219.6
221.4
222.7
224.9
227.7
233.5
194.5
220.7
222.4
223.4
225.7
228.3
234.1
Private................................................................................................
193.9
220.4
222.0
223.1
225.0
227.5
233.5
194.2
221.2
222.7
223.7
225.7
228.2
234.1
New cars ............................................................................................
Used c a rs ............................................................................................
Gasoline ..............................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair........................................................
Body work (12/77 - 100)..............................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 - 100) ................................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Power plant repair (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Other private transportation ..................................................................
Other private transportation commodities ........................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 - 100) ................
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Tires ................................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Other private transportation services................................................
Automobile insurance ..............................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . .
State registration ..............................................................
Drivers' license (12/77 = 100) ..........................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other vehicle related fees (12/77 = 100) ..........................
161.2
193.6
209.1
231.3
110.4
166.6
207.0
292.0
245.7
118.6
166.1
202.9
301.0
247.1
119.4
167.5
199.9
303.8
249.1
120.6
170.6
198.4
306.9
250.8
121.6
171.7
198.2
313.9
252.6
123.3
173.9
197.2
334.6
255.1
125.0
160.8
193.6
209.5
231.7
111.2
166.3
207.0
293.3
246.0
118.6
165.9
202.9
302.3
247.5
119.2
167.4
199.9
305.2
249.4
120.4
170.9
198.4
308.3
251.1
121.7
171.7
198.3
315.6
253.4
123.1
174.1
197.2
335.9
256.2
124.3
110.8
109.8
109.2
191.4
165.6
105.4
107.3
147.9
107.8
200.1
221.8
111.1
104.6
143.8
104.5
110.2
108 6
117.4
116.3
116.0
200.5
175.1
112.2
113.4
154.7
116.7
209.1
232.3
117.2
107.5
144.0
104.5
114.6
115.5
118.1
116.9
116.7
201.7
177.7
114.4
114.9
156.4
119.1
210.1
233.5
117.7
107.8
144.0
104.5
114.6
116.1
119.4
117.5
117.8
203.7
182.0
115.9
117.9
160.7
121.8
211.4
233.8
120.4
107.9
144.0
104.5
114.6
116.4
120.1
118.4
118.5
205.5
183.4
117.4
118.7
161.5
123.0
213.4
233.9
124.6
108.3
144.1
104.5
115.6
117.1
120.6
119.2
119.2
207.5
185.6
118.1
120.3
163.8
124.4
215.3
235.3
127.2
108.5
144.1
104.5
117.5
117.6
121.8
120.2
120.4
209.8
188.4
120.9
121.9
165.8
126.6
217.6
237.1
129.9
109.1
144.2
104.7
117.5
118.8
111.6
109.2
109.7
192.0
168.1
105.8
109.1
150.7
109.1
200.2
221.9
110.1
105.0
143.6
104.3
111.4
111.2
118.2
116.0
116.3
201.0
176.1
112.0
114.1
156.1
116.8
209.6
232.3
116.4
108.1
143.9
104.3
115.5
119.3
119.0
116.8
117.0
202.3
178.7
114.5
115.7
158.1
118.6
210.6
233.5
117.0
108.4
143.9
104.3
115.5
120.3
120.2
117.3
118.0
204.0
181.6
115.9
117.6
161.1
120.0
211.9
233.7
119.4
108.6
143.9
104.2
115.5
120.8
120.8
118.2
118.6
206.3
183.9
118.1
119.0
163.0
121.5
214.3
233.9
124.1
108.9
144.0
104.2
116.5
121.3
121.8
.119.3
119.6
208.4
186.4
119.3
120.6
165.7
122.4
216.3
235.2
126.5
109.2
144.0
104.2
118.3
122.2
123.6
120.4
120.9
210.6
188.0
122.4
121.4
166.3
124.0
218.7
236.8
129.4
109.8
144.1
104.5
118.3
123.8
Public..................................................................................................
190.0
200.8
205.2
209.1
216.5
223.0
226.8
190.9
200.6
204.1
207.3
214.0
219.1
221.9
Airline fare..........................................................................................
Intercity bus fare ..................................................................................
Intracity mass transit ............................................................................
Taxi fare ..............................................................................................
Intercity train fare..................................................................................
189.8
243.9
186.4
208.6
192.8
205.2
263.2
190.5
224.7
220.6
214.1
268.0
190.5
228.5
221.0
220.6
276.0
191.3
233.6
221.1
232.1
279.8
195.6
237.0
231.0
245.5
282.2
196.4
238.5
236.3
251.1
284.7
198.5
243.1
237.2
189.4
244.1
186.3
213.0
192.8
205.2
263.0
190.2
230.3
220.8
214.2
268.0
190.2
233.9
221.3
220.7
275.5
191.0
238.7
221.4
232.4
279.9
195.1
242.4
232.1
245.8
282.3
195.7
243.9
236.6
251.0
284.8
196.7
248.9
237.1
MEDICAL CARE ..................................................................................
230.7
241.8
243.7
245.9
248.0
250.7
253.9
230.2
242.6
244.7
247.2
249.1
251.7
254.9
Medical care commodities
148.8
155.0
155.8
156.6
157.8
159.2
160.5
149.6
156.2
156.7
157.4
158.5
159.9
161.0
143.7
113.2
114.8
109.7
144.4
114.1
115.0
110.0
145.2
114.8
115.6
110.6
146.2
115.5
116.9
111.6
147.4
116.8
118.3
112.3
148.8
118.2
119.7
113.0
Prescription drugs ................................................................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 = 100)..................................................
Tranquillizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100)......................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 100)........................................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription and supplies (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 = 100)................................................
Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 100) ....................
Eyeglasses (12/77 = 100) ............................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ................................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100)........
137.3
108 6
111.4
105.3
142.8
112.5
114.6
109.3
143.5
113.1
114.9
109.3
144.5
113.5
115.8
109.7
145.5
113.9
117.1
111.0
146.4
114.6
118.4
111.4
147.9
115.8
119.9
112.4
138.1
109.8
111.2
106.2
113.2
109.4
120.3
113.7
120.9
1148
122.5
115.6
123.2
116.8
123.8
117.8
126.0
118.8
113.6
109.8
120.4
115.2
120.8
116.0
122.2
116.3
122.6
117.5
123.1
118.2
124.8
119.0
106.4
110.3
110.9
111.3
111.9
112.1
112.6
107.5
111.7
112.2
112.6
112.8
113.7
114.2
115.3
111.5
179.1
113.8
107.5
105.0
165.7
106.8
112.8
109.3
174.7
111.2
113.2
110.0
175.2
111.8
114.0
110.4
176.6
112.7
115.1
110.5
178.5
114.2
115.6
111.4
179.0
115.0
106.8
104.6
164.5
106.4
111.4
108.7
172.2
110.4
112.0
109.2
173.0
110.8
112.5
110.2
173.7
111.0
113.4
110.9
175.4
111.8
114.6
110.9
177.9
113.1
112.5
108.9
174.3
111.3
Medical care services ........................................................................
248.3
260.6
2628
265.3
267.6
270.7
274.4
247.4
261.2
263.8
266.8
268.8
271.8
275.6
Professional services ............................................................................
Physicians' services........................................................................
Dertal services..............................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 = 100)......................................
219.2
234.5
207.9
108.3
228.9
246.6
216.0
111.9
230.3
248.4
217.2
112.4
231.6
249.7
218.5
112.7
233.0
250.8
220.7
112.8
235.9
252.5
224.5
115.1
238.9
256.0
227.4
116.6
219.3
233.7
209.7
107.6
231.1
248.7
219.0
111.5
233.1
251.5
220.7
111.7
234.9
254.4
221.2
112.1
235.9
255.5
222.7
112.2
238.3
256.5
226.1
114.8
241.7
260.3
229.5
115.9
Other medical care services..................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)..........................
Hospital room..........................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services ..................................
283.7
112.8
355.9
111.8
299.0
118.6
374.2
117.4
302.0
119.6
376.4
118.8
306.2
121.3
380.2
120.8
309.5
122.6
385.1
122.0
312.8
123.8
389.4
122.9
317.4
125.6
395.3
124.7
281.7
112.2
354.0
111.1
298.1
117.8
371.7
116.7
301.3
118.9
374.1
118.0
305.9
120.5
379.4
119.5
309.3
121.8
383.6
120.8
313.0
123.2
388.7
122.1
317.3
124.9
393.9
123.8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
93
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1979
1980
1979
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
ENTERTAINMENT................................................................................
182.3
190.2
191.1
192.0
192.8
193.4
195.3
182.1
188.9
190.2
191.4
192.0
r 192.3
193.9
Entertainment commodities........................................ *•.....................
182.6
191.0
192.0
193.1
194.0
195.2
197.6
181.9
188.4
189.9
190.7
191.3
192.4
194.2
Reading materials (12/77 - 100).................................... ......................
Newspapers ..................................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)............................
106.9
206.2
109.2
111.1
214.0
113.7
111.9
214.5
115.0
113.8
217.7
117.2
114.5
222.4
116.0
115.1
223.5
116.8
116.7
226.8
118.1
106.6
205.8
109.3
110.7
213.7
113.5
111.4
214.2
114.8
113.3
217.4
117.2
114.2
222.2
115.8
114.8
223.3
116.6
116.2
226.4
117.8
Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Sport vehicles (12/77 - 100) ........................................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100)................
Bicycles ........................................................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 - 100) ........................
104.4
104.3
104.5
154.0
103.8
110.4
111.3
105.9
163.8
108.6
111.3
112.3
106.1
165.6
109.3
111.2
111.5
107.5
167.1
110.0
111.7
112.2
107.8
167.1
110.3
112.2
112.9
107.5
167.1
111.0
113.8
114.9
107.6
170.5
111.8
103.2
103.3
101.6
153.5
102.7
105.4
103.9
104.7
162.9
107.2
107.5
106.7
104.7
164.7
108.5
106.7
104.6
106.0
166.9
109.8
106.9
104.8
106.1
167.4
110.2
107.7
105.8
106.3
167.0
111.3
108.6
106.6
106.4
170.5
111.9
Toys, hobbies and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)............................
Toys, hobbies and music equipment (12/77 = 100)..........................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Pet supplies and expense (12/77 - 100) ........................................
105.6
106.2
105.0
105.1
110.2
110.0
108.2
111.8
110.4
110.4
108.9
111.6
110.8
110.7
109.4
112.1
111.2
110.5
109.9
113.5
112.1
111.2
109.7
115.5
113.2
112.1
110.8
116.8
105.7
105.5
104.9
106.5
110.2
109.8
107.6
112.6
110.4
109.6
108.8
112.9
111.0
110.1
109.3
113.9
111.2
109.8
109.6
114.6
111.8
109.9
110.1
116.1
112.6
110.9
111.2
116.7
Entertainment services ......................................................................
182.3
189.4
190.2
190.8
191.5
191.1
192.5
183.4
190.7
191.8
193.5
194.3
r 193.0
194.4
Fees for participant sports (12/77 - 100)..............................................
Admissions (12/77 = 100)....................................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100)..........................................
106.8
111.1
107.2
112.3
114.7
109.7
113.0
115.2
109.4
113.2
115.7
110.0
113.8
116.1
110.0
113.8
116.6
108.6
114.6
117.9
109.1
108.0
110.9
106.8
112.3
115.9
110.9
113.4
116.3
110.9
114.9
116.8
111.4
115.2
117.3
112.0
r 115.0
117.8
109.0
115.6
119.4
109.3
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES..........................................................
190.5
197.0
201.7
202.3
202.9
204.0
206.3
190.3
197.2
200.6
201.4
202.0
203.0
206.0
Tobacco products
183.0
189.9
190.9
191.3
191.5
192.1
196.7
183.1
190.1
190.9
191.2
191.4
192.1
197.1
C gazettes............................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)............
185.5
107.3
192.6
111.1
193.6
112.2
193.8
113.0
194.0
112.8
194.7
113.2
199.7
113.9
185.8
106.5
193.1
110.0
193.7
111.0
193.9
112.3
194.1
112.4
194.8
112.7
200.3
113.4
Personal care
188.9
197.5
199.0
199.8
200.9
203.0
204.2
188 8
197.6
198.4
199.4
200.5
202.3
204.4
Toilet goods and personal care appliances..............................................
Products for the hair, hairpieces and wigs (12/77 = 100)..................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 =100) ....................................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100) ................................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)
182.5
105.8
106.8
189.7
111.1
113.6
191.4
111.6
114.3
192.5
111.9
114.1
193.1
112.2
115.6
195.8
113.0
117.3
196.4
114.2
117.8
182.4
104.4
107.0
190.2
110.5
112.1
191.0
110.6
112.5
191.6
111.1
112.7
192.4
111.4
113.9
194.5
112.4
114.7
196.2
114.0
115.3
105.2
106.4
108.9
107.6
110.4
108.6
110.7
110.9
111.4
109.9
113.0
112.1
112.9
112.1
104.7
108.5
110.0
109.7
110.6
110.3
110.1
111.7
110.2
112.3
112.1
113.1
112.9
114.0
Personal care services..........................................................................
Beauty parlor services for women....................................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . .
195.2
196.7
109.0
205.0
206.1
115.1
206.4
207.7
115.5
207.0
208.3
115.9
208.5
210.3
116.1
210.0
212.1
116.8
211.6
213.3
118.1
195.2
197.5
108.1
205.0
206.7
114.2
205.8
207.4
114.7
207.3
209.1
115.4
208.6
210.2
116.3
210.2
212.0
117.1
212.7
214.2
118.8
Personal and educational expenses ..................................................
207.4
210.8
223.3
224.0
224.2
224.6
226.3
207.7
211.2
223.5
224.2
224.4
224.8
226.2
School books and supplies....................................................................
Personal and educational services..........................................................
Tuition and other school fees ..........................................................
College tuition (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ....................
Personal expenses (12/77 = 100)..................................................
190.7
211.7
108.4
108 6
107.5
109.3
192.6
215.4
109.4
109.7
108.3
114.8
201.5
228.6
117.7
116.9
120.9
115.1
202.3
229.4
118.1
117.3
120.9
115.8
202.3
229.6
118.1
117.3
120.9
116.3
202.5
229.9
118.1
117.3
120.9
117.3
206.0
231.4
118.3
117.6
120.9
120.1
193.1
211.7
108.3
108.6
107.4
109.3
195.2
215.5
109.4
109.7
108.4
114.4
205.0
228.4
117.9
116.8
120.7
114.4
205.8
229.0
118.2
117.3
120.7
114.9
205.9
229.3
118.2
117.3
120.7
115.5
206.0
229.7
118.2
117.3
120.7
116.3
209.8
230.6
118.4
117.6
120.7
117.7
207.4
249.1
202.9
259.5
288.2
278.7
217.0
274.4
297.1
283.5
219.3
276.6
299.8
2889
220.7
278.7
302.9
296.0
220.5
280.6
309.7
302.1
223.5
282.2
329.9
310.5
225.0
284.7
207.8
249.0
203.3
258.9
289.5
278.3
217.4
275.3
298.3
283.1
219.5
277.8
301.2
228.5
220.7
279.9
304.3
295.8
220.3
281.3
311.4
301.6
223.0
283.4
331.3
310.0
224.4
286.0
Special Indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant and other products ......................................
Insurance and finance ..........................................................................
Utilities and public transportation............................................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ......................................
94
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)
Size class B
(385,000-1.250 million)
Size class C
(75,000 385,000)
Size class D
(75,000 or less)
Category and group
1979
Aug.
Oct.
1979
Dec.
Aug.
Oct.
1979
1979
Aug.
Dec.
Oct.
Dec.
Aug.
Oct.
Dec.
Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All Items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Appare and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services .................................... ....................................
115.0
117.9
114.8
104.9
119.6
113.6
110.6
108.3
117.3
119.2
117.9
107.7
121.1
115.4
111.4
111.7
119.0
120.6
119.8
108.9
123.7
117.3
111.5
112.7
117.3
118.9
116.7
106.1
123.4
115.3
110.9
111.4
120.2
119.6
121.3
109.2
125.0
118.5
113.6
114.1
122.2
121.9
123.7
109.0
127.6
120.0
113.5
114.3
120.2
121.7
122.5
104.3
123.6
114.8
110.4
113.0
123.0
121.9
127.7
107.8
124.9
117.0
110.0
115.6
125.7
123.2
132.1
108.5
127.0
118.9
109.8
116.3
116.9
120.4
116.1
103.4
122.5
114.8
113.6
109.2
119.2
119.4
119.9
108.3
124.5
116.3
114.1
112.5
121.8
121.2
123.2
109.8
127.3
119.0
115.1
113.1
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
116.6
115.8
113.0
118.6
118.3
115.6
120.5
120.4
117.2
119.0
119.0
114.6
121.8
122.8
117.8
123.7
124.6
119.9
120.8
120.4
119.1
122.8
123.2
123.3
125.1
126.0
126.6
117.7
116.5
115.7
120.0
120.4
117.9
122.5
123.2
120.7
North Central
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
121.0
120.2
125.8
102.8
122.8
115.0
111.9
109.0
123.2
121.2
128.7
105.3
125.0
115.9
112.6
112.5
126.3
123.2
133.1
105.6
127.9
119.6
113.9
113.6
120.5
118.6
124.1
104.6
122.9
117.2
109.2
114.9
122.3
119.2
125.7
109.9
125.2
118.6
110.7
117.8
124.6
120.2
129.3
110.9
127.5
119.3
111.0
117.7
119.0
120.4
120.3
105.3
123.7
116.4
110.5
110.0
121.9
121.6
124.5
107.4
126.0
117.5
112.7
112.3
123.7
123.4
125.9
109.0
129.1
119.7
114.4
114.0
119.5
122.0
120.5
104.0
123.2
117.5
111.3
112.7
122.0
122.8
124.0
110.0
124.3
119.1
112.7
115.7
123.0
124.8
123.6
111.9
127.3
121.8
113.8
116.1
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services .......................................................... ' ................................................
120.7
120.9
121.5
122.5
123.0
124.3
125.4
126.4
127.7
119.4
119.7
122.4
120.8
121.5
124.7
122.5
123.5
128.0
119.1
118.5
118.8
121.7
121.7
122.2
123.5
123.6
124.1
118.9
117.6
120.4
121.1
120.4
123.3
122.5
121.6
123.8
South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
118.7
121.1
119.9
107.5
122.6
113.3
108.1
111.5
120.7
122.2
122.0
111.2
124.2
116.0
109.4
114,4
123.1
123.5
125.0
112.3
127.6
117.7
109.5
115.8
120.1
120.3
122.4
107.3
123.5
115.7
111.9
110.8
122.4
121.3
125.8
110.8
124.5
116.9
113.2
114.0
124.6
122.9
128.4
110.3
127.8
118.3
113.9
115.1
119.9
121.6
122.7
104.5
121.8
115.5
111.8
111.4
122.1
122.1
125.9
106.4
123.2
117.6
113.6
114.2
124.3
123.9
128.4
105.7
126.4
120.7
113.8
115.5
118.5
120.0
119.3
102.8
122.4
118.5
115.9
114.3
120.6
121.0
121.6
103.9
124.4
122.5
117.1
117.3
122.5
122.5
123.9
104.8
126.3
124.9
119.4
118.3
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
118.9
118.0
118.4
120.5
119.8
121.0
122.6
122.2
123.8
119.3
118.9
121.2
121.2
121.2
124.3
123.1
123.2
126.8
119.3
118.3
120.8
120.7
120.1
124.2
122.7
122.2
126.7
118.6
118.0
118.5
120.2
119.9
121.1
121.9
121.6
123.5
West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
118.7
119.4
119.0
104.8
125.3
116.8
109.3
112.4
120.8
121.2
121.2
107.9
127.2
119.8
109.3
115.2
124.8
123.4
127.0
110.0
129.9
121.9
111.1
115.5
120.9
121.4
122.4
108.8
124.8
116.6
114.4
112.5
123.6
123.1
126.2
111.0
126.7
117.8
115.6
115.3
126.6
125.8
130.2
111.5
128.8
121.3
115.9
116.5
119.5
120.1
120.5
103.9
125.0
116.5
112.6
110.7
122.2
121.1
124.8
104.4
126.3
118.4
113.8
113.0
124.5
122.9
127.8
104.4
129.0
119.9
114.9
113.6
118.8
121.6
117.8
109.5
123.1
119.0
115.7
114.4
122.8
121.5
124.8
114.0
124.6
120.7
117.8
116.0
124.3
123.7
125.4
114.9
128.2
122.7
119.2
116.4
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverage............................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
118.7
118.3
118.8
120.5
120.2
121.3
123.1
123.0
126.9
120.8
12Ò.6
121.0
123.1
123.1
124.4
125.3
125.1
128.4
119.4
119.1
119.6
121.7
121.9
122.8
123.6
123.8
125.9
119.1
118.0
118.5
120.7
120.4
125.9
123.0
122.7
126.3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
95
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
25.
Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
Area1
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1979
1980
1979
1980
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
U.S. city average2 ..............................................................
204.7
221.1
2234
225.4
227.5
229.9
233.2
204.7
221.5
223.7
225.6
227.6
230.0
233.3
Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 = 100)........................................
Atlanta, Ga...........................................................................
Baltimore, Me.......................................................................
Boston, Mass........................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y..........................................................................
198.1
201.8
204.2
201.6
218.2
197.3
202.7
205.0
200.7
Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind.................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind..........................................................
Cleveland Ohio ..................................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex.............................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo............................................................
199.7
211.2
213.2
216.9
214.6
218.6
221.3
• 229.0
Miami, Fla. (11/77 = 100) ..................................................
Milwaukee, Wis.....................................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis..............................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J...........................................
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton) ....................................................
108.9
200.6
202.9
200.2
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J..............................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash............................................................
St. Louis, Mo -Ik....................................................................
San Diego, Calif....................................................................
211.7
203.4
214.8
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif.................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash............................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.......................................................
202.0
208.7
199.6
202.3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
221.8
240.8
222.2
207.2
240.6
224.6
217.5
223.7
220.7
227.0
215.4
217.7
219.1
218.1
215.4
219.5
227.2
210.5
244.2
229.9
221.8
225.9
233.4
231.3
224.2
233.2
214.8
248.7
233.7
228.0
231.2
219.9
220.1
226.0
221.3
220.0
222.4
234.0
222.9
223.7
229.2
236.6
225.7
247.8
230.3
239.5
199.7
212.3
247.3
218.0
237.2
204.9
232.6
199.7
123.3
236.4
109.2
201.6
226.1
224.4
202.3
202.1
227.2
203.9
244.6
232.7
254.0
212.1
201.4
212.5
236.0
231.9
200.4
209.4
224.9
217.9
218.2
2206
230.8
227.9
222.5
221.7
223.5
223.0
218.1
220.0
225.6
235.6
217.8
217.1
220.3
230.8
233.0
2193
221.3
226.1
2299
241.0
225.8
250.9
232.2
215.5
246.0
232.4
229.9
220.7
221.1
223.8
2348
222.4
224.6
229.7
236.7
226.3
244.8
220.8
2364
235.0
124,9
240.8
120.5
232.5
232.6
222.5
2377
221.0
224.4
227.8
233.2
233.3
248.6
226.9
211.1
241.8
227.9
224.0
1187
228.7
228.5
2153
234.5
226.9
220.7
225.5
228.0
243.6
222.6
207.2
239.0
223.1
219.6
215.9
227.0
218.6
218.6
2 Average of 85 cities.
211.8
223.5
222.6
223.0
230.2
227.6
225.4
210.9
219.0
215.3
232.5
234.1
221.5
222.6
222.9
228.4
119.4
229.8
232.2
222.2
240.4
218.3
234.4
227.3
221.2
245.9
117.4
226.0
'The areas listed include not only the central City but the entire portion of the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the
Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago.
96
227.2
222.7
224.7
228.2
216.2
205.1
223.3
218.7
221.4
222.9
Detroit, Mich.........................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii..................................................................
Houston, Tex........................................................................
Kansas City, Mo -Kansas ....................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif................................
213.7
220.8
224.9
218.1
225.5
225.8
228.0
243.5
233.5
251 0
229.0
225.5
226.7
2338
233.0
26.
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
[1967 = 100]
Annual
average
1978
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
194.6
207.7
209.1
211.4
212.7
213.7
216.2
217.3
2207
224.2
225.9
227.8
232.1
235.4
Finished consumer goods..............................................
Finished consumer foods ..........................................
Crude ..................................................................
Processed ............................................................
Other nondurable goods............................................
Durable goods..........................................................
192.6
206.7
215.5
204.1
195.4
165.8
206.3
225.1
257.2
220.5
207.2
176.2
207.9
226.3
244.6
222.8
209.8
176.8
210.2
227.8
241.8
224.6
213.1
178.4
211.6
226.6
226.7
224.4
217.1
179.5
212.7
223.6
227.1
221.3
221.7
180.4
215.6
224.9
224.9
222.8
227.1
181.6
217.5
223.5
231.7
220.7
233.4
181.6
221.7
228.1
214.0
227.0
'239.0
182.9
224.7
226.7
215.5
225.5
243.3
189.0
226.6
230.5
228.0
228.6
245.2
188.5
228.8
232.0
227.8
230.1
247.8
191.2
233.2
231.4
225.9
229.7
254.4
198.2
237.3
231.6
220.0
230.4
263.0
200.7
Capital Equipment........................................................
199.1
210.8
211.7
214.0
215.1
215.8
217.2
216.5
217.8
222.8
223.8
225.1
229.1
230.3
Intermediate materials, supplies, and components..................
215.5
228.5
231.5
235.8
238.2
240.3
244.6
247.5
251.0
255.0
256.1
258.4
265.6
271.1
Materials and components for manufacturing..................
Materials for food manufacturing................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing......................
Materials for durable manufacturing............................
Components for manufacturing ..................................
208.3
202.3
195.8
237.2
189.1
221.6
217.3
205.3
256.8
199.0
224.5
219.6
208.7
260.0
200.3
229.0
222.2
213.7
266.0
203.1
230.9
222.5
216.7
2672
204.5
232.1
222.3
218.1
268.9
205.3
236.0
226.7
222.5
273.3
207.7
238.0
225.1
225.3
275.2
209.3
240.7
228.9
227.6
278.8
211.3
244.3
225.5
231,4
284.7
213.2
245.2
227.7
233.1
284.2
214.5
247.5
230.5
235.1
287.5
215.9
255.2
225.8
240.6
303.5
218.9
259.2
245.1
243.3
305.9
222.7
Materials and components for construction ....................
224.4
239.0
241.3
244.5
245.2
245.6
247.4
249.2
252.5
254.7
253.8
253.6
257.5
261.6
Processed fuels and lubricants......................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................
296.4
270.4
320.0
304.8
269.0
339.1
312.9
275.4
348.9
323.9
2807
365.9
336.8
287.4
385.5
349.5
293.8
404.9
364.8
304.0
425.5
384.6
311.2
458.8
'399.4
317.2
483.0
410.6
322.5
500.6
416.5
325.3
509.7
424.6
3323
518.8
443.9
340.6
549.8
464.3
352.2
579.7
Containers ..................................................................
212.5
224.3
229.3
231.8
234.5
234.9
235.4
237.6
237.9
242.6
243.5
246.1
250.9
250.8
Supplies......................................................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................
Manufactured animal feeds ....................................
Other supplies ......................................................
196.9
183.6
204.0
200.2
201.9
209.6
194.3
217.7
221.6
213.6
211.1
197.4
218.4
219.3
215.0
212.8
199.4
219.9
219.5
216.8
213.7
201.5
220.3
214.6
218.3
216.1
202.7
223.2
226.2
219.2
219.6
204.2
227.8
241.3
221.5
219.6
208.6
225.4
220.8
223.1
221.2
209.4
227.5
224.0
224.9
224.9
212.2
231.7
228.9
228.9
226.0
213.1
232.9
227.3
230.7
228.4
215.3
235.3
230.8
232.9
232.2
220.9
238.2
224.2
237.8
238.3
222.0
247.0
223.3
248.6
276.6
279.9
282.3
283.0
287.1
281.7
288.3
289.5
290.8
296.7
296.9
308.3
Commodity grouping
1979
1980
FINISHED GOODS
F.n.shed goods..................................................................
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS
CRUDE MATERIALS
Crude materials for further processing..................................
240.1
270.4
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs..............................................
215.3
243.7
247.4
251.5
251.9
248.2
254.1
243.7
248.7
247.5
246.4
249.7
243.0
252.6
Nonfood materials........................................................
286.7
320.7
331.6
333.3
3396
348.7
349.3
353.6
363.1
368.9
374.8
385.8
399.0
413.9
Nonfood materials except fuel....................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Construction..........................................................
235.4
240.8
185.7
264.7
271.9
200.4
275.5
283.8
201.9
276.5
284.8
203.6
276.6
284.7
204.5
286.6
295.9
205.4
285.2
294.0
207.2
286.1
294.9
208.6
293.3
302.8
209.9
298.1
3078
212.6
304.6
314.9
214.6
311.5
322.5
216.6
329.9
342.0
225.7
341.5
354.7
228.3
Crude fu e l................................................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ..................................
463.7
481.9
459.6
513.9
541.6
5027
525.2
555.4
512.1
529.2
560.0
515.8
556.8
593.8
538.8
563.1
601.3
544.3
570.7
610.4
550.7
5862
629.2
563.6
604.0
651.8
577.8
612.9
662.5
585.5
616.8
667.0
589.0
641.8
697.7
609.7
637.2
691.7
606.2
663.5
724.4
627.7
188.9
200.2
201.7
204.2
2063
208.5
211.4
213.2
216.2
221.3
222.2
224.3
230.1
234.3
183.7
194.9
196.7
199.3
202.1
205.2
208.4
212.3
216.3
220.6
222.4
225.0
231.8
237.8
SPECIAL GROUPINGS
Finished goods excluding foods............................................
Finished consumer goods excluding
Foods ......................................................................
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
Components, excluding intermediate
materials for food manufacturing
and manufactured animal feeds ....................................
216.4
229.1
232.3
236.7
238.8
241.3
245.4
2490
252.5
256.8
257.8
260.1
268.1
273.2
Intermediate foods and feeds ..............................................
201.0
218.2
218.9
2207
219.3
223.0
231.0
223.1
2266
226.0
227.0
230.0
224.7
237.1
Crude materials for further processing
excluding crude foodstuffs and
feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers,
oilseeds, and leaf tobacco ............................................
316.6
356.4
370.6
372.4
379.2
389.5
391.7
396.9
408.6
4170
423.9
437.1
453.0
468.8
NOTE: Data for October 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and correc
tions by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
97
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
27.
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings1
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1978
Feb.
Mar.
Apr,
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
All commodities
All commodities (1957 -59 = 100)
209.3
222.1
224.1
237.7
226.7
240.5
230.0
243.7
232.0
245.7
233.5
247.7
236.9
251.4
238.3
252.8
242.0
256.7
245.6
260.6
246.9
262.0
249.4
264.6
254.7
'270.2
259.8
275.6
Farm products and processed foods and feeds
Industrial commodities
206.6
209,4
227.2
222.5
229.0
225.4
244.0
229.0
230.8
231.6
229.0
234.0
232.2
237.5
227.5
240.6
231.8
244.2
230.6
249.0
232.3
250.2
234.5
252.8
231.9
260.3
236.9
265.4
01
01-1
01 -2
01-3
01 -4
01-5
01 -6
01-7
01 -8
01 -9
FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
Farm products ............................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ........................................
Grains......................................................................................
Livestock ................................................................................
Live poultry..............................................................................
Plant and animal fibers..............................................................
Fluid milk ................................................................................
Eggs........................................................................................
Hay. hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................................
Other farm products ................................................................
212.5
216.5
182.5
220.1
199 8
193.4
219.7
158.6
215.8
274.9
240.9
263.0
189.3
266.5
217.8
205.1
244.6
176.7
246.1
253.6
242.8
235.7
192.0
275.8
217,6
197.8
243.7
199.9
249.5
254.6
223.3
234.7
198.3
284.0
209.4
197.8
242.4
185.5
248.3
255.1
245.4
228.2
210.3
280.7
216.3
207.6
242.0
163.8
240.7
264.1
242.8
226.4
218.7
264.0
182.9
219.5
243.8
170.7
2584
281.0
246,8
226.7
247.4
256.0
183.8
207.6
247.6
167.6
260.1
311.9
238.5
241.7
229.1
240.2
171,9
207.9
250.0
166.8
251.9
310.8
241.0
208.3
224.4
256.4
173.5
211.3
258.5
175.4
240.9
315.9
239.6
218.0
229.0
251.7
162.0
212.9
260.8
155.9
235.6
313.6
240.2
216.4
226.6
248.3
195.5
215.4
262.5
178.7
229.8
318.3
242.5
210.5
227.9
252.5
194.7
222.0
264.0
198.4
230.3
319.4
236.4
218.9
214.6
247.8
195.2
239.0
262.3
165.6
218.1
301.1
242.3
220.5
223.3
257.2
184.6
269.5
263.8
150.4
224.7
304.7
02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9
Processed foods and feeds..........................................................
Cereal and bakery products......................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Dairy products..........................................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables................................................
Sugar and confectionery ..........................................................
Beverages and beverage materials............................................
Fats and o ils ............................................................................
Miscellaneous processed foods ................................................
Manufactured animal feeds ......................................................
202.6
190,3
217.1
188.4
202.6
197.8
200.0
225.3
199.0
197.4
218,9
199.1
248.5
203.2
219.5
208.4
201.1
237.5
208.0
217.2
220.5
200.1
250.6
204.9
219.6
208.4
201.2
238.6
217.5
215.7
222.3
203.0
253.0
207.1
220.5
208.7
201.5
246.2
2193
215.6
222.0
204.9
250.4
207.9
221.4
207.6
205.3
241.8
220.2
210.8
220.6
206.3
241.4
208.4
221.5
211.1
208.5
243.6
211.1
220.5
223.3
212.4
237.7
209.0
2236
215.7
214.1
253.2
212.7
234.9
220.5
216.0
225.5
215.2
224.6
218.3
216.5
251.7
217.6
216.2
2258
218.7
239.9
2183
225.1
217.2
217.9
253.3
219.0
219.2
224.8
2198
234.2
218.1
223.4
218.9
218.9
246.0
220.8
224.0
227.1
2223
239.5
219.0
222.5
222.7
221.4
242.1
222.1
222.7
229.2
223.7
242.8
219.6
2223
234.4
221.9
235.8
222.0
225.3
228.5
225.4
239.5
221.4
2228
234.8
224.1
224.9
225.4
219.5
233,1
229.7
239.5
221.2
223.1
287.1
224.7
225.9
223.5
219.8
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82
Textile products and apparel ........................................................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100)..................................................
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) ............................
Gray fabrics (12/75 - 100)......................................................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100) ................................................
Apparel....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings............................................................
159.8
109.6
102,4
118.6
103.8
152.4
178.6
164.2
113.5
105.3
123.2
104.1
157.6
186.0
165.2
113.6
107.0
123.1
105,4
158.3
187.4
166.4
115.1
106.8
124.5
105.9
159.8
188.0
167.2
117.4
107.8
124.7
107.0
159.8
188.0
168.4
118.5
108.6
125.4
107.6
160.2
189.3
169.3
119.5
109.5
128.3
108.2
160.3
189.9
170.5
120.6
110.6
128.7
109.0
161.4
190.5
171.3
123.6
111.7
128.7
109.1
161.6
193.9
172.0
124.7
112.1
129.7
108.9
162.2
196.3
172.4
124.9
113.0
130.6
108.5
162.9
194.8
172.8
124.5
113.1
132.5
109.3
162.3
197.0
174,9
126.9
114.4
132.2
109.8
165.3
199.2
176.5
127.1
117.3
131.7
110.8
167.3
200.0
04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides, skins, leather, and related products ....................................
Hides and skins........................................................................
Leather....................................................................................
Footwear ................................................................................
Other leather and related products............................................
200,0
360.5
238.6
183.0
177.0
232.2
497.8
309.2
203.0
192.2
253.3
639.6
371.9
209.9
195.9
258.9
642.2
393.6
212.0
200.4
269.6
666.9
429.4
216.3
209.1
268.0
611.0
414.6
221.1
2123
261.9
566.5
385.2
221.8
212.1
257.9
511.9
365.9
225.4
210.9
251.1
465.3
330.0
226.9
210.1
253.9
478.8
343.6
227.5
209.7
248.5
447.6
319.8
227.3
208.5
248.9
443.9
324.8
227.3
208.1
255.3
468.8
347.6
228.5
213.2
251.0
404.8
340.3
228.1
214.9
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power ..........................................
C oal........................................................................................
Coke ......................................................................................
Gas fuels'................................................................................
Electric power..........................................................................
Crude petroleum2 ....................................................................
Petroleum products, refined3 ....................................................
322.5
430.0
411.8
428.7
250.6
300.1
321.0
342.5
444.0
423.7
458.1
251.1
322.3
350.0
350.9
445.3
428.5
471.0
257.3
324.2
360.3
361.5
447.1
430.1
477,4
260.6
326.2
378.6
377.6
450.8
430.6
507.2
265.9
335.7
400.0
393.7
452.0
430.6
522.3
269.9
356.4
4236
411.8
452.5
430.6
548.4
274.8
370.6
449.8
432.8
454.2
430.6
572.4
278.8
385.7
482.8
454.8
452.5
430.6
603.4
280.5
422.1
513.7
468.5
454.6
431.2
619.9
283.5
436.7
533.7
476.7
455.4
431.2
637.1
282.1
450.4
544.9
488.7
457.8
431.2
670.5
287.2
470.8
554.8
507.8
458.1
430.6
679,6
290.7
513.6
582.4
533.0
458.7
430.6
719.8
299.5
515.1
620.3
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products......................................................
Industrial chemicals4 ................................................................
Prepared paint..........................................................................
Paint materials ........................................................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals ......................................................
Fats and oils, inedible ..............................................................
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products ............................
Plastic resins and materials ......................................................
Other chemicals and allied products ..........................................
198.8
225.6
192.3
212.7
148.1
315.8
198.4
199.8
181.8
207.3
237.4
202.3
224.3
156.2
367.9
203.1
206.3
184.7
209.9
239.7
202.3
227.0
156.6
398.5
206.3
210.9
186.5
215.1
248.2
203.3
231.6
157.5
448.7
209.8
220.6
186.9
218.0
255.6
201.3
236.1
157.7
418.3
210.0
228.5
188.9
219.2
259.3
201.3
239.5
159.0
374.1
209.2
230.1
190.5
225.0
270.4
205.3
246.7
159.2
381.6
211.2
244.5
191.8
228.5
277.1
205.3
247.9
159.6
376.4
215.3
250.1
194.4
2308
280.0
206.0
252.0
161.0
379.9
219.4
252,0
195.8
234.2
285.7
206.7
253.6
162.8
3669
224.3
260.0
197.0
235,6
287.2
206.9
254.8
163.0
344.3
229.2
261.7
199.3
238.1
291.6
210.7
255.4
164.4
327.1
232.7
262.7
201,9
245.5
302.6
223.1
258.9
166.5
325.6
238.1
270.0
209.6
247.6
306.7
223.3
262.7
167.7
3022
242.8
271.1
211.0
07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-2
Rubber and plastic products ........................................................
Rubber and rubber products......................................................
Crude rubber ..........................................................................
Tires and tubes........................................................................
Miscellaneous rubber products..................................................
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................................
174.8
185.3
187.2
179.2
189.6
183.2
197.6
201.1
194.1
198.1
103.5
185.9
199.4
204.8
195.0
200.3
105.7
1888
201.2
211.6
196.1
201.3
108.0
190.8
202.6
214.2
197.3
2026
109.5
193.1
204.8
222.0
198.9
203.5
111.0
195.5
209.5
226.1
206.2
205.4
111.2
198.8
214.6
233.0
211.6
209.4
112.2
200.7
217.1
232.2
215.0
211.9
113.0
203.0
220.3
236.5
218.3
214.7
114.0
204.3
223.3
236.4
222.7
216.9
113.8
205.7
223.9
239.4
222.7
217.4
115.2
208.2
227.1
251.9
224.7
219.1
116.2
210.9
232.2
263.1
231.2
220.4
116.5
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Lumber....................................................................................
Millwork ..................................................................................
Plywood ..................................................................................
Other wood products................................................................
276.0
322.4
235.4
235.6
211.8
293.9
339.9
251.5
257.1
226.2
300.5
350.5
257.8
254.7
232.2
304.9
355.4
266.0
252.4
235.5
302.8
3548
261.6
249.3
2384
299.8
3548
258.9
238.6
2385
300.1
355.0
252.5
249.7
237.6
304.7
365.3
249.6
254.3
237.4
309.7
373.9
250.9
257.9
238.0
308.8
370.3
255.6
254.0
237.7
299.0
355.5
252.3
242.9
239.9
289.8
338.9
250.3
237.7
240.5
290.0
336.3
254.1
238.2
242.2
294.8
341.5
258.0
243.7
243.4
Code
Commodity group and subgroup
1979
1980
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
See footnotes at end of table.
98
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
27.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings1
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Code
Commodity groups and subgroups
Annual
average
1978
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
1979
1980
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES-Continued
09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2
Pulp, paper, and allied products....................................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board . . .
Woodpulp................................................................................
Wastepaper ............................................................................
Paper ......................................................................................
Paperboard..............................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products................................
Building paper and board..........................................................
195.6
195.6
266.5
191.2
206.1
179.6
185.6
187.4
208.8
209.5
291.4
194.1
221.2
190.2
199.8
183.6
212.3
213.2
294.3
203.2
2233
192.9
204.1
182.6
215.0
216.0
303.8
206.5
226.3
197.9
205.8
183.4
216.2
217.2
306.9
206.2
227.2
199.2
207.0
183.3
216.6
217.8
308.3
207.2
227.5
199.8
207.6
180.8
218.3
219.6
320.3
207.9
228.2
201.7
209.0
178.0
222.2
223.6
320.6
206.6
229.5
206.4
214.4
179.1
223.0
224.3
320.6
206.7
230.3
209.6
214.6
182.6
227.5
229.0
337.5
206.7
238.7
211.3
217.3
183.5
229.3
2309
339.9
220.0
242.1
212.8
218.4
183.6
231.0
232.6
339.9
221.2
243.0
215.4
220.3
184.4
237.4
239.1
358.8
222.7
245.5
221.8
227.5
186.0
238.9
240.5
358.5
223.2
247.5
223.4
228.7
191.1
10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
Metals and metal products ..........................................................
Iron and steel ..........................................................................
Steel mill products....................................................................
Nonferrous metals........................................................
Metal containers ......................................................................
Hardware................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings............................................
Heating equipment....................................................................
Fabricated structural metal products..........................................
Miscellaneous metal products....................................................
227.1
253.6
254.5
207.8
243.4
200.4
199.1
174.4
226.4
212.0
247.3
274.9
271.8
239.2
256.8
213.3
207.8
180.9
240.5
223.4
251.7
279.9
272.5
246.6
264.5
214.2
209.7
183.4
241.3
225.2
256.0
280.2
275.0
259.6
270.1
215.8
212.0
183.8
243.8
227.0
256.2
279.5
276.7
258.2
268.5
216.9
213.8
185.7
247.0
228.5
258.2
283.2
277.3
259.7
267.3
217.1
217.0
185.2
248.2
230.1
260.8
286.8
284.6
2623
267.2
218.5
219.6
186.0
250.5
231.8
261.8
286.1
284.7
263.1
268.4
220.1
222.4
188.1
252.2
235.6
263.7
285.5
284.8
269.3
268.7
221.5
223.0
191.3
253.7
236.7
269.6
289.2
288.3
283.1
279.9
224.0
223.5
192.2
256.3
238.5
270.9
291.6
288.7
283.7
280.7
225.4
225.4
192.7
256.6
239.4
273.5
292.7
289.3
291.2
280.7
226.5
226.4
195.2
257.7
239.9
284.5
297.3
2937
3261
283.3
228.4
229.7
197.3
258.8
241.5
288.6
300.2
294.2
336.5
283.3
229.4
236.6
199.9
259.5
242.5
11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9
Machinery and equipment ............................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment........................................
Construction machinery and equipment......................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ....................................
General purpose machinery and equipment................................
Special industry machinery and equipment ................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ..........................................
Miscellaneous machinery..........................................................
196.1
213.1
232.9
217.0
216.6
223.0
164.9
194.7
206.5
223.9
247.9
232.0
227.7
237.0
172.8
203.4
207.9
224.8
248.7
233.0
230.4
239.1
173.8
204.0
209.8
226.4
251.7
235.3
232.6
243.4
175.0
205.4
211.4
228.3
253.7
237.6
234.0
245.1
176.5
207.1
212.4
229.4
254.0
239.1
235.1
246.1
177.6
207.4
214.8
231.2
257.0
241.4
237.1
249.8
179.9
209.7
216.0
233.3
258.5
243.5
238.3
251.0
181.2
209.7
217.7
237.4
258.9
246.4
240.2
251.2
182.5
212.0
220.0
240.0
263.9
249.6
242.8
253.8
184.3
213.6
221.0
241.4
264.5
251.4
243.7
255.3
185.0
214.5
222.9
243.2
268.2
254.6
246.1
256.2
186.5
215.7
227.1
247.6
275.4
2587
249.6
260.7
190.5
220.0
229.7
249.1
277.5
261.3
252.0
262.9
194.2
220.8
12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Furniture and household durables ................................................
Household furniture..................................................................
Commercial furniture................................................................
Floor coverings........................................................................
Household appliances ...............................................................
Home electronic equipment ......................................................
Other household durable goods ................................................
160.4
173.5
201.5
141.6
153.0
90.2
203.1
167.9
181.3
221.2
143.6
158.3
92.3
216.6
168.3
181.8
221.2
144.0
158.8
92.3
217.9
168.7
182.7
221.7
144,4
158.7
92.3
218.6
169.6
184.8
221.9
146.0
159.3
92.4
219.5
170.2
185.3
221.8
146.5
160.0
92.8
220.6
170.7
185.8
222.7
149.1
161.1
90.2
223.7
171.5
186.2
222.7
150.0
162.2
90.2
226.6
172.7
188.5
222.7
150.4
162.7
90.3
231.0
175,1
190.1
223.3
152.1
163.2
90.3
245.6
175.6
192.4
223.3
152.8
164.5
87.9
246.6
177.0
194.3
225.1
152.9
165.2
88.1
252.1
182.1
195.4
227.1
159.8
166.6
88.5
283.1
183.4
196.5
230.1
159.4
168.7
88.7
284.2
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetalllc mineral products......................................................
Flat glass ..............................................................................
Concrete ingredients ................................................................
Concrete products....................................................................
Structural clay products excluding refractories............................
Refractories ..........................................................................
Asphalt roofing ........................................................................
Gypsum products ....................................................................
Glass containers ......................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals..............................................
222.8
172.8
217.7
214.0
197.2
216.5
292.0
229.1
244.4
275.6
240.5
183.1
238.2
236.4
210.7
227.8
317.8
250.6
250.7
293.7
240.8
183.1
239.8
237.8
212.8
228.3
303.1
251.0
250.7
294.5
243.4
183.1
242.0
240.5
214.8
228.4
316.4
252.2
250.7
300.0
245.6
183.1
242.5
241.6
215.7
228.5
317.9
248.8
265.2
303.0
246.9
184.0
243.3
243.7
216.5
232.6
323.0
251.3
265.2
302.0
249.5
184.1
245.1
245.2
220.3
240.8
328.4
251.8
265.2
310.5
249.9
184.1
245.9
246.3
222.3
241.7
325.9
252.3
265.2
309.9
254.6
184.5
246.7
248.7
223.7
242.4
333.0
254.9
265.2
336.0
256.2
184.7
248.3
250.1
221.1
244.6
337.5
255.3
265.2
341.2
257.1
185.4
248.4
250.5
221.1
248.2
345.9
256.2
265.5
342.2
259.2
186.4
249.9
253.2
226.8
248.7
342.9
255.0
273.6
342.2
268.0
190.9
263.5
264.9
229.6
249.3
356.5
255.4
274.5
351.6
272.6
190.9
265.2
266.2
231.1
251.9
372.3
262.2
274.6
374.3
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100)......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ........................................
Railroad equipment ............................................................
173.5
176.0
252.8
183.5
185.9
268.0
183.8
186.1
268.9
186.8
189.4
271.7
187.2
189.8
271.6
187.5
190.1
274.7
188.4
190.8
280.6
185.9
187.8
280.9
186.6
188.6
281.6
194.2
197.1
286.3
194.4
197.0
288.2
195.1
197.6
289.0
198.3
200.3
295.0
198.1
199.9
299.3
15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-51
15-9
Miscellaneous products................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition............................
Tobacco products ....................................................................
Notions..............................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ........................................
Mobile Homes (12/74 = 100) ..................................................
Other miscellaneous products ..................................................
184.3
163.2
198.5
182.0
145.7
126.4
210.6
199.8
171.0
213.6
188.2
150.2
132.5
244.0
200.6
171.5
214.0
190.2
150.2
133.8
245.5
201.4
173.2
214.4
190.2
150.1
135.2
246.1
203.3
174.3
214.4
190.6
150.6
137.2
250.6
205.2
174.7
214.4
190.6
151,6
137.9
255.8
207.0
176.9
214.8
192.0
152.0
138.2
261.4
208.9
177.6
221.3
191.9
152.2
139.5
261.4
213.1
179.8
221.9
191.9
154.3
140.7
272.5
218.9
181.1
222.1
195.7
157.4
142.9
288.3
219.0
181.7
221.9
196.0
161.3
143.5
284.9
227.2
183.5
226.3
197.0
164.5
143.6
307.9
242.2
190.4
236.3
203.1
166.0
144.2
349.7
261.8
193.2
236.9
203.2
218.7
146.0
375.3
1Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
2 Includes only domestic production.
3 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month.
4 Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5Not available.
NOTE: Data for October 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and
corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
99
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
28.
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
All commodities — less farm products..............................
Processed foods ..............................................................
Industrial commodities less fuels ..........................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 - 100) ..................
Hosiery ..............................................................................
Underwear and nightwear....................................................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and manmade fibers and yarns ........................................
Pharmaceutical preparations................................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork and
other wood products ........................................................
Special metals and metal products ......................................
Fabricated metal products....................................................
Copper and copper products................................................
Machinery and motive products............................................
Machinery and equipment, except electrical ..........................
Agricultural machinery, including tractors ..............................
Metalworking machinery ......................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100) . . . .
Total tractors......................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts....................
Farm and garden tractors less parts ....................................
Agricultural machinery excluding tractors less parts................
Industrial valves ..................................................................
Industrial fittings ..................................................................
Abrasive grinding wheels......................................................
Construction materials ........................................................
1980
1979
Commodity grouping
1978
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
208.4
206.4
206.7
197.2
108.8
106.3
158.9
222.0
225.0
223.5
209.6
110.8
109.9
166.3
224.7
225.9
225.6
211.9
111.6
110.5
167.1
228.0
227.7
227.8
214.7
112.3
112.5
167.3
230.1
226.4
227.5
216.0
112.8
112.5
167.7
232.0
223.8
224.7
217.0
113.5
112.7
168.3
235.4
225.4
226.4
219.0
114.0
114.1
168.5
2375
224.7
224.8
220.3
115.1
113.0
170.8
241.4
228.5
230.8
222.0
115.8
112.7
170.8
245.3
226.9
228.9
225.9
116.4
113.3
171.2
246.7
229.9
231.8
2264
116.1
114.6
171.6
249.2
232.1
234.1
228.1
117.0
115.3
172.9
219.3
219.9
219.8
207.3
109 8
110.1
164.6
260.5
235.7
238.5
237.5
119.4
119.6
177.8
190.5
140.6
198.0
149.0
200.0
149.4
204.1
150.0
207.6
150.1
209.5
151.7
215.0
151.7
218.6
152.0
220.9
153.6
224.3
155.6
2260
155.4
228.6
156.9
196.3
148.1
238.2
160.4
298.3
209.6
216.2
155.6
190.4
317.0
225.6
228.6
188.2
2008
323.7
228.2
230.6
197.9
201.7
326.4
232.7
232.9
212.1
204.1
325.1
232.4
234.6
199.0
205.3
321.7
233.7
235.7
193.0
206.0
325.3
235.5
237.4
191.9
207.7
333.9
234.9
239.8
197.1
2072
341.0
236.4
241.1
200.5
208.5
337.3
243.4
244.0
212.2
213.4
323.5
244.2
244.8
213.6
214.0
310.3
245.9
245.6
216.1
215.4
314.8
222.0
227.0
168.8
199.6
314.0
255.7
2483
258.2
2206
214.3
216.3
228.8
179.1
228.7
212.7
216.1
216.7
2323
232.7
208.1
228.3
226.1
228.5
247.4
190.9
242.5
224.4
225.8
230.9
247.8
249.9
220.2
244.1
227.7
229.6
248.9
192.6
243.1
225.5
226.7
232.1
249.5
252.0
220.3
246.9
230.0
230.8
251.2
192.7
245.4
226.7
228.5
233.0
252.4
255.5
220.3
250.0
231.8
232.1
254.3
195.7
247.7
228.1
230.5
233.6
255.0
259.3
221.6
250.3
232.6
233.8
256.8
195.8
248.2
229.5
231.8
235.7
255.8
260.4
222.8
250.3
235.1
235.8
260.1
202.2
251.2
231.4
233.9
237.6
257.0
260.8
222.8
252.3
236.2
238.4
261.7
204.2
253.8
2337
237.6
239.2
258.2
262.3
224.6
254.3
238.2
243.6
265.6
206.5
256.0
238.4
244,1
243.5
260.1
264.3
224.6
256.6
240.8
246.3
269.5
208.5
261.2
241.0
247.6
245.4
261.8
272.6
239.0
258.5
242.0
247.9
272.5
209.0
260.9
2424
248.8
247.4
261.1
276.8
235.3
256.5
244.1
250.0
276.2
211.3
264.9
244.6
250.4
250.0
265.2
276.8
239.0
255.3
224.9
227.6
245.2
188.9
240.8
223.5
225.6
229.5
245.4
249.9
2202
241,4
250.4
256.0
284.8
215.6
273.5
250.4
256.7
255.6
272.2
280.4
244.0
262.2
NOTE: Data for October 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and
corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
29.
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product
[1967 = 100]
1980
Annual
average
1978
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Total durable goods ..........................................................
Total nondurable goods......................................................
204.9
211.9
218.9
227.3
221.0
230.4
223.9
234.1
224.7
236.9
225.8
238.8
227.6
243.7
228.0
2458
230.1
251.1
2346
253.7
234.9
256.0
2366
259.2
243.4
263.0
246.4
270.0
Total manufactures............................................................
Durable......................................................................
Nondurable ................................................................
204.2
204.7
203.0
217.5
218.0
216.1
219.7
219.8
219.0
223.1
222.7
222.8
225.0
223.8
225.6
226.5
224.6
2278
229.8
226.6
232.5
231.7
227.2
235.9
235.2
2294
241.0
239.0
234.0
244.0
240.2
234.1
2463
242.3
235.8
248.8
248.2
2422
253.8
252.7
245.0
2607
Total raw or slightly processed goods ................................
Durable......................................................................
Nondurable ................................................................
234.6
209.6
235.6
258.5
253.9
258.0
263.3
273.6
261.6
266,1
272.5
264.7
268.2
262.9
267.6
269.7
272.8
268.5
274.3
265.4
274.0
272.1
259.8
272.0
276.9
255.7
277.5
278.7
259.2
279.2
281.1
265.8
281.3
286.4
267.8
2868
287.5
282.7
286.9
295.9
3052
2942
Commodity grouping
1979
NOTE: Data for October 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and
corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
30.
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC Industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry Description
Annual
average
1978
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
1980
Feb.
121.9
126.6
430.2
358.2
194.6
111.8
127.3
168.7
444.4
3972
210.4
125.4
127.3
178.3
445.7
403.8
210.9
125.4
131.9
202.1
447.5
407.6
214.1
125.4
131.9
237.5
451.3
427.2
216.0
125.4
136.0
277.0
452.5
444.1
217.0
125.5
1360
270.8
453.1
457.5
219.3
125.5
138.8
245.8
454.8
476.0
220.1
125.5
1381
252.1
452.9
508.4
221.0
125.5
140.2
275.0
455.1
522.1
224.0
126.7
140.2
252.1
455.8
533.5
224.3
114.7
142.0
300.0
458.1
553.3
225.7
119.7
142.0
3083
458.0
583.2
2380
128 5
147.3
335.4
458.7
597.4
242.1
128.5
216.7
215.2
192.5
205.2
250.8
230.4
204.6
211.1
256.6
235.6
206.1
216.1
265.0
224.4
199.7
224.7
259.2
227.7
2035
225.3
249.1
217.1
177.8
225.3
243.8
214.7
178.4
227.5
229.3
203.4
169.6
237.9
247.2
211.7
171.2
240.6
238.9
211.9
163.1
240.1
241.6
214.2
188 3
241.7
243.9
219.9
1885
243.1
240.7
211.5
186.1
241 9
240.1
2074
178.2
242.8
1979
MINING
1011
1092
1211
1311
1442
1455
Iron ores (12/75 - 100)................................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)..........................................
Bituminous coal and lignite ............................................
Crude petroleum and natural gas....................................
Construction sand and gravel ........................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 - 100) ..................................
2011
2013
2016
2021
Meat packing plants ......................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats ..............................
Poultry dressing plants ..................................................
Creamery butter............................................................
MANUFACTURING
See footnotes at end of table.
100
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC Industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Annual
1979
Industry description
1980
1978
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067
MANUFACTURING - Continued
Cheese natural and processed (12/72= 100)..............
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100) . . .
Canned fruits and vegetables............................
Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 100)......................
Flour mills (12/71 = 100) ......................
Rice milling................................................
Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............................
Raw cane sugar ..................................
Beet sugar ................................................
Chewing gum ................................
169.6
154.8
193.2
131.3
147.0
207.6
107.3
190.7
188.5
218.0
179.4
166.7
204.4
181.2
160.5
166.6
118.4
198.2
197.0
242.5
182.5
166.7
205.2
180.9
157.5
171.0
118.3
195.7
198.6
242.5
186.8
167.3
206.2
181.7
158.1
206.8
117.5
197.5
199.3
242.6
185.2
171.0
207.2
182.1
166.7
206.8
115.2
195.6
199.7
242.2
185.6
171.5
207.5
181.0
174.6
206.8
118.9
207.0
199.7
242.2
186.3
171.5
209.9
182.0
190.9
206.8
128.1
209.0
202.0
242.9
195.4
175.0
210.5
180.7
176.9
218.7
119.4
216.8
199.4
242.9
200.8
176.1
212.0
170.0
183.5
223.5
120.9
216.7
200.0
242.9
196.8
177.5
212.9
158.2
184.2
227.3
123.6
224.3
204.7
242.9
193.4
178.4
212.4
156.3
184.9
231.8
124.6
223.3
209.6
262.2
192.6
180.2
212.0
157.3
184.9
218.1
125.3
248.4
223.4
262.2
197.1
180.9
213.5
157.6
181.7
217.5
122.3
260.5
223.5
262.3
194.6
181.5
213.5
159.0
183.6
233.0
122.9
374.9
290.6
262.3
2074
2075
2077
2083
2085
2091
2092
2095
2098
2111
Cottonseed oil m ills..............................................
Soybean oil m ills..................................
Animal and marine fats and oils ....................
Malt ............................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) ................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ..................
Fresh or frozen packaged fish ......................................
Roasted coffee (12/72 = 1 0 0 )............................
Macaroni and spaghetti ................................
Cigarettes......................................................
183.1
225.6
287.9
181.5
106.7
136.4
303.8
262.3
176.9
204.6
204.5
241.2
344.5
190.8
109.4
137.9
361.9
222.5
184.7
221.2
202.8
242.0
362.6
190.8
109.4
138.5
359.4
221.6
184.7
221.3
198.5
244.7
393.1
190.8
109.4
139.2
375.8
220.5
184.7
221.4
192.5
237.7
363.8
190.8
113.6
140.9
382.4
231.7
186.6
221.4
210.4
251.1
335.3
201.4
113.6
142.1
397.6
244.2
188.6
221.4
224.5
262.8
352.0
201.4
113.6
148.5
403.7
271.0
203.5
221.5
214.1
250.0
321.4
201.4
115.7
148.2
391.5
279.2
210.4
228.9
217.9
248.6
333.8
214.9
117.1
154.0
389.2
279.2
210.4
229.1
214.9
244.7
333.7
214.9
117.1
154.3
400.1
280.0
210.4
229.2
204.7
242.6
315.2
228.2
118.1
155.6
392.4
287.5
221.5
229.2
205.6
241.8
300.7
228.2
118.1
159.8
389.3
287.5
227.7
234.3
182.2
230.2
296.0
244.1
118.6
160.9
390.7
281.3
227.7
245.8
184.3
226.2
292.6
244.1
1187
164.0
386.6
273.9
227.7
245.9
2121
2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262
2271
Cigars ............................................
Chewing and smoking tobacco..............................
Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 = 100) ..........................
Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) ........................
Women’s hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100)..............
Knit underwear mills ..........................................
Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 = 100)............................
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100) ........................
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100) ................
Woven carpets and rugs (12/75 = 100)....................
141.4
222.0
181.1
109.0
91.5
164.1
98.5
111.0
101.4
114.7
143.0
236.4
190.1
112.7
94.3
169.9
91.7
117.4
105.0
115.8
145.0
240.9
190.4
112.4
94.4
172.6
93.9
118.2
105.2
116.0
145.4
245.9
191.8
113.3
97.3
172.8
93.2
119.0
105.9
116.0
145.4
245.9
192.7
113.6
97.3
173.1
94.1
120.8
106.3
116.7
145.3
245.9
194.3
114.1
97.6
173.3
95.8
120.9
107.0
117.1
149.8
246.4
196.1
116.2
99.6
172.9
96.1
122.5
107.5
n
150.1
246.4
196.5
116.3
98.1
174.0
96.4
123.2
108.2
( 1)
150.1
255.8
198.7
116.2
97.5
174.0
96.2
124.0
108.3
( 1)
149.8
260.4
201.1
116.8
98.2
174.3
96.9
126.1
109.3
(’ )
147.2
260.8
200.1
116.9
100.3
174.6
96.4
123.1
108.9
147.2
260.8
200.8
117.3
100.2
178.2
98.4
123.4
109.2
147.9
260.9
203.1
117.6
103.6
182.9
98.8
124.9
109.8
151.6
265.1
206.5
117.8
103.6
184.5
100.0
129.5
109.3
2272
2281
2282
2284
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327
Tufted carpets and rugs..............................
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 =100) ................
Throwing and winding mills (6/76 = 100) ..........
Thread mills (6/76 = 100)..................
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100)......................
Men’s and boys' suits and coats........................
Men's and boys’ shirts and nightwear................
Men s and boys underwear............................
Men's and boys’ neckwear (12/75 = 100) ..........
Men s and boys’ separate trousers....................
125.3
167.4
99.2
114.6
99.3
194.3
180.8
180.6
102.3
152.7
126.0
171.4
102.7
120.3
98.6
199.6
191.4
184.6
103.4
157.8
126.5
172.3
106.0
120.3
98.6
199.9
191.6
188.7
103.4
157.8
127.0
173.1
104.4
120.4
101.7
203.9
191.8
188.7
103.4
162.3
127.7
174.5
106.3
120.4
102.8
204.2
192.4
188.7
103.4
162.3
128.1
175.7
107.5
120.4
105.4
204.5
193.5
188.7
103.4
162.5
127.6
177.5
108.5
120.5
105.4
205.8
194.7
188.7
103.4
162.5
128.6
177.4
109.7
128.1
113.5
206.5
195.9
190.0
110.9
162.7
129.0
179.4
111.2
1281
115.1
206.5
196.0
190.0
110.9
162.7
129.8
181.2
110.4
128.4
114.9
206.6
196.1
190.0
110.9
162.9
130.0
182.9
111.0
128.4
114.9
206.8
194.7
190.0
110.9
163.4
130.1
184.6
109.2
128.5
115.0
206.6
194.5
194.0
110.9
163.4
135.6
188.3
109.3
128.7
115.0
207.5
198.8
200.0
112.4
164.2
135.2
197.4
108.8
129.2
117.2
209.6
196.6
202.2
112.4
174.3
2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421
Men's and boys’ work clothing....................
Women’s and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) .
Women’s and misses’ dresses (12/77 = 100)
Women's and children's underwear (12/72 = 100) ........
Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) ..
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)
Fabric dress and work gloves........................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100)..............
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100)
Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 100) ..
195.2
100.7
132.1
111.7
( ')
214.4
99.6
106.3
228.9
199.8
99.1
104.9
142.3
116.0
105 4
232.2
105.9
107.1
241.9
200.0
99.2
106.6
142.3
116.0
105.5
232.2
105.9
107.1
249.5
206.5
99.1
106.6
142.6
116.1
106.7
241.5
105.9
107.1
252.5
206.5
100.3
105.9
143.3
116,2
106.7
243.9
105.9
107.1
251 6
209.0
100.5
105.9
143.3
117.5
102.1
243.9
106.9
114.3
250.9
208.9
102.6
106.4
144.2
117.5
102.4
245.4
108.4
114.3
251.3
210.7
102.7
108.3
145.3
117.8
102.4
245.4
111.0
114.3
259.1
210.9
102.8
108.3
145.3
117.8
103.7
245.4
111.4
114.3
265.6
213.4
103.0
108.7
146.7
117.8
105.7
245.4
112.3
114.3
262.2
218.9
105.9
108.8
147.4
117.8
105.7
246.9
112.1
114.3
250.1
219.4
106.8
108.8
147.7
118.8
105.6
246.9
120.1
114.3
237.5
225.3
107.0
112.9
149.4
119.7
106.1
257.7
122.1
114.3
234.8
234.1
107.2
113.9
150.1
123.0
105.3
261.7
122.8
1143
239.6
2436
2439
2448
¿451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611
Softwood veneer and plywood (12/75 = 100) . . .
Structural wood members, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100)............
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)..........
Particleboard (12/75 = 100) ................
Wood household furniture (12/71 = 100) ..
Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 100),..
Mattresses and bedsprings......................
Wood office furniture......................
Pulp mills (12/73 = 100)....................
150.1
136.2
149.4
126.5
159.7
152.4
143.1
156.3
194.4
178.5
162.2
148.1
161.8
132.5
141,9
160.3
146.9
162.9
213.1
187.3
160.1
148.3
163.8
133.8
142.7
160.9
147.6
162.9
213.1
189.9
157.3
150.1
166.8
135.3
143.8
162.7
147.4
163.1
214.2
192.5
151.1
1501
166.7
137.3
141.6
164.6
149.2
163.2
214.3
195.2
140.7
150.0
167.0
138.0
137.4
164.0
149.4
164.1
214.2
196.6
148.1
150.0
166.9
138.2
134.3
164.5
150.0
164.5
216.8
205.4
153.4
149.9
166.8
139.6
134.7
164.6
150.2
165.8
216.8
205.7
156.0
150.8
167.9
140.7
138.5
168.0
151.6
165.8
216.8
205,8
153.1
158.2
167.9
143.0
139.5
169.3
151.8
168.9
217.6
213.5
143.3
158.2
171.0
143.5
136.9
171.3
153.9
172.1
217.6
215.6
138.7
158.2
170.5
143.6
134.1
173.6
155.8
172.1
221.9
215.6
138.5
158.2
169.8
144.2
136.5
175.7
155.9
169.7
226.2
227.2
143.9
158.2
167.0
146.1
149.0
177.4
156.6
169.7
233.7
227.0
2621
2631
2647
2654
2655
2812
2821
2822
2824
2873
Paper mills, except building (12/74 = 100)........
Paperboard mills (12/74 = 100) ..................
Sanitary paper products..........................
Sanitary food containers ..................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) ..
Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 100) .
Plastics materials and resins (6/76 = 100) . . .
Synthetic rubber ....................................
Organic fiber, noncellulosic......................
Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 1 0 0 ) ..................
115.7
106.4
251.4
170.8
123.0
198.8
103.8
180.5
107.6
96.6
124.7
112.9
267.6
179.4
130.4
203.2
106.9
191.4
111.0
96.6
126.0
114.4
269.2
179.5
130.8
201.8
109.2
192.7
111.5
98.0
128.5
117.1
270.8
184.1
130.9
203.7
113.8
196.5
113.1
101.5
129.3
118.1
271.7
189.1
132.2
204.9
117.7
200.9
115.9
101.9
129.5
118.5
271.9
189.1
134.0
206.3
118.6
206.6
117.4
101.4
130.2
119.7
2764
189.6
136.6
209.5
124.9
214.2
118.6
102.8
131.0
121.9
285.9
189.6
136.6
212.2
1278
2234
119.8
104.1
131.4
123.4
2854
191.8
136 6
213.1
128.9
223.8
123.5
106.1
135.1
125.4
286.3
195.8
138.5
214.1
132.9
225.7
123.6
108.0
136.7
126.4
286.5
198.1
137.2
216.5
133.9
227.0
124.1
111.7
137.0
127.7
289.1
199.9
140.9
217.1
134.3
229.4
123.5
113.6
139.2
131.4
294.0
202.6
143.2
220.3
138.2
240.0
124.3
114.5
140.0
132.3
303.8
202.6
143.2
224.9
139.3
243.2
124.8
119.4
2874
2875
2892
2911
2951
2952
3011
Phosphatic fertilizers ......................................
Fertilizers, mixing only ..............................
Explosives ......................................
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ............
Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 = 100)
.
Asphalt felts and coatings (12/75) = 100) ..................
Tires and inner tubes (12/73 = 100) . ..
166.0
181.9
217.3
119.6
117.1
128.2
154.0
173.3
187.5
227.1
1293
124.8
139.3
166.2
179.1
192.8
226.9
132.8
125.9
132.8
167.1
185.2
197.3
227.9
138.8
128.5
138.6
168.0
185.1
197.8
239.0
146.6
130.1
139.3
169.2
184.2
197.8
239.3
155.1
131.2
141.6
170.6
188.9
198.1
240.1
165.5
134.4
143.6
176.8
199.4
205.6
240.7
176.6
134.9
142.7
181.2
204.3
211.1
250.3
188.9
141.6
145.8
184.2
213.2
218.3
250.8
196.4
145.6
147,6
186.9
221.2
226.9
251.8
200.9
145.6
151.6
190.9
2234
227.1
252.7
204.8
145.7
150.4
191.0
230.0
233.8
253.9
213.6
150 0
156.1
192.7
233.9
240,8
255.5
228.7
157.3
162.4
198.2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
30.
Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC Industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
3021
3031
3079
3111
3142
3143
3144
3171
3211
3221
Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 - 100) ....................................
Reclaimed rubber (12/73 - 100) ....................................................
Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 - TOO)....................................
Leather tanning and finishing (12/77 - 100) ....................................
House slippers (12/75 - 100) ...........'............................................
Men’s footwear, except athletic (12/75
100) ................................
Women's footwear, except athletic ..................................................
Women's handbags and purses (12/75 - 100) ................................
Flat glass (12/71 - 100) ................................................................
Glass containers ............................................................................
3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271
1980
1979
1978
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb,
158.7
154.3
119.1
122.5
127.1
164.1
111.4
142.7
244.3
169.0
161.3
103.4
143.7
134.7
141.0
178.4
123.0
150.8
250.7
169.0
162.1
105.4
173.8
136.3
145.6
189.2
123.0
150.8
250.7
169.0
164.5
107.5
182.9
136.3
147.6
190.3
123.0
150.8
250.7
169.5
167.6
109.0
201.3
138.5
152.8
192,2
131,7
150.8
2652
169.6
169.1
110.7
195.8
142.0
155.4
195.4
131.8
151.8
265.2
171.0
169.2
111.4
181.8
135.0
155.4
198.7
131.8
151.9
265.2
173,4
169.2
112.3
172.9
135.0
158.2
201.5
131.8
151.9
265.2
173.4
177.7
113.1
155.2
135.0
160.1
201.6
131.8
152.3
265.2
173.5
178.8
114.3
161.9
135.8
160.4
202.3
131.8
152.6
265.2
173.4
177.1
114.1
150.8
137.0
159.2
204.0
131.8
153.3
265.5
173.4
177 4
115.6
153.5
137.0
159.2
204.0
131.8
153.9
273.6
173.7
177.6
116.6
164.3
144.8
159.3
205.7
131.9
157.4
274.5
173.8
177.9
116.8
160.8
146.7
157,9
206.4
131.9
157.4
274.5
Cement, hydraulic ..........................................................................
Brick and structural clay tile ............................................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ........................................
Clay refractories ............................................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c............................................................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures................................................................
Vitreous china food utensils..............................................................
Fine earthenware food utensils ........................................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100) ............................................
Concrete block and brick ................................................................
251.2
230.8
107.7
221.4
176.3
189.7
2688
228.1
122.2
202.0
278.8
250.9
111.6
233.2
184.4
198.6
290.6
237.0
129.2
223.1
280.3
252.8
113.0
234.1
186.7
198.9
290.6
237.1
129.2
227.0
283.1
256.7
113.0
234.4
186.8
201.6
290.6
237.1
129.2
230.8
283.2
258.3
113.0
234.6
186.8
204.6
290.6
237.1
129.2
232.6
283.7
259.7
113.0
236.9
187.8
206.4
290.6
236.4
129.0
232.7
285.4
261.0
120.2
246.5
188.2
210.1
297.5
238.8
131.0
232.7
285.4
263.3
120.2
246.7
192.1
212.4
297.5
238.8
131.0
235,7
285,4
265.9
120.2
247.1
192.1
213.1
298.0
246.0
133.3
237.8
285.4
261.3
120.2
251.0
192.8
214.5
298.0
246.0
133.3
240.0
282.9
261.3
120.2
254.4
192.6
215.7
305.3
246.9
135.0
240.0
283.6
262.7
130.3
255.4
196.9
217.3
307.9
290.3
148.8
240.1
302,8
268.3
130.4
256.5
196.7
219.2
307.9
290.3
148.8
249.5
303.2
270.4
130.4
260.9
198.6
224.6
307.9
290.3
148.8
250.6
3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321
Ready-mixed concrete ....................................................................
Lime (12/75 - 100)........................................................................
Gypsum products............................................................................
Abrasive products (12/71 - 100)....................................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 - 100) ................................................
Blast furnaces and steel mills ..........................................................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 - 100) ....................................
Cold finishing of steel shapes ..........................................................
Steel pipes and tubes......................................................................
Gray iron foundries (12/68 - 100) ..................................................
217.6
129.5
229.5
172.3
133.6
262.3
94.8
241.0
255,2
233.5
241.1
136.6
251.1
182.2
140.3
280.3
104.0
258.3
265.1
244.7
241.7
137.5
251.5
182.4
140.4
281.1
104.0
258.4
265.8
249.4
244.5
139.9
252.7
184.0
140.5
283.5
106.8
259.1
265.0
253.9
245.2
139.8
249.4
185.1
140.5
285.3
111.7
259.8
264.5
253.3
247.5
140.1
251.9
185.8
143.9
285.8
112.3
261.3
264.5
254.5
249.6
141.8
252.3
187.7
148.1
292.8
116,5
270.6
271.9
253.9
250.5
142.9
252.8
188.6
149.1
293.0
116.5
270.8
271.3
253.8
252.4
144.2
255.4
190.4
149.7
293.2
116.0
270.9
271.3
254.8
254.0
144.6
255.9
195.1
150.1
296.4
116.2
271.7
272.7
267.1
254.5
144.4
256.8
194.7
152.3
297.0
117.5
273.2
272,8
266.0
257.0
144.7
255.6
197.1
152.4
297.6
117.6
273.9
273.0
268.3
270.1
149.6
255.9
199.2
152.6
302.3
117.8
274.2
280.9
272.3
271.9
153.7
262.8
202.2
153.3
302.9
117.8
277.2
281.2
275.4
3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465
Primary zinc....................................................................................
Primary aluminum ..........................................................................
Copper rolling and drawing..............................................................
Aluminum sheet plate and foil (12/75 - 100) ..................................
Aluminum extruded products (12/75 - 100) ....................................
Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100)................................
Metal cans ....................................................................................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 - 100)......................................
Metal sanitary ware ........................................................................
Automotive stampings (12/75 - 100) ..............................................
223.2
217.4
170.2
137.6
134.3
119.7
238.5
147.9
209.1
118.8
260.6
226.1
199.9
146.4
141.6
126.5
253.9
157.8
217.4
125.0
260.9
232.4
211.0
146.5
142.5
127.5
260.9
157.9
219.2
125.7
274.2
235.8
220.1
148.0
146.1
129.6
264.4
159.6
220.8
126.2
274.5
237.4
215.6
148.7
147.5
131.5
263.8
161.9
222.2
127.0
275.2
238.5
211.7
148.8
147.6
131.6
262.2
162.5
224,1
127.1
281.4
244.9
211.2
149.6
150.3
132.7
262.2
162.8
226,4
127.8
265.5
247.4
213.6
149.8
151.9
133.1
262.9
166.3
228.9
130.9
264.2
248.2
216.7
150.0
151.9
133.5
2635
166,4
229.2
131.6
265.2
256,0
226.3
150.7
155.2
136.9
273.8
167.1
230.1
132.4
257.9
263.2
222.7
151.5
157.3
139.9
273.8
169.4
231.7
132.7
265.7
266.6
225.1
151.9
157.8
140.3
273.9
169.6
232.9
132.7
266,1
267.0
231.1
153.4
158.8
140.5
276.6
173.0
237.3
132.8
272.4
267.0
253.2
153.5
158.9
140.8
276.6
173.6
242.1
132.8
3482
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542
Small arms ammunition (12/75 - 100) ............................................
Steel springs, except wire................................................................
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 -1 0 0 ) ............................................
Fabricated pipe and fittings..............................................................
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c......................................................
Construction machinery (12/76 - 100) ............................................
Oilfield machinery and equipment ....................................................
Elevators and moving stairways ......................................................
Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 - 100)............................
119.5
204.6
185.5
265.5
220.1
114,0
209.5
246.2
204.2
213.6
129.3
212.6
197.6
276.7
233,8
121.1
223.4
281.4
214.1
233.3
125.9
216.7
199.0
276.8
234.0
121.6
224.2
281.8
213.4
234.1
128.3
218.1
201.4
284.9
237.1
123.0
2280
283.5
213.8
237.9
130.4
218.7
203.6
288.2
239.0
123.9
228.4
2884
213.6
238.8
131.4
220.5
204.2
290.7
239.2
124,0
226.4
290.0
214.2
240.6
134.0
221.6
205.3
294.8
242.3
125.6
231.2
292.0
215.4
244.6
134.0
222.1
206.2
294.8
245.7
126.3
231.5
2933
214.6
245.1
134.0
2228
207.5
294.9
251.8
126.5
2327
296.8
21.9.1
247.9
133.2
223.7
210.4
297.3
254.2
128.9
233.1
300.5
219.4
249.8
137.9
223.9
211.6
297.4
253.7
129.0
234.7
301.3
220.6
253.5
149.2
225.4
213.9
297.4
253.7
130.7
235.8
308.0
220.9
256.7
147.9
226.0
216.5
301.7
259.2
134.2
243.1
314.0
223.9
266.0
147.9
226.5
218.8
301.8
260.5
135.3
244.2
308.0
220.9
256.7
3546
3552
3553
3576
3592
3612
3623
3631
3632
3633
Power driven hand tools (12/76 = 100) ..........................................
Textile machinery (12/69 - 100) ....................................................
Woodworking machinery (12/72 - 100) ..........................................
Scales and balances, excluding laboratory........................................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 - 100) ..............................
Transformers..................................................................................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 100) ......................................
Household cooking equipment (12/75 - 100) ..................................
Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 - 100) ................................
Household laundry equipment (12/73 - 100) ..................................
111.1
179.9
168.1
179.7
128.2
158.3
178.1
114.8
109.6
141.0
116.3
189.6
177.3
191.1
135.7
165.4
186.0
119.2
112.5
146.3
116.9
190.4
179.2
191.1
136.9
167.0
186.6
120.2
112.7
146.9
117.7
191.6
181.0
191.3
137.6
168.5
187.3
120.3
111.8
146.9
117.8
191.7
183.2
192.8
138.6
168.0
191.5
120.7
111.9
147,0
118.7
192.6
184.5
193.7
138.7
168.5
191.9
120.9
112.6
147.2
119.2
195.0
185.9
194.8
139.2
167.9
193.5
122.0
113.6
148.8
120.2
197.5
187.7
195.4
139.6
167.6
194.1
123.4
114.3
149.9
120.4
198.2
190.0
195.4
140.7
168.4
195.1
124.3
115.1
150.6
122.0
199.3
192.6
195.7
142.8
171.2
196.9
124.4
115.1
150.9
122.7
200.6
193.1
196.6
143.5
170.5
197.9
125.8
115.3
153.5
124.2
200.6
193.3
197.7
144.6
171.7
199.6
126.1
115.9
154.7
126.2
202.7
201.7
200.9
147.3
173.0
'200.6
128.6
116.6
155.2
124.2
200.6
219.3
197.7
144.6
171.7
199.6
126.1
115.9
154.7
3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676
Household vacuum cleaners............................................................
Sewing machines (12/75 - 100) ....................................................
Electric lamps ................................................................................
Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 - 100) ............................
Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 - 100) ................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 — 100)..........................................
Electron tubes receiving type ..........................................................
Semiconductors and related devices ................................................
Electronic capacitors (12/75 - 100) ................................................
Electronic resistors (12/75 - 100) ..................................................
135.5
111.2
214.7
185.8
112.7
114.6
200.9
85.3
111.5
118.3
138.1
119.8
226.8
197.1
119.6
121.9
210.9
84.2
114,4
122.8
140.4
119.8
227.1
198.0
121.2
122.3
211.0
84.4
115.9
123.1
140.4
121.1
229.8
200.4
124.3
123.5
211.2
84.7
119.8
123,2
141.2
121.1
229.8
202,6
126.8
124.0
211.3
84.7
120.1
123.2
141.5
121.1
2297
203.0
127.4
124.6
226.4
84.7
122.1
123.2
141.6
121.8
240.8
203.3
127.9
127.6
226.5
84.2
126.7
124.0
141.7
122.2
244.3
207.7
127.9
128.2
2266
84.3
129.3
124.6
141.9
122.2
242.7
209.1
130.5
128.5
227.2
84.7
134.1
125.2
144.5
122.6
244.8
210.5
131.4
129.6
227.2
85.1
133.9
126.6
144.7
122.0
240.8
214.2
132.0
129.8
2273
85.0
134.9
127.8
145.8
122.0
240.5
217.3
132.3
130.5
227.6
86.0
137.9
127.3
146.2
122.0
248.3
215.2
133.9
133.0
229 1
86.6
147.7
127.4
145.8
122.0
240.5
217.3
132 3
130.5
227.6
86.0
137.9
127.3
3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996
Electronic connectors (12/75 - 100) ..............................................
Primary batteries, dry and wet ........................................................
Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 = 100) ..................................
Dolls (12/75 - 100) ......................................................................
Games, toys, and children’s vehicles................................................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 - 100)................................
Burial caskets (6/76 - 100)............................................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 - 100) ....................................
118.9
162.0
115.9
103.2
172.3
105.1
113.0
116.3
125.4
162.7
122.3
109.0
178.8
114.3
120.9
120.7
125.6
164.8
1223
108.6
179.2
115.5
120.9
120.7
125.8
167.9
124.5
109.3
179.6
119.6
121.0
120.7
126.6
172.1
124.6
109.3
182.3
120.2
121.7
123.7
126.9
172.7
124.8
109.3
183.1
116.7
121.7
124.5
133.4
172.8
125.1
111.8
183.5
117.1
123.3
128.3
134.1
172,8
122.1
112.6
184.4
118.3
123.8
128.3
137.6
172.8
122.5
112.6
185.1
118.7
124.8
128.3
138.9
173.1
130.2
112.9
186.2
123.1
123.1
131.0
140.7
173.1
129.8
113.0
186.3
125.5
124.8
134.1
141.0
174.1
130.0
113.0
186.6
125.6
124.8
134.1
143.6
174.2
132.5
121.2
195.5
126.5
128.3
138.6
141.0
171.1
130.0
113.0
186.6
125.6
124.8
134.1
1Not available.
102
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Data for October 1979 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and
corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
P R O D U C T IV IT Y D A TA
P roductivity data are compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com
pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.
Definitions
O u t p u t is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of o u tp u t p er h o u r o f la b o r in p u t, or labor pro
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
of labor. C o m p e n s a tio n p er h o u r includes wages and salaries of em
ployees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private
benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and
supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. R e a l c o m
p e n s a tio n p er h ou r is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
U n it la b o r c o s t measures the labor compensation cost required to
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
by output. U n it n o n la b o r p a y m e n ts include profits, depreciation, in
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, U n it
n o n la b o r c o s t s contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
except unit profits. U n it p r o fits include corporate profits and invento
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.
The im p lic it p r ic e d e fla to r is derived by dividing the current dollar
estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.
31.
The use of the term “man-hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 31 through 34, has been discontin
ued. H o u r s o f a ll p e r so n s is now used to describe the labor input of
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
O u tp u t p er a ll- e m p lo y e e h o u r is now used to describe labor productiv
ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.
Notes on the data
In the private business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the
basis for the output measure employed in the computation of output
per hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National
Product. Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and
farm proprietor hours.
Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly
manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating)
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Beginning with the September 1976 issue of the R ev ie w , tables 3 1 34 were revised to reflect changeover to the new series— private busi
ness sector and nonfarm business sector— which differ from the
previously published total private economy and nonfarm sector in
that output imputed for owner-occupied dwellings and the household
and institutions sectors, as well as the statistical discrepancy, are
omitted. For a detailed explanation, see J. R. Norsworthy and L. J.
Fulco, “New sector definitions for productivity series,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R ev ie w , October 1976, pages 40-42.
Indexes of productivity and related data, selected years, 1950-79
[1967 = 100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ................................
Real compensation per hour......................
Unit labor c o st..................................
Unit nonlabor payments ............................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ..............................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ....................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o st..............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ....................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
61.0
42.4
58.9
69.6
73.2
70.8
70.3
55.8
69.6
79.4
80.5
79.8
78.7
71.9
81.1
91.3
85.5
89.3
95.0
88,7
93.8
93.3
95.9
94.2
104.2
123.1
105.8
118.2
105.8
113.9
111.4
139.7
111.5
125.4
119.0
123.2
113.6
151.2
113.6
133.1
124.9
130.3
110.1
164.9
111.7
149.8
130.4
143.1
112.4
181.3
112.5
161.3
150.4
157.5
116.4
197.2
115.6
169.4
158.0
165.5
118.6
213.0
117.3
179.6
165.6
174.8
119.2
231.2
118.3
194.0
174.3
187.2
118.1
252.8
116.3
r 214.0
r 184.6
203.8
66.9
45.4
63.0
67.9
71.5
69.1
74.3
58.7
73.2
79.1
80.1
79.4
80.9
74.2
83.7
91.7
84.5
89.2
95.9
89.4
94.6
93.2
95.8
94.1
103.0
121.7
104.6
118.1
106.0
114.0
110.1
138.4
110.4
125.7
117.5
122.9
112.0
149.2
112.1
133.2
117.8
127.9
108.5
162.8
110.2
150.0
124.7
141.4
110.5
178.9
111.0
161.8
146.0
156.4
114.4
193.8
113.7
169.4
156.0
164,8
116.2
209.3
115.3
180.1
163.9
174.5
116.8
227.3
116.3
194.5
169.9
186.1
115.5
247.6
113.9
214.3
178.8
202.2
(’ )
<1 )
96.8
90.0
95.3
93.0
100.1
95.5
103.5
121.5
104.4
117.4
103.5
112.5
110.5
136.7
109.1
123.7
114.8
120.5
112.8
147.5
110.8
130.7
116.8
125.8
108.5
161.4
109.3
148.8
124.8
140.2
111.9
177.4
110.1
158.6
148.1
154.9
115.5
192.2
112.7
166.4
156.8
163.0
116.8
207.6
114.4
177.7
164.4
173.0
117.9
224.8
115.0
190.6
170.6
183.5
p 117.5
98.3
91.0
96.3
92.6
103.3
95.9
104.5
121.8
104.7
116.5
96.2
110.3
115.7
136.6
109.0
118.1
107.4
114.8
118.8
146.4
110.0
123.2
106.4
118.0
112.6
161.1
109.1
143.1
105.6
131.6
118.2
180.2
111.8
152.4
128.4
145.1
123.4
195.1
114.5
158.2
139.6
152.5
127.2
212.0
116.8
166.6
147.4
160.7
128.0
229.5
117.5
179.4
152.4
171.1
(’ )
r i
n
<’ )
80.2
75.7
85.4
94.3
90.8
93.1
74.1
60.5
75.4
81.6
88.6
83.8
78.9
77.1
87.0
97.7
92.4
96.1
(’ >
(’ )
(’ )
n
( 1)
n
65.0
45.1
62.5
69.4
82.4
73.3
p244.7
p 112.6
p208,3
p 179.8
p 198.2
130.2
250.5
115.2
192.4
( )
1
(’ )
1Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
103
M O N T H L Y L A B O R R E V IE W A pril 1980 • C u r r e n t L a b o r S t a t is ti c s : P r o d u c t i v i t y
32.
Annual percent change in productivity and related data, 1969-79
Annual rate
of change
Year
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per ho u r............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments............
Implicit price deflator ................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons . .
Compensation per ho u r............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments............
Implicit price deflator................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees
Compensation per h o u r............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments............
Implicit price deflator................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per h o u r............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments..............
Implicit price deflator ................
1950-78
1960-78
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
0.2
6.8
1.4
6.6
1.0
4.7
0.7
7.1
1.1
6.4
1.2
4.7
3.3
6.7
2.4
3.3
6.8
4.4
3.5
6.3
2.9
2.8
5.2
3.6
1.9
8.2
1.9
6.2
5.0
5.8
-3.0
9.1
-1.7
12.5
4.4
9.8
2.1
9.9
.7
7.7
15.3
10.1
3.5
8.8
2.8
5.0
5.1
5.0
1.9
8.0
1.5
6.0
4.8
5.6
0.5
8.5
0.8
8.0
5.3
7.1
-0.9
9.3
-1.7
'10.3
'5.9
8.9
2.6
5.8
2.6
3.2
2.8
3.1
2.2
6.8
2.1
4.5
4.0
4.3
-.3
6.3
.9
6.7
.4
4.5
.1
6.7
.7
6.5
1.6
4.9
3.1
6.7
2.3
3.5
6.7
4.5
3.7
6.5
3.1
2.8
3.8
3.1
1.7
7.8
1.5
6.0
.3
4.1
-3.1
9.1
-1.7
12.7
5.9
10.5
1.9
9.9
.7
7.9
17.1
10.6
3.5
8.3
2.4
4.7
6.9
5.4
1.6
8.0
1.4
6.3
5.0
5.9
.5
8.6
,9
8.0
3.7
6.6
-1.2
8.9
-2.1
10.2
5.2
'8.6
2.2
5.5
2.3
3.2
2.8
3.1
2.0
6.5
1.9
4.5
39
4.3
.3
6.7
1.2
6.3
0
4.1
-.1
6.7
.7
6.8
.5
4.6
3.4
6.2
1.9
2.7
7.3
4.2
3.3
5.9
2.5
2.5
3.3
2.8
2.1
7.9
1.6
5.7
1.8
4.4
-3.8
9.4
-1.4
13.8
6.8
11.5
3.1
10.0
.7
6.6
18.7
10.5
3.2
8.3
2.4
4.9
5.8
5.2
1.1
8.0
1.5
6.8
4.9
6.1
1.0
8.3
.6
7.3
3.8
6.1
P-.4
08.9
» -2.1
0 9.3
0 5.4
08.0
(’ )
C)
(’ )
<’ )
(’ )
2.0
6.3
1.7
4.2
3.4
3.9
1.1
6.4
1.0
5.2
-4.4
2.3
-.3
6.9
.9
7.2
-3.2
4.2
5.3
6.3
2.0
.9
9.2
3.1
5.1
5.5
2.1
.4
2.3
1.0
2.7
7.2
.9
4.3
-1.0
2.8
-5.2
10,1
-.8
16.1
-.7
11.5
4.9
11.8
2.4
6.6
21.6
10.2
4.4
8.3
2.4
3.8
8.8
5.1
3.1
8.6
2.0
5.3
5.5
5.4
.6
8.3
.6
7.7
3.4
6.5
1.8
'9,2
-1.9
7.2
N.A.
N.A.
V )
2.6
5.4
2.2
2.7
1.8
2.5
2.6
6.3
1.6
3.6
2.3
3.3
III
IV
1Not available.
33.
Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted
[1967 = 100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per hour ............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor cost..........................
Unit nonlabor payments............
Implicit price deflator................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..
Compensation per h o u r............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor cost.......... ............
Unit nonlabor payments............
Implicit price deflator ................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees
Compensation per h o u r............
Real compensation per hour
Total unit costs ........................
Unit labor cost ..................
Unit nonlabor costs............
Unit profits ..............................
■Implicit price deflator................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour for all persons ..
Compensation per ho u r............
Real compensation per hour
Unit labor cost..........................
104
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Quarterly indexes
Annual
average
1979
1978
1977
1978
1979
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
119.2
231.2
118.3
194.0
174.3
187.2
118.1
252.8
116,3
'214.0
' 184.6
203.8
117.9
210.8
116.7
178.8
164.7
173.9
119.4
215.3
117.6
180.2
167.9
176.0
118.8
218.5
117.9
183.8
168.6
178.6
118.4
224.2
118.7
189.4
164.8
180.9
119.0
228.5
118.1
192.1
173.9
185.8
119.7
233.6
1182
195.2
177.0
188.9
119.8
238.4
118.0
199.0
181.3
192.9
118.9
244.8
118.0
205.9
180.8
197.2
118.2
2503
116.9
211.7
183.7
202.0
117.8
255.6
115.8
217.0
185.6
206.1
' 117.6
'260.1
114.2
'221.1
'189.0
210.0
116,8
227.3
116.3
194.5
169.9
186.1
115.5
247.6
113.9
'214.3
178.8
2022
115.8
207.3
114.7
179.0
163.2
173.6
116.7
211.2
115.4
180.9
167,1
176.2
116.3
214.8
115.9
184.7
166.0
178.3
116.0
220.6
116.8
190.2
161.1
180.2
116.5
2246
116.1
192.7
169.2
184.7
117.3
2294
116.1
195.6
173.0
187.8
117.6
234.3
116.0
199.3
176.1
191,4
116.6
240.2
115.8
206.0
174.3
195.1
115.4
244.4
114,3
212.1
177.6
2003
115.0
249.9
113.2
217.3
180.5
204.7
'115.1
'255.4
'112.2
'221.8
183.3
'208.6
117.9
224.8
115.0
193.3
190.6
201 8
127 2
183.5
0117.5
0 244.7
0 112.6
0210.3
0 208,3
0216.6
0 128.4
0 198.2
116.5
205.7
113.8
180.5
176.6
192.4
123.3
172.0
117.4
209.5
114.5
182.4
178.4
194.8
130,9
174.7
116.7
212.8
114.8
186.3
182.3
198.7
122.2
176.8
116.7
218.5
115.7
190.8
187.3
201.5
107.1
178.3
117.8
222.3
114.9
191.6
188.7
200.8
129.2
182.3
118.4
226.9
114.8
194.0
191.5
201.6
132.7
184.9
118.8
231.3
114.5
196.8
194.8
203.1
138.7
188 2
118.1
237.4
114.5
202.3
201.0
206.5
130.3
191.6
117.3
242.1
113.1
208.0
206,4
213.2
129.2
196.3
117.2
247.1
112.0
2132
2108
220,5
127.5
200.4
(’ )
128 0
229.5
117.5
179.4
130.2
250.5
115.2
192.4
127.3
209.7
116.1
164.7
128.4
214.1
117.0
166.7
127.8
217.5
117.4
170.2
125.7
223.2
118.1
177.5
127.2
226.6
117.1
178.1
129.2
231.4
117.0
179.1
129.8
236.5
117.1
182.2
129.0
242.4
116.9
187.9
130.0
248.2
115.9
190.9
131.1
253.0
1146
193.0
130.6
'258.2
' 113.4
197.6
C)
(’ )
(')
n
n
(M
n
34. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1967 = 100]
Quarterly percent change at annual rate
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor co st............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o st........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ........................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per, hour........................
Total unit costs ........................................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor costs..................................
Unit profits..................................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor co st..........................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Percent change from same quarter a year ago
I11978
to
III 1978
III 1978
to
IV 1978
IV 1978
to
1 1979
1 1979
to
II 1979
II 1979
to
III 1979
III 1979
to
IV 1979
III 1977
to
III 1978
IV 1977
to
IV 1978
1 1978
to
I 1979
II 1978
to
II 1979
III 1978
to
III 1979
IV 1978
to
IV 1979
2.4
9.2
.3
6.6
7.4
6.9
0.3
8.5
-.7
8.1
9.9
8.7
-3.0
11.1
.1
14.6
-1.0
9.3
-2.2
9.3
-3.8
11.8
6.5
10.1
-1.3
8.8
-3.6
10.3
4.1
8.3
r -0.6
r7.2
' -5.4
'7.8
'7.7
7.8
0.2
8.5
0.4
8.3
5.4
7.4
0.8
9.1
.1
8.3
7.5
8.0
0.4
9.2
-.6
8.7
9.7
9.0
-0.6
9.5
-1.0
10.2
5.6
8.7
-1.6
9.4
-2.0
11.2
4.8
9.1
' —1.8
'9.1
-3.2
'11.1
'4.3
8.9
2.7
8.8
.0
6.0
9.4
7.0
.8
8.8
-.4
8.0
7.3
7.8
-3.2
10.4
-.6
14.0
-4.0
8.1
-4.1
7.9
-5.0
12.5
7.8
11.0
-1.4
8.5
-3.9
10.1
6.6
9.0
-.5
r9.2
'3.6
'8.6
6.4
'7.9
5
8.7
.6
8.1
3.5
6.6
1.1
9.1
.1
7.9
6.1
7.3
'.5
8.9
-.8
8.3
8.2
8.3
-1.0
9.0
-1.5
10.1
5.0
8.5
-2.0
8.9
-2.5
11.1
4.3
9.0
' —2.0
'9.0
-3.3
11.1
4.1
'9.0
2.0
8.4
-.4
5.1
6.2
1.7
11.4
5.7
1.1
8.1
-1.0
5.9
6.9
2.9
19.5
7.3
-2.1
11.0
.0
11.7
13.4
6.8
-22.1
7.6
-2.8
8.0
-4.9
11.8
11.2
13.5
-3.4
10.2
-0.2
8.6
-3.8
10.2
8.8
r 14.6
-5.3
8.6
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( )
1
0.8
8.3
.2
6.4
7.4
3.5
1.4
5.8
1.8
8.7
-.3
5.6
6.8
2.2
13.6
6.4
1.3
8.7
-1.0
6.1
7.3
2.5
21.7
7.5
.5
8.9
-1.6
8.6
9.4
6.2
0
7.7
-1.0
8.9
-2.5
9.9
10.1
'9.4
-3.9
8.4
6.3
8.7
-.1
2.2
2.0
9.3
0
7.1
-2.4
10.3
-.6
13.0
2.9
9.8
-3.4
6.7
3.5
8.1
-4.3
4.4
'- 1 .3
'8.4
'4.3
'9.9
.6
8.1
0
7.4
1.6
8.7
-.3
7.1
2.6
8.6
-1.1
5.9
2.2
9.5
-1.0
7.2
1.5
9,4
-2.1
7.8
'
C )
C )
o
(')
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(')
O
C )
0.6
'9.2
' —3.1
8.5
105
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DATA
M a jo r
c o l l e c t iv e
b a r g a in in g
d a t a
are obtained from
contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, direct
contact with the parties, and from secondary sources. Addi
tional detail is published in C u rre n t W age D evelo p m en ts, a
monthly periodical of the Bureau. Data on work stoppages
are based on confidential responses to questionnaires mailed
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to parties involved in work
stoppages. Stoppages initially come to the attention of the
Bureau from reports of Federal and State mediation agencies,
newspapers, and union and industry publications.
Definitions
Data on wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry agree
ments covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on wage and benefit
changes c o m b in e d apply only to those agreements covering 5,000
workers or more. F i r s t - y e a r w a g e s e t t l e m e n t s refer to pay changes go
ing into effect within the first 12 months after the effective date of
35.
the agreement. C h a n g e s o v e r th e lif e o f th e a g r e e m e n t refer to total
agreed upon settlements (exclusive of potential cost-of-living escalator
adjustments) expressed at an average annual rate. W a g e -r a te c h a n g e s
are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings, while w a g e
a n d b e n e fit c h a n g e s are expressed as a percent of total compensation.
E f f e c t iv e w a g e -r a te a d j u s t m e n ts going into effect in major
bargaining units measure changes actually placed into effect during the
reference period, whether the result of a newly negotiated increase, a
deferred increase negotiated in an earlier year, or as a result of a costof-living escalator adjustment. Average adjustments are affected by
workers receiving no adjustment, as well as by those receiving in
creases or decreases.
W o r k s to p p a g e s include all known strikes or lockouts involving six
workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a
stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on
other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or
service shortages.
Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date
[In percent]
Quarterly average
Annual average
1979 e
1978
Sector and measure
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979 p
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Wage and benefit settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract ......................
11.4
8.1
8.5
66
9.6
6.2
8.3
6.3
8.9
6.6
6.8
6.0
7.2
5.9
6.1
5.2
2.5
5.2
106
7.7
9.0
6.0
8.1
6.0
Wage rate settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract......................
10.2
7.8
8.4
6.4
7.8
5.8
7.6
6.4
7.4
6.0
6.9
6.2
7.5
6.4
7.4
5.9
4.8
6.6
9.0
7.0
6.6
4.8
6.3
4.9
' Manufacturing:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
9.8
8.0
8.9
6.0
8.4
5.5
8.3
6.6
7.0
5.4
7.1
5.8
8.4
7.2
9.5
7.4
8.7
8.6
9.9
8.1
6.2
4.6
5.9
4.2
Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction):
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
11.9
8.0
8.6
7.2
8.0
5.9
8.0
6.5
7.5
5.9
7.7
6.9
7.4
5.9
6.4
5.1
2.3
5.6
8.5
5.7
9.1
5.8
7.2
7.5
Construction:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
8.0
7.5
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.2
8.9
8.4
6.4
6.0
7.0
7.2
8.4
7.1
11.0
7.7
9.1
8.2
10.4
9.1
7.9
7.1
106
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
%
36.
Effective wage adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date
[In percent]
Average annual changes
Average quarterly changes
Sector and measure
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1977
1978
IV
I
1979
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Total effective wage rate adjustment, all industries..............
Change resulting from—
Current settlement ..............................................
Prior settlement ..................................................
Escalator provision ..............................................
8.7
8.1
8.0
8.2
8.8
11
1.3
2.6
2.7
1.4
1.4
2.6
3.2
1.5
2.8
3.7
2.2
3.2
3.2
1.6
3.0
3.2
1.7
2.0
3.7
2.4
2.8
3.0
3.0
0.5
.3
.3
0.5
.6
.3
0.6
1.4
.6
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.4
.5
.5
0.2
.6
.6
1.1
.9
.5
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.4
.4
.6
Manufacturing..........................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................
8.5
8.9
8.5
7.7
8.4
7.6
8.6
7.9
9.2
8.5
1.4
.8
1.4
1.3
2.2
2.9
2.9
2.5
1.9
1.1
1.4
1.4
2.3
2.8
3.1
3.4
2.2
.9
p = preliminary
NOTE: Because of rounding and compounding, the sums of individual items may not equal totals.
37.
Work stoppages, 1947 to date
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
In effect
during month
Workers involved
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
Days idle
In effect
during month
(thousands)
Number
(thousands)
Percent of
estimated
working time
1947
1948
1949
1950
..................
..................
..................
..................
3,693
3,419
3,606
4,843
2,170
1,960
3,030
2,410
34.600
34.100
50.500
38,800
.30
.28
.44
.33
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
..................
....................
....................
....................
....................
4,737
5,117
5,091
3,468
4,320
2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530
2,650
22.900
59.100
28.300
22.600
28,200
.18
.48
.22
.18
.22
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
3,825
3,673
3,694
3,708
3,333
1,900
1,390
2,060
1,880
1,320
33.100
16.500
23.900
69,000
19.100
.24
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
3,367
3,614
3,362
3,655
3,963
1,450
1,230
941
1,640
1,550
16.300
18,600
16.100
22.900
23.300
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
4,405
4,595
5,045
5,700
5,716
1,960
2,870
2,649
2,481
3,305
25,400
42,100
49,018
42,869
66,414
.15
.25
.28
.24
.37
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
5,138
5,010
5,353
6,074
5,031
3,280
1,714
2,251
2,778
1,746
47,589
27,066
27,948
47,991
31,237
.26
.15
.14
.24
.16
1976 ....................
1977 ....................
5,648
5,506
2,420
2,040
37,859
35,822
.19
.17
1978:
1979:
1980:
September
453
854
448
551
4,446
October ..
November
December
370
268
157
721
569
408
117
64
53
216
136
143
2,352
1,691
1,377
January ..
February .
March . ..
262
299
391
68
75
112
1,925
1,670
1,871
April........
M ay........
June . . . .
512
556
536
426
132
137
5,126
3,682
2,989
J u ly ........
August . . .
September
471
463
464
168
119
135
3,001
3,152
2,319
October ..
November
December
443
257
134
230
91
42
2,968
2,720
1,976
Januaryp .
February p
352
354
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
441
590
207
114
292
332
.12
.18
.50
.14
.11
.13
.11
.15
.15
3,142
3,025
107
How to order BLS publications
PERIODICALS
O r d e r f r o m (a n d m a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to ) S u
p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g to n , D .C .
2 0 4 0 2 . F o r fo r e ig n su b scrip tio n s, a d d 2 5 p e rc e n t.
BULLETINS AND HANDBOOKS
A b o u t 1 4 0 b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s p u b lis h e d e a ch y e a r a r e f o r s a le b y r eg io n a l
o ffices o f th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s (see in s id e f r o n t c o ver) a n d b y th e S u
p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts . W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2 . M a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to
th e S u p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts . A m o n g th e b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s c u r r e n tly
in p r in t a r e these:
Monthly Labor Review. The oldest and most
authoritative government research journal in
economics and the social sciences. Current
statistics, analysis, developments in industrial
relations, court decisions, book reviews. $18
a year, single copy, $2.50.
Employment and Earnings. A comprehensive
monthly report on employment, hours, earn
ings, and labor turnover by industry, area,
occupation, et cetera $22 a year, single copy
$2.75.
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. A popular
periodical designed to help high school stu
dents and guidance counselors assess career
opportunities. $6 for four issues, single copy
$1.75.
Current Wage Developments. A monthly re
port about collective bargaining settlements
and unilateral management decisions about
wages and benefits; statistical summaries.
$12 a year, single copy $1.35.
Producer Prices and Price Indexes. A com
prehensive monthly report on price move
ments of both farm and industrial commodi
ties, by industry and stage of processing. $17
a year, single copy $2.25.
CPI Detailed Report. A monthly periodical
featuring detailed data and charts on the
Consumer Price Index. $15 a year, single
copy $2.25.
PRESS RELEASES
The Bureau’s statistical series are made avail
able to news media through press releases is
sued in Washington. Many of the releases
also are available to the public upon request.
Write: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washing
ton, D.C. 20212.
Regional. Each of the Bureau’s eight regional
offices publishes reports and press releases
dealing with regional data. Single copies
available free from the issuing regional office.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1978-79 Edition. Bulletin 1955. A
useful resource supplying valuable assistance to all persons seeking satis
fying and productive employment. $8, paperback; $11 hard cover.
BLS Handbook of Labor Statistics 1978. Bulletin 2000. A 604-page vol
ume of historical data on the major BLS statistical series. $9.50.
Handbook of Methods. Bulletin 1910. Brief technical account of each
major statistical program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. $3.50.
BLS Measures of Compensation. Bulletin 1941. An introduction to the
various measures of employee compensation; describes each series, the
manner in which it is developed, its uses and limitations. $2.75.
Occupational Projections and Training Data. Bulletin 2020. Presents
both general and detailed information on the relationship between occu
pational requirements and training needs. (Updates Bulletin 1918
published in 1976.) $3.25.
Technological Change and its Labor Impact in Five Energy Industries.
Bulletin 2005. A 64-page study appraising major technological change
and discussing the impact of these changes on productivity and occupa
tions over the next 5 to 10 years. $2.40.
BLS Publications, 1972-77. Bulletin 1990. A numerical listing and sub
ject index of bulletins and reports issued by the Bureau from 1972
through 1977, supplementing Bulletin 1749, covering 1886-1971. $1.80.
International Comparisons of Unemployment. Bulletin 1979. Brings to
gether all of the Bureau’s work on international unemployment compari
sons. Describes the methods of adjusting foreign unemployment rates in
8 countries to U.S. concepts. $3.50.
Productivity Indexes for Selected Industries, 1979 Edition. Bulletin
2054. A 190-page report of indexes of output, employment, and employ
ee hours in selected industries from 1954 to 1978. This edition contains
measures for three industries previously not covered, as well as compo
nents of previously published measures in 10 industries. $5.50.
Profiles of Occupational Pay: A Chartbook. Bulletin 2037. A graphic il
lustration of some of the factors that affect workers’ earnings. This threepart presentation looks at wage variations among and within occupations
and portrays characteristics of high- and low-paying urban areas and
manufacturing industries. $3.50.
REPORTS AND PAMPHLETS
S in g le c o p ies a v a ila b le f r e e f r o m th e B L S r e g io n a l o ffices o r f r o m th e B u r e a u o f
L a b o r S ta tistic s , U .S. D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r , W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 2 1 2 .
How the Government Measures Unemployment. Report 505. A concise
report providing a background for appraising developments in the area
of unemployment.
Directory of BLS Studies in Industrial Relations 1960-78. Report 550.
A listing of studies prepared by the Division of Industrial Relations as
part of the Bureau’s regular program of data collection and analysis in
the field of industrial relations.
☆ U .S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 0 — 311-406/32
Directory of
National Unions
and Employee
Associations,
1977
B ulletin 2044
This Bureau of Labor Statistics directory lists names and addresses of:
• National and international unions
• State labor organizations
• Professional and public employee associations, their officers and key
officials, publications, information about their conventions, membership, and
number of locals.
Factbook section of the publication includes a report on developments in the
labor movement, 1976-77, and facts about the structure of the labor
movement. Information about the level, trend, and composition of
membership is supplied by the participating organizations. Extensive
statistical appendixes are included.
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Fill out and mail this coupon to BLS Regional
Office nearest you or Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402.
Make checks payable to Superintendent of
Documents.
Publications may also be charged on Visa or
Master Charge credit cards. Include card number
and expiration date.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Please send___________ copies of Directory of National Unions and Employee
Associations, 1977. Bulletin 2044, Stock no. 029-001-02425-8, price $4.50. (Discount of
25 percent is given when orders of 100 or more are sent to one address.)
□ Remittance is enclosed
□ Charge to GPO deposit account no______ ________
Name______________________________________________________________________
Organization (when appropriate)_______________________________________________
Add ress____________________________________________________________________
City, State, and Zip Code.
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Lab-441
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington D.C. 20212
Official Business
SECOND CLASS MAIL
Penalty for private use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
Frances Perkins
Frances Perkins
1 pf
Frances Perkins
Frances Perkins
USa 1 5 c
usaI O c
u sa I S c
usa1 5 c
Frances Perkins
Frances Perkins
Frances Perkins
Frances Perkins
u sa I S c
USa 1 5 c
u sa I S c
u sa I S c
Frances Perkins
Frances Perkins
Frances Perkins
Frances Perkins
u sa I S c
u sa I S c
u sa I S c
usaI S c
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER